They always talk about Powell's doctrine after the lessons of Vietnam. He also knows full well about special forces and ops ineffectiveness. They sucked in Vietnam. They sucked under Beckwith and Delta Force when they went to liberate the diplomatic and CIA contingent at the Iranian embassy. They drowned off Grenada because the Navy , James-Bond style, shot them out of torpedo tubes too far from shore. They didn't do shit in the Persian Gulf War except pose for Time Magazine. And they went into Somalia and got their asses shot off by a few well-emplaced .50 caliber machine guns. Only in Chuck Norris movies do they ever have much to brag about.
In any case, I don't see how the use of special forces is going to be non-violent. They'll want to go in with as much firepower as they can get, since they do not want to die. That means maximum use of air cover.
I think we'll see an extended, Persian Gulf War (lite) style bombing campaign. Then, if the special forces and airbourne/air mobile/mountain infantry go in, it will be behind the Northern Alliance, to capitalize on what the NA has taken back.
About regular forces: without a port, the US really can't effectively use armor (and even mechanized infantry is best transported by sea), since air transport of the heavy stuff is a real problem. That goes for any NATO force, too. Would the US pay to get Russia to help out, since Russia has better heavy air transport? It also has better light armor for airbourne operations.
Any real occupation of Afghanistan might not happen til next spring. A lot will depend on how well the Taliban are set to winter. If they weren't part of the entire scheme, they might not be that well prepared at all.
Charles Jannuzi