Two years after switch, Fort Polk's name returns
Fort Johnson — which was named after World War I Sgt. William Henry Johnson — was renamed Fort Polk on Friday. This time, however, it's named after a different Polk.
'We do not erase history, but build upon it,' said Chaplain Col. John V. Ijeoma as he opened the dedication ceremony. 'Today with this new name and new identity we embrace the future. May this redesignation reflect a spirit of unity, dignity and purpose.'
The Leesville base was initially named for Confederate Gen. Leonidas Polk but was renamed after Johnson in 2023 during the Joe Biden administration. The recent renaming — ordered by President Donald Trump — reverses the change with the base now honoring Gen. James H. Polk, a Silver Star recipient from World War II.
Polk served more than 38 years in the Army. He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1933 and began his career in the Cavalry. He would later became a pioneer in mechanized warfare.
He served with distinction in World War II as the commander of the 3rd Mechanized Cavalry Group, leading reconnaissance operations across France and Germany during the Allied advance. He was awarded the Silver Star, among numerous other decorations.
He proceeded to serve in both the Korean and Vietnam wars, and later became the commander of U.S. Army Europe, helping to strengthen NATO's defensive posture during the height of the Cold War.
Among Polk's family members in attendance for Friday's renaming ceremony were son James H. Polk III, daughter Josephine 'Jody' Polk-Schwartz, sister Ann Polk Talbot and grandsons Johnathan Schwartz III and James Polk Schwartz.
A portrait of Polk, unveiled by his family, will be centered under the entranceway to the JRTC and Fort Polk headquarters building.
'To be here today is, of course, a special occasion,' his son told attendees. 'We know he would be extremely proud and honored as we are to have this historic Army post and training area named after him. His dedication and service to our country and his patriotism has always been an inspiration to our family and to all who knew him. Indeed, our admiration for his life and accomplishments in the U.S. Army have continued to increase since his death over 30 years ago. The span of his career and the great events of the 20th century that he witnessed and participated in is truly remarkable.'
Polk met his future wife, Josephine 'Joy' Polk, in 1933.
'By his side and through it all — after 28 moves and 55 years of marriage — was our mother, Josephine 'Joy' Polk. She was an exemplary Army wife, always with him, always supporting to her utmost in his various rolls in commands. We would like to pay tribute to her today. There's no doubt our father's Army career would not have succeeded without her support and I know she'd be very proud of this event today,' he said.
'We'd also like to honor the legacy and spirit of Sgt. William Henry Johnson and his heroic record in World War I,' he continued. 'We know that our father would want and expect that Sgt. Johnson continue to be remembered at Fort Polk by the U.S. Army as the great hero that he was.'
Polk said his father was a great student of history and would quote Shakespeare. His father also had several inspiring sayings of his own and one that continues to stay with his son is, 'Don't take counsel of your fears.'
This quote is sometimes hard to live up to, Polk admitted, and said it highlights his father's positive approach to life as a military man of action.
'He was always stepping up and moving ahead no matter what the challenge was ahead.'
Brigadier General Jason A. Curl said since its establishment in 1941, Fort Polk has been a cornerstone of Army readiness, where soldiers have honed their skills and prepared for the demands of combat.
Curl said the story of Johnson — a member of the legendary Harlem Hellfighters who 'exemplified valor beyond measure' — 'demands to be told.'
'Sgt. Johnson in May 1918 armed with little more than courage, a rifle and a bolo knife, single handedly repelled a German raiding party and saved his soldiers' lives,' Curl said. 'His sacrifice in service resonated across decades, inspiring soldiers of every generation to embody what we call uncommon valor. In naming this installation after him, we ensured that every soldier who trains here understands that readiness is built on grit, determination and courage to do what's right — even when no one is watching.'
Curl said the installation post exchange will now bear Johnson's name and the soldier will 'remain a living part of our
history and the strength of character of those who served.'
'The legacies of Sgt. William Henry Johnson and Gen. James H. Polk reminds us that greatness is never given, it is earned through character, commitment and the relentless pursuit of excellence,' Curl said. 'May this installation forever stand as a testament to their courage, their leadership and their devotion to country.'
