Vernon Loeb and Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, July 02, 2003; 1:00 p.m ET
Post military reporter Vernon Loeb was online Wednesday, July 2 at 1 p.m. ET, to talk about the latest developments in national security and defense. 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 and Dana Priest: Greetings all, sorry I'm a little late getting started. I'll stay overtime and make up for it on the back end, so keep your questions coming.
________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com: Vernon Loeb will be starting in just a few minutes. Please stand by.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va.: Why do you think the Afghans are, by and large, not shooting at U.S. troops, but the Iraqis are?
Vernon Loeb and Dana Priest: Great question. I think the Afghans aren't shooting at U.S. forces right now because the Americans aren't challenging the warlords' control. Why should they shoot at the Americans, if the Americans are their allies.
________________________________________________
Dupont, Washington, D.C.: I've recently heard Donald Rumsfeld talking about plans for privatizing Iraqi national industries. Now, set aside the idea that it's a wee bit early to be talking about privatization when Baghdad is still electricity-free. But why is the U.S. Secretary of Defense addressing this issue? What business does the Pentagon have in privatization?
Vernon Loeb and Dana Priest: Another very interesting question. Rumsfeld, you may have noticed, frequently strays into the policy lane. He is verymuch interested in policy, and one could make the argument that he has had far greater influence over national security policy than Secretary of State Colin Powell. I recently heard Rumsfeld pressed on the privitization issue, not from the angle of why he was involved, but from the angle of, what business is it of yours, or America's, to be determining whether Iraq has privitized or nationalized industries. And Rumsfeld responded by granting that that was indeed a choice for the Iraqis to make. He said he merely was stating a preference for private industry that history, in his opinion, has shown to be far more successful.
________________________________________________
Nederland, Colo.: On balance, is there any reason to believe the U.S. is safer from terrorism today than on 2001/9/11? Consider that less than 10 percent are inspected, of millions of those big shipping containers entering 100s of U.S. ports each year. Almost all our utility buildings are vulnerable. Billions are spent on Missile Defense while local Fire and Police are underfunded. Almost nothing is being done to address the root causes of terrorism. Are we not less safe now?
Vernon Loeb: I don't really know, but you could make a fairly convincing argument that we are less safe now. Certainly the Bush administration, with its war in Iraq, has inflamed Islamic public opinion and probably greatly increased al Qaeda recruiting. On the other hand, I think the U.S. and all its allies have put a pretty major hurt on al Qaeda leadership and funding since 911, so on balance, it's hard to tell whether the administration has made net progress or not. Do I think al Qaeda could strike a target, a shopping mall, perhaps, in the United States right now if it wanted to? I think it probably could. At the vert least, I would say the United States is still quite vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
________________________________________________
Washington, D.C.: What do you think of the ombudsman's ongoing criticism of the Jessica Lynch story. The giant piece seemed to hint that the sources for the Post's original story made honest mistakes based on bad info from the battlefield. The ombudsman seems to think the Post was used as a propaganda tool and has never admitted to getting played by an unscrupulous Pentagon. Thoughts?
Vernon Loeb: First of all, I think it's great that The Post has an ombudsman, and particularly as aggressive an ombudsman as Mike Getler, to raise this issue, even when I'm one of his targets, and even when I think much of his criticism is off the mark. It greatly helps our credibility to discuss our own practices and shortcomings in public. I think you did a good job of summing up the two sides of this debate. Getler seems to believe that we were used for propoganda purposes by clever administration and Pentagon officials. I think that is nonsense. I think we wrote a piece about Jessica's purported heroics that was well sourced and legitimate, but based on battlefield intelligence that was, in many respects, wrong. Getler believes we should have been more forthright, and more prompt, in the way we corrected the record and reported that the intelligence was flawed. But he doesn't seem to be at all interested in listening to the reasons why we did not. And the main reason why we did not was because there was such a close hold on information after our initial story that we couldn't dig out a fuller version until the Army's own investigation got a little further down the road. I'm still not sure we know the full story of what happened to Jessica Lynch and the 507th Maintenance Co. convoy she was part of. And until we do, Getler can continue to fire away, and I will continue to try to respond to the issues he raises as best I can. We as journalists, and as Post reporters, should be held accountable for what we do, just as we hold others accountable. And as far as the Jessica Lynch story goes, I think I can stand the scrutiny, and so can my colleagues.
________________________________________________
Cumberland, Md.: Isn't the U.S. military stretched too thin to get involved in Liberian peacekeeping mission? Do you think Bush will send troops or find another way to support the mission without committing U.S. Troops?
