| Home
> People
Index Page > General Tommy Franks
General Tommy Franks
An exclusive interview with America's top general
in the war on terrorism
Posted: Monday, December 01, 2003
By Marvin
R. Shanken
Marvin R. Shanken interviewed
General Franks in his Tampa office, where he has memorabilia
from his 37 years of military service.
|
The date, 9/11, was coincidental. It was the only day in
September when the schedule of Gen. Tommy Franks meshed with that of
Cigar Aficionado editor and publisher Marvin R. Shanken. But
the somber anniversary served as the perfect backdrop for the first
post-retirement interview granted by General Franks. It was a day
marked by his own observations of small groups of Americans waving
flags along the byways of Tampa, Florida, his hometown, and the
ever-present yellow ribbons tied to telephone poles and palm trees
on the city's avenues. Franks served his country for 37 years,
earning three Purple Hearts for wounds received and, over his
career, three Bronze Stars for valor. He climbed up the ranks of the
U.S. Army, enlisting after a short stay at the University of Texas
in the 1960s and finally reaching one of the highest posts in the
military, the head of Central Command. He is a soldier's general, a
man who chose throughout his career to spend time in the field,
mastering his chosen career firsthand, not in a classroom or some
think tank. He earned high accolades as a commander in the first
Persian Gulf war in 1991, and worked hard throughout the 1990s to
restructure and modernize the U.S. military. He was in charge of
CentCom in 2001 when Osama bin Laden's terrorists crashed planes
into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and he led the
planning and execution of the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001
and Iraq in March 2003. He retired on August 1, 2003.
His comments and answers reflect the beliefs of a man who truly
loves his country, and one who fought for the principles established
by the founding fathers more than 200 years ago. He addresses
directly questions about the search for bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein. In the interview with Shanken, he also touches on his
opinion about how history will judge George W. Bush, and the
prospects for a world without war and terrorism.
Cigar Aficionado: What is today's date?
Gen. Tommy Franks: It's the second anniversary of
9/11.
CA: When you got up this morning, what was your mood?
Gen. Franks: Somber. Serious. I don't think for the past
two years there have been too many days when most Americans didn't
at some point during the day either experience the result of
9/11/01, or pause and think a little bit about 9/11/01; where they
were, what they were doing. And I know that's been the case for me.
It's been the case for my family. It has been the cause of a lot of
friendships and associations. So, this morning I got up and it was
somber. As I drove to work this morning down Bayshore Boulevard out
here in the beautiful town of Tampa, all the palm trees and all the
poles had yellow ribbons tied on them.
CA: That's beautiful.
Gen. Franks: It is a beautiful thing. And I'll tell you
something else that's beautiful about it. Shortly after 9/11, there
were three women who, on Friday afternoons, went down on Bayshore
Boulevard and just stood on the corner and waved American flags.
Three women. They started calling themselves the Bayshore Patriots.
And, three women standing on that corner two years ago is something
that you ought to experience every Friday. Up until the time we
speak right now, they've never missed one. Rain or shine. And the
number is considerably larger today. People stand on that corner and
wave at cars passing every Friday afternoon. Those are the thoughts
that ran through my mind when I got up this morning.
CA: How does September 11th compare in American history to
such tragic events as Pearl Harbor or the assassination of John F.
Kennedy?
Gen. Franks: I think we could probably use a lot of
different words to describe that. One I've already used is "somber."
If you look at a comparison of one day, two years ago, our country
lost several thousand citizens: men, women, children, in the wink of
an eye compared to the sweep of history. The greatest loss that
we've ever experienced. Warfare brought to our shores. And you think
about Pearl Harbor. Certainly it's a significant event. I was born
in 1945, and so I didn't personally experience what it must have
been like in December 1941 with Pearl Harbor. I did experience the
loss of JFK. I was a student at the University of Texas on the
Austin campus. And it's one of those days that we remember.
I've described 9/11, to the media and to all my friends, as the
beginning of a crease in American history. And that's exactly how I
think about it. I am an old-fashioned guy. I'm a corny guy. I
actually believe in the Constitution of the country. I actually hold
all of the values that I think Americans hold, even though we may
not talk about them a lot. Well, I'm a guy who talks about them.
