Basra
There are three potent arguments against war on Saddam. First, that a campaign to depose him would leave him with nothing to lose, and he would launch the worst of his arsenal, against US troops, or against Israel. Second, that he could hole up in Baghdad, and force the US to fight street by street, with the cameras of the world dwelling on the civilians caught in the crossfire. And, finally, that the occupation of Iraq would be a nightmare: keeping the peace between three ethnic or religious groups that would struggle for dominance if Saddam went.
So why not stop short of Baghdad? Free the Shiite South, and stop at the outer suburbs of Iraqi capital. It would be a relatively friendly occupation: the Shiites have been oppressed for Iraq's entire existence. Saddam would still retain Baghdad, and his home town of Tikrit; the West can make it clear that both places would be subject to ferocious retaliation if Saddam used biological or chemical weapons; and some degree of deterrence would remain in place. In case of an attack by the US, ethnic cleansing is likely in both Baghdad and Kirkuk, both mixed cities; let Saddam, rather than a US occupation force, take responsibility. As for Saddam himself, let his clan take care of him, which they will, once they realize that the Iraqi dictator is costing them control of the country, and its oil revenues.
#
