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 30, 2003; 1 p.m. ET

Post military reporter Vernon Loeb and intelligence reporter Dana Priest were online Wednesday, April 30 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 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.

washingtonpost.com: NOTE: Only Dana Priest will be answering questions today.

Dana Priest: Welcome. Vernon is still on the road and in the air with the Secretary of Defense, so I'll be handling this session alone. Nice to have you here. Dana

Somewhere, USA: No proof of Weapons of Mass Destruction. No Hussein (okay, he's probably dead). Protests, some deadly, against the U.S. presence. Most people here still seem to regard the war as a low-cost success. I've yet to see a per-taxpayer cost of the $80 billion plus bill Bush says we'll have to pay -- to start. Rumsfeld seems to be the most vocal of those officials dismissing any and all concerns over the war's costs and results.

Dana Priest: Rumsfeld seems the eternal optimist. But I think the complexities of the peace and rebuilding operation are just beginning to show themselves so stand by.

Baltimore, Md.: Where are the weapons of mass destruction and why hasn't the Post editorial page addressed this topic with the same fervor as before the war when it was helping create mass hysteria over the threat from Iraq?

Dana Priest: You'de have to ask the editorialists. Actually, Richard Cohen had a column addressing this just yesterday. Check it out, it was very clever. In general, though, many people believe the troops need more time before they find the weapons and that they were probably well-hidden, if they exist. The captures and surrenders of top Iraqi officials is giving US forces lots of new information to go on though, so I would think if they are going to find something, it's going to be soon.

Arlington, Va.: Why is it taking so long to restore basic services (power, water, etc.) to Baghdad? It's got to be pretty high priority at this point, right? What's the problem?

Dana Priest: Garner's group doesn't seem all that well prepared, and they don't have a huge force to use. I've heard there were several competing reconstruction plans going in, and that they hadn't settled on one when the war ended.

Sandusky, Ohio: Dana,

Congratulations on your new book; I will look for it. You must be on a high today, with the great review in the NY Times.

The audacity, complexity, and importance of the Iraq matter, I believe, has swarmed the public's ability (and the media's) for the foreseeable future. But the problem of North Korea conceivably will be the biggest story of 2000-2010, surpassing Iraq and even the story of UBL and 9/11. It will also probably define Bush's presidency. No one in the Administration wants to create panic, but this seems to be an extremely dire situation, and our allies simply will not seriously apply pressure.

What does the "center of gravity" in foreign policy and intel circles suggest regarding when the nightmare of a military approach could become all but unavoidable? Would it be after a "successful" test of a NK A-bomb, but before deployment of a long-range missile? When is N. Korea expected to have developed such a long-range missile to hit anywhere in the U.S. homeland? What is the "red line" that would cause Bush (or any President between now and 2010) to consider preemptive action -- even in the face of triggering a North Korean attack in the Far East? Thank you.

Dana Priest: Thanks. I feel good. The book has received lots of good reviews--every where except the Washington Post. Go figure. Anyway, back to business: The administration is clearly engaged in a way to stave off having to use a military option. As we've written time and again, there is no good military option to deal with NKorea. Only lots of devastation and a potential rapid escalation in an uncontrollable conflict. It's too early to see which way this will go. It could become the defining foreign policy issue---or it could evaporate with an agreement of some type. Since officials won't answer the question you're asking, I'll give you my hunch: the testing of an A-bomb or long-range would not trigger a military reaction by U.S. As one senior official told me, "If they test one, they have one less. And they only have two anyway." Also, the trigger for a preemptive action would ave to be much, much more concrete than it was in Iraq (where there was largely circumstantial and a questionable link to Al Qaeda, for example.)

Pine Bluffs, Ark.: So, we're firing on civilians now. I don't doubt that the soldiers came under fire, and under that circumstance they have to respond (I don't expect boots on the ground to make policy decisions, just to survive...). But any way you slice it this is a major setback. What is the answer? Shouldn't we expect this to continue indefinitely?

Dana Priest: It is not good, and yet it is predictable in a setting in which there is so much instability and so much scramble to fill the local power vacuums left from the exit of Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party. Notice the Pentagon is sending in 4,000 more troops. Maybe they are listening to their officers with some peacekeeping experience. You can't maintain order (priority number one) if you're not around. The answer? If anyone is interested in getting US troops out of there by the end of the year or even in two years, they had better be organizing a substitute police force---and there are few options: U.S. only; U.S. plus a coalition of the willing; the U.N.; or some hybrid. Walking away would not seem a good option.