That is my character. That's who I am. And I believe that we have
had a couple of hundred years of this grand experiment called
democracy. We've had our highs and we've had our lows. And 9/11
brought all of our history right in front of us. It brought in front
of us things like liberty; things like freedom; the ability for you,
for your family, to be able to go to a mall anywhere in this
country, sit in one of the movie theaters that exist in that mall;
get on a jet, fly some place around the world. Do whatever you want.
The events of 9/11 impacted the way we live and I think it's healthy
for us to think about that. I think it's healthy for us to remember
that. And I believe that we probably have had no occasion in
American history which has had such an impact on citizens at home in
this country.
CA: Every single American.
Gen. Franks: Every single American. Every single
American.
CA: Where were you when this occurred?
Gen. Franks: Kathy [Mrs. Franks] was with me. And we were
headed to Pakistan for a visit with President [Pervez] Musharraf. We
had stopped in Souda Bay, Crete, to get gas for the jet. Kathy and I
had walked into a small market in this little town, because that's
where one buys the best olives in the world. We went back to this
little hotel. I was about to take a nap. There was a rap on the
door. And I opened the door and one of my assistants said, "Turn on
the television." I turned on the TV just in time to see the second
tower strike. My wife would tell you that the first words out of my
mouth were "Osama bin Laden." That's the first thing that I said. I
got on the telephone, called back, talked to people in my
headquarters, raced off to the jet, got back here on the 12th of
September, talked to [Secretary of Defense] Don Rumsfeld, and we
started planning for operations in Afghanistan.
CA: The very next day, you and Rumsfeld had your first
conversation?
Gen. Franks: I may have talked to him later on the 11th. I
can't recall; but, by the 12th, when I hit the ground back here, my
staff and the staff in the Pentagon and the secretary's staff were
already working on a plan.
CA: Can you recall the very first words that he said to
you or you said to him?
Gen. Franks: I don't recall the exact words, Marvin, but
it would be a very businesslike conversation that would have been
along the lines of form of concept for operations in Afghanistan and
"bring it to me as quickly as you can." It would have been something
very businesslike. There would not have been emotion in that
conversation.
You'll recall that the secretary's quite a hero himself
personally. When the airplane struck the Pentagon, he had gone from
his office in the smoke and had assisted in removing people from the
Pentagon. And so he was, as I was, I'm sure, tired.
CA: But it was businesslike, and not something like, can
you believe how horrible this was?
Gen. Franks: It was business. All business.
CA: Did he give you a time frame for action?
Gen. Franks: I don't recall it, but I doubt it, because
that would not be the secretary's way. He would have said, "Get it
together and talk to me in the next couple of days and bring me
something quickly."
CA: Was there a sense of urgency?
Gen. Franks: There was urgency, of course.
CA: When did you first speak to the president?
Gen. Franks: I think my first discussion with the
president would have been on seven or eight days after 9/11. And
that would be when the secretary and I took him the concept for a
plan to remove the Taliban and the terrorist networks in
Afghanistan. It was probably the 20th or the 21st of September.
CA: Is the plan that you proposed then essentially the
plan that you ended up executing?
Gen. Franks: What we would not have had by the 20th or the
21st, when I talked to the president the first time, would have been
the target sets. The specifics. There is an order to war. And the
order has to do not only with a sense of priority; it has to do with
which things are struck militarily at what point in time. The
concept would have been what, in fact, we all watched unfold. The
specifics, the target sets and the relationship between humanitarian
assistance and kinetic targeting would not have been in place. And I
think that I saw the president again, perhaps nine or 10 days later,
with a complete package. And I think he approved for execution on
the second of October, and we discussed when operations should
begin. We agreed when all of the elements would be in place to begin
operations.
CA: What time frame was that? You had projected how many
weeks or months would be required?
Gen. Franks: I don't think we knew at that point in time.
We knew what we were going to do. I think one of the principles of
war is that a good commander will always remember that the enemy
takes a hand. And we were not sure at that point in time whether the
Taliban and the Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan would die hard;
whether they would try to escape to the mountains; we didn't know.
We knew the effect of precision munitions. We knew the effect of our
special operations forces. We knew that we wanted to get our special
forces people linked up and working with opposition groups. A lot of
people have said, the Northern Alliance. In fact, the Northern
Alliance was the largest of these groups, but there were opposition
leaders all over the country of Afghanistan. I met some of them in
clandestine meetings in Tajikistan. I met some of them inside
Afghanistan. I met some of them in Pakistan.
