Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

Congress overwhelmingly granted President Bush the power to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power to abolish any nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. As the Bush administration seeks allied support, they are drafting war plans that will deal with urban warfare and weapons of mass destruction. Read the full story Congress Passes Iraq Resolution (Post. Oct. 11).

How is the U.S. preparing to go to war with Iraq? What will be the next step after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein falls?

Post staff writer Vernon Loeb was online Oct. 16 at 1 p.m. ET, to discuss military 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 everyone. I just got back from Andrews Air Force Base, where the Army was demonstrating the capabilities of its new eight-wheeled Stryker combat vehicle--a vehicle Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's "transformation" team wants to cut, from 2,000 to 1,000, in order to save $4.5 billion. So today's event was an interesting event in the on-going tussle between Rumsfeld and the Army over weapons systems and transformation. Let's get started.

Georgetown, Washington D.C.: Hi Vernon, I really enjoyed the article. Do you think that going to war with Iraq and the need to cooperate with other non-democratic nations will cause the United States to further put aside our democratic values in order to achieve a more pressing and vital goal? This, for example, can be seen in our current relationship with Pakistan, and do you think that this hidden cost is worth that kind of sacrifice?

Vernon Loeb: You pose an interesting question, which I could probably take the whole hour answering. I say it's an interesting question, because while we're considering a war against Iraq to bring democracy to Iraq, we will be relying on countries in the region for help that clearly are not democracies. If you support an invasion of Iraq, I suppose you see this as a necessary evil. I personally had no problem with the U.S. dealing closely with Pakistan in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. And generally speaking, I would rather see the U.S. going to war as part of broad coalitions that include democracies and non-democracies. The funny thing about democracy is that the U.S. can't always control the outcome. Our involvement with Musharaf in Pakistan seems to have had the effect of strengthening the showing of Islamic fundamentalist parties in recent elections. Bottom line: It's always better to go to war backed by broad coalitions, which is generally a sign that your cause is just.

Washington, D.C.: Very interesting piece today. How was Rumsfeld's first stint as Secretary of Defense characterized? Were the same internal divisions present?

Vernon Loeb: Good question, and unfortunately, I don't have a very informed answer. Rumsfeld has just been around a lot longer than most people. I was in college when he was SecDef the first time and don't know a hell of a lot about his tenure. I have not heard tell of any major civilian-military divide his first time around. Remember, that was probably the low-point for the U.S. military, at the end of the Vietnam struggle. And Rumsfeld was in office for just two years at the end of the caretaker Ford administration, from 1975 to 1977.

Arlington, Va.: Can you give us any insight as to what the CIA is currently up to inside Iraq? Thanks.

Vernon Loeb: I'm afraid I cannot, other than to say that it's a fair bet that they've got a lot of people in the north with the Kurds. Saddam Hussein's murderous intelligence services makes Baghdad a pretty tough nut to crack in terms of agent penetrations, but I would hope the agency is trying to do the best it can. The CIA has long dreamed of fomenting a coup that would take Saddam down rather painlessly, but it has never succeeded in pulling that off.

Raleigh, N.C.: If al Qaeda has terrorist training camps, why can't we have counter-terrorist training camps? Can we create a place (or more likely another resource like books or videos) where any individual can go and learn how not to be a victim?

In any situation there are choices one can make to be safer. If we know what those choices are and how to react would we would feel safer or more secure?

Vernon Loeb: I suppose there are steps people can take that would protect them from terrorist attacks. But the thing that makes terrorist attacks so terrifying and deadly is that the terrorists choose the time and place to attack in a way that typically minimizes the public's ability to respond. I know a lot about terrorism, but the more I learn, the less safe I feel, because I gain a new appreciation for the calculated randomness of terror attacks, and the ease with which good compartmentalization on the terrorists' part makes detection and prevention next to impossible. I do not believe terrorism can be stopped exclusively with military forces, or by law enforcement and intelligence. Those things can all be effective, but the U.S., as a nation, also has to start addressing the political underpinnings of terrorism and the reasons why the Muslim world increasingly dislikes the U.S. so that we can stop people from wanting to become terrorists in the first place. One of the undersides of an invasion of Iraq, in my opinion, is that it will do great things for al Qaeda's ability to recruit new terrorists.

