MONDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Washington Post PostGlobal
• Mr. Ignatius at The Washington Post
• Article by Mr. Ignatius
• Mr. Ignatius' bio

E-mail a friend

Tavis: David Ignatius is a respected columnist at 'The Washington Post' who previously served as executive editor of the 'International Herald Tribune.' Earlier in his career, he was a reporter and a war correspondent for 'The Wall Street Journal.' He's also a successful novelist whose new book, 'Body of Lies,' will be out in April. He joins us tonight, though, from Washington. David, nice to have you on the program.

David Ignatius: Thank you very much, Tavis.

Tavis: Let me start with - there's so much I wanna talk about. Your column in today's paper. Earlier today President Bush's press conference. A big scoop 'The Washington Post' got yesterday. So much to talk about, so little time. Let me start with your definition of what is a realistic definition of success in Iraq? The subject that you tackle in your column today.

Ignatius: This morning, Tavis, I was trying to contrast our traditional idea of victory. We think of banners flying and marching bands playing, and that kind of old-fashioned mission accomplished success. We're not gonna get that in Iraq. It's clear that we have to look toward an outcome that's just more limited than that. Our goal really is a secure Iraq that can keep terrorists at bay.

And I wrote this morning that I worry that President Bush still has in mind a more traditional idea of victory. You can understand why. No president would ever wanna sign off on something short of a total victory, but I worry that that's gonna lead him into making a mistake in this crucial review of Iraq policy that's going on now, in which he may send in as many as 30,000 additional troops, march those troops up to the top of the hill again, just as we did in 2003, without a clear plan for how we're gonna get them back down to the bottom. And I guess that worries me.

Tavis: I can see why that worries you, and I suspect, given the polls and studies and surveys I've seen, you're not the only one. Many Americans feel that way. Let me take, though, the smaller challenge, if I can put it that way, the smaller challenge of what you've just laid out. It's one thing to be concerned the president might have a buy into this notion of a major troop surge, march, as you put it, troops back to the top of the hill without a way to get back down.

That's one problem. You suggested a moment ago, though, that success in Iraq has to be less than what we originally thought or hoped for, which is, in your words, to secure the country, and to keep terrorists at bay. As I listened to you say that, David, (laugh) it occurred to me that's no small feat unto itself. So I don't even know how one offers that, quite frankly, as a reasonable, realistic definition of success in Iraq.

Ignatius: Well, it may not be achievable, but I think that if we scale back our objectives to those that really intersect our national interests, and we do have a powerful interest in keeping Iraq from being a safe haven for terrorists that would attack the United States, we're gonna have more success. The project of creating a modern, democratic, Iraqi state, which is something I deeply believe in.

I first went to Iraq in 1980, if you can believe that. It's something that's gonna take a generation. I hope it will happen. But over the next five, 10 years, certainly through the remainder of the Bush presidency, I think we need to focus on more limited goals, and use U.S. military power to concentrate on those goals. So I would say, 'What's our big problem in Iraq?' It is the threat of Al-Qaeda terrorists who would use western Iraq, Al Anbar province, as a base to come and attack us.

So we need to focus our military deployment on ways to use troops to go after those people every day. That was one of the recommendations, actually, in the Baker-Hamilton report that was completed two weeks ago, which the administration is so busy dismissing. And that I worry that they've forgotten about some of the good sense in it. So that's one thing that we can focus on.

I think there are ways we can help the Iraqi government to become more stable over time. The Iraqis are saying, 'We want to be sovereign. We wanna control our destiny. We wanna make our own policies.' To which we should say, 'Be our guests, brothers and sisters. That's great, that's what we want.' We shouldn't fight that. Don't fight Iraqi sovereignty, even though it's gonna be messy, it's gonna be violent. But it's not something that we should regard as against our interests.

Tavis: To your point now about President Bush and the White House dismissing the Baker-Hamilton Report, you add to that his comments earlier today in his press conference where he said very clearly that he wanted to wait to talk to new Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates to see what his thoughts were after Mr. Gates, of course, meets with the generals in Iraq.

The folk on the ground who'd be responsible for doing whatever this new plan is going to call for us doing. How do you take those two things together? The president dismissing the report and saying, with all the work that's been done and put on his desk, 'I still wanna wait to see what Mr. Gates has to say?'

Ignatius: Well, first I think the president and his advisors are making a mistake, dismissing and attacking this bipartisan report. If there's one thing that the United States needs, that this administration needs, if it hopes to have a coherent policy, a way of staying in Iraq, trying to do the best, trying to have some success, it needs the country's support.

After the November elections, the verdict from the American public was clear. The public is not happy with where we're going in Iraq. The president needs Democrats on board as well as Republicans. He needs to bring the country together behind the policy. That's really the essence of what Baker and Hamilton were all about, was creating a bipartisan platform for an Iraq policy going forward. So trashing Baker and Hamilton the way that a number of officials have been doing makes no sense to me, because you undermine the political base for going forward.

Tavis: All right, so let me ask you a really stupid question, and I qualify it, (laugh) I'll tell you in advance it's a dumb question. If James Baker, who is his dad's longest - everybody knows the running joke, and if it ain't a joke, it's true - Mr. Baker is the fix-it guy when it comes to the Bush family. No debate about that, I suspect. If James Baker is telling you, if the voters are telling you, if every poll, every study, every survey is telling you, if folk in the Republican party are telling you, and to some degree, folk in your own administration are telling you the same story, here's my dumb question.

