Withdrawing from a Treaty

 Gary J. Schmitt at AEI:

Arguments have been made that Congress must approve such a decision or that the Senate, given its role in sanctioning a treaty, should also have a say in terminating that pact. Yet presidents acted on their own in the two most recent decisions to end America’s adherence to a security-related treaty. In late 1979, President Jimmy Carter announced that the 1954 security accord with the Republic of China (Taiwan) would end on January 1, 1980. And then, in December 2001, not long after 9/11, George W. Bush announced that the U.S. was pulling out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Carter’s decision did not go unchallenged. Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that treaty termination required Senate concurrence. Eventually, the case made it to the Supreme Court, where six of the nine justices ruled that it should be dismissed, with no hearing or oral arguments required. Justice William Rehnquist, concurring with that judgment, issued a statement along with three other justices that said the issue at hand was a political question—a dispute between Congress and the president over how foreign affairs should be conducted—and, therefore, not something for the court to decide. It was up to Congress to defend its claimed prerogatives. Justice Lewis Powell also concurred in the decision, but argued in a separate statement that the case might in fact have been one for the court to hear if the Congress had acted as a whole by passing a resolution formally opposing Carter’s decision.

Goldwater v. Carter (1979) undoubtedly influenced how Congress reacted to Bush’s decision to pull out of the ABM Treaty two decades later. While there were certainly Democrats who criticized the decision, the party itself was in the minority in the House and held a slim, one-vote margin in the Senate. With the precedent of Goldwater v. Carter, individual members stood no chance of contesting the White House in court and, just as importantly, they lacked the political wherewithal to challenge the decision by passing a resolution that the court might have then taken cognizance of.

Passports

From the US. Department of State:

Passport processing times have returned to our pre-pandemic norm. As of December 18, 2023, passport applications will be processed within 6-8 weeks for routine service and 2-3 weeks for expedited service, which costs an additional $60. With this update, we have fulfilled our commitment to return to benchmarks from March 2020. This reflects the work of dedicated employees working for the American people.

In 1990, only five percent of Americans had a passport. Today, that number is 48%. More Americans can travel abroad now than at any time in our history. There are now over 160 million valid U.S. passports in circulation (nearly double the amount from 2007).

The exact numbers: 

Year	Valid U.S. Passports
2023	160,668,889
2022	151,814,305
2021	145,028,408
2020	143,116,633
2019	146,775,089
2018	137,588,631
2017	136,114,038
2016	131,841,062
2015	125,907,176
2014	121,512,341
2013	117,443,735
2012	113,431,943
2011	109,780,364
2010	101,797,872
2009	97,597,368
2008	92,038,623
2007	82,100,668
2006	70,598,794
2005	64,772,634
2004	60,890,770
2003	57,642,868
2002	55,169,571
2001	52,155,057
2000	48,614,417
1999	45,337,044
1998	42,576,973
1997	39,729,749
1996	34,365,046
1995	29,559,666
1994	25,156,620
1993	21,245,840
1992	17,950,578
1991	14,344,241
1990	11,116,489
1989	7,261,711

Isolationism

Previous posts discussed the question of isolationism in contemporary politics.

 George F. Will at WP:

Sen. Robert Taft (1889-1953), son of a president, did not consider himself an isolationist. But early in 1940, shortly before Hitler’s blitzkrieg to Paris and the English Channel, Taft said, “It would be a great mistake for us to participate in the European war. I do not believe we could materially affect the outcome.” He lost the 1940 Republican presidential nomination to Wendell Willkie, who had been a registered Republican for less than a year and who said he would vote to reelect President Franklin D. Roosevelt rather than a Republican opposed to aid for Britain and FranceEnd of carousel


Taft greatly, if inadvertently, contributed to the nation’s security by voting against the NATO treaty. The Soviet Union, he said, did not want war, but NATO might provoke it to war. Besides, U.S. possession of the atomic bomb would keep the peace. On July 21, 1949, after the communist coup in Czechoslovakia and the Berlin blockade, the Senate approved NATO membership 83-13. Taft’s opposition, combined with his quest for the Republicans’ 1952 nomination, helped provoke Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme commander of NATO (1951-1952), into entering the race. This brought the Republican Party into the bipartisan, internationalist foreign policy that won the Cold War.

Beirut Bombing, 40 Years Ago Today

Recent posts have discussed the Hamas terror attack on Israel. American officials fear that the conflict could spread to Lebanon.  Today we observe a grim anniversary. 

#OTD 40 YEARS AGO in Beirut "a truck smashed through doors of headquarters building in which our Marines were sleeping & instantly exploded. The 4-story concrete building collapsed in pile of rubble.
More than 200 of the sleeping men were killed in that one hideous insane attack" pic.twitter.com/Di6O9WbS0c

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) October 23, 2023

Biden and Reagan

Recent posts have discussed the Hamas terror attack on Israel.

 Matt Lewis at The Daily Beast:

I never thought the day would come when I, a die-hard Reagan Republican, would credit a Democratic president for being Reaganesque. Amazingly, it has. Don’t look now, but Joe Biden has been leading with moral authority in the struggle against violent authoritarianism and illiberalism at home and abroad.

While Donald Trump criticized the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden met with Bibi and declared America’s support for Israel to be “rock solid and unwavering.” And while Republican support for providing U.S. aid to Ukraine has eroded, Biden has steadfastly supported them in their plight against a brutal Russian invasion. 

This trend continued during his speech on Thursday night, where Biden sought to unite these two crises. “The assault on Israel echoes nearly 20 months of war, tragedy, and brutality inflicted on the people of Ukraine—people that were very badly hurt since Vladimir Putin launched his all-out invasion,” he said.

Media Fall for Hamas Disinformation

 Elliot Kaufman at WSJ:

It was a lie. Hamas said Tuesday that an Israeli airstrike on a Gaza City hospital killed at least 500 Palestinians. Turns out it wasn’t Israeli, it wasn’t an airstrike, it didn’t hit the hospital, nowhere close to 500 people were killed, and Hamas knew it.

This has been confirmed independently by the Pentagon, according to President Biden and the National Security Council; by an intercept and drone and radar footage released by the Israeli military; and perhaps most persuasively by looking at the hospital in daylight. The evidence indicates that a rocket launched by Palestinian Islamic Jihad is the likely culprit.

The question is why the media and so many others ran with the story of Israeli war crimes. They did so on nothing but the word of the jihadist group that committed the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

“Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say,” read the initial New York Times headline. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) announced on Twitter: “Bombing a hospital is among the gravest of war crimes. The IDF reportedly blowing up one of the few places the injured and wounded can seek medical treatment and shelter during a war is horrific. @POTUS needs to push for an immediate ceasefire to end this slaughter.”

The trend everywhere was to let Hamas drive the story, leading readers astray. “BREAKING: The Gaza Health Ministry says at least 500 people killed in an explosion at a hospital that it says was caused by an Israeli airstrike,” the Associated Press wrote in a tweet seen 13 million times. The Gaza Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas. The AP’s subsequent clarification that Israel attributed the strike to a Palestinian rocket has fewer than 200,000 views. But the friendly-fire explanation should always have been plausible and held out as a possibility. Israel doesn’t target hospitals, and it had already counted some 450 Palestinian rockets that fell inside Gaza.

Americans Stand with Israel

 Quinnipiac Poll:

In the wake of the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel and Israel declaring war on Hamas, an overwhelming majority of voters (85 percent) are either very concerned (49 percent) or somewhat concerned (36 percent) that the war between Israel and Hamas will escalate into a wider war in the Middle East, while 13 percent are either not so concerned (8 percent) or not concerned at all (5 percent), according to a Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pea-ack) University national poll of registered voters released today. The poll was conducted from October 12 through October 16.

Voters (76 - 17 percent) think supporting Israel is in the national interest of the United States.

Republicans (84 - 12 percent), Democrats (76 - 17 percent), and independents (74 - 19 percent) think supporting Israel is in the national interest of the United States.

Voters (64 - 28 percent) approve of the United States sending weapons and military equipment to Israel in response to the Hamas terrorist attack.

Republicans (79 - 19 percent), Democrats (59 - 29 percent), and independents (61 - 32 percent) approve of the United States sending weapons and military equipment to Israel.

There are wide gaps when looking at age. Voters 18 - 34 years old disapprove (51 - 39 percent) of the United States sending weapons and military equipment to Israel in response to the Hamas terrorist attack, while voters 35 - 49 years old (59 - 35 percent), voters 50 - 64 years old (77 - 17 percent), and voters 65 years of age and over (78 - 15 percent) approve.

