I hear the same ratios as Wilf (unsurprisingly!).
There is an issue over verification. There are also issues in terms of campaign ethos, presentational and political issues and security over putting out a body count:
1) It smacks of Vietnam and measuring success in terms of body count. we may argue over the good/not so good ways of pursuing a COIN campaign, but in this campaign I understand that HQ ISAF do not regard a body count metric as very useful measure of success and so it is not publicised. I am not sure what HQ ISAF is currently using as a metric of success, but I suspect they would rather focus on areas where there is little violence.
2) Anything that smacks of likening this campaign to Vietnam presents huge political challenges to the domestic audience in a campagin that is increasingly seen as unwinnable.
3) publication of a large body count may have the same impact as the attack on the US embassy in the Tet offensive had on US public opinion or the CIMIC House saga had on UK public opinion. what was seen as a campaign under control was seen in both instances (rightly or wrongly) as a campaign out of control.
4) While verification is difficult on a security side we do not want the other side to know what we know. Also we do not want to upset worldwide sensibilities and start a surge of would be shaheed coming to Afghanistan.
I would be surprised if UNAMA and ANSO do not publish estimated figures, certainly I know of several security consultancies who track these metrics and will release them - for a sum!
Bookmarks