<?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: HIGH NOON FOR U.S. ARMY</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/high_noon_for_us_army/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/high_noon_for_us_army/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:38:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/high_noon_for_us_army/#comment-3709</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2675#comment-3709</guid>
		<description>And what would their task be?

The bulk of our problem is in a very small geographic area. As it stands today, supplying more troops would also supply more targets for the random attacks. I am not saying that more troops would not make the situation safer. It may. 

But people think just adding more troops makes the bad guys go away. On the contray it gives them more to shoot at. Yes you can increase force protection by increasing troop strenth but it is does not magically make the bad guys retreat as the media and administration critics would have you believe.

Especially when the bad guys in this case want to become martyrs, they don't care if they are outnumbered as long as they get a few of our guys.

Paul</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And what would their task be?</p>
<p>The bulk of our problem is in a very small geographic area. As it stands today, supplying more troops would also supply more targets for the random attacks. I am not saying that more troops would not make the situation safer. It may. </p>
<p>But people think just adding more troops makes the bad guys go away. On the contray it gives them more to shoot at. Yes you can increase force protection by increasing troop strenth but it is does not magically make the bad guys retreat as the media and administration critics would have you believe.</p>
<p>Especially when the bad guys in this case want to become martyrs, they don't care if they are outnumbered as long as they get a few of our guys.</p>
<p>Paul</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leroy</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/high_noon_for_us_army/#comment-3710</link>
		<dc:creator>Leroy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2675#comment-3710</guid>
		<description>I think a case can be made to add another division or two worth of manpower into the army. Noting that, it will not be a short term solution to having approximately half the military power of the US Army stationed in Iraq. As noted in your last sentence, there would be a matter of staffing the newly created (re-activated) forces. More than the staffing problem (which would be no small matter), it would also take a good bit of time to get a new unit up to speed. 



---</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think a case can be made to add another division or two worth of manpower into the army. Noting that, it will not be a short term solution to having approximately half the military power of the US Army stationed in Iraq. As noted in your last sentence, there would be a matter of staffing the newly created (re-activated) forces. More than the staffing problem (which would be no small matter), it would also take a good bit of time to get a new unit up to speed. </p>
<p>---</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
