ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria) has seen considerable military success under the control of possibly the most mysterious leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Initially thought by the USA to have been killed following their invasion of Afghanistan post 9/11, Baghdadi reemerges earlier this year to carry out the task of creating a new nation of Islam, united under a Caliphate. With an increased number of young people leaving the West to join this militant movement it becomes necessary to engage and analyze the concerns and potential consequences of The ISIS Crisis.
What appeal does a potential Caliphate hold? The desire to create a new nation of Islam ruled by a single leader (or emir), stems from notions of nationhood, the idea of a nation state, and the attachments formed by having a strong sense of nationality. So, how do we define both a ‘nation’ and a ‘state’? Renan, a 19th Century French Historian espoused the widely recognized opinion; “nations develop from the common needs of the people who consisted of different social groups seeking a collective identity”. If this is to be the accepted definition of a nation, then a state must embody the more technical aspects, of ‘country making’, including ideas of sovereignty, a territory with recognized borders, and perhaps crucially in the case of ISIS – a state must have external recognition.
ISIS has aggressively sought to establish its ‘state’ through territorial expansion. In March 2013, ISIS took over the Syrian city of Raqqa, the first provincial capital to fall. A few weeks later, the group established control over the northern province of Nineveh and its capital Mosul. ISIS then increased their presence towards the South, taking control of Baiji, Tikrit, Qaim, Anah and Ramadi. In addition to this, ISIS patrols the borders with Syria and has strongholds in towns bordering Jordan. Military defenses in neighboring states have increased, fearing the threat that ISIS now poses.
The rapid expansion of ISIS becomes more relevant when we look at the case of funding for the militant group. Who would possibly invest in a military regime, maintaining power through fear of beheading, crucifixion, amputations and extreme brutality? Part of the answer lies in the oil fields of Eastern Syria. ISIS took over these oil fields in late 2012, and sold some of it back to the Syrian government. In addition to this, the group gained significant funds from extracting valuable resources out of Syria such an antiquities and archaeological findings. In an article published in the Guardian entitled: How an arrest in Iraq revealed Isis's $2bn jihadist network[1]. It was revealed that ISIS had become possibly the most cash-rich terror group in the world, with assets totaling £515 million before they took Mosul. Notwithstanding ISIS gaining funds and assets through raiding Syrian oil fields and national treasures, it could be argued that once again, it all comes down to Renan and “social groups seeking a collective identity”. This is because part of ISIS’s funding has come from a number of Gulf donors including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar. The justification for which is based on the notion of religion transcending ideas of nationhood, the idea of a nation state, and the attachments formed by having a strong sense of nationality. The Gulf donors act out of solidarity with fellow Sunni’s in Syria, suffering under the regime of Bashar Al-Assad.
With facts about ISIS’s aims, its territorial expansion, and its funding laid out, it is crucial to consider the impact that this terror group could have on the Middle East, and the watching West. Should ISIS expand its borders, through Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Yemen the issue for the West would be its maintenance of oil supplies, and its reliance on the Gulf for foreign investment aiding to boost the UK economy. Investment from the Gulf in the UK economy totaled around $2.25 billion in 2011[2]. In addition to this, the USA still benefits from the abundance of oil in Saudi Arabia. If ISIS expanded into the Gulf States would it trade with countries who failed to recognize its statehood, who deemed the group ‘terrorist’ and ‘militant’? No doubt the West has stood opposed to ISIS invasions and its aggressive expansions but for how long could it survive without the valuable resources that the Gulf States provide? The West has often sought to make peace in the Middle East by exporting its notions of democracy. In a caliphate ruled by one emir that could eventually comprise of eight or more states, democracy, tolerance and liberalism would be ridiculed. If we take this idea further, how could Obama send troops back into the conflict ridden area, so soon after announcing plans to withdraw all troops from the region? It could surely only lead to an increase in partisan dealignment at home.
