| -Caveat Lector-
National Defense Vernon Loeb and Dana Priest Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Wednesday, Nov.
12 at Noon ET, to talk about the latest developments in national security
and defense. (Vernon Loeb is away.) 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. A 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. ________________________________________________ Dana Priest: Hi everyone. I'm here. Let's go. Lots of news these days.
_______________________ Washington, D.C.: Dana: National polls have consistently show that huge numbers of Americans (upwards
of 60+ percent) believe that Iraq was involved in 9/11, even though it has been
known for a year or more that that was not the case. Are any senior Republicans
privately concerned that such a huge number of citizens could be so wrong about
such an important fact? Are any senior Republicans worried generally about the ability of our
democratic system to make good policy choices, given that on the important
policy choice of war with Iraq (one of the most important policy choices of the
last decade) a majority of the electorate is either ill-informed of an important
fact relating to the policy choice or consciously refuses to accept an important
fact. Dana Priest: I won't know for certain whether senior Republicans in
particular have been worried about this. Sure doesn't seem so. Ditto for the
administration. Linking 9-11 with Iraq is something VP Cheney still does,
usually indirectly, in his major speeches. Also, notice that the administration
seems certain that the resistance in Iraq is from "terrorists." They are trying
to use the same rhetorical devices there now too. _______________________ Portland, Ore.: Iraq is front and center for us every day, but I'm
curious about Iran. It seems the Europeans have taken the lead on curtailing
Iran's nuclear ambitions. I also recall some stories on Shiite leaders from Iran
stirring up troubles in Iraq. What is the outlook on Iran right now? Are we basically ignoring them? Or are
we letting the Europeans be the "good cop" and we're waiting in the wings as the
"bad cop"? Dana Priest: They aren't ignoring them. But there's no clear consensus
on how to proceed, so the administration seems to be taking a dual track that
looks contradictory at times; tough criticism of government, WMD pursuits and
support for terrorism, while speaking "over their heads" to the Iranian people,
recognizing their aspirations for something other than the government they had.
_______________________ Stamping Ground, Ky.: Dana, Has Iraq become a political tar baby for the administration? Do you have any
sense that they might be willing to jettison their stated nation building
commitment there in order to save the president's chances for reelection in
2004? Dana Priest: Very uncertain right now, but it does appear they are
heading towards a turn over to the Iraqis more quickly than previously. Whether
this is aimed at reelection is your call. Maybe it's just to get out of a
worsening situation. _______________________ New York, N.Y.: Just when you think things in Iraq can't get any
worse, they do. What do you think the result of the "get tough" policy is likely
to be? Is it likely to spark a cycle of violence? Dana Priest: Yes. This is beginning to look a lot like the Israeli
response to the Palestinian uprising. It would be fine to "get tough" with
bombers, but the inevitable collateral damage of bombing homes, for instance, in
retaliation will certainly inflame the anti-American sentiment. _______________________ Gambrills, Md.: How likely is it that Bremer will be replaced? Dana Priest: Not very. I don't think he's the problem at all. It's the
larger administration/military strategy -- and the fact they did not anticipate
all this. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: I can't believe the idiocy of the people in charge
framing foreign policy for the current administration. Poll after poll has shown
that the stock of Americans couldn't get any lower in any Muslim country -- a
problem compounded by Rumsfeld's ill-fated decision to not fire xenophobic
General William Boykin. Add to that a war, not sanctioned by the U.N., which may
have killed over 50,000 Iraqis. But somehow these idiots have come up with the
'brilliant' idea that 'if we stay the course and show the Iraqis that we are
serious, maybe we'll be able to turn a corner'. What is going to be their
response when the violence escalates next year? If one considers the current
perception that many Muslims have of Americans, it should come as no surprise
that Americans will be loathed and killed in any Muslim country they invade. Why
is this so hard for Americans to grasp? Dana Priest: Well, Rumsfeld's cabal of policy makers would say they
still believe the Iraqis see the Americans as liberators (after all, Saddam
Hussein was a tyrant). But what I think is missing is the belief that
"liberators" could turn into "occupiers" without a protest. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: Won't a premature handoff to the Iraqis pretty much
assure that we'll get many more Sept. 11-style terrorist attacks? Sure, there
was no real threat from Saddam to the U.S. mainland before the invasion.
However, now we've created a massive terrorist "training camp" in what was Iraq.
If we hand it off and leave, won't the new, post-Sept. 11 terrorists simply take
the fight to U.S. soil? Dana Priest: It will be much harder, obviously, for foreign terrorists
to come here for that purpose. Still, your scenario is one possibility. Post-war
chaos from the power vacuum was always predicted --- that's part of the reason
Bush 41 didn't take out Saddam Hussein. _______________________ Oxford, Miss.: General Richardo Sanchez yesterday conceded that the
war was "getting worse". This of course is in contradiction to at least the
public pronouncements of the Bush administration. Is the split between the
military and civilian leaders widening? What happens to military morale and
ability to control a situation when the civilian leaders continue to deny that
things are not going according to plan? Dana Priest: I would think so, yes. I gather from our reporters in
Iraq that not many of the military commanders refer to this insurgency as
"terrorism" in the classic sense. Vietnam does come to mind more and more. If
civilian leaders continue to be deaf, words will seep out anyway. I am sure that
will happen in this case, witness Sanchez's statement. _______________________ Los Angeles, Calif.: Do you think that Condi Rice made a mistake by
comparing de-Baathification with de-Nazification? Is post-war Germany an
appropriate comparison with post-attack Iraq? If Germany is relevant, how does
the fact that we allowed Nazi industrialists to escape blame and to prosper
after WWII figure into the equation? Dana Priest: No. There are parallels as well as differences. She was
really trying to talk about the process of weeding out people, and allowing some
former Nazis/Baathists to remain in positions of authority. That's the only
value of the analogy. But it can be helpful because, in both, the idea is you
don't just reject people because of their former affiliation. You also recognize
the need to maintain a structure and authority and expertise that existed. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: Reports of today's bombing exclude casualty counts
for Iraqis who were either killed or maimed while assisting the coalition forces
to build what they claim is a better Iraq. Obviously, if an Iraqi is close
enough to the blast, he or she is also assisting the coalition war effort. Why
don't democracy-loving Iraqis count, quite literally, even when they make the
"ultimate sacifice" for their country? Dana Priest: They do. I've seen some figure on the wires saying seven
Iraqis were killed. _______________________ San Francisco, Calif.: Dana: Dana Priest: I don't agree -- but some former intelligence people
agree with you. So who knows? _______________________ Alexandria, Md.: What is the significance of the Bremer/Bush sudden
summit? Did this "top secret" CIA report about Iraqis losing faith in the U.S.
occupation cause it? Or is the administration polling Americans and figuring out
that a majority of us are losing faith in the occupation as well? Dana Priest: Hopefully it's neither the CIA report nor the polls, but
the facts of the ground that are propelling Bush and Bremer and others to
rethink their strategy. Problem is, there really is not great alternative. _______________________ Concord, N.H.: Ms. Priest: I hate to be a nag, but it frustrates me to see Mr. Kurtz (and others) proved
right that the source of the Plame leak will never be identified and that the
story has died. Let me try this. Can we at least settle on a number of people
who should have known this information (had clearance and a need to know) and
then ask either which of them it was or why others learned of her identity? Dana Priest: I predict the Dems will resurrect it somehow. _______________________ Omaha, Neb.: Bremer created the inept and corrupt Iraqi Governing
Council which he now wants to govern the country without elections while we pull
troops out. How can you say he is not part of the problem? Dana Priest: I'm just thinking his ouster would be too big a
concession and cause too much instability when they will want to be focusing on
trying to turn these around. _______________________ Blacksburg, Va.: Is a major combat operation being planned in
Iraq? Dana Priest: I don't know. _______________________ Omaha, Neb.: What will be the new Iraq policy? It sounds like Bomb and
run! Dana Priest: Let's hope not. That's so cynical. _______________________ Virginia: Dana -- Is the (probable) loss of the Italian contingent in
Iraq likely to harm the U.S. "mission"? To the extent we actually have one, I
mean. Thanks. Dana Priest: I'm certain it will make it even harder to get European
or other allies on board. That will hurt. _______________________ Omaha, Neb.: How can we be planning to accelerate our troop withdrawal
and accelerate Iraqi takeover of the government while the level of violence is
dramatically escalating? Does this make sense to you? Dana Priest: It does if you're goal is to leave as soon as possible,
which may be the aim. Too unsettled just now to tell for certain, but I think
we'll have a much clearer idea in a week of so after Bremer gets back. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: Do you feel that the Bush Administration is doing
all it can to win the public relations war at home? Why hasn't the president
called on coalition leaders, congressional leaders, or made a televised address
to promote his Iraq policy? Certainly some of the discontent felt in the public with Iraq is fuelling
support for Howard Dean's insurgency candidacy. I wonder how poorly the White
House spin apparatus would function if John Kerry suddenly dropped from view?
