IFC

I think you're right: It was an ambitious idea that probably wouldn't've worked. I just object to how the decisions are being made, the old the-ends-don't-justify-the-means thing.

Thinking quickly about memorials, I'm going to bet you prefer the Vietnam memorial. I think there are some other factors that may explain some of the differences between the two. The Vietnam memorial was designed and constructed in the early '80s, following a lengthy, bitter, lost war. The '70s and '80s weren't exactly high points in American history. The WWII memorial went up later, authorized in the '90s, to celebrate the "Great" war, one of those rare conclusive victories. And the mid-90s--a very fine time in American history, especially in retrospect--were hugely nostalgic for that era (Saving Private Ryan, The Greatest Generation, Steven Ambrose books, etc.), while also seeking for some sort of larger meaning (Gen X, slackers, Cold War over, peace and prosperity=boring). So, it makes a lot of sense that the Vietnam memorial would be stark, spare, and sad, really memorializing loss, but the WWII memorial isn't so much memorializing loss as touting the most meaningful victory of the 20th century. Ugh. I think my conclusion's essentially correct, but I find it pretty unpleasant--patting yourself on the back for a job well done doesn't seem like a heartfelt way of memorializing all the sacrifice and suffering WWII entailed for Americans.

I guess there's no national WWI memorial, though towns and the like have them and, of course, they're all over Europe. If there were, I couldn't imagine it being anything like a WWII memorial, which is just the nature of those wars.

What about WWII memorials overseas? What's a memorial supposed to do anyhow? Remember and honor? Remember and honor what, the overall effort, the individuals who died?

For 9/11, these questions, much less questions about its overall meaning, haven't been satisfactorily resolved.