Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
Regarding my first point- If the principles are truly principles, then 100% success must show their application in some form. The specific application may be different based on the circumstances, but they are applied none-the-less.

Regarding my second point- There are many reasons that the tactical military commander may be forced to accept less than optimal positions, especially in pseudo-war operations like what we are currently engaged in. While many (if not all) of the principles remain the same, the details of their application change, and sometimes higher considerations (operational, strategic) supersede tactical considerations.

Provide the principles that you feel are being violated, and I will attempt to explain to you the TTPs with which those principles are employed in OEF, limited by OPSEC (of course), my own knowledge limitations (I'm 5 years out of OEF now) and the separation caused by this means of communication.
My comment on your post was simply that whether any bases had been overrun or not had little or nothing to do with what was being discussed and that being that the Principles of the Defence should be considered in every defensive instance or ignored in a counter insurgency setting.

My point was simply that they should always be considered... but with the rider (I borrowed from the introduction to that Brit doctrine pamphlet) "The subject matter contained within this publication is authoritative. However, its application is a matter of military judgement."

I'm happy to leave it there... unless you want to put up the costs for a trip to Afghanistan (when it warms up) where we can discuss the matter further on the ground.