Washington, D.C.: How much could the intelligence agencies that do satellite mapping help in the sniper case? Could they rig satellites to take pictures of certain places in the D.C. are at certain times? And how good are the pictures?

Thanks

Vernon Loeb: The intelligence community could produce incredibly detailed satellite photos of the entire Washington region, down to a resolution of about 10 centimeters, meaning objects as small as that can be distinguished in a spy satellite photo. For example, a box truck could easily be differentiated from a mini-van in such a photo, and every vehicle in the parking lot of Home Depot in Fairfax County could probably be identified. But here's the problem with spy satellites and tactical intelligence: they only zoom over any given spot on earth a couple of times a day, at most, and they have little dwell time. A spy satellites' pass over the Washington metropolitan area would take no more than five minutes or so. Thus, unless we happened to have a satellite passing overhead at precisely the time a sniper shooting was taking place, it wouldn't do much good. What would do much more good would be a Global Hawk drone, which can linger over the same area for 24 hours or more at 65,000 feet and provide more or less constant imaging. Even here, you would have to get lucky and have the Global Hawk is the right general vicinity. If it was covering Fairfax County, for example, it couldn't see a shooting in Montgomery County. Perhaps if we had maybe three or four Global Hawks, we could achieve 24-hour imaging coverage of the entire metro area, but given a bunch of recent crashes, I think the military only has one or two of the experimental drones left in service.

Piscataway, N.J.: Did you hear about the 200 nukes that were unaccounted for in Ukraine? Do you believe some of these nukes could fall into the hands of Saddam or al Qaeda?

Vernon Loeb: There are all sorts of frightening stories out there about unaccounted nukes from the former Soviet Union. I don't believe the one about 200 missing nukes in the Ukraine, and neither does the U.S. intelligence community. But I do think accounting for nukes from the former Soviet Union is incredibly important, and if terrorists do manage to get a hold of one, this is where it would most likely come from. If I had to list the 10 most important things that could be done to safeguard the national security of the United States--and the world, for that matter--accounting for Soviet nukes and helping Russia safeguard its fissile material would be number one on my list, before the war on terrorism and way before invading Iraq.

Fairfax, Va.: Great article today -- areyou getting any response from OSD (SecDef or DepSecDef level) on these kinds of articles? Are you being shut out of information circles as punishment, or geting any other reponses?

Vernon Loeb: Haven't heard from the SecDef yet today, and yes, being shut out of information as punishment is always a risk whenever we write articles that seek to hold public officials accountable. But the Pentagon is a big place, and while today's article might make Rumfeld less interested in dealing with us, it might embolden others. I think the article was quite fair, and I think it's evident from the piece that both Tom Ricks and I have a lot of respect for Rumsfeld. But it's also quite evident to us that there are lot of people in the Pentagon, military and civilian alike, who do not feel like they are being treated with respect by Rumsfeld and his top aides.

Washington, D.C.: At this point, what other countries besides Britain are likely to commit to putting troops in harms way in a military coalition against Iraq?

Vernon Loeb: None that I know of. Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region will probably allow us to launch troops and air strikes from their countries, but commiting combat forces in another matter.

Bladensburg, Md.: Since when should the defense forces be like a private company? Last I knew private companies existed to make money, not to defend the nation. I agree that difficult money decisions have to be made but I'm really tired of government, civilian or military, being told to be like GE. I think we could find a LOT more practical efficient model than American corporations.

Vernon Loeb: I'm with you there. There are fundamentally sound ways to manage human beings, and they are applicable to companies, government agencies, newspapers and little league baseball teams. Corporate America hardly have a lock on such wisdom. And asking Tom White, a former Enron executive, to bring "best bussines practices" to the Army is almost laughable.

Washington, D.C.: I wasn't sure this was relevant to the topic, but thought I'd give it a shot. The media is obviously a very influential player in a possible war with Iraq and the debate surrounding it. I try to get my information from a large variety of sources, but I turned on Tom Brokaw last night to see what I assume the average citizen was watching. Tom's "objective" coverage of the Iraqi debate was titled "Target Iraq". Can NBC really say they are providing balanced, objective coverage with a title like this? Even if they include alternative views, the title seems to push them to the margin.

