

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: COIN Analogy of the Day</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/03/15/coin-analogy-of-the-day/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/03/15/coin-analogy-of-the-day/</link>
	<description>News &#38; Commentary on Warfare, Policy and Counterterrorism</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Herschel Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/03/15/coin-analogy-of-the-day/#comment-25180</link>
		<dc:creator>Herschel Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:11:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/03/15/coin-analogy-of-the-day/#comment-25180</guid>
		<description>My counter-example would be Anbar.  The Marines were doing force projection before the "surge" was ever dreamed up.  As to the small footprint model of COIN, I think the salient idea here is that the actual need to use force is inversely proportional to the amount of force one has.  Given an unlimited number of missions (kinetic, reconstruction, civil affairs, etc.), more troops is better.  Take, hold and build needs more troops than just the "take" part.

As to my snearing, see the last part of the post about the need for humor.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My counter-example would be Anbar.  The Marines were doing force projection before the &#8220;surge&#8221; was ever dreamed up.  As to the small footprint model of COIN, I think the salient idea here is that the actual need to use force is inversely proportional to the amount of force one has.  Given an unlimited number of missions (kinetic, reconstruction, civil affairs, etc.), more troops is better.  Take, hold and build needs more troops than just the &#8220;take&#8221; part.</p>
<p>As to my snearing, see the last part of the post about the need for humor.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cplpunishment</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/03/15/coin-analogy-of-the-day/#comment-25179</link>
		<dc:creator>cplpunishment</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:46:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/03/15/coin-analogy-of-the-day/#comment-25179</guid>
		<description>'She has nothing whatsoever to do with the cultural ethos in the Middle East, where Osama bin Laden says that the stronger horse gets the vote of the population (and we have pointed out that the U.S. Marines were the stronger horse in Anbar).' 
If by this you mean that whoever has the most boots on the ground wins, I've got a dozen counter-examples for you. It also sounds like your history only goes back to about 1991. Aden? Malaya? Rhodesia (until the money ran out)? The US was losing in Iraq until the 3rd Infantry and all the other donkeys were reigned in and stopped killing the locals, got out of their huge cushy bases and actually started walking up and down streets with the local military/police. Thats exactly what the UK military had advised the US to do. Sneering at the Brits for being small time is both cheap and besides the point. Small forces have beaten larger forces often and for perfectly sound military reasons. I like most of what you write but on this occasion your both wrong and disrespectful.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8216;She has nothing whatsoever to do with the cultural ethos in the Middle East, where Osama bin Laden says that the stronger horse gets the vote of the population (and we have pointed out that the U.S. Marines were the stronger horse in Anbar).&#8217;<br />
If by this you mean that whoever has the most boots on the ground wins, I&#8217;ve got a dozen counter-examples for you. It also sounds like your history only goes back to about 1991. Aden? Malaya? Rhodesia (until the money ran out)? The US was losing in Iraq until the 3rd Infantry and all the other donkeys were reigned in and stopped killing the locals, got out of their huge cushy bases and actually started walking up and down streets with the local military/police. Thats exactly what the UK military had advised the US to do. Sneering at the Brits for being small time is both cheap and besides the point. Small forces have beaten larger forces often and for perfectly sound military reasons. I like most of what you write but on this occasion your both wrong and disrespectful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
