The "current one" is Department of Defense. They are illegally branding it otherwise without congressional approval, but that doesn't mean we should welcome it.
More fundamentally, it's hard to convey just how much better a government that wages wars but ostensibly says that they're bad is than a government that gleefully does so. I'll take a flawed democracy that partakes in immoral operations over an openly-imperialist autocracy any day of the week -- as should we all!
It’s fine that a secondary consequence is them showing their foolish hand; I’ll give you that, but this not normal and should not just be absorbed as though it’s normal and that’s just what we call it now
Trump isn't doing anything out of the ordinary for an American president, so I would say it is indeed quite normal. If by "not normal" you mean "not acceptable" then I agree, but that doesn't change that "Department of War" is more correct than "Department of Defense"
> Trump isn't doing anything out of the ordinary for an American president
I'm sorry, but I think both parties would actually agree on the fact that Trump is doing a lot of "out of the ordinary" for an American president.
No other president after WWII has reduced federal workforce by >8% (DOGE), and then rehired a bunch. No other US president ordered the capturing a head of state (Venezuela) and framed it as a law enforcement action. No president has ignored congress or the constitution like Trump has (tariffs, ICE, Greenland).
He uses executive orders a lot more than previous presidents: ~209 per year in his 2nd term. The next highest are Truman (113/year), Carter (80/year) and Kennedy (75/year).
I find it amusing that Trump ran with the promise of "no new wars", and then immediately tries to change the Department of Defense to the Department of War.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a hollow promise from Trump at this point.
As an outsider, the extent and depth of the contradictions are really fascinating, OTOH repeated to the point that nothing surprises anyone anymore.
I keep thinking what's the psychology behind this that makes it work and if they are mostly in on the act or if they really rely on many "useful idiots" like their political opponents keep suggesting.
The discussion around useful idiots became concerning for me as I'm learning to respect people even in the most "don't look up"-like situations, trying to understand their individual motives without judging them. The main problem in political discussions, I figured, is the fact that we have 2-3 groups we try to fit people into.
Unfortunately, useful idiot is a valid phenomena but much of what we observe in the US is disempowerment. The congress people believe that they don't have power outside the president's benevolence and hence does not assert their constitutional powers. The constitutional court is either partisan or outright corrupt and does not work as a corrective. The execution branch are ready to serve the president and not their assigned duties or the law. Many ordinary voters do not feel personal responsibility for acting, but prefer to rely on whoever promises them emotional validation instead of forming and empowering their communities. This is not a single thing, this is a combination of effects that influence and amplify each other.
I find it amusing that Franco ran with the promise of "justice for those with clean hands," and then immediately enacted the Law of Political Responsibilities to institutionalize the summary execution of tens of thousands of his political opponents.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a hollow promise from Franco at this point.