Readers joined Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung on Tuesday, Sept. 4 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.

____________________

Karen DeYoung: Hello everyone. Let's get started.

_______________________

New York: So our President went to Iraq to boost the claim of an improved security situation there. May I ask why he still had to make the trip so secret? Is there any security concern for him, even with the unimaginable protection for our top leaders? Does this tell us something about the reality of Iraq after four years of "Mission Accomplished"? In my opinion, the day when President Bush will announce his next visit to Iraq days ahead of his trip is the day when I believe what he said about Iraq improvement. By the way, it seems interesting that most of the Iraq trips by the members of the administration were planned secretly (Rice, Gates, etc.). How about other law makers? Do they announce their Iraq trip ahead of time?

Karen DeYoung: Most members of Congress have said in advance they are "visiting Iraq," although the exact details of their travels usually are not released ahead of time. Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gates pretty much always travel there "secretly." Even the Green Zone is now under frequent mortar attack, and Bush's trip to Anbar (inside a highly secure U.S. base) was particularly clandestine. I like your standard -- progress will be clear when the trips are announced ahead of time.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: In what ways is the political situation better today than it was when the surge began? In what ways is it worse?

Karen DeYoung: Hard to think of a way that it's better. Nearly half the government ministers have quit (some "temporarily"), large political groups are boycotting Parliament, no substantive benchmark legislation passed, no provincial elections, Shiite party militias are fighting each other in the south, etc., etc.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: After reading a review of a book on the start of Indian independence from Great Britain, I was left with the impression that it's usually difficult for an occupying force or colonial power to leave a multicultural nation without leaving behind civil strife and bloodshed. Is there a successful example from the past that you know of, on which an Iraqi withdrawal could be modeled?

Karen DeYoung: I suppose some of the former British and French colonies in Africa, the Caribbean and Asia -- all of which have had problems of one sort or another -- could be considered "successes," at least compared to Afghanistan and Iraq. But there are lots of negative examples. One is the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, followed by internecine battles among the mujaheddin forces that had joined to resist Soviet occupation, then turned on each other -- leading directly to the rise of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. And we all know what happened after that.

_______________________

Security Violations in Iraq -- Gen. Petraeus?: Somewhat off-topic, but why are four-star generals and other officers giving a 19-year-old student classified briefings, just because his mentor is Gen. Petraeus and he is credentialed as a journalist because he writes a blog? As a service member I had to undergo a lengthy security check to get my clearance, and then a lengthy wait for it to be updated before I could join my current agency. Has someone or many someones committed security violations in providing the student classified briefings? And considering that access to classified information is on a "need to know" basis, not on what your clearance is, why does the student need to receive top secret briefings?

washingtonpost.com: Talk About Field Trips! (Post, Sept. 3)

Karen DeYoung: Very good question, which I wondered about when reading the story. I don't know the answer.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: What blitz against the war can the Democrats come up with to try to counter the PR onslaught that Bush & Co. have managed to contrive in the past couple of days in anticipation of the reports on Iraq? I'm feeling saturated by the Bush machine and scared that Bush and Petraeus will use one tiny province to extrapolate progress in the whole of Iraq, when in fact the rest of Iraq is sinking.

Karen DeYoung: The next two weeks will be dominated by hearings -- the GAO report (released, with the first hearing, today) followed by the Jones report on Iraqi security forces later in the week, and the Petraeus/Crocker next week. That will be Congress's chance to frame the discussion in a different way.

_______________________

Retired State Department, Washington: Wouldn't it have been nice if the Iraqi government officials got out of the Green Zone like the president (of course, he had a little better security than they would have). As the U.S. draws down, can we expect that the Green Zone will become more open and that U.S. diplomats and others will start getting out to talk with people in government and business, as their traditional job entails? Or am I smoking stuff?

Karen DeYoung: Judging by the fortifications being installed at the new U.S. Embassy compound inside the Green Zone -- protected mostly by contractors rather than U.S. military -- the bunker atmosphere will continue no matter what happens to the troops outside. U.S. diplomats constantly are prodding Iraqi government officials to get out and prove they aren't sectarian. Amb. Ryan Crocker -- who speaks fluent Arabic and has long experience in Iraq and the region -- actually does get out fairly frequently, albeit with a lot of security. And the Provincial Reconstruction Teams -- embedded with military units in various parts of the country -- theoretically are out and about in their regions, although with sharply varying security problems depending on where they're based.

_______________________

Columbia, S.C.: It looks to me like the reason the situation in Anbar is less contentious is because the Sunni militias have succeeded in pushing out the last remaining Shiites. Isn't backing them now just legitimating the work of ethnic cleansers? Why not back the janjaweed next?

Karen DeYoung: Not true. Anbar was always a Sunni stronghold, with few Shiites.

_______________________

Herndon, Va.: Does Bush's view of the surge as being a "bottom-up" success have any validity? Can the fact that some local areas are more peaceful, with the help of Petraeus's tactics mean that reconciliation is around the corner, or just that de facto partitioning has occurred? Will success in Anbar cause the Maliki government to reconcile?

Karen DeYoung: This is a crucial question. To some extent, it illustrates the differences between the military, diplomatic and intelligence views of things, and the problem with the administration definition of the Iraq problem as largely about al-Qaeda. Defining success as recruiting Sunni tribesmen to help capture Iraqi Sunnis allied with the group al-Qaeda in Iraq (and the relatively few foreigners with them) gets you one result. Defining it as developing a truly national army and police force, or creating a functioning national government, or keeping Shiites from civil war against each other, gets you another.

_______________________

New York: Karen, thanks for the chat. In your opinion, what is the current U.S. mission in Iraq? I can't seem to get a grip, given that the "success" of Anbar seems a bit at odds with the whole idea of the surge, which was to strengthen the central government.

Karen DeYoung: Astute observation. The definition of success has changed repeatedly through the years. The administration's tendency, not surprisingly, is to work with what they've got rather than what has not been achieved.

_______________________

Hong Kong Expatriate: The President appears to be saying that the 30,000 force surge shows some (military) success; it would appear then that another 30,000 U.S. troops on the ground could show further success, and another 30,000 even more. Of course if we put those uniformed armed persons on the streets of Washington or any other major city we also could show success. Why not just recognize that U.S. forces (and contractors) are the de facto Iraq security (military and police) forces?

Karen DeYoung: That is the conclusion many have drawn from reports that fewer, rather than more, Iraqi units are able to operate independently from U.S. forces, and that the national police are dominated by sectarian militias. Doesn't leave too many options for progress.

_______________________

Keyport, N.J.: Karen: It's terribly ironic that the noble goals of President Bush to bring democracy to the world should result in so much anti-American sentiment and unrest in the world. Was the disconnect because of Don Rumsfeld, or because the State Department was ineffective, or does the buck stop at Bush's desk for failing to act as a strong enough chief executive with his own administration?

Karen DeYoung: While I wrote my book about Colin Powell last year, those were questions I kept asking. His response is that, despite personality and policy differences at the top levels, the president is always in charge. Whatever way the operation functions, it is because that's the way the president wants it to function -- he has the power to change it.

_______________________

New York: Karen, what do you make of the New York Times report today (on the Web site) that Paul Bremer says he fully informed Bush about disbanding the Iraq army, while the President, in a new book, is reported to have expressed surprise when he learned of Bremer's move? Thanks.

washingtonpost.com: Envoy's Letter Counters Bush on Iraq Army (New York Times, Sept. 4)

Karen DeYoung: I think it's yet another example of how much policy-making during that period was based on limited understanding, false premises and arrogance. I have no doubt Bremer's letter was sent and received. I suspect no one paid much attention to the dissolution of the Iraqi Army because no one thought it through enough to believe it mattered.

_______________________

Overseas: Karen: Do your readers or listeners think a new face in the White House dramatically will change international perspectives about America? As you know, at no other time in history has American respect from abroad been as low as it is today.

Karen DeYoung: It's interesting that the Republican candidates rarely mention Bush and clearly are trying to distance themselves from his administration. Both Democrats and Republicans believe there is a firm bedrock of respect and affection for the United States abroad that will be reawakened under a new administration -- even if the change is more in style and attitude than policy. I think there's probably some truth in that but it will take a while.

_______________________

Fort Stewart, Ga.: I saw the President's visit to Iraq. If I didn't know better I'd think the White House believes that public opinion on the war will change when the right image is put up on the TV screen. I just don't get any of this anymore. People ought to come to Hinesville, Ga., and see what is happening here. Drug abuse, wife abuse, problems with kids acting up -- all because parents are gone all the time, because they are never at home. It's tearing this town apart.

Karen DeYoung: The White House, like anybody else, uses techniques that have worked in the past. Right now, it looks like they are behind the curve in public opinion although we'll all be watching closely in the next two weeks to see how the administration's progress report goes over.

_______________________

Greenville, S.C.: It now seems certain that the Iraq war will be expanded into Iran. The Times (of London) reports the Pentagon is planning for a massive three-day bombing assault against Iranian military and nuclear sites. The pretext will be that Iranians are killing Americans in Iraq. Questions: What does the Pentagon believe Iran's response will be? Do they think Iran can block oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz? Do you agree with the Pentagon's assessment?

