Gen. Tommy Franks In '08

from here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/tommy_franks_reacts_to_isg_rep.html

December 06, 2006
Tommy Franks Reacts to ISG Report

Hannity & Colmes


COLMES: Do you agree with the Iraq Study Group when they say that the Bush Iraq policy is now working?

GEN. TOMMY FRANKS (RET.), FORMER COMMANDER OF U.S. FORCES: I would, of course. Yes. I agree with that.

COLMES: Specifically they say the most important recommendation is to call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, a change in the primary mission of the U.S. forces in Iraq to enable our country to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. You say you agree with that, but that's not what you've been saying up until now.

FRANKS: Well, I didn't say I agreed with that. I'm a guy who feels very strongly both ways. I'll give you an example, Alan.

I believe the situation in Iraq is grave, as it's described by the group. I don't believe it's deteriorating. I do believe that there is a way forward that requires an awful lot of focus, and I applaud the effort of this group for one very simple reason: It's the first group of politicians that I've seen, Democrats and Republicans, who have been able to get together in a bipartisan way in order to elevate the Iraq discussion above politics. I think that's very powerful; I think it's good for the country, and I think it'll be good for the mission in Iraq.

COLMES: General, you say, to my first question, you agreed with their premise that the current policy is not working, but then you said you didn't agree what I cited as their primary recommendations. So what would be your recommendations then to fix what you agree is a not-working policy?

FRANKS: Yes, I think there are 79 recommendations. And the ones that I am specifically interested in, Alan, are the ones that recognize the truth of a statement, as I recall, that's on page 70, where it says the U.S. military cannot by itself succeed in this mission. I believed that that's 100 percent true.

And so I'm interested in the other pieces of work that need to be done in Iraq. And I'm hopeful that the White House will pay attention to those recommendations that have to do with what to do about the economy in Iraq, what to do about reconstruction in Iraq, what to do about the criminal justice system.

You and I have talked before, Alan, about this being a three-legged stool. I believe that there's military work to be done, for sure. And I do agree with this program of embeds and reverse embeds, and so I like that part of the study. But I'm very interested in the pieces that relate to things non-military to move the country forward.

COLMES: Well, they do say, as I mentioned to you a moment ago, enhanced diplomatic and political efforts. Even Henry Kissinger has said there can't be a military solution here. Do you then -- where do differ on the issue of diplomatic efforts to solve the problem?

FRANKS: No, I think diplomatic efforts to solve the problem are necessary. Further, I think embeds within the various government agencies in Iraq are necessary in order to help the Iraqis move themselves, their politics, and their economy forward.

HANNITY: General, it's Sean Hannity. Welcome back to the program. Thank you for being with us here.

FRANKS: Thanks, Sean.

HANNITY: General, you don't doubt what America, if they put their time, energy, focus, resources -- and no one's denying there's been mistakes; no one's denying we can improve. I think there are some solid recommendations here. But if we put our focus on this, we will win. Do you agree with that?

FRANKS: I think I agree with the group or the committee recommendation that says there's no magic here, Sean. There is no certainty. I think we've been hearing the president say for some time that some adjustments in the strategy, the approach in Iraq are necessary.

And I think Baker and Hamilton and this group have come up with a pretty fair basis or a pretty fair foundation upon which we can hopefully move forward in a bipartisan way in our own country, and thereby help the Iraqis with the work that needs to be done there.

HANNITY: Look, I agree with -- I think it's thoughtful, the recommendation. We reevaluate. We've got to get strong, train these troops, expedite the process. We've been there a long time. Everybody wants that to happen . Everybody wants these troops home.

Do you support the idea of sitting down at the table and negotiating with a guy who denies the Holocaust existed and having -- opening up discussions with Syria and Iran? Do you agree that Israel should turn over land for peace and the Golan Heights to Syria?

FRANKS: Sean, you know better. I'm a guy who believes, though, that talking is better than fighting. And if the Iraqis launch an effort that seeks to bring together, for political dialogue and for diplomatic dialogue, the countries in that region, I don't interpose objection to that.

I just think that we should become overwhelmed with glee at the thought that that's going to solve all the problems. I don't mind having the Iraqis lead doing that; I'm just not sure it's going to produce great fruit for the reasons, in fact, that you cited, Sean.

HANNITY: Yes, you know, because I listen to the discussion and listen to some of the commentary out there about the hope that would be put in Ahmadinejad. Aren't these the very same people -- Iran and Syria -- that have been fomenting the violence, supporting the terrorists' activity there? It seems to me that there's a lot of false hope and expectation that that might bring about some fruitful conclusion to all of this, and I have absolutely zero confidence that that will bring us anywhere.

FRANKS: I think that's a fair observation. You know, I said a long time ago that the first rule of statecraft is that, at the end of every day, every nation on this planet will do what it perceives to be in its interest. You can count on the Iranians and the Syrians to do just exactly that.

That doesn't mean though, Sean, that we shouldn't support the Iraqis in engaging in a dialogue where there's a possibility of bearing positive fruit.

HANNITY: Let me ask you. You didn't want to use the term "victory" when I brought it up before, General. If we don't win now, isn't it likely at some point we're going to be brought back there and they're going to be more powerful, we'll be emboldening an enemy, they'll have stronger weapons? Isn't the likelihood -- even the survey group mentions this idea of an Al Qaeda propaganda victory. They talk about the disastrous impact at length in this document if we lose. We have to have victory here.

FRANKS: Yes, Sean, I don't disagree with that observation. I don't use terms that I think are especially inflammatory, and I think "victory" is one that we have had a lot of politicians on both sides wrap their arms around. If you were to ask me my definition of success, which this group does talk about, it probably would be very close to your definition of victory.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HANNITY: General, I want to ask you specifically, as we were going to break here, I mentioned the word "victory," and you said you don't want to use those inflammatory words. Why would victory be inflammatory?

FRANKS: It's inflammatory in our own country. It is certainly not inflammatory amongst these wonderful men and women in our military who are on the job tonight in Iraq, my son-in-law, by the way, being one of them.

You'd have absolutely no problem with them in discussing the use of the term "victory." But it has become a lightning rod here. And this particular survey group opted to use the word "success." My point, Sean, was that, if you were to give me your definition of victory, and I were to give you my definition of success in Iraq, you'd find that they're very close.

HANNITY: OK, General. Let me ask you this. We mentioned earlier that you are happy that, in your view, that this document did not seem politicized to you. But politics seems to be in play as much as ever as it has been from the beginning.

Former Vice President Al Gore saying today that going into Iraq was the worst strategic mistake in the history of the U.S. Our incoming speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that this proves the president's Iraq policy has failed. You have people like Dennis Kucinich and Rahm Emanuel, talking about, discussing the idea of possible de-funding of the entire war effort. A lot of politics surrounding this. Has this harmed the effort?

FRANKS: Yes, of course it does. As we've talked before, Sean, that kind of talk has harmed the effort in the past; that kind of talk is not helpful to the young men and women doing the hard work on the ground in Iraq.

So, yes, that's precisely what I hope the work of this survey group will give us an opportunity to get over. That's not to say that I agree with everything in this report. I don't think anyone agrees with everything in this report. But there are some common foundations upon which maybe we can build.

HANNITY: General, I guess one of the fear that I'm hearing from people, in the e-mails they're sending me, and people that have been calling my radio show, General, is that they fear that this is a political face-saving effort, that this is just putting a political face on an exit strategy to get out of here without necessarily finishing the job.

And it seems in many ways and the concern of many people is that maybe we have forgotten what we're battling here, what we're up against, and that this is part of a war on terror, that we have an enemy dedicated to killing us, and that this has been a worthwhile effort to begin with. Is that a fair analysis?

FRANKS: Yes, it's a fair analysis of what I think we're seeing. And I don't agree with it.

I don't believe that our approach in Iraq has been a poor strategy. I believe that a strategy that sees fighting terrorists overseas rather than fighting them on our own soil is a good strategy.

I believe that the approach that we need to continue to press in Iraq is an approach that will leave behind a government that can secure itself, and take care of its people, and be a representative form of government in a very chaotic region of the world.

Sean, you know, I've said before and I'll say it again, if we come home from Iraq prematurely, the terrorists will surely follow us home.

COLMES: Hey, General, it's Alan once again. You've said on this show in the past that, in terms of morale, our troops understand that politics is politics. They're there to do a job; they're not getting caught up in the debate back and forth, for what an Iraq Study Group would say, and so that there is not a discernible effect on these kinds of discussions about what we should or shouldn't do and the well-being or thought processes of the troops, right?

FRANKS: Yes, I think our troops are mature enough to be able to take some of what they see, Alan, with a grain of salt. I have not changed my view on that a bit. These are pretty sharp young people, and they're going to continue to do their jobs until our national command authority brings them home, sure.

COLMES: Do you agree with what you said last year on this show when you said that the Iraq war was going well? Have you changed your assessment about that?

FRANKS: I have -- I've thought an awful lot about it. I believe that some pieces of work in Iraq continue to go well; I think that other pieces of it have not gone well.

And I'll give you a couple of examples. I don't think a very good job has been done of trying to figure out how to solve the unemployment problem in Iraq. I don't believe a very good job has been done trying to figure out how to protect the oil export infrastructure in Iraq so that the Iraqis can see that, for them, there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

It is in these areas, Alan, that I would like to see additional emphasis placed, because there's more to it than just trying to decide whether we add 50,000 troops or take home 50,000 troops. There are lots and lots of pieces involved in this, and I just would like to see a lot more public discussion of the other pieces.

COLMES: What is the Tommy Franks Leadership Institute and Museum? Tell us about that.

FRANKS: I love to hear you ask that question. As a matter of fact, I'm sitting tonight in Hobart, Oklahoma, a small town out in southwest Oklahoma, where we're working mightily.

We've just started our fundraising effort to put together an institute that will bear my name. And the purpose of the institute is to bring people who are not necessarily of like mind together to discuss issues, like the ones that "Hannity & Colmes" discuss, and try to figure out how it is that we can inform decision-making without bringing all the vitriol into it. So that's what this effort is all about.

comment: I value Gen. Frank's opinion a great deal.. He has always been more realistic than most of the others and I dont believe that he has ever let his politics interfere in his decisions, which is more than I can say for a whole damn bunch of the others.. And I also believe that had he been in charge of the Operations in Iraq longer, the situation would be in a whole helluva lot better shape today than it is..

But I, like him, dont have any high expectations of cooperation and support from Iraq's neighbors.. To get Iran to stop nukular production would cost a lot more than I would be willin to pay, and Syria is in the same boat with hopes of takin over Lebanon.. Both of those areas are controlled by their Radical Factions anyway, so we would essentially be dealin with the Terrorists if we tried to barter with em.. That option aint EVER gonna be on the table with me !!

I've been lookin ahead to events that might affect whats gonna happen in the near future, and I remembered that after the First of the Year, we will have a State of the Nation address from the President.. Along about that same time will mark the "2-year" countdown of G.W.'s term.. I figger he is gonna embark on a mission to get results in Iraq at a more determined pace.. We will either see the OLD G.W. come back into focus, or we see him roll over and show his throat !! The closer the (D)s get to takin the reins of power, the better view of what The White House's direction will be..