Antichrist’s Men Take The Mark (Revelation 13:18)

Interview with Militia Leader, Qais al-Khazali:

‘We Don’t Deny Militias Have Committed Violations’

Mohammed al-Zaidi

NIQASH meets Qais al-Khazali, head of one of Iraq’s most feared militias. The cleric and soldier answered critics, talking about what to do when his fighters commit crimes and whether militias are replacing the army.

Qais al-Khazali has been described as “one of the most feared and respected militia leaders in Iraq”; he heads the League of the Righteous militia, one of the most extreme and best connected of the unofficial Shiite Muslim militias currently fighting in Iraq against the Islamic State group.

But when al-Khazali came out of his office – located in the southern Iraqi city of Najaf – for this interview, he wasn’t dressed in the military-style outfit he has been seen in a lot recently. Posters of al-Khazali commanding his militias are hanging up around Iraqi cities where many consider him a hero for the fight he and his men are putting up against the Islamic State, or IS, group.

But today al-Khazali was wearing a traditional religious uniform, a turban and a smile. Despite the fact that al-Khazali could be considered an extremely dangerous man, his easy smile and his charismatic responses put those around him at ease. Despite the controversial nature of some of the questions – and indeed, of the organisation he heads – al-Khazali answered everything NIQASH put to him.

NIQASH: There’s been a lot of information that indicates that an offshoot of your militia is fighting in Syria under the name, the Haidar al-Karar Brigades. Can you tell us what they are doing there, especially given that they’re often not fighting to protect any Shiite shrines and nor is the Islamic State group there?

Qais al-Khazali: We deny any reports saying that we are present anywhere outside Iraq’s borders. Our fighters are only in Iraq. Together with other militias and the Iraqi army we’ve been able to stop the Islamic State group expanding to other Iraqi cities.

NIQASH: So you deny any coordination with the Syrian government?

Al-Khazali: There is no coordination with the Syrian government, because we do not have any military presence in Syrian territory.

NIQASH: How would you describe your relationship with Iran. Rumour has it that Iran trains your fighters and supports your militia in logistical and financial terms and that in return, you do what they tell you to.

Al-Khazali: We have a good relationship with Iran and there is mutual respect. But that’s not really so unusual because we [in Iraq] have a long history with Iran and Iraq shares borders with Iran. So it is only natural to have a relationship with Iran and to share some common interests.

As for the decisions that the League makes, they are based on what our ruling council decides and they are absolutely independent of Iran. In any decisions we make, we put national interests first and we reject any negative, external interference.

However I want to emphasise that just because we make decisions independently, that doesn’t mean that there might not be any common goals or interests. It is no secret that Iran supports all the militias in this area and we are obviously one of them. In terms of direct support though, everything goes through the central Iraqi government in Baghdad.

NIQASH: In the past few weeks you have made several statements about the need to change Iraq’s political system from a parliamentary one to a presidential one. Could you explain what you’re asking for and why?

Al-Khazali: Today in Iraq we have big problems and everybody knows what they are – namely state services are problematic as are strategic projects and the level of unemployment as well as a raft of other things.

The League of the Righteous believes that one of the main reasons for these problems is the sectarian quota system in Iraq. To resolve this we have suggested that a presidential system be introduced because at the moment, the Prime Minister cannot choose the members of his government. He must bend to the will of the different blocs represented in Parliament who impose candidates upon him. There’s a bad atmosphere between the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and its had a negative impact on the government’s work. That is why we make such demands. But such sensitive issues must be left to the Iraqi people to decide.

NIQASH: But in making these requests, some critics have said that what you are really doing is opening the door for the return of former Iraqi prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Al-Khazali: We do not have any special relationship with Nouri al-Maliki. For example, we were not given any special positions within his government when he was in charge. Additionally we didn’t join his electoral bloc during elections; in fact, we contested the elections as a completely separate list.
NIQASH: But you have said on previous occasions that over the past two years your organisation has become closer to al-Maliki. So how do you compare and contrast al-Maliki’s time in power with the past year under Iraq’s new Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi?

Al-Khazali: I have never said that. During al-Maliki’s era, there were many positive as well as many negative developments. We have criticised some of al-Maliki’s work and we have evidence of that [criticism]. And when the Shiite coalition disagreed with [al-Maliki’s] State of Law bloc about who should be the next Prime Minister, we announced our official support for al-Abadi.

