logo
A Parade of Ignorance

A Parade of Ignorance

The Atlantic12-06-2025

Benito Mussolini took a keen interest in Roman archaeology; that did not make Roman archaeology a bad thing. President Donald Trump has ordered a parade in honor of the 250th birthday of the United States Army, which does not make the parade a bad thing. But how the parade is being handled, together with the administration's use of the Army in improper ways, is disturbing.
The United States Army deserves a celebration, as do the other armed services during their upcoming birthdays. Tens of millions of Americans have passed through the Army's ranks, and something close to a million have died in the line of duty, while many more were wounded or taken prisoner, or suffered extraordinary hardships. We owe them a lot.
The administration, however, is orchestrating a parade not to honor service, but to celebrate power. Tanks and infantry fighting vehicles will tear up the capital's streets as helicopters thrash overhead. Tough-guy stuff, in other words, designed to show the world that we are, in the much-overused word of the secretary of defense, lethal.
There are ironies here. The ironmongery on display is old technology, albeit continually updated and improved. The Abrams tank was designed in the 1970s and first entered service in 1980, and the Bradley fighting vehicle came online a year later. The wheeled Stryker fighting vehicle is a relative youngster, having entered service in 2001. The first Black Hawk transport helicopter entered service in 1979, and the Apache attack helicopter in 1986. Some really modern military hardware might include a flock of hundreds of drones, but that doesn't provide the same kind of visual for a civilian population that has seen the aerial displays at Disney World. Inadvertently, what is being put on display is the Army's repeated modernization failures as much as its successes.
Nor is this hardware relevant to the strategic choices the Trump administration has avowed, leaving Europe and the Middle East and focusing on the Indo-Pacific. Tanks will not persuade China to keep the People's Liberation Army Navy behind the first island chain. This is about preening for the American public and indulging a kind of juvenile fascination with big, noisy armored vehicles.
Trump and his appointees do not understand this country's real strengths. If they did, they would not attempt to destroy the great research universities that have done so much to create the scientific base that has been indispensable to America's military power. They do not know, because they are exceptionally ill-informed, that it was the mobilization of scientific personnel from America's universities by Vannevar Bush (of MIT) and James B. Conant (president of Harvard) that helped give the United States its technological edge during World War II.
If the draft-evading president and disgruntled former National Guard major running the Department of Defense better understood the American military, they would know that by sending National Guardsmen (and now Marines) to deal with riots when neither the governor of the state nor the mayor of the city concerned want them, they are courting danger. They would not promise, as Trump has, the use of 'heavy force' against protesters. They would not, in other words, anticipate, almost with glee, the prospect of Americans in uniform shooting their fellow citizens. For that matter, they would know that deploying thousands of military personnel to the southern border disrupts training for war, which they supposedly value highly.
The Army reportedly wanted this parade. It is, of all the services, the one that is keenest to be identified with the American people, the most wounded when it feels rejected by or distanced from them. The other services have always preferred volunteers in wartime and usually get them; the Army is, ultimately, the most representative service. One can understand the desire to observe this milestone, particularly after the debilitating defeat the United States suffered in Afghanistan and its equivocal success in Iraq. In some ways, the Army is making a bid for reassurance here.
No matter: A parade on this anniversary should remind the American people of how the Army won our independence, preserved our Union, crushed a rebellion fought in the name of slavery, and liberated large parts of Europe and Asia. A worthy parade would include storied units whose heritage goes back to the founding of the country. Soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Regiment, the 'Old Guard,' established in 1784, should march by, as might other, even older, units such as the 101st Field Artillery Regiment of the Massachusetts Army National Guard, the 'Boston Light Artillery,' founded in 1636.
Famous and familiar units—the 1st Division (the 'Big Red One') and the 101st Division (the 'Screaming Eagles')—will no doubt be represented. But so, too, should units that capture, yes, the diversity of the American military. Soldiers representing the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment, which was composed of free Black Americans, and some of the units of U.S. Colored Troops, who made up about a fifth of the Union Army by the end of the Civil War, should be there. Abraham Lincoln's words, written in 1863, might be recalled: 'And then, there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it.' (President Trump might reflect on those words before renaming American bases for secessionist officers who betrayed their allegiance to the Constitution.)
Kori Schake: Sometimes a parade is just a parade
The Oneida and Stockbridge Indians who served alongside fellow Americans fighting for independence from Britain should be represented, among the many Native Americans from tribes across the country who proudly fought for the United States. And the extraordinary 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which was composed of second-generation Japanese Americans, many of whose parents were then interned in camps in the Southwest, and yet which became one of the most highly decorated units in the Army during the Second World War.
The Army, throughout its history, has been the great equalizer. As the sociologist Charles Moskos once pointed out, in the 1950s and '60s it was one of the few institutions in which Black men were routinely giving orders to white ones. The experience of common military service was humbling for some, elevating for others, and helped forge a common identity. We should honor that, as we honor the work of liberation that has so often been part of the Army's mission.
The Army has much to celebrate—its history, its values, its accomplishments. Fetishizing its killing instruments, shutting down the capital's streets for tanks, and threatening protesters with violence is as wrong as it is deeply ignorant. Worse, it will undermine the tribute a grateful American public should properly pay to those who have, over the centuries, defended our freedom with blood and sweat and brought that same inestimable gift to many others around the world.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa Race
Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa Race