Karen DeYoung: I don't doubt that there are plans both active and on the shelf for attacking Iran. That's what military planners do. And there are some people in the administration who would like to activate those plans. I don't believe their views are the prevailing ones at the moment.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What is the status of the efforts of ExxonMobil and Chevron to obtain long-term leases at Iraq's largest oilfields? Thank you.

Karen DeYoung: I haven't checked recently and may be behind the curve, but my understanding is that while a lot of tentative deals have been signed and there is a lot of international competition going on, the companies are reluctant to move ahead until Iraq resolves its political problems and comes up with agreed policies on oil.

_______________________

Boston: Per a recent Newsweek article on sectarian cleansing in Baghdad, is the relative decrease in sectarian violence in Baghdad because Sunnis largely have been cleansed/kicked out of most of Baghdad? Should the U.S. military and Bush be taking credit for this, and why hasn't this received more attention as part of the debate?

washingtonpost.com: Baghdad's New Owners (Newsweek, Sept. 10 issue)

Karen DeYoung: That's certainly one reason. The other is that U.S. troops have embedded themselves in certain Baghdad neighborhoods, sending insurgents and militias elsewhere.

_______________________

Linthicum, Md.: The "progress" being purported resultant from the "surge" appears (at least to these untrained eyes) to be little more than the complete abandonment of any hope of a legitimate, central government with a monopoly on the use of political force (conditions necessary for any reasonable definition of "victory"). In point of fact, our toadying up to the Sunni tribals and "former" insurgents seems to be accelerating the ethnic cleansing Bush declares will be the result of a pullout. Am I wrong in seeing all of this as a bad thing? Bush's announcement that the "same level of security" may be possible with a troop pullout later on signals to me that our support of Sunni "former" terrorists is little more than a flushing down of cement into toilets on our way out of town.

Karen DeYoung: I think you have to separate what's going on in Anbar province -- which always has been almost totally Sunni and where tribal sheikhs have formed an alliance of convenience with U.S. forces to combat other Sunnis trying to usurp their power there -- and what is happening in Baghdad and other places of formerly mixed populations. In Baghdad, whether you want to call it ethnic cleansing or not, the population is separating itself into sectarian groups and neighborhoods.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: Is their any evidence that the recent bombing of Yazidi were caused by al-Qaeda? It seems strange to me that a group dedicated to enhancing civil strife between Shia, Sunni and Kurds would kill members of a group hated by all Muslims. Isn't it more likely that this was a simple religious massacre made possible by the absence of civil order in Iraq? Similarly for the recent nearby bombing in Amerli of a strange Shia sect of Turkmen. Similarly in the south of Iraq, as you and Tom Ricks have pointed out, there is no al-Qaeda, Kurds or Sunni, and there is little Iranian influence, and it is a mess. Two governors have been assassinated and Basra is in total chaos as many armed gangs fight for power. Similarly, there was the strange incident 15 miles outside Najaf where a rag-tag army of fanatics bent on assassinating Sistani almost annihilated units of the Iraqi Army. The administration and the military try to blame everything on al-Qaeda or Iran, but there are many other parties to the fighting in Iraq. Do we have the faintest idea what is going on?

Karen DeYoung: The U.S. and Iraqi governments informally have blamed al-Qaeda in Iraq for the Yazidi bombing. There are different root causes for different forms of violence -- creating chaos in hopes of gaining power for one group or another and preventing political or military progress, creating chaos to get rid of the Americans, intrasectarian competition for political power and resources in the south, etc., etc. The recent International Crisis Group report on southern Iraq gives a very detailed explanation for what's going on in Basra, for example, which is very different than what's happening in Anbar or Baghdad or the north.

_______________________

Washington: Prime Minister Maliki didn't look happy in the pictures with President Bush yesterday. No wonder Maliki is working more with Iran...

Karen DeYoung: Whatever one thinks of Maliki, he's in a pretty tight spot under pressure from many different directions.

_______________________

West Orange, N.J.: Why wait two weeks for the "progress report"? Didn't Bush just give a preview and give away practically the whole plot, except for what comes after January 2009? What odds to you give that either Petraeus or Crocker will tell us anything we do not already know?

Karen DeYoung: I agree we are unlikely to find out anything new in Petraeus/Crocker presentations. More interesting will be the questioning they come under in hearings. There will be a lot of posturing on Capitol Hill, but perhaps also some actual information.

_______________________

West Orange, N.J.: What is the status of Iraq's proposed Oil Law? Who actually drafted it? Is it true that few parliamentarians want to take sides or debate the law at all? Which parties, if any, recommend the draft law as is? Is it true that the Kurds are administering their oil as if the rest of Iraq did not exist?

