America At War:
Latest Developments
With Robert Kaiser
Associate Editor, The Washington Post
Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2001; Noon EDT

As the U.S. and coalition forces continue military strikes in Afghanistan, the military prepares for the next step which could involve ground troops. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Colin Powell takes preliminary steps to help Afghanistan successfully establish a new government once the ruling Taliban is out of power.

Homeland defense is on many minds as reports of anthrax exposure at several high profile targets -- NBC and ABC News, The New York Times and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's office -- has many Americans concerned for their health.

Washington Post Associate Editor Robert Kaiser was online Wednesday, Oct. 24 at Noon EDT to talk about the latest developments in The Post's continuing coverage of America at War.

A transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C.: In this time of unprecented crisis at home and abroad, what, in your eyes, should be the appropriate role for the America media, in particular newspapers?

Robert Kaiser: Welcome everyone. This is an excellent place to begin. Newspapers provide the meat in the American media diet. We can provide the depth, the detail and the authority that are all difficult for electronic media to match. Our job is to find out everything we can and present it to our readers in a sensible, digestible and comprehensible way. As regards military action against terrorists, I firmly believe that a country that is sending its young men and women into combat or into harm's way deserves to know as much as it possibly can about what is going on. Yes, there will be occasions when even a great newspaper deeply committed to fully informing its readers will hold back some information, usually only briefly, to protect the security of a military operation, but this should be exceedingly rare.

Los Angeles, Calif.: Hi Bob, David Mills here. I'm wondering about the poppy fields of Afghanistan. While the U.S. is dropping bombs, why not take out the world's leading source of opium? (I'm sure Tony Blair would appreciate this.) Might it be because the U.S. realizes that whoever runs Afghanistan after the Taliban is going to need a cash crop... a gross national product? Is the U.S. already indicating it will turn a blind eye to post-Taliban narcotrafficking in return for Afghan help in the fight against Al-Qaeda?

Robert Kaiser: Thanks David for a good question. (Before he lost his way and became a screenwriter, David was a fine reporter for The Post). John Pomfret had a really good story in yesterday's Post about the opium problem, and I commend it to all. I personally have no idea if it is even possible to bomb an opium crop. Wouldn't you have to spray it with insecticide? Mightn't that be a helluva big job in a place like Afghanistan? I think so, but am guessing.

On the larger issue, obviously opium has been an appealing cash crop in Afghanistan for a long time. Does that mean the U.S. and its allies would wink and drug trafficking by a successor regime to the Taliban? I think it is more likely that we will flood that regime with cash. I certainly hope it is.

According to Pomfret, the street price for heroin in Pakistan has dropped precipitously in recent weeks, a bad sign.

Alexandria, Va.: About the War on the homefront. My mother works at the Library of Congress. She has not been to work since last Thursday and she has no idea when she will be able to return. No one from the Library has given the staff any idea how long it will be before they are able to return or even any sort of idea about the status of the LC's buildings on the Hill (is there anthrax present or are the buildings remaining closed as a precaution, etc.). It seems pitiful to complain about such things when people are getting sick and dying from anthrax, but I see my mom getting more and more depressed and more uncertain about going back each day she is out of her office. I am deeply concerned for her and, as I used to work there myself, my former office mates and friends at LC. If you know anything, please share. If you don't -- heck, you work for The Post! Can't you look into it?

Robert Kaiser: I don't know anything about the Lbrary of Congress's status, but I will pass on your query to the city desk and hope they can find something out. Obviously a lot of Capitol Hill workers are similarly affected. It's worth a story.

Washington, D.C.: Something else I'm curious about in the disparity of preventing the spread of anthrax: Why are DC Postal workers only getting 10 days of Cipro? Didn't everyone else get 60 days? Does this represent a new idea on the effectiveness of the antibiotics, or reflect a supply problem? Or do the postal workers not count as much as a Hill staffer? Thanks.

