I still have a letter from Gen Franks after I sent over 10,000 small culturally appropriate toys that could fit in a BDU hip pocket for my Eagle Scout Project. He thanked me for helping win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and congratulated me on becoming an Eagle Scout. One of my favorite souvenirs of my childhood
@AGenericAccount mostly stuffed animals like small teddy bears and beanie babies. A lot of stuffed animals from happy meals and such. We filtered out toys for cultural sensitivity, so no pigs, religious toys, or monsters. I directed volunteers to make cutouts the exact size and shape of a BDU hip cargo pocket so people could test fit their toys before donating. We set up collection sites at churches, local sports stadiums, and I even got a collection site at the Georgia State Capitol and the CNN HQ building in Atlanta. My local State Congress Representative brought me on to the State Speaker podium to address the GA House of Representatives. Several Representatives took collection stations back to their home districts. My original goal was for 5,000 toys, but we ended up with over 10,000 toys being sent over to Iraq.
I worked directly for General Schwarzkopf for close to a year when he got his first star. He was extremely intelligent, short tempered (did not suffer fools) and had an incredible sense of humor. He was loyal to his subordinates and superiors, respected by all and especially loved his family. It was obvious that he was destined for greater things in his career. It was a privilege, a pleasure and a learning experience to work for him.
Rejecting to participate in that disastrous and illegal invasion was one of the best decisions the Turkish parliament made in its history. The members valiantly refused to obey Erdoğan, who was eager to participate and co-invade with the Western powers. As a Turkish citizen, I am glad that our forces were not in Iraq when the shit-show started after the fall of Saddam.
I think the real difference between the two men is that Schwarzkopf went into the war campaign as quickly as possible with little to no interference from politicians. while Franks was constantly harassed and annoyed by the sec of defence
@@davidcraft4636 Schwartskopf's army fought at distance in the main - think of the tank 'battles' like 73 easting. The Iraqi tanks didn't even know they were there until hit - Contrast that with the insurgencies Franks & following Generals faced, where the majority of deaths came well after Bush declared 'victory'
I feel a lot of that had to do with the presidents in those wars. Geo. HW Bush laid out the overall goal of the war and allowed his generals to handle the military matters while his political subordinates addressed political matters. GW Bush allowed his political subordinates to interfere with military planning which caused a lot of problems. Desert Storm also had broad public support due in large part to the limited goal of driving Iraq back inside its borders versus regime change in OIF coupled with tossing out Iraq's civil service structure on a whim.
I briefly met Gen. Powell at an exercise in '89. I was a very young 1LT at the time. My impression was that senior leaders like him had little tolerance for someone trying to BS them. This was mostly done by an assortment of LTC's and COL's trying to "get ahead." A young LT like me and enlisted soldiers were treated on friendly terms even though I was scared to death. I remember him smiling after I tried to give an answer to a question. He knew I was petrified and seemed slightly amused.
Actually add Majors to that list. Those three ranks you are either Leadership of a Battalion or Brigade HQ. If you not in one of those position you serve as Staff Puke from Battalion to the Pentagon. All these Majors, LTC's, and Colonels are trying to get promoted up to next rank or become a Flag Grade Officer. Even then odds are likely you still will be Staff Puke in the system.
@@abbottshaull9831 I joined the Navy out of high school as an enlisted man. I separated at my 6 year point because I didn't like what I saw when looking farther up the chain. The officer corps and senior NCO corps held no appeal to me.
Regarding the strategy that CENTCOM had for Operation Iraqi Freedom, I can assure you it contained little post major combat operations planning. About 95% of the plan dealt with preparation and execution. Not more than 5% dealt with what happens afterwards, and it was lacking in detail. I say this because I worked on the OPLAN until my reassignment to the Pentagon in 2001. When the major fighting is done, generals want to pack up the troops and send them home. They don't want to conduct counterinsurgency, repair what they broke, and rebuild the society. The problem is that no organization other than the US military comes close to having the tools and manpower necessary to do this thankless job. Rumsfeld was loathe to supply these capabilities up front to CENTCOM, and the generals did not want to engage in protracted nation building programs after Saddam was toppled. As a result, what we ended up with was a vacuum which our enemy gleefully exploited.
By chance have you ever seen the 2004 PBS Frontline documentary "Rumsfeld's War"? I used to have a DVD recording of it. Its one of the most brutally honest dissections of what happened. It goes right into how Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others made EVERYONE else eat a giant shite sandwich that they then blamed on everyone else. Your point about no "afterwards plan" is laid bare. It exposes Douglas MacGregors role in the disaster and that POS (like all the others) has never been held accountable. I think there's still a couple of copies here on YT but I dare not put in a link incase it gets pulled. A channel named "whitley bollan" has a copy.
Question: If you were at CENTCOM and that O-plan was being formed before you got moved in 2001, are you saying that the invasion of Iraq was already being planned before 2001 (i.e. before 9/11 and the subsequent "War On Terror")? Before Dubya even took power as POTUS ? (I suppose it matters when in 2001 you got reassigned. This video already stated that Rumsfeld & company were setting Iraq up in Nov. 2001.) The rest I understand, the bit about armies not wanting to do nation-building / long-term occupation. People always point to post-1945 nation-building, but that seems to be the historical anomaly.
@@wyldhowl2821 No, every combatant command has contingency plans which are constantly being updated. These are divided into two types, operation plan (OPLAN) and concept plan (CONPLAN). The former is much more detailed than the latter and contains a TPFDD (Time Phased Force Deployment Data) which is a timeline for planning and executing each step of an operation. You are probably familiar with the term D-Day. This is the day (not a specified date) when the OPLAN is executed. If the planners believe it will take 180 days to pull resources together and deploy them, then operational planning will begin on D-180, with a day-by-day countdown of necessary activities until execution on D-Day, then continue with all necessary post D-Day activities that will occur on D+1, D+2, etc. There is nothing unusual or sinister about preparing for war or for battles when a nation is at peace. Indeed, it would be foolish in the extreme if a nation ignored its potential enemies and made no preparations in advance. For example, prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor we had Plan ORANGE which was designed to engage Japanese naval forces in a major battle and defeat them. The surprise attack left our fleet incapable of executing this plan, so the Navy had to start from scratch, which delayed our first major victory (the Battle of Midway) for six months. It is the same today with nuclear and conventional defense. Without some sort of feasibility study or more detailed plan in place, any attempt to react to a major event (natural or man-made) would have to reply on uncoordinated or poorly coordinated employment of forces and their supporting logistics. This is what happened during 911 and Hurricane Katrina, both of which I was heavily involved in the ad hoc response to. It is a recipe for disaster and the reason why the military follows the ancient Roman advice "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war).
"repair what they broke, and rebuild the society. The problem is that no organization other than the US military comes close to having the tools and manpower necessary to do this thankless job. " imagine thinking that. united nations have done that with their peacekeepers for ages. they have the expertise of rebuilding society, that all other armies lack. UN peacekeeping missions are assessed to be generally successful. A book looking at 47 peace operations by Virginia Page Fortna of Columbia University found that UN-led conflict resolution usually resulted in long-term peace.[220] Political scientists Hanne Fjelde, Lisa Hultman and Desiree Nilsson of Uppsala University studied twenty years of data on peacekeeping missions, concluding that they were more effective at reducing civilian casualties than counterterrorism operations by nation states.[221] Georgetown University professor Lise Howard postulates that UN peacekeeping operations are more effective due to their emphasis on "verbal persuasion, financial inducements and coercion short of offensive military force, including surveillance and arrest", which are likelier to change the behavior of warring parties.[155] though lise doesn't mention, and i would underscore, that UN also always utilizes local cultural and sociological experts in its planning, who want to keep the local customs and local tribal borders as they are, in optimal peaceful balance. - i think the whole OBL&taleban debacle was not a grand military operation at all, but a quiet behind-the-scenes fbi law enforcement&cia operation. a murder mystery to be solved, the conspiracy of where they got their extreme ideologue & financing from, rather than an instant large-scale invasion to multiple countries involving those countries militaries and civilian populations as a whole. but then again, if usa had that kind of calm foresight, it would've just let the soviets deal with the taleban and nation-building all the way back in 1979. soviet union at the time wasnt that foresighted either: The concerns raised by the Chief of the Soviet Army General Staff, Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov who warned about the possibility of a protracted guerrilla war, were dismissed by the troika who insisted that any occupation of Afghanistan would be short and relatively painless.[112] " Moscow ... tended to downplay the effects of an unpopular Communist government pursuing policies that the majority of Afghans violently disliked as a generator of the insurgency ... " hm, sounds familiar. another way is just installing a corrupt, authoritarian fascist puppet government clan leader that kills everyone it doesn't even slightly like, like russia put in Chechnya. though what happens when the kadyrov clan leader dies, or russian money train to chechnyan clan leader dries up, or both at the same time, is another matter.
I remember being deployed multiple times from 02' to 05'. Not once in that time did I hear anyone say anything good about Gen. Franks aside from officers doing the whole "We are the best with the best leadership." Never really had much respect for him while I was in.
All you had to do was do your job and follow your lawful orders. No one cares if you respected a 4 star that you'd never meet ever so long as you kept it to yourself and just did your job.
@@johnroscoe2406 that goes without saying, sometimes. The point that Plaprad, is making is that, one, usually hears good or bad things about their commanding general, while under their command. Plaprad did not hear anything positiive.
The issue is that the US doesn't fire its generals anymore. In WWII, the US dumped generals if outcomes were poor. It didn't take much to fire or reassign one either. This way, only the best personel for any particular campaign managed to keep their jobs. Now generals see their roles as ordained and untouchable. The incentive structure even leans towards perpetuating a conflict so they remain national figures. This is bad for the country.
The US Navy had a similar problem during WW2. While some admirals were exemplary (Spruance, Fletcher, Lee, etc.), others were astonishingly incompetent but were given commands anyway.
