Vandalizing Saddam Icons: sensible psywar tactic, or really stupid idea?

[Boyo Jim]

Both CNN and CBS have reported American military units going on expressly assigned missions of destroying public images of Saddam -- statues, paintings, murals, whatever. CNN reported they took out a "historic" statue with a tank shell.

I don't pretend to understand the people in Iraq well enough to say how they will respond to these tactics. Perhaps there are valid psychological reasons why this is a good thing.

I think this is the kind of thing best left to the locals.

[Zenster]

Sort of childish, it's like cops who rough up a suspect because he led them on a high speed chase.

However, if it pisses off Saddam just enough to bring him out of hiding so we can nail him, then give these guys medals.

After risking my life to depose some maggot ridden waste of skin poster boy for retroactive abortion like Saddam, I'd probably feel the same way. Hard to blame these soldiers.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

I didn't know that they were ordering missions for the specific purpose of taking out Saddam icons. I don't think it's wise to risk any lives for such missions, but I can see a very strong psychological impact from doing so. It sends the message "Allied troops were here," it removes his image in a way that suggests his authority and control are eroding. This could be a bonus in demoralizing Iraqi troops and encouraging opposition resistance.

Did anyone see the picture of a tank plowing over a Saddam statue that was tilted at an angle in front of the tank? I'd link it if I could find it again. Anyway, I looked at it and my first reaction was "Saddam hood ornament."

[asterion]

Yeah, Andy, I think I saw it--or something close to it--on MSNBC this afternoon.

[Ringo]

I'm inclined to think it's best left to the Iraqis, and I think they'll attend to it after the shooting stops.

[Toddly]

I think it sends a message to the Iraqi people that Sadaam is history. I have not heard that there have been specific missions to do this either and there certainly are enough of them for everyone to get into the act. His pictures and statues are everywhere and that it is spooky.

[Boyo Jim]

Apparently the Brits are playing too. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2898003.stm)

[j.c.]

Andy's right -. It sends the message "Allied troops were here," it removes his image in a way that suggests his authority and control are eroding.I'm sure some of the soldiers are unhappy about it, and so do the dirty work with glee, but I think the purpose is to show the people that we're moving in, and make it more difficult for their leadership to argue that we aren't moving in.

After all, it's not like we're merely chopping off or defacing the noses - the ancient show of spite.

[Lissa]

As a historian, I regret seeing what's going on. Yes, Saddam's an evil son-of-a-bitch, but I think these things should be preserved for future generations as a testimony to how much damage one man's ego can do to a nation.

If anything, they should be dismantled and hidden away in the storage areas of a museum. The dismantling would have the same psychological impact, but wouldn't destroy the objects. (Of course, not everything needs to be saved-- just those with high aesthetic and cultural value.)

Like it or not, this man is going to go down in history. I just wonder if future historians will regret the destruction of these statues and murals. We shouldn't let our anger and hatred of this man rob the future of what could be significant artifacts.

[Rysdad]

Hell, it's fun!

[cmkeller]

Definitely a sensible tactic. The coalition forces want the Iraqis to stop fearing Saddam, and feel as if they're no longer under his power. The fewer posters and statues of him look them in the faces everywhere they walk, the easier it will be for the new mindset to sink in.

[Rayne Man]

Originally posted by Lissa
As a historian, I regret seeing what's going on. Yes, Saddam's an evil son-of-a-bitch, but I think these things should be preserved for future generations as a testimony to how much damage one man's ego can do to a nation.

If anything, they should be dismantled and hidden away in the storage areas of a museum. The dismantling would have the same psychological impact, but wouldn't destroy the objects. (Of course, not everything needs to be saved-- just those with high aesthetic and cultural value.)

Like it or not, this man is going to go down in history. I just wonder if future historians will regret the destruction of these statues and murals. We shouldn't let our anger and hatred of this man rob the future of what could be significant artifacts.

This is what happened in post-communist Hungary. In Budapest there is a park full of the old Stalanist statues taken down from around the country. They are they for people to see if they wish.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by j.c.
Andy's right [snip] -I'm sure some of the soldiers are unhappy about it, and so do the dirty work with glee, but I think the purpose is to show the people that we're moving in, and make it more difficult for their leadership to argue that we aren't moving in.

After all, it's not like we're merely chopping off or defacing the noses - the ancient show of spite.
Plus, dictators put up icons like this for a reason. Saddam wanted everyone to know that he was in control everywhere, that he was the exalted leader and they weren't. These kinds of statues and pictures are done with a very real and practical idea in mind: informing the populace "I am the boss."
Tearing them down has the effect of saying "Not anymore."

[Daniel]

I remember reading that, at least in some cases, the Americans were requested to tear down statues by some Iraqis.

