asheris

Note: I originally posted this as a response to part of a discussion in

keith_london's journal. He referred to articles that (incidentally) included comments to the effect that "anti-war protesters apparently want to keep the Iraqi people under a sadistic dictator." This is something I've been hearing in the "news" here in the US, too, and have gotten tired of the false nature of the assumption.

I replied that (excerpt) "Many other groups and people who are anti-war, are, like AI (Amnesty International), people who have been trying to get the governments to act on the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein and his people for a couple of DECADES. To claim that they (now) want to keep the Iraqi people under the control of that despot (simply by opposing an illegal war) is to be deliberately stupid, ignorant, and insulting to the intelligence." (referring to those aforementioned statements)

keith_london responded, "Ergo -- let us all rejoice that something has now been done!" (As I understand it, referring to removing the evil dictator, not to the actions I'm complaining about below.)

This is my response to that, written after having read yet more articles about how anti-war protestors must love Saddam, etc. KL just happened to hit on a phrase that triggered the following thoughts.

[note changed 2:13pm CST to clarify that this is not a response to KL's opinions, but to a concept mentioned in articles referred to in his original post.]

I find it hard to rejoice over an illegal war, civilians slaughtered by the hundreds, and journalists murdered by "coalition" troops. I find it hard to rejoice over US soldiers who so blatantly killed UK soldiers in prominently marked vehicles in "friendly fire" attacks, or who attacked convoys carrying foreign ambassadors who were trying to get out of Iraq. Let's rejoice over those soldiers apparently not being called to account for such blatant, murderous fuckups.

I find it hard to rejoice over the destruction and looting of the entire contents of the Iraqi National Museum, despite pre-war assurances that it would be protected. So much for assurances- no one was sent to guard it, no one was sent when the looting etc. was reported.

Items that survived 7,000 years of human history were lost last week in a city controlled by forces under the direction of Donald Rumsfeld. Yet Rumsfeld refused to take any responsibility. "We didn't allow it," he said. "It happened."

But did it have to happen?

Thousands of the finest soldiers in the world were in and around Baghdad. They could have protected government buildings, hospitals and the world's great archeological and historical treasures. (U.S. Defense Department officials had, months ago, promised top archaeologists from around the world that such protection would be provided at the museum.) And everyone agrees they would have had little trouble preventing the looting of key buildings. "The Americans were supposed to protect the museum. If they had just one tank and two soldiers nothing like this would have happened," said Nabhal Amin, the museum's deputy director.

That U.S. troops, many of whom were within blocks of the museum, were not given orders to protect is stunning to the world's great archeologists. "The Baghdad museum is the equivalent of the Cairo Museum," said University of Chicago professor McGuire Gibson. "It would be like having American soldiers 200 feet outside the Cairo museum watching people carry away treasures from King Tut's tomb or carting away mummies."

"Stuff Happens": Riots? Looting? by John Nichols (emphasis mine)

Let's rejoice about all the hospitals that were looted, while "liberating soldiers" did NOTHING to stop it. Let's rejoice over state offices (everything but the Ministry of Oil was left unprotected) being stripped of anything and everything useful by looters who then destroyed anything that was left.

(Imagine if every document in every federal building in the US or UK was destroyed- going to be a little difficult to run things for a long time, isn't it? Such concern for the Iraqi people by their "liberators".)

Let's rejoice that the National Library and Archives were destroyed- looted and burned- and despite being notified (notified- they were allegedly SUPPOSED to have been guarding it!) no (zero - zip - nada) "coalition" soldiers showed up to protect it, or even help gather up what scraps could be salvaged.

All Rumsfeld can think to say is "Free people are free to make mistakes", when asked why they ignored their promises to protect those cultural (hell, WORLD!) treasures, and instead had plenty of protection on the Ministry of Oil building.

Let's rejoice that this "liberation" of the Iraqi people has now effectively DESTROYED nearly every bit of their cultural history.

Yeah, sure sounds like something to "rejoice" about to me.