To the editor: Even when solely at this level unofficial, President Trump’s transfer to rebrand the Division of Protection because the Division of Conflict disregards the detrimental political impact it will have (“Trump government order goals to rename the Division of Protection because the Division of Conflict,” Sept. 3).
His concept may be traced again to an earlier musing that Ukrainians shouldn’t solely defend themselves but in addition take the offensive. The irony, in fact, is that he’s not offering Ukraine with the type of weaponry it will want to really mount such an offense.
Traditionally, each nation frames its warfare as a simply and “defensive” one — Putin himself described his invasion of Ukraine as a defensive measure in opposition to Western aggression. However the phrase “Division of Conflict,” even when not explicitly conveying aggression, undeniably carries that suggestion. Phrases have penalties. It’s puzzling, to say the least, that our president would gratuitously attempt to make such a change.
Jack Kaczorowski, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Since Trump is so keen to alter names, I’ve a couple of solutions to extend transparency and accuracy in naming: Change the Division of Justice to the Division of Retribution and the Departments of Training, Labor, Power, and Well being and Human Companies to Ignorance, Massive Enterprise, Fossil Gasoline Improvement, and Sickness and Loss of life, respectively.
Whereas he’s at it, it could be a good suggestion to name the Environmental Safety Company the Environmental Destruction Company.
Thomas Van Huss, Tustin
..
To the editor: With Trump brazenly campaigning for a Nobel Peace Prize, attempting to rename the Division of Protection the Division of Conflict appears each weird and squarely on model.
David R. Ginsburg, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: It looks as if only a semantic difficulty, rebranding the Division of Protection because the Division of Conflict, however let’s face it: America now has 750 army bases around the globe. The protection finances is upwards of $800 billion yearly. All of this to maintain the peace and defend our nation? What number of bases does China have across the globe? How about Russia? Someplace round 21, largely in former Soviet states.
It’s laborious to think about our unprecedented deal with the army not resulting in extra elective wars. Why have this gigantic army presence for those who by no means flex your muscle tissue? Division of Conflict? Sadly, it appears applicable.
Peter Marquard, Northridge
