Guarding The Tomb Of The Unknowns
September 14, 2005 9:56 AM Subscribe
The Sentinel's Creed: "My dedication to this sacred duty is total and whole-hearted. In the responsibility bestowed on me never will I falter. And with dignity and perseverance my standard will remain perfection. Through the years of diligence and praise and the discomfort of the elements, I will walk my tour in humble reverence to the best of my ability. It is he who commands the respect I protect, his bravery that made us so proud. Surrounded by well meaning crowds by day, alone in the thoughtful peace of night, this soldier will in honored glory rest under my eternal vigilance."
Geeeeez. You have to admire the special breed of sado-masochist that would aspire to such adherence to ritual and show, eh? If only such rigors were required for other important jobs. Like, say, FEMA Director or President.
posted by spock at 10:30 AM on September 14, 2005
posted by spock at 10:30 AM on September 14, 2005
I was especially impressed by the protocols they have to follow while they're in their quarters. [Last link, about halfway down.] Not touching or acknowledging anything with the badge on it if they haven't earned it themselves — that's heavy.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:43 AM on September 14, 2005
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:43 AM on September 14, 2005
"You have to admire the special breed of sado-masochist that would aspire to such adherence to ritual and show, eh?"
I remember a story about these guys standing their posts in hurricane winds. You don't do that for a meaningless act.
This ritual and show is what we do in funerals, in marriage, in the birth of our children. That they are ritual does not mean they are without meaning or devoid of purpose.
The tomb represents the honored dead. Those who gave their lives in service to us (if you're an American). It is even more poignant that the remains entombed there could be anyone. It could be your brother, your husband, whoever's body was not recovered. As such it represents them all. It is a grave for all of those without a grave. It is a place for grieving for the living who have no grave to mark those they have lost. Since it represents such a multitude of honored dead, very special rituals are adopted in keeping with the depth of the sacrifice from the servicemembers and their families and the solemnity of their sorrow.
Perhaps if one is a nihilist and doesn't give a shit about anything this might appear as empty trappings, to me it speaks volumes about the honored dead. It would be a privilege to many, myself included and I am no masochist, to do this honor to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. To those of us who have served it reminds us of our fallen brothers in arms. It reminds us that it could have been any one of us under the ground. It reminds us we are lucky to be alive and in many cases are because of our fellows' sacrifice.
As such, it is treated as both highest duty and greatest privilege. It honors their death as it honors the lives they gave and the ones they saved by sacrificing their own.We cannot give them back their lives, but we can revere their deaths with dignity and honor their sacrifice with respect.
Hopefully that's clear.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:12 PM on September 14, 2005
I remember a story about these guys standing their posts in hurricane winds. You don't do that for a meaningless act.
This ritual and show is what we do in funerals, in marriage, in the birth of our children. That they are ritual does not mean they are without meaning or devoid of purpose.
The tomb represents the honored dead. Those who gave their lives in service to us (if you're an American). It is even more poignant that the remains entombed there could be anyone. It could be your brother, your husband, whoever's body was not recovered. As such it represents them all. It is a grave for all of those without a grave. It is a place for grieving for the living who have no grave to mark those they have lost. Since it represents such a multitude of honored dead, very special rituals are adopted in keeping with the depth of the sacrifice from the servicemembers and their families and the solemnity of their sorrow.
Perhaps if one is a nihilist and doesn't give a shit about anything this might appear as empty trappings, to me it speaks volumes about the honored dead. It would be a privilege to many, myself included and I am no masochist, to do this honor to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. To those of us who have served it reminds us of our fallen brothers in arms. It reminds us that it could have been any one of us under the ground. It reminds us we are lucky to be alive and in many cases are because of our fellows' sacrifice.
As such, it is treated as both highest duty and greatest privilege. It honors their death as it honors the lives they gave and the ones they saved by sacrificing their own.We cannot give them back their lives, but we can revere their deaths with dignity and honor their sacrifice with respect.
Hopefully that's clear.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:12 PM on September 14, 2005
If war commemoration focused primarily on the unarmed victims of conflict and asked us to grieve at the grave of the unknown civilian then, perhaps, I'd be less critical of such sacralisation of men who, in the final judgement, died trying to kill other men.
And if, being hypothetical, I was a soldier so obliterated by combat as to be unidentifiable, I know I would not be happy that my corpse was an integral part of a culture that acclimatizes and indoctrinates the next generation of young men to risk following in my tragic footsteps. And that's what this is; an incredibly emotive way of basically saying, 'it's worth it'.