Robert Kaiser: I just checked with Rob STein, the Post's science editor, so I can answer this question accurately. The ten-day course of Cipro is a starter for those getting it. As the scientific investigation continues, it may be decided that those who have started with a 10-day dose will get 50 more days; it may also be decided that they don't need it. In other words, giving someone 10 days worth of Cipro is a holding action. I can't imagine, after the terrible publicity they've received, that the authorities will be stinting in this regard in the future.

Boston, Mass.: How do you feel the White House has been treating newspapers and journalists in this conflict? Why does the British government appear more forthcoming than our own? Do you feel our own president is providing sufficient information?

Robert Kaiser: I'll post a related question below this and then answer both.

Navy Yard: Two questions (please):
a. Why, in your opinion, is the U.S. applying more public pressure on the Israelis to withdraw than on Arafat to find and prosecute the killers?
b. Despite numerous reports on the PA restricting who can be interviewed and what can be photographed -- including death threats against an AP reporter -- no major paper (including The Post) has printed an editorial condemning these restriction on the press. Why not?

Robert Kaiser: First regarding information policies. The Bush administration has a counter-productive attitude toward making facts available to us, and to the public. It is holding back too much, and this will inevitably cause problems in the future. Reporters should be closer to the action, should be able to talk to people going into Afghanistan and bombing it in a more regular way. If there are to be prolonged land operations into Afghanistan, reporters should be along. Why? BEcause Americans want, and deserve, independent information about the wars they are in. We are a skeptical people; we don't fully trust authority when we don't absolutely have to. This is healthy and in thepublic interest, in my opinion. I have no connection to editorial-writing at The Post, and can't answer that question.

Regarding Israel and Palestine, that's a question for the government, not for me. I surmise the administration may see a difference between an assassination committed by a radical group and a military operation conducted by an allied government, but I'm guessing.

Washington, D.C.: Has the credibility of the CDC been sufficiently compromised so that the general population should be worrying more than we are?

Robert Kaiser: I have lots of questions about how much we should be worrying. In truth, I think it's probably fruitless to give advice on this score: people, in my experience, worry as much as their nature dictates. Profound worriers can't help themselves; neither can the happy-go-lucky. That said, I strongly favor less worry, on the simple grounds that it produced little if anythng of benefit. Caution, sure; prudence, absolutely. But to go around wringing our hands or pulling our our hair won't achieve much.
Regarding the CDC, it has been badly humilitated. It will work extra hard not to repeat that experience. I hope it will do much better in the future.

Clifton, Va.: In light of the announcement by the Postmaster General this morning that the nation's mail can no longer be guaranteed safe, what steps, if any, are being taken by The Washington Post to insure that the newspapers are contaminant free? Or, is this not a valid concern?

Robert Kaiser: It's a no less valid concern than any other. The Post is distributed and delivered by independent contractors. They are wonderful people, in my experience, who work hard to provide good service. In most circumstances that I know about, the papers remain in their possession steadily from the time they pick them up at the Post's two printing plants (in Springfield and College Park) until they reach subscribers' front steps. But obviously, some nut could try to put something dangerous into a newspaper. That seems unlikely to me, given how much easier, and more anonymous, it would be to put it in the mail.

Houston, Tex.: Not to be alarmist (okay, maybe a little alarmist) but I'm wondering: Have The Post's offices been tested? Sad to say, but given the pattern of the Anthrax attacks, it would seem that The Post and other major national papers might be on the target list. How are you guys dealing with this? Here's hoping you and yours are all safe and sound.

Robert Kaiser: THanks. Yes, we had a false alarm here and got thorougly tested. We have implemented a new method for receiving mail, which requires everyone in the news department to fetch their mail from a different floor, and open it in a special new mail room. They've even given us gloves and masks to wear to open the mail.

Richmond, Va.: How does the flow of information about military action in Afighanistan compare with the flow of information during the Gulf War? Isn't the present action much more secretive?

Robert Kaiser: THe Gulf War was bad in this regard; the government held back too much. Later it was badly embarrassed by revelations of deaths caused by friendly fire--a perfect example of why it's best to let the reporters see what is going on as it happens. And yes, this time is worse. The restrictions are even tighter.

