Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
05.01.2008 8:00 pm

Are Lake Saint Louis officials doing right by changing memorial plaques?

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

A new veterans’ memorial park in Lake Saint Louis is just opening — but opening to controversy. Apparently, part of the planning for Veterans’ Memorial Park included memorial plaques that summarize the wars that the United States has been part of.

Those plaques include sections for “mistakes” and “consequences.” Our story points out:

For example, the “mistakes” portion of the plaque entitled “Global War on Terror, 1997—Present” read, in part: “As of 2007, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars failed to enable viable governments leading to continued guerrilla fighting. The Iraqi Army was quickly crushed but the U.S. disbanded the Iraqi Army and removed civilian government employees belonging to the ruling political party leaving no one to help maintain security or run the country, which was contrary to policy used after WWII in Germany and Japan.”

Under “consequences,” it said: “U.S. was accused of a Crusade against Muslims which caused riots all over the Muslim world. Pakistan became an opportunistic ally of the U.S. in its Afghanistan war. U.S. lost prestige around the world.”

Our story also says, “Ralph Barrale, an Army veteran of World War II, said the text was a collaborative effort among some members of the volunteer committee of veterans. He said he was not offended by the plaques but added the park is not meant to cause controversy.” The committee agreed to remove the plaques and rework the text.

The park will be dedicated May 17. Should the city make changes in the plaques or is the additional text appropriate for a veterans’ memorial?

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
35 comments

Comments are closed.

I think anytime one tries to explain or describe history, someone else will accuse bias. This is more true in current history/curent events. Why can’t they just remain neutral, say ‘War of 1812, 1812-1814″ and leave it at that? If someone visits the memorial and is not familiar with a certain conflict, perhaps they should make a trip to the library right after the visit to the park.

— suzyjax
8:14 am May 2nd, 2008

It would be nice to know what the other members of the memorial committee thought about this. A memorial to those who gave their all is not the place for psuedo-intellectual moralizing. I’d have told Mr Baralle to take his idea and shove it. Kudos to the city leadership for tearing those plaques out.

— Go_Fish
8:35 am May 2nd, 2008

I think a park for Veterans should honor their service, not point out the strategic mistakes that the Generals and/or politicians made. Put it in a book somewhere, but not on display in a civic park. We all know that even our best leaders have made mistakes…we don’t need reminders. I think you pat the veteran on the back for at least serving and doing his or her best to try and make the world and our country a safer and better place.

— moe
8:41 am May 2nd, 2008

They need to go to the Veterans Memorial in O’Fallon. It is a simple piece of work that only honors veterans. That should be the objective. Whatever anyone could put on a plaque can only be their opinion or the opinion of several. We don’t need an opinion from anyone to honor the people that serve in our military. Crush the plaques.

— Tom
8:46 am May 2nd, 2008

As a veteran of Vietnam, who came back to this country only to be spat upon and labeled “baby killers” by the likes of John Kerry during his bogus Winter Soldier “investigations”, I think that one could accurately predict the political orientation of the leaders of the veterans group that just had to make their personal views part of the memorial. Shame on them for injecting their partisan opinions ahead of the meaning of the memorial. You can tell that it was partisanship by the fact that they folded as soon as news of their slanted views became widespread.

— Roy Wood
9:00 am May 2nd, 2008

The truth hurts.

— larry
9:18 am May 2nd, 2008

I’m with Anonaman [#8]. Some veterans put some plaques up, some other veterans didn’t like them, the plaques are being replaced. This problem has been already been resolved amicably. I don’t believe there was any intent to offend or use this memorial as a political platform. No need to throw anyone under the bus over it.

— b
9:23 am May 2nd, 2008

As a resident of LSL, I am embarrased by the whole situation. Mistakes being pointed out, be they fact or political fodder, has no place in a Veteran’s memorial. Even liberal democrats are quick to point out that soldiers fighing in the current conflict deserve respect. You don’t have to respect the war but should show respect to the warrior. I think that was the purpose of this memorial and it should be left at that.

— LSL Resident
9:29 am May 2nd, 2008

The plaques should most definitely be replaced.

Memorials of that sort exist for one reason and one reason only: To honor those who served.

Period. Nothing else.

They are not to be an expression of opinion about the success of the operation or the worthiness of the cause. Statements of that sort, both pro and con, belong elsewhere.

— 7dez7
10:27 am May 2nd, 2008

There’s nothing OFFENSIVE about these plaques - they are definitely inappropriate for a veterans memorial, though. It’s just off topic.

— Christian
10:53 am May 2nd, 2008

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 » Show All