Do you think body counts are a good metric in defeating ISIL?

Nope, not at all. They are recruiting from all over the world and are massing more everyday. You could kill 1,000 of them in one day and it wouldn't even phase them. The best metric that we could use is to assess them by how much land they control. The less land they control the smaller they are.

No. People remember the "body count" of Vietnam and that it meant nothing; the war dragged on for 10 years. There's also the nagging suspicion that some of those killed were just poor local schmucks that were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or bribed or coerced into fighting for Daesch.

The best metric would be how much their movement is marginalized and unpopular. Dry up the sea of support in which these fish need to swim. Insurgencies work because the people are dissatisfied. The United States needs to let the locals handle it, and very quietly support some of the sides that are the least offensive to us, even if they may not be 100% buddy-buddy with us. For example, right now, if I was forced to choose between Iran and Daesch, I'd rather partner up with Iran even if I have to hold my nose to do it. The Ayatollah regime sucks, but they're better than the nihilistic crazies of Daesch.

Of course, Iran isn't the only option we have, I'm just picking one that illustrates some of the potential difficult decisions we may have to accept.

Uh, yeah. 'Cuz body counts worked ssssooooooo well for us before......

No sir. Personally, I don't think body counts are a good metric for determining whether you are defeating an adversary.

I say that because statistics can be manipulated to prove/disprove anything. For example, suppose I say I eliminated 100% of the elephants from my property. Sounds good, right? What if I then tell you I never had any elephants to begin with.

Suppose I say a combat force of 20 personnel had eliminated 50 adversary fighters. Does that really matter if you are facing a force of 2000? 4000? 10000?

It's my belief we would be better off focusing on something more tangible. Something along the lines of the Village of Holtland held free and democratic elections one year ago. Those elected are still in power and overall unrest has decreased by 75%. I think that would be a much better indicator of how successful an operation is or has been.

It is not a great measure of effectiveness at all. I also question how they are getting the 10,000 figure. In Vietnam, they actually had bodies to count (even though there some guestimates too). But with ISIS, who is doing the BDA? Are we getting the numbers from drones flying or other reporting venues? To me, the 10,000 is simply a figure that is thrown out there so the American public sees we are doing something.

No. The best measure is how much territory have they been driven out of, how many sources of income (oil fields, ports, etc.) have been cut off, how much equipment has been destroyed, and how many civilians have been freed from their control.

Until they start being seriously damaged the region will supply a fresh source of recruits to replace those we have killed so far. It is a weak horse/strong horse factor for recruiting.

Body count only makes sense if you are fighting an actual "war of attrition." Since personnel is one of the few things where resources is not not a huge issue, especially in an insurgency/revolutionary style environment, body count becomes a meaningless number.

But since personnel isn't the resource that matters, we need to measure against something a little more "defined." As CPT (Join to see) said, controlled land, is a great metric. Equipment is another good metric.

No. Fighters are going to come from all over the world, not necessarily from local villages. Land taken/occupied is a better way of looking at metrics.

What other metric would you use?

We are not fighting a country where we can look at their economy, population effects, remaining infrastructure capabilities, etc.

We are fighting a faceless, homeless creature and its really about the only thing we can count.

No. You strike one down and 2 replace them. They control land and populations by fear. Can we even say they have a legitimate agenda or an end state to judge progress we are making towards stopping them? Even without controlling real estate, a terrorist threat is still viable.