Body Counts and Metrics

[Fergieis]

To me it's how many Surrender.

Ultimately, does it matter whether they surrender, die, are captured, or just go home? Whether its from engagement (political or kinetic), reconciliation, out right bribe (CLCs or MAAWS), information operations, etc.. what we are ultimately looking for in the "effects" is a change in combat power.


Do we utimately care how that guy leaves the enemy's force pool, only that he does?

I'm thinking in terms of trying to approximate or derive an enemy "Perstat"- trying to count heads and approximate combat power (including of course analysis for loss of key leadership and enablers- the difference between personnel strength and combat power).

Starting strength - losses + gains = new strength

[Schmedlap]

Here are some more suggestions for metrics...

- Number of destroyed buildings; this correlates well with victory in Germany in WWII

- Number of resettlement camps built - didn't that work in the Philippines or Malaysia?

- Number of US forces on the ground- after all, a surge of forces in Iraq was followed by an abrupt change in the situation.

So long as we ignore the unique challenges of the specific mission, dreaming up easy answers is effortless. I still say my touchdown metric is the best, however.

[Fergieis]

So long as we ignore the unique challenges of the specific mission, dreaming up easy answers is effortless. I still say my touchdown metric is the best, however.

Why stop with football?

CENTCOM is 4 under par... but ISAF just shot a boogey...

The war on terror is in the second inning...

I can just imaging Gen. McChrystal running wildly the room, stripping his shirt off while his staff cheers "GOAL!!!!"

[Red Leg]

Answering "why that guy left" allows us to exploit success. One of the dangers of EBO, is that Commanders get hung up on "the end justifies the means" without determining which mean (MOP) caused the end (MOE). IMO, the reliance on "measurables", enabled by the ability to generate and transmit massive amounts of data, has ground both planners and the executers to a halt. I returned from my second tour in Iraq a few months ago. Both as a commander and an operations officer, I was required to measure and submit over 200 metrics each month. There was no way, practically or tactically, to do this with accuracy, but not answering the mail was not an option. So you estimate, guesstimate, and sometimes just guess what the numbers are. The smart commander, and his supporting staff, asks not "what do you know?", but "what do I need to know?" It is not about information; it is about important information. That data that leads to a decision point. Don’t ask "how many insurgents quit last month?"; ask "why did insurgents quit last month?"

[William F. Owen]

Answering "why that guy left" allows us to exploit success.

Excellent point. Hadn't thought of that! Why is more important that how? Like it!

[slapout9]

Do we utimately care how that guy leaves the enemy's force pool, only that he does?

Yes, I believe it does because the Military Aim is to disarm him in order to get to the Final Political Aim of making peace........the original purpose of War in the first place. If you don't make peace than as St. Carl said War may just erupt again.

[Fergieis]

Yes, I believe it does because the Military Aim is to disarm him in order to get to the Final Political Aim of making peace........the original purpose of War in the first place. If you don't make peace than as St. Carl said War may just erupt again.

I don't disagree on the goal of seeking peace, but rather that the military aim is to disarm.

Is the state of peace simply the absence of conflict? Or does peace come when the involved parties submit to the will of the victor?

I would say the latter, as it prevents a powderkeg of a population that has the will to fight but no longer the means. The man without a gun who still wants to fight will peaceably submit while looking for another weapon. The converse, an armed man who means no more harm, is a non-issue.

I would even go further and say that a man who is disarmed, but not *defeated*, still has not been taken out of the opposing force's available strength. He can still support the conflict without arms, or await a new weapon. While disarming efforts can prevent access of those who wish to fight the means to do so, it will not solve the root problem(s).

It is only through the imposition of one's will on another, with recognition of and submission to the victor, that you get peace rather than mere absence of conflict. It sounds worse (as in: might makes right) than it is. You can convince intellectually or emotively through words rather than high explosives, try to change to conditions that make a man want to fight, try to provide other avenues for political enfranchisement, provide jobs that co-op the mercenary attitudes of citizens looking for money, etc...

Ultimately though, you have to remove the man's will to fight.

Otherwise, as von Clauswitz notes, you'll be back at war- which kind of voids the assertion you were ever at peace.


I do really agree with the point by Redleg that:

Answering "why that guy left" allows us to exploit success.

But considering we can't effectively count them in the first place, I doubt we can make a quantitative assessment of impact, much less be able to sort out which program impacted an identified change. Errors of false precision are the most common logical fallacy I encounter.

My opposition to all the 'metrics' is not theoretical, but practical. Practical objections that probably would not hold on a conventional battlefield, due to a higher likely fidelity of information; though the other points still hold. Surrender-defeat-destruction, all remove enemy combat power. Tracking how to most effectively remove combat power, when feasible, is just common sense. The rest of the time you're just spinning your wheels.

[slapout9]

The man without a gun who still wants to fight will peaceably submit while looking for another weapon.

And why would this man still want to fight? Because the the will you imposed is such a bad peace he would rather risk death then submit. That is why I think it is better to disarm and then reach a peace that both sides can live with instead one trying to impose their will..... which will sooner or later just lead to another war.

[OfTheTroops]

or he is wee lil william wallace chunking rocks at sheeps heads because Real Scotsmen, Afghani's, Alabamians are warriors to the core of their culture.
People in general are interested in self preservation and promotion so "peace" is attained when it is in their interest specifically security of person and property.

[Schmedlap]

My favorite example of metrics. If we can just address the pirates, then we'll know we're winning...



Metrics = easy answers

[OfTheTroops]

Waterworld is a much better movie now that i have your chart Scmed...nah its still crap.

I still maintain that some people just like to fight. What say you gungrabbers?

Maybe a directing the will to fight would be easier than destroying/incapacitating the will to fight?

[Fergieis]

http://xkcd.com/687/

Same point as the Pirates picture.

Correlation doesn't imply a cause-effect relationship (though often it does point you in the right direction)