Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
"not if you kill the right ones".
The article claims that's the theory, but not the practice. That, on the ground, civilian casualties are acceptable if it saves US lives. The article isn't saying it's an either/or situation. The article is saying that the line has moved, that what would be considered excessive in most of our discussions, is now considered the preferred methodology on the ground.

My take on Kaplan is he usually gets his facts right, even if you don't agree with his interpretations. (Plus, he showed LT. COL. NAGL lots of love in a recent article, so he can't be too biased.)

I've long said that increasing public support for OIF is simple: bring fatalities down to almost zero. When I read about the recent airstrike in Sadr City, it sounded to me like the exact opposite of what is considered "the right way" here.

It would certainly be understandable if the strategy was putting more emphasis on reducing US causalities, and probably some validation for Mr. Gentile. I guess what I'm really wondering if anyone has heard from Iraq that the line has indeed shifted, and what are the implications if the line has shifted.