As any good commander should study Rommel, Guderian, Zhukov, Khan, or any other successful general.
“You magnificent bastard, I read your book!”
I once read of an exchange between an American APC crewman and a captured Iraqi soldier after the Battle of 73 Easting.
The EPW was puzzled that the Americans had a portrait of Rommel in their Bradley. “Why”, he asked, “do you have a portrait of your enemy in your vehicle?”.
The American replied “If you had spent more time studying Rommel, you might not be my prisoner ...”
“I certainly hope we study the tactics of the Southern generals”
That’s not how this works anymore. Cancelling or airbrushing our history does myriad things. Opens old wounds. Divides people. Provides a platform to spread more needless hate and division.
They claim they are being virtuous, but they know better, and they also know what they are trying to accomplish here. Either that, or they are just following orders.
History is sometimes complicated as well as ugly. All of that goes out the window now.
Anyway, they are throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. We can study tacticians without signing on to their ideology.
One of the greatest generals of the war, fought on the Confederate side, had absolutely no particular military experience whatsoever. As in none. Can’t remember his name, but he started out as a Private and worked his way up. Started kicking ass, and they (used to anyway) study his tactics at West Point.
I think if people look at all the stuff they are doing (and not doing) for decades now, is carefully calculated simply to reduce the fighting effectiveness and cohesiveness of the American military. It really isn’t any more complicated than that.
Our enemies have studied our tactics and methods too, ironically enough.