Comments on: Soldiers or Troops?

By: Anne Anson

Anne Anson — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:42:16 +0000

I have been driven nuts by this for a long time. but this is the first time I checked to see if others are also on the brink about it.

I just can’t understand journalists carrying this forward.
I just want the to stop it..

Yesterday if possible.

By: K.C.

K.C. — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:51:11 +0000

I’ve often been bothered that people seem to simply accept the strange use of this term over the last few years. Dragonetti’s conclusion is the cause I assume to be behind the gradual adoption of this word to mean ‘soldier’. It’s being used to soften the blow of death reports and is carried over to other mentions.

I understand there are some occasions where softening is appropriate, but we should generally refer to them as human individuals.

By: Rusty Van Patten

Rusty Van Patten — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 16:48:01 +0000

I notice that the word “unit” is becoming another word for “troop” meaning one military person. We hear from the generals and others being interviewed on TV such statements as, “We will, of course, experience some unit loss in the operation.” The interviewer then interupts the thought with “You expect to lose a few people , is that correct?”

“Well, they’re volunteers,you undertand, each one knows his individual mission and the dangers involved. ”

“How many units were lost in Iraq?”

“The number isn’t complete, yet, but there were a lot.”

By: Phil Dragonetti

Phil Dragonetti — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:52:24 +0000

Quotation from todays’ article:
” Used in the traditional sense to mean “a group of soldiers,” troop is a useful term, like “squad” or “division” or “unit.” Used singularly to stand for a single soldier, troop not only creates ambiguity, it is impersonal and dehumanizing.”

This is the reason it is used by the military reporting on how many young men and women had been killed that day. It is like using the word “casualties” to described those killed. It is also like the world “collateral damage”, used in a way that tries to take you attention away from the fact that decent human beings were killed by the military.

Decent journalists should refuse to collaborate with the military by using those cover-up words, and should use words. Why do journalists do that???

By: Deborah H

Deborah H — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:25:43 +0000

Glen, I don’t think it is doublespeak, but a collective noun that could include soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen. Writing or saying “servicemen” or “military personnel” covers them all. In some of the war zones, the different services occasionally overlap.

It would be interesting to go back and read news accounts from World War II, to see how the war correspondents described the men. I suspect the correspondents were quite specific.