A worrisome sign in Iraq

Riverbend changes her tune

Update: Alon Levy points out that I am wrong. Riverbend has not changed her tune. See comment thread.

The horrific thing about the killings is that the area had been cut off for nearly two weeks by Ministry of Interior security forces and Americans. Last week, a car bomb was set off in front of a ‘Sunni’ mosque people in the area visit. The night before the massacre, a car bomb exploded in front of a Shia husseiniya in the same area. The next day was full of screaming and shooting and death for the people in the area. No one is quite sure why the Americans and the Ministry of Interior didn’t respond immediately. They just sat by, on the outskirts of the area, and let the massacre happen.

It might take a second reading, but Riverbend’s meaning is clear: she wants the Americans to protect the Sunnis. Not from suicide bombers, but from vengeful Shiite militias.

As I wrote 107 days ago (thanks, Alon):

Prediction - Within 90 days, Riverbend will be insisting that the Americans stay to protect her. Something like “Now we have Shiite Death squads, creatures of Bush’s own policy. Well, he stirred up all this internal conflict, now he has to fix it.”

Recommendation - That’s when we will know it’s time to leave.

Heretofore, Riverbend has been insistent:

Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances - just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.

Today, “they just sat by.” Her implication is clear. For my part, protecting Riverbend is a mission that I want no part of.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. In an About-Face, Sunnis Want U.S. to Remain in Iraq at The Politburo Diktat on 17 Jul 2006 at 11:49 am

    […] Perhaps not Riverbend, but many Sunni voices are voicing these sentiments: In Adhamiya, a neighborhood in north Baghdad, Sunni insurgents once fought street to street with American troops. Now, mortars fired by Shiite militias rain down several times a week, and armed watch groups have set up barricades to stop drive-by attacks by black-clad Shiite fighters. So when an American convoy rolled in recently, a remarkable message rang out from the loudspeakers of the Abu Hanifa Mosque, where Saddam Hussein made his last public appearance before the fall of Baghdad in 2003. […]

Comments

  1. Scout wrote:

    Riverbend is full of ****. Right now the ISF have checkpoints all over B-dad. The car bombs in Tarawa (formerly known as Sadr City) and Aahdamiya happened before the IPs were taking the security program seriously. For the first week the checkpoints were manned half assed and a few dinars would get you thru, no questions asked. The MNF (SPTT and MiTT teams) got on them daily and finally got the PM involved. They got NCO leadership at the checkpoints now and they are been effective!!! They catch kidnappers and VBIEDs daily. The Durka-durkas (AIF) are getting mighty frustrated. There has been a spat of drive-by’s directed at the checkpoints trying to intimidate the IPs. Even JAM tried that ****. They started going to checkpoints in violation of curfew and threatening to behead the wives and kids of the IPs. IA didnt take kindly to that **** and they are seriously busting heads over it. They word is out on the street, they gig is up. Of course there is still tribalism and corruption (a Mr. Jamil al “Blowme”) at the MOI just got some kidnappers released without a trial. Everyone suspects that either a few dinars crossed his desk or it was tribesmembers of his that got arrested. But all in all its getting better. The IEDs (specially the Fraking EFPs) have dried up, all they can do now is drive bys.

    Posted 13 Jul 2006 at 12:30 pm

  2. Alon Levy wrote:

    Her implication is clear.

    No, it’s not. What you’re doing is akin to me saying “The Democrats will sweep Congress in November” and then saying “I told you so” after the Democrats gain two seats in the House and two in the Senate.

    The post you link to has the same tone as Riverbend’s previous posts: she says the Americans should protect her but don’t, and since they don’t, they should leave immediately. The very post you bring up to claim that you were right tells the US military to get out.

    Posted 13 Jul 2006 at 2:27 pm

  3. BloodSpite wrote:

    Actually no, what Commissar says is correct.

    The implication is that of the average American and their Police:

    No one wants/likes a cop, until they need one.

    Riverbends is the same ideal. She doesn’t like the Americans. Doesn’t want them there. But by gawd we better protect her kiester.

