April 13, 2003
An American Failure In Iraq
Throughout the battle in Iraq our troops have performed exquisitely. They have made every attempt to protect civilian lives, to preserve the nation's infrastructure, and to protect sites of important cultural heritage. But in Baghdad we have suffered a failure of catastrophic proportions. Of all the cultural and historic sites in Iraq, perhaps no singular building was as important as the National Museum of Iraq.
On my other website, I sell ancient coins and a few antiquities. The cultural and historic value of these items is unbelievable. The historical record that each item can contain makes their safekeeping all the more important. While even common antiquities can be archaeologically important, it is my belief that common items should be available to the general population.
The items contained in the National Museum of Iraq were not common items, however. Their cultural and historical significance was such that they needed to be protected - no matter what the cost. And for all his miserable failings, Saddam Hussein did protect these world treasures.
And we, the Americans, did not.
This is the equivalent of allowing the British Museum or the Louvre to be ransacked and their treasures carted off. An invaluable historic record has been lost and some of it surely destroyed. All because we didn't think we could spare one Abrahms and a Bradley with their attendant soldiers.
We have nothing to be ashamed of in the way we fought the war, but in our decision-making in the establishing the peace - this was a colossal failure.
I understand that the commander of the ground didn't feel as though he could spare such a contingent of soldiers to protect a museum. But his decision was flawed on two accounts:
1.) This wasn't just "a museum." If it had been the Museum of Saddam Hussein's childhood, I could have understood the decision. But this was one of the most significant museums in the world - in the top five of importance at the very least.
2.) We made a vow to protect sites of cultural and historical importance. Throughout the drive to Baghdad, we have done that. We have gone out of our way to protect mosques and regional museums. To have a breakdown at this point is inexcusable.
Whoever made the decision to not protect the Museum needs to be relieved of his command. His ability to understand extenuating circumstances and to make decisions in line with all our goals is obviously lacking. We have done so much right in Iraq, it is a shame that this had to happen. Of all the mistakes to make, this was not the one we needed to make. Fire the commander in charge in Baghdad - now. There is no acceptable excuse for this.
UPDATE:
It has been suggested that I was perhaps too quick to call for the dismissal of the General in question. I can accept that criticism, because as Donald Sensing points out correctly in the comments, this was a failing of the system, not particularly of one person. It is not fair to hold one person accountable for the failings of the system and I was wrong to do so. I still believe, however, that the looting of the Museum was one of the great preventable tragedies of the war (same goes for the looting of the hospitals). I believe that there needs to be a proper investigation when all is said and done. If there is a next time, I hope that our military will plan out this type of systemic failure and I will be more cautious about placing blame for these types of failure.
When you get to be a General in the U.S. Army, then you'll have the right to make such terribly harsh accusations. Until then, think through ALL of the situations going on in Baghdad before you automatically assume it is as easy as that to defend against a mob. Are you old enough to have served in the armed forces? Have you ever been under enemy fire? Think on these questions first.
I am old enough to have served in the military, I simply made a choice not to, but my military experience isn't the question here, it is our keeping of commitments.
Before the war started we vowed to protect the Iraq people and their cultural heritage. Our actions up to this point had showed our desire to keep that vow even when it put us in danger (I believe it was the Mosque of Ali where the fedayeen were shooting at us from inside - and we didn't go in because it was a religous - a culturally - important building).
As a citizen of the United States, I expect my military to act in accordance with our set of values. We made a commitment to do the utmost to protect sites like this. I expect our men and women in uniform to keep that commitment. It's not a question of my service or lack thereof, it is a question of keeping our word as a nation.
We did send five soldiers over to the museum at one point to stop the looting. Five soldiers cleared thousands of looters out of the building with no harm being done to anyone. But then we left after half an hour. And when the Iraqis asked us to return to protect their cultural treasures, as we had promised and as we had done earlier, we refused. In my opinion, that is wrong.
I have no qualms with the work our military has done in Iraq. I am incredibly proud and pleased with their efforts. It just really upsets me that this one incident may mar politically the efforts of the coalition. Part of being a General in the Army is understanding that you have to play the PR game, whether you want to or not. The General who made this decision to not put more effort into defending the Museum failed to keep our word and failed to recognize the possible PR implications of his decision.
Is this a lot to ask a General to balance? Yes. But when we make a vow as a nation, it is part of his job to make sure that it is kept. I will not expect anything less.
Posted by: Chris at April 13, 2003 01:30 PMOne does NOT remove a general for failure to do more tasks than he has personnel to fulfill. Either one sacrifices troops to defend people, or one would sacrifice troops for antiquities, no matter how precious. You blame the general for something that was undoubtably beyond his ability to do, not by failure to perform, but simply lack of ability to perform.
If one has only two hands, one cannot be held accountable for failure to grasp and hold onto 6 large items. That's the case in a nutshell.
In my mind there is no question that the ransacking of the museum is a world-scale tragedy. I said as much on my own blog.
That the United States failed utterly to foresee the degree that law and order would break down in Iraq seems indisputable. I didn't foresee it, and neither did anyone in the Bush administration from the White House on down. I am working on a posting about why it happened.
That being said, I must aide mostly, but not exclusively, with Chris here. The failure to protect the museum was a systemic failure more than a failure that can be laid at the foot on Gen. Franks or any one person. Everyone failed at this all at the same time, and the museum is not the only place by any means that was plundered; it just happened to be one of the highest-profile places.
Hospitals were also reportedly looted to the the point where patients' lives were endangered. Should Franks have protected hospitals in addition to the museum? What about instead of it?
CENTCOM had apparently made no plans for initiating law and order operations (yes, that the name, and it has a doctrine) so soon after combat forces swept through. This will turn out to be one of the very glaring blind spots of the entire campaign.
The failure to protect the museum is a severe national failure of the United States. There is no way to get around that.
But combat troops have elsewhere proved to be to be the wrong troops for law and order ops.
Posted by: Donald Sensing at April 13, 2003 04:21 PMComments have been closed on this entry in an effort to conserve disk space. If you have feedback on this entry, please email me at blog - at - cbnoble.com.
-Best
-Good
-So-so
-Not good
-Terrible
