criticize "General Tommy Franks for saying we had enough troops for the mission"

I believe that the mission Tommy Franks referred to was destroying Saddam's ability to conduct warfare and taking over the country. I think that everyone agrees pretty much with Franks' assessment. Though it would have been easier on the troops if we had more of them, they certainly proved that they were equal to that task.

Regardless, it has nothing to do with whether we have enough troops to provide security in Iraq now. This is a different mission.

Who are these idiots who think resources grow on trees?
Could be related to the idiots who think $130B and more than three years ought to be enough time to demonstrate that a "deployable" weapon system works.

What could we have actually accomplished if we had put that effort and cash into improving our ability to conduct "nation-building"?