r/war • u/kamikaibitsu • 2d ago
They rebranded "Defense Department" to "War Department."
[removed] — view removed post
274
158
u/Idontfukncare6969 2d ago
Returning to the original name is probably more fitting as it has bases in 80 countries and has participated in hundreds of military conflicts on other continents.
51
u/Fast-Benders 2d ago
It’s original name was the National Military Establishment. The Department of Defense was never called the Department of War prior to the most recent change. The Department of the Army used be called the Department of War.
3
u/Idontfukncare6969 2d ago
I see. Tbh I didn’t even know the NME existed for a couple years there. Two big structural changes in two years.
-1
u/Bewildered_Scotty 2d ago
You’re using an overly broad definition of bases.
9
u/Idontfukncare6969 2d ago
An overly broad definition would be
As of September 2022, there are 171,736 active-duty military troops across 178 countries
The pentagon stopped reporting on details in 2018. I guess you could say major bases in 49 countries but most other bases are classified.
-4
u/Bewildered_Scotty 2d ago
Is the embassy a “base” because the military attache and the FAO work there? Is the Hyatt near the airport a “base” because a there’s sometimes some F-16 maintainers flying in to teach a class?
3
u/Idontfukncare6969 2d ago
Yes, I would speculate the 178 country number would include that case.
-4
u/Bewildered_Scotty 2d ago
Which is why it’s misleading. By that measure most developed nations have military bases in 170+ countries.
6
3
u/doubledeus 2d ago
This has always annoyed me. By the numbers, the US Military overseas presence has continually shrunk for years. When I joined in 95, there were like 200K Servicemembers in Europe. Now theres under 80,000.
Yes, there are warehouses in Kuwait and Poland with Military equipment in it. That's not a "base."
5
u/Top_Pie8678 2d ago
What’s your definition?
4
u/Bewildered_Scotty 2d ago
For a base? Navy or Air Force permanent named installations.
Military installation has a much broader definition at law which may be more aligned with the intent here. Which is to call things like rented office space from which customer service for US arms sales is handled a “base.”
1
0
u/Starkidof9 2d ago
American neo colonialism, hoorah eh. It shouldn't have anywhere near those number of bases anymore.
23
u/eddington_limit 2d ago
It was changed to the "Department of Defense" after WW2 for its image. Its much easier to secure funding for "defense" than for "war". If anything this will make people look at what they do as actual war rather than invading other countries for "defense"
4
u/Fast-Benders 2d ago
It was never called the Department of War prior to the most recent change. It’s original name was the National Military Establishment. The Department of the Army was originally called the Department of War.
1
u/eddington_limit 2d ago
It was called "The War Department" from 1789 until 1947
4
u/Fast-Benders 2d ago
The Department of Defense or NME was created in 1947. Department of War was the Army.
1
u/eddington_limit 2d ago
Yes... which was my original point. It was only called the NME for 2 years so not sure what point youre making there. And saying that the Department of War was just "the army" is a misunderstanding and oversimplification of the how the department was organized prior to ww2
1
u/Fast-Benders 2d ago edited 2d ago
In WW2, the Department of War (Army) and Department of the Navy were 2 separate departments. The National Security Act of 1947 served to unify the military under a single department. The modern concept of Joint Chiefs was created in 1947. Go google Wikipedia or open a history book about post WW2.
2
u/eddington_limit 2d ago
The department of war may have been in the Army organization but it served the same general purpose as the Army was the defacto organization when it came to war. They reorganized due to technology changes brought by WW2. So youre kinda just splitting hairs here
2
u/Fast-Benders 2d ago
LOL, I’m not splitting hair. The whole point of the National Security Act of 1947 was to unify the military commands into one department. The DOD was created in 1947 for that purpose. WW2 ended in 1945. Therefore, the DOD never existed in WW2 and was never called the Department of War in all of its history.
6
11
u/UncleBenji 2d ago
Well it was originally called the war department for the majority of our country’s existence. Only after WW2 did it get split up and renamed.
10
u/Alexandros6 2d ago
So this way an old unnecessary name is brought back and every anti USA propagandist has more munitions.
The benefits are low to zero
-8
u/UncleBenji 2d ago
There’s no benefit or drawback. It’s just words.
9
u/Chaosr21 2d ago
Words matter, especially when it comes to the world stage
-9
u/UncleBenji 2d ago
Which is why they want to show strength and power by using the word “war” rather than “defense”. Which sounds stronger to you?
6
u/ointment1289 2d ago
Which sounds more nefarious? America will lean into extravagant militarism as their Empire declines, like many empires. It's an obvious sign of weakness not strength.
2
u/Chaosr21 2d ago
While I'm thankful we have a strong military which has led to unprecedented global trade, I think we are strong enough. We don't need to make war to prove our point, and we shouldn't get used to dumping billions into foreign wars instead of defence. It is just a name change for now, but what implications will it have to call out 1trillion budget a war budget? Does it imply we always need to be at war?
I fail to see why we need to appear stronger. We have the strongest most technological military on the earth. Flexing that doesn't make us look strong, it makes us look weak. Our power is the strength we hold back, our ace up the sleeve that we silently agree to keep hidden until all else fails
1
u/Flimsy-Ad-8660 2d ago
Is it easier to secure funding for war or for defense?
1
u/UncleBenji 1d ago
When has our country been on defense? We have been at war for the majority of our existence and none of them were to defend our territory.
-1
u/Kalmar_Union 2d ago
A speech has not benefits or drawbacks then
-4
u/UncleBenji 2d ago
I think the substance of a speech could have more impact than the title of a government department.
10
2
2
u/Formal_Base_3074 2d ago
I mean it’s accurate. America rarely defends, it always invades the global south for its own pleasure. They should rename it Department of Killing Brown people
2
u/kamikaibitsu 2d ago
2
u/Inevitable-Stage-490 2d ago
I have to subscribe to see that article…
7
u/Newsdriver245 2d ago
Really doesn't say much, anyhow. Need Congress to rename it officially, so for now it's just an alternate name
2
2
1
u/F3lixF3licis 2d ago
American North Attack Legion (A.N.A.L.)
Don't tell me it doesn't look like a...
1
u/Every-Quit524 2d ago
Really no one is going to say it? I have to?
Lose Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan. Save face and humiliation by puffing up chest and change name.
If I was in charge I would have more range time for troops and not give a fuck if the bunks looked pretty. I picked up the not so subtle fact they care too much about their image. Fuck image I want results on the battlefield.
1
1
u/IntentionFalse8822 2d ago
Maybe he plans to rename it back to defence in a few weeks so he can say he ended another war and win the Nobel prize.
1
1
u/Gray_Cloak 2d ago
DoD expressed confident understated power, DoW sounds like a confidence/personality problem.
1
1
1
u/Relaxbro30 2d ago
In the long run, this might pay off because it might get people to actually defund the pentagons budget a bit. But still dumb as hell and strictly political theater.
90
u/lost_in_life_34 2d ago
i got out years ago but still follow some military stuff and the army has had a trend back to a warrior culture and calling everything warrior so and so
not shocked that this happened