The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
A legislative impasse over how to honor fallen warriors was broken Thursday after an emotional debate that left veterans themselves divided.
Faced with two competing proposals for how to determine who qualifies for inclusion on the Virginia War Memorial in Richmond, a legislative subcommittee chose the one that sets up a two-tier system.
Under that policy, the glass-and-marble memorial’s Shrine of Memory would be reserved for service members killed by enemy action, qualifying them for the Purple Heart medal. All others who die on active duty would be included on a new, separate memorial wall to be built nearby.
The decision by a subcommittee of the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee is not final, but it will carry great weight as the matter is taken up by the full House of Delegates and the Senate.
The panel approved a bill, HB767 , sponsored by Del. Bill Janis, R-Henrico County, a member of the memorial’s board of trustees, setting up the two-tier system. The measure had the backing of that board and the American Legion.
The panel rejected a competing bill, HB469 , submitted by Del. Vivian Watts, D-Fairfax County, and supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of America and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
Watts’ approach was more inclusive. It would allow any service member killed or declared missing in action in a combat zone under honorable conditions to be memorialized on the existing shrine.
The debate arose after the 2009 General Assembly directed the memorial’s board to develop an explicit set of criteria for inclusion on the shrine. An analysis by The Virginian-Pilot of the nearly 12,000 names now inscribed there had found that at least 1,900 – roughly one in six – were non-combat-related deaths.
Janis acknowledged that the criteria have not been consistently applied in the past but said he believes his approach is consistent with the original intent of the memorial’s founders in the 1950s.
Rick Schumann of Newport News, speaking in support of Watts’ bill, described two Iraq war casualties that he said illustrate the injustice of Janis’ approach: Army Col. Stephen Scott of Alabama died in a 2008 mortar attack in the protected Green Zone in Baghdad. An avid jogger, the 54-year-old was killed as he exercised on a treadmill inside a U.S. military facility.
Schumann’s son, Marine Lance Cpl. Darrell Schumann of Hampton, was among 31 Marines killed when a military transport helicopter crashed in the Iraq desert in 2005.
Under Janis’ bill, Schumann said, the officer who died on the treadmill would be honored on the Shrine of Memory if he were a Virginian, since he was awarded the Purple Heart. Schumann’s son would not, because the helicopter in which he died was not brought down by enemy fire.
“My son is no less deserving to go on that wall than that officer,” Schumann said.
Bill Sizemore, (804) 697-1560, bill.sizemore@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
My two cents worth --------
If a service member is deployed to a designated "COMBAT AREA" and is killed he qualifies. The way in which the service member dies is of little if any consequence, as far as the memorial goes. I absolutely agree that all of our service members are heroes, but the memorials we build are designed to remember those who died fighting for our peace and freedoms. If they served in a designated combat area, irrespective of their duties, and were killed they deserve the special honor of inclusion onto a memorial. God willing, one day we won't need to have memorials over wars anymore!
Virginia War Memorial Proposal
This is shameful. All who die during a war, regardless of their manner of death, deserve to be on the memorial. Even when these men and women are not deployed at that moment, they are working in support roles that help their brethren remain alive. If you die in any military related capacity you deserve to be honored for your sacrifice. If you are run over on post while backing down a piece of equipment you deserve to be honored, the death would not have happened sitting at home in your lazy-boy.
Our GA aught to be ashamed.
The real tragedy
Is that we are even having to have this discussion about where to put the hallowed names of the fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, nephews, neices, friends and family killed in this senseless war which began over economic conquest of middle eastern oil. Instead of arguing where to put the names of the dead, why aren't we arguing on how to keep our soldiers alive. Arguing about when enough senseless death is enough. Where is the outcry in the churches, in the wretched general assembly, in the colleges, in the home, in the work place to end this farce which has robbed so many families of their most precious treasures? Where are the Mark Twains and the Hellen Kellers to decry this injustice which has been wrought upon the families of this nation? General Butler had it one hundred percent correct, war is a racket which serves the interests of the rich. If we want to honor the names of those who have given all, if we want to honor their memory, we should honor them by standing up and demanding that this senseless war be ended that their be no more names to etch in marble and stone.
Left wing Rant
The usual anti-war left wing nutty rant; first people to be put against the wall when the bad guys take over; we've all seen how effective Obama's "talk them to death" approach has worked with Iran and North Korea
Monument to those killed in World War II
Why not have a monument to all of those who served in all of the nation's wars? Of course, we need to let the descendants of those who died in World War II know their ancestors were appreciated.
But all service in wartime is significant even for those who survived. And why not national monuments to those who served in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War and World War I? How about one for the veterans of World War II?
Good Intention, But Too Much...
There are literally too many names, too many veterans. It would be impossible except with the largest of all monuments. You are right though, all service in wartime is significant. But only the ultimate sacrifices need to be etched in stone.
Many serve, yet some service is much more significant than others by action or deed. I say this as a veteran of our current wars and of the Cold War. I served in them, I worked hard, I was in danger a few times and even shot at once (they missed). But I certainly don't need to be on any monument, I was just doing my duty and my job. The tacit and actual 'Thank You's' my fellow citizens give me everyday as a veteran is more than enough.
Let us reserve the best, most hallowed monuments for those who literally gave everything for our nation.
Disgrace
I served for five years as an Officer in the Navy and I was deployed overseas once. It is a great sacrifice to be deployed from home, but even more so when it is in a combat area.
All servicemembers who die in while deployed to a war zone in service to their country should be honored the same, regardless of whether it occurred under enemy fire, a helocopter crash, some other accident, or an illness.
I am wondering what the political advantage to doing this could be.....
How about those who
How about those who committed suicide? And does happen quite a bit over there.
Class system in the military?
This is heartbreaking. Politics at it's worst.
The competing proposal was more inclusive and should have been adopted.
You serve. You earn a place. No labels.
This just serves to divide us into "classes" which is wrong.
I feel sorry for all military members regardless of service.