Readers joined Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung on Tuesday, August 28 at noon ET to discuss the debate in Washington among government, military and intelligence officials over what course to follow in Iraq.

The transcript follows.

More coverage of The War Over the War | War Over the War discussion transcripts

DeYoung, author of " Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell," is senior diplomatic correspondent and an associate editor of The Washington Post.

____________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Good afternoon. Obviously one of the key security issues is border security. Which border is more porous, the one with Iran, Syria/Jordan, or Kuwait/Saudi Arabia? Which has the best/tightest control?

Karen DeYoung: The tightest border -- also the shortest -- is probably with Kuwait, where there are large urban areas and lots of troops. The Saudis, who have a long, largely arid and unpopulated border with Iraq, are trying various things -- including electronic sensors -- to protect it. Syria's border with Iraq is a traditional smuggling route for goods as well as people, and even the Americans say it's difficult to police. Extensive back-and-forth traffic by Iranians and Iraqi Shiites along that long border is similarly difficult to police.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: How do think the recent calls for the removal of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have affected the political situation in Iraq? With no clear replacement, couldn't this just serve to worsen the effectiveness of the Iraqi government?

washingtonpost.com: Lobbyists Hired to Press Maliki, Former Premier Says (Post, Aug. 27)

Karen DeYoung: Good afternoon. This question is a good place to start. It's hard to see how the effectiveness of the Iraqi government could get much worse, but it still seems to be on a downward trajectory. Major political groups have dropped out -- nearly half the Cabinet is now boycotting. The parliament is paralyzed (even when it is in session). Although Iraqis certainly watch the U.S. political debate closely, it seems to me that they are driven by their own political imperatives far more than anything going on here. Although a new agreement among the major actors was announced this past weekend, it was very short on details and it remains to be seen if it amounts to much more than just another announcement. Remember that Maliki said late last spring that major legislation would be passed this past summer. None of it was. This is not to say that some Iraqi political actors aren't trying to use the U.S. to promote their own interests, as in the story you've attached.

_______________________

Arizona: Karen, thank you for making time to answer questions. I apologize for bringing up that "other" newspaper; nevertheless Thomas Friedman did raise an interesting point this morning. He asked "how could the Bush team Swift-Boat John Kerry and Max Cleland -- authentic Vietnam War heroes, whom the White House turned into surrendering pacifics in the war on terror -- but never manage to Swift-Boat Osama bin Laden, a genocidal monster, who is still regarded in many quarters as the vanguard of anti-American resistance"? Isn't this supposed to be Karen Hughes' job? What has or hasn't she been doing all this time?

Karen DeYoung: I read Friedman's column, and he proposed several ways for the USG to turn the tables on bin Laden -- giving heavy publicity to blowing up civilians in Iraq -- and wondered why the Americans don't do a better job of it. Leaving aside the effectiveness of Karen Hughes' operation out of the State Department (which is only marginally effective, if that) the administration certainly could be doing more. But when terrorists do what everybody expects of them, it's always going to be less newsworthy than when a democratic government -- particularly this one -- takes military actions or does things that seem to call its own principals and laws into question.

_______________________

New York: Everyone agrees that our leaving Iraq without the Iraqis first achieving national political reconciliation likely would have terrible consequences. Almost everyone agrees that the Iraqi leaders (particularly Shiite) have not even put forth a good-faith effort toward national reconciliation (an oil revenue-sharing deal, de-Baathification, constitutional reform to allow Sunnis greater political participation, etc.). The Bush administration wants our policy to be "we're continuing full support, whether you work toward reconciliation or not." The Democrats want our policy to be "we're leaving, whether you work toward reconciliation or not." Neither policy is most conducive to reconciliation. Why not adopt a policy of "we're continuing our full support if you at least start making a good-faith at reconciliation, but if not we will narrow our objectives, role and support to fit our more narrow security interests (mainly fighting al-Qaeda and preventing regional war)"?

Karen DeYoung: That's a proposal that many have made. Last week's National Intelligence Estimate judgments said that redeployment to limit the U.S. role to fighting al Qaeda and protecting Iraqi borders likely would only make Iraqi instability and sectarian violence worse. Whether one agrees with that or not, the Bush administration has put itself in an awkward position of having posited a stable, representative government in Iraq as key to U.S. security. It's begun to try to refashion that argument lately but it may be too late for it to stick.

_______________________

London: Why should Iraq remain intact? Thank you.

Karen DeYoung: Here's another proposal that has had wide circulation -- Sen. Joe Biden has made Iraqi partition under a federal structure a key part of his presidential campaign. One of the biggest problems is that none of Iraq's neighbors want it, and all think it would lead to even more regional instability. As for the Iraqis, the Kurds would like to have their own country (although our Turkish allies strongly oppose), and Sunnis feel they would be cut out of oil reserves that lie primarily in Shiite and Kurdish areas.