The total cost of renaming Fort Polk was less than $300,000, Curl said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
How States Could Save University Science
Whatever halfway measures Congress or the courts may take to stop President Donald Trump's assault on universities, they will not change the fact that a profound agreement has been broken: Since World War II, the U.S. government has funded basic research at universities, with the understanding that the discoveries and innovations that result would benefit the U.S. economy and military, as well as the health of the nation's citizens. But under President Trump—who has already targeted more than $3 billion in research funding for termination and hopes to cut much more, while at the same time increasing the tax on endowments and threatening the ability of universities to enroll international students —the federal government has become an unreliable and brutally coercive partner. The question for universities is, what now? It will take time for research universities to find a new long-term financial model that allows science and medicine to continue advancing—a model much less dependent on the federal government. But right now universities don't have time. The problem with recklessly cutting billions in funds the way the Trump administration has done—not just at elite private universities such as Harvard and Columbia but also at public research universities across the country—is that 'stop-start' simply doesn't work in science. If a grant is snatched away today, researchers are let go, graduate students are turned away, and clinical trials are halted with potentially devastating consequences for patients. Unused equipment gathers dust, samples spoil, lab animals are euthanized. Top scientists move their laboratories to other countries, which are happy to welcome this talent, much as the United States welcomed German scientists in the 1930s. Meanwhile, the best students around the world enroll elsewhere, where good science is still being done and their legal status is not up in the air. The result, ultimately, is that the U.S. leaves it to other nations to discover a cure for Alzheimer's disease or diabetes, or to make fusion energy practicable. No easy substitute exists for federal support of academic R&D—the scale of the investment is just too large. In fiscal year 2023, federal funding for university research amounted to about $60 billion nationwide. University-endowment spending, as reported by the '2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments,' is just half that—$30 billion, with much of the money earmarked for financial aid. Universities by themselves cannot save American science, engineering, and medicine. However, there is also no easy substitute within the American economy for university-based research—universities are the only major institutions that do what they do. The kind of curiosity-driven rather than profit-driven research pursued by universities is too risky for private corporations. By and large, industry conducts research to achieve milestones along a well-considered road map. It is up to universities to find the new roads and educate the experts who know how to travel them. Those roads are where the real potential for growth lies. After all, the internet and the artificial neural networks that enable generative AI arose out of basic research at U.S. universities. So did the most fundamental discoveries in molecular biology, which are now enabling astonishing one-time treatments that are potential cures for painful genetic diseases such as sickle cell. University research is particularly important in states where technology-intensive industries have grown up around the talent and ideas that universities generate—states such as Washington, California, New York, Massachusetts, Texas, Maryland, and North Carolina. Although the Trump administration may characterize federal research grants as wasteful spending, they are really an investment, one with higher returns than federal investment in infrastructure or private investment in R&D. There is a way forward—a way to bridge the huge gap in funding. It starts with the assumption that a bridge will be needed for several years, until some measure of sanity and federal support returns. It is based on the premise that, because universities are not the sole nor even the most significant beneficiaries of the scientific research they conduct, they should not be alone in trying to save their R&D operations. And it is focused not on Washington but on the individual states that have relied most on federal research spending. These states have the power to act unilaterally. They can set up emergency funds to replace canceled federal grants, allowing universities to keep their labs open until a shaky present gives way to a sturdier future. These states can also create incentives for corporations, investors, philanthropists, and of course universities themselves to step up in extraordinary ways at a time of emergency. This is not merely wishful thinking. Massachusetts has already made moves in this direction. At the end of July, Governor Maura Healey introduced legislation that would put $400 million of state funds into university-based research and research partnerships. Half would go to public colleges and universities, and half to other institutions, including private research universities and academic hospitals. Obviously, with $2.6 billion of multiyear research grants threatened at Harvard alone, action by the state will cover only part of the funding deficit, but it will help. It makes perfect sense for Massachusetts to be the first state to try to stanch the bleeding. With just 2 percent of the nation's workforce, Massachusetts is home to more than 11 percent of all R&D jobs in the country. It has the highest per capita funding from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation in the