<?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: Gee, no shit?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/26/gee-no-shit/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/26/gee-no-shit/</link>
	<description>Korea... in Blog Format</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: ben</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/26/gee-no-shit/#comment-762</link>
		<dc:creator>ben</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:15:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=317#comment-762</guid>
		<description>i love some one
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i love some one</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: warren pittman</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/26/gee-no-shit/#comment-761</link>
		<dc:creator>warren pittman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2003 09:04:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=317#comment-761</guid>
		<description>Six months rotations would have some benefits for military readiness.  As the system is setup right now,  the continual arrival and departure of personnel means a large portion of any military unit is new and inexperienced, plus it creates issues with teambuilding.  A rotational unit would be comprised of soldiers, airmen, or marines who trained together before the rotation and would remain together for the six months they were in the country.

I am sure a permanent headquarters which controlled incoming units would remain in place which would handle coordination between ROK and US forces.  The issue of familiarity with terrain could be somewhat alleviated through simulations using Korean terrain for command and control purposes, though that is not a replacement for time spent on the ground.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Six months rotations would have some benefits for military readiness.  As the system is setup right now,  the continual arrival and departure of personnel means a large portion of any military unit is new and inexperienced, plus it creates issues with teambuilding.  A rotational unit would be comprised of soldiers, airmen, or marines who trained together before the rotation and would remain together for the six months they were in the country.</p>
<p>I am sure a permanent headquarters which controlled incoming units would remain in place which would handle coordination between ROK and US forces.  The issue of familiarity with terrain could be somewhat alleviated through simulations using Korean terrain for command and control purposes, though that is not a replacement for time spent on the ground.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: usinkorea</title>
		<link>http://www.rjkoehler.com/2003/11/26/gee-no-shit/#comment-760</link>
		<dc:creator>usinkorea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 2003 06:45:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rjkoehler.com/?p=317#comment-760</guid>
		<description>The six month rotation plan isn't new.  I remember hearing
something about it in the last year or so.

The plan I heard was USFK would cut back on the number of
soldiers able to bring over family, and they would send 
to Korea whole units rather than individuals and rotate
them every 6 months.

Some Korean civic groups favorable to USFK didn't like the
idea, and I thought they brought up a good point.

They said families provide stability, and USFK needed more
families in country rather than less.  They said it would
cut down some on the problems between the community and
US soldiers if the soldiers had their wives or husbands and
kids with them to help with support.

For myself, I wondered how a six month rotation system would
not lower military capability?

It would seem to me that just as a soldier was started to get
used to the terrain and other military factors of how to
defend South Korea as well as getting ready to work with the
Korean military to prepare for a joint defense, the unit 
would rotate out????

But I'm not a military man and have never been, so maybe 
I don't understand the capabilities of the contemporary 
military.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The six month rotation plan isn&#8217;t new.  I remember hearing<br />
something about it in the last year or so.</p>
<p>The plan I heard was USFK would cut back on the number of<br />
soldiers able to bring over family, and they would send<br />
to Korea whole units rather than individuals and rotate<br />
them every 6 months.</p>
<p>Some Korean civic groups favorable to USFK didn&#8217;t like the<br />
idea, and I thought they brought up a good point.</p>
<p>They said families provide stability, and USFK needed more<br />
families in country rather than less.  They said it would<br />
cut down some on the problems between the community and<br />
US soldiers if the soldiers had their wives or husbands and<br />
kids with them to help with support.</p>
<p>For myself, I wondered how a six month rotation system would<br />
not lower military capability?</p>
<p>It would seem to me that just as a soldier was started to get<br />
used to the terrain and other military factors of how to<br />
defend South Korea as well as getting ready to work with the<br />
Korean military to prepare for a joint defense, the unit<br />
would rotate out????</p>
<p>But I&#8217;m not a military man and have never been, so maybe<br />
I don&#8217;t understand the capabilities of the contemporary<br />
military.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