_______________________

Former State Employee: Premature question, but let's suppose U.S. forces are down to 100,000 by spring/summer (or even winter) 2008; that's still a tremendous number of forces on the ground, and forces that need logistical support (both manpower and money) for a long time. If the forces drop to a "low" level (whatever that means) is the U.S. Embassy expected to continue with as large a staff? Do we even need as large a physical embassy (manpower and cost) to do the traditional embassy jobs (that one assumes aren't being done because of the situation and restrictions)? Lastly, is it true that we're sending new Foreign Service Officers to staff the embassy -- and if so, are these the conditions under which we want them to learn the job they'll do for the next 15, 20 or 30 years?

Karen DeYoung: I haven't seen any plans to cut the size of the embassy no matter what happens to troop levels. Can't remember the numbers, but staffing (including third-country nationals) has already far exceeded numbers Congress originally was told, as has the overall price tag. Most of U.S. mission protection is done by contractors.

_______________________

Anderson, Ind.: When will the media realize there is no war without a declaration of war? It's mandated by the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 11). Therefore, the president has no "war powers" of any kind. Just because other tyrants have done it since WWII doesn't make it a war, and all Congress needs to either stand up and declare it, or impeach the president (difficult, given that they "gave him permission," a totally unconstitutional act because one branch of government cannot give its duties to another). Do we have a Constitution or not? It's up to the media to ask that!

Karen DeYoung: I beg to differ. It's up to the Congress to decide whether the current conflict requires a declaration of war. Presidents before this one have committed U.S. troops and treasure based on claimed executive powers that Congress has not challenged.

_______________________

Tehran, Iran: Hi. What do you think about Ahmadinejad's new comments on Iraq's power gap and Iran's rush to fill it?

washingtonpost.com: Iran Prepared to Fill Iraq Power Vacuum (AP, Aug. 28)

Karen DeYoung: Haven't had a chance to read his comments yet.

_______________________

U.S.: A friend in Iraq says no one in the U.S. realizes how much influence the militias have at the local level. Comments?

Karen DeYoung: Although the administration and military tend to concentrate their public statements on fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq -- although last week's U.S. offensive in Shiite militia-dominated parts of Baghdad did rate some announcements, as well as criticism from parts of the Iraqi government -- there has been a lot of media coverage of the militias. Could our chat monitor link to a recent story by my colleague Tom Ricks and I about militia control in southern Iraq?

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: As British Leave, Basra Deteriorates (Post, Aug. 7)

_______________________

Englewood, Fla.: The surge strategy being used by Gen. Petraeus in Iraq is part of a new counterinsurgency (COIN) manual published in December 2006 by the Army, and by the University of Chicago in 2007. The introduction of the University of Chicago version is written by a woman, Sarah Sewall. Are you, Karen De Young, familiar with the principles embraced in this new manual? Do you believe the Congress and the American people are familiar with this new plan? In the intro Ms. Sewall states that "the issue is not the courage of American troops but the fortitude of the American public." How does the American public gain fortitude? Why don't the American people know more about the new plan? Has it been suppressed by the media? Thank you.

Karen DeYoung: Haven't seen the University of Chicago version; although I've perused the Army's nearly 300-page document, I have to confess I haven't read it cover-to-cover. It was written about a lot when early drafts were released last summer, and on publication in December, and frequently mentioned since -- including during Petraeus confirmation hearings.

_______________________

Seattle: The announcements of progress on Monday didn't have much detail but essentially amounted to the fact that the single Sunni left in the Cabinet -- with all the credibility of Alberto Gonzales -- was pleased by the new laws, but didn't give details or any sense that laws would pass, or if the Kurdish faction agreed, etc. Will Bush cite this as progress, or is that too cynical even for him?

washingtonpost.com: Bush Touts Iraqi Agreement (AP, Aug. 27)

Karen DeYoung: The president said yesterday that he separately had telephoned all five leaders who were party to the agreement , who he said "recognize the true and meaningful reconciliation that needs to take place." The agreement, he said, "reflects their commitment." That was about all he could squeeze out of the announcement from Baghdad in the absence of actual legislation or other movement.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: I used to live in Turkey as an exchange student and was blocks away from a PKK bombing. I don't think Turkey gets enough credit from the Western world for being a Muslim democracy. The Bush administration seems to think Turkey should just passively sit on the sidelines and pay no attention to Iraq and the Kurds on their border. Isn't asking Turkey to ignore a Kurdish homeland in Iraq a little like asking America to ignore an al-Qaeda community in Canada? Aren't we just encouraging a future incendiary situation? Do you see any way for the situation to stabilize?

Karen DeYoung: The Turkey-PKK situation has been a source of some anxiety for the administration, which says it recognizes its obligation to defend NATO-ally Turkey from outside attack. At the same time, U.S. military commanders want nothing less than to have to send troops into northern Iraq to fight against Kurds. So far it has managed to keep a lid on with soothing diplomacy toward Ankara and pleas to the Kurdish Regional Government. But it remains volatile.

_______________________

Toronto: I have a simple question but I suspect with no simple answer. No matter what your stand on Iraq (in Canada it is the same with Afghanistan) the soldiers are treated like herons. It seems to me that by doing this it helps perpetuate wars by glorifying killing and being killed. When are we simply going to treat soldiers like any other profession that has a job to do? Equip them well, treat them well, give them good pensions but do not glorify them. How do we do this without being considered unpatriotic or unfeeling?

