Warrior.

I despise this word. It has been deliberately chosen to reflect and extend an attitude quite different from peaceable attitudes of the past, concerning the military engagements our country has involved itself in. And it also sucks because it's being used for non-war participants like policemen.

It glorifies a fighting individual and removes him from reality. It pretends he's not still a regular person inside who will go back to a non-war life in a few years. The word Warrior means there's no draft, which requires all citizens to do their part, and it elevates the Warrior to a status that the regular citizen doesn't get. It hints that the Warrior is going to be more equal than others.

Who do I blame for this word? Writers! They're the ones firing the national imagination. They're the ones who write the presidents' speeches. They have the power to change what is, by slowly and subtly changing the national thinking. If George W. Bush had gone with the word Warthogs to describe men he sent to Iraq, we'd be calling many people Warthogs today.


Think of where you will find this word:

-- In the mouth of George Bush. He had a lot of work to build up the case for his wars so propagandist language like this was vital.

-- In Battlestar Galactica, the Original. This early, sillier version of the story included its own miles gloriosus in the character Starbuck, who was an utter fool. He frequently called himself a warrior. In the rewrite of the show twenty years later, the character of Starbuck was changed to be a woman, who was also self-destructive and a showoff, but someone who recognized (and willingly paid for) her own faults. The word "warrior" was never used to refer to the soldiers in the second Battlestar.

-- In ancient Japanese war tales, in which there is a permanent fighting "warrior" class in society, and a whole set of qualities and codes surrounds them which they must satisfy. Some of them, like the ronin, are like slaves and belong to a master. They choose their actions according to codes, not personal reflection, and generally remain in their particular class until they die or fall into disgrace.

-- In the mouths of fundamentalist Christian politicians, and to describe these people too. Mike Schwartz, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma 's very religious, anti-abortion chief of staff, just died and I've never seen such militaristic word choices as his elegies contained:
warrior, war of attrition, muster, struggle, occupation, trench warfare, kulturkampf, war, mission, coalition building, operative, lifelong fight. If that's Christianity, why do we have a problem with the warlike talk of Islam?

-- On the cover of Bill O'Reilly's book. Another miles gloriosus who never wore a uniform.

-- In the words of Police who advocate super-arming local police forces. Right now the ACLU has launched a nationwide investigation of the militarizing of local police, to find out what equipment police forces across the nation possess, where the money for it came from, and when and for what purpose that equipment has been used. SWAT teams exist all over the place now, and even non-SWAT officers seem to be armed to the teeth. They're using stuff that shouldn't be used against citizens in ordinary life.

But too many of the police themselves are defending this practice -- they're describing themselves as a separate warrior class, requiring a "certain mindset" which must be maintained for them to survive.

Look at photos of police dealing with the Occupy protest movement. Those officers are wearing riot gear, and more. Their equipment surrounds them like giant Sumo suits, which when not inflatable and used for toys are meant to completely protect the wearer from blows. They also keep him from feeling much of anything.

Completely protected, unfeeling people are not good ones to have protecting you.