<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for Light-Heavy Doctrine conflicts.</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/08/lightheavy_doctrine_conflicts.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate></lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>Light-Heavy Doctrine conflicts.</title>
            <description>Since my work is directly involved in this, I&apos;m not going to comment, for personal and professional reasons. But Jason over at IraqNowBlog has an interesting post discussing a NYT article that questions the way the Army is trying to take it&apos;s doctrine. I find Jason&apos;s arguments as interesting as I find the NYT article, well, lacking perspective. Jason&apos;s perspective is informed by his experiences in Iraq, and are worth the read. Yeah, I have opinions, but since I&apos;m paid to have these opinions, I&apos;ll have to figure out a way to express them without compromising my job. Right now,...</description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/08/lightheavy_doctrine_conflicts.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2004/08/lightheavy_doctrine_conflicts.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:57:29 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
    </channel>
</rss>


