5 ms·

Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure wh

Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies

tomcam 5y ago
Good call. Seems unnecessary, like the slow transformation of “emergency room “which used to be known as the ER to “emergency department“.
- _2d30 5y ago
  In fairness, emergency department is more sensible. They generally aren't a single room. Soldier to warfighter seems unnecessary. EDIT: It seems possibly using "warfighter" is more accurate as marines and pilots aren't soldiers?
  - cdash 5y ago
    Sure but then you get into the situation where even though the full name is Emergency Department they still refer to it as the ER and not the ED.
    - JshWright 5y ago
      That's just a bit of lag though. ED is becoming increasingly common.
  - pageandrew 5y ago
    Army has soldiers, Navy has Seamen/sailors, Air Force has airmen, Marines has marines, coast guard has coast guardsmen.
wincy 5y ago
Well for one US citizens might have to quarter warfighters.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
speedybird 5y ago
It simply means that marines, sailors, etc get bent out of shape when you call them "soldiers." In their lingo, soldiers are in the Army. In common parlance, a 'soldier' is anybody who is part of a military and an 'army' is any and all military. But I would not expect the Pentagon to be so casual with their use of terms relating directly to their affairs.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  Huh, in my country, we just say "personnel". Covers all genders, all branches, and territorials (our version of the National Guard, I guess) as well as the regular force.
- pageandrew 5y ago
  The common parlance is just wrong. Soldiers do not serve on ships
  - margalabargala 5y ago
    Language and vernacular are fluid and things can become new things. The people who serve on ships can become soldiers by consensus.
  - laurencerowe 5y ago
    But Navy personnel were deployed to Iraq and landlocked Afghanistan so clearly the DoD doesn’t see the clear delineation.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter" Technically, only the Army has soldiers. The non-exclusionary term used to be “men and women in uniform,” but that got tired, so I guess we get “warfighters” now.
- SkyMarshal 5y ago
  Yeah, Marines particularly don’t like being called “soldier”, they’re not soldiers they’re Marines. Probably same for the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, CIA operatives, etc. The civilian executive branch probably had a headache over that, and just started using the catchall term warfighter to refer to them all.
- burkaman 5y ago
  We also have "serviceperson", but you can't sell Call of Duty games that way.
  - gruez 5y ago
    The one fps game that contained "warfighter" wasn't call of duty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Warfighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Warfighter
- corndoge 5y ago
  Did not know about the usage of soldier, thank you.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
burkaman 5y ago
I assume someone thought it sounds cooler and will help them recruit. It's an awful term, although maybe it will make it slightly harder for people to claim that the US military is a force for good because "our warfighters are global peacekeepers". Really highlights the absurdity.
- rand846633 5y ago
  We as people should start refereeing to them as “nation state murder for hire professionals”.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  It is politicians that keep insisting the job of the army is to get Afghanis to read and adopt liberal values. Peacekeeping is not popular in the army, for good reason. They are there to fight wars, not deliver social programs, build nations, or referee conflicts. If using language like "warfighter" can get the politicians to lay off on using the army for things other than fighting wars, then the clumsiness of the phrase is worth it. I suspect, though, that this is just more corporate-speak infiltrating the military bureaucracy.
  - mabbo 5y ago
    There ought to be a branch of the military that is dedicated to those goals. I can imagine there are a lot of people who might be interested in that, but not in the war fighting. Today those people either don't enlist, or enlist and hate that aspect.
    - burkaman 5y ago
      Not the military, that's what the State Department is for. Or the UN. Edit: Ok maybe not what it's for, but the State Department is a better fit. Nobody is ever going to trust a foreign military to do anything good in their country.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      There are many NGOs that work to spread liberal democracy, and the US government has the Peace Corps.
nimbius 5y ago
War fighter showed up to replace soldier about the same time the space force was announced. It's meant to be a blanket term to satisfy categorization from rifle carrying traditional soldiers to drone pilots in an Idaho parking lot.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  No, I heard this in 2002 by our marketing guy who was in communication with people in the military bureaucracy (of course to sell them our products).
rayiner 5y ago
At least for DARPA this change was well established even 26 years ago. It’s a way to be more inclusive of various roles within the military.
Lazare 5y ago
There's also been a major push to use the word "warrior". Not everyone is a fan. See, eg: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/19/united-states-afghanistan-citizen-soldiers-warriors-forever-wars/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/19/united-states-afghanist... Edit: As others have noted, "soldier" is traditionally a term reserved for members of an army. So for anything that cuts across the entire armed forces, you end up with soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen, and (of course) guardians (which is, I'm sad to say, the actual term for members of the Space Force). That's unworkably long (and it gets worse if you want to try and find gender neutral phrasing for "airmen" and "coast guardmen"; "airmen, airwomen, coast guardsmen, coast guardwomen" is even more ridiculously unworkable, and "airperson" is just too dumb to contemplate). I think the only reasonable answer is "serviceperson" or "servicemen and servicewomen", but I can't fault people for disliking those. But "warrior", as the article notes, already has incompatible meanings, and "warfighter" isn't much better. Maybe the real answer is just to adopt the Space Force term for the entire armed forces, and call everyone guardians. (And it kills me that this is, actually, one the better ideas I've heard.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies

tomcam 5y ago

Good call. Seems unnecessary, like the slow transformation of “emergency room “which used to be known as the ER to “emergency department“.

