Pentagon changes name of Georgia Army base back to Fort Benning, dumping Fort Moore
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has, for the second time, reversed the renaming of a U.S. military base, saying that Fort Moore in Georgia should revert back to being called Fort Benning.
The move reflects an ongoing effort by the Pentagon to overturn the Biden administration's 2023 decision to remove names that honored Confederate leaders, including for nine Army bases. But the drive to revert to the former names means finding service members with the same name as the Confederate leaders.
Previously, Fort Benning was named for Brig. Gen. Henry L. Benning, a Confederate officer during the American Civil War who stridently opposed the abolition of slavery.
Now, Hegseth said, Fort Benning will be named in honor of Cpl. Fred G. Benning, a recipient of the Distinguished Service Cross who served in France during World War I. According to the Pentagon, Benning was honored for heroic actions in October 1918, when he led troops through heavy fire after his platoon leader was killed by the enemy.
The renaming of bases is resulting in decisions that insult the military heroes whose names were selected in the 2023 process, including Lt. Gen. Harold Gregory Moore Jr. and his wife, Julia.
Moore is a revered military leader who earned the Distinguished Service Cross for valor and fought in the Battle of Ia Drang in the Vietnam War. And Julia Moore was key to the creation of teams that do in-person notifications of military casualties.
Hegseth last month signed an order restoring the name of a North Carolina base back to Fort Bragg, and warned that more changes were coming.
The North Carolina base had been renamed Fort Liberty in 2023. Its original namesake, Gen. Braxton Bragg, was a Confederate general from Warrenton, North Carolina, who was known for owning slaves and losing key Civil War battles, contributing to the Confederacy's downfall.
Now, Bragg is named to honor Pfc. Roland L. Bragg, who the Army said was a World War II hero who earned a Silver Star and Purple Heart for exceptional courage during the Battle of the Bulge.
It's not clear how much the renaming will cost, but the expense comes as the Trump administration is trying to find savings through Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.
The Naming Commission in its August 2022 report estimated it would cost $4.9 million to rename Fort Benning as Fort Moore, but said there could be additional costs. It put the cost to rename Bragg at around $8 million. Updated costs were not available.
Hegseth said the original Bragg name is a legacy for troops who lived and served there and that it was a shame to change it. And he said he deliberately referred to Bragg and Fort Benning by those names as he entered the Pentagon on his first day in office.
'There's a reason I said Bragg and Benning when I walked into the Pentagon on day one. But it's not just Bragg and Benning," he said. "There are a lot of other service members that have connections. And we're going to do our best to restore it.'
The lower ranks of the new namesakes indicate the exhaustive research being done by Army and defense leaders to find service members with the same names who have also earned some type of award for their military action and bravery.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
Do I need tickets for Trump's military parade? What to know
The "Grand Military Parade and Celebration," which will feature Army equipment, flyovers and thousands of soldiers in uniforms from the past and the present, caps off a week of programming designed to celebrate the military's enduring legacy. Trump has promised the event will be "unforgettable," and one "like you've never seen before." "It's gonna be something very, very special," Trump said in a June 6 video posted to Truth Social. "I don't think we've ever done one quite like this. We're gonna be celebrating the Army and our military." Here's how to get tickets. More: Trump warns would-be protesters on Army's 250th birthday celebration of 'heavy force' When, where will Trump's military parade take place? The "Grand Military Parade" is scheduled to take place on Saturday, June 14, in the heart of Washington, D.C. The procession route will span six blocks, bisecting the National Mall. The three-hour event will take place on Constitution Avenue NW between15th Street and 23rd Street. Here is a graphic of the parade route. The parade and celebration will commence at 6:30 p.m. ET, but guests will be allowed in as early as 2 p.m. ET on the day of the parade, according to the U.S. Army. The procession will cross in front of Trump's viewing stand on Constitution Avenue, just south of the White House, around sundown. A parachute demonstration by the Golden Knights and a fireworks display will conclude the evening's festivities. The president is also expected to attend an enlistment and re-enlistment ceremony after the parade. Do I need tickets for Trump's military parade? Not necessarily. However, those who register for tickets on the U.S. Army's event website will likely get the best view of the procession. According to the U.S. Army, guests are invited to convene along the parade route or view from the Washington Monument Grounds. How to get tickets for Trump's military parade Tickets for the parade are limited, but those interested in attending the parade on June 14 can RSVP here. Prospective attendees will be asked to provide their full name, phone number, email, state and zip code. How to watch Trump's military parade The U.S. Army will livestream all of the events for the 250th anniversary, including the parade, on all social media platforms for those who are unable to attend the celebration in person. Contributing: Kathryn Palmer, USA TODAY
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Homeland Security seeks weapons, drones for LA immigration crackdown
The request from Homeland Security, confirmed by a Defense official, also seeks "drone surveillance support," direction to troops on detaining or arresting "lawbreakers," and graduates from an organization like the Marines' School of Advanced Warfighting School for setting up a joint operation center. It's unclear what type of weapons Homeland Security officials are seeking for their immigration crackdown in California. Also unclear: who would use them and who they would be used against. Pentagon officials are reviewing the request, according to the official who was not authorized to speak publicly. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On Wednesday, Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, asked Hegseth if he would authorize drones and the use of "military forces to detain or arrest American citizens?" Reed is a member of the Senate Defense Approprations subcommittee and the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Hegseth did not answer directly, saying, "Senator, every authorization we've provided, the National Guard, and the Marines in Los Angeles is under the authority of the president of the United States. Is lawful and constitutional." Troops enforcing laws Active-duty troops are generally barred by federal law from participating in law enforcement operations, based on century's old tradition separating the military from domestic policing. There is an exception under the Insurrection Act that allows the president to use the military to put down an internal rebellion. National Guard troops have fewer restrictions. News that Homeland Security officials want ammunition, drones and combat expertise follows another request it made of the Pentagon. That one seeks for the first time more than 20,000 National Guard troops for their "support of interior immigration enforcement operations." That could put Guardsmen far from the southern border -- where they have supported enforcement operations for years -- and thrust them into center of the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration in American cities. More: Trump wants 20,000 troops to hunt, transport immigrants. Cost estimate: $3.6 billion It's not a given that these requests will be granted in part or in full. Pentagon officials review the proposals and decide what the military can spare without compromising its mission.
