More troops would have meant more targets and more pissed off Iraqis and fewer would want to "stand up." I am no fan of Rumsfeld but he was right to oppose more troops. More troops would be like giving more money to a welfare recipient or pouring more federal money into a poor neighborhood in Chicago.
That is bull.
The problem is that we have not had the troops to protect localities in Iraq so who do they rely on? You guessed it militias. And, these militias resort to killing and sectarian violence and crime.
There would be no Madhi Army or Badr militia today if we protected the Shia from Zarqawi by really occupying Western Iraq and the Sunni parts of Baghdad.
I am sorry, but that Rummy line has long since been showen to be crap.
We needed to protect the Shia from attacks, because we didn't they have had to rely on the Madhi Army and Badr now the two biggest problems in Iraq.