Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

Faced with a tight deadline, Iraq on Wednesday accepted a tough new U.N. resolution that will return weapons inspectors to the country after nearly four years, Iraq's U.N. ambassador said.

Ambassador Mohammed Al-Douri said his government's letter, which officially accepts the resolution adopted unanimously last Friday by the U.N. Security Council, reiterates that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction." Read the full story Iraq Accepts New U.N. Council Resolution (Post. Nov. 13).

Post staff writer Vernon Loeb will be online Nov. 13 1 p.m. ET, to discuss military defense and changes in national security issues for 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: Hello everyone. Let's get started here.

Arlington, Va.: How long do you think inspectors will be able to poke around Iraq? Finding needles in haystacks is hard, particularly when someone wants to hide them.
Do you think we'll see a gradual lifting of embargo in exchange for continuing inspections, meaning perhaps the inspectors could be there for 3-5 years? Or do you think that, within a year or so, Saddam would start stonewalling inspectors, and the world would then say to the US "You've had a year and found nothing, so don't go threatening invasion because of his stonewalling now."

Vernon Loeb: I'm thinking much shorter term. I personally believe the inspections will break down within the first 60 days, and that an U.S.-led invasion will kick off early in 2003. I suppose it's possible that Saddam will comply with inspections wholeheartedly enough to stave off an attack, but I don't think it's at all likely. In fact, I doubt he will even fully comply with the inventory he must hand over to the UN by Dec. 8.

Indiananpolis, Ind.: Another news agency has reported that Iraq has agreed to inspections.

Now what?

Vernon Loeb: As I said, Saddam has until Dec. 8 to put forth a full inventory of his weapons of mass destruction holdings. And under UN Resolution 1441 Iraq must provide "a currently accruate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems...including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons..." I have a hard time believing Saddam can bring himself to make such a declaration.

Washington, D.C.: What can inspectors really accomplish? Can't Iraq just move their small dangerous weapons out of their usual spots?

Vernon Loeb: I think an important distinction between inspections, this time around, and inspections under UNSCOM in the 1990s is that now, Iraq is being asked to declare its holdings--to show the inspectors where they are. The inspectors also have been given much broader powers now, including the right to interview Iraqi scientists--outside of Iraq. If Saddam wants to play games, I'm sure he can hide stuff from inspectors. But if I'm reading the Bush administration correctly, it will never get to that level of game playing. The Bush team is looking for a way into the war, not a way to get out of it. I think it's important to remember that.

Barrington, Ill.: Would the US allow Russian or French troops to occupy Iraqi oil fields after we invade? Would squabbles over the positioning of international forces within the country be negotiated after we invade or has that already been resolved? How and by whom?

Vernon Loeb: It's hard to say, but I can't see the U.S. allowing either French or Russian troops to occupy the oil fields or any other part of Iraq, especially if those countries don't support the invasion. What troops will occupy which pieces of ground hasn't been set yet, and when it is, the U.S. will be calling the shots.

Washington, D.C.: If terror is the objective and al Qaeda has expert public relations people controlling what gets distributed through Al Jazeera and when, then why doens't Osama look down into the camera from above and hiss seething threats in English? That would be so much more effective than what the public receives now. Some many things just don't make sense when viewed objectively.

How come Gen. Franks won't say even a "ballpark" figure on the expected number of casualties from invading Iraq? Shouldn't that be pretty high on the list of questions that require answering?

Vernon Loeb: I don't even know if Osama can speak English, but in any event, he's not speaking to the American public (if it's even him in the latest audiotape), he's speaking to the Arabic speaking world, the Arab street. As for casualties, I wouldn't expect Franks or other defense official to talk about it. I haven't heard a single official or commander, on or off the record, hazard a guess. If they would be candid, I think they think the Iraqi regime can be taken down with a minimum of casualties--a few hundred or less. But they are aware of the potential for thousands of casualties, if Saddam uses chemical or biological weapons, or if block-to-block urban warfare becomes necessary at some point.

Falls Church, Va.: Mr. Loeb,
I read the recent profile on Secretary Rumsfeld by you and Thomas Ricks which suggests that the military brass feels abused and does not like him very much at all. What kind of reaction have you gotten to this story that portrayed him in somewhat less that flattering terms? Thank you.

washingtonpost.com: Afghan War Faltering, Military Leader Says (Post, Nov. 8)

Vernon Loeb: Well, I don't think Rumsfeld and company liked it very much, because it talked about him in less than glowing terms. However, we tried very, very hard to be fair to Rumsfeld, because he is a very complicatd figure who has lots of strengths, whatever his weaknesses may be. And a lot of people told us they actually found themselves siding with Rumsfeld as we laid out his pros and cons, which told us that we had indeed succeeded in our quest for absolute fairness. Another confirmation of this: Many of Rumsfeld's biggest detractors told us they didn't think we were hard enough on him--in other words, they found the piece too balanced.

