(first published May 14, 2006)
One of the things that really bothers me about news stories regarding the forces in Iraq is the use of the word troop. In print, on the radio and on television, reporters are constantly using this word to describe the number of military casualties, as individual persons: “Several attacks in Iraq were responsible for the death of 8 troops today…” I have no problem with the media stating the number of dead or wounded soldiers, but it might be nice if they did it correctly.
The word troop does not indicate one person; it refers to a group of them. According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, the general definition of a troop is “an assemblage of persons or things; a great number or multitude.” Even Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary states that the word is used as a plural not only for the military, but for mammals and birds as well.
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/troop).
Also, Webster’s says that in military terms, a troop is “an armored cavalry or cavalry unit consisting of two or more platoons and a headquarters group.” To take this further, a platoon is defined as “a military unit consisting of two or more squads or sections and a headquarters,” and for good measure a squad is “a small number of soldiers, commonly 10 men, a staff sergeant and a corporal.”
So, let’s crunch the numbers: if a squad commonly has 12 soldiers, and a platoon has a minimum of two squads, then a platoon has a minimum of 24 soldiers. If a troop includes a minimum of two platoons, then a troop should have a minimum of 48 soldiers. Then, if we use the example I gave earlier, 8 troops killed would mean 384 soldiers died in one day, and that’s not including whatever amount of people the headquarters units have.
Now, we know that 384+ people did not die in one day, only 8 did, but by constantly using the word “troop” as though it meant one person, it gives the wrong impression. It would be better for everyone if the media used a word that was more appropriate to describe the number of military dead and wounded, like “soldiers.” After all, that’s what they are.
By the way, don’t even think of using the word trooper, because a trooper is “a horse-cavalry soldier.” Singular – yes, appropriate – no; the war in Iraq is not fought from horseback. J
One of the things that really bothers me about news stories regarding the forces in Iraq is the use of the word troop. In print, on the radio and on television, reporters are constantly using this word to describe the number of military casualties, as individual persons: “Several attacks in Iraq were responsible for the death of 8 troops today…” I have no problem with the media stating the number of dead or wounded soldiers, but it might be nice if they did it correctly.
The word troop does not indicate one person; it refers to a group of them. According to Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, the general definition of a troop is “an assemblage of persons or things; a great number or multitude.” Even Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary states that the word is used as a plural not only for the military, but for mammals and birds as well.
(http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/troop).
Also, Webster’s says that in military terms, a troop is “an armored cavalry or cavalry unit consisting of two or more platoons and a headquarters group.” To take this further, a platoon is defined as “a military unit consisting of two or more squads or sections and a headquarters,” and for good measure a squad is “a small number of soldiers, commonly 10 men, a staff sergeant and a corporal.”
So, let’s crunch the numbers: if a squad commonly has 12 soldiers, and a platoon has a minimum of two squads, then a platoon has a minimum of 24 soldiers. If a troop includes a minimum of two platoons, then a troop should have a minimum of 48 soldiers. Then, if we use the example I gave earlier, 8 troops killed would mean 384 soldiers died in one day, and that’s not including whatever amount of people the headquarters units have.
Now, we know that 384+ people did not die in one day, only 8 did, but by constantly using the word “troop” as though it meant one person, it gives the wrong impression. It would be better for everyone if the media used a word that was more appropriate to describe the number of military dead and wounded, like “soldiers.” After all, that’s what they are.
By the way, don’t even think of using the word trooper, because a trooper is “a horse-cavalry soldier.” Singular – yes, appropriate – no; the war in Iraq is not fought from horseback. J