Thread: Democrats: What is the most politically-advantageous number of dead US troops?

dalem,

this is going off-topic but

The mere fact that references to body counts have been avoided to this point in this conflict speaks to the depth of fear the American military and establishment have for knee-jerk reactions such as yours above.

Bottom line is that although body counts are not the sole useful metric for progress of any kind, they are significant, and they are indicative of effort and payoff. It's as foolish to completely ignore them as it is to hold them up as the biggest measuring stick.

i disagree, on both articles you mention. the fear of the american military for the idea of the body-count was from the experience of vietnam, when, as you say, it was held up as a very significant metric. this encouraged exaggeration, and furthermore, as abrams later on tried to drill into his people, it was useless and at times counter-productive. that, and not knee-jerk reactions (which mine wasn't, anyways).

body counts are only useful as a metric when you're going to be engaged in a long war of attrition AND you know, generally, what the "breaking point" of the enemy is- aka when they're gonna run out of soldiers, or feel like they've lost too much and stop putting troops/terrorists in.

we do not know what the "breaking point" of AQ is, nor do i think they have one, as AQ is more of a brand-name than an organization these days, and besides, they WANT death.

thus, the count by itself is rather meaningless.

at best, a body count is useful TACTICALLY, and that only in combination of other metrics (terrorist infiltration rates, what type of terrorist, terrorist retention rates, etc etc).

the president mentioning what is at best a tactical victory (i say at best because we do not have extra info, such as the other metrics i measured above) in what is supposed to be something of a strategic speech, well...that's not a good indication of how the overall war is going. as that old saw from vietnam goes,

COL Summers: "You know, you never defeated us on the battlefield."
COL Tu: "That may so, but it is also irrelevant."

And astralis, YOU are ignoring a factor of body counts, too. Namely, when all you ever get is the ONE-SIDED bodycounts (and re: the Original Post of this - MY - thread, I'd like for you to think for a moment who just LOVES to do this 'grim milestone' thang to friggin' DEATH), then without any other way to place some context on that number of US dead, what do you think the message conveyed is?

That we're losing our soldiers for nothin'. Nobody EVER brings up that we're CRUSHING the jihadis, every dam' day, all across the country, but what do we get? Only stories of US casualties, and no way of knowing how that figures into what they actually gave their lives to DO.

If I said that the Battle of the Bulge saw the greatest mass surrender of American troops EVER, and let it go at that, you'd figure that six months later, in May, 1945, when the war ended in Europe, Ike was handing over his sword to some Nazi feldmarschall. Didn't quite happen like that, and the only reason you know that is PERSPECTIVE, provided by the MASSIVE and irreplaceable losses on the other side.

And that's what Bush was saying: just look at what OUR soldiers can do to the enemy, distinct from what the enemy can do to them, and maybe you'd care to tell 'em they're losing.

So, body counts are not meaningless, even by your way of looking at it, because up to now, all we've ever gotten has been OUR bodycount, never the enemy's. And you simply can't claim that has not had a serious effect on national morale.

bluesman,

If I said that the Battle of the Bulge saw the greatest mass surrender of American troops EVER, and let it go at that, you'd figure that six months later, in May, 1945, when the war ended in Europe, Ike was handing over his sword to some Nazi feldmarschall. Didn't quite happen like that, and the only reason you know that is PERSPECTIVE, provided by the MASSIVE and irreplaceable losses on the other side.

i disagree. the strategic picture gives you an accurate picture of the war without the need to rely on the body-count.

taking your example above, i would immediately believe that the US was winning the war. after all, the battle was fought in EUROPE. i would tell you that if all those american soldiers surrendered, it was evidence that the americans had achieved an incredible logistical feat.

taking the iraq war into account: had maliki indeed been on the path to political reconciliation, the combination of that and our boys pushing al-qaeda out of the province would have been an indicator of a great strategic victory. i wouldn't need to hear about a single dead AQ to come to that conclusion. similarly, had the bush team not completely eff-ed things up in 2003, 2004, and partway through 2005, we'd have a fairly stable, perhaps even democratic iraq- and then that, too, would give us a dam' good indicator that we had won a strategic victory. there would be no talk of body-count then.

but none of that has happened. and again, if you go by the words of those leading the surge, those bastards whom are military is stacking up like so much deadwood, that too will be of less importance than you'd think if political reconciliation fails.

