Talk:Tommy Franks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


here is some info to add [1] if you are in the mood. Kingturtle 05:41 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of "military governor". It was not claimed that he had that official title (thus the lowercasing), but that was his de facto status until the civilian framework was set up. - Hephaestos 21:25 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The the word "defacto" is needed if the term is to be restored. The administration intentionally left such a title out and would disapprove of its use. I think using it is misleading and serves only to glorify the US. And ded he really didn't serve in capacity as a "governor"? Although the admistrator was responsible to him, was he really involved with reconstruction efforts or did he just coordinate the armed forces? I think the civilian administrator is the "acting governor" if you have to name one. --Jiang 21:45 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved here from Artillery Officer Candidate School Anjouli 21:01, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your biography of Gen Franks indicates he was commissioned following Artillery Officer Candidate School at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma in 1967,but this is not the correct name of the school, at least at that time. Until 1968, the Army had but one combat branch for Artillery but referred to its two combat roles as Field and Air Defense. The training school at Ft. Sill was called the US Army Artillery and Missile School. In June of 1968, the Army separated these roles into two separate combat branches: Field Artillery and Air Defense Artillery. At that time, the branch ensignia, two crossed cannons split by a missile was adopted by the Air Defense Artillery Branch, and the Field Artillery Branch reverted to the two crossed cannons that had preceded the introduction of its air defense role. Since General Franks was commissioned from OCS in 1967, before the split of Artillery into two branches, the correct title of the school from which he was commissioned at Ft. Sill at that time was The U.S. Army Artillery and Missile Officer Candidate School. And that's how all my documents read. James Snyder, Class 26-67. USAAMOCS.

Enron connection[edit]

Removed paragragh alleging Franks was Vice Chairman of Enron and resigned in 2001 because it is untrue. Original allegation was added by an anonymous contributor several months ago and since it apparently looked too outrageous even to him, it was modified several times the same day to "tone it down".

In 2001 Franks was an active serving officer in the US Army and as such would have been prohibited from holding any position in a private company.


Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack[edit]

I don't know where to cram this in to the page in a good way, but I'd like to add the info Tommy Franks predicted the end of free society if we're hit with another major terrorist attack. It's a pretty bold statement by a highly regarded public figure so I think it should be added in. Link: Full interview: Mastgrr 22:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"unraveling the fabric of our Constitution"[edit]

As of 12/29/05, this article states that Gen. Franks stated that:

“the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

The above quote is then characterized as one that suggests Franks somehow approves of such an "unraveling of the fabric of our Constitution." The article reads:

"Many people were outraged that a highly reguarded public official like Tommy Franks would say something that goes against the very thing that the army is fighting for: freedom."

It seems to me that this is exactly the opposite of Franks' intended meaning. His point is not one of "going against the very thing the army is fighting for: freedom," but rather that he rues the awful consequences of such an attack -- the loss of freedom which could ensue.


Barrage of redlinks early on, lack of wikifying later, and Strange Capitalization throughout. Sections could use a reworking, especially the section that contains a single quote. Isopropyl 18:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If you look at Marine Corps Generals, they seem to have a uniform formatting for personal information. This article should have that too. - 12:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Time" magazine vs. "Cigar Afficianado" magazine[edit]

Hey there, I noticed in the article that a very famous quote by Franks was attributed to TIME magazine. When the interview actually occurred, I recall reading it on the website of *Cigar Afficianado* magazine -- and that was quoted and excerpted on DOZENS of other websites at the time...

So I believe Time was simply referring to *that* interview. I can't find the original source anymore (it's been a few years!) so that is why I included a link to a video of Keith Olbermann reffering to it (notice he said nothing about TIME magazine!)

So can whoever reverted it please un-revert it, or BETTER YET, clean it up so it is matches the style of Wikipedia articles? I'm not as experienced as many of you... (PS: it was not a "test"!)

