![]() Warriors and soldiers self-actualize in war. First a distinction must be made between violence in war and during war and violence in general. In general this statement follows in the line of thinking in the other posts and comments that ‘warrior’ is an emotional psychological trait. To go back John T Kuehn’s original “hand grenade” The Cult of the Warrior - Helpful or.Silly, or.Dangerous? to start things off, he said: “but warrior really implies someone who is self-actualizing through violence”. In this post here, I will be arguing against some of my own comments made back in 2008. It is a continuation of the recent The Cult of the Warrior - Helpful or.Silly, or.Dangerous?” And indeed back in 2008 there was an exchange on Soldiers and Warrior in which I participated. The latest instalment in the debate came under the title of Military Professionalism and the Warrior Ethos: Both are Needed to Win. I have written much longer draft than I am posting here, but to put it all here, I might as well write an article.Īs a general statement: a big part of the problem arises because of the shifting and changed meaning of “warrior” taking place over time. The latest posts on the ongoing warrior-soldier debate has spurred me to once again try and make a point for a systematic approach to addressing this question. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |