War Department. Oh, Hell No!

 

Pete Hegseth has done and said some good things, but today I learned that he wants to rename the Department of Defense to the War Department.

Hell no.

First, I tire of renaming things.  It’s a name.  It’s fine, stop renaming things.

Second, and as importantly, the War Department was for the army.  The Navy and Marine Corps were in the Navy Department.  The name Department of Defense was not a renaming of the War Department, as so many seem to claim.  It was a compromise name to combine the Navy and Army into one agency.  We haven’t won a war since.

We have an army and it is fine.  No complaints.  But it is a mistake to conclude that our most important military branch is the Army.  We are by nature a maritime nation.  We have become the dominant and most powerful nation in the history of the world because we are strong on the seas, and have maintained the Pax Americana by keeping the sea lanes free and open.  Any military venture (where military means army) we have attempted has been successful only because of our navy.

There is no reason to put the Navy and Marine Corps into the Army.  Flat out no.  That is a non-starter, Mr. Hesgeth.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    How about Department of FAFO?

    • #1
  2. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Pete Hesgeth appears to be a Robert A. Heinlein fan.  Reflects well on him.

    • #2
  3. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Navy was under War during Washington’s time as PotUS. Personally, I prefer Department of External Aggression. I could also go for Department of Killing Enemies and Breaking their Things.

    • #3
  4. Andrew Troutman Coolidge
    Andrew Troutman
    @Dotorimuk

    I think it’s a time waster.

    • #4
  5. Bunsen Coolidge
    Bunsen
    @Bunsen

    I am voting for “Department to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women”. 

    • #5
  6. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Bunsen (View Comment):

    I am voting for “Department to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women”.

    Priceless!

    • #6
  7. DonG (¡Afuera!) Coolidge
    DonG (¡Afuera!)
    @DonG

    I like it.  Congress names in a way that influence tax payers.   People will a lot more on a “department of defense” than a “department of war”.   Likewise  Congress named “Medicaid” to sound like “Medicare”, so that politicians could scare seniors about health care.   Same with the Inflation Reduction Act and the PATRIOT Act.   We should name things in a way that people do not want Congress to throw money at the program.   Corruption and debt are an existential threat and we should use human psychology to curb spending.   Manipulative naming is a form of emotive conjugation.

    • #7
  8. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Also, Congress doesn’t have the power to declare “defense.”

    And it seems to make them squeamish, even cowardly.

    • #8
  9. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    I gotta add the comma:

     

    Bunsen (View Comment):

    I am voting for “Department to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women”.

     

    • #9
  10. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Skyler:

    We haven’t won a war since.

    Just like “prevent defense” has never won a  football game.

    If not the Department of War, it should at least be the Department of Offense.

    Offense is action. Defense is reactionary.

     

    • #10
  11. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    How about “The United States Marine Corps and Friends?”

    • #11
  12. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    EJHill (View Comment):

    How about “The United States Marine Corps and Friends?”

    I could get behind that!   :)

     

    • #12
  13. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Skyler: First, I tire of renaming things.  It’s a name, it’s fine, stop renaming things.

    I suspect a lot of this stuff is being done for no practical reason; it is being done so there will be more pages about Donald Trump in history books.  Except for sign-makers, whose lives have been improved by renaming Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America?

    • #13
  14. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Skyler (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    How about “The United States Marine Corps and Friends?”

    I could get behind that! :)

    Now, that does not surprise me.

    • #14
  15. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Navy was under War during Washington’s time as PotUS. Personally, I prefer Department of External Aggression. I could also go for Department of Killing Enemies and Breaking their Things.

    How about Department of Forever Wars?

    • #15
  16. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    DonG (¡Afuera!) (View Comment):

    I like it. Congress names in a way that influence tax payers. People will a lot more on a “department of defense” than a “department of war”. Likewise Congress named “Medicaid” to sound like “Medicare”, so that politicians could scare seniors about health care. Same with the Inflation Reduction Act and the PATRIOT Act. We should name things in a way that people do not want Congress to throw money at the program. Corruption and debt are an existential threat and we should use human psychology to curb spending. Manipulative naming is a form of emotive conjugation.

    I could go with naming several departments “ The Department of Corruption and Debt”🤔

    • #16
  17. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Skyler: We haven’t won a war since.

