|
Back Channels
With Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Reporter
Thursday, November 29, 2001; 1 p.m. EST
More than two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan continues while intelligence gathering efforts are also being stepped up.
Washington Post reporter Vernon Loeb will be online Thursday, Nov. 29 at 1 p.m. EST to talk about defense and national securities issues related to the war on terrorism.
In his latest articles and columns, Loeb examines Navy efforts to block Osama bin Laden's potential escape from Afghanistan and Pentagon hopes for aid from the Northern Alliance in finding al Qaeda's leader.
Submit
your questions and comments before or during the discussion.
The 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.
Vernon Loeb: Greetings all. The Pentagon briefing just finished, so let's get started
Fairfax, Virginia:
Greetings.
I'm a bit surprised by CIA's admission that Mike Spann - who recently died in Afghanistan - was actually one of its officers. recognizing that "the new agency" is more receptive to the need for public relations, etc., how much is this announcement also an attempt on the DCI's part to show that his organization is out there making sacrifices and thereby divert attention when the 9/11 blame game eventually starts?
Vernon Loeb: I was surprised, myself, by the fact that the CIA promptly released Spann's name. I think they did it for a couple of reasons, none having to do with image building or whatever bureaucratic battles the agency will have to fight later on for survival. First, the Birmingham paper down in Alabama reported Spann's name before the agency did--so the name was out there already. Secondly, there had been intense media speculaiton, based on Northern Alliance reports, that a CIA officer had been killed in the prison riot in Mazar-e-Sharif. So the CIA, in announcing Spann's name, was essentially confirming what the world already pretty much knew. Finally, since Spann wasn't a case officer running agents overseas, I think the agency felt that there would be no operational damage to sources and methods if his identity was made known. In doing so, the announcement gave th agency the opportunity--in my opinion, and there are people in the CIA whom I respect that strongly disagree--to recognize the extreme sacrific by one of its own officers.
Washington, DC :
The first American combat causality in Afghanistan being a CIA officer has me wondering – any idea how large or what percentage of the CIA is made up of such para-military specialists? I was under the impression that this sort of CIA operator is a small number -- that the CIA is mostly made up of analysts and foreign policy-type spies who hang out in diplomatic circles. I assume the CIA would not put these sort of analysts/spies into combat zones to address military situations like calling in bomb strikes or dealing with enemy prisoners, as was apparently the duty of the CIA officer killed in action. Also, in the past I take it the CIA would not have acknowledged the death of one of its operators. What’s your take on why Tenet make a public statement this time?
Vernon Loeb: I think I just pretty much answered the final part of your question. As to the size of the CIA's paramilitary unit, the Special Activities Division, I would guess it probably numbers several hundred officers, mostly former military special forces people, and is growing rapidly. Clearly, this war on terrorism is moving the CIA awat from its traditional emphasis on embassy-based espionage operations toward its more paramilitary activities, which it has long possessed, but more as a niche activity than a dominate focus of the Directorate of Operations. I would say now that paramilitary ops are THE primary emphasis of the DO, and that their importance will only increase as the war on terrorism wraps up in Afghanistan in the coming months and rolls to on (pick a country)Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia or the Philippines.
Jersey City, N.J:
Is it clear to you what terrorist organizations other than al Qaeda will be the targets of this long-term campaign? Do you think, for example, that Hezbollah could be the next direct target of our military and/or
intel "special operations" activities?
Vernon Loeb: Good question. Al Qaeda is definitely target number one, and eliminating al Qaeda is going to take some time. Targeting Hezbollah and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad is frought with all sorts of other political considerations involving relations with Iran, in the case of Hezbollah, and the Israel-Palestinian peace process, in the case of the othe two. I'm not sure the Bush administration has fully answered this question for itself yet, despite the assertions by the President and others that this is a war on all terrorist groups, not just al Qaeda. Obviously, some terrorist groups are more threatening to U.S. interests than others. One thing I can say is that I recently heard Jerry Bremer, chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism and an influential Republican thinker on terrorism, say that he believes it is imperative for the U.S. to confront Hezbollah and Hamas as the war on terrorism continues.
Arlington, Va:
In the immediate aftermath of the attack we heard a squall of complaints that US intelligence has had one hand tied behind its back due to the prohibition on assassinations. Since then I've seen several
stories saying that the intelligence agencies have been able to get around this restriction by hiring others to do our dirty work, or by exploiting a loophole that allows them to go after "infrastructure," which may be defined
as, say, a cell phone.
Do you sense that the folks at Langley and the Pentagon have really felt restricted by this law? Are you aware of killings that have had US fingerprints on them?