If there were a few open casks, a pile of shattered skulls, some pickled, amputated limbs - not just a prettified marble monument and its robotic sentinels - I might think it served a public service.
posted by pots at 4:32 PM on September 14, 2005
And if, being hypothetical, I was a soldier so obliterated by combat as to be unidentifiable, I know I would not be happy that my corpse was an integral part of a culture that acclimatizes and indoctrinates the next generation of young men to risk following in my tragic footsteps. And that's what this is; an incredibly emotive way of basically saying, 'it's worth it'.
If there were a few open casks, a pile of shattered skulls, some pickled, amputated limbs - not just a prettified marble monument and its robotic sentinels - I might think it served a public service.
posted by pots at 4:32 PM on September 14, 2005
And yet it is vital to the Republic that there are those that serve it, even at the cost of their own lives, who live and die to uphold the ideal. I'm not saying that the armed forces are the only way to do so, the only way to render service to the nation of course, but it is a way that is needed. We honor those who would do this, who would sacrifice their lives for this nation.
As the final link says: “Some might wonder why we put such effort into this instead of something that shows a product,” Roe said. “But this is our product. What we do at the tomb has a vital place in a democracy.
Because democracies honor those who serve.
“We don't simply use people up, and then throw them away.”
Whether we always as a country stay true to the idea or not does not mean that we should not honor the ideal and those that gave their lives to make it flesh.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:43 PM on September 14, 2005
As the final link says: “Some might wonder why we put such effort into this instead of something that shows a product,” Roe said. “But this is our product. What we do at the tomb has a vital place in a democracy.
Because democracies honor those who serve.
“We don't simply use people up, and then throw them away.”
Whether we always as a country stay true to the idea or not does not mean that we should not honor the ideal and those that gave their lives to make it flesh.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:43 PM on September 14, 2005
I have friends that serve in the most elite U.S. units - and my sister recently returned from a stint in Iraq as an Army truck driver. Unless you are a complete moron (and there are many in the armed services), any idea that you are fighting for something other than the lives of your comrades is quickly erased. Of course, many of the SEALs and such just fucking like it. That being said, the tomb of the unknown soldier is interesting - I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but they also strike your name from their list of graduates if you do anything in your lifetime that is considered dishonorable.
"Whether we always as a country stay true to the idea or not does not mean that we should not honor the ideal and those that gave their lives to make it flesh."
The last of that happened about 140 years ago.
posted by rotifer at 5:21 PM on September 14, 2005
"Whether we always as a country stay true to the idea or not does not mean that we should not honor the ideal and those that gave their lives to make it flesh."
The last of that happened about 140 years ago.
posted by rotifer at 5:21 PM on September 14, 2005
This is the kind of thing that the U.S. military does very well. I absolutely have no doubt about the seriousness with which they undertake their mission, just as I believe that the 92Ms treat the bodies of their comrades with the utmost respect.
I just wish that we wouldn't do things -- like start stupid wars and fail to equip our troops properly -- that get Americans killed for no good reason.
posted by Vidiot at 8:55 PM on September 14, 2005
I just wish that we wouldn't do things -- like start stupid wars and fail to equip our troops properly -- that get Americans killed for no good reason.
posted by Vidiot at 8:55 PM on September 14, 2005
If war commemoration focused primarily on the unarmed victims of conflict and asked us to grieve at the grave of the unknown civilian
pots, overlooking the disagreement of opinion you're having here, this is a wonderful idea ... is there anything like this in the world? ... a monument for the innocent killed in war ... all of them in all wars?
there should be one
posted by pyramid termite at 9:17 PM on September 14, 2005
pots, overlooking the disagreement of opinion you're having here, this is a wonderful idea ... is there anything like this in the world? ... a monument for the innocent killed in war ... all of them in all wars?
there should be one
posted by pyramid termite at 9:17 PM on September 14, 2005
While this isn't a monument to the innocent, look at the Verdun Ossuaire . It houses the unidentified remains of 130,000(!) soldiers. Scroll down the page a bit in the second link. It makes an impression.
posted by Carmody'sPrize at 10:41 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by Carmody'sPrize at 10:41 PM on September 14, 2005
first link
posted by Carmody'sPrize at 10:42 PM on September 14, 2005
posted by Carmody'sPrize at 10:42 PM on September 14, 2005
is there anything like this in the world? ... a monument for the innocent killed in war ... all of them in all wars?
