The Globe and Mail has 20 Questions on the Iraq War. This one's interesting:

How much was taken is a matter of heated debate. The museum's director of research, Donny George, told all who would listen that an astonishing 170,000 objects -- almost the museum's entire collection -- was gone, a historic cultural loss. Mr. George accused American soldiers of turning a blind eye.
Now, it seems most valuable objects were taken out of the museum for safekeeping before the war began. While there was looting in the chaotic days that followed, Mr. George seems to have overstated the extent of it -- and neglected to mention that one reason the Americans didn't defend the museum was that it was apparently being used as a base by Iraqi snipers.
There have been calls for Mr. George to be fired.

When the story broke, I initially expressed concern, but I also expressed conditional skepticism. I wrote:

And, still, the stories circulating about the looting smack of urban legend. Certainly, they will be played up for years to come in gauchista circles as evidence that Americans care only about lucre and not art. But, seriously, when did the two events occur? Who witnessed (a) the looting of the museum and (b) the protection of the Ministry? As for the looting, why didn't the curators do something sensible like take the collection down to some secure site - like a safe - to protect it from bomb damage or looting by Americans? Did they trust Americans not to act like, well, Iraqis? By the way, how do we know that the artifacts were even there to be looted? It wouldn't be the first time that a fascist dictator and his hyennas created their own private collections. How about the curators? How do we know that they didn't find the chaos and anarchy a good cover to supplement their pensions?


Now, if all these questions seem impertinent, as suggesting that Iraqis were responsible for the theft of their own treasures in a way apart from the actual looting, well, why shouldn't they be asked? Where is it written that the burden of proof is on America?

OK, I'll ask again, why was everyone so willing to jump on the "blame America bandwagon?" It was obvious to me that the story had the earmarkings of an insurance fraud scheme. The idea that the museum's staff would not have moved these valuable objects to safekeeping seemed unlikely. The idea that the opportunity to engage in "insurance fraud" seemed not unlikely given the universality of human cupidity. So, two questions: (a) why did it take so long for the facts to come out and (b) have those people who uncritically bought into the looting argument learned anything about how easy it is to be conned?