When it comes to the relationship between the United States and Israel, slightly more than half of voters (52 percent) think the U.S. support of Israel is about right, while 20 percent think the U.S. is not supportive enough of Israel, and 20 percent think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel. This compares to a Quinnipiac University poll in May 2021 when 35 percent thought the U.S. support of Israel was about right, 25 percent thought the U.S. was not supportive enough, and 29 percent thought the U.S. was too supportive of Israel.

Voters were asked whether their sympathies lie more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians based on what they know about the situation in the Middle East. Roughly 6 in 10 voters (61 percent) say the Israelis, while 13 percent say the Palestinians. This is an all-time high of voters saying their sympathies lie more with the Israelis since the Quinnipiac University Poll first asked this question of registered voters in December 2001. The previous high for saying the Israelis was in April 2010 when 57 percent said the Israelis and 13 percent said the Palestinians. The low for saying the Israelis was in May 2021 when 41 percent said the Israelis and 30 percent said the Palestinians.

When asked who they thought was more responsible for the outbreak of violence in the Middle East, regardless of their overall feelings toward the Israelis and the Palestinians, more than 7 in 10 voters (72 percent) say Hamas and 10 percent say Israel, with 6 percent volunteering both equally, and 12 percent not offering an opinion.

Polls on the Middle East

Hamas has vowed to obliterate Israel and kill Jews.

Public opinion on the current conflict:

Ipsos/ABC:

Almost half of Americans believe the U.S. is doing the right amount to support Israel against Hamas.Forty-nine percent say the U.S. is doing about the right amount to support Israel in its war with Hamas. This is particularly true for Americans over age 50, Democrats, and independents, of whom a majority say the U.S. is doing the right amount.
Over a quarter (29%) of Americans say the U.S. is doing too little to support Israel in its war with Hamas. Republicans are more likely to say the U.S. should provide more support with half expressing that sentiment.

Overall, 18% say the U.S. is doing too much to help Israel in its war with Hamas. Here, too, there is a difference by age, as Americans under age 50 are more likely to feel the U.S. is doing too much, though only a minority feel this way.

U.S. involvement in Ukraine tells a slightly different story. While a plurality (42%) says the U.S. is doing the right amount to support Ukraine in its war against Russia, more say the U.S. is doing too much (33%) rather than too little (22%). These attitudes are consistent with an ABC News/Ipsos poll from January.

 Jennifer Agresta at CNN:

The American public expresses deep sympathy for the Israeli people and broadly sees the Israeli government’s military response to Hamas’ attacks as justified, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, and two-thirds are at least somewhat worried the fighting between Israel and Hamas could lead to terrorism in the US. The poll also finds divisions by party and age in how Americans view the conflict and the US response to it.

...

Half of Americans (50%) say that the Israeli government’s military response to the Hamas attacks is fully justified, another 20% say it’s partially justified and just 8% that it is not at all justified, with 21% unsure. Republicans are far more likely than independents or Democrats to say the response is fully justified (68% of Republicans say so compared with 45% of independents and 38% of Democrats), and older Americans are also much likelier than younger ones to say it is completely justified (81% of those age 65 or older see the response as fully justified, compared with 56% of 50-to-64-year-olds, 44% of 35-to-49-year-olds and 27% of 18-to-34-year-olds). Majorities across age and party, though, say the Israeli response is at least partially justified, with very few Americans of any age or party affiliation saying the response is not at all justified.

A sizable 71% of Americans say they feel a lot of sympathy for the Israeli people over the attacks by Hamas on October 7, with nearly all, 96%, expressing at least some sympathy for them. A broad majority also feel at least some sympathy for the Palestinian people (87%), but fewer feel a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians (41%). Nearly all Americans (84%) express at least some sympathy for both Israeli and Palestinian people as they face ongoing fighting.

 But here too, there are divides by age and party, with younger Americans and Democrats likelier to express a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian people than Republicans and older Americans. Majorities across party lines express a lot of sympathy for the Israeli people (78% of Republicans, 68% of independents and 67% of Democrats), but there is a broad gap between the share of Democrats (49%) and independents (47%) who have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian people and the share of Republicans who say the same (26%).

The Hamas Charter

The Hamas charter promises to obliterate Israel.

 Bruce Hoffman at The Atlantic:

The most relevant of the document’s 36 articles can be summarized as falling within four main themes:

1. The complete destruction of Israel as an essential condition for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of a theocratic state based on Islamic law (Sharia),
2. The need for both unrestrained and unceasing holy war (jihad) to attain the above objective,
3. The deliberate disdain for, and dismissal of, any negotiated resolution or political settlement of Jewish and Muslim claims to the Holy Land, and
4. The reinforcement of historical anti-Semitic tropes and calumnies married to sinister conspiracy theories.

Thus, as fighting rages in Israel and Gaza, and may yet escalate and spread, pleas for moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace are destined to find no purchase with Hamas. The covenant makes clear that holy war, divinely ordained and scripturally sanctioned, is in Hamas’s DNA.

Israel’s Complete and Utter Destruction

The covenant opens with a message that precisely encapsulates Hamas’s master plan. Quoting Hassan al-Banna, the Egyptian founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a constituent member (Article 2), the document proclaims, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

Lest there be any doubt about Hamas’s sanguinary aims toward Israel and the Jewish people, the introduction goes on to explain:

This Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS), clarifies its picture, reveals its identity, outlines its stand, explains its aims, speaks about its hopes, and calls for its support, adoption and joining its ranks. Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious … It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps.

After some general explanatory language about Hamas’s religious foundation and noble intentions, the covenant comes to the Islamic Resistance Movement’s raison d’être: the slaughter of Jews. “The Day of Judgement will not come about,” it proclaims, “until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.”

Public Opinion and the Middle East

Kathy Frankovic, Carl Bialik, and Taylor Orth at YouGov:

Americans are far more likely to side with Israelis than with Palestinians, according to polls conducted after Saturday's attack by Hamas on Israel and while Israel conducted attacks in Gaza in response. Americans are also more likely to support U.S. aid to Israel than to Palestine, and to think Israelis are trying to avoid striking civilian areas than to think Hamas is. Support for Israel on several fronts is greater among Republicans than among Democrats, and among older Americans than among young adults. Support for Israel also is higher than it was in several prior polls, including during previous waves of conflict in the region.

Polling by the Economist/YouGov finds that far more Americans sympathize with the Israelis than with the Palestinians. The share of Americans overall sympathizing with Israel has risen by 11 points since March. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to sympathize with the Palestinians, and the share of Republicans who sympathize more with Israel has jumped by 16 points since March.

Slava Ukraini!

Many posts have dealt with the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  A recent tweet includes English literature ("August 1968," Auden's about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia) and American images (JFK and Reagan).

On the anniversary of Neville Chamberlain's speech justifying the abandonment of democratic Czechoslovakia, and on the day the US passed its continuing budget resolution without aid for Ukraine, this little bit of art from the Ukrainian defense ministry. https://t.co/0Eww82BEBi

— Timothy Snyder (@TimothyDSnyder) October 1, 2023

A 2014 recruiting video:

Biden on Executive Power

Miles's Law: where you stand depends on where you sit.  

Charlie Savage,   Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan at NYT:

If he is elected to a second term, President Biden pledged that he will go to Congress to start any major war but said he believed he was empowered “to direct limited U.S. military operations abroad” without such approval when such strikes served critical American interests.

“As president, I have taken great care to ensure that military actions carried out under my command comply with this constitutional framework and that my administration consults with Congress to the greatest extent possible,” he wrote in response to a New York Times survey of presidential candidates about executive power.

“I will continue to rigorously apply this framework to any potential actions in the future,” he added.

The reply stood in contrast to his answer in 2007, when he was also running for president and, as a senator, adopted a narrower view: “The Constitution is clear: Except in response to an attack or the imminent threat of attack, only Congress may authorize war and the use of force.”

Not just war powers. 

In 2019, for example, Mr. Biden said that if elected, he would order the Justice Department to review and potentially replace a legal policy memo that says sitting presidents are temporarily immune from indictment. He strongly criticized the department’s interpretation of the Constitution, which limited the special counsel investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia and Mr. Trump’s attempts to impede that inquiry, Robert S. Mueller III.

