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

AP ^ | Jul 10, 2003 | American Troops Could Be in Iraq Four Years From Now, Franks Tells Congress

[Kaslin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kaslin]

If I remeber correct Billy Jeff promised the the troops would only be until Christmas in Bosnia, and many Christmases have passed since he made the promise and they are still there

[Kaslin]

remeber =remember. Arrgh I hate it when I click the submit button to soon

[Support Free Republic]

50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund is then due. The team is about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopps them and decrees that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all,if the refunds are made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable!

Free Republic

Your donations keep us fighting liberals

[caltrop]

Didn't Dubya also promise to bring them home from Bosnia? If so, why are they still there?

[Larry Lucido]

Whatever it is, I bet it's less than the time we've been in Korea, Germany, etc.

[Kaslin]

Didn't Dubya also promise to bring them home from Bosnia? If so, why are they still there?

Not that I recall. There is no need to shift the blame to the president when it was Clinton who promised they would be only there for a short while. He is the one who didn't hold his promise

[AAABEST]

Whatever it is, I bet it's less than the time we've been in Korea, Germany, etc.

Thanks, I feel much better now knowing they'll be there tops 50 years.

[Kaslin]

Whatever it is, I bet it's less than the time we've been in Korea, Germany, etc.

Yep 58 years is quite a long time

[caltrop]

LOL Am I to understand you thought it was lousy idea under Clinton but that, because Bush has left them there, it's become a good idea? Dubya's been the Commander in Chief for some time now. Leaving the troops in Bosnia can only mean he's decided he wants them there.

[AntiGuv]

GWB: One of the problems we have in the military is we’re in a lot of places around the world and I mentioned one and that’s the Balkans. I’d very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can’t do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that, but I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground.

Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

[DoughtyOne]

That sums it up for me.

[Captain Kirk]

If the current slow post-war guerrilla war continues in Iraq at its current rate, the occupation will be far bloodier than the peacetime occupations of Korea and Germany

[caltrop]

That's for the quote. As you pointed out in the footnote, it was said 2 1/2 years ago. Since then we've committed a large part of our Army to Iraq and have smaller elements operating in Afghanistan. It seems to me we could get somebody in NATO to take over our small portion of the Bosnian mission. I'd think that would be particularly true if our requests for assistance in Iraq were being denied - as I gather they are.

[Prodigal Son]

If the current slow post-war

We haven't made it to "post" war yet.

[Larry Lucido]

Thanks, I feel much better now knowing they'll be there tops 50 years.

I hope it doesn't take 50 years to neutralize the ba'aths and the various foreign troublemakers (Syrians, Arabs, etc.). But if it was worth doing this in the first place, it's worth seeing through. Make it as hard as and painful as possible to ever try to pull off another massive terrorist attack against U.S. citizens.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Look, if troops are needed in Iraq to win the war on terror, then put 'em there. This President will not keep our troops there longer than needed...he isn't TheBentOne.

[AAABEST]

Make it as hard as and painful as possible to ever try to pull off another massive terrorist attack against U.S. citizens.

I didn't know that Iraq had pulled off a massive terrorist attack against the US, I missed that news. Leaving a large contingient in that s**thole is going to be hard and painful for us, and very expensive too. I realize taht we pick our hundreds of billions off trees nowadays, but still.

A speedy victory is the main object in war. If this is long in coming, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. - Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 2 : Waging War