Hacker News Reader

Comment by red_admiral | Hacker News Reader

Actual military officer (at the time of writing) doesn't thing much of "warrior mindset" even _in the army_: https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/12/14/stop-calling-us-war...

Worth reading together with the OP article.

View on HN

Another article in the same vein is this one, criticizing the increasing role of former special officers people in military planning roles: https://secretaryrofdefenserock.substack.com/p/the-triumph-o..., seeing it as catalyzing a lot of destruction of US military capabilities.

My father has commented to me about the weird warrior/war-fighter phrasing that came into vogue in the late 90’s. He remembered as a young soldier in the early 80’s not hearing those terms at all, but during a stint in the National Guard in the years before 9/11 he started hearing that sort of phrasing all the time.

It stuck him as vaguely undemocratic or even slightly barbaric. More suited to some caste in the Middle Ages than a modern all volunteer force of citizens-soldiers.

I think warfighter crept into the lexicon for somewhat understandable reasons, likely because of the increasing frequency of joint operations (i.e., operations involving more than one branch of the military working together) after Vietnam, combined with the long-standing military tradition whereby members of any given branch take great offense if you refer to them using the wrong professional label (i.e., soldier, sailor, ~crayon-eater~ marine, airman, space cadet). That is, we can't just call all of them soldiers because only members of the Army are soldiers, so if for example you call a mixed group of marines and soldiers "soldiers", the marines will make their displeasure known to you, aggressively and in no uncertain terms.

When you're talking about DoD stuff all day long and frequently need to refer generically to the mixed personnel involved in a joint operation, warfighters beats saying Soldier-Sailor-Marine-Airman-Spacecase. All the other alternative phrases for the concept of "person employed by the military in one of the five combat arms branches" are variations on "member" and tend to sound clunky or be overly verbose, like "service member" or "member of the military." Try saying "service members" 50 times per day. Trust me, it gets old fast.

And frankly I don't see the problem with warfighter. Fighting wars is quite literally what they do, and pretending otherwise does a disservice to the truth and risks papering over the deadly seriousness of their work. Warfighter is also quite distinct from "warrior," which carries connotations of a specifically aggressive and barbaric flavor of professional violence purveyor. Like you say, it sounds like some atavistic hereditary soldier caste for whom violence is a sacred vocation joyfully undertaken rather than a solemn duty carried out only with great reluctance and forbearance.

> When you're talking about DoD stuff all day long and frequently need to refer generically to the mixed personnel involved in a joint operation, warfighters beats saying Soldier-Sailor-Marine-Airman-Spacecase. All the other alternative phrases for the concept of "person employed by the military in one of the five combat arms branches" are variations on "member" and tend to sound clunky or be overly verbose, like "service member" or "member of the military." Try saying "service members" 50 times per day. Trust me, it gets old fast.

If only you hadn't found the perfect word in your description of the "problem": they are "personnel".

"personnel" is too broad though as it could include all of the civilian support staff, admin staff, contractors, etc. Sometime you do want a term to collectively include all of these people, but sometimes you want to just refer to the ones actively doing the military bits and not the support bits.

Troops?

Actually, yeah that works

Troops is almost exclusively used to refer to Army personnel in the US.

> And frankly I don't see the problem with warfighter

Because it implies, quite pointedly, that the United States will never send a peacekeeping force.

But even that peace keeping will involve active combat, unless the mission fails or the force involved is so capable ot deters opponent. You dont want to end up like the blue helmets in lebanon and more like nordbat in kosovo.

That still means the main point, the reason they are there, will never be peace. They are there to fight, and to fuck your shit up - which is both an image the current administration embraces, and very much not a good look outside the country.

Its the same stuff as we see in the manosphere today and in Italy/Germany as fascism took hold.

America is a very war-forward country.

Founded by one, massive civil war, recently endless foreign wars to waste money and lives on.

Heck, I was snowboarding at a $250/day mega resort in Colorado and right there on the village was reciting for army/navy/air force.

You don’t see that in developed countries that are not war-obsessed

People need to be bigger on efficacy. If it worked, we'd see evidence of it. No one's bringing that evidence forward and frankly its questionable if US officers are better than their international peers.

I don't think it's accidental the overlap between lack of accountability and the fact that warriors historically are a class, not a job.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com