Oakton, Va.: I can't understand Iraq's refusal to accept the UN resolutions....they have no choice in the matter. They simply are not in a position any longer to do so, yet they are doing so anyway. The alternative is war....a war that they will certainly lose even if they can inflict casualties on us with WMD.

Vernon Loeb: You may not have heard, but Iraq said today that it will comply, despite the meaningless vote of its so-called parliament yesterday to reject it.

New York, N.Y.: It appears that Iraq said yes and it was a short note. Will Iraq try to put conditions in or will it really begin doing self-reports and also allow any and all inspectors in? Since Syria voted for the UN action, is there anyway that Iraq can put in delay tactics and get any support from other Arab countries? Sorry for the convoluted questions. Frankly, I was surprised the UN was able to get a unanimous vote that basically gave Iraq no room to obfuscate or delay.

Vernon Loeb: We'll know more about the Iraqi aproach on Dec. 8 when it issues its declaration of WMD sites and stockpiles. My hunch is that it will try to play all sorts of games, and that when its game playing reaches a certain point, the game will be over, and a war will begin.

Arlington, Va.: What do you think will happen in the instance that Saddam give Hans Blix and Co. some of the info they ask for, but hides the meat of his program? Do you think the French and Russians will use this half-disclosure as "proof" of his compliance and attempt to wiggle out of the enforcement clause of the resolution?

Vernon Loeb: Good quesiton. The French and Russians may well try to do that, but I don't think it will work. If Blix and co. don't quickly get to the meat of the program, Bush will brand the inspections a charade and start bombing Iraq.

Piscataway, N.J.: Could Al-Qaeda be in an execution phase about now? With the recents statements of bin-laden, bombing of Bali and the oil tanker?
Would this be another massive attack?

Vernon Loeb: I would expect more al Qaeda attacks, sooner rather than later. Clearly, it's been easier for them in recent months to attack targets elsewhere in the world, not in the U.S. The U.S. is still a much harder terrain for them to operate on, Sept. 11 notwithstanding. But remember, even in its operational heyday pre-911, al Qaeda always took its time plotting big attacks--they came spaced out by a year or more. Now, given all the hits al Qaeda has taken, its ability to orchestrate and plan big attacks has undoutbtedly been diminished. Having said that, it's motivation has probably never been higher, given the impending invasion of Iraq. These are dangerous times indeed. Al Qaeda is a very determined adversary. They believe as passionately in their cause as George Bush does in his.

Silver Spring, Md.: Assuming that the war comes and the current Iraqi regime is overthrown, what do you think will come next in Iraq? What kind of government do you anticipate in the short term and in the longer term?

Vernon Loeb: In the short term, I would expct a large-scale U.S. occupation, with an interim government composed of opposition figures being set up concurrently with an invasion, leading to some kind of elections within the first year. Long term, who knows. If Iraq, as we know it, ready for national elections? Who knows. This is a country that has had no experience with democracy ever.

Flint, Mich.: The invassion of Iraq doesn't sound that complicated or risky--except for chem weapons. But the long range plans and occupation sounds like it might be different and long. what's our ultimate goal?

Vernon Loeb: First, I think the invasion will be riskier and messier than the Bush administration images. The U.S. military will prevail in relatively short order, but there will be problems, I predict. The long range plans and occupation will be difficult. Some have said the U.S. will lose more personnel in the peacekeeping phase, in brushfire skirmishes and terrorist attacks, than it does during the war. The ultimate goal is a disarmed Iraq with some more democratic kind of regime that won't threaten its neighbors and won't build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. It's as simple, and as hard, as that.

Harlingen, Tex.:
Saddam has had many months to build up his stocks of biological weapons, whatever they are, and to make plans for their use in the event of an invasion.

If war comes, do you see anything that would prevent him from releasing biological agents in European and American cities and/or distributing starter kits to a variety of terrorist organizations?

Vernon Loeb: Well, that's the nightmare scenario. And I do think there are some things that could keep him from doing that, namely, an escape route to some country like Alergia where he could live in exile with his billions, or an internal coup, or just the calculation that if he used his WMD, the response would be truly catastrophic and he would certainly die. I read somebody quoted recently as saying, Saddam is homicidal, not suicidal.

Clarksville, Tenn. - just outside Ft Campbell, Ky.: You said the Bush Administration is looking for a way "into the war" not out of it? I thought war was our nation's ONLY option when dealing with Saddam. Are we being misled?

Vernon Loeb: Well, I don't think war is our only option. At least, I certainly hope it's not. I would much rather have Saddam disarm on his own than launch an invasion that brings with it untold possibilities, many of them extremely bad. But if he doesn't disarm voluntarily, then I think President Bush considers war our only option.

Chicago, Ill.: Greetings,
Am I the only person with about a dozen people in my circle of friends who are being called up from reserves to active duty, families being sent from overseas bases to stateside and related mobilization phenomena?

Vernon Loeb: I doubt it. And if you are, you're soon going to have lots of company. The U.S. military, over the next year or two, is growing to experience a growth spurt. And the growth is going to come from the guard and the reserves.

Boston, Mass.: Dear Mr. Loeb,

Do you think the newly installed US Patriot Act has proven its efficiency in the war against terrorism?

Thank you

Vernon Loeb: Probably not. While the act makes it harder for al Qaeda to operate in the United States, we're already seen a string of terrorist attacks oveseas. And the Patriot Act does nothing to get at the underlying motivation of al Qaeda fighters or the root causes of terrorism, which I would argue are political, not moral (as in evil). Energy independence would do far more to win the war on terrorism, as would peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Atlanta, Ga.: You suggest that Iraq will not comply with the UN resolution. Assuming that's the case, the matter must go back to the UN Security Council for appropriate action. What action do you predict the Security Council would take, and is the US obliged to follow with those actions, if it is decided not to pursue military action?

Vernon Loeb: You're right, and it's hard to know, at this point, what the security council might do. Even if Saddam totally thumbs his nose at the process, it's unclear whether the Security Council would authorize military force. But if it doesn't, there will be a parting of the ways, and the Bush administraiton, I think, will lead whomever is willing to follow into Iraq.

Boston, MA: I think regime change in Iraqi will only cause more problems in the middle east in the long run. What if all other arab nations see us as pushing this war, that seems to have little connection to terrorism, on the region so we can milk all the oil we can get. What if that just encourges all of those nations to build stronger militaries before they are next to be invaded and looted? Those would be very valid and realistic concerns for almost every nation. I think we are opening a hornets nest.

Vernon Loeb: You make a number of good point. There are indeed lots of uncertainties with regard to any invasion of Iraq, as I said earlier. Bush is certainly willing to take risks in invading Iraq.

Champaign, Ill: Iraq denied even today that they have any WMD. Doesn't that suggest they will not list anything in the required "inventory?" Then it becomes a question of how good US intelligence and the inspectors are at finding the WMD.

Vernon Loeb: I think that is exactly what it suggests. And if Iraq doesn't list anything in its inventory, I don't think Bush will wait around for the CIA and Blix to find the WMD.

Centreville, Va.: How many casualties (deaths, then injured) has the US/allies suffered in Afghanistan during the war phase and then the peacekeeping phase?

Vernon Loeb: I think it's around 40, with a couple of dozen combat related.

Washington, D.C.: Why is it the Pentagon feels the potential number of casualties cannot be disclosed?

It isn't a matter of national security that could endanger our forces in Afghanistan.

It can't be refashioned into a military technology like dual use computer hardware.

It might however cause public discourse about the stakes, and that's healthy for a democracy. Why can't we have a debate on casualties that's debated as vigorously as the flag is waved?

Vernon Loeb: If we're going to have a debate about casualties, the Pentagon won't lead it. Democrats and other war opponents on the Hill should lead it, and force the Pentagon to answer questions. Part of the reason nobody's talking about it is because it's unknowable. As I said, the range is probably from 50 to 5,000, and you could dream up scenarios to justify numbers anywhere along that spectrum.

Vernon Loeb: Well, look like I've run over my alotted time. Thanks for all those questions. It's pretty clear what's on everybody's mind. Iraq and al Qaeda. I'm going to do this again Nov. 27, day before Thanksgiving. See you then.

washingtonpost.com:

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

Stay tuned to Live Online:

"The Hours" Author Michael Cunningham at 2 p.m. ET
Bubble Economy Series: Paul Farhi on Regulators at 2 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.

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>