Printable View
I think. My suspicion is this will do little good. Not least because we made much noise about not doing body counts. I'm also skeptical that the announced purpose, pre-empting opposition claims, will be successfully achieved.
LINK.
Assuming the article is accurate, we'll see, I guess...
Ken,
I think if the numbers are casually mentioned to discredit Taliban propaganda, and they are not used as a measure of success, then there may be some merit. However, we both know Army culture and the less talented officers will look for an easy metric to demonstrate success on their rotation and this could drive stupid operations. Is it possible to track body counts without changing the way we operate? Don't know, and as usual you'll probably be right, this will probably end up being a dumb idea in hindsight. Bill
Quote:
The Army began a rethink when the 101st Airborne Division took over Afghan media operations in April 2008. Commanders worried the U.S.-led coalition appeared to be losing ground. The U.S. military routinely releases information about Americans killed in action. Since Sept. 11, 2001, 618 Americans have died in and around Afghanistan, 456 killed in combat. Remaining silent about enemy deaths gave the false impression that the U.S. was losing, says Lt. Col. Nielson-Green, spokeswoman for the 101st and a proponent of the new approach.
Commanders first decided to publicize body counts from major engagements. "You'd have nights when you literally had 50 or 100 insurgents killed in a single event," Lt. Col. Nielson-Green says. Publicizing that makes it harder for insurgents to credibly claim victory, she says.
I think the first commenter nailed it...
Unfortunately, that seemed to be the only comment on the entire site that was even halfway intelligent. At least it was the first and (hopefully) most likely to be read (though, judging from the other responses, they just skipped right over it).Quote:
... this is not about enemy body counts, but really about combating enemy disinformation about civilian deaths...
I think that what he is alluding to is that there have been lots of reports of civilians being killed. One way to combat that is to strike first with the news and make it clear that they are enemy KIA, not civilians. This makes it look like the emphasis is on body counts, but it could also simply be our attempt to "get ahead" of the news cycle regarding whether the dead folks are civilian or enemy. I'm not one to watch what passes for news these days - have they been reporting body counts on the evening "news"?
I suspect that news-folk are always thinking in terms of Vietnam because that seems to so heavily influence their perception of the military and seems to be the only war that they ever learned anything about in school/college. When one's only frame of reference is Vietnam, then everything seems to look like Vietnam - especially when one wants it to look that way.
The WSJ makes it fairly clear that this is for home consumption:
This looks to me like just another ham-handed attempt to place a band-aid on the sucking chest wound. And it shows more of a concern for image than substance. Nothing surprising there, though.Quote:
"It's a concern that at home, the common perception is this war is being lost," says Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, spokeswoman for the 101st Airborne Division, which initiated the policy.
a slew of newspapers on the web and there's been little mention so far. I'm not really concerned with the Viet Nam analogy (which would be dumb) but with the potential of it getting to be a 'metric' within the armed forces. Plus there's the minor propaganda value for the usual useful idiots to use the counts as an anti-war protest point. I'm dubious that our figures will be accepted by most in the AO over local sources. The possibility of payment can certainly exaggerate civilian body counts in the area...
Still, our potential internal misuse is my biggest concern. Hopefully not.
As Brandon points out, the home consumption bit is also likely to be problematical
If that part of the article is not misleading, and the 101st truly did institute a policy of reporting dead enemy in order to combat a perception at home that the war is being lost, then it seems that the 101st DIV Commander is way out of his lane, whether the policy is sound or not. That concerns me even more than the risk of this becoming a metric. If this becomes a metric, that is the fault of dumb people who think it matters. If the policy was instituted for the reasons given, then that tells me that at least one General is exercising some lousy judgment.
Coincidentally (or maybe not), this is the second time in a week that the leadership of the 101st has come under fire for "exercising lousy judgment." Last Thursday, CNN reported:Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap
The cliche-filled speech--delivered by BG Stephen Townsend in advance of a three-day stand-down--was panned in the CNN piece:Quote:
The 101st Airborne's senior commander in effect ordered his soldiers Wednesday not to commit suicide, a plea that came after 11 suicides since January 1, two of them in the past week.
Ordering people not to commit suicide. You can't get any more Army than that. To cap it all off, the commander of the division that just went back to promoting body counts--the same division with the highest suicide rate in the Army--actually ended his major speech to the division with this:Quote:
But Townsend's message -- called a Second Suicide Stand-Down event -- is likely to be ineffective, said Dr. Mark Kaplan, a professor of community health at Portland State University in Oregon, who has researched veterans' suicide and served last year on a Veterans Administration blue-ribbon panel on suicide risk.
"It sounds like an order," he told CNN in a telephone interview. "I'm not sure that a command like this is going to alter the course of somebody who is on a trajectory of self-harm."
He suggested the Army might want to adopt the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs model.
"They're dealing with a comparable problem with a similar population," Kaplan said. "They have infused more sensitivity to their approach to suicide prevention as opposed to this. This is like any other order."
So between the body counts and the suicide bumbling, who's running the commo shop over there? And why is a BG commanding the division?Quote:
"Don't let yourself, your buddies or your families down," he said, ending his comments by repeating, "This has got to stop, soldiers. It's got to stop now. Have a great week."
That definitely tops my best. A senior commander in a unit that I was in once ordered us to have fun during a mandatory fun event.
