US-Backed Forces Seized Tabqa Airbase, Continued To Advance Further

Donate

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), mostly consisting of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG), seized the Tabqa Airbase and the nearby villages, including Ayed Kebir, from ISIS terrorists in the province of Raqqah.

US-Backed Forces Seized Tabqa Airbase, Continued To Advance Further

Click to see the full-size map

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Akm

    I wish it stays with isis tell the saa takes it …the only difference between isis and sdf is that everybody loves them and that it is taking direct support from the us …… if they take raqa only god will make them leave it….alot of my friends thatvlive in kurdish occupied areas are telling me that they are teaching the kurdish language in schools and are mind washing everybody out their

    • Störtebembel

      Poor poor boy, you make me cry, mindwashing? do you mean that they are no longer alowes man to treat women like shit? to do all their traditional rubbish? Instead they are tries to work together without minding socalled barriers like ethnics, religion and stuff like that? poor poor arab man… ;-)

      • outer_rl

        It’s good if they can be progressive, but the problem with Rojava is it’s outright communist.

        • Viento Patagónico

          Much better than fundamentalist S***heads, then

          • outer_rl

            Yeah, but that isn’t difficult.

    • Aquartertoseven

      Good. The Kurds are the only ones protecting your friends in these areas and they deserve to rule such areas, including operating under the unity of their language. Your friends could move to Raqqa (for the time being at least) if they don’t like it.

      • Akm

        If a syrian excepts for his country to be separated then why bother supporting the government ….I only support the syrian government because its fighting to maintain the unity of syrian soil……okay we respect kurds and all but for god sake dont act as a political card in the hands of the US…..so lets say your home town was occupied by isis and your army is busy with so many shit, simply a group of guys with unlimeted arment support and air support free your hometown does that mean that its their right to take this land and creat a whole country of freed towns from terrorist thats just like what france did in syria ……if the kurdish state rise it will be the US’s most successful move politically. Imagine a country under full control for the US near iran and syria….cant you smell it mate.

        • El Diablo

          Unlimited armament? US victory? Kurdish state? You don’t have understood the real relationship between Kurds and USA. They are “worst allied”. The USA have heavily supplied all this time the “moderate rebels” with heavy equipment, to Kurds only small arms. But the “moderate rebels” have lost the war and the Kurds are the only who can save the USA faces :D But the USA prefer to support them with Air Force instead to supply them with heavy equipment. And Kurds have no any real intention to have a free country in northern syria surronded of enemies. They would federalism. And USA HATE Kurds, because they are “communists” :D

          • Corey O’Donnell

            Unfortunately, your statement is inaccurate. The U.S. “coalition” has always supported Kurdish autonomy as a policy in the Middle East and has time and again shown its support through the arming and training of both Syrian and predominantly IRAQI Kurds. Specifically, all gains the Iraqi Kurds have made in recent years towards limited autonomy are a DIRECT result of U.S. intervention and assistance. Kurdistan as an IDEA is something that Washington clearly identifies with and condones, and sees it as a sympathetic ally in a region completely swarming with dictatorships and theocracies. Please read history before you make uninformed statements.

          • Corey O’Donnell

            I’ll reply to myself to add one last point, which is that the Obama administration led the U.S. military far astray from its mission and mandates due to its desires to divorce itself from the “Bush years”. Now that he is gone and the military has regained some semblance of decision making power, the shift from supporting rebel groups to once again returning to the policy of arming and training the Kurds is back in order.

          • Dustil schmit

            That is result of the cretin stooge barzani, who Erdogan backs for independent kurd state under his family control (with Turks exclusive deals in everything) He does this to spite at Iran for messing with what he thinks his region of influence.

          • El Diablo

            Exactly: USA NEED a “allied” in a region of enemies. But USA have no intention to have a strong allied who can betray them. In this war they have heavily armed both jihadist and iraqi army, but not kurds. I repeat: kurds was armed only of small arms. USA prefer to send their air force, or also their marine, but not to send heavy equipment to kurds for no motive. Why not if they are the best allied in the region? Seems USA fear most Kurds than Jihadists :D

        • Aquartertoseven

          Syria is a sham of a country, they have millions of men but massive manpower shortages, needing vast reserves of foreigners because their own men have no will to fight for their nation! It’s too divided on sectarian boundaries.

          Don’t get me wrong, a weakened (in size and number) Syria would be great for the likes of Israel (and probably the world, knowing the WW3 scenario that might play out from Syria funnelling missiles constantly to Hezbollah, which they’ll probably use again soon) but the Kurds are owed what they fought for. The SAA fled en masse (still do-Hama, Palmyra yet again) and lost to a numerically inferior enemy, they don’t deserve the north.

          Are you serious? A choice between lunatics and democratic, rational people? Not difficult. Of course military might decides borders, as it has done for all of time (I’m guessing you skipping history classes). That doesn’t stop being true because Muslims hate getting their asses kicked (despite every Muslim I’ve ever argued this with hoping it was).

