|
Back Channels
With Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Reporter
Thursday, October 25, 2001; 1 p.m. EST
Weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the country continues to take steps to improve homeland security amid new reports of anthrax exposures and ongoing military strikes in Afghanistan.
Washington Post reporter Vernon Loeb will be online Thursday, Oct. 25 at 1 p.m. EDT to talk about defense and national securities issues related to the war on terrorism.
In his latest articles and columns, Loeb examines the "evisceration" of Taliban military power and CIA efforts to win loyalty among dissident Taliban leaders.
Submit
your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
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.
:
Vernon Loeb: Greetings to all of you. I just got out of the Pentagon briefing, where Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the U.S. military has every intention of finding and neutralizing Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden, whereever he may be hiding (presumably) in Afghanistan. You may have seen this morning's USA Today, which quoted Rumsfeld as saying that the U.S. may never find bin Laden. At the briefing, he was trying to set the record straight. So, with that bit of news, let's get started.
Alexandria, Va.:
Vernon: Just wanted to say that the work you and your colleagues have done on the military campaign has been first rate. It seems that many of the stories, on intelligence leaks and military operations, that have made the administration so upset have come from the Post. Just how hard has it been to pry credible information out of the Pentagon and other sources you rely on for your stories? Are you feeling any backlash?
Vernon Loeb: Thanks very much for that compliment. We are doing our best to try to get information out of the Pentagon, which isn't easy right now. For obvious operational considerations, Rumsfeld and other senior defense officials are very concerned about leaks. And I can understand that. But they've created an environment in which no one feels comfortable communicating with reporters about anything. This has created a situation in which little slivers of information--which is about all you can find out--end up getting inflated into lead paragraphs that may not be entirely accurate (or to the Pentagon's liking), and that only makes the situation worse. In the end, in any event, the truth will come out. I feel pretty confident about that. But it may take a while.
Boston, Mass.:
In one of Howard Kurtz's chats a reader pointed out that even before the military campaign was launched in Afghanistan (and probably now still) the press in alliance countries such as Great Britain has been much more liberal in publishing detailed information on operations. Do you worry about getting scooped in this way but being able to do little about it considering Rumsfeld's position on leaks?
Vernon Loeb: So far, I haven't seen anything in the "alliance" press that I considered an operational "scoop." And I doubt the alliance government officials know what the U.S. is up to operationally. However, I can foresee situations in which the British Ministry of Defence briefings are more illuminating than the Pentagon's about the overall course of the conflict, as often happened during the Kosovo war. But, luckily, we typically have access to those briefs in real time.
Washington, D.C.:
The American public is not receiving much information about the strategic planning behind the ongoing operations in Afghanistan. What military scenarios (worst-case and best-case) are the White House and the Pentagon considering at this moment?
Vernon Loeb: That's a good question. But I don't have a good answer. Certainly the administration has been taking pains lately to prepare people for a long campaign in Afghanistan, and an even longer war on terrorism. The best-case scenario in Afghanistan, I suppose, would be to capture bin Laden and have the Taliban fall before the beginning of Ramadan next month. That doesn't seem likely. The worst-case scenario would involve a long and drawn out war in Afghanistan, no bin Laden, no Taliban fall, with lots of American casualties. That doesn't seem likely either, largely because the Pentagon has a willing surrogate on the ground, the Northern Alliance, and no desire to take and hold ground inside the country. And if the war does drag on from the air, I think U.S. officials will be able to argue, somewhat persuasively, that they have significantly degraded the ability to the Taliban to support al Qaeda, and significantly degraded al Qaeda's ability to sponsor terrorist attacks against the United Sates.
London, England:
Hi Vernon
It's just been announced on the BBC that British troops with be joining US troops on the ground sailing from Oman tomorrow. Any idea how these are going to be used?
Vernon Loeb: I would assume the British troops would be special forces, meaning they are your highly trained commandos who know how to do things like reconnaissance, target designation, counter-insurgency training (of the Northern Alliance) and snatch-and-grab raids, directed at bin Laden and other top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders. I'm sure the British may have some esoteric specialties, perhaps particular to that part of the world, that U.S. Special Forces don't have. They wouldn't be going unless there was a sense that British and U.S. special forces can work well together.
Los Angeles, CA:
Greetings Vernon,
Despite stern warnings from the President, word that Special Ops forces were on the ground in Afghanistan was leaked almost as soon as they landed, certainly putting American lives at risk. Is there an investigation into who leaked this info? Would this offense rise to the level of treason?
