4 ms·

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 goo

by 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.
CTDOCodebases 5y ago
I think it is for recruitment. For me the word soldier makes me think of someone who is unempowered. Just another pawn on the table, getting their balls busted by their senior officer for not shining their boots enough. Warfighter makes me think of someone who is empowered. A warrior willingly testing themselves in the harshest conditions imaginable. Fighting against adversity. Not submitting to it. Your post reminded me of all the videos I watched on this subject. The ridiculousness of it all. A group of marines in Afghanistan who in the process of trying to deliver security to a village end up outside of it on a vantage point, ordering artillery shelling of the same village they are tasked with protecting because tabliban started firing mortars at them from within the village walls.[0] [0] https://youtu.be/ZvZj3u1Eenw?t=2684 https://youtu.be/ZvZj3u1Eenw?t=2684

by rsj_hn 5y ago

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.

CTDOCodebases 5y ago

I think it is for recruitment. For me the word soldier makes me think of someone who is unempowered. Just another pawn on the table, getting their balls busted by their senior officer for not shining their boots enough. Warfighter makes me think of someone who is empowered. A warrior willingly testing themselves in the harshest conditions imaginable. Fighting against adversity. Not submitting to it. Your post reminded me of all the videos I watched on this subject. The ridiculousness of it all. A group of marines in Afghanistan who in the process of trying to deliver security to a village end up outside of it on a vantage point, ordering artillery shelling of the same village they are tasked with protecting because tabliban started firing mortars at them from within the village walls.[0] [0] https://youtu.be/ZvZj3u1Eenw?t=2684 https://youtu.be/ZvZj3u1Eenw?t=2684