U.S. Every federal dollar invested in academic science in Massachusetts generates about $2 in economic return for the state. And that's before taking into account the economic impact of any discoveries. In particular, Massachusetts has a powerful biomedical-research ecosystem to protect. But each state has its own strategic imperatives, and many ways to structure such emergency funds exist. Because the grants canceled by the Trump administration have already undergone the federal peer-review process, states don't need to force themselves into the challenging business of judging the worthiness of individual research proposals. They could make a large difference simply by refilling the vessels that have been abruptly emptied, possibly with grants that allow the universities to prioritize the most important projects. States could require that, in exchange for state help, universities must raise matching funds from their donors. In addition, states could launch their own philanthropic funds, as Massachusetts is also doing. Philanthropy—which already contributes an estimated $13 billion a year to university research through foundations, individual gifts, and the income on gifts to university endowments—is particularly important at this moment. As federal-grant awards become scarcer, it is a fair bet that federal-funding agencies will become more risk averse. Philanthropists have always played an important role in encouraging unconventional thinking because they are willing to fund the very earliest stages of discovery. For example, the philanthropists Ted and Vada Stanley funded a center at MIT and Harvard's Broad Institute specifically to explore the biological basis of psychiatric disorders. In a landmark 2016 study, researchers there found strong evidence of a molecular mechanism underlying schizophrenia, establishing the first distinct connection in the disorder between gene variants and a biological process. Foundations can also launch sweeping projects that bring together communities of scientists from different organizations to advance a field, such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has mapped a third of the night sky, or the Sloan Deep Carbon Observatory, which studied the carbon cycle beneath the surface of the Earth. States could also incentivize their business communities to be part of the rescue operation, perhaps by offering to match industry contributions to academic R&D. Some sectors, such as the biopharmaceutical industry, are particularly reliant on university discoveries. NIH-funded research contributed to more than 99 percent of all new drugs approved in the U.S. from 2010 to 2019. But China is now catching up to the U.S. in drug innovation. American biopharmaceutical companies are already dependent on China for raw materials. If they don't want to become completely reliant on China for breakthrough drugs as well—and able to access only those drugs that China is willing to share—they should do what they can to help save what has long been the world's greatest system for biomedical research. The same is true for science-based technology companies in fields that include quantum computing, artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. Academic breakthroughs underlie the products and services they sell. If they want to remain ahead of their global competition, they should help support the next generation of breakthroughs and the next generation of students who will contribute to those breakthroughs. Among those who would benefit from keeping U.S. university labs open are the venture capitalists and other investors who profit from the commercialization of university ideas. From 1996 to 2020, academic research generated 141,000 U.S. patents, spun out 18,000 companies, supported 6.5 million jobs, and contributed $1 trillion to the GDP. One of those spinouts was named Google. In our current state of emergency, investment firms should be considering ways to provide a lifeline to the university-based science that supports a high-tech economy. Governors and other leaders in states with major research universities will need to work quickly and decisively, bringing various parties together in order to stave off disaster. But what is the alternative? If states, corporations, donors, and other stakeholders do nothing, there will be fewer American ideas to invest in, fewer American therapies to benefit from, and fewer advanced manufacturing industries making things in the U.S. No contributions from elsewhere can completely replace broad-based federal support for university R&D. But until that returns, states with a lot on the line economically offer the best hope of limiting the losses and salvaging U.S. science.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Zelenskyy visits London as Ukraine braces for Trump-Putin meet
LONDON/KYIV, Aug 14 (Reuters) - With just one day to go until a U.S.-Russian summit on ending the war in Ukraine, its president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, visited London on Thursday to shore up European support for efforts to prevent any agreement that would carve up Ukrainian land. Friday's Alaska summit comes at one of the toughest moments for Ukraine in a war, the largest in Europe since World War Two, that has killed tens of thousands and displaced millions since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022. On the backfoot on the battlefield against Russian forces, Zelenskyy and his allies are keen to avoid any deal between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that leaves Ukraine more vulnerable to Russian attacks. Zelenskyy met British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to build on momentum from virtual talks on Wednesday with European leaders and Trump to try to set red lines for the talks between Trump and Putin in Anchorage, Alaska. Zelenskiy and Starmer embraced before heading in to their meeting in Downing