Iraqi National Library Saved

[Ming]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Ming: Limited manpower = limited choice.

What was the ministry we were guarding? Is it possible that it was more important than the library? Is it possible that after having just invaded a city and crossing 600 miles of enemy territory that we just might have to make some choices??? Is it possible that something just might be more important than the library??

I have no clue... I'm just stating he raised a valid point... I'm just sick of the hearing about the oil field crap

[Ned]

Ming good point on the oil fields. We protected them because we believed that Saddam would blow them up. We had no plans in place to protect anything from looting by the Iraqi people. This apparently illustrates a major oversight at very least.

[PLATO]

Ming, I agree with the oil field analysis in total. I disagree that gsmoove had a valid point. I am sick of the oil field crap as well. Excuse my rant if you will.

Ned, I don't believe that this was an oversight. Early indications were that the Iraqi police force would not just walk off the job. Well...they did, and this was most unfortunate. However, I would ask: What type of plan could you realistically put in place with the manpower available and within the time frame these events happened?

[gsmoove23]

Iraqi buildings that have been looted, burned, and destroyed: the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Information, the Baghdad Archaeological Museum, the museum in the northern city of Mosul, and three hospitals.

Iraqi buildings protected by US troops, tanks, armored personell carriers, and Humvees: the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Oil.

Here is a list of important buildings destroyed and important buildings protected. Not sure if its complete.

[Ned]

I assume that we were caught off-guard by the collapse of the Baghdad police force. However, we apparently did react to protect certain public buildings from destruction. If gsmoove's post is accurate, we seem to not protect anything that 1) did not have anything to do with OIL, or 2) internal security.

We really deserve some criticism here based solely on the facts, again, assuming gsmoove's facts are accurate.

[gsmoove23]

Well, if I've convinced Ned I'm taking a vacation.

BTW, I'm not sure if that list is accurate, if anyone can find anything else please do. I'm sure there are more important buildings looted for one(the library isn't mentioned) and I find it hard to believe the US only protected 2.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
I assume that we were caught off-guard by the collapse of the Baghdad police force. However, we apparently did react to protect certain public buildings from destruction. If gsmoove's post is accurate, we seem to not protect anything that 1) did not have anything to do with OIL, or 2) internal security.

We really deserve some criticism here based solely on the facts, again, assuming gsmoove's facts are accurate.

To say that we deserve criticism, you would have to show that there was an alternative. It is possible that there was, but it is more likely that limited manpower and continuing combat ops made this impossible. Everyone is saying we should have done more without answering the question of could we have done more.

[GePap]

Being sick of something does not make it invalid.

I think the reasons for all of this is rather simple: the same move that meant that Saddam's statue came down on April 9th is the cause for the US not getting a ahndle on the situation early on (our failure to do so later on is based on other issues). The 3ID and the 1st Marine divisions raced for Baghdad after they encountered no RG opposition. Well, hey got to Baghdad rather quickly, but they did not have the manpower to secure the whole city, and things like a museum and library were not seen as important things to defend (and neither were most minsitries, as gsmoove's list shows). Compunding this fact (as i see it) was hat the US does not have enough troops in Iraq as needed (Shalikashvili (spll) said we would need 200,000 men to secure the country, and he appears to be correct) and thus we did not do a good job in the followthrough (and thus, as I keep saying, the change in personnel of this week).

[gsmoove23]

Plato, you consistently avoid the main point, that there were a large number of people who believed that we sent too few people into Iraq to begin with. Once the actual fighting was done and our forces turned out to be fanasticly successful everyone thought this vindicated the decision to send so few troops and promptly forgot about it. Now you say we didn't have enough troops and all I can say is, well duh.

EDIT - oops, cross-post

[PLATO]

GePap: As Rumsfield said yesterday to Congress. We have many assets in transit right now to accomplish the goals we all hope for. Yes we are in the "followthrough", but we are just at the beginning. These things take time and they are beginning to happen. Remember...Iraq is the size of California and has 24 million people. Surely you don't really expect things to be put under control this quickly, do you?

[SlowwHand]

So not enough troops now.
First it was going at all.
Then how it was being done.
Then not enough troops.

It would appear that flexibility is key.

[gsmoove23]

Lets just go through all the shifting reasons to go in the first place shall we, nah, I'm too tired.

[GePap]

Hmm, the germans took Yugoslavia in 3 days with 78 killed, and as far as I know, there was very little looting.

If I remmebr correctly, Garner was talking about his job being only 6 months (maybe this is why they kicked him out?)

Yes, Iraq is the size of Cali, but large section of it are dessert, and another big section was already in coolotion hands. Now, maybe one can make a valid argument why the US could not do much to secure the northern areas like Kirkut and Mosul, since we had no Turkish basing, but the main issue here is not an country the size of California with 24 million people, its a city of 5 million, Bghdad, and yes, if 44,000 Cops can keep new York safe, 50,000 soldiers should be able to at least secure the more important public sites in that city.

Sloww:
The "not enough troops" arguement predates the war.

[rah]

Yes, but in NY, the people have to worry about being shot more by the police.

Really though, if NY was conquered by a foreign power, it would take three times that number to control it.

[PLATO]

gs, I think that we just didn't have the number of troops that we needed to do a "perfect" job. Apparently, we did have enough to do an adequate job.

You must realize though that just having a lot of forces in an area does not necessarily mean that looting won't break out. For example, when a natural disaster hits many towns here are looted. Or what about the riots in Seattle and in Watts?

I just don't understand how people cannot say that this has been an overwhelming success. Has it been "perfect"? No. Could things have been done better? Maybe. Has an overall good job been done? Definately.

[rah]

Yeah, there was no looting in NY when the power went out.
Yeah, there was no looting in (place city name here) when their (insert sport's team name) won the championship.
These types of incidents are known to be breeding grounds for looting and general mayhem but it happens regardless of how much the local police prepare for it.
SO even knowing is obviously no guarentee that it can be prevented.

[PLATO]

Looting in NY?? GePap, please explain why you and your fellow citizens did not have your government better prepared to handle this! You definately should have lobbied your city council for far more police officers to be able to handle this crisis. You simply must not care about all the valuable things that were destroyed! I bet you even voted for George Bush!!!!

[gsmoove23]

uh, if there was looting it didn't last for a week and devastate almost the enitire infrastructure of the city. Police usually work very well in containing such things to neighborhoods that we can afford to have beaten up a bit.

[rah]

Yes but they're working from a base of order.
Not a base of total chaos. TWO totally different things.

[DanS]

devastate almost the enitire infrastructure of the city

Tsk tsk. Hardly any of the infrastructure of Baghdad was destroyed.

[PLATO]

"Neighborhoods that we can afford to have beaten up a bit" ?? Hmm...This sounds like a value judgement. It also sounds like in situations like these that a value judgement must be made. I contend that the US made value judgements and were right to do so.

"Devastate almost the entire infrastructure of the city" ?? Where did this come from? It is my understanding that most of the city wasn't even touched.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, the germans took Yugoslavia in 3 days with 78 killed, and as far as I know, there was very little looting.

How many embedded reporters were with the Germans in Yugoslavia? In Iraq you have the situation where there are literally hundreds of reporters looking for a story to tell. Many work for questionable news agencies that are looking for a certain spin on the events. With so many reporters and so little actual news, you get what we witnesses in Iraq: exageration to demonstrate a point. A dozen or so looters is suddenly "a wave of rampant looting". A home invasion becomes "lawlessness extends to people's home". A couple dozen Iraqis yelling in the street is "hordes of protestors". A few artifacts gone is "the museum was wiped out by looters". Reports are due in, big headlines sell papers or increase ratings, facts are secondary. Classic yellow journalism.

Bghdad, and yes, if 44,000 Cops can keep new York safe, 50,000 soldiers should be able to at least secure the more important public sites in that city.

You're kidding, right? First off, New York isn't a war zone. Secondly, soldiers are not police. Third, the cops are already spread throughout New York, not approaching in masse from the south. Fourth, the cops in New York are familiar with the neighborhoods they patrol. Nope, I'd have to say there's very little in common with the two situations.

The "not enough troops" arguement predates the war.

