Warrior Ethos

[CPT Foley]

I read an article a few years back by a British General who raised concern that the U.S. Army's Warrior Ethos may be counterproductive in the COIN environment - that it reinforces the 'kill-capture' culture. I didn't give it that much thought, but when I was reading Galula's "Pacification of Algeria", he was adamant that that last guys he wanted in his command were 'warriors.' For anyone who has been in combat we know the attitude of courage and can-do spirit we want around us, and we generally consider them - warriors. But I think both men are on to something. I don't think we are looking to mold kinder & gentler Soldiers, but rather Soldiers who have better appreciation for non-kinetic methods. Revising the some of our bedrock tenets/creeds may be in order. It's a sensitive subject because of the intense pride involved, but I think it is worthy of consideration.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by CPT Foley

But I think both men are on to something. I don't think we are looking to mold kinder & gentler Soldiers, but rather Soldiers who have better appreciation for non-kinetic methods. Revising the some of our bedrock tenets/creeds may be in order. It's a sensitive subject because of the intense pride involved, but I think it is worthy of consideration.

I think the problem here is the very idea of a "Warrior." Silly word. Do not use it.

[CPT Foley]

I do worry the word conjures up images of raping & pillaging, or at least killing over pacifying, i.e., not the best word to convey what we want from Soldiers. I prefer a Soldiers Ethos.

[Ken White]

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.

[Schmedlap]

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.

[IntelTrooper]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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.

As usual, totally agree with Ken here. Furthermore, what is going on with an organization that needs to quantify its ethos?

[Hacksaw]

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...

[Ken White]

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...

[IntelTrooper]

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

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...

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.

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.

[CPT Foley]

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.

[slapout9]

Why don't they just call it the Soldiers Ethos....and Army men should be Green not digital stuff

[marct]

Originally Posted by slapout9

Why don't they just call it the Soldiers Ethos

Possibly because Kipling had already written one and they didn't like the last verse .

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by CPT Foley

"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.

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.

[CPT Foley]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

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.

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.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by CPT Foley

COIN is a more subtle kind of warfare, that is primarily political in nature.

All warfare is political. Read Clausewitz. Dead civilians are a political problem, not a moral one. There is only one kind of WAR and very few types of warfare.

Galula stresses a xerox machine is more powerful in COIN than a machine gun...a pediatrician more valuable than a mortar expert.

A Paediatrician is only useful if he produces political effect. If he treats kids and everyone still hates you, his work is useless.

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.

So a video on Youtube has greater political effect than 3,000 casualties in 24 hours? Seriously?

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.

There is no new Paradigm. FACT. Nothing you are doing in COIN is new or hasn't been done by other armies. Regardless of the frequency you actually do it, Killing and Capturing, or gain advantage from it's threat, is still your primary function. It's what militaries do.

... 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.

You do not need to respect the culture or protect noncombatants to win in COIN. Your actions should merely not needlessly create enemies, and you only need to protect those civilians relevant to the mission.

I'm not trying to be a hard ass here, but everything you are saying is symptomatic of the "new COIN" that seeks to portray it as something other than what it is. It is not armed social work, or summed up with silly expressions like "hearts and minds." It is a form of warfare.

[slapout9]

I think there is supposed to be a third aspect in COIN..... it's kill,capture or convert to your side.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by slapout9

I think there is supposed to be a third aspect in COIN..... it's kill,capture or convert to your side.

True, but also true in many forms of warfare. Major grouping changing allegiance is usually fixed in the political domain.

[reed11b]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

True, but also true in many forms of warfare. Major grouping changing allegiance is usually fixed in the political domain.

Darn beat me too it..I was going to say "if they convert, there no longer your enemy now are they?"
Reed

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

True, but also true in many forms of warfare. Major grouping changing allegiance is usually fixed in the political domain.

Me thinks it is true in all warfare,conversion just has a higher ratio of activity compared to the others in COIN.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by slapout9

Me thinks it is true in all warfare,conversion just has a higher ratio of activity compared to the others in COIN.

That might be debatable in an historical context. The Vietnam war was State v State yet over 120,000 defected, and a substantial number of those were NVA. The Korean War also similar - but I take your point!