CA: Did the fact that it took a long period of time before
the strike give the Taliban an unusual opportunity to disperse and
hide?
Gen. Franks: No. The timing of the operation—which started
on the seventh of October, less than a month after 9/11—was such
that it was operationally overwhelming to the Taliban. They, in my
view, had not had time to make a plan. And you'll recall that we had
come off of a number of years where we had demurred with respect to
putting forces in Afghanistan. I think it'll take another 15 or 20
years, maybe, for us to know, because a lot of historical work is
necessary—whether they actually believed that we would put ground
forces in Afghanistan. I think that whole proposition was rather
shocking for the Taliban when operations did in fact begin.
Comparatively, it was a very, very, short period of time: from the
11th of September until the seventh of October. I would also mention
to you that I think it was 75 days—75 or 76 days—after 9/11, a new
president was installed in Afghanistan. I'd say that's a pretty
quick, sort of a kinetic start to an operation.
CA: Was one of the objectives to capture and/or kill Osama
bin Laden?
Gen. Franks: Actually, that isn't right. Not just the
objective, but the mission, the direction from the president, was to
remove the Taliban and remove the enclaves and training camps of the
terrorists who were associated with Al Qaeda. I think that many have
speculated and will speculate in the future that Mullah Omar was
some place at a given point in time and that Osama bin Laden was in
Tora Bora or in the White Mountains, or something, at a point in
time. To this day, I am unconvinced that we ever had, with any
precision, the location of the personalities of either the Taliban
or Al Qaeda. Desirable? As the president said, "to kill or capture."
Of course. But it was not a specific objective.
CA: Did you feel, after September 11th, that America had
appropriate intelligence information on the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or
were we really behind the curve when it suddenly became imperative
to know everything we needed to know to wage a war against them?
Gen. Franks: It's very, very difficult to know. George
Tenet and the Central Intelligence Agency had worked diligently for
a period of time to gain information on the Taliban and on the Al
Qaeda network, both within Afghanistan and in some 55 or 60 other
countries on this planet. We certainly recognized the problem. The
intelligence community was working with some diligence on the
problem. And that's probably about the best that I could say. The
CIA certainly had contact with some of these opposition groups and
it was through our agency contacts that I met many of the opposition
leaders once we started the war.
CA: It's two years later. Bin Laden is still not captured.
Gen. Franks: And let me say this. He may not be captured
or killed in the near future. Do you know why? Because there is an
ideology that is associated with the support of Osama bin Laden, and
there are a great many households on the face of the earth that will
accept him and support him. That is not the case with Saddam Hussein
in Iraq. It's a different sort of a scenario.
CA: What I'm trying to get at, especially given the fact
that a new video of bin Laden was aired last night, is that many
people believe that those videos are just manufactured propaganda
pieces designed to keep him alive in the public eye. No one knows
where he is because many believe he may really be dead. What do you
think?
Gen. Franks: There is that theory out there. I think most
students of the last two years would tell you that they can neither
confirm nor deny that thesis. The military standard, the measure of
merit for military operations, seeks to avoid speculation. Most
practitioners of the art will say the negative exists until the
positive can be confirmed. And so in our discussions, we will accept
the credibility of the argument that says he ain't dead until we
prove he's dead.
CA: Some people have suggested that because of America's
focus on Iraq, we have taken our eye off of bin Laden and the war on
terrorism. We moved the manpower, we moved the surveillance and we
moved the focus to another country. And so the terrorists are still
out there roaming the globe. What's your feeling about that
hypothesis?
Gen. Franks: An ill-informed view.
CA: Why? Was the mission over in Afghanistan?
Gen. Franks: Absolutely not. But let me just give you the
numerical facts. On the day combat operations started in Iraq, the
19th of March of this year, we had about 9,500 Americans involved in
operations in Afghanistan. On the day operations ceased, or major
military operations ceased, in Iraq, on the first of May, we had
about 9,500 Americans in Afghanistan. The intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance, focus, command and control that was
required for work in Afghanistan never changed, never varied. And to
this day, has not changed or varied—with this exception: there is
greater participation in Afghanistan today by the international
community than there was when the war in Iraq started. So those who
would say the focus on Afghanistan was lost as we went into Iraq
simply is not factually true.
