This is a dumb idea

[Coldstreamer]

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.

[Ken White]

New boots on old ground...

"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."

LINK.

[IntelTrooper]

New boots on old ground...

Well, at least someone has some blood flowing to their brain over there.

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.

Because that public affairs tactic worked so well during Viet Nam...?