How to Name Bases: A Pro Guide (US Edition)

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) establishes cartographic standards, which impact the conventions for naming geographical features, including military bases. Naming protocols adopted by the Department of Defense (DOD) often consider historical figures and their contributions, which in turn influences how these places are symbolically represented. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), a database maintained by the USGS, provides a comprehensive repository of official base names and their associated attributes. Professionals who need to understand how to name bases frequently consult resources like the Federal Board on Geographic Names (BGN) to ensure compliance with federal guidelines and to understand the rationale behind existing naming conventions.

Why Military Base Names Matter: A Legacy Forged in Stone

Military base names are far more than mere labels; they are powerful symbols that resonate deeply within the armed forces and the broader national consciousness. These names become ingrained in the daily lives of service members, shaping their sense of identity and duty. They serve as constant reminders of the values, history, and sacrifices that underpin the military's mission.

These names are not simply administrative conveniences. They are vessels of meaning, capable of inspiring pride, respect, and a tangible connection to the past. The gravity of bestowing a name on a military installation stems from its potential to forge an enduring legacy—a legacy that either honors exemplary service or, conversely, perpetuates problematic historical narratives.

A Historical Perspective on Base Naming

The practice of naming military bases has evolved considerably throughout U.S. history. Early naming conventions often reflected geographical considerations, with installations named after local towns, regions, or natural features. As the military matured, a shift occurred towards honoring prominent military figures, particularly those who demonstrated exceptional leadership or valor in combat.

However, this evolution has not been without its controversies. For decades, numerous bases bore the names of Confederate officers, a practice that, in the 21st century, has faced increasing scrutiny and calls for change. This historical context is crucial to understanding the present-day debates surrounding base naming and the impetus for reform.

The NDAA, the Naming Commission, and the Winds of Change

Recent years have witnessed a significant turning point in how the U.S. military approaches the naming of its installations. Fueled by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a bipartisan effort emerged to address the presence of Confederate-linked names on military bases. The NDAA paved the way for the creation of the Defense Base Naming Commission, tasked with developing recommendations for renaming bases and facilities that honored figures from the Confederacy.

The Commission’s work represented a profound reckoning with the past, acknowledging the divisive symbolism of these names and their potential to undermine morale and inclusivity within the military. The initiative aimed not merely to erase history, but to create a more inclusive and representative landscape of honor, one that reflects the values of a diverse and evolving nation.

The primary focus of the Commission was the renaming of major Army bases that had, for decades, carried the names of Confederate generals. Installations such as Fort Bragg (now Fort Liberty), Fort Benning (now Fort Moore), and Fort Hood (now Fort Cavazos) underwent transformations that signified a decisive break with the past. These changes were not merely cosmetic; they symbolized a commitment to a more unified and equitable future for the U.S. military.

Governing Bodies: Navigating the Labyrinth of Military Base Naming Authorities

Having explored the compelling reasons behind military base naming, it is essential to understand the intricate web of authorities and policies that govern this process. Military base naming isn't a whimsical affair; it's a structured undertaking governed by layers of command, each with distinct responsibilities. Let's delve into the key players and regulations that shape how our military installations are named and renamed.

The Department of Defense: The Apex Authority

At the pinnacle of the military base naming hierarchy stands the United States Department of Defense (DoD). As the overarching authority, the DoD sets the tone and parameters for base naming policies across all branches. The Secretary of Defense holds the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that naming conventions align with national values, historical accuracy, and strategic objectives.

It's the DoD that issues overarching guidance, ensuring that each service branch operates within a consistent framework. This centralized oversight guarantees uniformity and prevents conflicting or inappropriate naming decisions.

Service-Specific Responsibilities: A Branch-by-Branch Breakdown

While the DoD provides the overarching framework, each service branch—the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps—possesses its own specific responsibilities and procedures for base naming. These branches are intimately familiar with their respective installations, their histories, and the individuals who have contributed significantly to their missions.

The U.S. Army

The Army has a rich tradition of naming installations after military heroes, battles, and significant historical figures. These names serve as a constant reminder of the Army's heritage and the sacrifices of those who came before.

The U.S. Air Force

The Air Force also honors its own pantheon of heroes and aviation pioneers. The names of its bases often reflect its focus on technological advancement and air power.

