• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Guardian: Leaked documents reveal ISIS' in-depth state-building plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
53S4rzL.jpg


A leaked internal Islamic State manual shows how the terrorist group has set about building a state in Iraq and Syria complete with government departments, a treasury and an economic programme for self-sufficiency, the Guardian can reveal.

The 24-page document, obtained by the Guardian, sets out a blueprint for establishing foreign relations, a fully fledged propaganda operation, and centralized control over oil, gas and the other vital parts of the economy.

From control of oil and land to rules governing leisure, internal memos seen by the Guardian show how deliberate Isis’s state-building exercise has been

The manual, written last year and entitled Principles in the administration of the Islamic State, lays bare Isis’s state-building aspirations and the ways in which it has managed to set itself apart as the richest and most destabilizing jihadi group of the past 50 years.
Together with other documents obtained by the Guardian, it builds up a picture of a group that, although sworn to a founding principle of brutal violence, is equally set on more mundane matters such as health, education, commerce, communications and jobs. In short, it is building a state.

As western aircraft step up their aerial war on Isis targets in Syria, the implication is that the military task is not simply one of battlefield arithmetic. Isis is already far more than the sum of its fighters.

The document – written as a foundation text to train “cadres of administrators” in the months after Isis’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared a “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria on 28 June 2014 – sketches out how to organise government departments including education, natural resources, industry, foreign relations, public relations and military camps.

Dated some time between July and October 2014, it details how Isis will build separate training camps for regular troops and veteran fighters. Veterans, it says, should go on a fortnight’s refresher course each year to receive instruction in the “latest arts of using weapons, military planning and military technologies”.

It says they will also be given a “detailed commentary on the technologies” of the enemy and “how the soldiers of the state can take advantage of them”.

The statecraft manual recommends a department for administering the military camps, a complex arrangement that, as described, goes well beyond the capabilities of al-Qaida in Afghanistan during the time it plotted the 9/11 attacks.

The document reveals for the first time that Isis always intended to train children in the arts of war. Isis propaganda from this year has clearly shown children being drilled, and even made to shoot captives. But the text, authored by an Egyptian called Abu Abdullah, is explicit about the intention to do so from mid- to late 2014. Children, it says, will be receive “training on bearing light arms” and “outstanding individuals” will be “selected from them for security portfolio assignments, including checkpoints, patrols”.


The text highlights the need for Isis to achieve a unified culture encompassing foreigners and natives and sets out the need for self-sufficiency by establishing its own independent “factories for local military and food production” and creating “isolated safe zones” for providing for local needs.

The document came from a businessman working within Isis via the academic researcher Aymenn al-Tamimi, who has worked over the past year to compile the most thorough log of Isis documents available to the public. For safety reasons, the Guardian cannot reveal further information about the businessman but he has leaked nearly 30 documents in all, including a financial statement from one of Isis’s largest provinces.
But Tamimi said the playbook, along with a further 300 Isis documents he has obtained over the past year, showed that building a viable country rooted in fundamentalist theology was the central aim. “[Isis] is a project that strives to govern. It’s not just a case of their sole end being endless battle.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/07/leaked-isis-document-reveals-plan-building-state-syria
 

Mengy

wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
[Isis] is a project that strives to govern. It’s not just a case of their sole end being endless battle

But that's just it, their end goal IS endless battle. They want to kill everyone who isn't one of them, they are just pursuing that goal in a very organized and intelligent manner. They want to govern to accumulate power and resources IN ORDER TO endlessly battle their enemies and take over the world for ISIS.

It's one thing to admire their tenacity and resourcefulness and conviction, but lets not lose sight of WHY they are doing this at all. Their goal is not to become a new country who joins the United Nations and lives in harmony with the rest of the world. It is quite the opposite from that.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
But that's just it, their end goal IS endless battle. They want to kill everyone who isn't one of them, they are just pursuing that goal in a very organized and intelligent manner. They want to govern to accumulate power and resources IN ORDER TO endlessly battle their enemies and take over the world for ISIS.

This isn't true.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/per...08/21/Where-is-Iraq-s-Baath-party-today-.html
According to senior Iraqi officers on the frontlines against ISIS, its top command is dominated by officers from Saddam’s military and intelligence agencies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html
Even with the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are former Iraqi officers, including the members of its shadowy military and security committees, and the majority of its emirs and princes, according to Iraqis, Syrians and analysts who study the group.

For reference, that's former members of the secular Ba'athist party. IS uses religion as a selling point, but the majority of the key generals and leaders show little interest in it other than as a propaganda tool. It's about power.
 

