It strikes me that an effective tactic against the Fedayeen who are taking up residence in sacred sites and hospitals is to simply cut them off. We don't want to lay siege to the city of Baghdad as a whole, because that would be too hard on the civilian population, but there's no reason that we can't lay siege to a mosque.

If we can't get the regime to capitulate quickly, I think the strategy should, and will be the same as in Basra. Go through and disinfect neighborhoods, relying on locals to finger the enemy, and gradually expand liberated areas. If we find enemy holed up and shooting at us, just keep our distance, and starve them out. Eventually they'll run out of food, water, ammunition, or all of the above, unless they have an extensive tunnelling system with which to resupply from other hideouts. I doubt if they do, but even then, they still have finite supplies. We can maintain the high moral ground as long as we don't fire back, even in the face of hostile press, at least with the American people.

We may risk whatever hostages they have inside, just as the Palestinians held hostages in the takeover of the Church of the Nativity last year, but at least it's not the entire civilian population of Baghdad.

In short, I think that the current rules of engagement that restrict us from firing on sacred sites can work, at least over the long run. As long as the monsters are holed up, they have no control over the country or the populace. We can start to rebuild the country, even as we gradually starve out the vermin that have infested it for so long, just as we rebuilt Japan while continuing to find holdouts on Pacific islands for months and years, though I don't think it will take that long.

Rand,

While I agree in principle w/ you, let's not forget that we've had way too many months of pussy-footing around, courtesy of Chirac and co.

That was time when the regime almost certainly knew we were coming---and therefore could stockpile supplies in certain locations, dig tunnels, etc.

So, these could be drawn out sieges.

Also, politically, a siege may redound to ill effect. If it is true that Iraqis are scared that we might pull out, and that is why they've resisted showing support, then a siege will only raise further questions about why we won't do what we obviously have the power to do.

I think, at some point, we need to figure out who the audience is, and which one(s) we're prepared to alienate....

Well, if the previous administration hadn't signed that agreement prohibiting the use of non-lethal gas in war, I would imagine some buuildings might be amenable to clearing using the sort of knock-out gas the Russians used in that Moscow theater.

I was just thinking about the Russians. As an olive branch, we could offer to let them gas these terrorists without giving them any other administration duties in post war Iraq. I get the sense that the Russians (at least some) would like to play nice with us, but have such a bad economy that what morals they have (about selling arms to tyranical dictators) has been badly warped.

My wife is Russian. She doesn't understand the moral implications either. When we discussed the selling of arms to Iraq she only sees how good Russians are at taking advantage of capitalistic opportunities (much better than us dumb, moral Americans...)

She does cook however...