There Isn't Going To Be A War With Iran -- Relax & Calm Down

[sparky]

Nostradamus 2020 predictions: WAR, Trump impeachment and rising seas in the New Year

S~

 

[skye]

President Trump: "We took action last night to stop a war, we did not take action to start a war." -

I'm not sure what war he thinks he stopped, but I believe him when he says he does not want a war and Iran certainly doesn't want a war with the US.

Jan 3, 2020

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Frankeneinstein said: ↑
I was referring to the respect for trump being offered up

earn it then

What does this have to do with my post?

 

[BWK]

Who was Qassem Soleimani, Iran's IRGC's Quds Force leader?


First and foremost, a bad guy was killed and the world should celebrate that....and not one US solider was harmed in doing so......Qassem Soleimani had been living on borrowed time for the past 20 years, so him taking a dirt nap now isn't a big deal -- there isn't going to be a war with Iran, so take a chill pill and relax....

Now who was Soleimani?? In Iran he was considered popular, initially because of his role in the Iran/Iraq war and later because of his role in the spread of Iranian influence in the Middle East, which the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel have struggled to keep in check..

"Soleimani ordered Iraqi militias into Syria to fight along the Iraqi military to defeat ISIL..which made him a "national hero" among the Iranian people and other Middle Eastern countries. 'If it wasn't for people like him, this region would have seen black flags flying across the region"

Who cares if this guy fought against ISIS, he conducted proxy wars and terrorist attacks on US interests across the Middle East that resulted in the loss of American lives....it was about time he got what was coming to him.....they have been trying to take him out for 20 years, he got caught slipping and here we are....Iran doesn't want a war with us -- the economic sanctions have crippled them, so a full fledge war with the US is not in their regime's best interest..They will continue to conduct proxy wars and attacks -- and we will continue to launch drone strikes against them in Iraq, but it will not go any further, so like I said..relax….celebrate the fact that a bad guy is gone...and give Trump credit...

#MAGA

We poured gasoline on a smoldering fire; 'Pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire,' says admiral

Had Trump not gotten stupid by getting rid of the Iran deal, none of this would have happened. No telling how many American troops are going to die as ac result of this.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The USA has the power to stop genocide.

as well as inflict it

Abortion?

 

[White 6]

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

[/QUOTE]
Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

 

[BWK]

Still doesn't cause me to lose an ounce of sleep or shed a single tear because Qassem is dead....only thing that his death affects in my life is oil prices going up

What effect will this assassination have on Trump's reelection prospects?

Trump risks a major war in an election year– why? – Mondoweiss

"The central political question about the assassination is, Why would a president who calls himself antiwar take such a huge risk in an election year?"

A distraction against the slam dunk impeachment evidence,and Trump wants the oil out of Iraq so he can blame Iran for our theft. That's the plan. Trump has been impeached anyway, so if he gets his small cowardly hands on one of the biggest oil reserves in the world by stealing it, he already said he didn't care. For someone to second guess Trumps motives after hearing the proposed crime, coming out of his own mouth, is retarded.

 

[BWK]

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.[/QUOTE]

Just remember, you said it yourself, "it's been a money maker and a life taker." Not one troop is worth that. And the troops deserve to know who and what they are dying for. And it sure as hell aint our freedom. It never was.

 

[georgephillip]

Iran tends to be peaceful, I doubt if there would be war

Peacful?? Iran?? Surely you jest

In comparison to America, Russia,China Saudis & Israel yes Iran is more peaceful.

In comparison to Poland, Hungary, Czech, Slovakia, Switzerland, Ireland, Italy, Sweden then Iran is aggressive.

Wanna hear a dumb pollock joke??

America is deeply entrenched in NeoCon values.

Note we aren't helping anyone else against genocide & oppression.


America did nothing about Rwanda, 5 million killed in the Congo war, Darfur genocide, Rohingya genocide etc.

Because they don't involve a certain violent country in the Mid East.

America did nothing about Rwanda, 5 million killed in

Perhaps African wealth is next on the neocon hit list?

The escalation of AFRICOM | Geopolitical Monitor

 

[toomuchtime_]

Who was Qassem Soleimani, Iran's IRGC's Quds Force leader?


First and foremost, a bad guy was killed and the world should celebrate that....and not one US solider was harmed in doing so......Qassem Soleimani had been living on borrowed time for the past 20 years, so him taking a dirt nap now isn't a big deal -- there isn't going to be a war with Iran, so take a chill pill and relax....

Now who was Soleimani?? In Iran he was considered popular, initially because of his role in the Iran/Iraq war and later because of his role in the spread of Iranian influence in the Middle East, which the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel have struggled to keep in check..

