In his “long, hard slog” memorandum three weeks ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote, “Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror.”
Like so many other statements in that memo, Mr. Rumsfeld’s quest for metrics reveals much about our position in the war on terror, regardless of how the enemy may be doing. First, it tells us Don Rumsfeld, like so many Washington bureaucrats before him, loves a good buzzword, in this case “metrics.” When Mr. Rumsfeld writes that the Pentagon lacks “metrics,” he means he has no standards of measurement to evaluate the war on terror.
No competent defense secretary can write “standards of measurement” when he means “standards of measurement.” He must find some jargon, a shibboleth to discern the initiated from the unwashed. If a defense secretary did not write “metrics” when he means “standards of measurement,” then he might be in danger of saying “retreat” when he means “strategic withdrawal” or “dead civilians” when he means “collateral damage.”
However he expresses it, Mr. Rumsfeld needs some way of knowing whether we are winning or losing the war on terror. Should we keep doing what we’re doing, should we do more of it or should we try something else?
Out here in America, I think many people believe we can measure progress, or the lack of it, by counting the number of dead American soldiers. The media has focused on the number of Americans killed and particularly the number of Americans killed in the first weeks of the war, as opposed to the number of soldiers killed since George Bush declared “Mission Accomplished,” on May 1.
Let’s adopt that as our metric. We’ll look at the number of soldiers killed in the 41 days from March 20 to May 1, then see how long it took to double that number after May 1 and then look at each succeeding interval. If the intervals get progressively longer, we’re winning the war on terror; if it takes less time to reach that number again and again, we’re losing. Simple enough? You wish.
The first thing we need for the equation is the number of soldiers killed between March 20 and May 1. The New York Times sets that number at 138. So does the Washington Post, CNN, United Press International and Radio Free Europe. On the other hand, Cox News Service and Reuters say 214 coalition soldiers died in Iraq by May 1. In no instance could I find any details for the accounting of either number or any source for them. The numbers were printed as a simple fact, like saying there are 24 hours in a day.
The picture gets even less clear when one tries to determine how long it took for an equal number of soldiers to die after May 1. The Times, Post, CNN, UPI and Radio Free Europe agree that the number of pre-May 1 dead is 138; they further agree that another 138 coalition soldiers died between May 1 and August 26, about four months. CTV Canada and Agence France Presse both say it took six months – from May 1 until November 2 – to complete the second round of 138 deaths. Agence France Presse cites the Pentagon as its source for that number. It’s interesting to note the French news service uses the most conservative (and Pentagon-approved) statistic in its reporting. Cox and Reuters say 214 coalition troops have been killed between May 1 and this week.
What’s going on here? Depending on which newspaper you read, there are as many as 152 soldiers who may or may not be alive. Actually, they’re all dead. The difference comes in the accounting. Is the accounting strict, including only soldiers who died from a bullet fired or a bomb detonated by a hostile Iraqi, or does it also include those killed in a Humvee crash, friendly fire or perhaps suicide?
That different news organizations report diverging numbers of dead soldiers plays to the political advantage of the Bush administration. If conflicting numbers are flying around, the public will become skeptical of the news media and more likely to believe Mr. Bush when he says we’re making progress.
Someday, historians not journalists will settle on the definitive number of Americans killed in Iraq. They’ll chisel the number into granite and it will be too many.
The Metric System
In his “long, hard slog” memorandum three weeks ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wrote, “Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror.”
Like so many other statements in that memo, Mr. Rumsfeld’s quest for metrics reveals much about our position in the war on terror, regardless of how the enemy may be doing. First, it tells us Don Rumsfeld, like so many Washington bureaucrats before him, loves a good buzzword, in this case “metrics.” When Mr. Rumsfeld writes that the Pentagon lacks “metrics,” he means he has no standards of measurement to evaluate the war on terror.
No competent defense secretary can write “standards of measurement” when he means “standards of measurement.” He must find some jargon, a shibboleth to discern the initiated from the unwashed. If a defense secretary did not write “metrics” when he means “standards of measurement,” then he might be in danger of saying “retreat” when he means “strategic withdrawal” or “dead civilians” when he means “collateral damage.”
However he expresses it, Mr. Rumsfeld needs some way of knowing whether we are winning or losing the war on terror. Should we keep doing what we’re doing, should we do more of it or should we try something else?
Out here in America, I think many people believe we can measure progress, or the lack of it, by counting the number of dead American soldiers. The media has focused on the number of Americans killed and particularly the number of Americans killed in the first weeks of the war, as opposed to the number of soldiers killed since George Bush declared “Mission Accomplished,” on May 1.
Let’s adopt that as our metric. We’ll look at the number of soldiers killed in the 41 days from March 20 to May 1, then see how long it took to double that number after May 1 and then look at each succeeding interval. If the intervals get progressively longer, we’re winning the war on terror; if it takes less time to reach that number again and again, we’re losing. Simple enough? You wish.
The first thing we need for the equation is the number of soldiers killed between March 20 and May 1. The New York Times sets that number at 138. So does the Washington Post, CNN, United Press International and Radio Free Europe. On the other hand, Cox News Service and Reuters say 214 coalition soldiers died in Iraq by May 1. In no instance could I find any details for the accounting of either number or any source for them. The numbers were printed as a simple fact, like saying there are 24 hours in a day.
The picture gets even less clear when one tries to determine how long it took for an equal number of soldiers to die after May 1. The Times, Post, CNN, UPI and Radio Free Europe agree that the number of pre-May 1 dead is 138; they further agree that another 138 coalition soldiers died between May 1 and August 26, about four months. CTV Canada and Agence France Presse both say it took six months – from May 1 until November 2 – to complete the second round of 138 deaths. Agence France Presse cites the Pentagon as its source for that number. It’s interesting to note the French news service uses the most conservative (and Pentagon-approved) statistic in its reporting. Cox and Reuters say 214 coalition troops have been killed between May 1 and this week.
What’s going on here? Depending on which newspaper you read, there are as many as 152 soldiers who may or may not be alive. Actually, they’re all dead. The difference comes in the accounting. Is the accounting strict, including only soldiers who died from a bullet fired or a bomb detonated by a hostile Iraqi, or does it also include those killed in a Humvee crash, friendly fire or perhaps suicide?
That different news organizations report diverging numbers of dead soldiers plays to the political advantage of the Bush administration. If conflicting numbers are flying around, the public will become skeptical of the news media and more likely to believe Mr. Bush when he says we’re making progress.
Someday, historians not journalists will settle on the definitive number of Americans killed in Iraq. They’ll chisel the number into granite and it will be too many.