• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Bodycount

  • Thread starter Thread starter couchcommander
  • Start date Start date
C

couchcommander

Guest
This from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/29/afghanistan.violence/index.html

CBC is reporting up to 32 taliban killed.... great job guys.

American, Canadian in Afghan dead

Wednesday, March 29, 2006; Posted: 9:37 a.m. EST (14:37 GMT)
(CNN) -- Coalition forces and militants battled on Wednesday in southern Afghanistan, a long stretch of fighting that claimed the lives of a U.S. and a Canadian soldier and more than 30 militants, according to coalition authorities.

A statement from the coalition command in Kabul and a Canadian National Defense official confirmed the coalition deaths and injuries, the wounding of three Canadians, an American and an Afghan National Army soldier.

They were transported to Kandahar province for treatment.

The coalition issued a statement describing the fighting, which it said occurred "during an enemy attack on a forward operating base" in Helmand province.

The U.S. and Canadian casualities were caused during early-morning fighting, which also left 12 insurgents dead.

Fighting continued through the daylight hours and claimed the lives of 20 more insurgents.

The engagement was called a defeat for "a large enemy element that was attempting to retreat into sanctuaries," according to the coalition statement.

Coalition forces destroyed two Taliban headquarters buildings and found "large caches of munitions as they overran the Taliban compound and the enemy fled."

The forces "destroyed the munitions, which included weapons and improvised explosive device materials, causing multiple secondary explosions and destroying the compound and all enemy military equipment inside."

This brings the number of U.S. dead in Operation Enduring Freedom to 280, including 141 in combat.

Eleven Canadians also have died in the Enduring Freedom, the war on terror campaign that started after U.S.-led forces invaded Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban government, which harbored the al Qaeda terrorists who attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

The incident followed other hostilities on Tuesday, including a roadside bombing in southern Afghanistan that killed four people employed by a U.S. security firm. One was South African and the other three were Afghan.

The U.S. Central Command Air Forces Forward Public Affairs issued a statement on Wednesday saying that coalition aircraft flew 26 close air support missions on Tuesday in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

These include "support to coalition and Afghan troops, reconstruction activities, and route patrols."

"A United States Air Force B-52, Predator, A-10s and Royal Air Force GR-7s provided close air support to coalition troops in contact with enemy forces in the vicinity of Gereshk," the statement said.
 
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/28/kandahar060328.html

"The firefight lasted for several hours, he said, adding that a "significant number" of Taliban members were killed during the battle. U.S. military reports say as many as 32 insurgents died."

32 Insurgents.  My greatest of appreciation for the work of both troops. May they RIP. :salute:
 
FOXnews has even picked it up, confirming 32 enemy dead.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189427,00.html

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Militants attacked a coalition forces base in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday, sparking a fierce battle that killed 32 suspected Taliban militants and two troops — one American and one Canadian, officials said.

The battle in Helmand province's Sangin district also wounded three Canadian soldiers, Canadian Brig. Gen. David Fraser told reporters at a base in southern Kandahar city. In addition, a U.S. military statement said an American soldier was hurt.

The fighting was the deadliest in months and highlights the threat rebels still pose four years after the Taliban was ousted by U.S.-led coalition forces. Direct attacks on foreign bases are unusual, and Wednesday's assault comes after the Taliban warned of a renewed offensive this year.

The attack followed separate roadside bombings in the region Tuesday that killed six Afghan soldiers and four private security workers, respectively. Officials blamed both bombings on Taliban rebels. Suspected Taliban rebels also attacked a police checkpoint in Kandahar city late Tuesday, killing two officers and wounding four, police said.

Coalition forces killed 12 militants in the initial attack on the base in Sangin, while another 20 insurgents were killed as they fled, a U.S. military statement said.

Large caches of weapons, bombs and ammunition were discovered at the Taliban compound after the battle. All were blown up and the compound was destroyed, the military said.

The U.S. military said one of the slain coalition soldiers was American, but did not identify him, pending notification of next of kin. Fraser said the slain Canadian was Pvt. Robert Costall of the 1st Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, based in Edmonton, Alberta.

The wounded soldiers were rushed for treatment to a base in Kandahar.

It was not immediately clear if the violence was linked to Afghanistan's drug trade. Helmand is Afghanistan's main opium poppy-growing region and there have been fears of widespread violence since an aggressive poppy eradication campaign started in recent weeks.

Helmand's rugged mountains are also popular hiding places for Taliban rebels, many of whom are believed to slip back and forth across the province's largely unguarded border with Pakistan.

One of Tuesday's roadside bombings struck an army vehicle on a road in Helmand province northwest of Kandahar, killing six Afghan soldiers, said Gen. Rehmatullah Raufi, a top Afghan army official in the province. He blamed the Taliban for the attack, but offered no evidence.

"We know that it is the work of Taliban terrorists, and our forces are trying to trace and capture them," he told The Associated Press.

Hours earlier, a roadside bomb exploded as a Namibian and three Afghans working for Houston-based U.S. Protection and Investigations were driving in a convoy on the main road linking Kandahar city with Herat, the main city in western Afghanistan. The company provides security for a construction company in the area.

Bill Dupre, the firm's deputy managing director in Kabul, said the victims' vehicle caught the "full brunt" of the remote-controlled bomb blast, killing the four instantly. Several other vehicles in the convoy returned to their camp safely, he said.

Nimroz Gov. Ghulam Dusthaqir Azad blamed the Taliban for that assault, as well.
 
This from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/29/afghanistan.violence/index.html

CBC is reporting up to 32 taliban killed.... great job guys.

AFireinside13 said:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/28/kandahar060328.html

"The firefight lasted for several hours, he said, adding that a "significant number" of Taliban members were killed during the battle. U.S. military reports say as many as 32 insurgents died."

32 Insurgents.  My greatest of appreciation for the work of both troops. May they RIP. :salute:

I say let's cut the body count bullshit right now.  The Americans did it in Vietnam and proved it doesn't mean anything.  You don't judge success in a counter-insurgency by counting bodies - or counting the legs and arms and dividing by four. That practice only comes back to bite people in the ass. I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that our troops acted professionally and completed their assigned mission; no point dancing on the graves of the fallen - its no better than the idiots in the middle east on Al Jazeera cheering at the WTC coming down IMO.

while another 20 insurgents were killed as they fled

Nice reminder there is no glory in war, I think. Hopefully it is all over soon.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
I say let's cut the body count bullshit right now.  The Americans did it in Vietnam and proved it doesn't mean anything.  You don't judge success in a counter-insurgency by counting bodies - or counting the legs and arms and dividing by four. That practice only comes back to bite people in the ***. I don't think anyone would be surprised to hear that our troops acted professionally and completed their assigned mission; no point dancing on the graves of the fallen - its no better than the idiots in the middle east on Al Jazeera cheering at the WTC coming down IMO.

Ah Michael, again you don't agree so you lash out. I respect your opinion, however, I disagree with it.
 
Alright troops....let's keep it civil and on topic.

Regards
 
Michael Dorosh,

I agree 100% that the body count is not a good way to measure success. However, for me, at least, it is reassuring to see our guys giving it back after taking it for so long. I'm not one to support violence, but if attacked, I would rather our boys come home than the enemies.

I mentioned it before, but in an attempt to put the thread back on track, once again let me extend my thanks to the friends and families of both those killed for their sacrifice.
 
2023 said:
Ah Michael, again you don't agree so you lash out. I respect your opinion, however, I disagree with it.

I whole heartedly agree with the sentiments expressed for the families of the dead and injured soldiers and I suspect praise for a job well done is in order, if these reports are to be believed. I just don't happen to think it is particularly useful to count bodies, and am not sure what shooting 20 of them in the back running away, if that is what happened, proves other than their lack of soldier skills or resolve. Hopefully the latter as much as the former. Then again, they may have simply been chopped to pieces by "Spooky". I'd say let's concentrate on what our troops are actually doing and not celebrate the fact that people - however misguided or deluded - have been killed.

