New president same as the old president? At least in regards to war, or in this administration’s choice of rhetoric, “Overseas Contingency Operations” (OCO). It used to be “War on Terror,” unfortunately the concept is the same. Maybe in the future we will be calling it Global Peace Initiative. But does it really matter what we call it?

On June 26, 2014 the Department of Defense (DOD) released its fiscal year 2015 Overseas Contingency Operations Budget Amendment requesting $58.6 billion for continued support of fighting terrorist efforts.

The proposed budget states, “OCO funding will help our military reset from over a decade of fighting by providing the funds needed for DOD to repair and replace equipment and munitions.” This is a reference to bringing equipment and personnel home from a conflict in the Middle East we entered while George W. Bush was in office. Better late than never.

While giving the commencement speech to the graduating class at West Point Military Academy, President Obama announced that he would ask Congress to fund a new Counterterrorism

Partnerships Fund to provide the flexibility and resources required to respond to emerging threats around the globe.

The budget plan focuses on diplomacy and partnerships as a means to end terrorism, diplomacy and partnerships in countries with limited resources and poor infrastructure. Perhaps the question is: what happens when diplomacy fails? What happens when those countries are unable to sustain their partnerships because their leaders are compromised? The budget focuses on terrorism as our greatest threat and because that perceived threat is based on an abstract faceless enemy called a “terrorist” and not a declared nation, there is no end in sight to this war of many names.

Saying we are going to use our military as a means of peaceful diplomacy is like sending a great white shark to break up a dispute between baby seals.

Building a military presence worldwide is not an act of diplomacy; before we’ve completed one conflict it is not in our best interest to insert our military into every new conflict that arises.

Perhaps diplomacy has a chance of success if we send in diplomats and not soldiers. We are nearing the end of one conflict, and moving towards military involvement globally to repress “terrorism.” They could have called it world war.