"I made the case to General Franks, to Secretary Rumsfeld and to the president that I was not sure we had enough troops. . . I don't think we had enough force there to impose order. . . The aftermath turned out to be much more difficult than anyone had anticipated."
Condaleeza Rice responded to Powell's statement on a Sunday news talkshow, saying that there would have been "potentially a lot of problems with a very, very big footprint of coalition forces at the time of the liberation of Iraq."
Indeed. If we had allowed Saddam Hussein another month or two while we brought over more troops, Hans Blix would've debunked all of Colin Powell's claims of WMD stockpiles and mobile weapons labs, would have had unrestricted access to interview all of Iraq's leading nuclear scientists, and would've excavated the location of several reported Iraqi WMD demolition sites, proving that the bulk of the weapons were destroyed as Iraq claimed, and that Iraq was disarmed and in full compliance with UNSCOM inspectors pursuant to the UN ceasefire resolution.
(i.e. There would be no legal grounds whatsoever to go to war.)
And, of course, one of the other potential problems of going into Iraq with a larger force is that our military might've actually succeeded in bringing stability to Iraq. Looks like we don't have to worry about that happaning anymore.