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.
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.
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.”
Yeah, Andy, I think I saw it–or something close to it–on MSNBC this afternoon.
I’m inclined to think it’s best left to the Iraqis, and I think they’ll attend to it after the shooting stops.
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.
Andy’s right -
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.
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.
Hell, it’s fun!
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It obviously bothers Iraqis. Is that a problem for you?
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’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.)
**
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.
**
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.
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.