Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ah, the irony of it all. In the old days

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:13 PM
Original message
Ah, the irony of it all. In the old days
when we only went to war to defend ourselves, we called it the War Department.

Nowadays, in an era when we go to war for purposes of aggrandizement and empire, we call it the Defense Department.

(And yes, I know. I've read Smedley B too. But still...)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. This Has Occurred to Me As Well
it's not all aggrandizement, I think some of it is "pre-emptive." The whole doctrine of pre-emption becomes the equivalent of hitting a guy for looking at you the wrong way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. FYI the name changed came in 1947 with the National Security Act
it also saw the origin of the AF, as well as the CIA...

It was part of the formalization of the National Security State and the beginning of the Cold war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Yes, I know, Nadin.
It was essentially the moment when we went from thinking of wars as exceptional times to accepting the Forever War in one form or another. And, although you could argue that we had been at war for most of the century before that (Indian Wars, Spanish-American War, Moro Insurrection, Boxer Rebellion, endless little wars in Central America, etc.), those wars didn't require the large standing military that we've had since 1941, and didn't register on the national consciousness in the same sort of way. Which is why I added the comment about Smedley Butler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Those days lasted until around 1812, right?
Wars of aggression are as American as apple pie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. In 1636 the Massachusetts colonists joined an already-existing war...
between the Pequots and Narragansetts.

War and aggression are, sadly, as human as opposable thumbs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobbolink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. There is a big difference between cultural certainties, and "human nature"
For war to be "human nature" it would have to be true all over the world.

It is not.

There are cultures that have been peaceful throughout their existance, and have even resisted being drawn into conflict.

The history of the Senoi comes to mind.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Beginners-Guide-to-the-Senoi-and-Lucid-Dreaming&id=3896412

No, we need to look to our violent culture instead of blaming our genes. We are responsible for our violent actions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
4. As I understand the logic
The War Department prepared for and from time to time prosecuted wars.

The Defense Department reflected a post-nuclear reality in which conflicts would not necessarily be "wars" anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. It was changed to the Department of Homeland Security
soon after 9/11. Even worse semantics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Well, I believe we have both a DOD and DHS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC