Interesting topic, relevant but I found it really difficult to get into.

This was NOT an easy read. This book, while VERY interesting, is not accessible to the layman or the politically ignorant. I found it difficult to grasp a lot of the geopolitical aspects of rival factions etc, being unfamiliar with the geographical and political structures of the middle east. This book is more for a person familiar with the territory, rival groups etc and politics as a means of overview of a complex subject: ISIS.

I could hardly tolerate the first half.BUT that was largely in part to my own ignorance on the subject I later realized. As I became slightly familiar with the groups, cities, political allegiences etc it became a much more interesting read, albeit still one with which I srruggled to comprehend. I resorted to university style underlining, circling, and such forth, as a means of analysing while reading. during the first half i simply tried reading it.

This book has still left me with a lot of confusion. BUT I feel I have a better undersranding of the conflicts than I did. Although... on the other hand.. this book gives the impression that THERE IS NO GROUP or governing entity that is good.. basically portrays just about everyone as bad... Assad, the many rebels, Turkey, Iraq. America, Iran... gives a sense of "there is no hope, the middle east is f%-$ed... oddly there is basically NO mention of Russia in this... hmm

One SERIOUS FAULT with the book is not including a glossary, as many political analysis books tend to do. Thus, as I read, it was difficult to retain in memory who was who, who was allied to who, and what all the acronyms stood for and whose side thw groups stood for under said acronyms. You really MUST have a list of acronyms.

Also, I have always hated end notes. If something is worth noting, put footnotes at the bottom of pages. No one wants to flip to the back of the book every few sentenced. As a university graduate, I have experienced this many times, and to this day I have no idea why publishers/authors do this so often. i suppose for aesthetics most likely.

This is worth a read, but only for someone looking for a complex academic account, not so much for the lay-person. The length of the book helps. had it been twice as long I may have given up, due to the laborious nature of reading and comprehending it. But... sometimes I like a challenge.

The beginning of this book was a positive one, and the author gives a genuinely good look at the foundations of what would become IS, as well as some of its main early figures. However, it then goes into a wider look at the conditions that allowed for ISIS to rise to power from ISI/AQI, and here is where I first noticed the weak spots of the book. While the book is clearly well-researched because a lot of work has been put into doing interviews and finding sources, the bias of the author stands out incredibly clearly to the point where it is harming the historiography of the work.

The author is uncritically reliant on US officials and US defence sources, and this results in an overly dramatic anti-Iran and anti-Syria stance. Throughout the book, the US is portrayed as good intention, albeit often bumbling and foolish, whereas Iran and Assad are portrayed as all-powerful, Machiavellian villains. This viewpoint is derived from a mixture of uncritical use of US sources who have a vested political interest in promoting this perspective and from unscientific extrapolation of Syrian and Jihadist source.

While, yes, there is evidence Iran + Assad were involved to a degree in the rise of IS, the author wrongly extrapolates a few isolated instances into effectively saying they were MOSTLY TO BLAME for the rise of the Islamic State. This is categorically untrue. It also portrays the Iran-Al Qaeda relationship as much deeper than most historiography regards it because of this uncritical reliance on pro-US sources, although the depth + nature of this relationship is highly disputed and shady at best. It even relies on the EXTREMELY CONTROVERSIAL court cases of 9/11 victims vs Iran + Syria and portrays it as 'absolute evidence' that the relationship is significant. This is, again, wrong.

Further mistakes that come from this over-reliance are in how Weiss depicts Iraqi Shia as united and entirely beholden to Iran post-2003. As other works such as Phebe Marr's Modern History of Iraq shows, Iraqi Shia groups were extremely divided + fragmented post-2003, and have never been united. Iran has had a powerful influence on Shia groups post-2003, that is true, but it has never been wholly hegemonic over them. He even claims this to the degree where it is implied that Iran backing Maliki = Iran controls Maliki, which is categorically untrue. Maliki has always been backed by one person above all: himself. He was always independent-minded and has an independent support base beyond Iran, as is evidenced by the fact he has remained a powerful figure after Iran stopped supporting him at the same time the US did around 2014.

Finally, I was disappointed that, despite the title of the book, very little time is actually spent looking into how IS operates *in the present* (or, at least, in 2015). The book is, in reality, a history of IS from Zarqawi to its emergence, and only one chapter (the final one) takes a serious look at the functioning of IS as a state. Unfortunately, the fact it's only one chapter means it isn't particularly in depth. If it was a 50-50 split, I would've been happy, but in the end, this book is just one of MANY that go over the history of IS with a focus on post-2003 Iraq, leaving a big hole in the academic literature as to the actual functioning of "al-Dawla" itself, rather than just where it came from.

I feel bad for leaving this as only 2 stars because it genuinely is well-researched, and Weiss clearly hasn't half-assed it. The author talks to an enormous variety of sources ranging from Syrians to Jihadists to Americans, and you can get some genuinely good insight into the IS members he gets information from. However, the poor social scientific practice of how the research was analysed and implemented in the book (uncritical acceptance of American line, extrapolation of individual opinions as generalisable fact) means I simply cannot recommend it. While I learnt some things from it as I know enough about the topic through my years of research to cut through the BS, a less familiar reader (read: nerd, I am not bigging myself up here) could be gravely misinformed if they took it at face value.

