It was a weird time. Honestly, if you look back at the early 2000s, the world felt like it was shifting on its axis every other week. In December 2003, Time magazine had to make a choice. They didn't pick a billionaire or a president. They didn't pick a celebrity. They picked The American Soldier.
They chose the boots on the ground.
This wasn't just about one person; it was about a collective identity during the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing war in Afghanistan. People still argue about whether this was a "cop-out" or a brilliant stroke of journalism. Some folks think the magazine was just playing it safe to avoid political backlash. Others saw it as a deeply moving tribute to the men and women who were actually living the policy decisions made in D.C.
What the Person of the Year 2003 actually represented
To understand why this mattered, you have to remember the mood of 2003. Saddam Hussein had just been captured in a "spider hole" near Tikrit. The mission felt... well, it felt complicated. By naming The American Soldier as the Person of the Year 2003, Time was trying to humanize a war that was rapidly becoming a series of abstract headlines and mounting casualty counts.
The cover didn't feature a high-ranking general. Instead, it showed three soldiers from the 1st Armored Division: Sergeant Marquette Whiteside, Sergeant Ronald Buxton, and Specialist Billie Grimes.
Real people.
They represented the roughly 1.4 million men and women in uniform at the time. This wasn't the first time Time went with a group. They’d done "The American Fighting Man" back in 1950 and "The Middle Americans" in 1969. But 2003 felt different because the media landscape was changing. We were seeing the first "embedded" journalists. We were seeing the war in real-time.
The controversy you probably forgot
Not everyone loved the choice. You’ve probably heard the criticism that Time uses "representative" figures when they want to avoid picking someone polarizing, like George W. Bush or even someone like Jacques Chirac (who led the opposition to the war).
✨ Don't miss: Why the Air France Crash Toronto Miracle Still Changes How We Fly
If they had picked Bush, half the country would have been furious. If they had picked an anti-war leader, the other half would have canceled their subscriptions. By picking the "soldier," they found a way to honor the individual sacrifice without necessarily endorsing the geopolitical strategy.
It was a pivot. A smart one, maybe.
But it also raised a lot of questions about the definition of "influence." Is a collective group truly the most influential "person" of the year? Or is that just a way to fill space when no single individual dominates the zeitgeist? In 2003, the "soldier" was the face of American foreign policy, for better or worse.
Why the choice still resonates in 2026
Looking back from today, the choice feels like a time capsule.
The gear looks dated. The camouflage patterns are from a different era. But the sentiment—the idea that the person carrying out the orders is the one who bears the heaviest burden—is still incredibly relevant. We’re still talking about the long-term effects of those deployments. We’re talking about PTSD, the cost of nation-building, and the legacy of the Iraq War.
The Person of the Year 2003 wasn't just about the tactical victories. It was about the cultural weight of the military in American life.
Breaking down the 2003 landscape
- The Capture of Saddam: Occurred just days before the announcement.
- The Mission: Shifted from "major combat operations" to an insurgency struggle.
- The Tech: Soldiers were just starting to use basic internet cafes to email home. No TikTok in the barracks back then.
It's easy to forget how much the world has changed. In 2003, we didn't have smartphones. We had newspapers. And that Time cover was in every airport, every grocery store, and every doctor's office in the country.
🔗 Read more: Robert Hanssen: What Most People Get Wrong About the FBI's Most Damaging Spy
The human cost of the "Person"
When Time writers Nancy Gibbs and Michael Weisskopf (who actually lost a hand while reporting in Iraq) put this story together, they weren't trying to write a recruitment brochure. They were looking at the grit.
They talked about the dust. The heat. The boredom. The sudden, terrifying bursts of violence.
Spec. Billie Grimes, one of the cover stars, was a medic. Her inclusion was a big deal. It highlighted the evolving role of women in combat zones, even before "official" combat roles were fully opened to them years later. It showed that the "American Soldier" wasn't a monolith. It was a diverse group of people from small towns and big cities, all stuck in a desert thousands of miles from home.
Behind the scenes: How they chose the cover stars
Selecting the specific faces for the Person of the Year 2003 wasn't random. Time photographers spent weeks with the 1st Armored Division in Baghdad. They wanted people who looked like the people they were representing.
Sergeant Whiteside was a scout.
Sergeant Buxton was a recovery specialist.
Specialist Grimes was a medic.
They weren't "heroes" in the Hollywood sense. They were professionals doing a job. That was the point. By elevating them, the magazine was saying that the most important thing happening in the world wasn't happening in a boardroom or a palace—it was happening in the humvees patrolling the streets of Baghdad.
What most people get wrong about the 2003 choice
A lot of people think Time only picks "good" people. They don't. The criteria is "the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill."
💡 You might also like: Why the Recent Snowfall Western New York State Emergency Was Different
In 2003, the soldier was the engine of the news.
Every political debate, every economic shift, and every cultural movement in the U.S. that year was tied back to the person in the desert. You couldn't escape it. If you look at the runners-up—people like J.K. Rowling or even the duo of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney—none of them captured the visceral reality of the year quite like the average GI.
A look at the runners-up
- George W. Bush: He’d won before and would win again, but 2003 was about the implementation of his doctrine, not just the man himself.
- J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was massive, but it didn't change the course of global history.
- The Protester: There were huge anti-war protests, but they didn't have the same measurable impact on the ground as the troops.
Actionable insights: What we can learn from this today
If you're looking back at the Person of the Year 2003 to understand the current geopolitical climate, or if you're a student of media history, there are a few things you should actually do to get the full picture.
Audit the primary sources
Go back and read the original Time essay from December 2003. It’s surprisingly gritty. It doesn't shy away from the fact that many soldiers were frustrated, tired, and skeptical of the "hearts and minds" campaign. It’s a masterclass in long-form reporting.
Look at the long-term impact
Research what happened to the three cover stars. It’s a sobering reminder that "Person of the Year" is a snapshot in time. Real life continues after the magazine hits the recycling bin. Marquette Whiteside, for instance, eventually left the military and had to navigate the transition back to civilian life, a journey shared by millions of his peers.
Analyze the "Representative Person" trend
Check out other years where Time picked a group (like "The Silence Breakers" in 2017 or "The Guardians" in 2018). You'll start to see a pattern of how the magazine handles complex social movements by personifying them through a handful of individuals.
Study the photography
The 2003 cover was shot by James Nachtwey. He’s one of the greatest war photographers of all time. If you want to understand why that cover felt so impactful, look at his other work. He has a way of capturing human dignity in the middle of chaos that most people can't replicate.
Re-evaluate the 2003 timeline
Compare the Time choice with the actual events of the year. The magazine came out right as the insurgency was beginning to ramp up. The "victory" of capturing Saddam was fresh, but the long, grinding years of the occupation were just beginning. The choice of the "soldier" was almost prophetic in that regard—it acknowledged that this was going to be a long, human-centered struggle.
Understanding the Person of the Year 2003 requires looking past the glossy cover and realizing it was a choice made in a moment of intense national anxiety. It wasn't just a tribute; it was a mirror.