not being very clear...

Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
... He's saying that a deliberate strategic decision has been made to inflict more civilians casualties in the Shiite areas - because it reduces American causalities - and claims that his statistics prove his assertion. True? False? Not a big deal one way or the other? I'm surprised that more people don't have comments. {/quote]

I'm not sure any one can answer that definitively on several levels. However, I thought I said that I doubted that was the case and that he was using numbers and little else to justify his statement . IMO, those numbers do not do that. They show an -- but not every -- effect and he appears to me to stating his conjecture as 'fact.' Others who've been there recently may be able to shed more light.

{quote]Tell I'm out to lunch if I misread the general consensus, but I thought most agreed with CavGuy. Killing the right guys: good. Killing the wrong guys: counterproductive and should be avoided if at all possible.
That's not out to lunch. However, to get to the point where you raised the issue, one has to assume that Kaplan's assumption is correct in that someone somewhere has made a decision to use air strike rather promiscuously in an effort to avoid US casualties and that the use of Tac air is a guarantee of civilian casualties.

I don't think his assumption is correct, other than as I said, the Air Force pushing their use, a distinct possibility. I think the decisions are being made by Commanders on the ground to use the best means to accomplish the mission with proper regard for that mission, their troops and the nearby civilians in that order. As I also said, sometimes an air strike will do less overall damage than an hours long firefight. Kaplan said that increased civilian casualties as a result of an air strike are near certain. Not so, depends much on the ordnance selected and on many parameters.

CavGuy is of course correct in that killing bad guys is good and killing good guys is bad. Two points on that; first, notice the number of times in Afghanistan and Iraq where "Women and children were killed..." -- where were the men? The opposition is very prone to fudge on that score in an effort to get people to complain; the better we're doing, the more they will fudge. That is not to say that all such cases are exploitations, just that some are. Secondly, I'm sure there are some who'd blow away some civilians before they'd lose a man if possible -- I'm equally sure the number who would do that is pretty small. We have taken steps in both those nations to avoid civilian casualties at the expense of more casualties of our own

RTK has said that American causalities is the worst possible metric. (I like disagreeing with RTK, because anyone who has been pictured with the Stanley Cup can obviously drop the gloves and then shake hands afterwards. Plus I learn a lot from him, but I think the average civilian disagrees.) Kaplan claims that the powers that be in Iraq are siding with the average civilian. If true, I think that's a) significant, b) a change.
Heh, you and RTK fight the Stanley cup battle -- but I have to agree with him on the "metric" (I HATE that word...). It has little validity as an indicator in this kind of war.

If you and Kaplan believe the powers in Iraq are siding with the average American civilian in the sense that said AAC wants few or no casualties, I think both of you misjudge the majority of your fellow Americans. No question there are some who are concerned about US casualties but most Americans don't care, they just want the job done quickly and close to right. Casualties are not a big issue. Some Army leaders are concerned about US casualties in the worrying way (and thus, to them, if Kaplan did happen to be correct, it would be no change), almost all are concerned about their troops but I seriously doubt that that such concern has become a guiding principle. Someone who's there or just left illuminate that.

Agreed, but at the risk of being irritating, Kaplan is suggesting that the TTPs have been changed to: bomb before the rounds start crackling overhead. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that if it's true, it is contrary what I think I've heard a lot of council members say. If true, it suggest to this amateur that maybe Mr. Gentile was correct in the very spirited, and probably much remembered:

Eating Soup With A Spoon.
Yes, Kaplan is but I for one don't think he makes the case to prove his suggestion and as, I again said, when one is there, what is ideal may not be able to be done. Without being aware of the tactical situation in each case of air usage, it's very difficult to judge the "why" or the correctness of the decision to use it. Kaplan has made a determination based, as nearly as I can tell, solely on numbers and the numbers do not tell you enough to make that determination. That's why I said the use of numbers in war can lead one astray...

That's an awful long way of saying Kaplan has made a standing broad jump at what I suspect is a wrong conclusion and that in the absence of more information we can only speculate.

Someone there may provide more info, may not. We'll see.