Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, Feb. 1, at 12:30 p.m. ET to discuss the latest developments in national security and intelligence.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Dana Priest: Sorry for the mix-up on my part. I'm here, a little late. So glad you could join me. Let's go.

_______________________

Washington: Rumsfeld and Cambone build up the DOD's intelligence capability because the CIA stink at military intelligence. They're good at political intelligence but the number of military analysts at CIA went from the hundreds to tens now.

Dana Priest: Rumsfeld and Cambone built up DOD's intel capability because they wanted more control over intelligence -- both as users and as directors -- and they wanted everything oriented to the war-fighter, that is to say, to use in/for military operations. The problem with that focus, which DOD will deny by the way, is that it is way too narrow and military rules and culture are so much more black and white than the CIA's.

_______________________

Virginia: I was at the DIA job fair last Monday afternoon. It seemed there are a lot of current CIA personnel looking for jobs too. Is CIA morale really that low?

Dana Priest: I hear two different things. First, morale is better than it used to be under director Goss because for the most part people think highly of the new director, Gen. Hayden. That said there's a bad feeling that CIA's heyday is over, that it's mission has been whittled down to something that may be more focused (human intelligence collection), and that the agency is not the big cheese among all the competing intel agencies like it once was.

_______________________

Durango, Colo.: President Bush -- among others -- is fond of the passive voice when fessing up: "mistakes were made." Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation has arrived at the same passive construct: "in the course of an administration smear campaign against Joseph Wilson 'a CIA operative was outed' " Will intel committees now refine law protecting covert operatives against "incidental outing" as a function of -- among others -- smear campaigns aimed at whistleblowers?

Dana Priest: I doubt it, nor to I think that is necessary. In the end the outing of Valerie Plame's name did not cause great national security damage and anyone who says the opposite really is just trying to score political points against the administration. My bet is that we will see that no one is charged with breaking the covert identities law because the law requires the "outer" to know that he/she is outing a covert person and I haven't' seen this so far. To me, the political misdeed (other than trying to pressure Wilson, a critic) was simply the hypocrisy; that an administration that wants it national security goals to be seen as above politics got caught using national security as politics.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: How nervous is the CIA over the German indictments? Are the names public?

Dana Priest: The names are not public, and under U.S. law cannot be made public. I'm sure they are worried that the German press may not operate under those same restrictions. The agency always was worried that its people would be left holding the bag and, well, voila!

_______________________

Fort Collins, Colo.: I'm beginning to get worried about a lack of leadership on counterterrorism -- Negroponte has left, the counterterrorism expert at the State Department has left, the executive branch has had a lot of turnover of experts on terrorism and the head of the House committee responsible for oversight is inexperienced. Is this normal? Is this spin? Or am I right to be concerned?

Dana Priest: Ya noticed that did ya? It's a great observation and for every one turnover we see in public there are ten we don't see. I'm not sure if this is a comforting thought or not but the fact is the huge and numerous counterterrorism structures that have been put in place since 9/11 don't need a single leader to keep them going. But without strong leadership this self-sustaining bureaucracy isn't going to know when to make tough course corrections, and certainly is incapable of changing strategic direction.

_______________________

Washington: I have no idea whether the Admin really is looking to escalate things with Iran to the point of outright military hostilities, but it looks like it. I worry that we are removing all margin for error and that we're going to blunder into something big. Why? I don't get it. Is there a school of thought that this really will get Iran to back down and act in a manner more closely aligned with our interests?

Dana Priest: It the old tough-guy stance that has worked so well in the past six years. In the previous question I talked about the importance of strategic direction. There are loads of people in this government -- and in all national security agencies of this government -- who think we should change our CT strategy. That would mean engaging with Iran, not simply continuing down the road we've been on with them for many years. Could we blunder into a real war? Maybe. More likely though we'll blunder into an even nastier Iraq war where the Iranians are much more involved than they already are now against U.S. troops and U.S. goals.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: I just read something on the Web yesterday that described a reporter's experience in Iraq in terms of the extreme limitation in moving about without getting gunned down. Is Baghdad really a Beirut-type no-man's land these days from what you hear, and are our troops in danger of being cut off and slaughtered?

Dana Priest: This is true. The Post and other western news outlets now rely heavily on Iraqi stringers to go out and about each day to collect news. Many of these people used to translators, as there was no real journalism under Saddam Hussein. These Iraqis risk their lives everyday and most do not even tell their families where they work for fear word would spread in the neighborhood and they would be killed as traitors or captured for ransom. It is a very tough reporting situation. The Post tries hard to rotate people from Washington into military units as well, so we can maintain a closer view on what's happening militarily.

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Hank Crumpton's departure from State, as Cofer Black's departure before him, would seem to infer an inability of CIA ops officers to work within State's bureaucracy. Being a spokesperson for not much of a policy doesn't seem worth the title, or do you have any other insights? Black I understand is pulling in big bucks for an Iraq security contractor, but Crumpton is made of sterner stuff.

Dana Priest: I don't think either one of them left for the reason you state. They both did 2-3 years in the job I believe. I think they both were frustrated by the State Department culture and pace sometimes, but I also think they both left to make money in the private sector. Black is at Blackwater doing well, I hear. I'm certain Crumpton will land in a similar position -- in fact, maybe he'll take over at Armour International, the British security firm where Steve Cappus (now the number two at CIA) was in his brief time away from the agency. Spot a trend?

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Virginia's earlier comment about the DIA job fair tells only part of the story. I would suspect that these are analysts in search of more pay, as always has been the case for analysts with fewer than five years of service -- they get their CIA cachet, spend a few years on a desk and then move on. But it is highly unlikely that operations officers are migrating toward DIA. Your thought?

Dana Priest: Yes, I would agree. Also I believe DIA has many more analysts these days, so the pool is bigger.

_______________________

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Dana, in general, how does the CIA view the outing of Plame? Are they angry? Do they feel like they got caught in the crossfire between Tenet and the OVP, or have they just chalked it up to politics?

Dana Priest: It runs the gamut: Some hated it for the hypocrisy. Some because it's just another scandal involving the letters C-I-A on the airwaves. Some think that Plame and her husband have made careers out of this (true) and that such personal promotion and notoriety is counter to the spy culture. Some see it has a great example of the little things that went wrong during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

_______________________

Knoxville, Tenn.: The Senate put Gen. Casey through a grilling for the cameras. My question is why he should be confirmed given the state of affairs in Iraq developed under his command?

Dana Priest: That's the question of course. Those in favor of his promotion would say he's the most knowledgeable about the most important region and therefore the most qualified. Those opposed think "well, yeah, but look what a mess he helped make." It's a no-win situation for him really because he is, after all, following the direction of his civilian leadership.

_______________________

Washington: Alexandria, Va.: "How nervous is the CIA over the German indictments? Are the names public?"

The U.S. did what it did in agreement with the German government and does the work the Europeans are afraid to do because of their homegrown Muslim terrorist population. It's all about the anti-Bush feeling in Europe that is allowing their societies to be taken over by Muslim extremists.

Dana Priest: Actually that's not quite true -- the German government did not approve Masri's capture or imprisonment. In fact there was great debate inside the U.S. government over whether to even tell the Germans that they had him. But the larger point you are making is more true -- the European intel services and a small number of elected officials at the top level knew that the U.S. government was undertaking these kinds of operations, even though they did not know the details. I would not say the French or Brits are "afraid" to deal with homegrown Muslim terrorists -- the French in particular have a counterterrorism court that basically locks people upfor years on little evidence.

_______________________

Chicago: Dana, looking for a prediction ... fast-forward to Iraq/Iran in 2008. What do you see?

Dana Priest: It's just too unpredictable. U.S. troops will be coming home but there will still be some there. Iraq will be struggling mightily and may not be much better off than it is now. Iran is the wildcard. It probably will be more involved -- the question is will its energy mainly be directed at finding ways to kill American troops, or toward seizing control (through proxies) of Iraqi neighborhoods and institutions?

_______________________

Albany, Calif.: If Afghanistan takes a turn for the worse, can we keep a lid on it without pulling resources from Iraq? Will our allies be a significant help if the Taliban emerges in the Spring?

Dana Priest: The allies are still in the fight and I would expect that to continue and offer the U.S. some relief in terms of troop deployments. If the Taliban surges, it will be NATO that has to confront it. You've seen recently that the U.S. is gearing up for a greater role (see Mike Abramowitz's story from last week). Eventually we'd have to pull from Iraq.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Bush Plans New Focus on Afghan Recovery (Post, Jan. 25)

_______________________

Anonymous: Do you think anyone in the Administration seriously believes that pro-American elements among the Iranian population, including youth, will remain so after an American military strike (however limited) against targets in their country?

Dana Priest: Are you saying you don't believe that bombing for peace is a successful strategy?

_______________________

Dana Priest: I need to run off now. Thanks for joining me. Until next week...Dana

_______________________

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 is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.