You ask a very good question. One should ask why the word change at all? If they are truly synonymous...why change it? I noted the change between the word 'threat' and it has been changed to 'need,' as well.
So define "peacetime?" period without war: a time when there is no war, In politics, peacetime is defined as any period of time where there are no violent conflicts occurring.
Define non-emergency: not being or requiring emergency care
The word change one deals with violent conflicts and war. Non-emergency deals with domestic matters.
I think we all understood the previous orders were there in the event of war. Threat as the EO from Clinton calls it. Hence, the word peacetime as the opposite. But now the tone is changed to "need" and "non-emergency."
This is internal to take control vs. taking control to deal with a 'threat.'
Excellent points. Thanks. I brought it up because on another board someone brought up clinton’s EO and pointed out the word peacetime and claimed it was the same as obama’s changing it to non-emergency. I wondered about that too. If peacetime and non-emergency are the same, obama didn’t have to change the wording. Yet he did. One seemingly innocuous word change can completely alter a dolcument.