Miami Herald

time42 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa Race

Christina Bohannan, an Iowa Democrat making her third go at the battleground congressional seat held by GOP Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, told Newsweek in an interview that tariffs have emerged as a major issue for voters in the district. Bohannan came close to flipping Iowa's 1st Congressional District last year—losing by only 799 votes despite President Donald Trump carrying the district by more than eight percentage points against then Vice President Kamala Harris. The Iowa Democrat also ran in 2022. Now, Bohannan is making her third go at the district in the 2026 midterms, when Democrats are hoping a 2018-style blue wave will carry them to victory in key races across the country. Democrats will need to win seats like this to retake control of the House of Representatives next November. Trump's tariffs are likely to loom over key races next year, but the issue could be particularly important in the Hawkeye State. Trump says tariffs are necessary to bring back jobs to the U.S. and close the trade deficit. But exports of agricultural goods are a lifeline for farmers in states like Iowa. On Thursday, the president said he signed a trade deal with China, but the full impact of how that deal may affect farmers remained unclear. Bohannan emphasized tariffs as a key challenge facing Iowa in an interview with Newsweek, in which she discussed her campaign. Bohannan said she views tariffs as a "significant issue" facing Iowa. "I've already talked to some farmers who are very worried about the effect of tariffs and the trade war with China," she said. "What we see is that China in the past has bought a lot of farm products from Iowa, and now China is seeking out other trading partners besides Iowa and besides the U.S., like Brazil for example." The U.S. has landed in a trade war with China, which faced the highest tariffs under Trump's plan. This has affected farmers in the state, as China is the largest importer of soybeans from the U.S., importing more than $12 billion worth of the agricultural product in 2024. China has sought new trading partners, a move that could create economic uncertainty and losses for soybean farmers in states like Iowa. Once the trade relationships with Iowa farmers have been "severed," they will be hard to restore, Bohannan warned. Many residents in the district are also "already struggling to get by" due to the high cost-of-living, she said. Legislation supported by Republicans, such as Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" will only make those challenges worse, Bohannan said. Miller-Meeks told KHQA, a news station based in Quincy, Illinois, that Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" will address concerns, adding that tariffs are used as a "negotiating tactic," and that manufacturers and small business owners have for years raised concerns about China's "egregious trade practices." A poll that was published this week and released by the House Majority PAC showed Bohannan with an early lead over Miller-Meeks in the midterms, with 43 percent of voters supporting the Democrat and 39 percent backing the Republican. The poll surveyed 555 voters in the district from June 18-19, Politico reported. Bohannan outperformed Harris by eight points in Iowa's 1st District—which includes areas like Davenport and Des Moines suburbs, as well as large swaths of rural areas in southeast Iowa. The issue of winning back rural voters has been an existential question for the Democratic Party as they try to stop bleeding in Midwest and Great Lake states where their margins have diminished over the past decade. Iowa, which backed former President Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but has also backed Trump, is emblematic of that challenge. Bohannan overperformed last year by cutting into GOP margins in some of the rural counties in the district. She told Newsweek that Democrats can win back rural voters by getting out and talk to them "where they are." "That sounds simple, but the fact is that a lot of times, candidates don't take the time to go out to rural areas and small communities to connect with voters," she said. "They go to the bigger cities and do big events, but they don't take the time to really go to these communities and talk to people and listen to people." She attributed those efforts to her performance in 2024. "I actually spent time in these areas. I met with people to talk about what was happening in their public schools. What was happening