I personally find this deeply offensive. This polemic is featured in the Guardian practically every year and its just more of the same sanctimonious bullshit we're becoming accustomed to from them. There is a lot of good feeling toward the guardian here because of their involvement with the Snowden affair, but I'd warn you all to treat them with the cynicism that you treat any other news agency with. This individual, who by all means is entitled to his view, is no better than the politicians he is complaining about by further politicising d deliberately misrepresenting what the appeal represents. That he served in the WWII is merely an example of an appeal to authority fallacy. The Poppy Appeal is a charitable fund that is operated by the Royal British Legion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Royal_British_Legion) and exists to help veterans and the dependants of service men and women that are injured or killed in action. Wear a poppy is showing support for those affected, not existing troops nor the wars that they fight in. It isn't showing any kind of agreement with any kind of foreign policy. Conflating the two is disingenuous to say the least and does nothing other than harming families that care for or have lost members to military action.
EDIT: Not wearing a poppy is an individuals right in the UK. It's a right that I absolutely stand by. I have no issue with anyone choosing not to partake in the act of remembrance. I take issue with it being misrepresented by both sides of the political spectrum. The irony of course is that the people who they are choosing not to remember gave their life for that right.
The history is more complex than a few paragraphs can convey. For instance, The Royal British Legion was founded by Field Marshal Douglas Haig, commander of British Expeditionary Forces and commander at the Battle of the Somme where over one million men were killed or injured. As a result there have been periods of controversy over Remembrance Day given the role that governments and the ruling elites play in formenting conflicts while the bulk of the cost and consequences is carried by the lower classes. It has certainly nothing to do with the political spectrum. The UK's recent foray into Iraq was brought to you by Prime Minister Tony Blair (Labour).
The controversy has parallels with the debate about the Vietnam War in the United States.
Haig was a founder of the RBL. In fact the OP linked to a wiki entry about the RBL, which spells out the RBLs formation. The whole point of remembrance is to recognise "the bulk of the cost and consequences" that is carried by all classes who are maimed or killed in combat. War isn't selective about your background and weapons maim and kill indiscriminately. Are you suggesting that because Haig was a founder, we should offer less credence to the RBL for the subsequent work that they do?
I believe the OP was referring to the politicising of the act of remembrance for political gain. Mr Smith has politicised this by writing an inflammatory piece bemoaning the current wars, which as you rightly point out were brought forward by Blair and the (Guardian supported) Labour Party. As a result, Smith is asking us to besmirch the act of remembrance of soldiers who have fought in these conflicts. Why? Because we don't agree with the wars? That seems rather churlish to me. I don't agree with either of the conflicts that the US has started and that Blair blindly followed, but it won't stop me remembering the combatants whose lives have lost or irrecoverably changed. If anything the act of buying a poppy is reminding us just how vile war is an how we should all stand against the politicians and corporations that lobby for it. The poppy should be a symbol of peace, albeit a sombre reminder of what it can cost.
Pinning this on The Guardian is a little strong. It's in CommentIsFree, where they'll allow even the most right wing a platform, if they think it's interesting.
EDIT: Not wearing a poppy is an individuals right in the UK. It's a right that I absolutely stand by. I have no issue with anyone choosing not to partake in the act of remembrance. I take issue with it being misrepresented by both sides of the political spectrum. The irony of course is that the people who they are choosing not to remember gave their life for that right.