This is going to be a cakewalk There's nothing more amusing/pathetic than the sight of lefties desperately hoping that the war on Iraq will cause massive casualties. You can see hints of this in this Slate article, which glosses over the fact that Gulf War 1 had only 148 KIAs in its haste to deliver a grim prognosis. People just don't realize how one sided that conflict was. Over 100000 Iraqi soldiers died, to our ~100. That's a 1000 to 1 kill ratio. I wouldn't be surprised if we've boosted that by another order of magnitude in the ten years since. This article in the WaPo gives a recap of the propaganda war during Gulf War 1, but one paragraph in particular is remarkable in showing just how outclassed the Iraqis were in that conflict:

Inside the Iraqi Army, however, something different was happening. Allied leaflets dropped on troop positions in the south conveyed a simple message of hopelessness for the soldiers, who had been relentlessly bombed like they had never experienced. On the first day of Desert Storm, the United States flew more air strikes than Iran flew in ten years of war against Iraq. Soon enough Iraqis started to desert in droves. By the time the ground war that Saddam wanted so badly had kicked off on Feb. 24, 1991, Iraqi soldiers, sans Chapstick, were surrendering to reporters and unmanned reconnaissance drones. Ultimately over 80,000 Iraqis were captured as prisoners of war in just four days.

Now that is domination. Read the rest of it - it's good. A sample:

Writing in the New York Times, columnist Nicholas Kristoff warns that an "invasion of Iraq may not be the cakewalk." American restraint will provide Iraq plenty of places to hide its army, he says. What is more, by hiding in the cities, the United States will be forced to fight the Iraqi way. "The Americans are good at bombing," an Iraqi official tells Kristoff, "but . . . they will have to come to the ground. And then we'll be waiting . . .let's see how the Americans do when they're fighting in our streets." ... Why does anyone buy this nonsense? We have learned a great deal about U.S. military capabilities in the past decade. When U.S. intelligence finds a target worth attacking, the military can attack it with precision weaponry, pretty much regardless of location, and still minimize harm to surrounding civilians. What is more, if the target is indeed a weapon of mass destruction or Saddam himself, the law of war allows for attack even if there is danger to civilians, so long as the civilian harm is not disproportionate to the military gain. Does anyone doubt that President Bush is going to hold back this time?