The strategy should be to hunt down and kill every insurgent on the battlefield as is possible - they either surrender or die and if they surrender they should be treated with absolute dignity and respect in detention.

Good point. Has anyone noticed that there is never any mention in the media of Americans who have been taken prisoner by the insurgency? Never -- not ever. Almost 2,000 KIA and almost 7,000 seriously wounded, but there is only one soldier - Pfc. Keith M. Maupin, 20, of Batavia, Ohio - who is listed as captured. Doesn't that seem odd? Americans have been taken as prisoners of war in most past wars, so why not in this one? For example, during the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese held about 700 of our prisoners in the "Hanoi Hilton" prison camp. These prioners were regularly the subject of talks during the Paris peace negotiations, and their release was a condition of the Paris Accords that ended the war.

One thing the Abu Ghraib scandal proved to the insurgency is that if Iraqis get captured, they will not be treated per the Geneva convention as prisoners of war. They will be tortured, and they will be executed. Furthermore, the American government has never once intimated that they would be willing to consider prisoner exchanges. This is a rediculous position to hold, since we're dealing in Iraq with Arabs who have a rich tradition and deep understanding of prisoner exchanges. George Bush refuses to negotiate with them under any circumstances, even if they may have American prisoners. Thus, the insurgents have no incentive to show mercy to Americans prisoners, and instead they are executing captured American soldiers in the field and on the spot. This could be avoided if George Bush would get his head out of his ass and indicate that that the Americans might be willing to negotiate prisoner exchanges. But that would involve negotiating with the enemy, and Bush isn't about to authorize that.