US admits using white phosphorous as incendiary in Fallujah

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It would appear that a majority of those disconcerted by the USA's use of white phosphorous munitions in this assault are also those who believe our invasion of Iraq to have been illegal/immoral/premature in the first place.

Setting aside your opposition to us being there at all (not asking you to discard your beliefs, merely to set them aside for the purpose of discussion), how should US forces have addressed the situation?

If you are facing non-conventional forces intermixed with civilians in a built-up urban area, you have a number of choices, none of which are thrilling.
You could:

A) cede control of the area to the non-conventional forces. This would minimize civilian casualties (barring some kind of pogrom by the non-conventionals) and minimize your own casualties, but would be a victory for the opposition allowing them to reinforce, develop a base, etc.

B) conduct a slow and painstaking infantry assault moving from room to room and house by house without the use of explosive devices or incendiaries or chemicals and carefully waiting for a positive identification before firing on any target. Since the non-conventional forces will be under no such restrictions, there will still be significant civilian casualties, but your forces will not contribute to that. Your casualties will be very high, since the defender has all of the tactical advantages in this scenario.

C) Use some form of chemical agent to discomfit the enemy and force them to leave many/all of the positions. The civilians intermixed will be harmed by this approach nearly as much as the non-conventional defenders, but the subsequent assault can move forward with fewer casualties and a greater likelihood of success. A number of civilians will require significant medical treatment. It is difficult to discern if civilian casualties will be less than in scenario "B," though it seems likely, but chemical injuries are more difficult to treat than standard trauma.

D) Identify enemy positions at range and hammer them with high-explosive munitions. Civilian casualties will be significant. The follow up assault will take casualties -- no bombardment zeros the opposition.

E) Identify the general area occupied by non-conventional forces and demolish it with lethal area-effect weapons. Civilian casualties will be horrific, but casualties to your own troops following up will be minimal.

F) use tactical nuclear weaponry to effect "e" above. Virtually everthing in the primary blast area will be eradicated, including civilians. No losses will be incurred by your forces. Radioactive contamination will be a concern, as will the political repercussions of this act.


Given a range of choices analogous to this -- remember, you've agreed to set aside the decision to be there in the first place for the sake of this discussion -- which choice is the most practical?