Ex-General Gives His Take on Iraq War

The Washington Post ^ | August 1, 2004 | Thomas E. Ricks

[neverdem]

In His Memoir, Franks Also Seems Supportive of the Bush Administration

Four days before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, then the commander of the U.S. military in the Middle East, told his intelligence staff that his greatest fear was "a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center in New York," according to his new memoir.

He does not elaborate on what led him to that view.

"American Soldier," which goes on sale Tuesday, does not break much other new ground but does deepen and confirm some earlier accounts of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Iraq invasion in the spring of 2003. Coming as the presidential election season gears up, it probably will be seen as supportive of the Bush administration and critical of Democrats, who Franks portrays as lacking the "stomach" to confront al Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan during the 1990s.

Franks conveys the sense that President Bush put him at ease, to the point that Franks felt able, because he was busy, to decline an invitation after a meeting in Crawford, Tex., for lunch with Bush.

[neverdem]

For those who won't register with WaPo try BugMeNot.com

[neverdem]

ping

[jackbill]

Clarke, who has since written his own memoir, "On Terror," which is extremely critical of the Bush administration, is depicted as an impractical blowhard who talked a lot but failed to produce "a single operational recommendation, or a single page of actionable intelligence."

He He He He

[WOSG]

For more on Gen'l Franks' comments and ow they debunk yet more anti-Bush lies, see:

http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.

[WOSG]

Welcome. I'm mainly linking to the various FR links to press reports. I read the Parade article, which has a nice excerpt from the book about the moment the order was given to go to war.

Let me restate what I just wrote in my blog, because I think Franks' book goes a large way toward debunking the 'poor planning' lie. Planning was good, they even knew there would be chaos in a 'sudden victory' scenario, the problem was bureaucracy at Dept of State and lack of help from allies, and lastly lack of civic behavior from enough Iraqis to hold civil order together:

" The Parade article also debunks yet another anti-Bush anti-Rumsfeld slander from last year: That the Generals were pressured into creating a war plan with too few troops. Wrong. General Franks himself put the war plan toegether and he deliberately didn't want a heavy force, he wanted a lighter and faster approach. When other Generals disputed it, he defended his plans and demanded a free hand - and he got it.

The Iraq war plan was General Frank's, and it was brilliant. This is updated 'blitzkreig' tactics of mobility instead of mass. With our huge informational advantage over the enemies we faced, this is the right way to win a war with smaller casualties and greater speed. History has proven Franks right - extremely right. No time before in history have 2 wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) been waged so quickly and at so much gain and so little cost. Franks did a fabulous job winning the war in Iraq. It does credit to him, to the troops he led, to Rumsfeld and DoD as a whole and to the President.

Now he does mention two aspects that have affected the post-war occupation and transition: The US expected more help from other countries (no thanks to France, etc.), and Franks is disappointed too many Iraqis decided looting and insurgency were a path to take, instead of rebuilding the country. He doesnt think the insurgency could have really been avoided by other actions by the coalition, and he's right - the violence will end in Iraq only when the terrorists cease to choose that path (either willingly or by force).

Hindsight is always 20/20, but Franks is one General who does not need to be second-guessed. His victories in Iraq and Afghanistan were near flawless."
http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com/

[luvbach1]

Franks did a fabulous job winning the war in Iraq.

Of course the Demonrats insist that the post-Saddam difficulties are a part of the war to topple Saddam so they can say Bush did not win the war. Then they accuse him of lacking a plan "to win the peace," referring to the phase that oviously follows winning the war. More having it both ways. Pure Kerry.