Vernon Loeb: Whatever problems the CIA may have had in targeting and penetrating al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, I don't think the assassination ban has been one of them. President Clinton signed, and President Bush re-authorized, a lethal finding that essentially allowed the CIA to kill people in pursuit of terrorists. While that may not have strictly authorized putting a gun to Osama bin Laden's head, it would not prohibit dropping a bomb or firing a cruise missile at places where he was believed to be, which the Clinton administration, in fact, did in August 1998. Finally, I have no idea whether the CIA used foreign intelligence services to perform assassinations for the agency, but I would doubt this is one of their tactics. As I said, I have not heard a single CIA official complaining about the assassination ban.
Silver Spring, Md.:
How much leeway do you think the Prez will get in pushing through a variety of legislation in the name of national security? Congress seems to be balking a bit, but is the general attitude still we should do do whatever we "need" to do? I note the "Post" did censor (I mean, edit) a recent Doonesbury cartoon implying Bush was liking the idea of any criticism of him being regarded as unpatriotic. Ashcroft says the laws regarding military tribunals, etc. would be narrowly used, but what's the guarantee?
Vernon Loeb: My sense is that Ashcroft, on the domestic side, is engendering lots of opposition, which may cause problems for the Bush administration in passing legislation that directly impacts on domestic civil liberties. I don't think the administration will have any problem passing legislation broadening intelligence powers overseas. And the administration certainly hasn't had any trouble getting Congress to appropriate more money for intelligence and defense. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. Congress is appropriating money for weapons systems the administration doesn't even want.
Alexandria, Va.:
What is the current state of speculation regarding the role of Saddam?
Does the meeting between hijacker Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent prove anything other than that the Iraqis knew of Al Qaeda's network?
Vernon Loeb: If I were Saddam Hussein, I would be quite nervous--and it wouldn't have anything to do with the meeting in Europe between the Iraqi intel officer and Mohammad Atta. The meaning of that meeting isn't clear--and it doesn't matter. If Saddam doesn't allow inspectors into facilities where he is thought to be making chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, they will--I believe--be destroyed from the air by the U.S., as a prelude to toppling Saddam's regime through the assistance of the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the south. There is no doubt whatsoever that very influential people in the Bush administration favor proceeding directly from Afghanistan to Iraq.
Washington, DC:
Mr. Loeb- How is it that the U.S., with all of our advanced technology and listening equipment can we have completely no idea where Bin Laden is?
Vernon Loeb: I think it's probably an ovestatement to say that the intelligence community has "completely no idea" where bin Laden is. I think it probably has a range of possibilities of where he might be, and that that range is getting smaller and smaller all the time. One way to thwart the NSA's multi-billion signals intelligence system is to stop communicating electronically. I doubt very much that Osama is still talking on his sat phone, or driving around in a Toyota Landcruiser. At the same time, the NSA is clearly intercepting very signal, including lots of sat/cell phone calls, emanating from Afghanistan. And while Osama may not be the one talking, he cannot necessarily control the communications of everyone else who might know where he is. I personally think Osama's days are numbered. And I personally think the CIA and the U.S. military are starting to have a pretty good idea where he is. They seem awfully cocky to me these days when asked about Osama's whereabouts.
Fairfax County:
Since Osama bin Laden is a Saudi citizen, do you think there will be consequences and repercussions between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia gave millions of petrodollars to the PLO since the 1970s with no terrorists attacks on Saudi soil.
Vernon Loeb: I certainly do think this conflict will bring about some change in the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. Our nation's willingness is recent years to look the othe way as Saudi Arabia tacitly encourages Islamic extremsists--as long as they don't attack Saudi Arabia--has now been exposed by broad media commentary. This is one of the more fascinating questions of the current conflict--what will the war on terrorism mean to the U.S.-Saudi relationship? Tensions are clearly rising.
Washington, DC:
How long do you think it will take for the hiring practices of the CIA, NSA, DIA, etc. to come under scrutiny regarding September 11? I'm thinking particularly of the suspicion these agencies have tended to have towards people with a lot of foreign experience and contacts, which seems ridiculous in light of what happened.
Vernon Loeb: A retired CIA friend of mine is absolutely outraged that there have been no congressional hearings yet of the intelligence failures represented by the Sept. 11 attacks. I certainly think there should be rigorous, open hearings on that issue--so that real changes can be made in the way the CIA hires, trains, deploys and evaluates people, both on the analytic and operational sides. I do think those hearings are coming. And I'm not sure it's a bad thing that they not take place until sometime next year. George Tenet and co. clearly are busy in Afghanistan, and don't need to be preparing testimony for Capitol Hill. I hope the hearings, when they do come, will really hold Tenet and other senior leaders accountable, based on the facts that Congress can dig out, about their failures and successes. And, I should add, that I don't think a thorough-going review will be all negative. I certainly hope the Scowcroft commission, which is now considering intelligence reform, ends up doing a lot more than moving boxes around on the flow chart and transferring NSA, NRO and NIMA out from under the Pentagon.
San Francisco, CA:
With all the focus on terrorism, I wonder if you would entertain an unrelated question about the Wen Ho Lee case. I wanted to ask this before his book comes out, in case the answer changes.
We often hear that the case was botched. My question is, what is the breakdown in DC of perceptions about how the case was flawed. That is, how many people think the mistake was pursuing the wrong suspect for too long without ever catching the real spy (we now know that the leaked secrets did not come from Los Alamos, after all), and how many people think that the mistake was failing to build a case to convict an actual spy of espionage? I realize that people may not know for sure which of these is the correct interpretation of "botched", but I'm wondering what percentage of people lean in each direction.
Thank you.
Vernon Loeb: I have no idea what the general public thinks about the way in which the govenrment "botched" the Wen Ho Lee case, which it most certainly did. I believe those who fully understand what happened now believe that 1. the government botched the case by focusing on espionage probe at Los Alamos when there was basically no evidence that the espionage in question took place there (as opposed to 400 or 500 other possible locations)and that 2. the government badly over-charged and maltreated Wen Ho Lee in its zeal to convict him of something--which turned out to be the rather serious security infraction he pleaded guilty to.
Arlington, Va.:
Mr. Loeb,
Has there ever been a connection made between Mir Amil Kasi, the CIA shooter, and the bin Laden network?
I remember reading some reports before the trial pointing out that this was no random shooting by an unhinged lunatic. One of the victims (I’m sorry I forget his name) ran operations out of Pakistan during the Soviet-Afghan war, funneling money to various tribal elders, including Kasi’s uncle, I think it was. Kasi apparently felt belittled when he was not recognized as the new elder when his uncle died. Of all the people shot, Kasi supposedly returned to this victim’s car a second time to be sure that he got him.
Now, perhaps Kasi’s personal motivation may have been revenge, but the symbolism and
magnitude of the attack seem to bear the markings of an al Qaeda operation. Do you know if anyone has ever pursued this possibility?
Vernon Loeb: Great question. You seem to know a lot more about the Kasi case than I do. I've never seen any definitive link between Kasi and al Qaeda. But I doubt anyone would have to try very hard to find all sorts of indirect connections.
Washington, D.C.:
Vernon, has any of your coverage been done from Afghanistan? If not, do you plan to go? I'm curious in light of the journalists who have been killed and reports I've read about how difficult it is to gain access to what's taking place on the front lines.
Vernon Loeb: The closest I've got to Afghanistan since the war began was about 40,000 feet--I flew over the northwest corner of the country with Sec. Rumsfeld on his way from Uzbekistan to Pakistan. Unfortunately, my role thus far in covering the war has been Pentagon based--somebody has to be here day in and day out writing the daily war stories. I would love to go out to Afghanistan with U.S. forces--I think The Post is getting a reporter in with the Marines today--and I hope to get out to the theater before it's all over. There are always risks involved, though I think reporters embedded with U.S. troops are very, very safe. Having been a foreign correspondent and covered wars on the loose, like the eight journalsists who have been killed, I can say that the risks taken by a lot of foreign correspondents are very, very high. A few are just stupid, but most are really brave, and deserve the thanks of the world for risking their lives to make sure the truth gets out. Reporters feel every bit as strongly about their mission in Afghanistan--and should--as the U.S. military does. That's my two cent speech about foreign correspondents and freedom of the press.
Hartford, CT:
In all of AG Ashcroft's comments about available laws to crack down on terrorists, I haven't noticed any mention of the secret evidence provision. Do you know if the FBI is using that with any of the people who've already been detained?
I read that Mazen Al Najjar (who was ordered freed last year by Reno) had been re-arrested and now faces deportation though authorities say this isn't related to 9/11.
Vernon Loeb: That's a good question. Secret evidence probably isn't coming into play very much with the Ashcroft detainees, because secret evidence by definition is classified, and most of these detainees are being held on unclassified immigration violations, petty crimes and the like.
Vernon Loeb: Well, I'm out of time. Thanks for all those great questions. I look forward to doing this again before Christmas. Who knows what will have taken place in Afghanistan by then. Cheers.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
