Hegseth orders Fort Moore be changed back to Fort Benning
The Pentagon will change the name of the Georgia military base Fort Moore back to Fort Benning, formerly named after a Confederate general, though this time it will honor a different man.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday signed a memorandum to restore the name of the Army base to Fort Benning after it was renamed Fort Moore in May 2023, one of nine military installations honoring Confederate generals that Congress mandated be changed.
Hegseth said the new moniker pays tribute to Cpl. Fred G. Benning, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions during World War I while serving with the U.S. Army in France in 1918. The base was originally named for Lt. Gen. Henry Benning, a Confederate general who opposed freeing slaves.
'This change underscores the installation's storied history of service to the United States of America, honors the warfighter ethos, and recognizes the heroes who have trained at the installation for decades and will continue to train on its storied ranges,' the Pentagon said in a statement.
Hegseth's order further fulfills a campaign pledge by President Trump, who vowed to revert bases back to their original names.
The Pentagon in February switched the North Carolina military base Fort Liberty back to Fort Bragg. In that case, Private First Class Roland Bragg, a decorated World War II veteran, was chosen as the namesake, in lieu of Braxton Bragg, another Confederate general.
On his first official day at the Pentagon, Hegseth had signaled the changes were coming when he called Fort Liberty and Fort Moore by their previous names, Fort Bragg and Fort Benning.
One of the largest military installations in the country, Fort Benning sits on Georgia's border with Alabama and supports roughly 120,000 active-duty service members, their families, and civilian employees. Established during WWI, it is home to the U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, U.S. Army Armor School and the U.S. Army Infantry School.
It was renamed Fort Moore to honor Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife Julie Moore, who committed their lives to the service and helping Army families.
While Hal was deployed during the Vietnam War, Julie became frustrated with how the news of the death of a loved one was delivered via telegram, leading her to personally deliver notices. Her efforts led to the establishment of survivor support networks and casualty notification teams that are still used today.
Hegseth, though ordering the Moore name be replaced, also directed the Army to honor the Moores' legacy in 'in a manner that celebrates their significant contributions to the local community and the Army.'
But Steve Moore, one of the couple's sons, last month wrote an essay in the War Horse, saying he was 'disappointed' at Fort Bragg's name change calling the decision 'so wrong.'
'Those who advocate for changing the name to honor a person solely because they happen to be named 'Benning' ignore the values and character of Hal and Julie Moore as well as their courage, competency, and dedication to the nation and Army families,' he wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
31 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump got this one right: A smaller National Security Council staff is actually a good thing
President Trump's decision to downsize the National Security Council staff has evoked howls of protest from members of the media and from former NSC staffers under President Joe Biden — at times they are one and the same. These critics argue that Trump is 'removing part of his government's brain' and increasing the risk of America being unable to address and respond to a developing crisis. Their case would be much stronger if the NSC had, for example, understood the risks of a hurried withdrawal from Afghanistan and planned a more deliberate departure from that country. Biden had reduced the size of the National Security Council staff, which at its apogee under President Barack Obama stood at 400. Yet the Obama administration failed to stop Bashar Assad's chemical attacks on Syrian rebels and negotiated an agreement with Iran that Tehran began to violate before its ink had even dried. Nor did a 200-person NSC staff under President George W. Bush successfully coordinate the warring State and Defense Departments — a contributing factor to U.S. failures in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It is noteworthy that President George H.W. Bush — who managed a highly successful foreign and national security policy, including an outright victory over Saddam Hussein — relied upon no more than 60 NSC professionals. Their leader, Brent Scowcroft, is widely acknowledged to have been the most capable of all post-World War II national security advisors. Bill Clinton's NSC staff coordinated a relatively successful national security policy that included the expansion of NATO and the successful defenestration of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and the end of the Balkan Wars. Clinton had increased the NSC staff by 50 percent from the previous administration, but it still numbered less than 100 officials and was half the size of Biden's NSC cohort. What emerges from this tale of fluctuating numbers is that the size of the National Security Council staff matters not nearly as much as both its mission and the cohesion — or lack thereof — of the agency heads that constitute the council itself. For the elder Bush, as well as for Clinton, the NSC staff functioned as a true coordinating body, offering the president top-level policy choices while allowing the agency heads to manage their own respective operations. Biden, and even more so Obama, sought to usurp the operational responsibilities that rightly resided with the agencies that constituted the NSC, and essentially micromanaged foreign and national security policy. Of course, there was no way that a staff that at most numbered 400 people could do the job of agencies with several orders of magnitude more personnel. Trump's approach to downsizing the NSC staff certainly involves risk. That is not because of the smaller number of staff, since a small staff would have no option but to focus on coordinating the activities of Cabinet agencies. Rather, it is the manner with which the staff has been reduced, and the capabilities of those personnel who will populate it. Laura Loomer, the conspiracy theorist and gadfly, is hardly an expert in either national security policy or personnel management, and her attacks on several highly talented NSC staffers should have been ignored by the president. On the other hand, it is not as if the remaining NSC staffers will necessarily be a bunch of incompetent dunderheads. Moreover, if, as it appears, the leading agency heads in Trump's second administration will cooperate with one another — much like Secretary of State James Baker, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney and Scowcroft worked hand-in-hand, even as they offered H.W. Bush alternative approaches to policy — then all that Trump needs is a small staff that coordinates the agencies that constitute the NSC. Some have argued that Marco Rubio's multi-hatted role as Secretary of State and acting National Security Advisor gives the State Department an upper hand in policy making. Many of those making this case are the very people who previously expressed concern that State had been sidelined by the Pentagon and was a shell of its former policy-making self. In fact, although Rubio is no Henry Kissinger (and many of Trump's older critics hated Kissinger too), he certainly can ensure that State's concerns receive the same due consideration as those of Defense, or for that matter Treasury. That is not a bad thing at all. Finally, some argue that the NSC staff will simply offer up to Trump whatever it is that he wishes to hear. Perhaps. But a smaller staff by definition will be unable to stifle the views of agency heads, all of whom will offer the president what they view are the best possible choices in any given circumstance. National Security Council staffs, like the agency heads, serve at the pleasure of every president, not only this one. It is their job to ensure that his policies meet with success. They may have different views about which policies accomplish his objectives, but they all share the same goal. One can argue the wisdom or correctness of Trump's policy decisions, but like all his predecessors, the last word will always be his. And the job of the NSC staff is not to preempt the Cabinet and other top agency heads but to ensure that the president has the most viable alternatives from which to choose before he decides upon a given course of action, whatever it may be. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Navy to strip gay rights activist Harvey Milk's name from oil tanker
WASHINGTON − The Navy will rename an oil tanker that named after slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk, U.S. officials told Reuters on Tuesday, the latest move in the military under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to root out diversity, equity and inclusion. In 2016, the U.S. Navy said it would name one of its new class of oil tankers after Milk, a Navy veteran who later became one of the first openly gay people elected to public office in the United States. The USNS Harvey Milk was christened in 2021, as part of the John Lewis class of tankers. More: Stonewall veterans sound alarm over Trump's attempt to erase trans history A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the directive for the change came from Hegseth's office. In a statement, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said Hegseth was committed to ensuring names of military installations and equipment "are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos. "Any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete," Parnell said. The Pentagon and the U.S. Navy did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The official said it was unclear when the renaming would actually take place, but noted that June is Pride Month, observed annually to honor the LGBTQ rights movement. More: Military schools threaten pro-DEI student protesters with disciplinary action Another official said it would not be surprising if additional ships in the John Lewis class were renamed, since other tankers honored civil rights and human rights leaders. The planned name change was first reported by military news website Milk served in the U.S. Navy in 1951 as a diving officer during the Korean War. Elected to the San Francisco board of supervisors as the first openly gay California politician, he was killed in office in 1978. Since taking office in January, Hegseth, a former Fox News host, has eliminated diversity initiatives at the Pentagon and ended observances of identity celebrations such as Black History Month. DEI programs seek to promote opportunities for women, ethnic minorities and other traditionally underrepresented groups. Civil rights advocates argue that such programs, generally backed by Democrats, are needed to address longstanding inequities and structural racism. They have come under attack from conservatives, who say race- and gender-focused initiatives are inherently discriminatory and fail to prioritize merit. In February, Hegseth chided past celebrations of the U.S. military's diversity in a broad address to Pentagon staff, saying: "I think the single dumbest phrase in military history is 'our diversity is our strength.'" This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Hegseth strips gay icon Harvey Milk's name from Navy ship
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Pentagon to make change to military oversight of Greenland: report
ILULISSAT, Greenland − The Pentagon is planning to put its military oversight of Greenland under U.S. Northern Command, according to a report, a largely symbolic gesture that comes as President Donald Trump continues to press for the world's largest island to break from Denmark. Greenland is currently the purview of U.S. European Command, which is headquartered in Germany. U.S. Northern Command is in charge of defending the U.S. homeland and the shift more closely aligns with Trump's pledge to take control of the Danish territory. Politico first reported the planned redrawing of the Pentagon's command map. Trump talked about acquiring Greenland during his first term. But since winning reelection he has repeatedly riffed on the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. national security including, missile defense programs and keeping tabs on Russian and Chinese naval activity in the Arctic. Greenland is also rich in natural resources such as oil, gold and rare earths minerals. 'One way or the other': Five ways Trump's Greenland saga could play out Denmark and the semi-autonomous Faroe Islands will remain under U.S. European Command, according to Politico, effectively creating a symbolic and operational split between those territories. The Pentagon's move is sure to anger Denmark, which has repeatedly stressed that Greenland is not for sale and Trump's stated position does not amount to serious discussion. The Danish Embassy in Washington, D.C. did not return a request for comment. Nor did the Joint Arctic Command, Denmark's Greenland-based Arctic security mission that consists of units such as inspection ships, patrol vessels, aircraft, helicopters and the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol. 'Buy us!': Greenlanders shocked, intrigued, bewildered by Trump zeal for Arctic territory A U.S. Department of Defense spokesperson said there were no announcements to make and deferred all questions about the move to the White House, which declined comment. The Pentagon has 11 combatant commands – four functional, such as U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Cyber Command, and seven based on geography. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Pentagon to change military oversight of Greenland: report
