washingtonpost.com

� NEW! Subscribe to the weekly Live Online E-Mail Newsletter and receive the weekly schedule, highlights and breaking news event alerts in your mailbox.

National Defense
With Vernon Loeb and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 23, 2003; 1 p.m. ET

Post military reporter Vernon Loeb and intelligence reporter Dana Priest were online Wednesday, April 23 at 1 p.m. ET, to talk about the latest developments in national security and field questions and comments about the role of intelligence in the war on Iraq.

Loeb covers military defense and national security issues. Priest covers intelligence and recently wrote "The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military" (W.W. Norton). The book chronicles the increasing frequency with which the military is called upon to solve political and economic problems.

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 war in Iraq is over, and the difficult postwar period has begun. So let's get started here.

Chicago, Ill.: Greetings,
Seeing today's story that the administration is surprised about Sunni organization in iraq makes me worry a bit.

I'm not sure how to form this thought into a question. It is frustrating that officials don't look at Tajikistan (my research focus) and a dozen other situations to see highly probable events on the horizon.

Has the intelligence community ever thought through the need to have specialists in the impact of religious dimensions in different parts of the world that aren't necessarily Judeo-Christian?

Dana Priest: The intelligence community and Iraq experts outside government were all pretty aware that the Shiite community would take advantage of this power vacuum and step in. That's what makes this issue so interesting and befuddling. This was no surprise. And yet the administration seems wholly unprepared and, in fact, is taking king of a laissez-faire approach to it.

Alexandria, Va.: Read with interest the article today that states administration officials "paid little attention to the dynamics of religion and politics in the region." Isn't this "Foreign Policy 101?" How could this be ignored? Anyone with a smattering of international relations insights could have predicted this months ago! These developments do not look good for the U.S. Who are these people that "paid little attention?"

Dana Priest: I agree that it is foreign policy 101. The people in question are a small group of decision-makers within the administration---at the very top levels, but ultimately George Bush.

Cumberland, MD: How far should the US go to ban and prohibit Iranian influence in Iraq?

Vernon Loeb: Iranian influence in Iraq, I'm sure, is a troubling prospect, and pressure can be applied on Iran in various ways to keep it from mucking around in Iraq. But I'm not sure Iran influence is something the U.S. can ever ban or prohibit in any kind of absolute sense.

Dana Priest: .

Alexandria, Va.: Dana-

I read with great interest your piece today about another miscalculation by the Administration, this time the rise of fundamental Shi'a leaders in southern Iraq (incidentally, I would like to commend the Post's constant efforts on educating us about Islam--as the world grows more complex, this should start becoming a more proactive effort).

The intel community has said that they envision every scenario, including the the rise of the anti-American clerics and the major Shi'a concerns with Chelabi. It looks like once again the CIA either knew about or predicted this and once again DOD and the WH ignored them. Between this, the Thomas Ricks article on Sunday concerning Rumsfeld's "death fight" with the DCI over intelligence assets, and recent articles about DOD and WH policy and ideology seeming to trump and/or dismiss intelligence reports, are we on the verge of a major reshuffling of the US intelligence aparatus, with the CIA being the big loser (a phrase used repeatedly in Ricks' piece)? And what would this mean for the DCI and other leadership?

Dana Priest: I don't think there will be a major reshuffling, but I do see Defense Secretary Rumsfeld building his own intelligence apparatus. We know what a strong, dominant voice Rumsfeld has within the administration. What is less clear is what voice George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, has on these policy matter. I'm not sure, either, to what extent Tenet argues for the case his analysts and operatives are making about what they see as the ground truth in Iraq, which is, after all, the basic function of intelligence. Certainly the situation vis a vis the Shiites would suggest that 1-Tenet is not carrying the case forcefully, or 2-He's not prevailing when he is.

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: The U.S. just went through a costly, massive responsiblity shuffle with the creation of the beast: Department of Homeland Security. Does Rumsfeld, Inc. plan to do the same thing in Iraq? Seems like terrorism is more likely over there where the terrorists are rather than over here in the land of the free [pre-Ashcroft] and the home of the.. -help me with this one]. What's the scoop on permanent security in Iraq with American liberators embedded there for the long haul? Thanks much.

