The Syrian Civil War describes conflict between many groups in Syria. A prominent actor is ISIS. The U.S. backed Syrian Defense Force received strategic support before all U.S. troops were pulled in 2019 (Abdal). The SDF was able to successfully recapture ISIS territories leaving them to manage thousands of captured ISIS members, their families and people who only have suspected ties to ISIS. Without foreign assistance, the SDF has little capacity to manage these centers, and conditions inside have deteriorated without enough resources to properly maintain, guard, or monitor the camps as well as continue to fight (Saleh). Currently, Syria, the SDF, and the detainees are in a state of limbo. It is estimated that around 10,000 people are currently held in the prisons, with an additional 70,000 women and children being held in camps. Detainees and inhabitants have limited access to food, medicine, and other necessities. Medical care within the camps is virtually non- existent and due to their disputed citizenship and status, many of the ill are unable to access medical care outside of Syria or the camps. The squalid conditions in these camps can often be ground zero for radicalization of otherwise neutral individuals.

One of the first major divides within the camp begins with who is deemed dangerous enough to be detained and who is sent to the family camps. It is reported that boys as young as twelve are detained while women and girls above the age of twelve are placed in the less secure camps (United Nations). Among the men who were fighters for ISIS, according to a few reports by US soldiers, many young men weren’t looking to join ISIS out of a bloodthirsty need for revenge and justice served. They joined because they needed protection — physically, financially, and personally (Vianna de Azevedo). Regardless, the detainees are often divided along gender lines. The differences in the treatment of not just men and women, but of children across gender lines poses questions about who is viewed as a threat and how that shapes discourse and policies.

Not only can the men and boys suffer for being assumed to be greater threats than they actually are and by being placed in more intense detention, but many potentially dangerous women can slip through the cracks of this system as well. Typically in terrorism and extremism discourse women are not seen as individuals with critical roles within the organization or being capable of violence. This is shown by how the camps and prisons are demographically divided strongly along gender lines, but neglects to address that in the absence of men, the women take on increased leadership roles, including in ways that would typically not be preferred within ISIS ideology (Vale).

Conditions for the women and children within the family detention camps have been described as “dire” according to the Perspectives on Terrorism journal. Children have been dying from malnutrition and disease due to an abhorrent environment in the camp (Vianna de Azevedo). Under these conditions, women have become a mobilizing force for ISIS. Left without food or health care, there is little surprise that the children of the camps are also left without schools or places to play. Their primary influences are their moms, who have incredible influence to radicalize their children against those that are seen as forcing them into the horrible conditions of the camp, taking away their loved ones, and destroying their homes (Vianna de Azevedo). Beyond just instilling these ideals in the youth, women actively police each other by ostracizing or physically punishing those who step out of line. Inside the camp, there is no separation of home and war, and the camp becomes its own mini caliphate with women as the only ones who can keep it alive (Vale). This takes to an extreme the concept of women as the “womb” of a nation or movement and makes them the incubator to uphold ISIS values, breed the next generation of fighters, and instill within them ISIS’ ideology (Vale).

When it comes to repatriation and reintroduction into society, each gender and age group encounters unique vulnerabilities. In addition to the lack of education or vital necessities and the danger of indoctrination, children in the camps are vulnerable to statelessness. Because many countries refuse to accept repatriated suspected ISIS members or their families, foreign citizens are left in the camps with the SDF also having no place for them to go. Children frequently lack documents, due to documents being lost or young children born during the displacement having never received them, and no country is eager to claim them as citizens. This means that returning children face many administrative barriers beyond even the stigma of being associated with ISIS (International Crisis Group).

Married women can encounter increased administrative issues if they cannot obtain or renew their documents without clearance from their husbands. Upon attempting to return to their homes alone, women face additional barriers because they do not have financial independence, forcing them to live in poorer areas where they’re often more vulnerable to dangers such as sexual abuse and assault (International Crisis Group).

