Why the Pentagon ignores archeologists

The massive spiral of the 9th-century minaret of the Great Mosque of Samarra is one of the great icons of world architecture. Yet that has not spared it from being occupied as a lookout point, first by Iraqi insurgents, then by American sniper/spotter teams (Washington Post, Boston Globe, et al).

Is this another case of American indifference towards the cultural treasures of other lands? I would reserve judgment, especially given how vital the outpost aloft has been in the pacification of the surrounding area (see the Globe link above; the view from the minaret is commanding) and the lack of heavy weapons among the insurgent forces. For there is a real dilemma here: occupy it, risking superficial small arms and RPG damage to the masonry (keeping in mind that the minaret might remain a target even if not occupied, since it would have to be guarded to prevent reoccupation by the insurgents), or vacate it and prolong the fighting, increasing not only loss of life, but also damage to the rest of the fabric of the ancient city. Nor does international law give much guidance, for the Geneva Conventions set out rules for wars between nations, fought by regular forces; civil wars and insurgencies fought by irregulars obeying no rules at all are a very grey area.

Difficult choices, but what about the academic response? For Iraq specialists, this would have been a golden opportunity to undo some of the damage done by their hasty and polemical response to the looting of the Baghdad archeological museum. Alas, if the IraqCrisis newsgroup is any indication, we are just getting more of the same. Virtually all of those worthies see no complexities to speak of: for them, the occupation of the minaret (also known as the Malwiya) is not just wrong, but an outrage.

The discussion started off with a post by Alastair Northedge of the Sorbonne on January 25, who asserted in direct disregard of all news reports that "the occupation of a position on the minaret is not necessary for military needs, and could easily be avoided" (later expanded into the even wackier, "I doubt that the insurgents occupied the minaret in any more than a fleeting way. It is in fact a weak military position, because the men on the top can be isolated and killed easily, and only occupable by the US because they have helicopters who can take the soldiers off in an emergency."). A flurry of responses followed, and before the list host called an end to the debate, list readers were treated to a fine selection of cartoonish anti-American diatribes and expressions of sympathy for the insurgents. The few voices in the wilderness were not much heeded, as when James Davila asked (with followup here):

Have you considered the possibility that the Iraqi authorities and the coalition forces are making an informed judgment that occupying the minaret in order to oppose the terrorists is a lesser evil than letting them run riot and murder more people? The Boston Globe article points out that no one has complained about the coalition occupation of the minaret . . .

We scholars should be very careful lest we end up calling for protection of cultural properties at the expense of letting people get killed by terrorists. That is not a public face we want to wear.

Or the trenchant sally from Alexander Joffe:

jim davila's courageous post and the responses it has generated, ranging from the legalistic to the sophomoric and ultimately to outright sympathy with fascists and sadists, points to the lack of a moral center in this field and by extension academia as a whole . . .

the speed at which these positions have reappeared after a brief abeyance is remarkable, given that they seem to recreate the types of thinking that characterized the profession's relationship with saddam's iraq.

How much more might have been done to preserve and safeguard the antiquities of Iraq, if more scholars had spoken like Davila and Joffe.

NOTE: IraqCrisis links now updated.

Posted by David on February 5, 2005 4:22 PM