How about a simple mnemonic couplet:
A gallon a day
Keeps the Reaper away.
And to the list of things to add to the "emergency" stash: don't forget WATER! - maybe a gallon bottle or 2 put away in back of a closet: After I finally got home in the blackout, I found that my 160 or so neighbors in my building had left me only about 2 gallons of vile, rust-laden sludge. Fortunately, I had a few bottles of Perrier, and some ice-melt to drink (and even more luckily, a terrace drain for "No.1")/ If you are home early enough to fill the tub, great: otherwise, keep a little back.
In discussing the relative priorities of CENTCOM and/or the commanders on the ground in whether or not the Iraqi National Museum deserved military protection; it should be kept in mind just how LITTLE force might have sufficed to protect the Museum, and prevent, not only looting, but the inevitable negative publicity that failure would have (and so far, has) generated.
If the reports of what actually transpired at the INM on April 10 are reasonably accurate, then it is clear that the presence of just a few American troops were enough to keep the mob at a distance, at least while they were there. That these troops were then withdrawn is inexplicable if there was ANY effort being made on the part of the US command to protect such a valuable site (as we now know, they were well aware of).
A couple-three Bradleys full of heavily-armed infantry would most likely have been more than sufficient not only to keep the Baghdad rabble (armed with little deadlier than crowbars and screwdrivers) out of the Museum, but might also have kept what was in there from getting out (a fact which seems to have been overlooked in media reports). Major museums like the INM are typically designed with just such 2-way security in mind. That the US military seemingly ignored the security of major Iraqi cultural institutions (while guarding the Oil Ministry right off the bat) should rightly be charged as an atrocious omission on our part, and should not just be dismissed so cavalierly in our post-victory cheerleading.
After all, when this has happened in the past (e.g., Alexandria 642) the loss of the artifacts/documents/knowledge has been considered a major loss to humanity as a whole.
Aren't we supposed to better than the "barbarians"?"
Claude:
Sorry, didn't mean to short-change the rhetorical skills of any US officers, past or present (and I know there have been many - even if Sherman's three-word dictum is the most remembered!).I was just struck by the contrast of Lt Col Collins's fine words as compared to the dreary eye-glazing TV commentary we have had re the war so far.
PS: thanks also for the chuckle I got when I remembered what "REMF" stands for.
JC
Wow, what an incredible address! Is it not incredible that it is still possible in this day and age that a professional soldier can summon up the rhetorical skills to remind his troops of their duty and the moral context of their mission in language that is not only clear and plain, but would not be thought out of place in any historical context - from Pericles' time to the present.
But then, this IS coming from the British military tradition. I contrast this to the stale cliche-ridden blather emanating from American sources (Donald Rumsfeld is bloviating on TV as I type).
Maybe there is some good to studying the Classics after all: you may not be able to change the rules of war, but least the rhetoric can be raised above the level of a CNN soundbite.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 1 |
| 2003 | 5 |
| 2002 | 2 |
Total: 8 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Jay C.:
Show all comments by Jay C..