Military triumph is welcome, but the Islamic State’s hate ideology must be busted for good
The liberation of the Iraqi town of Mosul from the Islamic State's (IS) clutches and reports of the death of terror group head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi will gladden the hearts of those who have been waging a relentless battle against terrorism. The capture of Mosul by Iraqi forces is significant because it was from here, some three years ago, that Baghdadi delivered his first ‘sermon'. The northern town of Mosul also happened to be the most significant piece of land that the IS had captured in Iraq and it was from here that it sought to bring Iraq on its knees. And it's only a coincidence — a good one at that — that the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights has announced the killing of al-Baghdadi. There is of course, no unanimity on the report; Russia's Defence Ministry said an air strike it conducted had eliminated the IS chief, but the US has not confirmed it. Besides, the West and even the Iraqi forces are unsure of the news. Nor is it clear when al-Baghdadi died, if at all.
For the IS, the loss of Mosul and the siege of Raqqa (the IS's ‘capital' in Syria) are major setbacks, but the fight against the global terrorist group is far from over. Assuming that al-Baghdadi is dead, the IS still remains in place, though greatly reduced in potency. It continues to be a major threat to world peace and stability, and the fight against it must continue without any let-up. There are two ways to go about this campaign. The first is, of course, the military onslaughts. They must remain in place and be better coordinated globally. Nations speaking in different voices will not do. For instance, both Russia and the US have differed on the military approach towards the IS in Syria primarily because, while the former backs the Bashar al Assad regime in Damascus, the Americans want it to go. Various other countries too have taken positions accordingly. Such differences have only emboldened terror organisation over the years. This is also true in the case of tackling other similar groups elsewhere, such as the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Besides, Iraqi forces must remain alert because, what has been gained through years of struggle can also be lost in case the IS regroups and seeks to get back Mosul or other lost regions. After all, it must not be forgotten that the IS still holds territory in parts of Iraq from where it could plot a comeback.
Challenging as this is, the non-military solution is tougher but equally critical to defeat the Islamic State. Mindsets have to change across regions. This would have been easier done as said, had it not been so complicated since it involves a wide cross-section of the people — and not just in the IS-affected nations but also in others such as India where the menace is still in the bud. The mindset of those who have joined hands with the IS; the mindset of mainstream influential voices who justify the rise of militancy through spurious excuses; and the mindset of politicians who use the template of the terrorists to retain their constituents. The bottom line is: No excuse to side with militants is good enough. Meanwhile, the global community, India included, must extend its support to the re-building of Iraq.