Peace in Our Time

It is remarkable how rapidly the U.S. news cycle careens from one major story to another (at least, while Donald Trump is in the White House). Who is talking about the deployment of the National Guard to California anymore? Or, before that, the Elon Musk-Trump screaming match? Or, before that, the trade war? Or, before that, the bombing of Yemen and the Signal chat security breach? All of those stories are less than 100 days old, and yet many of them seem like they were several lifetimes ago. We guess that's what you get when you elect a reality-TV president—every week needs to have new drama, so as to keep people watching.

This week's big story, of course, is the bombing of Iran. And on that front, there were two major developments yesterday. The first is that Iran launched a "counterstrike" against the U.S., launching missiles at the United States' Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The reason we put "counterstrike" in quotations is that Iran warned both Qatar and the U.S. that the attack was coming, with the result that the Iranian missiles were intercepted mid-air, and there were no casualties. Afterward, Trump thanked the Iranians for their "very weak response."

What is the point of an attack that is telegraphed like this, and is therefore designed to fail? There's only one possible explanation, and that is: to save face. The leadership of Iran cannot allow a U.S. attack to go unanswered, as that would infuriate the population of that nation. So now the Ayatollah, et al., can make much noise about how they stood tall against the Americans, and yadda, yadda, yadda. At the same time, by keeping things "polite," Iran does not force the Trump administration into a position of having to retaliate. That could get out of hand very quickly, and all the chicken littles who spent the weekend declaring that Trump just started World War III could end up being correct.

The second development yesterday is that, after Iran and Israel had fired a few more missile volleys at each other, Trump announced that a ceasefire had been agreed to by both nations, and that the fighting is over. If you would like to see Trump's Truth Social announcement, which is written in the usual over-the-top style, it is here. Over the weekend, both Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described Iran's nuclear capacity as having been "completely and totally obliterated," and yesterday Trump added that, thanks to his maneuvering, the peace between the two nations is "going to go forever" and that "I don't believe they will ever be shooting at each other again."

Both of these claims are laughable. Starting with "completely and totally obliterated" (and the fact that Trump and Hegseth both used the exact same words is a pretty big clue this is just a political slogan), there is no way to know exactly how much damage was done until the Department of Defense concludes its analysis, which Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine already said would take at least 2 weeks.

That said, there are some early indicators, and what those early indicators strongly suggest is that the bombing did not achieve what Trump and Hegseth say it did. There is some pretty useful information that is available to everyone and their brothers, and that is satellite photos of the sites where the Iranian nuclear facilities are housed. While the U.S. government has better-quality pictures than the ones produced by commercial satellites, there are several things that the non-governmental satellite photos reveal:

• Photos taken several days before the strike show a long line of semi trucks at the Fordo site, which is the nerve center of the Iranian nuclear program. It's not possible to discern exactly what the trucks were doing, but it's a pretty safe bet that they weren't delivering a bunch of IKEA furniture.
  
  
• Photos taken after the U.S. attack do not show anything close to complete and total obliteration.
  
  
• In particular, the key asset, as we wrote yesterday, is the uranium that the Iranians have managed to enrich. To be more precise, they have roughly 400 kg of 60% U-235, which is way more enriched than the uranium used at nuclear power plants (3%-5% U-235) and is pretty close to the 90% U-235 needed for weapons. With the proper equipment, 60% U-235 can be converted into 90% U-235 in about 2 months, and 400 kg of it would be enough for 9-10 nuclear warheads.
  
  At the moment, most neutral observers are saying "We aren't sure where the U-235 is right now." The U.S. and Israeli governments are saying "We know exactly where it is." Whatever the case may be, nobody is claiming it was destroyed. And, per the satellite photos, the area where the U-235 was last known to reside (underground tunnels near the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility) was not targeted in the U.S. and Israeli attacks.
  
  
• The satellite photos also show that while the U.S. did attack the facility at Natanz, it apparently did not attack the site south and west of Natanz that Iran has been constructing, almost certainly for the purpose of building centrifuges and purifying/storing uranium more securely (i.e., even deeper inside a mountain, and so less vulnerable to attack).

There is little question that, from a tactical standpoint, the attack was a great success. The U.S. managed to execute a massive bombing campaign without loss of life or materiel. But from a strategic standpoint, the early returns are that it did not achieve what it was supposed to achieve.

