Adnan Boynukara
As a country directly affected by regional developments, the question “Should ISIS be retained as a threat or ended?” is a critical one for Türkiye. It is well understood that keeping tens of thousands of people in poor conditions and in environments marked by torture and violence, as documented in various reports, will pave the way for potential new organizations. The right course of action is to find a solution to the problem. However, considering the joint activities of the U.S., France, the UK, and PKK derivatives, it can be said that there is an apparent intent to keep the organization as a tool of threat.
The issue is, in a sense, tied to the organizations created by the unipolar world order that emerged after the Cold War. The primary activity carried out through these Western-created or enabled organizations is to keep geographies outside their own territories in a constant state of alert through perpetual threat definitions. For many years, nations and populations were controlled under the specter of communism, but the collapse of the USSR necessitated new tools. As the sole actor of the global order, the U.S. implemented various crisis and chaos experiments to adapt to the new situation. Through the “Afghan jihad,” the pulse of Muslim communities was tested, followed by the production of the concept of “global jihad.” This ultimately paved the way for generalizations under the label of “Islamic terrorism.”
This approach effectively equated millions of Muslims with terrorism. While such sweeping generalizations were not made for Christianity, Judaism, or other religions, they were systematically applied to Muslims, casting suspicion over entire Muslim populations.
The ISIS Terrorist Organization
The invasion of Iraq marked a new phase in this process. Collaborating with Iran, the U.S. developed a new conceptual framework based on the propaganda that “terrorism is a Sunni Islamic issue.” To lend credibility to this narrative and legitimize the occupation, certain individuals were transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq for the creation of new organizations. ISIS is a product of this operation.
In fact, the organizations that emerged in Afghanistan in the 1990s are the “fruits” of the dirty policies pursued over the past 40 years. The purpose attributed to these organizations was to disrupt and destabilize the order in regions inhabited by Muslim populations and to suppress the natural demands for change that arose against undemocratic regimes in the Arab world. ISIS emerged as a result of the experiments conducted during this period. In other words, it is a product of asymmetric warfare organized by occupying forces through shared intelligence and experience.
To frame it within the Gladio code, ISIS is a terrorist organization structured and managed with the involvement of Iraqi Baathist cadres, backed by the policies of Maliki and Assad that gave them room to operate, and supported by the transfer of “qualified” personnel and directive contributions from intelligence agencies outside the region.
Those who wish to understand the issue better can refer to research reports on the organization. In broad terms, ISIS can be said to have been formed by two main social bases. The dominant group consists of Iraqi Baathist regime cadres who gathered under the leadership of individuals transferred from Afghanistan to Iraq, alongside participants from Syria, the Arabian Peninsula, and North African countries. The second group comprises individuals referred to in the literature as “foreign fighters,” who were brought to the region from over 100 countries. Numerous reports have been published on this group. Key references include reports from the United Nations and the International Center for the Study of Radicalization (ICSR) at King’s College.
An Organization with Assigned Missions
The actors who established ISIS assigned the organization two distinct missions. The first was to sabotage the grassroots-driven natural processes of change in the region, terrorize the population, and prevent the emergence of any political order outside the control of global powers. This mission was most evident in Syria. The organization served the shared objectives of the U.S., Iran, and Russia by being used to associate the Syrian opposition with terrorism. Taking this a step further, states, populations, and organizations in the region were shaped or “formatted” through ISIS.
To sustain a chaotic equation in which no actor could achieve outright victory or defeat, the most organized examples of asymmetric terrorism were created. Additionally, dormant conflict grounds or fault lines were strategically developed, ready to be activated with minimal intervention when needed. The fact that the Syrian civil war has continued for over a decade is a direct product of this dynamic.
The other mission assigned to the organization was religious transformation. This involved reconstructing Kharijism and Wahhabism under the guise of Salafism and transferring this ideology to Muslim countries. The goal of this “game” was to create new fault lines among Muslims and lay the groundwork for trapping Muslim populations in a cycle of terrorism. This dirty policy can be summarized as creating crisis zones, spreading terror through civilian destruction, dividing reactions by encouraging more radical factions, legitimizing occupation, and prolonging chaos to delay the establishment of a stable order.
This is the essence of the dirty and bloody policy carried out through ISIS. Because the necessary precautions have not been taken—and, in fact, global powers have steered these policies—they have now spread to African countries. The organization currently has branches in Africa, referred to as provinces, including West Africa, the Lake Chad region, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Northern Mozambique.
In conclusion, the organization continues to be used as a tool for spreading and legitimizing Islamophobia, which is being promoted globally.
The other mission assigned to the organization was religious transformation. This involved reconstructing Kharijism and Wahhabism under the guise of Salafism and transferring this ideology to Muslim countries. The goal of this “game” was to create new fault lines among Muslims and lay the groundwork for trapping Muslim populations in a cycle of terrorism. This dirty policy can be summarized as creating crisis zones, spreading terror through civilian destruction, dividing reactions by encouraging more radical factions, legitimizing occupation, and prolonging chaos to delay the establishment of a stable order.
This is the essence of the dirty and bloody policy carried out through ISIS. Because the necessary precautions have not been taken—and, in fact, global powers have steered these policies—they have now spread to African countries. The organization currently has branches in Africa, referred to as provinces, including West Africa, the Lake Chad region, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Northern Mozambique.
In conclusion, the organization continues to be used as a tool for spreading and legitimizing Islamophobia, which is being promoted globally.
Relatives of ISIS Members Detained in Syria
I wanted to revisit this general framework regarding ISIS to better understand the situation of individuals allegedly related to organization members who are detained in prisons and camps in northern Syria. According to an Amnesty International report dated April 17, 2024, a total of 56,000 people are being held in the al-Hol and Roj camps in Syria. This figure includes approximately 11,500 men, 14,500 women, and 30,000 children. The report also notes that the United States repatriated 11 of its citizens from the camps and facilitated the return of six Canadians, four Dutch nationals, and one Finnish citizen to their respective countries.
According to a Rights and Security International report, since 2019, a total of 3,167 individuals have been removed from the camps. These include: 26 from the Maldives, 31 from Ukraine, 32 from Canada, 36 from Finland, 37 each from Albania and Sweden, 38 from the United States, 45 from Belgium, 56 from Azerbaijan, 66 from the Netherlands, 108 from Germany, 223 from France, 242 from Kosovo, 294 from Russia, 339 from Uzbekistan, 384 from Tajikistan, 454 from Kyrgyzstan, and 719 from Kazakhstan. Among these, citizens of European Union member states number approximately 3,000. However, the countries concerned remain largely unwilling to repatriate their own citizens.
The report states that the majority of those held in the camps are Syrian and Iraqi nationals, with a combined total of approximately 50,000. The remaining detainees are citizens of 74 other countries. The Iraqi government’s requests to repatriate its citizens are constantly delayed. A decision was made to transfer only 50 individuals to Iraq each month. At this rate, it would take 400–500 months to transfer the 20,000–25,000 Iraqis held in these camps. This is not a repatriation process; it is an exploitation of their existence and a manipulation of their situation for political legitimacy. The same applies to Syrians. If these two primary groups were returned to their respective countries and their responsibility handed over to their national governments, a significant portion of the issue would be resolved. The approach of the new Syrian administration to this matter is also crucial. It is vital that the new administration takes control of these camps, monitors the practices, and facilitates efforts by other countries seeking to repatriate their citizens.
Individuals assessed to have connections to ISIS should either be tried in their home countries or by the judiciary of the Syrian state where they are detained. The process led by the United States is problematic both because it detains these individuals for years without trial and because it poses risks by housing individuals associated with terrorism in the same facilities as children and women who have no links to the organization. Such wholesale approaches are bound to produce different consequences for global security. This is an issue for the so-called Coalition to ‘Fight’ ISIS. It is not acceptable to escape responsibility by leaving this problem to the mercy of another terrorist organization. Unfortunately, the risks we are highlighting are not on the coalition’s agenda. This is because the main actor behind this coalition is the same one that created the organization and its policies.