It's very interesting to me, because I think every week or 10
days for the last couple of years, I gave an update to the
president. And each time, even during the major military operations
in Iraq, [when] I would give the president an update on Iraq, I also
gave him an update on Afghanistan. Because he was interested. Don
Rumsfeld, in my personal view, never took his eye off the ball in
Afghanistan. And here's the reason: both Afghanistan and Iraq are a
part of a global war on terrorism. Look at this. You can look around
right now at the continuing investigations of "What did you know in
the intelligence community that could have precluded 9/11? What
intelligence information did we have that could have changed the
outcome and created a better outcome if action had just been taken?"
My personal view is that we had more credible and more voluminous
intelligence information that indicated a potential nexus between
terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than we had
precision relating to the planning and ongoing activities of Al
Qaeda in Afghanistan. And both of these elements are part of a
global war on terrorism. And we are not at the end of it. We're at
the beginning.
CA: Why haven't those points been picked up by the media
and given the weight they deserve?
Gen. Franks: Let's talk about the media for a minute. I am
not a negativist with respect to the media. I believe in the First
Amendment of the Constitution. People have asked me so many times,
"Well, why have you been media shy? Why don't you talk to me?" I
told you a minute ago, I'm an old-fashioned kind of guy. I believe
that the moms and dads and sons and daughters and husbands and wives
of military people involved in the global war on terrorism, either
in Afghanistan or in Iraq, have an expectation that our senior
military leaders are tending to the business of war fighting rather
than tending to the business of entertaining the media. That has
been my view, sir, and it remains my view and that is why I
supported the proposition of embedding media into our operations in
Iraq, whereas we have not done that in Afghanistan. We talk about
lessons learned. People ask me all the time, "What lessons did we
learn in Afghanistan that we then transferred to our operations in
Iraq?" Well, one of the lessons is that it is helpful to accommodate
the media on the battlefield.
CA: The embedded media program, in your view, was a
success?
Gen. Franks: Absolutely. An unqualified success. Don
Rumsfeld and I have both said it. He didn't use these words. This is
my voice. Somebody asked me about the embedded media just as you
just did, and people continue to ask me about that. What I say about
it is, I'm a fan. I lived through Vietnam in 1967 and 1968. And
there are lessons to be taken from each war in which our country has
been engaged, and one of those lessons is that having media present
on the battlefield is good for our country. So, I'm a fan.
CA: You just said that the war in Iraq was not just about
weapons of mass destruction, but is part of the overall fight
against terrorism. Given that profound statement, what are your
feelings about criticism of President Bush that because we've found
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it suggests the president
misled our country, and we had no business going to war there?
Gen. Franks: That's a fair question. I'll give you an
answer on two levels. First off, with respect to the whole
discussion of what was known that caused our government to decide to
go into Iraq and how that was tied to the war on terrorism, and so
forth: my first comment is, Ain't this a great country! The people
who crafted our Constitution more than 200 years ago saw fit to
enable America to be informed, saw fit to enable both negativists
and positivists to make their points forcefully. Ain't this a great
country? The fact that there is negativism and questioning and
political debate and discussion and sniping, and so forth, satisfies
me just fine. I'm OK with that.
Now, let me talk to the substance of your question: Two years
after the fact of 9/11, we should ask ourselves what is—not in 1941,
not in 1917ñ1918—today, in the twenty-first century, what is the
worst thing that can happen in our country? The worst thing that can
happen is, perhaps—and this is my personal opinion—two steps. The
first step would be a nexus between weapons of mass destruction of
any variety. It could be chemical, it could be biological, it could
be some nuclear device; and terrorism. Terrorists or any human being
who is committed to the proposition of terror, try to just create
casualties, not for the purpose of annihilation, but to terrify a
population. We see it in the Middle East today, in order to change
the mannerisms, the behavior, the sociology and, ultimately, the
anthropology of a society.
That goes to step number two, which is that the western world,
the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom
and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand
experiment that we call democracy. Now, in a practical sense, what
does that mean? It means the potential of a weapon of mass
destruction and a terrorist, massive casualty-producing event
somewhere in the western world—it may be in the United States of
America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution
and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of
another mass-casualty-producing event. Which, in fact, then begins
to potentially unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps:
very, very important.
CA: If that's true, why have so many critics attacked the
president of the United States and tried to diminish the work of the
military?
