National Security and Intelligence

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

The transcript follows.

Dana Priest covers intelligence and 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.

Archive: Dana Priest discussion transcripts

____________________

Dana Priest: Hi all. Welcome. Let's begin!

_______________________

Anonymous: I find it amusing that the Foreign Service officers consider themselves special and above regular government employees like the Armed Services, but when it comes to serving at the embassy in Iraq they want it to be voluntary.

Dana Priest: Not so surprising really. The two cultures are very different. And giving and taking orders is not really how things work, within bounds. So the big question is, is it within bounds to refuse the dire need. Also, of course, the controversy gives us a great lens into the larger question of our Iraq policy. How do you carry out "diplomacy" if you can't leave the Green Zone? By the way, the CIA basically was grounded for a while too because it was too difficult for officers to move about. And there always has been a problem getting experience CIA officer to serve there.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Are terrorists such as the Lebanese group Hezbollah establishing themselves in the U.S. among sympathetic immigrants?

Dana Priest: I've seen no indication that the terrorist wing of Hezbollah is doing that, but I'm sure authorities are looking at that carefully. Hezbollah, which also has a social work and political arm, mainly has gotten fund-raising support or other money-making ventures from supportive communities in the U.S.

_______________________

Washington: Ms. Priest, as Africa is receiving more financial assistance than ever from political rival and trading partner China, do you believe that we have the economic and social clout right now to match China in the region? How do you foresee American's influence in Africa and the surrounding AFRICOM region affecting our national security policies? What do you perceive to be the largest current and burgeoning security threats in the region that may affect U.S. or international policy in the future (i.e. Somalia failed statehood, Zimbabwe on the brink of destruction, the Congo Hutu rebel revolts)?

Dana Priest: It's really country by country or region by region that you have to look. China is becoming a fierce competitor indeed with its booming economic ties. The US, on the other hand, is stressing the military side of things with a new African Command that will cost millions and will be oriented toward security and counterterrorism. Of course U.S. aide to Africa is still substantial but in the long run economics trumps both aide and military ties--except for times of crisis. I would rank the a failed Somalia as the biggest security threat because of its potential as a safe haven for al-Qaeda-like groups.

_______________________

Baltimore: Maybe I'm just paranoid, but there seems to be an incredible amount of cover for Blackwater being provided by the State Department. With the recent immunity offer, why aren't we seeing more stories on this relationship, which gives every indication of being unsavory?

washingtonpost.com: Senior Democrats Want Blackwater Case Details (Post, Oct. 31)

Dana Priest: Gosh, we seem to write about it every day, and will continue to do so I'm certain.

_______________________

Anonymous:"I find it amusing that the Foreign Service officers consider themselves special." Not every person who works for the federal government is predisposed to risk their lives. Most embassies in an environment like Iraq would have been evacuated a long time ago.

Dana Priest: good point

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Dana -- thank you for these chats. I read your book and enjoy your reporting. My comment is about today's articles on Rummy's "snowflakes." I served for 30 years in the Air Force and served for five years in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, working under such luminaries as Doug Feith (not a very enjoyable experience) and Walter Slocombe (much more enjoyable).

I had the opportunity to respond to numerous "snowflake" memos, and I must tell you, it was a painful experience -- not so much because of the fact they existed (the idea is good, Rumsfeld used to dictate them, and many of them were quite legitimate questions or concerns). The problem were two-fold: Administrators insisted on "one-size-fits-all" and set a 48-hour suspense for all snowflakes, and political appointees were scared to death of Rumsfeld and insisted on telling him what they thought he wanted to hear. Even though I disagree vehemently with this administration's policies (and retired early because of that) I also must tell you that Rumsfeld (whom I saw at least 50 times during my OSD tour) always treated me with respect. He tended to be sarcastic, but respectful if you stood your ground.

Dana Priest: passing this along. thank you.

_______________________

Washington: Dana, thanks for taking questions. My question is about torture and this administration's secrecy. Would we the public know if a prisoner accidentally were killed during use of waterboarding or some other enhanced method? Obviously if the American public knew about this the debate regarding torture would be a nonissue. Basically my question is, could or would the CIA or whomever cover up any accidental deaths at one of these prisons? Has this possibly already happened?

Dana Priest: I do not believe we would hear about it through any official route. The CIA would have to inform it's congressional oversight committees and I think it would probably do that. Because it would all be classified, the committee would not inform the public. It would be left up to insiders who felt uncomfortable with the situation to inform a reporter or two. And for the reporters to push and push and push, because I'm certain the allegation that this bit of news would damage national security would be thrown in their face. I disagree that knowingly that someone was accidentally killed through waterboarding would change opinions on the subject.

_______________________

Can't have it both ways:" Not every person who works for the federal government is predisposed to risk their lives." True. But they should choose work in agencies that do not require an oath to go where assigned, instead of the State Department Diplomatic Corps, and take the trade-offs that go with it. I don't have to take that "go anywhere" oath to be an National Institutes of Health civil service scientist, but if I wanted the extra perks that go with being in the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, then I would have to accept that I might be assigned somewhere dangerous or unpleasant, because that's part of the sign-up requirement.

Dana Priest: good points

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Maybe we should just contract out the foreign service?

Dana Priest: I'm certain you would get a lot of bidders for that job!

_______________________

Minneapolis: The notion that Mukasey cannot admit that waterboarding is torture because it would put at legal risk the Americans who actually conducted the torture strikes me as incorrect, given the retroactive immunities they have received and pre-existing Office of Legal Counsel opinions. Isn't the real reason that an attorney general who publicly acknowledged the simple and obvious fact that waterboarding was torture immediately would give the lie to the Bush administration's repeated claim that the U.S. does not torture, and that it has not authorized anything illegal or immoral? How immoral would vice president Cheney's acceptance of waterboarding as "just a little dunk in the water" look if the attorney general of the United States instead called it what it is and always has been: torture?

Dana Priest: I agree with you on the first point. On the second one, I think it's more nuanced (which might not matter in the court of public opinion). For instance, I can see having come up with an OLC opinion in early 2002 that okayed waterboarding as legal and not torture but then revisiting the opinion later, as the administration did, and finding it unacceptable. Remember that the gist of the so-called torture memo was withdrawn by the administration shortly after it was disclosed (By The Post, by the way! Yeah!).

_______________________

Reading, Pa.: Dana, do you travel overseas much for your reporting, or mainly stay in the U.S.?

Dana Priest: Some travel but mostly I'm here.

_______________________

Chicago: Ms. Priest: I increasingly am worried about Pakistan becoming either a failed state or falling into the hands of extremists. What do you consider the likelihood of a Musharraf assassination or extremist takeover occurring in 2008?

washingtonpost.com: U.S. and Pakistan: A Frayed Alliance (Post, Oct. 31)

Dana Priest: There's a fair chance that Musharraf could be assassinated. There have been several attempt on his life in the last few years as you know. An extremist take over of the government is not likely in 2008, but extremism is growing there, particularly in the tribal region, but not exclusively.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Has the rift that developed between many top military officials and Rumsfeld and his defense administration -- either in public or behind closed doors -- been resolved by Gates?

Dana Priest: Generally yes it has. Did you see that Gates has appointed Bill Perry, Clinton's defense secretary, to head the Defense Policy Board? He also has recruited Perry's deputy, John Hamre. Gates has reached into what I would call the "professional defense establishment." They are both democrats and republicans, all moderates, very civil people who know how to talk through complex matters without having to devise plans for countering critics with fancy counterattacks in order to gain the offensive (a la Rumsfeld, as we see from his "snowflakes" revealed today by my indefatigable colleague Robin Wright.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Dana, people should not forget than many Foreign Service officers presently are serving at dangerous posts and that they volunteered to do so. We have a long tradition of serving at posts where security conditions are poor and we have paid the price. As an earlier poster pointed out, under normal conditions, Embassy Baghdad would have been closed long ago.

Dana Priest: One reply...

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Any comment on Hagel's letter? I think it is a bold, necessary, move. If Bush cares at all about his legacy, he will meet with the Iranians and single-handedly change the course of our Mideast policy for the better. The long-term benefits of meeting Iran on a diplomatic level far outweigh any possible benefit we gain by bombing them or shunning them.

washingtonpost.com: Hagel Letter (.pdf file)

Dana Priest: But the other strategy is working so well...

_______________________

Washington:"Arlington, Va.: Maybe we should just contract out the foreign service? Dana Priest: I'm certain you would get a lot of bidders for that job!" What in the world makes you think this administration would put something like that out for bidding? Clearly this would be a no-bid contract opportunity!

Dana Priest: !!!

_______________________

Orlando, Fla.: What is the significance of these Rumsfeld memos in the political realm and the 2008 presidential race?

washingtonpost.com: From the Desk of Donald Rumsfeld... (Post, Nov. 1)

Dana Priest: First, they were not written with politics in mind. They were his musings, circulated to the inner circle, with demands attached. These "snowflakes" could play into political campaigns now, however, in several ways: first, his effort to manipulate public opinion (like Iran and Iraq), he effort to enflame fears (talk about Somalia, the Philippines...make sure the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists.") And my favorite: Keep Elevating the Threat (read: regardless of the truth).

_______________________

Reston, Va.: What happens to possible terrorists who are identified by the Terrorist Surveillance Program?

Dana Priest: Surveilled until someone (FBI here, CIA overseas) agrees to detain them up, or have one of our foreign allies detain them). Then it would depend: questioning, interrogation, trial (if overseas, possibly in the US, although the track record is slim with court cases so far), detention?

_______________________

Freising, Germany: I have the impression that the Turkish-Kurdish dilemma was a sideshow for a while, but if things get worse, it could become a main act. Your thoughts?

Dana Priest: Definitely. Check our our story from Baghdad today that says there's concern the growing crisis in northern Iraq could undermine the regional conference this week that is supposed to address a wide range of issues related to Iraq.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Turkey Crisis Could Threaten Meeting on Iraq (Post, Oct. 31)

_______________________

Dana Priest: Times up already! Waaa. Back to work! Waaa. See you next week.

_______________________

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.