The US-led battles in Iraq/Afghanistan seem to be going far less well than the multinational campaign in Libya

Following up on Chris' post on GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry, in which Perry said that US forces in Libya should be led by US commanders, not "multilateral debating societies," let's compare how well those multilateral debating societies are doing, as compared to the US-led efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Combined cost of US led mission in Iraq and US mission in Afghanistan:

225,000 Killed
$3.2-4 Trillion
[Source Brown University]

Cost of UN sanctioned, Libyan rebel led, NATO supported mission in Libya:

Unknown Killed
$1 Billion
[Source Fox News]

So far the 'multilateral debating society' that led the campaign in Libya seems to be working better than the alternatives proposed by current (Perry) and former (Bush) Texas governors. And, mind you, I'm citing the Brown University numbers for Iraq/Afghanistan which are certainly on the low end of credible estimates, and Fox News numbers for Libya which are almost certainly over-estimates. Libya still comes out better than Iraq/Afghanistan.

The number killed in the fighting in Libya is currently unknown but certainly in the thousands, possibly tens of thousands. But the number killed in the fighting is considerably less than the 50,000 people taken prisoner by the Gaddafi regime and currently unaccounted for.