Vernon Loeb: The military is stretched very thin right now. I don't think it is stretched so thin that it cannot participate in peacekeeping operations in Liberia. Kofi Anan has asked for 2,000 U.S. peacekeepers. That's one Marine Expeditionary Unit, which we undoubtedly have afloat in the region. The Bush administration's current defense strategy calls on the military to be able to fight two major theater wars, win one decisively, and deter aggression in four other places simultaneously. So a relatively minor peacekeeping force in Liberia is within the Pentagon's current caapbility, even if it is not something Rumsfeld seems particularly interested in doing right now, for obvious reasons.
________________________________________________
Arlington, Va.: A large number of Iraqis seem to want the United States troops to leave as soon as possible, but I'm wondering what would happen in that unlikely event. It strikes me that it would be a major civil war. If this so, I believe that the war planners may have blundered in thinking of this as a quickie.
Vernon Loeb: I certainly think war planner blundered in the way they planned for post-combat operations. That seems obvious at this point. And simply withdrawing right now would be a disaster. There would probably be a civilwar, as you suggest, followed by a Shiite theocracy that would probably not be very democratic and not be to the liking of the Bush administration. There is no alternative, at present, to staying the course and trying to make Iraq a success, which I think is still possible over the long term, if the administration is willing to make the enormous commitment of troops, money and reconstruction effort required.
________________________________________________
Rockville, Md.: USA Today yesterday published a poll showing a progressive loss of faith in the administration's claims regarding the war and its aftermath. The Post has run two stories since then featuring soldiers on the ground and members of the Senate echoing the same sentiments. How long can the administration spin this one before irreparable damage occurs to its credibility? How desparate is the administration to find hard proof of WMD, and how vital is it to re-election, and or further "preemptive" operations?
Vernon Loeb: A lot of good questions in there. First, I don't think the administration is going to be able to spin Iraq. It is going to have to perform, and make Iraq a success. Just claiming a success, amid roiling unrest and soldiers dying every week, is not going to cut it in the months leading up to the election. As for finding WMD, I almost think the administration has moved beyond that, given the spiraling levels of unrest, and is now just trying to keep the country from spinning out of control. If the administration can stabilize Iraq and form some sort of representative government by next year that is clearly better than what it replaced or what exists now, then I think most Americans will consider the war a success, regardless of whether WMD is ever found. But if Iraq is still a violent mess this time next year, with 13 soldiers being killed per week, then the situation will have a serious impact on Bush's re-election chances. As for further preemptive operations, I would say the administration is going to have its hands full in Iraq for the rest of the first term. In the final analysis, the postwar situation in Iraq will have a huge impact on the way both the administration and its critics think about the doctrine of preemption.
________________________________________________
Cumberland, Md.: Why do you think we have not had another terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11?
Vernon Loeb: That's sort of the $64 billion question. I think it's partly because the U.S. government has hurt al Qaeda, arrested a lot of its leaders, killed a lot of its members, bottled up some of its funds, and thrown up additional hurtles to successful attacks, like all the airline safety measures. I think it's a lot harder to hijack an airliner and fly it into a building than it was on 911. But partly I think the absence of an attack results from al Qaeda's own deliberate operational pace. Al Qaeda has always taken a year or more to plot major attacks, and plotting one here in the United States is more difficult than plotting one elsewhere, like Bali, like Saudi Arabia, and like Morrocco, where the group has staged atacks since 911. The fact that there hasn't been one in the United States certainly should not be read by anybody as a sign that al Qaeda is no longer capable of staging another attack on U.S. soil, and I, for one, think they will.
________________________________________________
Chicago, Ill.: Mr. Loeb,
Do you agree with some of the assertions that Robert Kaplan makes in his article published in the most recent issue of "The Atlantic Monthly" regarding granting more autonomy to Special Forces troops and basically concluding that if we hear no news, the Pentagon concludes that it's good news ...?
Vernon Loeb: I think I'm through Kaplan's lesson number 6 or 7 right now myself, and it is an interesting piece. I'm not sure "autonomy" is what the Special Forces need, if by autonomy we mean the right to go out and kill terrorists on their own. It seems to me what Kaplan is arguing is that Special Forces need to get better at the things that make them truly special--language abilities, cultural understanding, military skills and, in cases, secretiveness--to pusue the kinds of missions the nation needs them to pursue, both in countering terrorists and in building alliances in far flung places around the world.
