This guy, Bill Kristol and the rest of the Weekly Standard crew are just plain wrong on the need for more troops. Abazaid and Casey know what they are doing. More troops and a bigger US presence is not the answer, would result in more casualties, no more success and would give amunition to our enemies that we plan to occupy Iraq and steal its oil.
I am a full supporter of our president's choice to invade Iraq. However, with enought history behind us, it is evident that we should have used more troops. I don't necessarily think this is Bush's fault, but the lawlessness that persisted in the first weeks after the fall of Baghdad allowed this insurgency to seed very deeply.
I don't think anyone expected the city to fall so quickly and the anarchy that followed. We are almost victims of our own success in terms of Gen. Frank's "Center of Gravity" approach to this conflict. It was a brilliant millitary success and one that will stay on the books for quite a while.
Marines and Army troops found themselves in the middle of complete lawlessness well before we were ready to bring our civil specialists and teams. You had 19 year old boys from Kansas watching jubilant Iraqis dismantle what tyranny had held together under Saddam. Nineteen year old boys from Topeka, KS are not going to start mowing down civillians because that is simply too brutal for members of a society like ours.
I am not even sure numbers is the problem here. The problem lies in a deep and historic lack of civility among the Arab world. The only reason Iraq remained a country was Saddam's iron fist. To have stopped this lawlessness, it would have taken more than additional troops, it would have taken the grit and courage to put a quick and bloody end to the lawlessness. Which would have required a great deal of bloodshed.