Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

One year after unprecedented attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, how has the United States and the world changed? Is the war on terrorism still justified? How is the American political system -- including the presidency, Congress and our system of civil liberties -- responding to the challenges posed by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

Post staff writer Vernon Loeb was online Tuesday, Sept. 10 at 1 p.m. ET, to discuss national defense and changes in national security issues during the war on terrorism.

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 threat index is rising, so let's get on with our discussion.

Alexandria, Va.: When the US called off the Gulf War in 1991, did the US stipulate that the war would resume if Saddam again began to develop weapons of mass destruction?

Vernon Loeb: I think at the end of the Gulf War, the understanding was that ironclad military and economic sanctions would remain on Iraq until UN inspectors could certify that the country was not engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction. Thus, the sanctions remain. I do not think an explicit commitment to go to war if Iraq continued producing WMD was part of the understanding. Obviously, the rules have now changed.

Herndon, Va.: When other countries say they are reluctant to commit more troops for, Afghanistan and cite a concern over the security situation, I interpret that as they are unwilling to engage in peace-enforcement. I thought that the ISAF had a wide mandate for just this sort of thing. Are the other countires just scared to use their militaries?

Vernon Loeb: I think there are several things weighing on the minds of military policy makers in other countries. As you suggest, the dangers inherent in operating in Afghanistan are probably part of the equation. I think there are also financial considerations: do they have the money to deploy and support troops to Afghanistan without U.S. help? And third, and perhaps most importantly, I think they're looking for the U.S. for leadership. If Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went out and asked U.S. allies to contribute troops to expand ISAF beyond Kabul, and committed to both providing a quick reaction force to protect the ISAF if necessary and offering some financial assistance, I feel quite certain that other countries would contribute.

Piscataway, N.J.: How do you expect Iraq to respond to an American attack? Are they going to switch to terrorism? How good are Iraq's bioweapons program? Do you believe that Saddam has a nuclear bomb? Or at the least a dirty bomb?

Vernon Loeb: The big fear in the Pentagon is that Saddam Hussein will respond by firing Scud missiles armed with chemical or biological weapons at Israel and at U.S. forces. Since the stated reason for invading Iraq is regime change, the thinking is that Saddam will believe he has nothing to lose--and simply go for broke. (This is unlike the 1991 Gulf War, when the stated intent very clearly was ONLY the liberation of Kuwait). Further, Pentagon analysts fear that Saddam will use WMD againt Israel in order to suck the Israelis into the conflict in hopes of stoking a war that unites the Arab world againt Israel. Having said all that, I am not convinced Saddam has the ability to arm Scuds with bio and chemical weapons, though its a scenario we certainly have to consider and take seriously. And I do not believe Iraq has a nuclear weapon, nor does the CIA. The whole Iraq debate we're engaged in would be a lot simpler if the Bush administration could prove that it did.

Baltimore, Md.: How many (estimated) Al-Qaeda are alive world-wide, and how many are estimated to be in the USA?
Is there any estimate on the number of these who could be considered "Cell Leaders"?

Vernon Loeb: I have never seen reliable estimates for total members, members in the U.S. or cell leaders. I don't think anyone knows. The FBI says it has 200 suspected al Qaeda members under surveillance. An estimated 15,000 al Qaeda fighters are believed to have been trained in camps in Afghanistan. Worldwide, 2,700 people suspected of links to al Qaeda have been arrested over the past year, with about half having been released. And the military has probably killed several thousand or more suspected Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. That's the closest I can come. I think its fair to say that al Qaeda has a recruiting pool of hundreds of thousands of Islamic extremists through the Muslim world.

Alexandria, Va.: Do you think it is possible for someone to say with any degree of assurance what Saddam would do with nuclear weapons once he has them?

If it is not possible to say what Saddam would do with his nuclear weapons, does that mean that he might attack America with them?

