Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, March 27 to discuss national security issues.

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.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Dana Priest: Hello everyone. Nice spring day here in Washington with clouds of cherry blossoms hanging over parts of the city. Elsewhere, however....

Let's begin!

_______________________

San Jose, Calif.: In Dan Froomkin's Tuesday column, he quoted the Vice President as follows:

Cheney in the Raddatz interview: "Now when I hear my friends in the States, candidates and so forth, wannabees, announce that the solution in Iraq is to withdraw, take our forces out, I say that is exactly what happened in Afghanistan that produced a safe haven that generated the terrorists that came and killed 3,000 Americans.

What did Cheney mean by his reference to Afghanistan? Prior to 9/11, the US was never in Afghanistan. Is Cheney saying that the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan produced the safe haven? What other withdrawal could he be referring to?

Dana Priest: No, he means the US walked away. Remember we were involved covertly to oust the Soviets. And when that happened, we lost interest.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Dana - thanks for the chat. During the Vietnam War, both the war and the military became extremely unpopular with the American public. Vietnam vets had very unpleasant homecomings and are still bitter about it. It took many years for the military to recover. Now the Iraq war has become very unpopular, but the military still seems to enjoy the public's support. Why do think this is the case? Do you see any signs of support for the military weakening? Is the Pentagon concerned that they could be dragged down by the war, and if so what are they doing about it? Thanks.

Dana Priest: First of all, I'm hoping that it is that, as a country, we learned a lot from the Vietnam experience; principally that soldiers have a duty to fight when they are ordered to fight. That is their job. So no matter how you feel about the war, to enter it and continue it, is a decision by the Pres and congress, and the electorate, but not the fighting forces. The military continues to enjoy support, I believe, because they are making all the sacrifices...and we see those sacrifices daily. Yes, I do see signs of support weakening. It's all around us and has been for sometime: former troops and officers criticizing the policy publicly; retired generals ditto (speaking for others in uniform); parents of those wounded or killed in action speaking up against. Period. Stop: This critique is not affecting the way soldiers and their leaders continue to prepare and fight when they are in the field, as far as we can tell so far.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: Dana, why do we have so many intelligence agencies -- NSA, CIA, DIA, etc., etc.? Wasn't there a 9/11 Commission recommendation to consolidate them? If so, does it stand a chance of happening? Thanks.

Dana Priest: The idea was not actually to consolidate them, but to make them talk to each other and share their info.-jewels. Each of these agencies do very different things: NSA is all about high-tech surveillance, decoding and translation; NRO, which you didn't mention, is about very very expensive and supposedly sophisticated spy satellites; CIA has been shaved down to mostly collecting secrets, working with foreign services to find bad guys and some, increasingly rare, covert action; DIA is supposed to target military capabilities largely through embassy defense attaches, but they are moving into more clandestine work too. There are ten other smaller agencies you missed, but you get the point.

_______________________

"Bush's War": I assume you watched the Frontline series on "Bush's War" (since you appeared in it!), but I'm wondering what you thought of it. As for me, I was particularly gob-smacked by the fact that Rumsfeld held back troops from the CIA's initial efforts in Afghanistan. Given that you have been in the thick of things for so long, was there anything specific that surprised you in the series? Or was it all pretty much "been-there done-that" for you?

washingtonpost.com: Transcript from yesterday's discussion with Frontline producer Michael Kirk

Dana Priest: I thought the amazing power of the pieces was in how skillfully Mike Kirk and Jim Gilmore wove together the entire post 9-11 military-intelligence-political world.

_______________________

Stafford, VA: I'm utterly amazed by today's NY Times article about a 22 year old man selling defective ammunition to the Army on behalf of the Afghan Army.

Money from this contact may have gone to terrorists and other international bad guys. How many other companies like this are ripping off the Taxpayers and compromising our security? The audacity is absolutely breath-taking!

How many contracts associated with the Global War on Terror are like this? This should be a front-page story on every U.S. newspaper.

do you see any real movement toward oversight or accountability??

washingtonpost.com: Supplier under Scrutiny on Aging Arms for Afghans (NY Times, March 27)

Dana Priest: Yes, it was a great story. Contracting, as you know, has really been largely unregulated in the last several years. This is partly because there are so many contractors and so few "regulators" or overseers.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Does the Pentagon think we are complete idiots? When violence is down it is due to the success of the surge and now that violence is up it is due to the success of the surge? Who do they think they are kidding?

Dana Priest: Have Cake Will Eat

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: What is your opinion about a national ID card?

I heard a program about Holland being forced to have ID cards by the Germans in WWII, and the Jews had a red J on theirs. Jews were transported, if they found them, to be killed.

It seems we may be giving up too much freedom to be "safe".

Dana Priest: I'm of two minds. I agree with you, on the other hand, the government (not to mention the private sector) can learn so much about you these days with a couple of taps on the right computer keyboard that it probably doesn't add much more to their knowledge anyway. just thinking....

_______________________

San Bernardino, Calif.: Hi Dana,

I live near the Mexican border and travel often to Tijuana and the rest of Baja California. There has been a terrible drug war going on there that has reduced tourism in the area dramatically. A fisherman who gives tours to Americans that I have known for years told me his business is down 90%. Is there any chance that some of this war could spill over here? We talk about national security so often, but rarely discuss a tinderbox type situation on our southern border.

