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Our notions of our warrior class are strongly influenced by our previous wars and historical references (the Native Americans for example) but they are proving to be unfounded in this day and age of shifting fronts.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.
Good point. "Warrior class" and "warrior_at_the_moment" can be separate but overlapping categories.