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.
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
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.
it would be the same thing as me sitting here "running my mouth" about nuclear physics, if i knew NOTHING (and i do NOT know ANTHING about physics, nuclear or not!) about the subject.
free dixie,sw