In WWII, we were fighting countries which, like our own country, completely mobilized their civilian populations against the enemy. In bombing their cities, we were in large part bombing the industries that were making the weapons of war.

In Iraq, the insurgents don't have large factories producing arms and ammunition to help them carry on the fight. By giving the civilian population reason to trust us or at least trust us more than the insurgents, we will be able to militarily defeat the enemy. (Iraqi politics is a completely different matter)

I think the general gives us the hard-line perspective of the military, and it is a perspective that should be slapped down, hard.

We all understand that civilian casualties are going to happen in wartime. They should, however, be the exceptional situation, the accident that occurs while the military is doing its best to uphold a very high standard of avoiding such situations. The very last thing we need is for the military to sense that the standard is lowered or obscured.

Actual performance will never live up to the standard. Insuring the best result comes from maintaining very high standards - that insures that actual performance will be as good as possible.

Is this not the mentality that underlies so many other aspects of military discipline?

In a total war like WW II killing civilians undoubtedly contributed to victory. But in a less than total war like this you can not say that--
killing someones pregnant wife in Japan in 1943 probably did not impact how that individual fought us. But killing someones pregnant wife in Iraq in 2005 could have a major impact on how he resisted the US military.

Likewise, realizing your goal of security can be obtained in different way. You can act like Mao or Stalin and kill off entire populations. that does not require much manpower. Alternatively, you can have a large enough military-police presence to assure security without having to be so deadly. For example, if we had had three to four times the forces on the ground originally this could have been a very different scenario.
It may not have been sufficient, but it clearly was necessary.

The problem with the analysis that Dan is advocating is that he seems to refuse to consider different scenarios than his simple minded one of acting like Mao.

It is like Bush. He keeps claiming that this battle has to be won and we can not afford to lose. He is probably right. But if he really believes that why doesn't he commit sufficient resources to achieve the objectives he desires.
His objectives and his resources do not match.

In WW II over the same time we have been in Iraq the US went from having a 0.5 million military to having an 11 million military. Surely over the last four years the wealthiest country in the world could figure out some way to get 200,000 or
300,000 more troops in Iraq.

Dan, do you have any idea why we have not even tried that alternative?

I have my own theory. IT would require Bush to give up his tax cut and his revealed preference is that the tax cut is more important than victory in Iraq.

What theories do you have as to why Bush does not even seem to try to match his resources to his objectives?

This is the current right wing excuse meme for why we are losing in Iraq: America doesn't have the stomach for it, probably because the traitorous left supports gay marriage or something.

Among other things, the unrealistic and unachievable expectations produced stimulate a sense of betrayal when such casualties occur...

Imagine the sense of betrayal that would be produced if we just went around bombing buildings/areas regardless of the civilian casualties that may come about. By having a "zero tolerance" (I don't believe the policy is really zero tolerance) we definitely cause fewer civilian casualties and most likely save more military lives in the long run.

I am delighted to see this arguement in print. I have long felt this to be the case, but having served in the Navy could never be certain of it.

The practice of calling in air strikes when we see insurgents run into a set of buildings and then later finding out that the buildings were full of non-combatants has just seemed wrong to me.