<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	<title>MetaFilter posts tagged with military and waronterror</title>
	<link>http://www.metafilter.com/tags/military+waronterror</link>
	<description>Posts tagged with 'military' and 'waronterror' at MetaFilter.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:17:02 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:17:02 -0800</lastBuildDate>

	<language>en-us</language>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	<ttl>60</ttl>
	<item>
		<title>I Am The Eye In The Sky</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/69877/I%2DAm%2DThe%2DEye%2DIn%2DThe%2DSky</link>
		<description> Discoveries made using satellite imagery,
particularly via Google Earth, have made &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/55609/Archaeological-treasures-found-on-Google-Earth&quot;&gt;headlines&lt;/a&gt; in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.metafilter.com/61040/Got-the-whole-world-in-your-hands&quot;&gt;blue&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://ask.metafilter.com/45835/Mysterious-Island-discovered-with-google-earth&quot;&gt;green&lt;/a&gt; before. Increasingly high-resolution photos, combined with obsessive
interest, have lead inevitably to the next step: interpretation
and analysis of spots on the Earth&apos;s surface for which information is
restricted, censored, or classified, such as the preparedness of military defenses in
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128528&quot;&gt;North Korea&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a title=&quot;Iran&quot; href=&quot;http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=129494&quot;&gt;Iran&lt;/a&gt;, or the viability of Saudi Arabia&apos;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://satelliteoerthedesert.blogspot.com/&quot;&gt;next big oil play&lt;/a&gt;. Of course, not all mapping is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mappingsharia.us&quot;&gt;benevolent&lt;/a&gt;.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2008:site.69877</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:17:02 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>cultoftheamateur</category>
		<category>geography</category>
		<category>googleearth</category>
		<category>maps</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>oil</category>
		<category>satellite</category>
		<category>sharia</category>
		<category>waronterror</category>
		<dc:creator>Bora Horza Gobuchul</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>D.C. Circuit: Military Tribunals A-Okay.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/43510/DC%2DCircuit%2DMilitary%2DTribunals%2DAOkay</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-5143602,00.html"&gt;D.C. Circuit: Military Tribunals Just Fine, Thanks.&lt;/a&gt; The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected an appeal by an Afghan who is being detained by the military to the tribunals established by the President&apos;s Court order in 2001.  The &lt;a href=&quot;http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf&quot;&gt;decision&lt;/a&gt; reversed a federal trial court ruling that the tribunals violated the Geneva Convention.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.43510</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:19:51 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>afghanistan</category>
		<category>justice</category>
		<category>law</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>terrorists</category>
		<category>tribunals</category>
		<category>Waronterror</category>
		<dc:creator>esquire</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Then and Now: Truth and spin on Iraq</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/43165/Then%2Dand%2DNow%2DTruth%2Dand%2Dspin%2Don%2DIraq</link>
		<description> &lt;small&gt;To be successful, an occupation such as that contemplated after any hostilities in Iraq requires much detailed interagency planning, many forces, multi-year military commitment, and a national commitment to nation-building... To conduct their share of the essential tasks that must be accomplished to reconstruct an Iraqi state, military forces will be severely taxed in military police, civil affairs, engineer, and transportation units, in addition to possible severe security difficulties. The administration of an Iraqi occupation will be complicated by deep religious, ethnic, and tribal differences which dominate Iraqi society. U.S. forces may have to manage and adjudicate conflicts among Iraqis that they can barely comprehend. An exit strategy will require the establishment of political stability, which will be difficult to achieve given Iraq&apos;s fragmented population, weak political institutions, and propensity for rule by violence. &lt;/small&gt; &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;From the US Army War College in February 2003: &lt;a href=&quot;http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:3-MTnoi8z9YJ:www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf&quot; title=&quot;If this nation and its coalition partners decide to undertake the mission to remove Saddam Hussein, they will also have to be prepared to dedicate...&quot;&gt;Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, and Missions for Military Forces in a Post-Conflict Scenario&lt;/a&gt; &amp;#0160;&lt;strong&gt;(&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf&quot; title=&quot;Iraq presents far from ideal conditions for achieving strategic goals....&quot;&gt;PDF&lt;/a&gt;&lt;strong&gt;)&lt;/strong&gt;.   From June 2005, Anthony Cordesman&apos;s analysis of factual misstatements in  the President&apos;s recent address: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wpherald.com/print.php?StoryID=20050629-035912-6726r&quot; title=&quot;Key parts of [President Bush&apos;s] speech ... were driven by spin, rather than a frank effort to warn the American people of the sacrifices necessary to win and the risks involved....&quot;&gt;Truth and spin on Iraq&lt;/a&gt;. Foresight is 20/20. Irresponsibility and mendacity are timeless.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2005:site.43165</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 06:29:51 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>anthonycordesman</category>
		<category>iraq</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>occupation</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>waronterror</category>
		<dc:creator>y2karl</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title>Thousandth U.S. soldier dies in War on Terror.</title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/34187/Thousandth%2DUS%2Dsoldier%2Ddies%2Din%2DWar%2Don%2DTerror</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://icasualties.org"&gt;Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died in the War on Terror.&lt;/a&gt; As of today, 872 soldiers have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom and 129 in &lt;a href=&quot;http://icasualties.org/oef&quot;&gt;Operation Enduring Freedom&lt;/a&gt;. Time for a moment of silence, perhaps, before sharing your reflections on the subject.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2004:site.34187</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2004 05:52:19 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>1000</category>
		<category>death</category>
		<category>iraq</category>
		<category>iraqwar</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>operationenduringfreedom</category>
		<category>operationiraqifreedom</category>
		<category>soldiers</category>
		<category>terror</category>
		<category>US</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>waronterror</category>
		<dc:creator>insomnia_lj</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/20429/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/814576.asp"&gt;&quot;They were acting like bin Laden was hiding behind every door. That just wasn&#8217;t the way to be acting with civilians.&quot;&lt;/a&gt; According to this Newsweek article, some members of U.S. Special Forces seem to think the military&apos;s recent operations to track down Al Qaeda went a bit awry.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.20429</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:18:04 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Afghanistan</category>
		<category>alQaeda</category>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>Newsweek</category>
		<category>SpecialForces</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>WarOnTerror</category>
		<dc:creator>moonbiter</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/19356/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/c453.html"&gt;Is Preemption a Nuclear Schlieffen Plan?&lt;/a&gt; The greatest and most difficult task facing a statesman in international affairs is reconciling the natural tension between the constructive nature of a nation&apos;s grand strategy with the destructive character of its military strategy. The emerging doctrine of preemption should be examined in the context of this challenge.
