Riverbend Ends the silence

I know there are a lot of community members who follow Riverbend's blog.  For the uninitiated, Riverbend is the psuedonymn of a young woman who lives in Baghdad, and posts a blog.  In the early years, she published regularly, but as the situation has deteriorated in Iraq, her posts have become more infrequent.  Also, her regular readers  have noted that the tone of the blog has changed, becoming darker, with an increasing notes of despair and outrage apparent in her clear prose.

I have been looking for updates daily, to find assurance that she is safe and able to keep blogging.  I wish that Americans had been able to hear more Iraqi voices, both before the war, and since.  Much of the US has forgotten that Iraq is a living nation, with real people, not a strategic challenge for foreign policy.  Reading Riverbend's blog may let some humanity creep into to American policy.  

I dont have any commentary on her latest post.  The angry sarcasm and clear insight demonstrate very clearly the crimes my country have inflicted on hers, and even as an aggressive anti-war, Dean letter-writing citizen, I am overwhelmed with guilt.  Here's the link.

•  See SusanHu's diary too

  here.

  by bumblebums on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 01:29:59 PM PDT

  •  thanks - didnt see it

    nt

    by Winston Sm1th on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 01:33:48 PM PDT

•  Thanks

  I usually wait with baited breath for her posts; good to know she is blogging again.

  by jetskreemr on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 01:30:59 PM PDT

  •  I just want the KILLING to STOP!!!!

    Hussein should rot in ABU GHRAIB for another 20 years.
    I hope Riverbend lives for another 50 years , sells her story to Hollywood and lives the life of a billionaire.

    I just want the killing to stop.

    by Gator on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:45:50 PM PDT

•  RB quote of the day

  "Bush has effectively created more terrorists in Iraq these last 4 years than Osama could have created in 10 different terrorist camps in the distant hills of Afghanistan. Our children now play games of 'sniper' and 'jihadi', pretending that one hit an American soldier between the eyes and this one overturned a Humvee."

  by Winston Sm1th on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 01:33:03 PM PDT

  •  I think it'd be great

    If you updated your diary to include this excerpt and any others from Riverbend's diary that you feel are especially noteworthy.  Thanks for the post.

    by davidkc on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 01:54:09 PM PDT

  •  I prefer this quote

    "My only conclusion is that the Americans want to withdraw from Iraq, but would like to leave behind a full-fledged civil war because it wouldn't look good if they withdraw and things actually begin to improve, would it?"

    Ouch.

    by grapes on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 02:29:08 PM PDT

    •  That one stopped me cold

      Makes the nonsensical make sense, doesn't it?

      Fuckin a.

      by KateCrashes on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 02:44:57 PM PDT

      •  i got a new sig today.

        it's quite appropriate and I believe is the most succinct summary of the Orwellian Presidency yet.

        by hour on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 04:32:16 PM PDT

        •  A leak of Bush's new Iraq strategy??? (n/t)

          by 417els on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:49:16 PM PDT

    •  the whole article is eminently quoteable

      I oppose the war in Iraq for both moral and strategic reasons.  The morality of the war is more frustrating to debate with the pro-war factions.  Then it is easier to argue against the strategic catastrophe, which is becoming undeniable as time passes.  

      The quote I cited struck me as a powerful argument that has now, finally,  become conventional wisdom in the MSM.. the invasion has far increased the threat of terrorism against the US.  

      That said, there are many other sentences in RBs blog that elicit a stronger emotional response.  

      by Winston Sm1th on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 02:46:16 PM PDT

    •  Sometimes

      I feel like printing out her posts and sending them to assorted war mongers. Don't know where to start, PNAC signers? David Laser of Halliburton? Lieberman? Sandra Day O'Connor?

      just don't know where to start.

      by Alice Marshall on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 03:46:59 PM PDT

      •  Lieberman

        without doubt, that asshole Lieberman.

        Send it to him.

        He won't read it though.

        We should organize a reading by a group of women outside his office.  And keep reading it in chorus, starting over at the beginning again, reading to the end, starting again.

        All of dressed in head scarfs.

        No need to paint tears on our cheeks.
        Real tears will already be there.

        by LIsoundview on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 04:04:43 PM PDT

      •  But please don't.

        It would probably only serve to endager her.  None of the people you cite would have good intentions if they were to focus on her unfortunately.

        by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 04:05:46 PM PDT

        •  Joe doesn't deserve Riverbend

          Fuck him.

          by baccaruda on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:44:42 PM PDT

    •  On Leaving Iraq

      My views are going to be in a very small minority here; but if sending 500,000 more American soldiers to Iraq, and draining the American Treasury in the process, would end the civil war that is now escalating, I would support it.  The United States has all along had a moral obligation to protect the lives of Iraqi innocents once it undertook the actions it did.  

      But instead, we as a nation have killed, and allowed the killing, of many tens of thousands of even the most innocent children.

      There is no price too steep to pay for what we as a nation have done if we have the ability to change the trajectory Iraq is on.

      But the hour is now late and the "easy" chances we've had are spent; and I know that we will not be willing to pay the cost required to change the course of civil war in Iraq.

      But even if we withdraw, we'll return.  Because the Iraqi civil war will not stop at Iraq's borders, and soon Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and Syria will join the fighting; and if then left unchecked-- and by that time it may be absolutely impossible to stop-- the war will stand an extremely dangerous chance of spreading to nations that have nuclear arsenals.

      We will leave.  But we have unleashed Hell; and we'll return years later to attempt to re-cap Hell.

      And the likes of Riverbend will be there to meet us with a gun in her hand.

      What a foolish thing we've done.

      by rangemaster on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:02:38 PM PDT

      •  The moral obligation of war ...

        ...if sending 500,000 more American soldiers to Iraq, and draining the American Treasury in the process, would end the civil war that is now escalating, I would support it.  The United States has all along had a moral obligation to protect the lives of Iraqi innocents once it undertook the actions it did.  

        I couldn't disagree more with you, Rangemaster.  The moral obligation of a country with regard to war is -- not to protect the lives of innocents once it undertakes an action -- but to protect the lives of innocents before taking any action at all.  Hence, the moral "system restore point" (for lack of a better way of describing a moral status quo ante) is the retraction of troops and treasury, not the addition of troops and money.

        Sure: I understand your point, which is to say that you'd give anything ...make any sacrifice ...to repair the damage we've done -- hence, the hypothetical 500k troops and bankrupted Treasury.  

        But that just utterly misses the point, imo: the real sacrifice we should make is the sacrifice of ego.  The real offering we can place on the altar of peace, is the offering of our humility -- our own recognition that our failure cannot be mitigated, together with an open acceptance of the humiliations, the loss of face, that such a failure brings with it.

        Even now, the insistence that there must be a solution is, in reality, an insistence that America absolutely must be regarded as heroes, in this situation.  Our refusal to just slink away and let someone else clean up the mess is the hubris that has, and is, and will cost innocent lives.

        by 4thepeople on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:18:07 PM PDT

        •  'The sacrifice of ego' - perfect words. (n/t)

          by 417els on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:54:24 PM PDT

        •  There may be a solution - but we aren't it

          The conventional pessimistic wisdom is that bordering countries (Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi & Kuwait) will each pick a subgroup in Iraq and back it against the others - leading to a massive multi-way civil war.

          I may be overly optimistic, but I don't think that will happen. Some of it will happen, sure, but not to the degree many fear.

          Despite the general American demonizing of all things Arab and Islamic, several of these countries have fairly stable governments that have worked together in the past and share a serious fear of a chaotic Iraq.

          In particular, I look to Turkey to play an important moderating role - possibly in concert with Iran. These are two very strong regional powers and they have cooperated militarily and politically in the past when it has suited their interest. Similarly, Syria and Iran have worked together (notably in supporting Hezbollah).

          Jordan will try to moderate if it can.

          Saudi is the wild card. They are freaking out over the Shia threat. However, we have arguably more influence over them than over some of the others.

          As long as Americans are in Iraq, none of these countries can become engaged. Nor is there any point in their forming alliances, working partnerships, etc. Bush will simply veto anything that includes Iran or Syria.

          If Americans start to leave, I think we may see some movements among those countries that will surprise us. That, I think is the context for RB's quote that started this part of the thread.

          by grapes on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 08:35:17 PM PDT

        •  I don't understand your logic

          Our refusal to just slink away and let someone else clean up the mess is the hubris that has, and is, and will cost innocent lives.

          Please tell me how slinking away will prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands more lives?  

          It is ironic that in your response calling for the U.S. to humble itself, I observe a parallel hubris in your assessment of the impact, one way or another, of the United States and its attitude— and please don’t take that personally.  But what’s happening in Iraq is no longer "about us", nor has it been for some time; the U.S. military is in its current force structure and in its ability to change Iraq's trajectory little more than a sideshow-with-guns.  Our mere leaving will not bring peace between the sects of Islam nor between the tribes.  Our leaving or our attitude is not magical nor important in effect.

          I fully agree that care for the innocents should have been considered prior to undertaking actions of war; but after 9/11 we were a scared and bloodthirsty nation without the wisdom or self-control necessary to take history into a much more functional path; and our "leaders" in both political parties failed us miserably.  Most did not lead, they followed.  Barbarism was the morality of the day, and the nation swam with it.  I knew on the day that the Legislative Branch gave the Executive Branch what it wanted in terms of authorization for acts of war that there would no longer be any solutions that would be less than horrific.

          And our bloodthirstiness and disregard for others still continues, in my opinion, in our desire to leave Iraq to a fate that few analysts believe will be anything short of apocalyptic.

          I do not know what the solution is.  But of one thing I am absolutely certain: we may leave for a short while, but we’ll have no choice but to return later.  And when that happens, it will be with the 500,000 soldiers that were never sent to begin with, and an urgency that will not tolerate delay or half-assed commitment.

