An implicit assumption on your part is that without withdrawing from Lebanon, the killing rate of our soldiers would have remained more or less the same. I do not see why that is so.

Now, to something that you are missing: for quite a while, the State of Israel has been going down a slippery slope as regards our level of deterrance. Obviously, the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon is not the sole cause, it is merely a simptom of what I would like to refer to as "petty strategic thought."
But it was, without a doubt, a major contributer to our further descent into the abyss of non-deterrance. Our dealings with the Palestinians, since the Oslo accords, in which Arafat promised that all future disagreements will be solved non-violently, and after which the State of Israel had to pay and repay the price for that promise, to "appease" the "angry" and "hurt" Palestinian people. This kind of behaviour has been degrading our deterrance.

and for the polyglots
Hear Hear

1. I do have suspicions that the number of casualties would have decreased, but I'd rather not comment on that. Consider me beaten in that regard.

2. I am afraid that I don't have a good answer for that. I shall have to think it over.

3. I don't deny that hindsight is easier than foresight.

In conclusion, I have to admit defeat, at the moment.
Thank you for your time.

Disregarding the obvious?