
S.F. shouldn't forget where it came from: U.S. Army helped shape city
Missiles are flying in the Mideast air, but I still can't get over the parade to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary in Washington last weekend. It was Flag Day, as well as President Donald Trump's birthday. The president took the salute himself. Seven thousand troops marched, and the White House said 250,000 patriots watched.
The big parade was overshadowed by events including the huge anti-Trump No Kings rallies across the country, political killings in Minnesota, a horrific air crash in India and the Israeli raids on Iran.
It nearly rained on the Army's parade, the crowds were smaller than anticipated, the troops seemed dispirited, and the World War II armored vehicles looked like creaky relics. It was all 'a little underwhelming,' a reporter from the British Guardian newspaper wrote. The American social media was full of scorn. The soldiers didn't even march in step, some wrote.
I read these statements with some sadness. Given the way things are going, it is possible that some of the soldiers on parade last week may soon be in a war, especially because a lot of them were from infantry units. They could be there tomorrow, or next week.
So I watched the parade with a wary eye. Some of it is personal: I used to be a soldier myself, long ago. Like millions of men of my vintage, I was drafted into the Army during the Cold War. I did five years, counting some reserve duty. I disliked the Army — all of us did — but came to respect it.
Then later, through one of those turns of fortune, I did two turns as a war correspondent for the Chronicle, both in the Mideast. I was with the Seventh Infantry Regiment during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and my unit was in combat. I saw what these Mideast adventures are like in real life.
The city of San Francisco and the region around it has a long connection to armies — first to foreign militaries and then to our own.
Soldiers of the Spanish Army were the first Europeans to see San Francisco Bay, and in 1776, a colonial expedition from Mexico led by a lieutenant colonel named Juan Bautista de Anza located the site of Mission San Francisco de Asis and what became the Presidio of San Francisco.
The Presidio was a military post for the next 219 years — first Spanish, then Mexican and, finally, an American garrison in 1847.
The Presidio was one of the places where this part of California began. As the city and the region grew up around it, the fort by the Golden Gate became the most important military post in the country. The was first created to defend the magnificent harbor from foreign invasion, with cannons ringing the entrance to the harbor at Fort Point and Alcatraz Island.
Army troops at the Presidio rode off to the Indian wars, to the conquest of the Philippines. Massive guns in the Marin Headlands could defeat any naval attack. In World War II, the Presidio and Fort Mason were staging areas for the war in the Pacific. More than 2 million soldiers, sailors and Marines sailed out the Golden Gate during World War II, and thousands more in the Korean War.
During the Cold War, dozens of Nike missile sites covered the hills around the Bay Area in the tense times when nuclear war with the Soviet Union seemed imminent. It was our last line of defense.
The war never came; the Presidio and the other military bases around the bay never fired a shot in anger.
The military performed one service that affects everyone in the region to this day. The Army was the steward of an immense tract of open space from the Marin coast down nearly to Santa Cruz County, including Alcatraz and Angel islands, with the Presidio of San Francisco as its crown jewel.
Most of it became part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, a park nearly three times the size of San Francisco. It was created by citizen activists including Amy Meyer and Edgar Wayburn, plus political leaders such as Phillip Burton and Nancy Pelosi, but it would never have happened without the stewardship of the Army.
The Army fired its last cannon salute at day's end on June 23, 1995 — 30 years ago Monday. It was the day the Army turned over the Presidio to the National Park Service.
A bugler played 'To the Colors,' and soldiers lowered the flag, slowly, carefully. Then, with a band playing 'The Stars and Stripes Forever' and led by 11 generals, the last U.S. Army soldiers marched from the parade ground out to the Presidio gate at Lyon and Lombard streets.
A man who identified himself as John marched on the street, alongside the soldiers. He limped a little. He said a piece of shrapnel from Vietnam still bothered him. Still, he kept up. 'You never forget how to march,' he said.
As far as I know, that was the last Army parade in San Francisco.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
19 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Justices need to own the consequences of their injunction ruling
A case the Supreme Court decided on Friday stemmed from President Donald Trump's attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship, but the ruling's implications go beyond even this big issue: The justices curbed the power of lower court judges to block illegal presidential actions, even as the sitting president tries to do things that are plainly unconstitutional. Now they need to own the consequences of their ruling. More than ever, they must be willing to act with speed and force when the president attempts to violate Americans' rights.


CNBC
21 minutes ago
- CNBC
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. "Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved," said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. "Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents." Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional "collections" actions that one would take against a "deadbeat debtor." Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including "sanctuary" policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. "We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites," she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. "It's a novel concept," said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. "I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds." Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. "So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much," said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. "There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people," he said. "The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'" But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. "Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'" he said. "States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law." But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. "We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget," said Moon, the Maryland legislator. "There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House."


Fox News
25 minutes ago
- Fox News
'It's time to end the war': Parents of Oct 7th victim call on Netanyahu to reach ceasefire
All times eastern Fox Business in Depth: Red, White and Blue Collar/Dagen McDowell Maria Bartiromo's Wall Street FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Senate convenes over President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'