You seem so entrenched in your "I told you so" mode that you continually miss the point.
If the 4th ID had entered from the north, with as many troops has the 3rd ID had coming from the south, there would have been more troops, wouldn't there? Am I missing something or is it just you? Looks to me as if we would have had twice as many. There was simply not enough staging area in Kuwait for all those troops. We needed Turkey and they had already approved it or we wouldn't have gone there. Then with a new Parliament they tried to overplay their hand for the big bucks. We stayed there for weeks while Powell haggled with them. By the time we saw we weren't going to be able to offload and stage there, we were in Bahgdad and the war was basically over.
Had the 4th come from the north that area of the Ba'athist triangle which caused so much trouble would have been quickly subdued and any outsiders would have had no place to gather and coordinate. We would have had twice as many troops in Iraq and the problems would have been solved much sooner.
All of us have correctly said"I told you so" on something or other but most of us have learned it is unseemly to keep patting ourselves on the back, especially when we are wrong!!
No, I see your point, I just disagree.
The insurgency has little to nothing do do with the number of Baathists caught or not caught at the beginning of the war. It has to do with the underlying current of anti-american feelings prevalent in the Middle East. Fallujah for example is not in the far North of Iraq against the border of Turkey, It's only about 50 miles East of Bagdad.
You don't need massive numbers of troops to win the war, well placed bombs do that. Where we need the troop numbers is during the occupation after the fact. Yes this is 20/20 hindsight on my part, but I don't manage troops for a living, but troop size WAS a debated issue at the time of invasion and the call to go in with less than the number of troops required was a flawed call.
The idea of using overwhelming force was at one time referred to as the "Powell Doctrine" and to now try to make Powell out to be the faulty member is bogus. Had Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld actually followed his doctrine, the problems would, I believe, be lessened although still present.