With this in mind, the author &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infowar.com/iwftp/cspinney/25Feb2002_441_-_Woodrow_Wilson_Meets_Dr__Strangelove.shtml &quot;&gt; continues with a &quot;Dr. Strangelove&quot; type warning.&lt;/a&gt; Are our leaders &quot;doing themselves in&quot; (and us with them) in the current &apos;war&apos; on terrorism?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.19356</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:12:18 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>preemptive</category>
		<category>strategy</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>WarOnTerror</category>
		<dc:creator>tgrundke</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/17493/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/05/30/afghan.war.web.page.ap/index.html"&gt;Marines use high tech website in the War on Terror.&lt;/a&gt; Very interesting idea.  Use the internet instead of the C4 systems that have already been bought...cause it works better.  I believe it.  With Wired (via Fark) having an article on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,52766,00.html&quot;&gt;&quot;The Marines&apos; arsenal of the future is starting to look a whole lot like the shelves at Toys &quot;R&quot; Us.&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, and another on &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41216,00.html&quot;&gt;powered exoskeletons&lt;/a&gt;, and yet another that mentions &lt;a href=&quot;http://sci.newsfactor.com/perl/printer/16803/&quot;&gt;invisibility cloaks&lt;/a&gt;, how long before &quot;The War of the Future&quot; is here?  What&apos;s it going to look like? I can envision a lot more people interested in the armed forces if they get to play with cool toys like this.  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.17493</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 May 2002 08:30:47 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>exoskeletons</category>
		<category>invisibility</category>
		<category>marines</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>waronterror</category>
		<category>wired</category>
		<dc:creator>taumeson</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/13545/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/1323066.jpg"&gt;This propaganda leaflet&lt;/a&gt; is apparently being dropped in afghanistan by the American Military (taken from this msnbc story about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.msnbc.com/news/627086.asp?pne=msn&quot;&gt; the first american soldier to die from hostile fire&lt;/a&gt;).  Regardless of your opinion about propaganda, this seems rather sloppy.  If the purpose of propaganda is to convince people of something, wouldn&apos;t you want to say it in a language they understand?  Is the American military getting lazy / sloppy / over-confident?  It looks like the propaganda leaflets from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.btinternet.com/~rrnotes/psywarsoc/fleaf/gulfapp.htm&quot;&gt;Desert storm&lt;/a&gt; (1991), &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.btinternet.com/~rrnotes/psywarsoc/fleaf/desertfox.htm&quot;&gt;Desert Fox&lt;/a&gt; (1998), and the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.btinternet.com/~rrnotes/psywarsoc/fleaf/kosovo.htm&quot;&gt;bombing of Kosovo&lt;/a&gt; were at least in the local languages.  (Who knew there was a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.btinternet.com/~rrnotes/psywarsoc/fleaf/index.htm&quot;&gt;quarterly magazine&lt;/a&gt; dedicated to aerial leaflet propaganda?)  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2002:site.13545</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:03:48 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>Afghanistan</category>
		<category>brokenlink</category>
		<category>language</category>
		<category>leaflets</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>propaganda</category>
		<category>psyops</category>
		<category>USA</category>
		<category>WarOnTerror</category>
		<dc:creator>jnthnjng</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/11080/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/03/alexander.cnna/index.html"&gt;The G-Rated War: Blowing Smoke, Pipe Dream, or The Real Hashish?&lt;br&gt;&lt;/a&gt; I want to spin antiwar arguments a slightly different way. Previous threads have been quite dim. This Cnn chat transcript focuses on the use of non-lethal weapons, the need to separate innocents from terrorists and separate terrorist networks from Islamic states, and the interviewee is as much as suit as they come. You could cut a diamond on that crew cut. I have several questions: 1) Is the US military actually going to use non-lethal weapons, or is this the new &quot;smart bomb?&quot; 2) Do the &apos;pacificists&apos; among us consider this to be pacificist? 3) If you do favor peace over war, do you think this is a good compromise between peace and war, or is the issue by definition binary? More &gt; &gt;  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.11080</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:36:20 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>nonlethal</category>
		<category>us</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>waronterror</category>
		<category>weaponry</category>
		<category>weapons</category>
		<dc:creator>rschram</dc:creator>
	</item>
      <item>
		<title></title>
		<link>http://www.metafilter.com/10700/</link>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,556279,00.html"&gt;Americans threatened to attack Afghanistan two months ago.&lt;/a&gt; Was the terrorist attack a pre-emptive strike?  </description>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.10700</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:39:14 -0800</pubDate>
		<category>9-11</category>
		<category>afghanistan</category>
		<category>military</category>
		<category>terrorism</category>
		<category>war</category>
		<category>waronterror</category>
		<dc:creator>liam</dc:creator>
	</item>
      
	</channel>
</rss>


