American Troops Could Be in Iraq Four Years From Now, Franks Tells Congress

WASHINGTON (AP) - American troops could still be in Iraq four years from now, the war's former commander told members of Congress concerned about persistent, deadly attacks.

The number of U.S. troops in Iraq probably won't decline significantly from the current 148,000 until sometime next year, Gen. Tommy Franks said Thursday. The kinds of hit-and-run attacks that killed two American soldiers Wednesday will continue, he warned.

"We need to not develop an expectation that all of these difficulties will go away in one month or two months or three months," Franks told the House Armed Services Committee.

"I anticipate we'll be involved in Iraq in the future," Franks added later. "Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know."

President Bush also asked for patience Thursday, saying the United States would "have to remain tough" in Iraq despite the attacks that Franks said were coming at a rate of 10 to 25 per day.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in remarks taped for CNN's "Larry King Live," said: "I regret that we are still losing troops and young men and women are being wounded, but they're being wounded by people who don't want to see the Iraqi people free."

In Washington, congressional critics kept up their questioning of the administration's justifications for going to war and its characterizations of the current outlook in Iraq.

"I'm deeply disturbed by the kind of happy face we're trying to put on this situation," Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., said during a sharp exchange with Franks, who stepped down Monday as head of the military command overseeing Iraq and Afghanistan.

Franks said he was confident that his successor, Gen. John Abizaid, and the civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, would succeed in bringing stability and representative government to Iraq.

"We must be there for the entire journey (to democracy), and we will not fail," Franks said.

The House panel's top Democrat, Ike Skelton of Missouri, said he worried "we may find ourselves in the throes of guerrilla warfare for years." And Rep. Loretta Sanchez, D-Calif., spoke up to Franks and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about what she said was a reluctance to talk about guerrilla warfare.

"Why are we playing word games when our troops are facing a trained and determined enemy every day in Iraq?" Sanchez challenged Franks.

"It does not bother me if someone refers to this as guerrilla or insurgency warfare," the general replied. Franks said he wouldn't use those terms because the attackers in Iraq don't have broad public support or signs of nationwide coordination.

Bush, responding to concern about the rising casualty toll, said, "There's no question we have a security issue in Iraq, and we've just got to deal with it person to person. We're going to have to remain tough." The president spoke in Botswana during his tour of Africa.

More than 70 American soldiers have died since Bush declared major combat over May 1. "It's going take more than 90 to 100 days for people to recognize the great joys of freedom and the responsibilities that come with freedom," he said. "It's very important for us to stay the course, and we will stay the course."

Much of the criticism has focused on Bush's main justification for the war - that Saddam Hussein's government had chemical and biological weapons and was working to build more of them and develop nuclear bombs. No such weapons have been found in Iraq. The White House admitted this week that Bush's State of the Union reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa was based on intelligence that turned out to be false.

Franks said he didn't think Bush overstated the threat and said he was confident "we will either find the weapons or find the evidence of the weapons of mass destruction."

At one point during the war, Franks said, the United States intercepted Iraqi military communications suggesting a chemical attack was imminent. An Iraqi commander issued orders that included saying, "Blood! Blood!" - which U.S. intelligence analysts thought was a reference to chemical weapons called blood agents, Franks said.

Blood agents are chemicals containing cyanide compounds that are carried through the blood to cut off oxygen to the body's tissues.

Franks said he did not know why Iraq didn't use chemical weapons or why U.S. forces hadn't found any.

The Senate voted 97-0 Thursday urging Bush to consider requesting a NATO force and calling for United Nations help in rounding up troops for stability and security work in Iraq. Several NATO nations already have troops in Iraq and the alliance is helping Poland organize a division of several nations' troops.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, a Democratic presidential candidate, said the United States should do more to bring international troops into Iraq.

"We now know that the administration went to war without a thorough plan to win the peace," Kerry said. "It is time to face that truth and change course, to share the postwar burden internationally for the sake of our country."

Besides the 19 countries with forces in Iraq, another 19 are preparing to send troops and 11 are discussing it, Franks said. The United States hopes to have two divisions of about 20,000 international troops in the next few months, one led by the British and one by the Poles.

"The United States, the United Kingdom, Poland, Spain, Italy, others are making their contribution now," Powell said.

BTW have you read something that shows Iraq was a key player in US terrorism?

Iraq was the home of the Abu Nidal Organisation--ANO was responsible for the deaths of Americans in airport attacks and airplane hijackings. And another terrorist, Abu Abbas, was captured by U.S. forces in Iraq--remember Leon Klinghoffer & the Achille Lauro? How about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the only 1993 World Trade Center bombing indictee not in prison--he escaped to Iraq. Hussein was paying for the suicide bombers in Palestine. 500 suicide bombing belts were found in a high school outside Baghdad. He attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. Ansar al Islam, an Al Qaeda organization, was operating from an enclave in Iraq. At least one high level prisoner from Ansar al Islam told of meetings with Hussein's government. Al Qaeda prisoners in Gitmo told of Iraqi support for training. Iraq operated a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak that included an airplane fuselage used to rehearse hijacking techniques. Saddam Hussein's regime was inextricably linked with terrorists and terrorism; to include terror organizations that had attacked and killed Americans. And although there is not yet court-room level "beyond a reasonable doubt" proof of Al Qaeda links, there are certainly indicators of such linkages.

