Weekly National Security Online Chat with Dana Priest of the Washington Post
 |
Join Dana Priest every Thursday for her live online chats with readers on National Security and Intelligence at the WashingtonPost.com
This is the Transcript for Thursday, August 31, 2006; 12:30 PM
Dana Priest: hi everyone. last week before summer is over! let's begin.
_______________________
Va.: Why is the Washington Post Defense Career Job Fair on 9/11? A place with hundreds of people with security clearances is a terrorist's paradise.
Dana Priest: I don't know but I don't think it matters. There are events all over the country set for 9-11, including people with clearances (as if, somehow, they are more valuable than people without them???). If there's one thing that's true about its aftermath, people are determined to go on with life. To your implicit point, however, AQ has no history of "celebrating" such dates. This question comes up all the time and I've been back to the intelligence well on it over and over again. The folks that look at AQ don't see a link. That said, I would expect a bin Laden or Zawahiri audio or video tape sometime shortly after 9-11. That's the pattern.
_______________________
Grand Rapids, Mich.: After the experience in Iraq and the current posturing with Iran, generally speaking, how does the national security community view the notion of pre-emption? Has the burden of proof changed?
Dana Priest: Generally yes. Perhaps not as a notion or philosophy, but as something that we cannot really afford -- in terms of military assets and personnel -- to act on right now. But there are lots of people in the inner circle for which this would not apply. Look at the neocon position on Iran. Deja vue all over again.
_______________________
Silver Spring, Md.: O.K., I admit I'm no national security expert but here's what's troubling me. London: Security goes up AFTER to plot is foiled? Why not before while it is being investigated? Isn't that like closing the gate after the cows have left? Bush's comments on Iran today: I'm beginning to think the bumper stickers on some cars may be right: "Bush does have an exit strategy, it's through Iran."
Dana Priest: Better trademark that--quick! Good question on security but the problem is this: increasing it beforehand is going to effectively thwart the investigation since the bad guys would be alerted. in this case, as in others, it was raised because the authorities didn't necessarily believe they had the totality of the plot and plotters in their control. In past alerts, it's generally been when intel analysts would sense "increased chatter"--one of my least favorite descriptions--among suspected bad guys or people connected to them.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: Thank you for chatting today, Ms. Priest. Have you any speculation about the possibilities of President Bush's October Surprise in time for the mid-terms?
Dana Priest: Peace in Iraq??? (Wouldn't that be a great one?).
_______________________
Charleston, S.C.: Can you please comment on the NPT Treaty and the obligations each signee is required to perform. My understanding is that it allows basically for what Iran is currently doing, however, I am confused as to whether they are mandated to allow inspections of their facilities. Is this true?
Dana Priest: Yes, they can do what they are currently do. And yes, inspections are mandated. The problem here is not knowing what you don't know, so to speak. Iran is believed to have a secret nuclear program that people assume it would not admit to. The other problem is the belief that achieving a civilian nuclear capability will make it easier for them to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. So much of this argument has to do with intentions.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: As for the neocons who seem to think a military move against Iran is advisable -- I have this question: With what army? How can we possibly consider a move against Iran -- or anyone -- when we REFUSE to consider a draft, and when we're sending soldiers back for their 2nd, 3rd, 4th rotation in Iraq. Let alone whether it's wise to be doing that, it strikes me as grossly unfair.
But my question for you: Are these supporters of military action serious -- and how likely is it they will in fact, strike Iran?
Dana Priest: Difficult to say. There are some who do favor military action. In general that is not the US military, but they don't call the shots. There are others who are probably just posturing and, who knows, maybe in combination with some carrots, some dialogue and some diplomacy the Iranian leaders might decide it's better not to go down certain roads. Problem is there is no diplomacy, no dialogue and no carrots.
_______________________
Grand Terrace, Calif.: I saw Donald Rumsfeld today quoted as saying NOrth Korea was NOT a threat to South Korea. He said North Korea's threats were because they could give nuclear weapons to terrorists. Don't one million troops on the border constitute a threat?
Dana Priest: You know, South Korea does not act threatened. South Korea is trying to reach out, to come to some accomodation. So while you can't totally predict North Korea, I'd have to agree with Rumsfeld--if that's what he said. I didn't catch it--I would add that the other threat is that North Korea give technology and know-how to bad action nation states who want to gain advantage. Think Uzbekistan or Syria.
