Pangkalan udara Tabqa di Raqqa jatuh pada tanggal 24 Agustus ke pasukan ISIS, dengan Syria kehilangan ratusan tentara dalam pertempuran. Padahal pangkalan udara Tabqa tersebut sudah dilengkapi pertahanan yang kuat, ranjau darat dan kawat berduri serta dipertahankan dengan serangan udara dan roket balistik.

Beberapa bulan terakhir ini adalah bulan-bulan yang sangat sibuk untuk ISIS sejak deklarasi mereka tentang ‘Khilafah’ pada awal Juli 2014. ISIS telah berkembang di Irak, begitu banyak sehingga memaksa intervensi AS dalam rangka untuk menyelamatkan pemerintah pusat Irak. Sejak ISIS memasuki pemberontakan Suriah telah menjadi kelompok unggulan di sana, sementara di Irak pemerintah pusat Irak terpaksa mengakui Utara–Barat dari negara ke ISIS setelah gagal untuk menghentikan mereka. Satu komentator menggambarkan ISIS sebagai berikut: “ISIS telah mengambil alih dari al–Qaida sebagai kelompok Jihad ekstrim yang paling kuat dan efektif di dunia. Sekarang kontrol atau dapat beroperasi dengan impunitas di bentangan besar wilayah di Irak barat dan timur Suriah, sehingga militer gerakan Jihad paling sukses yang pernah. “[1] Ada banyak alasan mengapa ISIS telah berhasil memperluas dan mendominasi kedua Irak dan Suriah. Berikut ini adalah empat alasan utama merinci keberhasilan mereka.

Pertama, ISIS beroperasi sebagai kekuatan pemberontak yang telah memberikan keuntungan dari mobilitas karena tidak membutuhkan bergerak alat berat seperti truk, artileri dan perlengkapan lainnya. Sebuah tentara konvensional memiliki infrastruktur yang lebih rentan yang dapat ditargetkan dengan hasil yang menghancurkan oleh suatu kekuatan pemberontak. Ini adalah sesuatu Taliban berhasil dimanfaatkan melawan invasi Soviet ke Afghanistan. ISIS telah mengandalkan terutama pada truk pick–up yang dilengkapi dengan senjata berat dan menengah untuk melakukan serangan cepat dan mengatasi manuver pasukan musuh berat. Dalam Zumar, salah satu kota disita 3 Agustus, ISIS menggunakan kendaraan ini untuk mengelilingi, menyerang dan membanjiri membela pejuang Kurdi Peshmerga dari berbagai arah. Pasukan ISIS pertempuran mengeras pejuang dengan lebih dari satu dekade pengalaman dalam menghadapi melawan pasukan AS, ini telah memberi mereka kemampuan taktis dalam melakukan razia terhadap pasukan konvensional jauh lebih besar dan mampu. ISIS sekarang menjadi kekuatan cairan dilatih dan diuji mahir dalam manuver infanteri perang ringan, dengan kemampuan untuk secara efektif melaksanakan pemberontakan dan terorisme operasi.

Kedua, ISIS dan pendahulunya al–Qaeda di Irak (AQI) telah berperang selama lebih dari satu dekade dan semua orang yang telah berjuang melawan mereka telah mencatat motivasi jajaran organisasi. Seperti yang dicatat oleh lembaga Brookings: “Hal ini terutama penting mengingat tempur infanteri, dan perang sipil di mana pelatihan, kepemimpinan dan keterampilan militer lainnya sering dalam pasokan pendek. Dalam jenis-jenis perkelahian, moral yang lebih tinggi sering dapat membuktikan menentukan. Pejuang ISIS tampak sangat berkomitmen untuk tujuan mereka, mereka tampil percaya diri dalam kemampuan mereka, dan sebagian untuk alasan tersebut, sering mengintimidasi musuh-musuh mereka. Itu satu set sama berwujud yang memungkinkan Taliban untuk menyerbu Afghanistan pada tahun 1994 dan dengan mudah menghancurkan sebagian besar milisi Afghanistan yang telah melancarkan perang saudara mereka sendiri terlebih dahulu. “[2] Memotivasi tentara atau kelompok untuk menghadapi kesulitan dan perjuangan untuk waktu yang lama tanpa mengalami kelelahan perang adalah perjuangan setiap pakaian konvensional dan tidak konvensional menderita. Dalam kasus ISIS konsep Islam Jihad, kebenaran vs kepalsuan dan membebaskan negeri-negeri Muslim dari penjajahan non–Muslim telah memainkan peran sentral dalam memotivasi pasukan. Akibatnya anggota ISIS telah berjuang pertempuran ganas meskipun mereka telah kalah jumlah dan persenjataan, mereka telah menang karena nilai-nilai Islam.

Ketiga, pusat keberhasilan ISIS telah struktur yang mengatur, rencana, mengelola dan memelihara direncanakan transisi organisasi dari kelompok pemberontak kepada pemerintah dalam menunggu. Kelompok ini telah membangun struktur manajemen yang efektif dari sebagian besar setengah baya warga Irak, termasuk banyak perwira militer di bawah Saddam Hussein, mengawasi departemen keuangan, lengan, pemerintahan lokal, operasi militer dan perekrutan. Di bagian atas organisasi adalah Abu Bakr al–Baghdadi yang dipilih sendiri banyak wakilnya dari antara orang-orang ia bertemu sementara tahanan dalam tahanan AS di pusat penahanan Camp Bucca. Sebagian besar tim kepemimpinannya termasuk petugas dari militer Saddam lama dibubarkan. Mereka termasuk mantan perwira Irak seperti Fadel al–Hayali, wakil utama bagi Irak, yang pernah menjabat Saddam sebagai letnan kolonel, dan Adnan al–Sweidawi, mantan letnan kolonel yang sekarang memimpin dewan militer kelompok. Deputi Al–Baghdadi termasuk 12 wali, atau penguasa lokal; Kabinet perang tiga orang; dan delapan orang lain yang mengelola portofolio seperti keuangan, tahanan dan rekrutmen. Kegiatan usaha yang dilakukan oleh jaringan komandan daerah yang memiliki bawahan mereka sendiri dan tingkat otonomi, tetapi mereka telah menetapkan “Penurunan kali” ketika mereka membuka jaringan bersama untuk mengkoordinasikan.

