Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
It is a little amazing to see a debate about appropriate military values and reading where one side consists of current & former soldiers, national security experts & military historians... and the other side consists of a lawyer-turned-politician and a professional news liar.
And people are listening to the lawyer and the liar! "Ah yes, well, this decorated general said reading widely is important, and basically everyone who knows anything agreed, but this random jackass on TV said that made his masculinity hurt so clearly there's a problem."
And by the way, if *any* officers haven't read Mao, they need to fix that! His theories are important, current insurgent and guerilla fighters model their strategies off of those theories. I'd be bothered if Milley hadn't read Mao!
The same goes for Marx, Lenin and, *yes* the dreaded CRT ::cue Isengard theme:: Even if you think those theories are garbage, ideas matter in strategic contexts and so you need to understand them. Which means reading. Book learnin' is for winners, son.
This isn't a new idea either: Fas est et ab hoste doceri, "It is right to learn, even from an enemy" (Ovid, Met. 4.428). Or, of course, "If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles" (Sun Tzu, Art of War ch3)
Anyway, war is serious business that requires serious thought, not some pecker-measuring masculinity contest (pardon my language) and if Carlson and Vance new the first thing about the topic, they'd know that.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
