# data[].attributes.body
Before starting this research project, I only had rudimentary knowledge of the situation overseas - the last thing I had heard of was the fall of Mosul. Personally, I was interested in this because ISIS has committed a slew of atrocities over the years, and it's about time they answered for their crimes. As it turned out, I was hideously out of the loop. Now that I'm up to speed, I know that ISIS is being driven back at an astounding rate. Places like Hawija and Raqqa (most of it, at least) have been liberated in the last month, and some fighters who have sworn to "fight or die" have broken and turned themselves in to advancing Kurdish forces.

# data[].attributes.body
For the most part, everyone I spoke to shared the view that ISIS needed to go. However, as to what to do after ISIS's defeat, the opinions I encountered varied greatly, from helping rebuild the region and going home to maintaining a military presence to ensure no other terrorist states came into being.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amnesty Says U.S.-Led Coalition May Have Committed War Crimes In Mosul

# data[].attributes.subject
Amnesty Says U.S.-Led Coalition May Have Committed War Crimes In Mosul

# data[].attributes.body
The transcript is unclear, but the gist of it is that both ISIS and our Iraqi allies committed war crimes in the battle for Mosul. To be honest, it doesn't surprise me - pretty much everyone in the region hates ISIS enough that they probably would use "crude, imprecise weapons" to annihilate them, if they had no better option. As for the source's credibility, it comes from NPR, which is a national radio station. No chance of misinformation here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amnesty International is accusing the U.S.-led coalition of potentially committing war crimes against civilians as it fought to wrest control of the Iraqi city of Mosul from Islamic State fighters. It says ISIS definitely committed war crimes there.

The forces aligned with Iraq's government allegedly used crude, imprecise weapons that caused an unnecessary level of civilian casualties, the U.K.-based rights group says.

"The scale and gravity of the loss of civilian lives during the military operation to retake Mosul must immediately be publicly acknowledged at the highest levels of government in Iraq and states that are part of the US-led coalition," Lynn Maalouf, Director of Research for the Middle East at Amnesty International, said in a statement.

The report says the number of civilians killed by attacks launched by Iraqi and coalition forces in Mosul from Feb. 19 to June 19 is at least 3,706, citing numbers from the Airwars monitoring group. IS has summarily killed "hundreds, if not thousands" of people trying to flee, Amnesty says.

This week, Iraq's Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi declared victory in Mosul, which has been under ISIS control since the summer of 2014. The offensive to take back the city began last October, and west Mosul was the last remaining ISIS stronghold there.

As ISIS fighters lost territory, they would force civilians to act as human shields in the dwindling areas that they still controlled, resulting in a densely packed area, the report says.

"Did they [pro-government forces] try to hit IS targets? IS was with you, in your house," says an outraged west Mosul resident quoted by Amnesty.

In the fight for east Mosul, elite Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service troops fought on the ground with limited coalition airstrikes that primarily used precision-guided munitions, according to Amnesty. Casualties were high among the Iraqi troops, with some estimates of up to 75 percent of the force killed or injured.

Tactics changed in west Mosul, which Amnesty attributes to fewer highly trained Iraqi forces available to fight. The rights group criticizes the choice of weapons used in west Mosul, including Improvised Rocket Assisted Munitions (IRAMs) - described by Amnesty as "inherently indiscriminate."

"With their crude targeting abilities, these weapons wreaked havoc in densely populated west Mosul, where large groups of civilians were trapped in homes or makeshift shelters," the report states. "Even in attacks that seem to have struck their intended military target, the use of unsuitable weapons or failure to take other necessary precautions resulted in needless loss of civilian lives and in some cases constituted disproportionate attacks."

