Qais Khazali

3 January 2010

This is a name we need to remember, as it will surely show up over and over in relation to future murderous terrorist attacks.
Qais Khazali is a Shi’te terrorist responsible for the murder of five American soldiers in Karbala, Iraq in 2007. The gentleman planned an attack against American forces and after killing one soldier, four others were kidnapped and eventually executed by Khazali’s terror militia.
Few weeks later, in 2007, Khazali was apprehended in Iraq and has been in prison since, until now.

It appears, and has been confirmed by several sources, that Khazali has been freed by Iraqi authorities. It has also been confirmed that his release was in exchange for the freeing of British computer consultant Peter Moore held as hostage by Iran since 2007.
Authorities in Iraq discounted the notion that the prisoner swap has occurred, stating that the freeing of Khazali was part of their policy of reconciliation.

Meanwhile, the release of this terrorist, with American and British soldiers blood on his hands, is being seen by American Military representatives as a dangerous move that American troops will again pay in blood.
But why was this man released, if not as a swap for Moore? The Maliki government did not have much to gain in view of reconciliation, as the majority in the Iraqi government is already Shi’ite and Khazali is a Shi’ite, so no sectarian gain appears to be behind the action.
A second, more disturbing possibility, is that Khazali is part of a resurgent scheme on the part of Iran-backed political forces in the Iraqi government, to create a high level instability within the Iraqi government, the foundation of an anti-American current, as Khazali appears to be a terrorist with political ambitions.

It is also obvious that the influence of Iran on the Maliki government is gaining momentum. The Teheran regime has been providing support for the insurgency in Iraq for years, supplying weapons and intelligence to those forces engaged in the killing of American and Coalition forces. The Bush administration was unwilling to confront the actions from Iran, at least overtly, and the current administration is even less capable to exert enough pressure on Maliki to even stop the release of a terrorist.

After the blood and treasure that America spent in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and to help establish a fairly viable democracy in an area of the world where democracy is an evil concept, the declared intention on the part of Obama to erase all the advances made by American efforts in that country has laid down the foundations for a shift of influence.
The accomplishments made in Iraq would require and justify a long term presence of American forces in country, but the anti-Bush rhetoric and current lack of interest on the part of Obama and the political leadership in Washington to see the importance of American presence in the region will most likely result in the Iraqi government becoming more prone to be influenced by their theocratic neighbours to the east. And this fits perfectly with the maniacal leaders of Iran, who have been looking at American presence just next door as the only real threat to their regional hegemony.

What does this mean for America in the long term and for American forces in the short term?
It is hard to say, but if history is a teacher, the name Qais Khazali will become a household name for Americans, just as Osama bin Laden did after 9-11-01.
When Osama became somewhat known to the American public, at least to those who actually pay enough attention, it was within the context of criminal proceedings that then President Clinton was looking for. While Osama and his followers were conducting and preparing for open war against the US, Clinton lost several opportunities to take the man out because it did not fit the criminal justice approach. And we all know the results of that.
Today, as Obama is returning the country to a law enforcement approach to the war on terror, allowing the Maliki government to spring this bad character out of jail, is creating a similar environment for the future. And this environment is going to be one that the American Military and eventually the American population will pay for, thanks to relentless pursuit of Liberal Progressives who are in charge today to destroy everything President Bush accomplished. It is not as much as an appeasement ideology, which is already prevalent, but mostly an internal ideology of political control. Not as much a pro-terrorist approach as an anti-Bush crusade. And those stuck in the middle of the controversy, those who will ultimately pay the highest price are the American Military and the American people. Truly a small price for the elitists in Washington to pay to accomplish their political aspirations.


And these are my thoughts!
Frank “Semperpapa”