[Sundog]

There is a second simple metric overlooked: The civilians didn't flee. There was supposed to have been millions of fleeing civilians ahead of the US Assault. Remember? They didn't flee. That's because they didn't think they were going to get killed. Get It?

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.

[mark502inf]

Good point--Remember the thousands of tents the UN set up at the Iraq-Jordan border that remained empty--the refugees never materialized--based both on the speed of our advance and the controlled use of our firepower; not to mention that the people understood very well that the history of American occupations is one that safeguards lives and property of innocent civilians.

You called it "a subtle attempt to disparage American troops". I disagree only because the last sentence in the article was not "subtle" at all: US military power may now be more hazardous to the health of Iraqi civilians than the dictatorship it destroyed.