Apparently you don't think its right to report on the most important effect of warfare - the fact that people die.

The most important effect of a war is whether or not it accomplishes its purpose. While no commander in a war would go out of his way to inflict casualties, especially on his own troops, it is idiotic to make that the primary factor in strategy, or the judgment of outcome. By your criteria, a victory with hundreds of casualites would be a worse outcome in a war than an unconditional surrender with no casualties at all. I know a few peaceniks who would actually agree with this.

If, ten years from now, Iraq is under another tyranny, and working on WMD again, we can talk about wasted deaths.

As for Saddam Hussein's death squads...good riddance. I am glad they are gone. But that still doesn't justify the fact that tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians died from our guns and bombs.

Tens of thousands of innocent civilians did not die from our guns and bombs. But if your made-up numbers make you feel better, go for it. Maybe I should make up my numbers too, like claiming that 50,000 people died in the WTC attack.