Vernon Loeb: You're right, security in Iraq is going to be a huge issue and probably a big problem. There's securing Iraq, the emerging Iraqi regime, and the Iraqi people, which will probably be done by some combination of Iraqi police, international police, international peacekeepers and the U.S. military. And then there's the issue of securing U.S. forces, the so-called force protection mission. Force protection will be a major consideration for the military in everything that it does, particularly if these suicide bombing we have seen so far continues, or increases. I've long thought it possible that the U.S. military would lose more troops in the postwar period than it did during the combat phase of the war.

Dana Priest: .

Cumberland, Md.: In view of the details emerging about the corrupt nature of the Oil for Food Program and the bias towards Russian and France by Kofi Annan in awarding contracts -- don't you think the UN supervision of the program should be discontinued or at the very least made totally transparent so that Kofi Annan no longer can make approval of the contracts under a cloak of secrecy?

Dana Priest: I'd vote for transparency.

Venice, California: What are the chances that Iraq could become a radical anti-American country controlled by fundamentalist Shiite clerics and what, if anything, can the U.S. do to prevent this from happening?

Dana Priest: There's a decent chance that Iraq could become a fundamentalist state. It seems as if the US has a long-term strategy, but not a strong, short-term one. I say long-term because one of the more concrete things it is doing is trying to stand up an educational system--complete with U.S.-friendly textbooks, in the hopes of staving off the kind of indoctrination that so many kids in Afghanistan and Pakistan were forced to undergo in order to get an education. In the short term, it seems they are banking on the hope that Iraqis will embrace democracy and its liberties after years of oppression.

Baltimore, MD: Seeing the Karbala pilgrimage, how long
before we hear the inevitable "Who lost
Iraq" questions? I'm just old enough to
remember the fall of Tehran (though I
didn't understand the political context
then) and it seems like Iraq is poised to
become the next fundamentalist
theocracy. Which I feel was always the
best argument against destablizing the
regime, however brutal or dangerous it no
doubt was. Looking at the marginal
progress we have made in rebuilding
Afghanistan on even a much smaller
scale, how can anyone feel optimistic that
Iraq will be the democratic oasis that
Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al. thought it would
become without Saddam?

Vernon Loeb: I am not particularly optimistic about that happening, and never have been. But I think it's still a bit early to really know how things are going to play out in Iraq. Whether or not it becomes a fundamentalist, Shiite government remains to be seen.

Dana Priest: .

Washington, DC: If the administration continues to ignore the efforts of Iran to muddle in the affairs of Iraq, could that eventually be used as a reason for invasion? It would, of course, take an event similar to the 1983 Beruit Marine Barracks bombing to spark the retaliatory action.

Vernon Loeb: Anything is possible. I think we're a long way from that point, and for me, even contemplating an Iranian invasion is a scary proposition, at the moment. But if Iranian provocation got bad enough, it is not something I would rule out. Iran is, after all, a member in good standing of the Bush administration's Axis of Evil, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld never passes up an opportunity to talk tough with regard to Iran.

Dana Priest: .

Indiananpolis, IN: I'm reminded of Ken Adeleman when he said "nothing could be worse" than Russian rule of Afghanistan--but their was someting worse--the Taliban.

So, sounds like Iranian Shiites remember how the US backed Saddem against them back in the day. Yesterday at the AEI press conference with Gingrich they really played down the significance of the Shiite religious event. They said reporters were over reacting to what it might mean.

I may sound skeptical but I really do believe the liberation of Iraq is good but the winning war was a no-brainer, now we're getting to to the hard part of all this.

But my question is: How will we find out what Iran's plans are regarding the Iraqi future. Could it be they were just waiting for us to kick Saddam out (so they could move in)?

Dana Priest: Many Iraq experts believe Iran was doing just that---waiting for the power vacuum to arise so they could fill it. Also, they are worried about a US presence on the border and want to see the US gone from Iraq, quickly. So there's a motive to get them out.
As for information on Iran, there are lots of Iranian exiles here and in Europe who can be helpful. But beyond that, I think the US uses its relations with other countries to collect information on Iran and is probably now scrambling to make connections on the ground.

VA: From my contacts, DOD and DIA just ingored CIA reports. Any mention of the word CIA will ruffled Rumsfeld and the top brass.

Dana Priest: Hmm. Tell me more at priestd@washpost.com

Arlington, VA: Dana, per your experiences writing your excellent book: what's your take on the pre-war struggle over the Iraq war plan (Rumsfeld arguing for lighter, mor mobile troops vs. the "Powell Doctrine" of heavier, massed forces)? Is the Powell Doctrine dead? Is the chief of staff of the Army the big loser?

Dana Priest: Weinberger-Powell Doctrine was dead long ago. Look at Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Could come back for the right war, but not any of late. Chief of Staff of the Army loses the battle (for a bigger force) but was right on the metaphoric war. Look at Iraq today. Had there been troops to leave behind to "pacify" the south, these events might not be happening now and there might have been time to plant the roots of an alternative, secular government. Convincing people to support that would still be a mighty challenge, but at least the US military (and retired Lt. Gen. Garner) wouldn't be trying to do it in the middle of a million-man Shiite march.

re: Tenet's voice: I think it's clear Tenet is not prevailing. He is being ignored, as is his analysts' body of work. It's a wonder he even stays on as DCI, perhaps only to protect the currently shaky morale of his employees (he is a staffer at heart). With the White House seemingly having blinders on when it comes to intelligence reports (Bush freely admitted to Woodward in Bush At War he goes by his "gut" as opposed to facts), when does the CIA begin to try and make its case somehow to the public in order to protect itself? And should this divide be featured earlier on in articles like the one today? Or do we have to have a total collapse of our Iraq policy in order to flesh things out?

Dana Priest: Many questions there.
--We have reported on clashes between CIA analysts and leadership on the issues of WMD, the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and over the post-war difficulties. But those debates went no where, in part, I think, because there was no real opposition or even questioning of the war in Congress---and no real in-depth debate on these subjects.
--I would not expect the CIA to make its case to the public, either before or after the war. As for self-protection, perhaps a little, just for the record.

Fort Worth, Tex.: I've heard many intelligence analysts say that they are not surprised that the U.S. has not yet found any Weapons of Mass Destruction -- afterall, the war only began four (five?) weeks ago. What has struck me as odd though, is that the administration had before-and-after satellite photos of WMD facilities and other undisclosed "smoking-gun" evidence that they couldn't share with the UN inspectors. If the admisitration had the proof in these photos and other means before the war started why haven't we seen the fruits of this proof yet? I know Iraq is a big place, but it seems like one of the first places the adminsitration would want to look for evidence of WMD would be at one of the places in the before-and-after satellite photos that Colin Powell presented as evidence (this assumes that we know where our satellites are taking pictures when they are taking pictures).

Thanks

Vernon Loeb: What the postwar period says to me is, their proof wasn't as good as they thought it was. I'm sure that Special Operations forces would have, by now, visited any site where the intel community felt it had good indications for the presence of WMD. And if they had found WMD, we would know. Intel is not "proof" until somebody shows up on the ground and actually performs a test.

Dana Priest: .

West Bloomfield, MI: Where do you go now. Do you think that this goverment is flying by the seat of thier pants?

Vernon Loeb: Clearly, they're having to improvise, and they're dealing with unanticipated events. But I don't think they're quite yet at the flying by the seat of their pants stage. They are restoring electric power slowly, and most of Iraq seems fairly calm. All is far from lost, I would say. We'll have a better picture, obviously, in two or three weeks. We're still in the immediate aftermath of the war, and in this period, one can only have expected chaos to be prevailing, to a certain extent.

Dana Priest: .