And note that while the Pentagon will complete its assessment in a couple of weeks, that doesn't necessarily mean that the average American citizen will have considerably greater clarity than they have now. First, Iran knows a thing or two about keeping secrets, and so the U.S. (and Israel) will be working with imperfect information as they try to reach their conclusions. Second, if the Pentagon assessment is anything along the lines of "We didn't do as much damage as hoped," the White House isn't exactly going to be eager to share that. And, to be entirely frank, even if the White House DOES produce a report that is glowing, we are going to take it with many barrels of salt. Hegseth could very well do some editing to serve his and Trump's purposes, and any document produced for public consumption could be as truthful as the annual reports on Trump's health that claim he's 6'7", weighs 185 pounds, benches 400 pounds, and is so fit he could line up as running back for the Dallas Cowboys.

And now, let's take a look at Trump's absurd claim that he has brought a permanent peace to the Middle East (or, at least, a permanent peace between Israel and Iran). Maybe if he had ever actually read the Bible, he would know that the rivalries that define the Middle East, and that often erupt in violence, have been in place for, oh, 4,000 years or so. It is rather unlikely that Trump managed to change that calculus in the span of 48 hours. As we consider what's next, we'll break the discussion into two parts:

The Short- to Medium-Term (the next 18 months or so)

There is no doubt that Trump and his team think that he's secured a great political victory with this strike. And he and his underlings are going to brag about it until they are blue in the face. The White House will be supported in that by the powerful right-wing media machine, led by Fox, which has already been celebrating this weekend's actions as a triumph on par with D-Day or Hastings or Thermopylae.

If indeed this is it (for now), we just don't see how such momentum can plausibly last. Sure, there are victory laps being taken this week. But a single attack waged over a single day just isn't going to linger in the memory until the next meaningful elections, more than a year from now. Probably the most successful operation of this sort in recent memory was when Ronald Reagan ordered the bombing of Libya on April 15, 1986. That was met with a pretty rousing response on both sides of the political aisle (and Z can still remember the t-shirts people were selling that showed an F-111 Aardvark and the tagline "Good morning, Mr. Gaddafi, this is your wake-up call"). But Reagan himself was done with elections, as he was already in the middle of his second term. And in that year's midterms, just 6 months after the attack on Libya, the Republicans lost 8 (!) seats in the Senate, and another 5 in the House.

And if this is NOT it (for now), then Trump has opened many cans of worms, nearly all of which could work to his detriment. Yesterday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) practically came running into the Senate chamber, waving a poll from Republican firm GrayHouse, showing that 90% of Trump voters support the bombing of Iran. Cotton held this out as proof that the attack is not dividing the MAGA base.

This strikes us as very selective, to say the least. To start, there is little question that some very loud people (e.g., Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-GA; Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, etc.) are very unhappy about what happened. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), providing an excellent illustration of the old adage that politics makes strange bedfellows, has gone further, and has joined Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) in co-sponsoring a resolution that would curtail Trump's power to take additional actions against Iran.

It is certainly possible that these folks are part of the 10%, and just happen to get undue attention by virtue of, well, being loud. However, even if that's true, it's easy enough for the 90% to be supportive of a military strike when it's: (1) a one-off, and (2) it's already over, and it's known that there was no loss of life. If this broadens into a lengthier conflict, and if the U.S. ends up conducting more extensive and more regular military operations, then that 90% is going to shrink by a lot.

We tend to doubt that there will in fact be more extensive and more regular military operations, however, because Trump is certainly savvy enough to realize he's playing with fire here, and because he's likely already accomplished what he set out to accomplish (more below). Plus, thanks primarily to Israeli operations over the last 6-12 months, Iran is not in a position to fight a conventional war right now.

But while there is not likely to be a conventional war, it is nearly inconceivable that Iran will not retaliate against the U.S. in some way, at some point in the future. When we heard yesterday that Iran was making nice, and was politely advising the U.S. government about its plans for a strike on a U.S. base, and was politely willing to agree to a ceasefire just 48 hours after having been bombed, we could not help but think of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. That's the treaty in which Germany and the U.S.S.R. agreed not to fight each other during World War II. Neither side had any real intention of honoring the agreement, long-term; both were just buying a little time to position themselves for the upcoming fight (for what it is worth, the pact was in effect for about 10 months before the Germans violated it).