Dingens

Member
after 5 to 10 years of warfare without results, that's pretty much how I imagined it to end. "the west" is going to tolerate them (in exchange for oil), and they will become a state.
appalling as fuck but wouldn't be the first time sadly.
 
after 5 to 10 years of warfare without results, that's pretty much how I imagined it to end. "the west" is going to tolerate them (in exchange for oil), and they will become a state.
appalling as fuck but wouldn't be the first time sadly.

I seriously, seriously doubt that.
 
after 5 to 10 years of warfare without results, that's pretty much how I imagined it to end. "the west" is going to tolerate them (in exchange for oil), and they will become a state.
appalling as fuck but wouldn't be the first time sadly.

There is no chance that will happen.
 

prwxv3

Member
after 5 to 10 years of warfare without results, that's pretty much how I imagined it to end. "the west" is going to tolerate them (in exchange for oil), and they will become a state.
appalling as fuck but wouldn't be the first time sadly.

This is not going to happen.
 

Avtomat

Member
after 5 to 10 years of warfare without results, that's pretty much how I imagined it to end. "the west" is going to tolerate them (in exchange for oil), and they will become a state.
appalling as fuck but wouldn't be the first time sadly.
How is the west tolerating, ISIS bar troops seem to be dropping bombs left band right.


On the other hand is the rise of Isis not just testament to the failure of the post colonial states? The absence of government in these places results in people turning to religion or ethnicity in their quest to have some form of political structure.
 
But that's just it, their end goal IS endless battle. They want to kill everyone who isn't one of them, they are just pursuing that goal in a very organized and intelligent manner. They want to govern to accumulate power and resources IN ORDER TO endlessly battle their enemies and take over the world for ISIS.

It's one thing to admire their tenacity and resourcefulness and conviction, but lets not lose sight of WHY they are doing this at all. Their goal is not to become a new country who joins the United Nations and lives in harmony with the rest of the world. It is quite the opposite from that.

So eventually, ISIS wants to be a bigger version of North Korea?
 

Mengy

wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
This isn't true.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/per...08/21/Where-is-Iraq-s-Baath-party-today-.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...97676c-cc32-11e4-8730-4f473416e759_story.html

For reference, that's former members of the secular Ba'athist party. IS uses religion as a selling point, but the majority of the key generals and leaders show little interest in it other than as a propaganda tool. It's about power.

So then why run around committing terrorist acts against non-ISIS countries all over the world? There may be members of ISIS who do not want to burn the world down, but the collective's actions say otherwise. ISIS is a military organization using religion for recruitment, and they aren't collecting power for just peaceful purposes.
 
I'm amazed at how organised they appear to be, yet how barbaric they are. The fact they are selling oil and have the channels to do this is pretty shocking to me.

They keep being this brutal and people are going to rise up and turn against them.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
So then why run around committing terrorist acts against non-ISIS countries all over the world?

It hypes up your own supporters, draws media attention to you therefore widening your recruitment reach, and pushes Western states into making silly decisions that advantage you in the long run like poor treatment of Muslims in Western countries.

There may be members of ISIS who do not want to burn the world down, but the collective's actions say otherwise. ISIS is a military organization using religion for recruitment, and they aren't collecting power for just peaceful purposes.

IS' leaders don't want to "burn the world down", and they're not literally trying to invade Europe or whatever. As said, this is full of former Ba'athist generals, many of whom were involved against the brief resistance against the US invasion. They know how pointless genuinely trying to launch military action against any significant state would be, particularly given IS is much smaller, weaker, and more poorly equipped than Hussein's army was. They want money and power. That might not be true of the ground troops, who may genuinely have religious convictions (and in all likelihood do), but the ground troops are not the leadership.
 
Our strategy thus far has been to carpet bomb ISIS forces. But these soldiers have been dealing with western air strikes since 2003 (longer for some of the foreign fighters). They know how to shelter themselves from these bombardments. Just as in WWI, massive artillery bombardments alone can not defeat an army, and become less effective over time. In the end, Western bombing will accomplish nothing.

The only way to defeat ISIS is to destroy what they can not afford to lose. If their goal is to become a self-sufficient state, then they can not afford to lose their oil fields. We could decisively crush ISIS by destroying their oil fields and shattering their economy. But like ISIS, the West also will not sacrifice Iraqi oil fields.

So long as the West covets the same resources ISIS does, we will not be able to defeat them.
 

Croatoan

They/Them A-10 Warthog
Our strategy thus far has been to carpet bomb ISIS forces. But these soldiers have been dealing with western air strikes since 2003 (longer for some of the foreign fighters). They know how to shelter themselves from these bombardments. Just as in WWI, massive artillery bombardments alone can not defeat an army, and become less effective over time. In the end, Western bombing will accomplish nothing.