Speaking from Baghdad, U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Andrew Croft responded to the report's accusations in an interview with NPR's Morning Edition. He said the coalition has "done, in my view, the absolute best job we can to avoid civilian casualties." Here's more:

"I'll tell you that, from the way we do our airstrikes, we use the most precise and discriminate weapons that we can ever use and are available in the world to avoid targeting civilians. We have direct control and conversations with the Iraqis minute by minute on exactly what's happening on the ground, and we have an unprecedented number of unmanned vehicles over the top of the fight to see exactly what's happening. And I'll tell you, if there's ever a doubt of whether or not there's a civilian involved, we will not strike."

He adds that civilian casualties are "going to happen, just based on the nature of the war, but I can tell you that to be effective we've got to support the Iraqi security forces and that's what we've done."

Amnesty says that it documented 426 civilian deaths in 45 attacks in west Mosul that it has "reasonable grounds to attribute to Iraqi government or US-led coalition forces."

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, now a professor at Duke Law School, questions Amnesty's claim that coalition forces may have committed war crimes. "The law - which even in this context carries, as Amnesty International should know, a presumption of innocence - typically demands evidence of the attacker's beliefs and intent before ascribing criminal liability. I didn't see much of that in the report," he says in an email to The Two-Way.

A delay in the forces' advance may have also been fatal to civilians living under ISIS control, Dunlap says. He stresses that it is important to consider the complex circumstances and limited resources:

"Amnesty International may think that the pro-government forces did not take all feasible precautions, but they are in no real position to say what was or was not, from the commanders' perspective, feasible under the complex circumstances of this offensive.

"In a perfect world more highly-trained counter-terrorism units in the pro-government forces might have obviated the need to use mortars, artillery or even airstrikes in some situations. But in combat, the ideal is not always available. The Iraqis had to go with what they had, and do the best they could to free the city while limiting the harm to civilians."

Amnesty interviewed 151 west Mosul residents for its report, who describe being trapped there by ISIS. Many risked being executed by ISIS to flee through the front lines of fighting.

"We did not have any options," says a Mosul resident quoted by the report. "If you stayed, you would die in your house from the fighting. If you tried to run away, they would catch you and kill you, and hang your body from the electricity pylon as a warning."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Amnesty Says U.S.-Led Coalition May Have Committed War Crimes In Mosul

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amnesty International is accusing the U.S.-led coalition of potentially committing war crimes against civilians as it fought to wrest control of the Iraqi city of Mosul from Islamic State fighters. It says ISIS definitely committed war crimes there. The forces aligned with Iraq's government allegedly used crude, imprecise weapons that caused an unnecessary level of civilian casualties, the U.K.-based rights group says.

# data[].attributes.body
In this opinion piece, the author goes over how ISIS and other terrorist groups have hijacked his personal catchphrase as a Muslim. I get where he's coming from - in recent times, a few of my own sayings have had their meanings twisted and demonized by extremist groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Allahu akbar" is in the headlines again because the 29-year-old man who plowed a rental truck along a bicycle path killing eight people and injuring a dozen in Manhattan on Tuesday is reported to have said it after the attack. My heart sank as I heard the live news coverage, dotted with pieces of information meant to help us make sense of a tragedy: the suspect's physical description, the kind of vehicle he drove, the stunned eyewitness accounts emphatically saying that it didn't look at all accidental. And the two words the police say he shouted when the unthinkable act was over: Allahu akbar.

The attack had similarities to the one that took place in Charlottesville in August, when a neo-Nazi, James Alex Fields, rammed his car into a crowd of people who were protesting against a rally staged by white nationalists, killing 32-year-old Heather Heyer and injuring 19 people. President Trump defended his initial response blaming violence on "many sides," saying, "It takes a little while to get the facts." That caution doesn't seem to be applied when the suspects have been described by witnesses as "Middle Eastern" - and definitely not when they've said, "Allahu akbar."

Not long after the killing in Charlottesville, Muslim extremists in Barcelona plowed a vehicle through a crowd, killing 16 people. Within hours, Mr. Trump repeated a long-debunked myth, urging those who sought to combat terrorism to "study what General Pershing did to terrorists when caught" - shoot them with a bullet smeared in pig's blood. "There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!" he tweeted. As a Muslim, allow me to clarify: You don't have to dip your bullets in pig blood to kill us. Regular bullets work just fine. Why? Because we're human.

