Iraqi National Library Saved

[rah]

Yes the US has to do more to maintain order, despite some of the "what could be considered intentional sabotage by the previous hierarchy". Which, if true, is a continuation of the hostilities, that will take some time to get under control. All of which, can't be planned for.

But many anti-americans have used hindsight to condemn decisions made (actually jumping in glee to be able to give us crap). SO I think it's fair that a little hindsight can be used to tell them to cool it.

RAH

[DanS]

What would they have to gain?

Some of it might have been lying in order to show how bad the evil occupiers (R) were. On the other hand, it was probably mostly people just assuming the worst in absence of clear evidence.

[DanS]

actually jumping in glee to be able to give us crap

It's amazing, rah. I saw an article about mass graves in a German newspaper yesterday that spent half the time quoting people *****ing and moaning about how the US wasn't sealing off the area. Like the mass grave itself was an afterthought!

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by PLATO1003


So your time frame to secure a country and go from combat to administrative ops is one week ?? Get real.

You know...The US only has so much capacity to move people. Their are still forces pouring into Iraq. Yesterday Rumsfield said that an additional 15,000 would arrive within the next 10 days. You are simply not paying attention to the reality of invading another country. Ah week??? Ridiculous. If there are still problems after 6 months, then lets start raising the questions. At that point I will be there with you. So far, I think that the effort and the results have been remarkable when compared to the magnitude of the problem.

Plato, give me a break, you don't think there was a reason General Garner was replaced and now the new man comes in talking about revamped public security issues? 6 months, you mean after elections? 6 months of what is currently going on would be an incredible disaster, but somehow I'm sure if you were willing to wait that long without criticism, you would find it in your heart to keep looking for excuses.

EDIT - Damn, my mind is far away.

[DanS]

DanS?

Also, let's try to keep this thread focused on the Iraqi cultural heritage that has not been destroyed, as originally feared.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DanS
DanS?

DanS?

[rah]

they're so intent to give us crap that they don't even know who's saying what, just quickly denouncing anything and everything.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by DanS
actually jumping in glee to be able to give us crap

It's amazing, rah. I saw an article about mass graves in a German newspaper yesterday that spent half the time quoting people *****ing and moaning about how the US wasn't sealing off the area. Like the mass grave itself was an afterthought!

Hate to jump on the bandwagon here but its more like prosecuting horrible crimes against humanity is an afterthought. The sites are being taken apart by people looking for their loved ones. Can't really blame them or the military for not stopping them, but I can also see the criticism.

[gsmoove23]

oops

[Arrian]

Dan,

I saw a story on the mass grave too, and there was a quote in there from some head of some international agency *****ing & moaning because we "were allowing the Iraqis to dig up the grave" instead of stopping them and preserving the evidence.

Which is it? Do we allow them to do as they wish (I got the distinct impression that it was relatives trying to identify family members) or do we prevent them (thus seriously pissing them off) so that some court in Europe can have evidence to use against people that are either dead, on the run or in US custody already?

-Arrian

[Arrian]

oops

Crosspost, sorry.

-Arrian

[PLATO]

6 months of what is currently going on would be an incredible disaster, but somehow I'm sure if you were willing to wait that long without criticism, you would find it in your heart to keep looking for excuses.

I don't disagree with this. Rather I am saying that you should expect some things along these lines in the beginning. You should also expect them to lessen over time. I don't think that you could say that the country is secure for at least 6 months however.

You just can't expect immediate law and order. Sure, it would be nice, but it is pretty unrealistic.

[gunkulator]

At a news conference today, General McKiernan said that the pace of shootings and looting was declining and that enough troops would soon be on the streets to deal with the problem. "You still have a law and order problem, but as I get reports back from the units, we have less frequency of those reports," he said.

So things are getting better...

But that is not the perception of most Iraqis, rich or poor, who have become bitterly angry at what they see as American unwillingness to restore order. "How is it that the Americans, who have all the technology and all the power, cannot do something about the violence in the streets?" said the owner of a small bus service that runs between Baghdad and Damascus.

So things are getting worse...

Gee I wonder: Which guy will the NY Times reporter believe: The US general or the Iraqi little guy?

Maybe it's me but a NY Times reporter talking to _one_ Iraqi does not equal "the perception of most Iraqis, rich or poor". Sorry. I don't buy it. Sounds like typical lazy journalism disguised as a hard hitting piece but with little evidence behind it. Maybe there's more to the story but the link provided is hidden behind some login screen.

[DanS]

Please, please, we're talking about the Iraqi national heritage in this thread. You know, the one that is intact, after hearing so much about how it had been destroyed?

Let's keep a focus on the good news. Thanks.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
I just don't understand how come people want to vilify the US military. They go into a foriegn capital with lead combat elements and everybody expects them to have a whole security infrastructure in place right away. This is simply ridiculous. It takes time for any security apparatus to be set up. Most units were responsible for certain areas from a military point of view. They did their jobs well. You simply cannot move enough people that quickly to be all things to all people. Is it a failure of planning? I don't think so. It is just a reality of an invasion.

GePap: You never cease to amaze me. You like to post comments that insinuate that the US military is incompetent because it isn't God. You eithier don't understand logistics or are simply trying to be inflammatory.

Give 'em a break for once.

Now there you go inserting facts into someone's hate-filled rant against those awful icky Americans.

Anymore impossible things you'd like GePap to try?

[GePap]

I am sorry but this is absurd (I like that word);

Maybe I am too cynical, thinking that hey, perhaps if the US could immidiately secure the Iraqi oil ministry, making sure all of its equipment and files in great condition, then perhaps, just perhaps, the US had, on day one of going into Baghdad, the manpower to secure those sites to be labelled most sensitive and important. BUt hey, I guess the US only had the ability coming in to secure the oil ministry, and nothing else....

The excuse that Us forcs were still in great danger does not cut it. They were in great danger everywhere, but as I said, that did not stop them froms ecuring very well certain things. I don;t think Us forces would hev been in greater danger sitting in thier armore dvehicles around a library, that say, sitting in their amored vehicles around a park, or in that square where the statue was brought own, yet somehow, we had three tanks to secure that square,. but nothing to secure other areas.

All the "you can't blame the US" miss one thing: if the US dfid not, or still does not, ahve the forces to secure Baghdad, then the plan for securing Baghdad was faulty (as the change in management shows), and I ahe everyright to critizice faulty plans.

You say you can;t epxetc immidtate Lwa and order PLATO: no, you can;t but you could expect that most important public sites to be secured early on, since we had the forces able to do it.

And DanS: so you would disband your local police and fire departments and entrust your safety to local neighborhod watches? These organizations try to make up we police failed. That they might be effective does NOT make up for the fact that the FAILURE of the police is wehat makes them needed. In essence, all these reports you show us go to show that if it hand'nt been for careful Iraqi citizens, disater would have been at hand. If you care to celebrate what these guys did, go ahead, so do I, but I won;t use it as an excuse to absolve people of their responsibilities.

And as for the continuing moral relatvsm from conservatives here: All the horror and terror o f the Saddam regime does not make up somehow for failings of the planning for the day after that are evident now. Everyone, incuding the anti-war crowd knew about Saddam's evil, and honestly, nothing being found in Iraq either surises me or shocks me, as the world has seen equivalent horrors all too often.

So i will continue to harp about the faults of the post0war lanning, ebcuase they do exists, and I don;t have any idoelogical reasons to try to minimize them, in order to bolster my opinions and views.

[Ned]

If there's any valid criticism of our actions or lack thereof and taking Baghdad, it is that we did not have special orders or forces detailed to protect the Iraqi National Museum or the Iraqi National Library. We apparently did have such forces detailed to protect oil fields and other oil-related installations. President Bush has several times mentioned how we protected the oil fields against being blown up by Saddam, who had them wired and ready to blow. But equally valuable to history are the treasures of the National Museum and the National Library.

It is a wonder, again, that we had no special orders in place to protect these two critical facilities against vandalism. The failure, and there was one, was at a command level above the troops in Baghdad.

[rah]

Yes, you're too cynical.
Plans have a way of not surviving the first contact with the enemy. Snap decision after the fact are easy to judge but sometimes hard to make. Your total insensitivity to plans that might have to be changed on the fly, shows your inexperience in that area. Even I think we blew a few decisions. But overall I'm not condemming them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, you're too cynical.
Plans have a way of not surviving the first contact with the enemy. Snap decision after the fact are easy to judge but sometimes hard to make. Your total insensitivity to plans that might have to be changed on the fly, shows your inexperience in that area. Even I think we blew a few decisions. But overall I'm not condemming them.

Please:

first of all, if I remember Rummy and Myers, everything went according to theit brilliant plans during this operation. So either they were lying, or you are incorrect in your assesment. Second, what enemy? I guess the RG "looters" division had a strangledhold on the city and our forces could only break its grip in a few key areas.... No, I don;t see what, besides a lack of forethought on our part, could have stopped the US froms ecuring a few vital sites in the city early on, as Ned points out above your post.

Oh and title of the thread is inaccurate: it should read, "Part of the Iraqi libraries collection might be safe" The Library itself was burned down and destroyed.

[rah]

And who burned it down?
Americans
Looters
kuwaiti Arsonsists
Saddam Loyalists
Kids for kicks.

[gsmoove23]

Its not about taking the blame away from the looters who did the act, no one wants to do that. Rather, I wish that American soldiers were there to stop the act.

The case of the Library is particularly embarrassing for the administration as soldiers were protecting a ministry on the same block, that of course wasn't touched with no loss of life to the soldiers protecting it.

[rah]

Ok, but sometimes the endless ranting makes me doubt that.

Yes, I agree, they could have done better, but some mistakes in the chaos of war are to be expected, and the entire thing has to be judged in total, not just the failures. Sometimes when you hear of just the failures you get a little frustrated.

[Ming]

at least gsmoove is mentioning the ministy on the same block... a valid arguement.

