Posted on Jun 4, 2015
Is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) a country?
3.55K
9
14
2
2
0
We haven't seen a terrorist really take land like this in recent years. In Afghan you had a terrorist group that was supported by the government but they were power right after the departure of the Russians. We aided in that but their really wasn't a host government like there was in Iraq.
ISIS has been able to not only hold their land but also emplace their own government. They are able to trade and sell oil and make revenue. They are able to collect taxes from their cities and are mostly self sustaining. Should we treat them as such or are they just a terrorist group that is just operating in Iraq and Syria?
How does this affect your view when you speak of places like Kurdistan? It isn't a country but it is referenced so often like it is.
ISIS has been able to not only hold their land but also emplace their own government. They are able to trade and sell oil and make revenue. They are able to collect taxes from their cities and are mostly self sustaining. Should we treat them as such or are they just a terrorist group that is just operating in Iraq and Syria?
How does this affect your view when you speak of places like Kurdistan? It isn't a country but it is referenced so often like it is.
Posted in these groups: 
ISIS
ISIS
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
What must be understood is that the neither the natives nor the militants of the middle east recognize the same borders we do. Look back all the way to the Sykes–Picot Agreement and from there we can see where a lot of the trouble began. European powers drew the borders of the middle east with the intention of keeping the natives in constant conflict with each other. It's a tactic that's similar to what the USG did with the Native Americans during that genocide. We forcibly removed them from their home lands and resettled them next to tribes and clans we knew were their historic enemies. This is the same thing the UK, French, and Russian governments did. The middle east conflicts are all by design. The only way that peace can be sustained in those areas is through brutal dictatorships that kill all dissent (think Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad). The only other way to keep peace is through a massive restructuring of the middle east. This means Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Egypt, etc should have their borders redrawn to reflect the actual disposition of the tribes, clans, ethnicities, and religions of the people. I believe a sovereign Kurdistan will be established by the end of the next decade. Also, in order for the Shia-Sunni conflict to simmer down, Iran must annex part of Southern Iraq while at the same time conceding its territory to the new Kurdistan and breaking off other parts of the country to other secessionist parties.
I'm in the process of writing an essay on how damaging ethnocentrism is to the intelligence collection process. We need to stop identifying states by their current political boundaries and start recognizing them by human terrain analysis.
The way this ties in to your question is that the intel community totally missed how fast ISIS could spread because the majority of us were stuck on the group operating only in Syria and with lumped them along with all the other groups attempting to overthrow Assad at that time.
I'm in the process of writing an essay on how damaging ethnocentrism is to the intelligence collection process. We need to stop identifying states by their current political boundaries and start recognizing them by human terrain analysis.
The way this ties in to your question is that the intel community totally missed how fast ISIS could spread because the majority of us were stuck on the group operating only in Syria and with lumped them along with all the other groups attempting to overthrow Assad at that time.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
You have to post the essay. I would love to read it. I believe the same. They didn't make the borders. We are viewing them in the context of what we perceive they should be. It is not like the US. They have loyalties not to their country. But so few really think this.
Iraq exists only as an idea, not a nation
Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis are fighting for their causes. But nobody is willing to fight for the country’s survival.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Sir,
The aforementioned essay is something I'm writing in hopes of getting published in an intelligence professional bulletin. Once I finish it, it has to go through my NCOIC, the S3, the SSO, and the Chain of Command so as to make sure it doesn't violate OPSEC or give away other classified information. That's the process of writing something for outside consumption. Once all that is complete, I will find you and either give you the link or attach it in an email. The case of Iraq is echoed throughout many countries in the middle east and north Africa. The best example of this in north Africa is Libya. Multiple clans who are historic enemies are being forced to live with one another and share resources. This just doesn't happen over night. Peace cannot be manufactured.
The aforementioned essay is something I'm writing in hopes of getting published in an intelligence professional bulletin. Once I finish it, it has to go through my NCOIC, the S3, the SSO, and the Chain of Command so as to make sure it doesn't violate OPSEC or give away other classified information. That's the process of writing something for outside consumption. Once all that is complete, I will find you and either give you the link or attach it in an email. The case of Iraq is echoed throughout many countries in the middle east and north Africa. The best example of this in north Africa is Libya. Multiple clans who are historic enemies are being forced to live with one another and share resources. This just doesn't happen over night. Peace cannot be manufactured.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SSG (Join to see) - I would also recommend you submit it to the "Journal of Foreign Affairs" if it meets their requirements for submission.
The conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi and Rwanda is a classic example of "purposeful imperial colonial ethnic tension".
The conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Burundi and Rwanda is a classic example of "purposeful imperial colonial ethnic tension".
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Legitimate country or not, it's an intriguing question. It may help to keep in mind a militarist organization is able to maintain an appearance of governmental control. Just because they levy taxes and collect successfully doesn't make them an official city-state.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
True but are we not recognizing them just because they are not official. But so often we speak of Kurdistan like it is a country.
(1)
(0)
SGT Aaron Barbee
That is true. Kurdistan is an official city-state within Iraq, and because we ally with them we have a tendency to treat and consider them their own country. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. If ISIS, for some reason, decides to hold what they have and not expand, how will the more influential governments react?
From what I recall, ISIS has a terror agenda towards western civilization. What is their end-goal for middle-east territories?
From what I recall, ISIS has a terror agenda towards western civilization. What is their end-goal for middle-east territories?
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
In order for IS to be a country, they need to be international recognized and have diplomatic missions etablished.
Not bloody likely.
The "government" consists of playing Robin Hood with pillaged loot and purloined oil, used to pay off collaborators, fighters, and influential citizens.
That is about as much a government as Blackbeard's pirate ship.
Not bloody likely.
The "government" consists of playing Robin Hood with pillaged loot and purloined oil, used to pay off collaborators, fighters, and influential citizens.
That is about as much a government as Blackbeard's pirate ship.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I doubt they will never be recognized as a country but does their lack of being seen as a country them make them an less legitimate.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see), Islamic State is an armed insurrection against internationally recognized and democratically elected (however flawed) nations. They have violated and continue to violate nearly every internationally recognized standard for conduct.
They traffic in persons for the purpose of using them as sex slaves.
They use rape as a weapon.
They execute in brutal fashion anyone who is not in allignment with their views.
They are actively preying on those they have displaced from their homes.
They are destroying historic archeological sites at a horrific rate. Some of those sites were thousands of years old.
They are morally bankrupt, even by the standards of the religion they purport to adhere to.
No sir, they are not legitimate, and will never be recognized as such even if they manage to "win".
They traffic in persons for the purpose of using them as sex slaves.
They use rape as a weapon.
They execute in brutal fashion anyone who is not in allignment with their views.
They are actively preying on those they have displaced from their homes.
They are destroying historic archeological sites at a horrific rate. Some of those sites were thousands of years old.
They are morally bankrupt, even by the standards of the religion they purport to adhere to.
No sir, they are not legitimate, and will never be recognized as such even if they manage to "win".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google