LOOTING. I don’t have a lot to say about this. Have tried to think whether I have anything to say, but ultimately, no. The only thing I really want to say is, Don’t be too sure.

It’s been strange to see people so sure of the reasons behind a rough, destructive course of events, when I am so unsure. Some people think the looting is just untidy (no–my apartment is untidy, it ain’t quite the same thing). Some people think the looting proves Bush hates language. Some people think freedom’s just another word for nothing left to loot (and there’s no way encouraging people to loot Saddam’s hidey-holes could ever lead to looting of hospitals, museums, or small businesses!). Some people think we definitely could have prevented the looting (it has nothing to do with the startlingly quick fall of Baghdad, or possible reluctance to fire on Iraqi crowds). Some people think we definitely had to choose between protecting people and protecting libraries (even though America is full of lots of people, right? who could maybe be in the military? and maybe protecting Baghdad? and hello, hospitals were looted too, so it’s not just cuneiform vs. children here…).

I just don’t know.

I don’t offhand dismiss speculation that this is all a neoconservative plot to privatize Iraqi art. Never underestimate human depravity, that’s a basic conservative rule. But doesn’t this seem like an, uh, inefficient way to get Iraqi stuff into private hands? I mean, a lot of stuff has been straight-up destroyed. If evil neocons are behind this, they are strictly from hunger, because this would be a very stupid way to get what they supposedly want.

But I just don’t know.

There’s a great post here on why the Iraqi National Library is important. John Derbyshire points out something I never would have guessed from the blogosphere coverage, which is that the Iraqi National Museum has not been open to the public for years. Both Mickey Kaus (scroll around) and Stanley Kurtz (here and ff.–argh, this link isn’t esp. relevant, but I could swear I found much more relevant Kurtz-blogs in a time period not covered by NRO’s archives) have strongly hinted that they think this happened because we had too few “boots on the ground”–I get the impression that Kaus blames Rumsfeld and Kurtz blames Clinton, but I suspect each can spare some anger for the other’s primary target. That sounds right to me, and I strongly encourage everybody who’s been following this topic to read both sets of posts.

Would stuff have been looted at any future date, when the Ba’ath regime finally fell? Yeah, probably. Both outside and internal forces would likely be more or less just as eager to loot then as they were last week.

Does that let the US off the hook? Of course not. The subjunctive tense is not a get-out-of-blame-free card.

If US soldiers had shot looters dead, would they be criticized from some of the same people who now say they should have done more? Surely.

Does that mean they shouldn’t have shot looters? No, not necessarily.

I just don’t know what should have happened. But I’m pretty sure you don’t know either, at least not when it comes to specifics (“I’m guarding this quadrant of Baghdad, and these events are happening, what do I do?”). I guess all I’m asking is that we hold off a little on forming judgments.