Karen DeYoung: In this country, both the question and the answer are complicated. I don't think anyone ended up feeling good about treatment given U.S. soldiers during and after Vietnam, when they ended up being reviled by many for policies formulated by politicians and military leaders. In Iraq, politicians of all stripes here have been careful to separate what they say about the war from what they say about the troops. And poor treatment of troops -- from faulty equipment to medical care -- has been a legitimate source of political criticism for the past several years.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Have long-term Iraqi oil-field leases been awarded yet? If not, what is the current timetable for completion of the leases?

Karen DeYoung: My understanding is that the Kurds have signed some preliminary contracts but that international oil companies have been reluctant to move into Iraq until the legal situation is clarified and legislation passed in Baghdad.

_______________________

Pittsburgh: Karen, you report that Gen. Petraeus succeeded in having portions of the National Intelligence Estimate "softened." In 2004, right before the election, the general published a rosy piece on Iraq in the New York Times. Recently, CNN published a poll that shows 53 percent of Americans do not trust this man to give to Congress an accurate picture of what is going on in the theater of operations. I expect somebody in Congress to call this guy out. Will any of our representatives have the fortitude to really question the commander? Our little military family wants to see something of a reckoning, not just another whitewash.

Karen DeYoung: While there is still residual respect for and trust of Petraeus in Congress, I think the bloom is off the rose and many are gearing up for tough questions.

_______________________

West Chester, Pa.: If we're "winning" in Iraq, as these shameless new commercials suggest, then why is the total level of violence not in decline and the pace of the Iraqi diaspora actually increasing? Isn't this all just an attempt to buy the White House time?

Karen DeYoung: It occurred to me the other day that statistics on Iraq violence are a lot like baseball stats (this in the context of our Washington Nationals) -- that depending on what time period and what indicators you use, you can make black seem white and vice versa. Violence is down in Baghdad but up elsewhere. Troop casualties are up or down depending on when you start counting. Civilian casualties, I think, are up no matter how you look at it, as are the numbers of refugees. Not surprisingly, war supporters juggle the figures to demonstrate progress, and opponents do the reverse.

_______________________

Anonymous: Should the Iraqi National Government arrive at an accord, does it have the power to implement it over the objection of local leaders like Sadr?

Karen DeYoung: Any substantive accord, even if it is agreed to by Maliki's Council of Ministers, has to be approved by the Parliament, which has trouble even reaching a quorum, let alone passing controversial legislation. Local leaders -- including Sadr -- have significant blocs of Parliament (when they're not boycotting).

_______________________

Washington: Do you ever talk to your biographee, Colin Powell and does he favor a pullout? Thanks.

Karen DeYoung: Powell has made infrequent statements in interviews (most recently on "Meet the Press" last month). He's said that he doesn't believe the "surge" will succeed in stopping what already amounts to a civil war and that the Iraqis will end up fighting it out among themselves no matter what we do.

_______________________

Phoenix: Karen, thanks for offer your expertise and experience this morning. I realize that it is late in whatever strategy we currently are pursuing -- and that the security situation may be too out of hand -- but ultimately would Iraq be better off if the United States sent in the Army Corps of Engineers with 10,000 generators and water pumps rather than more National Guard troops and extending combat tours of duty?

Karen DeYoung: It wouldn't surprise me at all to know that the number of generators and water pumps they've already sent exceeds that number. And the Corps of Engineers is already there. Whether you believe the reason for failure is violence or corruption or foreign interference or incompetence or all of the above, it hasn't worked.

_______________________

Seattle: Do you have a sense of whether the Iraqis left in the government or in Iraq itself want national reconciliation? Have all the Iraqis interested in reconciliation become refugees in other countries, leaving only those interested in sectarian violence or partitioning the country?

Karen DeYoung: It wouldn't appear so, at least from the dearth of accomplishment so far. There are a lot of conflicting forces at work, some left over from minority Sunni dominance under Saddam Hussein, some from the Kurdish desire to go their own way, some from majority Shiites determined not to let the Sunnis have a significant slice of the pie, some from foreign interference, etc., etc. Meanwhile the core of Iraq's largely secular, educated, managerial class -- the ones expected to rebuild the country -- are leaving or already have gone.

_______________________

Puckeridge, England: How is the coalition holding up, considering Gordon Brown's indication that British troops would be withdrawing, and the courtmartials of the six Italian officers, and the complaints by the Brits and the Americans that some of the "allies" are doing all possible to avoid combat with the enemy?

Karen DeYoung: The Bush administration carefully has held its tongue as British forces have decreased from more than 40,000 in 2003 to 5,500 and falling now, and sees continuing value in describing an ongoing "coalition." Other forces never have been big enough to make much of a difference in what has always been an overwhelmingly U.S. show.

_______________________

Karen DeYoung: That's it for me today. Thanks for the good questions. The next few weeks should be pretty interesting.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over 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.