From ABC’s This Week yesterday:
STEPHANOPOULOS: [Do] you actually fear this idea that there’s going to be a splitting of the difference. That the president will send 10,000 or 20,000 troops temporarily to Baghdad rather than the 20,000 to 30,000 or 40,000 that General Jack Keane and others have called for, for 18 to 24 months. DAN SENOR (FORMER BUSH FOREIGN POLICY ADVISOR): Right. So the plan that Keane, General Keane, retired General Keane has been advocating is about 32,000 troops which will get you four brigades in Baghdad, one brigade on reserve, and two marine regimens in the al-Anbar province. And if you do that you bring the ratio of Iraqi civilians to American soldiers 50-1 which is pretty consistent to the ratios in successful occupations throughout the 20th century. If you go for a smaller number than that, you can still get the ratio down in Baghdad but what’s happened in past operations when we’ve increased our numbers in Baghdad, all the insurgency does is leave Baghdad and go back to the Anbar province so if you go for a smaller troop increase you have no capacity to deal with the insurgency once it moves back to Anbar. My view is this, whatever troop increase the president goes for is going to be controversial. He’s going to score no political points at home by going for a smaller increase. If he announces 10,000 or 15,000 or he announces 30,000 or 40,000 troops, those who are against the surge are going to say it’s a disaster. And those who are for it are going to welcome it. So go for the number that maximizes the chances of success.
Senor is right. Too light a footprint has been a big problem going back to 2003.