This is not uncommon behavior from groups like this or even the old Italian mob in the U.S. Doing humanitarian things like this with the locals helps buy you support and protection. Hamas has done this for years (including schools and healthcare), which helped buy it good will and even win elections.
A lot of times these groups are doing more for local populations in terms of making sure they have food and basic necessities than the government. Usually when this is happening, it's a pretty strong indictment of the official government.
The line between organized crime and government can be surprisingly thin. I actually don't intend this as a criticism of government; I intend it as an interesting question to muse over. I believe it has good answers, but the question is richer than you might initially think.
(For instance, you might be inclined to try drawing a simple line between the two based on "the consent of the governed". Which is all fine and dandy at a social scale, but what does that mean to you as an individual? Have you tried removing your consent from your local government? The question is not as easy as it may look at first. Even as, again, I want to emphasize that I think it can be answered reasonably; just not easily.)
This largely comes down to the state being primarily defined as a monopoly of force. When non-state actors end up wielding the most threat of force, then collective decision-making is effectively deferred to those most capable of enforcing its will.
This is why I cannot give much credibility to anarcho-capitalist states. Simply removing a visible state does not preclude shadow governments from forming.
> This is why I cannot give much credibility to anarcho-capitalist states. Simply removing a visible state does not preclude shadow governments from forming.
If a government is formed, shadow or not, wouldn't that necessitate removal of the "anarcho" qualifier?
In a similar vein, it seems to me that the term "anarcho-anything state" is logically inconsistent, unless one exclusively uses the "chaos; disorder" definition for "anarcho-" instead of the "without rulers" definition.
I've mused over the same thing. A conclusion I have is that the only real difference is their perceived legitimacy. If we call one a state and another gang, we are really attaching legitimacy values to them.
While I wasn't thinking of a particular case, ISIS is certainly an instance of trying to cross the line.
(Which I suppose also further underlines the point I want to emphasize about how I'm trying to promote a food-for-thought question, not a value judgment. Personally I find ISIS contemptible as an organized crime mob, and I find them contemptible as a government. I have no plans to change my opinions based on which side of the line they fall on. Which one are they on, though? Honestly the answer probably varies by region at this point. You can make a case that Westphalian-style countries are dead in the Middle East, and a stronger case that they are at least trending down. Whether that trend will be permanent is anyone's guess.)
Absolutely. There are only benefits in acquiring the support from the local population, specially when people feel "neglected" by their current official government. This happens a lot in Brazilian poorest locations, where drug dealing gangs mix violence with "community support", creating a combination of fear and "acceptance" in the locals, getting them not only to not help the police, but also to "accept" their relatives getting into crime, as if it wasn't "completely wrong". There is also special behavior targeted at children, in order to drag them to crime later (or as soon as possible).
It clearly shows the group's violent rhetoric and uncompromising ideology, but also illustrates that ISIS is far more than a war machine. They are trying to create a nation, and that includes civic law enforcement and social services. For many people in the conquered regions, it represents more stability than whatever was there before. Of course, there are many others who are terrorized by ISIS (typically because they do not adhere to the correct brand of religion in the correct way) but it's important to remember that there is a fair-sized contingent of civilians on the ground who welcome ISIS.
I heard an interview the other day from one of those civilians. Before ISIS, they had a dozen competing militias screwing around, and they never knew who was on top or which one they'd have to deal with at any particular moment or what they might want. With ISIS there's exactly one group in charge and they know exactly what that group wants. I don't know that this person welcomed ISIS, per se, but they saw it as a substantial improvement over what was before.
I think a lot of these people would prefer a strong, sane national government that isn't at war with everybody and lets people live their lives. But that doesn't seem to be an option, and ISIS is the best they've had recently.
Muslims (Sunni) will always welcome groups like ISIS because it offers what they want: Sharia laws, kuffr sex-slaves and etc.
Arab sunni muslims in Sinjar raped, sold and murdered their own non-muslim neighbours as soon as ISIS strolled into town. They weren't forced, they were greeting them with open arms evident by photos.
I don't like to entertain the notion about whitewashing ISIS as some sort of a sensible "muslim alternative", not that I'm accusing you to suggest that. I'm just noticing that pattern here more and more, some serious high level of naivety of people who've never experienced living in those areas and conditions.
Both Lee Kuan Yew and Pim Fortuyn are gone. Not much hope left.
I don't think I've seen any of this whitewashing you describe. The farthest I've seen anyone go is along the lines of what I've said, that people welcome ISIS not because they're in any way good, but merely because ISIS's order is less bad than the chaos that existed before.
I think this is important to understand, because without that chaos ISIS wouldn't have had this fertile ground in which to grow. If Iraq and Syria hadn't been left to disintegrate, ISIS wouldn't have gone anywhere. Looking at the future, if and when ISIS is destroyed, it's essential to ensure that some form of order is established in these areas, or else we'll just be back at it again in a few more years.
From mainstream outlets I've seen everything from legitimizing ISIS as a(nother) Sunni state (the idea is a Sunni Iraq split is good though) to outright calling them freedom fighters.
GP was saying that stability was probably welcomed.
Even the Syrian Government Army could be welcomed after one spends some time with a different militia taking over a place and collecting taxes and enforcing new rules EVERYDAY.
Even if some of those militias were better than the new stable regime.
The generalization about what Sunni Muslims want is quite gross.
I don't think "doesn't want innocent people to starve to death" and "wants to cut off someone's head because of their religion" are mutually exclusive.
"Doesn't want innocent people to starve to death" and "Doesn't want people to go hungry and start rising up against you" look pretty similar from the outside...
BTW, the word "state" in "Islamic State..." makes it pretty clear: they're offering state functions. Guess how modern nation-states started: killing rivals, providing security and services to populations inside their boders, establishing central cultures...
Of course ISIS needs to be smashed. But note how many nations still celebrate depraved monsters like Christopher Columbus. (Consider that when wondering why people fall for ISIS propaganda. Falling for that kind of propaganda is extremely common; we all do.)
A lot of times these groups are doing more for local populations in terms of making sure they have food and basic necessities than the government. Usually when this is happening, it's a pretty strong indictment of the official government.