<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Changes to the Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/</link>
	<description>News &#38; Commentary on Warfare, Policy and Counterterrorism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:49:33 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CPT Bjork &#8211; Evergreen &#124; Court-Martial Trial Practice</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-29137</link>
		<dc:creator>CPT Bjork &#8211; Evergreen &#124; Court-Martial Trial Practice</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 07:35:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-29137</guid>
		<description>[...] appear to be some ROE issues in the case, because of this reference: Herschel Smith, writing about Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan at The Captain’s Journal, said, “Our problems with the existing ROE and RUF are [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] appear to be some ROE issues in the case, because of this reference: Herschel Smith, writing about Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan at The Captain’s Journal, said, “Our problems with the existing ROE and RUF are [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; McChrystal, Troop Levels and Rules of Engagement</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-28324</link>
		<dc:creator>The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; McChrystal, Troop Levels and Rules of Engagement</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:48:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-28324</guid>
		<description>[...] McChrystal has issued a tactical directive that has essentially redounded to revised rules of engagement.  But this narrative is not compelling to those who have followed the campaign.  True enough, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] McChrystal has issued a tactical directive that has essentially redounded to revised rules of engagement.  But this narrative is not compelling to those who have followed the campaign.  True enough, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Taliban Ambush in Eastern Kunar Kills Four U.S. Marines</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-28195</link>
		<dc:creator>The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Taliban Ambush in Eastern Kunar Kills Four U.S. Marines</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:41:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-28195</guid>
		<description>[...] said it would happen, and only recently &#8220;officials&#8221; have admitted that the new Afghanistan ROE have opened [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] said it would happen, and only recently &#8220;officials&#8221; have admitted that the new Afghanistan ROE have opened [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Colonel Gian Gentile on Killing the Enemy</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-28160</link>
		<dc:creator>The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Colonel Gian Gentile on Killing the Enemy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 03:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-28160</guid>
		<description>[...] just like we said it would (and more here).  Continuing with Colonel Gentile&#8217;s points: A very recent article in the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] just like we said it would (and more here).  Continuing with Colonel Gentile&#8217;s points: A very recent article in the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Seeking Riskless War</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-27978</link>
		<dc:creator>The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Seeking Riskless War</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-27978</guid>
		<description>[...] implementation of his recent tactical directive which essentially changed the ROE for Afghanistan, some old warriors claimed that the net result of such a change would probably be more, not fewer, civilian [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] implementation of his recent tactical directive which essentially changed the ROE for Afghanistan, some old warriors claimed that the net result of such a change would probably be more, not fewer, civilian [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Concluding Thoughts on Afghanistan ROE Modifications</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-27765</link>
		<dc:creator>The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Concluding Thoughts on Afghanistan ROE Modifications</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:54:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-27765</guid>
		<description>[...] Changes to the Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Changes to the Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Afghanistan Rules of Engagement Redux</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-27757</link>
		<dc:creator>The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Afghanistan Rules of Engagement Redux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:47:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-27757</guid>
		<description>[...] response to our Changes to the Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan, Justbarkingmad wrote: Some critics of McChrystal’s policy claim that this will deter commanders [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] response to our Changes to the Rules of Engagement for Afghanistan, Justbarkingmad wrote: Some critics of McChrystal’s policy claim that this will deter commanders [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Update on ROE Changes for Afghanistan</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-27749</link>
		<dc:creator>The Captain&#8217;s Journal &#187; Update on ROE Changes for Afghanistan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:21:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-27749</guid>
		<description>[...] as it was in the Anbar Province.  This information is valuable as a followup to our previous analysis of the new ROE.  Three more points are in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] as it was in the Anbar Province.  This information is valuable as a followup to our previous analysis of the new ROE.  Three more points are in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jbrookins</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-27746</link>
		<dc:creator>jbrookins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:42:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-27746</guid>
		<description>This does not sound good to me.  I hope there is more to it than what we&#039;ve seen so far.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This does not sound good to me.  I hope there is more to it than what we&#8217;ve seen so far.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TSAlfabet</title>
		<link>http://www.captainsjournal.com/2009/06/23/changes-to-the-rules-of-engagement-for-afghanistan/comment-page-1/#comment-27745</link>
		<dc:creator>TSAlfabet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 23:12:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.captainsjournal.com/?p=3194#comment-27745</guid>
		<description>Allow me to apologize up front for what is sure to be a volcanic comment.

