My understanding is that it is not the policy of the US military to tally civilian deaths. They report obvious ones, when they deliberately shoot someone, but do not do an in-depth examination of collateral damage from bombing or shelling.
This incident comes to mind. Or was it all
faked?
When the deaths are high profile enough, the US will
acknowledge the incident.
Who's telling the truth? Can incidents that occur in the backwater of a country at war and in which jouranists cannot travel safely unless 'embedded' be accurately tallied?
Was the wedding video faked, or was the incident real and subjected to spin by the US to downplay fears about civilian casualties?
If anyone
knows the answer, then I would say that they are lying, because without first-hand knowledge you are relying on one of a number of groups, all of whom have an agenda.
All I can say about Iraq is that the coalition does not control the ground. They have responded to attacks by creating rules which are difficult for civilians to obey. (Picture an invisible line 1000 feet from a police car. If you cross that line the cops can shoot at you. Now try to imagine having to look out for police cars at every intersection so that you are never any closer than 1000 feet from one. How soon before you screw up?) They are also relying on bombs, shells, and missiles to make up for a lack of manpower. How 'smart' are our bombs, shells, and missiles? Multiply that margin of error by 2 years.
The most accurate answer is 'more than a dozen and less than a million'.
The reason US casualties are so low, besides better medical care, is that the rules of engagement have been designed to maximize the protection of our troops. This comes at the price of a higher amount of 'collateral damage'.
It's us or them, and the them includes civilians. Even if the US military wanted to do a post action survey of casualties, they couldn't, because they don't really own any ground outside of the 'green zone' and bases. They only have enough time to pick up their casualties and leave. Their is no Iraq:CSI to sift through wrecked buildings and vehicles. They might get an unofficial count of the ones who die in hospitals, but for every one sent to a hospital there might be ten dead on the ground.
Noone knows. 30,000 sounds like a good estimate. Since I don't know about every operation out in the sticks, I couldn't say 100,000 was wrong. Certainly the people on both sides have an agenda. Certainly the current adminstration has a very solid record of twisting numbers into something they like to hear.
It may be that in 10 years CNN will be interviewing Iraqis in the Baghdad Starbucks and they will all agree that it was worth it and have no hard feelings about everything they went through and about the cousins who were killed by coalition bombs or detained and 'rigorously interrogated' by US forces. Personally, I doubt it.