Yes, that's a good point. I think we can all agree now that we should have had more troops there right from the get-go.
Reading about this prison fiasco, I get the impression that the number of MP's there was a fraction of how many we should have had -- that's partly what caused the problems.
Well, I have been pushing a ten million man, 100 division Army since 9/11/01, so let me take a crack at this one.
First of all, the traditional Iraqi Army was scattered and paroled, not defeated. If they were defeated, they still would be rotting in POW cages in the stinking Iraqi desert while their leaders were on trial (or already tried and executed) by American judges for crimes against humanity. Your premise that they were defeated is incorrect.
Second, the need for a heavy occupation as discussed above was entirely predictable and was predicted by many. Donald Rumsfeld had loud verbal confrontations with experienced general officers on this point, so much so that he could not find an Army Chief of Staff among the active duty ranks. This is a very alarming fact, and if that's the SecDef's MO he has goddam well got to be right about his alternate universe in which we are down to 30 000 MPs by October 2003. News from the front: He was wrong. Very wrong. Very, very, very wrong. He has to go.
Third. The really bad news is that we have to win. This is not Korea, no stalemate is possible. This is not Vietnam, where it does not matter crap whether we stay or go. This is not Haiti, not Granada, not Panama, not Kosovo.
This is real, and the forces which our ill-considered operational plan have failed to defeat now must be defeated with new forces, new leadership, and new tactics-and it must be done before W is run out of office by Kerry the traitor or, more likely, Hillary the Stalinist in disguise.
Time grows short. The emperor has no clothes.
What the hell are we going to do?