No lashing intended. Wonder what Joe Q. Public has to say now that we've suffered our first combat fatality. We've all been ghoulishly wondering the same thing, haven't we?

I would suspect that if our enemies have the temerity to attack us, we will kill as many of them as humanly possible, as quickly and efficiently as possible. This is certainly a good sign, still, one wonders what squeamish Toronto housewives and soccer moms will have to say to this news.
 
We shouldn't dwell on the enemy body count...having said that (coming from an era where body counts were paramount), if the only news is of the Canadians/Afghans being injured/killed then it is not being portrayed in proper perspective. When people hear and read of these incidents, they also need to hear that the infantrymen were effective in doing their job. The finding of cache's of weapons/explosives and the 'body count'/capture help in the person who is reading visualizing what happened. List the body count, but don't dwell on it.
 
My thoughts are with the families at this incredibly difficult time.  RIP to both soldiers and let us not forget their sacrifice. 

Michael Dorosh said:
I say let's cut the body count bullshit right now.  The Americans did it in Vietnam and proved it doesn't mean anything.  You don't judge success in a counter-insurgency by counting bodies

I have to agree, one Canadian soldiers life is not worth any number of those scumbags'.  Although it does add some reassurance to the public that our boys are kicking ass over there when these guys have the courage to stand up and fight, although in this case they ran, either way they're dead now and the world is better for it.
 
I'd like to make a couple of points about body counts, both from a Vietnam perspective and as I see the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1.  Body counts in Vietnam became a sort of scorecard, but it went beyond that.  On-scene commanders were expected not only to report enemy KIA as verified by actual dead bodies, but also to estimate further deaths based on blood trails, action reports, wild guesses, etc.  It became a kind of lame joke to those of us who were there.

Aircraft making attacks on enemy positions were supposed to estimate enemy KIA.  This sort of reporting soon became a de facto measuring stick for officer performance.  You can imagine the ramifications.

2.  However, after the fact, when the North Vietnamese provided actual casualties, the total claimed KIA wasn't as far off as one would think.  The NV admitted to losing about 600,000 soldiers during the time of active American troop involvement, though reliable sources say that number is somewhat low.  Regardless, they lost a lot of soldiers, mostly in the South and along the Trail, then to a lesser degree in the North itself.

So, though US casualty counting procedures were inept and overblown, they ended up being relatively accurate, in the aggregate, if not when related to particular actions.  The problem, I think, was that few people, in or out of the military, realized how lethal Vietnam-style combat and interdiction efforts had become.

3.  The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan reflects the US military's inability to come to terms with performance measures involving killing the enemy.  The Vietnam experience tarred a number of high-ranking officers, often with good reason.  Many colonels were more worried about looking good for promotion than about their own casualties.  That was a situation the Army did not want to see again.

4.  So, if you don't report confirmed casualties (forget about trying to count wounded who died later) then what is your method of measuring the outcome of a battle?  Overall progress can and is measured by reporting on how many battalions of the Iraqi army are ready for action in various classifications.  Well and good.  That gives us a reasonable measure for the war itself, but does nothing for us when we wish to know how a battle turned out.

5.  The other problem with not reporting enemy KIA is that it gives anti-war zealots a lot of room to fudge numbers.  Many of the independent counts of civilian deaths in Iraq persist in counting any dead person in civilian clothes as a 'civilian casualty', when we know that reasoning is fallacious.  The counts often use evidence gathered from local newspapers, interviews, etc and present the resulting numbers as solid.  Only when you read the fine print which describes how the information was gathered do you realize how soft those figures are.

6.  I think the numbers of enemy KIA should be a part of any action -- especially any action where we suffer casualties of our own.  If nothing else, it gives other soldiers and the grieving families something tangible to use in confronting their own grief and fears.

When the military provides solid numbers of enemy killed, the press can better be held to account if they do not report our casualties in relation to the damage inflicted on our enemy.

One must have a reasonable regard for the usefullness of casualty figures.  This varies, I believe, in many ways.  For instance, in Vietnam, the US should have realized fairly early on that it didn't matter how many NVA we killed, the North was not going to give up.  On the other hand, in the battle of Fallujah, it's useful and comforting to know that the Army and Marines killed roughly 1,500 terrorists in a couple weeks and drove the survivors into headlong retreat.  Personally, I find it helpful to know such information when evaluating our progress for myself.

I honor our dead and pray for their families.

Jim
 
 
While I agree with the utility of counting kills, I believe there is a time and a place for everything.  And celebrating the bodycount is probably not best done in a thread honouring the dead but belongs in a thread of its own (as it is currently).

Just my .02
 
Somebody at work today commented that a 32 to 1 kill ratio (I guess it would really be 32 to 8 (including US and Afghan soldiers), but of course our concern is primarily with Canadian casualties) is pretty good. I would argue that it isn't, as I would have preferred to see a ratio that included zero Coalition deaths, and a higher Taliban count.

I'm not a big fan of the body count aspect, as it seems to trivialize kills into statistics (Joe Stalin: "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic"). I'm sure the day will come (sadly) when our soldier's death overseas will be relegated to a 10 second blurb on the evening news, after the spot on how a cat was rescued from a tree today. I'm sure that many outsiders can't understand the depth's of our hand-wringing over 1 or 2 deaths overseas, but I suppose that is the point: we haven't reduced the deaths to statistics (yet), and we put a human face onto each death, showing grieving family members and friends remembering the fallen.

I echo the sentiment about how this is going to effect the populace now that they are woken out of their peaceful slumber, where they dreamed that we were on yet another peacekeeping mission, now fully realizing that Canadian soldier's have been dying (and becoming seriously injured) for some time now on missions that are anything but peacekeeping. I can only hope that the populace will continue to support the troops, even if they don't get the warm and fuzzy feeling they used to get when they thought it was "only" peacekeeping.

Al
 
Michael Dorosh said:
its no better than the idiots in the middle east on Al Jazeera cheering at the WTC coming down IMO.

First off, you're going to want to use an apostrophe because you want the contraction of "it is", not the possesive indefinite article of "its".

Secondly, you're aware that on September 11th, 2001, there were 1 million Persians in the streets of Iran lighting candles in support of the United States?
 
some dude said:
First off, you're going to want to use an apostrophe because you want the contraction of "it is", not the possesive indefinite article of "its".

First off,  I am sure you understand the difference between a typo and spelling mistake - if not, I'll let you take a wild guess at it seeing as you're (oh my, hope I used that one right) obviously an expert at it. My publishers have never really bothered to take the time to correct mine so I just assumed all was well. *shrugs*

As for the rest of your post, we'll glide swiftly past it....

And for actual grown ups in the thread, I must say, I was regretting having posted originally this afternoon in this manner, but I see the admin have wisely split this off. I think it is an important topic and I'm impressed by the responses so far - Old Guy and Allan especially.

As for Allan's last comment; I would hope that having shed even a drop of precious Canadian blood would strengthen resolve rather than weaken it but time will tell.  I'll restate my own sentiments that we simply keep focussed on the troops and the mission, and keep ourselves with realistic yardsticks to measure our success...and our losses.
 
A lot of the Vietnam-era fixation with body count came out of initiatives put forward by Robert McNamara.

(Old Guy:if McNamara is still a sore point with you, you might want to watch Fog of War http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/ which is an extended "mea culpa" from the man himself)

McNamara had been CEO of Ford, and was an effective business scientist. He was very big on quantifying every aspect of a business' operations, and doing systems analysis to determine where efforts were working, and where they were not. In an operation like Ford, you have tons of quantifiable processes - things like production rate (number of cars built per hour) defect rate (number of defects per vehicle) profit per vehicle, etc etc that lend themselves to this sort of analysis.