Vernon Loeb: I don't know of any investigation into the leak. Rumsfeld, who complained loudly about the leak on Monday, said he didn't think it actually had jeopardized lives. So I take some issue with your premise. My sense is that the raids were probably over by the time the information was broadcast on NBC and CBS Friday night. We had a story Friday morning about a small number of special forces being on the ground in southern Afghanistan--a story Rumsfeld clearly didn't like, and one that clearly preceeded the commando raids that night. But the story said nothing about the raids, where they took place, or what they consisted of, so I don't think it jeopardized any lives. Defense officials knew Thursday night what we were going to publish and raised no national security objections. Had they warned us away from the piece on grounds that two major Ranger raids were about to begin, I do not think we would have published it. But they said nothing. We really do rely on them to do their jobs in situations like this. We try to be open with them--and they have to object when they feel they need to. Complaining three days later accomplishes nothing.
Arlington, VA:
Just to clarify your opening statement about Rumsfeld and USA Today, despite all the tough talk about "dead or alive" that we heard a few weeks back, is the administration acknowledging that even our best military efforts may not make this a reality?
Vernon Loeb: Rumsfeld said USA Today took his remarks a little bit out of context. I don't know whether the newspaper did or not. Apparently what Rumsfeld told the USA Today editorial board in an interview was that finding bin Laden will be extraordinarily difficult. At the briefing today, he said he didn't mean to suggest that finding him is no longer an objective. Rumsfeld said categorically today that the military wants to find him, intends to find him and will find him. But it's going to take time. And right now, Rumsfeld said, the U.S. doesn't know where he is.
Harlingen, Texas:
DCI Tenet has rightly emphasized the need to share information on terrorism among a wide variety of intelligence, law enforcement and emergency response agencies. On the other hand, it seems likely that much of the relevant information about future attacks will come from communications intelligence and human sources.
This is precisely the kind of reporting that the intelligence community has traditionally tried to protect by restricted access and high levels of classification. It is also the kind of intelligence that recently caused the present Administration considerable distress when it leaked out of authorized channels.
Since it is highly unlikely that every policeman and emergency worker is going to be cleared at the TS/SCI level, are there any signs of how the intelligence community is going to reconcile the need to make relevant information broadly available with the possibility that by doing so sensitive sources and methods will be disclosed to unauthorized recipients?
Vernon Loeb: I don't know how George Tenet will ultimately reconcile this issue. But to me the more significant problem is getting good HUMINT and SIGINT on bin Laden and al Qaeda in the first place. Before we start worrying about safeguarding that intelligence, we have to figure out how to get it. And remember, the intel that ush got all upset about was a leak from a CIA brief to the Senate intelligence committee in which the agency said the chances of follow-on terrorist attacks in the U.S. were "100 percent." This is hardly sensitive HUMINT or SIGINT, and the leak certainly didn't jeopardize sources and methods. I think the intelligence community does a pretty good job right now of protecting its most sensitive human and electronic intelligence--intelligence that, as you suggest, would never be shared with local police anyway. Speaking of intel, the bomb that killed the 22 Pakitani terrorists in Kabul was apparently dropped on the basis of on-the-ground, real-time intel, so maybe capabilities are suddenly improving! We can only hope.
Hanover, Germany:
The terrorists led by bin Laden are known for their ambition to acquire biological and chemical weapons. As such attacks cannot be detected for days, it's very difficult for authorities to react in a swift manner. What precautions can authorities take against such attacks, for example by inspections? And
shouldn't governments now concentrate on developing and providing large quantities of vaccines to their citizens?
Vernon Loeb: There's a long list of things governments all over the world must now start doing to defend against terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons. Certainly stockpiling and providing antibiotics is one of them. One precaution I think you will see taken during the war on terrorism is military destruction of any and all suspected chem-bio-nuke facilities that can be identified, in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else. I wouldn't bet against U.S. military strikes against Iraqi chem-bio facilities sometime in the not-too-distant future.
Washington, D.C.:
Although recent events have understandably focused discussion on biological and chemical warfare, I'm at least equally concerned about the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Various sensationalized reports about "nuclear suitcases" missing from the former Soviets' stockpile have been strongly denied by both Russian and U.S. officials. Your reporting reflects strong sources and contacts within DoD -- have they given you any insights on that issue?
Vernon Loeb: I think the events of Sept. 11 will make intelligence officials and military officials take the possibility of a suitcase nuke attack much more seriously. It is a fact: Russia had suitcase nukes, as did we. It is a fact: Russia has a porous control system for its nuclear devices, and its fissile material. While no terrorist has ever been arrested with a loose Russian suitcase nuke, there have been a handful of pretty scary cases involving loose fissile material in Eastern Europe. If I were President Bush, I would be pouring money and resources into the Nunn-Lugar programs right now, which are designed to help Russia safeguard its nuclear stockpile.
Olney, Md.:
Why the obsession with an "operational Scoop"? You are not going to influence the operation and there is the danger that it may unduly place the troops at even more risk. Do we think that real time exploitation of information is a unique capability? I know wars make "Pulitzers" but why at the possible expense of loss of life?
