The Zero Casualty Priority in Coalition Strategy

[Chris jM]

Cavguy, that is the article - thanks for finding it. On a side note I'm jealous at the freedom given to debate inside your army and the strength at which serving members can consider and criticize aspects of the organisation. The product generated through such discussion is valuable, even for an outsider looking in.

Now I've had the time to read it, it's easy to see that the article is indeed about over-promising than zero-cas as a strategy.

However (unfortunately), I will still maintain that some of the nations accompanying you are bound by a prioritising zero-casaulties as an end-state in itself.

[Bob's World]

Even in WWII to goal was "to make the other poor bastard die for his country." right?

Americans do, however, tend to be less cavalier than other nations with the lives of our soldiers. I believe this is a function of wealth, as much as anything else. We can afford to take the position that it is better to bring in fast movers and attack helicopters, spending $hundreds of thousands of dollars in air time and munitions to reduce 2-3 AK wielding insurgents; than it is to send a squad of infantry in that could accomplish the same mission for $25 worth of small arms ammo, but might take a couple of casualties in the process. We have the luxury of wealth to be judicious with the lives of our soldiers.

I saw this personally in the Gulf War when an Egyptian artillery officer I knew was soundly dressed down for expending the brigade's inventory of 155 rap rounds to take out the Iraqi artillery unit that confronted us; arguably saving hundreds of lives. He had spent too much money.

In WWII an uncle of mine was an infantryman in the 41st Divsion, that slogged across New Guinea in the early days of the war, often fighting side by side with Aussies. The aussies would send in infantry assaults to reduce dug in Japanense gun positions. The Americans would wait, bring up some fire power (he loved the 40mm bofors for frontline directfire on caves and coconut log bunkers; far superior to the 75mm pack howitzer) or call for arty or air support.

Bottom line is that being "casualty adverse" is a luxury we can afford. Others are not so fortunate.

[marct]

However (unfortunately), I will still maintain that some of the nations accompanying you are bound by a prioritising zero-casaulties as an end-state in itself.

There's an interesting addendum to this, which is the political side of it. "Zero-casualties" is often built into the unspoken / unwritten understanding of some nations deploying simply because the politicians know they don't have support for "avoidable" casualties.

Bottom line is that being "casualty adverse" is a luxury we can afford. Others are not so fortunate.

That's a good observation, Bob. I have to wonder how it impacts the willingness to take casualties at an organizational culture level, though. What happens when the ROI changes?