'Meet the Press' transcript for Feb. 8, 2009

MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about the legacy of this war as best we can determine it now.  This is what you write about the outcome: "Nor, at the end of many more years of struggle, is the outcome likely to be something Americans recognize as victory.  Instead these additional years of sacrifice promise to be made for markedly limited objectives.  A senior intelligence officer in Iraq describes the long-term American goal as, `A stable Iraq that is unified, at peace with its neighbors, and is able to police its internal affairs, so it isn't a sanctuary for al-Qaeda.  Preferably a friend to us, but it doesn't have to be.' He paused, then pointedly noted that this list doesn't include democracy or the observation of human rights."

MR. RICKS: This is an opinion you'll find the closer you get to Baghdad. Nobody there really--nobody Americans, that I see, really expect this place to be a stable democracy anytime soon.

MR. GREGORY: And yet this was the major rationale for this war.  After weapons of mass destruction, which were not found.

MR. RICKS: But don't forget that what happened when Petraeus and the people around him were put in, essentially the dissidents were put in charge of the war.  Ambassador Crocker reveals in this book that he was essentially opposed to the American invasion of Iraq.  A lot of the people who have been running the war for the last two years really thought this was a bad idea or had been badly executed.

MR. GREGORY: And yet President Bush, during exit interviews, stood by the war, stood by the surge.  But he also said this about the rationale for removing Saddam Hussein: "You put in the middle of the Middle East a man rich with oil who sponsored terror, who had the capacity to make a nuclear weapon, combined with Iran--it's conceivable you'd have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East now.  ...  I argue vociferously that the Middle East is better off without Saddam Hussein."

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.

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, ambitious, 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.

MR. GREGORY: Yeah.

MR. RICKS: You're seeing an extension of Iranian influence into Iraq that you haven't had in the past.  Iran has become a much greater power since the American invasion of Iraq.  Iran has--is--has its fingers throughout the Iraqi government.  This is something that General Odierno mentioned several months ago and got in some trouble for, for talking about so publicly.  Iran really does worry me in, in this situation.

MR. GREGORY: Let me talk about Afghanistan.  This is the other big leadership test for this new president and his national security team.  He's talked about surge in Afghanistan, going from 30,000 to 60,000 troops.  Vice President Biden was at a security conference in Munich over the weekend, talked about a new plan for Afghanistan.  Here's a portion of what he said.

(Videotape, Saturday)

VICE PRES. JOE BIDEN: The result must be a comprehensive strategy for which we all take responsibility; that brings together our civilian and military resources that prevents terrorists a safe haven, that helps the Afghan people develop the capacity to secure their own future.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: So what are the biggest challenges he faces now in Afghanistan?

MR. RICKS: Well, I think the first thing is to recognize that it's not really a war in Afghanistan, it's a war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  As a friend of mine said, it's hard to win a war in Afghanistan when the enemy wants to fight it in the next country over, Pakistan.

MR. GREGORY: Right.  And that's the Taliban fighting and winning battles in Pakistan.  This is where we went to war to take them out of power.

MR. RICKS: And that's very scary.  And our supply lines through Pakistan are being challenged.  Bridges are being blown up, American convoys are being attacked.  So I think the first thing that Obama will do is begin to look at it as an Afghan-Pakistan war, in which Pakistan is really the more important factor.  We could lose in Afghanistan.  It would be unhappy, but not, you know, terrible for us.  If you lose Pakistan, you end up having the mujahideen, Islamic extremists, with nuclear weapons.  And that was a major al-Qaeda goal that we really do not want to see happen.  I don't think that Newsweek got it quite right the other day when they referred to Afghanistan as potentially Obama's Vietnam.  I think potentially Obama's Vietnam is Pakistan.

MR. GREGORY: And what should he consider doing about that?

MR. RICKS: I think it's the problem from hell.  It is a nightmare, and I have no idea how you actually solve it.  I think what you might try to do for several years is contain it, manage it to the--in the sense...

MR. GREGORY: With U.S. troops in the border areas going into Pakistan at times, if necessary?

MR. RICKS: U.S. troops on Pakistani ground is a really difficult problem. We've had some people go in and out quietly.  But large, no, you don't want to, you don't want to do that.  You've got to wind up using the Pakistani military in some way to solve this problem.  But the Pakistani military, in many cases, is the problem.  You have a lot of al-Qaeda and Taliban sympathizers wearing Pakistani military uniforms.

MR. GREGORY: One of the things that was done reasonably successfully in Iraq under General Petraeus was actually negotiating with some insurgents in western Iraq.  Should the U.S. consider talking, having some contact with the Taliban?

MR. RICKS: It's funny you should mention that, because I think what people in this country don't recognize is Petraeus basically put the Sunni insurgency on the American payroll.  And I think it's a great idea.  If you can pay somebody not to kill you, fine.  Baghdad government didn't much like it, because they felt we were basically arriving at a separate peace with their enemies.  So yeah, I think you'll see Petraeus trying to talk to the Taliban to find more reconcilable, more moderate elements, and also to empower tribes against the extremists; to go to sheiks and say, "Look, you know, these extremists are going after you, too.  Isn't there some way we could find of living together?" The other think I think you'll see is less emphasis on Karzai...

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MR. RICKS: ...and the Kabul government, and more emphasis on the promises--tribes and so on.

MR. GREGORY: All right, Tom Ricks.  The book is "The Gamble." Good luck with it, and thank you for being here and sharing your views.

MR. RICKS: You're welcome.

MR. GREGORY: We will leave it there, but we're going to continue our discussion and ask some of your questions that you submitted online in our MEET THE PRESS Take Two Web extra.  It's going to be posted on our Web site this afternoon.  You can also read excerpts of "The Gamble," all online at mtp.msnbc.com.  We'll be right back.

(Announcements)

MR. GREGORY: That's all for today.  Watch NBC and MSNBC tomorrow for full coverage of President Obama's first prime-time news conference.  It's at 8 PM Eastern time.  We'll be back next week.  If it's Sunday, it's MEET THE PRESS.

More from NBC News broadcasts Col. Jacobs: Russia, get the message yet?   Murray: Filming 'Fantastic Mr. Fox' was 'different'   No ‘favorite things’? Say it isn’t so-prah! Struggling species gets helping hand Astronaut over the moon for daughter’s birth   Panel examines cancer screening confusion Follow on Twitter: Making a Difference

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Sunday's Meet the Press guest list Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: