3 ms·

I was totally with it until they started talking about the real world again. The Department of War was called that up until 1947 when it was renamed to the euph

I was totally with it until they started talking about the real world again. The Department of War was called that up until 1947 when it was renamed to the euphemistic Department of Defense (or more specifically merged with the Department of the Navy which was previously separate). It has nothing to do with the right to self defense, the undermining of which would make a great paragraph here comparing modern self defense law the world over with schoolhouse rules.

jrmg 7mo ago
Just because something was done before doesn’t mean it’s good (obviously?) The purpose of the Department of Defense should be to defend America and Americans. Waging war is an unfortunate necessity that stems from this sometimes. War is not the only threat that can require a military response, and should never be a goal. No matter how you swing it, having a ‘Department of X’ definitely gives the impression - to people within and without it - that ‘X’ is a goal. Even if you think about it amorrally, calling it the ‘Department of War’ is myopic.
- kjksf 7mo ago
  Since 1947 US has been involved in 5 major wars (Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afganistan, Iraq). Which begs the question: do you think it's more "moral" to wage wars and lie to public that you're in the business of defense OR say things that are truthful? Spending trillion+ dollars on military is about the only thing that both political party agree on. Obama bombed more countries that most presidents. Since we're talking about adults thinking like children: your simplistic ideas about what military should be have no effect on what it is. If Iran had the firepower superiority over Israel and U.S. they would level both countries. This is no me saying. "Death to America" is a literal quote from now-dead ayatollah. When you actually listen why they renamed DoD to DoW it's way more nuanced that you apparently believe. One of the reasons is that political correctness is destructive in military. If you're actually at war, winning should be objective not PR optics. And it seems to be working. See disaster of Afghanistan withdrawal compared to astonishing success of snatching Maduro and destroying Iran's capability to wage future wars.
  - stevesimmons 7mo ago
    Surely it's a bit early to declare "astonishing success of ... destroying Iran's capability to wage future wars". As far as I can see, the US has managed to replace an older Ayatollah Khomeini with a younger Ayatollah Khomeini with even more reasons to seek vengeance against the US and obtain nuclear weapons. > If you're actually at war, winning should be objective not PR optics. Which of course is why a former TV host is clearly the most qualified person to be Secretary of Defense, sorry War.
  - jrmg 7mo ago
    There is so much to reply to here. I feel like I’m being Gish Galloped. You didn’t actually justify most of what you said and when you did the reasoning seems circular. Most of what you say just has the premise that what’s being done now is good and necessary, and that’s not something I agree with. I did listen to the justifications for the ‘rename’ (Congress named the department and has not actually changed the name - but that’s a digression…), and disagree with much of the reasoning. I think it would be ‘more moral’ to have a Department of Defense that operates and has the goals I described. I neither think it’s ‘moral’ to strive for war nor to lie to the public about it. I agree the military should be well funded. You invoke Obama, I can’t tell if you agree with what he did or not, and it’s anyway not relevant to what we’re discussing. Since we're talking about adults thinking like children: your simplistic ideas about what military should be have no effect on what it is. This sounds deep but is actually nonsense. Our society absolutely gets to choose everything about what our military is and how it’s used. Indeed, you even seem to be arguing that it isn’t (wasn’t) what you think it should be! Iran and our response to it is a different thing than I was discussing (the name of the department, remember), but I think it would be both ‘more moral’ and probably more effective to actually think and plan deeply than whatever this is. The current administration seems to be all tactics, no strategy. And I find it ironic that you list a bunch of conflicts that have had, at best, mixed results, then just assert that what’s currently underway, which seems to have less long term planning behind it than any of those, is just obviously going to have a great outcome.
- js8 7mo ago
  > The purpose of the Department of Defense should be to defend America and Americans. Should be, but right now, it isn't. So the name is apt, I am afraid.
dudefeliciano 7mo ago
Sure it may have been a euphemism, but the reasoning of this administration for trying to change it back is just childish and stupid: “We won the first world war, we won the second world war, we won everything before that and in between,” Trump said at the signing. “And then we decided to go woke and we changed the name to the Department of Defense.”
- kjksf 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dudefeliciano 7mo ago
    No, it's not the right thing and it's done for stupid childish reasons. I object to the person who was turned off by that sentence in the blog post, because it fits completely in an article claiming that the US government is being run by man babies. That "rationale" is childish and dumb: > Project greater strength, resolve, and readiness to adversaries Why does the mightiest most powerful military in history need to project greater strength? Insecurity? > Emphasize offensive capability and "winning wars" rather than just defensive posture (Trump argued the "Defense" name sounded too passive or "woke," Calling Truman woke is childish and stupid. And why does the US need to emphasize offensive capabilities and winning wars, when the Trump ran on a promise of no new wars? > better signals "peace through strength" So you get mad about a euphemistic Department of Defense but eat up some weird narrative about peace through strength? Interesting.