Gen. Franks: Different views. The old saw, the cliché,
that talks about politics and the relationship of liberal journalism
to the processes of governance in this country is…actually, I'm not
sure how to answer your question. But let me tell you this. Today,
we stand on the second anniversary of 9/11. One year from today, we
will stand on the third anniversary of 9/11. And what will happen
two months after that? In November of '04, we will have a
presidential election in this country. The nature of politics is for
the contestants to look at the production of an administration to
determine what they do not like, whether it's the economy, whether
it's foreign policy. That list can go on. They can discuss that and
debate it. And so the media's coverage of all of this, I think I can
accurately predict in the face of Yogi [Berra], who said, "When one
finds a fork in the road, take it." Well, he also said, "Prediction
is extremely difficult, especially if it has to do with the future."
I'll make this prediction: I believe that we're going to have more
discussion, more debate. Some of it will be nasty over the next 14
months as we lead up to a presidential election. I'm an American. I
like that fact. I like the process that we go through. And I believe
that it is incumbent on people who have views to express those
views.
CA: OK. Would you say that finding the smoking gun that
might provide absolute proof that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction is actually minor when compared to the importance of the
core mission, which is to eliminate terrorism?
Gen. Franks: Defeat terrorism. You have articulated what I
would say. I do agree with that. It is an issue, to be sure. But you
and I could debate anything that we want to talk about. I'm reminded
of the high school debate teams. And that is, one knows the
proposition to be debated before one knows which side he or she will
sit on for the debate. And I think we're in the middle of a debate,
and we're seeing the halves of this country squaring off and each is
building its case for the debate. And that's what this democracy's
all about.
I told you I'm a corny guy. I'm a traditionalist. And I believe
in that. Does that mean that it pleases me when someone says, "Well,
General, your campaign in Afghanistan was too much this, or not
enough that. The same thing in Iraq." Of course not. But that's a
personal issue with me and we take these things personally. But the
process, the environment that exists in this country, makes it
possible for people to say what they want.
But I'd say one other thing. The issue that I take with all of it
is the issue of accountability. Look at this: while the president of
the United States sits in service of this nation as the commander in
chief, he is accountable for his actions. He recognizes that. And
I'm very proud of that. While I served in the uniform of this
country, I was not only responsible for certain activities, I was
accountable for my performance in the conduct of operations related
to those activities. The issue for me is accountability. It's
accountability. The era of the sound bite with a great many facts
left lying on the cutting-room floor, is problematic. It's
problematic for all of us. It can get the hackles up on the back of
one's neck. But at the end of the day, we're all blessed to be in a
country where Cigar Aficionado can come and say, "What do you
think? Here's what I think." And where a private citizen like Tommy
Franks can say, "Well, here's what I think." Ain't this a great
country?
CA: I'm curious about something. Who created the deck of
cards for Iraq's most wanted individuals, and why was it
created?
Gen. Franks: Some wonderful staff officers, on my staff
and Secretary Rumsfeld's staff and Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff] Dick Meyers' staff, said this would be a good way to remember
what these personalities look like. The way the process worked was,
[when we went through] the identification of personalities that the
intelligence community thought were terribly important to the regime
in Iraq and, when they were tallied, it just turned out that the
number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so
somebody said, "Aha, this'll be the ace of spades."
CA: Do you have a deck of those cards?
Gen. Franks: I'm sure I do. My wife bought a bunch of
those cards and, as a matter of fact, we used to give them away.
What's the tally today, by the way? Where are we? About 42 or 44. My
gracious. Forty to 42? We're six months after this event. We have
the regime in Iraq. We continue to be troubled by the fact that our
youngsters are losing their lives over there, our kids in uniform.
That's a sad thing. It's a thing where I think everyone in this
country waves a flag and says, "We recognize America is at war."
But, pardon the expression—it's a country expression from Texas—but
gracious, gracious. Look at the product of the labors of the last
six months, by our country, by those who have joined us in the
international community.
Look, let me tell you this: right out here at MacDill Air Base
today, there are more than 60 nations represented. We continue to
talk about, "Well, America goes it alone." There are more than 60
nations represented out here with full-time, senior representatives,
military representatives, who form the largest military coalition in
the history of the world and have supported the proposition of the
global war on terrorism since 9/11. My, my, my.