In other words, we would guess that Iran is currently buying itself some time. What might they do with that time? Well, they could use it to rebuild (not unlike the Soviets did), so that they're ready for a conventional war at some point in the future. They might also use that time to actually become a nuclear power (again, depending on how much damage was actually done this weekend, they could be less than a year away from that). The Iranians might also want to retaliate in ways that aren't violent, per se, but that would seriously disrupt U.S. politics and would put the screws to Trump and the Republican Party. If so, the folks running Iran are clever enough to know that you want to make trouble in an actual election year, not the year before an election year.

How, exactly, might Iran retaliate, short of launching some sort of conventional military strike? Well, they could sponsor some sort of terrorist act or acts, through one of their surrogates, like Hezbollah. The Trump administration is also claiming that Iran has dozens, or maybe hundreds, or maybe thousands of sleeper cells in the U.S. that it might activate at any moment. We pass this claim along, because it's at least possible it's true. However, it also conveniently supports the Trump administration's harsh anti-immigrant (more specifically, anti-Muslim immigrant) policies. We'll also note that, to us, this feels more like the setup of a summer blockbuster movie, maybe starring Harrison Ford or Tom Cruise, than it does a real thing.

Our guess—and keep in mind that geopolitics isn't really our bailiwick, so judge our assessment accordingly—is that the Iranians will prefer to wield a scalpel rather than a scimitar. A campaign of cyberattacks of some sort, perhaps aided by Iran's friends in Russia, would seem to be a given. Further, and as we noted yesterday, Iran could create chaos if it closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the global oil supply passes. If the Iranians did that in, say, April of next year, the effects would hit right around the same time as the usual summer spike in gas prices. That, in turn would affect many other aspects of the U.S. economy, and at the same time that Trump's tariffs might be fully manifesting themselves. It could get ugly pretty fast.

Incidentally, Trump knows very well that oil prices could well be his Achilles' heel here. Yesterday, he warned: "EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I'M WATCHING! YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON'T DO IT!" This is roughly as realistic as his demand that retailers eat the costs of his tariffs. Petroleum is a very-low-margin business, and so any increase in costs has to be passed on down the chain, up to and including the consumer. This is the reality of the situation, and it does not change, even when you write in ALL CAPS.

The Longer-Term (beyond 18 months)

In the week or so leading up to the bombing of Iran, Trump was... erratic. His pendulum kept swinging back and forth between sentiments like "let's give it a couple of weeks, to see if diplomacy can work" to sentiments like "Tehran better be evacuated immediately." There were some outlets, not all of them on the right, who gave the President much credit for keeping the Iranians guessing, and for helping to lay the groundwork for a surprise attack this weekend.

We thought very carefully about this possibility. At this point, we have seen so much of Trump's approach to "diplomacy" that we are disinclined to give him credit for much of anything when it comes to vision, or clever planning, or any maneuvering along those lines. And although we tried to make "Trump played his hand with great skill" work in our heads, just as an exercise in testing our premises, we just could not do it.

First of all, there certainly are presidents who are willing to put on a performance that makes them look dumb, erratic, ill-informed, etc. in the short-term, so that they might achieve long-term goals. Dwight D. Eisenhower was famous for this, to take one example. But we just don't believe Trump is a good enough actor, nor do we believe his ego would allow him to knowingly play "Trump the unhinged" for a week.

Beyond that, we see no reason to think that Iran was actually fooled. As we note above, the Iranian government sent a fleet of semi trucks to Fordo for some reason; that sounds like they knew an attack was imminent. And even if they did not know for sure, Trump's bluster certainly made clear it was a real possibility. There is just no chance that when Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian was told of the U.S. bombing, that he said: "What? I just can't believe it! Trump promised he'd wait at least a couple of weeks before doing anything!"

In short, we don't think Trump was executing some sort of grand, visionary plan here. Surely, U.S. military leadership was prepared for many different contingencies, and that when Trump selected "attack," they attacked. We would also guess, based on past experience, that Trump made the decision very quickly. There has been some suggestion that the President was particularly influenced by hawkish coverage on Fox. That certainly seems plausible to us, though there's no way to be sure if it's true (at least, not right now).

