That’s fine and dandy for peace officers but that’s something that we’re rather short of at the moment in Iraq. Push combat troops and don’t be surprised when they shoot, that is, after all, what they’re trained to do although so far they’ve been showing admirable restraint in most cases.

The lesson for the crowds should be: a) don’t fling baggies of crap at armed men.
b) don’t stand next to those flinging baggies of crap at armed men.

Wish I could claim authorship but it’s from somewhere else that escapes at the moment

A colonel was quoted yesterday saying essentially, “How are our guys supposed to tell the difference between a rock and a hand grenade when the sun goes down?”

I agree in a combat zone it could get real bloody real fast. But it still stands that for non-violent looting in a combat zone it makes no sense to try to herd the cats. Let them loot and protect ourselves and strategic military locations. Then protect banks, etc. It may make them more angry otherwise and actually trigger violent rioting.

Shooting looters has been the traditional response since the invention of gunpowder, seems to me, and the rationale was that looting indicates a complete breakdown of law and order, so the most extreme response is called for to make people stop and realize what’s at stake.

It made sense to me, and I would note that New York didn’t exactly have a reputation for being crime-free between the blackout riots and Giuliani’s becoming mayor…

These looters should definitely face lethal force. Others in the case of the Iraqis were just not that big of a deal. They weren’t violent, were looting stuff from Saddam’s palaces, etc. But martial law for everyone is always an option if things get out of control in a war zone.