"Soleimani ordered Iraqi militias into Syria to fight along the Iraqi military to defeat ISIL..which made him a "national hero" among the Iranian people and other Middle Eastern countries. 'If it wasn't for people like him, this region would have seen black flags flying across the region"

Who cares if this guy fought against ISIS, he conducted proxy wars and terrorist attacks on US interests across the Middle East that resulted in the loss of American lives....it was about time he got what was coming to him.....they have been trying to take him out for 20 years, he got caught slipping and here we are....Iran doesn't want a war with us -- the economic sanctions have crippled them, so a full fledge war with the US is not in their regime's best interest..They will continue to conduct proxy wars and attacks -- and we will continue to launch drone strikes against them in Iraq, but it will not go any further, so like I said..relax….celebrate the fact that a bad guy is gone...and give Trump credit...

#MAGA

We poured gasoline on a smoldering fire; 'Pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire,' says admiral

Had Trump not gotten stupid by getting rid of the Iran deal, none of this would have happened. No telling how many American troops are going to die as ac result of this.

If Obama had not stupidly surrendered to Iran, none of this would have happened, but the job now is to clean up the mess Obama left behind him, and so far, President Trump has been doing an excellent job of it. There is no smoldering fire, just a bunch of crazy mullahs talking shit. While Iran is capable of launching some terrorist attacks against, the US is capable of instantly responding with devastating strikes directly against Iranian targets, strikes Iran would be incapable of stopping. The bottom line is there are no circumstances under which Iran can be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and long range missile with which to target us, and start a nuclear arms race in the ME.

The US, since we got rid of Obama, has been seeking to force Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions by destroying its economy, not through military force, and it was Iran that decided to introduce military conflict into the issue, and now they are screaming like stuck pigs when they get a payback for their aggressions. The Iranians think all Americans are frightened little Obamabots who will run away if they growl at us and leave them to build nuclear weapons and start a nuclear arms race in the ME. They are now learning they will pay a terrible price for any more attacks on Americans.

 

[sparky]

Ok BWK

I'm reading the 'dollar solution' into your post

not sure about it, don't know enough about it

but it's a start, so thx

~S~

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I was referring to giving trump credit

Which he will shirk and place on his generals, if this goes wrong.

^^^
TDS

^^^

Cult member

^^^
Projection from a global warming doomsday cult member.

Haha, look at your freakish cult behavior...embarrassing...

 

[White 6]

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Just remember, you said it yourself, "it's been a money maker and a life taker." Not one troop is worth that. And the troops deserve to know who and what they are dying for. And it sure as hell aint our freedom. It never was.

[/QUOTE]
Absolutely. Unfortunately, Trump has announce 3,500 troops moving to the Middle East. More soft targets and larger conflagration of troops. Maybe Trump does want start an old fashioned, "Take that hill, boys" kind of war. Hard to say. I rarely believe what he says because a large part of what he says are lies. I do believe he wants to be re-elected and think him capable of starting a "wag-The-Dog" war to make it happen. Like I said, I favor air power, tit-for-tat from a distance and above. We don't need an additional 3,500 troops for that.

 

[sparky]

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Just remember, you said it yourself, "it's been a money maker and a life taker." Not one troop is worth that. And the troops deserve to know who and what they are dying for. And it sure as hell aint our freedom. It never was.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, Trump has announce 3,500 troops moving to the Middle East. More soft targets and larger conflagration of troops. Maybe Trump does want start an old fashioned, "Take that hill, boys" kind of war. Hard to say. I rarely believe what he says because a large part of what he says are lies. I do believe he wants to be re-elected and think him capable of starting a "wag-The-Dog" war to make it happen. Like I said, I favor air power, tit-for-tat from a distance and above. We don't need an additional 3,500 troops for that.[/QUOTE]

can you say rolling thunder 6?
~S~

 

[georgephillip]

Who was Qassem Soleimani, Iran's IRGC's Quds Force leader?


First and foremost, a bad guy was killed and the world should celebrate that....and not one US solider was harmed in doing so......Qassem Soleimani had been living on borrowed time for the past 20 years, so him taking a dirt nap now isn't a big deal -- there isn't going to be a war with Iran, so take a chill pill and relax....

Now who was Soleimani?? In Iran he was considered popular, initially because of his role in the Iran/Iraq war and later because of his role in the spread of Iranian influence in the Middle East, which the US, Saudi Arabia and Israel have struggled to keep in check..