Dana Priest: Spin can only go so far. They've mounted a public
relations campaign. It got some attention, including some soul-searching from
the media about whether we were fairly portraying Iraq. The escalating violence,
though, speaks louder than White House PR. _______________________ Los Angeles, Calif.: Why does Bush continue to insist that the U.S.
have sole control of the political transition? Dana Priest: I don't think they trust other nations to do the right
thing and they don't want to dilute their authority. I don't think they are
multilateralists by nature or inclination, so going it basically alone probably
seems more comfortable too. _______________________ Athens, Ga.: What affect will the increasing violence in Iraq have on
international aid money, both pledges and the actual distribution? Dana Priest: Good question. I would think it might slow it down (which
wouldn't be good) out of fears that contractors can't operation safely (which is
true). _______________________ Oxford, U.K.: Living over in Europe, I was distressed (though not
surprised) to see the reaction of EVERYONE to the president's recent speech on
democracy in the Middle East: they laughed. Reading the American press, though,
one would think the U.S. has changed its policy in some major way. Why the
disconnect? On a similar line, is it not somewhat disturbing that when the American
president visits his closest ally, he asks for the entire capital to be shut
down for three days? Remember those pictures of Clinton wading into the throngs
of adoring Vietnamese fans at the end of his presidency? Dana Priest: Because it was breathtakingly in scope and idealism. Many
are hoping he can pull it off. Europe is probably less idealistic and, since so
many of you didn't trust Bush on Iraq before the war, much more skeptical than
you were even before the war. Bush remains a popular president, so he obviously
still holds the trust of many Americans. As for shutting down capitals, I'm sure
they assess someone is out to get him. Yes, the comparisons are jarring. _______________________ College Park, Md.: Many/most of the Democrats running for president
speak of ending the unilateralism of the Bush administration in Iraq. Is this
viable/feasible? Or has the U.S. made its bed and must now sleep in it for
decades? Dana Priest: No, I think other countries are really more than willing
to join with the United States on even the most difficult challenges. Even
France. _______________________ Washington, D.C.: Is there a reason why Arabic-speaking Foreign
Service officers are barred going to Iraq? Dana Priest: What's that? _______________________ San Francisco, Calif.: Are American troops routinely patrolling the
borders of Iraq to catch any enemy volunteers from other Muslim nations who want
to sneak in? Are more American troops needed to better patrol Iraq's borders and
to guard Iraqi weapons caches? Dana Priest: More US troops would be needed to guard all Iraqi weapons
depots and routinely patrol the borders, which are enormous. Vernon Loeb,
though, hung out with one unit on the Syrian border and wrote a very insightful
story about how there really aren't that many troublemakers coming across. The
borders with Iran and Saudi Arabia are also a problem. _______________________ Montclair, N.J.: As always, these chats are a treat. There seems to be a major change in our reconstruction strategy brewing. What
form do you see it taking? Some people seem to think that the uniformed military
is about to take new initiative in a sort of second war. Is that likely? And if
it happens, do you think it will succeed in quelling the resistance? (I know
that's a trick question.) Dana Priest: Thanks. I do sense some major change coming. Or perhaps
the announcement yesterday and the bombing yesterday indicate that the "get
tough" policy really is that change. But, I don't necessarily believe it will
quell the violence, it could well create greater antipathy against the
Americans. _______________________ Raleigh, N.C.: From the reporting of you and others at the Post, do
you think this move to revamp the political control in Iraq is mostly Karl
Rove/political, or mostly Rumsfeld-Powell/operational? Also, I know it's early, but what are the chances that Italy might pull out?
Are they solid partners? Dana Priest: All good questions. Few really answers. Rove has got to
be doing a political calculation,after all, everyone else is. We know where
Rumsfeld stands -- it was his "get tough" policy announced yesterday. I'm not
sure what Powell is really advocating though. I don't think the Italians will
pull out right away. They are solid partners. _______________________ New York, N.Y.: Ms. Priest: can you give us some sense of how the
officer corps at the Pentagon is taking all this? Is there a lot of grumbling
about the civilian leadership? Dana Priest: A lot of concern that this is, in fact, a quagmire. The
big question is how to defeat the resistance, not necessarily, how to pull out.
_______________________ Adams Morgan, Washington, D.C.: Dana, I really enjoy the work that you and your Post colleagues do on national
security stories. However, the number of attributed sources in your and others'
stories is dwindling by the month. I realize you need to build a relationship with your sources and that your
editors are letting you get away with it, but at what point do you yourself
start to think this refusal to go on record (even with obvious and inoffensive
statements) is getting out of hand? When I read something like, "The White House reacted with sadness and anger
at the latest bombing of a U.S. compound in Iraq, said an administration
official who did not wish to be named," I have to wonder if Post reporters even
bother to ask for names anymore. Comment? Dana Priest: We do bother to ask, and we try to cajole people into
using their names. And, yes, it has gotten out of hand. _______________________ San Francisco, Calif.: Where ar we with CIA leak story...
Forgotten? Dana Priest: We're in a waiting mode. That's all. It's not over. _______________________ San Francisco, Calif.: What, if anything, has changed since
Condoleezza Rice was named by Bush as somehow "in charge" of some of the aspects
of the Iraqi occupation and nation building? How much influence is she exerting.
And, to quote you, "This is beginning to look a lot like the Israeli response
to the Palestinian uprising." If the eye-for-an-eye tactics of the Israelis
hasn't worked for them, why should we think it will work for us? Dana Priest: I can't see her hand anyway that matters. And yes, I
would not say the Israeli tactics have been successful. On the contrary. _______________________ Hoboken, N.J.: The key question for the U.S. must be the reaction of
the Shia. If they turn against the U.S., its game over. While the south is
calmer than the Sunni triangle, violence seems to be increasing. At best, it
seems the Shia are willing to tolerate the U.S. Is there any reason to believe
an Iraqi government (which would likely be Shia dominated) would be pro-U.S?
Dana Priest: Yes, I would think so. But pro-U.S. doesn't necessarily
mean that it would support all US policies. Never its pro-Israel stances and
neither, I think, the current U.S. unilateralism. I would think an Iraqi
government would be quite independent, actually. _______________________ Baltimore, Md.: It seems, despite the public face presented, the heat
in the Iraqi kitchen is getting to the White House, especially as the election
looms and the body count continues to escalate. Now I hear talk of trying to
reenlist the Iraqi Army (because clearly no other countries want to put the
bullseye on their troops)? Is this not like letting the fox guard the henhouse:
"We're going to leave now, but you Baathist army regulars have the duty to root
out the Baathist insurgents. Oh, and don't even think about using those nasty
fascist oppression tactics that you were employing against the Shiites for the
past thirty years either!" I can't think of a worse exit strategy. Dana Priest: Many policy makers and Iraq specialists were arguing
before the war that the Iraqi regular army was not really loyal to S.H. and
should be kept around. After all, many units fled rather than fight. Iraq's
regular army units were not targeted in the 1998 Desert Fox strikes either, the
pro-Saddam Revolutionary Guard was. I don't think it's like the fox-henhouse
analogy. It was a bad decision not to keep them around in the post-war. _______________________ Dana Priest: So many questions. So little time. Thank you again. I
apologize for not getting to everyone. Hang in there for next time. Best, Dana
_______________________
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om |
uc.GIF?1.13&wpost&wpost&noscript
Description: Binary data
