BBC reports:

The spiral minaret, in the town of Samarra, is more than 1,000 years old.

Police say insurgents blew up the top section of the 52m (162ft) Malwiya tower, which had been used by US soldiers as a lookout position.

That's right -- the insurgents attacked a holy site and damaged it. What is the reaction?

A senior government official told the BBC the Americans should have ensured it was properly protected.

Iraqi antiquities officials have asked for compensation after the walls of an ancient palace in Samarra occupied by the Americans were cracked.

Coalition troops have been heavily criticised for earlier damage done to the ancient site of Babylon which was taken over as a military base.

That's right. Iraqi "insurgents" destroy things and the US is blamed.

Read the whole thing here.

Omar at Iraq the Model has something to say on the subject. He writes:

I am wondering here, why are historic sites like this minaret still being used for military purposes?

Shouldn't the concerned Iraqi institutions do their job in taking care of these sites which constitute the historic fortune of this country? Or are we going to keep weeping and whining after each similar incident without doing anything to stop such saddening incident from happening again?

Read the whole thing here.

David over at Cronaca [one of the best blogs on the net -- check it out regularly] puts the whole thing into perspective. He asks:

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... 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.

He goes on to cite disapprovingly denunciations from a number of scholars to the effect that the US bears responsibility for the destruction of antiquities and then quotes James Davila who warns:

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.

And he also quotes Alexander Joffee who depicts the arguments raised by scholars against US occupation of the minaret as "ranging from the legalistic to the sophomoric and ultimately to outright sympathy with fascists and sadists...."

He concludes that there are no easy choices and that the knee-jerk criticism of American troops by scholars discredits the field of archaeology.

Read the whole thing here and also here.

I should also point out that US forces abandoned their positions on the tower two weeks before it was attacked.