After reading hundreds of postings regarding the (supposedly) forthcoming war between the US and Iraq my impression is that people from throughout the world are concerned at the deaths which will occur as a result of an invasion.
However, the Iraqi soldiery will be well aware of the might of the US air power and the technological gap between Iraqi and US ground forces.
I see no reason why (if, indeed the average Iraqi secretly hates Saddam) the US could not coerce their opposition into surrender on a mile-by-mile basis.
As long as the US guaranteed the removal of Saddam and replacement of his government with a monitered humanitarian regime, surely the average Iraqi soldier would prefer surrender to death?
Personally, I think this is achievable, but won’t explain the process for the sake of space. Suffice it to say it involves radio broadcasts, leaflet and food drops, border negotiation and the ripple effect. However, this is not my point.
My query is: are people opposed to the removal of Saddam following a US invasion or are they opposed to the projected deaths following a shooting war? The debating point is: Would a (relatively) bloodless coup (originated by the US) be acceptable to those railing against the current likely war or should the US stay away regardless?