In my opinions IEDs defined the combat environment in Iraq, primarily because it slowed everything down so much for US forces. As well as being a transporter, IEDs define my operations in so many ways. Where I can go, how I get there, when I leave, how fast do I drive, how far apart the trucks are, etc etc.
And if we consider IEDs as part of a wider guerrilla warfare strategy, than it also defined our conflict to win over the locals. They also had to put up with that constant fear and being asked to trust US forces for security while at the same time knowing the US couldnt protect them from everything was very difficult.
Now as for your 2nd paragraph, you're are talking about something completely different. I don't disagree in the least that drama sells, in fact that in my opinion is what the primary motivator was for many news outlets to talk about the war, along with with the fact that the war was also actual news.
HOWEVER, apdst was arguing the media was anti-war, not that they were drama loving or that they wanted to use the war for profit to sell papers and newstime. No, he said they were anti war and broadcast-ed so much news about IEDs because they had a topic "could blow out of proportion, so as to undermine the American war effort."
See the difference? Perhaps you should take a bit of time out of your self-righteous textual vomit figure out what people are talking about.
And lastly about Justbubba thanking me, I'm glad to see you two still believe in guilt by association.