[lookout123]

number of times tw refers to lookout in condescending manner - 5
number of times tw provides documentation of Franks anger - 0

There were, and are, a large number of flag rank officers that disliked Franks for the fact that he is the quintessential purple-suiter. he is a devout disciple of joint ops, not cooperative ops. as the commander of CENTCOM he stepped on lots of toes by reminding single service commanders that it was his way or the highway and rumsfeld backed him on it. the joint chiefs and many on their staff have produced leaks for political reasons in the past and Franks is notorious for his hatred of leaks. again, rumsfeld backed him over the service chiefs. this transfer of power from title X commanders to a unified command left no shortage of bitter officers, many of the same names that have popped up as experts to point out the flaws in the war planning.

CENTCOM plans for Afghanistan were for limited troop numbers right from the very beginning. Franks and many in the military have moved from the school of thought where an invading force needs a 3-1 ratio for entrenched defenders. instead they favor PGM's and a small invasion force.
that being said, phase I of Afghanistan's operations began on 10/7/01 with TLAM strikes, as well as heavy and tactical bombers.
phase II involved insertion of SOF personnel, nearly simultaneously. due to mechanical failures, equipment limitations, and weather situations the SOF were not inserted until 10/19/04 - 10 days behind plan.

the plan was for SOF, primarily, to lead and assist the leaders of the northern alliance and the rebels in the south against the taliban and then insert standard US personnel for cleanup action at a later date. that is exactly what happened in preparation for operation Anaconda in March of '02. you may not like the plan, but that was the plan.

Nov27th, Franks was told again, and not out of the blue to update warplan 1003 - the plan for an invasion of Iraq that had been on the books since 1998. a plan that Franks thought was ridiculously out of date as it called only for a massive coalition and a frontal assault. Franks hadn't liked the plan when he assumed command of CENTCOM and he had told Rumsfeld in March of 2001 that the approach to Iraq needed to be changed. from march of 01 Franks had Iraq on his desk for a strategy change - it was acknowledged that the no-fly zone policy was inadequate to the situation. In Nov, Franks was told to develop a commander's concept on how best to affect regime change. Franks was getting what he wanted - a crack at the master plan. I have found no examples of Franks displaying anything other than his usual gruff attitude when told to step up planning in November.

It was leaked to the press sometime after the Iraq war started. It was reported as part of some news articles

He literally exploded over that absurd request - and justifiably so.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense.

Gen Franks was clearly furious when told to plan for the Iraq invasion. And he should have been.

Franks was furious that we were even talking about an Iraq invasion - because unlike the president, Franks is intelligent.

source documents?

Look at the numbers - the dates. World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked 11 September. By Wednesday before Thanksgiving, Tommy Franks is being ordered to plan the attack on Iraq - when we have not even yet invaded Afghanistan.

the invasion began on 10/19/01, after 12 days of airstrikes. Franks was told to update 1003 on 11/27.

tw, there were generals who stepped up to say that going to Iraq was a mistake, there were more that said we weren't using the "right" number of troops, or the right order of battle. many of them either had some political knife to sharpen, a book to publish, or a desire to be on the talkshow circuits. some of them had legitimate concerns they were expressing. Tommy Franks and his CENTCOM staff were not among them.

i am not bush's biggest fan and am certainly not a fan of rumsfeld, wolfowitz, and feith (who Franks labeled "the dumbest fucking guy on the planet). i believe that there were and are better ways to fight the war. i believe OBL should have been caught or killed already. i also believe zarquawi is an equal or greater threat at this point.

do i believe that the attacks were avoidable? yes, if we had not gone into Iraq or Afghanistan. Do i believe that there were better ways to handle and prevent these attacks? yes. Do i believe an increase in attacks leading up to the elections was inevitable? absolutely, there is a lot riding on the upcoming elections. it would be foolish for those who do not want to see some form of representative government in the middle east not to attack.

i choose to look beyond the mantra that it is all George, Jr's fault and look at the reality of the situation. it is a very ugly situation over there. whether we should have gone or not is no longer the central point - what do we do now is the most crucial question.

and each person will approach the question with their own personal philosophy and come to an answer that they feel is right. some will rant and namecall, others will simply cast their vote. you decide, remember?