Warrior Ethos

[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