PDA

View Full Version : Return of the body counts




zimv20
Jun 13, 2005, 12:32 PM
link (http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/11/body_counts/index.html)


Return of the body counts

With Americans souring on the war in Iraq, the U.S. military has started talking up the number of insurgents killed. Are we headed down the same corrupting road we did in Vietnam?

June 11, 2005 | The body counts are back. For the first time since Vietnam, the U.S. military has begun regularly reporting the number of enemy killed in the war zone -- in contradiction, apparently, to prior statements by its own top brass.

"Marines Kill 100 Fighters in Sanctuary Near Syria" was a front page headline in the Washington Post last month. The body count, coming from a Marine spokesman, was carried in other major papers that day. What was striking about the factoid, besides the elegantly even number, was that it showed how the U.S. military has increasingly released body counts in reports depicting successful operations in Iraq -- despite decrees from the highest levels of the Pentagon, throughout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that "we don't do body counts."

As the bloody insurgency continues in Iraq, the U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign is yielding frustratingly few tangible ways to show progress to the American people. If anything, the insurgency seems firmly entrenched, from reports of its air-conditioned underground bunkers to its own Ho Chi Minh trail. Counting enemy bodies at least offers a number to grab on to, some sense of incremental victory.

"It may be that they regard it as being part of the good news story: that we are winning the war," John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, said about the military's stepped-up use of body counts in Iraq.

An extensive review of combat accounts from military commanders reveals that regular reporting of body counts appears to have begun with the battle for Fallujah in November 2004. U.S. Marines' assault on the insurgent stronghold, launched immediately after the U.S. presidential election, was considered critical to showing progress in the war. The Pentagon estimated 1,200 to 1,600 enemy fighters killed -- though at the time the media noted a large and "mysterious" discrepancy in the body count reported following the battle.

If history offers any clue, counting dead insurgents is a misleading endeavor that can destroy trust in the Pentagon and ultimately lead to atrocities on the battlefield. During the Vietnam War, historians say, inflated body counts that sometimes included civilians shattered the Pentagon's credibility with the American people and undercut support for that war. Former soldiers from that era say that relying too much on body counts can drive soldiers in the field to commit atrocities in order to achieve a high number of kills -- though there is no indication that is happening in Iraq.

The Pentagon maintains that it is sticking with a policy of no body counts but that commanders in the field are allowed to release the information if it helps the public's understanding of operations. Body counts, the Pentagon says, are released by field commanders only when they know the facts. "There have been several pronouncements over the years to the effect that the Department doesn't 'do body counts,' and we continue to adhere to that concept," Army Lt. Col. Barry E. Venable, a Defense Department spokesman, wrote in a statement to Salon. "The Department appropriately delegates release authority for unit activities to the units in the field," he wrote, adding that body counts have been released "in isolated instances where smaller scale engagements and timely and accurate means of battle damage assessment allowed for such counts," and when their inclusion "significantly contributed to the timely and accurate flow of information in regard to a specific unit or event."


Last November, U.S. commanders said Marines killed as many as 1,600 insurgents in the battle for Fallujah. But the New York Times' Dexter Filkins, who covered the battle, reported that Marines found "few bodies" on their patrols after the fighting -- even where the rebels chose to make a last stand. Filkins wrote that the absence of bodies remained "a mystery." Two months later, in January, the United Kingdom's Guardian reported that a nearby "martyr's cemetery" contained only 76 graves.


But since Fallujah, headlines from the Department of Defense's American Forces Information Service have touted body counts in articles about apparently successful operations. "IED Kills U.S. Soldier; Nine Terrorists Die in Firefight" read one headline in May from the Pentagon's information service. "Ten Insurgents Are Killed in New Round of Battles in Iraqi City" announced a headline in the New York Times last month, citing information from the U.S. military. In addition, the Defense Department is increasingly highlighting the number of alleged insurgents detained in raids -- though from the information released, there is no way to judge the intelligence value or guilt of the detainees labeled insurgents.

Top military officials in Washington have also begun citing body counts to support comments by Bush administration officials about the military's progress in Iraq. In an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live" on May 30, Vice President Dick Cheney said the insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes." The day before, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he said, "I think a lot of aspects in Iraq are getting better ... I think the trend lines are up." Myers pointed out that the U.S. military had killed 250 of terrorist ringleader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's "closest lieutenants."