That's why it hurts that on Tuesday, "Allahu" and "akbar," those two simple words so close to our hearts, instantly shaped the entire news coverage and presidential response. A common, benign phrase used daily by Muslims, especially during prayer, is now understood as code for "It was terrorism."

It's easy to forget that language is often hijacked and weaponized by violent extremists. Some people yell "Allahu akbar" and others chant "heritage," "culture" and "white pride." The preferred slogans of a killer don't make much difference to the people whose lives are lost or their loved ones, but they make all the difference in Americans' collective understanding of a tragedy.

Within hours after the Manhattan attack, Mr. Trump tweeted: "I have just ordered Homeland Security to step up our already Extreme Vetting Program. Being politically correct is fine, but not for this!" He also said on Tuesday that he would end the Diversity Visa Lottery program through which officials say the attacker entered the country. It's the sort of reaction that was conspicuously lacking with respect to gun control after the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas.

If only the hurricane that devastated Puerto Rico, leaving American citizens in desperate need of power, food or water, could have yelled, "Allahu akbar," triggering that kind of tough response. Perhaps our president would have been able to see the storm as of evil. Perhaps he would have been energized by a "them versus us" rage to insist on swift action to repair the damage.

Last night, as breathless news coverage of the phrase the suspect uttered repeated on a loop, I took my children trick-or-treating in the Virginia suburbs. We walked the streets with friendly, diverse neighbors and hordes of happy kids wearing costumes and clutching bags filled with fattening goodies. My 3-year-old was a pirate and my 1-year-old was Supergirl. We all shared smiles and candies with strangers, with open hearts, without fear. Allahu akbar. God is greatest.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
charlottesville  va  violence (august  2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Allahu akbar" is in the headlines again because the 29-year-old man who plowed a rental truck along a bicycle path killing eight people and injuring a dozen in Manhattan on Tuesday is reported to have said it after the attack.

# data[].attributes.body
This piece examines what will happen after ISIS finally falls - and it's not pretty. It covers how ISIS will follow its motto to "remain and expand" - and in this digital era, that's easier than ever before. I knew this source was credible because CNN is a national network, and while it's had its moments, it certainly doesn't wimp out on credibility.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nearly three years since the group's elusive leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a self-styled Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS is reeling from losses across its so-called "caliphate."

It is fast losing its grip on Mosul, its biggest hub in Iraq, and its de-facto capital in Syria -- Raqqa -- is all but surrounded.

But it's not just territory that the militant group is losing.

Over the last six months, ISIS has seen its finances slashed, media operations crippled and several high-ranking leaders killed or captured.

The Syrian Democratic Forces -- an alliance of Kurds and Arab tribes -- are approaching the outskirts of Raqqa, and the battle will begin within "days," the French defense minister said Friday.

While the fight against ISIS is far from won, the lines of this war are slowly being redrawn. As the group is driven from key cities and villages in what was once its self-proclaimed caliphate, ISIS is evolving from territorial to ideological threat.

So what could ISIS 2.0 look like?

Going to ground

Before he was killed in a drone strike last year, ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammed al-Adnani said that potential setbacks in Mosul and Raqqa would not spell the group's end: "No: defeat is losing the will and the desire to fight."

For some ISIS fighters, there will be no escape from the battles of Mosul and Raqqa. Nor do they want one. Urged on by the messages of al-Adnani and al-Baghdadi, they will embrace martyrdom in the alleyways of Mosul and the wide expanses of the Jazeera desert. Most of those who fight to the death are likely to be foreign fighters, if past experience is any guide. Moroccans, Tunisians and Chechens will be among them.

