"
"First, we should win the war in Afghanistan (search). Second, move to Somalia, which as he described was almost anarchy but with a substantial number of Al Qaeda (search) cells; then to Yemen. And that we should be very careful about Iraq, because our intelligence was so weak that we didn't know what we were getting into," Graham said.

Last week, Franks gave fellow Texan Bush a rousing endorsement in a speech at the Republican National Convention. Franks said he had seen in Bush's eyes "the courage to stand up to terrorists and the consistency necessary to beat them."
"
Of course, Franks isn't the commander in chief. He might make a good commander in chief, but he isn't. And like a good soldier, he offered his views, but also followed orders.
If Saddam had agreed to follow the cease fire agreement, we might have considered doing what Franks wanted.
I also think that Franks probably wouldn't suggest the Iraqi build up, because he couldn't know if Bush would, if needed, in fact pull the trigger [only President Bush could know whether he was willing to take the political risk of doing this]. And if Bush was ultimately unwilling to do this, then it would been a big mistake.
Obviously Sudan would have been easier from miltary prospective, but from a political and legal angle it would be a difficult sell. And as far as establishing a democracy in Sudan- that probably was less doable than with Iraq. The way I see it Iraq could easily become a more viable democratic state before Afghanistan. Iraqis are better educated. Iraqis have "some" tradition of democracy. They have a more secular tradition.
And what about the ex-patriots of Sudan which are in America- what are they saying? Iraq had a significant political party in America, which was pushing for changing the regime. And there is lots of other considerations- such as the politics in Africa. What do the Arab countries think and want- etc, etc.