Since taking charge of the Pentagon, the secretary Pete Hegseth has set up policies to project what he calls a “new warrior philosophy” – including at the beginning of the month of rebrandaissement of the Ministry of Defense as “Department of War”.
Some of these movements have been cosmetic. Sceaux “Department of War” have been bolted to the walls and podiums in the American military bases in the world. And after years to have authorized shades of subtle lipstick, members of the women’s services were ordered last week to not wear it, while the soldiers were informed that if they do not shave themselves daily, they could be forced to leave the service.
Beyond that, analysts look at to see if the pentagon brand change effort signals a more aggressive approach to military action. Mr. Hegseth himself, announcing the change of name of the Ministry of Defense – still unofficial without action of the Congress – said that the United States would go “in attack, not only on defense. Maximum mauvache, not lukewarm legality. Violent, not politically correct effect ”.
Why we wrote this
The change of brand of the Ministry of Defense occurs alongside other interventionist movements, such as the bombing of Iran and striking boats in the Caribbean. A key question is whether these actions report the posture or a greater change in the “America First” position by President Donald Trump.
In some respects, President Donald Trump seemed more willing to deploy the army than during his first administration. He bombed suspicious boats of drug trafficking in the Caribbean, unilaterally attacked Iranian nuclear sites and sent national guard troops to two American cities. He also suggested that he could send us forces in Afghanistan and made radical threats concerning the invasion of Greenland and the Panama Canal.
However, it remains to be seen if all this represents a new approach to external conflicts, as a kind of doctrine of peace to force. For the moment, despite the more aggressive posture, the often indicated desire of the president to avoid costly tangles seems intact.
“There is a huge difference in your between the first and second Trump administrations,” said retired colonel Mark Cancien, principal advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The president has shown an increased desire to use the military so as to have “enormous implications” for the policy and the rule of law. However, he adds: “Despite what the administration says, they are not wars.” Difficult rhetoric, he adds, has not yet resulted in more combat operations or more American boots on the ground abroad.
In the coming days, defense analysts will closely monitor the publication of the national defense strategy, which, for each administration, underlines what it considers the most critical security challenges and how the US army plans to resolve them. An early disclose report, published in Politico, indicates that the new strategy of the Trump administration will expand threats from China and Russia and highlight the threats that the fatherland is rather confronted.
Trump 2.0
In each of his three presidential campaigns, Trump presented an anti-interventionist. During his campaign in 2016, he upset decades of republican Orthodoxy with his foreign policy “America First”, making scans not only to President Barack Obama but also to President George W. Bush. Mr. Bush and his neoconservative advisers said Mr. Trump, had pushed America into poorly advised wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Despite the break with the leaders of his own party, Trump and his more isolationist position resonated among the voters, including in the conservative base.
“Many Americans do not want to be constantly at war,” said Matthew Duss, executive vice-president of the Center for International Policy and foreign policy advisor for the presidential campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders. “It’s a waste, it’s chaotic, it becomes expensive.”
But Mr. Trump’s second term seemed different from the start. The international landscape has changed, wars raging in Gaza and Ukraine. And despite the fears that his administration could put pressure for a “sleeping NATO” in the face of Russian threats, Trump is actively engaged with the Alliance and, in June, managed to bring members to increase their defense expenses to 5% of the gross domestic product.
On Tuesday, President Trump changed his tone on the war of Ukraine, writing in a social article of truth that kyiv could, with the support of NATO, to reconquer a territory which he lost against Russia. “Over time, the patience and financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original borders of the place where this war started, is an option,” he wrote. “Why not?”
He concluded: “We will continue to provide weapons to NATO so that NATO does what they want with them.”
At home, the Trump administration has acted almost as if it was on a wartime basis. In addition to the more stringent requirements concerning the preparation for the troops, which, according to Mr. Hegseth, was lacking, the Pentagon slowed down press freedoms for journalists who cover the soldiers and the defense leaders who speak to them.
Last Friday, the Pentagon Press Corps received a memo indicating that, due to national security problems, even journalists verified by the Pentagon security service can no longer visit the offices of defense officials, as they have done for decades, without official escort. Defense officials also asked journalists to sign an agreement not to use information that had not been authorized to release – or to lose their access. The National Press Club described The Move as “direct assault on independent journalism”. Secretary Hegseth replied that “the” press “does not direct the Pentagon – people do it.”
Less controversial, the army has introduced a new, more difficult fitness test for soldiers in which continuous failure could lead to release. “I’m really going to have to work hard [to prepare] For that, “explains an American military officer who asked for anonymity because he is not allowed to speak to the media.” My human self is, damn. But from a mentality of deadly combat force, it makes sense. »»
A greater desire to use force
Not even a year after Mr. Trump’s second term, some analysts see a greater desire to use the military force by an administration which once seemed to aspire to isolatedism.
Last week, the president, who campaigned in 2016 and 2020 to release America from Afghanistan, suggested that the troops could soon find themselves in their old trampling field, settling in an old American base north of Kabul to better counter China. He also authorized a significant shipment of weapons to Ukraine, to be paid by the NATO countries.
As part of a new war against drugs that the Trump administration was carrying out with American forces, the United States has bombed three boats in the Caribbean this month. The officials said the boats transported Venezuelan narcotics to America. These reports were not verified and many have questioned the legality of the strikes.
Right after the first Caribbean boat strike – which, according to Trump administration, was necessary to stop the illegal drug flow in the United States – Senator Lindsey Graham from South Caroline said that he had previously advised the president to “explode something” as a warning of the drug cartels, according to the Associated Press.
But the most aggressive position and use of the army are declines, including some of unexpected neighborhoods.
This summer, for example, Trump sent thousands of national guard troops to two American cities to combat demonstrations, crime and unauthorized immigration. This movement encountered even more protests. He also ordered the unilateral bombing of Iranian nuclear installations – attracting rare criticism from some of his supporters.
The former animator of Fox News, Tucker Carlson, called the Republicans who supported the American strikes on the “Warmoners” of Iran, and the representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, generally one of the richest allies of the President, published on X: “Foreign wars / Intervention / The change of diet put our innocent people, killing the innocent people, And we will make us stumble, and that will ultimately lead to our destiny for our destrification ”.
Republican decline
The proposed official fame of the Department of Defense in the War Department, an effort led by the GOP Sens. Rick Scott from Florida and Mike Lee from UTAH, also generated a repression of some from the republican coalition.
Kentucky Mitch McConnell Senator McConnell criticized the name change as meaningless without additional resources for the army. “If we call it the War Department, we would better equip the soldiers to prevent and win wars,” he posted on X on September 5.
“It seems almost [Department of Defense] Better suits Trump. Changing it at the Ministry of War corresponded better to a neocon president, ”suggested Fred Lucas of the Daily Conservative Signal on X.
However, these intraparty debates have not reduced the president’s grip on the GOP – or popularity with the base. For the moment, President Trump’s disciples are “inclined to follow where Donald Trump will lead,” said Duss. “But they still have real concerns about America’s trend to constantly be conflict.”
