I think in this case, since it’s a memorial of so many people who were killed in an act of genocide, a memorial that were too small might be underwhelming or even inappropriate. I may be a bit naive on this one, but all indications are that the local government is hoping to drive tourism to a town that otherwise nobody would have reason to visit.

The interior is quite touching honestly and the museum candidly shows the violence that took place in 1988. Personally I felt that it was a memorial designed for the outside – which is fitting considering how repressed information about the events there were at the time.

I think its quite a sensitive topic for developing economies to spend their budgets. However, building such structures like bridges, museums, libraries, temples, etc. have a lot of intangible value – for example the residents “feel good” about their city, get a place to relax and wind down, and then a small commercial economy kicks off (which helps in the long run as you said). These benefits cannot be measured and there will always be critics who say its a waste of money.

I look at these places like an investment; assuming travel to northern Iraq takes off, visitors to this memorial can not only be educated about what happened in Halabja, but also fund the town for many years to come. (Ideally, of course.)

This one is certainly in the minority of modern sites I’d say. There aren’t too many in Iraq just yet.