Anonymous versus ISIS: How Emerging

Post-Government Organizations are

Reshaping Global Politics
Ryan Hagemann is a masters student in public
policy at George Mason University and the coauthor of a recent Mercatus paper, Removing
Roadblocks to Autonomous Vehicles. His
research interests include decentralized peer-topeer networks, Transhumanism, stateless social
organization, robotics and automation, and
studies at the intersection of sociology,
economics, and technology.
In 1648, the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War in Europe,
spawning the modern international system of state relations. What resulted was an order
that relied on the premise that state actors would serve as the fundamental units of
analysis in diplomatic affairs and global politics - that co-existing sovereign states would
serve as a continual check on the balance of power between states. This system, a long
stable institution of world order, has recently begun to experience an existential crisis.
The Internet and disruptive communications technologies have begun changing our
world; they are leveling power disparities between individuals and institutions to such a
degree that non-state actors are now gaining significant influence on the world stage.
Even as we speak, an evolution of international conflict is gaining steam, and while its
origins are in the Levant, the true battle space is online. The Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) recently came into conflict with the anarchist hacktivism consortium
Anonymous. The battlefield? Cyberspace.
Far from being a mere response to the carcinogenic spread of ISIS influence and power
projection in the Levant, Anonymous cyber crusade against the would-be caliphate is
among the first to occur amidst the Internet landscape. Their war is one of bits, and their
battles are taking place outside the confines of traditional conflict zones; to the far
corners of the digital world through the conduits of Twitter, Facebook, and the broader
networks that make up the Internet. What we are witnessing is an entirely new breed of
institution battling the old hierarchical, centralized power structure in a new way.

POST-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS
In his book Cypherpunks, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, makes a brief but
impactful reference to what he refers to as Post-Government Organizations (PGOs):
organizations that are composed of individuals pursuing common objectives by using
decentralized digital networks to achieve their ends. They are loose collections of
individuals who interact with one another primarily through the Internet and impact
change through hacktivism or other digital activist means, including, but not limited to
direct denial of service (DDoS) attacks on targeted websites, information revelation

campaigns, and dissemination of contrarian messaging. WikiLeaks, Assange maintained,

was the first of these PGOs, providing an anonymous platform for individuals with access
to sensitive information the means to distribute it, without putting themselves at risk of
exposure.
Specifically, Assange defines a PGO as an organization that occupies cyberspace and is
adept at moving its information around the underlying embeddings of a digital network
topography. He goes on to criticize the immense asymmetries in information between
state actors and the underlying protocols of the Internet, arguing that these new
institutions are bound to disrupt the old Westphalian power structures:
The governments are not sure of the barrier between what is
government or not. Its fuzzed out now. Governments occupy space, but
WikiLeaks occupies part of the space of the Internet. Internet space is
embedded in real space, but the degree of complexity between the
embedded object and the embedding means that its not easy for the
embedding to tell that the embedded object is even part of it.
Anonymous, a decentralized ideological movement composed of many thousands of
individuals purporting various political beliefs, philosophical outlooks, and degrees of
technical skill, can just as easily be classified as a PGO. The only agreements that hold
this tribe of Internet warriors together is that ideas, not directives, should drive their
actions and that censorship is an unequivocal evil to be expelled from the online
community. Beyond this, nothing substantive can be said of a group composed of many
thousands (perhaps more) of various and disparate beliefs and motivations for joining the
movement.
As Quinn Norton of Wired magazine has written, members of this legion are a sea of
voices, all experimenting with new ways of being in the world. They are experimenting
with old systems of international, and state-based, order. How their ongoing battle in the
Middle East plays out will be a telling case study in the efficacy of these new institutions.