In at least one case in Vietnam, gauging success by body count contributed to unthinkable acts. In a series that won a 2004 Pulitzer Prize, the Toledo (Ohio) Blade exposed atrocities committed by U.S. troops in the central highlands of South Vietnam in 1967, including an Army platoon known as Tiger Force. Soldiers who fought there said some atrocities were driven by the pressure to achieve a high body count. In once instance, soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry were reportedly told to get 327 bodies to match the unit's moniker. Soldiers told the Blade they got the body count, in part, by killing civilians.



wordmunger
Jun 13, 2005, 12:41 PM
Wow. Fascinating observation. I hadn't really noticed the shift in reporting until you pointed it out. I remember how careful the pentagon was to avoid body counts in the early days of the war.

IJ Reilly
Jun 13, 2005, 01:03 PM
One of my earliest memories of the Vietnam War was of LBJ at a press conference talking about the thousands of of Vietcong killed by US forces, vs. the relatively small number of US casualties over some given time period. I remember thinking in my adolescent mind, "this can't go on much longer."

Unfortunately, a great many adults were thinking with their adolescent minds at that time, too. A couple more years went by before we knew it was all a charade.

The eerie parallels continue to mount up.

skunk
Jun 13, 2005, 01:29 PM
One of my earliest memories of the Vietnam War was of LBJ at a press conference talking about the thousands of of Vietcong killed by US forces, vs. the relatively small number of US casualties over some given time period. I remember thinking in my adolescent mind, "this can't go on much longer."

Unfortunately, a great many adults were thinking with their adolescent minds at that time, too. A couple more years went by before we knew it was all a charade.

The eerie parallels continue to mount up.The most awful bit was that it wasn't a charade, it was just ineffective: over a million VC were killed.

IJ Reilly
Jun 13, 2005, 05:25 PM
The most awful bit was that it wasn't a charade, it was just ineffective: over a million VC were killed.

I thought that figure applied to the number of Vietnamese killed, including civilians in the bombings, etc., in the course of the war.

We learned later, via the Pentagon Papers, that the government had been systematically overstating the number of casualties being inflicted on the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces.

skunk
Jun 13, 2005, 05:31 PM
I thought that figure applied to the number of Vietnamese killed, including civilians in the bombings, etc., in the course of the war.Apparently civilians accounted for another two million.

We learned later, via the Pentagon Papers, that the government had been systematically overstating the number of casualties being inflicted on the Vietcong and North Vietnamese forces.It seems that their mistake was in the math. Shouldn't leave accountants in charge of a war.

IJ Reilly
Jun 13, 2005, 05:42 PM
Shouldn't leave accountants in charge of a war.

War is too important to be left to the accountants.

skunk
Jun 13, 2005, 05:52 PM
War is too important to be left to the accountants.And too expensive.

anonymous161
Jun 15, 2005, 09:06 AM
insurgent -n (n-sūrjnt) Freedom fighter in a country where "freedom" is being instated by an outside nation with a clear economic motive

Lyle
Jun 15, 2005, 10:38 AM
insurgent -n (n-sūrjnt) Freedom fighter in a country where "freedom" is being instated by an outside nation with a clear economic motiveOne of your freedom fighters blew himself up (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/15/iraq.main/index.html) in a restaurant today, killing 23 Iraqis.

IJ Reilly
Jun 15, 2005, 10:45 AM
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. These words are loaded, and only so useful. Which is to say, not very.

Lyle
Jun 15, 2005, 10:56 AM
One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. These words are loaded, and only so useful. Which is to say, not very.True, no argument there. I'm a little bothered by the description of insurgents who blow up their fellow citizens as "freedom fighters", though. Of course, I'm assuming that said insurgents are in fact Iraqis, which may not be the case.

mactastic
Jun 15, 2005, 11:00 AM
One of your freedom fighters blew himself up (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/15/iraq.main/index.html) in a restaurant today, killing 23 Iraqis.

Of course you realize that an Iraqi would say that one of YOUR liberators killed a bunch of her family today for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Ugg
Jun 15, 2005, 11:08 AM
True, no argument there. I'm a little bothered by the description of insurgents who blow up their fellow citizens as "freedom fighters", though. Of course, I'm assuming that said insurgents are in fact Iraqis, which may not be the case.


