Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, May 1 at 12:30 p.m. 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 everyone. I'm back for a couple of weeks of being out and about and basically not here. Let's begin.

_______________________

Washington: What is your sense of the depth of the U.S. involvement in Somalia? There have been a lot of strikes against purported al-Qaeda leaders there. Surely there are al-Qaeda operating in other countries. Why is Somalia being so targeted?

washingtonpost.com: Al-Qaeda's Top Commander in Somalia Killed in U.S. Airstrike (Post, May 1)

Dana Priest: Because they are operating there in larger numbers than we really know, is my bet. I also believe were are in deeper than you might, at first, realize -- and for that very reason.

_______________________

Harlingen, Texas: Is there going to be review of the performance of the intelligence community in the affair of the North Korean/Syrian plutonium production reactor? According to the background briefing by senior intelligence officials, the building wasn't located until late 2005 or early 2006, and wasn't definitely identified as housing a nuclear reactor until the Israelis provided interior pictures in the spring of 2007. And according to a story in the World Tribune yesterday, the U.S. didn't realize the reactor was nearing operation until after the September bombing. One hesitates to haul out the term "intelligence failure" again, but this sure doesn't look like a brilliant success.

Dana Priest: From the outside, it always has seemed to me that the intelligence community does not have a very stellar record on North Korea. Remember the testing of the three-stage missile a couple of years ago?

_______________________

Montreal: Both Danas chatting today, lucky us. Dana, what leeway does the next president have regarding what can and can't be released from the current presidency? Given how much this president has changed past rules/laws/practices, could (not would) the next president make changes to shine a little sunshine on what's been going on?

Dana Priest: Of course! The president is the chief declassifier. But I wouldn't hold my breath for a great era of sunshine; rather, I think the policies and practices the next president pursues just won't be as, well, daring and controversial. Unless there's a new, big terrorist strike -- then all bets are off.

_______________________

Ocala, Fla.: Is the State Department talking to the Defense Department? Their assessments of the state of security seem to be at odds once again.

Dana Priest: At important, operational levels, yes. Talking passed each other on those kinds of big questions. Or rather, their prisms are so different and neither can get passed that. Which might be a good thing as long as you keep that in mind. What I like to keep in mind is that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which does not collect its own intelligence, was the only agency of all the intel agencies that got it right on Iraq's WMD. And I think they did, in part, because they are more independent-minded as a group. Their institutional worth was not wrapped up in their analysis of the facts and lack of facts.

_______________________

Pacifica, Calif.: With the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan now seemingly becoming more off-limits for the Pakistan government to oversee, what do you think this portends for U.S. policy in the region? Will the U.S. and NATO now have to send everyone to the border region in Afghanistan to try and slow the flow of fighters from Pakistan? Seems like this border is a border in concept only.

Dana Priest: That's certain one of the only real options. I doubt this president or a new one is going to really get more unilaterally aggressive on Pakistani soil. I know there are certain segments of the military (the special, special operators) that favor this approach. That leaves Afghanistan.

_______________________

Chambersburg, Pa.: Josef Joffe's article on the fear tax was excellent. Fear entices us to do stupid things, but is necessary to prevent us from doing dangerous things. How can the next administration remove the cloud of fear while at the same time protecting us from very real dangers. My thoughts are that it begins with openness. Any thoughts on reducing the fear tax?

washingtonpost.com: Fear Is a Tax, and We're Eagerly Paying It (Post, April 30)

Dana Priest: It will take courage. The one thing no candidate has been willing to do yet is to talk rationally about this subject for fear of being called weak on terrorism. All are afraid of missing that one person who slips through ... but I agree, you can't live a prosperous, healthy life with that mentality. For one thing, too many resources will go to building steel doors (Joffe's example) or whatever. Seems to me the domestic intel/law enforcement world, along with CIA and others overseas, now has a much more seasoned view of the actual threat to the U.S. And perhaps someday we will hear it. So I agree with you also, it begins with openness.

_______________________

"Downstate" Illinois: What are your thoughts on Clinton's threats of "massive retaliation" against Iran for attacks on any of our Mideast allies (including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates)? Is the fairly muted coverage of her position just a function of her non-front-runner status?

Dana Priest: Not really. It's not really news, and what does "massive" mean? Airstrikes? Okay, we've seen that movie before. Now, if she had said "I'll send in boots on the ground," that would have made big news.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Is Gates selling "woof" tickets to create a scare over China's military buildup, or is it a legitimate concern? In other words, why is he telling us about this now?

Dana Priest: He's been too busy with Iraq and Afghanistan to mention it before? Not new. Yes, worrisome. I'm uncertain about the timing this time though.

_______________________

Rochester, N.Y.: Ms. Priest: Have any of your sources dried up since your award-winning work on the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed? It was not a story that reflected well on the upper reaches of the Department of Defense.