The commander of multinational forces in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, was dismissed by US President Barack Obama after critical comments about senior administration officials.
Another important part of that was getting relieved from a command wasn't a career ending event, the Army/George Marshall would just find them a more suitable role. Also, relieved generals would sometimes even get command assignments again despite being relieved previously. This way Generals aren't too afraid to think outside the box or try new ideas which means the really talented Generals get noticed and further promoted. This especially applies to division commanders (Major Generals) and deciding who should get promoted to Corps and Army level positions. A division commander messing up may cause an attack to fail or excessive casualties. But a corps or Army level mistake can lose wars.
I really can't fathom the medals on the chests of these latter day US senior officers. Franks had seven rows. In my view, the greatest US admiral of WW2, who has to be credited with significantly ending the war in the Pacific, was Spruance. He fought in 3 wars and had four rows of medals. The last two rows included an occupation award and the others were from foreign countries. WTF??
Well, the National Meritorious Stapling Service award is crucially important. It’s awarded to senior staff who successfully staple 1000 reports at the correct angle in the upper left corner of the report. You really want an Army of leaders that can’t staple reports correctly? I know I cannot live in that world.
Each of those rows have either two or three medals on them, 4 are awards from other countries (UK, South Vietnam, South Korea and Kuwait). Frank's Wiki page tells you what he got them for. Spruance only fought in 2 wars (and didn't do any combat in the first one, WW1).
A lot of awards nowadays are considered "Participation awards". I only have a few on my uniform I'd consider actually important. The rest I got for showing up.
not that uncommon, but usually it's the parents who sent their sons to the military, hoping rigor of military would set their sons straight. And it often does.
There’s a big difference between a course that requires self-discipline (college) and one where discipline is forced upon you (the military). Some folks thrive in the ordered world of the military. That’s why some of them fall apart after discharge. They can’t handle the chaos of civilian life.
There so much noise and crummy content on UA-cam, in any category of content. This video is the best produced, original, and informative content (abt an important topic no less) that I've seen in months. My goodness, well done. Thank you.
We had bin-Laden at Tora Bora, but Franks' decisions that day allowed him to escape sometime between 12 or 15 December 2001: He denied Gary Berntsen's request for a battalion of Rangers to block off the Pakistan exit from the Tora Bora mountains, instead over relying on local militia which Berntsen said allowed bin-Laden to escape and further denied Delta's requests to press the attack further into the mountain pass.
I spent 25 years in the US government. It is my opinion that the Bush Administration handled the Iraq conflict and the tense relationship with Iran with incompetence and even cowardice. The political leaders were directly responsible for the failures in the field.
OK, I get it. Franks did well enough until the 4th Star. He wasn't a good politicking General. He didn't want to be. By that time, his age and time in service were wearing on him. If he could have kept the stars, he'd probably been happier as a Battalion Commander or even less under his command.
The Intel Report became one of my favorite channels pretty much from the start. It's this kind of stuff that we don't often get to learn about compared to the combat actions.
You heard wrong re-EMs anyway. He did have a low tolerance for substandard officers. Here's my Schwartzkopf story- May 1990, Ft. Campbell KY. Burger King on main post. I have CQ on a Sat. My runner watches the desk as I go to BK- he'd been home to eat with wifey first. I'm in a booth eating my Whopper and a large shadow looms over me. I look up and there's this huge dude with 4 stars on that I'd never met in my life. I begin to stand but he waves me down and asks "Is your unit working today Sgt.?" He asks as I'm in BDUs. "No sir, I'm CQ, runner is watching the unit while I eat." He responded- "Ok, just checking. Men should have their time off. Your officers have 5 days a week to train you." With that he walked off. I shrugged and went back to my Whopper. Had no idea who he was. 2 months later I found out.
If my memory serves me correct, after the capitulation of the Iraqi government, Franks ordered all Baathists (Saddam's party) be removed from positions of power, even low level, local functionaries. Unfortunately they were the only ones that new how to run the local government and infrastructure, such as the utilities, since they were the ones who had been doing it for the last 25 years. The country descended into chaos with no running water or electricity and much of local government left without competent leadership. You then saw anarchy, massive looting, and the locals turning against the Americans. This left a vacuum that would be filled by the Fedayeen, who restored some order and were then embraced by the locals. The insurgents now had a massive foothold and foundation from which to build on. If Tommy Franks paid attention to history he'd have seen that General George Patton, though heavily criticized for it, left low-level Nazis in power at the local government level after Germany's surrender. He did this because he knew that it was they who knew how to keep the electricity on and keep things from descending into anarchy. The failure of Franks to take that page from Patton's playbook may have been the cause of us being stuck in Iraq for several more years trying to quell the insurgency.
Not only that, Frank's believed he could conquer Iraqu on the cheap with only 75,000 troops and not realizing the cities and country side needed to be secured with "occupation " troops after the defeat of the Iraqi army. In other words he needed a force of at 150,000 if not more. This is what the Pentagon insisted, but Frank's disagreed. The chaos and insurgency that followed is a testament to his stupidity. Maybe that's why he retired so early, didn't want to clean up his own mess!
Paul Bremer is the one who banned them, not the military leadership. The military leadership actually wanted to use the mid and lower level Baath members to control the country after the government surrendered since these guys were not true believers but members as a way of social advancement. Bremer also did it without input from Washington which stuck everyone with this bad decision. So basically the civilian leadership in Iraq screwed it up.
Again this is part of the lack of planning of what would happen in Iraq after Iraqi Government capitulated. Then again lot of lessons we learned after WWII should have been applied, but when you try to run a Multiple Ring Circus with only one ring what do you expect to happen.
In MacArthur's case, he was certainly a diva and high maintenance (and just a weird dude in general lol). But he was FIERCELY loyal to "his guys." After Halsey's bluder at Leyte Gulf that nearly destroyed the entire operation, MacArthur said the following: “Leave the Bull alone, He's still a fighting admiral in my book.”
@@montevallomustang In Patton´s case, there was a brief debate on how tragic the accident really was. He rode his guys hard, and from what I read, was not a pleasant guy to be around,Like, at all. with not much of a fan club in his units. Fame from the outside, yes. "May God have Mercy on my enemies, because I won´t". He meant that. He wasn´t joking. Riding around WWII with Mother-of-Pearl plated Revolvers, genuinely believing you were the reincarnation of a roman emperor,.....I mean...
"Garbage in = garbage out" is a phrase to get used to if you want to look at these wars. The comparison breaks down when you see what kind of tasks these generals were given to accomplish. Schwartzkopf was handed one war which was justified, therefore had international support, and had a relatively clear & concise objective. His commanders were men who had been to war & understood it, so they did not fuck with his handling of it. And then they had the good sense to not try to stay in Iraq after the justification had run out. Franks was handed two wars: 1) Afghanistan - justified by 9/11 which had support, but got undermined as the US political command took their eyes off the prize (finding & killing Bin Laden); 2) Iraq - the result of political bullshit, not justifiable at all and therefore had limited support (the US and a few morally gutless allies), and a more muddled objective (overthrow & occupy Iraq so the US could control it). All these "analysis" videos all seem to gloss over the fact that the Iraq invasion was always predicated on bullshit, and quite likely unwinnable, no metter all these "if only he was like this, if only he had done that". 9/11 & Afghanistan got treated like an unwelcome diversion too, which must have drove Franks nuts. Those political commanders giving Franks his orders (mostly political & big business types) gave him the absurd task of justifying the unjustifiable, advancing their greedy political objectives without making them look bad, and winning in the most cost-conscious way possible (despite the fact that the whole Iraq war was a huge unnecessary expense & dollars & blood). Maybe Franks could have done a little more of X and a little less of Y, but try to remember that the whole exercise was likely doomed from the outset, because the false reasons underlying the war could not be overcome.
It is kind of funny though, his being mad at the Turks. They do as lot of wrong things worth being mad at them about, but their decision over not getting involved in the Iraq invasion was the right thing, certainly from their own strategic perspective. Foolish of the USA to always expect other nations to discard their own strategic needs in favour of America's ambitions, doubly so that the US gets mad when they do not.
Your comment is very well put together. To start, I think the channel doesn’t draw too much attention to the unjustifiable, politically-motivated imperialism surrounding the Iraq War because they don’t want to anger some demographics within the audience. On your other point, even if different conditions and variables wouldn’t significantly alter the course of the war, I still think elucidating the impact of a leader’s attributes is worth while.
I'd say that's a bit unfair on Franks he probably had this attitude and made these slip ups. Because he constantly had to deal with the stress of that moron Rumsfeld constantly micromanaging him and telling him how to do his job.
@teabagtowers3823 It was not meant to be as unkind as it appears. Frank's seems to have been a great fighting general. The problem he had was that Lieutenant General is a planner, a manager and a politician . He gives orders to fighters. Based on this video, Frsnks shouldn't have been promoted past Major General.
@El_Peto The "Peter" in question is Lawrence Peter the author of a book The Peter Principle that was, in part, a parody of the then growing genre of biz books. He argued that in an organistion people are promted based on impressive past experience until a point is reached where they are pomoted to a postion that they cannot perform, at which point promtion ceases.
Where did you serve with General Frank's? If you didn't how can you say he is incompetent, because some civilian told you that never served a day in his life . If you served under him speak, if you didn't shut the fuck up civilian
Well there have been several Brigade and Division Commanders, who didn't work out as Corps or Army Commanders. You can go all the way back to the American Civil War to see how history writes about the failures of these Colonels and Generals of the past.
