Critics of the war say that it was "done on the cheap", that we should have used a lot more troops going in to be able hold things down. But part of our strategy was to be as fast as possible, and the Iraqi army collapsed much faster than anticipated, leaving a big vacuum while we were still arriving. So the disorder was a side-effect of our success.
But it may also have been a strategy by the Iraqis. Supposedly, they did not expect us to actually attack, but when it became clear we were serious, they knew they couldn't win, so they decided to melt away and begin an insurgency. Part of their plan was to make things as difficult as possible for us, by systematic looting and sabotage, as well as the sniping and bombing campaign. This unfortunately had some success. In spite of the speed of our invasion, our inability to control things in the immediate aftermath convinced many Iraqis that our position was actually weak, so they were reluctant to support us. We were also vulnerable to Arab propoganda that we were only interested in the oil and that's why we let the rest of the country go to hell. We've made considerable progress securing order, and we are now gaining the respect if not the gratitude of the Iraqis.
No, I believe the looters were a diversion from the Oil for Food evidence that was being guarded by our troops.
Seems the very little that was stolen from the museums, et al came about when we found their stash.
The other looting was furniture and other crap or reallocating of resources.
Welcome to Free Republic. I haven't seen you, or several other new posters on this thread, around here before. I enjoy reading new material from new posters.