Replies

in other words, you're "talking through your hat" & have NO credentials in military matters, particularly in guerrilla operations/counterinsurgency/unconventional operations???

YEP. i think that's the CORRECT answer.

fwiw, ask around the DC Chapter. everyone KNOWS who i am & what my credentials as a military planner/operative/officer are.(you might want to start with "Kristinn", "gunsareOK", "JimmyValentinesbrother" & "trooprally,before you start to look as SILLY & clue-LESS as the DUNCES of "the DAMNyankee coven" do.)

free dixie,sw

Sorry stand watie, but the more you post, the less impressed I am with your ideas.

You made one somewhat reasonable suggestion, namely that Lee might still have won using guerrilla war against the North.

This was swatted down, pretty easily I thought, on grounds that:

First, anyone who knows anything about Lee knows such a thing would be impossible for him. Perhaps I could refer you to Lee's General Order Number 72 before the Gettysburg campaign?

Second, it was pointed out that one southern general, JB Hood, actually had that idea, and tried to do it, but soon gave it up for lack of interest.

Third, if there was any southern general with spirit and reputation to carry on such a fight, it would be Nathan Bedford Forest, and so far as I know, the closest he ever got to such a thing was founding the old Klu Klux Klan.

But I don't need to remind YOU of that, right?

in other words, you're "talking through your hat" & have NO credentials in military matters, particularly in guerrilla operations/counterinsurgency/unconventional operations???

When I say that there is a distinction between strategy and tactics, I'm not talking through my hat. That's frighteningly basic stuff.

Your failure to realize that the two are conceptually distinct is pretty telling.

In other words, I should ask other Internet posters whom I do not know from Adam whether another poster whom I do not know from Adam's claims about his credentials are authentic.

Rather than give me a resume, why don't you make a logical argument for your claims?

You can begin by explaining to all of us who do not possess your impressive doctrinal pedigree why tactics are really strategy and strategy is really tactics - or more simply, why every single military theoretician in modern history is wrong about everything.

before you start to look as SILLY & clue-LESS as the DUNCES of "the DAMNyankee coven" do.)

In other words, your entire position can be summed up as follows:

"I have a really important resume and if you disagree with anything I say you're a stupid jerk."

Take a step back and try to figure out why I find that line of reasoning less than compelling.