    Posted 13 Jul 2006 at 3:07 pm

  4. commissar wrote:

    Alon.

    I stand corrected. She has not changed her tune:

    Why don’t the Americans just go home? They’ve done enough damage and we hear talk of how things will fall apart in Iraq if they ‘cut and run’, but the fact is that they aren’t doing anything right now. How much worse can it get?

    Updated at top of post.

    Posted 13 Jul 2006 at 4:30 pm

  5. Alon Levy wrote:

    No one wants/likes a cop, until they need one.

    Riverbends is the same ideal. She doesn’t like the Americans. Doesn’t want them there. But by gawd we better protect her kiester.

    What I see in her posts is more subtle. The best American analogy I can think of is a common complaint among poor blacks that the police are on the one hand racist, harassing innocent blacks for no reason, and on the other hand indifferent to crime committed against black people.

    This is fairly routine in oppressive systems: the oppressor will both neglect your safety and crack down on your liberty ostensibly in the name of safety.

    Posted 13 Jul 2006 at 4:50 pm

  6. commissar wrote:

    And of course, the issues in Iraq are “hard to disaggregate from the legacy of colonialism,” as long as we’re into an “oppressive systems” thread.

    Posted 13 Jul 2006 at 4:56 pm

  7. Alon Levy wrote:

    Ironically, despite my anti-Americanism, I’ve never had much patience for post-colonialism. It’s always struck me as a simplistic single-villain ideology. My point about oppressive systems has little to do with colonialism. I’m thinking mostly about segregation in the US, the Italian mafia, the Nazi occupation of Eastern Europe, and, possibly, Israel’s treatment of Arab minorities.

    Posted 13 Jul 2006 at 5:04 pm

  8. frontinus wrote:

    Careful, Alon. With the topic being Riverbend and all you might slip up and include Iraq under Saddam as an example of an oppresive regime. I tried to look for Riverbend’s diatribes against the bantustans and systematic slaughter organized by Sunnis but surprisingly the archive only goes back to 2003. Go figure.

    Posted 14 Jul 2006 at 12:26 am

  9. Alon Levy wrote:

    I didn’t mention Saddam’s Iraq because I don’t know if it followed that pattern. As far as I know, Saddam’s Iraq protected the citizens from non-state violence, retaining the sole right to commit murder.

    Posted 14 Jul 2006 at 3:46 pm

  10. frontinus wrote:

    “As far as I know…”

    Indeed. I’m guessing RB would wholeheartedly agree.

    So Saddam’s Iraq would be the exception as far as “oppressive systems” go?

    Posted 14 Jul 2006 at 5:41 pm

  11. Mahdi wrote:

    Riverbend is a typical right-wing Muslim fascist, now converting to national-Islamism. Funny that the western left, especially the post-colonial and the cultural-postmodern left, support each and every drooling of fascism and illiberalism that comes out of her.

    In the same breath that Alon Levy considers the Americans as oppressors of Iraq where they allow Arab on Arab 1400 year old infighting, in the same breath he demands reduction and/or immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

    Empirical reasoning never entered the logic of the western postmodern left - who have jettisoned human rights as an “oppressive imperialist tool of subjugation and enrichment of the west”.

    Shame on the alliance of middle eastern religious fascism with western leftism.

    Posted 17 Jul 2006 at 4:42 pm

  12. Mehdi wrote:

    Levy: “I didn’t mention Saddam’s Iraq because I don’t know if it followed that pattern. As far as I know, Saddam’s Iraq protected the citizens from non-state violence, retaining the sole right to commit murder. “

    No, such sectarian conflicts was swept under the carpet, as long as these various factions had to unite against their common enemy, Saddam.

    To assume that internal conflict just happened to start, or was induced by imperialist action, since the demise of the Saddam’s police state, shows a lack of understanding of middle east society.

    Posted 17 Jul 2006 at 4:50 pm

« if u cn read this msg, we hv been pwned
Snakes on a Plame »