Tuesday, March 25, 2008

On with the body count.

In comments to yesterday's post, RobK asked how come we weren't being told how many enemy KIA we had inflicted.

Well, see, because that would be a "body count", and it would be ghoulish and wrong. It's only decorous and proper to trumpet your own death totals on the front page.

20 comments:

Ed Foster said...

The "Exchange Ratio" during the beginning of the war was 35 to one. As of last fall, it was somewhere in the vicinity of 75 to 1.
Source is a SEALteam buddy of mine over in the sandbox at the moment, quoting a G2 he deals with on a daily basis.
We're not supposed to nose this about,in order to keep from brusing the egos of our Arab brothers. Presumably, that would require a massive bloody effort on their part to rectify the impablance.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's because body count numbers are mostly irrelevant. The Germans killed a lot of Red Army in WWII. Didn't turn out so well for them in the end.

I'm sure you know your Klauswitz, so it's ultimately getting the enemy to do your will. Sometimes a large numbers of enemy kia will help achieve that goal. As it stands now, it hasn't helped so much at achieving victory in Iraq (to the extent that anyone has given a coherent explanation of what that would be).

Anonymous said...

Coherent explanation of success in Iraq? That's easy. Whatever hasn't happened yet.

Anonymous said...

Let me clarify and say that kia numbers will play a huge role in the will of a beligerent that is casualty averse. That certainly is the case for the US and most Western nations these days.

On the other hand, the jihadis are the exact opposite of casualty averse, in that they actually see getting killed as an end in itself.

Justin said...

It's weird. They want to kill themselves, we want to kill them, but somehow we're always fighting. {tongue firmly in cheek}

Some recent evidence suggests a slower flow of foreign fighters that are the lifeblood of the insurgency. Since they rarely fight without dying, they need a steady flow of new recruits. They also can be less places in Iraq than in the past, which at the least makes the search process easier.

Anonymous said...

"On the other hand, the jihadis are the exact opposite of casualty averse, in that they actually see getting killed as an end in itself"

This my be true but they are not just dying for the sake of dying; they die with the specific goal of achieving victory. If that victory is denied them (as it is in Iraq), the arab "street" (whom the jihadis seek to inspire) will increasingly see their struggle for the nihilistic bloodbath it really is, and turn against them (as they are in Iraq).

Kadai Sono Narabi said...

Coherent explanation of success in Iraq?

There will never be any success in Iraq. Never ever, never ever ever never.

Remember: if there ARE any signs of success, they need to be quashed or maligned as irrelevant asap.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Foster your SEAL team buddy seems to be implying that the Coalition has capped around 200,000 to 250,000 since the start of the liberation.

That sounds like the kind of statistics that come out of the Lancet. ;)

Or is this just a SEAL vs. Martyr kill ratio?

Anonymous said...

Just to be clear re our Iraq casualties. We have lost closer to 3300 to hostile action, not 4000. The difference is all other causes of death ranging from car accidents to heart attacks in the course of this years-long campaign.

Michael said...

Maybe it's because body count numbers are mostly irrelevant.

But, apparently, not so irrelevant that the left feels it necessary to incessantly remind us of our casualty count total.

Let's say you are interested in football, and other than going out of your way, all you have to follow the games is a radio and what the radio announcers are willing to tell you. Said announcers consistently tell you, time after time, game after game, season after season, whenever the opposing team scores against your team, but never, if at all, mention when your team scores against their opponents.

There would be no question - the bias of the announcers would be too obvious and too blatant for even self-deluded partisans to deny.

Well, the fact that our press is quite willing to remind us, over and over again, how many total casualties we have suffered, while consistently NOT reporting how many total casualties our enemies have suffered is a testament to their bias, no differently than my example above.

Anonymous said...

i remember a few months back it came out how many we killed in one fight. search through ann coulter's archives, because i remember her highlighting that fact. We are killing them hand over fist.

Oligonicella said...

AC --

"Mr. Foster your SEAL team buddy seems to be implying that the Coalition has capped around 200,000 to 250,000 since the start of the liberation."

Nice attempt at spin, but no. Here's what he said.

The "Exchange Ratio" during the beginning of the war was 35 to one. As of last fall, it was somewhere in the vicinity of 75 to 1.

That means it's 75:1 now, not all during. Get the difference? Nice spin, though.

Anonymous said...

This site has counted some of the evil terrorists - may not count some of the insurgents - Michael Moore's "minutemen".
http://terroristdeathwatch.com/
Today's Count
Iraq: 19,429 through 9/22/2007
Iraq: 1,152 since 9/22/2007
Afghanistan: 3,667 since 1/1/2006

Anonymous said...

The reason we have a count of our dead, but not theirs, is because the Pentagon releases a count of our dead, but not theirs. They didn't release an "enemy body count" in WWII, either!

The Craig said...

It's because talking about "body counts" invokes Vietnam and God knows, you don't want to do that. Could take the edge off a perfectly good war.

Chuck said...

I'm the guy behind the Terrorist Death Watch. Those numbers are direct from MNF-I in Iraq.

mschaff said...

It's also "cool, hip, and progressive (in a Che sort of way)" to celebrate American casualties.

Anonymous said...

Michael - good analogy.

Ben said...

And from now on we will stop using the term "search and destroy" and substitute instead "sweep and clear."

juandos said...

LIBTARD ALERT

Yes boys and girls, the self-loathing, America hating parasites on the left have come out to show one and all just how abysmal their ignorance is...

Here's one anon the asinine whining: "Coherent explanation of success in Iraq? That's easy. Whatever hasn't happened yet."...

Listening to a lot of Keith Olberman are you?

On the other hand someone like Kadai Sono Narabi brings up a good point...

Consider the following from the IBD editorial section: Anti-Militarism: House Democrats have passed a bill to stifle the good news that we're winning in Iraq. They are so invested in losing that they apparently fear a popular backlash against them from victory