Regular Features

Loot

John Quiggin2 Comments

With the recent emergence of stories about the looting of high explosives and pre-1991 chemical weapons from UN-secured sites, I’d like to remind everyon that this was not simply the result of negligence or inadequate numbers of troops. The Coalition forces explicitly encouraged looting. While the war was still continuing, I noted a report in The Times (4 April 2003), saying that the British were encouraging looters. The report said

The British view is that the sight of local youths dismantling the offices and barracks of a regime they used to fear shows they have confidence that Saddam Hussains henchmen will not be returning to these towns in southern Iraq.

One senior British officer said: We believe this sends a powerful message that the old guard is truly finished.

My London Times link is broken, but the report is reproduced, with attribution in the Daily TImes of Pakistan . As far as I know, there was no denial of this report at the time. Although the US forces aren’t mentioned in this report, it’s clear they were equally supportive of looting, if not more so.

As the various UN officials quoted in the story observe, once you’ve started encouraging looting, it’s going to be difficult to stop, especially in a situation where neither the troops nor their commanders had any idea about what was where. The one crucial site that was secured immediately was, of course, the Oil Ministry.

2 thoughts on “Loot”

  1. Some Bush admin official saw the looting and civil disorders coming – and welcomed it. The Washington Post reports Richard Perle thought the looting and shooting was both predictable and desirable:

    Those chaotic conditions have not come as a surprise, some administration officials said, nor are they necessarily all bad.
    Richard Perle, an influential Pentagon adviser, said some amount of blood-letting may have to be accepted until U.S. and newly installed Iraqi authorities can develop a legal system to purge Baath Party members from Iraqi society. Perle raised the specter of the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror and its leader, Maximilien Robespierre.
    “The Iraqis know who their oppressors are in their midst,” he said. “It isn’t Robespierre, I hope. But it’s up to the Iraqis, and there is bound to be score settling. If you know Rashid worked at the place where your brother was tortured and killed, people can be forgiven for chasing down and killing Rashid.”

    The absence of a joyful reception had already planted some grave doubts in my mind about the wisdom of this excercise. Perle’s comments confirmed my suspicions that we had all been neo-conned.

  2. You need to be tremendously strong to draw such a long bow as this. A shame though that closer analysis of the analogy mightn’t support the thesis?

Comments are closed.