Sterling, Va.: Mr. Kaiser, I know we shouldn't rule out anybody when it comes to tracking down the anthrax culprit(s). But I just checked out the letters posted on the FBI Web site that were sent with anthrax in them. And to me, it seems unlikely that an Arab would write "Allah is Great" in English (not Arabic) and have such bad spelling (don't you think the culprit(s) would use a dictionary?). Also, as noted in a Washington Post column today, the block letters seem to be that of a English-speaking native. Don't you think its probably a red herring of sorts, sent to mislead the FBI and law enforcement agencies? I personally think this is domestic terrorism.

Robert Kaiser: Good points. I have also wondered if a bin Laden associate would have picked TV anchormen as targets. But as you say, we don't yet have enough information to rule any suspect in or out.

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: If I ran a newspaper in the nation's capital while the government and administration literally drove over a cliff by the abject failure of its highly paid experts at CDC, FBI, CIA, NSA, NIH, and God knows what other alphabet-jumble outfit, I'd be excoriating those responsible on my editorial pages -- DAILY! But The Washington Post has been largely quiescent in this regard. Why? Doesn't The Post have a public trust unshakeable duty to shame, blame, humiliate, and hound those who asked for the money and power to run the show and then hid, fled, lied, spun, and shrugged their shoulders when disaster struck? Thanks much.

Robert Kaiser: I'll pass your query on to the editoral page, which is outside my ken.

Orlando, Fla.: Doesn't it bother the United States that it is siding with a country, Pakistan, which stands for everything that the U.S. does not.
1. President of Pakistan came to power by overthrowing democratilly elected goverment.
2. He (Musharraf) is supporting and encouraging the terrorist groups on its soil. That is exactly what the U.S. is fighting against.
3. The entire Pakistan nation is against Musharraf for supporting the U.S.
4. He (Musharraf) was the brain behind the last war (Kargil) against India.
5. The nuclear weapons possessed by Pakistan can be used against the U.S., if they are transferred to international muslim terrorist groups.
6. In siding with Pakistan, the U.S. has compromised with all the principles of human values which it has championed all along.

Robert Kaiser: Obviously you feel strongly on this subject. I would quarrel with your point 3): our reporting suggests deep divisions in Pakistani opinion about cooperating with the U.S., not the unanimity you allege. More broadly, the bedfellows we will be sleeping with during this new war will often be strange, or at least not the sort we would chose in a simpler world. In my opinion, we have to address this issue in the longer-term, or face grave problems.

Washington, D.C.: Why don't you guys report honestly on the opposition to the war?

I've been at several large protest rallies, peace marches, and teach-ins that don't look anything like they are portrayed in the main stream press.

Articulate, intelligent people lay out logical reasons to look for alternatives to war. They also explain the history of tension in the region (Middle East) and the role that the US government has played in all this.

Our government was not an innocent bystander! and in many ways has put us in harm's way with it's policy of aggression and arrogance around the world. It's always working class people who die at the trade center, in battle... but we have no control over how and why.

Will you guys ever show this side?

Robert Kaiser: What does "report honestly" mean to you, I wonder? See it your way? I hope not. We have certainly reported on the opposition to the war you describe. We have not "reported" that the attack on the U.S. was largely America's fault, because that is not a factual assertion, it is an opinion--not a persuasive one, in my opinion. It is a significant part of our job to keep our readers informed on dissenting views in a situation like this, and we will do that.

Hod Hasharon, Israel: Israel's incursion to the Palestinian territories in the last days, was not covered in The Post, and none of the Op-ed articles has not refered to it (at least in the online version). Do you think this incursion does not produce problems to the U.S. efforts to steady the coalition against terror?

Robert Kaiser: You're wrong about coverage: THe Post has published extensive reporting on the Israeli military action, including in a story on the front page of today's paper. The news department has taken it very seriously. I can't speak for op-ed, sorry.

Washington, D.C.: Is there actual proof that the terrorists had a long-range plan to strike at the time they did? Could this just have been payback time for the Gulf War, exacerbated by this administration's foreign policy? Is it possible that the election of George W. set in motion the coalescence of an actual plan and the impetus to act, as opposed to a continuation of various disjointed terrorist activities if he had not been elected? Am I the only one who wonders about this, or is it un-American even to think along these lines?