Tommy graduated OCS at Robinson Barracks. Every week OCS candidates would perform a "Jark" that consisted of running to the top of MB3 (Medicine Bluffs 3) to pour out their canteens on the top. Medicine Creek bluffs overlook Medicine Creek where Geronimo famously tricked a troop of Cavalry that was chasing him to plunge off a 300 foot drop while supposedly shouting his name leading to the Airborne tradition. Franks was the Assistant Commandant of the US Field Artillery School and one of his favorite sayings while speaking to groups was: "I'm as serious as two dogs fucking!". Quite a character. 3:28 Charlie Taylor worked for me in 1990 in the Directorate of Combat Developments; he was the Meteorological expert for the Field Artillery...great guy.
@@paladin0654 As a retired Marine, I have to say that I respect the man. Had never heard of him before Iraqi Freedom and I was a fan of Schwartzkopf as I was in Desert Storm. To me, Tommy ranks up there with the great ones. Semper fi
Franks ruled by fear and intimidation. He fired people constantly but then acted as if nothing happened. He did everything he could to pin things on his subordinates. Thus, his own (careerist) senior staff would rule by fear. They also passed blame down, paralyzing the staff. I was the strategy chief for the air campaign during OEF and dealing with Franks and his staff was a literal nightmare. Then we actually met Franks. I could tell stories for days about that surreal experience. He was a classic 100% careerist general. He was a sycophant to his superiors, knee-capped his peers, and tyrannized his subordinates. Had zero clue about the war. Zero. I briefed him several times when he came to the field… He was the anti-Schwarzkopf. 😢
@@andrewschliewe6392I was in 2ID from 1996-1997 when he was our CG. My Recon Platoon won the Division distinguished plation award, so we were supposed to go meet him and eat some special meal. We flew down there from the DMZ if I recall, and he never showed up. They didn't know what to do with us, so it was a big flop. From his Division indoctrination video, I really got the impression that he was incompetent. He had this stupid officer catch-all phrase that careerists tend to adopt, and his was, "Uh, I got a haircut, and I got a real job." It was embarrassing.
Interesting post; thanks for sharing, as always. I recently finished listening to Eisenhower’s “Crusade in Europe.” What a contrast to Franks. We’re a country of hundreds of millions of citizens, and Franks is the best we can muster for such an important role? It’s almost criminal.
I breifed him on the Patriot radar system in Kuwait shortly before or after 9/11. Received a coin from him. One of my favorite modern generals. His early background is very familiar. Thanks for putting this together.
18:18 Not to mention Schwarzkopf was literally a genius. It makes sense that among his staff at least, he'd get frustrated or furious with them if they couldn't understand the pace he was thinking at. Franks was no Schwarzkopf.
Franks, was not a very stellar officer. In Iraq he let looters take countless amounts of antiquity stating he wasn’t a policeman, most of which haven’t yet been recovered. When in charge take charge.
He fired all the policeman and the Iraqi army. Even the part that wasn't the lunatic Republican Guard. What do you expect when there are np cops or soldiers at prevent crime and the Americans who caused the whole mess kept yelling. "but we're not policemen".
I was on the CENTCOM staff when GEN Franks took command from Gen Zinni. IMO, he treated his flag officers (generals and admirals) poorly, often berating them in front of their subordinates. He had no diplomatic polish. None. He treated field grade, company grade, and enlisted troops better. In GEN Hugh Shelton’s autobiography, he talks about cautioning Franks against skipping the “tank” (consulting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and collaborating directly with Rumsfeld, but he ignored that advice.
Sounds like he was promoted beyond his capabilities. He would have been better off at a lower rank, further from the political considerations and closer to the front line. Just because you are good at being a colonel doesn't mean you'll be good at being a general.
Schwartzkopf was Schwartzkopf. Franks was a self-created facade of the swaggering foul-mouthed genius general stereotype. The image was not the real thing. The guy who said he was promoted beyond his competence got it right.
That he is named in the same sentence as Schwartzkopf, is wild.. Mattis and Schwartzkof , sure Westmooreland and Franks, sure Franks charged 100.000 USD to lend his name to a charity to raise funds for wounded veterans he got money to raise money for the men he ordered in battle and got wounded. And it was a shitty charity that was run by a guy who used the charity to fund his own lifestyle Franks is 1 a piece of shit (getting money for it) 2 a dumbass (shitty charity) Franks and Schwartzkopf in the same sentence, no, in the same paragraph, is just wrong
Franks was to be blunt a real loser in Desert Storm. In his book Schwartzkopf was extremely critical at how timid he was. If he had really been on the ball it would have ended quicker. The fact that he got promoted afterwards and even given another command just goes to show how ass kissing always wins in the end
He spoke at my graduation from the Infantry Officer Basic Course most of my class were from a recent OCS class and almost everyone were Desert Storm vets. They did not have a good opinion of him and several brought up the airfield incident where Franks got his assed chewed out for failing to secure it prior to Shwarzkopf’s landing. I later worked for that General that does the retirement home commercials you sometimes would see on late night tv. He was actually a nice down to earth guy.
I first met GEN Franks when he was the Artillery Bde commander in 1st Cav in 1989 and saw him frequently from then until the end of Desert Storm, so I get chuckle out of GEN Tilleli's comment at 6:07, as GEN T couldn't get him out of the division fast enough. Franks was then my division commander in Korea for a bit. Franks was many things, but "bold audacious risk taker" are not words I associate with him. His aversion to risk likely resulted in the US missing a chance to get Bin Laden in fall 2001. Franks had some impediments to success in Iraq that Schwartzkoff didn't have, but perhaps the worst was the fact that we had already established the date for his change over of command of CENTCOM. As such, I can only rate Franks on the invading Iraq, the post invasion activities were on his replacement. The worst decision of the Iraq War was disbanding the Iraqi military, that happened after Franks left.
In the first Persian Gulf War, Franks kept halting his armored brigades for fuel and resupply. The problem was that he would stop all the advancing columns instead of refitting one and leaving the others on the move. We had ground and air superiority so there shouldn’t have been a problem with supplies and fuel following the brigades, and having a section stop, and the rest continue. It delayed the 100 hour offensive in the middle unnecessarily.
Wrong Franks! You are referring to 7th Corps Commander Frederick Franks, Brigadier General Franks was Assistand Division Commander for 1st Cavalry Division back then.
We need to stop lauding senior officers who fight from the front. Bravery is fine and, naturally, desirable in a military man, but it is not the job of a General to fight from the front. Placing themselves there means abandoning their wider responsibilities and makes it harder to command from a big picture perspective and maintain an accurate information picture.
Russian generals notoriously tried to lead from the front in the battle for Kyiv while trying to untangle the traffic jam they caused and Ukrainian snipers had a field day because of that
@@kontenterrorist2449 True but that was mostly because of the Russian army’s incredibly poor organisation, discipline and leadership structure, senior officers HAD to lead from the front to get anything done because graft and incompetence is part of the organisation, maybe less now but still a lot
I will respectfully say that you know nothing about military operations and leadership in general. The reality is that the US military hasn't had a "lead from the front" General in the last 30 years. If one exists, I never heard of him. The system of officer evaluation and promotion that's been in place since at least the 1960s doesn't favor those types of leaders and the bureaucratic systems built within the military since the 1990s certainly don't facilitate that style of leadership. In fact, it promotes keeping the Generals in the rear waiting on their daily intelligence briefs to keep them informed. I don't think our record in the last 30 years demonstrates that as being a great system, but thats my opinion. Aside from the positive influence soldiers gain by knowing their leaders are willing to share their hardships there are things far more important to consider. You mention that they need to focus on the greater picture. That is true, but if they don't periodically go "to the front" to see for themselves what is really happening then they will never know the realities of the situation. You can't simply blindly rely on the reports of your subordinate commanders for the real pictureof whatt is happening. There's a couple reasons for this. You are dealing with people who have their own strengths and weaknesses, not to mention their own fears and hopes. There are circumstances in battle where one commander may hold the opinion that he faces an insurmountable enemy to his front, but another commander may hold the opposite opinion. Either one could be the one that is correct. It's the job of the senior commander to know his subordinates and gain an understanding of how they view their world. Then he can access if one is the type that needs to kick in the pants to keep going or another is the type that needs to be pulled back from time to time. The other reason, and the one that I witnessed countless times personally as a US Army officer is that if the senior leaders never "go to the front" the subordinate leaders eventually realize that they can simply lie in their reports to higher regarding what is actually happening on the ground. This is, unfortunately, far too common. This is how you end up with Generals briefing the White House and Congress that the Iraqi Military or the Afghan military is ready to stand on its own two feet and then both collapsed within a short time. The Iraqi military was swept aside by Isis and the Afghan military basically handed itself over to the Taliban within days. Everyone from battalion commanders and staffs all the way to the Pentagon are caught up in bending the truth and ignoring reality. I know because I was hip deep in the middle of it. It was mind boggling then, but even more so once I got out and had a chance to reflect on how much we just lied to ourselves! This is how everything collapses like a house of cards when we step away from something.
@@clarkenoble in finland we had a german model of officers leading in the front in ww2, but we fairly quickly abandoned that, because our high ranking officers kept getting killed - and you cant replace them just like that. sure in lower level conflict like Iraq and afghanistan it would be much safer & smarter for higher rankings to go check things on the front - but not when you are against near peer opponent and casualties are in the hundreds of thousands in 1 year, rather than 10000 in 20 years. iraq war had 4500 dead usa soldiers and 32000 wounded in 20 years, afghanistan had 2400 dead and 20000 wounded in 20 years. thats one battle in ukraine. i think russians use even generals so close to front lines, because not only does every subordinate lie, but they are not allowed to make flexible decisions on their own.. not for, erm, morale boost and knowing his subordinates better reasons. ukrainian sources claimed that 16 russian generals and 1 admiral had been killed during the invasion, while russian sources have confirmed 7 deaths.
I do wander how it would have gone in Schwarzkopf and Franks had been swapped. Would Schwarzkopf been more able to deal with the Sec. Def. meddling or less?
Really great episode. BTW, that book mentioned in the video “Fiasco” is a really sober and intelligent look into the last few decades of American involvement in the Middle East. I’d recommend it to anybody wanting to know more about the topic.
