Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (45016)	9/18/2002 6:56:04 AM
From: SirRealist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>>Fighting in cities is a nasty business, accompanied by terrible casualties all around, to say nothing of the destruction wrought. This may be Hussein's plan, as there are reports that the Iraqis are digging trenches and erecting fortifications around urban centers. But historically, when a regime's army is defeated in the field and loses control of the countryside, troops trapped in cities don't hold out long. << Considering the no-fly zones, control of the countryside was lost long ago. The only way Hussein can hold out for a week is to concentrate troops in the cities. Enormous casualties can result there, too, particularly if Hussein uses a WMD, sacrificing his own citizens to inflict great losses where US troops are concentrated - I wouldn't put it past him. Which is why I'm not at all certain that mass amounts of boots on the ground is the best course, except in blietzkrieg strikes that go in and out quickly. Precision aerial strikes remain central, even in cities. If there are suspected WMD facilities there, dropping leaflets telling citizens to scatter, and troops to surrender, just 5 to 10 minutes before the rain falls, should limit civilian casualties, while granting insufficient time for WMD stocks to be moved out of harm's way.