jrmg 7mo ago

Just because something was done before doesn’t mean it’s good (obviously?) The purpose of the Department of Defense should be to defend America and Americans. Waging war is an unfortunate necessity that stems from this sometimes. War is not the only threat that can require a military response, and should never be a goal. No matter how you swing it, having a ‘Department of X’ definitely gives the impression - to people within and without it - that ‘X’ is a goal. Even if you think about it amorrally, calling it the ‘Department of War’ is myopic.

kjksf 7mo ago
Since 1947 US has been involved in 5 major wars (Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afganistan, Iraq). Which begs the question: do you think it's more "moral" to wage wars and lie to public that you're in the business of defense OR say things that are truthful? Spending trillion+ dollars on military is about the only thing that both political party agree on. Obama bombed more countries that most presidents. Since we're talking about adults thinking like children: your simplistic ideas about what military should be have no effect on what it is. If Iran had the firepower superiority over Israel and U.S. they would level both countries. This is no me saying. "Death to America" is a literal quote from now-dead ayatollah. When you actually listen why they renamed DoD to DoW it's way more nuanced that you apparently believe. One of the reasons is that political correctness is destructive in military. If you're actually at war, winning should be objective not PR optics. And it seems to be working. See disaster of Afghanistan withdrawal compared to astonishing success of snatching Maduro and destroying Iran's capability to wage future wars.
- stevesimmons 7mo ago
  Surely it's a bit early to declare "astonishing success of ... destroying Iran's capability to wage future wars". As far as I can see, the US has managed to replace an older Ayatollah Khomeini with a younger Ayatollah Khomeini with even more reasons to seek vengeance against the US and obtain nuclear weapons. > If you're actually at war, winning should be objective not PR optics. Which of course is why a former TV host is clearly the most qualified person to be Secretary of Defense, sorry War.
- jrmg 7mo ago
  There is so much to reply to here. I feel like I’m being Gish Galloped. You didn’t actually justify most of what you said and when you did the reasoning seems circular. Most of what you say just has the premise that what’s being done now is good and necessary, and that’s not something I agree with. I did listen to the justifications for the ‘rename’ (Congress named the department and has not actually changed the name - but that’s a digression…), and disagree with much of the reasoning. I think it would be ‘more moral’ to have a Department of Defense that operates and has the goals I described. I neither think it’s ‘moral’ to strive for war nor to lie to the public about it. I agree the military should be well funded. You invoke Obama, I can’t tell if you agree with what he did or not, and it’s anyway not relevant to what we’re discussing. Since we're talking about adults thinking like children: your simplistic ideas about what military should be have no effect on what it is. This sounds deep but is actually nonsense. Our society absolutely gets to choose everything about what our military is and how it’s used. Indeed, you even seem to be arguing that it isn’t (wasn’t) what you think it should be! Iran and our response to it is a different thing than I was discussing (the name of the department, remember), but I think it would be both ‘more moral’ and probably more effective to actually think and plan deeply than whatever this is. The current administration seems to be all tactics, no strategy. And I find it ironic that you list a bunch of conflicts that have had, at best, mixed results, then just assert that what’s currently underway, which seems to have less long term planning behind it than any of those, is just obviously going to have a great outcome.
js8 7mo ago
> The purpose of the Department of Defense should be to defend America and Americans. Should be, but right now, it isn't. So the name is apt, I am afraid.

dudefeliciano 7mo ago

Sure it may have been a euphemism, but the reasoning of this administration for trying to change it back is just childish and stupid: “We won the first world war, we won the second world war, we won everything before that and in between,” Trump said at the signing. “And then we decided to go woke and we changed the name to the Department of Defense.”

kjksf 7mo ago
[flagged]
- dudefeliciano 7mo ago
  No, it's not the right thing and it's done for stupid childish reasons. I object to the person who was turned off by that sentence in the blog post, because it fits completely in an article claiming that the US government is being run by man babies. That "rationale" is childish and dumb: > Project greater strength, resolve, and readiness to adversaries Why does the mightiest most powerful military in history need to project greater strength? Insecurity? > Emphasize offensive capability and "winning wars" rather than just defensive posture (Trump argued the "Defense" name sounded too passive or "woke," Calling Truman woke is childish and stupid. And why does the US need to emphasize offensive capabilities and winning wars, when the Trump ran on a promise of no new wars? > better signals "peace through strength" So you get mad about a euphemistic Department of Defense but eat up some weird narrative about peace through strength? Interesting.