remember, this is what bush says:

"In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the fight against the enemy that would do us harm."

this seems to be more of a skewed perspective than anything else. while this is taking your example to the extreme, it would- somewhat- be as if the nazi feldmarschall told hitler that "yes, the battle of the bulge ended with the greatest mass surrender of US troops ever. we inflicted 19,000 KIA, and wounded 48,000...and that was that." in short, spinning up a short-term tactical success into a strategic victory. this is all the more important to point out here, that for many of these same "former" sunni insurgents we're supporting, they are kicking out AQ because AQ is now running over THEIR territory, and have no love whatsoever for the national (shi'a) government.

i don't begrudge bush for trying to broadcast some good news. but i think it's worth mentioning that if bush is forced to point to a tactical indicator- a fairly weak tactical indicator, at that, as you've pointed out- then something's gone pretty wrong with the overall strategic picture.

Originally Posted by astralis

bluesman,



i disagree.

Naturally.

the strategic picture gives you an accurate picture of the war without the need to rely on the body-count.

I SAID WITHOUT the strategic picture, JUST the bodycount, so my point stands.

taking your example above, i would immediately believe that the US was winning the war.

No, you dam' well would NOT, because all that would be mentioned is the mass surrender of US troops. The postulation is this: you know NOTHING of the war's progress, just that huge numbers - whole units, even - have just surrendered to an enemy on the offense. What about that leads you to believe the US is winning?

after all, the battle was fought in EUROPE.

And Gettysburg was fought in Pennsylvania; did the Confederacy win THEIR war?

i would tell you that if all those american soldiers surrendered, it was evidence that the americans had achieved an incredible logistical feat.

No, you'd conclude that they'd just suffered a military calamity. LOGISTICS? Dude, you're talking out your ass to try to prove a point, because you simply won't concede that MY point is valid: hearing one side of the war's scoreboard will have a tendency to make the people that are ignorant of all other factors come to a conclusion that may be invalid.

That's all we are discussing here, and how the hell you're on to logistics of maintaing an American army in Europe that got it's ass handed to it (on the face of one-sided casualty reports, mind you) as proof that they're actually winning is just you trying to avoid admitting that the President is CORRECT in trying to put some perspective on our casualty rates.

taking the iraq war into account: had maliki indeed been on the path to political reconciliation, the combination of that and our boys pushing al-qaeda out of the province would have been an indicator of a great strategic victory.

Once again, you're going off on a tangent, because you wish YOU had written Bush's speech, and it would've been so much better if you had, no doubt. But perhaps you'll concede that the President was talking about what he WANTED to talk about, and wasn't delivering President astralis's sweeping and grand strategic tour-de-force on why all us rubes just don't get WHY he believes we're winning in Iraq.

You say that it's a poor yardstick of measuring even tactical success, much less strategic goals. Perhaps; but when your country's citizrenry is bombarded constantly by NOTHING but lurid details of how our pore boys and girls are just sitting ducks being slaughtered in wholesale lots...do ya think MAYBE it might be a good idea to counteract that effect? Can you see that maybe President Bush has a rather more modest idea with the 'scorecard' comparison than astralis would have made of the opportunity to explain The Whole Universe to the VFW?

i wouldn't need to hear about a single dead AQ to come to that conclusion.

See above; you are simply being contrarian if you can't acknowledge that there IS utility in Bush pointing out what the American people haven't heard, and if left to the MSM, never would: their troops are layin' the wood upside terrorist's heads every dam' day, and the stuff you've heard about the mountains of American dead have no sense of perspective. Well, HERE is some perspective, even if it's well short of the comprehensive Whole Truth About the Entire Iraq War (that would be absolutely undigestible to the vast majority of Americans).

Know your audience, and Bush DOES. astralis does NOT.

similarly, had the bush team not completely eff-ed things up in 2003, 2004, and partway through 2005, we'd have a fairly stable, perhaps even democratic iraq- and then that, too, would give us a dam' good indicator that we had won a strategic victory. there would be no talk of body-count then.

No doubt, but that isn't the reality (even though it COULD have been, as eff-ed up as BushCo was, had the Dems not concluded that their party's political fortunes were more important than victory, and had not provided the means to hold the jihadis together when they would've collapsed in the face of a united front). So, one does what's possible to advance the mission, and keeping the country behind a vital effort, it was necessary to tell a population with little if any historical perspective that their troops are NOT losing, despite the ravings of a defeatist opposition and their noise machine.

