Are you sure you know who are ambushing the US troops?

I just heard on TV that the same mistake that was done in Vietnam is repeating itself here: it was to fight communism spread in SE Asia and it turned out to be a nationalistic resistance .
In Iraq, the population was glad to be freed from Saddam, but now, with the US troops staying there, more and more Iraqis are fed up and they also become more nationalistic and join anyone who's got means to resist.
A journalist followed a group of soldiers from the 82nd airborne division.
To rest somewhere, they went inside a house (who's owner was absent at the time) and simply decided to stay there. When the owner came back, he was forced out.
For the whole regiment, there was only one translator (and an american, the Iraqi translator had been killed).
Iraqi families accuse the US soldiers of being bunkerized, lacking translators, being badly prepared to fight in an urban area.
In today's "Le Monde", there are 2 pages of sickening stories of people losing entire families from US bullets.
Those soldiers storm inside houses, threatening the owners (in this evening's report on TV, a woman alone) if they don't tell them were weapons are, also insulting Iraqis (maybe luckily in english, so that they don't understand).
The occupants shouting incomprehensible orders to women and children...something Europeans have had some experience with during WW2. This has nothing to do with a liberator's behavior.
The officer of the regiment did confide (alone with the journalist so as not to discourage his soldiers) he was very upset by what was going on. They say themselves: everybody hates us, all the arabs from the neighbouring countries, even other westerners.
One of the problems is that in Iraq, during as after the war, we can wonder if the use of disproportionate force doesn't militarily and politically produce useless victims, even ,we can wonder if that disproportion isn't the cause of this conflict's prolongation.
In the US army, there's a doctrine achieving zero death, since the end of the Vietnam war. There is a silent rule implying that the more you spend ammunition, the more you become a super-hero. This can be justified in a classic military fight but it becomes incredibly counter-productive , if not criminal, when the mission is to liberate a country where the armed resistance is sporadic. For a crime to have been committed, the intention of killing a non-combattant (even if not premeditated) must be established.

Raoul