^ I agree with the above, see this Google search for other references pointing to C.A. being the origin of the quote:

People from Midland, Texas[edit]

This link is at the bottom of the page, but there is nothing in his biography that mentions any link to Midland.

If you READ his biography, you will see that he lived in Midland from mid-childhood through high school, graduating from High school there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would help if the article actually referenced his biography. This article is severely lacking in sources. Root4(one) 04:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Currently Living[edit]

Tommy Franks currently resides afew miles outside of Roosevelt, Oklahoma. Not Hobart as the article previously stated.

Editorial opinion Washington Post[edit]

Moved the editorial opinion from the Washington post from the article page to the discussion page since it is POV. " and operational commander when Bin Laden apparently escaped from Tora Bora.[1] " General Franks was operational commander for Afghanistan during the battle at Tora Bora. According to a Washington Post article by Barton Gellman and Thomas E. Ricks, Franks "misjudged the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to capture or kill al Qaeda's leader." Critics claim that he did not perceive problems at Tora Bora because he ran the war from Tampa, Florida.

These are recycled charges from the 2004 john kerry presidential campaign and as POV do not belong in the article itself-claffey27


charity allegations[edit]

Moved this following information to the talk page. It appears to violate NPOV since the dollar amount of reimbursement directly contradicts the amounts in the source and is written with a critical POV.

"Franks was paid $100,000 to endorse the Coalition to Support American Heroes, a veterans charity that Congressional investigators found to be ripping off donors and wounded veterans by using only about 25% of the money raised for veterans services. Harry Chapin, president of the Coalition to Support American Heroes, testified to Congress that the charity paid him and his wife salaries of $561,971 each, paid his $17,000 membership in a California golf club, reimbursed them for more than $340,000 in expenses for meals, hotels and entertainment, and purchased them $444,600 condominium in northern Virginia. Michael Hayes, chief of staff for Franks & Associates LLC, testified that "[General Franks] ended his support for the CSAH in late 2005 when he learned that the percent of money raised that was going to the troops was less than 85 percent, a figure which was then and remains today his critertia for supporting charitable organizations."[1]" Bayspatriot (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've rewritten this section with additional references, neutral tone of voice and insured the amounts matched the sources. Yes, it is a criticism. It is a common mistake to think that Wikipedia's core policy of WP:NPOV means "no" point-of-view. Instead:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

If you can find a reliable source that states, say, it was a good thing that Franks collected the money, then it should be added. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Ross, Brian (2008-01-17). "Gen. Tommy Franks Paid $100,000 To Endorse 'F' Veterans Charity". ABC News. Retrieved 2008-01-19. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

1965 or 1967?[edit]

At the beginning of one of the first paragraphs of the article it says he enlisted in 1965 yet in the infobox it says his years of service started in 1967. Do his years of being a lowly enlisted man not count? I'm changing this. If there's something wrong with this change it back but I think it's ridiculous.

Tora Bora?[edit]

There should be some mention of Franks' decisions in Afghanistan, especially during Tora Bora, when he chose to not send in US ground forces. This could be done under the military career section or even under the criticisms section, since many view his decision not to send troops in as resulting in Bin Laden's escape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tommy Franks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment by Thomas E. Ricks[edit]

In The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today Ricks writes that Franks bungled both Afghanistan and Iraq: "..This is not all the fault of Franks. He is best understood as exactly whar the post-Vietnam Army was trying to create, the natural and desired outcome of Gen DePuy's insistence on a tactical focus and the parallel repudiation of Gen. Cushman's call for a broader-minded, deeper-thinknig sort of superior officer. As Cushman later observed of Franks, "His development approached the ideal career pattern of senior officer development at that time." .."In [bungling] two wars in just three years, both he would illustrate the short-comings of the force built by DePuy. The post-Vietnam tendency of the American military to decouple political questions from military operations, and willingness of their civilian superiors to go along with that approach, were damaging in the 1991 war, which was a conventional conflict. But it became lethal to the American cause [in Afghanistan and Iraq]" (p398) Buckshot06 (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]