Almost a year and a half ago, I did a post advocating the awarding of Medals of Honor to the passengers of Flight #93.
Now that the movie United 93 is set to be released April 28, I think it is time once again to propose that those brave men and women who became our very first warriors in the War on Terror be given the highest decoration that can be given to an American citizen.
The criteria for awarding the Medal of Honor can be found here. The eligibility requirements are pretty straightforward. One of three conditions must be met:
a.) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States;
b.) while engaged in military operations involving an opposing foreign force; or,
c.) while serving with friendly forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
The passengers of Flight #93 meet one of those criteria. Al Qaeda is certainly “an enemy of the United States” and by storming the cockpit, our people certainly “engaged in an action” against that enemy.
What always struck me about the story was that these people charged that cockpit knowing full well that with the pilots dead, there was no one else on board who knew anything about flying a jet. Even if they had succeeded in breaking into the cockpit and overcoming the hijackers, the chances were next to zero that they would survive. This is the kind of selflessness and willingness to sacrifice one’s life that you see on a battlefield when someone falls on a grenade to save their comrades or charges a machine gun nest to give his unit a chance to retreat.
I understand the problem with giving the Medal of Honor to civilians. And giving it to all the passengers even though some did not participate in the action would also be problematic. Then there is the real issue of fairness; if you are going to give a Medal of Honor to the passengers of Flight #93, why not the passengers of the other ill-fated jets not to mention honoring the otherworldly courage shown by deceased firemen and policemen who died in the Towers.
All of this is true. But in the end, the passengers of Flight #93 made a profound statement to the world and especially to our enemies; Americans will not go quietly, that there is a cost to attacking us. They were the American counterpart to that brave Italian Fabrizio Quattrocchi who shouted at his al Qaeda executioners before he died “Now I’ll show you how an Italian dies…”
It is not my intention to cheapen this award by advocating that we give it to so many. Nor is it my intent to offend current Medal of Honor winners who may have a much different opinion than mine regarding the efficacy of giving this award to civilians. And I understand that the Congressional Gold Medal was created specifically as a civilian counterpart to the military’s Medal of Honor.
Despite all, I think it is long past time that some significant acknowledgement of the sacrifice of the passengers on Flight #93 be made. History demands it. And the more than 3,000 people who perished that day would, I believe, demand it as well.
UPDATE
MacRanger has a superior post about the movie and why it’s important to remember Flight #93 and 9/11. Must read.
Also, here’s my American Thinker piece today on the film United 93 and how Hollywood is uniquely suited to put 9/11 into a cultural context.
I have a feeling this movie will quietly “separate the men from the boys,” as it were. It will make the moonbats more moonbatty, and it will strengthen the resolve of those inclined that way. It will draw a line in the sand. It will do medium boxoffice and medium DVD sales but become kind of a “cult classic” in that it will be a cultural identifier for the group of people who want to win this war and feel surrounded by those who are hostile or indifferent. So it will be a quiet steady propaganda/morale booster for our side.
That’s my prediction – we’ll see if it comes true.
I think momentum for this film is building very quickly. On his show today, Rush Limbaugh mentioned that he had talked to someone who had seen it and said it was extremely well done. I believe there is a real hunger out there for some certitude in this war and seeing a film about 9/11 just might be the cultural touchstone that supplies it. In this respect, I believe that Judith is mistaken in her belief that the film will be a modest success. I think it has a chance to be a real sleeper, a blockbuster not just in red states but blue ones as well.
Ordinary Americans are so far removed from the academic, journalistic, and cultural elites who continue to try and tell them what they should think, how they should feel, and most importantly, what they should watch in films and TV. These Americans – the people who do the working, the playing, the caring, the laughing, the living, and the dying in this country are ready to make a statement. They might not be particularly fond of George Bush. They might be heartily sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington. They could even be losing faith in our ability to win through to absolute victory in Iraq. But they will not abide seeing the country run down by a bunch of cultural thugs who never miss a chance to tell them how stupid they are to be patriotic, God fearing, flag waving, morons.
That gets old after a while.
UPDATE II
Reader Richard Riley makes two salient points in the comments.
The first is that the passengers were, in effect, combatants in a war as much as the farmers were who answered the call to march to the Lexington green and stand up against the British. Further, I believe a “militia” was defined in most states as all adult males over the age of 18. In this respect, the passengers were in fact warriors fighting for America.
The second point Mr. Riley makes is that a civilian has been awarded the CHOH in the past. So while it may be against current rules to give the medal to civilians and allow for a unit type citation, cannot exceptions be made? Will these exceptions cheapen the award?
I am not the one to answer those questions. Perhaps we should ask living MOH winners what they think.
2:17 pm
On giving the Medal of Honor to civilians.
It could be justified given our enemies’ choice of fighting us. For centuries the chosen method of fighting another country or people was to use an officially designated army to attack them. Not anymore with Islamic terrorists.
They choose to attack unsuspecting civilians. In that sense civilians are always at the “front line” of the war. Civilians are just a moment away from being “soldiers” defending their country.
3:58 pm
For several reasons, I don’t feel the CMOH is an adequate award for the brave passengers of flight 93. I think some other award would be more appropriate.
First off, the criteria you list are only the basic criteria. Awarding a CMOH involves a detailed process and investigation before the award is given. Many CMOH applications are reduced to lesser awards for a variety of reasons. The nature of the award is obviously geared toward individual actions. The heroic actions of the passengers on 93 were ultimately a team effort. For example, the CMOH has never been given to an entire crew of a military aicraft or ship or tank. It’s consistently given to individuals who distinguish themselves through their individual action. There is no historical justification or precendent for giving so many CMOH’s for a single action. Doing so would significantly change the nature of the award. Perhaps individuals on the plane are deserving of the award, but the issue of fairness comes into play, as well as the lack of evidence proving the individual accomplishment. Also, the CMOH is an award clearly intended for individuals serving the the armed forces.
I’m not sure any individual awards are appropriate in this case. Firstly, there is little evidence of what each individual on the plan did or did not do on the flight. I think a group award is more appropriate given the circumstances and evidence we have. After all, it was a group effort to stop the hijackers. The flight 93 memorial is one “award” but I do feel that some other, more personal and unique recognition be given to each person on the plane, just not a CMOH.
5:12 pm
They have putzed around on this long enough. Considering that the Capitol building was considered the most likely target for Flight 93, one would think that even the self-absorbed members of Congress would have taken care of this by now.
7:26 pm
An army of Davids: Flight 93
[ RELATED: Rick Moran says the Flight 93 passengers deserve the Medal of Honor, and he makes a good case. ] I cross-posted about the Flight 93 movie at Winds of Change; I said in the comments: I have a…
7:58 pm
I’ve said the same thing for years.
1) The passengers WERE in the military. They were the unorganized Militia, like those at Lexington and Concord. As George Mason, one of the framers of the Constitution said “Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except for a few public officers.”
2) The MOH has been awarded to a civilian in the past. http://www.medalofhonor.com/TheOnlyWoman.htm. Dr. Mary Walker was a civilian, an assistant surgeon with the 52nd Ohio Infantry. She received the award on Jan. 24, 1866, it was withdrawn after WW1 and restored by President Carter on June 11, 1977. Today, it’s on display in the Pentagon’s women’s corridor.
3) Never have so many owed so much to so few. The acts of those on board 93 may well have saved Congress itself.
4) We send soldiers into battle well prepared. They have training, equipment, intelligence and support. Those on board U93 had nothing. They were ordinary men and women. Untrained, unarmed civilians, thrust into battle without notice. They organized, got intelligence and counterattacked with nothing but their fists and fingernails. Because of them, the era of Bin Ladin lasted 90 minutes.
5) The Gold Medal actually has a longer history than the MOH - it was created by Congress for George Washington. But in our time, it’s become a lifetime achievement award for celebreties and public servants. John Wayne, Betty Ford, Danny Thomas and Rosa Parks are all wonderful, deserving people. But they died in their beds.
6) In addition to military honors, I believe that the battle for Flight 93 should be remembered as that – a battle. We name ships for battles (There were 5 USS Lexingtons from 1776 to 1943). I think it is proper that a ship of the line be named for this battle – the first of the 21st century, and the first to be waged against a foreign agressor within the United States.
8:02 pm
The Best Of Tuesday
Right Wing Nut House: IT’S TIME: MEDALS OF HONOR FOR THE PASSENGERS OF FLIGHT #93
Comment: You have to be in the military, Rick.
9:38 pm
The revisions to the rules for awarding the Medal of Honor in 1918 banned group or unit awards of the MOH (which were a commonplace during the Civil War since it was our military’s only medal of valor). It’s possible that specific individuals on Flight 93 could qualify but there’s no way to award the MOH to everybody on the flight without an ex post facto law.
A better solution IMO would be striking a special medal for the purpose.
9:42 pm
I believe one of the Flight 93 passengers was a private pilot with a multi-engine license, but in props rather than jets, and that the passengers intended that he fly the aircraft in the remote possibilty that they secured it without crashing.
I agree with Andrew Said that the MOH is not appropriate here. A Medal of Freedom is, however cheapened that has been for political reasons, and Rick Rescorla, chief of security for Morgan Stanley in the WTC, should get one of those too.
10:35 pm
I’m not sure I understand the vindictiveness behind the snarling comment about separating the moonbats from everyone else or whatever that means. I’m sorry, but are there any Americans—regardless of political persuasion—who aren’t in awe of the bravery of those passengers and the courage they demonstrated?
Only the fringiest of the fringy didn’t support the invasion into Afghanistan in the attempt to capture bin Laden. Where you lose us is Iraq and the utter mess made there.
I have no doubt this will play well in the Heartland. But does no one else think it’s strange that it’s movie audiences in New York, who lived through the horror much closer than the rest of the country, that are balking to this film? Are these muddled moonbats to be derided? Really?
11:42 pm
Bailey? I don’t know where you’re living, but in Los Angeles, there are plenty of people who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. Remember all the breathless punditry that warned that we were unprepared for the bitter Afghan winters? That those mountains had swallowed every army from Alexander the Great to the USSR?
I’ve actually seen the film (early cut) and it’s extraordinary. It’s important that 93 not go down the memory hole. But if I was waiting to see, say, Ice Age 2 and this trailer came up, I’d be upset. The film left me crying for a couple of days. I don’t think I could enjoy a regular movie after being hit with the trailer.
3:49 am
Mr. Holsinger et al:
I realize that the MOH is not given to units or groups. I realize that it is not given to civilians. The point being that this is an extraordinary case and an exception should be made.
It is not my intent, as I said in the post, to cheapen the award. I just can’t think of a more powerful statement to make about how admirable their action was and how their actions speaks to the best things that America is.
2:42 pm
Based on the comments here and Rick’s update, I have to say a few more things, and this is from someone who has served in the US Military for 13 years and continues to do so.
First of all, I do agree that the civilian status should not be a hindrance. However, the fact remains that giving everyone on the plane a MOH is not appropriate because it is an award that is specifically for individuals based on their individual actions. Read the DoD official history, and you’ll see that it was always meant as an award for individual gallantry. Issuing MOH’s to everyone on the plane would fly in the face of this history and dramatically change the nature and meaning of the medal. It would be the equivalent of issuing a Presidential Unit Citation to an individual. I can certainly see, and would definitely support, the idea that certain individuals on the plane are deserving of the medal for their individual actions and leadership, but the evidence we have of what happened on the plane certainly does not support giving it to everyone.
The process for awarding a MOH is very stringent about evidence of action, and for the majority of people on the plane, there is simply no evidence of what they did or didn’t do. You cannot award the highest and most prestigious medal of the greatest nation on earth on the assumption that everyone on the plane participated in the attempted retaking with the honor and gallantry required for a MOH.
