E-mail a friendThomas Ricks
airdate September 19, 2007
Journalist Thomas Ricks is often called the "dean" of America's military correspondents. He's been on two Pulitzer Prize-winning teams for national reporting—with The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal—and writes a daily blog for Foreign Policy magazine. He's also a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a bipartisan think tank. A best-selling author, Ricks' books include Fiasco, on the war in Iraq, and its sequel The Gamble. The Massachusetts native grew up in New York and Afghanistan and is a Yale grad.
Thomas Ricks
Tavis: Thomas Ricks is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who serves as the military affairs correspondent for "The Washington Post." His widely acclaimed bestseller about the Iraq war has been updated and is now out in paperback. The book is, of course, "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq." Mr. Ricks joins us tonight from Washington. Tom Ricks, glad to have you back, sir.
Thomas Ricks: Thank you, it's great to be back.
Tavis: I started our program a moment ago by suggesting that despite the - I'm paraphrasing here - despite the rosy outlook - and maybe rosy isn't the right word, but despite the upbeat outlook painted by General Petraeus before Congress, there are many Americans who believe that the war is still a failure. Before I get to the second part of that statement, let me start with the first.
What did you make of General Petraeus' remarks before Congress?
Ricks: I think General Petraeus was trying to put the best possible face on a bad situation. It was kind of lipstick on a pig. I think he was pretty careful, though, not to make any promises, and if you really strip away the expressions, the body language and look at actually what his bottom line was, he refused to make any promises and the best he could offer was there might be a light at the end of the tunnel, but he can't tell you how long the tunnel is, how long it's going to take to get there, or where the tunnel actually leads you to.
Tavis: With regard to "Fiasco," the irony is that you talk about Petraeus in the text, and he at the time was not the man. How fast things change - or how slow things change, and now he is the man. Talk about Petraeus then and now.
Ricks: Well, Petraeus did a good job up in northern Iraq in 2003, 2004, and what he's trying to do in many ways now is a replication of that on a national scale. The problem is - and I think a lot of people around him would agree with this - is that it's probably too little, too late. Iraq really is a big mess. I think the conclusion of a lot of national security experts is that it's a bigger problem now for us than the Vietnam War was.
Tavis: What's your sense of how Congress has changed or not changed its tune on the war in Iraq since "Fiasco" first came out?
Ricks: Well, what you saw was Congress saying, "Let's wait until September - let's make up our minds in September." General Petraeus came along and nobody really changed their minds, it was very odd. But I think what General Petraeus did was kind of divide and conquer the Democrats.
There's a basic split in the Democratic Party between those who want to leave immediately and those who want to leave a little bit more slowly and carefully, and I think his description of the situation in Iraq kind of split those two groups and left the Democrats stymied. So they weren't able to present a clear alternative to his rather bleak and somber assessment.
Tavis: You gave a partial answer to this moment ago, Tom Ricks; let me come back at it a different way now. "Fiasco" described, of course, what was in Iraq. How different is what was in Iraq from what is in Iraq on the publication of the book in paperback?
Ricks: It's still a big mess, and that's the basic thing to understand about Iraq. There's been this little boomlet in optimism recently; I really don't understand it. President Bush in his speech last week talked about getting back to 130,000 troops in Iraq as if that's what the anti-war movement wanted. Let's get back to the troop level of January 2007.
That's clearly not what the anti-war movement wants; it wants out of Iraq. So I think Iraq is still on a pretty rough trajectory. I don't see a good outcome. I still think the best way to understand Iraq is to look at it as a tragedy, to understand there are no good options left. What we're doing right now is sorting through what is the least bad option, but understanding that all the possible courses we take carry with them real risk of a humanitarian disaster, genocide, and regional war.
Tavis: I saw a piece the other day that suggested there's a distinct difference, of course, these days especially, between victory in Iraq and success in Iraq. The president first of all wanted and declared and promised victory in Iraq; now what he's trying to get is success in Iraq.
What would you define, and what do you think the White House defines these days as success in Iraq?
Ricks: I think that's a correct summary. The odd thing is the president kind of backslides in his rhetoric. Even in his speech last week, he started talking again about victory in Iraq, and about making it a democracy that will change the Middle East. What we're doing on the ground in Iraq is very different.
We're cutting deals with the bad guys - with the insurgents who have killed American troops, and we're clearly doing that because we're trying to seek a way of at least putting a lid on Iraq, stabilizing it enough so that we can leave. So that's really what's going on on the ground; it's a little bit different from the way the president's talking about it.
