Preserve Armed Forces Day, Veterans Day and Memorial Day, For All Who Served
Tombstones at Arlington National Cemetery, Washington D.C. | Getty Images
When I was younger, going to Ft. Bliss in El Paso, Texas on Armed Forces Day was an important occasion. Veterans Day and Memorial Day were revered in a city where the military presence was strong. Recent politicians have called for replacing these solemn occasions with holidays celebrating American victories in World War I and World War II. To do that would be to undermine what makes the Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day special.
This is not to knock America's performance in both world wars. It was impressive what Americans were able to accomplish. In fact, I've written columns about our victories in these conflicts. I was even criticized by some readers for my verbal attacks on Nazis for their killing of U.S. P.O.W.s and pretending to surrender in order to kill more G.I.s (I was accused of spreading 'propaganda.' I've written how we should honor American generals, not praise Nazi Generals.
But Armed Forces Day is about honoring all active-duty military. Veterans Day is for recognizing the living veterans who served this country. And Memorial Day is about commemorating those who gave their lives in defense of this country.
Making May 8 'Victory Day for World War II' completely ignores those who still had plenty of fighting in the Pacific. I would recommend the politician who suggested it should study the Battle of Okinawa, and see what our U.S. Marines and Army accomplished in that fight, which lasted until June 22. That politician should watch 'Hacksaw Ridge,' and learn what happened to the sailors who suffered from a massive Kamikaze attack, as well as the pilots who took on the massive Japanese battleship Yamato. All in all, 12,000 Americans and General Simon Bolivar Buckner Jr. died, while another 36,000 suffered wounds. There's no word on how many were afflicted with terrible memories of that conflict, which did not conclude until well after V-E Day.
To replace Veterans Day with 'Victory Day' set off a colleague of mine, a veteran who earned two Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star in Vietnam. 'So how about a day for Korea?' he texted me. 'Guess, technically that one isn't over. Panama? Invasion but not really a war. But didn't we win in Panama? Shouldn't we celebrate that? Desert Storm? Wasn't that a win? What else? Maybe we could….have a big military parade on every one of them? Isn't that how you're supposed to celebrate a victory?'
He wasn't done, by a long shot. 'And since it's all about wins now and not really about honoring veterans, no more uncomfortable visits to cemeteries and VA hospitals? Wars are or should be last resort solutions to perceived problems. We had it right. Focus on the people who have served our country, often at great risk and sacrifice, by individuals, including sometimes the ultimate sacrifice. Why can't we just continue to recognize that? People who only think in terms of wins and losses should stick to football and leave the analysis of a war to adults who have a clue of what war is like and what it does to people and to a country. But that kind of history makes some people uncomfortable and heaven forbid that anyone should ever have to be uncomfortable and have to think about anything that might upset them.'
He continued in perhaps the longest text I have ever received. 'You know, I have a bias when it comes to war. Having known and having had serious conversations about serious things with friends whose names are now inscribed on a wall up in D.C. probably does that.'
For those who still serve, served in the past, and those who paid the ultimate price, let's preserve Armed Forces Day, Veterans Day, and Memorial Day instead of changing these for political purposes. It's the least we can do for them.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Exclusive: Israel's Herzog Reacts to US Strikes—'Have to Defend Ourselves'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The international community ignored Iran's major underground nuclear facility of Fordow for years, Israeli President Isaac Herzog told Newsweek in an exclusive interview following U.S. strikes against three nuclear sites in central Iran overnight. The Fordow nuclear facility, roughly 60 miles south of Tehran, was secret until 2009. Then-U.S. President Barack Obama said at the time it had jointly told the United Nations' (U.N.) nuclear watchdog that Iran had for years secretly built up a nuclear site near the city of Qom. Referencing the former president's words more than a decade-and-a-half ago, Herzog said Obama "exposed" the existence of Fordow, "but then the world let it happen." "It's ridiculous," Herzog said. "The IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] declared that they're non-compliant, and they're lying," the Israeli president added. "And the world says, 'Okay, what? What do we do about it?'" Referring to Israel, he continued: "Well, we have to defend ourselves, and we remove it." The U.S. launched strikes on Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz—three of Iran's most significant nuclear sites—early Sunday local time, dubbed "Operation Midnight Hammer." Major U.S. allies expressed support for the American strikes on Sunday while urging Iran not to respond. Tehran had promised retaliation and "irreparable damage" if the U.S. attacked its nuclear facilities prior to the strikes. Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, on Sunday warned of "everlasting consequences" for what he termed "outrageous" U.S. attacks. The U.S. entry into the war came after Israel carried out what it called a "pre-emptive" campaign against Tehran's nuclear sites and personnel, as well as its ballistic missile and other military sites. Israel said Iran was getting close to having a nuclear weapon, which the U.S., and many of America's allies, have said is unacceptable. However, Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. Israeli President Isaac Herzog visits a residential building struck by a missile launched from Iran, in Petah Tikva, Israel, on June 16. Israeli President Isaac Herzog visits a residential building struck by a missile launched from Iran, in Petah Tikva, Israel, on June 16. Associated Press Iran launched waves of drone and missiles at Israel shortly after. Both Israel and Iran continued their attacks following U.S. strikes. President Donald