Is it my imagination, or has the trump regime been pushing the term “warfighters” for our troops? I don’t like it from a regime that obsesses about territorial expansion.
It’s been bog-standard DoD official terminology since before the Gulf War. IIRC it appeared somewhere between Bush I & Bush II.
Now whether it’s been emphasized recently I can’t say. You’d have to do a time series on articles published, speeches made, etc. Google nGram is seemingly good for this but it’s not a tool I’ve ever used; just one I’ve seen cited here. So I can’t advise you how to use it.
It’s a stock word in the Military-Industrial Complex and has been for decades, but it does seem to be more prominent in the administration’s overall messaging than I would have expected.
Some of it is Hegseth being a newsworthy and notable putz while continuously attempting to disguise himself as a genuine Defense insider.
I don’t know how relevant it might be as an indicator of future activity. Actual warfighters don’t call themselves that.
I’m pretty sure that it’s a service and gender neutral collective noun that can be used instead of having to specifically call out “Soldiers”, “Sailors”, “Airmen”, and “Marines”, or “Airwomen”, “Airpeople”, whatever. Plus, it sounds kind of macho and gets the point across that they’re people who fight wars on behalf of the nation.
“Troops”, which is the closest analogue from back-when, is still pretty Army-centric.
Maybe it’s a way for Trump to differentiate members of the military from the “suckers” and “losers” he mocked and derided.
Nobody ever heard him deride ‘warfighters,’ right?
Right??
How progressive of them to use it then. Equitably Inclusive of all the Diversity in the armed forces.
Using a term like that makes it sound like war is as inevitable as something as common as fires (firefighters). The collective term used to be service persons or “men and women in uniform” “Warfighters” just makes them sound like weapons. That is definitely a term with an agenda.
This is not new, at least not for service-members and veterans; I served in the Navy from '02 to '07 and I recall hearing it all the time back then.
The word just irks me when it comes out of Kegbreath and that pugnacious little press secretary.
I’ve had a little bit of a fascination with army MREs ever since I did some production artwork on their packaging as a graphic artist in the late 80s, and was given a couple. Since then I’ve sometimes purchased them for camping. Their slogan on the package has long been “Warfighter tested, warfighter approved”.
This is a clue to the provenance of the word.
It’s bureaucratese for the users and consumers of the products of the miltary bureaucracy. Really big in the Acquisitions bureaucracy, which is the interface of the military that snugs right up against the “Industry” part of the Military Industrial Complex.
As I said, rarely used by the actual warfighters to describe themselves. And often considered a shibboleth of being a Defense insider, which (I’ll say again) is the reason Hegseth and his minions continue to parrot the word as if its use would convince anyone they actually belong anywhere within 4 miles of the Pentagon.
Within DoD it’s definitely meant to distinguish between the “tooth” and the “tail”.
The warfighters are the actual tooth. Not the 10x-15x larger logistical & bureaucratic tail that supports the teeth.
These days I hear it as a dog whistle that “we don’t want girls, girly boys, boys that are girls, girls that are boys, goddamn it, we want WARFIGHTERS.”
Personally, I’d prefer they be called “peacekeepers”. Kick-ass peacekeepers.
I don’t think it’s ever been meant that way. I’ve always understood it to be what I was describing- more of a service and gender neutral term to describe military people in a way that’s a bit macho/bravado-ish. Military personnel sounds bureaucratic, but “warfighters” sounds a lot more macho by comparison.
Do they really distinguish between say… tank crews and logistics specialists by calling one “warfighters” and not the other?
“…Always should be someone you really love.”
What is the difference between a “warfighter” and a “warrior”, then? Number of teeth?
“The Marine Corps does not want robots. The Marine Corps wants killers. The Marine Corps wants to build indestructible men, men without fear.”
I now have a new nickname for that pathetic, addled, sack of hypocrisy. Thank you.
See also: having camo be your everyday office/shipboard oufit; giving black berets to the whole Army.
As mentioned, it really had been used more as a term “in the trade” for years. That we seem to be hearing it a lot more now is a reflection of how Hegseth throws it out every other sentence, as a branding thing.
In the old days on the History Channel, I noticed how R Lee Ermey and other narrators would us “the Bad Guys” instead of “the enemy.”