Vernon Loeb: I don't think it's possible to say with any assurance at all what Saddam Hussein would do with nuclear weapons if he had them. I doubt that attacking the U.S. with them would be high on his list, since it would most likely mean the destruction of his nation. But pushed against the wall by th U.S., it's hard to know how he would react. A more interesting question is, if Saddam had a nuke, would he use it on Israel? He did, after all, fire dozens of Scud missiles at Israel during the Gulf War for the hell of it, since Israel was not engaged in the conflict. For that reason, I agree with the Bush administraton entirely that it is best if Saddam is kept from ever acquiring nuclear weapons. And we can debate what the best means for doing that is.

Washington, D.C.: And the reason for the threat index changing to orange is?

Vernon Loeb: I'm sure the threat index has gone orange because the National Security Agency is intercepting a whole lot of messages indicating that an attack is in the offing. Since there is no way to check the veracity of these intercepts, all have to be taken seriously. As well, Attorney General John Ashcroft just now said during his briefing that an al Qaeda operative in custody has indicated that attacks have been planned for Sept. 11 in Southeast Asia.

Washington, D.C.: How credible is the color-coded system indicating the risk of terror? Seems to me it's very vague, and today it is contradicting itself. For example, from the story at the top of the Post website, Ashcroft cites a "specific and credible" report, but then a local law enforcement officer offers the following:

"There's no specific threat. There is just such a chance with something happening on the anniversary that they kicked it up a notch," a local law enforcement official said before the official announcement at the Justice Department.

Who/What should we believe?

Vernon Loeb: As I said, with terrorism, the intelligence community has a "no threshold" policy for reports of impending attacks, meaning they take them all seriously. Ashcroft just said that the intel community has reporting from multiple sources, similar to the kind it had last Sept. 11. And that means there is "chatter" that something is in the works. They seem to have specific information that some of the targets were government installations in Southeast Asia, thus they've closed four embassies. But typically, they don't have specific information about where the attacks will occur.

Washington, D.C.: There seems to be relatively little outrage and a significant amount of approval of the detention without counsel of Jose Padilla. Don't you believe, regardless of whether or not Mr. Padilla is ever proven guilty after a fair trial, that this detention is an astonishing affront to our Constitution?

Vernon Loeb: I agree that under our Constitution, Padilla should be given a lawyer and a speedy trial. He was not captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and I do not believe he can be considered an "unlawful combatant" like the detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Harlingen, Tex.: The present Administration and the post-9/11 environment in general would seem to be friendly to the passage of an anti-leak bill, yet little has been heard of a third attempt to pass one. For that matter, the leak study mandated by Congress last year is long past its May due date.

Have you heard anything about a bill this year, or what's happened to the study?

Vernon Loeb: Last I heard was that CIA Director George Tenet in May objected to the Justice Department report, because he did not think it went far enough in recommending new statutory language making the leaking of all types of classified information a felony. Even though key figures in the Bush administration like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney have taken a tough line on leaks and urged that leakers be prosecuted, they haven't submitted any new legislation further criminalizin leaks. So they may feel that current law is strong enough. It certainly covers virtually all of the intelligence, military and national security information that they are most concerned about.

Catalina Island, Calif.: The press recently reported that terrorists originally considered striking nuclear power plants. How valid is this story? Local press reported this several months ago, and the national press reputed it. Also, there have been far different reports on what would happen should a plane crash into a nuclear power plant. We do know that terrorists trained across the river from Three Mile Island. Which stores in the press should the public believe?

Vernon Loeb: The government took them seriously enough to do a survey of plant security and close air space over plants. But I don't think the information about the possibility of such attacks was ever all that specific.

Boston, Mass.: Mr. Loeb,
It has been said that the most dramatic and lingering effect 9/11 had on our society is that a dumbfounded America sat idle and watched as many of their civil liberties were whittled away in the name of "national security." How well do you feel our civil liberties and quality of life have held up with the tremendous pressure of post-9/11 paranoia? Are journalists addressing this issue adequately?
Thanks.