          In other words, everyone is now screwed; but none screwed so badly as the Iraqi people.

          by rangemaster on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:23:09 AM PDT

          •  If we had a

            commander in chief who actually cared about peace and civilians, I'd support a draft and putting in more of us. But with his greed and malice, Bush would set it up so that American military would make Iraq worse - until we have grown ups in charge, how can we do this?

            by grrr on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 05:59:07 AM PDT

            •  The Commander factor

              How right you are.  It does not matter how well the underlings perform their jobs if their leaders are incompetent and make the big decisions wrongly.

              I can't remember the title of the play in which a narrative between two medical personnel, one for the war, one against, takes place.  The doctor for the war asks why the doctor against the war opposed it.  

              His response was, "I knew what the surgery would look like because I knew who the surgeon was."

              I believe we have an obligation to the people of Iraq that demands every sacrifice required; but I have no illusions that this will take place because of the quality of the civilian leadership in both parties... and I had this perspective before the Iraq War Resolution.  They're a bunch of self-aggrandizing blowhards who thought, and still think, they're playing a Sunday afternoon football game.

              We need better leaders all the way around.

              by rangemaster on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 04:14:39 PM PDT

      •  The only problem with the thesis that more troops

        might prevent a civil war is that that US troops are not actually protecting Iraqis.  They kill a lot of people, some of whom are guilty of killing other people.  But protect people?  That's not part of their ROE, and hasn't been since the beginning of this mess.

        by naltikriti on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:40:50 PM PDT

      •  If n/t

        by Major Danby on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:02:46 PM PDT

        •  A wise response n/t

          by rangemaster on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:27:10 AM PDT

      •  I wouldn't.

        America's first responsiblity is to America and to put it bluntly, what you are describing is national suicide with the excellent possibility of taking the rest of the world with us.

        Including Iraq, even in the unlikely event that one can restore order there with only 500K more American troops. (though 500K or even fewer NON-US troops there at the request of the Iraqis might do it)

        Between global warming and peak oil, how we get energy and our energy public policy is a threat to technological civilization. Would you like the next generation here, in Iraq, or anyone else in the world to have a chance to live to a ripe old age? If we continue our present course, it ain't happening.

        Our options are to fix our energy policy and our energy infrastructure and by doing so, show the rest of the world (including oil countries who are running out of oil) how to do it. Or die.

        A beneficial side effect. . . no more oil wars. Ever. While it sucks to have an oil war on our hands, I'd like Iraq to be the very last one ever to be fought.

        Pumping half a million more American troops and another few trillion dollars into Bush's Folly isn't even on any American's rational list of priorities, though al-Queda might have reason to think this a good idea. If we do this, we can't afford to replace our energy infrastructure.

        I'm less concerned about the civil war spreading. Anybody outside Iraq who might ordinarily think a religious sectarian civil war is a good idea has a horrible object lesson close at hand to demonstrate that it isn't.

        by alizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:26:41 AM PDT

        •  Want to take any bets

          on whether we "go back" within the next five years if we leave now?

          Energy independence and peak oil... I couldn't agree with you more.  What are our politically realistic chances of making it happen soon enough to matter....

          by rangemaster on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:33:26 AM PDT

          •  if we get a solid start on

            replacing petroleum? Slim to none.

            The only importance the Middle East has to the world is the oil under it. A solid start, as large-scale biomass facilities in production and lots more on the way would do it. The technology to do this is very, very close to being available.

            If it's obvious to Americans that in the next decade, we'll be growing oil, not buying it from the Middle East, the only people who will support American military action over there will be a handful of die-hard neocons. . . that even the GOP leadership will be saying STFU to.

            by alizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:42:20 AM PDT

    •  I hope things will improve when we leave

      Which I think we should have done long ago.  Their dictator and his police state were unravelled; the Iraqis should sort things out themselves.

      But the way this "river" woman seems to pine for a Saddam-era Iraq is appalling (and if her blog allowed comments, I'd tell her so).  It's also ironic and hypocritical: while many aspects of life have become worse for many Iraqis (though certainly not for the Kurds, who always seem to get left out of these discussions), there is really no serious dispute that they have much greater freedom of speech than they did under Saddam.

      And I think all of us here on dKos should remember that.  In the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, there would have been no Daily Kos or anything like it, openly lambasting the government in power in no uncertain terms.

      So for a blogger, any blogger, to intimate that affairs were better off left as they were...well, that's just beyond the pale.  Absolutely Bush and Cheney and Rummy handled the occupation about as poorly as they handled Katrina and a whole host of other problems.  But that should impel us to talk about how the occupation should have been better handled--how it could well have been better handled had for instance Kerry taken over the reins two years ago--not to say that "oh, if only Saddam had just been left in power, that's the ticket".  Give me a fucking break!