CA: That brings up a good topic. In your opinion, if
British Prime Minister Tony Blair in England had not shown such
great support for the United States, could we have attacked Iraq? In
other words, how critical was England's role, whether it be
politically or militarily?
Gen. Franks: The U.K. played a critical role. Let me just
say from the outset of the answer that I count Prime Minister Blair
as a friend. I know him and I have spoken to him and visited him at
10 Downing Street on more than one occasion. And I believe that his
fortitude in the face of questions, his leadership, was enormously
valuable and continues to this day to be enormously valuable.
CA: Would you say that it was more politically important
or militarily important?
Gen. Franks: Both. One should never minimize the military
contribution of the United Kingdom, as they placed their commandos,
as they placed their air assault formations in the very earliest
moments of the war into southern Iraq and took responsibility for
the sector around Basra, the second largest city in that country.
The Brits bring tremendous expertise in terms of military operations
in urban terrain. They are very well-trained soldiers. One should
never minimize the contribution of the Brits militarily. At the same
time, one should not ever underestimate the value of the political
will exhibited by the U.K. in the face of some questioning. They
were with this from beginning to end.
CA: We have England stepping up and understanding the
grand scheme of our mission and the issue of survival, and then we
have countries led by France who, while apparently talking with us
and debating at the United Nations, were cooperating with the Iraqis
behind our backs. How do you feel about France and their role in
Iraq?
Gen. Franks: Let me give you an answer that will not be
especially satisfying. It will be kind of like a light beer. I mean,
it will not be especially satisfying. I am not a negativist. While I
acknowledge your question and I acknowledge the way you ask the
question as being the view of many, many people, I don't share it. I
mean, I actually don't share it.
We pride ourselves in this country on our ability to exercise our
national will. While another country may not act in a way that
pleases us as Americans or pleases us as individuals, shouldn't we
respect the ability of each of these sovereign states to actually
implement the first rule of democracy throughout the history of the
world? That is, at the end of the day, every state will act in a way
which it perceives to be in its own best interest. That is the case
with the European countries. Convenient for us and better for us had
they participated willingly, militarily, to be sure, to be sure.
But I'd stop before I say, "I harbor all resentment against these
nations." They have proven over the course of the years to be
allies. Nine-eleven, the war on terror, is a major event for us in
this country. But I will tell you that there are 60 nations—more
than 60 nations—here who are associated with the global war on
terrorism. The French, the Germans, most all, if not all, of the
European nations are there at CentCom today supporting the global
war on terrorism with military representation. And they have been
there since before the Iraq operation started. They were there
during the Iraq operation and they're still there.
I'm just not a nation basher. And I'm OK with it.
CA: The United Nations debated for months about this war.
Furthermore, the U.N. spent years there in the '90s under very
difficult conditions and they did find evidence of weapons of mass
destruction and had them destroyed. If there were no WMDs in Iraq
when you invaded, and all Hussein had to do was let the inspectors
back in to look for them, why didn't he just relent, instead of
triggering the U.S. invasion?
Gen. Franks: I, for one, begin with intent. I think about
intent before I think about the fact. There is no question that
Saddam Hussein had the intent to do harm to the western alliance and
to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great
many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out
of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So, we have
intent.
If we know for sure, Marvin, that a regime has the intent to do
harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable
doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with
which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as
leaders in this country? We cannot permit ourselves to simply be
drawn in and continue after the fact of 9/11 to try to turn hope
into a course of action. Before the war, we cannot confirm that the
regime has weapons of mass destruction, but we have enormous amounts
of information that indicate they do have the intent to do us harm.
We have enormous amounts of information, much of it provided by the
Iraqis, that lead us to believe that this man may have weaponized
WMDs, and so our government decides, along with a coalition which
was substantial at the point, especially in terms of political
support, to take action. And so we take the action. Our forces get
in there on the ground and we say, "We have not had inspectors in
this country since 1998." You know, four years. And so what would be
our guess? Well, the worst-case guess is that he has weaponized
chemical and biological munitions and that he can attack his
neighbors, can attack us, and perhaps, by the use of terrorists, can
export this sort of mayhem into the United States of AmeriCA:
L.A., Chicago, Tampa, New York again. Ah, so the decision is made
we're going to act, based on this information we have.
