Resettlement of Somalis in America, Threat Matrix

Refugee resettlement into the United States where the U.S. State Department in coordination with the United Nations has brought terror recruiting to our homeland. Arrests occur weekly of those that either have traveled to Iraq and or Syria, trained and have returned or are part of a peer to peer process to attack soft targets in America. Each mayor, each governor must demand a stop to this program. Is it happening in a town in which you live? Likely yes. 190 towns across America are targeted locations for resettlement.

In case you have any questions on the matter of ‘Refugee Resettlement’ click here to listen to the facts.

Just this past February in Minneapolis:

Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin and U.S. Attorney Andrew M. Luger for the District of Minnesota announced today the indictment of Hamza Naj Ahmed, 19, for conspiring to provide material support to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).  Ahmed is also charged with attempting to provide material support to ISIL and for making a false statement in a terrorism investigation.  Ahmed was previously charged by criminal complaint for lying to FBI agents.  The defendant was detained on Feb. 5, 2015, after making an initial appearance before Magistrate Judge Steven Rau in U.S. District Court in St. Paul, Minnesota.

“Hamza Ahmed is at least the fourth person from the Twin Cities charged as a result of an ongoing investigation into individuals who have traveled or are attempting to travel to Syria in order to join a foreign terrorist organization,” said U.S. Attorney Luger. “Since 2007, dozens of people from the Twin Cities have traveled or attempted to travel overseas in support of terror. While my office will continue to prosecute those who attempt to provide material support to ISIL or any other terrorist organization, we remain committed to working with dedicated community members to bring this cycle to an end.”

The photos above were taken in Minneapolis.

 

FBI Arrests 6 People In 2 States In Terrorism Investigation

The FBI made a string of arrests Sunday, taking a total of six people into custody in Minneapolis and San Diego in a terrorism joint task force operation. The arrests follow an inquiry into young people from the Twin Cities area who have joined terrorist groups such as ISIS and al-Shabab.

Details about the case are still emerging. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Minnesota office has confirmed the arrests to several media outlets, saying that public safety was not under an immediate threat. So far, it seems that all of those arrested are young men whose families are originally from Somalia.

A news briefing about the arrests is scheduled for Monday morning; we’ll update this post with news.

From Minnesota Public Radio:

“A Somali woman who said she was the mother of two men who were arrested told MPR News that the FBI arrived at her house around noon. One of her sons was arrested at her house; the other was arrested in San Diego.

“She said more than a dozen FBI and police officers searched her house and confiscated a tablet computer owned by the son arrested in San Diego.”

That woman met with other parents whose sons were arrested Sunday; they’re part of a large Somali community in Minneapolis. ***

“We have a terror recruiting problem in Minnesota,” US Attorney for Minnesota Andrew Luger said during the press conference.

“As described in the criminal complaint, these men worked over the course of the last 10 months to join ISIL,” said Luger. “Even when their co-conspirators were caught and charged, they continued to seek new and creative ways to leave Minnesota to fight for a terror group. ”

According to the FBI, authorities on Sunday arrested Zacharia Yusuf Abdurahman, Adnan Farah, Hanad Mustafe Musse and Guled Ali Omar in Minneapolis, and Abdirahman Yasin Daud and Mohamed Abdihamid Farah were arrested in California after driving from Minneapolis to San Diego. All the accused are between the ages of 19 and 21.

 

 

General Dempsey, Ramadi not Important

 

WASHINGTON — America’s top military officer said defending the embattled Iraqi city of Ramadi is of secondary importance compared with protecting the Beiji oil refinery from Islamic State militants.

The group may be on the verge of overrunning Ramadi, according to news reporters. But Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the city’s fall would be more of a humanitarian problem than a strategic setback.

“The city itself it’s not symbolic in any way,” he told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday. “It’s not been declared part of [Islamic State’s] ‘caliphate’ on one hand or central to the future of Iraq… I would much rather that Ramadi not fall, but it won’t be the end of a campaign” if it does.

*** Yet, a Gold Star mother, Debbie Lee, had an immediate response to General Dempsey:

I am shaking and tears are flowing down my cheeks as I watch the news and listen to the insensitive, pain inflicting comments made by you in regards to the fall of Ramadi.

‘The city itself is not symbolic in any way.’ Oh really? Are you willing to meet with me and with the families who have lost a son, daughter, husband, wife, father, mother, aunt, uncle, grandson, or teammate?

My son Marc Lee was the first Navy SEAL who sacrificed his life in Ramadi Iraq Aug 2, 2006. His blood is still in that soil and forever will be. Remember that was when so many of our loved ones were taken from us. You said that ‘it’s not been declared part of the caliphate on one hand or central to the future of Iraq.’ My son and many others gave their future in Ramadi. Ramadi mattered to them. Many military analysts say that as goes Ramadi so goes Iraq.

What about the troops who sacrificed their limbs and whose lives will never be the same. Our brave warriors who left a piece of themselves in Ramadi. What about the troops who struggle with PTS/TBI who watched their teammates breath their last or carried their wounded bodies to be medevac’d out of Ramadi.

So, what does Ramadi look like today?

Ramadi exodus compounds Iraq humanitarian crisis

(Reuters) – Some pushed wheelbarrows piled high with their belongings across the only bridge to Baghdad. Others balanced battered suitcases on their heads, or held babies aloft so they would not be crushed in the exodus from Iraq’s western province of Anbar.

More than 90,000 people have fled their homes in Anbar since April 8, when Islamic State militants began gaining ground around the provincial capital Ramadi, about 90 km (55 miles) from Baghdad, the United Nations said on Sunday.

The latest migration compounds an intensifying humanitarian crisis in Iraq, where 2.7 million people have been displaced within the country since January 2014.

Aid agencies expect hundreds of thousands more to be uprooted if Iraqi forces move to take on the insurgents in their remaining strongholds of Anbar and Nineveh in the north.

Mosques in the capital have opened their doors to shelter hundreds of families arriving from the Sunni heartland, although some are stuck outside Baghdad at the Bzaibiz bridge checkpoint.

A weary-looking Ahmed Abdulrahman, who had just crossed the bridge, said he left his home in Sofiya, east of Ramadi, several days ago, due to power cuts and food and water shortages rather than fighting.

“Everything ran out except air,” said the 56-year old government employee, dragging a suitcase and with dust on his face. “Even the sounds of life around us stopped. The situation became unbearable.”

The insurgents said whoever wished to leave was free to do so, and showed Abdulrahman and his family a safe way out of Sofiya. Entering Baghdad proved harder, because authorities require some migrants to provide a guarantor inside the capital to prevent infiltration by militants.

“When we reached Bzaibiz bridge we found that the government had obstructed our advance in Iraq, and is discriminating between this person and that,” al-Rahman said.

