The capital of ISIL’s self-declared caliphate could soon fall, Abdulrahman Al Rashed wrote in Asharq Al Awsat. “After countless indescribable atrocities committed against its people, finally, Raqqa is on the cusp of being liberated from ISIL.”
The Syrian city has become synonymous with terror since it became a stronghold for extremists who came from all over the world. Under the banner of ISIL, they have practised the most hideous types of crimes against the local population and promoted their image as mass murderers who throw people off rooftops and brag about raping schoolgirls, he wrote.
“Oil was the main reason for ISIL to choose Raqqa as their stronghold. Oil could fund the terrorist organisation’s scheme to form a state.
“And thus, they sold oil indiscriminately to whoever came asking for it, and ultimately reconciled with Al Assad’s regime in Damascus, who was the primary customer after all.”
By buying oil from ISIL, the Assad regime was able to use the extremist group as its own army, targeting the Free Syrian Army and other opposition forces.
From a US perspective, the battle in Raqqa may be the most significant military and political achievement for the Obama administration since the Syrian war began five years ago.
The White House is looking for a resounding victory, especially in light of widespread criticism of its submissive stance on the Syrian crisis. What better way to achieve it than the liberation of ISIL’s capital?
“Raqqa’s liberation from ISIL would be highly significant because it would mark the destruction of the caliphate itself and not only its capital city,” he added.
“It dissolves the idea of a capital city that implies that the Islamic State indeed exists, although it is merely a virtual state created on computer keyboards.”
Should coalition forces manage to liberate the town and throw out thousands of ISIL fighters, it would be a hard blow to the organisation’s profile and propaganda.
The liberation of Raqqa was also addressed by Tariq Alhomayed, the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al Awsat. wrote in the London-based daily.
He argued that regions under ISIL’s control in Syria and Iraq are apprehensive of liberation at the hands of “regime” forces, fearing they will face a worse evil. In fact, these areas were once under Al Qaeda’s control and were liberated, only to then fall under ISIL’s control.
“This doesn’t mean that the inhabitants of these ISIL-occupied areas are extremists or that they tolerate extremism – they are simply scared of the violence of supposed legitimate forces, that are in fact Iranian militias the likes of Hizbollah in Syria and other Iranian and Afghan mercenaries in Iraq,” he wrote.
Fallujah in Iraq is also under siege, awaiting liberation from ISIL. It was previously liberated from Al Qaeda.
However he contended that it is unreasonable to argue that Fallujah is an extremist area and therefore it is easier for extremist groups to control it.
In reality, the problem in Iraq and in Syria lies in the approach itself. So long as serious political processes are absent and if sectarianism is rampant, extremists will find it easy to roll out their schemes and the Assad-Iranian killing machine will not be stopped in Syria, he added.
If extremism exists in areas such as Fallujah, Anbar and Raqqa, it is mainly because no real solutions have been put forward. Recurrent relapses will always happen so long as sectarian extremism exists and so long as Iran is allowed to interfere. All other attempts at solutions are mere cosmetic procedures that don’t solve the real issue.
“People in occupied areas are made to choose between death from sectarianism and death from extremism,” he added.
“Both lead to despair and apprehension from the alleged legitimate power, mainly when the power is a fragile state that dons sectarian colours,” he concluded.
Translated by Racha Makarem
RMakarem@thenational.ae