What about this do you not get? (Laugh) What is - I'm not being funny, seriously. What is the recalcitrance about when everybody is telling you the same thing? The president ain't stupid.

Ignatius: No, but he is stubborn, and that's a quality that in some respects I admire. I think a person who is - stubbornness can be a virtue. I think there are two things going on here, Tavis. First, I think all of the drum rolls and hullabaloo about Jim Baker clearly offended people in the administration. This idea that Daddy Bush's Mr. Fix-It was gonna come bail out Junior didn't sit well.

And it especially didn't sit well with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The idea that Jim Baker, a former Secretary of State, would call for this broad, diplomatic approach implied, clearly, that our current diplomacy under Secretary of State Rice had been inadequate. So I think that offended people.

Tavis: But it might - not to cut you off, I'll come right back to you. In my dictionary, that's what you call petulance. Political petulance.

Ignatius: I'm just, you asked a question, which you...

Tavis: All right, all right, all right, all right. (Laugh)

Ignatius: ...which you foxily describe as a dumb question. It's a very good question, so I'm just trying to give you my best answer.

Tavis: All right.

Ignatius: First, I think people were offended by this notion that Baker was coming to save them from their mistakes. Second, I think that there really is this very interesting battle going on inside George Bush. George Bush admitted yesterday in the interview to 'The Washington Post' we're not winning this war. He is admitting the strategy that he adopted as president, in which he believed, which he's pushed on the American people day after day, repeating the same things over and over again, the strategy isn't working.

He's said that now. He's owned up to that reality. So, what is he gonna do about it? And I think that it's clear that he is looking at this in historical terms. He said today in his news conference that - he talked about President George Washington. People still debating the Washington presidency; our first president. And he was saying people will be debating number 43 for a good while longer, as well.

So he's trying to figure out what are the policies that will put me in good stead if not with the voters, he doesn't have to run for election again, with historians. And I think he's worried about giving up on his own policy. I think he feels that if he embraces some of the options that are being put forward, it will be an admission that he has failed, that we're on our way out, that we're being defeated. And this is a stubborn man. You asked what doesn't he get. What he doesn't get is that he doesn't wanna lose. He doesn't wanna say uncle. And that's what's going on here.

Tavis: All right, so to your point a moment ago where you referenced that Washington scoop of yesterday where the president did utter those words for the first time anywhere, we're not winning, at least he said that, what you didn't add is the second part of what he said, 'We're not winning.' The full quote is, 'We're not winning, but we're not losing.' That was the second part of that quote. It would again still suggest, to your point now, that he doesn't want to accept the fact that we're not winning, and that does, in fact, mean that on some level, you are losing.

Ignatius: Well, look, I wish he didn't talk in terms of victory, 'cause that implies military victory. And I think military victory is not what this is about. An acceptable solution, a settlement in Iraq is a political settlement. I wish the president talked about success in Iraq, as opposed to victory. But those are his words. I think the point is he's facing a choice now which is a little bit like the choice that Lyndon Johnson faced in Vietnam when General Westmoreland said, 'Mr. President, just give me another 250,000 troops and I'll win this for you.'

And at the end of the day, Johnson didn't do it. And he didn't do it because finally, he had decided that pumping in more troops in a fundamentally unsound strategy was not the way to go.

Tavis: But David, hear this, as an exit question, or certainly exit comment, which I'll let you respond to. But hear this. If the president doesn't wanna hear anything else he's been hearing from people in Washington, he sure as heck don't wanna hear you or anybody else utter that V-word.

Ignatius: Well, he doest wanna hear me utter the L-word, for sure. And he's gonna keep repeating the V-word. I think that we are at a crucial juncture.

Tavis: No, I didn't explain myself. When I said V-word, I meant Vietnam.

Ignatius: Oh, no, I thought you meant victory.

Tavis: Yeah, no. No, he likes hearing that word. He likes saying that. (Laugh) But if he don't wanna hear the rest of what everybody's saying, he surely doesn't wanna hear you or anybody else making a comparison to Johnson and Vietnam.

Ignatius: So put that aside. He faces the judgment of his presidency right now. Should he double his bets? Should he send 30,000 more troops into Baghdad to try to do the - look, everybody knows we're the biggest, toughest militia in Iraq. That's not at issue. And we'll send 30,000 troops in, and they'll push everybody around, and all the bad actors will lie low, and then nine months from now, what do we do?

We're back in the same situation as before. We've already proved this. What we haven't proved is that we've got a way to get an Iraq that's gonna be stable after we leave. And we don't wanna be there 20 years from now. So I think that's the fundamental issue he's gonna be dealing with, and I hope he makes a good decision.

Tavis: Well, you and all the rest of us, we hope that he makes a good decision. David Ignatius, columnist for 'The Washington Post.' Thanks for your insight, sir, glad to have you on.

Ignatius: Thanks a lot.

Tavis: It's my pleasure. Up next from NBC's 'Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip,' actress Sarah Paulson, fresh off a Golden Globe nomination. We'll talk to her in just a moment.