Quote from National Geographic, July 2002: "In 1993 a United States military force, originally despatched to Somalia as part of a UN humanitarian peacekeeping mission in the midst of a horrific famine, concluded that the Habr Gedir leader, Mohamed Aideed, was the principal source of local disorder and launched an intensive manhunt to arrest or kill him.

"Uniting in the face of this assault on their leader, the Habr Gedir fought back, culminating in the Oct 3, 1993, battle in South Mogadishu - the subject of the recent film 'Black Hawk Down' - in which 18 Americans and as many as 1000 Somalis were killed.

"The shock of American casualties quelled any appetite among the Western powers for further intervention."

It seems US leaders have a great liking for war but not for the unpopularity associated with bringing home young Americans in body bags.

The answer is to (1) bomb them suckers from way up in the sky; (2) get locals to fight for you on the ground. The Afghan Northern Alliance weren't too impressed with this in the early stages.

In Iraq there doesn't seem to be much military local opposition to Saddam. So we're talking bombs.

Unfortunately Saddam's sojers aren't likely to parade across the desert. Women and children and world public opinion are their only protection against bombing.

So which will Bush opt for - heavy civilian casualties or the risk of body bags?