More problems arise if we look at the details and delve a little further. Would the flight crew who were murdered at the beginning of the flight be elidgible? Would their families receive a MOH? If not, then that is a slap in the face of those families. If they do get a MOH, then the minimum requirement for receiving it becomes not gallantry or heroism beyond the call of duty, but tragic death in a combat situation. I cannot see how this would not lessen the importance and significance of this award.
Finally, there is the issue of the citations. MOH citations must be very specific and completely accurate. How would each person’s citation be worded? Would they all be the same, even if, as is obvious, each persons actions were not the same. Which medals would be struck? The Army, Navy, or Air Force version?
Now I in no way wish to demean or lessen the significance of what the people on flight 93 did. They acted heroically and forced the terrorists to crash the plane into a field instead of the Capital, White House or CIA. They certainly do deserve special recognition for their actions. But the CMOH is not appropriate in this case for the reasons I’ve already stated. One alternative is for Congress to authorize a group award of similar stature to the CMOH. It could even be based on, or a derivitive, of the current MOH, with it’s own medal design and rules for a written group citation.
Finally, I’d like to close with an actual CMOH citation that I’ve picked at random:
Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Marine Corps, 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (Rein), FMF. Place and date: Quang Nam Province, Republic of Vietnam, 4 July 1967. Entered service at: Cleveland, Ohio. Born: 27 September 1948, Wellsville, Ohio. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as a machine gunner attached to the 1st Platoon, Company F, 2d Battalion, on 3 and 4 July 1967. Pfc. Newlin, with 4 other marines, was manning a key position on the perimeter of the Nong Son outpost when the enemy launched a savage and well coordinated mortar and infantry assault, seriously wounding him and killing his 4 comrades. Propping himself against his machinegun, he poured a deadly accurate stream of fire into the charging ranks of the Viet Cong. Though repeatedly hit by small-arms fire, he twice repelled enemy attempts to overrun his position. During the third attempt, a grenade explosion wounded him again and knocked him to the ground unconscious. The Viet Cong guerrillas, believing him dead, bypassed him and continued their assault on the main force. Meanwhile, Pfc. Newlin regained consciousness, crawled back to his weapon, and brought it to bear on the rear of the enemy, causing havoc and confusion among them. Spotting the enemy attempting to bring a captured 106 recoilless weapon to bear on other marine positions, he shifted his fire, inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy and preventing them from firing the captured weapon. He then shifted his fire back to the primary enemy force, causing the enemy to stop their assault on the marine bunkers and to once again attack his machinegun position. Valiantly fighting off 2 more enemy assaults, he firmly held his ground until mortally wounded. Pfc. Newlin had single-handedly broken up and disorganized the entire enemy assault force, causing them to lose momentum and delaying them long enough for his fellow marines to organize a defense and beat off their secondary attack. His indomitable courage, fortitude, and unwavering devotion to duty in the face of almost certain death reflect great credit upon himself and the Marine Corps and upheld the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service
9:39 pm
Richard Riley—Let’s not confuse the objections of a few people with substantial opposition. I live in the liberal mecca of Seattle where only the extremely far left fringe groups thought Afghanistan was a bad idea. The kind of people that think any sort of conflict is a bad idea. Let’s face it, the President had about 90% approval on invading Afghanistan which is about a unanimous as any decision will EVER be in this country.
I don’t doubt that the movie will be “good.” A very capable director is attached to this, after all. It won’t look like a TV movie of the week.
However, dismissing concerns of people who outright say that they’re not ready to watch something like this—-people who live in NYC and saw the terror up close and personal—-is pretty damn insulting. (I’m not implying that R. Riley said this, but others have. As though there is an “us versus them” mentality and people that don’t want to watch this film somehow don’t understand terror and aren’t real Americans.)
3:22 pm
I liked the post and article at American Thinker. I am linking this to my running list of articles/posts about the movie. Thanks for your work.