Men hired by the Islamic State to monitor the quality of goods in markets destroyed confiscated products last year in Raqqa, Syria. Credit Nour Fourat/Reuters
New York Times: Offering Services, ISIS Digs In Deeper in Seized Territories
ERBIL, Iraq — In northern Syria, the jihadists of the Islamic State have fixed power lines, dug sewage systems and painted sidewalks. In Raqqa, they search markets and slaughterhouses for expired food and sick animals. Farther south, in Deir al-Zour, they have imposed taxes on farmers and shopkeepers and fined men for wearing short beards.
The group runs regular buses across the border with Iraq to Mosul, where it publicly kills captives and trains children for guerrilla war. Last month, it reopened a luxury hotel in the city and offered three free nights to newlyweds, meals included.
A year after the Islamic State seized Mosul, and 10 months after the United States and its allies launched a campaign of airstrikes against it, the jihadist group continues to dig in, stitching itself deeper into the fabric of the communities it controls.
WNU Editor: A "government state" that follows the rules and laws of sharia while permitting the slavery of non-believers, sexual exploitation of captive women, the murder of gays, and the executions of captured enemy soldiers and/or religious/sectarian minorities. The problem that I have with this New York Times post is that it tries to humanize some of the policies of the Islamic State .... an organization whose foundation is inhuman in every-way.
7 comments:
A while back you noted that the U.S. was no longer feared by its actual or potential enemies. As a result, these organizations/nations now feel free to take military actions that would have been unlikely in the past.
Smart nations go to war for reasons that take care of important national interests. The U.S. apparently goes to war based on testosterone, getting even, or taking care of non-essential interests of some limited interest groups.
Over my lifetime I have watched the U.S. waste its fortune and its people on unnecessary or ill advised military adventures not rising to the level of war as defined by the constitution. It grinds its military and economy to dust for relatively unimportant interests and, when actually needed, the funds are gone, troops are exhausted, and equipment is worn out.
As a result the U.S. relies on mercenaries, volunteers, or indentured volunteers fighting endless wars. The rich, industrial and political classes have no skin in these wars. Patriotic citizens or the poor trying to get money for college do. As a result, this nation relies on myth over substance and its infrastructure and people suffer.
Perhaps the U.S. failure to actually win at the "wars" it does undertake is the reason why it is no longer feared? War should be so horrible that nobody wants to fight one. We run wars that are sanitary for the U.S. and never end.
I recall that, prior to Chechnya, no power or organization would dare touch Soviet Union interests for fear of being eliminated. Who has that fear of the U.S.?
Until the U.S. can figure out how to chose an important war and then win it, then perhaps we should just stay out. We fight lose-lose wars and, as a result, there is no purpose to preserve the national interest or Constitution which today seems more like guidance than law.
Could not have said it any better Anon.
It's acting like any other newly established ideocratic dictatorship, whether religious or secular. On one hand it has its core ideological commitments that must be fulfilled - in this case, the sharia - on the other hand, it also must exist as an actual state, acknowledge realities on the ground - at least to some degree - and provide some basic services to its populace. You might be offended by the comparison, but it's not like the Bolsheviks when they came to power were much different - they had a different agenda, to be sure, but I am not certain that peasants who had everything taken from them and were left to starve are less worthy of sympathy than women and non-believers taken into slavery.
So basically, yes, the group behind this may be inhuman at the core, but it is forced to simulate humanity to some degree to survive. If it survives for long enough, it would probably slowly lost its fervour and its most extreme notions - just like the Soviet Union became an infinitely more liveable place after 1953. Which is not to say that it must be allowed to survive long enough to melt away on its own. I'm just not sure it is America's duty to destroy it, but it seems it is already committed and can't go back, no matter how much its establishment must surely want to.
Regardless how inhuman their policies are, I do find it terrifying at the evolution of terror groups, particularly ISIS.
They strive to act like a State... has this ever been seen before? A functioning economy with exports (e.g. oil sales), a functioning and effective (para)military, large swaths of territory under their control, a population under its governance, a judicial system (a brutally harsh one, but one nonetheless), and a functioning government with leadership roles clearly outlined.
I once did research on ISIS and how they strive to act like a State. In it, I compared ISIS and their current political situation to one of the most common "requirements" of Statehood - the Declarative Theory.
The Declarative Theory states that for a State to be properly recognized as such, it must match the following criteria:
These requirements are:
“a ) a permanent population;
b ) a defined territory;
c ) government; and
d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”
ISIS matches every single one. While the fourth may be questionable, the fact that ISIS has an organized military that is engaged in (sometimes) conventional battle for territory with a legitimate State (Iraq, Syria) proves that they do possess the capacity to enter into relations with other States; war is a relation.
Shocking stuff.
Stefan,
I usually like what you post, but I disagree a little on the "State" definition. To me it's something that exists whether other people like it or not (such as ISIS). Yes, it can take the forms of government we are familiar with, but that is not particularly important. Of the four criteria you mention, you should add a fifth, time. Each of the four other criteria must exist for a certain amount of time before you are accepted as a government by those you rule and those who you have relations with. My disagreement isn't that great (and somewhat muddled too, it's early for me), but history is littered with similar situations.
As far ISIS's recent activities described in the article, it amounts to them burrowing into the social fabric of the conquered trying to present a problem to their enemies, "to destroy us you must destroy all these innocents". The problem ISIS will always have is that they are and always will be foreigners to their subjects, this will eventually come back to haunt them.
James,
No issue there - you make perfect sense.
However, I did not create that definition... It was created during the Montevideo Convention in 1933. However, I also agree - Statehood and its definition is not black and white... even today, many people don't agree with it.
And again, perhaps you misread my post. I did not say ISIS is a State, or should be recognized as a State. I simply stated that ISIS is functioning as a State, which I feel (if I'm not wrong) is a large step forward in terms of the evolving "terror" groups and the dangers they pose. In turn, this "evolved group" reaps the benefits of acting like a State - such as a steady flow of income.
Also, acting as a legitimate state is a good recruitment tool - perhaps morale for its fighters, and an appealing destination for potential recruits. Better to join a legitimate-looking "Caliphate" than a loosely organized group operating out of the mountains of some country?
Although, in the current day, recognition from other sovereign States (The Constitutive Theory) completely overshadows those four criteria mentioned above. As such, ISIS will never be recognized, and will never integrate itself into the international community.
"And again, perhaps you misread my post" Yes, I think I did. I think I now know were you are going with this.
Post a Comment