America's Department of War

The U.S. Department of Defense, with its nearly $850 billion budget, organizes the military capacity of the world’s only superpower capable of waging wars on two continents at once. Today, its budget is roughly three times that of its closest rival, China. After World War II, the Pentagon led both the superpower struggle with the Soviet Union and hot wars in Korea and Vietnam as part of the global fight against communism. With about 2.9 million uniformed troops, reservists, and civilian staff, it represents a vast bureaucracy able to project American power on every continent to protect U.S. interests. Former President Trump’s push to rename the Pentagon back to the “War Department” signals Washington’s struggle to manage the post–Cold War evolution of its defense strategy.

THE WEST’S SECURITY SPONSOR

After emerging from World War II as the clear victor, the U.S. focused on rebuilding Europe’s economy and containing communism—defining the core dynamics of the Cold War. Washington relied on “mutually assured destruction” to deter a nuclear apocalypse, even as it fought brutal proxy wars in Korea and Vietnam. While critics rightly labeled these “imperial wars,” America justified them as defending capitalism and the American way of life. The U.S. ultimately forced Moscow into an unwinnable arms race, winning the Cold War—but events like the Cuban Missile Crisis showed how close the superpowers came to catastrophe.

Positioning itself as both rule-maker and security guarantor for the West, the U.S. pushed Europe to rebuild democratic institutions and free-market economies while Washington carried the bulk of NATO’s burden. American strategy—not European initiative—set the West’s direction on global crises. Through the Pentagon, the U.S. presented itself as the backbone of an “international rules-based order.” Having defeated the Soviet Union, Washington then struggled to manage its unipolar moment in the 1990s.

A ‘DUMBED-DOWN’ AMERICA

Despite being the world’s sole superpower, the U.S. faltered in Bosnia and Rwanda. After the 9/11 attacks, it declared a “War on Terror,” a fight not against a clear enemy but an abstract concept. Endless campaigns like Afghanistan and Iraq blurred victory conditions and, as critics argued, “strategically dumbed down” U.S. policy. Shifting the Pentagon’s mission from defending America to waging a perpetual war on terror marked a pivotal conceptual break—one Washington struggled to navigate.

Preoccupied with counterterrorism, the U.S. missed China’s rapid rise. Both Obama and Trump tried to “pivot to Asia,” crafting new Indo-Pacific strategies to contain Beijing, but neither produced a coherent approach. Biden’s attempt to isolate Russia and Trump’s outreach to Putin failed to prevent a Moscow-Beijing rapprochement. Meanwhile, Washington’s inconsistent responses only encouraged China to present itself as an alternative leader outside the Western order.

Trump’s effort to rename the Pentagon reflects a willingness to punish adversaries—through sanctions, tariffs, or force—if dialogue fails. It’s a declaration that the U.S. will use hard power without apology, even at the cost of eroding the rules-based system it once championed.

America’s hesitancy after the Cold War, its strategic drift during the War on Terror, and its struggle to counter China all mark critical turning points. Trump’s “America First” populism rejects the notion that Washington must follow international norms, betting that the system will continue to serve U.S. interests regardless. But relying solely on brute force—as seen in unwavering military support for Israel—risks political legitimacy and lasting stability. For a power long seen as the world’s standard-setter, the arbitrary use of raw force could prove dangerously short-sighted.