Dana Priest

LIVE!

In its third week of airstrikes, NATO continues pounding targets throughout Yugoslavia. Dana Priest, the Post's Pentagon correspondent discussed NATO's military strategy and how the conflict in Yugoslavia may unfold.

Read the transcript below.

A Post reporter for 13 years, Priest started out as an assistant foreign editor and then became a Metropolitan staff reporter. After joining the National staff nine years ago, Priest covered federal regulatory issues and went to Baghdad to write about American hostages being held in Iraq.

Priest has covered the Pentagon for the past four years. Her reporting has taken her to Bosnia to write about U.S. troops stationed there and on overseas trips with defense secretaries William Perry and William Cohen. She has also written extensively about the Army's efforts to integrate women into the workforce.

Washingtonpost.com: Dana: We've heard that President Clinton is preparing to call up thousands of military reserves. Can you tell us what you've heard about this latest move to support NATO air power?

Dana Priest: The Pentagon says they have every intention of calling up reservists if the war continues and right now, of course, it looks like it will for some time. A great deal of the Air Force's cargo and support plane pilots are reservists. In the last week, NATO's commander, Gen Wesley Clark, has asked the US to send in about 400 more aircraft and these reservists would pilot some of them. The Air Force tries to be careful, even in war time, not to over extend its crews.

Alexandria Va: Dana,

I've been following some of the Serb web pages. By their last count, NATO forces have suffered over 30 downed aircraft -including drones, jets and helicopters-, plus 88 NATO causalities in the last three weeks.

I haven't seen this addressed in NATO's reports. Any conformation to Serbs claims?

Dana Priest: NATO and U.S. authorities have denied all these claims. There was, as you know, one F-117a downed and the pilot was rescued. We have no way of independently verifying the Serb claims but the best proof that they are probably inaccurate is we've not received one call from families of supposedly downed pilots and the Serbs have not put any pictures of them on their web-sites. Nor have they escorted photographers in to take pictures, as they did when the F-117 went down.

New York, NY: Can US or Britain sustain a long air campaign without running into huge debts, if one sortie of a fighter plane costs around $25,000?

Dana Priest: I guess that's an entirely political question since the treasuries are controlled by elected officials. Yesterday Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon said the administration was submitting a request to Congress for an additional $3-$4 Billion (yes, that's a B) in Department of Defense funding to pay for the war through the end of FY 99, which ends Oct. 1999. That is just a very rough estimate and many people suspect the cost will be triple that or more.

Chicago: Dana:
Congratulations on your success at the Post. We covered a couple of the same stories when you were at the Chicago Sun-Times in the early 80s and I worked at the now-defunct City News Bureau. Onward and upward....I do have a question related to today's topic: do the reporters covering Pentagon briefings get the sense that they're being told the truth -or some reasonable approximation of it- about the war by the spokesperson or is there a post-Vietnam sense that they're automatically lying and spinning? How much truth are we getting from Ken Bacon, et al?

Dana Priest: Thanks.
I think it's a mixture. I am highly suspicious of their state reason for not giving us more information. Their stated reason is that it would compromise operational security and that terrorism and technology make it harder to safe-guard operations. I look to the war in Bosnia, though, when Sec. William Perry was Defense chief. His department, his pilots, faced the same concerns as those flying today and yet he allowed his Pentagon spokesmen and top officers to divulge much more about their ongoing operations. Most of us in the Pentagon press corps respect the need to protect future operations. What we have complained continually about are the days old, detailed assessments of the campaign that are not forthcoming. And yes, I think there's always spin but we know that and they know that we know that and everyone tries their hardest to do their job in the most accurate way anyway.

Vienna, Va: There must be other Air Forces involved besides UK and US since one of the first 2 FRY aircraft shot down was by a Dutch fighter. Do you know what the National mix is in combat aircraft by NATO forces aligned against the FRY?

Dana Priest: I believe at this point there are 15 countries flying missions. It is, in this sense, the most "multinational" air war to date. They are not just flying missions over the FRY, but they are "integrated" in a military sense, meaning the operational planning and execution integrates them all together. Quite a feat and something that NATO has been working on in exercises, etc, since its creation. Last time I checked--about 10 days ago--about 40 percent of the strike missions--were flown by non-US planes. Strike missions refer not just to the fighters and bombers, but also to the other aircraft that fly with them into a combat mission, such as the electronic jammers, reconnaissance planes, etc.

