Great things are seen from a distance. Can we answer the question of where the “Ministry of War” is leading America over time?
Ksenia Muratshina
At first, many were perplexed: was it possible to simply rename one of the federal government institutions, particularly in such a contradictory way, without some kind of constitutional approval? The answer is simple: Trump would not have been Trump had he not found and used an unexpected and cunning move that saved him from having to coordinate with Congress. He simply designated the department’s new name as “secondary” in his decree. All the lawmakers who disagreed (especially the Democrats) could only snap their teeth; the presidential decree was signed and came into force.
Politics is politics, negotiations are negotiations, lunch is lunch, but war (in every sense of the word) proceeds according to schedule. And that schedule is now official
After that, the Department of War and the Secretary of War were quickly updated online and were soon featured on all official resources and in news feeds. In today’s information society, this reflects the changes that have taken place and is almost equivalent to carving them in granite – at least for Trump’s current presidential term. As time passes, it is interesting to examine the new reality from the point of view of two scientific fields, namely semantics and history.
A historical perspective
Let us start with the latter, as there will not be as many questions about it as the former, and also because it is necessary to refer to it in almost any topic related to international relations. Have there been ministries of war throughout history, or is this Washington’s personal copyright?
History provides us with an interesting answer. Yes, such ministries have existed more than once, and not just anywhere, but they occur in the most odious places and eras. Ministries of war existed in the Ottoman Empire and France during the Napoleonic Wars, as well as in Austria-Hungary and Prussia – equally legendary states for any historian and international scholar. Moreover, if one looks even further into the annals of history, one may recall the ancient Greek strategists (here parallels may also be drawn to the headquarters in Arlington County).
All of these institutions, figures, and empires share two main characteristics: firstly, they waged wars all the time, and secondly, they met their bitter end, disappearing into history. Today they remain only on the pages of textbooks, historical chronicles, and manuals on military affairs. So, on the one hand, the historical example for a modern power that considers itself an empire is far from the best, but on the other hand, Trump himself explained that he wanted to return to the department the name it bore from 1789 to 1947. Anyway, historical parallels cannot be fully discarded. Fans of renaming and historical reconstructions decide for themselves whether this is for better or for worse.
Military semantics
Following a brief historical digression, let us move on to a terminological analysis. Webster’s dictionary – the most respected in the United States – defines the word “war” quite clearly: “a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations”; “a period of such armed conflict”; “the art or science of warfare”; “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism”; “a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.”
It sounds clear, but if one thinks about it, many questions remain. Since the department is in charge of war, is it only about a war in which the United States itself would be officially and directly involved, or about war and hostilities in any part of the world in which they are intervening? Does the department see the war as permanent, as an existential phenomenon? Or is it meant that it will flare up from one point of the globe to another? And if, hypothetically, wars, conflicts, or individual operations in which the United States is involved cease, and only those that do not actually concern them remain, what will happen in this case? Will the agency have to be renamed? Will another open next to it? Will it interfere in new conflicts?
This begs the question: which war has the Pentagon been appointed as the department of? Only hot or both hot and cold conflicts? Perhaps of low intensity conflicts, anti-terrorist operations, actions stopped in the demilitarized zone of the Korean peninsula, and any military plans that are still being considered somewhere in the minds of American strategists? But what about the vast abundance of modern types of warfare, including informational, psychological, economic, space, and cyber warfare? Will this issue be addressed there or somewhere else?
From euphemisms towards realism
The list of questions may be extended across multiple articles, but…
On the one hand, “department of war” and “secretary of war” certainly sound very recognizable and tough. I even remember the Russian proverb “do not boast on the way to battle.” On the other hand, the renaming does not affect the essence in any way. Their work has always been the same, and such a terminological approach, oddly enough, looks more honest than, for example, the cries of European politicians about “defense partnerships” and “defense and security,” which they supposedly foster while in actuality arming themselves to the teeth and interfering in conflicts everywhere. One could call such an institution anything, even a ministry of furry cats, but the current name is at least honest, direct, and head-on, without equivocation, political correctness, or euphemisms.
Most importantly, it is clear that a state that names one of its main departments such recognizes and respects only force in international relations. It will take into account only those counterparties who show their military, political, and economic might, determination, self-confidence, and self-sufficiency. Politics is politics, negotiations are negotiations, and lunch is lunch, but war (in every sense of the word) proceeds according to schedule. And that schedule is now official.
Ksenia Muratshina, Ph.D. (History), Senior Research Fellow, Center for Southeast Asia, Australia, and Oceania Studies, Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences
No comments:
Post a Comment