I read General Tommy Franks' autobiography American Soldier with an open mind. Frankly, I encourage you to read it as a first hand account of how not to lead a military campaign- the book is a must-read for any leader interested in avoiding the same strategic mistakes. And ultimately, it is also a good (though biased) first hand account of the Afghani and Iraqi wars.

It is not that Franks was a maliciously bad leader- he was not. In fact, after reading his book I came away with the impression that Franks is what we would call a soldier’s soldier- he was a solid tactician and innovative combat leader. However, as CENTCOM Commander in Chief, he failed as a strategic leader. The difference between warfighting on the tactical and strategic levels is substantial- tactical leaders fight on a small, violent scale and must be courageous and decisive- strategic officers envision a war’s endstate and must remain patient and open-minded. Franks was not a strategic leader, and his book explains why.

One of the more telling episodes in the book is when he boasts about dismissing the opinions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (he seems to relish the moments he curses out fellow Generals- calling them “Title Ten Motherfuckers”). This immaturity masked in bravado led Franks to failure during the strategic planning phases of the war- he chronicles the dismantling of the Iraq war plans of his predecessor and appeared reticent to fully embrace even Rumsfeld’s vision.

It is remarkable that General Franks so vividly details the actions he took during the pre-war planning and mission execution. It is even more remarkable that he believes his conduct was in keeping with the long line of superb U.S. wartime generals. Upon completion of American Soldier you realize that Franks is not a bad man. He is a strong leader, but a victim to the downfall of many other strong leaders: hubris. General Franks may view himself in the lineage of Eisenhower or Patton; however after putting down his book I view him as a modern day Westmoreland.