Looking into it, the department of war had removed the navy 150 years before. Arguably the DoD was a new department to encompass the department of the navy and the department of the army(the previous department of war) without the implication that the army was in charge being associated with the war department without the navy for so long. The naming, I could argue, is disrespectful to the US Navy of the late 1790s to the late 1940s.
Well, the overhaul in 1947 was huge, so it made sense to wrap it all up into something that also, in a post-WWII country, didn’t make it sound like “OK, we have this amazing military apparatus and now we’ve consolidated power, and let’s see where else to point it at…” I get it.
Personally, I think the “Department of International Violence” sounds more appropriate.
Looking into it, the department of war had removed the navy 150 years before. Arguably the DoD was a new department to encompass the department of the navy and the department of the army(the previous department of war) without the implication that the army was in charge being associated with the war department without the navy for so long. The naming, I could argue, is disrespectful to the US Navy of the late 1790s to the late 1940s.
Well, the overhaul in 1947 was huge, so it made sense to wrap it all up into something that also, in a post-WWII country, didn’t make it sound like “OK, we have this amazing military apparatus and now we’ve consolidated power, and let’s see where else to point it at…” I get it.
Personally, I think the “Department of International Violence” sounds more appropriate.