what's in a name

I noticed lately that the U.S.A. no longer uses soldiers. The adventurers springing from our shores are now all warriors. I'm pretty sure they're not Indians so it makes me wonder what's going on. Soldiers fetch the image of men reluctantly doing their duty, “soldiering on” to satisfy the government's requirement of killing or getting killed. Or both. “Warriors”, however, evokes the image of men who like nothing better than to run joyously into battle. It's what they get up for in the morning, wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they weren't fighting.

Could be they're still as reluctant as ever, volunteer army or not, still comprised largely of people who saw no more appealing alternative.   Maybe it's simply because “warrior” goes better with “wounded” and there's sure plenty of them. Wounded warriors sounds a lot cooler than sick soldiers. Maybe it's just that and not actually a p.r. campaign to make combat sound enviable.  Or to make of the participants a distinct class of  citizens.   Hard to say these days.