I'm going out on a limb here. The soldier in the article asked, "How do you fight people who are so prepared to die? I can answer that but most of us, including me, don't like the answer.
In WWII, the Japanese were willing to die to the last man. Projections of how many soldiers we would lose in taking the Japanese Islands ran in the millions. Our President, Harry Truman, decided that dropping the atomic bomb and annihilating two cities would save more lives than attacking the islands. I'm not saying we should nuke Iraq. What I am saying is that you can't defeat those who hide among civilians without killing a number of those civilians. In WWII, our soldiers did their best to protect civilians, but they weren't expected to die to protect them. So we destroyed whole cities with numerous bombing raids to weaken our enemies. Now, it almost seems like we expect our soldiers to pick out the one or two insurgents among a group of, say, 20 people and only kill them. If they can't pick them out then they can't shoot and are sitting ducks. It is high time, that Americans stop expecting our soldiers to do the impossible.
I'm not saying our casualties reach the level where we need to consider such actions yet. I'm not sure where that point is because I don't have a son or daughter in Iraq. But there is a point in a war, where you have to choose whether the lives of your own sons and daughters are more valuable than civilians in another country. At that point, you do your best to protect civilians, but you don't sacrifice your mission to do so.