[Stavka2]

Regardless of the population, urban warfare is always a good idea for the defender, it negates a lot of an enemies fire power, especially if you also hug his forces, forcing him to cancel fire missions for fear of destroying his own forces. Further, you slow him down in a position that is infinitly defensible, where booby traps and snipers can do what might otherwise take platoons of troops. If properly prepared, that is trenches, defensive and communication are prepared, a defense becomes that much easier. Even with heavy equipment, it is much easier to distroy it when firing down on unarmored or lightly armored turrets. It is also much easier to sticky bomb the tracks from the rubble...not to say that such a situation is unconquerable, but as a defender, especially with an inferior forces, that is where I'd be fighting.

[Fudd]

Regardless of the population, urban warfare is always a good idea for the defender...

Which is why a good attacker never plays against the strengths of his opponent. In 1990-1991, Iraq prepared defences similar to those that worked well against Iran the previous decade. Had we made a frontal assault, the casualties would have been a lot more than they were. However, we hit them where they were'nt, and got behind the Iraqi forces. At one point all that stood between the main army and Baghdad was a couple hundred miles of road.

So when your enemy plans to lure you into urban warfare, you don't take the bait. As other posters have mentioned, you lay siege. While this avoids military casualties, it takess time and, in today's climate, will have political costs.