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
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.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.
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.
{ 9 comments }
jet 11.01.04 at 12:31 am
One thing to keep in mind while bashing the US for the safekeeping of the oil assets in Iraq is that oil currently accounts for around 90% of the Iraqi GDP and will probably account for 50%-75% of the GDP well into the future.
It also might be pertinent to note that oil infrastructure can’t be replaced over night. Expanding production capacity takes years, and rebuilding production capacity takes more years.
As for the military decision to encourage looting, I’m not an expert in the psychology of an oppressed people suddenly liberated by a power that wants them to know they are truly free of their dictator, but it kind of makes sense to me. And it does appear there was immediate effort to contain the looting to government buildings. But when the looting started it isn’t like the war had stopped and the US was sitting arounding smoking cigars, patting themselves on the back, and watching the Iraqis destroy their country.
jet 11.01.04 at 12:36 am
Also to note is that if the US can get Iraqi oil exports up to the projected 3bbl/day the Iraqi GDP will get an “overnight” increase of over 60%. That would be faster growth than the current fastest growing area, Kabul ;) Democratic and relatively rich. No wonder Osama wants us to lose in Iraq, it would be a big shiny neon sign in the ME showing the path to enlightenment :P
J Murphy 11.01.04 at 2:05 am
Sounds like a good move to me. Given that the Iraqi people never saw a dime of the obscene profits that Saddam diverted to bribe the UN, buy 1,000,000 tons of munitions and lard the pockets of French, German, Chinese, Russian and countless other bagmen willing to ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people for their own gain.
Uday and Qusay had boxes upon boxes of Food For Oil foodstuffs in their palaces marked for the poor of Iraq. Why were those provisions in a palace instead of in the areas of the poor where they were needed?
Let us all be outraged that the USA tried to preserve an asset that belongs to 50,000,000 human beings, not one brutal, inhuman and despotic family.
Giles 11.01.04 at 3:43 am
“Although the US forces aren’t mentioned in this report, it’s clear they were equally supportive of looting, if not more so. ”
How is that implication “clear” with no supporting evidence – even in the form of a hearsay quote?
a-ro 11.01.04 at 4:42 am
It’s not much of a nuance to say that encouraging looting of office buildings is different from encouraging looting of weapons depots. Even if the US troops seem to be sending the message that looting is okay in general, the fact remains that the reason the weapons depots were ACTUALLY LOOTED is that we didn’t have enough troops to stop them.
John Quiggin 11.01.04 at 9:46 am
As the comments above indicate, the Admin strategy was to get hold of the oil and use it to pay for reconstruction – there was only about $2 billion for this in the original budget. As it’s turned out, this has been pretty much what’s happened – almost all the money that’s been spent so far has been Iraqi oil money. The rake-off previously taken by Saddam and family has been replaced by the markups of Halliburton etc, with the result that there’s been almost no progress.
What’s clear now is that, as with everything else done by this Administration, the strategy of securing the oil wells and leaving the weapons dumps for later, while comprehensively smashing the existing order, was a really really dumb idea.
Matt Weiner 11.01.04 at 2:31 pm
I’m just happy to see that Kabul is Democratic. How many electoral votes does it have?
(Yes, yes, nitpicking people’s capitalization is the lowest form of something or other.)
Robin Green 11.01.04 at 3:48 pm
jet – I personally won’t disagree with you that safeguarding the Oil Ministry was vitally important for protecting the Iraqi economy. What is being said here, I think, is that the weapons dumps, hospitals etc. should have been protected from looters as well. Comprende?
Incidentally, if you have any credible evidence for your assertion that more than just the oil ministry was protected, I’d like to see it!
And, far be it from me to blindly support sending more troops to Iraq – but if the military’s warnings about the need for more troops had been heeded before the invasion, the US might have been able to actually secure more than just the Oil Ministry.
Though I often veer towards the conspiracy side of the dial, I’m increasingly reaching the view that much of the disaster that has befallen Iraq can be attributed to Bush administration incompetence.
james 11.01.04 at 9:01 pm
During the 1991 Gulf war there was a huge outcry against the coalition for allowing Saddam to light the oil wells on fire. So much so, that some scientist where predicting a nuclear winter effect.
Comments on this entry are closed.