The reason that sending infantry in to fight in an urban environment has been considered a bad idea in the past is that it really is a bad idea and is likely to be a bad idea in the future, training and equipment regardless. One might as well put red uniforms on the troops and march them in files through a forest full of camouflaged hunters, which come to think of it, has been tried with somewhat disappointing results for the fellows involved. Those were trained infantry, the best in the world. It didn't help.
This isn't even close to a new concept. Siege has been used from time immemorial in this situation for precisely the reasons listed above. It is slow, ugly, and cruel, especially to the civilians entrapped with the combatants. It doesn't always work: Leningrad, for example. But urban combat brought us Stalingrad, also a failure. The bottom line is that war is ugly and cruel and there isn't a great deal to be done to pretty it up.
What we should avoid is announcing to the enemy that we're going to invade an urban area, delay the operation to allow him time to prepare, and then sent in the infantry. That we won the Fallujah engagement anyway is a testimony to the courage and fighting spirit of the men involved. It was not a testament to planning.
Amen. And Fallujah was largely depopulated of civilians for those battles. A mega-city battle would have cameras all over, magnifying daily “atrocities” committed by the “invading storm troopers.” No way to win. Just cut it off (no electricity means no food or water also) and wait for them to come out and beg for surrender terms.
See 23, 24 etc.