Findings of Amnesty International and the United Nations
The report provides a detailed account of the violations suffered by individuals held in these camps over the years. It documents practices such as torture, killings, cruel treatment, lack of healthcare, deprivation of basic humanitarian needs, deaths in custody, and arbitrary, forced detention without trial—each a clear violation of the law.
Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnès Callamard highlights the crimes committed by the YPG/SDG in the report, stating, “The autonomous authorities have committed acts of torture, cruel treatment, war crimes, and the war crime of murder.” The report also emphasizes the role of the United States in establishing this system of abuse, noting: “Children, women, and men held in these detention camps and facilities are subjected to shocking levels of cruelty and violence. The U.S. government has played a central role in creating and maintaining this system, where preventable deaths have claimed the lives of hundreds, and it must take steps to change this.”
Elsewhere in the report, it is further stressed: “The U.S. government has played a central role in the creation and expansion of a largely illegal detention system, characterized by systemic inhumane and degrading conditions, unlawful killings, and the widespread use of torture.”
The report states, “The ongoing violations in northeastern Syria only generate more grievances and mean that an entire generation of children will know nothing but systemic injustice. Autonomous authorities, members of the U.S.-led coalition, and the United Nations must take action to address these violations and end the cycles of abuse and violence.” The report calls for rectifying these violations. It also notes that among those detained in the system are victims of ISIS. These include Yazidis, women who were forced into marriages with members of the organization, their children, and children who were abducted by the organization at a young age, many of whom are now being held in camps as criminals. The report further states that the system established by the U.S. is currently managed by the YPG/SDG.
The UN-backed Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria reports that after ISIS lost the last territory it controlled in Syria, individuals—particularly children—detained in camps have been subjected to abuse. The commission estimates that around 30,000 children have been victimized. Commissioner Lynn Welchman explained the situation, stating, “These children were already victimized under ISIS rule, and they have continued to suffer from years of human rights violations and abuse.” She added, “All of these children were only 8–10 years old or younger during ISIS’s reign—what crimes could possibly justify their continued detention?”
The U.S.-PKK Partnership and Its New Mission
As stated in the Amnesty International report, tens of thousands of individuals, alleged to be relatives of ISIS members, have been left at the mercy of the PKK and its derivatives, serving as tools to achieve different missions. Two primary missions are evident in this context. The first is to use these individuals as a means to legitimize the PKK/YPG. The second mission is to “test” the new Syrian administration that has replaced the Assad regime and to attempt to limit its sovereignty over all Syrian territories. What exists here is not an organization but a name that is reformatted according to needs. The problem lies in the detention of thousands of individuals, allegedly relatives of ISIS members, to fulfill these two new missions.
Beyond these two core missions, the presence of these individuals is also used to legitimize the U.S.’s relationship with the PKK and to exploit Syria’s resources. To sustain these missions, publications regularly emphasize the ISIS threat. While the U.S. repatriates its own citizens, it prevents others from returning to their home countries.
Thousands of individuals are being held in camps for these new missions. According to the Amnesty report, there are no trials, and thousands of people are detained solely based on allegations against their relatives. The report states: “Due to the absence of fair trial measures, an accusation of affiliation with ISIS results in years of arbitrary detention. Women and children are held in camps because of accusations attributed to their relatives.”
One of the most striking parts of the report is the observation: “None of those detained in northeastern Syria have been prosecuted for crimes under international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide.” This and other assessments in the report clearly confirm the new missions we have outlined.
Human Rights Watch experts describe the situation of detainees in Syria as an “escalating humanitarian crisis.” The condition of children is particularly concerning, and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child draws attention to the detention of minors. Those wishing to explore the issue in greater detail can refer to reports by the International Crisis Group, Human Rights Watch, The New Yorker, and the UN Human Rights Office.
