Commission failed to follow directions

Traditionally, Americans have waited a number of years, sometimes decades, to build monuments and memorials to wars, national tragedies and other events that have shaped our country.

The passage of time allows us to develop a national consensus on the true impact of such moments and to decide collectively what memories we want to etch forever in stone, glass or steel.

But in this era of instant gratification, Arizona rushed to build a memorial to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that captured our national outrage, as well as a range of other emotions related to the United States’ response.

With the memorial’s dedication coming on only the fifth anniversary, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that some of the sentiments on display at the state Capitol are creating a backlash. Still deeply enmeshed in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are divided as a nation on the ultimate meaning of 9/11 and where we should be going from here.

The immediate reaction from some corners is to blame Gov. Janet Napolitano as the state’s top elected official who helped to raise money for the privately funded memorial. But all of the blame — or credit — rests on the shoulders of the 9/11 memorial commission that gambled on the inclusion of some events and comments that cast our military and our nation in a negative light when the psychological wounds are still so raw. Clearly, the commission didn’t live up to the call of former Gov. Jane Hull when she ordered the creation of a memorial in January 2003 “in honor and memory of those who lost their lives in one of this nation’s most horrific tragedies and to those who kept their spirits alive through unity and sacrifice . . .”

While Napolitano did appoint the commission’s members, her administration shared oversight of the design with a legislative committee. In truth, both of those groups trusted in the members of the 9/11 commission — people who lost loved ones in the attacks, firefighters involved in search-and-rescue efforts, business leaders and clergy — to design a memorial that would be a lasting tribute to our shared heartache and our resolve to move forward.

Still, this controversy is an opportunity for Napolitano to rise above the political haranguing and demonstrate some statesmanship. She could explain in eloquent terms how the 9/11 memorial will stand the test of time.

Or she can side with critics and acknowledge the memorial’s design is flawed. In that case, Napolitano should boldly pledge she will raise the money and political will necessary to repair or replace the memorial with something that better reflects our collective mood.