# "Secretary of Defense" should be "Secretary of War" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 29, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027 "2006-01-29T01:11:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/1 "2006-01-29T01:11:29Z")
According to [Wikipedia,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_of_War) > [@](#): > > The Secretary of War was a member of the President’s Cabinet, beginning with George Washington’s administration. The Secretary of War led the War Department. At first, he was responsible for all military affairs. In 1798, the Secretary of the Navy was added to the cabinet, and the scope of this office was reduced to a general concern with the Army. In 1947, the departments were recombined under the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of War was replaced by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, non-Cabinet positions under the Secretary of Defense. I have no objection to the combining of portfolios, but I do object to the name change. “Secretary of Defense” and “Defense Department” is not only a euphamism, it’s self-deceiving propaganda. Whatever that secretary does, it’s “defense.” If we’re actually defending ourselves, it’s “defense.” If we’re bombing Laos and Cambodia, it’s “defense.” If we’re totally fucking up Iraq and the Middle East, it’s “defense.” And who can object to our defending ourselves? Bullshit. “Secretary of War” is accurate whether we’re defending or attacking, right or wrong. Calling the person in charge of war “Secretary of War” reminds us of what we’re getting into, i.e. _war_: killing people and blowing the fuck out of things, whether for a laudable or despicable or morally inconclusive goal. My greatest fear for my country is that we’ve come to believe our own propaganda so strongly that nothing can shake us awake. We love freedom, we’re always the good guys, and we’re only “defending” ourselves, so lay off. We need a good snort of the smelling salts. Once awake, we need a committment as a nation to the truth. It’s not going to happen with Bush in office, who is the fucking _living end_ when it comes to trite self-serving bullshit. But maybe in the future a president will have the stone to call war “war.” And maybe then we’ll start making progress back toward our former greatness. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/2 "2006-01-29T01:50:30Z")
Most of it is defense though. We didnt develop and maintain the world’s largest nuclear weapons system for any reason other than defense. We have no plans to use them unless we are attacked. Likewise, most of our active and reserve armed forces are not in Iraq engaging actively in war. They are deployed domestically and other places all over the world to provide a huge show of force to prevent conflicts from developing or escalating in the first place. Contrary to your assertion, actively engaging in war is only a small part of what the military does. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/3 "2006-01-29T01:57:48Z")
A cogent question might be “Why did the term _Secretary of Defense_ come about in 1947?” ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/4 "2006-01-29T01:58:31Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > Contrary to your assertion, actively engaging in war is only a small part of what the military does. I didn’t assert the contrary. I did say, however, that defensive war is still war–so why not call it war. According to your logic, if a fruit stand is selling 80% apples and 20% pears, it should label itself “Apple Stand.” That may actually be a good branding strategy–which is exactly what “Defense Department” is: branding and propaganda. But it is not the truth. Call it fruit; call it war. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/5 "2006-01-29T02:00:45Z")
> [@samclem](#): > > A cogent question might be “Why did the term _Secretary of Defense_ come about in 1947?” Yes, I too would like to know that history, but it would probably require some deep digging to get to the answer. My guess is that the rebranding was, well, rebranding. Hell, war is nasty; nasty, war is hell. We don’t want war–we want defense! Defense is _good_. Defense it is. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/6 "2006-01-29T02:19:21Z")
Perhaps you should hop into the temporal vortex and raise an objection in a timely manner. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/7 "2006-01-29T02:30:17Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Perhaps you should hop into the temporal vortex and raise an objection in a timely manner. I’m suggesting we change the name back _now_. Got anything beside smart comments? ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/8 "2006-01-29T02:32:18Z")
The reason for a ‘Secretary of Defense’ is simply that calling a him the ‘Secretary of War’ would have upset the Navy. When the Defense Department was formed, the Navy was up in arms over the combination of all the militaries under one department. Asking them to work for an ‘Army Secretary’ would have been too much. On the other hand, we still have a Secretary of the Navy, who works for the Secretary of Defense. So what happened to the Secretary of War? He became the Secretary of the Army. He pals around with the Secretary of the Air Force. IMHO, the OP is correct. It seems a shame to get rid of an old title like Secretary of War. It is simple, clear, direct and sounds much nicer that the longer ‘Secretary of Defense.’ Of course nobody every asks me. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/9 "2006-01-29T02:39:08Z")
