NYT - The ISIS Files

[tshile]

The NY Times has a piece out yesterday that details a group of reporters working with Iraqi security forces, and ISIS researchers to gather various official ISIS documents and break them down.

 

It goes through how ISIS retained/assembled their government and how it carried out its business. From land transfers to punishments to enforcing their version of Law.

 

You'll find the expected cruelness, but you'll also find a general sentiment that the city of Mosul was run in a significantly better way than the previous Iraqi government. 

 

I'm not going to quote any of it because I wouldn't even know where to begin. The article is too long to post in its entirety. So I thought the above sentences would work best.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/04/04/world/middleeast/isis-documents-mosul-iraq.html

 

[Springfield]

Don’t have the time to read the article, but the statement above reminds me of the Michael Moore hit piece on GWB where he painted a picture of how well Iraq was run before GWB decided to remove him from power.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Much easier to find qualified beheading specialists than to maintain a competent, motivated staff at the Mosul DMV.

[gbear]

As I read this, I think of Puerto Rico where 6 months after a storm hits, restoring electricity is still a stretch goal.  Terrorists can restore power while their government is under siege, but we can't.  It makes me think of the old saying about the Germans in WW II, "At least the trains were on time."   

 

So how do we motivate people without threats, or is the threat of violence the only way to make a productive society?

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Springfield said:

Don’t have the time to read the article, but the statement above reminds me of the Michael Moore hit piece on GWB where he painted a picture of how well Iraq was run before GWB decided to remove him from power.

 

Yeah, this doesn't really seem like a hit piece though.

 

It seems like they actually put together quite a nice piece here.There's no attempt to hide what ISIS is, hell even ISIS doesn't try to hide what they are, they're pretty up front about it.

 

But the idea of taking over an area and keeping the government intact from a personnel standpoint, and slowly rolling your agenda into it,  sounds like a smart tactic that worked well in this case. Much better, as the piece points out, than how we handled Iraq when we took over.

 

And I've seen most of these pieces of information in various different reporting over the year, but never had anyone put it all together in one piece to connect dots like this. 

 

I think the biggest take away is that it's a complete shame that a cruel and ruthless terrorist organization can manage a city better than a (somewhat) normal government. As terrible as ISIS is, they took care of the people who agreed with their religious views. The water, sewer, eletricit, food, healthcare, etc all improved significantly.

 

It's just that if you weren't a Sunni male you were pretty much kept away from the improvements. Females were regressed back to 7th century social standards, and anyone who wasn't Sunni was chased off, killed, imprisoned, and wealth built up over generations was confiscated and given to Sunnis.

 

The part about the Agricultural department head watching Sunni families he grew up with, who had kids that were friends with his kids, stand in line to take over land from Shia families they grew up with, that also had kids that played with and were friends with their kids... it's just heart breaking and unbelievably sad commentary on how humans can and do behave when allowed...

 

The part where the trash director said under the Iraqi government all he could do was suspend a person for one day without pay for not doing their job... but under ISIS they would be imprisoned... so... guess what? the trash people did their job and magically the city was significantly cleaner... I found that an interesting microcosm of how people behave when they're allowed as well... Funny how the job can get done and done well when the punishment is severe enough...

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, gbear said:

As I read this, I think of Puerto Rico where 6 months after a storm hits, restoring electricity is still a stretch goal.  Terrorists can restore power while their government is under siege, but we can't.  It makes me think of the old saying about the Germans in WW II, "At least the trains were on time."   

 

So how do we motivate people without threats, or is the threat of violence the only way to make a productive society?

 

Restoring electricity in Puerto Rico has been a challenge because people rigged up their own taps in order to steal electricity and the people working for the companies don't want to touch it, or aren't allowed because it was being stolen in the first place.

 

I don't know that you can compare the two. One is about corruption the other is about a really messed up circumstance and there not being a right answer (unless you think it's right that people steal electricity...)

 

[gbear]

#tshile, I am not arguing with Puerto Rico having problems with illegal taps onto the grid and that complicating the efforts to restore power along with a myriad of other issues.  I just find myself coming back to a saying I first heard in regards to the "Million Dollar Murray" type of problems.  At some point, we have to decide whether it is more important to be effective or fair.  Fair is not giving power back to areas with significant numbers of people not paying for it.  Effective is getting the lights back.  At a certain point, we need our governments to be effective custodians for society.  If you can't do that, I am not sure being fair is enough.  I just look at the ISIS government and think they made sure the effective check-box had a check mark in it.  I then wonder what we need to do to motivate our society to promote effective solutions.  Is the only way through fear?  That was my point. 

[visionary]

I remember similar stories out of Syria.  Extremists tended to gain popularity in places that would have rejected them not long before because other groups were considered corrupt or ineffectual or under-funded and the extremists through they were disliked were able to bring a sense of order to town and get local services running and clamp down on crime.  

[Springfield]

I feel like a lot of 3rd world countries are like that.  People who have oppressed populations tend to respond more to strong authoritarian leadership than democracy.  People who get **** done without taking **** from anybody.  The Philippines comes to mind.

[visionary]

If the alternative to authoritarianism is chaos, uncertainty, and constant fighting many people would take strict and oppressive stability after going through that, but that’s a bit misleading and doesn’t nedessarily last.  In the end it often breeds more resentment and instability and leads to revolution or chaos itself.

 

More genuine and longer lasting stability is found when people feel they have a say in how things are run.  Also authoritarian governments can be very unstable internally and filled with paranoia and infighting, which may lead to serious problems in governance.

 

But of course it all depends on the situation and the alternatives available.

[Fresh8686]

Just like there is a maslow's hierarchy of needs, there is a corresponding hierarchy of different forms of government. People who are without stable and consistent safety/shelter will choose a form of government that provides that, even if it doesn't allow for freedom/self-actualization. On the other hand, people who have safety/shelter, and other levels handled, will reject that same government, because they have the space and capability to want a greater reflection of self-actualization with their chosen government (morality, creativity, lack of prejudice, acceptance of facts and science).

This is one of the major issues of promoting fear for political gain. It not only motivates groups, but it causes them to operate from a baser level of need and consequently decision making, while also promoting a baser level of government. The political "strong-man"/authoritarian we see coming around.

[FanboyOf91]

God I hate the New York Times.

[tshile]

Those tweets sound like someone who's mad they didn't write yet another article about how ISIS is a murderous organization

 

(even though the article mentions it multiple times, including the mass graves stuff)

 

I don't understand. It doesn't sound like their claim is the any of the information in the article is false. Just that it isn't the information about ISIS they want written.

 

Which, by the way, has been written about countless times by every major media organization.

 

In fact, if the article had been what this person wants I would not have made a thread about it, because it would have presented absolutely nothing new (and therefor of any value) for us.

 

 

[visionary]