An
article from the Times Online (I don't remember where I found
the original link) which discusses why Baghdad will be incredibly
difficult to occupy. The author makes comparisons to Tokyo in WWII.
What I think of is Manila in WWII.
Some commentary: (1) as it alludes to in the article,
yes, it is likely that the Japanese would've fought to the last man
if Emperor Hirohito didn't decide to surrender. America had in fact
prepared for this eventuality and had drawn up massive plans
to take Japan by force, and horrendous casualties were
expected. And while
the second A-bomb coupled with the threat of invasion by the USSR
finally convinced the Emperor (depending on who you believe),
for a good while, Tojo kept the Japanese people out of the loop,
and many in the
Imperial Army wanted to fight to the death anyway (in fact,
some
Imperial soldiers did not surrender until years and decades after
the war ended.) The point being, Saddam Hussein is no Emperor
Hirohito. MacArthur barely even reduced Hirohito's status, much
less punish him or even try him for war crimes, but the U.S.
clearly wants Saddam dead. I have a feeling Saddam doesn't have
much of an incentive to surrender. (2) Manila was utterly
devastated by the street fighting between Japanese and Allied
forces as Japanese forces pulled out (in this article from the
L.A. Weekly about Filipino WWII
veterans—the Iraqis
who revolted in 1991 probably shouldn't be surprised how they were
treated by the U.S.—the
author remarks that Manila was the second most damaged allied city,
superceded only by Warsaw), and thousands of civilians were
massacred by both sides. The Liberation of Manila is probably a
good template for what the Battle of Baghdad will be like. I wonder
if one of the major reasons the U.S. decided to abandon the
Philippines to independence was because of the state Manila was in
by the end of the war.