And that brings us to the question, which we raise above, of exactly what Trump's goal was here. And while it is once again too early to have proof for such assertions, we cannot help but think back to his general tendencies, which are: (1) He thinks VERY much about "the moment," and not so much about "the future," and (2) He hates anything that makes him look weak. These things being the case, our guess is that a primary driving factor in Trump's process was that he hates the whole TACO thing, and wanted to prove that he's no chicken. Just a theory, but one that fits the available facts, and that is consistent with his general patterns. It's also worth pointing out that Trump did not include: (1) Congress, (2) any prominent Democrats, or (3) the leaders of America's allies in his decision-making process. That is also a sign of someone who is not playing 3-D chess, and is instead playing... we dunno... whack-a-mole, we guess.

And whether we are right or wrong about the specific dynamics of the last week, it seems very clear to us that there are really only three outcomes available here:

• Regime Change: Over the weekend, Trump casually talked about "regime change" in Iran. That's like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and it seems like someone told the President to knock it off, because he eventually stopped saying that. However, it's probably an idea he thinks is worth considering. And there are certainly people in both the U.S. and Israel who would love, love, love the American government to commit to toppling the Iranian regime.
  
  If this is the path that Trump ultimately follows (which he is not likely to do, mind you), it is nearly certain to turn into disaster for both him and the United States. There is a reason that the Middle East is known as the "graveyard of American presidencies." The hostage situation in Iran helped wreck Jimmy Carter. The endless war in Iraq torpedoed George W. Bush. The disastrous situation in Gaza was the death knell for Joe Biden/Kamala Harris.
  
  To the extent that U.S.-directed regime change works, it requires; (1) a long-term commitment, and (2) a populace that is at least somewhat willing. The success stories here are post-World War II Germany and Japan, both of whom met both conditions. By contrast, the American public does not have the stomach, these days, for long-term commitments in foreign lands. And even if they did, the people of Iran are most certainly not willing to be party to a U.S.-directed regime change. The current administration of Iran literally exists because of the violent and angry backlash to the previous American attempt to impose regime change on that nation (the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the elevation of the Shah from "figurehead" to "dictator").
  
  And the train wreck in Iran was not a one-off. Every time the U.S. (or anyone else) tries to engineer a regime change in the Middle East, it works out badly, with the successor state being a greater threat to American interests than whatever it is the U.S. swept aside.
  
  
• Iran Quickly Becomes a Nuclear Power: The folks who run Iran surely must see the construction of a working nuclear device as essential to the nation's survival. This is not a new notion, of course, but the last week's events are undoubtedly going to shift things into turbo mode.
  
  This is a simple matter of geopolitics. When it comes to conventional military, the Israel-Iran playing field is imbalanced against Iran, and the U.S.-Iran playing field is even more imbalanced against Iran. And when it comes to nuclear weapons, the Israelis and the Americans literally hold ALL the cards, since they are nuclear powers and Iran is not.
  
  In a situation where the U.S., with its nuclear arsenal, agrees to be a protector against Israel, with ITS nuclear arsenal, then Iran can maybe think about diplomacy. But that is what the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was, and Trump tore that up and then eventually bombed Iran. The Iranians have now learned the same bitter lesson that the Ukrainians did: When the U.S. says "give up your nukes, and we'll make sure you're still safe," it's not a reliable promise.
  
  It's very realpolitik, but there's just no avoiding the conclusion that Iran will have to develop nuclear capabilities as soon as is possible, as a hedge against Israel (and maybe against the U.S.). The Iranians have no other path left when it comes to guaranteeing their security.
  
  The only question, then, is how quickly Iran can get up to speed. As we note above, the bombings this weekend might not have done much to slow their nuclear program down. Alternatively, Russian leadership (though not Vladimir Putin) has hinted that they might be willing to give some nukes to Iran. In response, Trump used his can-you-declare-war-via-social-media platform to bluster:

  Did I hear Former President Medvedev, from Russia, casually throwing around the "N word" (Nuclear!), and saying that he and other Countries would supply Nuclear Warheads to Iran? Did he really say that or, is it just a figment of my imagination? If he did say that, and, if confirmed, please let me know, IMMEDIATELY. The "N word" should not be treated so casually.

  In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, we assume that Trump remains OK with casual use of the other "N word."
  
  
• The Status Quo Holds, for Now: As we outline above, we just don't believe that Trump has a long-term strategic vision here. If so, then his best-case scenario is that Russia stays out of it, and Iran is left to its own devices (no pun intended), but that it takes multiple years for them to actually produce a working bomb. If so, then it will be the problem of a future president, and not Trump. And as far as Trump is concerned, that is fine and dandy.

