Quantifiable?
I agree with Jed on this one, we don't need to make anything quantifiable, and this is where our measures of effectiveness approach is failing us. I remember a former Stryker commander who was wounded (I think the during the first Styker rotation) and he had a popular DVD where he was ranting about presence patrols, he didn't understand the task/purpose, so why were they doing them? It was a perfect indicator of where the conventional army mindset was at that time....I have to make my goals attainable and quantifiable. Quantitative and tangible goals are easier to assess, so it's easier to mark progress....
Providing a "perception" of security and peace of mind is not quantifiable, but absolutely essential in winning over the population. Presence patrols do that and much more. They should follow basic rules, such as not following any patterns of route and timings, be task organized differently occassionally, and patrol members should conduct frequent interactions with the population to get a sense for what is happening on the street. It is hard to provide presence when you're sitting in a tank, though it does make a statement.
You can quantify combat patrols with meaningless numbers such as number of patrols, number of EKIAs, etc. and make that look like progress on a briefing slide, but we all know that doesn't mean squat. Some leaders need to be retrained to trust their inutition and not stats on a power point slide. You can sense effectiveness once you know your operational area, but you can't always (if ever) quantify it.
Bookmarks