I’m just waiting for the first person to tell us that the looting is all Bill Clinton’s fault. 
Bill Clinon is an American, aint he? Its his fault too.
Like John Mace says, the Americans are pretty much to blame for just about every fuckup there is on this earth, in the past , in the present and quite possible thru most of the future.
Slayer: Just “most” of the future? You’re too kind…
I’ve heard it said that the curators were concerned about possible looting and petitioned the military to protect the museum. Whether this it true or not, I don’t know. Assuming it is, I’m wondering why they didn’t just organize their own protective support effort. Maybe they were afraid to be out on the streets, but the looters sure weren’t. I’m not a big “who’s to blame” kind of guy, but I’d be a bit more willing to shoulder some of it, from the US’s perspective, if I saw some Iraqis taking some responsibility themselves. As much as I think it’s unrealistic to assume the US could set up a comprehensive police force 24 hrs after they entered Baghdad, I would llike to hear from the Generals in charge as to how they set priorities for what was guarded and what wasn’t. In the mean time, I’m willing to assume that they are professional enough with what they do that they had good reason for deploying what were, clearly, limmitted resources the way they did.
Mind: 200,000 troops protecting the oil ministry? Must be a typo.
But if I had to choose between protecting the museum and protecting the oil resources, I’d choose the latter. I love history, especially of the ancient kind. The loss of treasure, if it can’t be recoverd, is a tragedy. But Iraq has to be pulled back together after the war. W/o oil, that would be next to impossible in a country that has depended on oil for so long.
My point is this:
Lets say the curators did ask the military to protect the antiquities and the military said yes. It sends a squad (12 people) there with 2 Bradleys and their crew. Thats a total 20 peeps so far. They have to be supplied, so there must be a clear road to the museum and if there isnt, a protected corridor must be established. Depending on how far away it is from the nearest supply point, anothe squad has to maintain and secure that avenue. 30 people + logistic planning and support and all they will do is make sure some chained up boxes down in the cellar is safe. 30 people that could be more useful where fighting is occuring, but hey, its good PR so why not.
You got 20 some odd soldiers playing mall security guard to a museum. Looters are still looting, their mission is to guard not round up looters. So as the looters (who are armed btw as the news reports suggests) get all they need and look into this building with americans in the middle of nowhere surrounded by armed lawlwss looters.
What happens when some fool takes a pot shoot at a bradley with a rocket powered grenade? All hell breaks loose, thats what. The soldiers, still in combat mode, will lay suppressive fire from where the rpg came frome, will call for backup and quite possibly air support, Another squad will run up the corridor and try to surround the last know position of the “sniper” all the while the museum guards are constantly firing. Since their mission is to secure the museum they cannot leave it, so all they do is fire in agressive volume.
OK, some of these looters wll get mighty ticked off at americans firing at them for a measely RPG. They are gonna take more shots to see if they can pick one off. This will result in more suppresive fire and now a bradley will take out whole sections of buildings. Cobras will appear out of nowhere and any flashes of light not from the museum gets a hellfire missile. Any iraqi using RPGs can easily miss a bradley vehicle but can easily hit the museum.
End result is several looters killed, possible damage to the museum, and if it catches fire, you can forget about the soldiers trying to put it out, Al Jazeera will have a field day about the museum massacre. All the Iraqis will say is that the Americans started firing at them for no reason. They will discount the grenade damage on the bradley and the side of the museum wall missing. Conspiracy theory says the americans did it themselves to destroy the iragi heritage and tried to blame it on the innocent looters.
I say, let them loot. We’ll get it back later.
Beagle, tell me you understand the difference between banning “peaceful protest” in San Francisco two days after rioting in a different city, and protecting property against rioting/looting in Los Angeles or Bagdhad?
I know you do understand that difference. Which puzzles me, as you seem to be saying you believe defending the right to public assembly in San Francisco makes the anti-war faction hypocritical in regard to establishment of law and order in Iraq.
Well, we already did (and probably overdid) this discussion in another thread and I don’t feel like going over it again so I will say briefly:
The Geneva Convention, of which the USA is a signatory, puts the responsibilty of maintaining order on the occupying power which is the USA.
The excuse that there was fighting going on is disingenuous. There was NO fighting going on in the area of the lootings as can be seen in the video footage. The looters are not going to do it in the middle of a firefight where they can get killed.
The looters are obviously at fault but so is the USA for not meeting its obligations. In America, if I create the conditions which allow and encourage others to loot I will be found responsible and liable, even if I did not do the looting myself. That is the law.
