In my casual conversations with people about the Iraq situation, I've always been keen to point out that "military intervention" means a very wide variety of things ranging from very large exposure (of US forces) to very small exposure.  

The options range includes (but is certainly not limited to):

• CIA-orchestrated military uprisings
• Afghanistan-style special forces + ground proxies (300 troops did the bulk of the US work)
• US-supported insurgencies / invasions (sort of a Bay of Pigs II - but hopefully with real follow through by the US this time around)
• Yugoslavia II -- US Air power + 3rd party ground forces later
• Gulf War II -- 100k's of US troops with heavy armor, aircraft, etc.

I won't exhaustively defend the options (for ex., there are serious doubts as to the availability of credible ground proxy forces in Iraq for us to work with) other than to simply point out that a wide variety of models generally exist.

However, those opposed to intervention on tactical grounds are almost always assuming the largeist exposure intervention model and extrapolating large scale impacts.

I think it's important to point out that in the diplomatic / rhetorical world, we are actively keeping mum about the options we will employ because:

• ambiguity in and of itself is a goal because it provides us with elements of tactical surprise and allows us to hold the initiative regardless of intervention type
• fostering the impression that very large scale intervention is an option is a critical tool for shaking the morale of enemy forces.    In other words, a key component of a plan that is actually predicated on small scale intervention is a bluff that large scale intervention is right around the corner.

MSNBC/WSJ has an article this morning describing US warplans in the Gulf demonstrating a very healthy mix of tools for both small scale intervention:

...The leaflet drop, begun in recent days, is the start of what will be an escalating psychological campaign that will be delivered in a variety of manners, including personal phone calls from former Iraqi military officers to their onetime colleagues. The goal of the effort is to convince Mr. Hussein’s troops that the dictator has them on “a suicide mission,” a senior official said. “It’s going to crank even hotter over the next few weeks.”

as well as large scale:

...Meanwhile, the continuing military buildup means that President Bush won’t have to wait several months to bring in materiel to support a ground force in the region before he launches a military campaign, defense officials said. It also suggests that Mr. Bush isn’t planning a large-scale invasion of Iraq using an earlier-estimated 250,000 ground troops, requiring a three-month buildup of materiel, but between 50,000 and 80,000 troops, instead.

An unnamed senior offical states:

...The low-key effort is a sign that a conflict in Iraq would be different than the 1991 Persian Gulf War. “You have to stop thinking about this as another Desert Storm,” a senior U.S. official said. “The goal isn’t to invade Iraq. It’s to get Saddam Hussein and the small circle around him.”

---