Do non-combattants have the means to leave? Do they have a place to go? Are they being retained in the areas under siege by fighters who are intent on having non-combattants in the area?

According to the article, US Lieutenant Colonel Steve Boylan says that food and water are not being denied, but delayed due to firefights. How long is this delay, and when does delay turn into de facto denial? Are there wells within the besieged area? Healthy adults can live without any water for about 10 days, give or take, and without any food at all (but with water) for as much as two months, depending on their body fat and activity levels. Children, much less.

If the fighters run out of ammunition, they have nothing to fight with except blades and knuckles, both of which don't give them anything like superior range. A blockade on anything except food and water makes perfect sense. If they run out of bullets and explosives, and water is still coming in, they will hardly substitute water balloons. If food is coming in, they will not throw bread. How is provision of food and water resupplying the enemy, unless the object is to dehydrate and starve them?

Siege is indeed a very old military strategy. It made no distinction between infants and infantry in all its long history. If you were inside the walls you were out of luck. Apparently modern modifications to siege method have yet to alter this basic characteristic.

There really isn't enough information in the article, on either side, to determine whether any treaty violations are occurring, but there is plenty to conclude that something atrocious is going on. I would like to know more about American/coalition efforts to supply civilians with essential food and water, and the availability of water within the besieged areas.