Last Monday unidentified gunmen assassinated Husham Al Hashimi outside his home in Baghdad. The tragic loss of the most prolific expert on radical and armed groups and adviser to the Iraqi government is a massive blow to the country's academic, social and security realms. Few are spared the wrath of violent armed groups, whether non-state or state-sanctioned.
The world lost a historian who documented ISIS and the various extremist groups that preceded it. Most, if not all, literature on these topics extensively source Al Hashimi’s works and analyses. Iraq lost a sociologist who understood and embraced his country’s complexities. A family lost a loving husband, father, brother and uncle. Many of us lost a good friend.
Aristotle once said: “A friend to all is a friend to none." Had he known Al Hashimi, he might have paused. If there was one thing Al Hashimi rejected, it was any ideology that would push human beings to kill another. Take away the violence, and Al Hashimi made friends with anyone whatever their world view.
Iraq is a country where people of diverse backgrounds and thinking exist, many of them even at odds with one another. To Al Hashimi, most Iraqis found themselves in a vast space that rejected two fringe and extreme but influential ideologies. One ideology calls for an Islamic State and the return of the Caliph, the other aims for an Islamic revolution that places states under the influence of a supreme leader. Both ideologies, however, espouse violence.
Al Hashimi believed that the vast majority of Iraqis did not subscribe to either world view. If he determined that an individual did not aim to physically harm a fellow citizen – whether they aspired for a conservative, Salafist-leaning lifestyle, or advocated on behalf of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the angry rhetoric and sometimes empty threats faded into soundbites.
In Al Hashimi’s view, listening to and befriending people of all stripes, and reconciling quarreling groups were the only ways to defeat extremists at both ends of Iraq’s unique political and identity spectrum. Perhaps he was on to something. It is important to note that in the aftermath of his killing, only two groups of people rejoiced: those who were aligned with the IRGC-backed militias, the prime suspects behind his murder, and ISIS.
Al Hashimi was of the firm belief that everyone was redeemable. He lived by it. Perhaps he was projecting the swirling dynamics of his own life's trajectory onto a people that have borne the trauma of conflict since the conception of their nation. He found his greatest joy in reconciliation, and that is what he spent a significant amount of his final years doing. He helped turn foes into friends and paved the way for a more unified stance in tackling the many challenges facing the country.
Al Hashimi was not the enemy of the state. He was an outspoken critic of corruption and of kleptocracy, but he believed in gradual reform from within the system. Over the past six years he served as a security adviser to Iraqi President Barham Salih. He engaged with the US Central Command stationed in the country, as well as leaders of the various militias, especially when the threat of ISIS foreshadowed all other problems.
His in-depth knowledge of the inner organisation of ISIS was instrumental in breaking down the group’s code and blueprint. When the group lost its territorial control, he wasted little time in warning about an imminent underground resurgence if Baghdad failed to seize the opportunity provided by victory.
Another threat, meanwhile, was looming: the growing pains of the hastily formed Popular Mobilisation Units, an Iranian-backed umbrella group of militias. The impunity of some factions within the PMF to commit human rights violations worried Al Hashimi. Living in Baghdad amid their increasingly reckless behaviour warranted caution, and he balanced criticism with sound advice in his dealings with these groups.
There was one occasion when he abandoned his cautious approach.
This was during the anti-government protests last October. He could not conceal his heartbreak following the loss of young lives in their hundreds. He grew more critical of government orders to crack down on the unarmed protesters while trying to mediate between the activists and the few “adults” in Iraq's decision-making rooms.
It was also during these protests that he gave us a glimpse of his empathetic side. He spent hours observing the discourse between protesters on social media. He praised their bravery but warned them via direct messages against making fiery statements that might endanger their own lives.
“People in Tahrir Square are broken today. Though hundreds died here, it is like the killing of this one man has casted an unparalleled gloominess. All hope died with Hisham," said a friend, who recently visited the famous protest venue where large posters of Al Hashimi have been pasted on walls and tents.
A week after his assassination, more people are sharing their moments with him. “How did he make time for all of us?,” journalist Alison Meuse remarked. It is true. Al Hashimi never left a message unattended to or a question unanswered. Neither did he ever turn away someone in need of advice or simply an ear. He had a brilliant mind but also a gentle soul and a down-to-earth attitude – a rarity in the often egotistical environment of security analysts and experts.
Al Hashimi left behind a treasure trove of writings that will no doubt shed light on some of Iraq and the region’s most pressing security concerns. Much of his works have yet to be published or translated. Friends and colleagues have pledged to make his papers and books accessible to larger audiences who did not get to know him.
He also leaves us with memories – of moments of gushing laughter while talking about Iraq’s many ironies, its complicated social compacts, and even its delicious cuisines. There was never a dull moment with Al Hashimi. Perhaps the most vital lesson worth striving to learn is his unmatched ability to listen, understand, forgive and befriend. In his book, even those who seemed hopeless deserved a chance.
In 2016, during the height of anguish and confusion following ISIS taking control of Mosul, my hometown, a Baghdad-based journalist posted on Facebook that the only way to save Iraq was by bombing the city with chemical weapons. He specifically mentioned children, describing them as ticking time-bombs and viruses were they to be brainwashed by the terror group into taking up their violence cause. I did not take kindly to the post. I was also upset that Al Hashimi reached out to the journalist instead of publicly scorning him. His response to my discontent was: “He is hurt and confused. Words are only words. Talk to him. He would never accept killing civilians, Rasha. Befriend him."
Al Hashimi presumed the best in others, even actively seeking it out of them. Only time will tell if that was a blessing or a curse.
Rasha Al Aqeedi is the editor-in-charge of Irfaa Sawtak
