Which, to me, is exactly what warrior means. It means(to me, anyway) the embodiment or personification of the values that make up the profession of arms, as opposed to a job-seeker or terrorist. A true warrior does not seek personal glory, and does not fight for bloodlust alone. However, I will admit that it is a rather subjective term and one we Canadians are perhaps not fully comfortable with.
We had a thread that went into considerable detail on the notion of the warrior vs. the professional. If you have the time in the interest, check it out here. I reopened it and removed some superfluous posts if you're interested.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/18342.0.html
Basically, you're right. The warrior term is for the most part used subjectively by people to fit their purpose. My arguments attempt to aim for a more objective notion of the term "warrior" based upon historical fact; historical fact that show the professional consistently beating out the warrior.
Some aspects in history that are common to the idea of the warrior is:
1) No prisoners
2) Pillage of surrounding territory for "reward" to warrior class
3) Ossification of progress due to focus on ceremonial and cultural aspects of "warrior" (internally-focused) as opposed to focus on how to win at war as a means to further ones interests (externally-focused).
4) Fighting to the death or refusing to live when faced with failure (Japanese Generals regularly committed suicide following battlefield defeat - not conducive to maintaining a strong Officer Corps)
5) Disdain of those who are not members of the warrior class (this thinking is something that surfaces in modern soldiers who relish in calling themselves warriors)
It can be a bad road to go down if we follow the traditional notion of creating "warrior spirit".
I argue that we must aim to focus our soldiers on the profession of arms with the goal of
every soldier being a fighting professional with the warfighting mentality. PBI's recommendation of a common training for the purple trades in order to promote this mentality is something I agree with; I've advocated it in my own fashion around these pages before. The fighting soldier seeks victory, not combat, and he achieves victory through executing his duties (whatever they may be; mechanic, doctor, or footsoldier), not engaging enemy "warriors".
Again, this is my interpretation of the term "warrior"; I base it on the historical context. I just find that alot of the times the statement "we will inculcate the warrior spirit" is meant to refer to an effort to increase the capabilities (both mental and physical) of the professional soldier - which has no relation to the notion of a warrior.
Here is an excerpt from the linked thread that gives an overview of my position. Enjoy.
I understand your admiration of a particular mindset dedicated to excellence, but you must understand that this mindset is one of dedication to excellence in the profession of arms
Your definition of the term warrior is a bit misplaced. The "warrior" is traditionally defined as a subculture that dedicates itself solely to battle. However, the warrior is an individual who places emphasis on personal ability and prowess in battle. There are many aspects that typified the warrior in battle such as highly valued personal weapons, individual combate, and reliance on ferocity and fighting prowess over tactics.
Your impression of the warrior as the pinnacle of armed conflict is unfortunately misplaced. The "warrior" lost his standing over two thousand years ago when the professional soldier picked up arms under their commanders and worked as a unit to overcome the individual warriors. Two of the earliest examples in Western civilization is when the Greeks, particularly the Spartans, picked up arms as professionals and worked as an amorphous unit known as the phalanx, to defeat 10,000 of the Persian King's elite "Immortals". To the Greek professionals, maintaining one's position within the phalanx in order to protect the man to his right with his large shield was the epitome of excellence in battle as opposed to breaking ranks to find personal glory in singular combat (something that was severely frowned upon). That trend carried on in Western civilization when Celtic warriors were subdued by the professional soldier of Rome, the Legionnaire, who followed his NCO commander, the Centurion (Yes, setbacks against warrior cultures such as the German tribes were present, but this was no fault of their military system).
History is full of examples of the elite "warrior" finding his social position toppled by the professional soldier who was simply a better fighter due to the fact that they dedicated themselves to the profession of arms rather then to the glory of combat. The Japanese Samurai warrior were shot to pieces in the 1800's when they tried to bring their quasi-religious form of ritual battle to the fore against industrialized forces; this is why the Samurai class outlawed the firearms in the 1600's following Oda Nobunaga's destruction of samurai armies with conscript levies wielding cheap firearms; it was a threat to their inefficient and less effective warrior culture. As well, the constant battles between various Native American tribes and the United States Army in the 1800's also saw the Native warrior destroyed by the disciplined regular. Napoleon's professional Army, in its conquest of Egypt, decimated the Mameluke's; a Islamic subculture that dedicated its members from birth to being warriors. That belief fell to the discipline and shock of the Regiment of the Line. You could find many more examples if you took the time to truly study the history of conflict.
Those characteristics that you mentioned in you inaccurate depiction of the warrior are actually the signs of the highest form of dedication as a soldier to the profession of arms. Look at the characteristics of our soldiers in our Special Operations Capable unit (JTF-2), whom I would regard as the elite of the professional soldier in a modern army; these men are not warriors, they do not relish personal combat and glory for their subculture. Rather, they are the epitomization of what we should strive for as professionals; they are experts on all technical fields related to the trade, their level of cohesion and teamwork is unmatched (they accomplish their missions as a team, if you didn't know that), and their dedication to their profession, up to the point of sacrificing their own life, is unrivaled (hence the reason they spend nearly all their time to preparation and training).
Cheers.