The U.S. Navy

The Navy draws inspiration from naval battles, admirals, and distinguished figures who have shaped naval history. Their bases are often named to evoke a sense of maritime prowess and strategic importance.

The U.S. Marine Corps

The Marine Corps, with its storied history of valor and unwavering dedication, often names its bases after legendary Marine leaders and battles that embody the Corps' ethos.

DOD Instructions: Codifying the Naming Process

To ensure clarity and consistency across all branches, the DoD issues comprehensive instructions that govern base naming procedures. These instructions, known as DOD Instructions (DODI), provide detailed guidance on:

• Criteria for selecting names.
• The process for submitting and reviewing naming proposals.
• The approval authority required for different types of installations.
• Restrictions on naming bases after living individuals.

DODI acts as the rulebook, ensuring that the naming process is transparent, fair, and aligned with DoD policies.

Service Branch Regulations: Diving Deeper into the Details

Each service branch supplements the DoD Instructions with its own specific regulations, providing further granularity and tailoring the naming process to their unique needs. These regulations include:

• Department of the Army Regulations (AR)
• Department of the Air Force Instructions (DAFI)
• OPNAVINST (Navy Instructions)
• MCO (Marine Corps Orders)

These regulations delve into the specifics of naming installations within each branch. They cover everything from the composition of naming committees to the documentation required for submitting proposals.

AR, DAFI, OPNAVINST, and MCO are essential resources for anyone involved in the military base naming process, providing a detailed roadmap for navigating the procedures within their respective branches.

Congressional Influence: The Power of Legislation

While the DoD and the service branches hold primary responsibility for base naming, the United States Congress plays a significant role through legislation. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed annually, provides Congress with a powerful tool to influence base naming decisions.

Through the NDAA, Congress can mandate the renaming of bases, establish naming commissions, and set specific criteria for the selection of new names. The recent renaming of bases previously named after Confederate figures is a prime example of Congress's influence in this area.

The NDAA demonstrates that Congress is not merely a bystander in the base naming process; it is an active participant that can shape the landscape of military memorialization.

The Renaming Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

Having explored the compelling reasons behind military base naming, it is essential to understand the intricate web of authorities and policies that govern this process. Military base naming isn't a whimsical affair; it's a structured undertaking governed by layers of considerations, regulations, and the overarching goal of honoring the nation's values. Let's examine the meticulous process of renaming military installations, emphasizing the criteria driving these pivotal decisions.

The Defense Base Naming Commission: A Mandate for Change

The Defense Base Naming Commission, established under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), plays a central role in renaming military bases that previously honored Confederate figures. This commission's mandate reflects a broader effort to align military symbols with values of unity and inclusivity. Its recommendations, although influential, undergo a rigorous review process before implementation.

The commission’s primary focus was to identify and recommend the removal of names associated with the Confederacy from military assets. Its recommendations are non-binding and require approval from the Secretary of Defense and ultimately, congressional action to implement.

Eradicating Confederate Symbolism: Criteria for Removal

The commission's mandate included a review of all military bases, facilities, and assets bearing names associated with the Confederate States of America. This review sought to address concerns that such names were divisive and inconsistent with the military's commitment to equality.

The commission paid particular attention to names honoring Confederate generals, such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The presence of these names on prominent military installations has long been a subject of controversy, viewed by many as a painful reminder of a divisive period in American history.

The NDAA directed the commission to consider whether individuals memorialized through base names actively participated in the Confederacy. This was a core component of the criteria for recommending a name's removal.

This process underscored the commitment to ensuring that the names adorning military bases reflect the values of unity, service, and sacrifice that define the U.S. military.

Selecting New Names: Criteria for Honoring Excellence

The selection of new names is a multifaceted process designed to honor individuals who exemplify the values and ideals of the U.S. military. Several key criteria guide this process, reflecting a desire to create a more inclusive and representative legacy.

Honoring Valor and Service

A primary criterion for selecting new names is honoring individuals who have demonstrated exceptional valor and service to the nation. This includes recognizing Medal of Honor recipients, distinguished veterans, and those who have made significant contributions to the military's mission.

Local History and Significance

The historical context and significance of the local community surrounding the military base are also important considerations. New names are often chosen to reflect the unique heritage and contributions of the region, fostering a stronger connection between the base and its neighboring communities.

Military History

The selection process takes into account the broader scope of military history. Honoring figures who have played pivotal roles in shaping military strategy, technology, or leadership principles is a way of preserving the rich legacy of the armed forces.

Base Mission and Purpose

The mission and purpose of the military base are also considered when selecting new names. Choosing a name that aligns with the base's specific role and function helps to reinforce its identity and purpose within the military structure.

Diversity and Inclusion

Reflecting the military's commitment to diversity and inclusion, the selection process seeks to honor individuals from all backgrounds and communities who have made significant contributions to the armed forces. This includes recognizing women, minorities, and other underrepresented groups.

Public Input

Crucially, the selection process also incorporates public input and engagement. Community members, veterans, and other stakeholders are invited to participate in discussions and provide feedback on potential new names. This inclusive approach ensures that the final decision reflects the values and priorities of the broader community.

Case Studies: A Transformation in Progress

The renaming process has been successfully implemented at several prominent military bases, each with its own unique story.

• Fort Bragg (Now Fort Liberty): Reflecting a commitment to freedom, the new name Fort Liberty honors the values of service, sacrifice, and the pursuit of liberty.
• Fort Benning (Now Fort Moore): Honoring Lieutenant General Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, Fort Moore recognizes their extraordinary service and dedication to soldiers and their families.
• Fort Hood (Now Fort Cavazos): Named after General Richard Cavazos, Fort Cavazos celebrates the first Hispanic four-star general and a distinguished Vietnam War veteran.
• Camp Pickett (Now Fort Barfoot): Paying tribute to Van T. Barfoot, a Medal of Honor recipient from World War II, Fort Barfoot honors his exceptional courage and valor.
• Fort A.P. Hill (Now Fort Walker): Renamed Fort Walker after Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, the only woman to receive the Medal of Honor, this change celebrates her pioneering spirit and contributions to military medicine.
• Fort Gordon (Now Fort Eisenhower): Honoring President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Fort Eisenhower recognizes his exceptional leadership during World War II and his commitment to national service.

These case studies demonstrate the thoughtful and deliberate approach taken to rename military bases, ensuring that the new names reflect the values and ideals of the U.S. military. They also highlight the power of names to inspire, honor, and connect communities.

Honoring Heroes: Who Gets Considered?

Having explored the compelling reasons behind military base naming, it is essential to understand the intricate web of authorities and policies that govern this process. Military base naming isn't a whimsical affair; it's a structured undertaking governed by layers of considerations, regulations, and the individuals who get immortalized in the very landscapes of our defense infrastructure.

But who are these individuals, and what criteria determine their selection for such enduring recognition? The selection process reveals a complex interplay of valor, service, historical context, and, increasingly, a commitment to diversity and inclusion.

The Medal of Honor: A Foundation of Recognition

At the bedrock of consideration for military base naming lies the Medal of Honor, the United States' highest award for valor in action against an enemy force. It's a symbol of extraordinary bravery and selflessness that transcends time and circumstance.

Recipients of the Medal of Honor have consistently been deemed worthy of having their names associated with military installations, their acts serving as perpetual reminders of the sacrifices demanded by duty and honor.

Think of it: to have a training ground, a headquarters, or even a community center bear the name of someone who demonstrably risked (or gave) their life defending their comrades and/or nation? That’s powerful stuff.

Union Generals: Bridging the Divides

While the renaming process has focused on removing Confederate figures, it simultaneously opens the door to honoring Union Generals who fought to preserve the nation. This act isn't merely about redressing historical imbalances. It is about acknowledging the complexity and nuance of our nation’s past.

Choosing Union generals offers an opportunity to highlight the values of unity, resilience, and the fight against injustice. Highlighting figures such as Ulysses S. Grant (though controversial), William Tecumseh Sherman (also controversial), or even lesser-known but equally impactful leaders can serve to further educate service members about the Civil War and its lasting consequences.

The Complex Case of Native American Leaders

The possibility of honoring Native American leaders like Geronimo or Sitting Bull presents a particularly intriguing and complex dimension to the base naming conversation.

While these figures are undoubtedly central to American history, their relationship with the U.S. military was often fraught with conflict and oppression. Consider that, for many, the names Geronimo and Sitting Bull immediately conjure images of resistance, resilience, and the struggle against government policies that sought to displace and assimilate Native American populations.

However, there are compelling arguments to be made for their inclusion. Honoring these leaders could symbolize a commitment to acknowledging past wrongs and fostering a more inclusive understanding of American history. It could be interpreted as a powerful statement about the nation’s evolving values.

It would be critical to delve deeper into individual narratives and to ensure that the naming decision is made in consultation with Native American tribes and communities.

Presidential Legacies: Beyond Politics

U.S. Presidents, particularly those with significant military experience or a deep connection to the armed forces, are also viable candidates for base naming honors.

Presidents who have shaped military policy, commanded troops in battle, or demonstrated unwavering support for service members often find themselves under consideration. George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and even more modern presidents who oversaw periods of significant military transformation, could be considered.

The key consideration is whether their connection to the military transcends mere political affiliation and embodies a broader commitment to national defense.

Strategic and Tactical Brilliance

Beyond valor and high office, individuals who have made exceptional contributions to military strategy and tactics are often considered. These are the thinkers, planners, and innovators who have revolutionized warfare, developed groundbreaking technologies, or inspired generations of military leaders.

Figures like Alfred Thayer Mahan (sea power theorist), Billy Mitchell (advocate for air power), or even lesser-known innovators who developed critical technologies could be considered. These individuals may not have achieved widespread fame, but their impact on military doctrine and capabilities is undeniable.

In the end, the choice of who to honor is a profound reflection of our values, our history, and our aspirations for the future.

Naming Variety: Conventions for Different Facilities

Having explored the compelling reasons behind military base naming, it is essential to understand the intricate web of authorities and policies that govern this process. Military base naming isn't a whimsical affair; it's a structured undertaking governed by layers of considerations, regulations, and the individuals memorialized. This section dives into the distinct naming conventions applied across various military facilities, illuminating the unique practices within each branch.

General Naming Conventions for Military Bases

Military base names are more than mere labels. They are carefully chosen to reflect history, honor individuals, or signify the base's mission.

Generally, a military base aims for a name that resonates with a sense of patriotism and duty, aligning with the armed forces' core values.

The naming of bases often serves to inspire and instill a sense of pride among service members and the community, as well as embody national identity.

Army Post Naming Conventions: A Legacy of Leaders

The U.S. Army often names its posts after distinguished military leaders, especially those who have demonstrated exceptional bravery or strategic acumen.

This practice memorializes their contributions and serves as a constant reminder of the qualities of leadership expected within the Army.

Historically, forts were named to commemorate fallen heroes, battles, or significant events in military history.

Air Force Base Naming Conventions: Celebrating Innovation

Air Force bases, on the other hand, sometimes deviate, reflecting their focus on innovation and technology.

While honoring individuals remains a common practice, the mission of the base or its geographical location may also influence the naming decision.

Consider bases named after pioneering aviators or individuals who made seminal contributions to aerospace technology.

This is a departure from focusing on historical events.

Naval Station Naming Conventions: Maritime Heritage

Naval Stations, reflecting the Navy's deep connection to the sea, often bear names associated with maritime history or naval heroes.

Names might evoke naval battles, admirals of great renown, or even significant locations in naval lore.

The naming conventions used for naval facilities reflect the unique culture and traditions of the U.S. Navy.

Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Naming Practices: Honoring Aviation Prowess

Marine Corps Air Stations (MCAS) often combine elements of both Air Force and Navy naming conventions.

Given the Marine Corps' emphasis on air support, MCAS names often honor aviation pioneers, distinguished Marine aviators, or significant battles involving Marine aviation.

The goal is to reflect the unique role of Marine aviation in supporting ground operations and overall mission objectives.

Naming Conventions for Other Facilities: A Deeper Dive

Beyond the major installations, individual facilities within a base also follow distinct naming conventions:

Training Ranges

Training ranges are frequently named to honor notable instructors, signify their purpose (e.g., "Marksman Range"), or memorialize significant training accidents.

