Warrior is not only poor usage when applied
to what is supposed to be a disciplined and trained Soldier, Sailor, Marine or Airman. Warfighter as a term is just sort of silly; warrior so applied is simply wrong -- it's also an insult.
Agree that Warriors don't have an ethos other than fight anything and everything whether it need it or not so that means the phrase is stupid.
I always thought the Warrior Ethos was an extension of the black beret idea. The rationale, as I understood it, was that elite Soldiers don't earn berets - beret-wearers morph into elite Soldiers. Likewise, a Ranger Creed for the masses would make them even more elite. We'll call it the Warrior Ethos. The only thing left to do is to rename our Brigades as Regiments.
This seems to be a much wider trend than just neat ideas from the top. Ever notice how much stuff people attach to their weapons when the only thing that they use them for is to point the muzzle into a clearing barrel? Or the amount of stuff the fabled "PX Ranger" dons - presumably to ensure that he survives his treks between the DFAC, PX, bed, phone center, and Pizza Hut?
The American Army, in some ways, is adapting some of the bad traits of Arab Armies. It seems to be about face, about an outward display, and concern with what others think, rather than emphasis about doing your job with discipline and diligence and not asking for adoration, sympathy, victim-status, or special treatment when you go home.
This is funny to me because of an incident on the "rhino" that runs between the GZ and VBC. I was on the bus in full gear, no convoy was running there when I needed to be there and couldn't catch air, so it was the rhino I had to ride.Originally Posted by Schmedlap
I had all my mags fully loaded (8). Another officer saw me and started to chukle. I asked him (who happened to be overweight looking by the way) what he was laughing at. He looked at my gear and shrugged. I said well the last time I was out I emptied all my mags and only had 5. He assumed (you know what they say about ass-uming) that because I was on the rhino I must be some fobbit who was enamored with gear. His response was, how is that, who are you with. I said I got a TT at FOB Loyalty, who are you with? He said "oh", and avoided me after that.
I know its off topic, but you reminded me of something I had forgotten about until I read you post.
Boot
Last edited by Boot; 05-31-2009 at 12:24 AM.
As usual, totally agree with Ken here. Furthermore, what is going on with an organization that needs to quantify its ethos?
"The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
-- Ken White
"With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap
"We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
ok ok ok a little history on the Warrior Ethos
I will leave the discussion as to the efficacy of the term "Warrior" as a one-word descriptor for what we want our Soldiers to embody to others...
However, I can offer a little history as back dialogue...
The Warrior Ethos was developed and furthered as part of TF Soldier, which itself was part of a series of initiatives launched by then newly installed CSA Schoomaker. The Task Forces were meant to identify gaps he and his staff identified during their transition... I don't think its a stretch to say that the gap the ethos was meant to address in part was largely spurred by the incident involving the Patriot Maintenance Company that got lost and captured without acquiting itself very well (remember PFC Lynch?)
It was determined that a separate culture had developed amongst non-combat arms troops (one that embraced the specialist skill at the expense of the basic soldier skills). As I'm sure all will note, an ethos/motto isn't the path to changing a culture... real change in initial entry, advanced individual, unit and PME is necessary - and the Army has made those types of changes in addition to the adoption of the Warrior Ethos.
Soldier Creed
I am an American Soldier.
I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade. I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.
Not exactly the stuff of rape and pillage...
Now for truth in advertising... I served with and didn't always see eye to eye with the GO who led TF Soldier... I thought him a very blunt instrument at times (a description he'd probably agree with and take pride in), and much debate occurred in which senior officers debated whether Warrior was the right label...
However, for my money... the benefits of the changes instituted by TF Soldier (to include the Warrior Ethos) far outweighed any perceived baggage regading a term.
Have fun storming the castle...
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
I can and do applaud -- have applauded -- the intent
but I disagreed vehemently with that 'warrior' bit at the time (and with the "Wounded Warrior," which IMO is even worse)...
They didn't hear me; probably wouldn't have listened if they'd been able to; and won't pay any attention now. I know that. Still think it was a bad choice, it's a dumb word to apply to Soldiers, etc.
How's that getting the CSS types to be interested in if not reveling in combat working out?
I acknowledge that many improvements have been made in our training in the last five years. I also believe many more are needed -- not least dumping that dumb Task, Condition and Standards lowest common denominator approach...
Warrior Ethos
Hacksaw brings up some great points; it's by no means a straw man argument.
But I do think the key line from the Soldiers Creed is:
"I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat." Basically the antithesis of COIN.
Destroying enemies of the U.S. in close combat is not the main objective for U.S. ground forces in the COIN environment.
Words have meaning. Don't call people Warriors if you want them to behave like pacifiers.
Why don't they just call it the Soldiers Ethos....and Army men should be Green not digital stuff
Possibly because Kipling had already written one and they didn't like the last verse.
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Actually I beg to differ. This is exactly what's wrong with current "flavour of COIN" some are advocating.
Defeating the enemy either in close combat or by stand-off methods is the essential military contribution to COIN. If this requirement did not exist then COIN could be performed by policeman.
COIN is WARFARE! It's primary mechanism is killing and captureing - in some cases, so as to contribute to the security of the population. It is in no way the antithesis of COIN. If you are not skilled in killing and capturing the enemy, he will merely seek to do the same to you, or the population.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
COIN is a more subtle kind of warfare, that is primarily political in nature. Galula stresses a xerox machine is more powerful in COIN than a machine gun...a pediatrician more valuable than a mortar expert. GEN Chirelli stressed that there was direct correlation between violence and garbage pick up. It's an environment where Soldiers shooting up the Koran on camera is a more devastating set back than losing a whole Brigade in combat. I'm not pretending we don't need to be trained to inflict violence in the effort to protect the population, and I agree the Police take on a greater role in COIN, but I'm adamant that the 'kill/capture' takes a less prominent role - and wonder if the new paradigm is best characterized by the word Warrior. I was in awe of the bravery and selflessness of guys & gals I served with in Iraq and they did have something special that other Soldiers should emulate. I think we need to strive to build reverence around the word 'Soldier' the way the USMC has created around the word 'Marine,' and respecting other cultures and protecting noncombatants should be part of the new ethos. Not because its nice, but because it's key to winning in COIN.
I'm glad this was identified as an issue and appreciate the steps taken to correct it, for sure. I'm not sure that requiring an extra plastic dog tag and a credit card-sized reminder of this creed has changed anyone's actual conduct in the midst of battle, though.
"The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
-- Ken White
"With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap
"We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks