Editorial: Get rid of Saddam and Iraq will fold

The United States has constantly emphasised that minimising civilian casualties is a top priority in Iraq. It can hardly be otherwise if, as the White House contends, this is a war to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal despot. But the emphasis makes sense for other reasons. Nothing could be guaranteed to outrage Muslims of even moderate persuasion or to fuel anti-war protests as much as graphic images of the innocent victims of war.

So far the Americans have kept largely to their script. The aerial bombardment of Baghdad has been unprecedented, including strikes by about 350 cruise missiles. But such has been the precision of the bombing of military and leadership targets that on Sunday Iraq reported only three civilians killed and 250 wounded. In the southern city of Basra, where cluster bombs have been used, the toll is said to be higher - 77 civilians killed and 366 wounded. The Americans' real challenge still lies ahead, however.

That will come when the US-led forces complete their race across the desert to the outskirts of Baghdad. As it now stands, they face a difficult choice: to begin a frontal assault on the Iraqi capital or to lay siege. Both courses are fraught with risk, including the potential for a sharp increase in the civilian death toll. Already, the Iraqis have shown themselves to be more astute opponents, especially in guerrilla warfare, than in the 1991 conflict. Gone is the static defence employed then with disastrous results. The more appropriate tactics have worked particularly well at Umm Qasr in the relatively open territory of a port-side industrial zone. Their effectiveness could be even greater in Baghdad, where the American concern to avoid civilian casualties - and heavy losses among their own forces - will intensify.

The Americans will face Saddam Hussein's best-equipped and most loyal forces and, quite possibly, civilians prepared to join the fighting. The defenders' cause might even have been helped by the aerial pounding of Baghdad and the spectre of a Stalingrad-type situation in which technological superiority is of diminished benefit. And even if most of the city's five million people wish to be quiescent, they could be used as civilian shields, as has happened in southern urban areas.

For such reasons, the Americans may prefer to lay siege to the Iraqi capital. They may calculate that their "shock and awe" strategy has reduced the will to resist. But this tactic also has hazards. Years of United Nations sanctions have rendered large numbers of Iraqis destitute. A siege, involving the cutting of Baghdad's food and water supplies and possibly lasting weeks, would have tragic consequences for many of these people. Their plight would raise obvious questions about this war of liberation, and invite increased Muslim anger and condemnation from those opposed to the war.

The Americans have always recognised that Baghdad presents a particular challenge. An ill-fated 1993 raid in Mogadishu was a reminder of the perils of street-fighting, even against relatively crudely armed opponents. Thus, their first thought was to kill Saddam - and hope that his regime tumbled like a deck of cards. Unfortunately for them, and the prospects of a short and relatively bloodless war, their "decapitation" raid failed. Saddam appears to be alive and well, despite continued bombing of his palaces.

That, however, remains the best chance for finishing the war and keeping civilian casualties to an absolute minimum. If Saddam were removed, the Iraqi will to mount meaningful resistance would surely disintegrate. As it is, the Americans may, in the words of the Iraqi Defence Minister, have to pay a high price for Baghdad. Not necessarily in US dead but in civilian casualties - and the rage and rancour that would reverberate long after the war is over.