"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
I don't think our primary objective in Iraq was nation building.
I thought it was removing Saddam and eliminating his weapons of mass destruction and preventing his support for terrorists - all of which we achieved.
But again, I guess you and I have to agree we disagree on this subject. The life of one American boy in uniform means more to me than a housefull of Iraqis.