[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

Sigaba,your vast knowledge of history should avail to you that the intelligentsia of a free society are the targeted enemy of the proletariat. totally wiped out in many leftist take overs. oops..that would be you. Yes I agree that "We differ on how we should engage the "issues" and our Political opponents.".
You ,I assume would prefer to "engage" intellectually. Thus far that has never stopped a war in the end. Most of us here would prefer to Identify the Opponent's Agenda, their tactics, breakdown their short term goal, interrupt their recruitment of minions, but in the end probably ...warfare. we need to study , act with quick counters, break to chain of of short term goals.

while your posts are informative I quess I would respect your posts more if they were "your" and not a list of other people's work. What "you think may be more informative to us than a litany of others. At least they would be more reader friendly add more to the point of your thoughts. Blitzzz

Blitzzz, I thank you for your suggestions. In all candor, I'm trying to find my voice on this BB--a way in which I can communicate my views in a way that aren't jarring to the culture here. (I've read the rules and stickies and visited some of the threads where guests ended their stay by drifting from their lanes.)

I can be quite blunt and that is at times a liability. Last fall, during a discussion of politics with a person IRL over coffee, I offered my view of the Democratic Party. An edited version of the response I received follows.

SHUT UP! SHUT THE F--- UP! SHUT YOUR MOTHERF------ MOUTH!!! SHUT YOUR MOTHERF------ MOUTH!!!! NOT ONE MORE F------ WORD OUT OF YOUR MOTHERF------ MOUTH!!!!

After that 'discussion', I've been emphasizing a lower key approach. (A reason I joined ps.com is to practice that lower key approach.)

Originally Posted by Richard

One has to wonder:

How much of Mahan’s popularity through most of the 20th Century was not only supported - but enhanced - by the fact that both Churchill and the Roosevelts (Teddy and Franklin) were navalists, and that world events seemingly dictated the necessity of such forces among the great competing industrial powers of the time?

Richard, that is my view as well. What he did was to gather together and synthesize various streams of thought into a package that people could point to and say "That's what I'm talking about." The question though, is when people say "That" what do they mean? And from there, just because we agree on the "That", does that necessarily mean we need battleships? Why not cruisers bristling with torpedoes screened by destroyers bristling with torpedoes? Put the opposition in the position where they can't hold their formation long enough to aim their guns without getting hit?

Originally Posted by nmap

Sir, if I may be permitted to offer an opinion...

In academia, there is an enormous emphasis on "the literature". My strong impression is that one can hardly get away with writing "The Sun comes up in the East" without at least two references.

As an example, I am in the middle of the comprehensive exams for my latest effort. One question has already required 26 references - and that was for just 16 pages.

Perhaps Academia trains people strongly to do their writings in this particular way.

No offense meant to anyone.

nmap-- this is part of what is going on with me. I may have mentioned an anecdote in which a history professor came to a dorm in the early morning hours to demand from a student his notes and his sources. The student he came to visit was a classmate of mine. From that point forward, I've been of the better safe than sorry school of documentation: I made a commitment not to offer a historical interpretation without a road map of how I got there.

Twenty years later, a different professor suggested that I didn't really need to have multiple footnotes per sentence and multiple sources per footnote. I laughed nervously, thinking "Don't I?" We reached a compromise in which I didn't have more than one note for a sentence.

To an extent, my approach has been vindicated. Some historians, in their eagerness to achieve popular acclaim, fell into bad documentation practices. Some of their works are hugely important and now the legitimacy of those works is suspect.

Originally Posted by Blitzzz

"Perhaps Academia trains people strongly to do their writings in this particular way."
No offense taken.
This is very true, but this is not Academia. Post a Bibliography and then state your mind.
wouldn't hurt to be more personable. Blitzzz

An irony here is that my posts of late are the short, personable versions. Most of what I draft gets cut before I hit 'submit reply.'

Originally Posted by Richard

We commonly refer to it simply as tactical vs strategic thinking...and find it unnecessary to consistently qualify a 'given' such as your example. Remember that although many here do consider the strategic implications of matters, QPs are - by nature - pragmatically inclined towards tactical action rather than passive strategic observation.

And here's the rub. I read, think, and write about military affairs but I'm a civilian--high drag, no speed. You BTDT guys have credibility because of where you've been and what you've done. My credibility I must earn every time I step in your house. How do I do that? By doing what I do best--I sure as heck can't come close to doing what you guys do or have done.

One last point, I don't agree that we're at war with our fellow Americans. Things are tense but it isn't war. Doom is not at hand. I am patient not simply because I have an academic background but also because I'm a descendant of African slaves. The president likes to talk about the dreams of his father? Well, if that guy thought about the dreams of his mother's father he'd have a different set of tools. What are those tools? The aforementioned patience; a tireless indefatigable will to resist; a hunger born of rage to defeat your opponent. (If it comes to 'by any means necessary'....)

But before things get to that point--no need to play 'burn, baby, burn'---I'll stick with the tried and true. That includes: learning the opponent's rules, how he thinks, how he feels, what he fears. (They fear Sarah Palin and, based upon their repeated refusals of my invitations to come here and to see the diversity of American thought, they fear you.)

I say, let's lure these self satisfied, self described intellectuals into the parts of the libraries that they should know like the backs of their hands. Let's get in their heads and talk about the meanings of their words. Ask them what they think of this book and that book. Chances are, many won't know. They were playing "Puff puff pass" with a joint over a bag of nacho cheese Doritos.

If they say, "Hey, I'm not as familiar with this as I should be," they may learn a little humility. Then, they'll be ready to have an actual conversation. The conversation will continue over cans of double shot. At the end of the day, we'll go our separate ways. Someone will be thinking "You know, I never really thought of the Second Amendment as a civil right" or "Yeah, I can see why many Americans see us as being in a war...those jihadists write and say some scary shit." And maybe we'll have something to think about as well.

If they stone wall? Drop the library on them, flush their joint down the toilet, take the bag of Doritos.