Well, Tacsit's personal conceptions of his own status aside, I think there are some interesting issues that need to be addressed here. Since I was away for a bit, you'll have to bear with me while I retrace the argument.
Tacsit:
Your arguments have a flaw however. You mistakenly assume that because previous warrior cultures (or sub-sects of certain societies) were beaten by groupings of professional soldiers, it is due solely to the fact that one group saw itself as professional soldiers, and the other saw themselves as warriors.
I don't see the central thesis to my argument proposed this way; if that's how you want to interpret it, then you should go over my post again. The point I argued is that societies that adopted a "warrior's" outlook on conflict and organized their culture towards that end have been constantly outfought by societies that adopted the outlook of war as an organized form of human interaction and applied rational approaches of professional techniques and organization to succeed; thus facilitating the creation of the profession of arms to master these outlooks. I never argued that "warriors" were beat because they saw themselves as warriors, rather I state that the defining feature of warrior societies is to view warfare as a highly personalized and individual affair, and I contend that this is an amateur view as opposed to the professional one that holds warfare as an organized activity.
For example, the samurai were defeated because they chose not to use firearms and thus train in their use and learn tactics suited to them, not because they were warriors. Yes, I know that it was because of their warrior beliefs that they chose not to use firearms, but that does not equate to them being warriors is why they failed, it equates to them not having a flexible viewpoint of warriordom being the reason they were defeated.
You place too much emphasis in the equipment fighters choose to use; the central issue is cultural and organizational. Samurai were defeated because their warrior outlook did not allow them to view warfare as an organized system of competing groups of people (with all the inherent ideas of tactics, casualties, terrain, etc). Rather, the "warrior" culture of the Samurai left them to view combat as an intensely personal thing, nearing a religious nature. They relished personal combat and felt social status was a central to the belonging to the warrior class. Even if the Samurai were flexible and chose to arm themselves with firearms, their "warrior" outlook did not give their sub-culture the ability to organize effectively to utilize the effects of a musket or rifle (or cannon or machine gun). A mounted Samurai, with his highly specialized weapons and armour, his high degree of training, and his code of
Bushido, was a force defined by a cultural system; a cultural system that was rendered irrelevant by the drilled and cohesive professional soldier.
What I do dispute is your notion that all warriors, "relish personal combat and glory for their subculture." That was true of the samurai. That was true of other warrior cultures. That is not true of me or my definition of a warrior.
You dispute my defintion of a central aspect of the "warrior" culture and yet admit that my definition can correctly describe the most prominent examples of warriors in history and that your definition of a warrior is different. Are you simply making up your own definition of the term warrior? Should the Army make a new slogan for you, the "Warrior of One"?
Obviously not. However, the reason I am disputing your opinions and claims of a "warrior culture" is that I believe you are taking an inappropriate approach into understanding where the best aspects of the profession of arms exhibited in modern military forces is derived from.
I think I can tell what your problem here is. You have completely skipped over my personal definition of warriodom, and applied historical examples to my character. That is absolutely incorrect and one could see that by checking my definition. I would also like to point out that I said that was my own definition.
No, you gave a quote from a book that was from a genre that derives heavily from historical aspects of warrior cultures. Going on the cut-and-pasted defintion you gave us, I could only assume that most of your ideas come from past warrior philosophies. If, as your claim, your definition of your own "warrior" status is vastly different then the others that have come before it, is it necessarily a warrior culture then?
Different people see things differently, but the way of the warrior how I see it is how I live my life. Your comment, "...their level of cohesion and teamwork is unmatched (they accomplish their missions as a team, if you didn't know that..." troubles me. You seem to believe that because I think I am a warrior I cannot work well in a team oriented setting. Why? Because the samurai worked as individual warriors? Because other previous warrior cultures did? I have news for you, I am not Samurai, nor do I label myself a warrior from any other culture. You said yourself, that central to the excellent of the modern soldier is his dedication to the, "...art and science of armed conflict." That's exactly what I have.
Yes, different people see things differently; but it does not change the fact that there are inherent characteristics of human activity (warfare included) which cross the boundaries of cultural interpration. No matter how "perfect" one's society may see its form of fighting culture, it can be easily outdone by another which organizes itself to understand and adapt around these inherent characteristics better. The reason I am drawing an issue with your statement is because you seem to have a confused and misrepresented idea of the nature of the profession of arms due to convoluted half-truths that many, who seem to delight in the fact that the "warrior culture" is en vogue. I am disputing this outlook because I believe that ascribing to the tenets of a "warrior" subculture only detracts from the professionalism of our military.
You state that you've
"met many soldiers, but not all of them are warriors." Going by your definition, they are not warriors because they do not dedicate themselves to turning a pen into a weapon and mastering all forms of martial combat. This is a dangerous attitude that is quite frankly, unprofessional. It leads to an elitist impression of one's own position within the military and breeds contempt for those perceived as "non-warriors." The ultimate result is a breakdown of discipline and cohesion, and a loss of the professionalism that deprives us of our excellence in the profession of arms.
