Not so fast, Mom.
Your Marine son is one of the "Soldiers of the Sea".
SOLDIERS OF THE SEA: ARE MARINES SOLDIERS?
SOLDIERS OF THE SEA: The U.S. Marine Corps 1775~1962, LtCol Robert D. Heinl, Jr. USMC, United States Naval Press Institute
Posted on 12/27/2003 10:03:37 AM PST by FairWitness
Edited on 05/11/2004 5:35:24 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Each year, Time magazine picks the "Person of the Year" (formerly known, in less sensitive times, as the "Man of the Year"). This year, that person is "the American soldier," and the magazine's cover shows three of them, all from the Army's 1st Armored Division.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
"The Leading Edge of the Sword of Freedom!"
However, Marine's like to be called Marines!
Semper Fi!
TS
Not so fast, Mom.
Your Marine son is one of the "Soldiers of the Sea".
SOLDIERS OF THE SEA: ARE MARINES SOLDIERS?
SOLDIERS OF THE SEA: The U.S. Marine Corps 1775~1962, LtCol Robert D. Heinl, Jr. USMC, United States Naval Press Institute
I love it!! We couldn't resist ragging him about the whole thing. His Devil puppy is moving in with us next week while Dad goes work for a few months. I heard a Master Guns refer this grandson as a natural born Marine. He said that we the doctor smacked him on the behind he jumped up and punched the doc back and said "Oorah!
Readers suggest terms for Americans in uniform
Two weeks ago, I noted that Time magazine had chosen as its person of the year "the American soldier" - even though the word "soldier" is misleading. After all, Time meant the honor to embrace Marines, sailors and airmen as well as soldiers.
Trouble is, I said, American English lacks a short, pithy term to cover everybody in all four branches. I invited suggestions. By e-mail, phone and letter, responses came from 55 of you - a reinforced platoon. Some offered more than one suggestion.
The favorite was "warrior," which got 11 mentions - a healthy plurality.
One vote for "warrior" came from a retired Marine first sergeant who spent two years as a drill instructor at a Naval Officer Candidate School. (Think of Lou Gossett Jr. in "An Officer and a Gentleman.") He said his charges "loved that expression when being addressed. It creates a strong self-image of power and confidence."
Similarly, a Naval Reserve officer just back from a one-year staff tour with the U.S. Central Command wrote, "After working alongside Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine personnel, I can state that the term most often used when referring to themselves and their comrades was 'warrior.'"
This officer added that the term "is not politically correct. But wars and the warriors who fight them are not often given to political correctness."
Gasps in U. City
Along the same lines, another damn-the-political-correctness reader suggested "warfighter" - even though the term evokes gasps "in Madison, Wis., Berkeley, Calif., and University City, Mo."
On the other hand, the term "warrior" seems to rest awkwardly on some people in uniform. A cook on an aircraft carrier performs a vital job, as does a legal clerk on an Air Force base. But neither seems to flesh out the definition of "warrior."
Right behind "warrior" was "defender," with nine votes. A woman who recently retired as a civilian employee of the Defense Department wrote, "'Defender' is less offensive and more PC than 'warfighter,' especially when the mission of the 'defender' might be peacekeeping."
True. But generals might raise an eyebrow at the term. All armies subscribe to a list of "principles of war" - and prominent on all such lists is the notion of attacking whenever possible, while defending only as a last resort.
The thinking goes that although defenders may stave off defeat, only attackers win wars.
No such baggage accompanies the third most-popular choice - "GI," put forth by eight readers. Backers of "GI" say it's concise and time-tested.
Trouble is, "GI" shares the same drawback as "soldier." It's a term reserved for people in the Army. No self-respecting sailor or Marine wants to be called "GI."
Anyway, the term seems to be fading among the GIs themselves. These days, they call themselves "grunts." The term "GI" seems quaintly dated, like Lucky Strikes in green packages.
Acronyms aplenty
Six readers suggested variants of a term I'd never heard - "SAMS," or "Sammies." It's an acronym for "Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and Sailors," with overtones of Uncle Sam.
Well, maybe. After all, Britain has long called its soldiers "Tommies," after the generic name "Tommy Atkins." But before newspapers pick up on "Sammies," they'll have to hear it spoken by somebody with the clout of, say, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Three readers suggested "Patriot." In this all-volunteer age, patriotism surely runs more strongly than it did in the draft era. Still, patriotism is hardly limited to those in the armed forces. And some in uniform are serving for other reasons - college money, say, or a burning desire to get away from Hog Corners, Iowa.
Similarly, two readers suggested "Heroes." Trouble is, although all heroes wear uniforms, not everybody in uniform is a hero.
Among the one-shot suggestions was another acronym - "THORNS," for "Trained, Honest, Obediant, Respectful, National Servicepeople." Hmm. A touch prickly, huh?
One new construction - "milateer" - has possibilities. But my favorite came from a woman old enough to remember World War II. She wrote, "All the guys and gals in service were called 'Yanks.'"
It's short, grabby and understandable. Now, if we can get Mississippians and Red Sox fans to go along ...
Reporter Harry Levins
E-mail: hlevins@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8144
The responses themselves were apparently fairly similar. with "warrior", "defender", and "GI" each getting good support.
"Six readers suggested variants of a term I'd never heard - "SAMS," or "Sammies." It's an acronym for "Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and Sailors," with overtones of Uncle Sam."
"SAMS" does have a nice muscular, Uncle Sam sound to it.
OK, but let's look here at where our own conceptions of the word warrior come from. We often think of the Native American tribes where the warriors rode of and came back a week or two later with tales of their exploits.
The thing is, our own modern society has gotten so big that this is no longer feasible.
Warrior refers to an entire class of people. People who's sole employment is to enhance the ability of our military to perform its mission. So I see no conflict to refer to all members of the military as warriors- cook and clerk are also trained to employ weapons to kill the enemy, but needs being what they are, some people specialize in feeding the others, supplying the others etc.
Our notions of our warrior class are strongly influenced by our previous wars and historical references (the Native Americans for example) but they are proving to be unfounded in this day and age of shifting fronts. Jessica Lynch was a clerk. But we all know her role of simply supplying other troops thrust her in the role of actual warrior.
So, I think it's more fair to call all our servicemembers warriors. The delineation is between civilian and warrior, not between infantryman and supply clerk. The Infantryman and supply clerk will segregate themselves among themselves- but the public ought to think of them both as warrior. (taken to extremes, you have the different forms of combat soldiers making distinctions between themselves, ie infantrymen tend to scoff at the notion of tankers fighting a battle outside their tanks) The entire class of people are warriors.
The soldiers in Task Force Ranger in Somalia called the locals Sammies.
Hmmm... Yeah, that about covers it, I guess.
Smart guy.
Semper fidelis,
LH
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.