Vernon Loeb: I agree that some of the slogans the media uses are a bit over the top. I certainly think the op-ed pages of the Washinton Post and The New York Times have been serving up a wide variety of opinion, pro and con, on the wisdom of invading Iraq. I think the news coverage of both papers in also trying to exmaine all aspects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. But it's interesting, I was reading an essay last night from the London Review of Books, in which the American media was denounced as being hopelessly uncritical of the administration's desire to wage war against Iraq.

Woodbridge, Va.: I am curious as to your take on the Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The vehicle itself has come under much criticism, both fair and unfair, and the concept has been described by one very learned soldier as the "perfection of the 1967 era Soviet BTR Regiment."

Vernon Loeb: I don't agree at all. I think the Stryker will give the Army a highly mobile capability it does not now have. I think the new Stryker brigades will quickly become favorites among the global combatant commanders, precisely because they are--as the Army propoganda goes--deployable, survivable and quite lethal. Apparently, the opposing force commanders at the National Training Center were amazed at Stryker's mobility across rough terrain during the recent Millenium Challenge exercise. The real issue about Stryker is money: do we need six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (with 2,100 vehicles)or can we get by with three and plough $4.5 billion in savings into something else? I suspect a large-scale land involvement in Iraq, followed by years of occupation, will settle that argument in favor of six brigades.

Indianapolis, Ind.: What kind of things did Rumsfeld to keep himself informed and up to date on military issues before becoming Secretary of Defense? Was he involved in any think-tanks that forced on military issues?

Vernon Loeb: Well, he presided over two blue ribbon national commissions shortly before his return to the Pentagon, on one ballistic missile proliferation, and one on U.S. space policy. I think the issue with Rumsfeld is the way he deals with people, not his understanding of military or strategic issues. He is a very smart man, no question about that.

Harrisburg, Pa.: What should be our long term strategy in Iraq? After Saddam Hussein, what steps could and should the United States do to encourage an Iraqi government that both respects its own people (unlike Saddam who killed many of his own people) and that will engage in peaceful relations with others?

Vernon Loeb: Boy, those are tough questions. Assuming the U.S. invades Iraq and topples Saddam, I guess our long-term strategy should be focused upon helping to rebuild country and fostering democratic elections that make it possible for some kind of representative government to come to power. I suppose I'm kind of outlining the process followed in Afghanistan, but with much more robust nation building. I don't think a U.S. miliary interim government would be a good idea at all.

New York, N.Y.: In your article today, you mention the charge of risk aversion that has frequently been leveled against the Pentagon. Similar charges have long been directed at the CIA's Directorate of Operations. Do you know if that risk aversion is still as strong at the CIA as it was prior to Sept. 11? Is the DO, for example, using more people in non-official cover positions to combat al Qaeda and similar organizations?

washingtonpost.com: Rumsfeld's Style, Goals Strain Ties In Pentagon, (Post, Oct. 16)

Vernon Loeb: That's a very good queston that's very hard to answer. Certainly the DO has ventured into paramilitary operations to a much greater extent since 911. I certainly would hope the DO would be using more people with non-official cover, but I don't know if they are. I mean, if 911 and the war on terrorism can't help an organizaiton overcome risk aversion, things are pretty hopeless.

Milwaukee, Wis.: I've read Sen. McCAin and Rumsfeld communicate often but I don't know if that means they are friends. I do respect Sen. McCain's opinion. Can you tell me a little of what their relationship is?

Vernon Loeb: Sen. McCain, whether he's friends with Rumsfeld or not, does his own thing. He's a maverick, in he best sense of the word, in my opinion. This week, he put out a list of $7 billion in pork barrel defense projects. And I know there's no love lost for him at the White House. I don' know if McCain and Rumsfeld are friends or not. But I bet you if McCain calls Rumsfeld, he gets a return call--from Rumsfeld himself.

Vernon Loeb: Well, I've run over the appointed hour. Thanks for all those questions. They were terrific, as usual. We can do this again in a couple of weeks.

| |



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