_______________________
Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.: Can somebody ask Rumsfeld point blank "what if you're the facist?"
Dana Priest: My gosh, goodness, as he would say. No, I don't think that would be productive. So don't hold your breath.
_______________________
Austin, Tex.: "The problem here is not knowing what you don't know, so to speak. Iran is believed to have a secret nuclear program that people assume it would not admit to. The other problem is the belief that achieving a civilian nuclear capability will make it easier for them to achieve a nuclear weapons capability. So much of this argument has to do with intentions."
And such was the rational for Irag, also.
Dana Priest: Your comment implies, however, that it's not true. And you would be wrong there. Iran and Iraq are different countries and it would be silly to form opinions about Iran's government, capabilities and intentions based on anything other than Iran's government, capabilities and intentions. That's not to say we should not be extra careful in trying to understand what the intel world thinks they know about Iran, and not to over or understate it. And it certainly is not to say I endorse the assumptions made about Iraq.
_______________________
Glenmont, Md.: If we were to go into Iran with the army in its current shape -- what are likely outcomes? If we don't have enough boots on the ground to secure Iraq -- where are we going to get the soldiers to invade Iran?
Dana Priest: In trouble. But I think the current military scenarios for Iran are limited and based on air power. Even without the Iraq deployment I think a ground invasion of Iran would create a situation that is far, far worse than the one we see in Iraq now.
_______________________
Riverside, CA: With all of these foreign "adventures", have you heard any quiet rumblings about the necessity of a draft? I am in favor of a draft ONLY because many conservatives would oppose wars that their sons or daughters might fight. If there were a draft, we would NEVER have invaded Iraq.
Dana Priest: So you're the 20th person who has asked about this (or maybe you are just a busy typer). No, politically it's not going to happen. However, what's to stop people like yourself and like-minded representatives in Congress from trying to institute one anyway for the reasons you state (and stop trying to get me to change my mind on this).
_______________________
Wilmington, N.C.: "Iran is believed to have a secret nuclear program that people assume it would not admit to." That reminds me of something. I guess whether or not Iran is being truthful is irrelevant, as our Pres has decided they are not.
Dana Priest: The point is this: it's impossible to tell whether Iran is being truthful and, given their past record (support for terrorism, to name just one), why would anyone just trust them? Seems like a leap of faith.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md: What planet are you from? All we've had for the past four years is dialog, diplomacy and carrots offered to Iran
Dana Priest: Pluto??? Must have missed that: we have no diplomatic relations with Iran.
_______________________
Baltimore, Md.: Please tell me I'm right about this - the U.S.A. wouldn't just call an airstrike on Iran without notifying our Allies. I'll give Bush this much credit, he went to the U.N. before invading Iraq (albeit with faulty intelligence). Presumably, there would be serious discussion, U.N. resolutions, violations of those U.N. resolutions, sanctions, etc... before anyone decided to wag the dog? Right?
Dana Priest: Right.
_______________________
Newark, N.J.: We are now approaching the 5 year mark since the events of 9-11. My question is, now, after 5 years, do you feel that the intelligence community, specifically the CIA is where it needs to be? Are we making progress in hiring enough Arabic, Farsi speakers, and are we doing enough. Thanks.
Dana Priest: Not nearly where it should be, no. In brief, I sense the agency is adrift in a huge new bureaucracy (called the reorganized intelligence community) whose main purpose is to share information with one another, but not, in order of priority, to find the information it needs to share--those proverbial "dots" that this behemonth structure is supposed to connect, then share. And then another question would be, do the administration insiders who really matter even listen to the agency as much anymore. If not, who, exactly, are they listening to? I would love, simply love, to know what information got to President Bush about the Lebanon-Hezbollah war.
_______________________
State of Disbelief: So, would the President have to go to Congress to authorize any military action in Iran? If so, how well do you think he would be received?
Dana Priest: Technically no. He needs to go to Congress for the money to continue military action once he starts it. But traditionally presidents have liked to go to Congress first to get their support (which is different than legal approval---an important point in presidential perogative debates)
_______________________
Louisiana, Mo.: All this talk today about Iran..very little about Iraq/Afghanistan. Why?
Dana Priest: The rhetoric is heating up on all sides and, if the present course continues, there's going to be some kind of show down. Very high stakes.
_______________________
Las Vegas, Nev.: Afghanistan seems to have left the front pages. Are things deteriorating there? Is the government stable? Are the Taliban making a comeback?
