Why Words Matter?

Words have power.  Effective conflict resolution calls for clear language and congruent messaging, and that starts with our words and the names we choose.  In institutions, words embody identity, priorities, and intentions.  At the strategic level, words convey national identity and have global influence.  So, why does it matter that the current US administration renames the Department of Defense to the Department of War (without Congressional approval)?  This is not a simple organizational name change. It matters to the force, to the nation, to our allies and partners, and to the world … and on many levels.  Viewing this through an exclusively conflict resolution lens, this name change signals questionable intentions with significant symbolic and psychological implications.

This name change matters to me, personally and professionally.  I served thirty years as a civil engineer in the Navy, including two tours in Iraq, where I saw conflict firsthand.  My family has a rich tradition of combat service.  I am childhood friend to a Gold Star family.  Those experiences provide deep perspective on how framing and narratives can tell the story of our intentions.  The continuum of conflict resolution as it applies in the mirror to Iraq is for another day.  But, in general, at the resolution stage, reframing provides a powerful tool by replacing confrontational narratives with shared or collaborative ones.  “Defense” reflects a stabilizing, peace-promoting narrative of protection and dialogue.  “War,” on the other hand, supports a belligerent, militaristic narrative of domination and zero-sum thinking.  A symbolic action such as renaming an institution conveys our intentions, and can either escalate or de-escalate tensions.   One values our core beliefs as a democracy, and the other unnecessarily risks our nation’s blood and treasure by perpetuating conflict.  If we truly value our most valuable treasure, then we owe it our military and our nation to ensure there is ample space for conflict resolution without war or violence.

I have also witnessed how this “Defense” conflict resolution framework works while deployed in many other far-flung places rooted in conflict, such as Timor-Leste, the Philippines and others in the Indo-Pacific region.  We were in these places to promote regional security and stability, to de-escalate crises, and to address symptoms of structural violence.  It was essential that we developed rapport and trust with our allies, partners, and host nations.  We worked and communicated collaboratively with all stakeholders on multiple levels for successful mission execution.  That trust depended on consistency between our words and actions.   If our missions had been branded under the moniker of “War,” that would have undermined our credibility and closed the space for credible alternatives.  These places and cultures where we deployed in the Indo-Pacific region are victims of centuries of direct and structural violence, typically at the hands of asymmetrical power imbalances of imperial nations.  How we framed our intentions, the words we used, the narratives we built defined our collective identity.  The hosts and stakeholders would not have supported the collaboration otherwise.   “Defense” meant just that, defense and cooperation, allowing continued reconciliation and dialogue.

The contemporary conflict environment in which the Department maneuvers is multi-scalar; it is volatile, uncertain, complicated, and ambiguous.  A narrow, transactional approach will not suffice.  The “Department of War” sets the condition from the outset that conflict with violence is permanent, while the more appropriately and still legally named “Department of Defense” signals that conflict can be resolved and maybe even prevented.  As veteran, I would hope our leadership wants to resolve conflict first without sending our next generation of Americans into harm’s way.

As we look at the spectrum of conflict from interpersonal to global, the words we choose can shape and limit the outcomes from the onset, well before any escalatory stages or violence erupts.  Why would we want to limit any offramps?  Calling it “War” instead of “Defense” is not just semantics.  It immediately assumes conflict is inevitable, nonpreventable, and permanent.   At the strategic level, we need consistent messaging institutionally; that being deterrence, stability, and security are still in our national interests.  Defense implies, suggests, and sends the message that conflict is possible, preventable, and can be resolved.  Peace through Strength and “Defense” vs. “War”?  The choice is clear to me.  Conflict resolution begins with the language we use.  Our choice of words does not merely describe ourselves; they create and shape our reality.