"Adapting the philosophy that we must protect them at any cost is a defeatist; after all, that is what Cindy Sheehan wants to do, isn't it? We must certainly not waste their lives, but if we are not willing to risk them to do the right thing, we SHOULD go home...."
The point I was trying to make was that Fallujah was a hotbed of Baathists and fanatics. Rather than send American troops into that city and conduct a costly house to house search and destroy operation,., it would have been much better to have just bombed the entire city and reduced it to rubble. I think that we done that, a lot of the lunatics running around now in Iraq would have been dead and fewer Amereican soldiers killed.
It was my understanding, and another poster here also stated it, that a large number of civlians had departed Fallujah anyway.
Given two alternatives: destroy the enemy with minimal American casualties and some collateral damage to cvilians, or destroy the enemy with heavy American casualties and fewer but still some civilian casualties, I would opt for the former.
"Given two alternatives: destroy the enemy with minimal American casualties and some collateral damage to cvilians, or destroy the enemy with heavy American casualties and fewer but still some civilian casualties, I would opt for the former."
You would be wrong, especially if part of your mission was specifically NOT to cause civilian casualties and damage.
Incidentally, when you say "heavy American casualties", that is disingenuous at best. Say "more American casualties" and I might agree. There hasn't been an operation yet in Iraq with what could be considered "heavy casualties".
http://www.almc.army.mil/ALOG/issues/NovDec03/Casualty_Estimation_Warfare.htm