Vernon Loeb: I wish I had a rational answer for you, and I clearly think you make a very good point. The long and short of it is, scoops are part of journalism--part of the culture, the business and the history. It's a competitive business, and having something first, I suppose, means people will read or watch the people who get it first more than the people who get it second. I've never thought the scoop mentality is a particularly great part of the business. I'd rather get it second--and be accurate, fair, descriptive and nuanced, than get it first and be half-baked, or worse--flat wrong. And it's the scoop mentality that's responsible for probably 90 percent of all serious mistakes in journalism. Getting back to your point--you're right, we need to be more careful than ever when reporting operational information during a war that could endanger soldiers lives. I, for one, don't think a scoop is worth getting somebody killed, or injured, or threatened.
Washington, DC:
As a member of the media, how concerned are you about anthrax infection? To be honest, I think what we're seeing is probably the work of some Unabomber type crank with an ax to grind rather than anyone associated with al Qaeda. What do you think?
Vernon Loeb: I agree with you that it's probably a Unabomber-type nut and not al Qaeda or Saddam. As for how threatened I feel, I've basically stopped opening my mail. It's just too much of a hassle, especially since The Post has just moved our newsroom mailroom to another floor of the building--and the people who work in the super-ventilated new room wear masks and rubber gloves. If you want to communicate with me, send me an email--or call.
New York, NY:
Is Tenet on the way out? What do you think of the job he's done?
There seem to be a lot of people hinting that he'll be sacrificed, but other indications that Bush has grown to trust and respect him.
Vernon Loeb: I don't think Tenet is on the way out. Bush, by all accounts, likes and trusts him. Tenet was never supposed to stay around for longer than a year or two, and if I had to bet, I think he probably will serve until the end of 2002--or maybe even longer. I have always found Tenet to be an honorable man--somebody who cares deeply about the CIA and the intelligence community, and somebody who has tried to bring about reform, as best as he's able, given the fact that he doesn't control 85 percent of the intelligence community's budget. I don't think anybody pretends Tenet is perfect--but sacrificing him for the problems of an intelligence community that have been 50 years in the making would, in my opinion, be wrong. Remnember, one of the chief functions of intelligence is warning--and NOBODY has warned louder than Tenet about the dangers of Osama bin Laden. I think the Bush administration desperately needs to look at the intelligence community, and the CIA, and figure out what it could have done differently before Sept. 11. But I'm with Sen. McCain--this should be done to fix the problem, not scapegoat people. I, for one, do not think the CIA, or the FBI, or the Pentagon, can preempt every terrorist attack--and believing that they can will keep us from doing all the things that must be done, from humanitarian aid to foreign policy, to win the war against terrorism.
Washington, DC:
I wonder why no one has addressed the use of cruise missiles to destroy the many caves in Afganistan where Taliban are reported to be hiding soldiers and weapons? If cruise missiles can clear windows without touching the sills, surely they can find their way into caves.
Vernon Loeb: Indeed, cruise missiles are pretty accurate, but that's not the issue. The issue is: what cave is Osama in? There are hundreds of caves in Afghanistan. And thousands of safehouses, in Kandahar, or someplace else. What if Osama is in Karachi, or some place like that, where there are literally millions of safehouses. I think the CIA/Special Forces will find him. Someone will give him up sooner or later. But it may take a long time.
Jersey City, N.J.:
Do you think that the US will conduct assassinations abroad of suspected terrorists as part of this campaign? If so, do you think that the targets of such assassinations could include individuals deported from the US (i.e., for whom the FBI couldn't develop a strong enough case, but whom the CIA has linked to bin Laden)?
Vernon Loeb: I think the U.S. military will kill suspected terrorists abroad. I don't think they will be considered assassinations, given the fact that we are conducting a WAR on terrorism. If the U.S. military gets intelligence that a bunch of al Qaeda leaders are having a meeting in a house in Kandahar, I don't think they would hesitate all that long before bombing the house--to try to kill them all. I don't think we'll start deporting people for the express purpose of killing them. But if one of those deportees shows up at an al Qaeda house in Afghanistan, he is clearly taking his chances.
Herndon, Va.:
If the U.S. wants "good" intelligence from many parts of the Middle East, isn't this at least a decade-long project? Language training alone and obtaining HUMINT sources would seem to take that long.
Vernon Loeb: I was going to say 20 years. But a decade would be long enough to make a start. Just like Rumsfeld and the military and thinking about news weapons systems and technologies to transform the U.S. military of 2020 or 2025, the CIA and the NSA ned to start thinking NOW about developing the kind of capabilities they're going to need 10, 20 and 30 years from now. The CIA needs to start building the Clandestine Service of the future right now--and I would hope the future Directorate of Operations won't be a bunch of guys with flimsy cover operating out of embassies.
Vernon Loeb: Well, it seems I've gone into overtime. Those were really great questions. Thank you all, and we'll do this again, real soon. Cheers.
| |
© Copyright 2001 The Washington Post Company | 
