How can we minimize American military casualties in Iraq?

Question

American Military Casualties in Iraq:

Since war began (3/19/03):3160

Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03): 3021

Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):2699

Since Handover (6/29/04):2301

Answer 1

Kill all the insurgents and terrorists.

Answer 2

There is only one answer to that.

We have to bring the troops home. We have no reason to stay. They are going to go through a civil war, that is a part of the evolutionary cycle of an emerging democracy. Look at every single country that is democratic and you will find a civil war at or near the beginning of every one. The problem they are having is the same problem we had at the beginning of our country. The reason we are a republic (we are not a democracy, we would like to be, but we are not) is because there was no way to communicate so they elected representatives who went to speak for us. At the time these were popular people because of publications about the war, etc. The same thing is happening there, what they have there is local heroes who have direct contact with their constituents, so they have a lot of swing with the people they know directly. Knowing that someone is saying what they want relaxes the people and makes them trust the leadership of the local hero. What they need to do is further breakdown power in the region to a type of representation that is not defined by region but rather affiliation or family or tribe or however they do it. They are not ready to have peaceful organized discussions yet because the only power they have ever known is the power of a rifle, that is just how it is. We are sitting here 10 generations deep into a democracy, and at the beginning we sure did a lot of shooting and running folks out of town. Let them be. We cannot keep them from killing each other, only they can do that.

Answer 3

In order to minimize military casualties in Iraq, we would need to kill all of the bad guys. Sounds simple, huh? We are in the midst of a major putsch right now which has decreased the number of good guy casualties significantly. If we take the fight to the dirty, coward, militant muslims, more of them will die and less of our boys.

I know this wasn't the answer you were looking for. You would like me to say,' we should leave right now'! The problem is, while our troopers would be saved from terrible situations in Iraq, people like you would face terrible situations here at home. You don't have the courage or ability to successfully take down a hardened terrorist.

While terrorists are a joke when compared to our troopers, they are formidable opponents when loosed upon the public at large. I conceal carry, and I don't wish to see a terrorist in my local mall. I should hope that you would recognize the importance of keeping the fight on 'their' soil.

Answer 4

Reinforcements
Do you get off keeping track of dead Americans
The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

Answer 5

We need to support our President and send more troops to Iraq so we can complete our mission faster with less casualties. Remember were not leaving until were finish, so would your rather attack an opposing force of 30 terrorists with 50 U.S. soldiers or 100. that's exactly why we need more soldiers, for a superior quantity force.

Answer 6

Not sure what the point is of positng the numbers, but our military is doing what they can. This is war dude, you take casualties, fact of life. I know you are of the "fast food" and "fast Fix" generation, but war doesn't work that way. I say not bad loss of life in the 4 years that this has taken, when you consider what's at stake, and that the single battle at Iwo Jima we lost 7,000 Marines and 30,000 Japanese in 30 days......30 days dude!

Answer 7

sadly get out.

It's all part of a master plan by iran to thin out our military, they keep attacking iraq, masterminding these "Hits" untill we finally give. They know america wont give up if they believe the fight is just. We should have just put saddam back in power, the only thing they answer to their is absolute power. Not the first clue in what it means to be free.

I say we leave and let all of the trouble makers come out, then go back again. Meanwhile leave lots of intelegince personal behind.

Answer 8

Don't let congress micro manage the war and stop politicizing with posturing resolutions that only benefit themselves for 08 election positioning.

Answer 9

There's been fewer causualties in Iraq than any other war.

America will be right again when the only question we have is 'How can we win big enough that terrorists do not attack us again?'

Answer 10

train kids when they are four or five on up on how to shoot and avoid bombs.
seriously though, there is no real way of minimizing the casualties- the government just needs to get the soldiers outta there.

Answer 11

short cruelty saves various lives in the long-term. In 1945 america nuked 2 eastern cities-Heroshima and Nagasaki.when you consider that then,"the indignated international" would not lose interest of "condemning" the individuals for this "undesirable conflict crime",and looks that the individuals do no longer lose interest of exhibiting how they repent,and how they conceal their heads with ashes, and of telling how sorry additionally they are,and how additionally they condemn,and how the yankee human beings isn't responsible for the heinous acts of yank government,and all this mindless liberal bla bla bla. yet very few human beings have the braveness to remind to all this noisy liberal refrain,that Japan at modern surrendered after those strikes,and that this saved the lives of a minimum of a million persons,the two individuals and eastern,the two squaddies and civilians,who could die if the conflict persisted fo yet another 3-5 months. how a lot of human beings died in heroshima and nagasaki? approximately 250 hundreds. If Israel have been as clever as i could like it to be,it could have attacked Hamas 3 years in the past,after the 1st kassams" have been released on Sderot from Gaza - and till now Hamas coud dig a majority of those goddamned tunnels and bunkers from which Israel now has to dig them out like rats with artillery,tanks and aviation strikes,and till now Hamas could have over 20000 rockets which now fall on the heads of civilian israelis daily. 3 yars in the past it may be in basic terms a primary floor incursion,no longer even an operation:Israeli troops could in simple terms enter gaza,shoot some 50 bandits,carry close on the closest palm-trees Hamas leaders-and frivolously withdraw. What may be the cost of this operation?some 2 hundred ineffective and different 4 hundred wounded. what share arabs are ineffective now? Over seven-hundred,and extra advantageous than 2000 wounded. I would be truthful;i do no longer shed tears over arab casualties;they have been given what they have been searching for.however the conflict is a extreme ingredient,and nust be waged professionally.in case you may desire to hit-hit complicated,hit rapid,hit often,do what you may desire to do - and recover from with it. yet do no longer drag the conflict for years out of a few idiotic "humanistic suggestions",because of the fact this "humanism" of neo-liberals will ultimately advise extra ineffective on the two factors.