# So.... \*IS\* ISIS a state? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2015, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907 "2015-09-29T02:06:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/201 "2015-10-06T18:59:18Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I see this as “diplomatic doublespeak”, not as “this shoots down totaly the notion that recognition is the only thing that matters” (I note you added the word “formal” to my point. Why?). The United States and many other countries do _informally_ ‘recognize’ Taiwan–that is, treat it as a state in (virtually) all but name. > [@Malthus](#): > > On the contrary: remove the US assurances, and Taiwan’s position vis. China would be a lot weaker - depite the fact that it meets the “statehood” criteria just as much (namely, its own territory, its own government, etc.). > > In “declaratory theory” terms, Taiwan is as much a “state” if the US turned its back on it and said to China “help yourself - we always knew Taiwan was just a rebel province, and really belongs to you”, as if the US told China “we will defend Taiwan against you to the last drop of blood”. Yet practically, the two situations could not be more different. At least, that’s my opinion. Er… that’s kind of _my_ point: practical matters–physical facts, and real relationships, apart from technicalities and doublespeak–are what matter most. If the US turns it back on Taiwan, nothing has changed by _constitutive_ theory–Taiwan was not formally recognized either way–but practical reality has. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/202 "2015-10-06T19:08:28Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > The United States and many other countries do _informally_ ‘recognize’ Taiwan–that is, treat it as a state in (virtually) all but name. So we are agreed. > [@](#): > > Er… that’s kind of _my_ point: practical matters–physical facts, and real relationships, apart from technicalities and doublespeak–are what matter most. If the US turns it back on Taiwan, nothing has changed by _constitutive_ theory–Taiwan was not formally recognized either way–but practical reality has. Yes, and one of those “real relationships” (and, in fact, the only really important one) is - wait for it - recognition by other states! This has nothing to do with the debate between “declarative” and “constructive” academic legalism - at least, not on my side. To my mind, _de facto_ “recognition” is just as important as _de jure_. ISIS, of course, will get neither (unless it changes its goals in the future). No significant state will willingly treat as a “state” an entity that, by its very nature, has no respect for the concept of state sovereignty. How can they? ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/203 "2015-10-06T19:20:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Right now, [IS] doesn’t even satisfy the definition of having a defined population and territory. Both are in flux. You cannot draw the boundaries of “The Islamic State” and have those hold true for even few months. The boundaries are in flux, but much of the territory and population has been firmly theirs for over a year. Including Raqqa and Mosul, whatever Wikipedia says. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > They are a rebel group that is trying to establish a state, but has not succeeded. Right. I suspect that, ironically, their chances of success may be the greater because some parties don’t want to acknowledge how much they’ve already done, how state-like their operation is. Look at the overthrow of the Afghan Taliban in 2001. That was a generally unrecognized\* state, but the Bush II administration ‘recognized’ (understood) that it was a state, and didn’t worry too much about the formal details. Bush himself called it a “regime,” and referred to Afghans as “its own people,” and similar phraseology as used for wholly recognized authoritarian governments. More to the point, the campaign to depose them was undertaken as a war on a state. - Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE each recognized the Taliban government for part of the period between the fall of Najibullah and the American invasion. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/204 "2015-10-06T19:23:47Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Yes, and one of those “real relationships” (and, in fact, the only really important one) is - wait for it - recognition by other states! > … > To my mind, _de facto_ “recognition” is just as important as _de jure_. Do you honestly not see the direct contradiction here? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/205 "2015-10-06T19:28:09Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Do you honestly not see the direct contradiction here? No. What is “directly contradictory” in stating that recognition, whether it be de facto or de jure, is the most important thing? ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/206 "2015-10-06T20:29:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Because its declared purpose is to re-create a universal Caliphate, as a precursor to the apocalypse. This is a set of goals completely incompatible with seeking “statehood” within a system of sovereign states. Under a Caliphate (or at least as it is conceived by ISIS), there is only one legitmate authority that can exist, and the relationship between it and the existing states is set. > > [What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/) Until then it wants to be a state, hence calling itself Islamic State. Is The Atlantic on Ravenman’s list of approved sources ? Otherwise I’m afraid you’ll have to find something Worthy and True to quote. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/207 "2015-10-06T20:32:45Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > Until then it wants to be a state, hence calling itself Islamic State. > > Is The Atlantic on Ravenman’s list of approved sources ? Otherwise I’m afraid you’ll have to find something Worthy and True to quote. I would suggest you concentrate on improving your argument as opposed to worrying which sources of journalism I like. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/208 "2015-10-06T20:34:45Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I would suggest you concentrate on improving your argument as opposed to worrying which sources of journalism I like. I suggest you hold your fingers away from your keyboard when it comes to vetting other people’s sources without the necessary insight to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/209 "2015-10-06T21:05:49Z")
Man, you’re treating a few sentences I wrote criticizing Cockburn as if I violated the hadith prohibiting depictions of Mohammad. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/210 "2015-10-06T21:07:53Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Look at the overthrow of the Afghan Taliban in 2001. That was a generally unrecognized\* state, but the Bush II administration ‘recognized’ (understood) that it was a state, and didn’t worry too much about the formal details. Bush himself called it a “regime,” and referred to Afghans as “its own people,” and similar phraseology as used for wholly recognized authoritarian governments. More to the point, the campaign to depose them was undertaken as a war on a state. Bush II is a pretty terrible example of how to go about foreign relations. It’s like citing Chef Boyardee as an authority on fine dining. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/211 "2015-10-06T21:17:10Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Look at the overthrow of the Afghan Taliban in 2001. That was a generally unrecognized\* state, but the Bush II administration ‘recognized’ (understood) that it was a state, and didn’t worry too much about the formal details. Bush himself called it a “regime,” and referred to Afghans as “its own people,” and similar phraseology as used for wholly recognized authoritarian governments. More to the point, the campaign to depose them was undertaken as a war on a state. > > - Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE each recognized the Taliban government for part of the period between the fall of Najibullah and the American invasion. I don’t think you’re on target with this line of argument. Literally everyone recognized Afghanistan as a state, but only those countries you mentioned recognized the Taliban government. There’s a very long history of countries recognizing that a chunk of land between various borders is indeed a state, but disagreeing as to who constitutes the legitimate government of that state. This is in contrast to our current debate, in which the question is whether land under the military control of a terrorist organization ought to be recognized as no longer part of the country of Syria. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/212 "2015-10-06T21:18:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Man, you’re treating a few sentences I wrote criticizing Cockburn as if I violated the hadith prohibiting depictions of Mohammad. You’re getting all worked up about nothing, just let the current affairs info flow freely and you’ll be much better off. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/213 "2015-10-06T21:23:10Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > Until then it wants to be a state, hence calling itself Islamic State. “Islamic state” doesn’t have the same meaning as a “state” does in normal usage. Basically, they mean a government that rules strictly in accordance with Islamic law. Their actual goal is not a “state” as we know it, but a worldwide caliphate. The “Islamic State” currently claims territories that belong to a bunch of other states and are not contiguous (for example, it claims bits of Egypt and the North Caucasus). It makes no sense to call these bits “parts of the Islamic State” if it was a state as we know states, but makes perfect sense to call them “parts of the Islamic State” in _their_ view of an “Islamic State” - namely, they are bits of the caliphate-to-come. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/214 "2015-10-06T21:31:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > “Islamic state” doesn’t have the same meaning as a “state” does in normal usage. And here all these people are arguing over whether to apply the normal usage or not. You might have just shown everyone for fools who should properly check what ISIS itself means by state. 🙂 What\* do\* they mean ? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/215 "2015-10-06T21:44:57Z")
It’s aspirational. They were calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006, well before they had control of any meaningful portion of Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/216 "2015-10-06T21:47:29Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > And here all these people are arguing over whether to apply the normal usage or not. > You might have just shown everyone for fools who should properly check what ISIS itself means by state. 🙂 > > What\* do\* they mean ? An “Islamic state” is an entity that governs itself by Islamic law (this can, and does, include entities which we think of as “states” - but is not necessarily limited to them). ISIS clarified exactly what form of entity they wanted to become when they proclaimed themselves to be the Caliphate. This was a bold step in Islamic jurisprudence - even al-Quida never actually proclaimed itself the Caliphate. Hence, the “Islamic State” doesn’t exist in just one place (although actual control of at least some territory was nesessary as a precursor for its proclamation). It exists in Syria, but it also exists in the Caucasus (even though the latter is still formally owned by a “state”). ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/217 "2015-10-07T01:18:54Z")
Any quotes from them on what they mean ? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/218 "2015-10-07T14:42:48Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > This, I think, is the heart of the problem. ISIS clearly isn’t a state, and the international diplomatic community is all about playing silly games. > > What I want to know is, if others were to recognize ISIS as a state, would it be able to continue as such, or would it collapse? > > Frankly, I think the best hope for the people there is if ISIS forms a state, and gradually shifts from barbarian lunacy to stability. I estimate that takes a generation, but if we let them get on with it, with not-so-subtle encouragement and many carrots and sticks, the whole region has a better shot than the current “bomb them into inescapable war” plan. Eh, ISIS can’t really do that for doctrinal reasons. Their leadership would not even accept recognition from other States, or they would denounce/mock it if it was offered. Additionally, they control a patchwork of territories in Syria and Iraq, some of which they exercise fairly consistent control over while others they hold because one of their patrols “subjugated” the area and no one else has been through again to “take it away.” Some areas they only control for the purposes of levying tolls on passerby or collecting oil from oil fields in said area. It’s missing a lot of the working pieces to sit down and become a state in the first place. Not to mention it is actively fighting the Iraqi military in Iraq, supported by airstrikes from the United States. It is also actively fighting the other rebel groups in Syria and to a lesser degree Assad’s forces (Assad’s territory largely doesn’t directly border ISIS territory, yet–but if the recent influx of Russian support leads to large losses for the non-ISIS rebels it will eventually.) It is fighting Kurds in Northern Iraq and Norther Syria. There’s like 5-6 entities it’s actively at war with if not more and it’s going to be unrealistic that the West saying “we’re okay with ISIS” is going to make those entities stop fighting ISIS and sit down and settle up a stable state–assuming in your scenario ISIS had any interest in doing that. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907/219 "2015-10-07T14:52:07Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Right. I suspect that, ironically, their chances of success may be the greater because some parties don’t want to acknowledge how much they’ve already done, how state-like their operation is. I don’t really think that is true. No one has denied or is unaware of the fact that in parts of their territories (mostly the large cities that they’ve held continuously over time), they enforce civilian laws using their draconian brand of Islamic law, or that they collect taxes, or that they run oil fields, or that they collect tolls etc. But Statehood is a very modern concept. While it can possibly be applied to forms of government from hundreds or thousands of years ago, it often, or even most of the time, doesn’t make sense to do so. The Frankish Kingdom that was ruled by Charles Martel (as Mayor of the Palace–the crowned King in said Kingdom was akin to the Shogunate era Japanese Emperor in that he had no actual power) actually fits all modern definitions of statehood, as did the Roman Empire or even areas controlled by the Mongols under Genghis Khan. But as a matter of practicality those ancient governments were so materially different from government and “states” today that most people just consider them pre-modern civilizations and don’t dig too far into trying to apply modern conceptions of statehood to them. A big problem with all of those I mentioned other than the Roman Empire is land wasn’t really associated with a legal entity like a state, but with individual rulers, and when they died the ruler(s) (usually more than one) who succeeded them often now ruled land with dramatically different borders. This is because the land, the people, and the government were essentially based on feudal personal ownership concepts and it’s hard to mesh modern concepts of statehood with those realities. I’d argue in resurrecting a very pre-modern form of government, ISIS is best thought of in those terms. They’re much more akin an ancient war band that has subjugated some territory than any modern state. Ancient warlords collected taxes and enforced laws and did other things as well, but they didn’t really sit atop a legal/political entity we’d call a state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-is-isis-a-state/732907.md?page=10)