Housing Areas

Housing areas might be named after Medal of Honor recipients, former base commanders, or even local community leaders.

Buildings

Buildings, such as barracks, mess halls, and headquarters, are commonly named after individuals who have made significant contributions to the unit or the base.

Roads and Streets

Roads and streets within a base often bear the names of battles, military campaigns, or figures of local or national significance.

Community and Recreation Facilities

Community centers and recreation facilities are frequently named in honor of individuals who have significantly enhanced the quality of life for service members and their families.

This ensures their contributions are remembered and valued.

By understanding these naming conventions, one can gain insight into the values, priorities, and history of the U.S. military. Each name tells a story, preserving the legacy of those who have served.

Beyond the Name: Additional Considerations and Resources

Having explored the compelling reasons behind military base naming, it is essential to understand the intricate web of authorities and policies that govern this process. Military base naming isn't a whimsical affair; it's a structured undertaking governed by layers of considerations, regulations, and a diverse array of stakeholders. Let's delve deeper into these often-overlooked facets, exploring who holds influence, the underlying concepts that shape decisions, and the essential resources available for further exploration.

Identifying Key Stakeholders

Base naming and renaming are not solitary decisions made in a vacuum. Numerous stakeholders have a vested interest and exert influence throughout the process.

These stakeholders include:

• The Department of Defense (DoD): Ultimately responsible for the final decision.

• Service Branches (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps): Each branch has its own traditions and priorities.

• The Defense Base Naming Commission: Played a crucial role in the recent renaming initiatives.

• Local Communities: The economic and social impact on nearby towns and cities is significant.

• Veterans' Organizations: Advocate for honoring the service and sacrifice of military personnel.

• Historical Societies and Museums: Provide context and expertise on potential namesakes.

• Congressional Representatives: Can influence the process through legislation and advocacy.

• The Public: Public opinion and sentiment can play a role, particularly in sensitive cases.

Engaging with these stakeholders is paramount to ensuring a transparent and well-received outcome. Ignoring their perspectives risks alienating crucial partners and undermining the legitimacy of the decision.

Discussing Relevant Concepts

Understanding the conceptual framework behind base naming provides valuable context for interpreting decisions and anticipating future trends. Three key concepts stand out: eponymy, legacy, and memorialization.

Eponymy: Naming After a Person

Eponymy, the practice of naming something after a person, lies at the heart of most base naming decisions. This act imbues the installation with the values and attributes associated with the namesake. However, it also invites scrutiny of the individual's character, actions, and historical significance. A careful evaluation is essential to ensure the eponym aligns with the values of the military and the nation.

Legacy: The Enduring Impact

The legacy of a potential namesake is a critical factor. What contributions did they make to the military, the nation, or the world? Did their actions promote justice, equality, and freedom? Did their life reflect the values the military seeks to uphold?

A positive and enduring legacy is a prerequisite for consideration. Conversely, any association with dishonor, oppression, or injustice should disqualify a candidate.

Memorialization: Preserving Memory

Base naming serves as a form of memorialization, enshrining the memory of an individual or event for future generations.

This act carries a solemn responsibility to honor the past accurately and respectfully, avoiding the glorification of problematic figures or the erasure of uncomfortable truths.

Listing Useful Tools and Resources

For those seeking to delve deeper into the intricacies of military base naming, a wealth of resources awaits. These tools provide access to historical records, policy documents, and expert analysis.

Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)

The DTIC serves as the central repository for DoD scientific and technical information. It houses a vast collection of documents, reports, and studies related to military operations, including base management and infrastructure.

Government Printing Office (GPO)

The GPO provides access to official government publications, including legislation, regulations, and reports related to military base naming and renaming. It is an invaluable resource for understanding the legal and policy framework that governs the process.

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

NARA preserves and provides access to the nation's historical records, including military records, photographs, and other documents that shed light on the history of military installations and the individuals who served there. Exploring these archives can unearth valuable insights into the historical context of base naming decisions.

By leveraging these resources, stakeholders can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of base naming and contribute to a process that is both informed and equitable.

Alright, that about wraps it up! Naming bases can seem daunting, but with these tips in your arsenal, you'll be christening your new installations like a pro in no time. Now go forth and conquer... the art of how to name bases, at least! Good luck!