The current Iraq War is the LEAST deadly, measured in deaths per month, than ANY OTHER of the eleven total major wars America has ever fought, beginning with the American Revolution. If we had had the same response for the same level of deaths in combat throughout our history, we would be playing "God Save the Queen" before all baseball games.
If the same level of fearsomeness had gripped the US during World War II (and if we had had immediate communications so we knew about the deaths), we would have quit WW II before noon on D-Day, because it only took a third of a day for that one battle to exceed the deaths in three years of low-grade war in Iraq.
This author has his mind made up before he began typing. Therefore he presented only a partial truth -- what has happened in Iraq. He left out the truth about every other war the US has ever fought, because that larger truth would have put the lie to his preferred conclusion.
Such bad reporting is widespread in the MSM. And that skewed reporting leads to the poll results, to which the MSM says, "See, I told you so." But it all begins with the bad reporting. This writer is a literary coprophage. (Look it up; you'll be grimly amused at how well it fits.)
Congressman Billybob
You're probably right, but hat statistical comparison is as meaningless as comparing auto fatalities from 1955 to 2005. The primary reason for the low casualty rate as measured in "deaths per month" is that battlefield trauma care is far better today than at any time in the past.
The total number of dead and wounded U.S. forces in this conflict is somewhere around 15,000 -- which seems to me to be an alarming number when you consider that the U.S. only has about 135,000 military personnel in Iraq in total right now.