If not a quagmire, then a siege?

If not a quagmire, then a siege?
: The Observer says we have a “terrible choice:”

American troops on the very edge of the Iraqi capital now face a terrible decision. They can stage an all-out attack and risk killing thousands of innocent civilians or lay siege to the city, jeopardising the coalition’s hopes to minimise casualties as shortages threaten to create a humanitarian crisis.

OR… we could find that the Iraqi military is so weakened as to be nearly destroyed and we can continue to drive into the city just as we did last night.

OR… we could find that the people and their soldiers, given half a chance, welcome us and surrender.

OR… we could find that Saddam is dead and his henchmen are just trying to hold on until they escape.

OR… the pundits and prognosticators and pub-stool generals could just be wrong, as they were about us being stuck in a dry, sandy quagmire.

: Meanwhile in the Observer itself, a general writes: “If the early forays of US forces into the city do not lead to a complete collapse of the regime, there will be a pause while they start a ‘crumbling’ operation.”