Article

2005-04-05 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-04-05 00:00:00 AM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Now its 'wounded' without disclosing whether such a wound required evac. Spin, spin, spin.

Posted by Slomorong Slomoger5393 2005-04-05 9:08:19 AM|| 2005-04-05 9:08:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 That aptly handled Slo Slo, seems to a have problem reading English.

Posted by phil_b 2005-04-05 9:34:55 AM|| 2005-04-05 9:34:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Most of the US WIAs were slightly injured and returned to duty almost immediately. The first stories on the attack mentioned no enemy killed/wounded -- that took 24 hours to get out. There's a major dysfunction here in getting out the basic facts on engagements. Take body-count syndrome (i.e., the refusal to report enemy body counts, almost regardless of the circumstances), add some internal malfunctions, and you've got the superpower unable to give out even basic info on its invariably successful engagements against a pathetic, losing foe.

Posted by Verlaine in Iraq 2005-04-05 9:54:50 AM|| 2005-04-05 9:54:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I am not sure it is just body-count syndrome at work here.

Colin Powell cut off GWI early becasue of his fear of the civilian reaction to the photographs of the Highway of Death which was really a Highway of Wrecks.

However, in other actions we have been getting casualty ratios of 50-1 and higher. If the frequency of these lopsided battles becomes general knowledge, the media will protray them as bullying and butchery. Or if we don't hit that ratio, the media will portray it as a defeat and incompetence.

The combat enemy knows how may they lost even if they don't have a good breakdown of killed, captured, and deserted. The media enemy does not need to know. And the media enemy can do a lot more damage to our military than the combat enemy.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-04-05 10:05:42 AM|| 2005-04-05 10:05:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 "Body count syndrome" is over-reliance on body counts, not the avoidance of body counts. The military doesn't count them because it doesn't want to get into the idiocy of Vietnam, where the body count was all and the mission was secondary.

We have a military that gets the mission done, not one that stops to count (enemy) heads. I happen to like it that way, and I think a lot of people agree.

The press, of course, is still locked into a body count mindset. Mainly because they're still locked into Vietnam.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-04-05 10:20:23 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-04-05 10:20:23 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 The military doesn't count them because it doesn't want to get into the idiocy of Vietnam, where the body count was all and the mission was secondary.

It always seemed to me that the body count WAS the mission. Kill more of them than they can kill us. There was never an invasion of North Vietnam by American forces, so absent the traditional indicator of ground taken as progress, some other measuring stick ended up being used.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2005-04-05 2:33:27 PM|| 2005-04-05 2:33:27 PM|| Front Page Top

00:00 DMFD
00:00 Frank G
23:59 Frank G
23:53 Alaska Paul
23:52 Bomb-a-rama
23:48 True German Ally
23:47 AJackson
23:46 Paul Moloney
23:42 Bomb-a-rama
23:41 CrazyFool
23:39 OldSpook
23:11 True German Ally
22:56 anymouse
22:52 someone
22:23 Alaska Paul
22:22 Anonymoose
22:21 PlanetDan
22:00 Alaska Paul
21:57 Alaska Paul
21:36 Spot
21:36 Dennis Kucinich
21:23 Ptah
21:21 Michael Sheehan
21:21 Dar