<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for Winning the war in Afghanistan</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/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:20:57 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>Winning the war in Afghanistan</title>
            <description><![CDATA[Fuzzybear sent me a link to a post over at AfghanistanShrugged called What Price Victory For An Afghan ETT?.&nbsp;(Embedded Tactical Trainer)

The post opens with this:



There&rsquo;s been a lot in the news lately about what &ldquo;victory&rdquo; in Afghanistan looks like. I really don&rsquo;t know, nor do I want to venture an opinion on that one. People at much higher pay grades than mine can figure that one out. All I can speak for is the little piece of Afghanistan that I share with my ANA and the local populace of Bermel.

I&rsquo;ll tell you this; it&rsquo;s little things. Try to accomplish much more you&rsquo;ll begin a slow circle of the drain leading to frustration and self induced psychosis. What I&rsquo;m about to tell you about is 5 kilometers. That&rsquo;s 3.1 miles, not very far. But it might as well be a light year here.


In military parlance, being &quot;far from the flagpole&quot; Vampire 06 has a lot of flexibility in how he approaches things.&nbsp; Too far&nbsp;away for it to be worth&nbsp;it for HQ's Staff Fobbits to stick their fingers in his business, he's pretty much got binary&nbsp;metrics&nbsp;to work against.&nbsp; Success, and Epic&nbsp;Fail.]]></description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:59:57 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Grimmy on 2009-03-29</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[John:<br />
<br />
Actually, much of the problem in Afghan today, and tracing back to when it went fallow after the initial push, is directly due to so many of our &quot;allies&quot; being worse than worthless when it comes to warfighting.<br />
<br />
They promised lots and provided nearly nothing, and what they did provide came with so many strings attached that it ends up as a net neg. <br />
<br />
Not all our allies are so bent, but&nbsp; too many of them are.<br />
<br />
There is also the brain dead idiocy of the ISAF command structure, 6 month rotating commands, each national contengient willing to fight demanding its own AO, doing things its own way and with very little effort to actually coordinate anything between themselves in any way at all.<br />
<br />
Incompetence is the rule of the day when ever such structures are put in place. It's a mandatory part of the process. And is also mandatory for any time we need to call upon the europers for anything.<br />
<br />
You can blame the usual in laying it all on Rums and/or Bush, but you do know damn well that there has not been anything different in any operation that ever involved european forces for a long time. And the more time goes on, the worse the parasitism has gotten. Now, there's not a single european nation that can actually field a force honestly competent for its own defense against an aggressor. <br />
<br />
That such a compromise with the multi-culti idiot left in our own country in its irrational need to be seen as nothing more than a minor player in anything of importance is, quite honestly, just another sad indictment to how far we have sunk as a nation by a full generation of appeasing the knee jerk anti-American elements born among us.<br />
<br />
Now, take yourself to any forum or blog dealing with Afghan by foreigners who have forces in Afghanistan and you'll see all the gasping squeals about the area being &quot;Americanized&quot; and all the misery, horror and doom that that entails.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86522</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86522</guid>
            <pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:14:24 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-03-27</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Joy - I was more after Afstan&nbsp;on Rumsfeld's watch, and not carrying it forward to today - the situation that Gates inherited was created under Rumsfeld's watch and with Bush's approval.<br />
<br />
And clearly, towards the end of the Bush era, a decision was made (or, alternatively, decisions were *not* made, which, of course, *is* a decision in itself) to leave Afghanistan to the Obama administration.<br />
<br />
They're putting out their view on it today.&nbsp; It then becomes their war <em>de jure</em> as well as <em>de facto, </em>which it already is.<br />
<br />
Of course, it's always been <em>our</em> war, but that's the nature of the game.&nbsp; <br />
<br />
But they're dealing with the situation that grew from the seeds planted by Rumsfeld, and accepted by Bush.&nbsp; That's simply truth.&nbsp; History may vindicate Rumsfeld and Bush on how they handled things.&nbsp; Only time will tell, and the best assessments will probably be made after I'm long gone - just as we continually reassess WWII in light of new information coming out of the classified archives.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86372</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86372</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:46:28 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Joy Shasteen on 2009-03-27</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The onus is not on Rumsfield--Rumsfield is&nbsp; the &quot;old DoD&quot; ; the onus is on Gates--does he understand your small unit win theory or is he like Obama---just wanting to have a &quot;definitive exit strategy&quot;.&nbsp; I have 4 days left of military service after 32 years, my guess is that Gates and Obama both want an economy of force operation that extracts US interests out of the region--also called withdrawal.&nbsp; Neither understand why we are there and what put us there in the first place so keeping a force sustained there for any purpose won't be in what they consider US best interest.&nbsp; We, like Alexander, Persa, the British Empire and the&nbsp;Soviet Union will leave because we can't think in strategic global constructs.&nbsp; The US military and DoD are themselves in disarray so the best we can hope for is that this withdrawal will not come back to bit us on the butt.<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86368</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86368</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:27:44 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Argent on 2009-03-27</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[That article is very good and has just the right balance.<br />
<br />
I think the Afghan thing was less about&nbsp; troops and far more about focus, interest and effort shifting to Iraq.<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86356</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86356</guid>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:23:03 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Grumpy on 2009-03-26</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[As I read your article, &nbsp;I had no problem, including links, with any of the content. But at the end, you &nbsp;write, &quot;Which still leaves the onus for the current situation sitting squarely on Secretary Rumsfeld's desk.&quot; In that sentence, was there a typographical error?&nbsp;Did you mean &quot;onus&quot; or &quot;anus&quot;? Just curious.<br />
<br />
Well, What do expect from an old Vet? New A'stan or Iraqi war vets, help us to understand.<br />
<br />
V/R&nbsp;Grumpy]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86334</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/03/winning_the_war_1.html#comment-86334</guid>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:31:23 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


