"And the flag--it was on the Pentagon when it got hit on 9/11. That was the same flag, and me being from New York, it kind of all goes together a little bit." --Corporal Edwin Chin, United States Marines
The draping of the U.S. flag over the statue of Saddam Hussein yesterday was, obviously, an award-winning experiment in mixing arrogance with stupidity. Among those hostile to Americans, it will be remembered for a very long time as the moment when the United States accidentally revealed the truth, and then scrambled to cover it up. That gesture contained plenty of fuel for those who want to hate the United States, and also enough spark to ignite new hatreds, no doubt. As the U.S. conquered a major Arab city for the first time in its history, filling the entire Muslim world with increased anxiety, Corporal Chin found just the right match to throw into the tinderbox.
And, of course, there can be no better symbol of our Commander in Chief's cluelessness about and insensitivity toward those who fall outside his personal experience. It's been reported that he was watching the statue event closely on television. I wonder if someone had to tell him that the effacement of Saddam with Old Glory was actually something to cause worry, not joy--or if, maybe, Bush knew enough to contain his rush of pride and shake his head with concern.
But what is most shocking about the flag scandal is that, contrary to the spin it is getting in the U.S. media, it was not the impulsive act of a soldier caught up in the emotion of the moment. Rather, it was a premeditated act of symbolism.
This iconic moment in Baghdad was a stage-managed spectacle from the start, arranged so that the media could reflect the Pentagon's preferred emphasis in this war--that it is a liberation of the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator. The statue falls, the people cheer. Considering that the Marines really were freeing the Iraqi people from a cruel dictator, this scene should not have been a very hard scene to stage.
The first hitch in the production apparently happened when the extras failed to show up at the call time. But that doesn't spell disaster, necessarily. Hollywood has techniques to deal with this sort of thing. When you have a non-crowded location that looks like this:
You just avoid the wide shot from a high angle (the picture above is from the BBC). You put the camera at the level of the "crowd" and use long lenses that limit the field of vision of the camera eye. In Baghdad, the media were happy to oblige--they know that "The Iraqi People Topple Saddam Hussein" is a better movie than "Three Dozen Iraqis and a Hundred U.S. Marines Topple a Statue." They wanted the script to work. The players are nothing without a script, and it's the only one they had.
Article comments
1 - BJ
The most interesting thing I've read today. What a difference a camera angle makes.
Can you post the sources for the photos?
2 - SlackMFer
wow, i think the tragic flaw that has been revealed is in the left-wing in america. you'd rather be right than have things turn out as best as possible. it hurts you so much that bush was right about the iraqis welcoming troops that you probably prefer it if they were booing us and committing terrorist acts than celebrating. i heard a quote from the guy that put the flag there and it WAS spur of the moment, and the only reason he did it is because he was sick of the iraqi information guy saying they were nowhere near bahgdad. i work my ass off to go to school and try to better myself. this i can do in america. however, you whiny spoiled brats have nothing better to do than to complain about the flaws in america (name one country that doesn't have flaws) and read forign media (i'm sure THEY'RE not biased) and pretend you're well informed. get over yourself. i didn't see you protesting when clinton attacked somalia or bombed iraq for that matter!!
3 - san
GHW Bush sent to troops into Somalia; they were still there when Clinton took office. Why has almost every conserative in America wiped this fact right out of their memories? Clinton bombed Iraq, under UN guidelines, to enforce the no-fly zone.
4 - SlackMFer
and the UN resolution that demanded saddam disarm immediately . . . isn't that what were enforcing right now?? just because france said they would veto ANY resolution that had any possibility of war (which would have made it pretty stupid to think saddam would have done anything under those conditions) doesn't mean that someone shouldn't have the balls to back up what the UN says. besides, you ignored my other points and focused entirely on a passing comment at the end. good job.
5 - san
I'm sorry that I focused on your gross misrepresentation of the facts instead of paying close attention to your other arguments, that, despite you willingness to distort history to your own ends, may indeed deserve some attention.
