Part 2 of Dave's Interview With Matt Lauer. (Iraq, Blogs and his breakup with Justin Timberlake.)

Continued From Part 1.(CLICK HERE)




Dave F.A.Q. Originally aired Friday January 12, 2007
© NBC News


Matt Lauer: What should we do about the war in Iraq?

David: This kind of escalation is not the answer. The only hope we have is securing Baghdad with a troop ratio from 3 to 1 to 5 to 1 like we had in the first Gulf War. This could allow the Iraqi government to operate without the threat of violence and it would allow the Iraqi police to recruit and appropriately train forces without being attacked. Increased troop strength does not guarantee success as it does not necessarily mean that the Government will be able to get its shit in order. Increased troop strength definitely will not end sectarian violence, it holds only the narrow possibility of allowing the Iraqi government to handle said violence on its own in the long term.

Matt Lauer: [Chuckles] That's nutty! Why don't we do that then?

David: Ultimately the troop strength would have been more helpful early on as it could have helped prevent the culmination of strength of the insurgency. The reason we couldn't do it then and we can't do it now is because the man-power just isn't there. Remember, the first Gulf War we had a coalition of 34 nations and the good will of the world behind us. The first conflict was much smaller in scale in terms of area and goals. Back then we were overturning an invasion, in this one we were ourselves staging one. Our need for and our inability to produce a large number of troops ultimately shows that Geroge W. Bush's arrogant unilateralism has led to the worst foreign policy disaster in American history.

Matt Lauer:: True but, who could have predicted this? No one, that's who!

David: You don't know the history of the Iraq War, I do. In a 2002 column I wrote,

"If the United States invaded Iraq, it would require more than the 600,000 troops (400,000 of them were American) used in Desert Storm. Indeed, if we stage an invasion, it may take up to a million or more troops to successfully decapitate the government and keep the peace." - Detroit Free Press, 10/16/2002

Matt Lauer: Whatever, dick. Why not just withdraw troops or redeploy?

David: Redeployment and withdrawal is what we probably should do right now, and ultimately what we will have to do. Just because that is the best idea, it doesn't mean that it is without consequences. It is popular to say that "Defeat in Iraq will be devastating for the United States." That is true, but thanks to Bush administration there really is no solution that will prevent such madness. It is what foreign policy experts call a "clusterfuck".

If we do a withdrawal or redeployment, the sectarian civil war will exacerbate and it will probably make Darfur look like Seattle. It will be similar to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. The eventual Soviet withdrawal led to an insurgency, a rise in Islamic fundamentalist rule. From Afghanistan, extremist groups still train fighters and terrorists to cause Russia major problems in Chechnya. Also, this was the base of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden whom operated in comfort to plan attacks on the United States.

A withdrawal will probably lead to a similar climate in Iraq. I am not saying we can prevent this in the long run, but I am saying this is a consequence of withdrawal. It would not be the fault of those who oppose the war and want a withdrawal, it would be the fault of those who supported the war and planned it poorly.

If we stay in Iraq and escalate, we are going to endure more casualties, inflame tensions with Syria and Iran, and we will further deteriorate our relationships with regional allies. To add insult to injury is it likely that the sectarian violence will ultimately persist. In the end, the scenario above will probably happen anyway.

Were are damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Matt Lauer: You seem like a John Edward's guy to me.

David: Right now I can't imagine supporting anyone other than Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. I have reservations about the other candidates for the same reasons I had reservations about John Kerry in 2004.

Matt Lauer: Do elaborate.

David: While I worked on John Kerry's presidential campaign, I did not support him in the primary. I was worried about his electability, sure, but I favored candidates like Howard Dean and Wesley Clark because they had good judgement that going into Iraq, and going in the way Bush wanted us to go in would be a colossal mistake. Guys like John Kerry, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton made the popular decision to support the war in 2002, and now they are making the popular decision to oppose the war in 2007 in anticipation of the Iowa Caucus. Obama is only decent candidate to have the same wisdom that I did as a junior in college when we both laid out our case against invading Iraq.

Matt Lauer: I was the first guy to call Iraq a civil war, did you know that?

David: That is not exactly true, you announced that NBC would now characterise the sectarian violence in Iraq as a civil war. I guess that it is a good thing you call it that, because even if you did not call it that, that is still what it would be.

Matt Lauer: [Shuffles papers, stares confidently.] I also told Roker to get the gastric bypass. Why do you keep a blog and why didn't you just revive your old one?

David: I keep a blog because I have long been looking for a creative outlet that allows me to be full faceted. My old blog was all political stuff, and it was a catalogue of my writings, speeches, and policy positions. This blog touches on politics, but it also allows me to do social commentary. There was no room for fiction, metaphor, or humor in the old blog, and I wanted to dabble in those things.

Matt Lauer: Tell me the story of that knife fight that you had in Chicago?

Check back soon for part 3!!!!!!