Asia, explained.
The new Department of War logo seen inside the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
The US military rebrand exposes uncomfortable truths about American power that could reshape regional relationships.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
America’s “Department of War” puts Asia’s peace at riskAmerica’s “Department of War” puts Asia’s peace at risk
The United States’ decision this month to rename the Department of Defence back to the Department of War is far more than a bureaucratic change. Since 1947, the “Defence” label has served as a rhetorical shield, portraying America as a power that reacts rather than initiates. Every overseas intervention, from Korea to Iraq, was framed as a defensive necessity. By restoring the old name, Washington strips away that veneer.
For Asia, the signal is unmistakable: the United States is now openly acknowledging itself as a war-making power. This change comes only days after Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and several other Asian leaders gathered in China, underscoring the symbolic weight of Washington’s decision amid intensifying great-power rivalry.
The real danger is that once the language of war is normalised, sustaining peace becomes far more difficult.
In Northeast Asia, the psychological impact of the renaming will be immediate. Japan, still constrained by its pacifist constitution, faces new challenges in justifying the presence of US forces on its soil. For decades, Tokyo has portrayed the Marines in Okinawa as “defenders” rather than instigators, a narrative that helped temper public opposition. Now, it remains to be seen whether Japanese voices will question if a “War Department” presence undermines that claim, even though no official statement has yet been issued by the Japanese government. Local Okinawan leaders, who have long resisted base expansions, may see the renaming as confirmation of their fears that Japan could be dragged into a regional conflict not of its own making.
South Korea, which relies heavily on its alliance with the United States to deter North Korea, now faces a dilemma. While policymakers in Seoul continue to insist that the alliance is indispensable, the rebranding of the Pentagon as the “Department of War” suggests Washington views the Korean Peninsula not simply as a shield but as a forward base for confrontation with China. War Secretary Pete Hegseth reinforced this impression when he declared, “We’re going to go on the offense, not just on defence. Maximum lethality, not tepid legality.” Such rhetoric projects a more offensive posture that unsettles even allies like Japan and South Korea, which already feel vulnerable to both North Korean and Chinese threats.
In South Korea, where anti-American sentiment occasionally resurfaces, the renaming risks reigniting debates over whether the alliance enhances or undermines long-term security. These anxieties are compounded by economic frictions – most recently, a raid by US immigration authorities on a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia, where hundreds of South Korean workers were detained – raising questions in Seoul about the trustworthiness of its partnership with Washington at a moment when America is openly embracing the language of war.
A shoulder patch on a uniform (Gage Daniel/US Air Force)
For China, the shift is a propaganda windfall. Beijing has long accused Washington of being a hegemon addicted to war, while US officials countered with narratives of global defence and freedom of navigation. By embracing the “war” label, Washington effectively validates Beijing’s argument. In diplomacy, legitimacy can be as powerful as naval tonnage. Chinese officials can now tell Asian nations: “Look, America is no longer pretending; they are openly in a state of war.” Li Haidong, a US affairs expert at the China Foreign Affairs University, said the move indicates that America intends to use its military power with a more aggressive approach. He added that the renaming reflects a shift from a “defensive” posture to a more “belligerent” one, creating uncertainty for global peace and stability.
Southeast Asia would be squeezed the hardest. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations was built on the vision of a Zone of Peace, Freedom, and Neutrality (ZOPFAN). Washington’s war rhetoric would make it far more difficult to sustain that framework. Indonesia, the de facto leader of ASEAN, would struggle to maintain strategic balance. Align too closely with Washington, and Jakarta risks being branded a pawn of war. Drift too far away, and it loses access to defence technology and strategic investment. Either way, diplomatic space shrinks. Such pressures could also strain ASEAN cohesion, making it harder for the bloc to present a unified stance on regional security challenges, from the South China Sea to great-power rivalry.
The Philippines, bound by a mutual defence treaty with Washington and now hosting expanded US access sites, faces a similar dilemma. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has justified the military pact with the United States as a defensive measure to safeguard Philippine sovereignty. Yet with the Pentagon rebranded as the Department of War, US bases in the Philippines risk being perceived not as shields but as springboards for regional conflict. Such perceptions matter: they can erode the domestic legitimacy of America’s presence, even in a country where security ties with Washington run deep.
This symbolic shift is also certain to fuel a regional arms race. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Asian defence spending has grown by an average of 4–5 percent annually over the past decade, led by China, Japan, and India. A United States that no longer hides behind the term “defence” will likely accelerate this trend. Japan is already debating the largest defence budget in its history, while South Korea is ramping up investments in missile defence and naval expansion. In Southeast Asia, countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia may feel compelled to follow suit, lest they fall behind in a security environment increasingly defined by open confrontation.
Ultimately, the renaming is both ideological and administrative, signalling that Washington now openly embraces the language of war. For Asia, already marked by sharp rivalries and fragile interdependence, this rhetorical shift could be more destabilising than new military deployments. No government in the region has yet commented, but the change is likely to shape US escalation in the Asia-Pacific. The real danger is that once the language of war is normalised, sustaining peace becomes far more difficult, a risk Southeast and Northeast Asia cannot afford.
About the author
Akhmad Hanan
Akhmad Hanan is an independent Indonesian researcher specialising in geopolitics and energy.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
