Regardless of whether or not Bremer is pimping a book, I think he IS right about the troop level in Iraq. It's obvious we've been trying to pacify the country on the "cheap". We need to be killing every terrorist in Iraq or entering the country. Unfortunately GW made the stupid campaign pledge of no military draft on his watch.
It is the political situation holding us back: The guys over there already COULD have wiped out most of the terrorists along ago, and sent most of the remaining running.
As long as we have to worry about:
colateral damage,
"public relations'',
''Political Correctness'',
what the Germans, Russians, Canadians and Kofi think,
and guys like Murtha and Kerry, the New York Times at home
we could put 10,000,000 troops in there and not achieve 'pacification'.
All that more troops with the current political / diplomatic / pseudo-religious situation there would achieve is to provide more 'targets of opportunity for the bad guys, and more resentment throughout the world, because it would indeed be seen even more as an occupation force... And would lessen the likelyhood amongst the "good Iraqis" that they would be willing to take on any responsibilities of fighting or governing for themselves.
A little less political / diplomatic restraint on the troops, and we could do the job with even fewer troops than we have now.
There's two issues there. One is that a security/humanitarian contingent wasn't sufficient and sacrificed DoD capabilities. Two, that politicians and bureaucrats in DC (and lefties in Hollyweird) are arm-chairing and that Bush is capitulating to PC pressures to lesser extent.