Comparing combat deaths between the Iraq War and WWII is one of those proverbial apple-and-orange comparisons; or to use another culinary metaphor, a red herring. The military's technology and tactics were so different that any comparison is meaningless.

A more meaningful comparison might be made with the Gulf War. There were 378 Americans killed in the Gulf War. To try and normalize a comparison, that's about twice as many as were killed during "major combat" in the Iraq War, so one might say that this war is going "better".

But I don't think that "major combat" casualties are the real sticking point in the controversy. It's how things are going in the occupation that's bothering a lot of people. We were sold a rosy scenario of jubilant Iraqis lining the roads and cheering their American liberators, the wolf lying down with the lamb, the Age of Aquarius dawning in the Middle East, etc. etc. etc. Hasn't turned out that way, and a lot of people feel they were sold a bill of goods by an Administration with its heart set on war.

Another type of rosy scenario was the assertion that the occupation of Iraq would be just like that of Japan or Germany. That that rosy scenario was wrong is indicated by the fact that the US suffered zero combat deaths in the postwar era in both countries.

My search for more info about that led me to a fascinating RAND study called America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq. It was written in July 2003, so its conclusion that Japan & Germany were poor models can't be held against the Administration. Nevertheless, I do have to wonder why nobody thought to study the problem systematically before invading Iraq. The Bush people really were woefully unprepared for taking on the challenge of nation-building in Iraq.

One sadly ironic passage, talking about how the Japanese submitted so peacefully after being beaten to a pulp, concluded that "It seems that the more swift and bloodless the military victory, the more difficult postconflict stabilization can be." (Chapter 9, page 162 [page 14 in the standalone PDF]). I'd say that there's a minimum price to pay for conquering another country, and you can pay it in combat, or you can pay it in occupation, but one way or another, you pay it. TANSTAAFL.

The study's a huge document, and I've only managed to read the chapter summarizing the case studies and lessons learned, and the chapter on Iraq. I don't know that anybody's going to find much fodder for argument, but it'll help understand the massive challenge that Bush has gotten us into.