Of course. There are always second guessers and Monday morning quarterbacks. No matter what the number of troops, there's always somehow who will claim it's not enough.

[gsmoove23]

Iraqi buildings that have been looted, burned, and destroyed: the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Information, the Baghdad Archaeological Museum, the museum in the northern city of Mosul, and three hospitals.

Sorry, I meant entire infrastructure of the country. Hyperbole yes. Another target of looting has been electrical equipment, water treatment equipment, basically anything that can be carried away. Engineers and such trying to bring back water and electricity still can't go out unescorted for fear their equipment will be stolen. I was listening to an electrical engineer on NPR who talked about coming to work one day and catching a group of people in the process of stealing a large generator. That was recently.

[SlowwHand]

Keeping the domestic peace is not the first priority.

Let's not forget that Baghdad had, and has, regular public servants.
Troops weren't detaining them from doing their job.

[Edan]

One thing I read a few days agowas that a large number of old books (dating as far back as the 16th century) were found in the basement of the Iraqi intelligence services. Many of them were underwater and were beiing slowly and carefully recovered to prevent further damage (although aparently the ones in the article hadn't been heavily damaged and were quite readable). Also, they were found next to an unexploded bomb(!).

Some things turn out right.

[TCO]

Originally posted by DanS
Just like the stories of the looting at the National Museum were extremely overblown, so too is the torching of the National Library. As you will recall, the library contained priceless early copies of the Koran, one-of-a-kind copies of newspapers, etc.

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/13..._hidden+.shtml

It must be a lie. We know that the only Iraqis to rejoice in liberation were evil looters.

[Ned]

Who's to blame here. Garner? Franks. The Lt. Gen, I don't recall his name, in charge of ground opps in Iraq?

It looks like Garner is taking the fall.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by rah
Yes but they're working from a base of order.
Not a base of total chaos. TWO totally different things. [/QUOTE

]Never have Museums or important government buildings being looted in NYC; so even if the poor neighboorhoods go, as gsmoove said, not the sorts of things we are talking about.

And as for the Chaos: did we not KNOW beforehand that once the security apparatus collapsed there might be chaos? This is not totally unforseen, or certainly should not have been (hell, it seems the Iraqis knew what might be coming when they decided to hide stuff), given history. We knew going into this war we would have to replace the lcal law enforcement, who, after all, were part of the state apparatus we were there to destroy. To continue the annalogy: if the power went out, you bet the NYC police would be out ready for chaos, not expecting just another day.

And on this "war zone" business: first, gsmoove's initial point about one building secured, another down the street not has never been addressed, second, if it was so utterly dangerous that troops could not even secure a FEW KEY SITES (not the whole city, just 1 dozen buildings), then what the hell were 3 tanks and some other building doing securing a square on the 9th so a nice photoop of the Saddam building going down could be held? Could not those forces have been better spent, say, securing the finace minsitry and payroll files?

Let's not forget that Baghdad had, and has, regular public servants.
Troops weren't detaining them from doing their job.

Given that the police were part of the state apparatus, paychecks would stop going out once the mail service ended, plus the paymasters and all the bosses left town, and given that simply to secure themselves the us forces would have to set up checkpoints around the city, going to work would be rahter difficult for most public owrkers, specially the police.

That is the basic probem: 2 divisions certainly are not enough to secure the entire city, but we are not talking the entire city, we are talking about 1-2 DOZEN sites, most of them probalby centrally located within the city and not spread out.

The US military is adverse to ploicing and nation building, has been for years, and yet this is the tool we want to keep using to remake the world?

[SlowwHand]

That's just tough if it was difficult, GePap.
Why is that solely OUR problem ?

The troops were prioritizing their own activity, and did so correctly.

[PLATO]

1-2 dozen sites?? Baghdad probably has 10 times that number of strategic intersections that had to be secured. Plus, who says that we didn't secure a dozen critical sites? Just because we did not get them all is not a lack of planning. IIRC, there are still snipers to worry about and we are still looking for regime leaders that could cause problems. There is still a ton of things to be done before we can begin to call the place secue. Sure, more troops would have helped, but only marginally IMHO.