Warrior Ethos

[Uboat509]

Maybe it's because I come from a combat arms background, or maybe it's because I am a registered cynic but I have never seen the point of all this "warrior" stuff. It reminds of those cheesy corporate motivational posters that one sees around office buildings, an eagle soaring majestically in a clear blue sky with the caption "vision", or a colony of ants building a nest with the caption "teamwork." It may be interesting for about the first fifteen minutes after it goes up but then it just fades into the background and becomes little more than decoration. I don't believe for a second that changing PLDC to the "Warrior Leaders Course" or making Joe memorize the "Warrior Creed" has turned anyone into a warrior. The goal was admirable, model it after the Marine Corps where every Marine is an infantryman first and whatever job second. But the Marine Corps is an entirely different culture from top to bottom. Trying to recreate that culture across the board in the Army is just beating your head against a wall. I don't worry about the Warrior Ethos having a negative effect on the Army simply because I don't really expect it to have any effect at all.

SFC W

[slapout9]

Maybe it's because I come from a combat arms background, or maybe it's because I am a registered cynic but I have never seen the point of all this "warrior" stuff. It reminds of those cheesy corporate motivational posters that one sees around office buildings, an eagle soaring majestically in a clear blue sky with the caption "vision", or a colony of ants building a nest with the caption "teamwork." It may be interesting for about the first fifteen minutes after it goes up but then it just fades into the background and becomes little more than decoration. I don't believe for a second that changing PLDC to the "Warrior Leaders Course" or making Joe memorize the "Warrior Creed" has turned anyone into a warrior. The goal was admirable, model it after the Marine Corps where every Marine is an infantryman first and whatever job second. But the Marine Corps is an entirely different culture from top to bottom. Trying to recreate that culture across the board in the Army is just beating your head against a wall. I don't worry about the Warrior Ethos having a negative effect on the Army simply because I don't really expect it to have any effect at all.

SFC W

Agree 100% they are not warriors they are American Soldiers! and Army Men should be Green not Digital.....I feel mo better now.

[120mm]

While I think I already commented on this thread, though am being crushed at school so badly I won't reread it, last week I bumped into a couple fellow warriors. We recognized each other almost instantly, immediately went into the butt-sniffing routine and became fast friends. Despite never having seen each other before.

I'm still convinced that warriors are rarer than the Army corporate culture recognizes, and that a "real" warrior shares the common viewpoint that war is "fun", enemy contact is nearly erotic in the level of pleasure it produces and that subduing a worthy enemy is so desirable to subsume in importance normal people's desire for food or sex.

And no amount of sloganeering can turn a non-warrior into one. One of the guys I spoke to is convinced that true warrior-hood is a mild form of psychopathy.

[Kiwigrunt]

I think I get what you're saying. A more politically correct person than myself (in some circles referred to as gun-fearing wussies) might have some issues with the work 'mild' though

[William F. Owen]

One of the guys I spoke to is convinced that true warrior-hood is a mild form of psychopathy.

Well to my mind that nails the lid on the coffin of the idea of Warriors. The requisites are courage and determination, not a lack of empathy, or an inability to be able to tell right from wrong.

I can't get my head around why anyone would wish to be called a Warrior - because that's the implied purpose - "I am a Warrior." - especially when the kid next to you in the fire fight is some 19-year-old 57E or 92G, and is returning fire, and filling magazines same as you.

When we call tanks "Broom broom boxes," perhaps we can call soldiers "Bang Bang men," - and that day may not be far off.....

[Ken White]

When we call tanks "Broom broom boxes," perhaps we can call soldiers "Bang Bang men," - and that day may not be far off.....

But you knew that...

[Hacksaw]

You wrote, "What particular warrior ethos or creed was targeted as the model for the Warrior's Creed ?"

To be honest, I'm not sure... work was done at Benning while I was positioned in VA, but if I were to guess... determination and courage (with an edge) were without doubt the qualities they thought the term embodied... Important to note that the lead sled dog was a pretty edgy guy with the nickname "The Freak"

I do think it is important to note (one last time) that the warrior creed was not the only change implemented by TF Soldier... I don't think anyone thought a creed and some naming conventions were the solution... PLDC does not equal the Warrior Leader Course... it was changed - conducted almost entirely in the field...all newly promoted LTs attend BOLC II... Field training for all regardless of branch before arriving at their Branch course...

