This is a dumb idea

[Ken White]

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...

[Bill Moore]

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

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.

[Schmedlap]

I think the first commenter nailed it...

... this is not about enemy body counts, but really about combating enemy disinformation about civilian deaths...

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).

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.

[Brandon Friedman]

The WSJ makes it fairly clear that this is for home consumption:

"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.

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.

[Ken White]

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

[Schmedlap]

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.

[Brandon Friedman]

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:

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.

The cliche-filled speech--delivered by BG Stephen Townsend in advance of a three-day stand-down--was panned in the CNN piece:

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."

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:

"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."

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?

[Schmedlap]

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.

[Blackjack]

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.

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.