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.