Our forces get in there and they do not find artillery shells and
missiles full of biologicals and toxins and chemical munitions and
we say, "Well, we were incorrect, or we have yet to prove that our
thoughts were correct that he had weaponized this material." But you
know what we have found? I guess—perhaps it's not well reported—but
I believe it's factual that certain precursor elements, certain
precursor chemicals, certain precursor feedstocks for biologicals
have been found by our people in Iraq. The fact that we have not yet
found the smoking gun, which is the projectile or the missile filled
with these ingredients—we'd like to find that if it exists. But to
say that nothing has been found that indicated an active chemical
and biological program in Iraq, in my view, is simply not true. The
question that I would ask is, "If the man, if the regime was not
trying to hide something, then why would we find some of these
precursor chemicals and this sort of thing buried in the backyards
under rosebushes, in a number of locations associated with some of
the scientists in this country? Why would one go bury precursor
chemicals and feedstocks out behind the apartment if there was not
something going on?"
And so I guess at the end of all of it, here's what I'd say: I
don't think it has yet been proven to anyone's satisfaction that
this regime did not have weaponized munitions, because our forces in
a population of 25, 26 million people simply have not yet been
everywhere that we need to go.
CA: Can't some of the more than 40 people who've been
captured tell us, show us or give us the status of the programs and
where they might have been? Or are they saying they don't exist?
Gen. Franks: We'll see what the recording from Dr. David
Kay turns out to look like. You know, he's our man on the ground
controlling the search that's going on right now. We'll see what his
product looks like when Dr. Kay begins to talk about that. And we
shouldn't decide yet what we think is going to be the result of his
efforts over there.
Now, to the 40 or so of the 52 in custody. It's very interesting
when people will say, "I had nothing to do with this. I never saw
this. I never handled this particular sort of program." And you bet
a whole lot of these people in this top 50 or so say, "Not me" or
"It doesn't exist." But what is striking is the number of people
every day, the number of Iraqis every day who say, "I heard" and "I
was told" and "I have a friend who has an uncle who has…" and "If we
go and look here." That kind of information is coming to our forces
every day and it is not correct for us to believe that all Iraqis
are saying, "No, there was no program. It never existed." Because
that, sir, is not what a great many Iraqis are saying.
CA: Would it be fair to say that David Kay is being
successful in his assignment, and that he has found things that
haven't been reported yet?
Gen. Franks: His assignment, in the short form, might be:
"Go find these weapons." Probably, more correctly, Dr. Kay is in the
business of confirming or denying the existence of the program and
of weapons. And I do not know over the last 30 days what he has put
together.
CA: How about the 31st day? Going backwards.
Gen. Franks: If I go back to the time that I left the job,
I was very satisfied with two things. The first thing was that our
government had decided to place one man in charge of all this
confirm or deny activity. The search. I was very pleased with that.
I was very pleased with the formation of his team inside Iraq and
with its relationship with military people who were going to go do
the work. I don't have a comment about whether or not I was pleased
with where they were at that state, because they were just getting
going.
CA: Can we assume that because nothing has come out in the
press that he's just holding on to information until he is satisfied
with his efforts?
Gen. Franks: Absolutely. That would incline me to believe
that the facts are being gathered in a way that will permit the
exposure of those facts to be available to everybody in this country
without permitting the leaking of microscopic pieces here and there
in a way that's designed to influence. I think what Secretary
Rumsfeld and what George Tenent are doing is gathering facts. And
I'm satisfied with that process.
CA: We took a fair amount of time before we invaded Iraq,
and Saddam Hussein had plenty of time to cooperate to have prevented
the attack. That having been said, did we give up some large
advantage in allowing him to do certain things to prepare himself
for the war or did he just not believe that we'd ever do it, that
the political landscape wouldn't allow it?
Gen. Franks: I don't know that he'd associate it with the
political landscape as much as he might associate that view that we
would not do anything to begin with because he thought that nothing
would happen. I hope I live long enough to get far enough into the
future to be able to sit on a vantage point and look back and have a
full appreciation of the validity or the lack thereof of some of the
things I believe.
But I believe that our forces achieved operational surprise in
the military operations that started. I believe that the tactical
configurations of Iraqi units at the time that our military
operations started, did not represent the tactical configurations of
armies which believed that a war was just about to begin. I believe
that the coalition was successful in achieving surprise against the
regime.
Photo by Gary John Norman
Next
Page
Return
to the People page | 
