> Iraq's military was so thoroughly beaten before we sent the ground troops in that in many cases Iraqi soldiers surrendered without a fight. The fact is that those air strikes meant a *lot* fewer American casualties when the ground war started. *If* we go to war (whether or not we should is an entirely different debate), it only makes sense to do so in the way that preserves the most American lives while still being effective. Yes, I'd like to preserve the most Iraqi civilian lives as possible, too, but I'm not going to sacrifice American lives to do it.

OK, I'll agree that air strikes can be effective on certain military-only targets, particularly if missiles (rather than bombs) are used. What I was objecting to (now I come to think about it) was the disproportionate numbers of civilians that bombs kill. I may be opening myself to a barrage of other opinions and/or abuse, but I do think that I would question the morality of your last sentence. Civilians didn't ask to be involved in a war, and have no part in it, whereas troops going into Iraq would be professional soldiers who entered a career where dying is a very real occupational hazard because they wanted to. This is why I believe that the saving of civilian lives should be much more of a priority than it already is. Eugene suggested sending in special forces, which I reckon would be an extremely good idea (assuming, of course, that the war was deemed to be right in the first place - I'm not going into that). This would minimise civilian casualties, make *absolutely* sure that it is the complete professionals who are doing the work, and achieve their objectives much more cleanly than any other form of attack that I can think of.

Sigi