Body counts are a different measure in warfare against individuals

FRONT PAGE: "Army Deploys Old Tactic in PR War," by Michael M. Phillips, Wall Street Journal, 1 June 2009.

The Army is criticized--almost by default--for reporting enemy dead by the numbers in Afghanistan, to the tune of 2k insurgents over the past 14 months.

Officers say "they've embraced body counts to undermine insurgent propaganda, and stiffen the resolve of the American public"--the usual "who's losing this war" stuff.

Our allies, such as they are, naturally disapprove.

The 20th century norm was to emphasize territory held, with body counts only becoming a big deal in Vietnam. The whole shift away from that involved the renewed focus on clearer objectives and big power projection. The only body count that mattered was our own. Death on the other side became almost completely ignored as a concept, especially since our bombs were so "smart."

In Afghanistan, and only in the last couple of years, there's been a push to reveal outcomes of firefights in order to clarify who got killed on our side, who got killed on their side, and what civilians were caught up.

In effect, then, the current use of body counts comes as a defensive reaction to enemy propaganda.

But another aspect is also cited: the desire to show civilians back home that loved ones did not die in vain.

In short, it's the granularity of this sort of combat that's driving the reporting.

So the analogy to Vietnam is wrong.

Comments

[Jason]

"In short, it's the granularity of this sort of combat that's driving the reporting."

Partially, sure. But "showing civilians that loved ones did not die in vain" implies that 'enemy bodies killed' in and of itself holds some strategic value, and the desire to "stiffen the resolve of the American public" shows that even if the Army has moved on from attrition warfare, they sure don't expect the public to move past it.

[ikez78]

But Thomas....there is an entire cottage industry of collecting body counts...

[Louis Heberlein]

In 1968, after TET caused us to move to big bang warfare approach, I wrote my son that there would still be a long struggle, and that it would only be successful if we continually killed their troops faster than VC/NVA mothers gave birth ... but their side had access to South Vietnam from many angles ... and could determine the when & where of fights.

More recently DOD employed IW and roach trap methods. But remember the old guidance ... 'if you fight the same enemy too often the same way, in the same place(s) you teach him how to fight.'