I humbly disagree, including with your analogy. The strikes that will be at play will be limited and pin point strategic to Iranian operations in Iraq, not trying to “take them out” as in bombing Tehran. But, sitting up in Iraqi-Kurdistan says to Iran we do not concede Iraq to you, it is no longer your playground. And, I have no doubt we can defend our bases in Iraqi Kurdistan BETTER than we can around Baghdad, as the Iranian sponsored Shia militias do not operate there, nor will the Kurds allow them to. Iran would have to use its regular military, which it is not trained and experienced at doing, as well as it would bring retaliation on such units, in Iran.
You are completely out of step with what is happening in the military and the reorganization that has taken place since Trump came to office. Follow Space Command, DEVCOM, MDO, and Army Futures Command to get a sense of what is happening.
If our personnel aren’t there, they can’t be casualties. No matter how good a defense is, there is always a chance of something getting through. And if our bases aren’t in their striking range, we don’t have to defend them - which again is easier and has zero chance of US personnel casualties.
It is not necessary for our personnel or bases to be in the location you espouse. We can work over Iran just fine from our existing positions. There is no need to move closer.
Additionally, if we were to move basing and personnel as you suggest, it would lend *IRAN* legitimacy that they don’t deserve. They would claim (and in the area be believed), that even if they were defeated, the US took them as a serious enough threat to get close and invade. This would give them prestige in the area. Is that what you want to do?
It’s better to act like they are a trivial threat and annoyance that is easily disposed of with little attention or effort, like a man flicking a biting ant off his sleeve.