Do we have to take Baghdad?
It's pretty easy to see the downside - mainly in the form of Coalition casualties. And if the aim is to deprive terrorists of Iraqi-supplied WMD then controlling the countryside and laying siege to Baghdad should be sufficient. If, on the other hand, the aim is regime change/liberation it's a different story...
Trackbacks
Comments
I don't want any of our forces to get hurt but on the other hand, siege. It conjours up some pretty horrible images. Motte and baileys; catapults; Leningrad; Nanking; famine; death.
I don't want any of our forces to get hurt but on the other hand, siege. It conjours up some pretty horrible images. Motte and baileys; catapults; Leningrad; Nanking; famine; death.
Posted by mark holland on March 28, 2003