An interesting question. I thought there must be something like this already.
There are peace groups which have been seeking such a civilian memorial at Arlington.
But the closest thing I could find was the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. There's also the International Red Cross Museum, but it's more about institutional history. There's the Caen Memorial Museum, which has moved from being a soldiers' memorial to a museum of Nobel Peace Prize winners. London has the Peace Pagoda. There are individual memorials to peacemakers like Dag Hammarskjold.
But no, there's nothing with that mission, only other types of institutions which have taken on a broader meaning or context. I found this interesting article, though.
Back on topic (and surely there are those who would object we changed the subject so): One of the Old Guard companies was activated for Iraq duty. And last year, a soldier who had been approved for the Old Guard (but hadn't earned his badge, apparently) was killed.
Incidentally, the Old Guard has another duty: At Dover AFB, they are the soldiers who escort the caskets of soldiers killed in action. Why we can't see that ...
posted by dhartung at 11:53 PM on September 14, 2005
An interesting question. I thought there must be something like this already.
There are peace groups which have been seeking such a civilian memorial at Arlington.
But the closest thing I could find was the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. There's also the International Red Cross Museum, but it's more about institutional history. There's the Caen Memorial Museum, which has moved from being a soldiers' memorial to a museum of Nobel Peace Prize winners. London has the Peace Pagoda. There are individual memorials to peacemakers like Dag Hammarskjold.
But no, there's nothing with that mission, only other types of institutions which have taken on a broader meaning or context. I found this interesting article, though.
Back on topic (and surely there are those who would object we changed the subject so): One of the Old Guard companies was activated for Iraq duty. And last year, a soldier who had been approved for the Old Guard (but hadn't earned his badge, apparently) was killed.
Incidentally, the Old Guard has another duty: At Dover AFB, they are the soldiers who escort the caskets of soldiers killed in action. Why we can't see that ...
posted by dhartung at 11:53 PM on September 14, 2005
I wonder what the soldier does.
When I went there on my 8th grade trip, one of the guards pointed his gun at one of the assholes in our group. My memory is fuzzy but I think the kid decided to stand on the fence/barrier around the structure and make a lot of noise.
posted by exhilaration at 8:10 AM on September 15, 2005
When I went there on my 8th grade trip, one of the guards pointed his gun at one of the assholes in our group. My memory is fuzzy but I think the kid decided to stand on the fence/barrier around the structure and make a lot of noise.
posted by exhilaration at 8:10 AM on September 15, 2005
"I'd be less critical of such sacralisation of men who, in the final judgement, died trying to kill other men... pots at 4:32 PM PST "
Yes, war bad. Point conceded. But given that there is war I'm more than happy to honor my comerades, who died killing the bastards on the other side trying to kill me.
"...any idea that you are fighting for something other than the lives of your comrades is quickly erased."
Echos my sentiments, rotifer. I'm not making the assertion that war as such is morally right. I would happily endorse a monument for civilians.
Simply that such rituals are necessery to ease grief. We have funerals, etc. Why then are these men not deserving of a tomb?
Ah yes, we all spit on them because they were involved in killing. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was only Americans, and these Americans in particular, involved in killing people.
I have a great idea, the next time there is someone pointing a weapon at us, let's explain that violence doesn't solve anything, and that war is bad and wrong and they can't shoot us because we're pacifists.
I grant there are and should be better ways to settle conflict. I wholeheartedly agree that violence should not be the first option. Indeed, philosophically I'm inclined to agree with non-violence as the ultimate principle.
There are men who will seek to do violence. Should we work for a world where it is a minor player, if it exists at all? Yes. Does that change the fact that there are men of violence? No.
I feel right at home under fire rotifer. I'm one of those bastards like Patton who loves it. I love the rush. I love the fact that some son of a bitch is doing his damnedest to try and kill me and can't. I love the mastery of myself and my weapon.
So, would you rather have me believing in non-violence, serving a democracy, and eliminating other bastards like me or would you rather have me under some warlord somewhere doing my best to kill as many of you folks as I can who won't pick up a weapon? So the answer is what, disband the military? Perhaps before the nuclear age I might have agreed with eliminating a standing army.
