In an interview with POLITICO, Keane said he supports sending between 10,000 and 20,000 troops to Iraq, primarily to speed up the training of Iraqi forces and tribal fighters in Sunni areas where ISIS is especially strong. His view is backed by another Bush surge architect, Fred Kagan, a military strategist at the American Enterprise Institute, who also discussed the proposal with POLITICO.

“I’m not advocating that we put ground combat troops in there,” Keane said. “When people hear that guys like Keane or Kagan want more troops, they think ‘Well, they want another long protracted war in Iraq.’” He insisted that’s not the case, adding that if more U.S. troops failed to make a difference he would support the creation of a large Arab army to take on ISIS…

Many Pentagon leaders support sending so-called spotters to Iraq, but Obama has declined to place them within Iraqi units. “That means air support will always be late and always far from the close fight,” says retired Lt. General James Dubik, who oversaw the training of Iraqi forces from 2007 to 2008. “The utility of our air support is diminished.”

The more recent discussions have moved beyond the spotters, however. Kagan, a former professor of military history at West Point, backs placing more American troops within Iraqi military units that might encounter combat, but not just because they can offer advice. Such troops also could help with intelligence gathering, including the installation of electronic surveillance equipment — a task the U.S. can’t outsource to the Iraqis given its sensitive nature.