Iraqi National Library Saved

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by 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.

Its OUR problem because Bushies made it OUR problem. Our objectives were to bring freedom to the Iraqis, to usher in a better government, so guess what, public order was OUR problem and should have been up there in priorities. While getting rid of Saddam cost American lives it was by far the easiest part of the job and all those ministries that were lost, all the ill will created by our failure to restore order will prove to be problems for us in the future. We put ourselves into the mold of occupying power so it is OUR problem and OUR fault.

[GePap]

What was left to be done? You still avoid gsmoove's arguement. Why was one ministry secured and another down the street left?

1-2 dozen sites?? Baghdad probably has 10 times that number of strategic intersections that had to be secured.

And all those street intersections took priority over the finance ministry and its records? (without mentioning cultural sites)

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.

So your basic argument is: we go in to change the regime, but no matter what we did, given that we were the oens going to topple the authorities, we could simply do nothing at all to replace them? well, isee a huge porbem with that. The Us has aready done 2 other large peacekeeping operations. We have experience with what would need to be done, but what they shoul have done was NOT done.

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.

Fault lies, as Ned stated, with the planners at the Pentagon, for not setting those priorities right.

[PLATO]

all the ill will created by our failure to restore order will prove to be problems for us in the future.

Say a reporter from the NY POST this morning on TV. He was talking about the large amount of GOOD will created by the liberation.

Most reports also state that the city is, for the most part, restored to order.

gs, what is your point with these statements? Yes there are pockets of problems, but what you state as the overall condition is just the opposite.

[Ned]

Plato, the problem clearly was that the folks upstairs did not give any priority to security the Museum or the Library against looters. If the collapse of the police was a surprise, I can understand that it would have been hard to switch immediately from combat into a security force. However, we did do that for some buildings, if gsmoove is correct. We just didn't do it for the Museum and the Library - even though the people there begged for our help.

We are not talking dozens of buildings. We are talking about two in addition to the Interior Ministry and the Oil Ministry.

Surely a platoon could have secured each. Surely we had at least two platoons we could have detached.

But we didn't do it. Is it possible that our forces were fully engaged still in defeating the enemy? I doubt it.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by PLATO1003 Most reports also state that the city is, for the most part, restored to order.

gs, what is your point with these statements? Yes there are pockets of problems, but what you state as the overall condition is just the opposite.

Your first statement is either completely false or your definition of order is somewhat different from mine. Every report I have seen speaks of widespread crime and lawlessness in Baghdad. Just today the new commander in Iraq announced that there would be major crackdowns on crime in response to the criticisms the administration has received, so I hope things will be much improved shortly. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/in...5CND-IRAQ.html

[PLATO]

Ned, I take issue with the fact that our troops switched from combat ops to security duty when securing the two ministries that gs states. The priority was to secure sites of tactical value. While this was being done and until it was complete, no commander would detach troops for a site of non-tactical value. Was it within the range of possibility? Yeah, I'll agree with that. It certainly would go against US military doctrine though.

Had the decision been made earlier on a strategic level, then they would certainly have been secured. Given the complexity of invading a country and the incredible multitude of things to consider, I think I'll give the strategic thinkers a pass on this one...especially since most of the material in the museum and library seem to be okay.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


Your first statement is either completely false or your definition of order is somewhat different from mine. Every report I have seen speaks of widespread crime and lawlessness in Baghdad. Just today the new commander in Iraq announced that there would be major crackdowns on crime in response to the criticisms the administration has received, so I hope things will be much improved shortly. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/15/in...5CND-IRAQ.html

Interesting...Every report that I have seen from various sources say the situation is becoming much more stable. Of course, I don't read the Times...

[gsmoove23]

I should hope its becoming much more stable, but considering what it was before thats not neccessarily saying much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3032579.stm
"It is my responsibility as the administrator of the coalition provisional authority... to bring security back to Iraq," Mr Bremer told reporters.

He said thousands of Iraqi police officers were back on the streets, and reinforcements were on their way.

Bremer - intent on eradicating Saddam's heritage
"We will be bringing considerable... more troops into the country - some 15,000 in the next two-to-three weeks - so we understand the importance of dealing with this problem."