IET changed also...

We can debate whether enough has been done, but it is unfair to characterize the Army's response as new jingle and naming convention...

Reed... The Army approach was to try to a specific level and that the remaining training was supposed to be completed at the unit... that works until the Army is at war and Soldiers are in combat within a week of arriving at the unit... hence adding and focusing on warrior tasks as paramount in IET...

Although I'm sure it sounds to the contrary, I'm not a TRADOC apologist... but it appears that most of the comments on this thread are based on "dated" experiences... is TRADOC bloated - probably but not to the extent anyone here may recall, the same can be said about CAC and the Branch Schools... most of that fat was trimmed long ago... they've been replaced by contractors and DACs...

I'll shut up now

Live well and row

[jmm99]

thanks for the response. You should shut up less often.

Soldier vs warrior (with warrior being the broader category - "one who wages war") is not merely a matter of semantics; but has possible legal implications in defining regular and irregular combatants.

Here are some words that could be associated with

- regular combatants (e.g., those clearly under GC III (GPW), Art. 4 et seq.): professional, regular, uniformed, trained, organized, authorized, disciplined ....

and with

- irregular combatants (e.g., those not clearly under GC III (GPW), Art. 4 et seq.): amateur, irregular, non-uniformed, untrained, unorganized, unauthorized, undisciplined ....

These same concepts also enter into formation of ROEs and targeting decisions (that is, is the rule based on the status of the target - easy to determine for regular combatants; difficult for irregular combatants - or on the conduct of the target, as in the SROEs absent a designated hostile force).

What the Army intended to create with its Warrior Ethos concept is not very clear from its "Information Statements" on the Soldier's Creed and the Warrior Ethos. As to the latter:

What is it?

The Warrior Ethos is a set of principles by which every Soldier lives. In a broader sense, the Warrior Ethos is a way of life that applies to our personal and professional lives as well. They define who we are and who we aspire to become.
....
Why is this important to the Army?

These principles bind us to those who served before us. The Warrior Ethos was present at Cowpens, Lundy’s Lane, Chapultepec, Little Round Top, San Juan Hill, Montfaucon, Krinkelt, Chipyong-ni, Dak To and Iraq. By adhering and holding fast to these principles, our Soldiers will maintain this ethos for those who will come after us.

So, based on what the Army says, the model is what the Army (its soldiers) have done in past wars, from the RW to the present. Taken in that sense, it has nothing to do with the "Noble Savage" (ala Rousseau) or the warriors of that genre (whether Shaka or Crazy Horse).

What the Army seems to be driving at may be inferred from this:

... every Soldier is a leader, responsible for what happens in his or her presence regardless of rank. They will value learning and adaptability at every level, particularly as it contributes to initiative: creating situations for an adversary, rather than reacting to them. They will learn that the Army’s culture is one of selfless service, a warrior culture rather than a corporate one.

If one uses Brian Linn's terminology (from Echo of Battle - which I just read and will have to re-read, following COL Gentile's advice) - Heroes and Managers - the Warrior Ethos may be an expression of the Heroic concept vs the Managerial Concept (as in the bolded quote).

(IMO) It strikes me that whatever time was spent on the Warrior Ethos could have been better spent in distinguishing between regular and irregular combatants and the means and methods to be used re: each category.

-------------------------
You actually carry that 2x4 around all the time ? That would put you into the "Warrior Class" ala Rousseau

[jmm99]

as Wilf oft reminds us. So, what does "warrior" mean - etymologically speaking ?

warrior
1297, from O.N.Fr. werreieor (O.Fr. guerreor) "a warrior, one who wages war," from werreier "wage war," from werre (see war).

Now, this seems pretty straight forward - though so broad as to not provide much specificity (other than to define implicitly a "non-warrior" as "one who does not wage war"). So, the term "warrior" does not distinguish professional vs amateur, lifer vs citizen-soldier, regular vs irregular, uniformed vs non-uniformed, trained vs untrained, organized vs unorganized, authorized vs unauthorized, etc.