Vernon Loeb: I think the shocking nature of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and the number of people killed, led many Americans to accept greater infringements on traditional civil liberties in the United States than they otherwise would have. I think the pendulum has swung pretty far in the direction of increased law enforcement powers, probably with substantial public support. I think it will start to swing back at some point, so that civil liberties will remain strong and remain one of the clearest expressions of why we're different from the extremists attacking America. Our Congress rules in fits and starts, and balance in most areas in achieved only in time.

Washington, DC: How many of the world's tall skyscrapers are located in Southeast Asia, beyond those in Singapore? Would a Sept. 11, 2002 attack against the U.S. have to include U.S. victims or targets?

Vernon Loeb: Well, having once been based in Southeast Asia, I remember lots of tall buildings in Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai and Jakarta. But if al Qaeda is going to attack something in Southeast Asia, it would most likely be an American target--one of our embassies, a military installation, or a ship. I also doubt they would be able to use airliners as guided missiles, given improved airline security. My guess is that they would go back to their next favorite weapon: the truck bomb. But good luck trying to hit a U.S. embassy, military installation or ship. All of those targets are much, much harder now than they were a year ago, or than they were four years ago, when al Qaeda blew up two U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Virginia: What is Ashcroft saying now about gathering information that was just recently available. Where and what are we supposed to look out for?

Vernon Loeb: The good news seems to be that Ashcroft focused mostly on overseas targets. The bad news is that Ashcroft gave us no indication of where or what to look out for, with the exception of four embassies in Southeast Asia, which are now closed. Let me go out on a limb here and say, I doubt al Qaeda will attempt a big anniversary attack today or tomorrow or the next day. al Qaeda is patient, and it has never shown a propensity to attack on one-year anniversaries, and it wants to succeed--so why attack when U.S. defenses are at their absolute highest? Better to make a lot of bogus, vague threats using cell phones and email accounts--thus sending the NSA up a wall trying to interpret them all--and wait until a better time.

Arlington, Va.: Are our Federal Law Enforcement agencies able to catch terrorists? Chasing terorists requires a completely different mindset than chasing a Columbian drug dealer, Mafia member or bookie. In the case of the DOD law enforcement agencies -- ie NCIS, CID and FOSI they are great at solving crimes like phone fraud and bogus DIY moves but terrorism is completely outside any training they received. Doesn't chasing terrorists require a new and different type of Special Agent and not your typical male with a degree in Law Enforcement from a third rate school who was the captain of his school football team!

Vernon Loeb: I agree with you completely that law enforcement and intelligence agencies have to start thinking about new ways to penetrate terrorist cells and apprehend terrorists using new kinds of agents and officers who don't look or sound like former quarterbacks. But even countries like Israel that have spent decades trying to develop just such operatives have had only mixed success. Terrorist cells are very hard targets to pentrate. As former CIA official Milt Bearden, one of the smartest ex-agency guys I know, wrote in the Sunday New York Times: It's hard for the CIA to penetrate a cell made up of two uncles and three cousins.

Somewhere, USA: CNN is saying that the threat will be on U.S. soil and that the info came from an Al Qaeda member under arrest by another government, friendly to the U.S.

Vernon Loeb: But this al Qaeda member doesn't seem to know where the attack will take place. Which means his information may or may not be reliable. The federal government probably doesn't know, so under the "no threshold" policy, they're treating it as credible, as well they should. But without more specifics on where the attack will take place, the information is basically worthless.

Vernon Loeb: Well, I've run over our appointed hour. I hope we can do this again soon. Thanks for all the questions. My apologies to those whose questions I didn't get around to. They were all good, and I wish I could have answered all of them. Cheers. Let's hope the next couple of days pass without incident.

washingtonpost.com:

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

Stay tuned to Live Online:

One Year Later: State Dept. on Global Diplomacy at 4 p.m. ET
Marc Fisher: 2002 Election Special at 10 p.m. ET

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.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>