Anyone see Thomas Ricks on Meet the Press today?

[TayTay]

Mr. Ricks was a writer for the Washington Post (until he took a buyout last year) and has had some of the best reporting on Iraq and Afghanistan in the country. He wrote "Fiasco," one of the best books on the invasion of Iraq and the incredible screwups that spawned the insurgency and other troubles.

He has a new book coming out Tuesday that focuses on Iraq in 2006-2008, called "The Gamble"

Really interesting interview that I humble suggest you check out online: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29083534/page/5/

Excerpts:

MR. GREGORY: This was the first book, "Fiasco," about Iraq. It speaks for itself. And just to hold it up, this is the new book. It is "The Gamble." And here was something striking that you wrote from this book, looking forward now to President Obama and his leadership test: "2009 could prove to be a particularly difficult year in the war. `In many ways, the entire war was a huge gamble, risking America's future power and prestige on a war that, at best, is likely to be inconclusive,' commented Shawn Brimley, a former Canadian infantry officer who became a defense analyst at the Center for a New American Security. He predicted that Bush's gamble will force Obama into a series of his own gambles and trade-offs--between the war and domestic needs, between Iraq and Afghanistan, between his political base and his military. In sum, the first year of Obama's war promises to be tougher for America's leaders and military than was the last year of Bush's war." How so?

MR. RICKS: I think a lot of people back here incorrectly think the war is over. What I say in this book is that we may be only halfway through this thing. In fact, my favorite line in the book is the last line. Ambassador Crocker, a very thoughtful diplomat, says that the events for which the Iraq war will be remembered have not yet happened.

MR. GREGORY: You suggested--while the administration has said the surge was successful, undeniably violence has gone down, you suggested kick the can down the road. What do you mean?

MR. RICKS: Well, basically the surge succeeded military, failed politically. And that was its purpose; not just to improve security, but to create a political breathing space in which national reconciliation, in which major change could occur in Iraq that hasn't changed. What General Odierno says in the book--he's the U.S. commander there now. What Odierno says is that Iraqis, many of them use the breathing space we created to step backwards, to become more sectarian. They've become more divided.

MR. GREGORY: You talk about that relationship with the military, and this is going to be important. When--it was back in July of '08 when Senator Obama went with a couple of other senators for his first meeting with General Petraeus in Iraq. And here he is, he's getting off the helicopter and first seeing him. This was a rather contentious exchange, wasn't it?

MR. RICKS: It is. And it is one of my favorite moments in the book. Here you have Petraeus and Obama, who are in many ways similar guys; lean, smart, tough and vicious, more reserved than a lot of their peers. And they actually agree on a lot of where Iraq should be, of lowering our, our sights there and, and our goals. But the meeting in Baghdad was surprisingly contentious. It goes on for about 90 minutes, and essentially the general lectures Obama. And this feeling was, "I've been to your hearings. You guys have beat up on me. You kept on asking me questions and didn't give me time to answer. Now you're on my turf." And what should have been really a general with a candidate conversation became a 90 minute lecture by Petraeus: "Let me tell you about Iraq, fellow."

MR. GREGORY: Interesting. Who in the region won the war in Iraq, do you think?

MR. RICKS: If you had to call the ball right now, Iran, I think, is probably the biggest winner.

This is less than cheery stuff and there was more about the huge problems we face in Afghanistan/Pakistan. I recommend checking this out.

[YvonneCa]

1. I had this on this morning and heard it with...

...one ear :) only. I was on my way to my daughter's baby shower, so my concentration level was pretty low. I remember the question about the winner in Iraq, though, and when he answered 'Iran', I went to the TV to see who was being interviewed.

I read 'Fiasco' several months ago when I was trying to get a handle on what the war really meant. Good book. MTP replays here in a couple of hours, so I'll watch it then.


Edit: Did you see this? http://video.msn.com/dw.aspx?mkt=en-us&from=truveo&vid=0ad14e9a-c2e5-4da1-91a3-bd97686c0ed5


and this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5011120#5011500

[Inuca]

2. Watched it yesterday, VERY interersting

That quote from ambassador Crocker was an eye-opener.

[karynnj]

3. I watched this yesterday, but with distractions - so I waited until I

read the transcript today to respond. These things are very sobering, but they are consistent with all the things Senator Kerry has spoken of in the Senate, on the floor or in committees.

On Iraq, it seems to still boiling down to having the Iraqi politicians resolve their differences - and that needs intensive diplomacy where they - not the US - are at the center of the process, being told by their regional allies that they will not be supported in creating chaos. As many have said, they will use our being there to not make the concessions needed - fueled by dreams of getting more if they hold out. Ricks goes further, suggesting that even as we move away from the front lines, we can be used not just to protect them as they don't do this - but as unwitting tools who stand by when they commit atrocities or, in the worst case, where they use our soldiers to commit them. We run the risk of becoming pawns (though we have power) in their violent fight for political power.

"MR. RICKS: Let me tell my worry about that. We have a bunch of Iraqi generals out there who are not in any way people who subscribe to our values. The fewer American troops we have there, the more they can behave the way they want to. And what you're going to see is a lot of little new little Saddams. The difference is there are Saddams. You're going to see situations, probably, where Iraqi forces don't like a village, and so they just shoot artillery into it. These are not things the American military does. But if you don't have American military around to stop it, that's going to happen. You're going to have Iraqi generals try to use American airpower to call in airstrikes on people they don't like. You're going to see politics waged violently, but we're going to have less control of the situation. So my worry is that the end of all this you have a bunch of new little strong men. The difference is, we trained and armed them."

On Afghanistan seeing it as really Pakistan and Afghanistan drives home why we have to be there. But, his comments on the problems are again not far from where Kerry was when he spoke at HRC's confirmation hearing and in the recent hearing. I keep coming back to the counter terrorist expert's comment that it reminds him of Vietnam under Diem. The scary thing was that that was during the JFK administration when many Americans hadn't even heard the name Vietnam. This was before we were increasingly drawn into to a war that couldn't be won. The problem is - though I understand the warning - what are they telling us to do. Not prop up Karzi? Leave? , which given A Q Khan's bomb is not an option. Pakistan was NOT "adequately" in control in 2005 and it isn't now. This really is scary - and I'm glad there are smart people working on it.