Anyway, another way to look at this is the Americans and allied forces reasserting their purpose for being there: we are attacking Saddam, not the Iraqis. By destroying things that specifically represent Saddam, we give more strength to that assertion.

[Daniel]

ah, yep . . . . photo caption on nytimes.com right now reads: "Iraqis are now trying to pull down the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad's main square." (emphasis added)

so yeah, it's not just us.

[Azael]

Sensible psywar tactic... A very potent way of showing that Saddam is no longer in control. I already see some whining that such things should be left to "the Iraqi people" - go turn on a television.

[rowrrbazzle]

Originally posted by Lissa
If anything, they should be dismantled and hidden away in the storage areas of a museum. The dismantling would have the same psychological impact, but wouldn't destroy the objects.You honestly think that carefully taking these things apart and preserving them has the same psychological impact as toppling a statue and dragging its head through the streets? I'll be polite: that's utter nonsense.

We'll have pictures and videos of this monster and his representations. That's more than he deserves.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by rowrrbazzle
You honestly think that carefully taking these things apart and preserving them has the same psychological impact as toppling a statue and dragging its head through the streets? I'll be polite: that's utter nonsense.

We'll have pictures and videos of this monster and his representations. That's more than he deserves.

Just removing them has some impact. Of course, not as much as smashing something all to hell. Wanton destruction always has high visual impact.

As for what Saddam deserves . . . Emotions should not dictate what is preserved. Fresh anger and hate, if allowed free reign, could destroy what may be important for the future to see.

I hate to make the comparison, but it's the only one I can think of: some of the concentration camps of Poland and Germany were allowed to survive after the war as a testiment to the horrors of the Nazi regime. Likewise, the monuments to Saddam's ego could have similar significance in the future. We have surviving monuments of other monsters, such as marble busts of Nero. (IIRC, Hitler's house in Berchtesgaden still stands, but is not open to the public.) If the idea of having them on public display bothers you, I'd have no problem with them being stored deep in some museum basement . . . I just think future historians should have access to them.

No one ever seems to value the artifacts of the present.

[rowrrbazzle]

Just removing them has some impact. Of course, not as much as smashing something all to hell. Wanton destruction always has high visual impact.Glad to see you admit you were wrong.

It'd be interesting to watch you propose your preservation argument to some of the Iraqis or Iraqi-Americans who are celebrating Saddam's downfall and see what reception you get. It would be short, I'm sure.

What happened to all those monuments to Mussolini? Stalin? Lenin? Ceaucescu? Hitler? Were the people who destroyed them wrong?I hate to make the comparison, but it's the only one I can think of: some of the concentration camps of Poland and Germany were allowed to survive after the war as a testiment to the horrors of the Nazi regime.Okay, here's a compromise: preserve some of Saddam's torture chambers, prisons, and mass graves to remind us of the horror of his regime. Destroy or recycle everything else. How about it?If the idea of having them on public display bothers you, I'd have no problem with them being stored deep in some museum basement . . . I just think future historians should have access to them.It obviously bothers Iraqis. Is that a problem for you?No one ever seems to value the artifacts of the present.It may seem that way to you, but as a blanket statement, that's obviously false. You didn't attribute that to me, but just for the record I want to point out that I didn't say or even imply it.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by rowrrbazzle
It'd be interesting to watch you propose your preservation argument to some of the Iraqis or Iraqi-Americans who are celebrating Saddam's downfall and see what reception you get. It would be short, I'm sure.

I'm sure it would be. Fervent emotions can get in the way of dispassionate thinking. It's much like asking the family of a murder victim to make a decision about the death penalty.

These people are angry and have just tasted a moment of freedom after years of repression. They're running wild. Since they can't take out their rage on Saddam, they'll take it out on inanimate objects, and by looting his palaces. (Which also makes me worry about art treasures which might be destroyed by the mob.)

What happened to all those monuments to Mussolini? Stalin? Lenin? Ceaucescu? Hitler? Were the people who destroyed them wrong?Okay, here's a compromise: preserve some of Saddam's torture chambers, prisons, and mass graves to remind us of the horror of his regime. Destroy or recycle everything else. How about it?

I'd hesitate to make an immediate decision on what is "worth" saving, but I will say that it's not a decision which should be made in the heat of the moment. It's very hard to make a judgement on what future generations will find significant.

It obviously bothers Iraqis. Is that a problem for you?

There's nothing I can do about it, obviously. Thankfully, though, as you mentioned, we have video. Of course, it can never compare to studying the real object, at least we have it.


It may seem that way to you, but as a blanket statement, that's obviously false. You didn't attribute that to me, but just for the record I want to point out that I didn't say or even imply it.

I didn't say that you did. I'm just commenting on what I have seen. Too many treasures have been lost. Sometimes the reason is idealogical differences with what the object represents. Other times, it's because the object is too "commonplace" or not old enough to be considered worthwhile. Often, all we have left are photographs of beautiful buildings which were torn down fifty years ago because, at the time, they were only 20 years old. While they might have hesitated to tear down an older structure, because it was "new" they had no qualms. (Here on this board, I argued with a poster who didn't care if Saddam's beautiful palaces were destroyed because they were only a few years old.)

I know we're not going to agree on this issue, and that's all right. I just feel that this is a momentous moment in history which should be preserved for the Iraqi people.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

There is a very good reason for destroying the statues and images on the spot rather than preserving them. Saddam Hussein has been terrorizing these people for thirty years, and (according to several articles I have read) a lot of Iraqis believe he isn't done yet. They believe he is hiding and will resurface once the Americans are gone. They are still afraid, and who can blame them?
Carting these images off for safe keeping is bound to ignite rumors that they are being preserved for his comeback: "See, they're saving the statues. What for, if not his return?"

On another note, did you hear that Hussein's sons have changed their names to go into hiding?
They're now Boogay and Amscray.

[DeadlyAccurate]

Look on the bright side, Lissa, there aren't enough Americans or Iraqis in the world to destroy all of the paintings, statues and posters of that man. Good grief, but he really liked the way he looked. ;)

[Lissa]

On a side note, NPR reported today that mobs of angry Iraqis have been destroying paintings of "half-naked women" found in Saddam's palaces.

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

And in related news: (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/04/11/international0439EDT0498.DTL) At the Al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, Saddam had installed a tile image of President Bush the elder -- on the floor, so that guests walked over it and wiped their feet on it, a severe insult in Arab culture. U.S. soldiers tore it up and replaced it with an image of Saddam.
The mosaic, an unflattering portrait of Bush with his teeth bared in a scowl, was installed later in 1991 right in the Al-Rashid's doorway complete with a caption in Arabic and English: "Bush is criminal."
Saddam wasn't just a megalomaniac. He was a childish megalomaniac.

[Lissa]

CNN reported this morning that the Iraqi National Museum has been looted. Thousands of priceless artifacts and treasures are gone. I am deeply saddened and disturbed by what has happened. I can only hope that someday, some of these cultural treasures will be found and returned.

Satisfying Andy Licious, do you think it's childish that we installed Saddam's picture? Wouldn't it have been more mature just to tear up Bush's picture and fill in the hole with regular tiles?

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

Originally posted by Lissa
CNN reported this morning that the Iraqi National Museum has been looted. Thousands of priceless artifacts and treasures are gone. I am deeply saddened and disturbed by what has happened. I can only hope that someday, some of these cultural treasures will be found and returned.
The museum looting is a genuine tragedy. These were world treasures.

Satisfying Andy Licious, do you think it's childish that we installed Saddam's picture? Wouldn't it have been more mature just to tear up Bush's picture and fill in the hole with regular tiles? [/B][/QUOTE]
You can call me Andy.
I don't know if they exactly "installed" a picture of Saddam, and certainly it was more likely on the scale of taking an existing poster or painting and putting it there. If anyone has any info, please share.
No, I don't think that was a childish thing for the troops to do. It won't be permanent, and it's not an act of state as it was with Saddam. It's more like scribbling "Kilroy was here."

[Satisfying Andy Licious]

I'm reposting to clear up the quotes. :smack: Preview, preview, preview.

Originally posted by Lissa
CNN reported this morning that the Iraqi National Museum has been looted. Thousands of priceless artifacts and treasures are gone. I am deeply saddened and disturbed by what has happened. I can only hope that someday, some of these cultural treasures will be found and returned.

That is a tragedy because these were treasures of the world from some of the oldest civilizations on earth.

Satisfying Andy Licious, do you think it's childish that we installed Saddam's picture? Wouldn't it have been more mature just to tear up Bush's picture and fill in the hole with regular tiles?
I don't know if they exactly "installed" a picture of Saddam, and certainly it was more likely on the scale of taking an existing poster or painting and putting it there. If anyone has any info, please share.
No, I don't think that was a childish thing for the troops to do. It won't be permanent (the hole will be filled in, I'm sure) and it's not an act of state as it was with Saddam. It's more like scribbling "Kilroy was here."

[Rayne Man]

Are we sure that these are the real statues that are being destoyed ?. They might be lookalikes. The real ones could be hiding somewhere in a deep bunker !.

[carnivorousplant]

Can the clip of explosives blowing off a statue's crotch be seen anywhere?