t's unclear whether President Donald Trump will get the military parade he so keenly desires. My colleagues first reportedTuesday that theWhite House is pushing the Pentagon to stage a grand spectacle down Pennsylvania Avenue in the same vein as France's Bastille Day pa- rade - whichTrump not coincidentally at- tended and admired last year. In the same week we heard the president call his political opponents "treasonous" for not clapping at the State of the Union address, we now con- template his excitement for the sort of mar- tial display these days more associated with single-party states and irredentist autocrats. Trump, who fondly refers to "my generals" and espouses a decidedly militarist agenda, now thinks it's his turn. "We're all aware in this country of the president's affection and respect for the military," Defense Secretary JimMattis saidWednesday. "We have been putting together some options.We will send themup to theWhite House for decision." TheWhite House described the proposed parade as a joyous occasion to celebrate the nation's military. But the potential costs and logistical stresses of such an exercise have al- ready raised hackles (Mattis himself warned a congressional committee Tuesday that the military is short of money for necessities such as training andmaintenance). So, too, has the sheer gratuitousness of the parade at a time when the United States possesses the largest military footprint on the planet, is still enmeshed inmyriad conflicts overseas and already invests in ceaseless celebrations of the troops at virtually every sporting event and holiday. OnWednesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., told reporters that a parade aimed at specifically demonstrating Americanmilitary might was "kind of cheesy and a sign of weakness." Sen. John Neely Kennedy, R-La., added that, "America is the most powerful country in all of human history, everybody knows it, and we don't need to show it off." Other critics reckon a grand display is more about gratifying the ego of the com- mander in chief. "Image is Trump's moral code," wrote political commentator Jonathan Chait. ". . . He conscripts the military as a prop to bathe himself in an aura of presiden- tial grandeur." In a piece highlighting the difference be- tween France's yearly spectacular and Trump's own ambitions, my colleague Rick Noack argued that Trump's imagined parade is ultimately about his own brand of show- boating nationalism, but that the French cer- emonies nowadays commemorate something a bit more inclusive. "France's Bastille Day parade, which has persisted through two world wars and a Nazi occupation, has also been used to emphasize a very different message, which could be summarized as:We are only strong together," Noack wrote. "What Trumpmay have missed while watching the Paris parade last July was that its organizers have frequently invited foreign troops - fromMorocco and India to the United States, Britain and Germany - to march alongside French soldiers or to even lead the procession. Instead of the French flag, French soldiers sometimes wave the Eu- ropean Union flag, even though the political bloc does not have its own army." Of course, there are few public events as time-honored as the military parade. The tra- dition of military "triumphs" can be traced to the kingdoms and empires of antiquity, etched on friezes inMesopotamian palaces andmemorialized by Roman chroniclers. It is the primordial act of a state asserting its power and legitimacy, a spectacle to spark pride in the hearts of a leader's followers and fear in his enemies. The modern tradition of military parades probably stems from the crack, regimented marching of the 19th century Prussians, whose methods were copied around the world. In 1865, at the close of the American CivilWar, the victorious United States staged a two-day Grand Review of the Armies in- volving some 145,00 troops. National military parades followed victories in theWorldWars and even in 1991, after troops came home fromOperation Desert Storm. But given the indefinite U.S. commitment to wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East, there's not much of a groundswell now for a giant march. Such parades, after all, are more the pre- serve of nations such as North Korea, Russia and China, whose leaders still need these sometimes surreal displays of military strength to buttress their own rule. Inmany other parts of the world, military parades are quaint anachronisms, cloaked in remem- brance of the past with little relevance for the future. -T HE W ASHINGTON P OST News India Times February 16, 2018 2 Opinion I Published weekly, Founded in 1975.The views expressed on the opinion pages are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of News IndiaTimes. Copyright © 2017, News IndiaTimes News IndiaTimes (ISSN 0199-901X) is published every Friday by ParikhWorldwide Media LLC., I15West 30th Street, Suite 1206, NewYork, NY 10001. Periodicals postage paid at NewYork, N.Y., and at additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address change to News IndiaTimes, 115West 30th Street, Suite 1206, NewYork, N.Y. 10001 Annual Subscription: United States: $28 Founder, Chairman & Publisher