But Mr. Biden never followed through on that pledge. He is now protected himself by the Justice Department’s theory since a special counsel, Robert Hur, is investigating how several classified documents were in his possession when he left the vice presidency.

The Sit Room

 

Chinese Propagandist

Many posts have discussed the political influence of China.

Mara Hvistendahl et al. at NYT:

On the surface, No Cold War is a loose collective run mostly by American and British activists who say the West’s rhetoric against China has distracted from issues like climate change and racial injustice.

In fact, a New York Times investigation found, it is part of a lavishly funded influence campaign that defends China and pushes its propaganda. At the center is a charismatic American millionaire, Neville Roy Singham, who is known as a socialist benefactor of far-left causes.

What is less known, and is hidden amid a tangle of nonprofit groups and shell companies, is that Mr. Singham works closely with the Chinese government media machine and is financing its propaganda worldwide.

From a think tank in Massachusetts to an event space in Manhattan, from a political party in South Africa to news organizations in India and Brazil, The Times tracked hundreds of millions of dollars to groups linked to Mr. Singham that mix progressive advocacy with Chinese government talking points.

Some, like No Cold War, popped up in recent years. Others, like the American antiwar group Code Pink, have morphed over time. Code Pink once criticized China’s rights record but now defends its internment of the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs, which human rights experts have labeled a crime against humanity.

The Doomsday Book

 Miles Taylor at Vanity Fair:

Inside the White House complex, an instruction manual is hidden in a secure location for use only in national emergencies. Few people know where it is, and even fewer people are allowed to access it. Informally dubbed the “Doomsday Book,” the manual contains the president’s break-glass options for keeping the country running in situations ranging from global nuclear war to an armed foreign invasion of the United States.

The options are known by an anodyne name—PEADs—or “presidential emergency action documents.” Recently declassified records suggest that the PEADs allow the president to invoke extraordinary powers. The records hint at draft authorizations to enable the White House to unilaterally detain “dangerous persons,” censor the news media, flip an internet “kill switch,” take over social media, and suspend Americans from traveling. These might be the type of actions a president would take if the nation’s capital was destroyed, enemy forces were hunting down U.S. leaders, or the survival of U.S. democracy was in doubt.

Mark Harvey was once the keeper of the book. He served on the NSC during the Trump administration and referred to the manual as “the Mad Libs for the most extreme measures of government.” While Harvey wouldn’t confirm or deny the PEAD contents, his job was “to advise whether to pull out that book and go through these extraordinary decisions,” which he said could be implemented by the nation’s chief executive “with the stroke of a pen.” He was always on hair-trigger alert.

When Donald Trump was in office, senior aides like Harvey were concerned about protecting access to the PEAD documents. Inexperienced MAGA types roamed the White House halls daily, and NSC experts knew that, in the wrong hands, the special powers could be dangerous. Would someone suggest that Trump try to use the documents for non-emergency situations? Would they try to manufacture a crisis so that he could invoke presidential emergency actions?

Military Recruitment

 Ben Kesling at WSJ:

The children of military families make up the majority of new recruits in the U.S. military. That pipeline is now under threat, which is bad news for the Pentagon’s already acute recruitment problems, as well as America’s military readiness.

“Influencers are not telling them to go into the military,” said Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an interview. “Moms and dads, uncles, coaches and pastors don’t see it as a good choice.”

After the patriotic boost to recruiting that followed 9/11, the U.S. military has endured 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan with no decisive victories, scandals over shoddy military housing and healthcare, poor pay for lower ranks that forces many military families to turn to food stamps, and rising rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide.
...

Only 9% of young people ages 16-21 said last year they would consider military service, down from 13% before the pandemic, according to Pentagon data.

...

The lowest-ranking troops make less than $2,000 a month, although pay is bolstered by benefits including healthcare, food and housing, leaving them few out-of-pocket expenses.

Families or those who live off base can find expenses outstrip income. More than 20,000 active-duty troops are on SNAP benefits, otherwise known as food stamps, according to federal data.

Coup Misinformation

Matt Binder at Mashable:

The potential coup attempt in Russia by a paramilitary organization may already be over(opens in a new tab), but the misinformation sure did flow during the breaking global event.

... 

