Wrong again.

Yesterday:

L. Paul Bremer, testifying on Capitol Hill for the first time since serving for a year as chief of the reconstruction effort in Iraq, admitted to being "deeply frustrated" by the chaos in Iraq and the lack of planning for the military occupation.

"We never provided an adequate defense for people," Bremer said, adding that "we needed more troops" to prevent militias and insurgents from filling a security vacuum.

Putz, 4/26/03

Could we have beaten the Iraqi military with fewer troops? Yes. Would it have been nice to have more troops for occupation/pacification? Yes. Does that mean our force levels were right? ... Who knows? Somebody had to make an informed guess, and so far the results make the guess look pretty good.

Putz, 12/19/04

I remain unconvinced that we need more troops in Iraq...Just as one seldom wins a war by slapping armor on everything (and no army in history has armored all its soldiers and transport vehicles), one seldom wins a war by dispersing forces to lots of locations in a "prevent" defense. That seems to be what the "more troops" crowd has in mind, but it strikes me as a poor idea.

Putz, 1/11/05

I think that calling for "more troops" is a way to criticize while not sounding weak, and that it thus has an appeal that overcomes its uncertain factual foundation...the real question is whether we have enough troops to do what we're going to do next. I think the answer to that is yes...