"September 5, 2004: American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:7. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media. "
http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM
[I got link from Instapudit]
Btw if ratio was 1:5 that would mean instead of 976 US Soldier dead, there would be 1580 dead.

And I still contend that this war is being fought in a very effective way and see little advantage to idea of flattenning areas. Sure, it's a great way to impress some people, but our enemies will not be significantly deterred by this. In simpliest terms our enemy is insane, fear of consequences isn't a trait of madmen. Also I don't think we need to do anything more to impress- I think Iraqi who might have thought their regime was all powerful, are completely stunned by the US miltary and coalition forces did to it. And the rapid transformation of Iraq in general is shock and awe.
With all that said, I'm not saying we should tie our miltary's hands in anyway- if they need firepower, give them firepower. But I don't think the miltary men on the ground are asking for this.