Welcome to the world of American business..... Your job sucks, we don't pay you enough, but most of all HAVE FUN!:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Schmedlap
For big fights in which Afghan partners are involved, some stats would be OK by the Public I think. I think its the wrong decision to start the tally again for every engagement - some will suspect inflation of numbers, some will suspect desperation.
back last February, I had suggested that they start communicating about combat casualties in more detail. I hadn't suggested that they go back to a body count metric :wry:! The purpose behind the suggestion was more along the lines of preventative PR, and should have included material on Taliban attacks on civilians as well.
Marc, that makes sense and if kept in that context it would seem a useful venture, but as you can see we're already defaulting to stupid.Quote:
The purpose behind the suggestion was more along the lines of preventative PR, and should have included material on Taliban attacks on civilians as well.
Hi Bill,
Yeah <sigh>..... I'm afraid that I have been underwhelmed by some of the decisions coming out from the 101st on the IO/PSYOPS/PR front. My suspicion is that the entire area has been taken over by people who think like bureaucrats and don't seem to comprehend that percetion is a crucial battlespace. Frustrating!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore
The 101st makes decisions about IO? It seemed to me that their official position was to talk to locals as little as possible. :p But really, this isn't remotely surprising to me. By the way, 101st, enemy, friendly, and coalition casualties are tracked on a nearly realtime basis... try using your own reporting system sometime...Quote:
Originally Posted by marct
LOLOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelTrooper
I don't have access to it, bein' a civilian (and foreign national to boot!) :D. All I've got access to is stuff like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelTrooper
Good point. That site is long on cheerleading and short on substance, unfortunately...Quote:
Originally Posted by marct
Quote:
Task Force Bayonet Air Assaults for Longbow III
What a novel approach... It has worked excellent so far! :rolleyes:Quote:
After listening to the issues from the village elders, the military leaders reassured them of their cooperation and intent for provincial reconstruction efforts in the area. In return the locals will report insurgent activity to ISAF Forces and will not assist in Anti-Afghan activities.
And second... "Air Assault"? Really? What was "assaulted"? Hunger? Poverty?
I'm afraid that "substance" is something notably lacking from that site :wry:. It certainly wasn't the type of content I suggested they make available!Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelTrooper
Now, now, be careful... you may be giving certain air force brass ideas :eek:!Quote:
Originally Posted by IntelTrooper
Maybe they'll change the "War on Terror" to the "War on Socioeconomic Circumstances Which Historically Have Led to Extremist Behavior." ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by marct
'inadvertently adverse' to avoid stereotyping, giving offense and class centric discrimination. Change 'Extremist' to 'generally socially discredited' for the same reasons.
:D:D
LOL Ken, sorry, that was pretty insensitive of me. Thanks for the correction. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
into Political Correctness and recycling.
Uh oh. Looks like somebody in the 101st is gonna be in trouble:
Quote:
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General McChrystal said the measure of American and allied effectiveness would be “the number of Afghans shielded from violence,” not the number of enemies killed.
BG Townsend is the deputy commander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan Friedman
I don't know if the issue is as "epidemic" Army-wide, but the 101 leadership has admitted that it does not know the origin or solution to the problem.
So when are the posthumus Article 15s going to start happening? If a soldier is truely intent on ending his life. The last thing he is probably going to be thinking about is that a deputy division commander ordered him not too. In my mind there are two types of of potentially suicidal soldiers. Those who truely wish death will meet the tasks, conditions and standards of suicide and execute accordingly. The second catagory are those who are screaming for help and/or attention. As rash as the actions of the latter may be, it is not too late to help them. Sadly, powerpoint presentations, risk assesments, and saftey stand downs will not help the latter much.Quote:
The 101st Airborne's senior commander in effect ordered his soldiers Wednesday not to commit suicide, a plea that came after 11 suicides since January 1, two of them in the past week.
I'm no psychologist (but what do they know?), but IMO, the Army's programs don't work because they are artificial and imposed top-down. The daily grind, the optempo, and the constant moves make it difficult for natural mechanisms and relationships to develop; things that would otherwise deter some of these problems.
Body counts became discerdited in Vietnam not least because they only measured attrition as oppose to other conditions for COIN success, but also because there were suspicions of exaggeration.
In the usual western, risk averse manner, they have been exorcised from any discussion of operations. But I think they have a place, provided they are placed in the correct context. This is why comms needs to be done sensibly, and under control.
But a more effective measurement is number of incidents. If a sector is experiencing markedly fewer shoots/bombs/kidnappings etc, and the civil population is still there and extant - then that is success.
Sadly, military institutions still tend to get excited about the amount of ordnance going off and how many rounds are being fired. It takes a lot to move past kinetic hardwiring.
New boots on old ground... :wry:LINK.Quote:
"Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan -- U.S. military officials in Afghanistan have halted the practice of releasing the number of militants killed in fighting with American-led forces as part of an overall strategy shift that emphasizes concern for the local civilian population's well-being rather than hunting insurgent groups.
. . .
Last year, the 101st Airborne Division began releasing numbers of militants killed, and the practice soon spread among U.S. forces. Public affairs officials in the 101st Airborne began publicizing militant deaths to counter the perception among Americans that the U.S. military was losing in Afghanistan."
Well, at least someone has some blood flowing to their brain over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
Because that public affairs tactic worked so well during Viet Nam...?Quote:
Public affairs officials in the 101st Airborne began publicizing militant deaths to counter the perception among Americans that the U.S. military was losing in Afghanistan.