You Loot, They Shoot

Nick Gillespie | May 14, 2003

From today's NY Times comes a story that suggests just how tricky ruling post-war Iraq is going to be. You don't shoot looters, you'll get more looters. You do shoot them (and/or make mistakes in doing so), you undermine relations with the local population.

New Policy in Iraq to Authorize G.I.'s to Shoot Looters
By PATRICK E. TYLER

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 13 � United States military forces in Iraq will have the authority to shoot looters on sight under a tough new security setup that will include hiring more police officers and banning ranking members of the Baath Party from public service, American officials said today.

The far more muscular approach to bringing order to postwar Iraq was described by the new American administrator, L. Paul Bremer, at a meeting of senior staff members today, the officials said. On Wednesday, Mr. Bremer is expected to meet with the leaders of Iraqi political groups that are seeking to form an interim government by the end of the month. "He made it very clear that he is now in charge," said an official who attended the meeting today. "I think you are going to see a change in the rules of engagement within a few days to get the situation under control."

Read the whole thing here.

Comments

|5.14.03 @ 1:07AM|#

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3021873.stm

|5.14.03 @ 1:30AM|#

The US is going to wish it let the UN come and look after this reeeeaaaaalllll soon.

May 13|5.14.03 @ 1:41AM|#

why? so they can screw it up even worse?

|5.14.03 @ 2:31AM|#

No, so they could avoid individual responsibility.

|5.14.03 @ 2:43AM|#

It seems the US is now denying this story. Now I SERIOUSLY wonder about the NYTimes' credibility:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=535&ncid=535&e=3&u=/ap/20030514/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_security

Stretch|5.14.03 @ 3:01AM|#

Shooting looters on sight. I wonder how all this is going to play over in Paris and Brussels. I'm pretty sure this won't do a lot to enhance our image anywhere.

I've expended a lot of energy defending the temporary occupation of Iraq, but for fuck's sake, if we can't draw the line somewhere reasonable - like NOT shooting people on sight - it's not going to matter what anybody says. Jesus.

Hal|5.14.03 @ 3:10AM|#

I hear that if this policy works in , the Bush Administration is planning on instituting it here, as well.

Warren|5.14.03 @ 3:31AM|#

Folks, this is only the beginning. We haven't even begun to confront the consequences of jumping into the Mid East as a foreign occupier.

|5.14.03 @ 3:42AM|#

The ironic part is that it will probably work -- crime will be reduced. Now I am leery of shooting people w/o trial for property crimes such as theft. But read the rest:

"...hijacking of automobiles and violent crimes will be dealt with using deadly force."

Is this any different than the US or any other civilized place?

Croesus|5.14.03 @ 3:54AM|#

Lazarus,

I think the notion is that it would be better for Iraqis to be doing this, and not US soldiers.

~Billy Jean is not my lover...~

|5.14.03 @ 4:01AM|#

Croesus: So whats the big deal then? Do they really expect a native police force in place already? Hey I hear an Iraqi kid fell down a well yesterday, clearly the US mission failed...

Croesus|5.14.03 @ 4:06AM|#

Lazarus,

All imperial occupations come with their problems; the more the US military (and the US government) is identified with said problems, the lower potential for support. Life is a PR campaign like that. This is reason why there has been a re-shuffle already I think.

~Our lips are sealed...~

|5.14.03 @ 11:48AM|#

Bremer's continuing comments are even scarier. The article continues

"They are going to start shooting a few looters so that the word gets around" that assaults on property, the hijacking of automobiles and violent crimes will be dealt with using deadly force.

Suddenly our troops become judge, jury and executioner in a devastatingly random manner in order to police Baghdad. I'll grant that the threat of random, immediately executed death sentences is a lot more effective at promoting self-policing than putting up security cameras!

It seems so ridiculous that I looked at the byline and wondered, given the well-publicized trouble the Times had with a fraudulent reporter, is this real?? I guess the Jayson Blair affair did give them a black eye! Has it compromised their ability to report the incredible, or incredibly stupid?

|5.14.03 @ 11:58AM|#

It's too bad they don't have any less than lethal ways to doing this, "phasers on stun" - that sort of thing.

Sean|5.14.03 @ 12:14PM|#

Tear gas or pepper spray would violate the Geneva Convention. I'm not sure where it stands on rubber bullets.

|5.14.03 @ 12:20PM|#

Sean,

Oddly enough, those methods are illegal as methods of warfare, but ok for law enforcement purposes. Doesn't stopping looters count as law enforcement?