- Rumsfeld could have stopped the shambles easily by ordering
adoption of normal measures that would have been used by Iraqi authorities
- a perfectly legal order by the occupying power. Iraqi police would have
shot looters, quite legally
- Donald Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, is notorious
for delivering uncouth insults in his role as the loosest cannon in the
erratic regiment of Washington Top Guns, but his recent hysterical outburst
about looting and the breakdown of law in Baghdad was remarkable even for
him. His loss of control was undignified and vulgar when he berated the
media for failing to report the War According to Rumsfeld.
-
- He complained that television scenes showing looting
in Baghdad appeared "over and over again", which indeed they
did - just as did pictures of Iraqis welcoming American troops. But Rumsfeld
hates being unable to control what the media portray. What he wants is
non-violent, kiddie-kissing soldiers being welcomed by happy natives. War
is Good! War is Liberating! He does not want pictures of mutilated children
or frenzied, murderous looting.
-
- Above all he does not want reporting like this, by Suzanne
Goldenberg of the Guardian:
- "A [car] pulled up [at Yarmouk hospital] with an
entire wounded family and the corpse of a baby girl. Her name was Rawand,
and she was nine months old. When her family returned to their home for
the first time since the war, yesterday, she crawled over to a small dark
oval - a cluster bomblet - which detonated, killing her outright and injuring
her mother and two of her boy cousins."
-
- Rumsfeld and Bush support the Geneva Convention, as they
told us when television showed pictures of American prisoners. (They ignored
the fact that television carried "over and over again" ( to use
the Rumsfeld phrase), images of Iraqi prisoners in dire straits ; but let
that pass.) What the Convention (Additional Protocol, 1977) says about
killing civilians is precise. One of the "grave breaches" is
"launching an attack against works or installations containing dangerous
forces in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life,
injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article
57". And Article 85(5) states that "Without prejudice to the
application of the Convention and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these
instruments shall be regarded as war crimes."
-
- As defined in the Convention, Bush and Blair and their
officials have committed war crimes. Not at any stage of hostilities (such
as they were, against a practically non-existent military force), was there
a tactical requirement to use cluster bombs. Not at any time during their
personal exercise of overwhelming might against a puny and inconsequential
foe was there military necessity to bomb ordinary houses to rubble.
-
- The attitude of Rumsfeld and his complaisant subordinates
to the catastrophic results of their onslaught is inhuman. Nobody dared
question the Rumsfeld scream (literally) that "here's a country that's
being liberated", even when it was obvious that Baghdad had plunged
into anarchy, courtesy of the Rumsfeld plan to have minimum troops and
maximum bombing. As any student of war knows well, the fighting troops
(not that they had much fighting to do, but, still, they were exhausted
by the Rumsfeld PR requirement to get to Baghdad quickly) should have been
followed up by twice that number of soldiers to maintain order. Rumsfeld's
petulant shrieks of rage are indication enough that he never thought about
this. How could he? He has never studied war.
-
- I am minded of George MacDonald Fraser, author of the
Flashman books and many others, who as a Lance Corporal in 1945 at the
capture of Rangoon was immediately sent to guard a bank. There was nothing
in the bank - but all commercial and public buildings should be guarded
by occupation forces, and so they were, with severity. If anyone had tried
a bit of looting, they would have been shot dead. But in Iraq, US and British
soldiers had not been given proper orders and didn't know what to do. They
fired over the heads of looters and rioters, which is ridiculous and ineffective.
-
- When a crowd realises that soldiers opposing it will
shoot only above their heads, it gains confidence. Looters conclude that
occupation troops have been told not to fire at them, and the knowledge
makes them bolder. So people redouble their efforts to loot and take vengeance
on commercial, religious, political or social enemies, and total chaos
results.
-
- Rumsfeld could have stopped the shambles easily by ordering
adoption of normal measures that would have been used by Iraqi authorities
- a perfectly legal order by the occupying power. Iraqi police would have
shot looters, quite legally, under the laws of Iraq, and the relevant provision
in international law (Article 43 of the Hague Convention) is that "the
authority of the legitimate power having passed into the hands of the occupant,
the latter shall take all measures to restore and ensure so far as possible
public order and safety, while respecting... the laws in force in the country."
In other words, shoot looters if the law of the country permits looter
shooting. But Rumsfeld and his cringing subordinates could not take such
a bad PR decision.
-
- The Washington Post recorded an articulate Baghdad resident's
indignation about the feeble American position: "George Bush says
on TV, 'we want to give freedom to the Iraqi people.' What freedom? The
freedom to steal from houses and hospitals?" But Rumsfeld announced
that "where [US troops] see looting, they're stopping it." Reuters
reported from the scene and quoted a marine as saying "Hell, it ain't
my job to stop them. Goddam Iraqis will steal anything if you let them."
Rumsfeld is a liar.
-
- Then Rumsfeld whined that "I picked up a newspaper
today and I couldn't believe it. I read eight headlines. And it [sic] talked
about chaos, violence, unrest.... I've never seen anything like it."
What the man meant was that he did not like factual, truthful news about
what was happening. Even US media noted that there was chaos, violence
and unrest which anyone but the most brainwashed zombie would admit is
hideous and resulted from one thing only: lack of control by the invaders.
-
- The most ludicrous statement by Rumsfeld was that the
situation in Iraq "is untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people
are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." This
is an absurd and bizarre pronouncement, but the worrying thing is that
this man represents the United States of America. He is a shrill, hysterical
buffoon, but has great influence. Rumsfeld and the other loose cannons
are swaggering as conquerors, and we should prepare ourselves for more
bad things.
-
- Brian Cloughley is a former military officer who writes
on international affairs. His website is www.briancloughley.com
|