THE latest nonsense served up by defeatist pundits insists that Saddam Hussein, a strategic genius, had a secret plan all along to lure us into Iraq where he could wage a brilliant guerrilla campaign to defeat us.

In other words, it was Saddam’s intention to see his sons killed, the majority of his senior leadership imprisoned, his police-state shattered, his military dissolved, his palaces repossessed, his country overrun and his domestic enemies empowered.

Some strategy.

Unquestionably, there were some plans in security safes for taking to the hills if Iraq were invaded or the regime toppled by an insurrection. Even the United States has “continuity of government” plans for catastrophic disasters. And every self-respecting dictatorship stashes weapons around the country in case it has to put down local revolts. But the notion that Saddam didn’t want to defeat us on the battlefield is ludicrous.

Saddam didn’t get a choice. Despite the reassurances of his French allies, nothing could stop the United States and our partners. Saddam was stunned. And he isn’t enjoying life now.

The same “experts,” disappointed that their predictions of a U.S. military debacle were frustrated last spring, complain that our casualties during the occupation are exorbitant.

More nonsense. Although every American soldier’s life matters, in historical terms our casualties remain remarkably low, given the magnitude of our achievement. More Americans will die on our highways over the Christmas holidays than will have died all year in the Middle East.

The perverse reality is that our military is being penalized for fighting such a brilliant, relatively bloodless war. Had the march on Baghdad taken three months instead of three weeks and had we suffered the thousands of dead predicted by the doomsayers, we’d see our losses during the occupation in a different perspective. But because we won an unprecedented victory in Operation Iraqi Freedom, our current losses can be cynically misinterpreted by critics desperate to validate failed theories.

This doesn’t mean we should welcome friendly casualties. But some things are worth fighting for, and we’re fighting for them now. And fighting means some good guys go down, too. But they’re giving their lives to defeat our bitterest enemies, to advance the cause of freedom and human rights and to give the entire Middle East a chance.

In a related matter, our military is wise to acknowledge friendly casualties promptly, while refusing to post an enemy body count.

First, body counts have a bad name and their purported callousness is exploited by those who hate all things American. If the body counts are high, we’re murderers. If the body counts are low, we’re losing. No military triumph will ever open closed minds.

But an even more important reason not to list enemy body counts is that it creates false expectations. If the score doesn’t keep going up, our Super Bowl mentality insists we’re in trouble. If we have a strong week, killing 60 terrorists and arresting hundreds, then face a relative lull and kill 15 the second week and only 10 the next, the headline-hungry media would interpret that as a fatal downward trend.

In the counter-guerrilla warfare we’re now waging, enemy casualty figures go up and down depending on many factors. For example, a highly successful allied operation might inflict such damage on the terrorists and guerrillas that they couldn’t muster a critical mass of fighters for weeks to come – and the body count drops.

You have to stand back and look at the big picture. Without perspective, any single day in any occupation could be painted as a disaster.

Be patient. We’re winning. We’re not quitting. And those who were wrong about every conflict since Desert Storm are wrong again.

Trust the results, not the rhetoric.

Ralph Peters is the author of “Beyond Baghdad.”