"I think it is going to bring a little piece of lower Manhattan . . . to marines who have never been here."

November 27, 2001 2:35 PM

"I think it is going to bring a little piece of lower Manhattan . . . to marines who have never been here." A flag from Ground Zero is set to fly over the Marine bridgehead outside Kandahar, inscribed with the names of NYPD victims and those who died on the Cole, and messages from relatives and recovery workers. The symbolic value, of course, is massive, but the inscribed sentiment reflects something of the spectrum of American opinion: can "Be safe and do us proud" stand easily alongside "Unleash hell, boys"?
posted by holgate (17 comments total)

[C]an "Be safe and do us proud" stand easily alongside "Unleash hell, boys"?

Why not?
posted by KLAX at 2:47 PM on November 27, 2001

Yes, they certainly can. We are a nation of many voices, which in theory are supposed to get along, and the fact that they stand alongside each other on our flag, I think, is a perfect way of embodying that.
posted by jammer at 3:04 PM on November 27, 2001

Why not?

I would be more proud of our armed forces if they extracted Al Qaeda without any bloodshed than if they destroyed Kandahar and everyone in it. (Where I stand with regard to less extreme scenarios I don't know yet.) But some Americans seem to have adopted a more belligerent stance, supporting war for "payback" 's sake, as expressed on the flag described in the article, and they would presumably prefer a more dramatic close to Bin Laden et al.'s lives.

I don't think that would be something to be proud of, and I don't think the sentiment supporting it belongs mixed in with the sentiments lamenting the loss of life at the WTC.
posted by mattpfeff at 3:14 PM on November 27, 2001

I would be more proud of our armed forces if they extracted Al Qaeda without any bloodshed than if they destroyed Kandahar and everyone in it.

Last I checked Al Qieda set the rules. And taking cover among civilians is SOP in the middle east, Allah akhbar.
posted by BentPenguin at 3:42 PM on November 27, 2001

I would be more proud of our armed forces if they extracted Al Qaeda without any bloodshed...

What color is the sky in your world?
posted by David Dark at 3:59 PM on November 27, 2001

lemme get this straight, I should say I would be proud if they destroyed Kandahar and everyone in it?

I was comparing two alternatives, neither of which is very likely. Nowhere in there did I say I think that's what they should do, or that it's what I expect -- just how I would feel about it in the (unlikely) event it happened. I think how I feel might be distinct from how the people who wrote "pay-back time" on the flag apparently feel about what the American military should do to make them "proud".

Sheesh.
posted by mattpfeff at 4:14 PM on November 27, 2001

Title 36 of the United States Code, Chapter 10, Section 176, SubSection g: "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."
posted by retrofut at 4:29 PM on November 27, 2001

Hold up that flag the next time some a-hole Congressman speaks of flag desecration being an objective kind of thing.

I think The Flag From New York is a great gesture.

Nothing in Afghanistan is going to be neat, sterile, casualty or death-free. Lets just hope our military makes a big enough spash to scare off the next generation of OBLs.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:33 PM on November 27, 2001

This isn't meant as a swipe at Holgate, but...can't we ditch the "Ground Zero" stuff? It's a little too video game for me. I suggest we call it "The World Trade Center," because it was and still is the World Trade Center. Calling it 'Ground Zero" seems very similar to editing the towers out of old movies and TV shows.
posted by Doug at 6:02 PM on November 27, 2001

Doug, in this context, it's Ground Zero.

You're right that the choice of that name is a small psychological edit, but I don't think it has the motivation you suggest.

And it's pretty clear that despite slurs the American forces in the theater are perfectly capable of distinguishing friend from foe, even though they all wear funny hats. Now it's just a matter of the forces in Kandahar deciding whether they're friend, foe, or fuckers. They have grenade-toting suicide bombers in their surrender parties, after all. We, on the other hand, have professional soldiers.
posted by dhartung at 7:47 PM on November 27, 2001

If you check the link, you'll see that "Ground Zero" was the term used by the NYPD/Marines liaison officer in the original quote: I ellipsed it to avoid repetition in the post. Personally, I regard the "unleash hell" comments with the same amount of worry as the undisguised itching in certain US circles to "get Saddam while we're on a roll here". And while I certainly don't doubt the professionalism of the US armed forces, I have somewhat less confidence in the CIA operatives working alongside them.

(dhartung: I note, in passing, that Amnesty has requested an inquiry into the bloodbath in the fort outside Mazar. A small amount of hell appears to have been unleashed there, and even the US journalists on the scene appear to acknowledge the murkiness surrounding those events. Were the Taliban stitched up by their deserting mullah commander? It appears very likely.)

posted by holgate at 8:47 PM on November 27, 2001

Autographed flags, bombs inscribed with pithy humour, overwrought military operations monikers - why subtly sabotage a war whose most important long-term consequence may very well be its enduring influence on local perception? And doesn't this flag thing sort of carelessly induct American civilians into the war - doesn't it yank them into a semi-participatory status which might damage arguments for their innocence based on their uninvolved naivete - doesn't it seem to confirm a favorite terrorist rationale, i.e., that American civilians are military accomplices, accessories to policy, and thus, deserving targets?

Maybe not...but I keep thinking about the notes I'd be taking were I a Taliban Judas, and the half-true lies I could use to recruit volunteers for The Next Big Thing.

John-the-wayne matinee gestures, no matter how satisfying, should be considered carefully, in light of all of the darknesses.
posted by Opus Dark at 2:58 AM on November 28, 2001

And all of this forgets that the people making the gestures are human beings ... and most human beings aren't even half as fully self-aware and thoughtful as all us MeFis.

Here's another thought - bombs with pithy humor inscribed on the side are probably also a defense mechanism. As long as you keep yourself from thinking about the fact that you are destroying human lives, you don't suffer all the negative aspects of that knowledge (nightmares, guilt, depression, PST, etc, etc, etc.).

Whether this is a good thing or not depends on whether you accept the argument that use of force to accomplish objectives is a legitimate activity for national governments.
posted by Irontom at 6:28 AM on November 28, 2001

Grafitti on the Flag--even it's "God Bless America"--is a no-no. What were they thinking?
posted by StOne at 7:45 AM on November 28, 2001

The only constitutionally acceptable way to write on a flag is with lighter fluid and a match.
posted by David Dark at 12:38 AM on November 29, 2001

The only constitutionally acceptable way to write on a flag is with lighter fluid and a match.

Put don't press too hard, or the match will break.
posted by mattpfeff at 7:41 AM on November 29, 2001

Maybe not...but I keep thinking about the notes I'd be taking were I a Taliban Judas, and the half-true lies I could use to recruit volunteers for The Next Big Thing.

The culture is going down on itself! The culture is going down on itself!

(Obscure movie reference goes right over everyone's head)
posted by zeb vance at 6:01 PM on November 29, 2001