I dunno, it’s a pretty huge deal of a change. It’s literally historic and a major sign of the times. As others have pointed out, I actually enjoy this less duplicitous name. But the context of the change does not bode well.
So, yes and no - It was the “Department of War” for most of the country’s existence. Truman changed it in 1947 when doing a massive overhaul of the military and intel parts of the government. Also, just calling “Department of Defense” hasn’t prevented us from getting into a whole mess of wars since then.
I do agree that it’s a sign of the times in terms of “everything old is new again” and undoing the 20th century, which is the T47/project 2025 stated goal. Sure as shit, we’re making incredible progress towards returning to 1860.
Looking into it, the department of war had removed the navy 150 years before. Arguably the DoD was a new department to encompass the department of the navy and the department of the army(the previous department of war) without the implication that the army was in charge being associated with the war department without the navy for so long. The naming, I could argue, is disrespectful to the US Navy of the late 1790s to the late 1940s.
Well, the overhaul in 1947 was huge, so it made sense to wrap it all up into something that also, in a post-WWII country, didn’t make it sound like “OK, we have this amazing military apparatus and now we’ve consolidated power, and let’s see where else to point it at…” I get it.
Personally, I think the “Department of International Violence” sounds more appropriate.
Yeah, Department of Defense always reminded me of 1984:
The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.
I dunno, it’s a pretty huge deal of a change. It’s literally historic and a major sign of the times. As others have pointed out, I actually enjoy this less duplicitous name. But the context of the change does not bode well.
So, yes and no - It was the “Department of War” for most of the country’s existence. Truman changed it in 1947 when doing a massive overhaul of the military and intel parts of the government. Also, just calling “Department of Defense” hasn’t prevented us from getting into a whole mess of wars since then.
I do agree that it’s a sign of the times in terms of “everything old is new again” and undoing the 20th century, which is the T47/project 2025 stated goal. Sure as shit, we’re making incredible progress towards returning to 1860.
FDR changes name from War to Defense, and Congress hasn’t declared War since. They’re just special military operations
Pretty much. We bombed Vietnam and killed a bunch of middle eastern people. Just a bunch of special military operations.
Looking into it, the department of war had removed the navy 150 years before. Arguably the DoD was a new department to encompass the department of the navy and the department of the army(the previous department of war) without the implication that the army was in charge being associated with the war department without the navy for so long. The naming, I could argue, is disrespectful to the US Navy of the late 1790s to the late 1940s.
Well, the overhaul in 1947 was huge, so it made sense to wrap it all up into something that also, in a post-WWII country, didn’t make it sound like “OK, we have this amazing military apparatus and now we’ve consolidated power, and let’s see where else to point it at…” I get it.
Personally, I think the “Department of International Violence” sounds more appropriate.
1860 had vaccine mandates.
God DAMMIT we are so bad at science now
Yeah, Department of Defense always reminded me of 1984:
Might as well call it what it is. “The Department of Imperialism”.
I thought that was the CIA
That was when we still cared about being part of the UN so we would just quietly do it behind the scenes