The struggle over Iraq is not only military or political, it is also discursive. Language, as a tool for war, shapes perceptions, constructs realities, and serves as a tool of power. For decades, Western media labeled Iraqi armed groups as "militias", often pairing the term with descriptors such as "Iran-backed". This framing shapes perceptions of legitimacy, authority, and sovereignty, portraying Iraq as an unstable state in need of foreign intervention. 

By reducing the armed groups to a single label with the aim of delegitimizing them, Western media are deliberately erasing the history of sacrifice made by the members, flattening the social, political, and historical realities of Iraq into a simplified and inaccurate narrative. 

In English, “militia” connotes illegality, disorder, and chaos, and by using the term, Western outlets are very selective. US-affiliated armed groups, such as the Kurdish forces, are described as "troops" or "security forces", while groups opposing Western influence are stripped of their legitimacy, via "militia".

Consider the case of US and British private military companies, such as Blackwater, responsible for atrocities, including the 2007 Nisour Square massacre that killed 17 civilians. In Western reporting, such crimes are framed as the misconduct or error of a few individuals, rather than an indictment of the company's overall presence in Iraq or the states that authorized them. The true face of illegitimacy is never extended to the notorious institution itself or the governments behind it.

By contrast, the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), who defended Iraq’s security against ISIS, are simplified into "non-state", "illegitimate" actors with complete disregard for the groups’ integration into the country’s formal security apparatus. 

PMF legal status vs. Western delegitimization

The PMF emerged in 2014 following a Fatwa by Iraq’s top religious authority, Sayyed Ali al-Sistani, calling on Iraqis to defend the state against the terrorist ISIS following the capture of Mosul. The group soon became a decisive force, filling in the vacuum left by the collapsed Iraqi institutions after the 2003 US-led invasion. By 2016, the PMF were formally integrated into the country’s security apparatus. 

As a tool to delegitimize the group, Western outlets described the PMF as "Iran-backed militias" or "Shi’a militants", completely stripping the group of its legal status and grassroots legitimacy. It is worth noting here that the PMF include Sunni, Shi’a, and Christian factions, but Western media coverage reduces them to "sectarian proxies", implying foreign control rather than acknowledging their role in protecting their own state’s security.

Related News

Araghchi denies any contact with US envoy Witkoff over nuclear talks

Depleted by foreign wars, US seeks to re-arm for another confrontation

For instance, in 2016, during the battle of Mosul, Western media completely disregarded the PMF's efforts and achievements in deterring the terrorist group from further expanding into other Iraqi territories. 

According to a BBC report in 2017, "Thousands of Iraqi soldiers, Kurdish fighters, Sunni Arab tribesmen and Shia militiamen, assisted by US-led coalition warplanes and military advisers, took part in the offensive." No mention of the PMF, only referring to them as "Shia militiamen".

Also in 2017, while reporting on the Mosul battle, Time Magazine reported: "In Fallujah and other battles, the government has relied on Shi’ite-majority militias called “hashd al-shabi,” or popular mobilization forces."

By presenting the struggle as a "battle of militias", Western media obscures the reality: the PMF were not simply rival gunmen in a sectarian conflict, but a key component of Iraq's national defense structure. 

Selective reporting, political bias

Western outlets consistently downplay PMF achievements, framing them instead through the lens of external influence and controversy.

The erasure is clear when examining how operational victories are reported. Headlines rarely report on the number of territories liberated, ISIS terrorists neutralized, or civilians protected by the PMF. Instead, coverage often moves toward political implications, questioning the PMF's loyalty and legality rather than acknowledging the reality on the ground, distorting the image of Iraq's struggle against terrorism. 

One case study is the 2015 liberation of Tikrit. ISIS's defeat, achieved through PMF-led operations, was disproportionately reported by Western outlets, crediting instead the US-led coalition airstrikes and relegating the PMF's contribution and major role. This not only deprives the PMF of recognition they are entitled to, but also reinforces the Western narrative that victory is dependent on Western intervention. 

The same scenario is observed in Baghdad, where PMF units were deployed to secure the capital during ISIS infiltrations. Instead of reporting on the group's role in stabilizing the city, outlets framed these operations as controversial and sectarian, depicting the situation as going from "chaos to chaos."

Semantics of 'militia'

With the use of their selective terminology, Western media cast the foreign presence as "orderly" and the PMF’s operations and presence as "chaotic". In their dictionary, US troops are "peacemakers" while Iraqi forces are "militants". By stripping the group of its political and historical context, foreign intervention is legitimized in front of the public eye by obscuring the PMF’s true nature. 

There are consequences to such linguistic framing. Public opinion is shaped abroad in favor of US intervention, making it easier to justify any actions taken in Iraq since Baghdad is depicted as “incapable” of controlling its own security forces. 

The "militia" label is another Western strategic tool. Recognizing the language of war as part of the war itself is essential to understanding both the misrepresentation of Iraq’s armed groups and the broader politics of Western intervention.