There are a lot of fine traditions that have come from our armed services; one of the most profound is that of naming ships, buildings and other things after battles and the heroes who fought so bravely in them. Recently though, there has been an alarming shift away from this and politicians are being credited with having things named after them more than those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. It makes one wonder what the establishment is thinking sometimes. This trend really needs to change because, simply put, there are not enough ways to honor those who have fought, served and died in every corner of the world.
The US Navy has a time honored tradition of naming its vessels after presidents, fallen heroes and strategic battles that were won. Such important historical names and places that have graced naval vessels include the USS Ronald Reagan, the USS Bunker Hill (CV 17) the USS Normandy (CG 60) and the USS Chosin (CG 65). Somewhere down the line, political figures other than presidents started to have Naval ships named after them.
Do politicians deserve some credit from time to time by having things named after them? Maybe if they were instrumental in doing such things as passing important legislation or funding that enhanced the standing of the military, but in most other cases the answer is no. That honor belongs to those who have fought to preserve our country’s freedom and the places they fought at. Sometimes the naming of a ship after a politician even offends those who serve or have served in the military as was the case with the USS John P. Murtha; Representative Murtha was openly critical of the Iraq war and even publicly condemned a few Marines who were accused of war crimes before they were even convicted.
One name that has been suggested several times to honor the fallen soldiers and others who fought there is the name Fallujah. This was the scene of two of the bloodiest urban battles in the Iraq War. Over 120 American soldiers lost their lives trying to liberate that city both times from heavy insurgent control; 54 soldiers alone died in one bloody nine day stretch in the 2nd Battle of Fallujah. Despite stiff opposition, the American Troops scored a resounding victory but paid a steep price in dead and wounded. It was a battle that many troops called ‘all-out’ fighting and many likened it to being back in the ‘wild wild west’ because of the nature of the fighting that took place there.
Who is in charge of naming ships that the Navy puts into service? That falls under the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Navy (currently Ray Mabus). A spokesman for Mabus was recently quoted as saying that, although the name has been rejected twice, there are other ships in the type of class that is appropriate to name after battles that will go into service in the very near future and that name has not been ruled out.
Some say it is too soon and the battle is too fresh to have a ship named after it – especially given the fact that the city was just recently retaken by radical Islamic elements. Whatever the case, it would be more than appropriate to someday have a ship named after the city that so many brave US soldiers and other men and women fought so valiantly to liberate.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.
Latest posts by Craig Smith (see all)
- Enough Numbers: It’s Time for Results Against ISIS - 2 September, 2016
- Sometimes Paranormal Training Might Come in Handy for Police - 29 August, 2016
- Another Strange Twist in the Ernest Lee Johnson Story and His Scheduled Execution - 21 August, 2016