Dana Priest: Yes, yes and yes. We cover Iraq more because of the presence of U.S. troops and because, its deterioration is harsher, more violent and more threatening to U.S. interests and standing in the world.
_______________________
Fountain Valley, Calif.: I keep hearing conflicting stories about Iraq. I heard a report a few days ago that the situation in Baghdad has calmed since the US deployed extra troops there. I hear other reports that things continue to deteriorate. Is there a credibility issue here? Is this similar to Vietnam where body counts of the North Vietnamese were inflated? What the heck is REALLY going on? How can we get the true facts?
Dana Priest: It's difficult. I certain don't look to the official on-the-record government for the truth. I look to the independent experts and media and (so, you're not surprised), and to government officials--military included--who will speak to me and others on background and out of the belief that it is better to understand the truth than to paint a rosy picture. Then you have to put all the individual reports together, like a puzzle, to get a more complete picture. Our reporters have a very difficult time moving about. That's not optimal. But they give you one piece of the puzzle, or more, every day.
_______________________
Rockville, Md.: Is Rumsfeld on his last legs as SOD? He's been shredded now by the mainstream in both parties, and his recent rhetoric is sounding borderline desperate. Does he last into November?
Dana Priest: Yes he does, unless he, for some reason, decides he'd rather be doing something else.
_______________________
Falls Church, Va.: I respect, greatly, your work. I read the Mission when it was released and felt it was a very insightful book on an issue not really mentioned in the mainstream press. Question: What are you hearing from the Foreign Policy establishment (both in and out of power) about the chances of going to war with Iran before the election?
Dana Priest: People generally believe the adminstration will try to avoid it. Too costly, politically and in all other ways.
_______________________
San Francisco, Calif.: I just ordered your book through an online retailer. How much of it was written prior to 9/11 and do you think you will do a "follow-up" based on changes in "The Mission?" Thanks.
Dana Priest: 2/3 was written before 9-11. But the theme--that the US has come to rely too heavily on the military for non-military task-- has played itself out in spades. I hope you enjoy it.
_______________________
Ann Arbor, Mich.: The administration is trying push their view that war critics are just terrorist sympathizers. This worked very well in prior elections (Max Cleland). Will it have the same effect this year?
Dana Priest: No, and we already see that with the Republican candidates trying to distance themselves from Bush on the war.
_______________________
Richmond, Va. : Do you think the majority of Americans are/will be buying the recent inflammatory -- if you're not with us your with our enimies -- rhetoric of Rumsfled, Cheney, Bush? This seems to go well beyond political speechifying. Is it the oratory of the scared?
Dana Priest: The majority. No. The core supporters. Yes.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: I've long thought there were some pretty quirky folks in this Administration but having just read Rumsfeld's speech from earlier this week in Utah and this guy is channeling Peter Sellers from Dr. Strangelove! Has there been much reaction to this in the think tank/national security world? Is this a story that will percolate out into the media? I've never heard a senior government official sound so, am I going to far?, insane before.
Dana Priest: I think he took everyone by surprise. Today The Post did a broader piece about the administration's rhetorical campaign. (we'll post). But my favorite story today was the buried piece by my colleague and friend, Walter Pincus, who writes about a $20 million (yes, you read that correctly) government contract for public relations work to paint a rosy picture about Iraq.
_______________________
Evansville, Ind.: Dana - how serious is all the posturing being done by the Attorney General's office about spending time and resources (almost as if we didn't have a spreading nationwide crime spree taking place) pursuing journalists and members of Congress for leaks related to the Government's illegal activities? I see references to investigations, questioning of members of Congress, firing of CIA personnel, etc. and have read some really disturbing rulings by Judge Ellis in connection with the Espionage Act. They say hard cases make bad law, and I know he has a very difficult case in front of him (the AIPAC issues), but I'm pretty concerned and I'm not a journalist.
Do I need to start worrying about how to bake so I can send you and Risen et al files (or at least dvds)? Seriously - this really really bothers me. Tell me you guys aren't worried at all so I can sleep nights.
Dana Priest: We take the government very seriously on this matter, and I hope you do too. What is at stake is, truely, freedom of the press (read: freedom of the reader to read the truth as close as we can ascertain it). I hope your baking skills will not be required. But thank you for offering.
_______________________
Dana Priest: That was fun, as always. Enjoy the long weekend and I'll catch you next week. All the best, Dana
SOURCE: The Washington Post