Philip Bennett, The Washington Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news, answered your questions about the conflict in the Balkans and Post coverage of NAT0 strikes against Yugoslavia online. Bennett joined The Post as deputy national editor for national security coverage in 1997.

Read the transcript.

washingtonpost.com:Good afternoon, and welcome to our discussion.

To begin, can you tell us about some of the difficulties you've been facing trying to verify reports coming from various Yugoslav sources, given that Post and other reporters have been expelled from Yugoslavia?

Philip Bennett: Since our two chief correspondents in Yugoslavia, Peter Finn and Jeff Smith, were expelled last week (Finn after a rather harrowing pre-dawn arrest and interrogation), we have sent five reporters to various border positions, in Macedonia, Albania, Bosnia, Hungary, and in Montenegro, the smaller of Yugoslavia's two republics. We are most concerned with finding out what has been happening on the ground in Kosovo, and have been able to do this by interviewing refugees crossing the border in several of these places, as well as speaking with people on the phone inside Kosovo. We have also been searching for a way back to Belgrade, where we currently have a freelancer sending us stories.

[Editor's note: Finn's account of his arrest and the scene in Belgrade are available in both transcript and RealAudio form on washingtonpost.com.]

San Jose, Calif.: How does the Post evaluate claims of Serb atrocities? It is clear that the administration is using these claims in its media blitz but they never provide specific information, which could be analyzed at a later date for factual content. What steps does the Post take to protect itself from being used for propaganda purposes not just in this context but in general as well?

Philip Bennett: One of the greatest disadvantages of not being in Kosovo is its effect on our ability to report directly on possible atrocities in a timely way. We'll find out someday what is really going on, but by then will it be too late to make a difference? We are very cautious of course about passing on unconfirmed reports of any kind. In this case, we have worked to triangulate reports among various sources, including direct testimony from refugees and information coming from aid sources inside the province. I can't think in this case of any report of Serb abuses that we have published that has come directly from a U.S. government or NATO source.

Jacksonville, Fla.: The situation in Kosovo has taken the form of a humanitarian disaster. Do you think, that in light of this we need to stop talking about ground troops and postponing a decision, and send a substantial American ground force to stop the massacre?

Philip Bennett: I think we'll continue to see divisions open on the question of ground troops, with military officials insisting increasingly that airstrikes will not help civilians inside Kosovo and political leaders standing by their promises so far not to throw soldiers into the midst of what would seem capable of becoming a very big war very soon. Since a large ground invasion would still be several weeks away, it is not at all clear that conditions inside Kosovo that might justify it today will still be present then. One refugee told our correspondent Dan Williams yesterday: "If the invasion is not today, it is too late."

Long Beach, Calif.: If ground troops representing NATO must be used, what is the possibility that no American troops be used in a land operation?

Philip Bennett: It's difficult to imagine an invasion of Yugoslavia that did not rely chiefly on U.S. troops, especially since the Clinton administration would have the lead role in making such a decision.

Paris, France: Mr. Bennett,

Since the beginning of the NATO bombing campaign, the Kosovar Liberation Forces, very prominent during the ill-fated Rambouillet summit, have been strangely silent. In your opinion, does that indicate that they are no longer a force to be militarily reckoned with? Thank you.

Philip Bennett: We have reports today that the KLA continues to be engaged in skirmishes with Yugoslav forces, but it would also appear that they have suffered significant defeats in their more or less fixed positions around the province. It is also beginning to emerge – especially with reports today of executions of leading ethnic Albanians in Pristina – that there has been a systematic campaign to eliminate some of the intellectual leadership of the independence movement. An important question for our correspondents is whether the KLA can build the kind of international support now that will allow them to transform these losses into a political victory, and remain a viable force.

Tulsa, Okla.: Why do you believe there have been so many protests around the world – is it because they are less informed or just mugging for a camera? Also, do you believe with our focus changed to another part of the world give Saddam an advantage?