Dr. Sudhir M. Parikh Editor Ela Dutt Executive Editor Sujeet Rajan Reporter Ruchi Vaishnav Ahmedabad Bureau Chief Arun Shah Photographers Peter Ferreira, Deval Parikh Chief Operating Officer Ilyas Qureshi Executive Vice President Bhailal M. Patel Business Development Manager - U.S. JimGallentine Manager Business Development - Ahmedabad M.P. Singh Chauhan Senior Manager Advertising & Marketing Shahnaz Sheikh Advertising Manager Sonia Lalwani Advertising New York Shailu Desai Advertising Chicago Muslima Shethwala Syed Sheeraz Mahmood Consultant for Business Development Ahemdabad, India Digant Sompura Circulation Manager Hervender Singh Graphic Designer Ajita Kapoor Main Office Editorial & Corporate Headquarters 115 West 30th Street, Suite 1206 New York, NY 10001-4043 Tel. (212) 675-7515 Fax. (212) 675-7624 E-mails Website Chicago Office 2652 West Devon Avenue, Suite B Chicago, IL 60659 Tel. (773) 856-3345 California Office 650 Vermont Ave, Suite #46 Anaheim, CA 92805 Mumbai Office Nikita Ajay Pai Goregaon, West Mumbai Ahmedabad Office 303 Kashiparekh Complex C.G. Road, 29 Adarsh Society Ahmedabad 380009 Tel. 26446947 F ax. 26565596 Ishaan Tharoor Writes about foreign affairs for The Washington Post MilitaryParadesAreAbout EgoAnd Power. Of CourseTrumpWantsOne A wave of pessimism on immigration has swept overWashington, even as two senators, a Republican and a De- mocrat, have joined together to offer a new proposal to protect the "dreamers." A deal is looking increasingly unlikely to happen, es- pecially as the administration keeps propos- ing to cut further into legal immigration as the price of President Donald Trump's coop- eration. To be clear, it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a compromise both Democ- rats and Republicans could live with. The problem is that there are just too many points at which a deal can be shot down, and not enough reason for Republicans to feel as if they have no choice but to come to an agreement. And lurking in the background is the man who can and probably will stop just about any immigration compromise: House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis. The new proposal offered by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chris Coons, D-Del., is a simple one. It would give legal status to all dreamers who entered the country before 2013 and bolster security along the border (though it would not actually fund the wall). While it might seem like a good starting point - Democrats get something they want, Republicans get something they want - right now Republicans feel as though they have the advantage on this issue. Despite the fact that around 8 in 10 Americans want to see the dreamers protected, they're probably right. As a way to understand everything that's going on, it might be best to lay out some of the critical factors determining the outcome of this debate: --Democrats care a great deal about the dreamers. Republicans, on the other hand, have some sympathy for the dreamers, but it wouldn't really bother them that much to see them deported. This puts the Republi- cans in an advantageous position, since they can live with the status quo. Democrats would see the lack of a deal as a catastrophe, while Republicans wouldn't, which means any group of Republicans who wants to de- stroy the whole thing might be willing to. --Trump and Republicans do want to build a wall, but they don't feel an enormous urgency about it. It could start now, or in six months, or a year, or later. On the item the Democrats care about - the fate of the dreamers - there is a great deal more ur- gency. This, too, gives Republicans an advan- tage, since they can and will walk away if there are details they don't like. --The urgency over the fate of the dream- ers comes from the fact that Trump canceled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and created a deadline in March for it to be solved with legislation. He'd like us all to forget that and act as though the deadline just came from nowhere, but it was his choice. --Democrats are not going to shut down the government to make a stand on DACA. "I don't see a government shutdown coming," said Sen. Dick Durbin on Sunday, which you can interpret as the second-ranking Democ- rat in the Senate saying they aren't going to force one. The simple reason is that shutting down the government won't work to save the dreamers. You can call them spineless cowards if you want, but if you're going to advocate a shutdown in order to achieve a particular goal, you have to have a plausible theory of how the shutdown will achieve that goal. If the theory is that Republicans will eventually cave in and give Democrats what- ever they want because the shutdown is too painful, you need a new theory. --There are any number of possible immi- gration deals that could pass the Senate, where there are multiple Republicans who are open to a reasonable compromise. --There are also any number of possible immigration deals that could pass the House. However, Ryan will not allow any bill to be voted on if it doesn't have the support of the ultra-right immigration restrictionists in the GOP caucus. - Special toTheWashington Post NoDeal On ImmigrationAnyTimeSoon By Paul Waldman