3 ms·
I'm not disagreeing with you but "Dept of War" is ENTIRELY a cosmetic change. It's literally just a name. There are people, mostly with desk jobs, who really
by nixon_why69 8mo ago
I'm not disagreeing with you but "Dept of War" is ENTIRELY a cosmetic change. It's literally just a name. There are people, mostly with desk jobs, who really want to feel like badasses and they really want the Dept of War. The real human consequences of this are unimportant to them and sadly unimportant to the rest of us also.
- delichon 8mo agoCosmetic changes are frequently decisive in politics. "literally just a name" discounts the genuine power of names.
- nixon_why69 8mo agoAgreed 100%
- avaer 8mo agoIf you go to https://www.war.gov/ https://www.war.gov/ it says Department of War. The person in charge calls himself the Secretary of War. Warfighters are being sent into Iran. Presumably to engage in warfare. People are gonna die. What's cosmetic about this?
- delichon 8mo agoAgree, essentially the Department of War is the Department of Defense with a little less makeup.
- lo_zamoyski 8mo agoIt's cosmetic because it is business as usual. And the DoW was the original name from 1789 to 1947.
- WrongAssumption 8mo agoSeems more accurate to me. Department of Defense was the one that seemed like a euphemism.
- pfannkuchen 8mo agoWasn’t it originally called the department of war also? If anything “department of defense” was doublespeak, as it was already primarily for war.
- lo_zamoyski 8mo agoIndeed it was, from 1789 to 1947. It was then changed to Departments of Army and Air Force, later the National Military Establishment, and finally the Department of Defense in 1949.