In terms of al-Abadi, I don’t think he has assessed his own performance thoroughly enough. There are big problems within the Iraqi government and I hope he is able to resolve them. Because we all need him to be successful, for the sake of the Iraqi people. This is what we want.

NIQASH: What are your plans for the future? Does the League plan to be more politically active once the Islamic State group has been driven out of Iraq?


Al-Khazali: We are already participating in the political process and that started as soon
 as the US left Iraq. We are also armed because we were heeding a call from the Iraqi government and from the highest Shiite religious authorities to defend the country. And yes, we have big political ambitions but these can only be achieved within the law and within the limits of the Iraqi Constitution.

NIQASH: There have been rumours lately that the League has been disagreeing with the Sadrist movement – led by the cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr – which also has militias fighting the Islamic State group.

Al-Khazali: There is much more that brings us closer to the Sadrist movement than anything that separates us. It is true that there are some disagreements but we would never go so far as to make them into real conflicts. At the moment we are confronting a very real enemy, one that threatens all Iraqis. So we should forget our differences and place more emphasis on what we have in common so that we may all serve the Iraqi people.

NIQASH: Up until now have you been happy with the Iraqi government’s policies in the conflict with the Islamic State?

Al-Khazali: The war on the Islamic State is an unusual one. It is a guerilla war and needs special fighting groups and skills. No regular army can fight such a war. So we are not so pleased with the way plans to fight the Islamic State have been developed. But in the end we do believe it is up to the Iraqi army.

Of course, we would place more emphasis on the abilities and skills of the militias because they have a lot of experience in this kind of fighting. That’s why we would call for more militias and more support for the militias, especially when it comes to holding on to areas they have liberated from the IS group.

The militias – made up of around 120,000 fighters – has been able to liberate many cities in Iraq while the Ministry of Defence, with about 300,000 members, has not been victorious.

NIQASH: These kinds of statements of yours have been interpreted in different ways. Some people think that you want militias to take the place of the regular Iraqi army.

Al-Khazali: We are not a substitute for the Iraqi army. On the contrary, we were, and we still are, supporting the army. Our main task is to strengthen the army so that, once again, it becomes capable of protecting the country the way it did before.

But we do also believe that the Iraqi army could really benefit from the experience and skills of the militias. Let’s be realistic. The way the Iraqi military has been developed has not been good. It too was influenced by the sectarian quota, which has influenced all Iraqi institutions. So that the enemy cannot fill this power vacuum we think that the militias could take the place of the army until the army is ready to take on that role again.

NIQASH: Are you cooperating with Iraqi Kurdish forces too? Who do you believe is your best ally in this fight against the IS group?

Al-Khazali: There is no coordination with the Kurds because they do not fight the IS group except on the land they believe is a part of [their region] Iraqi Kurdistan. The best allies for the militias are the Iraqi army and the local tribes.

NIQASH: One of the main criticisms of the militias is that they are undisciplined and that they have committed various violations and crimes after fighting the IS group. These violations have caused resentment in the Sunni areas where the militias are fighting. What are your thoughts on this? And if you did discover violations, will you hold the perpetrators responsible?

Al-Khazali: Every army in the world makes mistakes and some of its members commit violations. But we shouldn’t generalize and say that all soldiers are violators. The same holds true for the militias.

We don’t deny that there have been mistakes and violations. But these happen on an individual level. We believe that such violations should be identified and they should be dealt with according to the Iraqi law and Iraqi judiciary.

That is why we have created a joint operations room, together with the Iraqi army, to follow up on violations and to bring any criminals to justice. We have also managed to take control of this problem and restrict some of the behaviours that have been criticised, which is creating more trust between us and those in the liberated provinces.

That is also why more than 17,000 Sunni Muslims have joined the militias. For the same reason, tribal leaders in the areas [where we are fighting the IS group] have also asked us if they can participate in battles and they have welcomed us.

The Abominations Of Babylon The Great (Revelation 17:5)

The Marshall Islands’ latest nuclear test

 

Marshall Islanders are well-acquainted with the horrors of the nuclear arms industry.

Last updated: 18 Jan 2015 10:34

Belen Fernandez

 

The Marshall Islands – a country of about 70,000 people located in the Pacific Ocean – is taking the world’s nine nuclear powers to court for allegedly violating international obligations to work towards nuclear disarmament.