It will not succeed because, we will not ever make an ally out of Iraq.

Perhaps. Certainly, this is not a risk-free strategy on the part of the Bush Administration. But taking a risk to achieve a possible victory is far better than accepting certain defeat. Iran is an example of a nation that has tasted Westernism and will return to it soon enough. Islamic folderol notwithstanding, peace, freedom and prosperity are something all humans desire, and, once acquired are a difficult taste to lose. Yes, even in the middle east, it is possible, but not an effortless task.

Our nation is in mortal peril, and this is not a time for sophistry or abstraction. The threat is real, and it must be addressed now. It is not limited to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein or even Islam in general, but involves much stronger geopolitical forces that are aligning in dangerous combinations.

The well-worn cliche about America being the world's only superpower is a misleading canard. We are in great danger from nearly every direction. If our government falters now, our nation will be destroyed.

But I do not place my faith blindly; it must be earned. I do not agree with many of Bush's policies, but I do understand "strategery". I don't agree with a lot of what Abraham Lincoln did, either, but he did what he felt had to be done, at tremendous cost.

Lincoln was ridiculed as being a gangly country simpleton by his opponents, the Washington insiders and power brokers who were already well established in the capitol of a nation less than a century old. They considered Lincoln to be stupid, and guileless and underestimated him at every turn. Lincoln played into that by making no attempts to publicly rebuff their harsh and rude treatment of him.

Instead, he methodically neutralized almost every single one of them over the course of his short presidency. In many cases, he neutralized his enemies by appointing them to cabinet posts or other high offices where they could not openly disagree with his decisions, but, ironically, were forced to carry them out (probably the main factor leading to his assassination, but a powerful strategy). He seized and wielded more power than any U.S. president before or since, until now.

President Bush is a modern Abraham Lincoln. The parallels are stunning. Change a few names and dates, and account for changes in our evolving language, and the papers of today read almost like those of Lincoln's time. As with Lincoln, Bush's opponents endlessly "misunderestimate" him, and he rules with near impunity, wheeling and dealing his way to greater power as a modern "Honest Abe".

It is our duty as American citizens to question our government at every turn, because we are the final check against tyranny, and no other. So I will never expect anyone to blindly follow Bush, and, in fact, cannot advise against it strongly enough.

However, I am satisfied that, ultimately, like Lincoln, he is a man of towering character and principle, even while being more devious than Machiavelli.

And that is exactly the kind of leader we need. At least, for now.

I didn't wish to sound as harsh as I did in responding to AAABEST. Having pulled six years myself, and damn near not surviving them (but that's another story), I can assure you that the news coming from Iraq is worse to me than a root canal, and it's much worse than that for the families and friends of our warriors there.*

But just like a root canal, sometimes great pain must be endured voluntarily to prevent much greater pain and ruin later. That is the case with Iraq. Does the fate of America depend on success in Iraq? I hope not, but it very well may.

And if that is so, then, as us old warhorses like to say, failure is not an option.

* Meanwhile, the troops themselves are going to need a lot more than "We Support Our Troops" lip service. They are sweating blood and sh*tting bricks day in and day out, bored and terrified at the same time, for months now, and many to come. The casualties of this war are not limited to the dead and physically wounded. God bless and keep every last one of them. God bless them all, and guide them to victory. They must not fail.

You call your last post to me "harsh" ....lol. I didn't view it as such.

[Takes a long swig of beer] I LOVE you man! :^)

I don't think we differ at all on the idea that our military forces are not abstract poker chips to be squandered for personal political gain, and that the U.S. should not concern itself with unnecessary "foreign entanglements". Spending human life in such a fashion is evil, no two ways about it.

In the case of Iraq, I think good people can differ as to the necessity of fighting there. My initial reaction was skeptical, until I realized (or at least think I realized) the strategery behind it. Time will tell if I'm right.

I think it's important to remember what happened in Vietnam, on all levels, and learn its lessons, but not to assume that every mission to fight totalitarianism will turn out the same way. We CAN win, if the cause is just and our leadership strong.

Whatever our opinions may be on Iraq, we're in it but good. Now that the balloon has gone up, I think it is extremely important to understand that supporting our troops includes supporting what they are doing, whatever our personal misgivings about the mission may be.

Does that mean agreeing in lockstep with everything Bush does? Hell no! But either we are committed to the War in Iraq as a nation, or we are divided, and fighting for a divided nation is the epitome of despair.

Our people are dying in Iraq. If we lead them to believe that they are dying needlessly, we are betraying them in the worst possible way.

And that would be another Vietnam.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.