If I understand the gist of the quoted reactions to the new ROE&#039;s, most are supportive because, as Johannes said,&quot;the key point of the change in the use of force is to move away from killing to suffocation.&quot;  And others cited by the Captain seem to be operating under a similar delusion.

Let&#039;s cut the B.S. and get right to the heart of it: there will be NO suffocation of any bad guys in A-stan because there are not now and will never be (as far as I can fathom from Administration narratives) enough U.S. forces to do anything like the COIN operations needed to &#039;suffocate&#039; an insurgency.  A-stan is now in the hands of a cold, calculating politician who will do just enough to say he tried but never enough to win.

When is someone in the media, Republican ranks, or military going to clearly nail this infernal excuse for a strategy that lacks the basic requisite of troops to get the job done?  Does Dick Cheney have to spend his life on the Sunday talk shows to point out the glaring malfeasance we are seeing from this Administration?  How can Petraeus and McChrystal live with themselves when they sell a strategy that, while sound in principle, they know cannot be accomplished with a measly 68,000 troops?

It is stunning to see Small Wars Journal and others playing along with this charade.  What is the point of arguing over ROE&#039;s?  It is like arguing over the best arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic as it shudders from the impact of the iceberg.  Yes, of course, the U.S. should try to limit civilian casualties and we can&#039;t kill our way out of an insurgency and we need to protect the civilian population etc... But since we know right NOW that the Administration is not going to send anywhere near enough troops to protect the population in any of the ways necessary to make sense of the new ROE&#039;s, what the use?!  &quot;Gated communities&quot; ?? &quot;Checkpoints&quot; ??  As TCJ has pointed out over and over, this sort of thing is never going to happen from a FOB.

Ladies and gentlemen, the U.S. military is willingly going along with orders from the C-in-C to bend over, smile and allow the Taliban to kick their butts.  It is so frustrating that it cause for weeping.  But we will save that for the families of the poor soldiers who will die for this lame-brain strategy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Allow me to apologize up front for what is sure to be a volcanic comment.</p>
<p>If I understand the gist of the quoted reactions to the new ROE&#8217;s, most are supportive because, as Johannes said,&#8221;the key point of the change in the use of force is to move away from killing to suffocation.&#8221;  And others cited by the Captain seem to be operating under a similar delusion.</p>
<p>Let&#8217;s cut the B.S. and get right to the heart of it: there will be NO suffocation of any bad guys in A-stan because there are not now and will never be (as far as I can fathom from Administration narratives) enough U.S. forces to do anything like the COIN operations needed to &#8217;suffocate&#8217; an insurgency.  A-stan is now in the hands of a cold, calculating politician who will do just enough to say he tried but never enough to win.</p>
<p>When is someone in the media, Republican ranks, or military going to clearly nail this infernal excuse for a strategy that lacks the basic requisite of troops to get the job done?  Does Dick Cheney have to spend his life on the Sunday talk shows to point out the glaring malfeasance we are seeing from this Administration?  How can Petraeus and McChrystal live with themselves when they sell a strategy that, while sound in principle, they know cannot be accomplished with a measly 68,000 troops?</p>
<p>It is stunning to see Small Wars Journal and others playing along with this charade.  What is the point of arguing over ROE&#8217;s?  It is like arguing over the best arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic as it shudders from the impact of the iceberg.  Yes, of course, the U.S. should try to limit civilian casualties and we can&#8217;t kill our way out of an insurgency and we need to protect the civilian population etc&#8230; But since we know right NOW that the Administration is not going to send anywhere near enough troops to protect the population in any of the ways necessary to make sense of the new ROE&#8217;s, what the use?!  &#8220;Gated communities&#8221; ?? &#8220;Checkpoints&#8221; ??  As TCJ has pointed out over and over, this sort of thing is never going to happen from a FOB.</p>
<p>Ladies and gentlemen, the U.S. military is willingly going along with orders from the C-in-C to bend over, smile and allow the Taliban to kick their butts.  It is so frustrating that it cause for weeping.  But we will save that for the families of the poor soldiers who will die for this lame-brain strategy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