We listed these as three separate outcomes, but the latter pair are really #2A and #2B. In other words, either the U.S. decides to (once again) muck around in Middle Eastern governance, or else Iran, sooner or later, joins the world's nuclear powers. Of the two options, "Iran becomes nuclear" is surely the more palatable. Nothing will be accomplished by the U.S. once again playing kingmaker in the Middle East, since nothing was accomplished all the other times the U.S. played kingmaker in that region. Meanwhile, if Iran becomes nuclear, well, the glass-half-full crowd can hope that the eventual Iran-Israel nuclear rivalry operates on mutual deterrence, as with the U.S.-U.S.S.R in the Cold War, or India-Pakistan today, or the U.S.-China today.

Either way, we cannot describe the Trumpian approach to Iran as "progress." Remember, the JCPOA was working, by all accounts. Now, a long-term diplomatic solution is off the table and, one way or another, the world is going to be a more dangerous place. We will see, in the next year or so, if Trump and his political party pay a price for that. (Z)

Robert Garcia Likely to Succeed Gerry Connolly at Oversight

If the Democrats retake the House next year, which is very much a possibility, then the most important job will be the speakership, which will presumably go to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). But what is the second most important job? It could be House Majority Leader, though that person tends to get completely overshadowed by the speaker. In fact, pop quiz: Can you name the current House Majority Leader? We will put the answer below, in case you would care to test your knowledge of current leadership.

Another possibility for second-most-important is the House Majority Whip. That may be the literally correct answer (and, by the way, the current majority whip is Tom Emmer, R-MN), but it's very inside baseball. The great majority of Americans likely couldn't tell you what the whip does, much less who the current occupant of the post is.

Consequently, we would say that the second-most-important member of the majority party—again, after the speaker—is one of the committee chairs. And customarily, the most important committee chair is the chair of ways and means, since that person has substantial control over trillions of dollars in government spending. Indeed, when (Z) took Intro to American Politics in college, the professor (Michael Lofchie) argued that the chair of ways and means is the fourth most powerful person in Washington, behind the president, the speaker, and the majority leader of the Senate.

Maybe that is still true, or maybe it isn't—Lofchie's class was a long time ago. On top of that, Donald Trump is not your usual president, in that he's up to all kinds of things that are either outright illegal, or are in a very gray area. And for that reason, we would say the second-most-important person in the 120th House, should the Democrats regain control of that chamber, will be the chair of the Oversight Committee. That person can initiate investigations, and can also go on TV constantly to talk about bad behavior (or alleged bad behavior) by the executive branch.

If Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) had lived, then spending 2 years taking the wood to Donald Trump would have been the capstone of his career. Now that he's gone, the Democrats had to choose someone else to be in the on-deck circle for that role. And it looks like that person will be Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who yesterday received the backing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. While it's not guaranteed, it's very likely that the House Democratic Caucus will vote on Thursday to make him ranking member of the Oversight Committee.

Garcia is young (47) and is only in his second term, but he's got a reputation for being able to work with different factions within the Democratic Party. He also came to Congress after having served two well-regarded terms as the mayor of Long Beach, CA (he got a staggering 80% of the vote when he stood for reelection). It undoubtedly does not hurt that he is Latino (the first Peruvian American to be elected to Congress), that he's gay, and that he's very telegenic.

When Connolly was elected to the #2 slot on Oversight, it was a battle of "old guard" vs. "new guard," as the other option was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). In that case, of course, the old guard was victorious. Now, it's the same basic dynamic, except with two "old guard" candidates (Kweisi Mfume, D-MD, who is 76 and Stephen Lynch, D-MA, who is 70) and two "new guard" candidates (Garcia and Jasmine Crockett, D-TX, 44). And this time, it looks like the "new guard" is going to come out on top. Perhaps Democratic leadership is sensitive to complaints that the Party has turned into a gerontocracy. (Z)

Murkowski Hints at Party Switch

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) sat for an interview with the GD Politics podcast this weekend. The actual episode won't be released until today, but the people who do that podcast know how to promote themselves. And so, they have already shared the part where Murkowski said she's open to switching over to the Senate Democratic Caucus if it "would help Alaskans."

