Gwynne Dyer | Islamic State: Is it over?
Late last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin met the leaders of Iran, Turkey and Syria, allegedly to discuss a final peace settlement in the Syrian civil war. On Monday, he was in Syria to announce a partial withdrawal of Russian troops from the country because they had inflicted a "total rout" on the jihadist militants of Islamic State. Is the war really over?
Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS, no longer exists as an actual, physical state in either Iraq or Syria. Last summer, it lost Mosul, Iraq's second city, to Iraqi troops backed by US air power. Over the past four months, it has lost all of eastern Syria, including its capital Raqqa, to a variety of forces including Kurdish, Syrian, and Iranian troops and American and Russian bombers.
Just one year ago, Islamic State controlled a territory the size of Belgium and the Netherlands, with seven or eight million people. Now it is homeless, and even its propaganda output has dropped by 90 per cent as its video-production facilities were overrun one after the other. Its credibility among the faithful has taken an even bigger hit.
When the ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared the refounding of the traditional Islamic Caliphate in the territory controlled by ISIS in mid-2014, he was claiming quite specifically that the enterprise had God's blessing. So it's deeply embarrassing when it loses all that territory again within 30 months to the local 'enemies of God' and their infidel foreign allies.
The standard tactic of prophets, when their prophecies don't come true, is to say that God is just testing people's faith. We are already seeing some of this in ISIS propaganda, but the people who watch it are not complete fools. If they are fanatics interested in waging jihad, they will not abandon the idea, but they will look for some other organisation that has a better claim to divine support.
That alternative organisation, at least in Syria, is al-Qaeda. It still has credibility because it planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks, and its Syrian branch still controls most of the province of Idlib in northwestern Syria. It was never as interested as Islamic State in attracting foreign volunteers, but if you're a Syrian jihadi, it's now the destination of choice.
The Syria branch of al-Qaeda was known as al-Nusra for a long time, but in the past two years, it has changed its name approximately every second weekend in a bid to disguise its origins. It wasn't trying to hide its loyalties from potential recruits. It was pretending to be a 'moderate' rebel group so that it wouldn't get hit by American bombers.
Yanks weren't fooled
This didn't actually fool the Americans, of course, but it did allow them to denounce the Russians - who WERE bombing al-Nusra/al-Qaeda - as evil allies of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad who were killing 'good' rebels. Oh, and killing innocent civilians, too, as if American bombs never hit civilians.
Al-Nusra was the Russians' main target because it was a bigger threat to the survival of the Syrian government than Islamic State. It was al-Nusra, for example, that controlled the eastern half of Aleppo, Syria's biggest city, until Assad's forces took it back a year ago with the help of Russian bombers and artillery.
Remember how the Western media covered the end of that siege? They never mentioned al-Qaeda or al-Nusra, and you never saw a fighter in the video clips coming out of east Aleppo. They just ran the footage of suffering civilians without any further comment or context.
It was hard to tell whether Barack Obama's State Department was being delusional or merely hypocritical, but it insisted that there was a 'third force' of non-jihadi Syrians that was also trying to overthrow Assad. The US was supporting them, and the wicked Russians were trying to kill them. But the 'third force' didn't exist: it had been swallowed up by al-Nusra years ago.
So the US bombed Islamic State and nobody else, while the Russians only did that occasionally. Instead, they concentrated on bombing al-Nusra, which held territory much closer to Syria's big cities. And Washington scored propaganda points by claiming that the Russians were bombing innocent civilians and 'good' rebels.
Now, with Islamic State defeated, the US forces will probably leave eastern Syria. (They have no legal status there, since they were never invited in by the Syrian government or authorised to intervene by the United Nations.) But most of the Russian forces will stay, because it will probably take another year to destroy al-Nusra in Idlib province.
So why was Putin in Syria to announce a Russian troop withdrawal? Because there's a presidential election coming up in Russia, and he wanted to declare a victory and bring some troops home now. But the war goes on.
- Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries. Email feedback to email@example.com.