By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Fort Benning, Georgia, will revert to its original name, honoring World War I soldier Cpl. Fred G. Benning, a Distinguished Service Cross recipient, instead of the Confederate general it was previously named for. This follows the recent renaming of Fort Liberty, North Carolina, back to Fort Bragg. The decision reverses a 2023 renaming to Fort Moore, which honored Lt. Gen. Harold “Hal” Moore and his wife Julia. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cited Cpl. Benning’s heroism and stated the Army will honor the Moores’ legacy separately.
Read the original article here
Fort Benning, the Army base previously renamed Fort Moore, is once again Fort Benning. This reversal has sparked considerable online debate, with many questioning the decision’s cost and purpose. The sentiment expressed widely is one of frustration, a feeling that this action represents a misallocation of resources and a pandering to certain political viewpoints.
The renaming, and subsequent re-renaming, is viewed by many as a costly and ultimately meaningless exercise. Millions of dollars were spent on the initial name change to Fort Moore, only to be reversed, leading to another large expenditure. This financial burden is seen as unacceptable given numerous pressing needs within the Army, from improved barracks and training facilities to enhanced mental health support for soldiers.
Many believe the money spent on changing and then reverting the base’s name would be far better utilized on improving the living conditions and training of soldiers. The consensus seems to be that focusing on practical improvements for those serving in the military is far more important than symbolic gestures. The prevalent opinion is that the money should have been, and should still be, invested in tangible improvements that directly benefit soldiers’ well-being and readiness.
The decision to revert the name to Fort Benning is interpreted by many as a tacit endorsement of the Confederate legacy. While some acknowledge that the original naming of the base was a source of contention, this act of reverting back to the original name is interpreted as a gesture towards appeasing those who identify with the Confederacy. The lack of a clear and compelling justification for this change further fuels the perception that it’s an attempt to appease a specific segment of the population. This comes across as an act of pandering and is not seen as a thoughtful or necessary use of resources or policy.
The frustration is further amplified by a sense of political maneuvering and questionable priorities. Many commenters highlight the irony of prioritizing a base name change over more pressing issues facing the nation, such as ongoing cyberattacks and economic instability. Concerns about the overall direction of the country are also voiced and intertwined with opinions regarding this specific instance of base renaming. The general dissatisfaction seems to stem from a perceived lack of transparency, accountability, and responsiveness to the needs of the military personnel and the nation at large.
The re-naming is considered by many as a blatant attempt to appease those who would align with the Confederate cause, a veiled attempt to appease specific groups with this politically charged gesture. The lack of any widely acceptable or objective rationale behind the decision is seen as a further indication of this viewpoint. There is also a pervasive feeling that the whole situation amounts to little more than political theater.
The impact on morale within the Army is also questioned. It’s asserted that soldiers are far more concerned with issues such as living conditions, training quality, and access to mental health services than with the name of their base. The belief that this decision ignores these pressing needs, and shows a disregard for those concerns, only intensifies the negative response.
Adding to the criticism is the perception that the process of selecting names for military bases is flawed and possibly influenced by political considerations rather than genuine military history and values. Concerns are raised about the possibility of names being selected to gain favor within specific political circles rather than for their historical accuracy or relevance to the armed forces. The entire process lacks transparency, which further fuels the negative perception among critics.
In essence, the reversion of Fort Moore’s name back to Fort Benning is viewed by many as an unnecessary, costly, and politically motivated decision that distracts from the true needs of the Army and the nation. The frustration and anger stem from what many see as a misguided allocation of resources, a pandering to a particular political viewpoint, and a lack of transparency in the decision-making process. The perceived trivialization of more substantial issues by prioritizing such a decision further exacerbates this sentiment.