Comment by silisili
1 day ago
Not to intentionally sidetrack the conversation, but when did we start calling service members 'warfighters?'
I've been seeing it a lot lately, but don't remember ever really seeing it before. Do members of the military prefer this title?
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4339
The reason that no one involved in the game's development objected to the word "warfighter" is that the U.S. Defense Department has used "warfighter" as a standard term for military personnel since the late 1980s or early 1990s: Thus Earl L. Wiener et al., Eds. Human Factors in Aviation, 1988
Warfighter is literally the Department of War's Amazonian or Googler or any other cringe term you'd see in company PR or recruiting material.
Department of Defense*.
‘Department of War’ is merely an authorised second name for the department, but legally it remains the Department of Defense until/if Congress changes it.
Based on this and several other of your responses below, would you say that it's fair to conclude that it's been a term for a long time, perhaps more in military/defense circles, but recently has gotten more mainstream media use?
I find it otherwise peculiar some feel like it appeared out of thin air, while others feel like it's always been a thing.
In my experience, yes, has always been a thing.
It isn't a new thing at all, and the term has been around for a while. I was an Infantryman from 05-08 and heard it back then. I have also more recently been a defense contractor. I don't think members of the military prefer any title, honestly. In the most broad sense, good terms are soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. Defense Contractors constantly refer to the military as "warfighter" and have for a while. In short, nobody in the military is going to flinch one way or the other if you use either term. Just don't call marines anything but marines.
> Just don't call marines anything but marines.
I thought the marines were just the ones in the navy that couldn’t stop eating the crayons? :P
Interesting, I guess I have less exposure not being in defense or military circles. Thank you for the level response.
They want to make sure the whole Diversity of our armed forces (soldiers, sailors, marines, …) feel an Equitable and Inclusive share of the mention.
"Warfighters" has been used for decades to describe service members, though usage picked up (in my experience) some time in the late 00s or 2010s. It's actually pretty common to describe "serving the warfighter" for all the all the missions that support combat roles but aren't combat roles themselves.
I’ve always heard this term in use from a defense contractor
>in use from a defense contractor
That's exactly it.
It's trade jargon from those in the industry that make more money off of full-blown war than merely maintaining extreme readiness for a more secure defense.
It's a term that's been used at least back to the Bush 43 administration, probably older than that.
I always associate it with fighter aircraft
It's been controversial since 2002: https://bracingviews.com/2024/08/03/generation-warfighter-ne...
It has been in use for at least a decade, since the Obama administration if not earlier.
We have soldiers, sailors, airman/women, Marines (who really do not like being called soldiers), Coast Guardsman/women, and now the Space Force. Granted, I do not know why "service member" did not catch on. Perhaps because "warfighter" is a bit shorter.
> Granted, I do not know why "service member" did not catch on. Perhaps because "warfighter" is a bit shorter.
Yeah, it's basically this. "service member" is clunky, like saying "person with enlistment".
Warfighter has its own issues as a descriptor but it at least rolls off the tongue better and is easier to read through in policy and regulation to the millions in the DoD.
Around the time Hegseth was appointed secretary of war. It's a trump thing.
Edit: so it's been around for longer, but the Trump regime seems to love it bigly so I'm sticking with my observation.
It's a trump regime thing.
this is false, it's been around for a while
Been around yes but the popularization of the term is entirely from low tier war hawks who think force and aggression and violence is a virtue.
No it's 100% these idiots pushing their fascist propaganda just like they tried to "rename" the Department of Defense to the Department of War. Most members of the military never even see actual fighting.
4 replies →
[flagged]
How often was the term used before last year?
6 replies →
Your response seems a bit aggressive.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
It's a Hegseth malapropism, which is why it's slightly disturbing that Dario continues to use it.
edit: To be clear, Hegseth didn't create it, merely has popularized its use recently. Eg his speech at Quantico last Sept
"I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new."
The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s.
It is so clearly being used to a much greater and more deliberate degree during this administration. Pretending otherwise is foolish
2 replies →
> "I learned the word a week ago therefore it is new."
This isn't true, and there's no need to flame and be disingenuous.
> The term—and its use in the now-Department of War—dates back to the late 80s.
Maybe you can provide evidence instead of restating the same claim that sibling comments to mine have made?
I've already admitted that it wasn't invented by Hegseth. My claim is that he is popularizing it. In fact, your comment further down agrees with this:
> It really isn't—it's all perception. Hegseth has a much more outgoing and public persona so it's more visible. Heck, can you even name the last 5 Secretaries that preceded him? I can't.
As you say, he has a much more public persona - as does his jingoistic rhetoric.
1 reply →