Men and boys have reasons to fear for their safety upon returning home as well. One Iraqi woman reported worrying about returning to her home because she was afraid her teenage son would get attacked, likely because Arab men are more so associated with ISIS than Arab women (International Crisis Group).

Iraqis specifically looking to be repatriated face additional barriers as a group. Life in displacement for many Iraqis has meant that they learned new things to survive: new languages, cultures, businesses, and foods (Davis et al). With Iraq defeating the Islamic State and regaining territory they had lost, a lot of displaced people are looking to return to their homes, but the process has been slow and dangerous (Davis et al).

The ISIS family detention camps are in constant emergency mode, and as frequently happens during prolonged crises, the identities and experiences of LGBTQ+ people get suppressed or pushed aside. The already incredibly vulnerable people in the camps have good reason to fear for their safety even further if they attempt to come out. Additionally, little to no research has been done or data has been collected about the LGBTQ+ community in the camps, so though there are likely important insights into their unique experience, not enough is known to draw conclusions.

There are many power structures that are complicated by this issue. Within ISIS, it is incredibly apparent that men occupy the position of utmost power and authority. Strict gender roles are codified and enforced within the organization and all who are members are expected to follow this structure. This structure has men as the powerful leaders, in charge of making decisions, and dominating the public sphere. Women are relegated to the private sphere. They are responsible for the domestic home life and while appear to have some sort of power within this sphere, they are ultimately subservient to the male authority within the family and within the organization of ISIS itself.

This is the predominant area where the family detention camps have complicated or confused these more rigid hierarchies of control and decision making. With the complete absence of men, women are left in charge of all aspects of life, seeming to signify a higher position in the hierarchy of power. Without a territory to defend ISIS only has their ideology, and women being responsible for childcare are the ones with the power to keep that ideology alive, passing it on to the next generations, and beyond just instilling these ideals in the youth, women actively police each other, by ostracizing or physically punishing those who transgress. Inside the camp there is no separation of home and war, the domestic sphere is all encompassing, the camp becomes its own mini caliphate with women as the only ones who can keep it alive (Vale). So women are holding the top power position amongst the people in the camp. However the issue of which women are holding the power is also more nuanced. Those who are more extreme and hold a higher standing within ISIS are also the de facto leaders of the family camps, relegating less radicalized or less authoritative women towards lower places of power.

It is important to note that the power the women have in the camps is not monolithic and plays on multiple dimensions other than gender, particularly ideology, class, wealth, and citizenship. Some women were unwilling participants in ISIS, some were fully willing. Some have experienced radicalization in the camps while others have not, and even further some display radicalization as a means of survival or protection.

However it is important to acknowledge that while the complete lack of men would indicate that the women are fully agentic, they are not. When discussing issues of mobility, wealth, and repatriation, the women of the family detention camps are attached entirely to their husbands. Many of the women are unable to leave and be independent due to laws and customs in their home country that prohibit them from owning independent wealth or being able to have respectable status as a single mother. This leaves many of the women completely unable to make decisions as to life after the camp due to their lower status in the hierarchy of gender and power. When looking at whether countries will repatriate their citizens, many, notably France, have refused to repatriate both the men who are suspected ISIS fighters as well as their families (Yavan et al). So even if a woman would like to leave, she is constrained in a variety of ways from being able to leave.

The most obvious power structure present is shown through the guards. However this is a nuanced and complicated situation since according to reports they seem to have little authority within the camps (Al-Monitor). Ultimately though while they may not appear to have much control within the camps, they are men which gives them a degree of power and ability to choose. Additionally they have more choice on their position in the camps while the children and women there have very little choice to no choice in being there. Overall the camps highlight the differences in power within and outside of situations. While women appear to have gained power in this situation, they ultimately do not have meaningful access to exert this power. Children are left at the whim of governments and groups, and even the SDF at times is both above and below ISIS’s authority and the authority of other states.