<< In the movie “Rules of Engagement,” I found it odd that when evacuating the
American embassy in Yemen, the soldiers would not let the ambassador leave
before they had taken down the flag and given it to him. I have heard before
that it is a priority in certain hostile situations for soldiers to save the
American flag-is this true? And why such a dangerous point of protocol (two
or three were shot while trying to reach the flag in the movie)?
But the last thing those fighting men would ever want to see was the flag they are there fighting for, and the symbol of the country they love and serve, be trashed and dragged through the dirt. When an embassy is evacuated, I believe it goes from a soveriegn plot of land in another country to just another building. You don’t wanna fly Old Glory above a blg in another country unless it IS an embassy. Bad form. The Ambassador IS the US Gobmint representative, and when he left, the symbol left with him. Didn’t answer with a cite, just a little insight.
It’s just movie plot.
The physical flag on the building is just a piece of cloth that can be bought at most flag stores.
As a symbol of the US, there are people willing to take risks for it. If the bad guys, with their own bought US flag, decide to burn it outside the compound, some soldiers may decide to go out and try to stop them. No commander would order them to risk their lives to save a piece of cloth. The US can retaliate later.
I dunno about that one. Military honor can be strict if what I have heard is true (I Am Not A Soldier)
This may be totally wrong, but wasn’t it standard practice (at some point) for there to be a color guard type person who carried the flag forward in battle. Certainly that person could have been used to fight the enemy, but they were there to carry the flag.
Maybe I am way off and this is something that also only happens in movies.
I understand that POV from civilians, but in the military that flag is MUCH more than a piece of cloth. Not sure about exact protocol, but I seriously doubt they would have left it there.
Look over the web page below if you want to get down to the nitty-gritty of certain procedures. There are more, as well, and some go on much longer… There is a lot to remember.
http://usmilitary.about.com/careers/usmilitary/cs/flags/
Much more than a piece of cloth.
SF
I’m one retired member of the US military who’ll tell you straight out that you’re incorrect. It serves as the center for certain ceremonies (colors, etc.) but is not accorded the same import as that of an actual human being, and thus it’s not a good idea to risk life to rescue something easily replaceable from the local K-Mart (i.e., the flag). The human only has the one life.
Time permitting, they probably would’ve taken whatever else was easily carried out also. That does not mean that those items, any more than the flag itself, has any kind of soul.
I really don’t place much credence in a site which claims to pontificate on flag “precidence.” Heck, if he can’t even get the spelling right…
In some folks’ opinion, yes. Most people I know, both military and civilian, see it for what it is: a cloth representation.
Oh, btw, I’m PN1, USN (Ret.)
The info was right regardless of the spelling of the word. I found the same protocol on the Air Force official web site and many other places (http://www.usafa.af.mil/ccp/helpinfo.htm). Which states:
“In the Armed Forces of the United States, at the ceremony of retreat the flag is lowered, folded in a triangle fold and kept under watch throughout the night as a tribute to our nation’s honored dead. The next morning it is brought out and, at the ceremony of reveille, run aloft as a symbol of our belief in the resurrection of the body.”
Of course the flag is not as important as a human life. My point was simply that it is considered by the military more than a piece of cloth. I think the protocols listed prove that point. We can argue on the need for such protocols (or possibly their ability to be outdated), but as it stands I still believe it is considered to be more than a cloth representation.
SF
I don’t think standard bearers are used in any modern combat situations anymore (as opposed to parade ground maneuvers). Once upon a time, such things were important for more than just ceremonial purposes; they helped keep military formations organized and pointing their guns in the right direction on the confusion of a battlefield. (Although I say they weren’t just for ceremonial purposes, there’s no doubt that there was also a lot of ceremonial or symbolic importance invested in such things as well.)
Clearly, you and I have a different definition of info. I go with “info = information = facts.” You appear to go with “info = what I wish were true.”
That is from an obviously religious ceremony referred to in that site. It by no means states it is the official position of either the United States Government or any brach of its military, to include the US Air Force. Try not to confuse religion with government and you’ll do far better with describing the United States. As it is, I find that sentiment very offensive to the very many members of the military who do not believe in any type of resurrection. Nothing like getting marginalized by someone’s assertions over a piece of cloth!
Glad to see you recognize that.
And I say again: you are incorrect. Once again, it may have certain ceremonies for which it is centered, yet that does not make those ceremonies a religious event.
And yet, that so-called protocol you cited above is not a protocol per se, but a religious ceremony that is not required. The site itself says “typical” and does not assert that it is in any way a requirement of the service regulations or even official policy. It merely says “typical.”
What I’m arguing here is that your belief, which you’ve finally asserted as such, is not a fact; it is merely a belief. Try not to confuse your beliefs with facts and you might do well here. Continue to assert your beliefs are facts without valid proof and you’re guaranteed not to.
Ahh… I think I understand your views now. I was curious as to where you were coming from to begin with. The ceremonies often have a religious ‘tone’, so I now see where you are coming from.
I was simply pointing the way to facts… In which these protocols were carried out and the flag was a center of attention and importance. If I seemed to push any beliefs in simply relaying this info, it was not intentional. It’s not what I ‘wish to be true’… I did not write the protocol, I just linked to it for all to see.
You are right that I personally have that belief about the flag. And the ceremonies I’ve seen and read about also put importance on it, but as you’ve stated, it is representative. (I also noticed in watching the news that the 24 crew members of our recon plane were given protocol folded flags upon their arrival in Hawaii.)
But I suppose a 20 year old civilian really should not argue about these things with a more seasoned veteran.
SF
Here is more flag info (as in info = information = fact). 
From the US Code Title 36:
Lots more on respect and customs and such for all interested in learning more.
SF
Magnum
Note the use of the word “ceremony” in your site. That is not meant to be a military tactic. The flag, as a symbol of the country, is treated with respect by members of the military.
The OP addressed fighting, not ceremonial treatment of the flag. When there are lives at stake, the flag becomes a piece of cloth. A soldier’s life is more important than a piece of cloth, which you acknowledge. Per the OP, military policy or protocol will not put cloth above a life. After the fighting, the flag, as a symbol, is important and respected.
Starfish,
That’s the kind of distinction I was looking for! Your post makes a lot of sense. All around I think we can come to agreement on that.
Thanks for the post, fish man.
SF
What? You’re not aware that this particular section is advisory[sup]1[/sup] and not regulatory[sup]2[/sup]? You’re not aware of what the words should[sup]3[/sup] and shall[sup]4[/sup] mean?
{All definitions lifted from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary available at keyword: dictionary on AOL.}
Are you also unaware that some of that section is obsolete? I refer you to the parts of it regarding flag and clothing.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Monty *
**
Umm… Yes. I was just posting a link. A link to more info for those that wanted it. I believe you read to much into the post. Sorry. Just a lead to some info on US Code (reprinted current and officially at <http://uscode.house.gov/title_36.htm> ).
Starfish hit the nail on the head as far as I’m concerned.
I’ll still put my hand over my heart when I see Old Glory. I’m a patriotic SOB. Happy Monday, Monty!
SF