Artifacts

A couple more thoughts on the looting in Baghdad (and elsewhere) in general, and in the museums in particular.

First, I was listening to an NPR article on the Baghdad museum yesterday. I found most interesting a new twist at the end: “some Iraqis” found the idea that Iraqis could have done this inconceivable; “it must have been outsiders.” When asked what outsiders it could have been, the answer was that they didn’t know.

My prediction: before the end of the week, we will hear accusations that the looting was done by the US, by US soldiers in civilian clothes, by Kuwaitis acting on behalf of the US, or by Israeli Mossad agents. The goal, aside from greed, will be the robbing of Iraqis of their cultural treasures (never mind that a couple of bombs could have done so just as neatly, without any sort of conspiracy being needed).

Second, Seki notes some truly horrifying commentary from some folks that puts it into a bit of perspective. One person named Vera commented, This may sound horrible, but given a choice between saving a museum and saving a baby, I would probably run and save the museum.

You’re right — it sounds horrible. In fact, it is horrible. I would burn an entire museum down to save a human life — weeping and cursing the whole time, but if that were the choice, that would be the choice. That some folks would choose differently is extremely disturbing, and just the sort of thing that allows regimes to justify all sorts of atrocities.

On the other hand, I might be willing to sacrifice my own life, if given a choice between that and someplace like the Brit being destroyed. But that’s my choice, not Vera’s.

Of course, in this case, that’s a false dichotomy. It wasn’t a difference between a baby and a museum. But I’ll split the difference, and suggest that (unlike some commentators on the other side of the debate from Vera) I would be willing to put US troops in harm’s way to stop the looting of the museum — if that was the most important mission at the time.

But a baby? Yeesh.

Finally, Seki also notes this NY Post op-ed on the looting in general.

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.”

That would go over well on TV.

“Finding the headquarters of Republican Guard, Special Republican Guard and secret police is a first order of business for us. It’s difficult because they were hidden in civilian dual-use structures. One of the places we were attacked was labeled a ‘cotton factory.’ It was full of weapons, bags of food. And one reason you see looting in places like that is that all the locals know about this dual use and they think these places are fair game.
The hysterical tone of some press reports may reflect the fact that some of the reporters who have been sitting in Baghdad for months have lost sight of the nature of the Saddam regime: They are mystified by the exhilaration felt by so many liberated Iraqis.
But the failure of so many reports to mention the fact that many of the looted stores, institutions and even hospitals were linked to the regime is more troubling. These institutions were dedicated to the exclusive use of Ba’ath Party members – the ordinary public could not make use of them – or were owned and operated by known supporters of the regime.

In that context, looting a museum — one that was kept closed most of the time to common Iraqis, and one which, to be honest, may already have been “looted” by the government (which might give the current curators all the incentive they need to point their fingers in a different direction) — makes a bit more tragic sense.