From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 18:32:47 MST
On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 13:06, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Let's be clear here:
> Taking Baghdad is very possible. Taking it without substantial
> losses on the side of the Coalition forces _and_ without large
> civilian casualties looks impractical if the Iraqis decide to go
> down fighting. It will be very interesting to see how the Coalition
> forces intend to go about this.
>
### One option is to set up food and other aid dispensing areas right
outside the city, and invite all civilians to go out and take what they
need, while denying this to the military. Young men who come for aid
would not be let back into the city and would be diverted to temporary
refugee camps. Women and children returning to the city could be
fingerprinted, and issued only enough food for themselves, to eliminate
transfers to the military.
Then all you need is sit and wait, although if the Baathists decide to
starve their own population, this could be costly to the average Iraqis.
Sooner, rather than later, the city's inhabitants would rise and get rid
of their oppressors, ending the war. There would be no Coalition losses
and no losses inflicted by the Coalition.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 18:41:13 MST