with childcare and with water quality, and elder care in their communities," she said. "People got to know me and got to trust me. They understand that I come from a very small rural community just like theirs. My family had to make very hard decisions about filling prescriptions after my dad got sick and lost his insurance or putting food on the table." National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokeswoman Emily Tuttle, in a statement after Bohannan announced her campaign: "When will Christina learn? Iowans have rejected her twice already, and now she has to run to the left to beat radical Bob Kraus and Bernie-bro Travis Terrell in the primary. There's no doubt whoever comes out of this liberal rat race will be sent packing when Iowans re-elect America First fighter Mariannette Miller-Meeks next fall." Christina Bohannan told Newsweek: "One thing that's so interesting about Iowans is that we are fair minded, and we are willing to give people a chance regardless of political party if we believe that you're authentic, and you're willing to put Iowa first. So, in 2024, 33,000 people who voted for Donald Trump in this district also voted for me. I won two counties here that Trump won handily. What we see here is that Iowans really want somebody who is going to put Iowa first." The race is expected to be one of the most competitive of the 2026 midterms. Both the Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball, two of the leading election forecasters, classify the race as a pure toss-up. Bohannan and Miller-Meeks are also set to face off against other candidates in primaries scheduled to be held on June 2, 2026. The general election is set for November 3, 2026. Related Articles Republicans' Chances of Flipping New Hampshire's Democratic Senate SeatClarence Thomas Wants Supreme Court to Reassess Landmark Voting LawFull List of Democrats Voting to Condemn Los Angeles Anti-Trump RiotsNew 2028 Democratic Front-Runner Surges Ahead of Kamala Harris-Poll 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'
Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'

Miami Herald

time42 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'

On Friday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order targeting legal firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." This is the fourth defeat in court Trump has suffered since imposing punitive measures on a number of law firms that either were involved in legal cases against him or represented his political rivals. Newsweek contacted the White House and Susman Godfrey for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and telephone respectively. In March, Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting law firms resulting in a number taking legal action, though others struck deals with the White House which saw them agree to do unpaid work on behalf of causes the president supports. Critics argued Trump's move was unconstitutional and an assault on free expression, whilst the White House said it was needed to combat what it termed "dishonest" activity. The executive orders Trump imposed on various law firms, including Susman Godfrey, featured a number of punitive measures such as blocking their employees access to government buildings, terminating government contracts and suspending security clearance. Friday saw District Judge Loren AliKhan conclude that in the case of Susman Godfrey, Trump's order was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." She said: "Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was already the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15. Susman Godfrey is the fourth law firm targeted by Trump's executive orders that has successfully fought to get them blocked in court, following Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The rulings were issued by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: "The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." In his ruling on WilmerHale's case, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said: "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. "The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence." Friday's judgement means the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey will not go into effect. The Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal. Related Articles Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security AdministrationHarvard Finds International Student Lifeline Amid Trump Visa Showdown 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store