( A reader emails: "on the military front, they looked at an increase of 100K to 200K and - surprise! - found that it would be hard to sustain. By inflating the numbers they took it off the board.) From page 73:
Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000) in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term "occupation." We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective. We also rejected the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake.
Of course, since 2003 we've been following the failed "light footprint" strategy and signaling withdrawal and the result has been a downward spiral and the rise of the militias. The ISG could support a "short-term" surge in Baghdad. I assume they'd support such a surge - which I predicted here -- because they believe it may improve security. What they don't say is how long is "short-term" - 3 months, a year - and how many troops - 10,000, 20,000, 50,000? Perhaps the media will get around to asking them at some point.