but then they are not aloholics.
Wordplay is all. They're absolutely alcoholics (at the time), probably the worst in the room, most of them. Personal questionnaire was off the charts and they failed AA's go-to definition: If alcohol has negatively affected your life in any way, you might be an alcoholic. Well, drunk every day, several DUIs, problems with family, friends, work, the law, health, the whole shebang. All alcohol-related. If they weren't alcoholics, nobody is.
You're basing your conclusion on the fact that they were able to overcome it, which is blasphemy according to the recovery cult. Nothing at all to do with willpower, they insist. Disease, helpless. Nonsense. Everything to do with willpower, ultimately.
No offense intended, but you've possibly been brainwashed by the mantra. You're simply regurgitating their script. They've taken what works for most, and it does, but then insist everybody's the same, hopeless without eternal dedication to the program, which makes their legions fearful dependents. And then the fail-safe standards for defectors who either (1) succeed on their own, or (2) return to responsible social drinking. 1) a white-knuckling 'dry drunk' (can't be truly "sober" without the blessed steps), who will inevitably relapse. And yours 2) never an alcoholic. Stock replies, similar to how religions deflect logical challenges to their faith.
AA cultists are too deeply entrenched to question the literature objectively, but really, what's the point? If it's working for them, great. Why question what's helping? Just not buying the perfect science bullshit is all.