Robert Kaiser: I can't really answer any of your questions, especially the last two, but it does strike me as unlikely that the terrorists were pushed over some cliff by the election of Bush. We know that the perpretrators were taking flying lessons when Bill CLinton was president. TO my mind, we can see a steady series of events dating back to the first bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, events which suggest stunning long-term determination to do this.

As to their motivation, we are all frustrated about our lack of knowledge about that. Payback for the Gulf War sounds too simple to me. I also suspect that bin Laden's own motives are very tied up with his desire to throw out the Saudi royal family, whereas many of his footsoldiers may have other primary concerns.

Crofton, Md.: Has anybody been checking Cipro sales prior to Sept. 11? I mean, if I were stuffing envelopes full of anthrax spores, I'd want to be juiced up on Cipro already.

Robert Kaiser: Interesting point. In a Q & A feature in today's Post, we point out that Cipro is not the only effective drug. Penicillin, if that's how you spell it, is also useful, as are several other antibiotics. Indeed, the terrorist's letter to Tom Brokaw refers to penicillin.

Arlington, Va.: You've noted several times today that you can't speak for the Op-Ed side of the Post. It sounds to me like someone who can needs to do a Live Online session regularly.

Robert Kaiser: I'll pass that suggestion on as well. We believe strongly here in separating the news and editorial departments--we call it the separation of church (them) and state (us).

San Francisco, Calif.: Are we being timid in our pursuit of this war? I read the other day about the first day of attacks on the taliban front lines by U.S. bombers that there were five bombs dropped (total) in two separate attacks. Five bombs against an estimated 15,000 mujahideen.

Robert Kaiser: This has been a limited air war. Bill Arkin, the washingtonpost.com military affairs columnist, has written well about this, look up his pieces. Many physical and political constraints are at work.

Washington, D.C.: Recently, a Post article stated that the anthrax strain found in Florida, New York, and Washington was an Ames, Iowa type. Since then, there has been no mention of this. Is this being reconsidered based on new evidence? And if so, what is the current hypothesis on the source?

Robert Kaiser: The Ames strain, as I understand it, is old and many laboratories have versions of it. We know that the Iraqis once tried to buy samples of it, but were blocked from doing so--at least that time. Tracing the bacteria is obviously key to the investigation, but it's also not easy work. STay tuned.

Cotati, Calif.: I'm concerned that by our military actions we will starve most of the Afganistan people. Very little reporting is addressing this issue. It seems to me that we will encourage more terriorist in the future by having such a narrow view of the situation.

Robert Kaiser: My sense is that the authorities understand this problem very well. I think we can expect a massive food aid effort starting quite soon. Obviously, it would be vastly easier to administer if the Taliban government has been removed. But no matter what, I expect the U.S. and its allies to make a major effort to feed Afhanis this winter.

Northern Virginia: Thanks for making yourself available, Mr. Kaiser. Please come again, and invite more Post editors to appear regularly at Live Online.

My question: Live OnLine uses the term "America at War" each day to introduce related programming. The Post print edition capitalizes the White House moniker "War" in nearly every header. As a Marine Corps Recon Viet Nam vet, I had my fill of one "undeclared war." Why does the working press not refer to these current operations as "America in Conflict" or "Conflict?"

Robert Kaiser: You're welcome.

Is this really undeclared war? To my mind the congressional resolution (and $20 billion emergency appropriation) was a de-facto declaration of war that justified our use of the term.

Alexandria, Va.: Do you think it is possible for the anthrax virus to be released on the Metro rail system? I use the metro rail during rush hour and, given how the virus floated through the air at the Brentwood post office, I worry that the metro rail system could be targeted next.

Robert Kaiser: Here is the painful truth: the Metro is a juicy target for a biological weapons attack. So is any closed space containing lots of people. Remember when that cult in Japan set off Sarin gas in the Tokyo metro? I refer you back to my earlier comment about worrying. You are entitled to, and free to, worry your heart out about all of this, but I don't think it will get you anywhere.

More red herrings: Robert, another question. Has the Post looked into whether the government is considering whether or not this anthrax situation is a cover for some other kind of bio- or chem-terrorism that is being perpetrated very quietly in the background of this? It seems awfully calculated to me -- sending anthrax to major news media outlets to get them to focus on what is, relatively, a small scare, and distracting everyone (media, government, law enforcement, etc.) from something bigger happening quietly someplace else. Have you guys looked at that?

Robert Kaiser: Not sure how we would look into this hypothesis--call our friendly neigborhood bioterrorist and ask? I think we know from the early scare about crop-dusters and trucks carrying hazardous materials that the government is aware of many grim possibilities that could occur, but seeing into the minds of these crazy people is not easy for anyone. Even us!

Washington, D.C.: Bob, You sloughed off the question of criticizing the government for its failure to protect us. Nice try. But don't you think at some point there will be outrage over the fact that we spend all this money for defense and intelligence, and it does not really do the job? Shouldn't the airlines be given the list of people who should not be allowed to fly because they are suspected terrorists? Shouldn't somebody be accountable for the fact that 5000 people died?

Robert Kaiser: This is an interesting question. To me it implies that absolute security is something we are entitled to expect. Is it really? I guess I don't think that's realistic. AT the same time, I certainly agree that the competence (or incompetence) of relevant authorities who might have prevented September 11 or made it less horrific is a legitimate issue. The issue of airport and airliner security is especially ripe in this regard. Why have we been so sloppy about it for so long, when, in Israel and Europe, we had obvious examples of a much better way to do it? Still now we are doing a lousy job. Why isn't some politician accountable for that? Beats me.

Washington, D.C.: The London Times today reports that an Egyptian informant says that bin Laden openly bought anthrax from a Southeast Asian source, and bacteria from a Czech factory.

Is there any confirmation of this?

Robert Kaiser: This is new to me. I'm sure we will pursueit.

San Diego, Calif.: It seems to me that The White House, as well as Capitol Hill, have been shelling out billions of dollars left and right for the past month and a half now. I understand that this money is needed for such things as securing mail, and fighting a bioterrorism war, as well as a conventional war, but where is this money coming from? It used to be that we picked over every million dollars that was appropriated to any type of organization.

Robert Kaiser: As noted above, the Congress has appropriated what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund to prosecute the war, and the president can allocate it pretty much as he sees fit. This spending will eat up the rest of our budget surplus, but (at least thus far) it's actual money in the bank, not yet deficit spending.

Reston, Va.: Like the JFK assassination, the World Trade Center attack includes dramatic images of a nation-stopping event. Unlike 1963, there has been no Warren Commission established to serve as a clearing house for the official description of events. Also unlike 1963, people do not seem to feel a need to ascribe larger meanings (i.e. grand conspiracy theories) to such a devastating attack that was accomplished with such ease. One president is killed by a lone gunman and people talk about it for going on 40 years. 13,000 are killed and injured in lower Manhattan one morning and people blindly accept that it's the work of religous terrorists.

Why aren't other possibilities being considered?

To honor the memory of so many killed and injured we should ask very impolite questions and avenge their deaths with an appropriately aggressive search for the truth and assignment of responsibility.

Robert Kaiser: This is an interesting question. I'm not sure we need a Warren Commission to take responsibility for the effort to figure out what happened here, but it is fair to wonder who will take that responsibility. Of course we will try, but we will also depend on the fruits of official investigations. This too is a question the editorial page might like to ponder. I'm going to think about it too.

Robert Kaiser: That's all I have time for today. Thanks to all for taking part in a lively discussion. I love our wp.com readers! They are the smartest. 'Til next time...

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

America at War: Biological Weapons at 1 p.m. EDT
America at War: Counter-terrorism at 3 p.m. EDT
Real Wheels: Warren Brown at 4 p.m. EDT
The Starry Eye: Horoscopes at 6 p.m. EDT
Live Online Special Coverage: America At War

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |       |