11:20 That's not as bad as a Wing Safety briefing we had to attend on F.E. Warren A.F.B. in 1981. They decide that to engage our attention, having someone come onto the stage in a Darth Vader costume and address us with a Darth Vader voice was a good idea. While it might have been appropriate for a comedy skit, all I could think the whole time was "So they think of us as little children needing to be entertained." It was embarrassing and ridiculous.
Franks complained of insufficient men, but left the 4th Infantry Division in Turkey. In Iraqi Storm he had much of his armored force sleeping while the covering force was in battle.
Id bet he knew that rumsfeld would have blocked the redeployment. Rumsfeld was obsessed with having as few troops as possible in Iraq for political reasons. He tried to micromanage Iraq and look how it worked out.
@@davidporter7051 Well do only thing to do was deployed them after logistically sending them to Kuwait and join the operations, months after. Possibly had the assumption Turkey would’ve allowed them to attack from the north, assumed wrong of course. Better had justbelf the airborne forces done its thing and move the division elsewhere but, it’s done.
@@davidporter7051 Well if Rumsfeld wasn't so obsessed with as small a troop footprint as possible Franks would probably have tried to redeploy them. However Rumsfeld was desperate to micromanage Franks and probably annoyed everyone in the process. As a Brit I don't blame Franks for the issues the invasion faced I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt. His comment regarding casualties was probably a result of stress of dealing with Rumsfeld. My father who served in the British army regarded Rumsfeld as a complete moron.
It's weird reading the comments of an old divarty commander. Each experience is different. But this general was my general. My experience was positive and the man was a soldiers' general during my time. Nothing but respect. On the Minute. Deep Strike.
I hate to make corrections because I know it can make creators feel bad, especially when it's a small error in an otherwise flawless video. But I know you value accuracy and I haven't seen anyone else point it out so just a small note: at (7:34) the Cole was bombed in port Aden in Yemen, not Oman. I believe you've made videos about the event in the past so I know you probably know this already, I assume it was just a narration/script brain-fart. Love the channel (and The Operations Room!)
Franks was an excellent DivArty Commander in 1st CAV. He was selected for BG to be a Corps Artillery Commander. This position is generally a terminal Brigadier General position, unless selected as a Deputy Corps Commander as a Major General. Franks was serving as 1st CAV Chief of Staff as a COL (P) when 1st CAV was unexpectedly alerted for service in the KSA and was re-directed to be the ADC-M for 1st CAV. It is unlikely that Franks would have been promoted above BG had he served as a Corps Artillery Commander as he was programed to become. Tommy Franks was probably an accidental Four Star General. Sometimes opportunity knocks . . . .
Franks should have been relieved of command after not giving a shit about casualties A lot of his mistakes could be excused, but a general should never dismiss the deaths of his/her subordinates
After reading the book “Cobra II”, I believe that Gen Franks had every right to retire and voice his grievances with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld OIF plan. It was war on the cheep and for profit that ran counter to all of Gen Frank’s experience and knowledge. But… because he chose to stay in the fight and lead US and coalition forces knowing the plan was horrific and disastrous, he saved lives and gave forces a fighting chance. He didn’t have to… he chose to - that’s all you need to know about Gen Franks and his commitment, devotion, character, and selflessness. Im proud to have served under his leadership and would gladly and proudly serve under it again.
I can think of one damn fine battalion commander I knew who was ruined by moving up to brigade command and beyond. Theres quite a lot of 3 and 4 star generals around that fit the saying "His promotions exceeded his talent." Franks and Schwartzkopf shouldve never gone past division level where they were better suited. And dont even get me started on Rumsfelds hard rock "zero defect" never-ever-admit-an-error policy.
He worked to "make the army smaller faster and more lethal". Except that, as soon as the Iraq campaign unfolded, it turned out that the US Army lacked the mass to successfully conduct its mission; leading to horribly damaging policies like the abuse of "stop-loss". So, if Franks had any responsibility for that, then he was a negative influence, not a positive one. As a commander, he was timid, risk averse, a "Yes-Man" bowing to the demands of Rumsfeld rather than standing tall and actually pushing for what the army needed, and lashing out at his subordinates because he lacked the courage and integrity to stand up to Rumsfeld. A true mediocrity. Immature. Childish. A moral Coward. A true peer of "Betrayue Petraeus",
Reading Thomas Ricks Book: The Generals, Tommy Franks was the exact kind of General the Army created after the debacle of Vietnam because they, among other reasons, stopped thinking about strategy and national interest and became focused on, how can I get my next promotion/big paycheck.
i have his book i read it his career is very fascinating and he was assign in korea as a Bridger general commander in chief of Central Command (Centcom; 2000-03), led U.S. forces in the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (2001) and of Ṣaddām Ḥussein in Iraq (2003). The General's awards include five Distinguished Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, four Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts in addition to numerous foreign awards. He is a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. In 2004, President George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. General Franks retired on July 7, 2003 after a change of command ceremony in Tampa, Florida.
All I know is that when I served in Iraq, Franks did not even know where the enemy was. He hoarded the Theater assets and Armor around Baghdad when the enemy actually had moved to Al Anbar. Only until Petraeus and Mattis replaced him were we able to win the military portion of the war and turn it over to the politicians. I hear Franks was a nice guy, but Saddam's Baathists ran rings around him.
I think Tommy Franks was a General of his time. A lot of officers got flack for being absolutely ruthless and understanding the art of war during that conflict.
Sounds like it might have been too much for him, in that he should have been a division or corps commander at the most. Plus, he couldn't handle the pressure from Rumstead.
I still have a letter from Gen Franks after I sent over 10,000 small culturally appropriate toys that could fit in a BDU hip pocket for my Eagle Scout Project. He thanked me for helping win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and congratulated me on becoming an Eagle Scout. One of my favorite souvenirs of my childhood
This whole stories legit cool.
What were the toys like?
@AGenericAccount mostly stuffed animals like small teddy bears and beanie babies. A lot of stuffed animals from happy meals and such. We filtered out toys for cultural sensitivity, so no pigs, religious toys, or monsters. I directed volunteers to make cutouts the exact size and shape of a BDU hip cargo pocket so people could test fit their toys before donating. We set up collection sites at churches, local sports stadiums, and I even got a collection site at the Georgia State Capitol and the CNN HQ building in Atlanta. My local State Congress Representative brought me on to the State Speaker podium to address the GA House of Representatives. Several Representatives took collection stations back to their home districts. My original goal was for 5,000 toys, but we ended up with over 10,000 toys being sent over to Iraq.
@@Forests0fFantasy that's really amazing and honestly very heartwarming. Kids anywhere would have loved those toys
What a great story!
I worked directly for General Schwarzkopf for close to a year when he got his first star. He was extremely intelligent, short tempered (did not suffer fools) and had an incredible sense of humor. He was loyal to his subordinates and superiors, respected by all and especially loved his family. It was obvious that he was destined for greater things in his career. It was a privilege, a pleasure and a learning experience to work for him.
"Franks lapsed into a string of obscenities when talking about Turkey"
Yeah, but who hasn't?
You got me, man 🤣🤣
❤
If you’ve been to Berlin, you’d understand.
Rejecting to participate in that disastrous and illegal invasion was one of the best decisions the Turkish parliament made in its history. The members valiantly refused to obey Erdoğan, who was eager to participate and co-invade with the Western powers. As a Turkish citizen, I am glad that our forces were not in Iraq when the shit-show started after the fall of Saddam.
@@baristhealienated But you must be mighty happy about the occupation of Cyprus and the annihilation of Armenia.
I think the real difference between the two men is that Schwarzkopf went into the war campaign as quickly as possible with little to no interference from politicians. while Franks was constantly harassed and annoyed by the sec of defence
Further Sec Def for Schwarzkopf was Cheney with Colin Powel running interference. Huge diff.
schwartzkopf had a far easier mission - get saddam out of kuwait; Franks was invading & faced a hostile population
Open desert vs Mountains and Cities. Which is a tougher job?
@@davidcraft4636 Schwartskopf's army fought at distance in the main - think of the tank 'battles' like 73 easting. The Iraqi tanks didn't even know they were there until hit - Contrast that with the insurgencies Franks & following Generals faced, where the majority of deaths came well after Bush declared 'victory'
I feel a lot of that had to do with the presidents in those wars. Geo. HW Bush laid out the overall goal of the war and allowed his generals to handle the military matters while his political subordinates addressed political matters. GW Bush allowed his political subordinates to interfere with military planning which caused a lot of problems. Desert Storm also had broad public support due in large part to the limited goal of driving Iraq back inside its borders versus regime change in OIF coupled with tossing out Iraq's civil service structure on a whim.
I briefly met Gen. Powell at an exercise in '89. I was a very young 1LT at the time. My impression was that senior leaders like him had little tolerance for someone trying to BS them. This was mostly done by an assortment of LTC's and COL's trying to "get ahead." A young LT like me and enlisted soldiers were treated on friendly terms even though I was scared to death. I remember him smiling after I tried to give an answer to a question. He knew I was petrified and seemed slightly amused.
Actually add Majors to that list. Those three ranks you are either Leadership of a Battalion or Brigade HQ. If you not in one of those position you serve as Staff Puke from Battalion to the Pentagon. All these Majors, LTC's, and Colonels are trying to get promoted up to next rank or become a Flag Grade Officer. Even then odds are likely you still will be Staff Puke in the system.
@@abbottshaull9831
I joined the Navy out of high school as an enlisted man. I separated at my 6 year point because I didn't like what I saw when looking farther up the chain. The officer corps and senior NCO corps held no appeal to me.
Regarding the strategy that CENTCOM had for Operation Iraqi Freedom, I can assure you it contained little post major combat operations planning. About 95% of the plan dealt with preparation and execution. Not more than 5% dealt with what happens afterwards, and it was lacking in detail. I say this because I worked on the OPLAN until my reassignment to the Pentagon in 2001.