The list of accused is as follows: the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Israel. Israel has made the cut despite fervently denying possession of a nuclear arsenal.

The spectacle is unfolding at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the main judicial organ of the United Nations. A recent New York Times article on the Marshall Islands’ “near-Quixotic venture” quotes Phon van den Biesen, head of the country’s legal team, on the ultimate aim of the effort: “All the nuclear weapons states are modernising their arsenals instead of negotiating [to disarm], and we want the court to rule on this.”

A continuing history

The Islands’ move might come off as more than a bit incongruous given its established existence as a pillar of the US-Israeli axis in UN forums. Glance at any review of General Assembly votes on Israel/Palestine issues and you’ll find the Marshall Islands regularly represented in the exclusive anti-Palestine camp, along with a smattering of other obscure Pacific atolls.

The fact that justice in Palestine continues to be as elusive as ever, despite nominal support from an overwhelming majority of countries, underscores both the general futility of taking on the powers that be as well as the frequent toothlessness of rulings emanating from UN institutions.

The Marshall Islands presumably has some inkling of the force it’s now up against.

To be sure, Marshall Islanders are well acquainted with the horrors of the nuclear arms industry.

The diminutive nation happens to be the site of no fewer than 67 US nuclear bomb tests in the 1940s and 50s, during an almost 40-year period in which the US administered the Islands under a UN trusteeship. As Greenpeace notes, one of these tests involved a bomb 1,000 times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Such machinations have predictably resulted in thorough environmental contamination and continuing health complications for the local population, ranging from radiogenic cancers to babies born without bones.

As Marshallese nuclear survivor Lemeyo Abon told the UN Human Rights Council in 2012: “After the [US] testing programme we’ve had to create new words to describe the creatures we give birth to.”

Lexical fallout aside, other US contributions to Marshallese culture include the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll, which continues to generate revenue for US corporations.

The widespread territorial displacement necessitated by the previous era of fanatical nuclear testing meanwhile highlights the irony of Marshallese government support for the US-funded entity that displaces and otherwise oppresses Palestinians.

Of course, human beings are contradictory creatures, and nations composed of lots of human beings are thus inevitably also contradictory. But in assessing the prospects for the Islands’ foray into the International Court of Justice, it’s worth taking the contradictions into account.

Connecting the dots

The New York Times points out that the court case “comes as nuclear arms are increasingly being linked to other pressing international issues” such as climate change – which produces rising sea levels that incidentally also pose an existential threat to the Marshall Islands.

The Times quotes Marshallese Foreign Minister Tony de Brum on the seemingly parallel threats to survival: “What would it gain mankind to reach a peaceful resolution of the climate change threat, only to be wiped out by a nuclear misunderstanding?”

There are certainly common denominators between climate change and nukes – not least that both are filed away in many of our brains under the category of things that we know can swiftly destroy us but would prefer not to think about.

However, there appears to be a missing link in de Brum’s analysis, because you can’t resolve the climate change threat without resolving the business of imperial militarism, in both its nuclear and non-nuclear varieties.

The connection between the military-industrial complex and environmental catastrophe is fairly clearly spelled out in Project Censored‘s annual report from 2010, which confirms the US Department of Defense as the worst polluter on the planet.

This is not to imply, obviously, that the US constitutes the one and only problem for the earth; it’s simply to draw attention to the superior egregiousness of American earthly violations. Had there been an Ayatollah Khomeini Ballistic Missile Test Site in the mix somewhere, folks might be more willing to connect the dots.

While it may not be very coherent of the Marshall Islands to assist the empire in some destructive endeavours and take it to task for others, its nuclear lawsuit should nonetheless be encouraged – if for no other reason than the possibly vain hope that awareness can help combat inertia.

And another vain hope: that with attention will come context.

Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.

Antichrist’s Men Assuming The “Mark” On Their Hand (Rev 13:16)

Iraqi volunteers’ victories don’t justify atrocities

Armed Shiite volunteers from brigades loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr patrol the outskirts of Samarra, Aug. 2, 2014. (photo by REUTERS)

Al Monitor
AUTHOR Mustafa al-Kadhimi

POSTEDDecember 22, 2014

Two opposite phenomena are increasingly spreading in an unprecedented manner in Iraq. These two trends are related to the groups of popular mobilization, which includes armed Shiite factions and volunteers who joined in response to the “righteous jihad” fatwa issued by cleric Ali al-Sistani in June to prevent the Islamic State (IS) from advancing farther in Iraq. At the time, IS took advantage of the Iraqi forces’ collapse by trying to storm into Baghdad.