THE FIRST DIGITAL WAR IN CYBERSPACE

If the excesses of the Islamic State were not so alarmingly ruthless and inhuman, the
entire affair could easily be mistaken for a classic comic book showdown: the legion of
eschatological extremists hell bent on terrorizing the innocents battling the decentralized,
ad-hoc affiliation of wily superheroes, each committing to the cause for incongruent
reasons, bound together by nothing more than a vague sense of duty and honor to a broad
ideological coalition.
But metaphors cannot do justice to the carnage unfolding in the Levant. Whatever ones
thoughts on Anonymous activities, few dispute that their campaign against ISIS is
anything short of an ideological commitment to helping quell the tide of recruits flowing
into Iraq and Syria (some estimates indicate as many as 100 volunteers per recruitment
center join ISIS every day).

Anonymous first began mass targeting of extremist militants social media presence
following the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris, citing concerns over
fanatical religious intolerance for free speech and the sanctity of human life. While a
Twitter war is not quite the same as boots on the ground, the reality is that ISIS relies
heavily on social media to spread its message and recruit volunteer fighters from around
the world to join their barbaric crusade. The hacktivist attacks are an attempt to throttle
the Islamic States recruitment efforts and curtail their online war of intimidation and the
privation of human capital. The first digital war in cyberspace is unfolding before our
eyes even as we speak.
In January of 2015, Anonymous released the following statement, expressing the
motivations for their digital assault:
This is a press release by anonymous.
In the case of the terror attack against Charlie Hebdo, as we had
previously told you, we plan on shedding light on all these events and give
homage to those innocent killed.
The anonymous of all the planet have decided to declare war on you
terrorists. We will track you down to the last one and will *kill (destroy)
you. You allowed yourselves to kill innocent people. We will therefor [sic]
avenge their deaths.
We will track all of your activities online. We will close your accounts on
social networks. You will not impose your Sharia in our democracies. We
will not let your stupidity kill our liberties, and our freedom of expression.
We have warned you. Expect your destruction. We will track you
everywhere on the planet. Nowhere will you be safe.
We are anonymous.
We are legion.
We do not forget.
We do not forgive.
Be afraid of us, Islamic Sate [sic] and Al Quaida. You will get our
vengeance.
#OpCharlieHebdo1
Since January, Anonymous has continued with its battle plan., having taken down over
800 Twitter accounts, a dozen Facebook pages, and more than 40 email accounts, to say
nothing of the various recruiting web sites and IP addresses associated with ISIS. Their
1 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/10/1356934/-AnonymousMakes-Revenge-and-Death-Threats-Against-ISIS-Al-Queida-For-ParisAttack#

most recent public threat against ISIS aptly sums up the endgame intentions of
Anonymous: You will be treated like a virus, and we are the cure. We own the Internet.

TOWARDS A NEW WESTPHALIAN ORDER?

While digital strikes are unlikely to destroy the tangible gains that the Islamic State has
obtained, this emerging conflict could represent the beginning of the end of the old
international state system. Previously, states were perceived as the international actors of
merit; now, even though PGOs are unlikely to acquire a sufficient degree of coercive
power to challenge standing armies anytime soon, it is clear that they are going to be
playing some role in international affairs moving forward.
In the midst of this historical occurrence, it is worth pondering what the future of the
international state system holds, given changes in technology, increased access to
information, and calls to action that inspire groups from across cultures and continents, to
respond, in real time, to emerging threats. What happens to the old Westphalian order
when individuals and non-state actors suddenly become significant agents of action in
international affairs?
It is far too early to tell whether, in the long term, PGOs will be a benefit or hindrance to
the international order. What is clear, however, is that these organizations are slowly
accumulating greater influence and are beginning to have more substantive impact in the
world. For better or worse, these new associations are going to be with us so long as the
Internet remains a transnational communications platform; limiting their power will be
increasingly difficult as power continues to be more and more decentralized and
distributed out of the hands of strong central authorities.
Sovereignty of states emerged as the legal norm after the Thirty Years War what comes
of the war being played out between ISIS and Anonymous remains to be seen.