________________________________________________
Fairfax, Va.: So, you're saying that withdrawing from Iraq would have the same effect as withdrawing from Lebanon? Ultimately, Lebanon came out of its terrible war and has prospered of late. Any chance for Iraq to prosper ... perhaps with the help of a neighbor like Saudi or Kuwait?
Vernon Loeb: Who knows. I don't see Iraq prospering in the short term if the U.S. pulls out. The country is devastated, both in terms of its infrastructure and its people. And if I were an Iraqi I wouldn't want to rely on the largesse of the Saudis or the Kuwaitis. Certainly, U.S. credibility in the region, and around the world, would be devastated by a pull out. So for those two reasons I think staying the course is the best alternative for the time being. And I do think it's possible that over the next month, the situation will settle down in Iraq, and more obvious progress will be made toward rebuilding the country. I used to think that was likely. The events of the past couple of weeks have led me to the conclusion that, perhaps, it's now possible. But I'm starting to have my doubts
________________________________________________
Burke, Va.: To me it looks like the Iraqi's are worried that what is happening is an Invasion not a Liberization. Why doesn't Bremer lay out a plan for how the U.S. will transfer power to the Iraqis, and start implementing it? I think that would go far in reducing the deaths of Americans.
Vernon Loeb: I agree with you. And Rumsfeld said as much the other day. I think the reason he's not is because the Bush administration is still worried about what that quick government might look like, i.e. a Shiite theocracy.
________________________________________________
Lexington, Ky.: Given that the occupation of Iraq has not been successful, do you think that the administration is rethinking its commitment to the Wolfowitz policy of invading any country that it perceives could be a threat to U.S. security?
Vernon Loeb: Not necessarily. More precisely, the doctrine is, the U.S. will preemptively strike nations that possess weapons of mass destruction and have links to terrorism. There aren't that many of those that come to mind, after Iran, North Korea and Syria. But having said that, I think there is a kind of operational limitation right now on preemptive wars, given how much force we have tied up in Iraq. So while I don't think there has been any stragetic or doctrinal rethinking of preemption, an operational brake of sorts has been applied.
________________________________________________
New York, NY: Bush's challenge to Iraqis to "bring them on" (i.e., bring on attacks) is already causing a stir among Democrats who feel he essentially put American soldiers in danger with a casual boast. Was this a gaffe that he'll have to apologize for?
Vernon Loeb: It's likely to be a remark he regrets having made, particularly if it triggers a new round of attacks. But, you know, Americans seem to like the Bush swagger, so who knows. I always hesitate to make predictions, because I turn out being wrong so much of the time. I think I should say, more often, a la Don Rumsfeld, that certain things are just unknowable.
________________________________________________
Easley, S.C.: Anthony Shadid's piece from yesterday is very frightening. It seems many Iraqi police and other officials are corrupt and perhaps lazy; I buy also the assertion that Americans don't respect the Iraqis and aren't interested in doing more than the bare minimum of police work due to risk. My question: is this a problem of leadership from higher up, both American military and civilian, not having a vision of what needs to be done and not knowing how to go about doing it, or is it simply a few reservists with low morale? Of course, aren't commanders responsible for their troops' morale?
And does Shadid speak Arabic? His reporting took on an almost surreal quality as he seemed to be talking to sources who hate each other right under the other's nose without either seeming to suspect what was being said.
Vernon Loeb: Yes, Anthony does speak Arabic, and he is able to report on antagonists spewing venom at one another, often in the same room, for that reason. I agree with you that yesterday's piece was terrfic, and frightening. I had the same reaction. My colleague Tom Ricks, who was recently in Iraq, thought the story very much reflected the sentiments of reservists, who never really signed up for open-ended missions like Iraq, and not active duty forces, who are much more willing to take on difficult and dangerous missions, which they did sign up for. At the same time, I think all of the troops in Iraq are probably starting to ask themselves, what are we really doing here, and are we making things beter or worse.
________________________________________________
Vernon Loeb: And on that note, I've got to run. Have a great Fourth, and we'll do this again next week. Cheers.
________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.
Stay Tuned to Live Online:
• 2
p.m. Smoking Ban: Montgomery County Council Member Phil
Andrews
• 3
p.m. Theme Park Safety: Robert
Niles,ThemeParkInsider.com
• 4
p.m. Author: Joyce
Carol Oates, "The Tattooed Girl"
Full
Week's Schedule
Keep up with the best Live Online has to offer and special breaking news discussions. Sign up for the Live Online e-mail newsletter.
________________________________________________
Automatically Update Page
| Get New Responses | Submit Question
 |