The ISIS Crisis it would appear has yet to fully reveal itself. Its leader, Al-Baghdadi has remained largely hidden from the eyes of the World and only recently have images of the terror leader emerged. Following the invasion of Iraq by British and American forces, it would seem that the region is once under again under attack from those who are espousing a potentially toxic doctrine of Islamist Extremism. As disheartened as the UK and USA must be feeling, I would argue they have created a rod for their own back. Following the invasion of Iraq, and the execution of Saddam Hussain, there was no ‘order’, or system of governance in place suitable for a region that was having to learn anew how to find its place in the global stage. As much as ISIS has threatened the balance of power, the real victims will remain the citizens who suffered ‘freedom’ under US and British military intervention, and now are ‘liberated’ again through ISIS militant forces.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-arrest-jihadists-wealth-power
[2] Gov.uk
What appeal does a potential Caliphate hold? The desire to create a new nation of Islam ruled by a single leader (or emir), stems from notions of nationhood, the idea of a nation state, and the attachments formed by having a strong sense of nationality. So, how do we define both a ‘nation’ and a ‘state’? Renan, a 19th Century French Historian espoused the widely recognized opinion; “nations develop from the common needs of the people who consisted of different social groups seeking a collective identity”. If this is to be the accepted definition of a nation, then a state must embody the more technical aspects, of ‘country making’, including ideas of sovereignty, a territory with recognized borders, and perhaps crucially in the case of ISIS – a state must have external recognition.
ISIS has aggressively sought to establish its ‘state’ through territorial expansion. In March 2013, ISIS took over the Syrian city of Raqqa, the first provincial capital to fall. A few weeks later, the group established control over the northern province of Nineveh and its capital Mosul. ISIS then increased their presence towards the South, taking control of Baiji, Tikrit, Qaim, Anah and Ramadi. In addition to this, ISIS patrols the borders with Syria and has strongholds in towns bordering Jordan. Military defenses in neighboring states have increased, fearing the threat that ISIS now poses.
The rapid expansion of ISIS becomes more relevant when we look at the case of funding for the militant group. Who would possibly invest in a military regime, maintaining power through fear of beheading, crucifixion, amputations and extreme brutality? Part of the answer lies in the oil fields of Eastern Syria. ISIS took over these oil fields in late 2012, and sold some of it back to the Syrian government. In addition to this, the group gained significant funds from extracting valuable resources out of Syria such an antiquities and archaeological findings. In an article published in the Guardian entitled: How an arrest in Iraq revealed Isis's $2bn jihadist network[1]. It was revealed that ISIS had become possibly the most cash-rich terror group in the world, with assets totaling £515 million before they took Mosul. Notwithstanding ISIS gaining funds and assets through raiding Syrian oil fields and national treasures, it could be argued that once again, it all comes down to Renan and “social groups seeking a collective identity”. This is because part of ISIS’s funding has come from a number of Gulf donors including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar. The justification for which is based on the notion of religion transcending ideas of nationhood, the idea of a nation state, and the attachments formed by having a strong sense of nationality. The Gulf donors act out of solidarity with fellow Sunni’s in Syria, suffering under the regime of Bashar Al-Assad.
With facts about ISIS’s aims, its territorial expansion, and its funding laid out, it is crucial to consider the impact that this terror group could have on the Middle East, and the watching West. Should ISIS expand its borders, through Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Yemen the issue for the West would be its maintenance of oil supplies, and its reliance on the Gulf for foreign investment aiding to boost the UK economy. Investment from the Gulf in the UK economy totaled around $2.25 billion in 2011[2]. In addition to this, the USA still benefits from the abundance of oil in Saudi Arabia. If ISIS expanded into the Gulf States would it trade with countries who failed to recognize its statehood, who deemed the group ‘terrorist’ and ‘militant’? No doubt the West has stood opposed to ISIS invasions and its aggressive expansions but for how long could it survive without the valuable resources that the Gulf States provide? The West has often sought to make peace in the Middle East by exporting its notions of democracy. In a caliphate ruled by one emir that could eventually comprise of eight or more states, democracy, tolerance and liberalism would be ridiculed. If we take this idea further, how could Obama send troops back into the conflict ridden area, so soon after announcing plans to withdraw all troops from the region? It could surely only lead to an increase in partisan dealignment at home.
The ISIS Crisis it would appear has yet to fully reveal itself. Its leader, Al-Baghdadi has remained largely hidden from the eyes of the World and only recently have images of the terror leader emerged. Following the invasion of Iraq by British and American forces, it would seem that the region is once under again under attack from those who are espousing a potentially toxic doctrine of Islamist Extremism. As disheartened as the UK and USA must be feeling, I would argue they have created a rod for their own back. Following the invasion of Iraq, and the execution of Saddam Hussain, there was no ‘order’, or system of governance in place suitable for a region that was having to learn anew how to find its place in the global stage. As much as ISIS has threatened the balance of power, the real victims will remain the citizens who suffered ‘freedom’ under US and British military intervention, and now are ‘liberated’ again through ISIS militant forces.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/15/iraq-isis-arrest-jihadists-wealth-power
[2] Gov.uk