Perhaps, we can gain insight by following the bouncing ball to "war":

war
late O.E. (c.1050), wyrre, werre, from O.N.Fr. werre "war" (Fr. guerre), from Frank. *werra, from P.Gmc. *werso (cf. O.S. werran, O.H.G. werran, Ger. verwirren "to confuse, perplex"). Cognates suggest the original sense was "to bring into confusion." There was no common Gmc. word for "war" at the dawn of historical times. O.E. had many poetic words for "war" (guð, heaðo, hild, wig, all common in personal names), but the usual one to translate L. bellum was gewin "struggle, strife" (related to win). Sp., Port., It. guerra are from the same source; Romanic peoples turned to Gmc. for a word to avoid L. bellum because its form tended to merge with bello- "beautiful." The verb meaning "to make war on" is recorded from 1154. First record of war time is 1387. Warpath (1775) is from N.Amer. Ind., as are war-whoop (1761), war-paint (1826), war-path (1775), and war-dance (1757). War crime first attested 1906. War chest is attested from 1901; now usually fig. War games translates Ger. Kriegspiel (see kriegspiel).

Using the original meaning in an expansion, we find a "warrior" is "one who wages a bringing into confusion". And, based on most comments above, use of the term "warrior" in the Warrior Ethos has been true to its definition - a cause of confusion.

On a more serious note, we can alter the definition a bit to define a "warrior" as "one who participates in the confusion that we call war". There is more than a bit of CvC in that - perhaps a Jungian ancestral memory of his ancestors' use of the P.Gmc. *werso. So, while we correctly think of our word "war" as coming immediately from the Romance, as in Foch, Des Principles de la Guerre; it ultimately goes back to the Proto-Germanic concept of a state of confusion.

Do we do better by bringing in the word "win" (the descendent of the medieval Germanic translation of bellum):

win (v.)
fusion of O.E. winnan "struggle for, work at, strive, fight," and gewinnan "to gain or succeed by struggling, to win," both from P.Gmc. *wenwanan (cf. O.S. winnan, O.N. vinna, O.Fris. winna, Du. winnen "to gain, win," Dan. vinde "to win," O.H.G. winnan "to strive, struggle, fight," Ger. gewinnen "to gain, win," Goth. gawinnen "to suffer, toil"). Perhaps related to wish, or from PIE *van- "overcome, conquer." Sense of "to be victorious" is recorded from c.1300. The noun in O.E. meant "labor, strife, conflict;" modern sense of "a victory in a game or contest" is first attested 1862, from the verb. Breadwinner (see bread) preserves the sense of "toil" in O.E. winnan. Phrase you can't win them all (1954) first attested in Raymond Chandler.

Here we have some reality; whether "win or lose" (in our modern sense") - or to reach a settlement viewed as an acceptable result (this one for you, Ken), the result involves a precedent "struggle" (as in CvC's wrestling contest). So, "one who paticipates in that confusion that we call war" could be fairly termed a "winner" - but not necessarily a WINNER.

The more acceptable alternative for "warrior" (from the above comments) is "soldier":

soldier (n.)
c.1300, from O.Fr. soudier "one who serves in the army for pay," from M.L. soldarius "a soldier" (cf. It. soldato and Fr. soldat "soldier," which is borrowed from It.), lit. "one having pay," from L.L. soldum, from acc. of L. solidus, a Roman gold coin (see solidus). The verb meaning "to serve as a soldier" is first recorded 1647; to soldier on "persist doggedly" is attested from 1954.

The soldier of the 1300s could have been a mercenary (many were); but the revival of the term (in Latin, harkening back to the paid legions) was mainly due to the formation of regular, standing units because of the Hundred Years' War - e.g., the French ordinance companies.

Therein lies the problem with the etymology of the "Warrior Ethos" - it broadly encompasses too many categories: professional vs amateur, lifer vs citizen-soldier, regular vs irregular, uniformed vs non-uniformed, trained vs untrained, organized vs unorganized, authorized vs unauthorized, etc.

This is a problem not only in military ethics, but also in the Laws of Wars defining the regular combatant and the irregular combatant. Which is my interest in the question.

------------------------
I do have a question that perhaps Hacksaw or someone can answer.

What particular warrior ethos or creed was targeted as the model for the Warrior's Creed ?

Todd and I bnriefly discussed this topic last pool season - he thought North American Indian and the people who fought them (but then that's his focus in history).

Hard to put together an ethos, creed, culture, etc. unless you identify the model.