Reston, VA: When this whole episode is "over", what do you think the end result will be as far as who will control Kosovo?

Dana Priest: I'll punt. I can barely keep up with what's actually happening today, much less predict the future.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida: 10:40 EST - Sky TV reports that NATO planes have fired at the convoys of Albanian refugees on Djakovica-Prizren
road. It is estimated that in the first incident there were 6 dead and 11 injured, and in the other one there were over 60 dead, among whom were 3 Serbian policemen who were securing the safe passage for the convoy. Foreign media TV Crews are on their way to the attack area. Your comment ? What is the best way to stop carnage ?

Washingtonpost.com: Dana, do you have a sense of how NATO handles reports of civilian casualties and what they are doing to minimize collateral damage? How does NATO's handling of this issue compare to the way the Pentagon handled casualty reports during the Persian Gulf War?

Dana Priest: I haven't seen those reports so I can't comment.

Washington D.C.: My question is twofold. Is the planned $5 billion provided going to be used for military purposes only or will it be also used to bring food, clothing, toys, etc. to the refugees in the camps?
After reading the article, "EXODUS: Making it to the border," I would like to know how or if I can send clothes and toys to the children.

Dana Priest: Some of it will be going to pay for refugee relief, Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said yesterday. As for donations, look back through your old Post, we have run lists of aid organizations. If you can't find them, call your local chapter of the Red Cross. They should have lists.

Leesburg, VA: Congress has to approve the US's going to war. Do they have to approve our using ground troops in the current conflict, or is this a military strategy decision?

Dana Priest: This is not as clear cut as you would think. The fact is, the U.S. hasn't fought a "declared" war since WWII. Remember Korea? It was a "police action." This does not mean that Congress will not try to assert its authority. It always does and the White House retort is that the commander-in-chief has the authority to deploy troops. There is some recent legislation on the books in regards to Yugoslavia which requires the president to seek congressional approval. However, you can bet the administration would be looking for a way around that. It is very possible, however, that the president would seek and Congress would vote on some sort of declaration in support of troops. The decision to send troops is not, ultimately, a decision for military strategists. It's a decision for the country's elected civilian leaders.

Washingtonpost.com: We're roughly half-way through this live discussion with Dana Priest, the Post's Pentagon correspondent. Submit questions using the hyperlink below.

Harrisonburg, VA: I've heard a lot about the bombing campaign and its effectiveness, but i'm still confused as to the stated objectives of the military campaign. Do you feel that the military has viable strategic objectives, or is NATO simply using strong arm tactics to encourage settlement of diplomatic objectives?

Dana Priest: Very complex question, if you follow try to figure it out based on the public statements of military and political officials. The stated objectives have changed to include autonomy and democracy in Kosovo, deterring and stopping the ethnic cleansing, getting Milosevic to sign a peace agreement that would include allowing peacekeepers into Kosovo to protect returning Kosovar Albanians. Military officers try constantly to limit the goals of the air war because, they point out, the type of air war they are undertaking (high-flying planes with minimal pilot risk and minimal collateral damage requirements) cannot stop the ethnic cleansing. It can, they say, eventual severely damage the Yugoslav army and special police. When the public pressure grows to stop the atrocities, however, civilian Pentagon officials have added stopping the ethnic cleansing to their list of goals. So there is a gap between the most immediate public desire--to stop the killing, burning of homes, etc--and how the air war was designed. It was designed to have an eventual effect, but for the first two weeks pilots concentrated on destroying things like the air defense system, fuel storage facilities, bridges and command buildings.

Washingtonpost.com: Dana: We're getting more reports that convoys of refugees were supposedly hit by NATO missiles. Do you have any updates?

Dana Priest: Yes, I've just seen the wires that say that NATO warplanes may have accidentally struck a convoy of refugees and that 64 people are feared dead. NATO says it is trying to confirm. I'm sure this will be the subject of discussion at the Pentagon briefing and other US government briefings today. NATO and US military officials, I have to point out, are continually trying to prepare the public for accidents such as this. They believe the US public has grown accustomed to "painless" wars and their belief is that there is no such thing. Of course, they are right. NATO has taken extreme care not to harm civilians in this war. Every day, each individual target is scrutinized by representatives of many countries and there are lengthy discussions about "aim points"--the exact spot on a target that the missiles is aimed at--and about their proximity to civilian facilities. Some targets have been scrapped because they are deemed to close to civilian buildings.

