“De Oppresso Liber,” the U.S. Army Special Forces Latin motto means to free the oppressed, noble words for a noble organization. Born in the midst of the Cold War, the Army Special Forces’ original mission focused on training indigenous forces in conflict with communist forces around the world. Their motto, much like the U.S. Air Force Air Rescue Service motto “That Others Might Live,” pointed toward a principled use of military might. Though I never served in the Special Forces, as a soldier, later an NCO, and eventually an officer, I took and administered oaths which included these words,”…to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” As a military professional, I promised to defend the honorable ideals laid out in our foundational documents, and when called to do so as a leader undertook the honorable task to the best of my ability. Now is one of those times.
Several of our installations carry the name of confederate soldiers; Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Gordon, and Fort Jackson, to name a few. All of these are located in states that were part of the confederacy. As part of our continuing national effort to address issues of racial discrimination, some have called upon the Army to rename these installations. Others, citing long tradition, resist such efforts. I understand tradition. Tradition helps the Army, and other military branches, maintain their moral underpinnings in an often murky and chaotic world. Sometimes traditions help bind soldiers to a storied past. But in this case, we need to jettison these traditions as contrary to our foundational documents and oaths.
No matter how we try and frame it, the installations listed above are named after men who broke faith with the Army and the nation in support of a way of life founded upon the oppression and enslavement of black people. To rename these posts requires intellectual honesty and bravery. Intellectual honesty to recognize the incongruity of honoring men who dedicated their professional skills and energies to dismembering the very union we take an oath to protect. Through their decisions to support the confederacy, they chose to trample upon the ideals they swore to protect. Such a bracing, yet honest view of our history requires intellectual bravery. As soldiers, we often must face our fears, whether in an arduous training environment or when we kit up, donning our full-battle-rattle, going outside the wire to face an enemy eager to do us bodily harm. As soldiers, we must muster both physical courage and moral courage. Now, we must face our past and show the moral courage necessary to set aside those traditions, which run counter to our fundamental beliefs.
As an officer, I often faced soldiers to administer the oath of enlistment, which reads in part, “…that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” How ironic that I frequently administered that oath to men and women of color on an installation named after a man who took the same oath and then discarded it. He and others post namesakes would have kept these same soldiers in the chains of slavery. If I expect my soldiers to live up to that oath, then so must I. I must be willing to participate in the ongoing campaign to build a nation, which truly lives up to its ideals, those ideals laid out in our founding documents. We cannot continue to insult our brothers in arms of color by insisting that they serve on installations named after men who sought to keep their ancestors in bondage. It is time to lay aside that portion of our tradition and build a better one.
Discarding long-held traditions is a wrenching, painful, experience. Traditions help give our lives stability and meaning; however, when our traditions separate us from each other, they cease to serve a useful purpose and should be abandoned. It is long past time to truly integrate our service history by renaming those posts bearing the names of those who actively sought to tear apart our nation, defending a way of life based on keeping men and women of color in thrall. Years before the nation embarked upon the path of desegregation, the Army, under the leadership of President Truman desegregated. It was a difficult process then, but it had to be done. In a like manner, we must move forward into new territory. It will be painful, but it must be done to support and defend the constitution, and all of our citizens in or out of uniform.
No comments:
Post a Comment