When the major fighting is done, generals want to pack up the troops and send them home. They don't want to conduct counterinsurgency, repair what they broke, and rebuild the society. The problem is that no organization other than the US military comes close to having the tools and manpower necessary to do this thankless job. Rumsfeld was loathe to supply these capabilities up front to CENTCOM, and the generals did not want to engage in protracted nation building programs after Saddam was toppled. As a result, what we ended up with was a vacuum which our enemy gleefully exploited.
By chance have you ever seen the 2004 PBS Frontline documentary "Rumsfeld's War"?
I used to have a DVD recording of it.
Its one of the most brutally honest dissections of what happened.
It goes right into how Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others made EVERYONE else eat a giant shite sandwich that they then blamed on everyone else. Your point about no "afterwards plan" is laid bare. It exposes Douglas MacGregors role in the disaster and that POS (like all the others) has never been held accountable.
I think there's still a couple of copies here on YT but I dare not put in a link incase it gets pulled.
A channel named "whitley bollan" has a copy.
Old adage sums up the situation, "Fail to plan, Plan to fail".
Question: If you were at CENTCOM and that O-plan was being formed before you got moved in 2001, are you saying that the invasion of Iraq was already being planned before 2001 (i.e. before 9/11 and the subsequent "War On Terror")? Before Dubya even took power as POTUS ? (I suppose it matters when in 2001 you got reassigned. This video already stated that Rumsfeld & company were setting Iraq up in Nov. 2001.)
The rest I understand, the bit about armies not wanting to do nation-building / long-term occupation. People always point to post-1945 nation-building, but that seems to be the historical anomaly.
@@wyldhowl2821 No, every combatant command has contingency plans which are constantly being updated. These are divided into two types, operation plan (OPLAN) and concept plan (CONPLAN). The former is much more detailed than the latter and contains a TPFDD (Time Phased Force Deployment Data) which is a timeline for planning and executing each step of an operation. You are probably familiar with the term D-Day. This is the day (not a specified date) when the OPLAN is executed. If the planners believe it will take 180 days to pull resources together and deploy them, then operational planning will begin on D-180, with a day-by-day countdown of necessary activities until execution on D-Day, then continue with all necessary post D-Day activities that will occur on D+1, D+2, etc. There is nothing unusual or sinister about preparing for war or for battles when a nation is at peace. Indeed, it would be foolish in the extreme if a nation ignored its potential enemies and made no preparations in advance. For example, prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor we had Plan ORANGE which was designed to engage Japanese naval forces in a major battle and defeat them. The surprise attack left our fleet incapable of executing this plan, so the Navy had to start from scratch, which delayed our first major victory (the Battle of Midway) for six months. It is the same today with nuclear and conventional defense. Without some sort of feasibility study or more detailed plan in place, any attempt to react to a major event (natural or man-made) would have to reply on uncoordinated or poorly coordinated employment of forces and their supporting logistics. This is what happened during 911 and Hurricane Katrina, both of which I was heavily involved in the ad hoc response to. It is a recipe for disaster and the reason why the military follows the ancient Roman advice "Si vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war).
"repair what they broke, and rebuild the society. The problem is that no organization other than the US military comes close to having the tools and manpower necessary to do this thankless job. "
imagine thinking that. united nations have done that with their peacekeepers for ages. they have the expertise of rebuilding society, that all other armies lack.
UN peacekeeping missions are assessed to be generally successful. A book looking at 47 peace operations by Virginia Page Fortna of Columbia University found that UN-led conflict resolution usually resulted in long-term peace.[220]
Political scientists Hanne Fjelde, Lisa Hultman and Desiree Nilsson of Uppsala University studied twenty years of data on peacekeeping missions, concluding that they were more effective at reducing civilian casualties than counterterrorism operations by nation states.[221]
Georgetown University professor Lise Howard postulates that UN peacekeeping operations are more effective due to their emphasis on "verbal persuasion, financial inducements and coercion short of offensive military force, including surveillance and arrest", which are likelier to change the behavior of warring parties.[155]
though lise doesn't mention, and i would underscore, that UN also always utilizes local cultural and sociological experts in its planning, who want to keep the local customs and local tribal borders as they are, in optimal peaceful balance.
-
i think the whole OBL&taleban debacle was not a grand military operation at all, but a quiet behind-the-scenes fbi law enforcement&cia operation. a murder mystery to be solved, the conspiracy of where they got their extreme ideologue & financing from, rather than an instant large-scale invasion to multiple countries involving those countries militaries and civilian populations as a whole.
but then again, if usa had that kind of calm foresight, it would've just let the soviets deal with the taleban and nation-building all the way back in 1979.
soviet union at the time wasnt that foresighted either:
The concerns raised by the Chief of the Soviet Army General Staff, Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov who warned about the possibility of a protracted guerrilla war, were dismissed by the troika who insisted that any occupation of Afghanistan would be short and relatively painless.[112]
" Moscow ... tended to downplay the effects of an unpopular Communist government pursuing policies that the majority of Afghans violently disliked as a generator of the insurgency ... "
hm, sounds familiar.
another way is just installing a corrupt, authoritarian fascist puppet government clan leader that kills everyone it doesn't even slightly like, like russia put in Chechnya.
though what happens when the kadyrov clan leader dies, or russian money train to chechnyan clan leader dries up, or both at the same time, is another matter.
9:40 I can’t believe that’s an actual powerpoint slide lmao
Graphic design is my pashun
*Eagle screech*
everybody gangsta til the military powerpoints get trotted out
The American war aesthetic from the 2000's has been ironized so hard that we forget it was an actual thing being mocked lmao
Appreciate all of the work put into these videos
I remember being deployed multiple times from 02' to 05'. Not once in that time did I hear anyone say anything good about Gen. Franks aside from officers doing the whole "We are the best with the best leadership." Never really had much respect for him while I was in.
All you had to do was do your job and follow your lawful orders. No one cares if you respected a 4 star that you'd never meet ever so long as you kept it to yourself and just did your job.
@@johnroscoe2406 that goes without saying, sometimes. The point that Plaprad, is making is that, one, usually hears good or bad things about their commanding general, while under their command. Plaprad did not hear anything positiive.
The issue is that the US doesn't fire its generals anymore.
In WWII, the US dumped generals if outcomes were poor. It didn't take much to fire or reassign one either. This way, only the best personel for any particular campaign managed to keep their jobs. Now generals see their roles as ordained and untouchable. The incentive structure even leans towards perpetuating a conflict so they remain national figures. This is bad for the country.
No one was fired for the defeat in Afghanistan, for instance.
The US Navy had a similar problem during WW2. While some admirals were exemplary (Spruance, Fletcher, Lee, etc.), others were astonishingly incompetent but were given commands anyway.
The commander of multinational forces in Afghanistan, Gen Stanley McChrystal, was dismissed by US President Barack Obama after critical comments about senior administration officials.
Another important part of that was getting relieved from a command wasn't a career ending event, the Army/George Marshall would just find them a more suitable role. Also, relieved generals would sometimes even get command assignments again despite being relieved previously. This way Generals aren't too afraid to think outside the box or try new ideas which means the really talented Generals get noticed and further promoted. This especially applies to division commanders (Major Generals) and deciding who should get promoted to Corps and Army level positions. A division commander messing up may cause an attack to fail or excessive casualties. But a corps or Army level mistake can lose wars.
@timf2279 lol, yeah, that was perceived as a lack of loyalty to the regime, not incompetence
I really can't fathom the medals on the chests of these latter day US senior officers. Franks had seven rows. In my view, the greatest US admiral of WW2, who has to be credited with significantly ending the war in the Pacific, was Spruance. He fought in 3 wars and had four rows of medals. The last two rows included an occupation award and the others were from foreign countries. WTF??
Well, the National Meritorious Stapling Service award is crucially important. It’s awarded to senior staff who successfully staple 1000 reports at the correct angle in the upper left corner of the report. You really want an Army of leaders that can’t staple reports correctly? I know I cannot live in that world.
@c1ph3rpunk 🤣🤣🤣
😂The sarcasm is strong in this comment! Nice one.👍
Each of those rows have either two or three medals on them, 4 are awards from other countries (UK, South Vietnam, South Korea and Kuwait). Frank's Wiki page tells you what he got them for. Spruance only fought in 2 wars (and didn't do any combat in the first one, WW1).
A lot of awards nowadays are considered "Participation awards". I only have a few on my uniform I'd consider actually important. The rest I got for showing up.
> hard party-goer
> flunks out of school
> decides to enlist in an organization where discipline is key
That's quite the swerve
No, it's really not. The amount of men who have done the same would spin your head.
not that uncommon, but usually it's the parents who sent their sons to the military, hoping rigor of military would set their sons straight. And it often does.
There’s a big difference between a course that requires self-discipline (college) and one where discipline is forced upon you (the military).
Some folks thrive in the ordered world of the military. That’s why some of them fall apart after discharge. They can’t handle the chaos of civilian life.
it's not that surprising, setting and accomplishing academic goals can be harder then following combat orders for some
Well it doesn't sound like he had a problem with discipline, more that he just didn't wanna learn stuff he didn't care about
There so much noise and crummy content on UA-cam, in any category of content.
This video is the best produced, original, and informative content (abt an important topic no less) that I've seen in months.
My goodness, well done.
Thank you.
We had bin-Laden at Tora Bora, but Franks' decisions that day allowed him to escape sometime between 12 or 15 December 2001: He denied Gary Berntsen's request for a battalion of Rangers to block off the Pakistan exit from the Tora Bora mountains, instead over relying on local militia which Berntsen said allowed bin-Laden to escape and further denied Delta's requests to press the attack further into the mountain pass.
They NEVER wanted to catch Binladin.
Well, that fking sux balls!