The only way to defeat ISIS is to destroy what they can not afford to lose. If their goal is to become a self-sufficient state, then they can not afford to lose their oil fields. We could decisively crush ISIS by destroying their oil fields and shattering their economy. But like ISIS, the West also will not sacrifice Iraqi oil fields.

So long as the West covets the same resources ISIS does, we will not be able to defeat them.

How long until the middle east is completely out of oil? Once they run out isn't the entire region screwed?

Or we can switch to sustainable methods and blow their precious oil fields to pieces. No money, no guns.

The US has quite a bit of oil to keep us afloat until we figure out a solution right?
 

Captain.Falafel

Neo Member
The only way to defeat ISIS is to destroy what they can not afford to lose. If their goal is to become a self-sufficient state, then they can not afford to lose their oil fields. We could decisively crush ISIS by destroying their oil fields and shattering their economy. But like ISIS, the West also will not sacrifice Iraqi oil fields.

Fascinatingly enough, an NPR audit of an ISIS budget found that oil only accounts for ~27% of their income.

Not that I disagree.
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
How long until the middle east is completely out of oil? Once they run out isn't the entire region screwed?

Or we can switch to sustainable methods and blow their precious oil fields to pieces. No money, no guns.

The US has quite a bit of oil to keep us afloat until we figure out a solution right?

Depends on how sustainable their methods of oil exaction are and how large their reservoirs are. The middle east, Saudi Arabia particular have very high quality oil reserves in general. It's why America gives so much of shit in the first place. This is also ignoring how dangerou it is to straight up pump oil fields. Your talking about 10 mile extracting millions of barrels of oil from deep underground. If done incorrectly the explosions will be massive and resulting fires will last for a very long time.
 

Starfield

Member
There can't be any ISIS if there isn't any oil. I wonder if someone ever thought of that.

You can't build states with sticks and stones.
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
There can't be any ISIS if there isn't any oil. I wonder if someone ever thought of that.

You can't build states with sticks and stones.

The US otherwise no this, but a major reason they went to war was for that oil, their going to simply and easy destroy it after all the trouble that was gone through.
 

jelly

Member
Our strategy thus far has been to carpet bomb ISIS forces. But these soldiers have been dealing with western air strikes since 2003 (longer for some of the foreign fighters). They know how to shelter themselves from these bombardments. Just as in WWI, massive artillery bombardments alone can not defeat an army, and become less effective over time. In the end, Western bombing will accomplish nothing.

The only way to defeat ISIS is to destroy what they can not afford to lose. If their goal is to become a self-sufficient state, then they can not afford to lose their oil fields. We could decisively crush ISIS by destroying their oil fields and shattering their economy. But like ISIS, the West also will not sacrifice Iraqi oil fields.

So long as the West covets the same resources ISIS does, we will not be able to defeat them.

We forget that good people still live there, some will return and blowing up their infrastructure is maybe not the best solution long term. Sure, blow up the trucks, ships, bad guys shipping out the oil but I think we could be a bit more tactful this time and leave the infrastructure alone so rebuilding is much easier and people will be on your side not complaining the electricity, water, oil is nowhere to be seen.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
There can't be any ISIS if there isn't any oil. I wonder if someone ever thought of that.

You can't build states with sticks and stones.

There kind of could be. Oil is only about a quarter of their revenue, the rest is made through "taxation", tribute-taking, extortion, pillaging, slave trading, subsidies from wealthy supporters, and so on. Destroying Syria's oilfields would be a blow to IS, but not a permanent one, and the long term prospect would be crippling a reunited Syria's ability to rebuild, leaving much of rural Syria in permanent poverty, exactly the sort of conditions that lead to support for terrorism. In general, destroying the infrastructure of a country you want to see do well in the future is a pretty bad move unless you are also willing to pay the costs of rebuilding.
 
There kind of could be. Oil is only about a quarter of their revenue, the rest is made through "taxation", tribute-taking, extortion, pillaging, slave trading, subsidies from wealthy supporters, and so on. Destroying Syria's oilfields would be a blow to IS, but not a permanent one, and the long term prospect would be crippling a reunited Syria's ability to rebuild, leaving much of rural Syria in permanent poverty, exactly the sort of conditions that lead to support for terrorism. In general, destroying the infrastructure of a country you want to see do well in the future is a pretty bad move unless you are also willing to pay the costs of rebuilding.

I mean, you can only tax, extort and steal what people have. Oil feeds that machine almost entirely. There's no other industry out there. Crippling their oil trade would have a massive effect on their cash flow.
 
Fascinatingly enough, an NPR audit of an ISIS budget found that oil only accounts for ~27% of their income.

Not that I disagree.

We forget that good people still live there, some will return and blowing up their infrastructure is maybe not the best solution long term. Sure, blow up the trucks, ships, bad guys shipping out the oil but I think we could be a bit more tactful this time and leave the infrastructure alone so rebuilding is much easier and people will be on your side not complaining the electricity, water, oil is nowhere to be seen.

The biggest problem we have in attacking ISIS forces, particularly with bombing, is that they hide and fortify themselves well and only fight when they want to fight. If we strike at their oil fields, they will be compelled to come out of hiding and fight in the open to defend them. In the open, western forces hold the advantage.

We would not have to destroy all the oil fields in Iraq. Just enough to compel ISIS to fight on our terms.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I mean, you can only tax, extort and steal what people have. Oil feeds that machine almost entirely. There's no other industry out there. Crippling their oil trade would have a massive effect on their cash flow.

This is partially true, but you then end up impoverishing the people of western Syria as well as IS themselves. What do you think that does to their sympathies and attitudes towards Western powers?
 
This is partially true, but you then end up impoverishing the people of western Syria as well as IS themselves. What do you think that does to their sympathies and attitudes towards Western powers?

Good point. It's a double-edged sword for sure.
 

trembli0s

Member
I mean, you can only tax, extort and steal what people have. Oil feeds that machine almost entirely. There's no other industry out there. Crippling their oil trade would have a massive effect on their cash flow.

Even if there wasn't oil there, life would go on. People still eat, breathe, breed, farm, form communities, in some of the most desolate places on earth.

I mean, what the hell does Afghanistan really have? And yet, fundamentalists were able to prop up a state because they could leverage the coercive apparatus of the state to tax and siphon money off.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Congrats to the Guardian for doing actual journalism. Wish bigger outlets would stop sitting on their hands when they could be doing the same thing.
 

2700

Unconfirmed Member
There can't be any ISIS if there isn't any oil. I wonder if someone ever thought of that.

You can't build states with sticks and stones.
You would be doing more harm than good. The refinery in IS territory is operated by civilians against their will, immediately ruling it out for bombing by western forces. Bombing the roads into the refinery is also not a good option as the output from the refinery is sold locally and used by Syrian rebels and by civilians.
 

Jumeira

Banned
How long until the middle east is completely out of oil? Once they run out isn't the entire region screwed?

Or we can switch to sustainable methods and blow their precious oil fields to pieces. No money, no guns.

The US has quite a bit of oil to keep us afloat until we figure out a solution right?
ERM.. you want more reason for them to hate the west? Why would you blow up legitimate nations reserves, what right do we have to do that?

We should combat extremists if they attack us, but carpet bombing places because they're a concern to us isnt going to do anything but make things difficult for us.
 
I remember there was someone mentioning ISIS state building and then talking about how terrorism may kinda work as a rallying cry, but is entirely unhelpful at building a state. From ISIS's point of view, It's at best unsustainable and at worst actively undermining their ability to create a state.
 
Could this be the war that finally prompts the international community to focus on renewable energy and finally get off oil?
 

lazygecko

Member
People in power want to accumulate further power. It's as simple as that, and the same shit as always. They'll tell their underlings whatever they want to hear in order to legitimize their actions and prop up their image (much like how many of the "rebel" groups across Syria are really just petty criminals who extort communities for "protection").
 

Captain.Falafel

Neo Member
I remember there was someone mentioning ISIS state building and then talking about how terrorism may kinda work as a rallying cry, but is entirely unhelpful at building a state. From ISIS's point of view, It's at best unsustainable and at worst actively undermining their ability to create a state.

I think that's an important point. If you remove yourself from the day-to-day and look at it from the bigger picture, what is the sustainability of their strategy when nearly 50% of their revenue consists of 'consfiscations'? How does Daesh look 5 years from now? 10?
 

boiled goose

good with gravy
There can't be any ISIS if there isn't any oil. I wonder if someone ever thought of that.

You can't build states with sticks and stones.

There cant be ISIS if more developed countries weren't handing them weapons.
A primitive and oppressive culture cannot manufacture AK47s and Tanks.
 
Haven't they been funding the majority of their operations through robbing banks and collecting taxes from people in the areas they've taken? That's not a sustainable, long-term strategy. Oil is, but a few bombs could change that within a week.

And there's also the fact that they've blatantly shat in the faces of so many superpowers and still haven't been crushed, there's definitely room for some tinfoil hat conspiracies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom