PSCI 349

Op-Ed 2
ISIS and State Building: Was ISIS Inevitable?
For most Americans watching the daily news, ISIS, or the Islamic State, may seem like the single
most horrifying entity on the planet. And that is not necessarily a wholly incorrect sentiment:
unfortunately, the organization has caused extreme harm and suffering to many in the Middle
East and other parts of the world. Yet they are far from being the first group of their kind, both in
terms of ideologySaudi Arabia exhibits extremely similar ideological qualities to ISISand in
terms of political aspirationsseveral leaders, such as Saddam Hussein and Gamal Abdel
Nasser, have previously tried to achieve something similar to ISIS (i.e. a territorial state). That
being said, ISISs state-building goals do not actually seem that unrealistic, given the history of
the particular region they occupy (i.e. the area between Iraq and Syria). So, then, in some ways,
does what ISIS aims to do actually make sense? I would argue that, yes, their statehood
aspirations do not come as a surprise, and while their ambitions are not shocking, at least some
of the horror comes from the violence somewhat inherent in organic state-building.
While ISISs radical Islamist ideology appears wild and completely out of touch with
contemporary reality, they are not completely alone in what theyre doing; in fact, we can see
some of their ideas legitimized in the Saudi Arabian state. Many have drawn comparisons
between the two, even prompting the hashtag #SueMeSaudi to bring attention to actions of the
Saudi governmentwhich is viewed as legitimate in the international systemthat parallel the
actions of ISIS, such as imposing Sharia Law, violating many human rights, and enforcing strict
punishments for violations. While the two arent necessarily identicalISIS does follow some
more extreme principles, is decidedly opposed to the Western world, and wants to establish a
caliphate for all Muslimsmany similarities exist. While Im not in any way advocating for the

acceptance and promotion of these principles, it is interesting to note the parallels, and that one
of these states is legitimate in the global community, while the other is not.
Furthermore, ISISs goal of establishing a territorial state (though they do not put it that
way, seeing as they are opposed to the Western international political order) makes a lot of sense,
especially given that this exact objective has been attempted at least three times in the past, and
by significantly less radical leaders. Egypts Muhammad Ali in the 1800s, Gamal Abdel Nasser
in the mid-20th century, and Iraqs Saddam Hussein in the late-19 th century all attempted to create
natural states out of territory artificially imposed by the European major powers. These three
leaders, while not necessarily beacons of western democracy, were significantly more secular
and less extreme than ISIS. They were also all thwarted by western leaders, who disagreed with
their ambitions. However, it is crucial to note that the artificial borders drawn by England and
France in 1916 with the Sykes-Picot agreement have now been in dispute for 100 years. Rather
than dividing the territory in a way that made sense given sectarian, ethnic, and religious lines,
Britain and France did what was most convenient to themagainst the wishes of the people, and
against the advice of more or less anyone who knows anything about the Middle East. So the
establishment of a Sunni Islamic state is not actually a new idea; it could have been done in the
19th century, it could have been done in the 1950s, or it could have been done in 1990. But
because the western world chose not to allow this natural state-building to happen then, we are
left with ISIS now.
Moreover, it is important to recognize that many of the people who are attracted to ISISs
claims are not necessarily all crazy, deranged individuals, but rather people who are seeking
stability in a region that, thanks to poor decisions from many political leaders throughout the past
century, has been plagued by insecurity, violence, and difficulties. ISISs assertions of security,

power, and stability come as a welcome respite to many young men who find themselves
unemployed and disenfranchised with nowhere else to go. Again, while this is not ideal, it makes
sense.
And finally, state-building has, historically, not been a pleasant thing to witness. The wars
that tormented Europe in the years leading to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 were not without
significant bloodshed and violence of their own. Many found the ideals of the French
Revolution, such as democracy, completely abhorrent and unrealistic. Again, while I am not
excusing ISISs horrific actions, it is important to consider that we are seeing them play out in
real-time thanks to contemporary media channels that gives us around-the-clock access to any
news we want, and the violent, shocking acts of ISIS if often what makes for the best-selling
media. If England and France were coming into being right now, we would probably find that
reprehensible and inexcusable as well, because state-building tends to not be a particularly
enjoyable process.
To conclude, it seems like ISIS, or some variation of it, is here to stay, and that is not
completely illogical. The states of Iraq and Syriawhich are not really much of states anymore
were externally imposed, and greatly contested throughout their entire existence. While other
leaders, who would have been more Western-friendly, attempted to create some type of Sunni
state in that area, they were shut down. Regional instability, economic distress, and general
insecurity have provided the perfect breeding-ground for a radical group like ISIS to come to
power. Moreover, similar states such as Saudi Arabia have presented an example of a legitimate
state with similar ideology. The question then becomes not why is ISIS such a prevailing entity,
but where do we go from here? It seems like some type of state, be that ISIS or something
similar, will inevitably prevail.

Source (on similarities between Saudi Arabia and ISIS):

Sims, Alexandra. "The Difference between Isis and Saudi Arabia." The Independent.
Independent Digital News and Media, 5 Dec. 2015. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-difference-between-isis-andsaudi-arabia-a6761766.html>