      -Alan

      by SlackerInc on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:40:07 PM PDT

      •  Freedom of speech

        is worthless if you can't leave your house for fear of being kidnapped or killed. Of course Saddam was horrible, but life there now is worse. In the words of one Iraqi who was quoted on This American Life: "Under Saddam there was no light at the end of the tunnel. Now, there is no tunnel."

        by Bromius on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 12:42:26 AM PDT

      •  beyond the pale?

        To start with, that "beyond the pale" remark gets you a donut, and if I had the power to do so, I'd send you to Iraq in Riverbend's place.

        You don't quite get why an intelligent woman in Iraq might prefer a time when electricity and other services, LIKE CIVIL ORDER were publically available? A time when people lived in peace with their neighbors of different versions of Islam?

        You don't quite get why a woman might prefer a time when women could actually pursue a profession without fear of attack by religious crazies? A time when a woman could dress in Western clothing without a veil without fear of being beaten, raped, and murdered by the religiously insane?

        There is one thing Saddam Hussein actually did right. He kept Iraq's religious crazies under control. . . George Bush brought them into government and turned Iraq into a living hell, particularly for women.

        Do the Democratic Party a favor. Reregister as a Republican and contribute your "wisdom" in places like Red State.

        by alizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 01:35:59 AM PDT

        •  Oh, what great advice

          First, let me quote from Markos, near the top of the FAQ:

          This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together.

          (In fact, I'm probably about as left as they come on economic issues, but more centrist or iconoclastic in other areas; and I'm a political pragmatist in any event.)  But you are going 180 degrees the other way from Markos, saying that we're not in this fight together, that you don't want my help in this fight.  Funny, though: I bet you don't mind the result of the many hours I put in here in Missouri going door to door and phone banking for Claire McCaskill, starting way back in the summer and culminating with eight hours of GOTV on Election Day.  No, no, just send me away, because you disagree with me on this or that.  Fortunately, I'm not going to take your advice--but you really ought to think about the message you're sending out to those who might not be as determined.

          And if you won't listen to me, you might consider the words of Barak Obama, who wrote the following right here on dKos last year:

          [T]o the degree that we brook no
          dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty
          to the one, "true" progressive vision for the country,
          we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new
          ideas that are required to move this country forward.
          When we lash out at those who share our fundamental
          values because they have not met the criteria of every
          single item on our progressive "checklist," then we
          are essentially preventing them from thinking in new
          ways about problems.  We are tying them up in a
          straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation
          only with the converted.

          -Alan

          by SlackerInc on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 02:09:49 AM PDT

          •  the blind, stupid, self-righteous arrogance

            your post showed in daring to accuse a foriegn victim of the Bush Administration of saying something she has 'no right' to say is shared by entirely too many Americans. Particularly the ones who say that the Iraqis should be grateful to us for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and that our turning Iraq into a hellhole as a direct result isn't really important because after all, they're only Muslims.

            That arrogance is one of the major reasons why American travellers frequently tell people that "I'm from Canada" and is the very basis of the neocon idea that we had the "right" to interfere in Iraq to begin with.

            No matter how many hours you put out on behalf of Democratic candidates, you're still not only embarrassing to have as a fellow party member, you're embarrassing to have as an American and for that matter, embarrassing to have as a member of the human species.

            Neither Markos nor Obama are the keepers of my conscience.

            by alizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 03:22:46 AM PDT

            •  Then you're on the wrong blog

              Why not focus your intensity on MLW or some other "pure left" anger type site, instead of on one whose stated mission is as I quoted from the FAQ?  Markos is trying to provide a platform to build a majority coalition, and to have credibility as a major player in DC.  How does that square with your purist vision?  

              You more or less say, with your "entirely too many Americans" comment, that it's you and your band of hardened warriors against the solid majority of public opinion.  Is that a fair characterisation?  Problem is, we don't have a parliamentary, proportional representation type system as in Canada.  Which means you and I need to put down the knives and work with each other whether we like it or not, because the alternative is letting the Republicans win.  

              Because I bet if we started comparing notes on taxing the rich, feeding/sheltering the poor, medical care for all, living wages and regulation of corporations, we'd find that even if it didn't make us want to jump into each other's arms, we sure as hell don't want to let the GOP crony capitalist fucks be in charge and feeding at the trough.  Right?  

              I'm assuming here you didn't vote for Nader, but if you did that would explain a lot.  Naderites have wonderful pure policy positions in most areas, but not an ounce of pragmatism.  It's backward: you need to vote (and work) your fears, not your hopes.

              -Alan

              by SlackerInc on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 03:56:57 AM PDT

              •  the three most dangerous myths

                America lives by are:

                • American exceptionalism. No, it isn't OK just because America does it, and that includes torture and unprovoked / illegal invasions against a nation that never was any threat to us. Nor does being an American make one morally superior to everybody else.
                • "global warming is junk science"
                • "the oil will never run out as long as our troops are standing over the oil wells

                Disagreeing with the American people on these three issues doesn't automatically make one a Naderite. It just means one is an informed citizen.

                by alizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 03:10:32 PM PDT

            •  uncalled for

              calling another poster "embarrassing to have as a member of the human species" is abusive.