Ultimately, it is professionalism that leads to excellence in the battle. Look at the Blackhawk pilots (some who perished), the PJ Combat Search and Rescue techs, and the others who took part in the Battle of Mogadishu. They were not warriors, especially by your definition of the term. They were professionals in all sense of the word, performing their tasks expertly for the professional goal of accomplishing the mission. Even Randy Shugart and Gary Gorden, who descended into the maelstrom to protect a downed helicopter, were not warriors; they were common men who personified the definition of the professional soldier, and ultimately gave their lives in doing so (which is not a trait unique to "warrior cultures"; I would contend that the threat of injury or death forces this mindset onto all who would enter into battle. Those who ignore it are simply unprofessional).
I consider myself prigileged enough to partake in the community of warriors, to learn from them, to dispense the miniscule amount of knowledge I have managed to attain over my brief time on this planet, and to enjoy the company of like minded people. I am no more, no less than those I protect. I would advise you to reread my previous post and stop applying historical definitions, attitudes, and cultural beliefs onto me, because you will find yourself, as you are now, way off the mark.
I don't question your motives, only your methods. You seek to build the abilities of an expert of the profession of arms, which is something we all wish to do. It is my opinion that by feeling that you can do so through adopting some (historically) unrealistic and ineffective mindset, building some snazzy gear, and taking a few weapons handling courses, you are ignoring the hallmark sacrifices that professionals must make. Perhaps your should put your little privately funded "green ops" warrior career on halt and march down to the local CFRC and sign a three year basic engagement. Perhaps after then, we'd be more interested in hearing your thoughts on the real nuts-and-bolts of the issue, the profession of arms.
Edit to add: BTW, the Spartans viewed themselves as warriors and citizen soldiers, not as our current definition of professional soldiers.
We don't really know how the "Spartan's viewed themselves" because they left scant historical records. You are subscribing to the Spartan myth, which was largely perpetuated because most of what we know of Sparta comes to us from those (mostly Athenians) who were critical of a free and open democratic system and saw the Spartan's martial system as the desired alternative.
In reality, the Spartans practiced warfare just like the rest of the Greeks, who by necessity moved from a formless mob of spearmen to a professional group of soldiers and sailors (the Athenian Navy should be included in this discussion) who made the profession of arms their calling in order to defeat invading Persians and expand the interests of their own
polis (city-state). Although I don't believe the Greeks were the first clear cut example of a professional fighting force in Western Civilization (that would be the Romans), the influence of Hellenic culture on the way Rome organized for war was so important that I felt it was necessary to include.
Travis:
I'd argue that your cut-and-pasted example has mixed elements of both "warrior" and "professional" into one definition and is historically incorrect. The statement, especially the last sentence, contains elements that were not inherent to any historical warrior societies. Although these societies may have been blessed from time-to-time with leaders possessing innate genius in conducting war, their pattern of believes and their warrior system was devoid of the ability to institutionalize this excellence through professionalization.
Armymedic:
Your defintion of the term "warrior" is heavily rooted upon the characteristics of courage and unshakable determination. These traits are essential for the success of the people you mentioned, but their application of these characteristics does not make them "warriors" or "professional soldiers". Rather, I would contend that these characteristics must be inculcated into fighters, whether they be warriors or professional soldiers, to be able to stand the psychological trauma that exists in armed combat.
Despite what some definitons, such as Tacsit's, which would attribute the personal traits of courage and determination to those soldiers who possess a "warrior spirit", I believe that this is incorrect. The warrior has no monopoly over these traits; a band of Samurai warriors can possess them to bravely charge a formed body of riflemen just as the professional soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, PPCLI, could risk encirclement by superior Chinese forces in order to hold a strategic hill at Kap'Yong in order to allow their fellow comrades to escape destruction.
Ghost:
You have attributed the status of warrior to those who excel at the profession of arms, which contains a variety of disciplines, not all of which deal directly with combat. Although "warrior" is a nice, symbolic word to attach to them, I feel it is historically incorrect and that these soldiers are
professionals.
The bottom line is, I'm not picking an argument with Tacsit's "warrior code" to try and come off as a history buff or to battle semantics with loosely defined words. I am doing this so that we may understand that excellence or failure for both individual soldiers and the units they serve in is dependent upon the motivation and ability to strive to maximize our professionalism.
Some may argue that a "warrior code" is the necessary tool to do so; I say no as it takes us down a dangerous road of unprofessionalism. This "elitism" and "warrior mentality" seems to have contributed to the breakdown in professionalism up and down the ranks in certain parts of our Airborne Regiment with the end result of Confederate Flags, burning NCO's vehicles, and orders to "shoot them between the skirt and the flip-flops" (If any who served in the Airborne feel this is an incorrect evaluation, please do correct me).
We need to understand that true "eliteness", true excellence, comes through development of the profession of arms that is guided through an effective and important professional ethos (what Whiskey attributed to as Honour). Only by doing this can we ensure that our excellence in the profession of arms is heading in the right direction, the direction of ensuring that
all soldiers of our Armed Forces are able to effectively contribute to victory in war.
. He is an asshat who deserves everything that has been heaped on to him.
