“Department of War or Defense: Beyond the Name,” by IP attorney Timothy Trainer, author “The Fortunate Son”
Whether the name is changed officially or not, we will now hear the administration refer to the Department of War for the remainder of this term. The website www.defense.gov now converts to www.war.gov. Interestingly, Kentucky’s Senator Rand Paul has stated that he opposes a formal change and would work to oppose such a change. rawstory.com.
The United States has had an all-volunteer military since 1973. We’ve heard or read repeatedly that the Secretary of Defense (War) wants a more warrior ethos projected by our serving military members. As this administration seeks to generate an image of U.S. forces as more… war-capable, it seems fitting to ask: who are these warriors? Ironically, within days of announcing the change, referring to the Department of War, USA Today published an article on September 6th on the challenges of recruitment.
For those who are interested in knowing something about the volunteer force, it might be surprising or frightening or confusing to read the headline: “Once these recruits couldn’t make the cut. Now they make up a quarter of Army troops,” usatoday.com. Finding young men and women who meet current enlistment standards isn’t always easy. There are both minimum academic and physical requirements to join the army.
According to the USA Today article, the army maintains a Future Soldier Preparatory Course to help those wanting to enlist to attain the minimum standards so that they can become actual army enlistees. The article reports that it will cost over $200 million this year and next to help people reach the minimum academic and physical standards set to become a “real” army trainee.
USA Today reports that a Defense Department Inspector General report found the Future Soldier course admitted trainees with body fat “far above its stated cap” and “the program’s academic component had also let its stated standards slide”. As unfortunate as these findings might be, the Inspector General’s report also stated that “a significant portion had difficulty speaking or understanding English.” The Defense Department report is dated May 1, 2025, media.defense.gov. The Defense Department report highlights how the Army has not adhered to its own rules regarding assessments of those in the Future Soldier course in order to allow participants to enlist.
Generally, over the past 50 years, the government has praised the performance of the all-volunteer force. As citizens and taxpayers, this report, which is not read by many, should raise concerns about the force we rely upon for national defense (war-fighting).
If nearly a quarter of all troops in the U.S. Army come from this pool of enlistees, are the personnel specialists at the Pentagon ignoring a serious problem? If nearly a quarter of the troops have physical, academic, or language deficiencies, are they able to properly use systems that increasingly incorporate technology? Today’s soldiers are equipped with technology that didn’t exist 15 or 20 years ago. When one reads that soldiers today have mapping tools, night vision devices, and helmet-mounted technology, is the array of new equipment usable by those recruited from the prep course? All the high-tech gear the Army is bringing to soldiers. It isn’t enough to say that they are able to learn to use them in training situations. The requirement will be for these recruits to act and think instinctively if deployed to a combat zone.
All the individualized technology is fine as long as the conditions allow for their use. Anyone who has ever spoken to people who have been in combat will quickly learn that training cannot simulate the real thing. As an example, something as fundamental as map reading might become a necessity when technology fails. What happens when some or all that technology is ineffective?
There’s nothing surprising to read or hear that the Trump Administration wants a name change to the Department of Defense. The administration wants a Department of War. It needs to project masculinity, strength and power. The talk, the chatter, the words all seem to do something else: expose Trump and Hegseth as being examples of frail male egos. Instead of image projection, the United States would be better served if those looking at personnel requirements engaged in an honest assessment of the army’s personnel needs, made the appropriate changes, and dedicated more effort to attract those who meet the minimum standards without the need for special courses.
About the Timothy Trainer: Writing books is a passion for attorney Timothy Trainer, who for more than three decades focused on intellectual property issues in his day job. He has worked in government agencies and in the private sector and his assignments have taken him to 60 countries around the world.
Tim found time to pen a few non-fiction tomes, including his first book, Customs Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights; the 15th edition was published in 2022. Thomson Reuters’ Aspatore Books published Tim’s next title in 2015, Potato Chips to Computer Chips: The War on Fake Stuff.
Fiction was a genre he always wanted to try. In 2019, Pendulum Over the Pacific, was released by Joshua Tree Publishing. “This political intrigue story is set in Tokyo and Washington, D.C., and centers on trade tensions between the U.S. and Japan in the late 1980s,” Tim explains.
In 2023, his first series hit bookstores: The China Connection.
In 2025, he published the sequel, The China Factor, which ranked #63 on the Amazon Asian Literature list in May.
Learn more about this book and Tim’s writing process when he’s interviewed by author Jeffrey James Higgins’ for his new Inkandescent podcast and video show: Elaine’s Literary Salon.
Learn about Tim’s work and books: timothytrainer.com