              And you are disrupting the free flow of ideas at dKos. Please stop and/or go away.

              by SeanF on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:14:25 AM PDT

              •  you probably wouldn't recognize

                an idea, new or otherwise, if it bit you on the ass.

                by alizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 02:48:18 PM PDT

                •  bravo

                  you prove my point yet again with ratings abuse and another gratuitous personal insult.

                  by SeanF on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:12:00 AM PDT

            •  there is a difference

              between saying "riverbend has no RIGHT to say that..." and criticizing riverbend for what she said. Slacker did NOT say she has "no right"- that was the point, she DOES have more right to say what she wants now then she did under saddam. Wacko lefties like you seem to have trouble with that concept- freedom of speech does not have anything to do with freedom from criticism. You can criticise me or slacker all you want for our points of view. We can criticise you right back. That's not limiting anyones free speech...

              by BrightWoods on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:27:09 AM PDT

              •  You and Sean rock

                Thanks you guys.

                -Alan

                by SlackerInc on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 02:01:24 PM PDT

              •  so one has to be a "wacko leftie"

                to think that no Iraqi needs to express abject gratitude to America for the invasion of Iraq?

                Personally, I think that only a wingnut would imagine that America deserves gratitude for what America has done to the Iraqi people.

                Or take pride in America transforming a fairly evil dictator (though Saddam was probably an improvement on the current government of Saudi Arabia) into a martyr.

                by alizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 03:03:07 PM PDT

                •  do you need help with

                  reading comprehension skills? I didn't say I agreed with slacker, I didn't say I agreed with you. I also didn't say Iraqis should be grateful or that America deserved gratitude. I just hear it said too often on this site, "if you tell me I shouldn't say that, you're infringing on my free speech". No, someone who disagrees with you does NOT affect your free speech. Even saying that what Riverbend writes could have negative consequences and that she shouldn't say it does NOT affect free speech. I am objecting to your mischaracterization of slacker's comments.

                  by BrightWoods on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 06:19:01 AM PDT

            •  The number of 4's given to this comment

              are very disappointing.  

              I do not at all agree with slacker's comment that started this; it's long been established that certain needs such as food, shelter and safety, need to be met before higher-order needs are sought after, and this would seem obvious on its face.  But nonetheless slacker has the right to offer up points of debate without such an angry and personally-attacking response.

              Perhaps the Left is no better than the Right in terms of demanding rigid conformity.

              by rangemaster on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 03:59:33 PM PDT

              •  given that my comment

                was as a response to an attack on Riverbend on the apparent basis of her ingratitude for the US invasion, a personal attack in response was decidedly in order, particularly since she can't defend herself around here. I really don't feel any need to apologize for it.

                If that constitutes rigid ideological conformity in your mind, so be it.

                Though if it does, I recommend you avoid any posting of mine in any discussion where a Kossack is advocating, say, that the Democratic Party publically favor gun control again. Your posts are generally of value and I'd really rather not be responsible for your head exploding.

                I trolled him mainly for overdoing stupidity in a public policy forum. His viewpoint is something I'd rather not see mistaken for American progressive, especially by our international readers. Perhaps it's not such a bad thing that the local consensus appears to agree with me. The place for Slackers foriegn policy comments is probably a neocon forum, should PNAC happen to have one.

                by alizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 06:14:23 PM PDT

      •  She's living it, pal

        I don't agree that she pines for the Saddam era, although she would clearly like to roll back the clock on our involvement there.

        That being said, she's living this, we're not.
        You have to credit that.

        by commonscribe on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 05:25:07 AM PDT

        •  Why shouldn't she pine for it?

          There was electricity, water, much less violence, and she, as a woman, was free to go where she wanted.  Obviously things weren't great, but were far better than the violence and poverty she and others are facing now.

          by Sharon in MD on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:15:44 AM PDT

          •  Indeed.

            As a woman, I think I'd pine a bit myself, despite George W.'s claim toward feminist emancipation when he leashed the US marines against the Taliban.  Bringing war to their country is never a path toward improving women's lives.  Wars don't help women, ever.

            by a gilas girl on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:57:20 AM PDT

      •  She can say whatever she wants

        As long as she remains anonymous.

        It's walking down the street without a veil to buy food that scares her. In Saddam's time people weren't scared to leave their house. Now they are. People weren't forced to follow sharia law, as Iraq was secular. Now it isn't. People want stability. It had some under Saddam, and it sure as hell doesn't now.

        Read her entire blog, you might learn something. It covers several years, a real, feminine voice that starts with some hope, and devolves to fear and loathing. This latest post is only one of a long series. Perhaps the rest of them may bring you more understanding of how she got to where she is today.

        500,000 troops couldn't "win" in Vietnam--what makes you think they could in Iraq? Winning takes the support of the people, and when their kids are playing games about killing you, you ain't got no support. All we are is targets, for all sides.

        by bewert on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 06:54:11 AM PDT

      •  Uprated because this comment is an expression

        of an opinion, which should be allowed here.  So he criticized Riverbend.  So what. Deal with it.

        by hopscotch1997 on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 06:57:05 AM PDT

        •  ditto n/t

          by captainahab on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:39:10 AM PDT

      •  Pretty harsh

        It takes an awful lot of certainty, or something, to sit here and tell someone sitting over there, who hears the bombs going off, that they're full of shit.

        It's really not hard to imagine that someone could prefer order to chaos.  It's really not hard to imagine that someone could think the ability to leave your house without fearing death is worth more than the ability to blog freely.

        Hopefully Iraq will be better off without Saddam, in the long view.  But if you want to argue that a typical day under Saddam was worse for the average person than a typical day right now, I don't think you have much of a case.

        A few blog entries ago Riverbend wrote about how she doesn't feel free to drive her car any more, because the fundamentalist militias don't think women should drive.  She doesn't feel free to wear her normal clothes like blue jeans when she leaves the house, because the crazies think she should be in a veil.  These freedoms mean something, too.  The freedom to blog does not trump all.

        Oh, and this comment didn't merit troll ratings.  Really, guys.  While I'm sure we all wish we could do something tangible for Riverbend, we don't accomplish much by troll-rating her critics.

        by Steve M on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:45:52 AM PDT

        •  Yeah, the troll-rate is as ridiculous as the post

          But I won't let the troll rate discussion trump the content of the post.  We have made things worse in Iraq, plain and simple.  The notion that Riverbend has to blog completely hidden and cannot dress as she pleases nor walk down the street nor drive nor have electricity nor have good regular running water nor...completely undermines the notions of freedom of speech and a better life without Saddam Hussein.

          It's like you're saying, "Hey, I burned down your house and everything in it so you wouldn't have to be burdened with mortgage and material belongings anymore."  Gee, thanks.

          by caseynm on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:56:08 AM PDT

      •  Well Kerry wasn't elected

        and things have gone to hell in a handbasket.

        Shit, the Bush Jr. era sure makes the Reagan era look a whole lot better by comparison here in the US. That doesn't mean I think Reagan was a great guy, but what we're talking here is points of reference.

        So I don't blame her for viewing the stability under Saddam as a better time.  I'm sure it was.  I can't even imagine the changes that have gone on over there these past few years.  I can't fathom how one lives in a war zone.

        by Sharon in MD on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:20:43 AM PDT

      •  we killed your dictator so

        you should be grateful for it.  Never mind that in the process it's cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, made daily life a living hell, and reduced your largest cities to rubble.  At least you can blog! (although I wonder how openly she's able to do so if she can't even drive her car anymore.)  It is beyond the pale that you should sit in your comfortable home and criticize her for wanting her country back and demean her by referring to her as "this 'river' woman".  

        by glynis on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:39:26 AM PDT

        •  "We killed your dictator..."

          "...while conveniently neglecting to mention that we went well out of our way to put him into office and to keep him there for a long time, most of the time when he was conducting most of his atrocities.  The fact that we executed him for an atrocity that he conducted during the time when he was no longer our golden boy, doesn't need to be mentioned either..."

          let's all raise our glasses to those unspoken comments that accompany the official words...

          by a gilas girl on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:53:24 AM PDT

          •  the atrocities for which he was hung

            actually occured at the time that Reagan sent Rumsfeld to befriend Saddam to make him our golden boy.  And those crimes were publicized by Amnesty International at that time.  

            by glynis on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:08:56 AM PDT

            •  Thanks for the clarification

              I was under the impression it was for the massacre that occurred after the first gulf war.

              my bad.  haven't had the heart to read the details beyond the bare bones of the event.

              mea culpa

              by a gilas girl on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:15:13 AM PDT

              •  mea culpa not necessary

                Your point about how the Bush administration and it's lackeys ignore that the US helped make him and keep him in power during those atrocities is spot on.

                by glynis on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:18:26 AM PDT

            •  That's absolutely correct

              Which is one reason Reagan was worse than Bush, not vice versa.

              -Alan

              by SlackerInc on Wed Jan 03, 2007 at 05:18:33 AM PDT

          •  If I were a leader

            of a second or third world country, what lesson would I learn from the arc of Saddam's story?

            I think that when the US approached me to cooperate on an issue, like natural resource extraction, or armed opposition to a third nation, I would have to think long and hard about what to do.

            I would be offered incentives and favors, both personal and for my nation, to cooperate. I would be offered disincentives, personal and national, for NOT cooperating.

            My own ambition, and the power to suppress my enemies, would tempt me to accept. But I would also think ahead to the inevitable day when the the US decided that I was expendable. I would have a vision of myself swinging at the end of noose, or blown to pieces with my family in the "safe house" provided by the CIA.

