Your analysis is spot on. Petraeus recognized the shortfall and developed the plan to rectify it.
Not quite. Edit35 makes some very good points in post #81, but he omits some critical determinative factors.
He, along most other Freepers, has either forgotten or never understood that during that critical time period of March, April, and May of 2003 he referenced there were several other crucial developments and decisions by President Bush and his administration which profoundly altered the course of the war and post-war rebuilding efforts in a negative direction.
During that time period, just as our our military was completing one of the most dazzlingly successful operations in history, they lost the political battle back home over who would be in control over the next phase of operations.
You all seem to have forgotten that the original plan of both Rumsfeld and the DOD was to bring in retired General Jay Garner (who was widely respected by the Iraqis) as military governor, much as General MacArthur in post-war Japan. Garner actually arrived in Iraq and set about implementing these plans. However, back in Washington, for whatever reason, factions who were bitterly opposed to the DOD/Rumsfeld plans for post-war rebuilding (these included Colin Powell and the State Department, and elements of the CIA and NSA) managed to gain the ear of President Bush and convince him to turn over the post-war phase to them.
The result was that within 60 days of beginning his work in Iraq, General Garner was abruptly recalled and control was handed to L. Paul Bremer of the State Department. From that point on Bremer and State were calling the shots, and Rumsfeld and the DOD were under their control and subject to their operational mandates.
Bremer and his crew are the ones who made the decision to disband the Iraqi army, who allowed an Iraqi constitution subject to "Islam" to be implemented, and who made it necessary for our troops to fight TWO Battles of Fallujah. It was Bremer who personally announced, when Muqtada al Sadr was charged by the Iraqi courts with responsibility for the murder of Ayatollah al Khoi, that he would be arrested and stand trial, and then backed down and let him walk. Bremer was totally oblivious to what a tremendous loss of face and credibility he suffered as a result, and that from then on the various factions vying for power knew he could be played and rolled
This perceived pattern of weakness in Iraq itself, along with the fact that anyone in the world with a satellite dish could see that the Bush administration was demonstrating similar weakness in confronting the unrelenting efforts of its domestic critics and enemies to weaken the support of the American people for the war, was a big factor in the subsequent deterioration of the situation in Iraq, which led to the necessity for the surge.
It should never have gotten to that point, and it was not because of the number of troops. It was how they were used, and not used. It was strategic and tactical mismanagement on the part of Bremer, State and those allied factions to whom President Bush entrusted Iraq. And ultimately, it was because of failures of judgment and leadership from President Bush.
It is impossible to say whether or not "Rumsfeld's plan" for post-war Iraq was a success or failure because the actual DOD/Rumsfeld plan was aborted before it could even get underway. The plan which was implemented was a Bremer/Powell/State/CIA plan. Rumsfeld and the military had to do the dirty work and the dying, but they were always operationally subject to Bremer and his diplomats. The sad irony is that with the aid of the media and the refusal of the Bush administration to defend itself they have been able to pin their own failures on Rumsfeld...
When discussing the various failures in Iraq it is disheartening to see the degree to which Freepers have bought into the media and "domestic opposition's" meme/storyline about Iraq, and have forgotten what they saw unfold before their very eyes. But then, as the saying goes, history is written by the winners...