I think the George W. Bush administration was scared US casualties would undermine the public support for war.
I spent 25 years in the US government. It is my opinion that the Bush Administration handled the Iraq conflict and the tense relationship with Iran with incompetence and even cowardice. The political leaders were directly responsible for the failures in the field.
Had no idea he started out as a Forward Observer. Makes me even more proud to be a FiSTer.
Lewd
Almost all canon officers in FA started out as FISTers, formerly FOs . . . .
Funny in his self reflection he realized how much of a lucky psychopath he was in his youth.
Who?
@@M16A1-nw4jyI’d imagine the guy the video is talking about.
@@matthewjones39 🤣 u right... u right
Sure Vladimir
@@douglaslamb7267 ???
OK, I get it. Franks did well enough until the 4th Star. He wasn't a good politicking General. He didn't want to be. By that time, his age and time in service were wearing on him. If he could have kept the stars, he'd probably been happier as a Battalion Commander or even less under his command.
Not a fast track officer.
@@timkincade9763 Yes he was. He was a 2 star General in early 1996 and 5 years later Cdr, CENTCOM. If that isn't fast track I don't know what is.
The Intel Report became one of my favorite channels pretty much from the start. It's this kind of stuff that we don't often get to learn about compared to the combat actions.
I've actually heard Schwartz could be very unlikeable to other officers and enlisted. His public image was not necessarily his private one.
The nickname "Stormin' Norman" was a reference to his temper, not a term of endearment from his troops.
I've heard that you never heard that.
You heard wrong re-EMs anyway. He did have a low tolerance for substandard officers. Here's my Schwartzkopf story- May 1990, Ft. Campbell KY. Burger King on main post. I have CQ on a Sat. My runner watches the desk as I go to BK- he'd been home to eat with wifey first. I'm in a booth eating my Whopper and a large shadow looms over me. I look up and there's this huge dude with 4 stars on that I'd never met in my life. I begin to stand but he waves me down and asks "Is your unit working today Sgt.?" He asks as I'm in BDUs. "No sir, I'm CQ, runner is watching the unit while I eat." He responded- "Ok, just checking. Men should have their time off. Your officers have 5 days a week to train you." With that he walked off. I shrugged and went back to my Whopper. Had no idea who he was. 2 months later I found out.
Flag officers aren’t there to be liked
@@Dog.soldier1950Doesn't mean you can't be tactful and stoic instead of irritable and quick to emotion, especially when the cameras aren't on.
If my memory serves me correct, after the capitulation of the Iraqi government, Franks ordered all Baathists (Saddam's party) be removed from positions of power, even low level, local functionaries. Unfortunately they were the only ones that new how to run the local government and infrastructure, such as the utilities, since they were the ones who had been doing it for the last 25 years. The country descended into chaos with no running water or electricity and much of local government left without competent leadership. You then saw anarchy, massive looting, and the locals turning against the Americans. This left a vacuum that would be filled by the Fedayeen, who restored some order and were then embraced by the locals. The insurgents now had a massive foothold and foundation from which to build on. If Tommy Franks paid attention to history he'd have seen that General George Patton, though heavily criticized for it, left low-level Nazis in power at the local government level after Germany's surrender. He did this because he knew that it was they who knew how to keep the electricity on and keep things from descending into anarchy. The failure of Franks to take that page from Patton's playbook may have been the cause of us being stuck in Iraq for several more years trying to quell the insurgency.
Not only that, Frank's believed he could conquer Iraqu on the cheap with only 75,000 troops and not realizing the cities and country side needed to be secured with "occupation " troops after the defeat of the Iraqi army. In other words he needed a force of at 150,000 if not more. This is what the Pentagon insisted, but Frank's disagreed. The chaos and insurgency that followed is a testament to his stupidity. Maybe that's why he retired so early, didn't want to clean up his own mess!
I think Franks was screwed by State,and they gave him the blame.
Paul Bremer is the one who banned them, not the military leadership. The military leadership actually wanted to use the mid and lower level Baath members to control the country after the government surrendered since these guys were not true believers but members as a way of social advancement. Bremer also did it without input from Washington which stuck everyone with this bad decision. So basically the civilian leadership in Iraq screwed it up.
I think that was Paul Bremer
Again this is part of the lack of planning of what would happen in Iraq after Iraqi Government capitulated. Then again lot of lessons we learned after WWII should have been applied, but when you try to run a Multiple Ring Circus with only one ring what do you expect to happen.
sounds like pretty much every toxic leader I ever ran into
sure toxic leaders earn 3 purple hearts. You sound like a pud.
Most officers are. I'm sure Patton and MacArthur were nightmares to work for.
In MacArthur's case, he was certainly a diva and high maintenance (and just a weird dude in general lol).
But he was FIERCELY loyal to "his guys."
After Halsey's bluder at Leyte Gulf that nearly destroyed the entire operation, MacArthur said the following:
“Leave the Bull alone, He's still a fighting admiral in my book.”
Agreed. During my 20 yrs, I only met a few flag rank officers who I would ever want to be near. I had to brief a few and it was never pleasant.
@@montevallomustang In Patton´s case, there was a brief debate on how tragic the accident really was. He rode his guys hard, and from what I read, was not a pleasant guy to be around,Like, at all. with not much of a fan club in his units. Fame from the outside, yes. "May God have Mercy on my enemies, because I won´t". He meant that. He wasn´t joking. Riding around WWII with Mother-of-Pearl plated Revolvers, genuinely believing you were the reincarnation of a roman emperor,.....I mean...
"Garbage in = garbage out" is a phrase to get used to if you want to look at these wars.
The comparison breaks down when you see what kind of tasks these generals were given to accomplish.
Schwartzkopf was handed one war which was justified, therefore had international support, and had a relatively clear & concise objective. His commanders were men who had been to war & understood it, so they did not fuck with his handling of it. And then they had the good sense to not try to stay in Iraq after the justification had run out.
Franks was handed two wars:
1) Afghanistan - justified by 9/11 which had support, but got undermined as the US political command took their eyes off the prize (finding & killing Bin Laden);
2) Iraq - the result of political bullshit, not justifiable at all and therefore had limited support (the US and a few morally gutless allies), and a more muddled objective (overthrow & occupy Iraq so the US could control it).
All these "analysis" videos all seem to gloss over the fact that the Iraq invasion was always predicated on bullshit, and quite likely unwinnable, no metter all these "if only he was like this, if only he had done that". 9/11 & Afghanistan got treated like an unwelcome diversion too, which must have drove Franks nuts. Those political commanders giving Franks his orders (mostly political & big business types) gave him the absurd task of justifying the unjustifiable, advancing their greedy political objectives without making them look bad, and winning in the most cost-conscious way possible (despite the fact that the whole Iraq war was a huge unnecessary expense & dollars & blood).
Maybe Franks could have done a little more of X and a little less of Y, but try to remember that the whole exercise was likely doomed from the outset, because the false reasons underlying the war could not be overcome.
It is kind of funny though, his being mad at the Turks. They do as lot of wrong things worth being mad at them about, but their decision over not getting involved in the Iraq invasion was the right thing, certainly from their own strategic perspective. Foolish of the USA to always expect other nations to discard their own strategic needs in favour of America's ambitions, doubly so that the US gets mad when they do not.
Your comment is very well put together.
To start, I think the channel doesn’t draw too much attention to the unjustifiable, politically-motivated imperialism surrounding the Iraq War because they don’t want to anger some demographics within the audience.
On your other point, even if different conditions and variables wouldn’t significantly alter the course of the war, I still think elucidating the impact of a leader’s attributes is worth while.
Well said
A good example of the working of the Peter Principle: a man promoted to his level of incompetence.
I'd say that's a bit unfair on Franks he probably had this attitude and made these slip ups. Because he constantly had to deal with the stress of that moron Rumsfeld constantly micromanaging him and telling him how to do his job.
@teabagtowers3823 It was not meant to be as unkind as it appears.
Frank's seems to have been a great fighting general.
The problem he had was that Lieutenant General is a planner, a manager and a politician . He gives orders to fighters.
Based on this video, Frsnks shouldn't have been promoted past Major General.
@El_Peto The "Peter" in question is Lawrence Peter the author of a book The Peter Principle that was, in part, a parody of the then growing genre of biz books.
He argued that in an organistion people are promted based on impressive past experience until a point is reached where they are pomoted to a postion that they cannot perform, at which point promtion ceases.
Where did you serve with General Frank's? If you didn't how can you say he is incompetent, because some civilian told you that never served a day in his life . If you served under him speak, if you didn't shut the fuck up civilian
Franks seems like he was a bit of a hot dog at times. Struggled to cut the mustard. Faced a bit of a grilling for his conduct.
Hahaha ha. Because his name is Frank.
I’m sure he relished his command.
Intel Analyst: the art of leading a horse to water and hoping to God they drink
Franks is another Westmoreland. A great brigade and division commander, but that was their limit.
Well there have been several Brigade and Division Commanders, who didn't work out as Corps or Army Commanders. You can go all the way back to the American Civil War to see how history writes about the failures of these Colonels and Generals of the past.
Westmoreland would probably be a legendary figure in the US Army had be retired before becoming a Four Star . . . .
Tommy graduated OCS at Robinson Barracks. Every week OCS candidates would perform a "Jark" that consisted of running to the top of MB3 (Medicine Bluffs 3) to pour out their canteens on the top. Medicine Creek bluffs overlook Medicine Creek where Geronimo famously tricked a troop of Cavalry that was chasing him to plunge off a 300 foot drop while supposedly shouting his name leading to the Airborne tradition. Franks was the Assistant Commandant of the US Field Artillery School and one of his favorite sayings while speaking to groups was: "I'm as serious as two dogs fucking!". Quite a character. 3:28 Charlie Taylor worked for me in 1990 in the Directorate of Combat Developments; he was the Meteorological expert for the Field Artillery...great guy.