The Cooperation Between ISIS, Hashd al-Shaabi, and the PKK
Another critical issue to address is the collaboration between ISIS and other terrorist organizations in the region. It is particularly important to examine the relationship between ISIS and Hashd al-Shaabi. When considering the missions these two organizations undertook and the outcomes they produced, it becomes evident that, despite being rooted in different sectarian ideologies, both have served Iran’s regional political agenda.
ISIS contributed to framing and condemning mainstream movements within the Muslim communities of the region as radical. Specifically, it delegitimized the idea and ideals of the Arab Spring. Another key function of the organization was to provide legitimacy to Iran’s regional policies and its influence over local governments through its atrocities. For instance, the rhetoric surrounding the fight against ISIS paved the way for the Hashd al-Shaabi organization to be codified as a “legitimate” force under the Iraqi Prime Minister’s Office.
Similarly, ISIS also contributed to the social and international legitimization of the PKK and its regional network, which has carried out terrorist activities in Türkiye for years and killed tens of thousands of people. Another consequence of ISIS’s involvement was the disruption of the “peace process,” which was Türkiye’s most significant social reconciliation project. In fact, it would be more accurate to refer to an alliance between the PKK, ISIS, and FETÖ in this context. These three terrorist organizations collaborated in both tarnishing Türkiye’s reputation in the international arena by leveraging the ISIS narrative and sabotaging the peace process.
In short, to understand the geopolitical and political position of ISIS, it is sufficient to examine its interactions and intersections with Iran, the Hashd al-Shaabi network, and the PKK. What is clear is this: all organizations that poison the natural demands for change in the region and turn it into a hub of terrorism are threats to the people living there. Ultimately, ISIS is the name of a deliberate evil or a manufactured “necessary evil” created by the U.S., Russia, Iran, and Europe to evade responsibility.
Using People as Shields for Western Protection
The U.S. and the YPG/SDG have “detained” thousands of individuals, most of whom are Iraqis and Syrians, according to Amnesty International’s assessment. Amnesty also states that the treatment of these detainees constitutes a “war crime.” In this sense, it can be said that these individuals are being used as test subjects. The YPG/SDG sees the role of camp guards as an opportunity to maintain territorial control. It is known that the new Syrian administration, which aims to preserve Syria’s territorial integrity, does not favor this situation. According to regional media reports, Ferhat Abdi Şahin attempted to attend a meeting in Damascus with Ahmed Shara, who had invited him to discuss Syria’s future, accompanied by his American handler. His insistence on attending the meeting with a low-ranking U.S. soldier illustrates what the YPG/SDG is, whom it serves, and under whose protection it operates. This is a clear example of “primitive nationalism.”
The new Syrian administration, formed after the Syrian Revolution, reflects a commitment to a democratic and unitary Syria in its discourse and policies. Similarly, the process initiated by Bahçeli and supported by President Erdoğan to “disarm the PKK through Öcalan” demonstrates the will and capacity to resolve this distorted situation. The “guardianship” and U.S. patronage that gained functionality due to the power vacuum created by the Assad regime have lost their relevance and validity after the Syrian Revolution. The evolving geopolitical situation in the region makes it impossible for the PKK/YPG to sustain its current conditions through the guardianship of alleged relatives of ISIS members and U.S. protection.
As a country directly affected by developments in the region, Türkiye must address the question, “Should ISIS be retained as a threat or ended?” Everyone understands that keeping tens of thousands of people in poor conditions, as documented in reports, and in environments rife with torture and violence, will pave the way for the emergence of new organizations. The right course of action is to find a solution to this problem. However, considering the joint activities of the U.S., France, the UK, and PKK derivatives, it seems clear that there is an intent to maintain ISIS as a tool of threat.
For the YPG, the right move would be to acknowledge the changing geopolitical dynamics and recognize that the roles of “guardianship” and U.S. patronage have expired. They should accept the offer to become part of the new Syrian administration. Any other decision would invite scenarios of military operations and conflict. It is evident that such a path would benefit no one in the region, apart from the dark forces that thrive on conflict.