Change the name of the Department of Homeland Security to Defense, and the Department of Defense to War. Works for me. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/10 "2006-01-29T02:43:22Z")
I believe it was Gallagher that said we should have a Department of Offense as well for the situations when we just wanted to invade something. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/11 "2006-01-29T02:44:55Z")
I’m going to guess that the name was changed because the Department of War did not get renamed. Instead, it got folded in _with_ the Navy. And it could not keep the same name as previous, due to inter-service rivalry. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/12 "2006-01-29T02:50:46Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’m suggesting we change the name back _now_. Got anything beside smart comments? Just the observation that since WW2, virtually every major military power has dramatically reorganized, with the various Commonwealth nations typically dumping “Ministry of War” for “Ministry of Defense”. Canada’s military is currently under the control of our Department of National Defense, overseen by a Minister of Defense, so figure that one out. Anyway, the name change certainly isn’t due to some flaw specific to the American character. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/13 "2006-01-29T03:09:59Z")
So, if we change the name to Dept of War are you OK with the Iraq War? Or is this just some semantic nit picking disguised as a debate? ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/14 "2006-01-29T03:36:55Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Anyway, the name change certainly isn’t due to some flaw specific to the American character. Never said it was. Bullshit is popular all over the world. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/15 "2006-01-29T03:38:21Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > So, if we change the name to Dept of War are you OK with the Iraq War? Or is this just some semantic nit picking disguised as a debate? Strike a nerve? You know that the war you support is bullshit. You implied it, not I. Nope, change the name and the Iraq War still is the shit it is. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/16 "2006-01-29T04:51:24Z")
The fact that everyone refers to the Iraq War as **the Iraq War** pretty much shows everyone knows what’s what over at the DoD anyways, if this is some sort of meaningful propaganda or some grave misnomer I’ve seen no evidence. Would Department of War be more accurate? Probably, although it still wouldn’t be precisely accurate. Department of Military Affairs would probably be MOST accurate that I can think of off the top of my head. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/17 "2006-01-29T05:09:46Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Department of Military Affairs would probably be MOST accurate that I can think of off the top of my head. Right, accurate and spin-free. Lacks the history of “War,” but fine by me. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/18 "2006-01-29T05:18:05Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > The reason for a ‘Secretary of Defense’ is simply that calling a him the ‘Secretary of War’ would have upset the Navy. > > When the Defense Department was formed, the Navy was up in arms over the combination of all the militaries under one department. Asking them to work for an ‘Army Secretary’ would have been too much. I’m still wondering why the Navy is upset over working under “The Secretary of War” but not the “Secretary of Defense”. Niether are pro-army or anti-navy. I can see if they wanted a change in the heirarchy but why the name change? ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/19 "2006-01-29T05:23:27Z")
> [@HPL](#): > > I’m still wondering why the Navy is upset over working under “The Secretary of War” but not the “Secretary of Defense”. Niether are pro-army or anti-navy. I can see if they wanted a change in the heirarchy but why the name change? Because the old War Department was in charge of the Army and the Navy Department was in charge of the Navy. For a few years the joint department was called the **N** ational **M** ilitary **E** stablishment, get it? It was then changed to Department of Defence. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2006, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027/20 "2006-01-29T05:25:02Z")
> [@alphaboi867](#): > > Because the old War Department was in charge of the Army and the Navy Department was in charge of the Navy. For a few years the joint department was called the **N** ational **M** ilitary **E** stablishment, get it? It was then changed to Department of Defence. Okay, now I understand. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/secretary-of-defense-should-be-secretary-of-war/342027.md?page=2)