It's interesting how language and media work...Ankara's outlets pushed the "warlord" term for Haftar...notice of course they don't call Syrian rebel commanders "warlord" or or even Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis...terminology is important. It is used carefully and with consideration. 
For instance...Houthis are "rebels" and Syrian rebels are "opposition" whereas the Iranian-backed proxies are "militias"...Hamas maybe "terrorist" or "militants"...Hezbollah are "fighters" and Nasrallah "chief"...Nasrallah is not a "warlord." Not "rogue."
Interesting also you can follow terms like "moderates" and "hard liners" and "militants"...I mean Taliban "commanders" are not "warlords." Like in the 1980s the "right wing death squads"...and "left wing militants"....very interesting. Who are "terrorists" and who "militants"?
It's interesting, Charles Taylor was a "warlord"...but Al-Shabab, not warlords...or Boko Haram...but wait Mohamed Farrah Hassan Aidid was a "warlord." We don't know why he was...but Al-Shabab are militants or whatever...we will know why precisely
