| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| U.S. military to stop releasing militant death tolls in Afghanistan |
| 2009-07-24 |
| Kabul, Afghanistan -- Military officials in Afghanistan have ordered a halt to the practice of releasing the number of militants killed in fighting with American-led forces as part of an overall strategy shift and an effort to portray to the Afghan people a different U.S. approach to the war. The decision has triggered a quiet but fierce debate among military officers, one with echoes of the U.S. experience in Vietnam, when military officials routinely exaggerated body counts and used them as a measure of success -- a practice that proved counterproductive. Under the new order, issued by Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, the military will not release specifics on how many insurgents are killed in fighting and will instead provide estimates. The change is part of a strategy to make the Afghan people feel safer, and it comes as U.S. commanders are instituting measures to avoid civilian casualties. "We send the wrong message if all we talk about is the number of insurgents killed. It doesn't demonstrate anything about whether we have made progress," said Smith, who arrived six weeks ago to overhaul U.S. and NATO communications efforts. "We want to shift the mind-set." Smith has asked commanders to issue fewer news releases and to focus on improvements in security where international forces are operating. "We have to show we are here to protect the people," he said. Officers who have favored releasing such figures said they are not intended to demonstrate military progress, but to counter and even preempt extremist propaganda charging that international forces are killing innocent Afghan civilians. "It is the first version that sticks," said Col. Greg Julian, the outgoing military spokesman. He favored releasing the information but agrees the policy should be changed under the new strategy emphasizing protection of the population. Throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has periodically taken to reporting numbers of insurgents killed in specific clashes. Early in the Afghan war, Gen. Tommy Franks, then the top commander, said, "We don't do body counts." But last year, amid increasing violence, the 101st Airborne Division began releasing information about the number of militants killed, and the practice soon spread throughout U.S. forces. It was not the first time military setbacks prompted officials to release body counts. In 2005, as U.S. fortunes in Iraq spiraled downward, body counts crept into military news releases. Public affairs officials argued that, while not a measure of overall progress, casualty counts can show the success of individual missions. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #15 The US consistently undercounts enemy KIA, to no end of puzzlement to Asians of all varieties, for whom overcounting is the norm. However, tactically it makes sense. Strategically, it doesn't. Asians exaggerate enemy dead in order to keep up the number of fresh recruits, and to boost national (civilian) morale. Not having an enemy body count simply crushes civilian morale. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-07-24 23:57 |
| #14 IIRC North Vietnam's General Giap reported their losses post-war as pretty close to the total we had estimated - probably not the same deaths but somehow it averaged out. The Vietnamese numbers for their dead were higher than the American numbers. I think the stuff about American numbers being exaggerated are a crock. Americans think lying is a big deal. The average non-American does not. When people talk about GI's exaggerating numbers, they are relaying the words of someone who knew someone who fudged the numbers (a lot like the atrocity tales - as in made up stories about commonplace American atrocities - being retailed). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2009-07-24 23:54 |
| #13 Having followed this topic for years, it saddens me that the military cannot see that it isn't about the locals. It's about the people in the States. If we see out troops killed with no corresponding result, we lose hope. I have made that point to several HQ's over the years with little result. I was getting numbers from Iraq based on a FOIA request that the USA Today did. Then they informed me that they were no longer tracking those numbers. I believed that to be a lie since I have never heard of a bureaucracy stopping counting anything. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2009-07-24 22:35 |
| #12 Correction: All these happy stories at The stupidity kept happening no matter which military base I was stationed at. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-07-24 20:51 |
| #11 "But it's a good reminder that within the finest military that ever bestrode the planet, incredible stupidity can still flourish. " You can say that again Verlaine. It was a tragic incident I will use to illustrate this point. It was a near miss that I didn't witness two soldiers (who were killed) pitching a tent during a routine training exercise with metal tent poles when they didnt need to except to please their equally dumb superior in a lightning storm. I narrowly missed seeing them fry. The sheer stupidity and needlessness of this will always stay in my mind. Or the time they dropped a scaffold on a female soldier's head who had on no hard hat. All these happy stories at one military base in one year's time. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-07-24 20:47 |
