Some lifer explained it to me this way: the average American fighting man, due to training, equipment, and supplies was worth three chucks. So when a
soldier was killed it could be assumed that he took three of the enemy with him. That was probably more the alcohol talking than the actual McNamara
strategy concerning the bodycount as measure of success. What I like the best is that there were these guys, "the best & brightest," who studied the
conflict in Vietnam and came up with some truly whacky ideas, and then implemented them. The bodycount was McNamara's brainchild. He was the guy who
came up with the Ford Falcon, the same model I drove for years. I don't blame him entirely for coming up with a concept that ultimately could only
lead to profound demoralization for all concerned, because the Vietnam war came with a set of boundaries. Generally, it seems in war, that victory is
measured in real estate. Ground. Territory armies deprive other armies of possessing. But we weren't allowed to go true north. Unlike Giaps' forces
which, with their P-38's, were infiltrating the south. They were looking for ground. Ours was a "static defense." I heard that phrase in one of the
best Nam films made, Go Tell the Spartans. And so to compensate for the lack of secured ground, we started counting bodies. But, I guess McNamara
didn't figure that there would be so many...
|
Interesting. I hadn't thought about this idea before. Yes, covering territory as success. (Territory could also be given as spoils of war.) So if no
territory, then body counts, which didn't bode well for Vietnam conflict. Which brings us up to today and "success" in Iraq. If Iraq is a "War on
Terror", there's no territory, and we can't talk about body counts (mission was "accomplished" already without much enemy bodies, and the Iraqi
seem to be doing their own killing). We shouldn't define success as rebuilding what we tore up. So just how are we to know success--is this their pr
problem, Bush etal can't come up with a definition for success that appeals to constituents? Installing a new government in a foreign country as a
sign of success doesn't play well with Americans, as they struggle with their own government at home. I'm beginning to see the enormity of their
dilemma, or maybe to the Commander-in-Chief there is no problem--what me worry? Ironic, the politicians who scoffed at how the opposition nuanced
ideas now have to deal with a situation that cannot survive on glib responses. They surely bit off more than they could chew, and as happens our
troops pay for this with lives and limbs.
|
You may find this interesting, I know I did..... the documented reasoning for McNamara's BODY COUNT theory had to do with the sheer numbers of North
Vietnamese the American soldier and their allies were faced with. McNamara knew it could NOT be judged the same as World War II but had to be more in
line with the Korean War, which again was not a REAL ESTATE measuring stick.
The 3 to 1 ratio seems to be the norm...... but given the number of allied and American Troops that we had in Vietnam.... WE would have run out of
SOLDIERS long before THEY DID...... thus the stupidity of the concept.
Just one opinion.
Dave
|
I had a 61 Falcon. It was my most favorite car of all time, next to my 74 International Scout II.
|
 Originally posted by KimWHoffman
...because the Vietnam war came with a set of boundaries...They were looking for ground. Ours was a "static defense."...And so to compensate for the
lack of secured ground, we started counting bodies. But, I guess McNamara didn't figure that there would be so many... 
Probably. But the thing is, there had already been two successful COIN ops in SEAsia. The first was by the British Commonwealth in then-Malaya against
communist insurgents and the second was again by the BC in now-Malaysia against Indos infiltrating the border.
en.wikipedia.org...
and top man
en.wikipedia.org...
plus
en.wikipedia.org...
When the Aussies first started pre-departure training for SVN, they were using Malaya vets as instructors and the model villages were Malay in
style.
It's a highly simplistic argument, I admit, but there are still "scholars of history" who can't work out why the Brits could get it right and the
Yanks got it so wrong.
|