    Well, there was this thing called the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a threat to the US through the first 36 years of my life. Can’t seem to recall it offering any threat in the last 34 years. Maybe I am wrong and it is still around. 

    • #17
  18. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Subcomandante America (View Comment):

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Navy was under War during Washington’s time as PotUS. Personally, I prefer Department of External Aggression. I could also go for Department of Killing Enemies and Breaking their Things.

    How about Department of Forever Wars?

    I thought that’s what it had been for the last sixty years.

    • #18
  19. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I think changing the name is a bad idea. It will look as though we are thinking about being an aggressor in world affairs rather than a defender. We have earned the respect of the world because we don’t colonize or take territory or start wars.

    We need to fully appreciate how the rest of the world sees us: as the country that has the means to use atomic weapons and as the country that has actually used them. Other countries have put those fears aside because we have been so clear that we are not aggressive. That has gained us a lot of political capital in world affairs.

    Changing the name is bad marketing for the United States brand.

    • #19
  20. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    MarciN (View Comment):
    I think changing the name is a bad idea. It will look as though we are thinking about being an aggressor in world affairs rather than a defender. We have earned the respect of the world because we don’t colonize or take territory or start wars.

    Exactly what I was going to post . . .

    • #20
  21. Misthiocracy has never Member
    Misthiocracy has never
    @Misthiocracy

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    Skyler:

    We haven’t won a war since.

     

    Just like “prevent defense” has never won a football game.

    If not the Department of War, it should at least be the Department of Offense.

    Offense is action. Defense is reactionary.

     

    How about Department of Retaliation?

    That way it cannot be accused to be promoting first-strike warmongering.

    • #21
  22. The Scarecrow Thatcher
    The Scarecrow
    @TheScarecrow

    EJHill (View Comment):

    How about “The United States Marine Corps and Friends?”

    You are very funny. 😂

    • #22
  23. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Skyler: We haven’t won a war since.

    Well, there was this thing called the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a threat to the US through the first 36 years of my life. Can’t seem to recall it offering any threat in the last 34 years. Maybe I am wrong and it is still around.

    That was a glib line, not to be taken literally or even seriously.  For instance, like every country that has attacked Afghanistan in recorded history we won the war there. We got to leave, the Afghanis have to stay.  

    • #23
  24. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    First, we want to deter aggression. What name best matches that goal.

    Second, if deterrence fails, we should want to quickly quick ass, take names, and win quickly and overwhelmingly. What name promotes that goal.

    Third, we should eliminate the two names that most apply today, Meals on Wheels Dept, and Cut and Run Dept. 

    What has the name “Department of Defense” done for us? But then is it the name or our government leadership that has determined outcomes in the past?

    • #24
  25. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Red Herring (View Comment):
    What has the name “Department of Defense” done for us? But then is it the name or our government leadership that has determined outcomes in the past?

    “What’s in a name?  That which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet.” 
    (some guy named Bill)

    It is absolutely our government leadership that has caused a lot of problems, as well as structural problems in the DoD recently that have treated war as a regularly scheduled event, cycling units through deployments regardless of progress in winning any war, leaving no motivation for generals and other officers to stick their necks out to actually win.  

     

    • #25
  26. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    I agree.

    But on the plus side, the notion of renaming The Dept of Defense to The Dept of War is still a step up from the Biden era insistence that the most important aspect of our military is its firm commitment to DEI and to giving trans gendered AntiFa the clearest possible route to promotion.

    • #26
  27. Bunsen Coolidge
    Bunsen
    @Bunsen

    Jimmy Carter (View Comment):

    I gotta add the comma:

     

    Bunsen (View Comment):

    I am voting for “Department to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women”.

     

    Sorry, I was in a hurry before I got to drive a tank for my birthday (3/25).  Mrs. Bunsen is the best for such an awesome gift.  Thanks for the correction.

    • #27
  28. Subcomandante America Member
    Subcomandante America
    @TheReticulator

    Bunsen (View Comment):
    Sorry, I was in a hurry before I got to drive a tank for my birthday (3/25).  Mrs. Bunsen is the best for such an awesome gift.

    How is the tank?  Still in operating condition?   

    • #28
  29. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    Department of Chuck Norris. 

    • #29
  30. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Metalheaddoc (View Comment):

    Department of Chuck Norris.

    Man, I got a good laugh out of that one.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.