The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p 1236) marks ungrammatical the construction of "have something/someone + be + past participle":
*He had his son be examined by a specialist.
CGEL seems to say that the "be" needs to go to make it grammatical:
He had his son examined by a specialist.
Now, here's an excerpt from a Guardian article titled "Congress seeks to lift gun ban at military outposts despite army's concerns",
USARC, he added, would not be involved in changes to firearm policies and would continue to follow the directive issued by the military. But Lepley echoed Rooney’s view that recruiting stations must remain in high-traffic areas where young men and women could be easily recruited.
“We can’t have recruiting stations be like a fortress, we can’t have them be barricaded,” he said. “It’s not very welcoming. People need to be able to find us and come talk to us.”
The portion that Brian Lepley, a spokesman for the US army recruiting command (USARC), was quoted as saying includes the construction "have ... be". Is the construction well formed?
If so, how do I distinguish the ungrammatical CGEL example from the utterance of the USARC spokesman?