The Cult of the Warrior

Warfighters Are Us

In July 2010, I wrote a short article for Huffington Post on the U.S. military’s embrace of the warrior ethos and identity. It struck me then (as now) that warrior mystique is wildly inappropriate to an all-volunteer force that supports and defends the U.S. Constitution. America’s troops are supposed to be citizen-soldiers of a republic, not warriors of a militaristic state like Sparta or Prussia. Yet this warrior identity, together with the idea of U.S. troops as “warfighters,” is almost unquestioned within America. More than that: it’s deeply respected.

I was surprised when the article generated over 600 comments at Huff Post, though I can no longer see those comments at the site. I remember being encouraged by the debate, as some readers upheld the warrior ideal even as others agreed with me that it was contrary (and corrosive) to democratic concepts.

Nothing has really changed in fourteen years. The U.S. military is still engorged with money, still deployed globally, and still promulgating these warrior codes even as military contractors boast of serving America’s “warfighters,” as if it’s a wonderful thing for our troops to be fighting somewhere and anywhere (and I suppose it is, for those that profit from war and selling weapons).

Addendum: I wanted to add my response to a reader’s comment here:

Your focus on the importance of the law is vitally important. A warrior exists to wage war; in his life, the law doesn't matter. But a citizen-soldier is a citizen first; in becoming a soldier, he remains a citizen of a republic based on law.

For a warrior, might makes right is the law; the mantra is "I must follow orders, for I am a warrior." For a citizen-soldier, it's right makes might, where questioning orders is desirable and disobeying them is permissible when those orders are morally and legally wrong.

Thus the warrior ethos is perfect for sustaining genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Here’s my short article, unchanged from 2010:

Our Military's Disturbing Transition to Warriors

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.

By William Astore, Contributor

Writer, History Professor, Retired Lieutenant Colonel (USAF)

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?