IS THERE really an intention to eradicate DAESH or this organization has become a blackmailing tool for some major countries to achieve certain objectives? Why did the alliance of 66 countries fail to reach its goal for two years? How much time do they need to eradicate this organization?
Has DAESH become a bogeyman that threatens more technologically advanced countries with massive military expertise, especially the satellites which the US bragged about before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that it can photograph the plate numbers of vehicles on the streets of Baghdad? Why did they become incapable before a group like this?
Frankly, it is possible to consider DAESH the current milking cow for some major powers. They use it to sign more weapons agreements, in addition to gaining political influence over projects through the mobilization of people to serve their interests; just like US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump who keeps on using the ‘Islamophobia’ tone to gain more political mileage. People like Trump are using groups such as DAESH, al-Qaeda and many other terrorist groups as motivation to obtain more support and subsequently more votes by encouraging scared people and the extremists to join his camp.
This reality manifests itself day after day through the lack of seriousness in positions taken by countries which never take concrete steps whenever the “blade reaches the neck”, similar to what happened in 2001 when the US played on paradoxes in Afghanistan.
When the US completed its investment in what was known as, ‘Mujahidoun’ during its war with the Soviet Union; it left them on their own when it achieved its objective, so the ‘Mujahidoun’ was transformed from being allies to bitter enemies resulting in the death of about 3,000 Americans in just a matter of an hour on Sept 11, 2001.
Such bitter experience proved that the US, together with other major countries, did not learn from past experiences, especially with the Nazis. At the time, the US was lax in confronting Hitler despite his obvious intentions to invade Europe and expand his rule as reflected in his speeches, information and military procedures.
The US made serious moves only after the Japanese destroyed its naval fleet at Pearl Harbor. This happened though the agreement with Hitler, whereas France paid a huge price after it was occupied and its leader ran to Britain — the only country which appeared to be aware of the magnitude of the danger. This prompted the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill to obtain the support of various countries from the beginning in order to confront the Nazis.
Today, the same scenario is recurring with DAESH. While its fighters are executing terrorist operations in various parts of the world and continue to occupy half of Iraq and Syria, and a significant part of Libya; we find the members of the alliance arguing over the simplest issues and settling for air military campaigns only.
At the same time, the US invests in increasing its presence in the region whereas Russia benefits from the US and continues to tighten its grip on Syria with Iran as a secret ally and the people are being exploited against the Arabs and Islam, are these circumstances conducive for the eradication of such a terrorist group?
International decision makers should be aware of the fact that DAESH is the new Nazi and it is not less dangerous than Hitler. Therefore, if the world wants to really live in peace, away from the grossness of massacres that we continue to witness daily, there should be a serious alliance which fights on the ground because the air bombardment campaigns are not enough.
The sole objective of this alliance is not to return to the horrific pictures of crimes left behind by the Second World War such that they do not evaporate from the minds of the people; or prevent another Sept 11, Paris and Brussels attacks; savage killings by DAESH; and gruesome killings in Syria, Iraq, Libya and other areas where the new Nazi organization exists.
Without that, DAESH will continue reaping souls like a plague and every country will be affected, especially those currently betting on a risky investment in marketing their weapons and projects.
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times