I think we can assume very little about what is happening in Iraq, unfortunately. Reporters just aren't leaving the green zone, or if they are only under the protection of the military convoys. It would be nice to know just who the insurgents are and where they are getting their support and motivation. I seriously doubt that the military even knows. Whatever the details may be there seems to be an endless supply of them willing to die for their cause.

takao
Jun 15, 2005, 11:14 AM
True, no argument there. I'm a little bothered by the description of insurgents who blow up their fellow citizens as "freedom fighters", though. Of course, I'm assuming that said insurgents are in fact Iraqis, which may not be the case.

well perhaps for them a lot of of those are collaborators ?

IJ Reilly
Jun 15, 2005, 11:19 AM
I think we can assume very little about what is happening in Iraq, unfortunately. Reporters just aren't leaving the green zone, or if they are only under the protection of the military convoys. It would be nice to know just who the insurgents are and where they are getting their support and motivation. I seriously doubt that the military even knows. Whatever the details may be there seems to be an endless supply of them willing to die for their cause.

Well, exactly. By now you'd think we'd know a lot more about who these insurgents are. It's pretty clear they are not as Donald Rumsfeld described them a couple of years ago, nothing but a motley assortment of Saddam's "dead-enders."

Lyle
Jun 15, 2005, 11:22 AM
Of course you realize that an Iraqi would say that one of YOUR liberators killed a bunch of her family today for no reason other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time?I'm not arguing with you, but for the sake of clarification, are you referring to the story later in that same article about the civilians killed in a station wagon that was speeding towards a checkpoint? If the circumstances were truly as described in the story (that the car approached at a high rate of speed, turned back, and then came back again at a high rate of speed despite warnings to slow down) I'm not sure what other options the coalition soldiers had.

Lyle
Jun 15, 2005, 11:25 AM
well perhaps for them a lot of of those are collaborators ?I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that the insurgents perhaps see the Iraqi soldiers as collaborators with the coalition forces, and they are thus the enemy as well? I can see that point of view.

mactastic
Jun 15, 2005, 11:30 AM
I'm not arguing with you, but for the sake of clarification, are you referring to the story later in that same article about the civilians killed in a station wagon that was speeding towards a checkpoint? If the circumstances were truly as described in the story (that the car approached at a high rate of speed, turned back, and then came back again at a high rate of speed despite warnings to slow down) I'm not sure what other options the coalition soldiers had.

No, I wasn't refering to any story in particular, but I hope you don't doubt I could find you one in short order.

Lyle
Jun 15, 2005, 11:31 AM
It would be nice to know just who the insurgents are and where they are getting their support and motivation... there seems to be an endless supply of them willing to die for their cause.Yes. I still don't have a handle on exactly what their "cause" is. Did they prefer their previous government under Hussein? Do they believe that whatever form of government is left in place after the coalition forces eventually leave is bound to be worse than what they had under Hussein? Is it that they believe that we aren't in fact going to leave, that this is a permanent occupation?

takao
Jun 15, 2005, 11:47 AM
I'm not sure I understand you. Do you mean that the insurgents perhaps see the Iraqi soldiers as collaborators with the coalition forces, and they are thus the enemy as well? I can see that point of view.

not only soldiers but civilians as well who work togethe with that government
for eample could it be that that cafe had mostly guests from a near adminsitration building/police officers off duty etc.

zimv20
Jun 15, 2005, 12:11 PM
Yes. I still don't have a handle on exactly what their "cause" is. Did they prefer their previous government under Hussein?
i'd bet a number of them just want the foreign occupiers to leave.

scenario: bush calls off the 2008 elections and declares himself permanent president, an act of which only 8% of americans approve. a UN force invades DC, removes bush from power, and charges him with various crimes. 92% of americans are satisfied.

but now, the UN force won't leave. they're rewriting the constitution, rooting out "bad elements" and bringing more troops. indiscriminate aerial bombing is killing hundreds of civilians a day. sections of a previously docile US military take up arms against the UN forces. more and more americans approve of this and actively support the US forces. the UN calls them terrorists and it becomes an endless task to kill or capture them.

do you call these americans terrorists or freedom fighters?

anonymous161
Jun 15, 2005, 01:17 PM
Yes. I still don't have a handle on exactly what their "cause" is. Did they prefer their previous government under Hussein? Do they believe that whatever form of government is left in place after the coalition forces eventually leave is bound to be worse than what they had under Hussein? Is it that they believe that we aren't in fact going to leave, that this is a permanent occupation?