Trump hailed the strikes on Fordow, as well as the facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, as a "spectacular military success." "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated," he added. Israel, while not pursuing Fordow, has for over a week carried out extensive airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites, including Isfahan and Natanz, and killed a litany of senior nuclear scientists and generals. The U.S. military's B-2 Spirit bombers, equipped with "bunker busting" GBU-57/B bombs weighing in at 30,000 pounds, were widely considered the only pairing able to take Fordow, buried deep under a mountain, out of the equation. A U.S. submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles against the aboveground facilities at Isfahan around 5 p.m. ET on Saturday, just before U.S. aircraft entered Iranian airspace, General Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, said on Sunday. Washington used deception tactics and a host of fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft traveling ahead of B-2 heavy bombers to sweep for Iranian fighter jets and air defenses, Caine added. At 6:40 p.m. ET, the first B-2 dropped two GBU-57/B bombs at Fordow, followed by another site, the top general said. The rest of the munitions were dropped in the following 25 minutes, and Iran did not fire at U.S. aircraft traveling in or out of Iran, Caine added. Experts and officials said on Sunday it was too early to tell exactly how much damage has been done to Iran's network of nuclear sites. Preliminary assessments indicate all three facilities sustained "extremely severe damage," Caine said. In a Sunday afternoon Truth Social post, Trump pushed back against criticism from Republican lawmaker Thomas Massie of Kentucky, asserting that the U.S. had effectively "taken the 'bomb'" away from Iran by targeting the three nuclear sites. Massie has said that Trump needed congressional approval to launch the aerial attack. During an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting requested by Iran, Secretary-General António Guterres appealed for urgent action to halt the violence and revive negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. "We cannot—and must not—give up on peace," Guterres said, calling for a verifiable agreement with full access for U.N. nuclear inspectors to rebuild trust. Stressing the stakes, he warned that the world faces a clear choice between the path of escalation and that of diplomacy. "We know which path is right," he declared.
Vox
24 minutes ago
- Vox
Three ways Trump's attack on Iran could spin out of control
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Vice President JD Vance, President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during an address to the nation in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2025. Carlos Barria/Reuters/Bloomberg via Getty Images When Vice President JD Vance appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday morning, anchor Kristen Welker asked him a simple question: Is the United States now at war with Iran? In response, Vance said, 'We're not at war with Iran; we're at war with Iran's nuclear program.' This is akin to saying that, in attacking Pearl Harbor, Imperial Japan had merely declared war on America's warship construction program. Yet it's notable that Vance felt the need to engage in such contortions — and that President Donald Trump, in his address to the nation last night, went out of his way to emphasize that there were no additional strikes planned. The Trump administration does not want to admit it has begun a war, because wars have a way of escalating beyond anyone's control. What we should be worrying about now is not how the US-Iran fighting began, but how it ends. It is all too easy to see how these initial strikes could escalate into something much bigger — if Iran's nuclear program remains mostly intact, or if Iran retaliates in a way that forces American counter-escalation. It's possible neither occurs, and this stays as limited as currently advertised. Or factors beyond our knowledge — the 'unknown unknowns' of the current conflict — could lead to an even greater escalation than anyone is currently predicting. The worst-case scenario, an outright regime change effort akin to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, cannot be entirely ruled out. I don't know how bad things will get, or even if things are likely to get worse. But when I watched Trump's speech, and heard his obviously premature claims that 'Iran's key nuclear facilities have been completely and totally obliterated,' I couldn't help thinking about another speech from over 20 years ago — when, after the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, George W. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and declared 'Mission Accomplished.' The mission hadn't been accomplished then, as it almost certainly hasn't been now. We can only hope that the resulting events this time are not a similar kind of catastrophe. Escalation pathway one: 'finishing the job' We do not know, at present, just how much damage American bombs have done to their targets — Iranian enrichment facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Satellite imagery shows that there are above-ground buildings still standing, belying Trump's claims of complete destruction, but many of the targets are underground. It's possible these were dealt a severe blow, and it's possible they weren't. Either scenario creates pathways to escalation. If the damage is indeed relatively limited, and one round of American bombs was not able to shatter the heavily reinforced concrete Iran uses to protect its underground assets, the Trump administration will face two bad choices. It can either let a clearly furious Iran retain operational nuclear facilities, raising the risk that they dash for a nuclear weapon, or it can keep bombing until the attacks have done sufficient damage to prevent Iran from getting a weapon in the immediate future. That commits the United States to, at minimum, an indefinite bombing campaign inside Iran. But even if this attack did do real damage, that leaves the question of the program's long-term future. Iran could decide, after being attacked, that the only way to protect itself is to rebuild its nuclear program in a hurry and get a bomb. It has already moved to quit the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), an agreement that gives international inspectors (and, by extension, the world) visibility into its nuclear development. There are, again, two ways to ensure that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei doesn't make such a choice: a diplomatic agreement akin to the 2015 nuclear deal, or else a war of regime change aimed at overthrowing the Iranian government altogether. The first isn't impossible, but it certainly seems unlikely at present. The US and Iran were negotiating on its nuclear program when Israel began bombing Iranian targets, seemingly using the talks as cover to catch Iran off guard. It seems very unlikely that Iran would see the US as a credible negotiating partner now that it has joined Israel's war. That leaves the other form of 'finishing the job': a full-on war of regime change. My colleague Josh Keating has argued, convincingly, that Israel wants such an outcome. And some of Trump's allies, including Sens. Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, have openly called for it. 'Wouldn't the world be better off if the ayatollahs went away and were replaced by something better?' Graham asked, rhetorically, in a Fox News interview last Monday. 'It's time to close the chapter on the Ayatollah and his henchmen. Let's close it soon.' Such a dire outcome seems, at present, very distant. But the further Trump continues down a hawkish path on Iran, the more thinkable it will become. Escalation pathway two: a US-Iran cycle of violence There's a military truism that, in war, 'the enemy gets a vote.' It could be that Iran's actions force American escalation even if the Trump administration doesn't want to go any further than it has right now. So far, Iran's military response to both US and Israeli attacks has been underwhelming. Tehran is clearly hobbled by the damage Israel did to its proxy militias, Hezbollah and Hamas, and its ballistic missiles are not capable of threatening the Israeli homeland in the way that many fear. But there are two things Iran hasn't tried that are, after American intervention, more likely to be on the table. The first is an attack on US servicemembers stationed in the Middle East, of which there are somewhere between 40,000 and 50,000 at present. Of particular note are the US forces currently stationed in Iraq and Syria. Iraq is home to several Iranian-aligned militias that could potentially be ordered to directly attack American troops in the country or across the border in Syria. The second is an attack on international shipping lanes. The most dangerous scenario involves an attempt to use missiles and naval assets to close the Strait of Hormuz, a Persian Gulf passage used by roughly 20 percent of global oil shipping by volume. If Iran either kills significant numbers of American troops or attempts to do major damage to the global economy, there will surely be American retaliation. In his Saturday speech, Trump promised that if Iran retaliates, 'future [American] attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' An effort to detonate the global oil market would, without a doubt, necessitate such a response: The US cannot allow Iran to hold its economy hostage. We do not, to be clear, know whether Iran is willing to take such risks, or even if it can. Israeli attacks have devastated its military capabilities, including ballistic missile launchers that allow it to hit targets well beyond its borders. But a 'cycle of violence' is a very common way that violence escalates: One side attacks, the other side retaliates, prompting another attack, and on up the chain. Once they start, such cycles can be difficult to prevent from spiraling out of control. Escalation pathway three: the Iraq analogy, or things fall apart I want to be clear that escalation here isn't a given. It is possible that the US and its Israeli partners remain satisfied with one American bombing run, and that the Iranians are too scared or weak to engage in any major response. But those are a whole lot of 'ifs.' And we have no way of knowing, at present, whether we're heading to a best- or worst-case scenario (or one of several possibilities in the middle). Key decision points, like whether Trump orders another round of US raids on Fordow or Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz, will determine which pathways we go down — and it's hard to know which choices the key actors in Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem will make. I keep thinking about the 2003 Iraq war in part for obvious reasons: the US attacking a Middle Eastern dictatorship based on flimsy intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction. But the other parallel, perhaps a deeper one, is that the architects of the Iraq War had little-to-no understanding of the second-order consequences of their choices. There was so much they didn't know, both about Iraq as a country and the likely consequences of regime change more broadly, that they failed to grasp just how much of a quagmire the war might become until it had already sucked in the United States. It's over 20 years later, and boots are still on the ground — drawn in by events, like the creation of ISIS, that were direct results of the initial decision to invade. Attacking Iran, even with the more 'modest' aim of destroying its nuclear program, carries similar risks. The attack carries so many potential consequences, involving so many different countries and constituencies, that it's hard to even begin to try to account for all the potential risks that might cause further US escalation. There are likely consequences taking shape, at this moment, that we can't even begin to conceive of. The nature of the Trump administration gives me little hope that they've properly gamed this out. The president himself is a compulsive liar and foreign policy ignoramus. The secretary of defense has run his department into the ground. The secretary of state, who is also the national security adviser, has more jobs than anyone could reasonably be expected to perform competently at once. It is, in short, far less competent on paper than the Bush administration was prior to the Iraq invasion — and look how that went. It's possible, despite all of this, that the Trump administration has adequately gamed out their choices here — preparing for all reasonably foreseeable contingencies and capable of acting swiftly in the (inevitable) event that some response catches the world by surprise. But if it didn't, then things could go badly and tragically wrong.
