When we classify an issue as a 'shield issue' it is usually because we feel that someone else occupies the high ground on that issue. We feel we can't win on that issue and so we adopt a defensive posture.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It isn't that I don't tackle issues; it's just that they're secondary to giving somebody an escape route from the banal routine of everyday life.
Many activists and antagonists who are on the wrong side of an issue employ the tactic of, 'the best defense is a good offense.'
I think that's part of building your team is trying to anticipate where your team is going and to a certain extent where, especially defensively because you have to react to what they put on the field. Defensively you have to be able to defend those things.
The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.
Historically, we were always complaining about others interfering in our domestic and national issues.
You can't defend. You can't prevent. The only thing you can do is detect and respond.
People have to deal with their issues together; they have to expose themselves and kind of exhaust themselves.
How do you defend inaction in the face of crisis? How is that defensible for anybody?
Defence must be more adaptable, able to respond quickly to the changes in the security environment and the character of conflict.
When we talk about self-confrontations, we are speaking about moral issues rather than social issues.