Article

2007-07-24 Afghanistan

In which Chuck Simmins gets email from NATO

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 Chuck Simmins 2007-07-24 13:54|| || Front Page|| [2 views ] Top

#1 The name of your website must have completely curled their toes.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-07-24 14:33|| 2007-07-24 14:33|| Front Page Top

#2 But I bet they start reading so they know how they're doing.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2007-07-24 14:33|| 2007-07-24 14:33|| Front Page Top

#3 This is not a measure of success for us.
Well, it works for us.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2007-07-24 14:46|| 2007-07-24 14:46|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 14:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 14:57|| Front Page Top

#6 I saw that Chuck LOL! keep after them!

Posted by RD">RD 2007-07-24 15:01|| 2007-07-24 15:01|| Front Page Top

#7 Why don't you email the Taliban? I'll bet they keep score...

Posted by tu3031 2007-07-24 15:11|| 2007-07-24 15:11|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 15:36|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 15:55|| Front Page Top

#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!">Jack is Back! 2007-07-24 16:02|| 2007-07-24 16:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2007-07-24 16:27|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2007-07-24 19:07|| 2007-07-24 19:07|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2007-07-24 22:22|| Front Page Top

23:30 JustAboutEnough
23:26 Anonymoose
23:17 StumpRanchSteve
23:02 RD
22:58 Eric Jablow
22:57 Zenster
22:52 twobyfour
22:51 Eric Jablow
22:46 RD
22:45 Eric Jablow
22:38 Delphi
22:22 Zhang Fei
22:20 Lone Ranger
22:12 Mike
22:05 RWV
22:03 RWV
21:59 Bunyip
21:48 Deacon Blues
21:39 Zenster
21:36 trailing wife
21:32 trailing wife
21:26 lotp
21:23 sinse
21:20 sinse