The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - 4 Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site in '03

October 28, 2004

| 4 Iraqis Tell of Looting at Munitions Site in '03

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.

The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Two witnesses were employees of Al Qaqaa - one a chemical engineer and the other a mechanic - and the third was a former employee, a chemist, who had come back to retrieve his records, determined to keep them out of American hands. The mechanic, Ahmed Saleh Mezher, said employees asked the Americans to protect the site but were told this was not the soldiers’ responsibility.

The accounts do not directly address the question of when 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from the site sometime after early March, the last time international inspectors checked the seals on the bunkers where the material was stored. It is possible that Iraqi forces removed some explosives before the invasion.

But the accounts make clear that what set off much if not all of the looting was the arrival and swift departure of American troops, who did not secure the site after inducing the Iraqi forces to abandon it.

“The looting started after the collapse of the regime,” said Wathiq al-Dulaimi, a regional security chief, who was based nearby in Latifiya. But once it had begun, he said, the booty streamed toward Baghdad.

Read the rest here.

Posted by Todd Castleton at October 28, 2004 01:47 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Yeah, yeah, try to cover your a—, NYT.

Posted by: No Party at October 28, 2004 02:54 PM

It is my understanding that the IEA was at fault for allowing Saddam to posses this RDX. It was agains the sanctions to posess it. They give a lame excuse for allowing it, ’ He said they might need it for mining, or something, in the future. How friggin’ lame. No matter what the quanity, they are the ones that should be admonished. Although the story stinks to high heaven, we’ll probably never get a straight story from the media. The whole deal really doesn’t matter, unless the story was created by someone with undermining intent…….Then sh-ts going to hit the fan.

Maybe as soon as we get this election over, George Bush can get back to work and do what he does best.

Posted by: No Party at October 28, 2004 03:15 PM

What G.W.B. does best? You mean like invading countries without any thought about protecting munitions stockpiles?

What strikes me is not when the explosives were removed. What strikes me is that we invaded with every reason to believe that Al Qa Qaa was chock full of high explosives, and yet, not one military unit was assigned to take control and guard it.

Posted by: James at October 28, 2004 03:48 PM

how the hell do you know james?

Posted by: skip at October 28, 2004 04:26 PM

James,

I see you lay blame without looking at the reality of war. With a 130,000 men (about the population of a very small city) in a country the size of Irac (which is MUCH bigger then a small city) you can only do so much. I don’t think you quite grasp the impossibility of protecting every asset there is, especially an ordanance dump which is very low on the list (since there were over fifty large ones, and they only contain conventional armorment.)

Posted by: Amadeaus at October 28, 2004 04:26 PM

Skip — Okay, I don’t know. I assume that if a unit did have that mission, someone would have dug it up by now. It would kinda lay the whole thing to rest, wouldn’t it.

Amadeus — You seem to be missing the entire point. The fact that only 130,000 men were used was the result of REALLY BAD PLANNING. And we’re seeing the results now. We would have seen the results earlier, say, May 2003, if the administration had seen fit to tell us. But apparently the public gets information on a need to know basis.

Posted by: James at October 28, 2004 06:48 PM

..heard a interesting point today ..Iradi had possibly 800- 1 million ((tons)) of munitions..to my surprise the report stated the US only keeps approx. 1.6-1.8 million tons…the report didnt give any break down of the munitions..

Posted by: Rob_NC at October 28, 2004 09:38 PM

According to General Tommy Franks, it was a central strategy of the campaign to move extremely quickly through the country. US forces engaged the enemy where required, but intentionally skipped engagements where possible, to gain speed. Franks knew that this would strain the supply line and leave it lightly defended. The plan was for the enemy to be too confused to mount a serious (high casualty) attack. This strategy proved to be spectacularly successful, with thousands of enemy troop casualties and virtually no US casualties - and complete regime removal in a matter of weeks. The use of this speed met with the disparagement of the media’s armchair generals at the time. In my opinion, virtually every US casualty or cost - from oil line sabotage to troop deaths, to looting has been blamed by Monday-morning quarterbacks on US military incompetence, while these commentators cannot comprehend that some costs are measured and accepted - even in advance.

Posted by: earsallakimbo at October 29, 2004 12:30 AM

“What G.W.B. does best? You mean like invading countries without any thought about protecting munitions stockpiles?”

“What strikes me is not when the explosives were removed. What strikes me is that we invaded with every reason to believe that Al Qa Qaa was chock full of high explosives, and yet, not one military unit was assigned to take control and guard it.”

Can you read, James? Do you have any idea what 377 tons of HMX looks like? Do you have any clue as to how many tons of CONVENTIONAL weapons ammunition Iraq was holding on to?

I’m still waiting to hear the word ‘incompetence’ out of you. Can you use it in a sentence?

The italicized portion Posted by: James at October 28, 2004 03:48 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at October 29, 2004 07:45 AM

James, please provide us with data sufficient to establish your bona fides as a military strategist. If such data does not exist, and I suspect that it doesn’t please refrain from issuing blanket opinions about the conduct of our mission in Iraq.

it’s really pretty simple for the left: just parrot whatever Kerry & Co. say. Alas, we expect a bit more thought from posters here.

So James, please tell us what makes you an expert.

Posted by: skip at October 29, 2004 09:41 AM

Again, y’all miss the point. Of course I’m no military expert, but I’m not blaming the military. Everyone agrees the military operation was brilliant.

Here’s a quiz. Country X is known to have 1000 stockpiles of munitions. 500 of these stockpiles are known to have high explosives (especially useful for terrorists and nuclear bomb makers).

Your options:

1. invade with 150,000 men and achieve swift victory, but leave everything unguarded.

2. invade with 150,000 men and achieve swift victory, but bring an additional 50,000 men to guard the high explosives sites.

3. invade with 150,000 men and achieve swift victory, but bring an additional 150,000 men to guard all of the known sites plus a few unknown ones. If we have extra men, send ‘em home, after a couple months.

Now I might accept a well reasoned argument why choice number 1 is the best, but without those reasons, choice number 1 smacks of incompetence.

Posted by: James at October 29, 2004 10:32 AM

So sorry james but we “all” didn’t miss the point. And that point is that you have no credibility on this issue.

You are basing your “analysis” on hindsight. I doubt you had given a second thought to Sadam’s stockpile before the bogus NYT story. Now that the issue is one page one, you have an opinion.

And why do I suspect your timing? Because whining about guarding explosives would have meant that you believed Sadam to be a danger and of course, the left can’t be saying that, now can they?

Posted by: skip at October 29, 2004 11:07 AM

Here’s a better quiz:

A) Kay and Duelfer find evidence of ongoing concealment of weapons of mass destruction programs- the left doesn’t care.

B) Some questionable evidence of missing conventional weapons, of which there was substantial knowledge beforehand, appears-the left screams for an investigation; they are obviously very interested now.

Why?

Use back side of sheet if necessary.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at October 29, 2004 01:18 PM

I wonder if these four Iraqis were on their way home from a wedding when the looting broke out

Posted by: skip at October 29, 2004 04:10 PM