The looting, ransacking and burning of Baghdad's great repositories of historical antiquities came as a shock to many -- including, apparently, U.S. troops in the field -- even though scholars all over the world had warned that a war could cause catastrophic cultural damage in Iraq. But now the damage is done, and all that's left to do is pick up the shattered pieces, attempt to recover some of what was stolen, secure the rest -- and try to figure out exactly what happened and why.

That, of course, entails finger-pointing. Yet the accurate assigning of blame turns out to be more complicated than it looks. Most people, including many American scholars, hold the United States responsible, and they are obviously right in two respects. None of the destruction would have happened if the U.S. and Britain had not invaded Iraq to begin with and if Baghdad's fall had not triggered a sudden power vacuum in the city. Looting might also have been avoided, or at least mitigated, if troops had been instructed to make it a priority to safeguard Iraq's National Museum and National Library as soon as it was clear that the government in Baghdad had collapsed.

So it is easy to understand the anger that has prompted several American experts to resign from official positions in protest at the failure to guard Iraq's historical treasures as diligently as the U.S. guarded oil refineries and ministry facilities. Mr. Martin Sullivan, head of U.S. President George W. Bush's Cultural Advisory Committee, for example, stepped down two weeks ago, saying the looting had not been prevented "due to our nation's inaction."