            It's the extortion game, as run by mobsters. There is no winning, and no quitting.

            What would I do?  I'd look for other offers, from competing mobs. And I'd embezzle, and set up an escape to a remote location for my family.

            by RichRandal on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:35:39 AM PDT

          •  If I were a leader

            of a second or third world country, what lesson would I learn from the arc of Saddam's story?

            I think that when the US approached me to cooperate on an issue, like natural resource extraction, or armed opposition to a third nation, I would have to think long and hard about what to do.

            I would be offered incentives and favors, both personal and for my nation, to cooperate. I would be offered disincentives, personal and national, for NOT cooperating.

            My own ambition, and the power to suppress my enemies, would tempt me to accept. But I would also think ahead to the inevitable day when the the US decided that I was expendable. I would have a vision of myself swinging at the end of noose, or blown to pieces with my family in the "safe house" provided by the CIA.

            It's the extortion game, as run by mobsters. There is no winning, and no quitting.

            What would I do?  I'd look for other offers, from competing mobs. And I'd embezzle, and set up an escape to a remote location for my family.

            by RichRandal on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:42:11 AM PDT

  •  and this is the one which caught me hard

    Is the American soldier that died today in Anbar more important than a cousin I have who was shot last month on the night of his engagement to a woman he's wanted to marry for the last six years? I don't think so.

    That is one of the terrible hypocrisies which bother me about this war. Its ok for us to morn american deaths. but what about all the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. What are they, chopped liver? . Are we fighting a war against Iraqis, to demolish the entire country? What a terrible senseless thing. I sometimes wonder if this war is truly the action of a madman, or group of madmen. whether there is absolutely no sanity in it at all.

    by biscobosco on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 03:37:00 PM PDT

    •  Making them human makes them harder to kill :-(

      Unfortunately, the dehumanization of the people that you may need to kill is a fundamental feature of war - any war, all wars. It may even be a necessary requirement to make warfighting possible.

      One could call it a form of 'situational insanity'.

      Sucks.

      by grapes on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 03:56:51 PM PDT

      •  Of Course, It Shouldn't Be Necessary...

        ...to imprint the seriousness of wars both justified and unjustified in general, and the true level of the disaster of our current misadventure in particular, but hearing this kind of voice really sends it all home.

        Someone who, in a way, reminds you of yourself.  I feel like I knew girls who would write and talk this way in university.  Articulate, sarcastic, moderate, intelligent, observant.  A mastery of English that probably puts me to shame.

        There are plenty of victims of this war who are completely "culturally foreign" and meet none of the specifications above, and of course, what has happened, is happening, and tragically, will happen to them is unthinkable.

        But sometimes, it really is sent home by a voice that you viscerally and immediately "get."

        I wish, for her sake and so many others, that there was some kind of light on the horizon at some point down the road.  Unfortunately, regardless of what the U.S. does in terms of involvement or pullout, I just don't see it.  But here's hoping.

        by dyrrachium on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 04:06:01 PM PDT

        •  Exactly. And Media visuals fuel the 'differences'

          between US and THEM.  We are only shown people hidden under yards of black cloth, wailing in a language we don't recognize...standing in the ruins of cinder block buildings.  We see bearded men in shabby clothes and plastic sandals, children wearing tops with US logos that might have come from a Goodwill store left-overs bin. We are shown disorganized gaggles of people few of whom speak a word of English. We are meant to see that Iraq is populated with barbaric, backward, uneducated people with whom we have nothing in common; we are meant to see primitive people who do not love their children as deeply as we love ours.

          We are meant to understand that the lives and communities of these undeserving people have much less value than our own.

          Riverbend, Raed, Faiza...these articulate voices who speak to us in language we can understand are kept off limits to the American masses.  We must seek them out on our own.

          The humanity they confirm, their verification that we share a universal human spirit, is a great threat to the wicked minds who are bent on destruction and control of both their society and ours.

          by 417els on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:22:43 PM PDT

          •  Speaking of media visuals

            Did anyone catch the graphic this morning on CNN when they were discussing Saddam?  It was an 3-D oval shape that spun around with one side saying, "Hanging Saddam" and the other side posing the question of whether his death will cause further violence.  Honest to God, it made me want to vomit.  As a graphic designer, I wondered what peer of mine actually created it, what art director envisioned it and what producer requested it-all beyond my comprehension.

            by goodasgold on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:42:37 PM PDT

      •  Or intentional ignorance n/t

        by TexasTwister on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 04:55:28 PM PDT

      •  We are killing the people of Iraq

        in order to liberate them, the ungrateful wretches! Sound familiar?

        by elmo on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:31:58 PM PDT

      •  but who are we rescuing, grapes?

        who are we killing?

        I agree on your point.  but it seems we have no idea who the "good guys" are in Iraq anymore.

        We have dehumanized those we are supposedly "saving"

        by biscobosco on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 10:03:44 AM PDT

    •  I can't mourn the Iraqis.

      I don't know their names.

      I don't know how many were killed.