So, that's what was done.

With a reminder to the same historical illiterates (not you) that it was Democrats that directly led to the massive slaughter after getting what they wanted (which, they claimed against advice from all responsible adults, would NOT result in the calamities that followed).

but none of that has happened.

And it never will, as long as Democrats are determined to lose the war, so that they may win four years in control of the Executice Branch.

and again, if you go by the words of those leading the surge, those bastards whom are military is stacking up like so much deadwood, that too will be of less importance than you'd think if political reconciliation fails.

True enough, but MAYBE you'll understand the point of mentioning this if I keep hammering at it: if the People buy the lie that their troops are being defeated (which they will, unless they can be shown otherwise, by, for instance, a comparison of combat losses, say, in a presidential speech to the VFW), support for the war's continuance will collapse, and the Democrats will get their next American defeat that they've worked so hard for.

remember, this is what bush says:

"In Iraq, our troops are taking the fight to the extremists and radicals and murderers all throughout the country. Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year. (Applause.) We're in the fight. Today our troops are carrying out a surge that is helping bring former Sunni insurgents into the fight against the extremists and radicals, into the fight against the enemy that would do us harm."

this seems to be more of a skewed perspective than anything else.

Seems to me to be absolutely the truth, and unless you take explicit exception to any clause of any of it, I can't really see how it's a 'skewed perspective'.

while this is taking your example to the extreme, it would- somewhat- be as if the nazi feldmarschall told hitler that "yes, the battle of the bulge ended with the greatest mass surrender of US troops ever. we inflicted 19,000 KIA, and wounded 48,000...and that was that."

You're being obtuse. No, there is quite a bit more to my ACTUAL historical example, and a German feldmarschall would be in a position to KNOW that; I just used it to demonstrate that the vast, vast majority of Americans get NO perspective on the war, or ANY war, the history of what war costs, casualties through their own country's battles, etc. THEY need to be educated on the incredibly-low (by any historical standards) casualties that they've been told is such a massive effusion of our troops' blood.

So, as I said, if all you ever heard of the Battle of the Bulge was that massive numbers of Americans had surrendered and six months later the war ended, you'd probably conclude the US lost. (Don't make this into a Battle of the Bulge thread; by now, you should get what I was saying.)

in short, spinning up a short-term tactical success into a strategic victory.

NOT. HIS. POINT.

He's not saying that after we mow 'em down, we win. He was putting into perspective wat's been purposefully omitted in the MSM's narrative: our troops are kickin' their asses, they're executing their mission, and NO, they're not just IED fodder, like the media want you to think.

this is all the more important to point out here, that for many of these same "former" sunni insurgents we're supporting, they are kicking out AQ because AQ is now running over THEIR territory, and have no love whatsoever for the national (shi'a) government.

Are you applying to be Bush's message manager, now that Karl's gone? Because I think that would be GREAT, especially if that all comes through ringingly-clear to the average American in the twenty-to-zero seconds that the MSM outlets will each 'devote' to covering the VFW speech. (I've attached ABC's actual online screamer as an example of what I'm talking about. Tell me, Karl, Jr.: did they get the message right, and do you feel they were fair to your new boss?)

i don't begrudge bush for trying to broadcast some good news. but i think it's worth mentioning that if bush is forced to point to a tactical indicator- a fairly weak tactical indicator, at that, as you've pointed out- then something's gone pretty wrong with the overall strategic picture.

Well, maybe when he sets out to 'splain in intricate detail to America 'zackly what the strategic situation in Iraq is, you'll get the call to help him out. Until then, though, he'll have to settle for trying to get a little perspective into the heads of people who have no idea if '3400+ in four years' is a big number or a small one.

Astralis-

I can only repeat myself:

Bottom line is that although body counts are not the sole useful metric for progress of any kind, they are significant, and they are indicative of effort and payoff. It's as foolish to completely ignore them as it is to hold them up as the biggest measuring stick.

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Astralis-

I can only repeat myself:

Bottom line is that although body counts are not the sole useful metric for progress of any kind, they are significant, and they are indicative of effort and payoff. It's as foolish to completely ignore them as it is to hold them up as the biggest measuring stick.

-dale

Dead right.

So to speak.