"We're pinned down": 4 Marines die in Afghan ambush

[Schmedlap]

I think you just answered my question...

All I know, is that as a PL on the ground I was never told what the metrics for ISAF were. Also, I know that my BDE didn't have any relevant metrics, or at least PLs and COs on the ground didn't know them.

The amount of stuff that PLs and COs do not have visibility on dwarfs what they do have visibility on.

I also know that in the Accidental Guerilla, Dr. Kilcullen made a point that when the surge operations began and he was brought in, one of the big changes was a clear refining of metrics and tracking them much better down the chain of command. Could the same mistake be made twice? Easily.

I would say that, just as easily, they could learn from that in less than 2 years. Lo and behold they did, in Iraq. I don't know why the assumption that they haven't in Afghanistan, especially given that much of the same brain trust that revamped our approach in Iraq is now trying to apply Iraq v2.0 in Afghanistan.

So, if the high command of a country has metrics, but the American people, the Afghans of the country and the soldiers on the ground don't know them, do they really exist?

I don't understand the question. Why would the American people or the Afghans need to know them? And as I ponder the metrics that we had in Iraq, I don't even understand why the troops on the ground (as opposed to the troops in the TOC) needed to know them. I doubt that they did, which reinforces my skepticism as to why this would matter. Metrics do not drive operations; they measure the effectiveness of operations.

[Michael C]

I found a link on Foreign Policy that pretty much answered most of my assertions and questions. The Obama administration has set clear metrics for Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the documents words,

Background: During his March 27, 2009 speech announcing our new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, President Obama said "going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable."

The reason PLs and COs, along with Afghans and Americans, should know the metrics we are using in a counter-insurgency is because they are the ones executing the policies. When everyone is on the same page, we get better results plain and simple. Also, the PLs and COs will be the ones reporting progress, so why wouldn't know what they are being evaluated on?

[Ken White]

for Afghanistan given the situation as you know it and our publicly stated goals?

[Schmedlap]

The reason PLs and COs, along with Afghans and Americans, should know the metrics we are using in a counter-insurgency is because they are the ones executing the policies. When everyone is on the same page, we get better results plain and simple. Also, the PLs and COs will be the ones reporting progress, so why wouldn't know what they are being evaluated on?

It's the same reason that you shouldn't gear the teaching in a classroom towards the standardized test. The test becomes nothing more than a measure of how well the teacher was able to prepare the kids for the multiple choice questions, rather than a test of how well the kids are educated.

Metrics aren't necessarily part of "being on the same page." They're just a measure of performance and effectiveness. I remember when our metrics in Bosnia dealt with number of patrols and number of safety violations. Operations were then geared towards number of patrols and safety. The definition of "patrol" became not a trip out the gate, but rather a 2-hour period outside of the gate. So, if you were out on a 3.5 hour mission, your commander would tell you to ride around for an extra half hour so that it would count as two patrols - I'm not making that up (how could I?).

That said, the metrics should have a lot in common with the commander's intent - which everyone should know.