They know it every day.

To remind the rest of us of that is to affirm their loved ones' service and the families' sacrifice and stress. Not mentioning it is just pretending. It's like "sparing the feelings" of someone whose spouse has died by not acknowledging a wedding anniversary. The surviving spouse still feels the loss, but the friends feel so much better.

Re: revisionist history:

When I was an undergrad, a group of historians were publishing new studies of slavery, based on statistical analysis that suggested that slavery "wasn't so bad" because relatively few slaves were actually beaten or killed in the course of regular plantation life. They found this was so because the slaveowners didn't want to endanger their investment and damage their property. There were no statistics available on the psychological effects of being property, so this detail was not included in the studies.

I was studying American history from colonization through the industrial period and the Civil War at the time. One of my professors presented this material to us without editorial comment and let us exercise our critical thinking and debating skills to discuss it.

Revisionism has its uses. Sometimes it's wrong. Sometimes it's right. Always it's good to review what we know and to consider again what we think about it and how we feel about it.

I agree that "support the troops" isn't just a buzz phrase. It also involves making sure they get paid a living wage for laying their lives on the line, and receive adequate benefits once they have returned to civilian life. It is, in short, not only giving lip service to armed service, but putting money down to support the people who do the job. What is the Administration's position on that?

Happy Holidays--
Mary Anne