Keempat, ISIS Khilafah sudah termasuk metode eksklusif pemerintahan. ISIS mempertahankan kontrol sosial dengan menghilangkan semua hambatan. Banyak laporan yang keluar dari Mosul dan di Suriah adalah perbedaan pendapat yang ditangani melalui hukuman, termasuk kematian. Abu Bakr al–Baghdadi mengatakan hal berikut tentang Syiah: “Al-Qaeda ingin menjalin hubungan dengan Syiah. Mereka berpikir kaum Syiah adalah saudara mereka meskipun mereka membuat takfir pada semua sahabat dan mereka percaya Quran rusak. Namun Al-Qaeda ingin menjalin hubungan dengan mereka. Ketika Isis mengambil kota baik Anda meninggalkan shism atau mati. Isis tidak bisa mengambil jizyah dari mereka. Mereka adalah agama yang baru diciptakan sehingga tidak ada jizyah dapat diambil dari mereka. “[3] Menerapkan Islam mencakup pemahaman mereka tentang keyakinan dan sebagai hasilnya banyak telah dituduh murtad untuk mengambil posisi yang berbeda dengan mereka. Berdasarkan hal ini, pengadilan telah diatur dan setiap penentangan terhadap kekuasaan ISIS atau vonis telah dilihat sebagai pemberontakan dan telah melihat individu dan kelompok dihukum dengan eksekusi. Dalam jangka pendek strategi ini memungkinkan ISIS untuk mengambil alih suatu daerah dan membawa tingkat stabilitas melalui ketakutan, namun ini adalah resep untuk bencana dalam jangka panjang sebagai penduduk biasanya memberontak terhadap taktik tersebut akhirnya. Ini adalah bagaimana al–Qaeda dikalahkan di Irak pada tahun 2005.

ISIS seperti banyak kelompok sebelum mereka telah beradaptasi dengan lanskap militer dan politik dan melembagakan perubahan dalam organisasi sendiri sebagai perkembangan telah mengambil bentuk. ISIS telah berhasil di Irak karena telah memanfaatkan taktik gerilya, hit and run taktik, dan terus pasukan keamanan Irak tersebar dan di bawah tekanan. ISIS daerah di mana pasukan keamanan yang lemah dan menarik diri dari menghadapi–off melawan pasukan keamanan di daerah di mana mereka terkonsentrasi dan memegang kekuasaan api superior ditargetkan. Namun, banyak dari kekuatan ini dapat dengan mudah menjadi kelemahan. Semakin banyak wilayah ISIS menangkap lebih akan kewalahan. Hal ini juga perlu untuk melaksanakan tugas-tugas pemerintahan dan menjamin kebutuhan dasar dari orang-orang dalam wilayahnya terpenuhi. Untuk saat ini ISIS telah menggunakan langkah-langkah kejam untuk mempertahankan kohesi sosial dan telah menciptakan lebih banyak konflik daripada dapat menangani dengan semua kelompok pemberontak lainnya. Hal ini juga telah menarik murka AS, yang terus melakukan serangan udara, sesuatu ISIS tidak memiliki jawaban untuk. Sebagian besar keberhasilan strategis ISIS telah karena lemahnya rezim Irak, rezim Suriah serta Kurdi Peshmerga. Ini harus, bagaimanapun, sekarang menghadapi–off di berbagai bidang terhadap beberapa musuh.

Sumber:

• http://www.revolutionobserver.com/2014/09/isiss-strategic-success.html
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/11/security-collapse-mosul-iraq-nouri-al-maliki-responsibility
• http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/08/11-pollack-isis-offensive-against-iraq-kurds
• http://authentictauheed3.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/q-and-a.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Tabqa_Air_base

 

Amerika Serikat secara resmi sudah menyatakan dalam keadaan perang terhadap IS (Islamic State) seperti terhadap Al Qaeda.

====

AS telah menyatakan bahwa ia sedang berperang dengan kelompok Negara Islam, sehari setelah Barack Obama mengatakan serangan terhadap pejuang akan memperpanjang ke Suriah.

Komentar oleh Pentagon dan Gedung Putih pejabat pada hari Jumat datang sebagai presiden AS ditekan untuk membersihkan keraguan tentang bagaimana ia melihat konflik dengan kelompok bersenjata, juga dikenal sebagai Isil.

“Amerika Serikat sedang berperang dengan Isil dengan cara yang sama bahwa kita berperang dengan al-Qaeda,” kata Josh Earnest, juru bicara Gedung Putih.

John Kirby, juru bicara departemen pertahanan, menggemakan pernyataan Earnest ini: “Kita tahu kita berperang dengan Isil,” katanya.

Komentar itu muncul sehari setelah menteri luar negeri AS, John Kerry, tampaknya enggan untuk menggunakan istilah tersebut.

“Saya pikir ‘perang’ adalah istilah yang salah dan analogi tetapi kenyataannya adalah bahwa kita terlibat dalam upaya global yang sangat signifikan untuk mengekang kegiatan teroris,” katanya.

Kerry pada hari Jumat ke Turki untuk membahas koalisi yang luas untuk melawan kelompok Negara Islam di Suriah. Namun, ketika ditanya, ia mengesampingkan keterlibatan Iran sebagai tidak patut karena dukungan untuk rezim Bashar al-Assad.

Ia mengatakan ada “sejumlah alasan” mengapa Iran tidak harus bergabung dengan konferensi Paris pada hari Senin untuk membahas strategi koalisi.

“Dalam keadaan, pada saat ini dalam waktu, itu akan tidak tepat untuk sejumlah alasan. Ini tidak akan tepat mengingat banyak isu lain yang berada di meja di Suriah dan di tempat lain,” katanya di Ankara.

Kerry mengatakan ia tidak secara resmi diminta untuk mendiskusikan “kehadiran Iran” di Paris.

Iran tidak pernah ditawarkan untuk bergabung dalam koalisi melawan Isil di Suriah, menggambarkannya sebagai “diselimuti ambiguitas serius”. Ia telah mengirim tentara ke Irak atas permintaan pemerintah Irak untuk memerangi Isil ada.

Amerika Serikat mengatakan tidak bekerja sama militer dengan Iran dalam operasi di Irak.

Iran diyakini telah mengirim pasukan untuk mendukung rezim Suriah yang dipimpin oleh Alawi, sekte Syiah.

AS mendukung pemerintah Irak namun menentang rezim Suriah, dan peran Iran dalam perang saudara.

Kerry memenangkan dukungan pada Kamis untuk “kampanye militer terkoordinasi” terhadap Isil dari 10 negara Arab – Mesir, Irak, Yordania, Lebanon dan enam negara-negara Teluk termasuk Arab Saudi dan Qatar.

Ankara telah menolak untuk mengizinkan AS untuk menggunakan pangkalan udara utama di Turki untuk melancarkan serangan di tanah Suriah.
===
The US has declared that it is at war with the Islamic State group, a day after Barack Obama said strikes against the fighters would extend into Syria.

The comments by Pentagon and White House officials on Friday came as the US president was pressed to clear up doubts about how he saw the conflict with the armed group, also known as ISIL.

“The United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al-Qaeda,” said Josh Earnest, a spokesman for the White House.

John Kirby, a spokesman for the defence department, echoed Earnest’s remarks: “We know we are at war with ISIL,” he said.

The comments came a day after US secretary of state, John Kerry, appeared to be reluctant to use the term.

“I think ‘war’ is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity,”  he said.

Kerry on Friday travelled to Turkey to discuss a broad coalition to counter the Islamic State group in Syria. However, when asked, he ruled out Iranian involvement as inappropriate due to its support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad.

He said there were “any number of reasons” why Iran should not join a Paris conference on Monday to discuss coalition strategy.

“Under the circumstances, at this moment in time, it would not be right for any number of reasons. It would not be appropriate given the many other issues that are on the table in Syria and elsewhere,” he said in Ankara.

Kerry said he had not formally been asked to discuss “the presence of Iran” in Paris.

Iran has never offered to join the coalition against ISIL in Syria, describing it as “shrouded in serious ambiguities”. It has sent soldiers to Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government to combat ISIL there.

The US says it is not cooperating militarily with Iran in operations in Iraq.

Iran is believed to have sent troops to support the Syrian regime led by Alawites, a Shia sect.

The US backs the Iraqi government but is opposed to the Syrian regime, and Iran’s role in the civil war.

Kerry won backing on Thursday for a “coordinated military campaign” against ISIL from 10 Arab countries – Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and six Gulf states including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Ankara has refused to allow the US to use its main airbase in Turkey to launch attacks on Syrian soil.

Sumber:

• http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/us-are-at-war-with-islamic-state-group-201491323051540963.html

AS telah menekan Turki untuk mendukung aksi militer terhadap kelompok Negara Islam di Irak dan Suriah, sehari setelah Ankara mengatakan tidak akan mengizinkan pangkalan udara yang akan digunakan untuk operasi tempur.

AS Menteri Luar Negeri, John Kerry, tiba di ibukota Turki pada Jumat untuk melakukan pembicaraan dengan Presiden Recep Tayyip Erdogan dan Menlu Mevlut Cavusoglu, untuk memenangkan dukungan untuk operasi bersenjata.

Setelah pertemuan dua jam antara Erdogan dan Kerry, kantor presiden mengatakan: “Kedua negara akan terus berjuang melawan organisasi teroris di daerah.”

Turki akan terus berbagi intelijen AS, memberikan dukungan logistik kepada kelompok oposisi Suriah dan bantuan kemanusiaan untuk korban perang, pernyataan tersebut menambahkan.

Para pejabat AS mengecilkan harapan membujuk Ankara untuk mengambil peran militer yang signifikan, mengatakan pembicaraan akan fokus pada isu-isu termasuk upaya Turki untuk membendung aliran pejuang asing melintasi perbatasan dan perannya dalam memberikan bantuan kemanusiaan.

Turki sejauh mencolok dihindari melakukan rencana Barack Obama untuk menyerang daerah-daerah yang diselenggarakan oleh kelompok Negara Islam, juga dikenal sebagai Isil, di Suriah dan Irak.

Isil diculik 49 Turki, termasuk beberapa diplomat dari konsulat Turki, di Mosul pada bulan Juni.

Al Jazeera Bernard Smith, melaporkan dari Istanbul, Turki mengatakan mengesampingkan koalisi AS menggunakan pangkalan udara Incirlik atas kekhawatiran pembalasan oleh Isil terhadap para sandera.

Kunjungan Kerry datang sehari setelah 10 negara Arab, termasuk Arab Saudi, sepakat rally setelah AS dalam perang melawan Isil.

Arab Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UEA, Mesir, Irak, Yordania dan Libanon areparties kesepakatan.

Pertarungan bertujuan untuk menghentikan rekrutmen, pembiayaan dan tindak kekerasan oleh kelompok.

Hal ini juga akan mencakup bantuan kemanusiaan, dan Amerika Serikat telah menjanjikan $ 500 juta tambahan untuk korban konflik Suriah.

Juga pada hari Jumat, Presiden Prancis Francois Hollande mengatakan keputusannya untuk memasok senjata kepada pemerintah otonomi Kurdi sangat menentukan dalam perang melawan IS di Irak.

===

The US has pressed Turkey to support military action against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, a day after Ankara said it would not allow its air bases to be used for combat operations.

The US secretary of state, John Kerry, arrived in the Turkish capital on Friday for talks with president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, to win support for armed operations.

After a two-hour meeting between Erdogan and Kerry, the president’s office said: “The two countries will continue to fight against the terrorist organisations in the regions.”

Turkey will continue to share intelligence the US, give logistical support to Syrian opposition groups and humanitarian aid to victims of the war, the statement added.

US officials played down hopes of persuading Ankara to take a significant military role, saying the talks would focus on issues including Turkey’s efforts to stem the flow of foreign fighters crossing its border and its role in providing humanitarian assistance.

Turkey has so far conspicuously avoided committing to Barack Obama’s plan to strike areas held by the Islamic State group, also known as ISIL, in Syria and Iraq.

ISIL kidnapped 49 Turks, including some diplomats from the Turkish consulate, in Mosul in June.

Al Jazeera’s Bernard Smith, reporting from Istanbul, said Turkey ruled out the US coalition using the Incirlik airbase over fears of retaliation by ISIL against the hostages.

Kerry’s visit comes a day after 10 Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, agreed to rally behind the US in the fight against ISIL.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, the UAE, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon areparties to the agreement.

The fight aim to stop recruitment, financing and violent acts by the group.

It would also include humanitarian relief, and the US has pledged an additional $500m for victims of the Syria conflict.

Also on Friday, French president Francois Hollande said his decision to supply arms to the autonomous Kurdish government was decisive in the fight against IS in Iraq.

Sumber:

• http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/us-urges-turkey-support-fight-against-islamic-state-2014912164751955482.html
• http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know

US Department of State (Kementrian Luar Negeri Amerika Serikat) mempublikasikan video yang bertujuan untuk menangkal IS/ISIS, terutama bagi kaum muslim di Amerika. Dalam video itu ditunjukkan gambar-gambar yang menampakkan kekerasan yang dilakukan ISIS. Tentu saja ada yang mempertanyakan apakah video ini justru menjadi promosi gratis bagi ISIS.

 

Sumber: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/05/world/state-department-anti-isis-video/index.html

Pertemuan para menteri luar negeri Arab di Kairo untuk pertemuan Liga Arab telah bersumpah untuk mengambil semua langkah yang diperlukan untuk memerangi kelompok Negara Islam sementara setuju untuk bekerja sama dengan semua upaya internasional dan regional.

“Apa yang dibutuhkan adalah keputusan yang jelas untuk konfrontasi yang komprehensif, militer dan politik,” kata Ketua Liga Arab Nabil el–Araby, pada hari Minggu.

Liga Arab juga mendukung resolusi Dewan Keamanan PBB mengeluarkan bulan lalu menyerukan negara anggota untuk “bertindak untuk menekan aliran pejuang asing, pembiayaan dan dukungan lain kepada kelompok ekstremis Islam di Irak dan Suriah“.

El–Araby mengkritik pertikaian antara negara-negara Arab yang katanya telah menyebabkan lambatnya reaksi oleh Liga 22–anggota.

“Sementara beberapa negara Arab keberatan membiarkan Liga Arab untuk campur tangan dalam krisis internal mereka, pintu dibuka untuk intervensi asing, termasuk militer,” katanya.

El–Araby juga menyerukan aktivasi perjanjian pertahanan Arab untuk memungkinkan aksi militer bila diperlukan, karena ia menyarankan bahwa aksi militer bisa berlangsung di bawah payung sebuah pakta pertahanan bersama Liga Arab.

Beberapa menteri luar negeri berbicara tentang besarnya masalah yang ditimbulkan oleh Negara Islam/Islamic State di Irak serta kekerasan  yang melanda Libya dan wilayah lainnya.

Presiden Palestina Mahmoud Abbas juga menyatakan keprihatinannya tentang masalah ini dengan mengatakan ancaman terorisme lokal dan regional negara Arab dan Islam menghadapi harus diatasi.

Presiden Barack Obama menyerukan negara-negara Arab pekan lalu untuk mempertimbangkan aksi militer dan mendukung Muslim Sunni moderat  di Irak dan Suriah sebagai metode dalam menangani IS.

Jet tempur AS terus serangan udara mereka pada pejuang Negara Islam di Irak barat awal pada hari Minggu dalam memperluas kampanye mereka melawan kelompok bersenjata.

Anggota Liga Arab saat ini adalah sebagai berikut:

• Mesir – 22 Maret 1945 (pendiri) (keanggotaannya pernah dihentikan pada tahun 1979-1989)
• Irak – 22 Maret 1945 (pendiri)
• Yordania – 22 Maret 1945 (pendiri) (saat bergabung masih bernama “Transyordania“)
• Lebanon – 22 Maret 1945 (pendiri)
• Arab Saudi – 22 Maret 1945 (pendiri)
• Suriah – 22 Maret 1945 (pendiri)
• Yaman – 5 Mei 1945 (pendiri)
• Libya – 28 Maret 1953
• Sudan – 19 Januari 1956
• Maroko – 1 Oktober 1958
• Tunisia – 1 Oktober 1958
• Kuwait – 20 Juli 1961
• Aljazair – 16 Agustus 1962
• Uni Emirat Arab – 12 Juni 1971
• Bahrain – 11 September 1971
• Qatar – 11 September 1971
• Oman – 29 September 1971
• Mauritania – 26 November 1973
• Somalia – 14 Februari 1974
• Palestina – menggantikan posisi yang dipegang PLO sejak 9 September 1976
• Djibouti – 9 April 1977
• Komoro – 20 November 1993

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/09/arab-league-islamic-state-201497164726900705.html

http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liga_Arab

Beberapa hari lalu ada yang membuat video yang mencoba menjelaskan asal-usul ISIS, yan dimulai dari krisis di Libya. Videonya dapat dilihat di bawah ini, sedangkan teksnya dapat dibaca di http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis

Artikel berikut ini adalah terjemahan bebas dari video dan teks tersebut.

Pada tahun 2011 pemerintah Amerika secara terang-terangan berperan aktif di Libya, di antaranya:

• dinas rahasia Amerika CIA membantu pemberontak Libya untuk menggulingkan Gaddafi.
• Pemerintah Amerika melakukan serangan udara terhadap pemerintah Libya.

Namun jarang disebut siapakah pemberontak Libya yang didukung oleh Amerika tersebut. Ternyata  pemberontak di Libya itu terdiri dari berbagai kelompok, termasuk di antaranya adalah militan Al-Qaeda yang pernah bertempur melawan Amerika di Irak. Jadi militan Al-Qaeda ini di Irak diperangi , di Libya malah didukung.

Sebelum pemberontakan dan intervensi Amerika dan NATO, Libya adalah negara paling makmur di Afrika. Ref: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Libya_under_Muammar_Gaddafi#mediaviewer/File:UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG)

Saat ini keadaan di Libya tambah kacau, beberapa waktu lalu lapangan terbang di Tripoli sampai dikuasai pemberontak. Tenaga kerja asing di Libya pun sampai diculik dan dibunuh.

