Army Warriors*

*But always consult the Definitions Section

The Army has a new field manual that explains what the Army is and what it does. It is intended for new soldiers. I'm okay with calling our troops "warriors"—as long as you consult the Definitions Section.

I wrote not long ago that America doesn't need warriors in the Army. It need soldiers:

I have been guilty of using the term "warrior" for our troops properly focused on fighting rather than distractions. But even when you advocate for a "warrior" mindset don't become confused and get literal about this rather than wanting well-trained and -equipped soldiers.

And here comes the Army in its new field manual calling for warriors. But it's okay. There is a definition:

Since the dawn of humanity, there has been war, and there have been warriors. In recent centuries the warriors of many advanced nations—including ours—have professionalized. The next chapter will dig into what being a professional in our vocation means, as it comes with high standards.

And being a professional helps make effective soldiers and protects their souls:

You are duty-bound to act honorably and ethically. You must also be a fighter and demand that your Soldiers are fighters too.

Once professionalism is set aside to act dishonorably or unethically, the other high standards of a soldier—an American fighter—falter, too. Professionalism dies. Now you are a warrior again, and just another killer on the battlefield.

Don't let our troops come home from battlefields as killers rather than as soldiers:

Fighting within the rules of war and under the rules of engagement enables our troops to come home with their heads held high as defenders of our country rather than as war criminals.

So I'm not going to complain. It's okay because professionalized warriors are soldiers. As I often say, always consult the Definitions Section.

Carry on. Under the high standards, of course.