What’s a “warfighter?” Do they come from the “Gulf of America?” We used to call them servicemen or service members. Emphasizing they served the people. I guess that’s too effeminate for our roided up and ironically hyper-insecure Secretary of Defense.
The term war fighter is distinct from service member. War fighter means mission critical and typically in a theater, while a service member might be someone sitting behind a desk in a less critical role. Similar to having mission critical production systems and supporting production systems.
When you perform your business impact analysis, these will bubble up in different ways, requiring some differences to the playbooks.
There isn’t really a distinction day to day on this in practice. It covers everybody - just easier to say than all the official titles and typically for morale helps to carry the name all the way to the back office to connect to what’s happening at the pointy end.
Not really a new term: “warfighter” always has made me cringe but it’s been commonplace in defense contractor pitches to DoD for many years. Basically, if you hear it being used you’re likely in the presence of someone who does (or did) DoD work. Totally unsurprising to see it here given this is a DoD contracting argument that we’re all watching from the sidelines.
You're right about the age of the term but it's nothing to do with combat, but rather just a nice sounding umbrella term that makes talking about joint forces easier because every military service has their own special name for their personnel (soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc..).
The POGiest of POGs are "warfighters" and individual organizations within the DoD proudly advertise how they serve runny eggs and chicken to warfighters every day or issue their uniforms/equipment with incredible lethargy or maintain their personnel records in 20+ different systems duct taped together.
"Service member" does get used a lot still. Usually abbreviated to "SM".
Source: Personal experience in both combat arms and non combat arms roles.
A new term was needed some decades ago. "man" titles have not been politically correct for a while, "member" sounds awkward and bureaucratic. In some other languages, "soldier" can be used for all military personnel, while English ended up with a more narrow meaning.
"Awkward and bureacratic" is literally the point of naming conventions commonly adopted by democracies. Titles like "president" or "prime minister", departments like "Department of Defense", referring to government employees as "civil servants", etc. are all intentional measures meant to strip away the prestige and egotism associated with positions of authority in an effort to avoid it going to people's heads, and to remind them that they are meant to serve the good of the public that pays for their existence rather than ruling over them.
"Service member" is awkward, because it has too many syllables. People won't use it when shorter alternatives are available. And it's bureaucratic because it's unspecific. It doesn't tell anything the service those people are members of, and it doesn't tell what kind of work they do.