Since its inception, ISIS has prepared for the 'day after' the caliphate. Its battle cry has long been "Baqiya wa tatamaddad," or "remain and expand." While its expansion may take generations, the group's leadership is ready for a stateless Islamic State. Top commanders and hardcore fighters will likely remain in Iraq and Syria, forming an underground resistance.

ISIS has cultivated deep roots in Sunni parts of Iraq (less so in Syria where many jihadists regard it as an interloper). Over the past decade, the group has developed networks skilled at raising money, obtaining weapons and clandestine organization across a wide swathe of Iraq -- from Diyala in the east to Rutbah close to the Jordanian border.

Even as it is under pressure in Mosul, ISIS remains active in many of these places, and is capable of carrying out suicide bombings in Baghdad, Tikrit and elsewhere. It has shown resilience in Syria, looking to establish footholds far from its Raqqa headquarters. In some ways, it is returning to what it does best -- agile attacks, mobility and surprise.

Switching allegiances

As ISIS' fortunes decline, some militants may try to switch allegiance to other groups. In Syria, these include the former al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Fateh al Sham. But there's a long history of bad blood between the two groups, which had a bitter and public falling out three years ago. Few in the ISIS hierarchy would contemplate such a move.

In Iraq, there are precious few alternatives for ISIS militants because the group has systematically attacked rivals in the region.

Even so, ISIS' decline is an opportunity for al Qaeda in Iraq, Syria and beyond. Terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman suggests some militants will see al Qaeda as the only option for continuing their struggle. ISIS traces its origins to an al Qaeda franchise in Iraq (AQI).

Waging jihad in the West

At least 75% of ISIS fighters have been killed since the US-led coalition launched airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, according to US officials. By last December, they estimate ISIS' ranks had winnowed to between 12,000 and 15,000.

It is extraordinarily difficult to estimate how many foreign fighters remain in the region. But far fewer foreign fighters have been able to reach the 'promised land' in the last year than previously.

The most worrying possibility for the West is that these foreign fighters, finding survival in Iraq and Syria difficult post-caliphate, might return home to carry out lone-wolf style attacks -- as well as recruit new members and revive underground networks.

They will try to use migrant routes and often will travel alone. The travel patterns of those involved in the Paris and Brussels attacks uncovered deep flaws in the tracking of such individuals among European security services. While it's now much harder for foreign fighters to travel through Turkey, as migrant flows have slowed, an unknown number have slipped through the cracks.

It only takes a handful of individuals to cross the Mediterranean, or travel through the Balkans undetected, for a European city to be vulnerable to another devastating assault.

As and when Raqqa falls, the logistical and financial help for such operatives will have to find another home. (Recent attacks in Brussels and Istanbul both appear to have been co-ordinated from Raqqa).

Even so, in the age of encryption, sympathizers are able to find ways to communicate securely with ISIS leadership. The Uzbek national who carried out the New Year's Eve attack on a nightclub in Istanbul had never been to Syria, but communicated with commanders through the encrypted chat app Telegram, according to testimony he provided Turkish prosecutors.

Turkey, given its proximity to Syria and Iraq and its use as a logistical rear-base by ISIS, may be especially vulnerable.

"Turkish government complacency has allowed the threat to grow, as have purges of experienced counterterrorism professionals, including those after last year's failed coup," according to Ahmet Yayla, a former counterterrorism chief in Turkey.

Expansion of ISIS affiliates

Rather than risk going home, some ISIS members may try to reach new jihadist pastures.

There's evidence indicating that hundreds have already reached other ISIS-controlled provinces, or wilayats, especially in Libya, which (until last year) appeared to be the leadership's Plan B.

Across the world, from Russia's North Caucasus to Nigeria, militant groups have pinned their flags to the ISIS banner over the last three years. Some comprise a few dozen men hiding in mountains and jungles; others have been sophisticated and well funded, with close links to ISIS' head office. Still others are hardened insurgent groups capable of inflicting heavy casualties on armies.

One such group is the Islamic State in Northern Sinai (ISNS), which has inflicted hundreds of casualties on Egyptian security forces since affiliating itself with ISIS in 2014.