And lastly, the US government is sheepishly saying they were just caught by surprise and unprepared.
Nope, not a typo. I’ve seen the sources from both IslamOnline.net and www1.iraqwar.ru … It’s not just the Ministry of Oil they’re protecting. It’s also the Ministry of Archives. I think both are important, and yeah, I would agree with you that the Ministry of Oil is worth protecting. However, I don’t see why there aren’t ANY protection for the other Ministries. Hell, just 200 troops or something would be fine to prevent and control the looting.
Link posted by gouda in the other thread:
Do you have a cite from the Geneva convention for this? I think it says we are responsible once we have complete control of the country, which we still do not have.
I can’t help but think that if America were invaded and Washington D.C. were bombed, with enemy troops marching through the streets trying to secure military targets, and random packs of looters took advantage of the chaos to ransack and destroy the Smithsonian and the Library of Congress…
I somehow doubt that most Americans would agree that the invading forces had absolutely no responsibility for the loss. I think it’s possible to incur blame for an event by failing to act to prevent it, or by causing a situation where that event is likely to occur.
Not to absolve the actual looters, certainly, but the fact remains that if America hadn’t invaded, there would have been no looting. If the Bush administration wants to take credit for the positive effects of the invasion, as I’m sure they will assuming there are any, it seems only fair that they should accept responsibility for the destruction caused as well. If the Iraqis have free elections next year, we certainly aren’t going to be hearing, “Well, America did topple Saddam, but the Iraqi people themselves went on to form a democratic government, so America can’t take any credit for that.”
X~Slayer(ALE), I doubt very much that anyone would have faulted the American troops for trying to protect the Museum from being looted. If anything, it would have demonstrated respect for Iraqi history. As a rule, evil people don’t go out of their way to protect museums.
Well, crap, I wasn’t guarding the fricking antiques either. I guess I’m just as morally bankrupt as France.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Civil claims? Inciting to riot?
Uhhh …havent you been watching the news? If a camel gets the craps, its the USA’s fault! The good intentions of the US troops never gets aired on Arab TV. Take a look at what happened in Mosul. They fired on a sniper who probably fired into the crowd, but then the US troops get the blame.
Not exactly unbiased reporting. There aren’t many more than 200,000 troops in the whole country. I would like to see a report from US/UK media confirming the oil ministry is being guarded. Why? There’s no oil in it.
Well, you make a good point; I shouldn’t have suggested that no one would complain. I guess that no matter what actually happens, there’s going to be some who try to cast suspicion on American actions. But if America is worried about what the Arab TV stations say about the troops, then they should have never invaded in the first place. Trying to protect the Museum and Library would have been worth the risk of hacking off the Iraqi conspiracy network (which is never going to change its mind now anyway).
I’ll be interested to find out more about what happened in Mosul, though.
CNN is now saying that the military says the Museum theft looks like an inside job, and not looting. It could have been someone on the staff using the fog of war and the cover of looting to make a grand theft.
That’s about all I know about it.
Political objectives and military objectives are 2 different animals. Securing Baghdad, and all the other Saddam strongholds are the military objectives. PR and winning over the Iraqis are political objectives. Altho some military operations have political objectives, one must always consider any military operation as a rough and unrefined method. One should not use a sledgehammer to remove a splinter. Artifacts no matter how priceless do not measure up to lives lost.
As for the Mosul thing, RandySpears correctly pointed out that CNN, ABCNews and others are not carrying what YahooNEws, Al Jazeera and NYTimes are putting on the front page. Methinks that certain news organizations do check up on their facts before putting it up for print. My kudos to the journalists and booo to the sensationalists.
The looting after the Rodney King verdict was defended by many on the left as an act of civil disobedience. It’s part of the fabric of the left, has been since the mid 1960s. I don’t want to digress into a discussion of Marxism, but it’s relevant. The right drifts towards violence at the fringes* also. It’s the lack of support in academia and polite circles (for Marxism and the resulting mob violence) that makes the difference.
Now that I’ve attempted to sound somewhat reasonable, despite laboring with one cranial hemisphere tied behind my back: I’m still not talking about anyone on the SDMB. OTOH, if anyone supports Black Panthers who shot cops and extorted money on the street, don’t come crying to me about any looting.
*Or, most leftists are not violent, to make it [Nixon] perfectly clear.
Dammit, the lack of support is for right wing mobs in academic circles. But, you knew that. :smack: :smack: 
I realize this, and I’m trying to find a US/UK source that would also confirm the same findings. It’s harder though, because this side is also biased, but just oppositely so. Still looking. 