          As I said, the Iran/Syria/Hezbollah alliance (now with shia dominated Iraq in the mix, with their biggest militia controlled by Iran) is too dominant in the region and too belligerent, they need to be knocked down a peg and Kurdistans are a good way to distract them all from more quickly instigating another war with Israel and potentially WW3.

          • El Diablo

            Shortage of manpower: this is a civil war, and SAA have the support mostly by the minorities.
            SAA retreats: this is strategy to preserve manpower. And the retreats are followed by offensives

          • Bill Wilson

            Why, they don’t retreat but simply advance in the opposite direction!

          • Aquartertoseven

            There is no shortage, there are millions of men in government controlled areas. Two thirds of the whole population! Even with millions fled abroad, there’s still millions left to fight, but they don’t, because Syria isn’t a proper country, it’s divided based on religious denominations (even before we get to the infidels).

            The offensive in the north, how long would that have taken if the Kurds didn’t essentially say ‘fuck it’ and go at it themselves? “Preserve manpower” ha, in a war, in battles each side entrenches, they build defenses to withstand attack. It’s unheard of by competent armies to flee miles and miles when the enemy attacks, laughable.

            Paltry offensives too by the way; they haven’t even recovered most of the territory from the enemy’s last offensive in north Hama.

          • El Diablo

            ? Palmyra was recaptured (again) and seems to be simple to capture than to defend. Hama? Last offensive is now, not some months ago :D

          • Aquartertoseven

            They fled Palmyra in a day and after months they’ve yet to come anywhere near the gas/oil fields to the north/Huweysis etc.

            The last offensive in Hama was a few months ago, leaving the massive swathe of territory lost as seen in maps. The SAA have yet to come anywhere close to regaining what they’ve lost there too. They flee in hours but after months are unable to reclaim. That’s gross incompetence against a vastly outnumbered and outgunned (no helis, jets etc.) force.

          • El Diablo

            Hama last rebel offensive is now :D And i don’t know what war you follow :D Maybe you believe in ISIS/rebels propaganda. And i don’t know what say USA or other others media on the war, but if they are like italians…

          • Aquartertoseven

            Are you mentally retarded? The current Hama offensive is ongoing, it’s a back and forth. Before the LAST offensive, the SAA were right up to Morek. Even before this current offensive, they were nowhere near there.

            What do you consider propaganda exactly, I just stated basic facts that you can find on any up to date map by any reliable source, SAA and rebel alike.

          • El Diablo

            1: probably a misunderstanding. For me “last” can be also now. The last offensive before this offensive, is the “past ”
            2: maps are maps, but you have spoken of manpower. You are sure than SAA had locally more manpower, well trained and equipped respect rebels? That the location was defendable, not simply encircable (like palmyra)? You have all these data?

          • Aquartertoseven

            But it’s not the last offensive, it’s the current one. Past and last mean the same thing here.

            Why wouldn’t the location be defendable? Dig a few ditches, use that dirt to create a few mounds, stick some guns there, easy. The SAA always has more manpower, it’s often reported as well as the rebels lack of it in Idlib, as the Aleppo offensives demonstrated. The SAA just have cowardly troops, particularly the NDF. Palmyra had an equal number of enemy attackers to the defenders, and the Syrians ran at the first sight of the enemy, they didn’t even put up a fight.

          • El Diablo

            In Palmyra was too simple to be encircled. Probably the solution (to retreat to the best defendable t4 airbase) was stupid, but i think they would not have another situation like Deir Ezzor. On manpower: who and how survey the manpower? I think if you do an offensive you have more men by the enemy or almost better armed. ISIS and Rebel manpower are often over o sub stimated in their proclaim (to do fear o to do the heroes). Also USA says to have more manpower in SDF than they have (tens of thousand of arabs who the same arabs in SDF have never seen)

          • Aquartertoseven

            Palmyra was encircled, yet again, because the SAA were too stupid to secure the north and/or south. They made one long, thin salient that was vulnerable on three sides, just like the Tabaqa disaster.

            So the more offensives, the greater the manpower in your opinion. Aleppo city, eastern Aleppo, Palmyra offensive, Wadi Barada, Eastern Ghouta, Darayya, Khan Al Sheik, you were saying? All within the last year.

          • Akm

            Thank you…you got my point….the only point of conflict between me and you that I believe in the resistance ideology while you are prefering that ww3 never happen……yes I wish that ww3 never happen but I dont care anymore people in syria ate the fire so much they dont care anymore .

    • Wally

      So ISIS can train new recruits to blow up SAA/SDF fighters great idea!

      • Akm

        I mean if in this instant the army could take it neither thab sdf

        • Dustil schmit

          The army failed at it earlier. In a massive publicity stunt and lost all Raqqa gains in process.

    • outer_rl

      There needs to be some kind of federal constitution. Let the Kurds govern the majority Kurdish areas, let them learn both Kurdish and Arabic in school in those areas. But Syria as a whole should still remain intact and one nation.