A mild concern was raised by a Times Free Press editor as to whether readers would object to a story on the 50-year endurance of the peace sign in the same issue of the newspaper that reported on the sacrifices of men and women serving in the armed forces.

The question, while appropriate, may be more reflective of a time past.

The editor is a baby boomer and came through a time in America’s history framed by protests, demonstrations and a measure of disrespect for those who served in the military either by choice or by conscription. Washington policies and politics were taken out on soldiers who served in an unpopular war in Southeast Asia.

As Anne Braly wrote last week in the Times Free Press, the three-lined peace symbol originated in England in the late 1950s and was aimed at nuclear armament. When the symbol arrived on the shores of America, it took on a new meaning of opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. The anti-establishment, anti-war movement in the United States embraced the symbol, and the two-finger “V” for victory sign became another visible peace signal.

Soldiers, some who were career military and others who were drafted out of college or from a job, returned from Vietnam to a country where some took out their anger against the war on those who fought in it.

Years later Vietnam-era veterans still relish an opportunity to be recognized for their service to country, to find a welcoming hand from veterans groups, or to share stories at reunions in public instead of hiding their Vietnam service.

Thirty years later and the country once more is at war. This time it’s the Middle East — Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is not a draft; soldiers are either volunteers or professionals.

Protest efforts have been few, and those that have occurred are sparse in attendance compared to Vietnam-era activist demonstrations.

The lack of a draft is perhaps the factor that moderated Iraq war protests. But there also is the placement of responsibility for war more on the policy-makers and not on those who carry out the policies.

Public attitudes are more negative toward the Bush administration and Republicans for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians exchange verbal barbs, retired generals speak out for and against tactics, but little of the blame is placed on those who serve.

When Vietnam veterans walked down the street in the 1960s and ’70s, they were ridiculed, spat upon and guilty by association.

Comparing that welcome home to one that occurred the other day in the main terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport reveals more than a different time.

Passengers awaiting flights were packed into a food court or lounged in a crowded atrium.

A smattering of applause began, and similar to a wave at a sporting

event, the clapping spread across the terminal.

People turned, straining for a glimpse of what must have been some celebrity or triumphant sports team moving through the crowd.

Instead they saw soldiers marching in single file toward an awaiting gate. Dressed in desert fatigues, the string of soldiers snaked down from the USO area in the Atlanta airport. One by one they marched through a gauntlet of well-wishers.

Thirty-plus years and a different public response to those who serve in uniform.

Political differences about the war similar to those in the 1960s exist today, but this time the soldiers are not viewed as part of the problem.