<?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: What new strategy?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://comops.org/journal/2010/01/11/what-new-strategy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://comops.org/journal/2010/01/11/what-new-strategy/</link>
	<description>A Journal of the Consortium for Strategic Communication</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 16:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Laity</title>
		<link>http://comops.org/journal/2010/01/11/what-new-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-365</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Laity</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://comops.org/journal/?p=1858#comment-365</guid>
		<description>You know, I think Hoffman is making a fairly fmailiar mistake, which is to confuse a new strategy with the better implementation of the old one. We see the same thing in ISAF, where the new team talked all the time about a new strategy, which on analysis was not new at all. To some degree they were just reinventing the wheel (new teams never acknowledge old teams) and to some extent they were focussing on new methods of implementation and calling it a new strategy. After all it&#039;s so much more sexy to develop a new strategy than just do better with the old one! The brutal truth is of course the strategy may not be easy, but comparatively it is often the easiest bit, and it&#039;s the humdrum grind of putting it into effect that is the real challenge.
In this respect I totally agree with Steve, AQ don&#039;t have a new strategy, BUT it is a very effective and sophisticated application of the old one, and frankly that&#039;s far more scary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You know, I think Hoffman is making a fairly fmailiar mistake, which is to confuse a new strategy with the better implementation of the old one. We see the same thing in ISAF, where the new team talked all the time about a new strategy, which on analysis was not new at all. To some degree they were just reinventing the wheel (new teams never acknowledge old teams) and to some extent they were focussing on new methods of implementation and calling it a new strategy. After all it&#8217;s so much more sexy to develop a new strategy than just do better with the old one! The brutal truth is of course the strategy may not be easy, but comparatively it is often the easiest bit, and it&#8217;s the humdrum grind of putting it into effect that is the real challenge.<br />
In this respect I totally agree with Steve, AQ don&#8217;t have a new strategy, BUT it is a very effective and sophisticated application of the old one, and frankly that&#8217;s far more scary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Magnus Johnsson</title>
		<link>http://comops.org/journal/2010/01/11/what-new-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-364</link>
		<dc:creator>Magnus Johnsson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:37:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://comops.org/journal/?p=1858#comment-364</guid>
		<description>Right on. I share the respect for Hoffman as a terrorist researcher, but in this case it seems as if he is fueling the already confused debate on &quot;strategy&quot;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right on. I share the respect for Hoffman as a terrorist researcher, but in this case it seems as if he is fueling the already confused debate on &#8220;strategy&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

