Re the NEJM study though, he neglects to mention that the interviewed Soldiers & Marines primarily saw combat during the conventional offensive operations phase of the invasion. Such operations would include more civilian casualties because of much more extensive use of indirect fire & high caliber weapons plus faster movement into unknown areas against a defending enemy. The reported civilian casualties were caused in operations using more firepower & less discriminate fire than in the current environment. Taking the number of civilian casualties those troops report and extrapolating into the occupation & insurgency phaseleads to, at best, doubtful numbers and most probably an over-estimated civilian casualty rate.
The talk of civilian casualties is in stark contrast to the fact they didn't flee. How about a study of the refugee problem like we had when the Kurds were being gassed? Don't you remember the pathetic scenes of the Kurds in the snowy passes trying to find baby formula bottles to feed their infants? I know of marines over there. This talk to legitimize the discussion of rates of civilian casualties isn't rooted in anything but a subtle attempt to disparage American troops engaged in a morally justified war.