In a SWAT team stakeout in a hostage situation, the team has to be concerned about trying to capture as many criminals alive as possible, trying to protect the hostages and other civilians in the area, minimizing property damage, and last and unfortunately often least, make sure nobody in the team gets hurt or killed.

This is how we're trying to fight the current wars. It's long, and difficult. Especially if you can't tell the criminals from the victims until they act. SWAT team casualties are almost inevitable.

A simpler way to deal with the issue would be to throw a grenade in the window. The criminals cease to be a threat to the rest of the population, and everyone in the team goes home safe the same day.

That's how we fought previous wars.

Those who wonder why WWII was over in such a short time compared to Iraq conveniently forget what weapons were used, and how. Bombs rained down into European and Japanese cities, causing millions of civilian deaths.

The U.S. suffered about 74 civilian deaths on its home soil, even counting Pearl Harbor.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody setting these policies was worried about "hearts and minds." at the time. That came after the war was won, and rebuilding began.

I'm not suggesting these tactics now. I think the lighter-handed approach is the correct one. But people have to understand WHY this approach is harder, and more costly for our own side.

Our side has made enormous progress in bringing formerly hostile Iraqis around to the side of peace and a united Iraq. The progress in the Anbar Sunni areas in particular has been very encouraging in the last year. Al Qaeda's attacks on leaders there have increased.

Sadr's Shiite constituency is breaking up. The Iraqi Shiites have never been that fond of Iran, and Sadr's recent actions haven't made him a lot of new friends.