"As serious as two dogs fucking." I'm stealing that...
@@scottw5315 I'm sure Tommy would approve.
@@paladin0654 As a retired Marine, I have to say that I respect the man. Had never heard of him before Iraqi Freedom and I was a fan of Schwartzkopf as I was in Desert Storm. To me, Tommy ranks up there with the great ones. Semper fi
@@scottw5315 Semper Fi!
I worked in CENTCOM HQ in staff for both Franks and his successor Gen. Abizaid. This video is flattering to Franks compared to the reality.
I worked in 2ID HQ when he was Div Commander in 95-96. Totally agree with your assessment.
Franks ruled by fear and intimidation. He fired people constantly but then acted as if nothing happened. He did everything he could to pin things on his subordinates. Thus, his own (careerist) senior staff would rule by fear. They also passed blame down, paralyzing the staff. I was the strategy chief for the air campaign during OEF and dealing with Franks and his staff was a literal nightmare. Then we actually met Franks. I could tell stories for days about that surreal experience. He was a classic 100% careerist general. He was a sycophant to his superiors, knee-capped his peers, and tyrannized his subordinates. Had zero clue about the war. Zero. I briefed him several times when he came to the field… He was the anti-Schwarzkopf. 😢
@@tommyrq180 Sounds about right.
@@andrewschliewe6392I was in 2ID from 1996-1997 when he was our CG. My Recon Platoon won the Division distinguished plation award, so we were supposed to go meet him and eat some special meal.
We flew down there from the DMZ if I recall, and he never showed up. They didn't know what to do with us, so it was a big flop.
From his Division indoctrination video, I really got the impression that he was incompetent. He had this stupid officer catch-all phrase that careerists tend to adopt, and his was, "Uh, I got a haircut, and I got a real job." It was embarrassing.
@@LRRPFco52 I was part of HHC, 2ID there at Camp Red Cloud. Luckily, i only had to do 11 months there, as a bncoc slot opened up.
Interesting post; thanks for sharing, as always.
I recently finished listening to Eisenhower’s “Crusade in Europe.” What a contrast to Franks. We’re a country of hundreds of millions of citizens, and Franks is the best we can muster for such an important role? It’s almost criminal.
I breifed him on the Patriot radar system in Kuwait shortly before or after 9/11. Received a coin from him. One of my favorite modern generals. His early background is very familiar. Thanks for putting this together.
18:18 Not to mention Schwarzkopf was literally a genius. It makes sense that among his staff at least, he'd get frustrated or furious with them if they couldn't understand the pace he was thinking at. Franks was no Schwarzkopf.
What a top-notch serious documentary you guys put together. I am looking forward to see your future content with even more dept.
Franks, was not a very stellar officer. In Iraq he let looters take countless amounts of antiquity stating he wasn’t a policeman, most of which haven’t yet been recovered. When in charge take charge.
He fired all the policeman and the Iraqi army. Even the part that wasn't the lunatic Republican Guard. What do you expect when there are np cops or soldiers at prevent crime and the Americans who caused the whole mess kept yelling. "but we're not policemen".
They never wanted to liberate Iraq. They wanted to destroy it.
Indifferent to casualties and better at tactical than strategic level? Are we talking about John Bell Hood?
"W" chose Franks because all the regular Army officers understood this was absolutely wrong and would end up in chaos and death with no good end!!
Your comment shows you are one of the few who really understood what is going on.
I was on the CENTCOM staff when GEN Franks took command from Gen Zinni. IMO, he treated his flag officers (generals and admirals) poorly, often berating them in front of their subordinates. He had no diplomatic polish. None.
He treated field grade, company grade, and enlisted troops better.
In GEN Hugh Shelton’s autobiography, he talks about cautioning Franks against skipping the “tank” (consulting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and collaborating directly with Rumsfeld, but he ignored that advice.
Sounds like he was promoted beyond his capabilities. He would have been better off at a lower rank, further from the political considerations and closer to the front line. Just because you are good at being a colonel doesn't mean you'll be good at being a general.
Schwartzkopf was Schwartzkopf. Franks was a self-created facade of the swaggering foul-mouthed genius general stereotype. The image was not the real thing.
The guy who said he was promoted beyond his competence got it right.
That he is named in the same sentence as Schwartzkopf, is wild..
Mattis and Schwartzkof , sure
Westmooreland and Franks, sure
Franks charged 100.000 USD to lend his name to a charity to raise funds for wounded veterans
he got money to raise money for the men he ordered in battle and got wounded.
And it was a shitty charity that was run by a guy who used the charity to fund his own lifestyle
Franks is 1 a piece of shit (getting money for it) 2 a dumbass (shitty charity)
Franks and Schwartzkopf in the same sentence, no, in the same paragraph, is just wrong
Franks was to be blunt a real loser in Desert Storm. In his book Schwartzkopf was extremely critical at how timid he was. If he had really been on the ball it would have ended quicker. The fact that he got promoted afterwards and even given another command just goes to show how ass kissing always wins in the end
He spoke at my graduation from the Infantry Officer Basic Course most of my class were from a recent OCS class and almost everyone were Desert Storm vets. They did not have a good opinion of him and several brought up the airfield incident where Franks got his assed chewed out for failing to secure it prior to Shwarzkopf’s landing. I later worked for that General that does the retirement home commercials you sometimes would see on late night tv. He was actually a nice down to earth guy.
I first met GEN Franks when he was the Artillery Bde commander in 1st Cav in 1989 and saw him frequently from then until the end of Desert Storm, so I get chuckle out of GEN Tilleli's comment at 6:07, as GEN T couldn't get him out of the division fast enough. Franks was then my division commander in Korea for a bit.
Franks was many things, but "bold audacious risk taker" are not words I associate with him. His aversion to risk likely resulted in the US missing a chance to get Bin Laden in fall 2001.
Franks had some impediments to success in Iraq that Schwartzkoff didn't have, but perhaps the worst was the fact that we had already established the date for his change over of command of CENTCOM. As such, I can only rate Franks on the invading Iraq, the post invasion activities were on his replacement. The worst decision of the Iraq War was disbanding the Iraqi military, that happened after Franks left.
In the first Persian Gulf War, Franks kept halting his armored brigades for fuel and resupply. The problem was that he would stop all the advancing columns instead of refitting one and leaving the others on the move. We had ground and air superiority so there shouldn’t have been a problem with supplies and fuel following the brigades, and having a section stop, and the rest continue. It delayed the 100 hour offensive in the middle unnecessarily.
Wrong Franks! You are referring to 7th Corps Commander Frederick Franks, Brigadier General Franks was Assistand Division Commander for 1st Cavalry Division back then.
Different Franks. Tommy Franks is not the same as Fred Franks. Tom Clancy co-wrote a biography about/with Fred Franks. Good read.
These generals now days can't hold a candle to the generals in WWII.
We need to stop lauding senior officers who fight from the front. Bravery is fine and, naturally, desirable in a military man, but it is not the job of a General to fight from the front. Placing themselves there means abandoning their wider responsibilities and makes it harder to command from a big picture perspective and maintain an accurate information picture.
Russian generals notoriously tried to lead from the front in the battle for Kyiv while trying to untangle the traffic jam they caused and Ukrainian snipers had a field day because of that
@@kontenterrorist2449
True but that was mostly because of the Russian army’s incredibly poor organisation, discipline and leadership structure, senior officers HAD to lead from the front to get anything done because graft and incompetence is part of the organisation, maybe less now but still a lot
I will respectfully say that you know nothing about military operations and leadership in general.
The reality is that the US military hasn't had a "lead from the front" General in the last 30 years. If one exists, I never heard of him. The system of officer evaluation and promotion that's been in place since at least the 1960s doesn't favor those types of leaders and the bureaucratic systems built within the military since the 1990s certainly don't facilitate that style of leadership. In fact, it promotes keeping the Generals in the rear waiting on their daily intelligence briefs to keep them informed. I don't think our record in the last 30 years demonstrates that as being a great system, but thats my opinion.
Aside from the positive influence soldiers gain by knowing their leaders are willing to share their hardships there are things far more important to consider.
You mention that they need to focus on the greater picture. That is true, but if they don't periodically go "to the front" to see for themselves what is really happening then they will never know the realities of the situation.
You can't simply blindly rely on the reports of your subordinate commanders for the real pictureof whatt is happening. There's a couple reasons for this.
You are dealing with people who have their own strengths and weaknesses, not to mention their own fears and hopes. There are circumstances in battle where one commander may hold the opinion that he faces an insurmountable enemy to his front, but another commander may hold the opposite opinion. Either one could be the one that is correct. It's the job of the senior commander to know his subordinates and gain an understanding of how they view their world. Then he can access if one is the type that needs to kick in the pants to keep going or another is the type that needs to be pulled back from time to time.
The other reason, and the one that I witnessed countless times personally as a US Army officer is that if the senior leaders never "go to the front" the subordinate leaders eventually realize that they can simply lie in their reports to higher regarding what is actually happening on the ground. This is, unfortunately, far too common.
This is how you end up with Generals briefing the White House and Congress that the Iraqi Military or the Afghan military is ready to stand on its own two feet and then both collapsed within a short time. The Iraqi military was swept aside by Isis and the Afghan military basically handed itself over to the Taliban within days.
Everyone from battalion commanders and staffs all the way to the Pentagon are caught up in bending the truth and ignoring reality. I know because I was hip deep in the middle of it. It was mind boggling then, but even more so once I got out and had a chance to reflect on how much we just lied to ourselves! This is how everything collapses like a house of cards when we step away from something.