Waterford, Mich.: How does the recent shooting incidents in Iraq reflect upon the US army given the wide suspicion of US motives in the Arab world? What do you think are the lessons for the US army from the failed occupation of Lebanon by Israel forces � where liberators � Israeli forces - lost the good will and were caught in a quagmire? Why should'nt we think that this time around there won't be a Hizbollah to drive out US given that we are next doors to Iran?

Dana Priest: The situation is too murky still to know exactly what happened. But I would guess the troops felt threatened (real or perceived). I think Lebanon is a good example to remember because Iraq could well turn into a quagmire. Look at the front page today: US troops cart away millions of documents showing where executed Iraqis were buried. These are documents many families have been waiting years to look at, to find out where their parents, brother, sisters and children went when they disappeared. Now these Iraqi families will have to wait longer. The US grabbed them. The US forces might have a decent motive for this, but they have had to underestimate the anger and resentment this would cause on the part of people who have already suffered so long.

New York, NY: I feel like so-called "news" shows on cable and on the networks have done a terrible, if not detrimental, job at telling the whole story before, during and after the war. We, as Americans, are notorious for our short attention spans and thirst for soundbites, and because of this, everything we see on TV is only a very small part of the story. This, I believe, is largely because we don't have the patience or desire to learn the whole story, because it might be too complex to digest all at once. And when quality newspapers like the Post or The NYT or even the WSJ, on occasion, do elaborate on what's actually going on, they're merely preaching to the choir because we're a Pop Culture/TV nation.

I read Richard Cohen's column yesterday EJ Dionne's last week and Maureen Dowd's in the Times today; unfortunately, 99% of the country won't. That to me, is a fundamental problem.

Dana Priest: thanks for your comment.

Boston, Mass.: Now that we are declaring the Iraq war over, care to speculate if we may lose more combatants and non-combatants in the aftermath than we did in the prosecution of this conflict?

Dana Priest: A good chance we could, unless we pull out. The chaos is spreading, it seems.

Piscataway, N.J.: Welcome,
With the capture of Abu-Al Zarqawi, does this hit another major blow to al Qaeda? Could Zarqawi know the whereabouts of bin Laden? Did Zarqawi have a lot of sleeper cells in the Middle East?
Thanks.

Dana Priest: Absolutely. It appears the Al Qaeda that US officials could identify one year after Sept. 11 has indeed taken many significant blows since then. What appears unknown, still, is the extent to which new AQ followers are working on their own, disconnected from the previous AQ leadership, but with the same ideology and goals.

Carrboro, N.C.: How much information on Iraqi intelligence operations and diplomacy has the U.S. been able to recover in Baghdad? How much was destroyed in the war and looting?

Has the U.S. found incriminating evicence like the documents the U.K. Daily Telegraph claims to have on Iraq's connections with France, George Galloway, and al Qaeda? If so, what is it going to do with it?

Dana Priest: Unfortunately, I haven't heard of any intelligence caches that relate directly to intel operations or diplomacy. Lots of files were missing with the U.S. arrived at many of the main intelligence offices, presumably cleared out during the execution of a well-developed escape plan on the part of many Iraqi officials. No word yet on other incriminating information.

Venice, Calif.: Is it possible to have democracy with an Islamic government? Are the conditions in Iraq suitable so both could develop?

Dana Priest: Big question with lots of experts disputing the various positions. Turkey is the closest example of a democracy with an Islamic majority. If the military would just butt out there, we'd really be able to judge that.

Alexandria, Va.: I find it ironic that the U.S. asks for "sufficient" time to find WMDs in Iraq now that they're running things....time they wouldn't give to the U.N. inspectors because their intel was supposed to be so good.

Dana Priest: thanks for your observations.

Cumberland, Md.: Are you advocating that we pull out of Iraq, even if it means that an Iranian theocracy will result?

Dana Priest: Nope. I'm advocating facing facts. To do the peace right, we need more troops now, and more civilians soon.

Chicago, Ill.: Twice now this week US forces have shot into protesting crowds and killed civilians, claiming to have acted in self-defense. Am I reading too much into this, or are these events very good examples of precisely why it's a bad idea to have the US Army act like policemen? Thanks.

Dana Priest: I think so. What's needed are police, real police, with real experience, like in crowd control. Get more MPs there, if we insist on making this a U.S. military-only operation. Young combat troops are primed to fire their weapons when faced with hostile actions. Crowd control is an art, and it requires different weapons and tactics.

Richmond, Va.: Do you get any sense that the Pentagon's policy folks are trying to get into position for any other military actions in the Middle East or does it seem they're pretty busy with Iraq at the moment. I've read some old position and policy papers by folks like Wolfowitz and Perle - one doesn't get the idea that stopping with Iraq is part of the gameplan. Has the gameplan changed or is there reason to think their current goals are no longer informed by past positions?

Dana Priest: The ideologues would not stop the game, although they might alter the tactics (not always using the US military, for example). I get the sense the military plate is full for the moment--even for Rumsfeld. Look at where the Syria rhetoric has gone. Iran and Lebanon will be the most interesting cases to monitor in the coming months. How will the administration react to the threat to Iraq from Iran, and will it consider preemption for the camps in Lebanon? eventhough the extremists there are aimed at Israel, not the U.S.?

Silver Spring, Md.: Can you assess the futures of Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith (the DOD bunch) as opposed to the State Department bunch? Seems like DOD ascendant and uber alles in this administration.

Dana Priest: Seems that way to me too, but I don't think people at State or the CIA will stop pushing in other directions. Also, the crowd you mentioned could overstep their limits, cross lines the president and vice president believes to be unwise.

Greenbelt, Md.: Why are we looking for WMDs in Iraq when we have such crummy security at our own weapons lab at Los Alamos? Just today the Energy Dept. announced it will seek other bidders to manage the place. They can't even keep track of their own PCs according to the Energy Dept. inspector general.

Dana Priest: The United States is a giant government which can do many things at once (or not).

Alexandria, Va.: I don't know how widely it was reported, but didn't US forces find a number of Iraqi jets and tanks and other equipment in buried storage? These aren't WMDs but they indicate a pattern of concealment of equipment that would likely be followed for other valuable commodities. US forces have been in the country only a month, period, let alone in a non-combat environment where experts can come in and search. Is our need for instant results THAT overwhelming these days that media and political opponents can wave fingers and yell "See, Bush was lying!!" and we'll believe it?

Dana Priest: They have found some camouflaged jets, including some in cemetaries. Seems a fairly routine way of hiding military equipment. The buried trucks appear to have contained some kind of lab equipment. They are still analyzing them. Yes, the media and the public are eager for proof. Plenty of people thought the evidence was weak to begin with and the lack of information fits their beliefs. Obviously none of the impatience will matter if/when they find the goods. I know they want to do so, the Pentagon has deployed more people on the WMD mission in the last weeks.

Austin, Tex.: Rumsfeld is in Iraq taking a victory lap, and Bush is set to declare we've won.

Any chance you would be willing to go way out on a limb and say what odds you would give for Iraq looking like a success a year from now?

Dana Priest: Not a chance. Really too hard to tell at this point.

Washington, D.C.: It is clear our troops were not trained for police-keeping. Yet the UN (and their international peacekeeping forces) was set up for that very purpose? Why isn't there more emphasis both in the press and in the international community to get the UN more involved?

Dana Priest: President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld don't appear to trust the UN and certainly are not happy with their pre-war position. I say, if you don't like it, either fix it or be willing to go it alone for a long time.

Alexandria, Va.: One thing I haven't heard reliable information on is whether or not the protestors in these crowds may have been carrying their own weapons and firing into the air, as we've seen so often with Middle Eastern protests and/or celebrations, and even if most aren't, it's no big job to tuck a rifle between a few willing accomplices. If Republican Guards or Fedayeen have shown willingness to engage U.S. forces while in civilian attire in ambush situations, how come there isn't more skepticism shown to the Iraqi side of the story? I smell set-up.

Dana Priest: No reliable info yet on who fired what, if at all. But you're absolutely right on RG and Fedayeen and, in fact, intelligence analysts warn that US troops may face a low-intensity guerrilla-style conflict in the post-war situation. Could well be a set-up. Could be a lot of things.

Mt. Rainier, Md.: I don't understand the military saying that it isn't prepared to do policing work and administrative work when they have entire units trained for nothing else. What the devil do they suppose MPs are? There's a reserve unit maybe 10 miles distant whose job is public administration. They blew it to pieces when they didn't have these people ready to safeguard important cultural and civic sites (hospitals, schools, etc.) And they were warned beforehand, so they blew it almost with intent.

Dana Priest: There aren't many troops in Iraq, by design, Rumsfeld's and Frank's design. There aren't many MPs in the entire Army. There should be more, lots of people believe. I agree with you that the initial looting was entirely predictable. I don't know why anyone would have let that happen intentionally, although it does appear that's what happened.

Washington, D.C.: Why are we leaving Saudi Arabia? U.S. intelligence on Saudi Arabia is very bad.

Dana Priest: The stated reason is 1-the United States doesn't need it anymore and 2-the Saudis have always been so sensitive about the US presence and the move will relieve their worries. But knowing a little about US-Saudi relations, I think there are other issues at play here which we will uncover only with a little time.

Dana Priest: Thank you for all the good questions. Until next week....all the best, Dana

| |