Stunningly ignorant exclusion of first great generation

Once upon a time, Dec. 7 meant something to all Americans.

Just like 9/11 still does for most of us.

But that was a time when our leaders actually declared war instead of just granting permission for a "military engagement" as if it was some kind of prenuptial party.

Twice, the United States has declared war on Dec. 7.

In 1941 it became "date which will live in infamy" when the Japanese bombed the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

To this day "black tears" still bubble to the surface from the sunken wreckage of the battleship Arizona that contains the remains of 1,102 sailors and Marines who went down in the hull of the ship.

Sadly today, the infamy of Dec. 7, 1941 is mostly on the Military Channel.

The other Dec. 7 when America declared war was in 1917.

It is a date far less infamous than the one that is "celebrated" today.

But no less important.

This is how The New York Times reported it in 1917:

"WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 - The United States went to war against Austria-Hungary, at 5:03 o'clock this afternoon, when President Wilson approved a joint resolution, adopted by Congress, declaring a state of war to exist. The President, under the resolution, was empowered to 'direct and employ the entire naval and military forces of the Government,' to carry on the war to 'a successful termination.'"

That was it. We've got a problem. We're going to throw everything at it. It will be over when it's over.

World War I

Not 30,000 troops. The nation sent "the entire naval and military forces of the government."

No end date. The nation committed to "A successful termination."

But this isn't just a political reflection on our current situation.

I'm writing about that date, Dec 7, 1917, and about World War I, and how the memories of both have been trampled underfoot time marching on and indifference.

Of course World War I, the "war to end all wars," wasn't and didn't.

But it was the first time American forces were deployed overseas, the beginning of a U.S. foreign policy that continues to this day in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not to mention that in WWI there were more American casualties than in either Korea or Vietnam.

Nevertheless, in a stunningly ignorant and insensitive exclusion, there is no national World War I memorial in Washington, D.C.

There are memorials for other, lesser wars, battles and "military engagements" but there isn't one for an effort that took the lives of 53,513 in a relatively short but exceedingly painful order.

"I would go to rural counties in Illinois and there would be a flatbed truck with five or six World War I vets on it," recalled Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, speaking on the floor of the Senate this fall. "Now, of course, they're gone."

That's the way it is with long-fought wars. The men and women who served and died in battle aren't around to lobby Congress for a memorial. And if enough time passes, those who returned home aren't around either.

Frank Buckles is apparently the last surviving World War I vet.

He was wheeled into a Capitol Hill hearing room last week to make a last-breath plea for a National Mall memorial to his long-gone buddies.

"What am I supposed to say," asked the 108-year-old one-time "doughboy," the nickname for WWI infantrymen.

What was he supposed to tell senators, who probably like most Americans were transfixed with how many barmaids Tiger Woods slept with.

The plan isn't even to build a new WWI memorial on the Mall as was tardily put up for World War II vets. They're really just talking about sprucing up and rededicating the District of Columbia World War I Memorial that already exists.

Incredibly, there is bickering even about that.

D.C.'s faux-senator thinks rededicating the monument for all 53,513 who died in WWI will take away from the D.C. residents for whom the modest memorial was originally named.

Some activists don't want to risk any more construction on the sacred Mall.

And in the most aggravating position, the U.S. Park Service that maintains the stretch between the Lincoln Memorial and the Capital wants to study it all before weighing in.

Sen. Durbin spoke in favor of the bill to refurbish the existing monument. "They were a great generation that sacrificed and engaged in a war peril, and it is fitting that there be an upgrade of that monument. Walk by it. In its day I'm sure it was a glorious monument, but it needs attention today for it to be a fitting tribute to the men and women who served our nation during that great conflict."

Politics and posturing aside, there are other World War I memorials. In Kansas City and even on the U. of I. campus in Champaign-Urbana.

But if I had joined the U.S. Army at age 16, fought and lived through WWI and was now 108 years old still fighting for recognition from my countrymen, I would be asking myself, "Is this really what we fought for? Is this the kind of treatment the boys overseas can expect?"

I wish Frank Buckles had the wherewithal to tell Congress this: Do a better job honoring our fighters in the war on terror than you've treated those who were in the war to end all wars.

Chuck Goudie, whose column appears each Monday, is the chief investigative reporter at ABC 7 News in Chicago. The views in this column are his own and not those of WLS-TV. He can be reached by email at chuckgoudie@gmail.com and followed at twitter.com/ChuckGoudie.