A subtle change has been happening right before the eyes of Americans. Our troops are being told they're no longer primarily citizen-soldiers or citizen-airmen; they're being told they're warriors. Indeed, they're reminded of this linguistic turn in "creeds" that many of them (and often their families) display with pride.
Here's an excerpt from the new Airman's Creed (2007):
"I am an American Airman.
I am a Warrior.
I have answered my nation's call.
I am an American Airman.
My mission is to fly, fight, and win.
I am faithful to a proud heritage,
a tradition of honor,
and a legacy of valor."
The Army's Soldier's Creed (2003) makes the same point about the need to be a warrior first and foremost.
Now, some would say there's nothing wrong with this. Our troops are at war. Don't we want them to have a strong warrior ethos?
The historian (and retired citizen-airman) in me says "no," and I'm supported in this by a surprising source: An American army pamphlet from World War II with the title "How the Jap Army Fights." After praising the Japanese for their toughness and endurance, the pamphlet, citing a study by Robert Leurquin, makes the following point:
"The Japanese is more of a warrior than a military man, and therein lies his weakness. The difference may be a subtle one, but it does exist: The essential quality of the warrior is bravery; that of the military man, discipline."
In 1942, our army cited the "warring passion" of the Japanese as a weakness, one that inhibited their mastery of "the craft of arms." Yet today, our army and air force extol the virtues of being a "warrior" to young recruits.
Today's cult of the warrior, as represented by these new "creeds," may seem cosmetic, but it cuts to the core of our military's self-image. That most Americans have no knowledge of it speaks volumes about the ongoing militarization of our language and even of our country.
After nearly a decade of war, we don't need more "warrior ethos." What we need are disciplined citizen-airmen and citizen-soldiers who know their craft, but who also know better than to revel in a warrior identity. We knew this in 1942; how did we come to forget it?
Professor Astore currently teaches History at the Pennsylvania College of Technology in Williamsport, PA. He writes regularly for TomDispatch.com and can be reached at wjastore@gmail.com.
I disagree with your post because you chose to define the warrior ethos in very narrow terms. Using such a narrow definition has led to misunderstanding about the Army’s warrior ethos and its value.
In describing your concern about embracing the warrior culture you define the warrior culture using a pamphlet from WWII instead of how the Army defines the Warrior Ethos. You equate warrior ethos with warring passion. The warrior ethos is more than undisciplined warring passion. The warrior ethos is an all-encompassing mindset that involves discipline, mental fortitude, and commitment to our nation and its values. As a commander in Iraq it was the warrior ethos mindset that enabled my company to succeed. It was the warrior ethos instilled in my Soldiers that allowed us to conduct patrols hours after being hit with a suicide bomber.
If you look at the Army’s definition for warrior ethos (FM 3-21.75) you would see that your concern over the warrior ethos is misguided. You would see that the values you feel we are losing by emphasizing a warrior ethos are not being lost but, instead, forged. You would see that Soldiers who extol the virtues of being a warrior are disciplined citizen-soldiers knowledgeable in their craft.
Michael Williams
MAJ
ILE 10-003
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.
Since 1940 the USA has been at war with one country or another...........here is Mr. Butler to tell us why!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0
Discipline is NOT about slavery. It's about walling off one's wartime performance from one's civilian life, so that troops can be demobilized and return to the real world after war. What we've lost is that in a volunteer army, most people never share the burdens of war. A warrior culture doesn't help us in this regard; it takes those who volunteered as citizens and transforms them into permanent fighting forces, which our history did NOT want or even tolerate.
What we need is to return to the way that war was fought by America through its history: a SMALL corps of professional officers and troops, expanded during wartime by volunteers and indeed by conscripts (draftees) where needed, so that no one is pulling too much of the weight. War is indeed a burden and it must be shared.
What planet are you living on? This very ethos is what "does" make young men (AND WOMEN, what *century* are you living in?) into pieces of meat (cannon fodder).
You think we're not fighting "for survival" RIGHT NOW?? We need to get out of both Iraq (where we should never have been in the first place) AND Afghanistan, where out reason for being there has long since degenerated into something unrecognizable.
I am an airmen,
I am a piece of meat used to make money for Halliburton
My life means nothing because I am not wealthy
I throw myself down on land mines to make more profits for the coffin maker.
So many instances of totally innocent people being tasered and pepper sprayed in the face, - and as far as I can see, no repercussions for the police.
There real problem; the military doesn't have any senior officers that are "Warriors".
Thanks to Wikileaks (and as analyzed stingingly today by Democracy Now and Ring of Fire) our military leaders and the W administration told us whatever lies they could come up with in order to go to war, knowing the real reasons would never garner our support.
The very inept and self-serving W administration, had varied interests: W by the desire to even old family scores and Cheney and Rummy to gain oil control. Without our war on Iraq, oil contracts to companies in which C & R owned huge blocks of shares in would have ended up going to Russia, France, and Japan.
And you know what that means -- C & R would have lost a lot of $$, but by using dumb-dumb's fetish to get Saddam they could make millions. So American sons and daughters were sacrificed for C & R, and the devastating costs were dumped on us.
The question now is, where in the hell is Barack headed? Is he gonna see the gig is up, or is he going to be as stupid as W was or as ill-informed as Johnson?
(A bit more just below in my repsonse to Jamie)
It seems to me that, while much of your analysis is essentially correct, your conclusions should be that we want the President to do what is best for AMERICA -- and that the reason we have a president at all is because we expect that he'll do a more thorough job of knowing the options that you or I or any of us could.
I didn't reach a conclusion, however, but rather a question of whether Barack will rise to doing the right/best thing or has he too succumbed to the power brokers, the war-business profiteers, who will lose huge $ contracts if war goes away (i.e., the end of their income and their nice comfy world).
As for Barack knowing more that us, certainly he does. The question is whether he is going to reshape that knowledge and the truth into a false line like W fed us? It seems that that has been his course so far and if not, he really needs to demonstrate that he hasn't -- else you and I may have to go with the appearance -- which isn't too good.