How do today's leaders see the use of body counts in conflicts/wars?

2016-08-04T19:37:19-04:00

Leaders from the past used body count as a method to measure the success of wars or conflicts. In other words, it was used as a method to keep score of who was winning the war. Do you think this method still reliable or not?.
In my opinion this is an obsolete method to measure the success of a war but many other people think the opposite. What are your opinions about it?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2016 7:47 PM

2016-08-04T19:47:18-04:00

Success can somewhat be measured with a body count, or lack there of on your own side. A more complete victory would be found in the absolute surrender by the governing officials of your enemy. War of attrition will not prove anything other than who had the most efficient methods of killing.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 4 at 2016 7:57 PM

2016-08-04T19:57:33-04:00

Not for asymmetrical warfare!

Response by SGT Philip Roncari made Aug 4 at 2016 8:20 PM

2016-08-04T20:20:00-04:00

Body counts-----Statistics lies and damn lies only means something to bean counters,I vaguely seem to remember body counts during my tour in Vietnam,and we all know how that turned out,don't we.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2016 1:56 AM

2016-08-05T01:56:11-04:00

SSG William Almeyda - Perhaps a better question would be how to measure success in war?

While body counts in the form of severed anatomical parts . . . foreskins, scalps, ears, etc . . . have an exceedingly long history . . . in modern times they have increasingly lost favor among more enlightened civilian and political leadership . . . in major part because of apparent widespread fabrication of numbers absent physical verification . . . in part because contrary to the purpose of justifying public perception of allied deaths grossly disproportionate numbers make it seem as though enemy forces are unconscionably mismatched . . . in part due to apparent inclusion of civilian deaths . . . and in part because body counts only appeared to be potentially relevant in wars of attrition where today's enemies appear to care less how many of their troops are dessimated by superior technonogy. Perhaps other measures may be adopted . . . e.g. amount of land captured and held . . . overall reduction in enemy contacts and/or attacks . . . decrements in indigenous support for the enemy . . . decrements in economic, equipment, supply, and personnel levels . . . captured intelligence data . . . surrender or concessions at the bargaining table. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

1 Samuel 18:25-27New International Version (NIV)
25 Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines. 26 When the attendants told David these things, he was pleased to become the king’s son-in-law. So before the allotted time elapsed, 27 David took his men with him and went out and killed two hundred Philistines and brought back their foreskins. They counted out the full number to the king so that David might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him his daughter Michal in marriage.

Response by A1C Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2016 5:24 AM

2016-08-05T05:24:09-04:00

IMO the body count of the innocent, and the body count of intended targets is the main focus in todays military. In the past, military concerns were strike first then clean up and access damage. Currently we work closer along the lines of precision and accountability to ensure we hit our targets and minimalize the loss of innocent bystanders.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 5 at 2016 8:50 AM

2016-08-05T08:50:16-04:00

They go for any number/theme that makes them feel good and righteous about their position. I remember the body count blurts from the Pentagon back in 'Nam days. They tried to justify it with the kill ratio too. That made an unpopular war even worse as attrition meant we had no strategy to win.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Aug 5 at 2016 9:14 AM

2016-08-05T09:14:16-04:00

Body counts in and of themselves, are not a valuable statistic, in my opinion, SSG William Almeyda. However, with regard to what is going on in the world today with the continued and escalating terrorist attacks and killings, I think that General James Mattis, USMC Retired, said it best, "Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact." The number is not so important as breaking the spirit of those that continue to attack us because at this point in time, I see terrorist activities escalating at a rapid pace. Whatever that number is in terms of body count is the number to be met, and based on the statistics available (numbers vary), the number of people that wish to destroy our way of life is daunting.
He also said, "No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote." LTC Stephen F. 1LT Sandy Annala

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2016 2:09 PM

2016-08-05T14:09:42-04:00

In Viet Nam, Westmoreland and LBJ loved the use of them, the more exaggerated the better. Hopefully, leaders like Schwarzkopf and Powell and Petraeus learned from those ill-advised methods.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Aug 5 at 2016 2:14 PM

2016-08-05T14:14:08-04:00

The problem with body counts is that metric may not accurately reflect progress in 5th generation warfare. Body counts are a legacy of nation/state vs nation/state conflicts where seizing territory and inflicting casualties was the way you won the war. In modern warfare, simply killing a lot of people and occupying his territory may not be making progress at all, particularly if the enemy is simply willing to accept casualties (like North Vietnam was) or he is not dependent upon territory to continue the fight.