Eaton fires broadside at Cheney

[Schmedlap]

My immensely interesting and varied biography tells me that the true number of lives saved will be 17. But this number skyrockets to 19 if the President delays a further week.

If you haven't been to Airborne School then you have no idea.

[John T. Fishel]

I have been concerned for a long time that we make too much of "force protection" in a volunteer armed force. Since 1973 we have all volunteered to fight for our country even unto death for "good" foreign policies or "bad" - but we ceased to be a conscript force at that time (I know it took a number of years for the draftees to flow out of the system completely). So, while casualties are always tragic and more so if they are unnecessary, I have believed that we (the US govt and public) make too much of them. But Abu Suleyman makes an economic argument - a correct one IMHO - that casualties need to be taken itno account in making decisions etc. Thanks for the Econ 101 reminder

Cheers

JohnT

[Bill Moore]

we make too much of "force protection" in a volunteer armed force

Concur that we do tend to let the media manipulate policy too easily with issues that are not germane to the strategy. Not to be cold, because I'm far from it, but the number of casualties should have very little to do with determining whether or not we're achieving our objective or not.

If they die while waiting for a strategy, then it is wasted. At least, if they die once a strategy is in place they are contributing to that strategy, and to our knowledge of whether that strategy will work.

I think we have a strategy now that the guys on the ground are executing (without adequate resources), so the issue is whether the strategy will change, and if it doesn't will the current strategy be adequately resourced?

This means we're at decision point and the enemy is trying hard to influence that decision. IMO the longer we drag out the decision process the harder the enemy will hit us in an attempt to influence the decision.

[Fuchs]

I have been concerned for a long time that we make too much of "force protection" in a volunteer armed force.

I'd phrase it differently:

It's a mistake to allow citizens/politicians to request for safety of troops in a war zone without exposing it as B.S..

Too many people generate and play with the illusion that certain policies could create safety for the troops.

[Abu Suleyman]

But Abu Suleyman makes an economic argument - a correct one IMHO - that casualties need to be taken itno account in making decisions etc. Thanks for the Econ 101 reminder

I couldn't have said it that well myself. Thanks.

[tequila]

But Abu Suleyman makes an economic argument - a correct one IMHO - that casualties need to be taken itno account in making decisions etc.

How?

Should we make decisions more quickly under the theory that no matter the strategy chosen, at least the speed of the decision will result in some sort of additional meaning for troop deaths, or will generate greater understanding of the strategy's effectiveness?

How does this relate to Econ 101?

[John T. Fishel]

It's a resourcing argument. People - troops are a scarce resource in the all volunteer force. So, you must ask whether expending that scarce resource in a particular conflict is worth it. Remember that all strategies consist of ends (objectives) ways (COA) and means (resources) in some combination. We test a strategy by the FAS test which answers the following questions:
1. If I follow the indicated COA will I achieve my objective? (suitability)
2. Can I carry out this COA (thereby achieving my objective) with the resources available or that can be made available? (Feasiblity)
3. Are the costs of this COA acceptable in financial, material, personnel, and moral terms? (Acceptability).
If the answer is no to any of the questions then the strategy must be changed.

Cheers

JohnT

PS so, it's more than Econ 101, it is also a strategic argument.

[Fuchs]

Americans are really annoying to me with their "Econ101", I'm so happy there's no translation for it in German language.
There's no such thing as Econ101 according to my university-educated economist knowledge. Economics laymen use that word just way too often when they want to create the impression that what they're talking about is not disputable. Truly annoying (no offense intended in this particular discussion)


I would object to the use of the term "scarce resources" in context of soldier casualties. It's extremely off, misleading and simply ethically unacceptable.

I advise to use terms like "harm to society" instead, for soldiers are still members of the society, not one of its possessions.
The harm is also done no matter how many are (and whether there are any) in a replacements pool.

[Schmedlap]

It's usually microeconomics.
Econ 101

[Tom Odom]

Americans are really annoying to me with their "Econ101", I'm so happy there's no translation for it in German language.
There's no such thing as Econ101 according to my university-educated economist knowledge. Economics laymen use that word just way too often when they want to create the impression that what they're talking about is not disputable. Truly annoying (no offense intended in this particular discussion)

Econ 101 is slang for economics 101 as in entry-level economics or basic economics. Anyone who has ever been exposed to econ 101 or 601 for that matter knows that everything in econ is disputable.

Adding a disclaimer at the end does not absolve you of posting a truly annoying comment.

Tom