My main problem was with the second point they brought up- the difference between civilian vs miltary. If the claim is that 100,000 Iraqi died during this time frame for the survey period, that is one thing and it seems to be a reasonable number. But to claim 100,000 civilians died from Coalition combat operations is false.
Another thing is that they complain that miltary doesn't want count civilian death. They are mixing apples with oranges again. The miltary loosely defines civilian as non combatants. A regular army personnel is obviously a civilian in that they are member of the nation but not as it's used by the miltary in the context of civilian deaths vs enemy combat deaths. The miltary shouldn't attempt to count civilians deaths- this should be done by independent groups which should attempt to be as objective as is possible.

Another aspect is the claim of lack of news coverage. Again false. There was lots of news coverage regarding this survey- lots of typically inaccurate news coverage. Which is hardly "news", rather it's the norm.

The NPR show was good in the sense that it made clear to the audience that the US Miltary takes extreme and cautious measures to try to reduce civilian deaths. And I am certain that history will show that Iraqi civilan death caused by coalition forces will be remarkably low. I, unlike Tom, think that all this US miltary effort in this regard is ultimately a good thing. A good thing in the sense that fewer US soliders will die and obviously fewer Iraqis will die as result. Or said differently, this war will be shorter as a result of the miltary effort to reduce civilian death and the subsequent recovery to healthy Iraqi nation faster. It is a miltary advantage to take these extreme measures to minimize the death of civilians and even unneccessary enemy combatant deaths. But regardless war will still be hell and lots of effort should done to avoid it.