It recently told Christians to leave the Sinai and boasted setting up checkpoints in the middle of a coastal town, al-Arish. It also claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Russian airliner that exploded in mid-air, crashing in the Sinai Peninsula in November 2015.

ISNS is unlikely to be able to seize and hold territory in Sinai, but does not seem close to defeat -- despite a determined offensive by the Egyptian military.

Some ISIS fighters now in Syria and Iraq may try to join ISNS and other active affiliates, much as al Qaeda fighters moved to Iraq and Yemen after 9/11. They will try to use migrant routes and often will travel alone. But they will take with them skills learned in years of combat.

'Islamic State' of mind

Perhaps the least predictable among those who make up ISIS 2.0 are the virtual adherents, those radicalized online and nursing a range of grievances who turn to random acts of violence.

Two deadly attacks in the US -- on an Orlando nightclub and in San Bernardino -- fell into this category. As did the truck attack in Nice last year, and smaller ISIS-inspired attacks across Europe.

They were carried out by individuals with little understanding of ISIS' ideology, deep personal grudges and no direct contact with the group's hierarchy. But that didn't prevent ISIS from declaring the perpetrators "soldiers of the Caliphate."

These individuals, radicalized by what they read and hear, pose a continuing danger, especially in societies where high-powered weapons are easy to come by.

These lone wolves pose a sporadic but serious challenge to the US and Europe. By definition, they have few if any co-conspirators. They take inspiration from social media sermons and lectures like those of Anwar al-Awlaki, who even since his death has inspired well over a dozen plots in the West.

US President Donald Trump has promised to "bomb the s***" out of ISIS. This might be feasible amid the crumbling holdouts of the caliphate, but as the remnants of ISIS go underground or escape, the apocalyptic mindset they have come to represent will live on. It -- or something very similar -- will find a host among Sunni in the Middle East who feel persecuted, and among a few young and alienated Muslims in western societies who seek purpose and revenge against wrongs perceived and real.

"The Islamic State is on the back foot militarily, it's losing territory," Charlie Winter, senior fellow at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence at King's College London, who has studied ISIS propaganda for years, told CNN. "Even if ISIS loses Mosul and Raqqa, the ideology will live on."

CNN's Eliza Mackintosh contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Islamic State 2.0: As the caliphate crumbles, ISIS evolves

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nearly three years since the group's elusive leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi declared a self-styled Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS is reeling from losses across its so-called "caliphate." It is fast losing its grip on Mosul, its biggest hub in Iraq, and its de-facto capital in Syria -- Raqqa -- is all but surrounded.

# data[].attributes.body
As it turned out, I was hideously out of the loop. Now that I'm up to speed, I know that ISIS is being driven back at an astounding rate. Places like Hawija and Raqqa (most of it, at least) have been liberated in the last month, and some fighters who have sworn to "fight or die" have broken and turned themselves in to advancing Kurdish forces. Maybe this is a sign that I should keep up to date - not just on this subject, but all current events.

# data[].attributes.body
This opinion piece covers a lot of ground. Initially, it examines ISIS from two angles - first, the actual ISIS presences in the Middle East, and second, the online recruiting force that ISIS uses to create new terrorists every day. Then, it proposes a solution to the Middle East situation - if we back off, ISIS becomes a problem for Russia and its allies, instead of us, which brings the author to their next point: Why is Trump deviating from his usual self? The author questions why Trump is trying to defeat ISIS for free in Syria, and they call for him to "be Trump - cynical and utterly unpredictable" in order to deal with the situation in Syria. However, I think that as a fanatical army, ISIS needs to be removed sooner rather than later, no matter how much of a tactical tool they can be if allowed to remain in Syria.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Challenge No. 2: America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also ease Assad out of power. One way to do that would be for NATO to create a no-fly safe zone around Idlib Province, where many of the anti-Assad rebels have gathered and where Assad recently dropped his poison gas on civilians. But Congress and the U.S. public are clearly wary of that.

