You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
In which Chuck Simmins gets email from NATO
2007-07-24
Thought you might be interested in the following e-mail I received from ISAF.
Mr. Simmins,

It is ISAF's policy not to release enemy losses. This is not a measure of success for us.

Press Office

-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Simmins [mailto:chuck@simmins.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:20 PM
To: PRESSOFFICE
Subject: PR# 2007-563

Has there been an assessment of enemy losses in this strike? How many?

In addition, does NATO have a policy against releasing the numbers of enemy losses in their press releases? I see NATO spokesmen quoted often with numbers but rarely do those numbers appear in the actual press releases. A possible implication is that battle damage assessment and after action reporting may not be as rigorous as one might wish. Putting numbers on paper, on a web site, allows them to be cited as a source by the on-line media.

Thank you for your assistance.

Chuck Simmins
Terrorist Death Watch
http://terroristdeathwatch.com

America's North Shore Journal
http://northshorejournal.org
Posted by:Chuck Simmins

#13  c: And it could be that if we began to tally enemy dead, more attention would be payed to simply killing people to "get the numbers up" than to killing the RIGHT people in order to do the most damage to their organization

Some people have claimed that - and that's what I thought happened in Vietnam. Then I read somewhere else that our numbers for enemy dead were lower than what the Communists estimated to be their military dead. Rules of engagement and the fact that the average American soldier isn't the savage you see portrayed in Hollywood movies prevented Vietnam from becoming an unending series of My Lais.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2007-07-24 22:22  

#12  How about "Count Down" sites where they start with the number of available muzzie terrorists "insurgents" and reduce by every encounter? The ol' Paki family trees won't have too many branches, even compared to the previous gene pool
Posted by: Frank G   2007-07-24 19:07  

#11  The problem is that sites that track losses can cause in increase in the killing. Take for example a site such as icasualties.org where they track civilian deaths reported in the media. Many news outlets use this as a yardstick to gauge success of operations in Iraq and so it gives the enemy a direct incentive to carry out mass casualty attacks in order to "keep the numbers up". It doesn't take any particular skill or courage or great support organization to blow up a crowded shopping area so numbers of civilian casualties don't in any way relate to the overall success of an insurgency. It only relates to the success in blowing up crowds of civilians and sites like icasualties.org cause more civilian deaths simply by posting the numbers of them.

The same could be said with military casualties. Sites tracking allied dead probably provide a "scoreboard" for the enemy to use. And it could be that if we began to tally enemy dead, more attention would be payed to simply killing people to "get the numbers up" than to killing the RIGHT people in order to do the most damage to their organization.

Overall, I am opposed to "body count" sites of every stripe because body counts are not a reliable indicator for counter-insurgency.
Posted by: crosspatch   2007-07-24 16:27  

#10  Nato has "Westmoreland Body Bag Complex". Probably started by Wes Clark and resupplied by Jim Jones. What Chuck's follow-up question should be is "Okay, what is your measure of success"? And while we're at it, I thought since you are NATO and thereby proxy USA, it was DoD policy to avoid "metrics" of any kind. Wait until Harry Reid finds out we are using metrics in Afghanistan but are against them in Iraq.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2007-07-24 16:02  

#9  Well, it's working for the enemy in drumming up anti-war support, Private Dumass.
Posted by: danking_70   2007-07-24 15:55  

#8  Dear NATO, we don't consider this a measure of success either, but we want to keep score.
Why bother saying that large numbers were killed or numerous found dead ?
Why not just say death was evident after the battle, or something vanilla like that ?
Posted by: wxjames   2007-07-24 15:36  

#7  Why don't you email the Taliban? I'll bet they keep score...
Posted by: tu3031   2007-07-24 15:11  

#6  I saw that Chuck LOL! keep after them!
Posted by: RD   2007-07-24 15:01  

#5  Keep up the good work, Chuck. I'll bookmark your site and make sure I come back regularly.
Posted by: phil_b   2007-07-24 14:57  

#4  Or at least they'll poke their heads in periodically to see how Mr. Simmons thinks they're doing, as proxy for the outside world. It was this kind of thing that formed the basis for Dan Darling's illustrious career, I do believe. :-)
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-07-24 14:54  

#3  This is not a measure of success for us.
Well, it works for us.
Posted by: Spot   2007-07-24 14:46  

#2  But I bet they start reading so they know how they're doing.
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-07-24 14:33  

#1  The name of your website must have completely curled their toes.
Posted by: Seafarious   2007-07-24 14:33  

00:00