It't not a matter of better or worse. Everyone wants to be in power, the insurgents weren't happy with Hussein any more than they are with the current gov't, they are just taking advantage of the current situation to try and come to power themselves.
We also don't know if there is one single group with one single motive here or if there are many groups with many different motives. The media flattens everything from a multidimensional issue to a binary "us vs. them" situation.

i'd bet a number of them just want the foreign occupiers to leave.

scenario: bush calls off the 2008 elections and declares himself permanent president, an act of which only 8% of americans approve. a UN force invades DC, removes bush from power, and charges him with various crimes. 92% of americans are satisfied.

but now, the UN force won't leave. they're rewriting the constitution, rooting out "bad elements" and bringing more troops. indiscriminate aerial bombing is killing hundreds of civilians a day. sections of a previously docile US military take up arms against the UN forces. more and more americans approve of this and actively support the US forces. the UN calls them terrorists and it becomes an endless task to kill or capture them.

do you call these americans terrorists or freedom fighters?

Exactly.

solvs
Jun 17, 2005, 12:19 AM
True, no argument there. I'm a little bothered by the description of insurgents who blow up their fellow citizens as "freedom fighters", though. Of course, I'm assuming that said insurgents are in fact Iraqis, which may not be the case.
No. See, that would be a terrorist.

But I can't help feeling bad that for everyone of them we take down, how many innocent people get caught in the crossfire? And how many more of our troops have to be sent over there just to get injured or killed? Especially when they could be elsewhere, actually protecting Americans from people who actually attacked us. I can't help feeling angry that we pulled people from Afganistan (among other places) to send them to Iraq. That Bin Laden is still out there while we're still mucking around in Iraq. That there are many places a lot worse off than Iraq was that are suffering because we can't help them. That if we get attacked again, our resources and soldiers are so wrapped up in that quagmire this administration got us into, we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves.

Just because we're a killin' the bad guys, doesn't make me feel any better about the way we went about this.

Ugg
Jun 17, 2005, 01:14 AM
Yes. I still don't have a handle on exactly what their "cause" is. Did they prefer their previous government under Hussein? Do they believe that whatever form of government is left in place after the coalition forces eventually leave is bound to be worse than what they had under Hussein? Is it that they believe that we aren't in fact going to leave, that this is a permanent occupation?

I think it's a multiple choice kind of a question , not simply true or false. I truly doubt that anyone really wants sh back in power, but the Sunnis definitely don't want to give up what they had, the Kurds are not willing to go back to their former state of oppression and the Shiites are only to happy to finally lord it over the Sunnis. Add in a US military that had NO postwar plan and treats the Iraqis like scum, toss in a few fundamentalist religious types, a dash of hatred on behalf of the majority of Muslims a pinch of ill gotten gains and of course lots and lots and lots of dead and mostly innocent Iraqis. In other words, it's a matter of people jockeying for power in a country ill-prepared for the type of freedom and democracy that has been forced upon them. I don't think it's that hard to figure out really.

miloblithe
Jun 17, 2005, 04:04 AM
There are also simply lots of people in the world who hate the United States. Anyone who's traveled must realize this. Some small percentage of people are willing (if not eager) to fight the US and exact some measure of revenge for whatever percieved wrongs the US has done to them, their 'people', or whatever. Before the US invaded Iraq there was a great deal of chatter on the street (as it were) among Muslims as far flung as Morocco (which had a very pro-US populace, in general) who said that if the US actually invaded, they would travel to Iraq and fight. If there are those who would travel from Morocco to fight the hated US, it stands to reason that there are tons of people in other countries eager to fight the US. It also stands to reason that there are tons of such people in Iraq itself, which has the easy-to-point-out greivance that the US recently invaded their country and continues to occupy it.

I think that the desire to fight the US is the main reason for insurgents/combatants/terrorists/whathaveyou. This would be followed by a list of other reasons spread out among different groups: nationalism, Islamic fundamentalism, money, desire to restore Sunni power, desire to implant some other form of power, deep unabiding love of Sadam Hussein, blood feud mentality of revenge, and so on.