Is potential South Dakota senator Sam Kephart correct?

No, it seems that as unhappy as we are (and should be) about civilian deaths, the Iraqis probably are more unhappy and hence leads to more resentment towards American troops in the situtation.

Our presence in Iraq has become a no-win situation but not for the reasons above but because we're trapped in the middle of a civil war and there isn't a clear side to support so we're stuck getting hit by both sides.

 

No. Aside from being inhuman and grotesque and completely at odds with US policy in the mideast (or ever) and pretty much a war crime, scorched earth campaigns against insurgents with no regard for civilian lives doesn't solve the problem so much as exacerbate it. See Russia in Chechnya.

 

^ Following Sam's point yes we likely could kill more to gain shortterm military goals, I mean we could just nuke the whole country, but that's not going to win the war. If we are engaged in a broader war on terror the means of how we fight it are as important to the ends. Following Sam's example of Chechnya the Russians have been very brutal there which hasn't stopped terrorists attacks. Its likely provoked more as both sides seek to rachet up the level of brutality. Also the Soviets were much much more brutal than us in Afghanistan yet still lost while we showed far less concern for civillians in Vietnam than we do now.

The nature of warfare has greatly changed since the days of levelling Dresden and insurgencies have since figured out that civillian deaths actually help their cause by building support among the wider populace and giving them justification to act brutally back. The only successful way of ending an insurgency is to seak political solutions as the Brits did in Northern Ireland rather than trying to kill more civillians.

 

Iraq has a Virginia Tech massacre every day.