As philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world." Words do not merely describe reality — they shape it. The United States is now offering its own example of this.

On Friday, the US president signed an executive order restoring the historical title "Department of War" to the Pentagon. Even though Congress has yet to approve it to make the renaming permanent, the symbolism is powerful, revealing a shift in how Washington wishes to present itself to the world.

The US changed the name of its War Department to the Department of Defense in 1949 after World War II and at the dawn of the nuclear age. At that time, the US lawmakers emphasized "defense" to signal restraint and deterrence, as new international institutions such as the United Nations were being established to safeguard peace. That choice of words carried weight. It underscored that military power was to be exercised with caution and with the aim of preventing conflict.

The latest reversal, however, highlights a different mood in Washington. Supporters of the change argue that the original name reflects the US' history of strength and victory, pointing back to the world wars. Yet behind this rhetoric lies a message aligned with a more assertive and transactional view of security. The move fits into a wider policy pattern: the use of force in the Middle East, backing military offensives by allies, and calls for partners in Europe and Asia to assume greater financial burdens for US protection.

Domestically, the decision has understandably provoked debate, if not strong opposition. Democrats in Congress quickly voiced their objections, calling the move "childish" or "dangerous". Think tanks and historians have also raised concerns that reintroducing the "Department of War" label risks undermining the US' "moral standing", particularly given the lessons of the nuclear age. Even among the public, the debate reflects fatigue with military campaigns abroad. Many Americans, after two decades of costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fear that glorifying "war" rather than "defense" could mark a return to open-ended conflicts.

In a survey carried out by CGTN among 14,071 respondents from 38 countries from 2023 to 2024, 61.3 percent of the respondents believed that the US is the most combative country in the world, and 70.1 percent thought that the US waging wars abroad has caused serious humanitarian crises worldwide.

Allies are equally attentive. European governments, already unsettled by Washington's imposition of unilateral tariffs and its calls for higher defense spending, now face the additional challenge of explaining to the public why they should rally behind a "Department of War" of the US. And for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has long presented itself as a defensive alliance, the optics of following a country that openly embraces the rhetoric of war may prove problematic.

In Asia, too, US partners are watching closely. Some may fear that Washington is signaling a readiness to escalate conflicts in the region, while others may interpret the move as a prelude to shifting US resources inward. Reports that the Pentagon is drafting a new strategy, possibly downgrading the focus on the "Indo-Pacific" while prioritizing the Western Hemisphere and homeland security, will only add to the uncertainty, particularly among the US' regional pawns, such as the Philippines. If the allies and partners of the US sense that Washington is more aggressive in tone and less reliable in commitment, confidence in the US alliance system may weaken further.

History offers perspective. The change of name from "War" to "Defense" was not mere semantics. It reflected a determination that in the nuclear age, stability depended on restraint, multilateral cooperation and an emphasis on peace. In today's uncertain world, that lesson remains valid. At a time when conflicts in Europe and the Middle East continue, and when the global community faces transnational challenges from climate change to public health, what is most needed is dialogue, coordination and restraint, not signals of confrontation.

Language matters. The words governments choose shape perceptions, expectations and policy paths. The international community should therefore pay close attention to the implications of this renaming. It is a reminder that the US, as the world's largest military power, carries a special responsibility to lead not toward war, but toward peace. Only by upholding this responsibility can Washington, by giving the right answer to the fundamental question of war or peace, truly contribute to the common aspiration of all nations: a world defined not by conflict, but by peace and development.