I was reading on the BBC site a story about the finances of jihad, and how terror groups raise money and it made me think how quickly ISIS or Islamic State or whatever they call themselves have burst onto the scene and dominated the headlines.
When was the last time anyone heard al-Qaeda mentioned in the news? So I wondered where on earth did they come from?
Or is just a rebranding thing and in fact these terrorists turn out to be shrewd marketeers?
So did some digging and found a great article on the Political History of Islamic State.
I'll take the liberty of summarising the good bits and adding my own 5 pence worth, but it's well worth a read if your interested.
The Beginning of ISIS
So it started with a Jordanian bloke called Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Sounds like he was a bit of a ruthless bloke. Wanted to fight the Russians in Afghanistan but got there too late. Went home doing his jihad thing, playing the fringe circuit. Met Osama Bin Laden in '99 but decided not to join al-Qaeda.
After the West went into Iraq in 2003, he set up the Party of Monotheism and Jihad, which was the forerunner of IS. Interestingly his politics were similar to Bin Laden, but his tactics were to target Muslims, particularly Iraq’s majority Shia population who Bin Laden and Zarqawi considered heretics. Islam is pretty much divided between Shia's and Sunnis and responsible for plenty of tension and conflicts over the years.
Iraq was split between Shia's and Sunnis, but Sunnis were the ruling class under Saddam and Shias assumed power after his downfall.
Zarqawi and his band of Sunnis fed on general Sunni resentment of Shia power and started a campaign of suicide bombings across Iraq which was the insurgency we remember on the Telly after politicians told us the war was over.
Merging with then falling out with al-Qaeda
Building on his growing fame in jihadi circles, Zarqawi aligned his group with Bin Laden, rebranding as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
But (and this is where it gets bizarre), al-Qaeda bosses were unhappy with his tactics of targeting civilians and sent him a stern letter!
In 2006 his promoted himself, moving from commander to spiritual leader and began to subject everyone to the strictest interpretation of sharia law. If you argue, then off with your head.
Then the cavalry arrived in the shape of the US Airforce who bombed his hideout killing him, leaving the organisation leaderless and many AQI fighters melted away.
The West tries to Unite Shia and Sunni
The US Military strategy (and assume with co-coalition agreement) decided to capitalise. Any Iraqi Sunni/Shia tribesmen who were willing to fight AQI regardless of any previous loyalty (including anti West) were refereed to as "the sons of Iraq". They believed aligning themselves with the coalition would give them a share of power and contracts after the Troops from the West left.
In theory it sounded like a great plan to unite the communities, bring peace and let the troops leave.
But in reality the Iraqi PM, Nouri Al-Maliki a Shia, allegedly didn't agree with this and prominent positions were filled with Shia's from government to Police. Tensions grew again between Sunni and Shia communities allowing AQI to grow again.
Terrorist Militia to Semi Organised Army
In 2011 AQI was run by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a local Iraqi and most members were Iraqi. As coalition troops had now left, previous members of the "Sons of Iraq" now switched allegiance and joined AQI. This led to another rebrand, Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).
Baghdadi followed Zarqawi tactics of suicide bombers but became more brazen, attacking military buildings and checkpoints, as well as Shia civilians, or anyone else who got in the way.
By absorbing former enemies "the sons of Iraq", they had actually included lots of former Iraqi Army Commanders and troops who all got laid off after the Coalition toppled Saddam. A lot of these commanders had extensive experience of the 10 year Iran/Iraq conflict, plus more recent first hand experience of Western military capability.
So this allowed a military style organisation to develop.
So why Syria?
ISI now had a substantial Army and Syria was starting to slide into it's own secular civil war. Syrian President Assad is a Shia so Baghdadi decided to fight on 2 fronts, Iraq and Syria in a bid to gain territory for his fledgling Islamic State.
It makes Syria an odd situation as Assad is no friend of the West, but Baghdadi's troops appear to be more effective than Assads, meaning US Airpower is now needed to help fight off ISI and in affect prop up Assad.
Final Rebrand - Islamic State
Baghdadi has now renamed his group again to Islamic State (IS). His intention appears to be conquer the region and subject it to strict shia rule. Although his beef appears to be with the Shia community, the rest of us are lumped into the non believer group.
It seems local commanders can exercise there own jurisdiction for non believers, from taxing, forcibly converting to Islam or death.
Financing
With so much territory under it's belt, the BBC is reporting that IS now make $800 million a year in oil sales, tolls and taxes.
The Taliban seem to be good donors, of up to $400 million of drug sales. Then there is an unknown amount generated from kidnap, ransoms etc.
The Future?
Well in 12 months they have certainly burst onto the headlines, but as you can see they've actually been around a while.
We have the RAF and US Airforce providing air support in Iraq, and the US in Syria. The Kurds in Iraq seem to be the frontline ground forces while the rest of the world seems to struggle with how to respond.
After two recent bloody conflicts in the region, with a large loss of life, public anger and our military shown to be dangerously overstretched and ill equipped, the UK isn't over keen to commit. Plus with more military cuts on the horizon, it's difficult to see what else the UK will do other than token gestures?
This leaves the lion share of the problem to the UN or in reality the USA. But the complexities of MiddleEast politics and tribal differences normally escalate when Western Troops appear, so this leaves the Arab nations.
How likely I wonder will it be for a United Arab led and organised coalition to resolve the problem?
I think 2015 is going to be a turbulent and dangerous year for the MiddleEast, and maybe the rest of the world as IS continues to grow. Or maybe it will be a chance for Arab and Western Countries to unite under a common cause.
Sources:
qz.com - roots of evil
BBC.co.uk - Finances of jihad
