As the National Defense Authorization Act of 2021 progresses through Congress, a late summer showdown is under way over the history and politics of U.S. military installations named for Confederate leaders. The discourse on history focuses on what is more egregious — perpetuating the racist past of names adorning base gates or upturning the honorable legacy of most soldiers who have passed through them. The political brinkmanship centers on present passions of race and justice. Both debates skirt what matters most: What is best, not for the past or present, but for the future U.S. military force?
History matters, but always in context
Like most U.S. military veterans, I love history. I reveled in shouting “airborne” over Fort Benning’s legendary drop zones. I enjoyed flying around Fort Rucker, where my Army peers trained as I became a Navy pilot. And no gathering of post-9/11 veterans seems complete without crazy stories from Forts Bragg and Hood.
These names are part of my history. So is their conflicted origin. My ancestors were not enslaved by the Confederacy, but they did fight it. One was wounded and the other taken as a POW by Confederate soldiers in the Civil War. Should I resent my great-great-grandfathers’ enemies or appreciate that they, and we, survived the ordeal? Many did not. Most countries could not.
History offers context, but rarely answers. The Army bases in today’s debate were named as America’s defense priorities shifted from reconstructing a divided 19th century society to galvanizing a 20th century nation for world wars. It was a time when political and military leaders felt they were juggling existential threats. It was also a time when African Americans accounted for less than 10 percent of the U.S. population and military service was legally segregated. That Army leaders acquiesced to base names favored by regional communities whose support they needed is understandable in context. Equally understandable is that an entirely new century of leaders be called to account for preserving the names beyond their contextual origin.
Politics matter, but not politics in Washington
Maneuvers are in play across the Federal City as Congress and the White House seek compromise on if and how to pursue renaming. Questions of national politics garner the most attention. Whose national platform is buttressed? What national constituencies are impacted? And will national precedence be set for renaming commissions across the rest of the military and government? The Army is not the only service sustaining controversial legacies.
Regardless of the outcome, these politics will wane. They will transfix Washington until an intricate bureaucratic solution is announced for the defense budget to proceed and the issue to fade from headlines. There is another level of politics, however, that will remain.
The daily politics among military police at the gates of Fort Polk will continue. The identity politics of troops with Fort Lee or Fort Gordon on their orders will proceed. The command politics of the next garrison commander of Fort A.P. Hill will stumble on. The professional politics of West Point cadets starting their military careers in Lee Barracks this summer will endure.
What matters most is the future U.S. force
“The Garibaldi Guard … numbered about eleven hundred, and are still recruiting. … This corps is composed largely of Germans, … Italians, Hungarians, Swiss, Spaniards and Portuguese. … They made a very fine appearance, carrying the Hungarian colors, and the Italian flag. … The United States flag was carried between the two.”
This excerpt from a May 1861 edition of the New York Times is notable beyond its depiction of an American Army unit branded and flagged for foreign nationalists. It shows that the right names can generate more than nostalgia in the U.S. military; they can generate force. Those 1,100 volunteers comprised 0.3 percent of New York City’s male population at the time. Today, that would equate to 12,275 recruits — almost 19 percent of the Army’s entire 2019 national recruiting yield.
No one can predict when the U.S. government will again need to convince or compel its citizens to fight. But if the current national security and defense strategies are correct in forecasting a return to great power competition, the risk is growing, not receding, for the next generations — generations that are as increasingly diverse as they are demanding of racial equity and inclusion.
What matters most in naming bases or any other asset in the U.S. military is that the names speak to the future of America and inspire those who may be called to defend it.
Frank T. Goertner, a retired U.S. Navy commander, is director for military and veteran affairs at the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business, where he chairs the Initiative for Veteran Lifelong Leadership. The opinions expressed here are his alone.
Editor’s Note: This piece was edited after publication to correct that the author’s ancestor was taken by Confederate soldiers as a POW, not Union soldiers.