Just Because You Announce Something, Doesn't Mean It's True

As I mentioned in my last post, ISIS/ISIL announced it has formed a caliphate in Iraq and Syria under the leadership of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. They've also rebranded and changed their name (again!). The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham/Syria/the Levant is now just The Islamic State (IS). Much easier to write out. My future carpal tunnel appreciates this.

Just for fun, let's list out the former names of this organization:

- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi forms al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in the 1990s and brings the organization into Iraq just prior to the US invasion in 2003.

- Zarqawi pledges allegiance to Osama Bin Laden and joins al Qaida in 2004. Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad becomes Al Qaida in Iraq.

- Zarqawi is killed in 2006. His successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, renames AQI to the Mujahadeen Shura Council.

- Short time later, MSC, is rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq...although many cells still called themselves Al Qaida.

- Shit goes down in Syria and ISI joins the fun and names itself the Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham/Syria and/or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant...depends on your translation.

- June 2014, the Caliphate is announced and now we just have the Islamic State.

But here's my question: how legitimate is the Islamic State and the announcement of a caliphate in the view of other Islamic groups and leaders in the region? Not legit at all. And those organizations ISIL was fighting with in Syria, they reject the Caliphate as well.

Essentially, al Baghdadi announcing the Caliphate has about as much authority as me declaring the Grand Duchy of Central Virginia. I demand you call me duke or lord or something.

Duke Warhorse, Lord and Viceroy of the Grand Duchy of Central Virginia. I like it.

ISIL Just Hates Everyone, Don't Take It Personally

I've written a few times in the past about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and how the organization is currently in conflict with other insurgent groups in Syria. ISIL/ISIS for whatever reason has appeared to decide that if you are not in that specific organization, then you must be the enemy. I wonder how many resources and personnel have been used up by infighting between ISIL, Al Nusrah Front, the Free Syrian Army, etc. It boggles my mind and does nothing but help out the Bashar al Assad regime.


ISIL apparently isn't making many friends in Iraq either where they've stepped up their game in recent months and have control over much of the Al Anbar Province. ISIL has pushed into other Sunni dominated provinces where they've come into conflict with not just the Iraqi Security Forces but the various other insurgent groups who I recall quite fondly: Ansar al Sunna, 1920's Revolutionary Brigade, and my personal favorite, Jaysh Rijal al Tariq Naqshabandia.


I won't go into the boring details, but if you're interested, Joel Wing over at Musing On Iraq explains the situation as best as anyone using open source can.


Seriously, now long before the US is back in Iraq?

Al Qaida Leadership Shuns An Affiliate

This post is the post I had intended to write yesterday but mid blog I determined I needed to attempt to dump some emotional baggage and decided this blog may be the best forum to do it.

The news of interest for me was the announcement by Al Qaida Senior Leadership and Ayman al Zawahiri that AQ was disowning the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) aka Al Qaida in Iraq (AQI) aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (ISIS) aka Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Holy hell, how many names does ISIS have? Anyway, this announcement has been a long time coming and I'm not shocked at all to see it. The ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, had attempted to merge ISIS and Al Nusrah Front (Al Qaida's franchise in Syria) and assume leadership of both organizations himself. Al Nusrah refused to merge and swore allegiance directly to Zawahiri.

The merger fiasco led to an open dispute between Zawahiri and ISIS which I suspect was an open wound that was created during the US occupation of Iraq. Forming in Iraq in 2004, ISIS originally called itself The Monotheism and Jihad but changed it shortly afterward to The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers (TQJBR...or as Coalition Forces called it, Al Qaida in Iraq). Merging with several other insurgent groups the name was changed yet again to Mujahideen Shura Council and then finally, Islamic State of Iraq. After the US left and the Syria civil war kicked off, ISI changed to ISIL.

I believe that Al Qaida Senior Leadership became increasingly frustrated with ISI starting in 2006 when the orgy of bloodshed and religious violence between Sunni and Shia escalated. AQ has never had much of a problem killing innocent people, even innocent Muslims, but to their credit, AQ never (not to my knowledge anyway) specifically targeted Muslims. Any Muslims killed in terrorist attacks were seen as martyrs to the cause and would go to Paradise. While the predominately Sunni AQ may have ideological issues with Shia Islam, the slaughter of thousands of Shia in Baghdad and all of Iraq most likely disgusted the leadership of Al Qaida.


No, I don't have any sources for this assessment and I'm too lazy to try to find any. I'm also not a Muslim scholar who can discuss the nuances of the differences between Shia and Sunni and why Al Qaida is primarily Sunni. I will use this quote though from one of my brigade intel officers, "just because someone is Shia, doesn't mean he can't be Al Qaida."


But what impact will Al Qaida's disavowing of ISIS have on the organization? I suspect non at all. During my time in Iraq AQI/ISI/whatever-they-were-calling-themselves seemed to be self sufficient and were able to recruit fighters and acquire weapons and funding without the support from any higher organization. This was more and more apparent as the war went on and ISI lost the support of (most of) the Sunni tribes and the government of Iraq became more capable. Had Al Qaida still supported ISI after the "Sunni Awakening", the organization likely would have still been a force to reckon with during my third Iraq deployment in 09-10; but by that time ISI was a shadow of its former self. Only the government of Iraq's refusal to conduct adequate counterinsurgency operations as well as the war in Syria has allowed ISIS to come back from the dead.

UPDATE: Yah! Another Acronym!

Remember back in March when I stated my belief that the Al Nusrah Front in Syria was likely just Al Qaida in Iraq?

Yeeeeaah, about that. It looks like I was correct for a change. Even a broke clock is right twice a day.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, the leader/emir of Al Qaida in Iraq just announced that he is merging AQI, aka the Islamic State of Iraq, and the Al Nusrah Front. The new organizational name is al-Dawla al-Islamiyya fi al-’Iraq wa-l-Sham. Say that 10 times fast. Roughly translated it means "Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant." ISIL? Works for me.

The good news about this merger? We can blow them up. Al Nusrah/ISIL now falls under the  Authorization to Use Military Force or AUMF that governs military action in the "War On Terror"©; the 2002 Congressional authorization for the Iraq war is also still in place which would allow for targeting Al Nusrah/ISIL; and to add icing to the cake, the State Department added Al Nusrah as a terrorist organization back in December.

Enjoy your hellfires gentlemen.

UPDATE: That didn't last long. Apparently Abu Muhammad al Julani, the leader of the Al Nusrah Front, has rejected this merger and is swearing allegiance directly to Ayman al Zawahiri, the emir of Al Qaida. Infighting amongst Al Qaida leaders? How awful.