"Soleimani ordered Iraqi militias into Syria to fight along the Iraqi military to defeat ISIL..which made him a "national hero" among the Iranian people and other Middle Eastern countries. 'If it wasn't for people like him, this region would have seen black flags flying across the region"

Who cares if this guy fought against ISIS, he conducted proxy wars and terrorist attacks on US interests across the Middle East that resulted in the loss of American lives....it was about time he got what was coming to him.....they have been trying to take him out for 20 years, he got caught slipping and here we are....Iran doesn't want a war with us -- the economic sanctions have crippled them, so a full fledge war with the US is not in their regime's best interest..They will continue to conduct proxy wars and attacks -- and we will continue to launch drone strikes against them in Iraq, but it will not go any further, so like I said..relax….celebrate the fact that a bad guy is gone...and give Trump credit...

#MAGA

irst and foremost, a bad guy was killed and the world should celebrate that....and not one US solider was harmed in doing so......Qassem Soleimani had been living on borrowed time for the past 20 years, so him taking a dirt nap now isn't a big deal

If Soleimani was a "bad guy", how would you characterize Dubya and his Axis of Evil?

Qasem Soleimani - Wikipedia

"Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, Ryan Crocker, a senior State Department official in the United States, flew to Geneva to meet with Iranian diplomats who were under the direction of Soleimani with the purpose of collaborating to destroy the Taliban, which had targeted Shia Afghanis.[27]

"This collaboration was instrumental in defining the targets of bombing operations in Afghanistan and in capturing key Al-Qaeda operatives, but abruptly ended in January 2002, when President George W. Bush named Iran as part of the 'Axis of evil' in his State of the Union address."

General Soleimani attacked our nation's embassy in Baghdad earlier this week. What he may or may not have done 18 years ago is pretty irrelevant at this point. The man needed chastised and indeed was.

General Soleimani attacked our nation's embassy in Baghdad earlier this week. What he may or may not have done 18 years ago is pretty irrelevant at this point. The man needed chastised and indeed was.

Actually, he was murdered in an act of international terrorism which is in keeping with historical US precedent:

"Qasem Soleimani was in the Iraqi city of Amirli, to work with the Iraqi forces to push back militants from ISIL.[47][48]

"According to the Los Angeles Times, which reported that Amerli was the first town to successfully withstand an ISIS invasion, it was secured thanks to 'an unusual partnership of Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers, Iranian-backed Shiite militias and U.S. warplanes'.

"The US acted as a force multiplier for a number of Iranian-backed arm groups—at the same time that was present on the battlefield.[49][50]"

Qasem Soleimani - Wikipedia

 

[toomuchtime_]

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Just remember, you said it yourself, "it's been a money maker and a life taker." Not one troop is worth that. And the troops deserve to know who and what they are dying for. And it sure as hell aint our freedom. It never was.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, Trump has announce 3,500 troops moving to the Middle East. More soft targets and larger conflagration of troops. Maybe Trump does want start an old fashioned, "Take that hill, boys" kind of war. Hard to say. I rarely believe what he says because a large part of what he says are lies. I do believe he wants to be re-elected and think him capable of starting a "wag-The-Dog" war to make it happen. Like I said, I favor air power, tit-for-tat from a distance and above. We don't need an additional 3,500 troops for that.

can you say rolling thunder 6?
~S~[/QUOTE]
Bullshit, no one but the Democrats want a war because rational minds understand there is no need at this time for a war in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and starting a nuclear arms race in the ME or to force Iran to end its imperialist adventures in the ME. The US strategy that remains in place is to use sanctions to so damage the Iranian economy that the government will either have to agree to US demands or see the country destabilized by angry citizens.

 

[sparky]

sanctions on;y work if all players are in on it

and Iran already has nuke tech, same place NK got it from

https://politicalpunchline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/lawn-boy-rake-california.jpg

~S~

 

[Vandalshandle]

Neither

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.[/QUOTE]

Neither was the North Vietnamese.

 

[White 6]

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Just remember, you said it yourself, "it's been a money maker and a life taker." Not one troop is worth that. And the troops deserve to know who and what they are dying for. And it sure as hell aint our freedom. It never was.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, Trump has announce 3,500 troops moving to the Middle East. More soft targets and larger conflagration of troops. Maybe Trump does want start an old fashioned, "Take that hill, boys" kind of war. Hard to say. I rarely believe what he says because a large part of what he says are lies. I do believe he wants to be re-elected and think him capable of starting a "wag-The-Dog" war to make it happen. Like I said, I favor air power, tit-for-tat from a distance and above. We don't need an additional 3,500 troops for that.

can you say rolling thunder 6?
~S~[/QUOTE]
Hope not.

 

[White 6]

Neither

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Neither was the North Vietnamese.[/QUOTE]
Agree on the North Vietnamese, that is why it was and would be stupid to be drawn into a ground troop war.