This book covers the topic well with both a broad overview and some detailed case studies. Worth a read.

This book took forever to read and I nearly gave up several times, but I really wanted to try to understand how everything came to be. It was really hard to keep track of all the cast of characters - a few of the names I recognized from the news, but there were so many more. On top of that, there were all the nom de guerres; just so challenging to keep all the major players apart. And so many factions to try to keep track of: Shia, Sunni, Baathists, al-Qaeda, Takfiris, Salafists, al-Nusra, al-Dawla, the Brotherhood, the Awakening - and those are the ones coming to me off the top of my head. There are so many more. Additionally, the authors state again and again how geography plays a major role, but I have a very limited understanding of the geography of the area. I could probably find Bagdad and Damascus on a map, but the rest of the locations didn't mean a thing to me, so I think that part went right over my head. And being someone who has only known democracy, however flawed it's practiced, I could not wrap my mind around tribalism, yet knowing how the various tribes will react and how to countermand those actions plays into the success of ISIS in the area where western thought will often find the same situation irrational.

That said, the book is broken down into shorter sections in attempt to clarify and distinguish the identities and motives of each group. The authors spoke to many people including former ISIS members, former Saddam government personnel, US military officers , government officials, etc. I would recommend this book to anyone who truly wants to understand and is willing to make the effort. I hope our leaders have read this or something similar and have a clearer picture than I do. I would say Donald Trump should read it before he ignorantly opens his mouth again on the topic, but I'm afraid it's above his reading comprehension level.

This is an informative and compact book with interviews from a wide range or sources, including actual ISIS members. It's thoroughly researched and well written and is dense with information. Unfortunately the history of violence in the middle east and the US involvement there is so complex that this book isn't enough to cover all the bases. I usually prefer shorter books but this is one subject that requires a tome to touch on everything. I recommend this book to someone who already has some solid background information on ISIS and is just looking for something extra. If your coming into this book with nothing but what the news has been telling you about ISIS, you're going to need charts and maps to keep all the names and places straight in your head.

As some reviewers already said this is rather complicated book.
Cause for this is constant reiteration of how Syrian regime is behind the ISIS as organization but then next chapter states that they are chasing and killing them. Also in the first part of the book opposition to both ISIS and Syrian regime is presented as group of tribes and urban militia that are fighting the terrorist network, enjoy support from US and allies and are doing the good fight but in the last few chapters they give statements from witnesses that these militias were pretty significant criminal element in the whole story and were not liked by the local populace at all. They even supported and fought alongside ISIS up to 2014(!?!).

Book is full of these contradictory statements. Nevertheless they do show how a terrifying, fear-sowing terrorist organization that [by their laws and actions] feels like anachronism from Middle Ages and something unfathomable in the modern world can spread over many countries and root itself - to the point where it seems imposible to remove them at all.

What authors do show is complete lack of (or maybe complete disregard of?) understanding of the people in the region (religious sects, tribal organization, internal squabbles) by the US and their allies. Decisions to nevertheless shatter such complex (and lets face it internally divided) society with war and then leave them alone (with famous "it is their internal issue now") in the whole post-war trumoil where internal and external strife (caused by ever present animosity from neighbouring states) only plunges the society into further cycle of violence only show that there are always alterior motives that unfortunately almost always get precedence over common sense in inter-state affairs. Unfortunately this state of affair provides fertile ground to organizations like ISIS to flourish and spread.

Interesting book, with lots of contradictory elements, leaves a lot of questions open. It surely does intrigue the reader to find more materiel on the subject.

I have no reason to doubt that this is a well-researched and accurate military history of events in the Middle East leading up to the rise of ISIS. I certainly learned some things I hadn't been aware of, including the significant role of Iranian forces in the power vacuum of Iraq, and the utter immorality of al-Assad of Syria.

But much of the book is a litany of names, events, and relationships that it would take hours of research and note taking to keep track of; I admit that it was a chore for me just to keep the major players straight.

What was missing for me was the underlying motivations of these pathetic gangster wannabes beyond the petty desire for money and power. Much is made of the mutual enmity between the Sunni and Shia Muslims, but little is said about the theological reasons for this. Likewise the US and allied forces take a lot of blame for mismanaging the situation, and this sounds at least plausible, but it's generally unclear what the authors think the US should have done instead.

If the intention was to convey to the reader that virtually everyone who's gained a position of power in the Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East has been at least an unethical bully if not an outright criminal, in this they've succeeded. None of these despicable characters deserves an ounce of support from civilized humanity. And while this does shed some light on the reasons for the chaos in this region of the world, there's a definite lack of constructive ideas for improving the situation.

To the rational among us, the answer is clear. Eliminate religion and the justification used by these thugs disappears.