As Col. Eric Wesley, executive officer of the 3rd Infantry's 2nd brigade (the mechanized unit that was the first to reach Baghdad and which controls most of the city), said yesterday, "You've got to look at the looting in the context of almost 30 years of oppression. It's orderly. It's mostly directed at government buildings, and it has already attenuated to a significant degree."
Capt. Greg Robertson of the 4th Battalion, 64th Armored Regiment, explains the true situation in detail: "To say there that there is anarchy is not true, to say that there is looting is true. But if we shot looters, we'd be shooting women and children left and right."
...
In the meantime, real stories have been missed or swamped - including the true security situation here in the city, which is far more tenuous than the anti-American left or celebratory right seem to understand. Says Capt. Greg Robertson, "Baghdad is 'under control,' but it is not 'secured' in a technical military sense. (The definition of 'secured' is when you can maintain maneuverability in all areas without opposition.)"
...
That's why the American forces here cannot devote more troops to police work in liberated areas, and why they deem the city unsafe for the return of relief agencies.
Yes, even the most benign and directed looting can quickly turn ugly - and some of it is indeed quite awful (obviously, the looting of the National Museum and Library is a tragedy). Still, you can surely forgive the people of Baghdad for taking advantage of the disappearance of a brutal and oppressive state to (in the words of Col. Willie Williams) "take back some of what had been stolen from them."
As I said earlier, I can see this, although I am glad that the locals are displaying adaptability - as Neal Stephenson would say - in finding ways to restore order (see previous post).
No comments:
Post a Comment