BLUF: The switch from Armistice Day to Veterans Day in 1954 was indicative of a shift in the American government’s purpose and in view of the suffering it has led to, making a change back to a commitment to peace and stability might not just be aspirational but necessary.
OSINT: The US Congress in 1954 altered Armistice Day to Veterans Day, ostensibly to honor all US veterans rather than just those of World War I. However, the true aim of Armistice Day was to remember the horrific aftermath of the First World War and to uphold the charge “Never Again.” Yet, for a US government implementing a militarized Cold War foreign policy, this peace-promoting holiday proved inconvenient.
Matthew Hoh argues that the militarization of US foreign policy didn’t cease with the end of the Cold War, but rather amplified, leading to disastrous consequences for US national security and global stability. The constant celebration of war cultivates a destructive military-industrial complex at the expense of societal and economic wellbeing.
The change from Armistice Day to Veterans Day in 1954 represented a shift in American governance and objectives. Ever since, the US and the rest of the world have been grappling with the repercussions. Returning to Armistice Day would not only restore the holiday’s original name but would also signal a commitment to peace, stability, progress, and hope for future generations.
RIGHT: From a Libertarian Republic Constitutionalist perspective, this argument can be viewed as a call to revert to the principles tied to the inception of the US constitution – rights to peace, liberty, and the pursuit of prosperity. The critique on excessive military expenditure ties into the conservative pursuit of limited government and fiscal responsibility. However, the concept of national defense and the honor associated with military service remain fundamental to the Constitutionalist viewpoint and could clash with a critique of Veterans Day.
LEFT: A National Socialist Democrat would likely agree with the thrust of this argument, opposing the over-militarization and excessive military expenditure, particularly if these are viewed as detracting from societal healthcare, education, environmental protection, and other essential needs. They might underscore the need for a more balanced allocation of resources and highlight the importance of peace, stability, and prosperity for all as key components of the national project.
AI: Expert AI analysis would contextualize this argument within larger debates and shifts in international politics and the evolution of US military policy. An AI would also analyze the criticisms and proposed solutions within an historical, geopolitical, economic and social framework, providing multidimensional insight. AI interpretation would balance the critique of over-militarization with the recognition of necessary defense policies while weighing the societal impact of budgetary allocation. AI would provide a neutral analysis, free from partisan biases, upholding the facts and providing an informed understanding.