| #10 Correction: in my first comment above, I obviously meant "fork" instead of "spoon" Posted by Verlaine anything to avoid invoking the dreaded Spork™, huh? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-07-24 19:39 |
| #9 The US consistently undercounts enemy KIA, to no end of puzzlement to Asians of all varieties, for whom overcounting is the norm. However, tactically it makes sense. The bad guyz have no reliable way to determine their strength in the field. Since many of their fighters are paid to fight, they have to send someone reliable with them to make sure they actually do fight. And if he gets killed, they don't get paid. More problems. Not having a head count also means that executing a large scale attack means concentrating your forces out in the open. It also means you have to use a lot more couriers. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-07-24 19:31 |
| #8 The US undercounted NVA KIA. At the height of the war the North Vietnamese were losing 1 out of 3 males coming of military age and more than 1 million KIA total. In other words, the Hanoi communists were bleeding their population dry. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-07-24 11:36 |
| #7 Correction: in my first comment above, I obviously meant "fork" instead of "spoon" |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-07-24 11:15 |
| #6 in Vietnam, when military officials routinely exaggerated body counts IIRC North Vietnam's General Giap reported their losses post-war as pretty close to the total we had estimated - probably not the same deaths but somehow it averaged out. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-07-24 11:14 |
| #5 Procopius, of course I would support any manipulation of info to deceive the enemy - I just don't see any potential for that in these bizarre concealment policies, and I'm certain it is not a motivation. GolfBravo - exactly. Anbar, 2005/2006 ..... constant trickle of Marine casualties, mysterious absence of enemy casualties. Iraqis (and probably Afghans) DO have at least one clue: are you closing with and killing your (our) enemies, or aren't you? The assertion that meaningful numbers of otherwise right-thinking or sympathetic Iraqis/Afghans are alienated by the killing of insurgents leaves one speechless. Anyone care to know what Shi'a thought about the death-squad rampage against Sunnis after years of terror bombings? How about the views of most Iraqis (even many Sunnis) about the Abu Ghraib shenanigans that generated a zillion NYT front-page stories? |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-07-24 11:14 |
| #4 "today 24 receptacles of trash were taken out" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-07-24 09:58 |
| #3 News Flash Today in Helmand Province the US Marines protected 300 people. News at eleven. Let's see, our casualties are climbing and we quit reporting theirs, the average dip stick concludes we're losing. The Taliban recruiters are happy and the average Afghan doesn't have a clue. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2009-07-24 09:41 |
| #2 On the other hand, you're also providing feedback to the other guy. At a certain point he can alter his behavior in attempting other techniques and tactics and get an idea what works and what doesn't, or what is at least more effective and what is just rubbish. Sending the |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-07-24 09:18 |
| #1 Oh brother. Here we go again. I'll spare the Rantburg community my canned rant on this one. But it's a good reminder that within the finest military that ever bestrode the planet, incredible stupidity can still flourish. Lessee here, in Iraq the target audiences (no pun) were utterly pragmatic, having known only hobbesian brutality and raw power in their lives. So concealing the fact we were kicking the various nitwits' asses any time we met was, uh, brilliant! Afghans, so delicate and sophisticated and unversed in the ways of serious power struggles and violence, will surely be impressed by the bizarre releases about to start coming out: "two US soldiers were wounded during operations in Paktia province .... while doing nothing in particular and certainly not harming, much less killing, any local citizens who also might be involved in rebellion against the lawful government, crime, murder, maiming of local girls daring to attend school, or international terrorism." Additionally, WTF with the nonsense about Iraq? There was never a formal shift there - just the rambling approach of usually not reporting enemy KIA, but sometimes reporting it (usually when the profile was too high or the locale too accessible to keep details out of the news). And of course out in Anbar the USMC practiced such discipline that a diligent reader of official press releases would hardly know we'd ever killed anybody - even though Marines would die all the time. I think this BS is just a new myth to be added to the Vietnam body count one (a reliable false reference point in "reporting" like this). Funny thing, those "exaggerated" body counts in Vietnam led, paradoxically, to a defeated insurgent force. It's almost like killing the Viet Cong, eventually, defeated them. Doesn't add up to me. Maybe I'll go eat some soup with a spoon and ask Col. Kilcullen to help me understand it all. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2009-07-24 01:15 |