Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Associate Editor
Tuesday, January 29, 2008; 12:00 PM

Readers joined Washington Post associate editor Karen DeYoung on Tuesday, Jan. 29 at noon ET to discuss the debate in Washington among government, military and intelligence officials about 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 and thanks for joining us today. Let's get going.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: If the surge is such a success, when are we coming home?

Karen DeYoung: Gen. Petraeus said again as recently as Sunday (on a CNN interview) that he sees no reason why the planned departure of another 20,000 or so troops in July won't take place. He declined to speculate on what would happen after that, saying it would depend on circumstances. The problem with the surge is that while it apparently has kept violence down, no one knows what will happen when U.S. troops aren't there to police it. Iraqi security performance is still spotty, especially where police are concerned. So the risk is that bad actors in Iraq are just biding their time. Those who argue for withdrawing sooner rather than later believe that the Iraqis are going to have to be tested sooner or later and/or we should not be losing lives and treasure to keep them from fighting each other.

_______________________

Princeton, N.J.: I have some questions about the 4.5 million displaced people in Iraq. Do we have any plans to get them back to their homes? There are several large minority groups who appeared to have vanished, e.g. Christians. If their homes lie in an ethnically cleansed area (Baghdad, Kirkuk, etc.) how can they return at all? Do you believe this problem will be a serious destabilizing influence on any government?

Karen DeYoung: There's a lot of worry about this across the board. On one hand, returning refugees and internally displaced persons could be seen as a sign of security improvements. On the other, many would be returning to newly segregated neighborhoods and homes occupied by someone else -- often of a different sectarian persuasion. U.S. commanders don't want to upset the security applecart and are pushing the Iraqis to do something. But what? The whole issue, like so many in Iraq, is at a stalemate. At the same time, most of those returning thus far are not the professionals and middle class that Iraq needs to progress, but lower-income people who simply have run out of money elsewhere.

_______________________

Ferguson, Mo.: Morning, Ms. DeYoung. A long-range question: With the coming of a new administration next year, do you think there's a chance we may take a fresh, balanced look at the Israeli-Palestinian issue? I'm convinced it's the burr under the saddle of our entire issue with Arab opinion. Don't you think a resolution of that intractable problem might art least contribute to better relations with the Arab street? Even a president McCain might have the guts to plunge into that swamp!

Karen DeYoung: Unless the Annapolis initiative falls apart, any new administration is likely to continue it with varying degrees of enthusiasm. But it hasn't gotten very far yet and probably won't by the end of Bush's term. The administration wasted a lot of time. The Arabs, along with everyone else, are going to be watching carefully for a change in tone and aggressive diplomacy.

_______________________

Mt. Lebanon, Pa.: Do I understand this correctly? The Iraqis cannot rule their own country nor stand up an army and national police force, but they can go to war with the Kurds in northern Iraq? Is that right? How does that gel with the U.S. "policy in Iraq," whatever that is? Don't call me a cynic, but I thought the Kurds were on our side. They assisted the U.S. effort ahead of the war; the Turks hindered our efforts before, during and after. Are we chasing rabbits? (Humming "White Rabbit.") Thanks much.

Karen DeYoung: Although the Kurds are arguing about everything from the Iraqi flag to distribution of oil wealth, they're part of Iraq and nobody's gone to war against them. The PKK, a relatively small, nationalist group of Kurdish militants, long have been fighting across the border in Turkey. Turkey has demanded that the U.S., the Iraqi government in Baghdad, and the Iraqi Kurdish Regional Government, do something about it -- which has put everybody involved in an uncomfortable position. Re: Turkish "hindering," although the Turkish parliament refused to allow a U.S. division to march through its territory as part of the 2003 invasion, Turkey has played a major role as a basing and transit point for U.S. troops and supplies since then.

_______________________

Orlando, Fla.: Since General Petraeus forecast so accurately the success of the "surge," would it not be imprudent to withdraw troops now? Why not wait until he definitively is proven wrong? If we leave, are you not worried that al-Qaeda would re-establish itself in Iraq?

Karen DeYoung: That's certainly the case the Bush administration is making.

_______________________

Columbia, S.C.: Does the U.S. military believe that the recent wave of assassinations of pro-American Sunni leaders is a coordinated effort by al-Qaeda?

Karen DeYoung: Some are al-Qaeda, others are believed to be so-called "Special Group" outriders from the Sadr militias.

_______________________

Kingston, Ontario: Karen: There's been some speculation that it would be in the interests of Moqtada al-Sadr to launch the equivalent of a pre-election Tet offensive. Do you have any thoughts on that, and is there any evidence that it may or may not happen?

Karen DeYoung: U.S. military and intel assessment right now is that Sadr is sticking to the cease-fire he declared last year.

_______________________

Virginia: Your article on the West Point Combating Terrorism Center report was very pro-military. First time since the Cambodia killing fields you wrote an article I like. Thank you so much.

washingtonpost.com: Papers Paint New Portrait of Iraq's Foreign Insurgents (Post, Jan. 21)

Karen DeYoung: Not pro or anti -- just reporting.

_______________________

Gilmanton, N.H.: When will we see 12-to-15-month tours begin again?

Karen DeYoung: Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey has said he would like to return to 12-month tours. Nobody has said yet when that will happen.

_______________________

Philadelphia: Afghanistan strikes me as a country that is a collection of strong local leaders. Has the country been more or less able to function of a cohesive unit in recent years, or is it collapsing as an organized unit? About what percent of the communities fall under different types of leadership?

Karen DeYoung: Afghanistan has never functioned as an organized unit. It's a collection of tribes that at times in the past have managed to coexist; at other times not. It's not a question of collapsing but rather of trying to create something that hasn't existed.

_______________________

Charlottesville, Va.: I would submit that the apparent turnaround in Iraq has to do with the gradual repair of infrastructure damaged by the insurgency. More than anything else Iraqis want water, electricity and security in their environments. This is validated by coalition-sponsored polling results from al-Anbar province since late 2006 (a process I personally managed on site in 2007).

However, most Sunnis say that they also want America out. Good for them -- that's the idea. The trick is to buttress and get the Iraqi government to identify more with this "re-awakening" movement with the Sheiks against al-Qaeda-types and to get government-negotiated concessions from Kurds and Shiites that will convince Iraq's Sunnis that they have a viable future.

Karen DeYoung: Can't argue with much of this, except that the "gradual repair of infrastructure" remains slow. I'm not sure it's fair to say that better services have turned things around. Water and electricity remain spotty and security gains may vanish if people don't see some real progress soon.

_______________________

Los Angeles: If true, does the allegation that Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi's son is behind a group of foreign and Iraqi fighters responsible for the recent northern Iraq explosion undermine the alliance Bush's administration struck with Gaddafi in 2003? Reports indicate at least 60 people were killed and 280 wounded in the blast, which destroyed about 50 buildings.

An Iraqi tribal security chief, also a police official in Anbar province, said the group responsible was the Seifaddin Regiment, which he alleged includes foreign fighters supported by Seif al-Islam Gaddafi. the partnership with Libya, like those with Sudan, Uzbekistan and Egypt, and possibly with Pakistan, illustrate how the Bush administration's war on terrorism damages democracy and human-rights promotion in the Arab world? Isn't this further proof Bush made monumental foreign policy mistakes invading Iraq?

Karen DeYoung: Haven't yet seen anything firm to back up the allegation, made by a senior Iraqi security official. If true, it certainly puts a different spin on the conventional wisdom about Gaddafi's son -- that he's a Westernized intellectual and possible heir. There's little doubt, however, that militants in Libya are involved in Iraq.

_______________________

Winnipeg, Canada: Although there is considerable debate about whether the surge is working, something that worries me more is the overarching effect of the invasion. A major criticism of the invasion and occupation is that it created more terrorists than existed before. I'd like your opinion on whether, as a result of the surge, the occupation is still overall creating more terrorists than whatever might have happened if the invasion had not taken place.

Karen DeYoung: Hello Canada. National Intelligence Estimates in the past few years consistently have referred to the Iraq war as a prime recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and other groups. It's not a result of the surge in particular but rather something that long predates it.

_______________________

Minneapolis: I've been reading your fascinating biography of Colin Powell. Two questions: The excuse that emerges from his camp for his quite robust and repeated false statements about Iraqi WMD in fall 2002 and early 2003 is that Powell was trying to pacify his right flank, and that his language just got sloppy. Do you buy that? Second, I know that Powell is supporting McCain and has bad feelings about the Clintons, but if Romney is the Republican nominee and Obama the Democrat, is there any chance Powell would endorse Obama? Or is he simply too loyal a Republican for that?

Karen DeYoung: I think the primary reason he made what turned out to be false statements on Iraq is that he believed them at the time. You can attribute that to sloppy thinking, failure to do due diligence, intimidation from the right, or a general intelligence failure exacerbated by White House pressure. Re: The campaign, although Powell favored McCain during the 2000 primary, I'm not so sure he's supporting him now, or that he has bad feelings about the Clintons. He has given private counsel during the campaign to McCain, to Obama and others (although not Clinton, to my knowledge).

_______________________

Washington: How are we doing on the political benchmarks that justified the surge?

Karen DeYoung: Of the eight or nine political benchmarks, one recently was enacted -- de-Baathification reform. A provincial powers act (needed to hold provincial elections) is being debated. Hydrocarbons legislation is mired in arguments.

_______________________

nightowlky: About 500 foreign fighters of meager means are outperforming over 150,000 U.S. troops costing nearly $10 billion per month? Bin Laden will be victorious, in an indirect way. Bleeding American coffers, as was done to the Soviets (somewhat), is how to achieve "victory."

Karen DeYoung: Foreign fighters are only a small percentage of total insurgency/militia fighters -- but your point, of course, is one of the basics of counterinsurgency wars.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Ms. DeYoung -- so when is The Washington Post going to complete its investigation of the real reasons for our invasion of Iraq? Although it seems like "old news" now, some of us are still interested in knowing whether access to Iraqi oil was a significant factor -- or a determining factor -- in the administration's decision to send 100,000 American troops to Iraq. Is The Post going to investigate this, or is it simply going to report it when someone else decides it's time for the American public to know the details?

Karen DeYoung: C'mon. Millions of trees already have died in the cause of figuring out why the administration did/thought what and when. Many billions more are sure to expire. Far be it from me to say that oil wasn't part of the equation, but I'd rate it far below political hubris and a misunderstanding of cause and effect.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: What about the "60 Minutes" piece on Saddam? It did say that he wanted to rebuild his weapons after sanctions were removed because he had the people and means to do so. That has been my position all along, but I have had trouble with the documentation. Only George Packer supported me. Now "60 Minutes" seems to do so. What was your take?

washingtonpost.com: FBI Agent: Hussein Didn't Expect Invasion (Post, Jan. 26)

Karen DeYoung: The argument that Saddam had the "intent and capability" to manufacture and use WMD was what the administration fell back on when it became clear the actual weapons weren't there. The question is whether "intent and capability" would have been reason enough to invade.

_______________________

Ronaldho: Seems like Muslims from all over the world are crossing the Iraqi border to target and kill and maim mostly Iraq's Muslim civilians. What a great religion!

Karen DeYoung: The number of foreigners, at least according to the U.S. military, has been decreasing of late rather than going up.

_______________________

Boise, Idaho: Why isn't the simple matter of economics (allocation of scarce resources) applied more often in discussions of the GOP's fondness for spending $10 billion per month in Iraq, when we're constantly reminded of the importance of spending restraints in and for the U.S.? What do people really believe the U.S. is getting for that expenditure?

Karen DeYoung: Those who support it say it's keeping the country safe. Those who don't say it's making the country less safe. That's why elections are a good thing.

_______________________

Karen DeYoung: Good questions, as always. Until next time...

_______________________

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.