SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: rrufff who wrote (15746)4/24/2003 12:59:56 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 21614
 
you felt that Rumsfeld had organized the looting

You keep changing stories, first you said that Rumsfeld was looting the artifacts for his own profit, a claim that I never made.

I surmised that Rumsfeld was afraid that the war had gone too easily in the cities leaving the tools of bureacracy largely unbombed. This would allow local officials to quickly setup an interim government without Saddam, but also without the American puppets who were still waiting by the pool in Kuwait. Rumsfeld, ordered that looting not be stopped, and maybe just maybe, sent in agent provacatures to show a few locals how it is done and that they could get away with it. This would finish the destruction of government buildings.

This would prevent civil administration from functioning until the U.S. was ready with replacement bureau chiefs and equipment. The troops were not told the full goals, they were only told that preventing looting was not in their job description, and so when the looting spread to the museums and libraries it was tolerated just as if they were any other government building.

Nothing that has happened since causes me to conclude that the interpretation is wrong. It appears the only thing that is stopping the local tribal leaders and clerics and former bureacratic managers from restarting civil administration without the help of the U.S. is the lack of equipment caused by the looting.

TP