Our Army should have been slapped awake in the aftermath of June’s racist mass killing in South Carolina and the subsequent controversy over official display of the Confederate battle flag. We have been reminded by outsiders—as all of us in the Army should have remembered—that several Army posts are named after slave owners and traitors.Despite the Department of the Army’s disingenuous official response that the names were about “reconciliation,” they were in fact expedient yielding to the Southern congressional delegations that controlled appropriations for cheap land needed quickly for training for world wars. The Army should have called on our institutional values of loyalty, respect and integrity to rename those posts long ago.The controversy presents the Army with an opportunity to constructively rename these posts for two other, equally compelling reasons. One is that some of those honored were simply losers, and not just because they were on the losing side. Their records are full of inexcusable, willful blunders that led to crushing defeats that simply threw away the lives of their troops; or episodes of petty unprofessionalism.Others were honored for nothing more than routine and undistinguished service to their cause. Are these the examples we want to set for our troops today? Are these the leadership models we want to offer our young officers and new NCOs?The other reason for renaming some posts is that the Army’s history has grown tremendously since the Civil War and is filled with exemplary soldiers—some quite recent, many enlisted—who could be truly honored by a post name that inspires the Army.In a first phase, the Army should immediately replace the Confederate post names with those of loyal, entirely worthy and more recent Army role models. Why has it taken so long to rename that huge post in central Texas Fort Audie Murphy? Hasn’t Virginia produced even one worthy soldier since 1865 to name the posts outside Petersburg and Richmond? Hasn’t Georgia produced any infantry combat heroes or communications innovators? Shouldn’t we have a Fort Novosel in Alabama? Why hasn’t the Army named that big post in North Carolina after a worthy paratrooper or, better still, inexpensively divided the installation into Airborne and Special Forces sides (Fort Gavin and Fort Benavidez, respectively), each with its own ZIP code and different street signs?After replacing the defenders-of-slavery loser names, a second phase would reinforce the first by reviewing all the other post names. Again, because the Army’s history has moved on and the Army has continued to produce great soldiers, great leaders and great innovators, it’s time to rename some of the posts that pay tribute to now-forgotten and uninspiring figures of the distant past.Fort Campbell was named after a loyal American, but one who had almost no military record. Most of that post is in Tennessee: Fort Alvin York? Maj. Gen. George L. Irwin did a good job as an artillery commander in 1918. Did he do anything else that might motivate a sergeant or lieutenant arriving for a rotation this year? Fort Bliss is named after an academic and well-connected staff officer. Wouldn’t Fort Espinoza provide real inspiration for the soldiers of today and tomorrow?Let’s get to work now on cleaning out these musty corners of our past, and then remember to review our post names every 50 years.