You didn't say so explicity, but I think you touched upon the dilemma we still don't have an answer to. I agree metrics are crappy, and are particularly worthless in COIN. Yet you can't expect Petraeus to testify before Congress that "things are getting better - I know it when I see it," which seems to be the real message both from high command and many of the guys (including RTK, Cavguy, and others here). They may be right, and probably are - I sure as hell don't know sitting around in Ithaca.
But the politicians want the metrics because it's their substitute for visible, tangible, progress. The American people aren't going to see Iraq in person, and we know just how well the news media will cover it. Even visits by think-tankers (O'Hanlon and Pollack got absolutely crucified for their moderate, cautious endorsement) or politicians (how many jokes has the Daily Show done about that moron Indiana congressman's "it was just like a market in Indiana") are discounted because they're slammed as unrealistic PR tours by the media and left-leaning segment of the public.
In a conventional war, we don't need the metrics because the American citizen can look at newspaper or a map and see how we're doing. For all the horror over American casualties at, say, Tarawa or the Bulge, the average American still saw the continuing (if bloody) progress of armies and navies towards Berlin and Tokyo. And that meant "bringing the boys home." The Korean War, which was very unpopular from late July-August 1950 (the Perimeter phase) and from 1951-53, was palatable to the public in those few months in between, when we were dashing towards Pyongyang and the Yalu and the war seemed as good as over.
It happened again in 2003 - when Baghdad fell, Bush's popularity rose. They all thought it was won.
But as we know, with COIN, there is no map to show the people. There are no daily news reports of Americans crossing another river, liberating another city. The news becomes the car bombs, the beheadings, or crimes committed by Americans.
I think that the political necessities have forced Petraeus and others into using metrics quite unsuited to truly judging success in COIN. Those metrics, which are not indicative of the progress being made, are then torn apart, analyzed ad nauseam, and declared by a sea of "experts" to mean either "we've turned the corner and are gonna win" or "we're still losing heavily." Take your pick - I lean more to the left than most of you.
But until there's a tangible way to measure the progress made in a limited or COIN strategy - no tanks rumbling towards Berlin - we're going to be forced to use those poor metrics.
And we need to figure out that tangible way to SHOW the progress we've made. Because as Ken says, the casualties are not what kills support. Lack of progress kills support. Or rather, the perception of a lack of progress.
Matt
Bookmarks