For example, if the production rate at a given plant is low, and the defect rate is high, you have a quantifiable problem that can be analyzed. If that analysis shows that the slow step is the spot welding of the body, and that the human operators are being pressured by their managers to go faster, and in the rush to work faster they are making mistakes, then a potential solution might be to install robot spot welders. If the welders work, then one would expect the production rate to increase and the defect rate to decrease - and if it does not, you can tell why. Furthermore, you can compare the costs involved in purchasing and maintaining the robots against the higher incomes/profits expected from an increased production rate and reduced defect rate, and see if solving the problem this way makes financial sense.

When McNamara took over as Secretary of Defense, it astounded him that the military had no similar metrics and analysis system to determine if they were being successfull, and he attempted to implement a similar management system in the military as had been in place at Ford and elsewhere.

This actually is a pretty good idea, but given the slipperiness of the metrics involved in military action, there were a LOT of teething problems. Plus there were a lot of personality conflicts and much else going on.

As far as "slippery metrics" go, consider this: imagine that the enemy holds a high feature overlooking the valley that is your AOR. Because they hold the high ground, they can see everything you are doing and you cannot obtain suprise. When you get close to this position, they engage from superior ground and inflict heavy casualties. You, as a battalion commander, decide that the postion needs to be taken, and in so doing take 300 casualties and inflict 150 - but now you have the ground. How do you quantify that?

And in the Ford case, certain performance metrics determined the success or failure of the plant manager - having the highest defect rate or the lowest production rate might result in you being sacked, so there was considerable pressure to lower defects and increase production.

Well, suppose you're sitting on top of that hill, seeing to your 300 casualties. Meanwhile, down in the valley, another battalion commander goes on an offensive, and with the enemy no longer having access to the observation of the hill that you have captured, the other commander achieves tactical suprise, and inflicts 500 kills for the loss of 100 soldiers. Is he a better commander?

By McNamara's system, he was - and so we wind up on the slippery slope of exaggerated body counts and operations that neglect strategic objectives in favour of high body counts.

But the core of the idea - finding objective metrics by which one can measure military success - is still valid. The problem is choosing the metrics and properly applying them. McNamara was on the right track.

I think one of those success identifiers ought to be "number of civilian casualties". In a "ball of snakes" scenario, we have to win hearts and minds, and civvie casualties is exactly counter to this aspect of the mission. We need to identify ways of still being able to maintain security and take the fight to the bad guys every bit as effectively as we do now (or better) but while reducing - and ideally, eliminating - civvie casualties.

Enemy body counts have a part to play in this too, but as McNamara found out, they aren't enough on their own, and relying on them pushes your forces into behaviors that confound the purpose.

*sigh* There's a paper in here....

DG
 
Michael, I also agree with you in reference to body counts but I do draw exception to your comment about shooting the enemy in the back showing a "lack of soldierly skills"! Killing your enemy while they are in retreat is a time-honoured military tactic and should be applauded not criticised.
If you were referring to the Taliban as "lacking soldierly skills" then the above point is moot. But do not drag the troops down with comments that infer that killing our enemies is somehow not soldierly. Every dead Taliban is one less the troops have to worry about the next time!
 
2 Cdo said:
Michael, I also agree with you in reference to body counts but I do draw exception to your comment about shooting the enemy in the back showing a "lack of soldierly skills"! Killing your enemy while they are in retreat is a time-honoured military tactic and should be applauded not criticised.
If you were referring to the Taliban as "lacking soldierly skills" then the above point is moot. But do not drag the troops down with comments that infer that killing our enemies is somehow not soldierly. Every dead Taliban is one less the troops have to worry about the next time!

No, obviously I meant the Taliban's soldier skills.  Naturally "we" would endeavour to kill the enemy whenever and however he presents himself. That's the way the job is done, kind of my point, eh.  Well done to the Canadians involved.
 
No, obviously I meant the Taliban's soldier skills.  Naturally "we" would endeavour to kill the enemy whenever and however he presents himself. That's the way the job is done, kind of my point, eh.  Well done to the Canadians involved.

No harm, no foul!  ;)
 
Back
Top