More than half a million people from Anbar were displaced even before Islamic State overran the northern city of Mosul last summer and took control of roughly a third of Iraq. Since then, the figure has almost doubled.

Anbaris account for at least 30 percent of those displaced within the country since the beginning of last year — the second highest level for any single governorate, according to data from the International Organization for Migration.

“Our neighbors came and told us they were leaving because the situation was bad and ISIS might enter at any moment,” said 37-year old Umm Sabah, who hurriedly stuffed some clothing into a bag, snatched up her identity papers and joined them.

“It’s as though it is my destiny to move from place to place in my country and not possess a plot of land or home of my own”.

“LIBERATION” OR “OCCUPATION”?

Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced two weeks ago that Anbar would be the next battleground after Islamic State militants were routed in the city of Tikrit to the north.

But the new campaign to reclaim the vast desert terrain had hardly got underway when the militants attacked Ramadi and took control of areas to the north and east, leading local officials to warn the city was about to fall.

Reinforcements reached Ramadi over the weekend and the militants’ advance appeared to stop. The crowds of people leaving thinned on Monday, and a few families were already returning to some areas, even though the militants are still in control of the city’s periphery.

“All the provincial officials have fled to Baghdad and elsewhere, so why should we stay?” said engineer Mohammed al-Fahdawi, who left the Sijariya area east of Ramadi on Saturday.

The majority of those recently displaced have headed to Baghdad, with smaller numbers moving within Anbar, most of which is under Islamic State control. A minority have gone south to Kerbala and Babel, or north to the Kurdistan region.

Fahdawi was skeptical Anbar could be liberated by the army alone, and said he welcomed any force that would fight Islamic State, including Shi’ite paramilitary groups that have played a leading role in reversing the insurgents’ advances elsewhere.

But 42 year-old teacher Saad Jaber Karim said that if what he had heard about Shi’ite militia abuses against Sunnis in areas retaken from Islamic State was true, he would rather the insurgents stayed in control.

Abdulrahman said it would make little difference to the people of Ramadi which force took control.

“Liberation and occupation are two sides of the same coin,” he said.

Abraham Lincoln, 150 Years Later

The Greatest: 150 years after his death, Abraham Lincoln remains an inspiration and moral compass

Abraham Lincoln’s death from an assassin’s bullet on 15 April 1865 is cause for reflection on his very real achievements as well as the making of a secular martyr – unique in American politics. By J BROOKS SPECTOR.

In the feverish language of the journalism of the day, the headlines, the all-caps layout, and introductory paragraphs in the New York Times, published two days after Abraham Lincoln had perished after being shot by sometime-actor John Wilkes Booth at a performance of the comedy, Our American Cousin, at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, was just the first wave of a great national lamentation of loss. And it was the springboard for Abraham Lincoln’s apotheosis as a national secular martyr.

The Times’ coverage began with the words, “OUR GREAT LOSS; The Assassination of President Lincoln. DETAILS OF THE FEARFUL CRIME. Closing Moments and Death of the President. Probable Recovery of Secretary Seward. Rumors of the Arrest of the Assassins. The Funeral of President Lincoln to Take Place Next Wednesday. Expressions of Deep Sorrow Through-out the Land. OFFICIAL DISPATCHES. THE ASSASSINATION. Further Details of the Murder Narrow Escape of Secretary Stanton Measures. Taken is Prevent the Escape of the Assassin of the President. LAST MOMENTS OF THE PRESIDENT.”

It continued, “…It is now ascertained with reasonable certainty that two assassins were engaged in the horrible crime, WILKES BOOTH being the one that shot the President, and the other, a companion of his, whose name is not known, but whose description is so clear that he can hardly escape. It appears from a letter found in BOOTH’s trunk that the murder was planned before the 4th of March, but fell through then because the accomplice backed out until ‘Richmond could be heard from.’ BOOTH and his accomplice were at the livery stable at 6 o’clock last evening, and left there with their horses about 10 o’clock, or shortly before that hour. It would seem that they had for several days been seeking their chance, but for some unknown reason it was not carried into effect until last night.”

The Times then delivered the actual news of Lincoln’s death by citing the War Department’s terse telegram of 15 April, “ABRAHAM LINCOLN died this morning at twenty-two minutes after seven o’clock.” A follow-up War Department cable went further, “Official notice of the death of the late President ABRAHAM LINCOLN, was given by the heads of departments this morning to ANDREW JOHNSON, Vice-President, upon whom the constitution devolved the office of President. Mr. JOHNSON, upon receiving this notice, appeared before the Hon. SALMON P. CHASE, Chief-Justice of the United States, and took the oath of office, as President of the United States, assumed its duties and functions…”

The Times then quoted from a local Washington paper’s story on the president’s assassination, saying, “As it is suspected that this conspiracy originated in Maryland, the telegraph flashed the mournful news to Baltimore, and all the cavalry was immediately put upon active duty. Every road was picketed and every precaution taken to prevent the escape of the assassin…. The murderer of President LINCOLN was JOHN WILKES BOOTH. His hat was found in the private box, and identified by several persons who had seen him within the last two days, and the spur which he dropped by accident, after he jumped to the stage, was identified as one of those which he had obtained from the stable where he hired his horse. This man BOOTH has played more than once at Ford’s Theatre, and is, of course, acquainted with its exits and entrances, and the facility with which he escaped behind the scenes is well understood.”

And all of this happened less than a week after Confederate General Robert E Lee’s surrender to the Union commander, Ulysses S Grant, at the Virginia crossroads village of Appomattox Court House. In losing his life so quickly after his army’s victory, Lincoln was catapulted into the role of a secular martyr. The killer, actor John Wilkes Booth was a Maryland native who had remained in the North during the Civil War, despite his southern sympathies and as the war approached its final months, came together with friends to kidnap the president and take him South as a bargaining token. There was no Secret Service in those days and the president often travelled with minimum security, often just a small military detachment or a Pinkerton’s bodyguard or two, despite the fighting that was sometimes only a few miles away from the Potomac River in Virginia.

Lincoln unaccountably failed to be where the conspirators were lying in wait for him to appear, but, in the meantime, the Confederate capital fell to Union forces, two weeks after Booth’s first plot was supposed to have been accomplished. As a result, Booth and his co-conspirators evolved a second, even more desperate plan to save the dying Confederacy. This time around, the plan was to decapitate the federal government of its leadership via simultaneous assassinations of the president, vice president and secretary of state.

When Booth discovered the president would attend the play, Our American Cousin on April 14, Booth masterminded simultaneous assassination attempts on Lincoln, Vice President Andrew Johnson and Secretary of State William H. Seward. By murdering the president and two of his possible successors, Booth and his co-conspirators hoped to throw the U.S. government into total disarray and snatch victory from the jaws of final defeat.

On that night, Lincoln and his wife were in the presidential box, together with army officer Henry Rathbone and Rathbone’s fiancé, Clara Harris. Although the Lincolns arrived fashionably late and missed the opening, the president was, according to witnesses, in a cheerful mood, laughing at funny bits in the play. Just after ten in the evening, Booth quietly slipped into the box and fired a bullet from his single-shot derringer pistol into the back of Lincoln’s head, stabbed Rathbone and then leapt onto the stage from the box, breaking his leg in the process. As he leapt, he infamously shouted, “Sic semper tyrannis” – thus ever to tyrants. Despite his injury, Booth escaped from the city on horseback. Within hours after Booth had shot the president, some ten thousand police, marshals and military personnel were pulled into the search for the assassin.

Meanwhile, the president was carried to a bed in a house across the street from the theatre and after the military’s surgeon general arrived at the bedside, he determined there was nothing further they could do for Lincoln. While members of the cabinet assembled near the president, he was pronounced dead at 7:22 AM on 15 April. At that moment, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton was reported to have exclaimed, “Now he belongs to the ages”. Although some witnesses later claimed he had really said “angels”, instead of ages, the phrase has stuck as the moment’s epitaph.

The nation, or at least the northern half of it, had just begun to savour the victory in the Civil War, when it was plunged into a paroxysm of grief over the loss of the man who had rallied the nation to victory and led it through the war. The president’s body was taken first to the White House, then on to the rotunda in the Capitol Building, and then placed on a train bound for Springfield, Illinois (where he had lived prior to becoming president). Lining the route of the train’s progress across the nation, many tens of thousands of sombre onlookers gathered to pay their final respects.

Meanwhile, as the national mourning continued, the hunt for Booth was underway. He and an accomplice had fled into southern Maryland where an unsuspecting country doctor, Samuel Mudd, treated Booth’s injury. Eventually the two made their way into Virginia, until Union troops on the lookout for the two men surrounded them in a barn. The barn was set alight and Booth was shot inside the barn after refusing to surrender. Three of his co-conspirators, plus the owner of the Washington, DC boarding place Booth had been staying in while planning his attack, were tried, convicted and executed by hanging.

By this point, the virtual canonisation of Abraham Lincoln was already underway, despite the fact a triumphant – and frequently vengeful – Republican-led Congress was eager to impose harsh conditions upon a defeated South – in part for having started that terrible war in the first place, and, further, to ensure that, after all that fighting and death, the newly manumitted ex-slaves would be accorded their rights under the newly passed 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the US Constitution. These were the amendments that abolished slavery, ensured that the former slaves’ rights to citizenship would not be abridged and that race would not serve as a bar to the right to vote – amendments that clearly conveyed the larger purpose of the war. (Lost in all the sharp dealing, perhaps, was Lincoln’s magnanimous pledge, as contained in his Second Inaugural Address delivered in 1865, that the national government would carry out its tasks of reconstruction “with malice towards none, with charity for all”.)

Lincoln had been a uniquely American politician. As a child he had grown up along a continually westward-moving frontier of settlement – from Kentucky to Indiana, and then on to Illinois. Barely educated in school, he had virtually taught himself from the few books available in such rural frontier circumstances, imbibing the language of The Bible, Shakespeare’s plays, Bracton’s On the Laws and Customs of England, and a small, Spartan collection of a few other volumes of ancient and modern history and English literature. As a young man, he had worked at various menial jobs, had become a skilled lawyer (eventually serving as corporate counsel for one of the country’s rapidly expanding, new railroads), and then become an extraordinarily talented, even gifted, politician, despite having served only one term in the US Congress. Along the way, he became a shrewd analyst of human behaviour and motivation.

By the time his supporters and allies had managed to gain him the nomination for president as the new Republican Party’s standard bearer in 1860, he had already achieved a national reputation for eloquence in framing the issue of slavery as the public policy issue that was tearing the nation in two. Most especially this had come in a series of debates with an opposing candidate, Stephen Douglas, in an election campaign for a seat in the US Senate from Illinois in 1856. The two men’s debates were followed nationally, as people read full transcripts of the debates in their local newspapers across the country. Lincoln lost the election, but captured the attention of the country with rhetoric that encapsulated the existential challenge slavery presented to the nation.

When president, as the war proceeded, Lincoln increasingly gained traction for the war and stature for himself as he progressively reshaped the Union’s goal of the war into both a fight to preserve the nation – and to cleanse it of the moral taint of slavery. In perhaps his most remembered phrase of political language, the final words of his Gettysburg Address, delivered at the consecration of a cemetery at that battle site, Lincoln had, in one sentence, encapsulated the very nature, purpose, essence, and meaning of democratic governments everywhere. He told the vast crowd, and eventually an entire world beyond those who had heard him in that small town, “…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

As historian Gary Wills so persuasively explored, yes, Lincoln had absorbed the rhetorical tasks of commemorating sacrifice, as with his inspiration and model for his speech – Pericles’ Oration over the Athenian Dead. But, crucially, too, he had sussed out how to make use of this occasion to recalibrate the very purpose of government – well beyond political philosophers like Locke, Rousseau or America’s “founding fathers” who had written a constitution and the country’s Declaration of Independence. In Lincoln’s voice, government became something that comes organically out of the will and consent of the people as a whole, and it does their bidding responsibly and responsively. And he did this in a succinct phrase that continues to echo on down to the present. (Just incidentally, we might call the latter element in that sentence, “service delivery”.)

But while it is relatively easy to recognise his genius as a wartime leader who found good subordinates and then largely gave them the freedom to carry out their baleful military and diplomatic tasks with minimum interference, fewer people recognise his vision in putting into place some of the key building blocks for national success, rather than merely survival. Despite the demands of a vast, resource-consuming war being waged on continental scale, Lincoln’s vision of government included the Homestead Act that opened up farm land to immigrants who could take possession of up to 160 acres, upon a promise to settle and farm it. And then there was the legislation that authorised the building of a transcontinental railroad to hold the nation together – East to West – as well as new government support for education under the Morrill Act to establish colleges and universities that would offer inexpensive tertiary education to many thousands of ordinary citizens. Moreover, despite a war being waged just miles from the national capital city, Lincoln’s insisted that work on the major rebuild of the US Capitol Building (home of Congress) would continue throughout the war – as a symbol that the republic would endure. In 1864, he supported the first effort to preserve such natural wonders as the land that eventually became Yosemite National Park – a precursor of the nation’s environmental protection and regulations. And, of course, there was that “small matter” of the end of slavery and the consequent expansion of human freedom and dignity.

One wonders just what Lincoln would make of today’s Republican Party in comparison to the one he had led to its first national victory in 1860. The current version has its crabbed positions on national infrastructure building, expansion of educational opportunity and funding, and an angry, suspicious glare over protecting the rights of all the inhabitants of the nation. Instead, sadly, as Timothy Egan had written on 10 April in the New York Times, “…what unites the Republican Party, on this 150th anniversary of the murder of Lincoln, is that they are against the type of progressive legislation that gave rise to their party. Lincoln is an oil painting in the parlor, to be dusted off while Republican leaders plot new ways to kill things that he would have approved of.”

It is easy to limit the memory of Abraham Lincoln as the president who saved the union and abolished slavery, although that is already an astonishing legacy. It is also crucial, however, to recall him as a politician, dead one hundred fifty years today at the age of 56, who continued to maintain a larger vision for the nation and hewed to it, despite the vicissitudes of that all-encompassing Civil War. Or as Lincoln himself had said in his annual message to Congress at the end of 1862, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.” DM

 

Islam, Killing it’s Way Across the Middle East

The Obama administration is pretending to be outraged at what Islamic State, the Houthis and AQAP is doing in the Middle East…killing countless Christians in what appears to be weeks at a time.

WASHINGTON –  President Obama defended his administration’s approach to the terror threat at a White House summit Wednesday, standing by claims that groups like the Islamic State do not represent Islam — as well as assertions that job creation could help combat extremism.

Obama, addressing the Washington audience on the second day of the summit, said the international community needs to address “grievances” that terrorists exploit, including economic and political issues.

He stressed that poverty alone doesn’t cause terrorism, but “resentments fester” and extremism grows when millions of people are impoverished.

“We do have to address the grievances that terrorists exploit including economic grievances,” he said.

He also said no single religion was responsible for violence and terrorism, adding he wants to lift up the voice of tolerance in the United States and beyond.

*** Then we have the State Department:

Marie Harf, the State Department spokesperson, was on Hardball, with Chris Matthews. On Monday’s edition of “Hardball” here on MSNBC, Harf talked with host Chris Matthews about ISIS and explained that the United States can’t “kill our way out” of the problem.
“We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians. So are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need, in the longer term – medium and longer term – to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups. […]

“You’re right, there is no easy solution in the long term to preventing and combatting violent extremism, but if we can help countries work at the root causes of this – what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business? Maybe we can try to chip away at this problem, while at the same time going after the threat, taking on ISIL in Iraq, in Syria, and helping our partners around the world.”

***These terror groups not only know history, but they are studied other religions and know it better than you, the reader. They are killing their way across the Middle East. So what is the White House and National Security Council strategy to stop the genocide of Christianity? The short answer, there is no strategy.

Fair warning, at the 25 minute mark, the video becomes gruesome. The early portion of the video demonstrates Islamic State’s mission, knowledge and quest to destroy all religions but that of Islam.

ISIS Beheads Ethiopian Christians in Libya


The Islamic State has a released a new video purportedly showing the mass execution and beheading of Ethiopian Christians in Libya. The 29-minute video was released on Sunday, April 19, by ISIS’ Al-Furqan media arm and claims to show Islamic State affiliates in the eastern Libya province known as Barka Province and the southern Fazzan Province.

The video begins with a long introduction of a rant against Christendom, but the gore begins at around 25 minutes, when a pistol brandishing jihadist claims that Christians must convert to Islam or pay a special tax in the Quran known as Jizya.

First a line of alleged Ethiopian Christians are lined up and shot in the back of the head. After that, the scene cuts to a beach where another group of alleged Ethiopian Christians are beheaded in much a similar way to the February beheadings of the Coptic Christians.

Watch it above. Please remember it is uncensored, so viewer discretion is advised.

Islamic State Structure, Documents Reveal

The Terror Strategist: Secret Files Reveal the Structure of Islamic State

By Christoph Reuter

Aloof. Polite. Cajoling. Extremely attentive. Restrained. Dishonest. Inscrutable. Malicious. The rebels from northern Syria, remembering encounters with him months later, recall completely different facets of the man. But they agree on one thing: “We never knew exactly who we were sitting across from.”

In fact, not even those who shot and killed him after a brief firefight in the town of Tal Rifaat on a January morning in 2014 knew the true identity of the tall man in his late fifties. They were unaware that they had killed the strategic head of the group calling itself “Islamic State” (IS). The fact that this could have happened at all was the result of a rare but fatal miscalculation by the brilliant planner. The local rebels placed the body into a refrigerator, in which they intended to bury him. Only later, when they realized how important the man was, did they lift his body out again.

Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi was the real name of the Iraqi, whose bony features were softened by a white beard. But no one knew him by that name. Even his best-known pseudonym, Haji Bakr, wasn’t widely known. But that was precisely part of the plan. The former colonel in the intelligence service of Saddam Hussein’s air defense force had been secretly pulling the strings at IS for years. Former members of the group had repeatedly mentioned him as one of its leading figures. Still, it was never clear what exactly his role was.

But when the architect of the Islamic State died, he left something behind that he had intended to keep strictly confidential: the blueprint for this state. It is a folder full of handwritten organizational charts, lists and schedules, which describe how a country can be gradually subjugated. SPIEGEL has gained exclusive access to the 31 pages, some consisting of several pages pasted together. They reveal a multilayered composition and directives for action, some already tested and others newly devised for the anarchical situation in Syria’s rebel-held territories. In a sense, the documents are the source code of the most successful terrorist army in recent history.

Until now, much of the information about IS has come from fighters who had defected and data sets from the IS internal administration seized in Baghdad. But none of this offered an explanation for the group’s meteoric rise to prominence, before air strikes in the late summer of 2014 put a stop to its triumphal march.

For the first time, the Haji Bakr documents now make it possible to reach conclusions on how the IS leadership is organized and what role former officials in the government of ex-dictator Saddam Hussein play in it. Above all, however, they show how the takeover in northern Syria was planned, making the group’s later advances into Iraq possible in the first place. In addition, months of research undertaken by SPIEGEL in Syria, as well as other newly discovered records, exclusive to SPIEGEL, show that Haji Bakr’s instructions were carried out meticulously.

Bakr’s documents were long hidden in a tiny addition to a house in embattled northern Syria. Reports of their existence were first made by an eyewitness who had seen them in Haji Bakr’s house shortly after his death. In April 2014, a single page from the file was smuggled to Turkey, where SPIEGEL was able to examine it for the first time. It only became possible to reach Tal Rifaat to evaluate the entire set of handwritten papers in November 2014.

This document is Haji Bakr's sketch for the possible structure of the Islamic State administration. Zoom

This document is Haji Bakr’s sketch for the possible structure of the Islamic State administration.

“Our greatest concern was that these plans could fall into the wrong hands and would never have become known,” said the man who has been storing Haji Bakr’s notes after pulling them out from under a tall stack of boxes and blankets. The man, fearing the IS death squads, wishes to remain anonymous.

The Master Plan

The story of this collection of documents begins at a time when few had yet heard of the “Islamic State.” When Iraqi national Haji Bakr traveled to Syria as part of a tiny advance party in late 2012, he had a seemingly absurd plan: IS would capture as much territory as possible in Syria. Then, using Syria as a beachhead, it would invade Iraq.

Bakr took up residence in an inconspicuous house in Tal Rifaat, north of Aleppo. The town was a good choice. In the 1980s, many of its residents had gone to work in the Gulf nations, especially Saudi Arabia. When they returned, some brought along radical convictions and contacts. In 2013, Tal Rifaat would become IS’ stronghold in Aleppo Province, with hundreds of fighters stationed there.

It was there that the “Lord of the Shadows,” as some called him, sketched out the structure of the Islamic State, all the way down to the local level, compiled lists relating to the gradual infiltration of villages and determined who would oversee whom. Using a ballpoint pen, he drew the chains of command in the security apparatus on stationery. Though presumably a coincidence, the stationery was from the Syrian Defense Ministry and bore the letterhead of the department in charge of accommodations and furniture.

What Bakr put on paper, page by page, with carefully outlined boxes for individual responsibilities, was nothing less than a blueprint for a takeover. It was not a manifesto of faith, but a technically precise plan for an “Islamic Intelligence State” — a caliphate run by an organization that resembled East Germany’s notorious Stasi domestic intelligence agency.

Graphic: A digital rendering of Haji Bakr's Islamic State organigram. Zoom

DER SPIEGEL

Graphic: A digital rendering of Haji Bakr’s Islamic State organigram.

This blueprint was implemented with astonishing accuracy in the ensuing months. The plan would always begin with the same detail: The group recruited followers under the pretense of opening a Dawah office, an Islamic missionary center. Of those who came to listen to lectures and attend courses on Islamic life, one or two men were selected and instructed to spy on their village and obtain a wide range of information. To that end, Haji Bakr compiled lists such as the following:

  • List the powerful families.
  • Name the powerful individuals in these families.
  • Find out their sources of income.
  • Name names and the sizes of (rebel) brigades in the village.
  • Find out the names of their leaders, who controls the brigades and their political orientation.
  • Find out their illegal activities (according to Sharia law), which could be used to blackmail them if necessary.

The spies were told to note such details as whether someone was a criminal or a homosexual, or was involved in a secret affair, so as to have ammunition for blackmailing later. “We will appoint the smartest ones as Sharia sheiks,” Bakr had noted. “We will train them for a while and then dispatch them.” As a postscript, he had added that several “brothers” would be selected in each town to marry the daughters of the most influential families, in order to “ensure penetration of these families without their knowledge.”

The spies were to find out as much as possible about the target towns: Who lived there, who was in charge, which families were religious, which Islamic school of religious jurisprudence they belonged to, how many mosques there were, who the imam was, how many wives and children he had and how old they were. Other details included what the imam’s sermons were like, whether he was more open to the Sufi, or mystical variant of Islam, whether he sided with the opposition or the regime, and what his position was on jihad. Bakr also wanted answers to questions like: Does the imam earn a salary? If so, who pays it? Who appoints him? Finally: How many people in the village are champions of democracy?

The agents were supposed to function as seismic signal waves, sent out to track down the tiniest cracks, as well as age-old faults within the deep layers of society — in short, any information that could be used to divide and subjugate the local population. The informants included former intelligence spies, but also regime opponents who had quarreled with one of the rebel groups. Some were also young men and adolescents who needed money or found the work exciting. Most of the men on Bakr’s list of informants, such as those from Tal Rifaat, were in their early twenties, but some were as young as 16 or 17.

The plans also include areas like finance, schools, daycare, the media and transportation. But there is a constantly recurring, core theme, which is meticulously addressed in organizational charts and lists of responsibilities and reporting requirements: surveillance, espionage, murder and kidnapping.

For each provincial council, Bakr had planned for an emir, or commander, to be in charge of murders, abductions, snipers, communication and encryption, as well as an emir to supervise the other emirs — “in case they don’t do their jobs well.” The nucleus of this godly state would be the demonic clockwork of a cell and commando structure designed to spread fear.

From the very beginning, the plan was to have the intelligence services operate in parallel, even at the provincial level. A general intelligence department reported to the “security emir” for a region, who was in charge of deputy-emirs for individual districts. A head of secret spy cells and an “intelligence service and information manager” for the district reported to each of these deputy-emirs. The spy cells at the local level reported to the district emir’s deputy. The goal was to have everyone keeping an eye on everyone else.

A handwritten chart shows Bakr's thoughts regarding the establishment of the Islamic State. Zoom

A handwritten chart shows Bakr’s thoughts regarding the establishment of the Islamic State.

Those in charge of training the “Sharia judges in intelligence gathering” also reported to the district emir, while a separate department of “security officers” was assigned to the regional emir.

Sharia, the courts, prescribed piety — all of this served a single goal: surveillance and control. Even the word that Bakr used for the conversion of true Muslims, takwin, is not a religious but a technical term that translates as “implementation,” a prosaic word otherwise used in geology or construction. Still, 1,200 years ago, the word followed a unique path to a brief moment of notoriety. Shiite alchemists used it to describe the creation of artificial life. In his ninth century “Book of Stones,” the Persian Jabir Ibn Hayyan wrote — using a secret script and codes — about the creation of a homunculus. “The goal is to deceive all, but those who love God.” That may also have been to the liking of Islamic State strategists, although the group views Shiites as apostates who shun true Islam. But for Haji Bakr, God and the 1,400-year-old faith in him was but one of many modules at his disposal to arrange as he liked for a higher purpose.

The Beginnings in Iraq

It seemed as if George Orwell had been the model for this spawn of paranoid surveillance. But it was much simpler than that. Bakr was merely modifying what he had learned in the past: Saddam Hussein’s omnipresent security apparatus, in which no one, not even generals in the intelligence service, could be certain they weren’t being spied on.

Expatriate Iraqi author Kanan Makiya described this “Republic of Fear” in a book as a country in which anyone could simply disappear and in which Saddam could seal his official inauguration in 1979 by exposing a bogus conspiracy.

There is a simple reason why there is no mention in Bakr’s writings of prophecies relating to the establishment of an Islamic State allegedly ordained by God: He believed that fanatical religious convictions alone were not enough to achieve victory. But he did believe that the faith of others could be exploited.

In 2010, Bakr and a small group of former Iraqi intelligence officers made Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir and later “caliph,” the official leader of the Islamic State. They reasoned that Baghdadi, an educated cleric, would give the group a religious face.

Bakr was “a nationalist, not an Islamist,” says Iraqi journalist Hisham al-Hashimi, as he recalls the former career officer, who was stationed with Hashimi’s cousin at the Habbaniya Air Base. “Colonel Samir,” as Hashimi calls him, “was highly intelligent, firm and an excellent logistician.” But when Paul Bremer, then head of the US occupational authority in Baghdad, “dissolved the army by decree in May 2003, he was bitter and unemployed.”

Thousands of well-trained Sunni officers were robbed of their livelihood with the stroke of a pen. In doing so, America created its most bitter and intelligent enemies. Bakr went underground and met Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Anbar Province in western Iraq. Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth, had previously run a training camp for international terrorist pilgrims in Afghanistan. Starting in 2003, he gained global notoriety as the mastermind of attacks against the United Nations, US troops and Shiite Muslims. He was even too radical for former Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi died in a US air strike in 2006.

Although Iraq’s dominant Baath Party was secular, the two systems ultimately shared a conviction that control over the masses should lie in the hands of a small elite that should not be answerable to anyone — because it ruled in the name of a grand plan, legitimized by either God or the glory of Arab history. The secret of IS’ success lies in the combination of opposites, the fanatical beliefs of one group and the strategic calculations of the other.

Bakr gradually became one of the military leaders in Iraq, and he was held from 2006 to 2008 in the US military’s Camp Bucca and Abu Ghraib Prison. He survived the waves of arrests and killings by American and Iraqi special units, which threatened the very existence of the IS precursor organization in 2010, Islamic State in Iraq.

For Bakr and a number of former high-ranking officers, this presented an opportunity to seize power in a significantly smaller circle of jihadists. They utilized the time they shared in Camp Bucca to establish a large network of contacts. But the top leaders had already known each other for a long time. Haji Bakr and an additional officer were part of the tiny secret-service unit attached to the anti-aircraft division. Two other IS leaders were from a small community of Sunni Turkmen in the town of Tal Afar. One of them was a high-ranking intelligence officer as well.

In 2010, the idea of trying to defeat Iraqi government forces militarily seemed futile. But a powerful underground organization took shape through acts of terror and protection rackets. When the uprising against the dictatorship of the Assad clan erupted in neighboring Syria, the organization’s leaders sensed an opportunity. By late 2012, particularly in the north, the formerly omnipotent government forces had largely been defeated and expelled. Instead, there were now hundreds of local councils and rebel brigades, part of an anarchic mix that no one could keep track of. It was a state of vulnerability that the tightly organized group of ex-officers sought to exploit.

Attempts to explain IS and its rapid rise to power vary depending on who is doing the explaining. Terrorism experts view IS as an al-Qaida offshoot and attribute the absence of spectacular attacks to date to what they view as a lack of organizational capacity. Criminologists see IS as a mafia-like holding company out to maximize profit. Scholars in the humanities point to the apocalyptic statements by the IS media department, its glorification of death and the belief that Islamic State is involved in a holy mission.

But apocalyptic visions alone are not enough to capture cities and take over countries. Terrorists don’t establish countries. And a criminal cartel is unlikely to generate enthusiasm among supporters around the world, who are willing to give up their lives to travel to the “Caliphate” and potentially their deaths.

IS has little in common with predecessors like al-Qaida aside from its jihadist label. There is essentially nothing religious in its actions, its strategic planning, its unscrupulous changing of alliances and its precisely implemented propaganda narratives. Faith, even in its most extreme form, is just one of many means to an end. Islamic State’s only constant maxim is the expansion of power at any price.

The Implementation of the Plan

The expansion of IS began so inconspicuously that, a year later, many Syrians had to think for a moment about when the jihadists had appeared in their midst. The Dawah offices that were opened in many towns in northern Syria in the spring of 2013 were innocent-looking missionary offices, not unlike the ones that Islamic charities have opened worldwide.

When a Dawah office opened in Raqqa, “all they said was that they were ‘brothers,’ and they never said a word about the ‘Islamic State’,” reports a doctor who fled from the city. A Dawah office was also opened in Manbij, a liberal city in Aleppo Province, in the spring of 2013. “I didn’t even notice it at first,” recalls a young civil rights activist. “Anyone was allowed to open what he wished. We would never have suspected that someone other than the regime could threaten us. It was only when the fighting erupted in January that we learned that Da’ish,” the Arab acronym for IS, “had already rented several apartments where it could store weapons and hide its men.”

The situation was similar in the towns of al-Bab, Atarib and Azaz. Dawah offices were also opened in neighboring Idlib Province in early 2013, in the towns of Sermada, Atmeh, Kafr Takharim, al-Dana and Salqin. As soon as it had identified enough “students” who could be recruited as spies, IS expanded its presence. In al-Dana, additional buildings were rented, black flags raised and streets blocked off. In towns where there was too much resistance or it was unable to secure enough supporters, IS chose to withdraw temporarily. At the beginning, its modus operandi was to expand without risking open resistance, and abduct or kill “hostile individuals,” while denying any involvement in these nefarious activities.

The fighters themselves also remained inconspicuous at first. Bakr and the advance guard had not brought them along from Iraq, which would have made sense. In fact, they had explicitly prohibited their Iraqi fighters from going to Syria. They also chose not to recruit very many Syrians. The IS leaders opted for the most complicated option instead: They decided to gather together all the foreign radicals who had been coming to the region since the summer of 2012. Students from Saudi Arabia, office workers from Tunisia and school dropouts from Europe with no military experience were to form an army with battle-tested Chechens and Uzbeks. It would be located in Syria under Iraqi command.

Already by the end of 2012, military camps had been erected in several places. Initially, no one knew what groups they belonged to. The camps were strictly organized and the men there came from numerous countries — and didn’t speak to journalists. Very few of them were from Iraq. Newcomers received two months of training and were drilled to be unconditionally obedient to the central command. The set-up was inconspicuous and also had another advantage: though necessarily chaotic at the beginning, what emerged were absolutely loyal troops. The foreigners knew nobody outside of their comrades, had no reason to show mercy and could be quickly deployed to many different places. This was in stark contrast to the Syrian rebels, who were mostly focused on defending their hometowns and had to look after their families and help out with the harvest. In fall 2013, IS books listed 2,650 foreign fighters in the Province of Aleppo alone. Tunisians represented a third of the total, followed by Saudi Arabians, Turks, Egyptians and, in smaller numbers, Chechens, Europeans and Indonesians.

Later too, the jihadist cadres were hopelessly outnumbered by the Syrian rebels. Although the rebels distrusted the jihadists, they didn’t join forces to challenge IS because they didn’t want to risk opening up a second front. Islamic State, though, increased its clout with a simple trick: The men always appeared wearing black masks, which not only made them look terrifying, but also meant that no one could know how many of them there actually were. When groups of 200 fighters appeared in five different places one after the other, did it mean that IS had 1,000 people? Or 500? Or just a little more than 200? In addition, spies also ensured that IS leadership was constantly informed of where the population was weak or divided or where there were local conflict, allowing IS to offer itself as a protective power in order to gain a foothold.

The Capture of Raqqa

Raqqa, a once sleepy provincial city on the Euphrates River, was to become the prototype of the complete IS conquest. The operation began subtly, gradually became more brutal and, in the end, IS prevailed over larger opponents without much of a fight. “We were never very political,” explained one doctor who had fled Raqqa for Turkey. “We also weren’t religious and didn’t pray much.”

When Raqqa fell to the rebels in March 2013, a city council was rapidly elected. Lawyers, doctors and journalists organized themselves. Women’s groups were established. The Free Youth Assembly was founded, as was the movement “For Our Rights” and dozens of other initiatives. Anything seemed possible in Raqqa. But in the view of some who fled the city, it also marked the start of its downfall.

True to Haji Bakr’s plan, the phase of infiltration was followed by the elimination of every person who might have been a potential leader or opponent. The first person hit was the head of the city council, who was kidnapped in mid-May 2013 by masked men. The next person to disappear was the brother of a prominent novelist. Two days later, the man who had led the group that painted a revolutionary flag on the city walls vanished.

“We had an idea who kidnapped him,” one of his friends explains, “but no one dared any longer to do anything.” The system of fear began to take hold. Starting in July, first dozens and then hundreds of people disappeared. Sometimes their bodies were found, but they usually disappeared without a trace. In August, the IS military leadership dispatched several cars driven by suicide bombers to the headquarters of the FSA brigade, the “Grandsons of the Prophet,” killing dozens of fighters and leading the rest to flee. The other rebels merely looked on. IS leadership had spun a web of secret deals with the brigades so that each thought it was only the others who might be the targets of IS attacks.

On Oct. 17, 2013, Islamic State called all civic leaders, clerics and lawyers in the city to a meeting. At the time, some thought it might be a gesture of conciliation. Of the 300 people who attended the meeting, only two spoke out against the ongoing takeover, the kidnappings and the murders committed by IS.

One of the two was Muhannad Habayebna, a civil rights activist and journalist well known in the city. He was found five days later tied up and executed with a gunshot wound to his head. Friends received an anonymous email with a photo of his body. The message included only one sentence: “Are you sad about your friend now?” Within hours around 20 leading members of the opposition fled to Turkey. The revolution in Raqqa had come to an end.

A short time later, the 14 chiefs of the largest clans gave an oath of allegiance to Emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. There’s even a film of the ceremony. They were sheiks with the same clans that had sworn their steadfast loyalty to Syrian President Bashar Assad only two years earlier.

The Death of Haji Bakr

Until the end of 2013, everything was going according to Islamic State’s plan — or at least according to the plan of Haji Bakr. The caliphate was expanding village by village without being confronted by unified resistance from Syrian rebels. Indeed, the rebels seemed paralyzed in the face of IS’ sinister power.

But when IS henchmen brutally tortured a well-liked rebel leader and doctor to death in December 2013, something unexpected happened. Across the country, Syrian brigades — both secular and parts of the radical Nusra Front — joined together to do battle with Islamic State. By attacking IS everywhere at the same time, they were able to rob the Islamists of their tactical advantage — that of being able to rapidly move units to where they were most urgently needed.

Within weeks, IS was pushed out of large regions of northern Syria. Even Raqqa, the Islamic State capital, had almost fallen by the time 1,300 IS fighters arrived from Iraq. But they didn’t simply march into battle. Rather, they employed a trickier approach, recalls the doctor who fled. “In Raqqa, there were so many brigades on the move that nobody knew who exactly the others were. Suddenly, a group in rebel dress began to shoot at the other rebels. They all simply fled.”

A small, simple masquerade had helped IS fighters to victory: Just change out of black clothes into jeans and vests. They did the same thing in the border town of Jarablus. On several occasions, rebels in other locations took drivers from IS suicide vehicles into custody. The drivers asked in surprise: “You are Sunnis too? Our emir told me you were infidels from Assad’s army.”

Once complete, the picture begins to look absurd: God’s self-proclaimed enforcers on Earth head out to conquer a future worldly empire, but with what? With ninja outfits, cheap tricks and espionage cells camouflaged as missionary offices. But it worked. IS held on to Raqqa and was able to reconquer some of its lost territories. But it came too late for the great planner Haji Bakr.

Haji Bakr stayed behind in the small city of Tal Rifaat, where IS had long had the upper hand. But when rebels attacked at the end of January 2014, the city became divided within just a few hours. One half remained under IS control while the other was wrested away by one of the local brigades. Haji Bakr was stuck in the wrong half. Furthermore, in order to remain incognito he had refrained from moving into one of the heavily guarded IS military quarters. And so, the godfather of snitching was snitched on by a neighbor. “A Daish sheik lives next door!” the man called. A local commander named Abdelmalik Hadbe and his men drove over to Bakr’s house. A woman jerked open the door and said brusquely: “My husband isn’t here.”

But his car is parked out front, the rebels countered.

At that moment, Haji Bakr appeared at the door in his pajamas. Hadbe ordered him to come with them, whereupon Bakr protested that he wanted to get dressed. No, Hadbe repeated: “Come with us! Immediately!”

Surprisingly nimbly for his age, Bakr jumped back and kicked the door closed, according to two people who witnessed the scene. He then hid under the stairs and yelled: “I have a suicide belt! I’ll blow up all of us!” He then came out with a Kalashnikov and began shooting. Hadbe then fired his weapon and killed Bakr.

When the men later learned who they had killed, they searched the house, gathering up computers, passports, mobile phone SIM cards, a GPS device and, most importantly, papers. They didn’t find a Koran anywhere.

Haji Bakr was dead and the local rebels took his wife into custody. Later, the rebels exchanged her for Turkish IS hostages at the request of Ankara. Bakr’s valuable papers were initially hidden away in a chamber, where they spent several months.

A Second Cache of Documents

Haji Bakr’s state continued to work even without its creator. Just how precisely his plans were implemented — point by point — is confirmed by the discovery of another file. When IS was forced to rapidly abandon its headquarters in Aleppo in January 2014, they tried to burn their archive, but they ran into a problem similar to that confronted by the East German secret police 25 years earlier: They had too many files.

Some of them remained intact and ended up with the al-Tawhid Brigade, Aleppo’s largest rebel group at the time. After lengthy negotiations, the group agreed to make the papers available to SPIEGEL for exclusive publication rights — everything except a list of IS spies inside of al-Tawhid.

An examination of the hundreds of pages of documents reveals a highly complex system involving the infiltration and surveillance of all groups, including IS’ own people. The jihad archivists maintained long lists noting which informants they had installed in which rebel brigades and government militias. It was even noted who among the rebels was a spy for Assad’s intelligence service.

“They knew more than we did, much more,” said the documents’ custodian. Personnel files of the fighters were among them, including detailed letters of application from incoming foreigners, such as the Jordanian Nidal Abu Eysch. He sent along all of his terror references, including their telephone numbers, and the file number of a felony case against him. His hobbies were also listed: hunting, boxing, bomb building.

IS wanted to know everything, but at the same time, the group wanted to deceive everyone about its true aims. One multiple-page report, for example, carefully lists all of the pretexts IS could use to justify the seizure of the largest flour mill in northern Syria. It includes such excuses as alleged embezzlement as well as the ungodly behavior of the mill’s workers. The reality — that all strategically important facilities like industrial bakeries, grain silos and generators were to be seized and their equipment sent to the caliphate’s unofficial capital Raqqa — was to be kept under wraps.

Over and over again, the documents reveal corollaries with Haji Bakr’s plans for the establishment of IS — for example that marrying in to influential families should be pushed. The files from Aleppo also included a list of 34 fighters who wanted wives in addition to other domestic needs. Abu Luqman and Abu Yahya al-Tunis, for example, noted that they needed an apartment. Abu Suheib and Abu Ahmed Osama requested bedroom furniture. Abu al-Baraa al Dimaschqi asked for financial assistance in addition to a complete set of furniture, while Abu Azmi wanted a fully automatic washing machine.

Shifting Alliances

But in the first months of 2014, yet another legacy from Haji Bakr began playing a decisive role: His decade of contacts to Assad’s intelligence services.

In 2003, the Damascus regime was panicked that then-US President George W. Bush, after his victory over Saddam Hussein, would have his troops continue into Syria to topple Assad as well. Thus, in the ensuing years, Syrian intelligence officials organized the transfer of thousands of radicals from Libya, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia to al-Qaida in Iraq. Ninety percent of the suicide attackers entered Iraq via the Syrian route. A strange relationship developed between Syrian generals, international jihadists and former Iraqi officers who had been loyal to Saddam — a joint venture of deadly enemies, who met repeatedly to the west of Damascus.

At the time, the primary aim was to make the lives of the Americans in Iraq hell. Ten years later, Bashar Assad had a different motive to breathe new life into the alliance: He wanted to sell himself to the world as the lesser of several evils. Islamist terror, the more gruesome the better, was too important to leave it up to the terrorists. The regime’s relationship with Islamic State is — just as it was to its predecessor a decade prior — marked by a completely tactical pragmatism. Both sides are trying to use the other in the assumption that it will emerge as the stronger power, able to defeat the discrete collaborator of yesterday. Conversely, IS leaders had no problem receiving assistance from Assad’s air force, despite all of the group’s pledges to annihilate the apostate Shiites. Starting in January 2014, Syrian jets would regularly — and exclusively — bomb rebel positions and headquarters during battles between IS and rebel groups.

In battles between IS and rebels in January 2014, Assad’s jets regularly bombed only rebel positions, while the Islamic State emir ordered his fighters to refrain from shooting at the army. It was an arrangement that left many of the foreign fighters deeply disillusioned; they had imaged jihad differently.

IS threw its entire arsenal at the rebels, sending more suicide bombers into their ranks in just a few weeks than it deployed during the entire previous year against the Syrian army. Thanks in part to additional air strikes, IS was able to reconquer territory that it had briefly lost.

Nothing symbolizes the tactical shifting of alliances more than the fate of the Syrian army’s Division 17. The isolated base near Raqqa had been under rebel siege for more than a year. But then, IS units defeated the rebels there and Assad’s air force was once again able to use the base for supply flights without fear of attack.

But a half year later, after IS conquered Mosul and took control of a gigantic weapons depot there, the jihadists felt powerful enough to attack their erstwhile helpers. IS fighters overran Division 17 and slaughtered the soldiers, whom they had only recently protected.

What the Future May Hold

The setbacks suffered by IS in recent months — the defeat in the fight for Kurdish enclave Kobani and, more recently, the loss of the Iraqi city of Tikrit, have generated the impression that the end of Islamic State is nigh. As though it, in its megalomania, overreached itself, has lost its mystique, is in retreat and will soon disappear. But such forced optimism is likely premature. The IS may have lost many fighters, but it has continued expanding in Syria.

It is true that jihadist experiments in ruling a specific geographical area have failed in the past. Mostly, though, that was because of their lack of knowledge regarding how to administer a region, or even a state. That is exactly the weakness that IS strategists have long been aware of — and eliminated. Within the “Caliphate,” those in power have constructed a regime that is more stable and more flexible than it appears from the outside.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may be the officially named leader, but it remains unclear how much power he holds. In any case, when an emissary of al-Qaida head Ayman al-Zawahiri contacted the Islamic State, it was Haji Bakr and other intelligence officers, and not al-Baghdadi, whom he approached. Afterwards, the emissary bemoaned “these phony snakes who are betraying the real jihad.”

Within IS, there are state structures, bureaucracy and authorities. But there is also a parallel command structure: elite units next to normal troops; additional commanders alongside nominal military head Omar al-Shishani; power brokers who transfer or demote provincial and town emirs or even make them disappear at will. Furthermore, decisions are not, as a rule, made in Shura Councils, nominally the highest decision-making body. Instead, they are being made by the “people who loosen and bind” (ahl al-hall wa-l-aqd), a clandestine circle whose name is taken from the Islam of medieval times.

Islamic State is able to recognize all manner of internal revolts and stifle them. At the same time, the hermitic surveillance structure is also useful for the financial exploitation of its subjects.

The air strikes flown by the US-led coalition may have destroyed the oil wells and refineries. But nobody is preventing the Caliphate’s financial authorities from wringing money out of the millions of people who live in the regions under IS control — in the form of new taxes and fees, or simply by confiscating property. IS, after all, knows everything from its spies and from the data it plundered from banks, land-registry offices and money-changing offices. It knows who owns which homes and which fields; it knows who owns many sheep or has lots of money. The subjects may be unhappy, but there is minimal room for them to organize, arm themselves and rebel.

As the West’s attention is primarily focused on the possibility of terrorist attacks, a different scenario has been underestimated: the approaching intra-Muslim war between Shiites and Sunnis. Such a conflict would allow IS to graduate from being a hated terror organization to a central power.

Already today, the frontlines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen follow this confessional line, with Shiite Afghans fighting against Sunni Afghans in Syria and IS profiting in Iraq from the barbarism of brutal Shiite militias. Should this ancient Islam conflict continue to escalate, it could spill over into confessionally mixed states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Lebanon.

In such a case, IS propaganda about the approaching apocalypse could become a reality. In its slipstream, an absolutist dictatorship in the name of God could be established.