So what else could we do? We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.

What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.

I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free? When was the last real estate deal Trump did where he volunteered to clean up a toxic waste dump - for free - before he negotiated with the owner on the price of the golf course next door?

This is a time for Trump to be Trump - utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias - because ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia.

Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache - the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.

Yes, in the long run we want to crush ISIS everywhere, but the only way to crush ISIS and keep it crushed on the ground is if we have moderate Sunnis in Syria and Iraq able and willing to replace it. And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq - and that will only happen if Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah feel pressured to share power.

And while I am at it, where is Trump's Twitter feed when we need it? He should be tweeting every day this message: "Russia, Iran and Hezbollah have become the protectors of a Syrian regime that uses poison gas on babies! Babies! Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Assad - poison gas enablers. Sad."

Do not let them off the hook! We need to make them own what they've become - enablers of a Syria that uses poison gas on children. Believe it or not, they won't like being labeled that way. Trump needs to use his global Twitter feed strategically. Barack Obama never played this card. Trump needs to slam it down every day. It creates leverage.

Syria is not a knitting circle. Everyone there plays dirty, deviously and without mercy. Where's that Trump when we need him?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Challenge No. 2: America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also ease Assad out of power.

# data[].attributes.headline
ISIS' Brutal Past, Shrinking Present, and Uncertain Future

# data[].attributes.subject
ISIS' Brutal Past, Shrinking Present, and Uncertain Future

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes over how ISIS is breathing its last, as local and foreign forces push them out of their last few pockets of territory following the fall of their last true strongholds. However, it also examines what the fall of ISIS will do to the region, and if ISIS will stay down after this defeat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BEIRUT -- The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ( ISIS), responsible for some of the worst atrocities perpetrated against civilians in recent history, is on the verge of collapse.

After brutalizing residents living under its command for more than three years, the militants have now lost their self-proclaimed capital of Raqqa and are battling to hang on to relatively small pockets of territory in Iraq and Syria, besieged by local forces from all sides. Few, however, expect ISIS to completely go away, or for the bloodshed in the two countries and the region to end quickly.

Here's a look at the rise and fall of the Sunni Muslim extremist group's "caliphate," and what to expect next:
A "caliphate" no more
ISIS, which emerged from the remnants of al Qaeda in Iraq, began its spread across the Mideast in early 2014, overrunning the Iraqi city of Fallujah and parts of the nearby provincial capital of Ramadi. In Syria, it seized sole control of the city of Raqqa after driving out rival Syrian rebel factions.

In June 2014, ISIS captured Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, from where its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared a self-styled "caliphate," a declaration tantamount to an earthquake that would temporarily redraw borders and shake up the entire region.

ISIS promised justice, equality and an Islamic, religious utopia. But over the next few years, it terrorized people living under its control, systematically slaughtering members of Iraq's tiny Yazidi community, kidnapping women and girls as sex slaves, beheading Western journalists and aid workers and destroying some of the Mideast's spectacular archaeological and cultural sites.

CBS News' Holly Williams, one of the only Western television correspondents to make it into Raqqa this week, said Tuesday that it was surreal to report from the center of the city, where just weeks earlier she would almost certainly have been kidnapped and executed.

ISIS also attracted a motley crew of foreign fighters, mostly marginalized European youths and other foreigners who took up its cause. But it alienated mainstream Sunni Muslims, who found ISIS' crude interpretation of Islam also spreading in areas far from Syria and Iraq.

Creating a territorial caliphate created a target, and an international anti-ISIS coalition soon took shape.
What's left
The United States launched its campaign of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq in August 2014, and a month later in Syria. In Iraq, it partnered with government forces working with state-sanctioned Shiite-led militias as well as Iraqi Kurdish fighters known as peshmerga. In Syria, it partnered with local Syrian Kurdish-led fighters, the Syrian Democratic Forces.

