Metrics

One of the results of the Rumsfeld memo which was leaked last week is a fairly good debate on the value of metrics in measuring progress.  I like metrics, they are a needed and neccessary management tool because you need to know where you are to get to where you are going.
Over at my blog I have a more detailed analysis of one type of metric being put forward by the administration and potential war supporters.

One of the interesting components of this debate is in a post by Dan Drezner in which the commanding general of the 4th Infantry Division is claiming success by the fact that the Iraqi resistance has to pay more for gunmen to attack US forces.

My basic question on this metric is 'is it measuring what you really want to know' ie the amount of support the guerillas have and their popularity, or is it measuring something else and deluding you.

I think, as I further outline at my blog, this is not a good indicator of success because it is assuming that the Iraqi resistance is incapable of learning and changing its tactics.  It knows that going force on force with US infantry which are supported by armor, helicopter gunships and heavy artillery if need be, with direct fire short range weaponary and tactics tends to be a losing game.  They have their own experiences and the experiences of the Iraqi Army in both this war and Desert Storm to realize this lesson.  So yeah, I would imagine it becomes more expensive for people to be motivated to undertake low reward, high risk attacks.  So the guerillas are learning to play to their strengths of knowledge of high explosives and cheap explosives all around.