<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for General McKiernan vice General McChrystal</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/2009/05/general_mckiern.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:19:12 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>General McKiernan vice General McChrystal</title>
            <description><![CDATA[I&nbsp;thought I'd email someone with something in the fight - as in, he's a staff officer currently serving in Afghanistan.&nbsp; It's a single data point, but one worth considering.I'm not very familiar with either of the two, but I can't help having uneasy feelings about this switch out. Unless Gates or POTUS got unspoken permission from the Paks to start sending operators over the border. That would change things.But if McC thinks letting JSOC play whack-a-mole solely within Af-stan is going to win things here, I think he may get a rude awakening.To me it looks like the Administration is...]]></description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 07:36:19 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Grumpy on 2009-05-12</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[John, I feel like the old fool who is walking out on the &quot;black ice&quot;. He knows he's going to fall and break his ass and says, &quot;So be it.&quot;&nbsp;<br />
<br />
As I look at it, it appears to me, we are missing the whole point. The question becomes, who is actually calling the shots? The next natural question, &quot;Why?&quot; Are &quot;boots on the ground&quot; calling the shots? At this point the answer in no. In my view the answer is SCCDEF Robert Gates. Don't forget, Gates has a history, for himself. The &quot;why&quot; is he has been working with the Afghani People before Iraq, This was all before George W. Bush became President, #43, His Father, George H.W. Bush made him, DCI. Is there an old guilt?]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern.html#comment-88670</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern.html#comment-88670</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 17:45:04 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Casey on 2009-05-12</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[Major, if your analogy is correct then it's a Good Thing the switch was made. Just imagine if Mead or Grant had been in charge that day, instead of Hooker.<br />
<br />
...Of course, it might have been Burnside... <br />
<br />
My first reaction was &quot;well, conventional-force thinking didn't work too well in Iraq, <em>vice</em> classic anti-guerrila thinking, so maybe they'll put the snake-eaters in charge.&quot; On the other hand, you brought up important points I hadn't considered, which would seem to be more in line with current administration thinking. I had hoped for a moment that Barry had finally learned Chicago-style fighting, a la Jim Malone.<br />
<br />]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern.html#comment-88668</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern.html#comment-88668</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 13:12:32 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Disgruntled Major on 2009-05-12</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[The disheartening thing, John, is that McK wasn't even really given a chance to fight his plan.&nbsp; He said he needed more troops (and more civilian)&nbsp;- LAST SUMMER - but still has only gotten one BCT (3/10 Mtn) and only a tiny sliver of the so-called 'civilian surge'.&nbsp; Yes, the situation's not looking good, but doesn't that pretty much justify his request for more troops?&nbsp; It's like sacking Hooker after he's briefed his plan, but before he actually initiated any movement leading to Chancellorsville.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, as CFLCC commander in OIF I, McK asked for more troops but allowed himself to be overruled by Franks and Rumsfeld.&nbsp; Maybe after that, he wasn't going to let them overrule his judgement again.<br />
<br />
Or maybe it just boils down to Petreus wants his guy in charge over here.&nbsp; Sometimes it's just that simple.<br />
<br />
I'll have more later, once I've had a chance to put it together more coherently.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern.html#comment-88660</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/05/general_mckiern.html#comment-88660</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2009 10:14:30 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