Security and stability, maybe we'll get there, maybe someday. It's striking that what they're really doing now is preparing a force for the next president, not for this one. They're talking about having 100,000 troops in Iraq on the day the next president takes office. I think it's possible we may still have troops fighting in Iraq at the end of the next president's term, not just this president's term.
Tavis: Wow. The full term would be - if they served two terms, that'd be eight years, Tom Ricks.
Ricks: That's right. When I was writing "Fiasco," I'd look out the window sometimes - and I think I mentioned this to you before - I'd see these kindergartners and think one of them is going to fight and die in Iraq. And I still think that's a real possibility.
Tavis: Wow. On my radio program, my public radio program from PRI this weekend I'll be joined by John Kerry to ask his assessment of what Democrats can or will do now. Your sense of what Democrats can and will - or perhaps should do - now that they are in charge of Congress - the Senate side and the House side. That was not the case when "Fiasco" first came out.
Ricks: I think what they can do and really haven't done very well so far is talk about the consequences of various courses of action. People are still arguing about Iraq as if there was a good answer to be found somehow. I think the thing to understand is that any of the four major policy options you put in front of me, which is leaving quickly, escalating, keeping it like it is now, or going to some sort of containment stance - any one of those four options has a bigger downside than a possible benefit.
We need to talk seriously as a country about the fact that any one of these things could lead to much larger-scale killing than we've seen. It's not enough just to say Iraq is a mess right now; it could get much worse. And there are ways of doing it worse or doing it better. There are ways of mitigating the damage we've done. There are ways of leaving the country more intelligently than we invaded it, as one general said to me in Iraq.
Tavis: If my calendar is right, if I have my calendar right, I believe we're in Ramadan now even as we speak, and you've asked a provocative question that I'd like for you to address - your own question. Can Petraeus break the Ramadan cycle? That's a question you've asked. What do you mean by the question, and then answer it, if you will.
Ricks: Sure. What we've seen in Ramadan, which is the Muslim holy month, what we've seen in each of those months over the last four years is a notable spike in violence. The insurgency really broke out for the first time in November 2003, which was the month when Ramadan was celebrated that month, or observed that month.
So far, we've seen some mixed results. Ramadan started on September 13th this year. There have been efforts by Islamic extremists or insurgents, whatever you call them, to step up the violence, but I don't think it's been as bad as a lot of U.S. intelligence officers were privately predicting. But it's a long month, and we've got a ways to go. The assassination of Sheikh Sattar on the first day of Ramadan, one of the leading sheikhs in Anbar province, was very worrisome.
Tavis: There's not just been a lot of criticism, of course, of the Iraqi military, but obviously a lot of criticism of Iraqi leadership. What's your sense now versus when "Fiasco" first came out, of how vulnerable Iraqi leadership is and what's going to happen on that front?
Ricks: I think the Iraqi leadership is very vulnerable. I think the big problem with the Iraqi military is we expected and promised too much of it. Remember the Bush administration, even when "Fiasco" came out, was talking about how as they stand up, we will stand down.
Well, they stood up. We have all the numbers of Iraqi security forces - the army and the police - that we were supposed to have, and they still can't carry the ball. Nonetheless, General Petraeus said in the hearings that the surge is going to end starting next spring. We're going to start bringing down our troop numbers.
As those troops leave, Iraqi security forces are going to be taking over those areas. So that's the real hinge of history - that's when we really are going to see whether the U.S. is going anywhere successful in Iraq. Can Iraqi security forces carry the ball next spring?
So I think next March and April and May are going to be much more significant in this war than September is. In fact, I think the probably will be the most significant months of the entire war.
Tavis: Speaking of the hinge of history, to borrow your phrase, Tom, can you imagine any scenario at all under which President Bush would be right when he suggests - and I'm paraphrasing here - that history is going to show that while he made a tough decision, while the American public at the time didn't agree with it, that what he did was right and it's going to lead to etc., etc., etc. in the Middle East.
Any scenario at all under which you think that history might regard President Bush as having been right about this, "Fiasco" not withstanding?
Ricks: There's a remote possibility. Wars are extraordinarily unpredictable; things can change on a dime. That said, I don't see any indication that that's where it's going to come out. My guess is that history will judge this, as I said at the very beginning of my book, as one of the biggest mistakes in the entire history of this country.
Tavis: And we'll leave it there. Thomas E. Ricks, of course, is with "The Washington Post." The paperback version of his "New York Times" number one bestseller out now, "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq." Again, out in paperback from the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Thomas Ricks. Tom, nice to have you on, all the best to you - we'll do it again.
Ricks: You're welcome.
Back to September 19, 2007