Supported by tens of thousands of U.S.-led airstrikes, these forces drove ISIS militants from one stronghold after another over the years. The biggest blow came in July when Mosul, long regarded as ISIS' administrative capital, was liberated.

In Syria, IS appears to be heading for collapse as the U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, or SDF, and Syrian government forces, backed by their Russian allies, are attacking them in separate, simultaneous offensives.

A senior SDF commander on Tuesday said his forces liberated Raqqa from IS militants and would formally announce victory soon after clearing operations to remove land mines and search for sleeper cells. Mayadeen, a town in the heart of Syria's Euphrates River Valley near Iraq's border where the militants had been expected to make their last stand, fell to Syrian government troops over the weekend.

In northern Iraq, the jihadis no longer hold any cities or towns after their stronghold of Hawija fell earlier this month. Iraq's army is now gearing up to fight ISIS in its last territory -- the sprawling desert Anbar province stretching all the way to the Syrian border. In Syria, ISIS still holds the town of Boukamal near the Iraqi border and scattered pockets of territory in the east.
Staggering price
The destruction of ISIS has come at a devastating cost for both Syria and Iraq, and immense suffering for those who endured the militants' brutal reign.

The fighting and airstrikes have pulverized once thriving cities, turning them into tragic vistas of crushed apartment blocks, flattened homes and collapsed roads and bridges. In Ramadi, Mosul and Raqqa, the scope of the damage is staggering.

Williams reported Tuesday that most, if not all of the residents of Raqqa have now fled. When they return, they will face a daunting task rebuilding what was once one of Syria's biggest cities.

Two weeks ago, the U.S.-led coalition announced it has returned more than 83 percent of ISIS-held land to local populations since 2014, liberating more than 6 million Syrians and Iraqis in the process. At least 735 civilians have been unintentionally killed by coalition strikes, although activists and war monitors estimate the toll to be much higher.

The nine-month battle to liberate Mosul resulted in the death of up to 1,500 Iraqi forces. At least 1,100 SDF fighters were killed in the battles for Syria's Raqqa and Deir el-Zour up until late September, according to the coalition.

In the three years since ISIS began building its "caliphate," it has killed thousands of people, displaced millions and worked hard on infusing children with extremist doctrine.
Shifting of sands
The rise of ISIS and subsequent wars and alliances to bring about its defeat has worsened political and sectarian fault-lines in Syria and Iraq.

It gave unprecedented clout to Kurdish populations in both countries, unsettling their central governments, as well as Iran and Turkey, both battling Kurdish separatists within their own borders.

Under cover of the fight against ISIS, Iraq's Kurds seized the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in 2014 -- a move Baghdad has now reversed, moving into the city, seizing oil fields and other infrastructure in an attempt to curb Kurdish aspirations for independence.

The shifting and chaotic battlefields in Syria's civil war, tensions between Kurds and ethnic Arabs, the presence of Shiite militias and government troops in predominantly Sunni towns and cities vacated by ISIS may lead to more violence.

In many ways, the fight over ISIS spoils and territories is only just beginning.
Uncertain future
All forces battling ISIS will have to remain vigilant even after they recapture the last militant-held territory. In some ways, they now face an even more daunting challenge.

Hisham al-Hashem, an Iraqi writer and analyst, estimates there remain 8,000 jihadis in Iraq's Anbar who will melt away "like salt in water" to wait for the right moment to launch their next insurgency or suicide attack.

ISIS affiliates continue to carry out attacks in Egypt and Libya, where the group gained a foothold and which could be its preferred theaters for retaliation. Before it broke away from al Qaeda and rebranded itself as the "Islamic State," al Qaeda in Iraq waged a years-long insurgency following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, pushing the country to the brink of civil war.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ISIS' brutal past, shrinking present, and uncertain future

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BEIRUT -- The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ( ISIS), responsible for some of the worst atrocities perpetrated against civilians in recent history, is on the verge of collapse.