The latest that I can see is that this parade is scheduled for 11 November (Veteran's Day in the US), and cost estimates vary widely. It is also, while not common, not unprecedented.
What would be an appropriate recognition of the centenary of the end of the First World War?
I recall a large military parade to Queen's Park in Toronto in the early- to mid-2000s, featuring about 2000 to 3000 troops and cadets, that I attended. I cannot remember the occasion or specific date. That was a provincial capital. The parade in question is in a national capital.
Given the national population ratio, that would equate to 20000 to 30000 on parade in Washington.
1700 CF members marched in Toronto in April 2013 to commemorate the second centenary of the Battle of York, according to https://torontoist.com/2013/04/commemorating-the-battle-of-york/. The article at the link is positive, and no accusations of ego or complaints of cost or appropriateness. Even the Toronto Star said "It’s entirely fitting to mark this anniversary with pomp and ceremony" in https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/21/the_battle_of_york_200_years_ago_shaped_toronto_and_canada_editorial.html.
This was, of course, just one battle in a much smaller conflict than the First World War and was twice as long ago.
Again, based upon the population ratio, the equivalent size parade in the US would be 17000.
Is a parade in the US capital on the occasion of the centenary of the end of the First World War inappropriate?
If not, what size should it be? How big is too big?
Some precedents: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-military-parades-us-have-changed-180968102/
"Most recently, in 1991 more than 8,000 troops marched down Washington D.C.'s Constitution Avenue in a victory parade celebrating the end of the Persian Gulf War. Stealth fighter planes passed overhead while tanks and Patriot missiles rolled by a crowd of 200,000"
"The inauguration of President John F. Kennedy in 1961 included a parade featuring dozens of missiles as well as soldiers and sailors aboard Navy boats towed along Pennsylvania Avenue, writes Nicole Chavez for CNN." That was, of course, directly for a US President.
"President Dwight Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade included 22,000 military service members. The marchers were joined by a cannon capable of firing a nuclear warhead. It was "the most elaborate inaugural pageant every held," according to the Eisenhower Presidential Library & Museum." That was, of course, directly for a US President.
There's more at https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/us/american-military-parades/
Were there accusations of ego or complaints about cost for those back then? I somewhat doubt it. Different times, and different US Presidents.
But now, it's not President Kennedy. It's not President Eisenhower. It's President Trump.
Different times, and different US Presidents - and different journalistic standards.