But, I'm getting a little tired of hearing the old "you protected the oil fields" stuff... In the last invasion, saddam blew the oil fields creating an enviornemental disaster... and yeah, even though he blew them up, the US was blamed for allowing it to happen... typical.

So this time we learned, and secured the oil fields before HE could blow them, adverting ANOTHER enviornmental disaster... and now, we get accused of doing it for the oil... IT WAS A LOSE LOSE situation.

We don't take the oil fields, he blows them, and we get blamed again.

We do take them, and we get accused of doing the whole war because of the oil.

Damned if we do... damned if we don't.

Come up with a better line in the future... at least gsmoove23 just did.

[SlowwHand]

I'm becoming somewhat confused.

Artifacts are, or are not safe?
Library is, or is not safe ?
Hussein is, or is not out of power?

I could have sworn I read somewhere that things were safe, and the Butcher was ousted.

[PLATO]

perhaps if the US could immidiately secure the Iraqi oil ministry, making sure all of its equipment and files in great condition, then perhaps, just perhaps, the US had, on day one of going into Baghdad, the manpower to secure those sites to be labelled most sensitive and important. BUt hey, I guess the US only had the ability coming in to secure the oil ministry, and nothing else....

And just why do assume that this isn't true? Perhaps they had to make a choice...Iraq's future or Iraq's past? Which do you presume they should have chosen? I think the Iraqi people would pick the future.

Or perhaps we should have shut down our airline industry and used all the planes to send over a couple hundred thousand national guard to police the place as soon as the infantry had taken it? (Of course many of these are police and fireman here so we would be unprotected, but at least a 4000 year old pile of clay would not have been lost for a couple of weeks!)

The case of the Library is particularly embarrassing for the administration as soldiers were protecting a ministry on the same block, that of course wasn't touched with no loss of life to the soldiers protecting it

Sooo...it is the choice of what we were guarding? Now you hit the point. The US WAS there guarding things! They just couldn't guard everything. Well just condemn us for not disrupting our peoples lives more by sending over extra security guards!!!!

[gsmoove23]

Sloww, I believe you read that in the thread's inaccurate headline. Honest mistake.

[PLATO]

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??

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


So are you saying his story might be untrustworthy? you know, like him saying they saved most of the lib., just that they have it elsewhere?

What I meant was he was telling us a lot about his politics blaming the arson on the Kuwaiti's. Who would have a hard time admitting that Iraqi's themselves would torch the National Library?

[SlowwHand]

Again,
Sounds like it was done, as I said about artifacts and all, before stuff hit the fan.

Treasury Finds $1B Likely From Iraqi Bank
Thu May 15,12:35 PM ET

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - U.S. authorities have growing confidence that the nearly $1 billion that was ordered removed from Iraq (news - web sites)'s central bank by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) has been located in various hiding spots around Baghdad, a top Treasury Department (news - web sites) official said Thursday.

"We are getting more and more confirmation that the large bulk of those funds have been identified," said Treasury Undersecretary John Taylor.

He said authorities were beginning the process of verifying that the money — estimated to be $850 million in U.S. bills and $100 million in euros — was authentic and not counterfeit.

Other Treasury officials said that the money had been found in more than 200 boxes in various palaces around Baghdad. The boxes contained certificates describing the contents that employees of Iraq's central bank said they had included in each of the boxes before they were sealed.

Bank employees have been quoted as saying that shortly before the start of the U.S. bombing campaign the money was ordered removed from the central bank by Saddam, who sent his younger son Qusai to supervise the loading of the money into three large tractor-trailer trucks.

"We are making good progress in finding funds and a lot of that is most likely related to what was reported as being taken," Taylor told reporters during a briefing on weekend discussions among the world's seven richest industrial countries and Russia in Deauville, France.

Taylor said that reconstruction of Iraq and effort to boost global economic growth would be top topics at those discussions, which will be attended by Treasury Secretary John Snow and his counterparts from Japan, Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Canada and Russia. The meeting is being held to help prepare the agenda for discussions between the leaders of those eight nations in Evian, France, on June 1-3.

In a statement, Snow said he would be pushing the other countries to move ahead on dealing with Iraq's large foreign debt burden.

"I believe that no one should expect Iraq to begin to make debt payments for some time," Snow said in a statement.

[Jac de Molay]

And just why do assume that this isn't true? Perhaps they had to make a choice...Iraq's future or Iraq's past? Which do you presume they should have chosen? I think the Iraqi people would pick the future.

Clearly, the efforts to retain order and begin to restore basic necessities have, so far, been an abject failure- I read somewhere that electricity for most of the city is still a month and a half away.

The fact that the looting occurred offers a slice of perspective on the problems that have surfaced, and it looks like, all around, they seriously underestimated the manpower and expertise it would require. Maybe it's unfair, I concede, for blaming the planners for protecting the oil infrastructure first. But, clearly, the Administation appears to be completely clueless as to administering iraq in the interim, and a lot of goodwill in the wake of saddam's fall is being squandered.