The US military is rethinking its traditional connection to Confederate Army symbols, mindful of their divisiveness at a time the nation is wrestling with questions of race after the death of George Floyd in police hands.
US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and US Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, both former army officers, put out word through their spokesmen that they are “open to a bipartisan discussion” of renaming 10 army bases, such as North Carolina’s Fort Bragg, that honor Confederate Army officers who led the fight against the Union and directly or implicitly defended the institution of slavery.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday said that his administration would “not even consider” changing the name of any of the 10 army bases.
Illustration: Lance Liu
Despite Trump’s opposition, a Republican-led Senate committee late on Wednesday approved an amendment requiring the Pentagon to rename the bases within three years.
The US Navy’s top admiral on Tuesday announced that he would follow the example of General David Berger, the commandant of the US Marine Corps, who last week directed Marine commanders to remove public displays of the Confederate battle flag carried during the Civil War.
The flag, which some embrace as a symbol of heritage, “carries the power to inflame feelings of division” and can weaken the unit cohesion that combat requires, Berger has said.
“The Confederate battle flag has all too often been co-opted by violent extremist and racist groups whose divisive beliefs have no place in our Corps,” the corps said in a separate statement on Friday last week. “Our history as a nation, and events like the violence in Charlottesville in 2017, highlight the divisiveness the use of the Confederate battle flag has had on our society.”
US Admiral Mike Gilday, chief of naval operations, directed his staff to begin writing a similar order.
US Navy spokesman Commodore Nate Christensen said the ban would apply aboard navy ships, aircraft and submarines and at installations.
The army and air force have not yet followed Berger’s lead, but a defense official on Tuesday said that the issue of banning Confederate Army symbols is now under discussion at the highest levels of the Pentagon. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing internal deliberations.
For decades, these issues have arisen occasionally within the military only to return to obscurity with little lasting effect. It might be too early to know whether this time would be different, but Esper’s willingness to open the door to a renewed debate over these issues might suggest a chance for change.
Esper has not spoken publicly on the subject, but indicated through spokesmen that he is open to the idea.
Other aspects of the military’s struggle with race relations have come to the fore in the aftermath of the Floyd killing. Senior officers who are African American have spoken publicly about it, including General Charles Brown Jr, who was confirmed by the Senate on Tuesday as the air force’s first black chief of staff.
He and other black military leaders have said that black people, who make up about 17 percent of the active-duty armed forces, have long been underrepresented in the military’s most senior ranks.
The military prides itself on a record of taking the lead on social change, including in racial integration. However, it also has had incidents of racial hatred and, more subtly, a history of implicit bias in a predominantly white institution.
Ten major army installations are named for Confederate Army officers, mostly senior generals, including Robert Lee. Among the 10 is Fort Benning, the namesake of Confederate Army general Henry Benning, who was a leader of Georgia’s secessionist movement and an advocate of preserving slavery. Others are in Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Texas and Louisiana. The naming was done mostly after World War I and in the 1940s, in some cases as gestures of conciliation to the South.
Few voices in the military are openly defending the link to Confederate symbols, but some of the bases named for Confederate officers are legendary in their own right. Fort Bragg, for example, is home to some of the army’s most elite forces. Any decision to change the name at Bragg or other bases likely would involve consulting with officials from the affected states and localities.
Peter Mansoor, a retired army colonel and veteran of the Iraq war, said in an e-mail exchange that renaming these bases is long overdue.
“Most serving soldiers know little about the history behind the Confederate leaders for whom these bases are named, or the political deals that caused them to be honored in this fashion,” he said. “There might be some pushback from a small segment of soldiers from the South, but this is what we like to call a ‘teachable moment.’ Now is the time to finally bring about a change that will speak volumes as to what the US Army stands for.”
David Petraeus, a retired four-star army general, said the renaming move, which he supports, amounts to a “war of memory,” and that before deciding to rename bases like Fort Bragg, where he served with the 82nd Airborne Division, the army must be ready to follow its own procedures for such change.
“The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is inescapable to anyone paying attention,” Petraeus wrote in an essay published on Tuesday by The Atlantic. “Now, belatedly, is the moment for us to pay such attention.”
Fort Bragg was named for Braxton Bragg, a native North Carolinian and Confederate general with a reputation for bravery and mediocre leadership. His forces were defeated at the Battle of Chattanooga in November 1863.
US Senator Tammy Duckworth, a former army helicopter pilot, on Monday wrote to the leaders of each of the military services urging them to follow Berger’s example in banning public displays of the Confederate battle flag.
“Honoring the ‘lost cause’ of those who waged war against the United States of America, or defending the right of an individual state to allow its residents to own, sell and kill fellow Americans as property has no place in our nation, especially the US armed forces which waged a deadly war to eliminate the barbaric practice of slavery,” Duckworth wrote.
Additional reporting by AFP
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
RSS