Since Elon Musk acquired the platform, Twitter has gone through changes that don't exactly bode well for it as an invaluable breaking news resource like it once was.

For example, prior to Musk, the blue checkmark meant that a user was verified by Twitter as the journalist or expert that the individual claimed they were. Remember, the purpose of the checkmark was to make sure these users couldn't be impersonated. Now, however, anyone who pays $8 per month for Twitter's premium subscription service, Twitter Blue, gets a blue checkmark.

Furthermore, those paid blue checkmark users now get priority placement in Twitter's For You feed algorithm, and in the replies to other users' tweets. And, echoing the issue on Telegram, many Twitter Blue subscribers are not far, ideologically speaking, from the Putin regime.

 

From WNYC "On the Media":

Jack Smith Statement

Special Counsel Jack Smith Delivers Statement
Washington, DC ~
Friday, June 9, 2023

Good afternoon. Today, an indictment was unsealed charging Donald J. Trump with felony violations of our national security laws as well as participating in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

This indictment was voted by a grand jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida, and I invite everyone to read it in full to understand the scope and the gravity of the crimes charged.

The men and women of the United States intelligence community and our armed forces dedicate their lives to protecting our nation and its people. Our laws that protect national defense information are critical to the safety and security of the United States and they must be enforced. Violations of those laws put our country at risk.

Adherence to the rule of law is a bedrock principle of the Department of Justice. And our nation’s commitment to the rule of law sets an example for the world. We have one set of laws in this country, and they apply to everyone. Applying those laws. Collecting facts. That’s what determines the outcome of an investigation. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The prosecutors in my office are among the most talented and experienced in the Department of Justice. They have investigated this case hewing to the highest ethical standards. And they will continue to do so as this case proceeds.

It’s very important for me to note that the defendants in this case must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. To that end, my office will seek a speedy trial in this matter. Consistent with the public interest and the rights of the accused. We very much look forward to presenting our case to a jury of citizens in the Southern District of Florida.

In conclusion. I would like to thank the dedicated public servants of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with whom my office is conducting this investigation and who worked tirelessly every day upholding the rule of law in our country. I’m deeply proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Thank you very much.

Fort Liberty

Andrea Salcedo at WP:

Fort Bragg, one of the largest military bases in the United States, has officially been renamed Fort Liberty, following a ceremony Friday. The North Carolina post’s new name is part of a congressionally mandated plan to rename military bases, ships and streets that previously honored Confederate leaders.

The plan is the culmination of a years-long effort that intensified in 2020, after the murder of George Floyd and the reckoning it brought over the nation’s history of racism. A panel established by Congress recommended the Army rename nine installations that honored Confederate military officers.

“Welcome to Fort Liberty, the center of the universe,” Lt. Gen. Christopher Donahue, the commanding general of the XVIII Airborne Corps and the newly christened Fort Liberty, said during the ceremony Friday. “We were given a mission to re-designate our installation, no small task with its history. We seized this opportunity to make ourselves better and to seek excellence. That is what we always have done and always will do.”

The other eight Army bases selected to be renamed are Fort Benning and Fort Gordon in Georgia; Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Lee and Fort Pickett in Virginia; Fort Polk in Louisiana; Fort Rucker in Alabama; and Fort Hood in Texas.

The nine Army posts were all built during the first half of the 20th century in former Confederate states. Fort Bragg had been named in honor of Braxton Bragg, a Confederate general who was relieved of command after losing the battle for Chattanooga in 1863, though he remained active in the rebel cause, serving as an adviser to Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

Memorial Day 2023

 From CRS:

From 2006 through 2021, a total of 19,378 active-duty servicemembers have died while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. Of those who died, 24% were killed while serving in in what the Department of Defense (DOD) categorizes as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)—primarily within the territories of Iraq and Afghanistan. The remaining 76% died during operations categorized as Non-Overseas Contingency Operations (Non-OCO). The categories with the highest number of active-duty servicemember deaths were accidents, self-inflicted wounds, and illnesses or injuries. Table 1 summarizes all active-duty military deaths by category from 2006 through 2021. The data starts in 2006 because DOD implemented a new casualty reporting system then, so the analysis excludes casualties that occurred in earlier years, including during combat operations from 2001 to 2005. DOD Instruction (DODI) 1300.18 details department policies and procedures for reporting military casualties