@clarkenoble this sounds diabolical. 😮
@@clarkenoble in finland we had a german model of officers leading in the front in ww2, but we fairly quickly abandoned that, because our high ranking officers kept getting killed - and you cant replace them just like that. sure in lower level conflict like Iraq and afghanistan it would be much safer & smarter for higher rankings to go check things on the front - but not when you are against near peer opponent and casualties are in the hundreds of thousands in 1 year, rather than 10000 in 20 years.
iraq war had 4500 dead usa soldiers and 32000 wounded in 20 years, afghanistan had 2400 dead and 20000 wounded in 20 years. thats one battle in ukraine.
i think russians use even generals so close to front lines, because not only does every subordinate lie, but they are not allowed to make flexible decisions on their own.. not for, erm, morale boost and knowing his subordinates better reasons. ukrainian sources claimed that 16 russian generals and 1 admiral had been killed during the invasion, while russian sources have confirmed 7 deaths.
"The Vietnam thing is pretty exciting" is CRAZY
wouldve been better as a special forces officer. didn't seem to have the patience for the grand strategy.
The world is a better place without Donald Rumsfeld.
As well as without McNamara
Now there's a man who was promoted way beyond his abilities.
He ranks with Robert McNamara and Dick Chaney as a bad SecDef.
@@AlanToon-fy4hg there are lots of dicks in the us state departments but Chaney is one of the biggest
Political appointees that think they know more than professional soldiers.
I do wander how it would have gone in Schwarzkopf and Franks had been swapped. Would Schwarzkopf been more able to deal with the Sec. Def. meddling or less?
I doubt Cheney as Sec Def was less meddling than Rumsfeld.
@@TheIndianaGeoffactually… that’s quite an interesting statement 🤔 both sec defs had almost the same psychopathic tendencies
Schwarzkopf was fortunate to have Powell as an intermediary.
I am a soldier in South Korea.
1995
He is a head commander.
Really great episode. BTW, that book mentioned in the video “Fiasco” is a really sober and intelligent look into the last few decades of American involvement in the Middle East. I’d recommend it to anybody wanting to know more about the topic.
Your description of Franks reminds me so much of your description of Monty.
Notice he blew town soon after the invasion? He knew we did not have nearly enough troops
Thanks Ops Room!
11:20 That's not as bad as a Wing Safety briefing we had to attend on F.E. Warren A.F.B. in 1981. They decide that to engage our attention, having someone come onto the stage in a Darth Vader costume and address us with a Darth Vader voice was a good idea. While it might have been appropriate for a comedy skit, all I could think the whole time was "So they think of us as little children needing to be entertained." It was embarrassing and ridiculous.
He’s my patient. Fascinating man.
Interesting as always!
USS Cole was attacked in Yemen, not Oman.
Franks was a product of the Peter Principle. Once you understand this principle so much insanity makes perfect sense.
Franks complained of insufficient men, but left the 4th Infantry Division in Turkey. In Iraqi Storm he had much of his armored force sleeping while the covering force was in battle.
And? It's not like Turkey would allow its soil to be used as a staging area to invade Iraq.
Id bet he knew that rumsfeld would have blocked the redeployment.
Rumsfeld was obsessed with having as few troops as possible in Iraq for political reasons. He tried to micromanage Iraq and look how it worked out.
@@davidporter7051 Well do only thing to do was deployed them after logistically sending them to Kuwait and join the operations, months after. Possibly had the assumption Turkey would’ve allowed them to attack from the north, assumed wrong of course. Better had justbelf the airborne forces done its thing and move the division elsewhere but, it’s done.
@@TheRandCrews you can't just redeploy an entire Division during an invasion. There simply isn't a logistical possibility
@@davidporter7051 Well if Rumsfeld wasn't so obsessed with as small a troop footprint as possible Franks would probably have tried to redeploy them. However Rumsfeld was desperate to micromanage Franks and probably annoyed everyone in the process.
As a Brit I don't blame Franks for the issues the invasion faced I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt. His comment regarding casualties was probably a result of stress of dealing with Rumsfeld. My father who served in the British army regarded Rumsfeld as a complete moron.
Brilliant analysis as always. While I agree Gen Franks played his role in the failures of OIF, I hold Cheney and Rumsfeld responsible.
It's weird reading the comments of an old divarty commander. Each experience is different. But this general was my general. My experience was positive and the man was a soldiers' general during my time. Nothing but respect. On the Minute. Deep Strike.
I was on the fence but the rational turk hatred is very sympathic.
Fun watch. I knew Tommy as a peer when we were majors/lt colonels at the Pentagon and Fort Hood.
I hate to make corrections because I know it can make creators feel bad, especially when it's a small error in an otherwise flawless video. But I know you value accuracy and I haven't seen anyone else point it out so just a small note: at (7:34) the Cole was bombed in port Aden in Yemen, not Oman. I believe you've made videos about the event in the past so I know you probably know this already, I assume it was just a narration/script brain-fart. Love the channel (and The Operations Room!)
Franks was an excellent DivArty Commander in 1st CAV. He was selected for BG to be a Corps Artillery Commander. This position is generally a terminal Brigadier General position, unless selected as a Deputy Corps Commander as a Major General.
Franks was serving as 1st CAV Chief of Staff as a COL (P) when 1st CAV was unexpectedly alerted for service in the KSA and was re-directed to be the ADC-M for 1st CAV. It is unlikely that Franks would have been promoted above BG had he served as a Corps Artillery Commander as he was programed to become.
Tommy Franks was probably an accidental Four Star General. Sometimes opportunity knocks . . . .
Franks should have been relieved of command after not giving a shit about casualties
A lot of his mistakes could be excused, but a general should never dismiss the deaths of his/her subordinates
"Well, the Vietnam thing is pretty exciting".... I think I never read a sentence like that in that context lol
I never realized Gen. Franks was prior enlisted.
BOTH on the question! Why is this a question? He was just a man.
After reading the book “Cobra II”, I believe that Gen Franks had every right to retire and voice his grievances with the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld OIF plan. It was war on the cheep and for profit that ran counter to all of Gen Frank’s experience and knowledge.
But… because he chose to stay in the fight and lead US and coalition forces knowing the plan was horrific and disastrous, he saved lives and gave forces a fighting chance.
He didn’t have to… he chose to - that’s all you need to know about Gen Franks and his commitment, devotion, character, and selflessness.
Im proud to have served under his leadership and would gladly and proudly serve under it again.
I can think of one damn fine battalion commander I knew who was ruined by moving up to brigade command and beyond.
Theres quite a lot of 3 and 4 star generals around that fit the saying "His promotions exceeded his talent." Franks and Schwartzkopf shouldve never gone past division level where they were better suited.
And dont even get me started on Rumsfelds hard rock "zero defect" never-ever-admit-an-error policy.
Excellent analysis
Franks was at his best as a Brigade Commander. Thomas Ricks book The Generals should be a must read for all junior officers in the US military.
He's dealing with people who wish to be in Teran like Chaney and Rumsfeld.
Isn't Central Command in Tampa, Fl?
I like this switch in content.
Great video! (I didn't even watch it yet).
What happened to Gen Franks? When 9 11 happened he said, " bin laden" ( wash Post) next day he was retired. He knew.
I always enjoy your analysis.
He was more afraid of losing than winning.
Imagine living on the same street as two seperate generals who invaded the same country.
Could not pray for better neighbors.
I think Centcom was in Tampa not Atlanta.
He worked to "make the army smaller faster and more lethal". Except that, as soon as the Iraq campaign unfolded, it turned out that the US Army lacked the mass to successfully conduct its mission; leading to horribly damaging policies like the abuse of "stop-loss". So, if Franks had any responsibility for that, then he was a negative influence, not a positive one. As a commander, he was timid, risk averse, a "Yes-Man" bowing to the demands of Rumsfeld rather than standing tall and actually pushing for what the army needed, and lashing out at his subordinates because he lacked the courage and integrity to stand up to Rumsfeld. A true mediocrity. Immature. Childish. A moral Coward. A true peer of "Betrayue Petraeus",
9:05 You can always get your guy another day. You can't un- un-alive your friends who had to leave over yet another dead end.
Randomly noticed the dude with the shades at 18:29 and 19:26 behind franks is the same guy. I'm guess head of security of generals or something?
Reading Thomas Ricks Book: The Generals, Tommy Franks was the exact kind of General the Army created after the debacle of Vietnam because they, among other reasons, stopped thinking about strategy and national interest and became focused on, how can I get my next promotion/big paycheck.
13:24 I desperately want to know what he said
Hold on, he showed his men from the film Gladiator Roman conquest of Germania scene ? I am getting information overflow here.
never understand how a us solider can go from comabt in vietnam to office jockeyt to then command an army
This would make a great movie
i have his book i read it
his career is very fascinating and he was assign in korea as a Bridger general
commander in chief of Central Command (Centcom; 2000-03), led U.S. forces in the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (2001) and of Ṣaddām Ḥussein in Iraq (2003).
The General's awards include five Distinguished Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, four Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts in addition to numerous foreign awards.
He is a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire. In 2004, President George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. General Franks retired on July 7, 2003 after a change of command ceremony in Tampa, Florida.
please make one abouth Eisenhower during WO2
The first row is all that matters and should easily tell you what kind of soldier he was.
All I know is that when I served in Iraq, Franks did not even know where the enemy was. He hoarded the Theater assets and Armor around Baghdad when the enemy actually had moved to Al Anbar. Only until Petraeus and Mattis replaced him were we able to win the military portion of the war and turn it over to the politicians. I hear Franks was a nice guy, but Saddam's Baathists ran rings around him.
Marshal Ney vs Marshal Berthier
Interesting.
I think Tommy Franks was a General of his time. A lot of officers got flack for being absolutely ruthless and understanding the art of war during that conflict.
fantastic work
Sounds like it might have been too much for him, in that he should have been a division or corps commander at the most. Plus, he couldn't handle the pressure from Rumstead.
They hate seeing new political rival
General become President isn't new and people LOVE voting General rather than Politician
The new American way of war will win battles but not the war.
If its against an insurgency yes. But if its a convention war its totally different.