<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for Coalition forces shutdown roadside bomb network in Laghman Province</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/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:23:24 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>Coalition forces shutdown roadside bomb network in Laghman Province</title>
            <description><![CDATA[A not insignificant firefight in Afstan...&nbsp; data for this post was collected from several US&nbsp;government sources.&nbsp; The spin is all mine.

KABUL, Afghanistan &ndash; Having done their homework, Coalition soldiers went after a Taliban roadside bomb cell responsible for numerous IED and gunfire attacks against Coalition forces and local&nbsp;civilians&nbsp;in the Alishang District, which lies approximately 100 KM northeast of Kabul.&nbsp; When the smoke cleared and the last echoes of gunfire faded, 32 armed insurgents, including one woman, were killed, with one suspected militant arrested.&nbsp; After the firefight, Coalition troops&nbsp;destroyed two large caches of weapons and bomb-making materials that were uncovered during the firefight.]]></description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 07:27:03 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-01-08</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[FWIW-I have been advised by folks who know that when they say &quot;Coalition Forces&quot; it does indeed mean SOF types.<br />
<br />
If it was a regular Army unit, the unit designation would have been given by PAO.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82594</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82594</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:41:24 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Josh on 2009-01-08</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[fdcol63, I agree entirely.<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82590</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82590</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:12:54 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Heartless Libertarian on 2009-01-07</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[BTW John - Laghman province is in RC-East, the US (CJTF-101) sector.&nbsp; Unless &quot;Coalition Forces&quot; were SOF types, those boys were wearing Big Red One patches.<br />
<br />
No, I don't think any of the above violates OPSEC.&nbsp; The troops in that area have been there for more than 6 months.&nbsp; The Taliban and HiGs (I think more likely HiGs) in the area know exactly who they are.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82537</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82537</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:09:41 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from fdcol63 on 2009-01-07</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[I would have to admit to being a little conflicted about our constant desire and efforts to minimize civilian casualties in these operations, just as I am about what's going on in Gaza right now.<br />
<br />
On the one&nbsp;hand, I think we should make every effort to reduce the loss of innocent life among civilians and other non-combatants, both on basic humanitarian grounds and to avoid alienating and radicalizing the civilian population any more than they already might be.<br />
<br />
But on the other hand, I think the only way we&nbsp;have any hope of countering the terrorists' ability to use the civilian population as shields is to somehow convince the civilians that there is a GREATER cost for them in allowing the terrorists to use them as shields.<br />
<br />
Now, I know many people will chafe at this statement, and claim that these civilians don't have much choice, that they're being brutalized by the terrorists, and that they may not be armed well enough to keep the terrorists out of their midst.<br />
<br />
In some cases, this&nbsp;is undoubtedly&nbsp;true.&nbsp; However, in many more cases, I believe the opposite is true. I&nbsp;believe that much too often, the civilian population either tacitly or strongly&nbsp;shares&nbsp;the ideology, attitudes, and goals of the terrorists and willingly allows the militants to hide among them with the certain knowledge that American, Coalition, and Israeli troops will assume&nbsp;greater risks to themselves in order to avoid collateral damage and civilian deaths.<br />
<br />
Quiite frankly, I think if the civilian population knew - without a shadow of a doubt - that we would not hold back in hitting attacking forces wherever they are, they'd make much more of an effort to keep their homes and villages from becoming sanctuaries, driving them out into the open where we could hit them without greater risk of collateral damage and civilian deaths.<br />
<br />
At the very least, we wouldn't have terrorist groups like Hamas being elected as governments.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82536</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82536</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:06:22 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-01-07</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[For the acronym-challenged among us...&nbsp; QASAS = Quality Assurance Specialist (Ammunition Surveillance)<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82534</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82534</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:48:46 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Chuck Simmins on 2009-01-07</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Americans don't have an appreciation of the way homes are built in Afghanistan. We think of homes like ours, not little compounds, mini-fortresses.<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82522</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82522</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:30:29 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from RetRsvMike on 2009-01-07</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[i propose a new tactic in the War on Terror: give the Taliban some QASAS inspectors.&nbsp; that'll shut them down right quick.<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82521</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/01/coalition_force_2.html#comment-82521</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 08:26:45 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


