Rowan,

Could you please give some idea of what you consider to be a "high casualty toll"? When you say "high" are you expecting hundreds, 20, or 5? Prior to the initial invasion, anti war types were making extravagant claims of tens of thousands dead. Then, when only 1,000 died, they decided that that was a very high number. It was, of course, far far lower than anyone expected. So, to avoid further arguments down the road, let's just clarify your benchmark. How many deaths do you expect on the American side?

My concern is that Falluja is seen as a demonstration or test. It is intended to send a message. I don't have a particular threshold, but given past conflicts in the (Falluja, Samara, and elsewhere) I would expect that possibly hundreds of the Iraqi troops with the marines will fall (and they may be particularly targeted - as Iraqi police have been). I would expect that civilians (non-combatants) are also likely to be in the hundreds, and US casualties in the high double-digits - particularly since this is "urban warfare." Believe me, I sincerely hope that I am totally wrong.

The "extravagant claims" of civilan casualties in Iraq were from research done by John Hopkins using exactly the same methodology used (and accepted as valid by the US and NATO) in Bosnia.

wHY DOESN'T ANYONE TALK ABOUT THE sCOTTISH TROOPS WE MOVED INTO THE RED ZONE? THE MEDIA ACTS AS IF THEY DON'T MATTER. THE U.K. IS OUTRAGED.