The UN resolution demanded Saddam disarm. Military force was never sanctioned by the Security Council. However, military force was sanctioned by the Security Council to enforce the no-fly zone.
I don't know for a fact how this errant soldier came to put the US flag over Saddam's face, but I think you're a bit naive to assume that because he SAID it was spur of the moment it WAS spur of the moment. Do you honestly believe that if it was a choreographed media moment, he'd SAY that?
There was no significant crowd. It was a staged photo op. You think Iraqis carry US flags around in their back pockets, just in case?
I can't see how I'm the one pretending I'm well informed since I'm not under the impression that Clinton originally sent troops to Somalia.
6 - InMarin
BJ: "Can you post the sources for the photos?"
Scroll down a bit in the comments in this thread:
In your face, Frenchies
7 - InMarin
"i heard a quote from the guy that put the flag there and it WAS spur of the moment..."
Is ABC News non-foreign enough for ya?
Is it just coincidence that "the flag " it was on the Pentagon when it got hit on 9/11."?
8 - SlackMFer
well, i heard otherwise. so, one of our sources is wrong or the guy changed his story, it doesn't really matter though. my main point was that you guys would rather see death, destruction, and other [bad] things rather than have been wrong and bush been right. what does that say about you??
9 - san
Good point, InMarin: The soldier JUST HAPPENED to have a flag that was flying on the Pentagon on 9/11; and he just, on the SPUR OF THE MOMENT, decided to fling it over the statue. Wow. What a coinky-dink. SlackMFer: something for you to mull over, maybe.
10 - SlackMFer
i really don't give a shit whether it was spur of the moment or not, that wasn't really my point. but, considering that the iraqi people were trying to pull the statue down and we just came over to help them (unless you're suggesting we went to people's homes and told them they had to knock the statue over) i find it hard to believe that it was TOO premeditated. but, like i said, that wasn't even my main point, so mull that over.
11 - InMarin
What exactly WAS your main point? A little fisking is needed here:
...you'd rather be right than have things turn out as best as possible.
What logical processes are you employing, sir? The point of this topic is 1) the gesture of putting the Stars and Bars over Saddam's face was an inflammatory gesture; 2) it was NOT spur of the moment but was done under orders and 3) the gathering of 100 Iraqis does not constitute a majority of Baghdad.
it hurts you so much that bush was right about the iraqis welcoming troops...
Again, it was only about 100 Iraqis. There's also evidence that the INC was among those cheering 'throngs'.
Another site detailing the evidence that the INC was among those cheering 'throngs'.
More stuff you are ignoring:
i heard a quote from the guy that put the flag there and it WAS spur of the moment...
Already disproved.
i work my ass off to go to school and try to better myself.
I hope you aren't a student of history. Regardless, do you know how many Iraqis have MBAs?
however, you whiny spoiled brats have nothing better to do than to complain about the flaws in america...
Pointing out obvious propaganda is 'whining'? Yet you have no problem with name-calling?
...and read forign media...
Ooooh - that one stung!
and pretend you're well informed.
Better informed, it seems, than you are.
get over yourself.
Wow, another zinger. Is that really your point? Is debate unpatriotic? I'll get over myself as soon as you stop the name-calling.
i didn't see you protesting when clinton attacked somalia or bombed iraq for that matter!!
Somalia was Poppy's little dividend to Clinton.
On December 4, with deteriorating security and the U.N. troops unable to control Somalia's warring factions, U.S. President George Bush ordered 25,000 U.S. troops into Somalia.
Clinton continued Poppy's policy of containing Iraq through bombing:
A U.S.-led no-fly zone has provided some protection to Kurdish northern Iraq since April 1991. Since August 1992, a no-fly zone has been enforced over southern Iraq, where historically repressed Iraqi Shiites are concentrated. The zone was expanded in August 1996, but Iraq nonetheless maintains a substantial ground presence in the south. Iraq has openly challenged both no-fly zones since December 1998.
I couldn't understand Clinton's obsession with Iraq.
I think Poppy, Clinton and Dubya are all guilty of war crimes against the people of Iraq.
In the wake of the third clash between the United States and Iraq in nine days, Clinton administration officials are now predicting that confrontations with Iraq are likely to become a more regular and troublesome challenge to U.S. foreign policy in 1999 as both sides try to force the other's hand.
12 - SlackMFer
well, you've given a good amount of effort to prove nothing. first of all, it seems pretty obvious that most of these protesters are basically democratic party ralliers, just going against bush because they hate him. and the reason i said that most of you would rather see failure than be wrong is the constant petty bickering over small points evident on this site alone. wow, a flag over a saddam statue!! is that really the big fucking crisis you make it out to be. i certainly don't think so, and if you don't think iraqi people are happy to be out of saddams regime's shadow, you probably should check the facts on the things he did to them. debate is one thing, i obviously have nothing against debate or i wouldn't come to this site, but constantly focusing on the negative aspects of something and blowing things out of proportion is beyond simply trying to have a debate. it's propaganda against a president you don't like, simple as that. you have points (see that, it's called rationality) but your anger towards anything good happening out of the war in iraq just shows that no matter what, you are stuck in your ways and will never change. so WHY do you continue to "debate"?? just sit at home and think what you will and talk to no one who disagrees with you, because you might as well.
13 - InMarin
wow, a flag over a saddam statue!! is that really the big fucking crisis you make it out to be?
It ain't just me who is making a big deal out of this, it's those we 'liberated':
Your claims over this incident have been proven false. Now you backtrack and say it's no big deal.
it's propaganda against a president you don't like, simple as that.
You are the one who claimed it was a spontaneous act. Further, you claimed that "clinton attacked somalia". That is progaganda pure and simple.
but your anger towards anything good happening out of the war in iraq just shows that no matter what, you are stuck in your ways and will never change.
I'm not the one who is name-calling ("you whiny spoiled brats") and using curse words ("i really don't give a shit"; "big fucking crisis") in an emotional appeal that you claim is a debate.
you are stuck in your ways and will never change.
You are making many assumptions. I am pointing out reported facts. What does that say about you?
just sit at home
And where are you?
and think what you will and talk to no one who disagrees with you, because you might as well.
I'm talking with you, aren't I?
Why are you so angry? Why do you insist that Iraq is just fine? Turn off Fox News and read a paper - every major newspaper is reporting chaos in Baghdad. Even Rumsfeld has admitted it. There have been several assasinations in the last few days; looting of museums and hospitals; burning of government buildings. Should everyone just turn a blind eye and pretend all is well?
14 - Brian Flemming
Hey, InMarin. Thanks for handling this one. And thanks for posting the pics that inspired this article.
As far as this being a spontaneous gesture, I would think the presence of the flag that flew over the Pentagon on 9-11 in Baghdad would rule out spontaneity. That flag sponteously arrived in Baghdad?
That someone with enough power at the Pentagon ordered that flag taken overseas and into Baghdad (and that we've seen no disavowal of this bizarre choice) I think more than makes the point I was highlighting in the essay--that we're a deeply troubled nation.
If that flag would have been taken to the heart of Al Qaeda headquarters in Afghanistan, that action would have been merely immature--there would at least be a symmetry to it, a kind of logic of retribution.
But Baghdad? Baghdad? Such an action doesn't even have the logic of retribution going for it. It's like the guy who goes on a killing spree at his place of work in response to problems with his wife. It's not just brutal--there's a puzzling kind of insanity to it as well. Why did he kill them? Even he doesn't know. But at the time, it made sense to his disordered brain.
15 - Laurie K
I asked elsewhere too, but might as well ask again. Is there any information that indicates when this photo was taken? I haven't been able to find any information on this. Looking at photos and clips of the statue coming down, it looks earlier in the day than this.
16 - InMarin
UPDATE: Ben Logman has some screenshots of the BBC coverage of the statue toppling as well as some real-time commentary on his blog.
