On Feb 10, 2012, at 6:51 PM, // ravi wrote:
> Sure, some lines of action can be shelved a priori because they [to
> some degree of satisfaction] demonstrably aid the enemy...But that
> in itself is not an argument against the idea of diversity of tactics.
"Diversity of tactics" is an utterly stupid phrase, needing no rebuttal. A *tactic* as such can only be a measure for implementing a *strategy*. If there is no (at least implicit) agreement on strategy then what is pretentiously called "diversity of tactics" is nothing but implementation of *opposing* strategies. For an army, or a social movement, to allow its components to implement opposed strategies (as when the Soviet leadership adopted a strategy centered on Warsaw and Stalin, in command of its Southern group, treacherously implemented his own aim of taking Lvov instead of reinforcing Tukhachevsky on the Warsaw front) the result always is, and can only be, disaster.
Shane Mage
"Thunderbolt steers all things." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 64