ISIS has been operating in both Syria and Iraq for a few years; however
they have shot to prominence in June 2014 due to its claim of having
established a Caliphate on territory constituted from both countries. Whilst
the Caliphate is a revered institution in both in Islamic scholarship as well
as the sentiment of the Muslim masses as cited by numerous polls, the claims of
ISIS have only found small pockets of support around the world.
A key discussion point has been the viability of the State declared by
ISIS, particularly focussing on the aspect of security. ISIS asserts that the hard
power of its authority as a Caliphate is derived from the bayah (pledge of allegiance)
sworn to it by the influential Sunni tribes in Iraq, giving it effective
control of the territories of these tribes and beyond. The Sunni tribes are
known to be significant players in the region, being pivotal in the Anbar
insurgency during the American occupation of Iraq and infamous for switching sides
from Al Qaeda to help the American effort to drive them out of their lands.
Concerns of vulnerability to attack by foreign powers are addressed by
drawing parallels with the historic Islamic State established in Medina in the
7th Century, when the Muslims received the support of only two key
tribes of the town. The great powers of the time were the Eastern Roman
(Byzantine) Empire and the Sassanid (Persian) Empire, which it is claimed that
if they were to have attacked the nascent Islamic State in Medina it would have
been destroyed. Are these claims based on solid reasoning?
There seems to be an implicit assumption that the Roman and Persian
empires themselves were in a reality where they were focused on the area in
which Medina existed, therefore able to influence the security of the region.
This is simply not the case, as they were both busy fighting each other
and left much of the Arabian Peninsula to their tribal allies to deal with.
Even this was so that the tribes maintained a buffer zone against their own
empires. We know this from documented history as well as from the Quran itself,
where in Surah Ar-Rum the ongoing battles between the Romans and Persians,
including the then impending Roman victory, is discussed.
Therefore the battles that the Islamic State in Medina took part in
during the early years were between powers of a similar order of magnitude,
rather than a couple of tribes against hundreds of thousands of men.
The region of Iraq today, as well as for much of the previous 25 years,
has directly been the focus of Western aggression through a hugely destructive
war, an almost decade long implementation of sanctions, followed by another
hugely destructive war, followed by an almost decade long occupation. After the
occupation itself has ended, America has left in place its political system as
well as a core security team in key areas such as Irbil and Baghdad, retaining
influence in the area.
The Sunni tribes, whilst having the ability to decide security on a
local level, are not able to do so in the context of modern states. In other words,
whilst they may be instrumental in deciding which group or tribe can exist in
the area, they do not possess the might to repel an attack by a foreign force
such as America by any stretch of the imagination to the extent that they can
guarantee security for an independent political vision.
This then leads one to question America's silence over ISIS's advance
in both Syria and the Sunni region of Iraq yet its immediate and strong
reaction to potential advances on the Kurdish areas as well as Baghdad.
Moreover, there is a well publicized school of thought within American
thinking which discusses the fragmentation of the Middle East and the breaking
of Sykes-Picot borders by America itself. In addition, the fact that ISIS can
suddenly capture a huge amount of wealth and American weaponry as well as the
entire city of Mosul, where no shot was fired, without the US batting so much
as an eyelid leads to further questions. Add in to this the horrific nature of
many of ISIS's "PR" releases which are highly sectarian in nature.
When viewed in this wider context ISIS not only are revealed to by far
short of attaining the capability of a secure state, their actions and deeds
are highly suspicious and curiously in line with overarching American
objectives for the region. The bonus of exploiting the deeply respected and
cherished institution of the Caliphate can only be a propaganda coup for those
that wish to see it buried in the books of history forever, given that the
apparent merciless nature of the treatment of non-Muslims and Muslims
disagreeing with ISIS would revolt the majority of the world, Muslim or
non-Muslim.
Muhammad Asim
Twitter: @AsimWriter
Published on 22nd August 2014 on Asia Times Online as ISIS: Caliphate or pretenders?
