Posted on Jan 26, 2015
Use of "Warrior" in Service Culture, a British take
9.89K
72
23
7
7
0
http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2015/01/colonel-panter-downes-not-a-warrior-army/
I've often wondered if the more we claim to be something, are we just trying to convince ourselves? I think the word "warrior" gets overused in the bureaucratized military of today - "warrior" is a role, it's an identity, it has social connotations and cultural connotations - there is a lot to be said about it, but when we also call ourselves "professionals" at the same time, you end up with questions such as "are you your job?" "Way of life, lifestyle, or calling?" "Can I be both at the same time?" "Is there any distinction?"
At what point, sitting desk bound and spending most of one's working hours staring at a computer, does "warrior" become a bit of an emotional salve, not a description.
Tough to swallow. Signing "warrior" paperwork, correcting warrior powerpoint slides, and writing warrior bullet background papers does seem to cheapen the word. That's professional, bureaucratic work. What most of us in uniform do is, more often than not, professional work. We sometimes do warrior work. There are those who do warrior work half of the time or even more.
Is "warrior" time and place dependent?
One thing I will agree with hands down is, let's drop the creeds. Let's be honest with ourselves, from wha I've seen the field hates them. The only one written that has really stuck with me over the years is the Code of Conduct - I still have that one memorized, and it's going on 20 years.
I've often wondered if the more we claim to be something, are we just trying to convince ourselves? I think the word "warrior" gets overused in the bureaucratized military of today - "warrior" is a role, it's an identity, it has social connotations and cultural connotations - there is a lot to be said about it, but when we also call ourselves "professionals" at the same time, you end up with questions such as "are you your job?" "Way of life, lifestyle, or calling?" "Can I be both at the same time?" "Is there any distinction?"
At what point, sitting desk bound and spending most of one's working hours staring at a computer, does "warrior" become a bit of an emotional salve, not a description.
Tough to swallow. Signing "warrior" paperwork, correcting warrior powerpoint slides, and writing warrior bullet background papers does seem to cheapen the word. That's professional, bureaucratic work. What most of us in uniform do is, more often than not, professional work. We sometimes do warrior work. There are those who do warrior work half of the time or even more.
Is "warrior" time and place dependent?
One thing I will agree with hands down is, let's drop the creeds. Let's be honest with ourselves, from wha I've seen the field hates them. The only one written that has really stuck with me over the years is the Code of Conduct - I still have that one memorized, and it's going on 20 years.
Values
Professionalism
Attitude
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 11
6
6
0
Lt Col (Join to see), at the risk of bringing down the wrath of the AF Doctrine Gods, I LOATH the Airman's Creed for it's false warrior ethos. We are members of the profession of arms, specialist in the domains of air, space and cyber. We have warriors. To call all Airmen warriors is, frankly in my opinion, belittling to those true warriors. The finance troop that files the travel voucher for the PJ that just got a Silver Star is important to the mission. Just is not a warrior.
/end rant
/end rant
(6)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Lt Col (Join to see), I will counter with the Air Force Core Values. They were created from "on high" in the mid-90's from the original 6 created by the almost universally hated General McPeak to the 3 we currently have today set forth by General Fogleman. I posit that why the Core Values "work" where the "Airman's Creed" stumble's and fails is that the Core Values are just that core. They are something that each and every Airmen likely already had OR could easily buy in too without feeling that they were being forced something they really didn't believe.
Does the guy at the gym handing out basketballs really feel like they are "Its Sentry and Avenger." Does the Airman working at the comm squadron unlocking user accounts really feel "My Nation’s Sword and Shield"?
Every Airmen, regardless of job, can get behind Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence In All We Do.
Does the guy at the gym handing out basketballs really feel like they are "Its Sentry and Avenger." Does the Airman working at the comm squadron unlocking user accounts really feel "My Nation’s Sword and Shield"?
Every Airmen, regardless of job, can get behind Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence In All We Do.
(3)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
Funny thing about the core values - I could be mis-remembering things now, but when I was a cadet in '95 I remember them being introduced as the AF Academy Core Values, and _then_ becoming the AF Core Values, or is my timeline off?
(1)
(0)
TSgt Joshua Copeland
Lt Col (Join to see), you are not wrong Sir, USAFA adopted the 3 we use today in 1994 and big AF followed suit and streamlined thier 6 McPeak created to the same 3 as USAFA used in 1995.
(1)
(0)
2d Lt (Join to see)
gentlemen,
I only see warrior used by 0-4s and above for briefings and used in sarcasm by everyone else. I'm sure marines and soldiers like their titles more than being called 'warrior'.
Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of the creed. It just seems like another instance of the USAF feeling like they need to be just as 'cool' and 'tough' as the Army.
I only see warrior used by 0-4s and above for briefings and used in sarcasm by everyone else. I'm sure marines and soldiers like their titles more than being called 'warrior'.
Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of the creed. It just seems like another instance of the USAF feeling like they need to be just as 'cool' and 'tough' as the Army.
(1)
(0)
Historically, it took a lot more than warriors to win a war. I believe the same is true today, and just because somebody is not a "warrior" in the traditional sense of the word, does not take away from their importance, and their contributions towards strategic victory. I do believe that the overuse of the word does take away from some of the weight it is intended to hold.
I do believe that one can be a professional service member and not actually partake in any warrior activities. Conversely, I believe that one can be a warrior and not be very professional.
Everybody in the military should be professional, and all should be ready to fight, but that does not necessarily make everyone a warrior, in the traditional definition anyway.
I do believe that one can be a professional service member and not actually partake in any warrior activities. Conversely, I believe that one can be a warrior and not be very professional.
Everybody in the military should be professional, and all should be ready to fight, but that does not necessarily make everyone a warrior, in the traditional definition anyway.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Excellent points, sir. Your statement "Is 'warrior' time and place dependent?" strikes me as particularly valid. I'm not a warrior sitting at HQ pumping out PPT presentations. Then again, I can still have a "warrior mentality" and live by a "warrior ethos," but I'm not a warrior. I am, as you rightly point out (IMHO), a professional. I do think it's time and place and circumstance dependent. Warrior seems to be the latest catchword. I'm a Soldier, first and foremost.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google