Karen DeYoung: The hydrocarbons legislation, as it's known, is very complicated. Actually four separate laws that will regulate exploration, how oil and gas income is collected and redistributed, etc. Kurds want to control northern oil resources -- including the city of Kirkuk. Shiites want complete say in what happens in the oil-rich south. Sunnis, without developed oil resources in the west, don't want to lose out. Right now only the first law -- a framework for the rest -- has been approved by the governing Council of Ministers (although it is still a subject of dispute) and hasn't been taken up by the parliament. The other parts still are being argued over.

_______________________

Anonymous: Ms. DeYoung, surely the Iranians are not crazy enough to try to provoke war with the U.S. -- so why are they attacking the Kurds in the northern border with Iraq? What possible advantage can there be for this sort of behavior ?

Karen DeYoung: Fighting in the Kurdish region along both the Turkey and Iran borders long pre-dates the current larger conflict in Iraq, and has regular ups and downs. The risk, of course, is that it could escalate into something larger.

_______________________

Fort Bragg, N.C.: I'm naive I guess but do we really need or want the president, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense all in Iraq at the same time, along with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combatant Commander? Do we really need or want the president, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense all traveling in the same aircraft into a war zone? And, what is the great value of visiting an isolated and well-fortified air field in Anbar province to showcase a success when Baghdad itself is apparently failing? As a total aside, can anyone image what this public relations attempt is costing both in manpower and dollars?

Karen DeYoung: Gates took his own plane and returned to Washington after the Iraq visit, while Bush and Rice went on to Australia. No question that this was a massive photo-op. All of these people talk to each other all the time via videoconferencing. In terms of substance, there may have been some value in forcing Baghdad ministers to come to Anbar.

_______________________

New York: Karen, feel free to ignore this question if it's out of your area, but I understand that Gen. Jack Keane is an important advisor to Hillary Clinton. Given that Keane was a big advocate of the "surge," do you see any of his influence in Clinton's Iraq position?

washingtonpost.com: The Generals and the Candidates (washingtonpost.com, Aug. 31)

Karen DeYoung: Keane speaks regularly to Clinton; both of them say they disagree on Iraq policy past and present, but find value in hearing each other's views.

_______________________

Princeton, NJ: Is there ethnic cleansing going on in Kirkuk? What are the administration's and the military's policies on Kirkuk?

Karen DeYoung: Several things are going on. Kirkuk is a rich city lying just outside the official boundaries of the Kurdish Region. The Kurds claim it for their own and agreed to come on board with the new Iraqi constitution in part because they were promised there would be a referendum of its citizens on whether they wanted to be included in that region. The outcome of the referendum -- if it ever happens -- will depend on the makeup of the electorate there. Kurds are reclaiming homes and properties that were given to Arabs from the south by Saddam Hussein. Other minority groups -- Turkmen, etc. -- claim (with support from Turkey) that their rights are not being respected. The administration and the U.S. military, with bigger fish to fry elsewhere, would be happy if it all would just go away.

_______________________

St. Paul, Minn.: Hi Karen -- thanks for taking my question. What do you think Bush's "surprise" visit to Iraq accomplished, if anything? My sense is that most people see through the happy talk, so is he mostly going after wavering Republicans? Do you think he's succeeded in changing any minds in those quarters?

Karen DeYoung: The primary accomplishments were great photographs to display at home in the lead-up to the Petraeus/Crocker testimony, and a message to the Maliki government that it needs to get on board with the U.S. Anbar strategy.

_______________________

Continuing "The Surge": Karen: According to The Post's story today, the president said in Iraq yesterday that "no decision had been made on a reduction." However, military leaders already have made it clear that the surge has to end starting in April or else troops would have to have their stays extended, which the leaders say they won't do. So either the president is going to make them cave in to his demands, or he's going to announce troop withdrawals -- which basically will be mandatory -- and use them as a sign of success. Is there another option I can't think of?

Karen DeYoung: The question is more one of troop rotation than of extension of tours. The military has ruled out the kinds of machinations it would have to go through to continue current force levels.

_______________________

Ethnic Cleansing: Why has the press been unwilling to use the term ethnic cleansing to describe the actions currently happening in Iraq? The forced migrations of ethnic Sunnis and Shiites into defendable regions seems indistinguishable from the actions of Croats and Serbs less than two decades ago. Is it because it is largely our American action that caused this?

Karen DeYoung: I don't find any real reluctance to use the words ethnic cleansing. In any case, I think it's more important to describe what is happening than to quibble about terminology.

Sorry to have to cut this a bit short, but I have to run to a hearing. A lot of very good questions. Thanks.

_______________________

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.