Via CalPundit
17 - Rob
http://www.right-thinking.com/comments.php?id=P1118_0_1_0
There is also a link to OxBlog's take on the pictures, if you care to look it over.
THe BBC link didn't work.
It really upsets you all that most networks used close-ups to get the drama of the statue falling as is common. How come you haven't written an article about CNN's dereliction of journalistic duty?
18 - rw@w.com
Wow, some people will try anything to sway opinion.
So what if the US went in and toppled every statue around and put American flags on them while doing so? Does that then make Iraqi civilians somehow compelled to then start throwing garbage at the statues, break them to pieces, hit them with shoes, then drag the heads around?
Gee wiz. Isn't it tragic to be so wrong that you have to try to nitpick every detail of every situation that doesn't go the way you were so sure it would? I bet you think that US troops gave each person $50 to take part.
I'm sure in your neighborhood there would be many thousands of people out in the streets immediately after a direct military action when the outcome could not yet have been determined.
With the "journalists" of the BBC, Al Jizzeara, and CNN repeating to anyone who could hear them the same Saddam propaganda as they've been hearing for 20 years, it's amazing there was even one person brave enough to walk out in the streets and dismantle that statue.
The fact that this happened at all is simply amazing. And it is great.
19 - Brian Flemming
rw,
You wrote:
"Isn't it tragic to be so wrong that you have to try to nitpick every detail of every situation that doesn't go the way you were so sure it would?"
Who are you talking about/to? Who was "so wrong"? About what?
The main point of the article, which you do not address, was that
a) There is zero evidence of a connection between Saddam and 9-11. The CIA is even deeply skeptical about a serious connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda at all. And...
b) A majority of Americans nonetheless believes that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11 and "some" or "all" of the hijackers were from Iraq (none were). And...
c) Even someone at a high level at the Pentagon believed so strongly in a connection of some kind between the Iraq war and 9-11 that he sent that particular flag--not just any flag--to Baghdad with the Marines.
And any rational outside observer would look at these facts and say, The U.S. is disturbed.
Do you disagree?
20 - SlackMFer
well, you (inmartin) misunderstood me again (big surprise). i said you MIGHT AS WELL sit at home and "debate" with no one seeing as you are fixed in your ways. so to say "what am i doing right now" is pretty pointless since i said might as well. also, i'm not at home, fyi, i can't afford a computer right now, so whenever i'm on here i'm at school or work. but i digress.
my point is such (which you still haven't addressed) it doesn't matter whether it was premeditated or not (which you haven't PROVEN that it was [it takes more than saying something is proven for it to be so])that still doesn't point out some "disturbed" state of the US. it wasn't neccessarily about revenge. (side note, i think that the al quada camps they found in iraq DID prove that if not supporting the group, saddam was at least allowing it [and he DID support terrorist against isreal, what's the diff?]) personally i think that that flag was a simbol of everything america stands for. i don't know about you, but i think that 9/11 was america's finest hour. it showed what the US is all about. we didn't collapse because of it, we came together. people died to try to save lives (instead of dying to take lives like our enemies). that flag is about the strength of freedom and democracy.
however, because you don't like bush and didn't agree with the war you have to pick these points (which ARE reletively small) to pieces to make it look like you were right (which you were very far from). you say that these facts shouldn't be hidden??? when did i ever say that they should??? all i said was that it's very obvious that you get a sick pleasure out of things going wrong in iraq because you'd rather be right. bringing up points and discussing them is different than focusing on only the downside just because you're anti-bush (or anti-american).
you say that i am a name-caller. well, i don't know what calling me ignorant and willingly un-informed, which is implied by telling me to read a newspaper, is. i don't only watch fox news. i'm not even "right-wing." i like to think independently rather than follow blindly one side or the other and label myself. by the by, i read the washington post (which is pretty LEFT leaning) everyday. i'm sure i meant to say more, but that's all i can remember now.
[note: if this seems a little disjointed, i'm sorry, but, like i said, i'm at work, so i'v had to write this off and on and it's hard to keep a train of thought]