Thread: warriortalk
View Single Post
Old 12-28-2007, 11:36   #21
brownapple
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I've always considered that "Warrior" meant a man (or conceivably a woman) of war. Someone with the skills and behaviors required of warfare. Mindset is insufficient without the skills. Skills are insufficient without the behaviors. It's a complete package.

There may be some LEOs that are warriors. But the great majority are not. And should not be. As already pointed out, that is not demeaning LEOs. It very well may be a compliment to them that they do what they do without the skills of warriors.

And there are plenty of people in the Armed Forces who are not warriors as well. My brother was a computer tech in Space Mountain. Important job. But he might as well have been a civilian in terms of his being a warrior. He wasn't.

But Infantry? Armor? Artillary? The men who fly attack helos and A10s, F15s and F18s? SEALs? Those who train to engage the enemy and destroy him (and do exactly that when we are at war, as we are today)? Those are warriors.

That's my opinion.
  Reply With Quote