Is Al-Sahhaf an Unwitting Turncoat?He did in his brother-in-law. Did he do in Saddam?
Posted Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 6:27 PM ET
The press can't get enough of Mohammed Saeed "God is grilling their stomachs in hell" al-Sahhaf, Iraq's magical-realist minister of information, who today, according to Agence France Presse, called on the United States to "surrender or be burned in their tanks." This morning brought al-Sahhaf profiles by Reuters and the Associated Press and al-Sahhaf columns by Dale McFeatters of Scripps Howard and Ashraf Khalil of the San Francisco Chronicle. The Chicago Tribune had two al-Sahhaf pieces (click here for a feature by Hugh Dellios, here for a commentary by Leonard Pitts). We learned that al-Sahhaf is a Shiite (out of favor in this regime, even though Shiites are in the majority), that he came to power by ratting out his brother-in-law, and that, on one documented occasion, he actually got it right while the U.S. Central Command got it wrong. Can a Washington Post "Style" section piece and a New Yorker "Talk of the Town" essay be far behind? (For Chatterbox's own previous contribution—a canvass of public-relations professionals on al-Sahhaf's technique—click here.)
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponIn the April 8 New York Times, Bernard Weinraub relates what may be the reason (or a reason) for al-Sahhaf's fanciful assertions that Iraq is on the verge of victory. Saddam's son Qusai may actually think they're true! Weinraub describes an extreme example of nobody wanting give the boss bad news:
The American officials who monitor the conversations of the Iraqi military and listen to the command-and-control systems said that Iraqi generals speaking to Qusay over satellite phones and other communications devices generally talk about high American casualties and defeats of the allied forces in various cities.
They have also claimed, the officials said, that American forces were turned back at the international airport on the edge of Baghdad.
"He's being told by his cronies, by military officers, by political appointees, they have control of the airport," said one American officer who has listened to the transmissions. "They say, `We're ready, we're fighting, we're moving to attack.' He's being told lies."
Meanwhile, according to one report—Chatterbox found it only in the London Evening Standard, and, mystifyingly, it isn't on its Web page—al-Sahhaf may have helped the United States inadvertently in pinpointing the location of Saddam and his sons for yesterday's missile strike:
Overnight intercepts suggest that the information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, could be the key to how Saddam was found. His movements could have been tracked by special forces—and they may even have been able to flick a microdot tracking device on to his Ba'ath party uniform.
Chatterbox is a sucker for microdots, a common leitmotif in spy thrillers during Chatterbox's youth. Is the Evening Standard account credible? No less so than al-Sahhaf's briefings.
E-mail Timothy Noah at .
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
What Ever Happened to Hood Ornaments?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Remarks from the Fray:
Lots of folks seem to be having loads of fun laughing at, staring dumbfoundedly on, and speculating on the mental state of, the Iraqi Minister of Information, Mohammed Al-Sahhaf (colloquially known as "Baghdad Bob"). While the amusement is understandable, the amazement isn't. When you are the spokesman for a totalitarian regime, your goal is not credibility through honesty, but rather credibility through fear--to convince your government's citizens that it is in the interests of their personal safety and security to believe your statements absolutely (or at least to be seen to do so). Baghdad Bob has never been worried about looking stupid or crazy in front of his people, as long as they don't dare say so. In fact, a totalitarian regime actually gains strength by being perceived as powerful and ruthless enough to motivate its citizens to say the most absurd things in its support. Even in its current dire state, the regime has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by vigorously asserting Al-Sahhaf's nonsense. After all, he had no credibility whatsoever to lose among those who laugh at him now. And if even a handful of people still believe him--or more importantly, believe the underlying message that the regime is not dead, could survive, and will come looking for anyone who did not behave as though they believed him--those people will cooperate with the forces of the regime, rather than the coalition, and he will thus have increased his own chances of survival, however slightly. Those who are baffled by his ludicrous bombast are obviously very lucky to have been so sheltered from totalitarianism that its workings are incomprehensibly alien to them. But the less fortunate understand all too well the terrible threat behind the propagandist's clownish lies, and recognize that Baghdad Bob's brand of humor is not absurdist, but rather very, very dark.
--Dan_Simon
(To reply, click here)
There are about a dozen twisted characters from my rolodex who love this guy. "Credibility problem," Chatterbox? Not a bit. Saeed al-Sahaaf's credibility comes not from factual accuracy (God forbid!) but from his marvelous reliability and creativity as an improv actor who knows the show is closing in a couple of days. Our favorite quote: "My feeling is -- as usual - that they will all be slaughtered." It's the "as usual" that's the killer.
--JimmytheCelt
(To reply, click here)
(4/8)