Street. On Wednesday, Trump threatened "severe consequences" if Putin does not agree to peace in Ukraine and while he did not specify what the consequences could be, he has warned of economic sanctions if his meeting on Friday proves fruitless. More: Seeing 'oceanfront property' in Ukraine, Trump's real estate history shapes his presidency "Yesterday was a pivotal moment for reinforcing European and transatlantic unity," Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha said on X. "We need peace through strength as a foundation for the future of global security and stability." Zelenskyy said he warned Trump that Putin was "bluffing" about his desire to end the war. The Ukrainian leader also said Trump had supported the idea of security guarantees in a post-war settlement. Politico cited people familiar with the situation as saying that Trump had said the U.S. could provide guarantees with some conditions. RUSSIAN MILITARY ADVANCES Zelenskyy confirmed this week that Russian forces had advanced by about 9-10 km (6 miles) near the town of Dobropillia in the Donetsk region. Ukraine, suffering manpower challenges, was forced to move in reserves to stabilise the situation. Trump's comments and the outcome of the virtual conference on Wednesday could provide encouragement for Kyiv. Trump described the aim of his talks with Putin in Alaska as "setting the table" for a quick follow-up that would include Zelenskyy. More: Trump-Putin meeting: Sprawling Army base that has hosted dignitaries is backdrop for talks However, Russia is likely to resist Ukraine and Europe's demands strongly and previously has said its stance had not changed since it was first detailed by Putin in June 2024. Trump has said a deal could include what he called a land swap. Russia controls around a fifth of Ukraine and a land swap within Ukraine could cement Moscow's gains. Zelenskyy and the Europeans worry that would reward Putin for nearly 11 years of efforts to seize Ukrainian land and embolden him to expand further west in Europe. Dmitriev, who heads up Russia's RDIF sovereign wealth fund, has previously held talks with Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy, and has spoken of possible business cooperation between Moscow and Washington. Trump's agreement last week to the summit was an abrupt shift after weeks of voicing frustration with Putin for resisting the U.S. peace initiative. More: What's latest in Russian-Ukraine war? A closer look at the map ahead of Trump-Putin meet A Gallup poll released last week found that 69% of Ukrainians favour a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. But polls also indicate Ukrainians do not want peace at any cost if that means significant concessions. As conditions for a ceasefire and the start of talks, Putin has demanded Ukraine withdraw its forces from four regions that Russia has claimed as its own but does not fully control, and formally renounce plans to join NATO. Kyiv swiftly rejected the conditions as tantamount to surrender. (Reporting by Catarina Demony, Olena Harmash, Andrew Osborn; Writing by Matthias Williams; Editing by Philippa Fletcher)
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
North Korea denies loudspeaker removal, rejects Seoul outreach
SEOUL, Aug. 14 (UPI) -- The influential sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Thursday denied Seoul's claim that the North had begun removing propaganda speakers inside the DMZ and dismissed South Korean outreach efforts as a "pipedream," state-run media reported. South Korea is "misleading the public opinion by saying that we have removed the loudspeakers installed on the southern border area," Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "It is unfounded unilateral supposition and a red herring," she said. "We have never removed loudspeakers installed on the border area and are not willing to remove them." The South's military removed its anti-Pyongyang propaganda loudspeakers from border areas inside the DMZ last week. The Joint Chiefs of Staff reported over the weekend that North Korea began dismantling its own speakers in some forward areas, On Tuesday, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung commented on the North's "reciprocal measures" during a cabinet meeting, saying he hoped it would lead to renewed inter-Korean dialogue and communication. Lee's administration has made efforts to improve relations between the two Koreas since he took office in June. In addition to the loudspeaker removal, Seoul has cracked down on activists floating balloons carrying anti-Pyongyang leaflets over the border and recently repatriated six North Koreans who drifted into southern waters on wooden boats. Kim's statement comes days before Seoul and Washington are scheduled to commence their summertime Ulchi Freedom Shield joint military exercise, set for Aug. 18-28. North Korea regularly denounces the allies' joint drills as rehearsals for an invasion. Half of Ulchi Freedom Shield's 44 planned field training exercises have been rescheduled to next month, with local media reports claiming the move was made to avoid provoking Pyongyang. Kim, however, rejected Seoul's gestures as "nothing but a pipedream." "Whether the ROK withdraws its loudspeakers or not, stops broadcasting or not, postpones its military exercises or not and downscales them or not, we do not care about them and are not interested in them," she said, using the official acronym for South Korea. In response to Kim's statement, South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff maintained the military's account that the North had removed some of its loudspeakers. "The military has explained the facts regarding what it observed, and I believe we need to be careful not to be misled by the other side's stated intentions," JCS spokesman Col. Lee Sung-jun said at a briefing Thursday. "North Korea has always made claims that are untrue."
