07/29/2025
So now we’ve renamed Fort Cavazos back to Fort Hood—under the false pretense of “restoring tradition”—when in truth, it’s a transparent attempt to smuggle Confederate nostalgia back in through the side door. Let’s be clear: General Richard E. Cavazos was no politically correct placeholder. He earned that honor with blood, valor, and decades of selfless service.
Born in Kingsville, Texas, Cavazos became the first Hispanic four-star general in U.S. Army history. In 2025, he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism during the Korean War, where he repeatedly exposed himself to enemy fire to evacuate wounded soldiers. He later earned a second Distinguished Service Cross in Vietnam—making him one of the very few American soldiers to receive that decoration in two separate wars. His service record also includes a Silver Star, Distinguished Flying Cross, Legion of Merit, multiple Bronze Stars with “V” devices, and two Purple Hearts. His military career wasn’t just long—it was historic by every measure.
Now let’s talk about who the original Fort Hood was named for: General John Bell Hood, a Confederate officer who fought to preserve slavery and dismantle the Union. Hood is remembered as an impulsive and reckless commander whose actions at the Battles of Franklin and Nashville led to catastrophic, unnecessary losses. His legacy is defined by military failure and loyalty to a treasonous cause.
Fast-forward to 2025. Under political pressure from the MAGA right, the Army restores the “Fort Hood” name—but not explicitly in honor of John Bell Hood. This time, they claim it now commemorates Colonel Robert B. Hood, a World War I veteran awarded a single Distinguished Service Cross for valor in France. That’s an honorable distinction. But let’s be honest: COL Hood was not a general, did not serve in multiple conflicts, and played no significant role in shaping Army doctrine, history, or leadership. His military contribution, while real, was limited to a single act in a single campaign. There is simply no credible rationale for elevating him to the same symbolic stature as Cavazos—unless, of course, the goal is to sanitize the reversal and mask the real intent.
What’s really happening here is obvious: this is a performative, reactionary reversal—a culture war stunt masquerading as reverence for “tradition.”
Leading the charge is Pete Hegseth, a Fox News pundit who apparently thinks his military résumé qualifies him to rewrite Army history. Hegseth served a single tour in Afghanistan, received a Bronze Star—as most officers in combat zones do—and later mobilized to Guantanamo Bay. That’s it. No Silver Star. No “V” device. No combat command. During OIF II, my unit awarded Bronze Stars to motor pool warrant officers—people I deeply respect, but let’s be honest: they were fobbits, not frontline fighters. The Bronze Star is a commendable recognition for leadership or meritorious service in a combat zone. It is not equivalent to a Medal of Honor or even a valorous DSC.
To be clear, I wasn’t thrilled when the base renamings first began. Most soldiers never knew who these places were named after, and the push to rename them didn’t come from within—it was imposed by cultural and political forces on the left. But now the right is throwing its own ideological tantrum to reverse it. Radicalism on both ends is what’s unraveling our institutions—not tradition, not service, and certainly not honor.
That said, once Fort Cavazos was named—after a man who exemplified the best of what the U.S. Army can be—it should have stood. Cavazos embodied courage, sacrifice, professionalism, and inclusive leadership. Reversing that choice—whether under the excuse of honoring a lesser-known colonel or to soothe MAGA grievances—isn’t just petty.
It’s cowardly. It’s dishonest. And it insults every soldier who ever served under the flag Cavazos bled for.
General Richard E. Cavazos didn’t just earn the name. He transcended it.
