First, Rummy is right, we have to make choices. There is no constituency to cut pork laden weapons programs even now, much less before the war.
Second, even if the Standard's desired increase in army troop strength could have been accomplished, the increase would not have served all the alternatives outlined by Kagan, one maybe two but not all. For example, the author lists 5 more things we could have done with more troops, such as guard the borders and dumps. Thousands of miles of borders to guard and in doing so you will have exhausted all additional troops. Even if you do physically guard the borders, politically, we could not stop the flood of pilgrims from Iran etc, and so the borders would have remained porous. The author lists 4 things we needed not do if we had expanded the force, like ending involuntary extensions. We certainly could not have done more than one. We certainly could not have picked all from the "to do " list and 3 from the "do not do" list. We would have had to make choices. My point is that a half a million boots is probably about the number needed and that was politically impossible and would distort our whole readiness posture.
So, we are back to the dilemma we faced from the time it became clear that the insurgency is growing faster than the public's tolerance for this war: We simply must stand up an indigenous Iraqi security force or admit that the game is not worth the candle politically,i.e. our folks won't stand for it as long as the terrorists can keep it up and that means defeat.
We do not need more Americans on the ground, to the contrary we need fewer on the ground but plenty in the air. We need Iraqi soldiers and cops who will fight for something. That something may be their tribe, or their cult, but it is probably not the concept of the Iraqi nation state and it is very unlikely to be the abstraction of Wilsonian democracy. Whatever it is, we must find it and pronto.
Our assets in the air can be traded off for a commitment of zero tolerance for terrorists from the cult or tribe which prevails (no doubt with an iron fist) with our air and logistic support.
What we are truly up against here is an inexhaustable number of "insurgents" coming from Iran and Syria. I would like to know exactly what Kerry conveyed to the leaders of Syria with his trip. I'm sure if was not something that left them with the impression that we could stick it out beyond their ability to pump islamic facists over the border. By the way, NB Forrest would have come up with a solution to this complex mess by now, and I'm positive it would have had something to do with identifying those foreign insurgents, their origins and instilling a fear that Kerry couldn't even contemplate.
That would be a change in mission. Maybe a good one, but a change. The increase in troops needed wouldn't be small, but maybe a half million more or so. At that point, we might as well colonize the place. Which would completely change the politics of the situation both inside and outside Iraq.