Dana Priest: It is spilling over. I'll get our story from last week (I think it ran Sunday) posted here.

_______________________

Re: Weakening support for the troops: As the years of war march on, it must be very disheartening and perhaps even demoralizing for troops to realize that the care we promised to veterans fails to accord them with the dignity due them. Your reporting about the situations veterans have experienced at Walter Reed comes to mind, and other reports have likewise shown serious flaws with veterans care systems.

The Vietnam War dragged on for years and years, and veterans were similarly given substandard care when they returned from duty. Eventually public treatment of veterans mirrored that substandard attention to their needs and human dignity.

Do you think it's really just a matter of time before public perception of returning troops catches up with how they're treated by the institutions that are structured to provide care and services? Veterans should be treated with dignity, yet that concept seems to unravel once support institutions no longer provide dignified assistance and frustration levels build.

washingtonpost.com: Walter Reed coverage by Dana Priest, Anne Hull and other Post journalists

Dana Priest: You make a good point. When people stop seeing the problem -- and much of America is simply oblivious because their lives are not affected-- then the pressure loosens. I can see this happening already. Congress barely mentions these issues anymore, and there are soldiers from every congressional district who are still suffering needlessly. Many improvements have been made, but the problems are not yet fixed. The DOD and services are mid-stream with their reforms. Without constant prodding, things won't get better.

_______________________

20006: Hi Dana - thanks for taking questions.

One thing that I am disappointed in by our presidential candidates is the focus on their positions on our troops in Iraq and limiting the discussion to finger pointing, and whether to keep them in or pull them out.

What I feel is missing from the conversation is how they as leaders and we as a country can fix the damage inflicted on both the Iraqi and Afghan people - rebuilding the infrastructures like roads, electricity and water services, commerce, education and health care. Is this something that is feasible for a prospective candidate to address - are these things even on anyone's radar?

Dana Priest: They are on everyone's radar, but usually take a back seat to getting the violence under control in those areas that are still unsettled. Without that, the next sewer plant we help build, or the next school, will just become a target.

_______________________

Why does the Dalai Lama matter?: Why does the Dalai Lama matter? If you read about how a Dalai Lama is chosen, it sounds like such a joke.

Dana Priest: He's a spiritual leaders, not an elected official.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Drug Trade Tyranny on the Border (Post, March 16)

Dana Priest: here you go on the drug trade on the Mexican border

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Good afternoon,

What are your thoughts on the ramped up airstrikes in Pakistan? Will we lose our ability to hunt terrorists there once Musharraf is removed from power? Will they continue to cooperate with our military or do you think they would forgo the billions we send them to "hunt" down Al-Qaeda?

washingtonpost.com: U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan (Post, March 27)

Dana Priest: Might be hard to give up that money once you've got the power. But who knows, which is why the military/CIA and Pak government are right now willing to allow increased predator strikes. In the longer run, I doubt any Pakistan government wants to see foreign Al Qaeda have the run of the place. That is the part of all this that is in the interest of both the U.S. and the anti-U.S. Pakistan elements.

_______________________

Greater Green Bay: Maybe it's time for an amendment or law saying that for every $3 spent on a war - oops, armed conflict - $1 must be spent on veterans care, hospitals, job programs, etc.

Dana Priest: Believe it or not, I don't really think this is any longer a question of money. It's a question of where the available money -- and there is lots of it -- is spent, and how effectively. In my reading, far, far too much of it is being spent studying problems (especially in the mental health area) rather than treating the problem, or hiring the psychologists who can treat the problem directly...face to face with the soldiers in need. Same with job programs. Every other patriotic person I meet wants to help and is willing to help, but the DOD and Army, in particular, have been unable/unwilling to capitalize on all this goodwill. Instead there are still far too many barriers thrown up. Ditto for Walter Reed, one post among dozens where the need is still unmet.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Video from President Bush's speech today on Iraq

Dana Priest: Oh, here is Bush's speech today on Iraq, in case you're interested.

_______________________

Duxbury, Mass.: Coming onto April Fool's day and Musharraf still sits on the throne. Do you feel lucky? I'll go out on a limb - let it ride on Independence Day?

Dana Priest: no, I think April Fool's is as far as I'd go.

_______________________

Ogden, Utah: The story in today's paper about us hurrying up and doing a lot of bombing in Pakistan makes me flash back to Iran in 1954, when we were worried that the democratically elected government there might not be our most vigorous ally against Communism, so we engineered an overthrow. Here we are again, worried that democratically elected people might not be as helpful as the dictator who supported us as long as we kept him well paid. That overthrow, for short-term gains, caused long term misery, not the least of which is the development of the extremists who took over, and now run, Iran.

Please convince me I should not be worried. History has a way of repeating itself.

washingtonpost.com: U.S. Steps Up Unilateral Strikes in Pakistan (Post, March 27)

Dana Priest: There's no way the US would attempt to overthrown the newly elected Pakistan government as we did in the Iranian case. First of all, and most importantly, with what support internally? The Army? no. The intel services? no. Plus, you have the pesky press, which you didn't have as much back then. The whole thing would be chronicled for all to see and the backlash would be huge everywhere.

_______________________

Dana Priest: Well, that was quick. Time to check out the cherry blossoms. See you next week! Dana

_______________________

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.