Airstikes Soaring in Iraq?

[Rank amateur]

Considered excessive by whom? I see no evidence of that nor do I see any proof that it is the preferred methodology

That's why I'm asking people who have served in the Shiite areas; there's got to be some on the council. And Kaplan isn't talking about smacking around AQI: though personally I agree that was appropriate, necessary and successful. He's saying that a deliberate strategic decision has been made to inflict more civilians casualties in the Shiite areas - because it reduces American causalities - and claims that his statistics prove his assertion. True? False? Not a big deal one way or the other? I'm surprised that more people don't have comments.

Considered "the right way" by whom?

Tell I'm out to lunch if I misread the general consensus, but I thought most agreed with CavGuy. Killing the right guys: good. Killing the wrong guys: counterproductive and should be avoided if at all possible.

RTK has said that American causalities is the worst possible metric. (I like disagreeing with RTK, because anyone who has been pictured with the Stanley Cup can obviously drop the gloves and then shake hands afterwards. Plus I learn a lot from him, but I think the average civilian disagrees.) Kaplan claims that the powers that be in Iraq are siding with the average civilian. If true, I think that's a) significant, b) a change.

Not even mentioning the fact that "the right way" on paper or in theory frequently sputters to a sloppy, slithering halt when rounds start cracking overhead...

Agreed, but at the risk of being irritating, Kaplan is suggesting that the TTPs have been changed to: bomb before the rounds start crackling overhead. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that if it's true, it is contrary what I think I've heard a lot of council members say. If true, it suggest to this amateur that maybe Mr. Gentile was correct in the very spirited, and probably much remembered:

Eating Soup With A Spoon.