_2d30 5y ago
In fairness, emergency department is more sensible. They generally aren't a single room. Soldier to warfighter seems unnecessary. EDIT: It seems possibly using "warfighter" is more accurate as marines and pilots aren't soldiers?
- cdash 5y ago
  Sure but then you get into the situation where even though the full name is Emergency Department they still refer to it as the ER and not the ED.
  - JshWright 5y ago
    That's just a bit of lag though. ED is becoming increasingly common.
- pageandrew 5y ago
  Army has soldiers, Navy has Seamen/sailors, Air Force has airmen, Marines has marines, coast guard has coast guardsmen.

wincy 5y ago

Well for one US citizens might have to quarter warfighters.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

speedybird 5y ago

It simply means that marines, sailors, etc get bent out of shape when you call them "soldiers." In their lingo, soldiers are in the Army. In common parlance, a 'soldier' is anybody who is part of a military and an 'army' is any and all military. But I would not expect the Pentagon to be so casual with their use of terms relating directly to their affairs.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
Huh, in my country, we just say "personnel". Covers all genders, all branches, and territorials (our version of the National Guard, I guess) as well as the regular force.
pageandrew 5y ago
The common parlance is just wrong. Soldiers do not serve on ships
- margalabargala 5y ago
  Language and vernacular are fluid and things can become new things. The people who serve on ships can become soldiers by consensus.
- laurencerowe 5y ago
  But Navy personnel were deployed to Iraq and landlocked Afghanistan so clearly the DoD doesn’t see the clear delineation.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter" Technically, only the Army has soldiers. The non-exclusionary term used to be “men and women in uniform,” but that got tired, so I guess we get “warfighters” now.

SkyMarshal 5y ago
Yeah, Marines particularly don’t like being called “soldier”, they’re not soldiers they’re Marines. Probably same for the Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, CIA operatives, etc. The civilian executive branch probably had a headache over that, and just started using the catchall term warfighter to refer to them all.
burkaman 5y ago
We also have "serviceperson", but you can't sell Call of Duty games that way.
- gruez 5y ago
  The one fps game that contained "warfighter" wasn't call of duty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Warfighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Warfighter
corndoge 5y ago
Did not know about the usage of soldier, thank you.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

burkaman 5y ago

I assume someone thought it sounds cooler and will help them recruit. It's an awful term, although maybe it will make it slightly harder for people to claim that the US military is a force for good because "our warfighters are global peacekeepers". Really highlights the absurdity.

rand846633 5y ago
We as people should start refereeing to them as “nation state murder for hire professionals”.
rsj_hn 5y ago
It is politicians that keep insisting the job of the army is to get Afghanis to read and adopt liberal values. Peacekeeping is not popular in the army, for good reason. They are there to fight wars, not deliver social programs, build nations, or referee conflicts. If using language like "warfighter" can get the politicians to lay off on using the army for things other than fighting wars, then the clumsiness of the phrase is worth it. I suspect, though, that this is just more corporate-speak infiltrating the military bureaucracy.
- mabbo 5y ago
  There ought to be a branch of the military that is dedicated to those goals. I can imagine there are a lot of people who might be interested in that, but not in the war fighting. Today those people either don't enlist, or enlist and hate that aspect.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    Not the military, that's what the State Department is for. Or the UN. Edit: Ok maybe not what it's for, but the State Department is a better fit. Nobody is ever going to trust a foreign military to do anything good in their country.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    There are many NGOs that work to spread liberal democracy, and the US government has the Peace Corps.

nimbius 5y ago

War fighter showed up to replace soldier about the same time the space force was announced. It's meant to be a blanket term to satisfy categorization from rifle carrying traditional soldiers to drone pilots in an Idaho parking lot.

rsj_hn 5y ago
No, I heard this in 2002 by our marketing guy who was in communication with people in the military bureaucracy (of course to sell them our products).

rayiner 5y ago

At least for DARPA this change was well established even 26 years ago. It’s a way to be more inclusive of various roles within the military.

Lazare 5y ago

There's also been a major push to use the word "warrior". Not everyone is a fan. See, eg: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/19/united-states-afghanistan-citizen-soldiers-warriors-forever-wars/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/19/united-states-afghanist... Edit: As others have noted, "soldier" is traditionally a term reserved for members of an army. So for anything that cuts across the entire armed forces, you end up with soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen, and (of course) guardians (which is, I'm sad to say, the actual term for members of the Space Force). That's unworkably long (and it gets worse if you want to try and find gender neutral phrasing for "airmen" and "coast guardmen"; "airmen, airwomen, coast guardsmen, coast guardwomen" is even more ridiculously unworkable, and "airperson" is just too dumb to contemplate). I think the only reasonable answer is "serviceperson" or "servicemen and servicewomen", but I can't fault people for disliking those. But "warrior", as the article notes, already has incompatible meanings, and "warfighter" isn't much better. Maybe the real answer is just to adopt the Space Force term for the entire armed forces, and call everyone guardians. (And it kills me that this is, actually, one the better ideas I've heard.)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]