Military Headquarters
================================================================================
In a recent proposal, President Trump suggested renaming the Department of Defense (DoD) to the "Department of War". This move has sparked a heated debate, with many questioning whether such a change would be beneficial or detrimental.
The Department of War, in its original form, was the name of the department before it was changed to the Department of War and Navy in 1789, and later to the Department of War in 1947. Some argue that returning to this name could signal a shift in the department's focus, away from defense and towards war.
However, it's important to note that the major owners of Corporate America, who hold significant influence over the U.S. government, are not primarily interested in winning wars. Their focus is on quarterly profit distributions. Therefore, a name change alone may not guarantee winning wars.
The "rules of engagement" are structured in a way that protects the enemy from annihilation, a capability that U.S. forces easily possess. This raises questions about the strategy and motivation behind these rules, particularly in the context of the continuous state of war the U.S. has been in since World War II, a period during which the country has not officially declared war.
The author suggests that maintaining the global U.S. military empire is not defense, but war. They argue that following the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war would give wars a beginning and end, and clear set of goals. This, they believe, would help ensure that military activities are used strategically and not as a means to maintain a prolonged state of conflict.
The author also believes that the win-loss record of U.S. wars since World War II is due to the lack of a Congressional declaration of war. They point to the practice of following the Constitutional requirement for a declaration of war when the department was called the War Department, and suggest that a return to this practice could improve the U.S.'s success in military conflicts.
The author's beliefs are supported by the fact that since World War II, the United States has not officially declared war, yet it has been in a continuous state of war. This includes conflicts in Korea from 1950 to the present day, and in Yemen from 2025.
The author also suggests that wealthy families control the entire U.S. government, with the conduit for influence and control being the shortest for the CIA. This claim, if true, raises concerns about the motivations behind military decisions and the potential for conflicts to serve the interests of these families rather than the nation as a whole.
The proposal to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War has also brought to light the role of the U.S. government in various conflicts, such as the Balkan war during the Clinton administration. Hillary Clinton, for instance, was reported to have urged the U.S. government to participate in the war, asking Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell, "What is the point of this excellent military you constantly talk about if we do not use it?"
In conclusion, the proposal to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War has sparked a debate about the role of the U.S. military, the motivations behind military decisions, and the potential impact of a return to the Constitutional requirement for a Congressional declaration of war. As the debate continues, it's crucial to consider these factors and their implications for the future of U.S. military policy.
Read also:
- Lu Shiow-yen's Challenging Position as Chair of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Under Scrutiny in Donovan's Analysis
- Medical professionals call for RKI to advocate for COVID-19 vaccine distribution
- Transforming the Romanian hospitality sector: Stadio Hospitality Concepts, shifting from culinary spots to iconic adventures
- Group backing Autism Association finds endorsement from witch faction
