Zakaria initially supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He said at the time, "The place is so dysfunctional ... any stirring of the pot is good. America's involvement in the region is for the good." He argued for a United Nations–sanctioned operation with a much larger force—approximately 400,000 troops—than was actually employed by the administration of President George W. Bush. However, he soon became a critic. In addition to objecting to the war plan, he frequently criticized the way the Bush administration was running the occupation of Iraq. He argued against the disbanding of the army and bureaucracy yet supported the de-Baathification programs. He continued to argue that a functioning democracy in Iraq would be a powerful new model for Arab politics but suggested that an honest accounting would have to say that the costs of the invasion had been much higher than the benefits. He opposed the Iraq surge in March 2007, writing that it would work militarily but not politically, still leaving Iraq divided among its three communities. Instead he advocated that Washington push hard for a political settlement between the Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, and Kurds, and begin a reduction in forces to only 60,000 troops. He later wrote that the surge "succeeded" militarily but that it did not produce a political compact and that Iraq remains divided along sectarian lines, undermining its unity, democracy, and legacy.