Today, it's not a response sort of thing. You fire first. You fight by ambush. It's not Rambo vs. enemy du jour who went to the George Lucas Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy. And it's not like hand to hand. You don't have the luxury of waiting until your enemy commits to initiate combat.
I've never understood how all this "compassion" is withheld from soldiers and their familes yet given to - whomever.
What is a bad man but a good man's work?
What is a good man but a bad man's teacher?
Perhaps this is too complex , but I can despise war and still honor the warrior. I can agree to the flaws in leadership and even to the men who serve, but still understand the motives for their service. I can do honor to those motives without honoring the institution of war or it's servitors. I can in fact hate those who send men to war precisely because it results in a need for rituals like this. This is the method we have agreed upon to honor these men and remember that there are in fact shattered remains inside that tomb. We do not display that because we respect them.
Any of that clear?
If not then here: perhaps we should display grandma's lungs hanging out of her chest to remind us there still isn't a cure for lung cancer. Perhaps if a relative of yours, your son or daughter let's say, dies in a car accident, we can display their mangled corpse in front of a High School driver's ed class to remind kids not to drive fast. I'm sure you would feel comforted even though it's your child being exploited, that maybe other kids will get the message.
This method is more dignified. And I would argue one can take it as anti-war. I certainly do.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:37 AM on September 15, 2005
Yes, war bad. Point conceded. But given that there is war I'm more than happy to honor my comerades, who died killing the bastards on the other side trying to kill me.
"...any idea that you are fighting for something other than the lives of your comrades is quickly erased."
Echos my sentiments, rotifer. I'm not making the assertion that war as such is morally right. I would happily endorse a monument for civilians.
Simply that such rituals are necessery to ease grief. We have funerals, etc. Why then are these men not deserving of a tomb?
Ah yes, we all spit on them because they were involved in killing. I'm sorry, I didn't realize it was only Americans, and these Americans in particular, involved in killing people.
I have a great idea, the next time there is someone pointing a weapon at us, let's explain that violence doesn't solve anything, and that war is bad and wrong and they can't shoot us because we're pacifists.
I grant there are and should be better ways to settle conflict. I wholeheartedly agree that violence should not be the first option. Indeed, philosophically I'm inclined to agree with non-violence as the ultimate principle.
There are men who will seek to do violence. Should we work for a world where it is a minor player, if it exists at all? Yes. Does that change the fact that there are men of violence? No.
I feel right at home under fire rotifer. I'm one of those bastards like Patton who loves it. I love the rush. I love the fact that some son of a bitch is doing his damnedest to try and kill me and can't. I love the mastery of myself and my weapon.
So, would you rather have me believing in non-violence, serving a democracy, and eliminating other bastards like me or would you rather have me under some warlord somewhere doing my best to kill as many of you folks as I can who won't pick up a weapon? So the answer is what, disband the military? Perhaps before the nuclear age I might have agreed with eliminating a standing army.
Today, it's not a response sort of thing. You fire first. You fight by ambush. It's not Rambo vs. enemy du jour who went to the George Lucas Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy. And it's not like hand to hand. You don't have the luxury of waiting until your enemy commits to initiate combat.
I've never understood how all this "compassion" is withheld from soldiers and their familes yet given to - whomever.
What is a bad man but a good man's work?
What is a good man but a bad man's teacher?
Perhaps this is too complex , but I can despise war and still honor the warrior. I can agree to the flaws in leadership and even to the men who serve, but still understand the motives for their service. I can do honor to those motives without honoring the institution of war or it's servitors. I can in fact hate those who send men to war precisely because it results in a need for rituals like this. This is the method we have agreed upon to honor these men and remember that there are in fact shattered remains inside that tomb. We do not display that because we respect them.
Any of that clear?
If not then here: perhaps we should display grandma's lungs hanging out of her chest to remind us there still isn't a cure for lung cancer. Perhaps if a relative of yours, your son or daughter let's say, dies in a car accident, we can display their mangled corpse in front of a High School driver's ed class to remind kids not to drive fast. I'm sure you would feel comforted even though it's your child being exploited, that maybe other kids will get the message.
This method is more dignified. And I would argue one can take it as anti-war. I certainly do.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:37 AM on September 15, 2005
Well said, Smedleyman.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:57 PM on September 15, 2005
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:57 PM on September 15, 2005
« Older I don't think anybody could have predicted that... | LibraryThing: Like Flickr for your books. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I wonder what the soldier does.
posted by driveler at 10:21 AM on September 14, 2005