Murkowski was actually quite specific about the terms under which she might ponder changing sides of the aisle. First, control of the Senate would have to be in play (meaning a net gain of 3 seats for the Democrats). Second, there would have to be a mountain of pork headed in the direction of The Last Frontier (she did not use those exact words, but surely that was her implied meaning). Third, she would not become a Democrat, but instead would switch her affiliation to independent.

There are a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" involved here, so don't put Murkowski in the blue column quite yet. That said, a politician does not say these sorts of things openly if they are not already pretty far down the road to a potential switch. Further, Murkowski's words were very carefully chosen, so that if she does make a move, she can present herself as a Republican-leaning independent. With Alaska's ranked-choice system, that would probably get her a fair number of Republican votes (especially if second-place votes end up coming into play), and a fair number of Democratic votes (again, especially if second-place votes end up coming into play). And don't forget that she's already won election as an independent once before (and that was with the added burden of having to be a write-in candidate).

So, it seems very plausible to us, if the stars line up just right. (Z)

Never Forget:

We intended to run these throughout the month of June. However, due to various developments, we've got more material than we do days left for it. So, we'll keep going into July. Up today, it's P.R.P. in Lincoln, VT:

My father, Edward "Ned" Parsons, was a great storyteller. My brother and I knew he served in World War II. He had his M1911 hidden in the attic and sometimes wore an old, beat up sweatshirt from St. Anselm's College, which he attended as an Aviation Cadet. We would ask what he did during the war, and he would tell us that he was training to be a pilot, but the engine would put him to sleep and he was washed out. He then told us he ended up as an aerial gunner in the back seat of an A-20 in the Pacific. Dad proudly told us his Good Conduct Medal proved he was a good soldier and he was proud of it. When pressed, he said that he would train using a shotgun as a gunner, as the shot pattern was similar, and he never fired his guns because then he would have to clean them. He had his squadron patch; Donald Duck with a bomb over his shoulder. 312th Bomb Group, 389th Bomb Squadron, flying the A-20G Havoc. He would then tell us that his outfit was transitioning to the Consolidated B-32 Dominator, a little-known back up to the B-29 Superfortress. Think of a B-24 Liberator's big brother—that's a B-32.

The only actual war story he told us was from when his plane was on an attack run as the lead ship and dropped down in a valley. He watched the trailing plane suddenly lose its vertical stabilizer and slide sideways into a hillside, exploding. The Japanese, he surmised, had strung a cable between the tops of the mountain and his plane flew underneath it.

Those are the stories told to a 10-year-old, but the truth was of course, different. Dad gave up a job working as an electrician wiring up P-40s for Curtiss Wright and enlisted to be a pilot cadet. He didn't fall asleep, but the truth was rather more mundane: He was reassigned based on the needs of the service. I imagine a formation where an instructor said "You, you, you and yes, the short guy in the front. Congratulations, you are now gunners. Get on the damn train..." Kids don't want to hear that—falling asleep is more fun for them.

He went to Morris Field, trained as a gunner in the A-20 because he was small. Spent June and July of 1945 flying out of New Guinea and the Philippines on combat missions. His diary indicates that at least one mission he came home with holes in the aircraft from enemy fire. I'm filled with dread when I imagine that skinny kid I see in old photographs folding himself into that tiny turret, bouncing down a runway and flying at treetop level to do this over and over. Truly braver than what he pretended to be for us.

He passed away in 2001, and I inherited all of his books, photos and materials. I parachute as part of a demonstration team in honor of World War II veterans to keep their stories alive. I carry with me his crew wings, a photo of him with the Good Conduct ribbon beneath it and a photo of his friend, Sgt. Heinz "Dutch" Wolf, who served in the 100th BG, 350th BS in Europe. Dutch told me before he died in 2019 that he and my father took 20 years to admit to each other they were gunners. Every jump, they're in my cargo pocket that I touch when I hear "Stand UP!", so as to remind me of their stories. I'll never hear all of it, but what I know of my father's, Dutch's, my uncles' and 1LT Rodney Parsons of the Dog Company, 2nd Battalion, 502nd PIR is enough to be very, very proud of them.

Thanks, P.R.P.

We still welcome submissions, if anyone cares to share their story, or that of a family member, acquaintance, etc. Send them to comments@electoral-vote.com, with subject line "Never Forget." (Z)

---

The current House Majority Leader is Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA).

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger