RadioM

From Day 1.

'Assasinate' Saddam in person, not with bombs. Once war is declared the head of the army is a legitimate target and I don't see why a dictator should be off limits, when the poor buggers he has been killing for the past couple of decades are fair game.

Deploy heaps of guys round the boarders, nasty job but it will pay off in the long run.

Set up some large bases out in the desert. Similar to the fire base concept in the Vietnam war. If Iraqi army units want to stand down they can get in contact with the nearest base. If not and they choose to fight it out then you'll see them coming.

Up the number of troops deployed and send over as many engineers (*seabees) as possible. (*do the US still have these?)

Lay off the 'Shock and Awe' especially in relation to bridges and general infrastructure. When a building is destroyed build two in its place.

Basically the idea acknowledges that Iraq was a dictatorship and that most people would be more than happy to have him gone, they just don't want their house destroyed in the process. This will keep people onside, allowing for troops to be based in cities and villages full-time. This is good for the Iraq economy as soldiers spend money, Iraqi's get to meet US soldiers and learn that they are a decent bunch of guys, increases relations and thus means you get good intel on terrorists/weapon supplies etc.

Then you just need to take care of the left over army (minimal I would imagine) and the inevitable influx of forign fighters, terrorists and other assorted a#%holes.

Isn't perfect but I just find the idea of 'bombing them back to the stone age' is inherantly unfair when applied to people suffering under dictatorships.