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Could Strait of Hormuz Closure Impact Americans?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Iranian lawmakers have voted to support closing the Strait of Hormuz—a vital route for global oil and gas shipments—in response to U.S. airstrikes on three of the country's nuclear sites on Saturday, a move that if agreed upon by the Supreme Leader, could disrupt energy markets and drive up prices worldwide and stateside. Why It Matters Following U.S. strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, Isfahan, Fordow, and Natanz, the world waits as Iran considers its response. The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow, yet incredibly strategic waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, the strait is about 21 miles wide, with two shipping lanes that are 2 miles wide in each direction. Around 20 percent of global oil trade passes through the Strait, with any closure likely to spike global prices. What To Know In the first fiscal quarter of 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) noted that just under 15 million barrels of crude oil and condensate, and about 8 million barrels of petroleum products were transported through the Strait. There are very few alternative routes for the large volume of oil that passes through the chokepoint. The average 20 million barrels of oil products that pass through make up around 20 percent of the global consumption. The price of Brent crude oil was already climbing ahead of the U.S. strikes, increasing from $69 per barrel on June 12 to $74 per barrel on June 13. While the EIA estimates that a large majority, around 80 percent, of the oil-based product moving through the Strait go to Asian markets, around 2 million barrels a day end up in the U.S. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Stena Impero being seized and detained between July 19 and July 21, 2019 in Bandar Abbas, Iran as it passed through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital regional shipping channel. Tasnim/Getty Images If the Iranian government following the lead of the parliament, decides to close the Strait, Asian markets are expected to be most hit, but American markets will be too. Despite influence over the Strait, Iran doesn't supply the most oil that transports through it, Saudi Arabia does. Some experts have said that if Iran were to cut off access to the Strait, it could spike oil prices by 30 to 50 percent immediately, with gas prices likewise rising. "Oil prices would likely double, to well above $100. The extent to which that price shock would be sustainable is unclear," Marko Papic, chief strategist at BCA Research, told Newsweek in an email Sunday. He also noted that due to the overwhelming pressure campaign the country would face over its closure "the price shock would be of limited duration." "However," he continued, "it could impact confidence domestically, impact capex [capital expenditure] intentions by corporates, and thus trickle into the animal spirits [psychological factors that influence economic behavior] that affects not just stocks, but also the labor market." Fears that Iran could attack U.S. oil infrastructure in the region and levy its power over the Straits of Hormuz could "combine to make prices and speculation rise about the security and dependability of supply," Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, previously told Newsweek. "Lack of clarity of how long this condition will last will also lead to hoarding or preemptive purchasing by other nations, so there are competition supply fears that will drive up prices," he added. Iran has been reluctant to close to Strait, even during times of intense conflict during the heat of the Iran-Iraq war. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. Infographic with map of the Gulf showing maritime tanker traffic in September 2024 through the Strait of Hormuz. NALINI LEPETIT-CHELLA,OMAR KAMAL/AFP via Getty Images) What People Are Saying Greg Kennedy, director of the Economic Conflict and Competition Research Group at King's College London, told Newsweek: "This is not an act that just stays in the Gulf region, it has wider global strategic ripples." Spencer Hakimian, founder of Tolou Capital Management, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday: "There are close to 50 large oil tankers scrambling to leave the Strait of Hormuz right now. Looks like the oil industry is expecting the Strait to be blockaded in the coming days." President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Brian Krassenstein, who has over 900,000 followers on X wrote on Sunday if the Strait is closed, people can expect: "U.S. Gas Prices likely Skyrocket. Potential $5–$7/gallon range depending on duration. Military Escalation Risk. U.S. Navy and allies likely to respond. Tanker delays affect oil, LNG, and related goods." What Happens Next? Any final decision on Iran's response, whether negotiation or closing the Strait or other, however, will largely rest with the country's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The parliament vote to close the Strait merely advises him of the option to pursue.
