Should we call our soldiers "Warriors" or "Soldiers"?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:51:36 -0500

I was recently asked if we are to start referencing Today's Service Members as "warriors instead of Soldiers"? I am still calling them Soldiers. Am I wrong and haven't been briefed of this change? I understand the transition the Army was going thru but did it also include this change?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 5:01 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:01:07 -0500

SFC Private RallyPoint Member, I'm also using the term "Soldier." Can that possibly be wrong? I don't think so. "Warrior" may also apply, but if "they" try to stop people from using "Soldiers," I think "they" will fail.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Nov 3 at 2014 5:11 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:11:36 -0500

For us old guys, this issue has surfaced and resurfaced over the years and has been a topic of discussion over many a drink...

As I recall, the arguments against going from "soldier" to "warrior" is that warriors are typically individuals, not part of an organized group, who fight primarily for individual glory and honor, whereas as soldiers are disciplined individuals who are part of an organized unit that fights, not for individual glory and honor, but for a principled cause of a nation and its peoples.

It is OK for a soldier to have a "Warrior Ethos", but they need to remain soldiers, not warriors.

Response by SPC James Woods made Nov 3 at 2014 5:23 PM

SPC James Woods — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:23:05 -0500

In my opinion, a soldier is far removed and distinguished from a warrior. A warrior is past tense, they had their time. Warriors were limited in battle strategy and individual thinking. Today's soldier is better prepared for the difficult tasks they face. When I hear warrior I hear barbaric. When I hear soldier I hear civility.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 5:48 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:48:01 -0500

Nope. Too far in, too old, to change up titles. Besides, my Battle buddies tend to come unhinged when I refer to them as "Warrior companions." Drama. Whatever.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2014 5:56 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 17:56:53 -0500

Is that from a regulation? Or just someone's personal preference? I work in a TRADOC environment and according to the reg, we have to address them by their rank, by last name or by Warrior or Soldier.

Response by PFC Zanie Young made Nov 3 at 2014 6:09 PM

PFC Zanie Young — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 18:09:51 -0500

Once a soldier, always a soldier. I wasn't in a group of warriors.

Response by SGT Kyle Bickley made May 14 at 2018 10:11 PM

SGT Kyle Bickley — Mon, 14 May 2018 22:11:34 -0400

Simple, soldiers are well trained, organized units that respond to commands. Warriors are individualist, thus they die quickly. Lack discipline and unity.

Response by SGT Ron Cummings made Jul 10 at 2021 5:15 AM

SGT Ron Cummings — Sat, 10 Jul 2021 05:15:43 -0400

More committee bullshit. We are, and have been Soldiers. With all the challenges facing tomorrow's Army, I'm not sure where they found time to make this nonsense up.

Wow do I sound like an old man with a stick up his butt.