The U.S didn't protect the weapons that weren't there...

A few days late, but Slate has a great Christopher Hitchens article about the looting of Iraq. There is a huge disconnect on the left that a)there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that b)the US invading Iraq put lots of equiptment designed for constructing weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists by not protecting against "looters".

The first thing that one wonders is what Iraq was doing with a complete potential nuclear weapons laboratory if he wasn't using it, had used it, or was thinking of using it. Now, I suppose it's possible that Saddam was just a compulsive shopper who likes to buy things and not use them, much like mad anthony does with small kitchen appliances (if you know anyone who needs an electric cheese grater, waffle maker, or rice cooker all new in the box, let me know). But I'm going to guess that Saddam had them to use them.

But Hitchens raises an even more important point. When most people think looting, they think LA Riots, rocks-through-the-liquor-store-window kind of rioting. Not this:

four weeks from mid-April to mid-May of 2003 … teams with flatbed trucks and other heavy equipment moved systematically from site to site. … 'The first wave came for the machines,

This wasn't looting - it was an orgainized removal by people who already knew it was there and knew what it was. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.