Philip Bennett: For some critics the NATO action seems a unilateral and disproportionate response, a view that for some is enhanced by the exclusion of the United Nations from the process that led to the airstrikes. I'd think this would be likely to increase if the bombing proves ineffectual, kills many Serbs, or provides the cover for massive atrocities against ethnic Albanians. The attacks could also go on for a long time. In some cases, such as in Greece and Russia, there are either cultural ties with Serbia or shared interests in the region that contribute to the hostility to the bombing campaign.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, I do not see much direct bearing, although it has been difficult in the past for the administration to focus on more than one problem at a time (remember, it was Kosovo policy that received almost no attention when the United States was bombing Iraq in December). It is somewhat curious that as this war has started there seems to be a drastic decline in the number of U.S. airstrikes against Iraq in the no-fly zone.

Washington, D.C.: Why does NATO get involved to stop this particular ATROCITY?

Things like this have been going on for years all over the world. South Africa just to name one. What is the real reason NATO is bombing Yugoslavia?

Philip Bennett: There is a distinct theory of relativity when it comes to responses to humanitarian crisis, and it seems fairly clear: those that occur in places where outside countries see a strategic interest get more attention and decisive action. This, policy makers say, is the reason for the intervention in Yugoslavia. But can military intervention alone, particularly the kind NATO is pursuing, stop the kinds of atrocities that we are seeing in Kosovo? For the moment this does not seem to be the case.

San Rafael, Calif.: With Congress on a two-week recess, how much debate can we expect on the ground troops issue? Where's the "loyal opposition?"

Philip Bennett: I'm impressed by how little debate there has been anywhere about Kosovo; it's still as if the crisis has failed to penetrate the national consciousness, as if the series of relatively disembodied U.S. military operations in recent months (Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan) has been a kind of anesthesia when it comes to evaluating the U.S. role here. I do not think we will see the ground troops question challenged more forcefully by lawmakers here until it seems a more imminent decision.

San Diego, Calif.: Prime Minister Primakov is supposed to visit Yugoslavia tomorrow. Do you think that the Russians will continue to make mostly symbolic gestures against NATO, or will they take more of an active stance in supporting Milosevic?

Philip Bennett: The Russian role does not seem decisive, but it is increasingly interesting, especially if Primakov's initiative is endorsed explicitly by European countries participating in the airstrikes, such as Italy and France. Russia is a member of the "Contact Group" that has urged Milosevic to sign the Rambouillet agreement; we will be watching closely to see if that position changes in his presentation tomorrow. While Russia seems marginal to the outcome of the conflict now, my sense is that U.S. policy makers continue to underestimate the deep and growing hostility in Moscow to U.S. policy.

Greenbelt, Md.: During this morning's online discussion, David Leavy of the National Security Council talked about the possibility of "watching hundreds of thousands of Kosovars die". Of course, even one murdered innocent civilian is too many, but some relevant facts would be helpful in assessing the current situation. How many Kosovar casualties – dead, injured, displaced – were there prior to the NATO bombings? How many Serb casualties due to the cleansing carried out by the Kosovars in the 1980's? See Stephen Rosenfeld's excellent piece on p. 33 of the Friday, March 26 Post. How many casualties per day are occurring SINCE bombing began, both directly   due to the bombs – and indirectly – due to stepped up Yugoslav operations in Kosovo?

Philip Bennett: We don't have conclusive figures to compare. International monitors have said that 2,000 people died as a result of political violence/fighting in Kosovo during the year leading up to the NATO strikes. Roughly 250,000 people have been made homeless during that period, although some estimates run as high as 500,000 (about a quarter of the entire population of the province). Anecdotal and other information we have received in the last 5 days suggests that there have been at least as many dead since the airstrikes happened; and today will probably be the biggest single day of refugees since the war began (there are about 150,000 people trying to get across the Albania border).

The relation between the airstrikes and this increased suffering will be the subject of debate for a long time. Was Milosevic planning to carry out a scorched earth policy regardless of outside action, or did NATO provide him with cover for a major offensive against civilians? Did those on the outside do enough, or what was right, or in time?

washingtonpost.com: That's all the time we have. Thanks to everyone who participated, and special thanks to Washington Post assistant managing editor for foreign news, Philip Bennett.