ellauri048.html on line 1892: But Nazi propagandists spun this battle and other encounters with Polish cavalry — horse was a big component of the Polish army — as vindication of the Wehrmacht’s technical modernity and tactical superiority.
ellauri100.html on line 319: However, it was not momentous events but a bit of seemingly irrelevant analysis that administered the coup de grâce to my naïve “liberalism”. It happened in the early 1970s, when my boss asked me to concoct grand measures of effectiveness for the armed forces (i.e., summary measures of antisubmarine warfare capabilities, of tactical strike capabilities, and so on). I struggled with the problem, and made a good-faith effort to provide the measures. But in the end I had to report to my boss that he had given me “mission impossible”. Why? Because, no summary measure could capture the effects of the many factors that would determine the effectiveness of the armed forces: the enemy, the characteristics of his forces, the timing and geographic particulars of any engagement, and so on. (See “Hemibel Thinking” in this post for a précis of my argument.) That was the first time I got sacked. But I returned as soon as my boss got fired.
ellauri159.html on line 772: To the description of the ideal perimeter-keeper outlined above, Donovan assigns four “tactical virtues”: strength, courage, mastery, and honor. These are “simple, amoral, and functional virtues” — “the practical virtues of men who must rely on one another in a worst case scenario.” They are “amoral” because they are crucial to the success of any gang — no matter if what they’re fighting for is right or wrong. Strength, courage, mastery, and honor are the attributes needed in a team of Navy SEALs just as much as a family of Mafioso. If you’ve ever wondered why we are fascinated by gangsters, pirates, bank robbers, and outlaws of all stripes, and can’t help but think of them as pretty manly despite their thuggery and extralegal activities, now you know; they’re not good men, but they’ve mastered the core fundamentals of being good at being men. So they are good men, though they are bad men. I mean.
ellauri159.html on line 782: Honor: Traditional honor is not the same as integrity — living up to your own, personal standards. Traditional honor is a reputation for strength, courage, and mastery — as judged by other men. Honorable men care about being manly, knowing that each individual member’s prowess in the tactical virtues bolsters the strength and reputation of the gang as a whole and thus deters attack from rival gangs. Dishonorable men, on the other hand, evince indifference or hostility to the standards, weakening the group and leaving it more vulnerable.
ellauri159.html on line 785: The key to upholding honor in a male gang is to always try to pull your own weight – to seek to be a boon rather than a burden to the group. If a man lacks in physical strength, he might make up for it in the area of mastery – being the group’s best tracker, weapons-maker, or trap inventor; one crafty engineer can be worth more than many strong men. If a man lacks in both physical strength and mastery, he might still endear himself to the other men with a sense of humor, a knack for storytelling, or a talent in music that keeps everyone’s spirits up. Or he might act as a shaman or priest – performing rituals that prepare men for battle and cleanse and comfort them when they return from the front. The strong men of the group will usually take care of the weak ones who at least try to do whatever they can. Shame is reserved for those who will not, or cannot excel in the tactical virtues, but don’t try to contribute in some other way, and instead cultivate bitterness and disregard for the perimeter-keepers who ironically provide the opportunity to sit on one’s hands and carp. (Aki Manninen would love this.)
ellauri159.html on line 787: Strength, courage, mastery, and honor are virtues that obviously aren’t exclusive to men, and it’s not that there haven’t been women who have embodied these traits in every age (as we shall see next time, the idea of a soft, fragile femininity is a modern conception). It isn’t that women shouldn’t seek these attributes either. Rather, the tactical virtues comprise the defining traits of masculinity. If a woman isn’t strong or acts afraid in the face of danger, no one thinks of her as less womanly because of it. Yet such shortcomings will be seen as emasculating in a man, even today.
ellauri159.html on line 791: Even the men we hold up as proof that you can be manly by living the higher virtues without completely fulfilling the 3 P’s of Manhood (or even 3 pushups) ultimately derive their inspiration from the fundamental underpinnings of the tactical virtues. Figures like Gandhi and Jesus are lauded for their non-violence and their goodness, but our ability to think of them as manly, derives from their embrace of masculine expendability – a courageous indifference to the pain and suffering others might inflict on their physical body. They were good men, certainly, but their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their people, also made them good at being men. Gandhi did procreate a lot. Jesus provided for millions of preachers. Both were expendable. That´ll do, welcome to the perimeter pencil necks.
ellauri196.html on line 624: Its fundamentally conservative "pure and simple" approach limited the AFL to matters pertaining to working conditions and rates of pay, relegating political goals to its allies in the political sphere. The Federation favored pursuit of workers' immediate demands rather than challenging the property rights of owners, and took a pragmatic view of politics which favored tactical support for particular politicians over formation of a party devoted to workers' interests. The AFL's leadership believed the expansion of the capitalist system was seen as the path to betterment of labor, an orientation making it possible for the AFL to present itself as what one historian has called "the conservative alternative to working class radicalism."
ellauri406.html on line 309: "Tactical nuclear weapons will not give them an advantage on the battlefield. I think the Kremlin knows this. Our president has made it clear: if they use tactical nuclear weapons, it will be impossible for the US not to respond and not be involved. Because China is watching, Iran is watching, North Korea is watching, so the US will be forced to respond."
ellauri406.html on line 311: I agree with you. Our always alert President Joseph Biden has made it extremely clear that Putin will use tactical nuclear weapons. But, on the other hand, we must realize that Putin is an atheist and a nihilist. But I would like to ask you now to characterize the potential course of the current autumn-winter campaign.
xxx/ellauri122.html on line 913: In Orson Scott Card's militarised science-fiction universe, children are trained as soldiers in a series of games to prepare for future attacks from insect-like aliens. One child in particular, Ender Wiggin, becomes the tactical genius of the group as the story unfolds.
xxx/ellauri380.html on line 386: unbelievable syntactical contortions, but it is well worth
12