"scholarship touching on terrorism in civil war. However, there is a consensus that the Civil Warin Syria, and the post-impact of the Arab Spring, played a critical role in the origin andevolution of ISIS and its ideologies (Kaplan and Costa 2015, 930; Pollard, Poplack and Casey2015, 5). Therefore, regardless of the terminology used to discriminate and describe terroristorganizations such as ISIS, the group exploits terrorism as a strategy for achieving its politicaland territorial objectives – just as opposition, insurgent, and rebel groups do (Kaplan and Costa2015, 950). In light of this argument, therefore, the focus of this study on ISIS as an affiliate ofAl Qaeda that originated from and continues to operate in Civil War contexts necessitates a firmbridging of the critical gap between terrorism and civil war scholarship.The rising threat posed by ISIS is current a popular topic not only in research domainsbut also in Congressional inquiries and briefings, as well as intelligence reports fromintelligence agencies. Global think tanks such as the RAND Corporation have published quitedisturbing statistics and research findings on ISIS and their increasing influence on U.S.-bornforeign fighters. Several books and peer-reviewed articles have been published on terrorismsince 9/11 and on ISIS since June 2014 within the context of both domestic and foreignterrorism. Arguably, the pioneering work on terrorism is that of Bruce Hoffman (1998), whichdescribes the motivations and causes of the rise of Al Qaeda and other domestic, non-Islamistinsurgent networks. This forms, perhaps, the most comprehensive discussion of the gradualevolution of terrorism, and the anticipated future of insurgency, particularly Al-Qaeda andAQAs. Later research on terrorism, particularly in the Middle East, would then borrow hugelyfrom this fair and objective perspective on transnational terrorist threats.Defining TerrorismA review of the literature on terrorism exhibits a considerable degree of divergence in8 the definition and causes of terrorism. Even though a universal statement of the objectives andmotivation for terrorism is arguably difficult to conclude, mainstream explanations of the causesof radical Islamist movements underscores economic deprivation and a lack of sufficienteducation as the two main causes of terrorism in most regions (Braithwaite and Johnson 2012).Irrespective of these discrepancies in the definition and scoping of terrorism and the magnitudeof its threat to regional and global peace, the current state of scholarship on terrorism reveals aconsiderable consensus on the prevalence of the game theory in the study of terrorism.The challenge of defining “terrorism” is broadly highlighted in the scholarship on thesubject to a point that some researchers and analysts such as Braithwaite and Johnson (2012),Ervine (2010), Dhiman (2015) and Ingram (2015) conclude that a universally accepteddefinition is unlikely, at least for some time. This complexity in the definition of the term“terrorism” tends to precipitate from the scope of activities and behaviors that are perceived asterrorist actions, the objective for which these actions are pursued, and the underlyingterminology that surrounds them. For instance, a terrorist in an individual?s context may as wellbe a freedom fighter in someone else?s context. Consequently, according to the United Nations,the lack of consensus on a precise, robust, and well-known definition of terrorism upsets thenormative and decent stance against the phenomenon. In fact, for most researchers such asAbrahms (2008), Hoffman (1998), and Krueger (2007), achieving a comprehensive, popularconvention on terrorism and other forms of insurgency, including a precise definition, hasevolved into a political imperative.Both the United Nations (2004) and the Council on Foreign Relations (2013) agree thatthe quest for a universal definition often stumbles on two major issues. The first challenge is thesupposition that any absolute definition must encompass the use of armed forces by state actors9 against civilians. However, from the review of the scholarship of Sandler, Tschirhart andCauley (1983), reports of the Providence Research (2014), Pollard, Poplack and Casey (2015),it is true that the normative and legal frameworks against violations by state actors are fartougher than those for non-state actors. Therefore, this objection to the definition of terrorismdoes not seem to be compelling for many researchers.As Moghaddam (2005) argues, terrorism surfaces, mostly, when a political, ethnic,religious, or professional minority feels that they are under deprivation compared to othergroups within the same environment. The United Nations document further supposes the secondchallenge to the definition of terrorism as the assertion that a people under a foreign invasionand occupation have the rights and liberty to resist the change. Therefore, a definition ofterrorism should not overrule this right. However, while some have contested the right toresistance, the central point is that nothing in the context of occupation justifies theindiscriminate targeting and killing of innocent civilians.However, the focus of this study is rather broad with respect to the definition ofterrorism. That is, my definition of terrorist organizations extends to include both commonAmerican threats and the assortment of disjointed smaller non-state organizations. Therefore,perhaps the most adaptable definition of terrorism conforms to the United Nations High LevelPanel on Threats, Challenges and Changes that has been widely echoed by Neumann andRogers (2007). That is, terrorism is “any action…that is intended to cause death or seriousbodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature andcontext, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an internationalorganization to do or to abstain from doing any act” (Neumann and Robers 2007).The ISIS Threat10 There is consensus within mainstream scholarship about the threat posed by ISIS notonly on regional peace and tranquility but also on global peace and development. Researchreports and analytic arguments converge at the conclusion that the amount of risk that the ISISphenomenon presents to global governments is great and warrants an immediate, robust policyapproach. Pollard, Poplack and Casey (2015) assert that the risk of ISIS is considerably uniquecompared to the insurgent infrastructure of the past. To justify this assertion further, scholarssuch as Dar (2016), Karakoc (2014), Lahoud and Collins 2(016), and Weinberg (2014) note thatother Islamist insurgent networks such as the Boko Haram in Nigeria and Al-Shabaab inSomalia have acquired considerable territories, managed considerable infrastructure, andattempted political governance of local populations. However, these Islamist groups have neverascertained such a considerable victory against well-trained and well equipped armed forcessuch as the U.S. military on the scale demonstrated by ISIS (Lahoud and Collins 2016).The disarray of the Iraqi Army, as well as other successive defeats against forces alliedto the Iraqi government, the Assad regime, and the Kurdish Peshmerga, indicate a unique abilityof the Islamic State as a strong, capable fighting force in the Middle East (Dar 2016, 422). AsLahoud and Collins observe, the ability of the organization to finance its operations through theextraction of oil, extortion, imposition of taxes, money laundering, and donation fromsupporters and Islamic charities foster its capability to sustain its operational competencies aswell as administrative functions over the territories it seizes (Kaplan and Costa 2015, 929;Lahoud and Collins 2016, 205).Policy analysis reports agree that ISIS is a hybrid, multifaceted organization thatembraces a mix of conventional military strategies and terrorist tactics and, as other asymmetricrebel groups, holds a considerable measure of territories in Iraq and Syria. Lahoud and Collins11 "