Bethesda, MD: Where are you getting your information? When you say: "Last time I checked--about 10 days ago--about 40 percent of the strike missions--were flown by non-US planes," what's the source? The Pentagon? And if so, are we just suppose to buy this without any corroborating evidence?

Dana Priest: I try not to exclusively use the Pentagon as a source. In this case, my sources where at the Pentagon, NATO and several European officials.

evanston il.: don't you think yugoslavia, knowing what was coming, have stockpiled enough essential materials in enough places to hold out for a long time? I understand that Tito began preparing for a Soviet invasion in the late 40s, and they have always assumed that they would be facing an overwhelming force, and that all of former yugoslavia is riddled with underground arms dumps, hangers etc.

Dana Priest: You would think so, especially since, as The Post documented in a long front page article on Sunday, there is evidence that the Yugoslav forces were preparing an offensive for some time. If you listen very closely to Pentagon briefings, you will hear top military officials say over and over again that they believe their actions will have some effect (eventually) or are just beginning to have an effect. And often, if they assert they are seeing evidence that the bombings "are" having an effect on Yugoslav forces, they evidence they offer is very sketchy and limited.

Rye New Hampshire: Has the recent military downsizing affected the ability of the armed forces to fight in southern europe and continue to support other ongoing missions such as operations in Iraq and Korea?
how can we sustain this action with the reduced military and continue to support vital missions elsewhere?

Dana Priest: Some in the military certainly say it has. Others say no, the military is big enough to handle this. They have, however, taken many planes that were flying in support of the no-fly zone over northern Iraq and redeployed to the Kosovo mission. Certain other kinds of aircraft in limited supply, like the EA-6 electronic jammers are being redeployed from other places around the world, including Turkey and, I believe, Korea.

Washington, D.C.: Ms. Priest:

People say that one of the reasons the bombings are occuring is to stop the harm being done to Albanians, to stop the atrocities. If part of our response is occuring out of a sense of moral-humanistic obligation, don't you think it is worth sending in ground troops, worth one or more American lives to really stop the door-to-door aggression of the Serbs?

Dana Priest: You know, I really don't think it's appropriate for me to answer that. I can say that I know the reason White House and NATO political leaders did not support a ground presence is their belief that they did not have support among their publics for it. They continue to maintain this, and say the NATO coalition could well dissolve over the issue.

New York, NY: Military analysts of the Kosovo crises have noted that launching ground operations from either Albania or Macedonia would present logistical hazards. Do you think it likely that NATO planners are considering Hungary as an alternative staging area?

Dana Priest: I think there are some supplies already flying in through Hungary.

Ypsilanti, MI: What is your impression about the effect of the bombardment on the Yugoslavian military capability and on the civilian population in Yugoslavia?

Dana Priest: It's unfortunately hard to tell because we have been able to get the kind of detailed bomb damage assessments that would let me make an independent evaluation of that. During the first two weeks, however, when most of the ethnic cleansing was taking place, military officials repeatedly said, in response to questions, that they did not see the air war having an immediate effect on the ground situation. It was not stopping the violence against Kosovar Albanians. The bombing has choked off Kosovo pretty much from the rest of the country so it should be harder for forces there to resupply. Pentagon officials say they do not yet see troops retreating. Yesterday, a Pentagon briefer said he believe the forces were "hunkered down" meaning they were not moving around as much. As for the civilian population, the government has begun rationing food, there are fuel supply shortages and there have been black-outs. NATO planes destroyed television stations.

Woodbridge VA: If this is a NATO mission, are the other members contributing to the strikes? All I hear about is US Troops doing the air strikes and other countries' relief workers. If this is a multi national strike why don't the other countries contribute more troops rather than risk ours?

Dana Priest: You probably hear more about the US role, because the reporters here figure that's what people are most interested in so we focus a lot of our attention on US troops, pilots, etc. While many more of the fighter pilots are Americans--we have by far the largest Air Force in the world--the troops on the ground in Macedonia and Albania are mostly Europeans. The US presence of the so-called peacekeeping mission that was once envisioned, was about half that of the British and French presence.

Washingtonpost.com: That's all the time we have. Thanks to everyone who participated and thanks to Dana Priest.

Back to the top