As a member of the US military, let me clarify that use “war fighter” (also “warfighter”) to describe soldiers/airmen/etc. distinguishes those actually doing the fighting from those leading them. That is, a soldier in the trenches is a “warfighter”, whereas a general back stateside might be a “warrior”, is certainly a “soldier” (if in the Army), but isn’t actually a “warfighter”. To use another military-ism, “warfighters” are those on “the pointy end of the spear”.

Maeve, when did your hear that comment on NPR, and on what show? I’d like to listen to it in context.

I agree that language has tremendous power, especially in the realm of politics and the media. And after all, this site is about language, and not necessarily politics. But language is one of the primary weapons of politics.

I wanted to comment on the facile notion that NPR is “liberal” and therefore, as some would have it, unwilling to use the strong language necessary to win the “war on terror,” or promote any other conservative agenda. I know that that is a common belief by many on the right, but as a liberal who listens to NPR, I can tell you that it’s just not true. NPR is actually quite moderate, especially in the past decade or so as it has deliberately (under pressure from Republican politicians) tacked to the right.

The “enhanced interrogation technique” episode that I linked to above is a case in point. NPR has been avoiding the use of the word “torture” when discussing Bush administration interrogation policies (e.g., waterboarding and other forms of torture) used during their “war on terror.” In a bizarre bit of doublespeak, NPR’s ombudsman defended NPR’s language choice by saying that using the word “torture” when discussing this issue would be “choosing sides” (i.e., the side of Bush administration critics), even as they used the preferred term (“enhanced interrogation techniques”) promoted by the people defending the Bush administration policy. In other words, by choosing this language, they were choosing sides (the conservative, pro-Bush administration side), even as they claimed they were trying to avoid choosing sides.

This is just one example of NPR apparently bowing to political pressure from the right. I’m not claiming that NPR is as far right as Fox News, but they are quite mainstream and far more moderate/conservative than many people believe, like the rest of the so-called “liberal” mainstream media.

The audience reaction to – and understanding of – the words used is heavily dependent on both their personal baggage, and the context in which the words are used.

I know from personal experience (as a witness, not as a perpetrator, might I add) that where Royal Navy, Army and RAF personnel have all been involved in the same conflict, Naval officers do not like being referred to as soldiers…

You might be overthinking this. I think Fox uses the term soldier in a generic sense. Also, I abhor the effort to castrate our language. When freshmen become freshpersons or first-year students, I tune out.

Or is there no distinction made between the members of the different branches of the armed forces?

My initial assumption on seeing the phrase “war fighters” was that it was intended to encompass the people who are arguably involved in “fighting a war” but would not be classified as “warriors” (or indeed possibly as “soldiers”) – intelligence analysts and the like.