The War Over the War

Readers joined Washington Post associate editor Karen DeYoung on Tuesday, Dec. 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.

____________________

markswisshelm: The military wanted three years ago to pay off the tribal sheiks and ramp up big "New Deal" like public works programs to employee idle hands. They were shot down by noncon Bush/Cheney cronies led by Paul Bremer, who were enthralled with the possibility of establishing some sort of model for nutty pure capitalism (and of course pumping billions to other well-placed cronies). Well, better late than never.

Karen DeYoung: Well said. That is indeed what happened, and what's happening now.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Ms. DeYoung, I cannot figure out what is going on in Iraq any more. It is safer, it is only safer in some areas, the Sunnis and Shiites and al-Qaeda are regrouping, the surge is working, the government is not, there are still many deaths, there are fewer deaths. All in all, though, the war seems to have gone underground as nobody here seems to be talking about it -- but just because people are not talking about it (either overly gloating from the GOP, or not knowing what to say from the Democrats, especially the candidates) it doesn't mean this war has gone away. I feel blind-sided at the moment.

washingtonpost.com: Iraqis' Quality of Life Marked By Slow Gains, Many Setbacks (Post, Nov. 30)

Karen DeYoung: You've hit on today's conundrum, since virtually everything you say is true. It is safer in a lot of areas; in a lot of other areas, it's not. In the areas where it's safer -- primarily some Baghdad neighborhoods -- the surge is working. But U.S. military and diplomatic officials are frustrated that the Iraqi government hasn't taken the political steps that the Americans feel would consolidate those security gains and give Iraqis a vested interest in keeping things peaceful. I think you're right that all this has caused a lull in political discussion here -- Democrats can't say the military part of the surge isn't working, so they're beginning to shift to the political side, where success is more elusive, to say the least. I think you'll see that shift become more pronounced as we head toward the next assessment, in March, from Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker -- security claims of last September will be old news (barring new outbreaks of violence) and they will try to demonstrate that life is becoming better for Iraqis.

_______________________

Kensington, Md.: In its ongoing war-drum campaign towards Iran, the administration often cites Iranian weapons that have been found in Iraq. But Iran is Shiite, as is the government in Iraq. Wouldn't any "meddling" (God forbid, as we haven't meddled in Iraq one bit) be toward an effect of quieting the Sunni insurgency? Wouldn't we welcome that? Does anyone talk about this contradiction in talking points?

Karen DeYoung: The "meddling," according to U.S. forces, is training and explosives that are being used against the U.S. military.

_______________________

Seattle: Almost 100 percent sure this has been asked already, but here goes: What implications does the NIE have on Iraq? Does the fact that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons development aid or refute the idea that it is supplying weapons across the border, etc.?

Karen DeYoung: The administration has tried to keep those issues separate, carrying on talks in Iraq with the Iranians that are supposedly limited to only Iraq issues. In fact, the nuclear situation doesn't have much bearing on whatever the Iranians are doing vis a vis Iraqi Shiites.

_______________________

H5N1: Ever since the heady days of Iran-Contra in the 1980s, Negroponte has been a "known known" -- known as a yes-man, an expediter, an efficient functionary and as a ruthless advocate of American power.

What has changed? Nothing that I can see. He is still shilling for the man in the Oval Office, and still torturing suspects in the conflict zones on behalf of his masters. Why should we believe anything he says?

Karen DeYoung: Without commenting on your description of Negroponte in the 1980s, that policy or the current one in Iraq. ... Negroponte is a foreign service officer. His job is to carry out the policy of the administration in power. If he feels he can't do that, he is free, like all government employees, to quit.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I thought the questioning of Bush today was weak. Here are some things I thought should have been pointed out. What do you think? Firstly, there is a huge difference between enriching for fuel and enriching for weapons. Just because you can make a Model T doesn't mean you can make a 2007 Corvette. Secondly, the advance in Iranian intelligence came from newspaper photographs of the apparatus, not from our vaunted intelligence services. Finally, Bush said we are winning in Iraq. There is still no reconciliation between Shia and Sunni, Kurds and Turks (Kirkuk) and Arabs (Mosul), Badr and Mahdi, etc. There are still more than 4 million displaced persons, with only a tiny fraction returning (but not to their homes). We are still at a loss to know where the 1 million Christians have gone. And so on.

Karen DeYoung: Was in a meeting, didn't see the press conference and haven't yet read transcript. Those are all good points.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: With your knowledge about Colin Powell, can you explain to me why he tried to undermine President Bush about the war in Iraq? Bob Woodward's book is one example of a source showing that Powell was second-guessing Bush and his decisions, while arguing with Rumsfeld and Condi Rice. Is the answer more about not being able to give up being a General and less about being a Secretary of State? Please answer my question, because I have lost respect for Colin Powell because of this. Why did he as if he were the vice president or Secretary of Defense?

Karen DeYoung: The premise of your question is interesting, since to the extent Powell has been criticized it has been for the opposite reasons -- that he disagreed with aspects of Bush foreign policy and didn't do enough to stop it. Not sure what you mean by "second-guessing." He certainly supported the war, after telling Bush that he thought the plan could be better and that more time should be taken to try to avoid it through diplomacy.

_______________________

twistedreality109: Now that the 2 million Iraq people who fled to other nations and are out of money or can't renew visas and are beginning to return -- joining the 2 million internally displaced -- now what? Seventeen percent of the population want their homes back, and want water, electricity, food and a job. Fourteen more months of theft, corruption, waste of taxpayer money and -- worst of all -- deaths of American soldiers, to go. Just more of the same, but now with 4 million returning refugees, displaced form their homes.

Karen DeYoung: U.S. forces see this as a big, looming problem that the Iraqi government is not dealing with.

_______________________

New York: Karen, thanks for the chat, and hope you can answer this while I'm traveling today. In all of the optimism about the "surge," I'm just not hearing what the plan is for maintaining this newfound security when the U.S. troops draw down, as we've been told they must. I'm figuring on one of the following scenarios: Gates will find a way to keep the troops as close to 130,000 as possible until the Iraqis can take over; or the Iraqis take over, chaos ensues again, and the U.S. troops rotate back in within the year; or we give up on Baghdad and concentrate on the areas where tribal leaders can help us fight al-Qaeda; or we give Anbar, etc., over to the tribal leaders and resign ourselves to being in Baghdad indefinitely. Two scenarios that seem to have been abandoned: stability through political progress and getting enough Iraqi troops adequately trained. Your thoughts?

Karen DeYoung: You're right, the plan is basically to keep pushing the Iraqi government for a plan but U.S. objectives have been moved from a somewhat utopian view of Iraqi democracy to stabilization. I think the change in administrations in Washington will find at least 100,000 troops still in Iraq. Rather than pull out of Baghdad, the capital will probably be the last place they leave in terms of combat forces since it's the epicenter of sectarian violence. I just got back from there yesterday, and U.S. officers acknowledge that it's only the fact that they're "sitting" on Baghdad neighborhoods that has caused violence to decrease. The political progress that might lead to longer term stabilization just hasn't happened and Iraqi security forces aren't ready to take over. The next six months will be critical.

_______________________

San Francisco: The vast majority of American casualties in Iraq are caused by Sunnis, not Shiites, and the Sunnis are likely backed by Saudi Arabians. (In December 2006 there were reports of Saudis sending money to Sunni Iraqi insurgents to buy antiaircraft weapons, and about 10 helicopters were shot down in early 2007.) Why are we ignoring Saudi involvement?

Karen DeYoung: Disagree with your premise. Although Sunnis largely responsible for suicide bombs and more spectacular attacks, those kill mostly Iraqis. Shiites are seen as responsible for roadside bombs that are the biggest killers of U.S. forces.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: The Iraq situation is just as frustrating now as it ever has been. It seems like the Bush administration moves its goals to fit what has happened. The reconciliation of the national government now seems to pale in comparison to the glorious victories achieved "from the ground up," and this is what we wanted all along. And to use a tired football metaphor, even though they're down by more than six touchdowns, they do an end zone dance whenever the smallest positive thing happens. And the Democrats let them get away with it. Pathetic.

Karen DeYoung: Can't find too much to argue with here.

_______________________

Wheaton, Md.: Four-and-a-half years (longer than WWII) and several hundred billion dollars into a "rose-petal greeting" war, we are told that the escalation (surge) is "working." How much of the relative decrease in violence is because of this policy, and how much is from the steady sectarian segregation and attrition as the factions kill each other off? Any sense?

Karen DeYoung: Hard to quantify, but certainly a good part of the decrease in violence in Baghdad is the result of ethnic cleansing in formerly mixed neighborhoods.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Do the insurgents care about U.S. elections? I could see them lying low for awhile and then having the number of suicide bombings increase dramatically in order to speed withdrawal of U.S. forces. Why not wait six months and come out fighting? I could see another round of big bombings having the same impact as the Shrine bombing (Golden Dome?). The U.S. would be back to square one. Hopefully the insurgents don't have staying power for this. Do we have any intelligence on what their thinking is?

Karen DeYoung: No question that various insurgent and militia forces in Iraq are lying low both to avoid "surge" forces and in the knowledge that some U.S. drawdown is inevitable. U.S. says its strategy now is to get the Iraqi government -- with U.S. help -- to use this relative calm to improve services and give Iraqis more of a stake in the political process so that the next time the bad guys come calling fewer Iraqis will listen.

_______________________

Minneapolis: My impression is that the Bush administration has precious little leverage to get the Maliki government to move on the political front -- the entire point of the new strategy -- because Bush has no credible threats to offer Maliki. Isn't it ironic that the Democrats' credible threat -- that they intend to leave on a faster timetable if the Iraqi government did not deliver (and their promise to leave definitely, though on a slower timetable, once Maliki were to deliver) -- is our best hope for inducing Maliki to make a real effort at meaningful political progress?

Karen DeYoung: Iraqis have their own imperatives and impediments to political movement that I think have little to do with what the U.S. does. The Bush administration certainly can, and has, made clear that time is limited in terms of continuing military support at current levels. But that threat hasn't brought much in terms of results.

_______________________

San Francisco: In his November 2005 National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, President Bush defined victory as "an Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country." That's still a long way off.

Karen DeYoung: Some of those elements are arguably a bit closer, but most are, as you say, "a long way off." In response, U.S. is changing its definitions of success.

_______________________

Freising, Germany: I've read that Iraqi oil exports have risen by 250,000 to 300,000 barrels a day since September. How are oil exports and the rising cost of oil affecting Iraqi politics these days?

Karen DeYoung: That increase -- relatively small in total Iraqi exports -- comes from the now-regular flow of oil through a northern export pipeline through Syria and Turkey that formerly came under frequent attack. In general, production and exports remain low. But the price of oil has brought in a lot of money. The Iraqi government has made some progress this year in terms of distributing that money to the provinces. Next year's budget is currently being debated and it's likely that budget allocation and execution will continue to improve. The problem is that in the absence of political agreement and legislation institutionalizing the distribution of resources, distrust among political/ethnic/sectarian groups remains.

_______________________

McLean, Va.: The complete Statecraft budget for the U.S. government for all its diplomatic, intelligence and military activities is close to $1 trillion a year -- about one fourteenth of the U.S. GDP. If we use the same accounting standards on the U.S. military expenditures that we do when we account for Chinese military costs -- adding in nuke weapons, space lift and vet benefits -- the U.S. military accounts for about 93 percent, intelligence 6 percent and all diplomatic actions -- including foreign aid, international organizations and public diplomacy -- only 1 percent. Even Secretary of Defense Gates has urged that this imbalance be corrected, but Congress and OMB are not moving to redress how the government funds its activities to influence the rest of world.

washingtonpost.com: Gates Urges Increased Funding for Diplomacy (Post, Nov. 27)

Karen DeYoung: Hmmmm. Sounds like a foreign service officer talking. All true and blindingly obvious in Iraq. Even leaving aside actual combat forces, military civil affairs and policy people there far outnumber people doing the same jobs on the State Department side. In terms of personnel and money, resources devoted to diplomacy are a very small fraction of military expenditures.

_______________________

Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.: Can you please explain to me why the U.S. military doesn't arrest Chalabi once and for all? I mean, for heaven's sakes -- the man played pentagon and White House officials like a violin after Sept. 11.

Karen DeYoung: Ahmed Chalabi continues to play a major role in Iraq's Shiite-led government. He has his fingers in lots of pies, and Maliki who has said 2008 will be the "year of services" (2007 was the "year of security") -- just appointed Chalabi head of the important "Services Committee," which the central government in Baghdad says will work on crucial quality-of-life issues.

_______________________

Peaks Island, Maine: Please compare Jim Webb's take on the accomplishments of the "surge" with that of the president's, the latest version of which was put forth in today's press conference.

Karen DeYoung: Sorry to duck, but I just came back from Iraq last night and haven't yet seen what either said.

_______________________

Washington: The apparent new standard is that acquiring the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon makes one dangerous. But the "how" part is on the Internet -- it's the actual building part that is hard. Am I missing something?

Karen DeYoung: It's the difference between reading an instruction manual vs obtaining all the pieces and knowing how to put them together. Using centrifuges to enrich fuel to weapons grade is hard ... and you have to have fissile material.

_______________________

Anonymous: A GAO report stated that the way the Department of Defense qualifies Iraqi military units as trained makes no sense. How much money has been spent on training Iraqis to provide security in Iraq? How many are fully trained?

Karen DeYoung: Don't have the figures immediately at hand. You can find some version of them (there are lots of different versions) in reports by the GAO, by the Jones commission, and in the Pentagon's quarterly 9010 reports (the next one will probably be out next week.))

_______________________

BrianX9: Will Negroponte go on record promising that, if one Friedman Unit from now there is still no progress on these laws that the U.S. demands the Iraqi puppet government pass and that the appointed Iraqis promised to pass, that he finally will support the "Model Communities" approach? After all this time, and all that money, and all those killed or injured, can't the U.S. taxpayer finally get some positive result? Please?

washingtonpost.com: U.S. Envoy, After Tour of Iraq, Seeks End to Political Impasse (Post, Dec. 2)

Karen DeYoung: Not sure how you're defining the "model communities" approach. Problem from USG point of view, I think, is that the Iraqi government is not puppet enough and isn't doing what the administration thinks is the answer to all its problems.

_______________________

"The next six months will be critical.": You do realize, Karen, how hard it is to read that sentence without laughing (but not in humor)?

Karen DeYoung: You've got me there. We've all heard it before. But I think it probably is more "critical" than usual in the context of U.S. elections.

_______________________

Denver: Regarding Saudi Arabia, why haven't we heard a single complaint about Saudi Arabia's involvement in Iraq? Is it because Bush holds hands with their leaders and not Iran's?

Karen DeYoung: While there are lots of reasons to believe that Saudis are putting up some money for ethnically-allied Sunnis primarily in western Iraq, I'm unaware of any reports that they've been training or supplying weapons to same. Rather than pushing the Saudis to stop helping Sunnis, administration has been pushing them to become more involved (politically, diplomatically and economically) in Iraq as a way of making Sunnis feel more secure vis a vis the Shiite majority so they won't turn to insurgents.

_______________________

Anonymous: After World War I, America received 25 percent of Iraqi oil, via the British, who got 50 percent. What else should we know about our exploitative interactions with Iraq?

Karen DeYoung: Post-colonial history teaches many lessons about why things turned out the way they have. Lots has been written about it.

_______________________

Colorado: This question may be too broad to answer, but can you give us a thumbnail sketch of what Moqtada al-Sadr is doing now, and what it's thought he may do in the future? Is he still a factor in Iraqi politics? Is his militia intact?

Karen DeYoung: Sadr is believed by U.S. to still be in Iran, although nobody seems to know for sure what he's doing there. His call several months ago for the Jaish al-Madhi militia to cease fire seems to have had some effect, at least on those forces still loyal to him. Other JAM elements, however, have broken away and appear to be operating more or less outside his control.

_______________________

Karen DeYoung: Time's up. Thanks for all the good questions.

_______________________

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.