A few hours ago, the US carried out a drone strike in Baghdad. Pictures of evidence at the scene suggest, three members of Kataib Hezbollah were killed (the group responsible for killing 3 US soldiers recently).
Let's reiterate: 1 strike, three terrorists killed, 0 civilian casualties.
I repeat: The US did not bomb most of Baghdad, killing 27,000 people to get this done.
Just saying.
The excess civilian casualties you're obliquely alluding to were the result of a prolonged ground occupation. This situation is fundamentally different.
There are a lot of variables at play. I don't necessarily take the government's reports fully at face value. But it stands to reason that limited objectives are proportionately easier to meet.
The big mistake under Bush II was mission creep. Nobody knew exactly what they were trying to accomplish. Sort of like Putin in Ukraine.
In other words, if the goal is simply to impede the operation of these militias, and send a message, instead of trying to take control of the country's government, this military action stands a good chance of meeting its objectives.
My concern is that the morons in Congress push for a full out invasion and occupation, despite everything we learned from Bush II. It's not unrealistic that these militias can mount a terror campaign that provokes that kind of response.
@Robert_R_Freitag_II @randahl Yeah, they're different objectives. IDF has to radically degrade Hamas' ability to do things like 10/7, of course. In some sense the US doesn't really need to take on the analog of that at this point, and killing these 3 terrorists of course doesn't do anything remotely like that.
There's no good way for IDF to do what it needs to do without a lot of collateral damage; this is a tragic situation but unfortunately it's the one they're in.
