I said lets talk stacks, but I should say lets talk about the US military's form of room clearing.
Is it dynamic?
Not as taught.
So what is it properly called.
Deliberate room clearing.
Its slow. Methodical. Civilian casualty averse.
But its not dynamic. Its not designed to prevent US casualties. It designed to dot the i's and cross the t's for the lawyers. But I look forward to hearing what others have to say on this subject. My contention is that stacks against a properly equipped and motivated enemy will get our people killed. It is a hold over from the bad old days of the 70's when everyone was practicing to rescue hostages. It originated in civilian law enforcement and that's where it should stay. I don't have the answer to a better way but (yes I'm repeating myself) it will get our people killed if we keep doing it the way we are.
But that's my opinion. What's yours.
UPDATE. Historical Comparison.
My blog so its my world. Let's compare the situations in two different battlefields. Hue City and Fallujah.
Both battles highlighted extensive house to house fighting. Brutal combat at close ranges. Both had (at least for a while in the case of Hue City) extreme prohibitions on the amount of firepower that could be applied to enemy fortifications. Long story short, two different battles, somewhat similar tactics used by enemy forces yet the casualty figures (according to Wikipedia...yeah I know) are still somewhat similar (no disrespect to those that were injured or to the families of those who lost there lives...just looking at tactics, I request your patience with me on this).
How similar were the battles...both featured enemy snipers, machine gun positions, suicide bombers, enemy combatants surrendering and then attacking, and even enemy combatants playing dead and then attacking.
Yet the vaunted stack did not lessen our casualty count and I contend raised it.