Well all sorts of new guidance for us folks in AF land:
View attachment 29787
Oh, Morale... Just two cents, from Y.N. Harari about military habit rooted in XVII century:
"Sometimes officers were forced to recognize that the soldiers’ experience was important, because it influenced their behavior and their obedience. However, officers did so grudgingly, subsuming the soldiers’ experiences under the ubiquitous term “morale.” The term “morale” was used –
and is still used – as a means to avoid any serious discussion of the soldiers’ inner experience of war. It lumped together all kinds of feelings – from hunger and fear of punishment to camaraderie and religious enthusiasm – and evaluated them by the single yardstick of whether they increased or decreased
obedience. The focus on obedience was so strong, that morale often came to be a synonym for obedience, which in turn was viewed as an almost infallible guarantee of victory. If the army was obedient, and if the army won a victory, it invariably indicated that the soldiers’ morale was high. If the army was disobedient, and if the army lost a battle, then unless the army suffered from overwhelming material disadvantages, it always indicated that the soldiers’ morale was low. Using circular logic, defeat was proof of low morale, which in turn was used to explain the defeat. I do not recall ever reading about an army with a low morale that won a victory. The possibility that soldiers might have very depressing experiences while winning a great victory was of absolutely no significance to the instrumental story of war." (c) Yuval Noah Harari , Battlefield Revelations and the Making of Modern War Culture, 1450–2000, issued 2008