Setelah pemerintahan Gaddafi ditumbangkan, gudang senjata di Libya dijarah, dan persenjataan dalam jumlah besar dikirim oleh pemberontak Libya ke Syria melalui Turki.

Situs “The Times of London” memberitakan tentang  tibanya kiriman senjata pada tanggal 14 September 2012. (Konfirmasi berita itu di situs New York Times).

Terungkapnya pengiriman senjata ini terjadi hanya 3 hari sejak terbunuhnya dutabesar Amerika, Chris Stevens di kedutaan Amerika di Benghazi. Chris Stevens telah bertindak sebagai perwakilan pemerintah Amerika ke pemberontak Libya  sejak bulan  April 2011.

Jurnalis Seymour Hersh mengeluarkan sebuah artikel pada bulan April of 2014  yang menyatakan ada perjanjian rahasia antara CIA, Turki dan pemberontak Syria untuk membuat “rat line” atau “jalur tikus”. Jalur tikus ini adalah jaringan rahasia untuk mengirimkan senjata dan amunisi dari Libia ke Syria melalui Turki dan perbatasan Syria. Pendanaan disediakan oleh Turki, Arab Saudi dan Qatar.

Dengan terbunuhnya Chris Stevens maka  keterlibatan pemerintah Amerika pada pengiriman senjata tersebut terhapus.

Pada saat yang bersamaan, pejuang dari Libya mulai membanjiri Syria. Bukan saja pejuang biasa, namun banyak dari mereka adalah komandan berpengalaman.

AS dan sekutunya kini sepenuhnya fokus pada menumbangkan pemerintah Assad di Suriah. Seperti di Libya perubahan rezim ini  dibingkai dalam kerangka hak asasi manusia, dan dukungan terbuka mulai melengkapi dukungan di belakang layar. Kehadiran pasukan jihad ditutup-tutupi.

Namun sejak pasukan pemberontak mendapatkan kekuatan, laporan kejahatan perang dan kekejaman yang mereka lakukan mulai membuat  masalah humas/public relations bagi Amerika. Akhirnya menjadi kebijakan standar di mana AS menyatakan dukungan AS hanya diberikan kepada yang disebut sebagai pasukan pemberontak “moderat”.

Perbedaan ini, bagaimanapun, kenyataannya tidak berdasar.

Dalam sebuah wawancara yang diberikan pada April 2014, komandan FSA (Free Syrian Army) Jamal Maarouf mengakui bahwa para pejuang FSA secara teratur melakukan operasi gabungan dengan Al-Nusra. Al-Nusra adalah cabang Al-Qaeda resmi di Suriah. Pernyataan ini selanjutnya divalidasi oleh sebuah wawancara yang diberikan pada bulan Juni 2013 oleh Kolonel Abdel Basset Al-Tawil, komandan FSA Front Utara. Dalam wawancara ini ia secara terbuka membahas hubungan dengan Al-Nusra, dan mengungkapkan keinginannya untuk melihat Suriah diperintah oleh hukum syariah. (Identitas kedua komandan dapat diverifikasi dari dokumen resmi dari The Institute of the Study of War)

Pemberontak moderat? Agak rumit memang.  Reuters melaporkan pada tahun 2012 bahwa kepemimpinan FSA didominasi oleh ekstrimis Islam, dan New York Times melaporkan sebagian besar senjata yang dikirim oleh AS akhirnya sampai di tangan para militan. Selama dua tahun pemerintah AS tahu bahwa hal ini terjadi, namun pemerintah AS tetap melakukannya.

Dan hubungan FSA antara Al-Nusra hanyalah awalnya. Pada bulan Juni 2014 Al-Nusra bergabung dengan ISIS di perbatasan antara Irak dan Suriah.

Jadi menegaskan: FSA bekerja sama dengan Al-Nusra, Al-Nusra bekerja sama dengan ISIS, dan Amerika Serikat telah mengirim uang dan senjata kepada FSA meskipun mereka telah tahu sejak 2012 bahwa sebagian besar senjata-senjata tersebut akhirnya sampai di tangan ekstremis.

[UPDATE 9.03.14]: Pensiunan Letnan Jenderal Tom McInerney mengakui: “Kami Membantu Membangun ISIS”:
===

[UPDATE 9.03.14]: Retired Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney admits: “We Helped Build ISIS”:

Link ke video:

• http://dai.ly/x2568h5
• https://s3.amazonaws.com/scg_site_files/Gen-Mcinenery-We-Built-ISIS-Short-Version.mp4
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8kKCCnOm1Y

Syria, we backed I believe, in some cases some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) that’s a little confusing to people. So I’ve always maintained, and go back quite some time that we were backing the wrong types. I think it’s going to turn out maybe this weekend in a new special that Brett Baer is going to have Friday that’s gonna show some of those weapons from Benghazi ended up in the hands of ISIS. So we helped build ISIS.

In that context, the sarin gas attacks of 2013 which turned out to have been committed by the Syrian rebels, makes a lot more sense doesn’t it? If it wasn’t enough that U.N. investigators, Russian investigators, and Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh all pinned that crime on Washington’s proxies, the rebels themselves threatened the West that they would expose what really happened if they were not given more advanced weaponry within one month.

By the way, this also explains why Washington then decided to target Russia next.

This threat was made on June 10th, 2013. In what can only be described as an amazing coincidence, just nine days later, the rebels received their first official shipment of heavy weapons in Aleppo.

After the second sarin gas fiasco, which was also exposed and therefore failed to garner public support for airstrikes, the U.S. continued to increase its the training and support for the rebels.

In February of 2014, Haaretz reported that the U.S. and its allies in the region, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel, were in the process of helping the Syrian rebels plan and prepare for a massive attack in the south. According to Haaretz Israel had also provided direct assistance in military operations against Assad four months prior (you can access a free cached version of the page here).

Then in May of 2014 PBS ran a report in which they interviewed rebels who were trained by the U.S. in Qatar. According to those rebels they were being trained to finish off soldiers who survived attacks.

“They trained us to ambush regime or enemy vehicles and cut off the road,” said the fighter, who is identified only as “Hussein.” “They also trained us on how to attack a vehicle, raid it, retrieve information or weapons and munitions, and how to finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.”

This is a blatant violation of the Geneva conventions. It also runs contrary to conventional military strategy. In conventional military strategy soldiers are better off left wounded, because this ends up costing the enemy more resources. Executing captured enemy soldiers is the kind of tactic used when you want to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy. It also just happens to be standard operating procedure for ISIS.

One month after this report, in June of 2014, ISIS made its dramatic entry, crossing over the Syrian border into Iraq, capturing Mosul, Baiji and almost reaching Baghdad. The internet was suddenly flooded with footage of drive by shootings, large scale death marches, and mass graves. And of course any Iraqi soldier that was captured was executed.

Massive quantities of American military equipment were seized during that operation. ISIS took entire truckloads of humvees, they took helicopters, tanks, and artillery. They photographed and video taped themselves and advertised what they were doing on social media, and yet for some reason Washington didn’t even TRY to stop them.

U.S. military doctrine clearly calls for the destruction of military equipment and supplies when friendly forces cannot prevent them from falling into enemy hands, but that didn’t happen here. ISIS was allowed to carry this equipment out of Iraq and into Syria unimpeded. The U.S. military had the means to strike these convoys, but they didn’t lift a finger, even though they had been launching drone strikes in Pakistan that same week.

Why would they do that?

Though Obama plays the role of a weak, indecisive, liberal president, and while pundits from the right have had a lot of fun with that image, this is just a facade. Some presidents, like George W. Bush, rely primarily on overt military aggression. Obama gets the same job done, but he prefers covert means. Not really surprising considering the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski was his mentor.

Those who know their history will remember that Zbigniew Brzezinski was directly involved in the funding and arming the Islamic extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to weaken the Soviets.

By the way Osama bin Laden was one of these anti-Soviet “freedom fighters” the U.S. was funding and arming.

This operation is no secret at this point, nor are the unintended side effects.

Officially the U.S. government’s arming and funding of the Mujahideen was a response to the Soviet invasion in December of 1979, however in his memoir entitled “From the Shadows” Robert Gates, director of the CIA under Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior, and Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, revealed that the U.S. actually began the covert operation 6 months prior, with the express intention of luring the Soviets into a quagmire. (You can preview the relevant text here on google books)

The strategy worked. The Soviets invaded, and the ten years of war that followed are considered by many historians as being one of the primary causes of the fall of the USSR.

This example doesn’t just establish precedent, what we’re seeing happen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria right now is actually a continuation of a old story. Al-Nusra and ISIS are ideological and organizational decedents of these extremist elements that the U.S. government made use of thirty years ago.

The U.S. the went on to create a breeding ground for these extremists by invading Iraq in 2003. Had it not been for the vacuum of power left by the removal and execution of Saddam, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, aka ISIS, would not exist. And had it not been for Washington’s attempt at toppling Assad by arming, funding and training shadowy militant groups in Syria, there is no way that ISIS would have been capable of storming into Iraq in June of 2014.

On every level, no matter how you cut it, ISIS is a product of U.S. government’s twisted and decrepit foreign policy.

Now all of this may seem contradictory to you as you watch the drums of war against ISIS begin to beat louder and the air strikes against them are gradually widened http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/president-obama-considers-possible-…). Why would the U.S. help a terrorist organization get established, only to attack them later?

Well why did the CIA put Saddam Hussein in power in 1963?, Why did the U.S. government back Saddam in 1980 when he launched a war of aggression against Iran, even though they knew that he was using chemical weapons? Why did the U.S. fund and arm Islamic extremists in Afghanistan against the Soviets?

There’s a pattern here if you look closely. This is a tried and true geopolitical strategy.

Step 1: Build up a dictator or extremist group which can then be used to wage proxy wars against opponents. During this stage any crimes committed by these proxies are swept under the rug. [Problem]

Step 2: When these nasty characters have outlived their usefulness, that’s when it’s time to pull out all that dirt from under the rug and start publicizing it 24/7. This obviously works best when the public has no idea how these bad guys came to power.[Reaction]

Step 3: Finally, when the public practically begging for the government to do something, a solution is proposed. Usually the solution involves military intervention, the loss of certain liberties, or both. [Solution]

ISIS is extremely useful. They have essentially done Washington dirty work by weakening Assad. In 2014, while the news cycle has focused almost exclusively on Ukraine and Russia, ISIS made major headway in Syria, and as of August they already controlled 35% of the country.

Since ISIS largely based in Syria, this gives the U.S. a pretext to move into Syria. Sooner or later the U.S. will extend the airstrikes into Assad’s backyard, and when they do U.S. officials are already making it clear that both ISIS and the Syrian government will be targeted. That, after all, is the whole point. Washington may allow ISIS to capture a bit more territory first, but the writing is on the wall, and has been for some time now.

The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted that this will never lead to boots on the ground, however, the truth of the matter is that anyone who understands anything about military tactics knows full well that ISIS cannot be defeated by airstrikes alone. In response to airstrikes ISIS will merely disperse and conceal their forces. ISIS isn’t an established state power which can be destroyed by knocking out key government buildings and infrastructure. These are guerrilla fighters who cut their teeth in urban warfare.

To significantly weaken them, the war will have to involve ground troops, but even this is a lost cause. U.S. troops could certainly route ISIS in street to street battles for some time, and they might even succeed in fully occupying Syria and Iraq for a number of years, but eventually they will have to leave, and when they do, it should be obvious what will come next.

The puppets that the U.S. government has installed in the various countries that they have brought down in recent years have without exception proven to be utterly incompetent and corrupt. No one that Washington places in power will be capable of maintaining stability in Syria. Period.

Right now, Assad is the last bastion of stability in the region. He is the last chance they have for a moderate non-sectarian government and he is the only hope of anything even remotely resembling democracy for the foreseeable future. If Assad falls, Islamic extremist will take the helm, they will impose shari’ah law, and they will do everything in their power to continue spreading their ideology as far and wide as they can.

If the world truly wants to stop ISIS, there is only one way to do it:

1. First and foremost, the U.S. government and its allies must be heavily pressured to cut all support to the rebels who are attempting to topple Assad. Even if these rebels that the U.S. is arming and funding were moderate, and they’re not, the fact that they are forcing Assad to fight a war on multiple fronts, only strengthens ISIS. This is lunacy.

2. The Syrian government should be provided with financial support, equipment, training and intelligence to enable them to turn the tide against ISIS. This is their territory, they should be the ones to reclaim it.

Now obviously this support isn’t going to come from the U.S. or any NATO country, but there are a number of nations who have a strategic interest in preventing another regime change and chaotic aftermath. If these countries respond promptly, as in right now, they could preempt a U.S. intervention, and as long this support does not include the presence of foreign troops, doing so will greatly reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation down the road.

3. The U.S. government and its allies should should be aggressively condemned for their failed regime change policies and the individuals behind these decisions should be charged for war crimes. This would have to be done on an nation by nation level since the U.N. has done nothing but enable NATO aggression. While this may not immediately result in these criminals being arrested, it would send a message. This can be done. Malaysia has already proven this by convicting the Bush administration of war crimes in abstentia.

Now you might be thinking: “This all sounds fine and good, but what does this have to do with me? I can’t influence this situation.”

That perspective is quite common, and for most people, it’s paralyzing, but the truth of the matter is that we can influence this. We’ve done it before, and we can do it again.

I’ll be honest with you though, this isn’t going to be easy. To succeed we have to start thinking strategically. Like it or not, this is a chess game. If we really want to rock the boat, we have to start reaching out to people in positions of influence. This can mean talking to broadcasters at your local radio station, news paper, or t.v. station, or it can mean contacting influential bloggers, celebrities, business figures or government officials. Reaching out to current serving military and young people who may be considering joining up is also important. But even if it’s just your neighbor, or your coworker, every single person we can reach brings us closer to critical mass. The most important step is to start trying.

If you are confused about why this is all happening, watch this video we put out on September 11th, 2012

Berbagai Sumber

• http://scgnews.com/the-covert-origins-of-isis The Covert Origin of ISIS (2014)
• CIA sends teams to Libya; US considers rebel aid (2011)
• Obama defends Libya mission  (2011)
• Libya rebel commander admits his fighters have al Qaeda links (2011)
• Libya in chaos as Islamists seize capitals airport (2014)
• Libyan rebels behead Filipino for being non Muslim (2014)
• Deadly Libya violence pushes country toward failed state (2014)
• Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from Libya http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3537770.ece
• In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan Weapons http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/22/world/africa/in-a-turnabout-syria-rebels-get-libyan-weapons.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
• http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/03/us-names-chris-stevens-liaison-to-libyan-opposition/ (2011)
• http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Selected-Supreme-Military-Command-Members.pdf

Berikut ini adalah perbedaan antara ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq & Syria) /Islamic State dan Al Qaeda.

1. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Arab revolutions: Al Qaeda memilih menumbangkan pemerintahan dengan bekerjasama dengan kelompok-kelompok lain, baru kemudian mendirikan negara Islam. ISIS langsung mendirikan negara, meskipun dengan menuduh kelompok-kelompok lain sebagai sesat.
2. Accusing opponents and the general community of apostasy: ISIS aktif menuduh lawan-lawannya dan masyarakat umum sebagai sesat.
3. Fighting the enemy that is near first: Al Qaeda beroperasi di seluruh dunia, ISIS hanya aktif di daerah Irak , Syria dan sekitarnya saja.
4. The strategy of sectarian mobilization against antagonists: ISIS aktif menyerang kelompok-kelompok syi’ah.
5. Severing links to Iran by divorcing itself from Al-Qaeda: Al Qaeda masih ada hubungan dengan Iran. ISIS tidak ada hubungan resmi dengan Iran. Malah sempat terjadi kontak senjata antara ISIS dengan Iran di Qasre Shirin.
6. A different and brutal media strategy: Pemimpin Al Qaeda sering muncul di media massa. Pemimpin ISIS jarang muncul. ISIS lebih menekankan berita-berita mengenai aksi di lapangan.
7. An immoral, tougher and more extreme Salafist Jihadism: pandangan ISIS lebih ekstrim dibandingkan Al Qaeda.

Sumber: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/alarabiya-studies/2014/06/19/Who-leads-global-Jihad-al-Qaeda-or-ISIS-.html

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is moving according to strategies and perspectives of a state lying amid violent hotbeds and safe havens. It creeps into structures of unsuccessful regimes while flourishing during their periods of turmoil.

This is why ISIS believes it is capable of leading global jihad, unlike Al-Qaeda which focuses on the distant enemy rather than the enemy that is near. Al-Qaeda’s central leadership has weakened and is incapable of supporting its affiliates.

This is what qualifies ISIS, with its constant expansion and successes in chaotic contexts on the national, regional and international levels, to take over Al-Qaeda and the leadership of global jihad.

We can identify features that distinguish Al-Qaeda from ISIS such as the former’s apparent lack of moral principles, unlike Al-Qaeda, as well as its operational focus on expanding on the geographical level to establish an interconnected state described as the “ISIS crescent.”

This sought-after state extends from historical Diyarbakir (southeast Turkey) and includes Raqqah (north central Syria), Mosul and Nineveh (both in Iraq) among others.

Leading figures in ISIS also rarely make media appearance, unlike their counterparts in Al-Qaeda.

The two entities can be distinguished in terms of the following seven points:

1- ISIS, Al-Qaeda and the Arab revolutions

ISIS did not wait to get involved in the Syrian revolution and almost immediately began accusing parties on the ground of being apostates, mainly the Free Syrian Army, in a practice known as takfir.

The group believes that the FSA is more evil than the Syrian regime and the Sahawat and launched an offensive against the Syrian opposition group, killing many of its activists. Nor did ISIS confront the Damascus regime, choosing instead to focus on fighting revolutionary factions in regions it controlled.

This stands in contrast to the stances taken by Al-Qaeda’s leadership which welcomed the revolutions aimed at toppling longstanding regimes in the region.

This general view was expressed by the founder of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, before his death on May 2, 2011. The same stance was expressed by Aiman Al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s successor, who in 2011 issued an address to Egyptians titled a “Message of hope and glad tidings for our people in Egypt.” The late Anwar Al-Awlaki issued a similar stance in his message about the Yemeni revolution. The Libyan revolution was viewed in a similar manner by the late Atiyatallah Al-Libi. This view was repeated in Abdullah Al-Adam’s booklet titled “Revolution of the Peoples: Is It the End of the Protested Kings?” in which al-Adam expressed his desire to wait until the triumph of the revolution before intervening to support the establishment of an Islamic state.

 

ISIS is well known for accusing different armies, opponents and general communities – not just rulers – of apostasy, particularly those who do not seek recourse to Sharia as a rule and reference.

In his message to Al-Zawahiri on May 12, ISIS spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani blamed Bin Laden’s successor and Al-Qaeda, saying:

“We invite you secondly to correct your doctrines; declare openly the apostasy of the Egyptian, Pakistani, Afghani, Tunisian, Libyan and Yemeni armies and all the other armies of tyrants and their supporters; not manipulate legitimate commands and expressions as you have done in your descriptions of “corrupt rule,” “void constitution” and “pro-American army”; issue a frank call to fight the Egyptian army of [Abdel Fattah] Al-Sisi – the new Pharaoh of Egypt; disassociate from [Mohammad] Mursi and his party as well as openly declare his apostasy and stop causing misconceptions among Muslims.”

Al-Adnani also refuted Al-Zawahiri’s description of Egypt’s ousted president Mursi as being a victim.

ISIS also criticized jihadists belonging to the Nusra Front and their leader, Muhammad Al-Jawlani, who affirmed his allegiance to Al-Zawahiri.

ISIS labeled Al-Jawlani a traitor and insisted on its war against him and maintaining the group’s stance regarding the Sahawat and other factions involved in the Syrian revolution, namely the FSA.

3- Fighting the enemy that is near first

Unlike Al-Qaeda and Al-Zarqawy (1966-2006), ISIS prefers to fight the enemy that near to it, focusing on regions where it is present, and prioritizes the expansion of its influence over offering guidance and forging a spiritual connection among jihadists around the world.

The latter was a goal of Al-Qaeda and its central leadership which have become isolated from their supporters on the Pakistani and Afghan borders ever since Sept. 11, 2011.

Al-Qaeda is in distress after the loss of its most prominent and influential leaders in recent years such as its founder, Bin Laden, and Al-Libi in 2011, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid in 2008 and many others.

The suicide operations by ISIS are conducted exclusively in Iraq and Syria. The group has not conducted sting operations against the West or the United States, in line with ISIS’ conception of itself as a state and not an organization like the Taliban.

4- The strategy of sectarian mobilization against antagonists

Unlike Al-Qaeda, Al-Zarqawi and ISIS have attacked Shiite rallies. Their organizations have published studies that support labeling all Shiites as apostates.

Al-Zarqawi has released several videos in which he stresses the righteousness of his practices.
He also condemns his critics, mainly Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi.

As noted by Fatih Karikar, Al-Zarqawi’s strategy was to work on the sectarian mobilization of Sunnis against the Shiite rise after the fall of Saddam Hussein. He saw it as an opportunity to form a Sunni army in order to achieve the goal of establishing or restoring the Caliphate and the Islamic state.

This is what ISIS is apparently doing in Iraq, supported by the speeches and practices of Nouri Al-Maliki and Bashar al-Assad.

5- Severing links to Iran by divorcing itself from Al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda never attacked Iran, nor did it support any Sunni organization targeting the Iranian regime. ISIS was similarly committed and complicit in this arrangement until it broke off from Al-Qaeda and ultimately Iran. Al-Adnani expressed this in his message when he said that the organization abided by these guidelines “in compliance with Al-Qaeda’s order to preserve its interests and supply lines in Iran.”

Apparently, this contradiction reveals the pragmatism of both organizations and their undeclared connection with Iran, which served as a safe haven to many of their leaders after 2011, as per Saif Al-Adel’s analysis of Al-Zarqawi’s statement, which revealed the true identity of Yassin al-Suri, known as “Al-Qaeda’s fox.” In December 2011, the U.S. administration said Al-Suri had been moving freely in Iran between 2005 and 2011.

6- A different and brutal media strategy

ISIS may have benefited from Al-Zarqawi death, which was likely linked to his repeated appearances. This explains why ISIS leaders chose not to make appearances, as opposed to Al-Qaeda’s leaders.

ISIS media focuses on its operations on the ground and facts, avoiding theoretical and intellectual debates with the group’s opponents.

In contrast, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the present leader of Al-Qaeda, has made frequent appearances, whether in the open meetings where he has answered questions or fatwas from his opponents or the series of “peoples’ messages” dedicated to the Egyptians among others.

ISIS media messages are limited. The group focuses on the military and operational side as part of a fear campaign aimed at its opponents. Their media tactics are similar to those of Al-Zarqawi in terms of the level of violence in the messages. In 2004, Al-Zarqawi posted a video in which he is seen beheading U.S. civilian Nicholas Berg. The video was shocking and terrifying and was highly criticized back then, even from Al-Qaeda’s leaders and strategists. This is what ISIS is doing now.

7- An immoral, tougher and more extreme Salafist Jihadism:

ISIS has no ethics and it seems to rely on the ideological beliefs of extreme Salafist Jihadism, unlike many of Al-Qaeda’s on-ground commanders such as Abdullah Azzam, Al-Zawahiri, Al-Libi, Al-Ayiri, Al-Tuwayli and others whose views were known from their writings. Other Al-Qaeda theorists included Muhammad Al-Maqdisi, Abi-Qatada Al-Filistini and Abdul Qader bin Abdul Aziz.

But it seems that ISIS has adopted the firmness of Salafists without referring to Al-Zawahiri’s ideology, nor debated views of fellow jihadists who criticize it and are against it. ISIS is an organization with the perception of a state. Its battles are tangible and not theoretical: it carries out direct confrontations, unlike Al-Zawahiri, who entered indirect confrontations with his critics.

ISIS shares Al-Zarqawi’s vision. He was not the most educated or cultivated among leaders of the jihadists’ Shura Council which he established in 2005, but he was always present on the field and enjoyed the strongest of organizational skills.

 

 Al Arabiya Institute for Studies