Portland, OR: I read somewhere that one of the reasons Saddam wasn't overthrown at the end of the first Gulf War was because of uncertainty about what would come after? Actually, the wanted to overthrow but wanted pro-American leader to replace him but couldn't figure ut a way to make that happen AND make it look like it "just happened" on it's own.

Any truth to that?

Vernon Loeb: That may have influenced the thinking, but I think Bush I basically put together the war coalition by promising that the only objective was the liberation of Kuwait, not the removal of Saddam. And since that was the position going in, I don't think there was ever much consideration of changing course and going all the way to Baghdad, with or without an acceptable American surrogate ruler.

Dana Priest: .

Amman, Jordan: I contend that the US of A has achieved a hollow victory in IRAQ.
Hollow in the sense that by eliminating from power a secular nationalist regime it will now confront in Iraq and elsewhere in the region the the Islamist movement which is much less liable to achieve an accomodation with America .It is a hornet's nest withdire results for America and the rrgion.

Vernon Loeb: Thanks for your comment.

Dana Priest: .

Somewhere, USA: Did Newt Gingrich (attemting to recapture his 15 minutes of fame) show how some conservatives will explain any bad turn of events in Iraq: blame the always-suspect State Department, rather than the Administration's overall policy (i.e., the military effort was a success, and if the rest doesn't work out, it's not that the fundamental policies were in error, but that the diplomats didn't implement U.S. policy in the area sufficiently)? I don't see Bush suffering diplomatically unless allies of Iran took power in Iraq and the U.S. stood by.

Vernon Loeb: Thanks for your comment. I've long thought that State Department bashing is most counterproductive.

Dana Priest: .

Washington DC: I'm so frustrated! I have no background in foreign policy, and even I could have foreseen these problems with the Shiites. Is there any hope this whole business won't completely backfire on us?

Vernon Loeb: I think there may be. As I said to the last questioner, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that Iraq is going to become a fundamentalist shiite government. I'm certain that the Bush administration plans on sponsoring an election at some point, so the Iraqi people will have some voice in this. If there's a parliamentary system established, presumably Sunnis and members of other groups will win some seats. I just think it's way to early to be concluding that all is hopeless. The outpouring of Shiite activism we're seeing is the logical outcome after 25 years of Saddam's rule.

Dana Priest: .

Atlanta, Ga.: Why is the Bush administration so unwilling to give the UN a role in finding WMD in Iraq? Wouldn't the UN inspectors rebuild some of the international trust lost with it's go it alone policies?

Dana Priest: The Bush administration doesn't trust the United Nations. It didn't believe they were effective before the war and administration officials don't seem to care much about "international trust" and are, indeed, willing to go it alone.

Alexandria, Va: Excuse me, but how could the administration be "unprepared" to deal with the possibility of a fundamenatlist Islamic government headed by a Shiite ?

Wasn't it the most likely outcome of any actual electoral process ?

Did they think the long-repressed Shiites would be so greatful for knocking over Hussein that they would magically turn secular and pro-western ?

Dana Priest: That apparently is correct. Read the words of their key geopolitical strategists, especially Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.

Just hit the news wires:: Iran agents entering southern Iraq.

Are you saying we could have secured the south better if we had more troops there? Is that your opinion?

Vernon Loeb: I believe the U.S. military might have been better off, during the combat phase of the war, and now, if it had had more troops on the ground. It paid a price for going in light and fast. But it certainly gained from going in light and fast. I'm sure this question will be debated in military circles for years.

Dana Priest: .

College Park, MD: The news from Iraq absolutely slays me, yet no one is connecting the dots. It's like the past only lasts 5 minutes, like the US public has the attention span of a small dog.

The war was to eliminate WMDs. None have been found, no credible effort on the ground has started, and the possible repositories of records were allowed to be looted, destroying any evidence there might have been. The US apparently had no plan to search, since inspectors are still here in the US rather than in Iraq.

The war was for liberation. Not only has no civil authority been established or even proposed, the US is now expressing 'surprise' that the Shiite faction is so strong and that a theocratic state is likely. No plan, and not even a basic knowledge of the country or the region. Simply amazing.

Lies, lies, and more lies from above. I hold the press accountable for them getting away with it. Granted, this is by no means as important of a scandal as Monica Lewinsky (heavens, a blue dress!), but could you all please at least _act_ like you care about holding THIS administration accountable? Pretty please? I'm begging over here....

Dana Priest: Okay. That's for your comments.

Arlington, VA: In your last chat, Shiite fundamentalist uprisings was not much mentioned. This week, it's the dominant theme. For next week (or whenever you do your next chat)can you speculate on the hot inevitable topic that will dominate discussion?

Dana Priest: nope. We'll just have to wait and see.

VAdem: Would it be terrible if Fundamentalist parties won an election in Iraq as long as human, religious and political rights were respected?

Vernon Loeb: If fundamentalist parties are elected, in free and fair elections supervised by the U.S., I think it would be terrible, and a terrible mistake, not to recognize them.

Dana Priest: .

Alexandria, Va.: Would it be unprecedented to have a Congressional hearing on whether the White House and Defense blatantly ignored CIA intelligence reports to pursue their own policy, at the potential detriment to our troops, national security, and national interests? Is there any oversight to this?

Dana Priest: It would not be unprecedented but it would be unusual for the hearing to be open. Look at the 9-11 hearings. They were helpful but not totally revealing.

Amman, Jordan: To Priest
How far "alone" do you think America can go??

Dana Priest: Not far without great, great cost to the United States, both financially and otherwise.

Roanoke, VA: Just seems we've dug ourselves into a deep hole. I guess 70% of the Americans like it that way, but I don't. This war appears to have enlarged the region who populations will be entrenched in Islamic Fundamentalism. The outcome seems predictable and logical to me. Don't know why the Bush is smiling and calling it democracy at work.

Vernon Loeb: Thanks for your comment.

Dana Priest: .

Austin, Tex.: Any comment on the State/Defense tension that has been in the news? (Gingrich's speech, etc.) Colin Powell can't be enjoying his job much these days. Is he going to wait for an appropriate time and leave?

Vernon Loeb: I don't cover the State Department, so I can't really offer an informed opinion about how Colin Powell is feeling these days and how he will handle the months ahead. But I agree, it's going to be fascinating to watch.

Dana Priest: .

Portland, Ore.: Is Syria really cooperating with the US?
Or are they just making noises now because
we've scared them? What is the attitude of
the US military, etc. towards Syria?

Dana Priest: Syria has cooperated in the war on terrorism, according to people I was talking to months ago. I'm not sure what the attitude of the US military is toward Syria, except to say they are convinced they have their hands full right now with Iraq and another hostile Arab country would not be good. Militarily, it would be no problem to defeat Syria. It's military is weaker than Iraq's. But it's the aftermath that would be a problem.

Green Bay, Wis.: I have a question for the people of Iraq. Do they want Iraq to become a prosperous country modeled in some manner after the democratic United States OR do they wish to have Iraq formatted after the troubled country of Iran? It may be a very naive question but I believe it is a very basic one. You either want prosperity or you don't.

I do wish Iraq had a free press so this question could be asked of them.

Vernon Loeb: Well, it makes sense to us Americans, that if given that choice, right-thinking people would choose American-style democracy. But people in the Middle East, who have a completely different cultural and religious orientation, and who hate America, for a variety of reasons, may well end up choosing a Muslim fundamentalist regime instead. That's the thing about democracy. You can't always control the result. Or even understand the result, in terms that make sense to Americans.

Dana Priest: .

Vernon Loeb: Ok, we've reached the end of the hour. Thanks for all the great questions.

Dana Priest: Sorry we couldn't get to all the great questions....let's try again next week. All the best, Dana

Vernon Loeb:

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

Stay Tuned to Live Online:

Iran & Iraq, 3 p.m. ET
Actor/Director John Malkovich, 3:45 p.m. ET

Keep up with the best Live Online has to offer and special breaking news discussions. Sign up for the Live Online e-mail newsletter.

| |