That might work. The problem is that the images of civilians in Baghdad starving to death or succumbing to disease due to a U.S. "siege" would be plastered all over the world. That might not be something that we could continue for an extended period, and the author hasn't addressed that possibility at all.
1. It probably only enhances Saddam's power relative to his subjects.
2. Saddam would likely respond by lobbing chem agents at our troops in Iraq. The more Iraqis killed in the process, the better for Saddam, because the media will spin it as our fault.
I like the idea of an orchestrated series of feints so we can get Saddam to play his cards early and on our timetable, and so we can regain the element of surprise.
One thing I like about a siege strategy is that we will knock out the communications early, requiring information to be passed in person, not by electronics. When Iraqi troops mass together, ka-boom.
This leaves them operating in chaos and panic with limited command-and-control.
My thoughts too. The author's suggestion that the Iraqi people might rise up against Saddam is a good posibilty, but in that event I suspect Saddam would release whatever WMDs he has on hand against his own people in Baghdad. These are potentical problems I'm sure our planners are aware of. The author's premise is correct though, and I posted as much months ago. Really one armored cavalry regiment with sufficient backup could destroy any combination of forces Saddam could send against them.
You can bet that civiians will starve before any troops and that video cameras will be available to record the tragedy for the rest of the world.
Saddam's only real recourse though, is to take the war to the American heartland via terror vectors. But that is Bush's point, either we provoke him or he provokes himself. Either way we get hit. Accurate bombs hitting Iraqi targets are a better start than sitting around eating ice cream and waiting to come down with small pox or anthrax.