Being commander in chief does not mean micromanaging the military

When it comes to the military, President Trump simply cannot leave well enough alone. He prompted controversy by voicing his preference for employing the military against the protesters seeking justice for George Floyd, African Americans and other minorities. Now he has made it clear that he opposes renaming 10 Army facilities — nine bases and a post — all of which are located in southern states and bear the names of leading Confederate generals. 

In three tweets, the president argued: “It has been suggested that we should rename as many as 10 of our Legendary Military Bases, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Benning in Georgia, etc. These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. … Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military!”

Not all of the generals who lent their names to these installations were war heroes. For example, among those the president named, Gen. Braxton Bragg won only one major battle during the Civil War and lost every other time. His forces were routed by Ulysses S. Grant in the battle of Chattanooga and he was relieved of his command by Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Similarly, while Lt. Gen. John Hood was a successful brigade commander, he was a failure as a leader of a major campaign. His defeats in the Atlanta campaign and the Franklin-Nashville campaign were signal milestones in the Union’s victory. To use the president’s often repeated word, they were “losers.” 

Trump’s tweets have done nothing to ease the latent tensions among those in our military. Having the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs walk with him, like props, across Lafayette Park from the White House to St. John’s Church for a recent photo op during the demonstrations prompted each of the service chiefs to address memos to their commands about the military’s role to defend the Constitution and all it stands for. Indeed, upon being confirmed as Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. Charles Q. Brown released a video about being a black man in America. His opening words deserve to be quoted:

“As the commander of Pacific Air Forces, a senior leader in our Air Force, and an African American, many of you may be wondering what I’m thinking about the current events surrounding the tragic death of George Floyd. Here’s what I’m thinking about: I’m thinking about how full I am with emotion, not just for George Floyd, but the many African Americans that have suffered the same fate as George Floyd. I’m thinking about protests in my country — ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty — the equality expressed in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that I’ve sworn my adult life to support and defend. And thinking about a history of racial issues, and my own experiences that didn’t always sing of liberty and equality.”

The president’s desire to have troops quell the protests, and to invoke the Insurrection Act as justification for doing so, unnerved the Pentagon leadership. Indeed, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who is no one’s fool, recognized that by speaking out forcefully against the president’s notion he was risking his job. He spoke out anyway, and indeed almost was fired. 

The president’s latest foray into controversy involving the military is certain to stir up more emotions and create major headaches for the military leadership. It evokes some of the worst memories that African Americans have of their past. For example, Gen. Henry Benning is better known for his staunch support of slavery than for his exploits on the battlefield. 

The president is often accused of issuing “dog whistles” to elements of his political base. His stance on renaming military bases stands in stark contrast to memos such as  those issued by the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations that ban public displays of the Confederate battle flag. His stance has provoked the opposition of leading retired military officers, notably Gen. David Petraeus, who is arguably the nation’s leading war hero and had three assignments at Fort Bragg during his career.

No doubt there will be others who make a case against renaming the facilities. That decision should be left to Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, however. On June 3, McCarthy joined Chief of Staff James McConville and Sergeant Major of the Army Michael Grinston to issue a memorandum to the troops underscoring the importance of “treating every person with dignity and respect.” The Army Secretary has made it clear that he is willing to consider renaming the military facilities. Secretary Esper, no doubt again risking the wrath of the White House, has said he, too, is open to renaming them.

The president may well be within his rights as commander in chief to block any move to rename the bases. That is irrelevant. Given the fraught state of racial relationships in the military and the country, if he really wants to “respect the military” he should let the military decide for itself how it wishes to name the places where its personnel train to risk their lives to defend their country, its values and its Constitution.

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 under secretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy under secretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.