MS Risk Blog

Why is it taking so long to defeat ISIS?

In June 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) has metastasised into one of the most horrific fighting groups of this century. The group has become renowned for rampant murder, the pillaging of villages and cities, widely publicised beheadings, the theft of oil and artefacts, and more recently of human organs.

Since they appeared on the world stage, ISIS has come to remind many of a combination of the worst villains Hollywood has ever imagined. More terrifying, the group’s combination of savvy marketing and recruiting, has resulted in numerous would-be fighters attempting to travel to ISIS strongholds to join the group.

The Debate: What does ISIS want?

ISIS seeks to form a caliphate that extends to the Mediterranean Sea. Their ideology has sparked numerous debates on whether they are a political group with a religious foundation, or a religious groups with a political foundation.

There is no denying that ISIS perceives themselves as an Islamic group; it’s in their name. However ISIS has modified their interpretation to create their own version of Islam. Their brand of Islam is a combination of fundamentalism similar to Wahabism in Saudi Arabia, but it is coupled with “violent Salafism” which deviated from evangelical Salafism in the 1960s and 70s. Further, the group has enacted a series of its own rulings or “fatwas” that are often in direct contradiction to Islam (for example, the burning of humans is strictly forbidden in ever interpretation of Islam—except for that which is held by ISIS).

ISIS has based its ideology on an apocalyptic message. Their magazine, Dabiq refers to a city in Syria that is said to be a site of great fighting during Armageddon (Malahim). The magazine states, “One of the greatest battles between the Muslims and the crusaders will take place near Dabiq.” However the mention of this end-times battle is not found in the Qur’an. It is believed to be in one of the “lesser” Hadiths. This is an important point: in Islam, the Hadith is a collection of stories recounted of the prophet Muhammad. Each Hadith, over time, has been studied carefully to determine whether it can be verified and whether it is consistent with the Prophet’s teachings. Greater Hadiths are those which have extensive historical and scholarly evidence to support them. Lesser Hadiths have limited evidence to support them.

Despite their religious ideology, at the core of ISIS beliefs is an equal mix of political ideology. ISIS conducts itself as a state; collecting taxes and implementing its own version of judicial law and social controls. It grew out of region wide crisis in Iraq and flourished in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Here too, their political ideology has been the source of great debate. Some argue that US intervention was responsible for the creation of ISIS; others argue that former Iraqi President Nouri al Maliki institutionalised sectarian division in the nation, instigating a violent response among militant Sunni groups which already existed in the nation. The political goal of ISIS is to restore Sunni Islam to a place of (at least) equality, and their political message initially gained the support of non-militant Sunni Muslims who were marginalised by the nation’s government. In addition, ISIS often calls for the erasure of the Sykes-Picot lines which, in 1916, divided the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire outside the Arabian Peninsula into areas of British and French control or influence.

The question of what ISIS really wants has made it difficult to know how to deal with them. ISIS governs itself as an extreme Islamic caliphate, organises like a modern state, and fights like a guerrilla insurgency.

Impact of Global Politics

ISIS is believed to have amassed over 200,000 fighters, with potential members coming from as many as 90 nations. As stated earlier, ISIS has developed a savvy social media presence, and nations are stopping people on a near daily basis from travelling to the region.

Despite a US led coalition of forty nations that have agreed to fight ISIS, the battle against the terrorist group has become. However since the initiation of the coalition in August 2014, ISIS has continued to grow.

In part, ISIS has thrived because of the complexity of international politics. The main fighting forces on the ground are the Kurdish Peshmerga, who belong to a political movement known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). The PKK has sought an autonomous Kurdish state in parts of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey. The conflict between the PKK and the Turkish government reached its zenith in 2005 when the PKK conducted a series of bombings, leading them to become a designated terrorist group in Turkey, the United States, NATO, and the European Union. The EU Court removed its status as terrorist organisation in April 2008. However, the designation by the US and Turkey has brought with it problems of arming the PKK; the only group that has successfully battled ISIS on the ground.

To add to the complexity, another nation that has a vested interest in defeating ISIS is Iran, which is on the US “enemies” list. As such, Iran, with over 500,000 active troops, is not a member of the coalition. Iran has been facing heavy sanctions that have been put in place by the west; the US has taken the lead in negotiating nuclear reduction in Iran. The US believes that Iran could use nuclear infrastructure to build weapons which could be a direct threat to Israel. Iran maintains that the facilities are part of their energy infrastructure.

In Iraq, the Iraqi military fell apart with alarming speed when ISIS first came onto the scene. It has been reported that when ISIS militants sought to overtake a region, the generals left first, leaving the soldiers uncertain of what to do; and so they left as well. Under Maliki, it is believed that the Sunni members of the army were unhappy to fight for a nation that had alienated them. With a new president in place, the 350,000 member army is currently being trained by Western forces in order to engage in battle against ISIS. However in the meanwhile, Shiite militias have been remobilised to fill the vacuum, however their presence has left Sunni Muslims in a precarious situation.

The Syrian army is believed by many to be the most likely to contain the ISIS threat. In early February, Syrian forces together with the Kurdish fighters repelled an ISIS advance in north-eastern Syria. However, Syrian troops have been divided between fighting in a protracted civil war and fighting ISIS forces. This has decreased their ability to focus on a single target.

Why are more Arab ground troops not involved?

ISIS has overtly stated that they seek to gain ground in Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. In North Africa, ISIS has established a presence in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula and along the Libyan coastline. In mid-February, Egyptian conducted airstrikes against ISIS positions in Derna, Libya, following the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian Egyptian nationals. Shortly after the airstrikes, Egyptian President Sisi called for a joint Arab military force to tackle extremist groups in the region, and called for a United Nations mandate for foreign intervention in Libya. Sisi’s call raises an important question: why have Arab nations —particularly those at greatest risk from ISIS— not sent in ground troops to fight ISIS?

In short, many Arab militaries have not acted as fighting forces for some time. For example the Egyptian army had not engaged in ground war since the three-day border war with Libya in 1977. Further, the Egyptian military has not been deployed to a foreign nation since the North Yemen civil war of the 1960s, where it was defeated. The story is similar for many militaries in the region. Another problem arises from the history of Arab cooperation in defence. Divisions along political lines (Turkey and the Kurds, for example), prevent full trust and therefore full cooperation. Western analysts espouse hope that the GCC Peninsula Shield, a 40,000-strong force made up of countries in the Persian Gulf, will be deployed to fight ISIS, however the group is designed to prevent political unrest in existing regimes. It is a force for suppression, not battle. The GCC Peninsula shield was most recently deployed to quell unrest in Bahrain in 2011. Their targets were unarmed, disorganised civilians. It is unlikely that they are prepared to engage in battle against armed, methodical militants.

This does not mean that the battle against ISIS cannot be won. However it will require renewed training of security forces, the updating of weaponry, and the combined efforts of both Middle Eastern and Western forces. The biggest advantage that ISIS has is the political divides that keep forces from uniting. As long as nations around the world debate whether to send forces, or to interfere on sovereign land, or base their involvement on political conditions, ISIS will continue to thrive.

US CENTCOM Vice Admiral refutes threats from ISIL to commercial shipping routes

US Central Command Vice admiral John Miller said last week that ISIL does not pose a significant threat to commercial shipping routes, such as the Strait of Hormuz, in the Middle East.

Miller made the comments at a conference in Abu Dhabi, after an article by the Daily Mail suggested that ISIL militants are working with sea-faring human traffickers in the Mediterranean to engage in piracy similar to that which occurs off the coast of Somalia.

The Daily Mail quotes an Italian defence magazine, Rivista Italiana Difesa, which said, that Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) could “repeat the scenario that has dominated the maritime region between Somalia and [the Gulf of] Aden for the last ten years’. The article also warns that ISILcould send boats “crammed with migrants” for use in “kamikaze” missions in the Arabian Gulf and the Mediterranean, particularly off the coasts of Europe.

Miller emphasised that the international maritime presence in the region had minimised threats from ISIL. However, he acknowledged that the group still has the capability to conduct surprise operations. He states, “As dynamic as the region is today, what we have seen over the past years is the maritime atmosphere has been safe, the free flow of commerce has been stable and secure.”

Currently the greatest cause for concern, according to Miller, is the unrest in Yemen. The combination of political instability and the presence of the very active terrorist group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) have created a “very dynamic situation.” Miller states that the instability in the country could “lead to instability in the strait of Bab el Mandab in the Gulf of Aden in the southern part of the Red Sea, all of which is cause for concern”.

Yet, Miller adds in regard to potential surprise from Islamic State, “An organisation like ISIL is capable of surprising us … so we want to work hard to eliminate that opportunity for surprise and we do that through a robust presence ‎in the maritime environment.”

The combined international maritime security forces have as many as 70 vessels on the water per day. The Suez Canal Company has also increased security measures, despite the unrest in Sinai that has on occasion targeted ships in the canal.

The Strait of Hormuz, linking the Arabian Gulf to the Indian Ocean is a key shipping route, accounting for around 20% of total oil shipments by sea alone in 2013, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Female Suspected of Being Suicide Bomber Beaten to Death by Mob

Police and eyewitnesses have reported that on Sunday, a mob beat a woman to death in the northeastern Nigerian city of Bauchi in the belief that she was a suicide bomber.

According to Bauchi state police spokesman Haruna Mohammed, “at about 0700 hours (0600 GMT), information at our disposal revealed that a yet to be identified lady who allegedly refused to allow herself to be screened at the entrance of Muda Lawal Market Bauchi was attacked by an irate mob.” On the ground sources have disclosed that the woman, who was said to have been a teenager, was attacked when she refused to be screened at the entrance to the market. Sources have indicated that the woman came under suspicion when two bottles were found strapped to both sides of her waist after she had refused to pass a metal detector. Witnesses have indicated that the woman was first beaten, with the mob than placing a tire covered with petrol over her head and setting it on fire. Police officials have stated that they arrived at the scene after the woman had already been killed. No arrests have been made. The exact circumstances of her death remain unclear, with some reports suggesting that she had been accompanied by another woman while other reports stating that she had been with a male escort. No explosives had been found on her.

A series of suicide bombings in northeastern Nigeria over the past week, all of which have been blamed on Boko Haram militants, have risen tensions across the region as the government has claimed that the tide will soon turn against the militant group. With a number of deadly attacks in recent weeks carried out by female suicide bombers, it is possible that the woman in this incident had been sent in to see whether it was possible to enter the mrket without being searched. Boko Haram in recent months has increasingly become dependent on using female suicide bombers to carry out deadly attacks, with young women and teenagers used to carry explosives into busy markets and bus stations. This has raised fears that some of the hundreds of kidnap victims are now being forced into carrying out bomb attacks either by detonating the explosives themselves or by carrying devices that are then remotely triggered.

Emerging groups threaten Egypt’s security

On 26 February, a wave of explosions throughout Giza was claimed by a lesser-known group called the Popular Resistance Movement (PRM). PRM does not appear to have links to extremist groups operating in North Sinai, nor do they appear to have any association with Cairo-based group Ajnad Misr. The group claims to have cells in Minya and elsewhere, but it is most active in Giza.

In an online statement, PRM signaled that the Thursday bombings were intended to sabotage a government-sponsored investment conference scheduled for mid-March. President Sisi is planning to use the conference to boost faltering economy.

The bombs targeted two telephone companies: Vodafone Egypt, a 45-percent Egyptian-owned subsidiary of the British telecommunications giant and Etisalat, which is based in the United Arab Emirates. PRM said they chose their targets “in response to Vodafone International’s announcement that it will participate in the conference to sell Egypt,” and “in response to the United Arab Emirates contribution to supporting the coup.”

Their statement continues: “The Popular Resistance warns that it has resumed its activities against the criminal forces, the killers of the honorable, the violators of sanctities, and the torturers of children.” The group has warned citizens to “avoid being present near police stations, in order to allow our heroes to deal with them.”

PRM claims to include a wide spectrum of Egyptians, including Islamists and liberals. Their first public communique was released on 14 August 2014, the anniversary of the Rabaa massacre. Excerpts of the statement, read by an anonymous young male, read as follows:

“It may raise eyebrows that our first communique is released on the first anniversary of the storming of the Rabaa and Al-Nahda sit-ins. To prevent our lousy media from jumping to all sorts of conclusions, we would like to say the following: this entity which we are launching today officially under the name of The Popular Resistance Movement – Egypt, is the fruit of several months of effort, prior to any anniversary that saw the start of our resistance against the despotic military rule in Egypt.”

“We shall not remain silent regarding the murder weapons they use to slit the throats of our people nor shall we remain indifferent regarding the hunger they have imposed on all of us while the murderers lavish in their palaces and castles hiding from us behind their guards.”

“Whoever from among the thugs stays inside his home, he is safe; whoever from among the military dogs stays in his palace, he is safe; and whoever attacks, let him then blame none but himself.”

“We shall seek to do the impossible until the demands of this generation are met. We shall pay willingly with our blood until we crush the lackeys of Israel. Retribution for the martyrs is our right, and we shall eventually attain it. So long as people seek their rights, their rights will not be lost.”

On 28 January 2015, days after the anniversary of the Egyptian uprising, the group announced that its members, “engaged the black-hearted killers in their dens of shame known as police stations where they take part in all known crimes against humanity,” read a statement from the group. That same day, a bomb detonated near a checkpoint in Qaliubeya, Greater Cairo, injuring seven security personnel. Bomb experts that day also dismantled an explosive device at a bus stop in Abdel Moneim Riyadh Square in Downtown Cairo. Outside of the capital, a bomb went off in Fayoum close to a police station and a hospital, causing one minor injury, and in Alexandria, a bomb detonated as militants were going to plant it.

In the January missive, Popular Resistance Movement promised more actions in the coming “revolutionary nights and days” until the overthrow of Abel Fattah al-Sisi.

Revolutionary Punishment

Chatter has emerged regarding another group calling themselves “Revolutionary Punishment.” Very little is known about the organization or its affiliations. On 31 January, the group reportedly declared the formation of an armed militia with 1,000 members throughout Egypt. This number has not been confirmed; however it is believed that the group does have some members across the nation.

Revolutionary Punishment has reportedly called for a new strategy of armed resistance against security forces. The group has allegedly said that peaceful protests are no longer effective against the regime, and called on supporters to combine armed operations with constant protests in order to achieve their target.

Egyptian state-owned newspapers report that ‘Revolutionary Punishment’ is believed to be affiliated with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood. One report suggests that the group “had gathered all the information required to assassinate a number of police officers in Qena, Ismailia and other provinces.” This could not be verified.

The group reportedly claimed responsibility for an attack on a police patrol in Beni Suef on 25 January, wounding several officers. Reports also claim that the group clashed with police at a village ring road, killing two members of the Egyptian Special Forces.

Deterrence

Only one report has emerged from Egyptian state media of an Alexandria-based group called “Deterrence.” The report claims that 29 people were arrested on 9 February for creating an alleged terrorist cell affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. Prosecution has accused the group of carrying out 43 acts of sabotage and arson in Alexandria. The defendants range in age between 14 and 40; the majority are in their twenties.

While there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of PRM, the other two groups remain amorphous. It is known, however, is that bombings have increasingly targeted businesses and transportation systems since December. Attacks have targeted a bank branch and gas station linked to the Emirates, several Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises, and other locales. The incident so far has been similar, using homemade incendiary explosive devices or Molotov cocktails. Most have involved only small numbers of casualties, however it is unknown whether that is by design. Analysts are concerned that this shift represents a growing trend toward targeting civilian populations, something that well known terrorist organisations Ansar Beit al Maqdis and Ajnad Misr have thus far claimed to avoid.

Ukrainian Ceasefire Agreement

The leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany met in Minsk, Belarus on February 11 to negotiate a plan that could guarantee a lasting peace in eastern Ukraine. The new round of peace talks were viewed with much scepticism due to similar unsuccessful efforts in the past. The arrival of 2015 brought the collapse of the tenuous ceasefire that took hold in Ukraine on September 5, 2014, which had brought a lull to fighting that had raged for nearly five months and which killed over 2,500 people. Despite the fact that an official ceasefire was in place the violations started within days of signing after multiple reports that claimed that near the big coastal city of Mariupol and Donetsk airport intense fights took place between the Ukrainian forces and the pro-Russian militants. Officially, the ceasefire collapsed after five months on January 2015. The fact that the ceasefire was considerably fragile became more apparent when the head of the self-styled Luhansk People’s Republic declared that the ceasefire agreement does not mean that their objective to secede from Ukraine is off the table. The short-lived ceasefire coincided with the conclusion of the NATO summit in Wales, where Western leaders announced the creation of a rapid-response force to protect eastern European member states. During the summit several NATO members promised precision weapon systems to Ukraine and the Obama administration pledged $60 million of non-lethal military aid for Ukraine’s military. Under these circumstances it is not difficult to comprehend Russia’s reservedness to stick to the agreement and the final collapse of the ceasefire in January 2015. After the collapse of the ceasefire the battles between the government forces and the separatists resumed full force.

During the weeks-long surge in violence many soldiers and civilians lost their lives and all the peace talks collapsed before they came into an agreement with the two sides accusing each other of sabotaging the talks. Amid the increasingly heavy fighting in eastern Ukraine, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, abruptly announced a summit with the Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia. The French and German leaders had previously met the Ukrainian President, Petro Poroshenko, in Kiev where they discussed the steps necessary for the Minsk agreement to start working towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis. The increase in diplomatic efforts came as the US secretary of state, John Kerry, also met the Ukrainian President and other top officials in Kiev. The meeting between the leaders of Russia, France and Germany was held on February 6 behind closed doors and discussed a paper with peace proposal details that the two Western leaders brought with them in Moscow. The meeting was followed by a phone conference between the three leaders that took place on February 8 and which led to the Minsk peace talks on February 11. The marathon peace negotiations between Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany resulted in a new ceasefire deal for eastern Ukraine. During the negotiations heavy fighting took place in an effort from the two fighting sides to gain as much territory as possible in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions before the ceasefire started. The key points of the ceasefire agreement for eastern Ukraine are:

• Immediate and full bilateral ceasefire. The ceasefire was going to take effect in parts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions from 00:00 local time on 15 February.

• Withdrawal of all heavy weapons by both sides. That entails the creation of a buffer zone of at least 50km equally separating both sides for artillery systems of 100mm calibre or more; 70km for multiple rocket systems and 140 km for the heaviest rocket and missile systems such as Tornado, Uragan, Smerch and Tochka. Also, the Ukrainian forces have to withdraw all the heavy weapons from the current frontline. The separatists have to withdraw theirs from the line of 19 September 2014. According to the agreement, heavy weapons withdrawal must start no later than day two of the ceasefire and be completed within two weeks of February 15. The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) will assist in the process.

• Effective monitoring and verification regime for the ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy weapons. This part of the agreement is going to be carried out by the OSCE from day one, using all necessary technology such as satellites and radar.

• From day one of the withdrawal begin a dialogue on the holding of local elections. In line with the Ukrainian law on temporary self-rule for parts of Donetsk and Luhansk. There will also be a dialogue on those areas’ political future.

• Pardon and amnesty by banning any prosecution of figures involved in the Donetsk and Luhansk conflict.

• Release of all hostages and other illegally detained people. On the basis of ‘’all for all’’. To be completed at the latest on the fifth day after the military withdrawal.

• Unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid to the needy, internationally supervised. In eastern Ukraine a humanitarian crisis currently takes place as the Ukrainian government stopped sending medical aid in these areas.

• Restoration of full social and economic links with affected areas. Including social transfers, such as payment of pensions. To that end, Ukraine will restore its banking services in districts affected by the conflict.

• Full Ukrainian government control will be restored over the state border, throughout the conflict zone. To begin on the first day after local elections and be completed after a comprehensive political settlement by the end of 2015. The local elections in rebel-controlled Donetsk and Luhansk regions will be based on Ukrainian law and constitutional reform.

• Withdrawal of all foreign armed groups, weapons and mercenaries from Ukrainian territory. This part of the agreement is going to be monitored by OSCE. All illegal groups are going to be disarmed.

• Constitutional reform in Ukraine, with adoption of a new constitution by the end of 2015. A key element of which will be decentralisation and adoption of permanent laws on the special status of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

The ceasefire agreement was also signed by the two main rebel leaders, from Donetsk and Luhansk. The agreement includes an annex on the detail of the autonomy foreseen for their fiefdoms. To the present more than 5,000 people have been killed due to the fighting. The Ukrainian President has claimed publicly that if this new effort for ceasefire and a peaceful solution to the crisis fails then he will not hesitate to introduce martial law, not only in eastern Ukraine but in the whole country. Introduction of martial law means that Ukraine’s army get to control the streets and impose curfews, ban parties and other organisations, as well as mass gatherings, conduct searches and introduce censorship. It is also permitted to claim property of businesses and private individual if the need arise. Despite the ceasefire there are reports that the fighting in eastern Ukraine continues. Days after the official commence of the ceasefire there were reports about government’s and separatists’ shelling in several areas, including around the rebel-held city of Donetsk, claiming that the ceasefire exists in name only. The shelling was also confirmed by OSCE who is charged with monitoring ceasefire. The ceasefire breaches were also reported during a new meeting between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany on February 19 where they reconfirmed their support on the measures agreed on February 12 in Minsk. Only four days after the ceasefire came into effect the pro-Russia militants ignored the agreement and stormed Debaltseve, a strategic town in eastern Ukraine that they had surrounded, forcing thousands of government troops to flee. The Ukrainian forces suffered major losses, both in equipment and human life. After these incidents the Ukrainian President won approval from Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council to invite UN-mandated peacekeepers into the country to monitor the front line, a decision that was met with strident opposition from the pro-Russian militants.

With the battle around the rail hub of Debaltseve ending with the withdrawal of Ukrainian government forces and completion of the first prisoners’ exchange on February 21, there are some hopes that the tenuous truce in eastern Ukraine may hold. A new round of meetings to stop the fragile ceasefire from shattering have started with the foreign ministers of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany meeting in Paris on February 24 to review the situation on the ground since the accord was signed. Despite the efforts and Russia’s statements that the agreement is ‘’an international legal document’’ approved by the UN Security Council it contains some clauses that reinforce its fragility, such as Ukraine’s obligation to resume pension payments to the inhabitants of the Russia-backed regions despite the economic crisis that it faces. Also, Kiev takes on the border of rebuilding the war-ravaged region shouldering a huge economic burden. Additionally, the agreement establishes the right of the Donbass breakaway areas to establish their own people’s militias. Finally, through the agreement a powerful fifth column is created inside Ukraine as the Donbass will have the right to be represented in Ukraine’s legislature. This could enable Russia to use the Donbass to resurrect Russian ‘’soft power’’ in the context of Ukraine’s post-conflict economic crisis. The ceasefire agreement is a remarkable effort to find a solution but it seems to serve more in the creation of a frozen conflict than a viable base for the peaceful resolve the Ukrainian crisis.