      I don't even know how many were wounded.

      Sometimes, when the media doesn't have something earth-shattering to report like a Britney Spears bad parenting scandal, I get a few numbers of Iraqis killed in "sectarian violence" - the numbers rattled off in dry statistics like the rate of methane production on Mars - then back to the latest Jon-Benet Ramsey theory.

      Please don't take it like I think less of the Iraqis than I do of the American war dead. And neither does the media - for this is exactly how the American casualties are reported.

      by Moody Loner on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 04:27:25 PM PDT

      •  According to...

        iraqbodycount.net Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq is 57,628.

        by keechi on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 04:46:22 PM PDT

        •  Lancet study says more like 600,000!

          Keechi, back in October, EZ writer posted a diary with links about the conclusions reached by the prestigious British medical journal Lancet;

          The study was conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health by sending teams of Iraqi doctors across Iraq from May through July.

          The Defense Department until 2004 eschewed any effort to compute the number of Iraqi dead but this summer released a study putting the civilian casualty rate between May and August at 117 people a day.
          Other tabulations using different methodologies put the range of total civilian fatalities so far from about 50,000 to more than 150,000. President Bush in December said "30,000, more or less" had died in Iraq during the invasion and in the violence since.
          The Johns Hopkins team conducted its study using a methodology known as "cluster sampling." That involved randomly picking 47 clusters of households for a total 1,849 households, scattered across Iraq. Team members interviewed each household about any deaths in the family during the 40 months since the invasion, as well as in the year before the invasion. The team says it reviewed death certificates for 92 percent of all deaths reported. Based on those figures, it tabulated national mortality rates for various periods before and after the start of the war. The mortality rate last year was nearly four times the preinvasion rate, the study found.

          "Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population has died above what would have occurred without conflict," the report said. The country`s population is roughly 24 million people.

          Human Rights Watch has estimated Saddam Hussein's regime killed 250,000 to 290,000 people over 20 years.

          Keechi, I know your comment was probably about "civilians killed by direct military intervention" but that drastically undercounts the number of civilian deaths that have resulted from the war we started.  I don't want us to start playing games -- unintentionally -- with the real number of war dead.

          by 4thepeople on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:35:12 PM PDT

          •  No doubt, you're right...

            We'll never know - you also have to consider how many citizens are killed by sheer lawlessness. No wonder millions of Iraqis have fled their own country because WE have turned it into a Mad Max zone.

            by keechi on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 06:38:55 PM PDT

      •  We have a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,

        but an entire country of the Grave of the Unknown Iraqi.

        We are all interconnected -- I feel the breeze on my face from the wings of a single butterfly in China. The loss of one person affects us all...so I mourn even if I don't know the names of whom I'm mourning for...

        by Cali Scribe on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:05:13 PM PDT

        •  Iraq has its own tomb of the Unknown Soldier

          right next to the double cornucopias spilling out Iranian helmets under the crossed scimitars.

          by Gator on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 06:33:11 PM PDT

          •  Our 1980s tax dollars at work. n/t

            by lotlizard on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 06:27:38 AM PDT

        •  yes.

          by biscobosco on Mon Jan 01, 2007 at 10:01:12 AM PDT

      •  Help mourning

        See RubDMC's diaries.

        by ChuckInReno on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:35:07 PM PDT

      •  Mohammed ...OK?

        Sometimes, when the media doesn't have something earth-shattering to report like a Britney Spears bad parenting scandal, I get a few numbers of Iraqis killed in "sectarian violence" - the numbers rattled off in dry statistics like the rate of methane production on Mars - then back to the latest Jon-Benet Ramsey theory.

        Please don't take it like I think less of the Iraqis than I do of the American war dead. And neither does the media - for this is exactly how the American casualties are reported.

        Good Lord, Moody -- don't let the American media, of all things, drive, or define, or circumscribe your conscience! Don't let them be the lodestone of your moral compass! Don't give them that kind of power!

        Your ability to mourn those you don't know, might well require that you stretch your imagination.  But I'd much rather you had a vivid imagination and a robust conscience, than an intimate knowledge of media-driven pop culture ...and thereby, no moral compass at all.  

        Hell ...if it helps, a lot of them were named Mohammed, OK? All of them were somebody's kids.  I know that might not be a lot of detail for you to work with, but it's a start.  

        by 4thepeople on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:43:17 PM PDT

        •  Bearing witness-

          

          In this poor child's death, she became a symbol of our shame.

          by goodasgold on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 07:56:54 PM PDT

        •  I'm sorry

          I must not have put enough sarcasm on that.

          by Moody Loner on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 06:43:26 AM PDT

    •  You got it.

      I wish we'd hear more Democrats speaking about this immoral component of the Bush's war.

      I wish we'd see more discussion here on the innocent victims.  RubDMC has a great series on the grief of the Iraq war.

      by ChuckInReno on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 05:34:06 PM PDT

•  Thanks, we hadn't heard from Riverbend since