Veterans Day is celebrated as Armistice Day or Armed Forces Day in other parts of the world, but here, the date both commemorates the day the Armistice that ended World War 1 was signed as well as honors the veterans of all wars the U.S. has fought since. Back on the first Armistice Day, war was a more formal, organized affair with many "civilities", as opposed to the hostilities, which were formally ended at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. Very tidy! Perhaps the signers put a lot of stock in numerology or something? Dunno, but it certainly seems too perfect NOT to be portentous.
Back to the veterans part of Veterans Day...just FYF -- according to Wikipedia, there are still three surviving World War 1 veterans (two British and one American); all 109 years of age this year.
There'll be a parade on Fifth Avenue today - and in cities across the Country - in honor of all American veterans, of which there are approximately 24.9 million. Though only three World War 1 veterans remain living and, therefore, add just three to the total number of surviving American veterans cited above, in researching their number, I was reminded (and astounded anew) that 65 million+ military personnel were involved in World War 1. Also astounding (and horrifying): 9 million+ of those were killed in the course of the war.
When I realized today was Veterans Day, my mind flashed back to a thought I had a few days ago when I noticed a homeless man with a sign that read "Homeless Vet. Please help". I had thought about how it seemed nearly any homeless person I saw with a sign was - according to the sign - a homeless vet. At the time, I pondered the possible ramifications of this observation. Was it being a vet that made someone more likely to be homeless? Or was a person who was more likely to become homeless also more likely to be a vet?
There are a number of assumptions I'm making in simply voicing those questions (e.g. - that homelessness is something to which one can have a "proclivity"; that the armed forces may attract those with proclivities to homelessness, etc.), but it all begs the question: Are we - once again - being utter hypocrites when it comes to our governmental policies towards, and treatment of, the men and women who we send into harm's way to "protect" us (the quotations are merely meant to indicate what they're doing and who they're protecting is somewhat open to interpretation.)? Additionally, are we taking full responsibility for how battle affects an individual psychologically as well as physiologically?
I am not able to verify or even specify what the above photo reflects; i.e. - Where is this taken? Are the number of suicides specific to soldiers in Iraq? Or are they the number of suicides committed by U.S. soldiers (and maybe veterans?) worldwide? Still, the numbers seem to highlight an underlying (now explicit) theme today: that, while soldiers may be well-trained for combat, they struggle with life between conflicts, or after having returned from duty.
Regardless of whether there are better ways to a) defend our nation and b) assist our returning soldiers, today is about honoring those who offered their lives and possibly their sanity/ability to live in society to protect our way of life. Is/was it worth it? Debatable, certainly, but...perhaps in reflecting today (and on days like it) on what a society worth this magnitude of sacrifice would look like, each of us can take actions that will, eventually, shape our nation into something that is -- without question! -- worth it.