The first phenomenon lies in sanctifying the popular mobilization forces, banning any criticism of their behavior, or raising questions about their mechanism of action or their decisions on the ground. This is particularly true because many factions do not operate under the banner of the popular mobilization alone; they raise their own flags and follow their own military order.

While this sanctifying phenomenon is on the rise in the media and among politicians in Iraq, particularly among Shiites, another trend is growing in the other direction. Many media outlets and Sunni politicians are trying to “demonize” the popular mobilization, portraying its members as thieves, murderers and sectarian actors, rather than being noble volunteers who responded to the call to defend their country.

Undoubtedly, the two sides are hurling accusations at one another, blowing facts and events out of proportion in an attempt to prove their point of view.

Sunni religious, tribal and political leaders who recently participated in the Sunni forces conference in Erbil on Dec. 18 also had accusations to make. These said that [the popular mobilization forces] have carried out attacks and looting operations, burned bodies of IS fighters and punished IS affiliates in the absence of a legal trial, as well as punished local people without proof of affiliation to IS. Add to this other matters deemed illegal and contrary to human rights.

This happens for various reasons, including the belief that these regions have constituted a favorable environment for IS and deserve to be punished or to avenge the brutal actions of IS. These attacks — perpetrated against Sunni inhabitants in some of the areas liberated from IS, especially in Diyala province, east of Baghdad — are believed to have come from fighters in the popular mobilization forces.

Meanwhile, Shiite parties reject these accusations and view them as an attempt to save IS.
Nevertheless, the truth has waned amid this conflict; in fact, the popular mobilization fighters are not angels. Many violations and mistakes have been committed on the battlefield, which the popular mobilization leaders ought to own up to, and the perpetrators ought to be punished for.

On the other hand, the volunteers are not “demons” either. They have been fighting under dire conditions for more than four months, liberating lands from IS’ grip, making qualitative shifts in the battles against the organization. This is especially true in the towns of Amirli and Jurf al-Sakhar, among others.

The popular mobilization forces have made a fundamental difference on the battlefield, as they have undermined the superiority of IS at the level of guerrilla warfare. They have been able to make swift movements, making decisions on the ground without military intricacies and the need to refer to higher orders.

The popular mobilization forces have been following military tactics similar to those that IS has also been capitalizing on. This has been a major game-changer. However, there was another factor that changed the equation.

Psychological warfare, which IS was employing during the first days of its invasion of Mosul, is known to everyone. The organization capitalized on rumors and the media, presenting itself as an invincible force that would not hesitate to commit the most heinous of crimes. This has deeply affected the Iraqi army’s morale.

The popular mobilization forces have also tried to capitalize on this element, even if symbolically. They have done so by intensifying media campaigns, parading their victories and by shunning public criticism of the group’s members.

What needs to be stressed in this context is that the popular mobilization achievements are not an excuse for the excesses of some of its members, whatever these excesses are.

Today, the popular mobilization operates under the banner of the state, alongside the army and the police. It is not an armed group working outside the bounds of the law. Therefore, the group’s forces ought to completely abide by the same rules and regulations followed by the army forces.
In the same vein, one ought to mention that Sistani warned against the violations that could be committed by the volunteers during battle. This warning stems from his vision of the need for these forces to be exemplary in their commitment to the law, preventing the behavior of some members from affecting the entire group. This is why Sistani urged media outlets and politicians not to generalize about the behavior of some members to the entire popular mobilization force.

Today, it has become necessary to view the experience of this force as a unique experience that has truly helped Iraq from falling in the hands of IS. The popular mobilization forces have protected many Iraqi cities and liberated many others. Yet, this is not an excuse to condone the excesses of certain members, which contribute to deepening the sectarian rift or undermining trust in the state apparatus, which the popular mobilization will not replace at any stage.

Reinforcing and restructuring the state’s security and military forces and eliminating all corruption is what Iraqis are waiting for. Yet, they ought to understand that the current phase is of great sensitivity and danger for Iraq and the existence of the popular mobilization is necessary, until it is no longer needed. This is when IS is defeated and the security and military forces take full control of the situation.