Dana Priest: On the contrary. I don't depend on the "upper reaches" of any government department to do my reporting. Luckily.

_______________________

Austin, Texas: Dana, with all the talk ramping up again about Iran and its "nefarious influence," can you please give us your take on this? Are these complaints valid, or is someone trying to make a case for yet another war we can't sustain or win?

Dana Priest: My take is that Iran is certainly the main actor in Iraq, and that when Iran wants to cause trouble for our forces, our goals, our Iraqi partners, it knows exactly how to do it -- nd is doing it. But peaceful co-existence with Iran is also the only way to achieve lasting peace and stability in Iraq. While others disagree, I don't believe the U.S. is gearing up for war with Iran, but I do think the U.S. is trying to pressure Iran in every way it can, including tough, even bellicose public condemnation.

_______________________

China: Even if China doubles their military spending, it still is dwarfed by our own spending and always will be. When will the media remind us of facts instead of repeating scare tactics from the administration? (Not attacking you, though.)

Dana Priest: Yeah, but the Chinese military has millions of soldiers who are paid next to nothing. And their factories and production lines are all state-owned. Budget figures aren't a great indicator of the overall picture.

_______________________

Chicago: McCain was quoted in Feb 2003 as asking "is there any doubt in anybody's mind that if Saddam Hussein thought he could harm the United States that he wouldn't give any terrorist organization some weapon of mass destruction?" My impression is that that is not what the intelligence said at the time. The probability of Saddam initiating an attack against the U.S. without being provoked was deemed to be low.

The National Intelligence Estimate described the idea of him passing WMD to Islamic terrorists as the kind of extreme, desperate step he might only take as a last measure of revenge if he were invaded and he wanted as many others as possible to be taken down with him. Do you agree that McCain's statement seems at odds with the intelligence at the time?

Dana Priest: You are right, that is what the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq said before the war began, and frankly that is how he acted up to this point. In 1991, he didn't try to lash out at the U.S. -- he invaded Kuwait, a neighbor. He was worried about his standing in the Arab world. He saw himself as a great Arab leader.

_______________________

I doubt this president or a new one is going to really get more unilaterally aggressive on Pakistani soil.: Why would they? Pakistan only created, financed and gave safe haven to the Taliban and other terrorists. Recent attacks on Karzai come from Pakistan.

Dana Priest: Yes, you're right. That's why the fact we are hemmed in as we are right now is so frustrating and goes directly counter to the stated policy of attacking terrorists and their supporters "where ever they are."

_______________________

Asheville, N.C.: Isn't it strange how little public comment or speculation has attended the news that Petraeus will now become head of Central Command? After all, we are told that one of Bush's intentions in going into Iraq was to reform a region long neglected; Iraq was to be its inception; and of course, Nixon, under Kissinger's influence too, ultimately sought to widen his war in order to end it. Normally, then, it would seem that at the least there would be pressure for Bush to declare publicly that strategically widening the war now -- as opposed to, say, just "getting even" with Iran -- is not his intent.

Dana Priest: Slow down. If you are suggesting that Petraeus is getting the Centcom job so he can widen the war, I just don't buy it. After Iraq, his options for continuing his ascent are limited: either a regional command (and they probably want his regional expertise), the top Army post (which I don't think he would want because it isn't operational), or the chairman of the joint chiefs (seems a little too early).

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Did you see the report yesterday on the terrible housing facilities on Fort Bragg? When I think of how well the top brass live on these bases (I know -- I've been there), I get steamed. I was hoping your reports on Walter Reed would have spurred the military to get its act together, but it looks like that was just the tip of the iceberg.

washingtonpost.com: Repairs Underway in Barracks, Army Says (Post, April 30)

Dana Priest: Yes, Walter Reed was just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. It's astonishing that the Army hasn't inventoried and cleaned up its worst barracks, and the others that are not as bad but still bad. I've also seen many commanders' quarters and the difference would be unacceptable to most Americans. This is baffling. But not unexpected.

_______________________

Washington: This will be old news by your next discussion, but someone back home asked me the following as their inside-the-Beltway friend. I couldn't answer this. ... Jimmy Carter, as an ex-president, has a Secret Service detail, no? So when he went to meet with Hamas, did they go with him? If yes, then that would raise a number of follow-up questions about how Secret Service protection works for former presidents (aren't they supposed to nix anything as potentially dangerous as meeting with a U.S.-designated terrorist group?), whether their presence indicated that the administration really was supportive of his trip even if they said otherwise, whether the Secret Service could have refused to go with Carter (or maybe they have to shadow him regardless of U.S. policy), etc. ... Thank you.

Dana Priest: Fun question. I'll try to find out for you.

_______________________

Dana Priest: Thanks for joining me everyone. 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.