Dana Priest

Thursday, Feb 10, 2000

Washington Post Pentagon reporter Dana Priest was online to discuss gays in the military, recruitment shortfalls, U.S. military peacekeeping efforts.

Read the transcript below:

washingtonpost.com: Welcome to our live discussion with the Post's Dana Priest. We already have a number of questions in queue so let's start with a question from Riverdale Park, Md.:

Hello Dana, we hear that the military is having a tough time recruiting soldiers, sailors and airman. Does it also have trouble recruiting officers? Are applications at West Point, etc down?

Dana Priest: Glad to be here. The answer is no. None of the services have problems recruiting officers — that is to say, they all have plenty of nominees at the services' respective academies. Getting a place at these universities, such as West Point, the Army's academy, is still competitive. This last year West Point received about 11 applications for each spot. Retaining officers, however, is a problem, especially in the Air Force, which has had a tough time keeping pilots. Part of the reason, they say, is a competitive job market and increased deployments away from home.

Ft. Lewis, WA: Why does there seem to be such a problem in providing proper pay for our soldiers? I mean it is pathetic that almost 95% of our soldiers qualify and receive welfare. Doesn't this suggest that there is something wrong? True the soldiers have some things that the civilian world doesn't, but the lack of pay and addition of these other things doesn't make up for the disrespectful way we treat our military members

Dana Priest: Your 95 percent figure is way off. Most of the soldiers who qualify for welfare, and yes there are some, are the newest soldiers with large families. On the contrary, this year service members will receive a 3.7 percent pay increase, a $3 billion increase in the housing allowance and plans to privatize some housing programs. There's also around 9 billion for the projected cost of improving health care services to members. Now, whether any of that is effort to compete with the booming US market economy is yet to be seen.

Olney, MD: Why do civilians with no military experience whatsoever feel qualified in making important decisions effecting the military establishment without the consent of the military leadership?

Dana Priest: Wow, what a question. The military in this country serve under civilian control. That's a basic principal of our democracy. The qualifications of those civilians change depending on whom the American people elect as President and as their representatives in Congress (who control the purse strings and set policy), and whom the president appoints to run the Department of Defense. The military makes its views know, and can play hardball in nixing unpopular policies through its own direct influence with members of Congress (although outright lobbying is supposed to be prohibited) and through the Chairman of the Joint Staff, who is the president's military advisor. Having military experience has never been a prerequisite for the job although this is the first crop — President Clinton, DoD Secretary Cohen and Dept Secretary John Hamre — to have never been in uniform. Then again, fewer and fewer members of Congress have served in the military either.

Albuquerque NM: Are there military consultations among the NATO forces in Kosovo what to do to make peace?

How can the US contribute to create a multiethnic society in Kosovo?

Dana Priest: It is a constant source of discussion and they are making very slow progress, if any. Right now the emphasis is on dampening violence — last week violence in northern Kosovo was the worst since the peace keepers arrived — and getting small groups of Serbs and Albanians to work together on local town councils. There is no evidence yet that a multiethnic peace is emerging from post-war Kosovo, in fact most of the talk is still on trying to getting the international community to make good on its commitment to send enough police officers to help out the peace keepers. There are only about 2,000 or the promised 6,000 on the ground and they have yet to prove very effective. So, we're still at the basics in Kosovo.

Washington, D.C.: Peacekeeping has become a major part of the Pentagon's mission. Is the brass committed to peacekeeping? Are U.S. troops being adequately trained for such missions? Peacekeeping requires the combined skills of a police officer, diplomat and community organizer. Once peace is secured, as in Bosnia and Kosovo, shouldn't the military's role be phased out? It doesn't seem to be cost-effective to use regular Army troops, backed by tanks and expensive supply lines, for police actions, especially in places like the Balkans, where they could be needed for another decade.

Dana Priest: It might not be cost-effective, as you say, but they are the only force available that the international community--and U.S. leaders--believe can get the job done right now. Some people believe it is short-sighted to keep relying on the military for these missions and the military doesn't particularly like it either. But there is not a skilled international police force at the ready to step in once the military tasks are completed. It is a lesson everyone was supposed to have taken from Bosnia, but apparently did not really. No, troops aren't trained as police officers (except the MPs, which are in great demand) and some soldiers are having problems, witness recent allegations from Vitina that some U.S. soldiers there were physically abusing townspeople during interrogations and crowd control operations. But, I have to say, if the U.S. or other countries don't like sending troops to do non-military tasks, they sure are not yet preparing any one else to do the job. There was a tacit recognition of this in the admininstration's discussion of Kosovo this year. Before the Bosnia deployment, the admininstration promised a one-year pull out. No such promises were made on Kosovo.

Mt. Rainier MD: I find it interesting that none of the four lead candidates for presidential office are talking about excluding gays from the military. The Republicans are all backing some version of 'don't ask, don't tell', and the Democrats are backing full open participation of gays in the military. Society seems to have moved this far, but the military seems to be lagging behind. Is the leadership still backing excluding gays altogether?

Dana Priest: The leadership, that is the Clinton admininstration, doesn't back excluding gays altogether. In fact, the current policy is meant to allow gays to serve. Much of the recent campaign discussion about changing the policy was clearly a way to appeal to gay voters, who are an active, campaign-contributing block. Gore must know that Congress, as currently configured, would not vote to liberalize the current policy. You're right, there is still a big gap in the way society at large and the military leadership view the issue. But from my conversations with senior leaders, I think there is an increased acceptance of the current policy and a believe that it should be better enforced. That's a change, albeit a slow one for those outside the military who advocate allowing gays to serve openly.

Herndon, VA: Ms. Priest: The Army's new plan to get more recruits by taking non-high school grads and offering the opportunity to get a GED sounds like a disaster in the making. The Armed Forces should not be in the "social betterment" business. That said, how do the services get the recruits they need?

Dana Priest: There are many people who share your view. On the other hand, I think Army Secretary Caldera has been very thoughtful in asking whether a high-school diploma is really the best indicator of whether a person will succeed in the army. Whether he's found a more accurate indicator is yet to be seen. I'd also like to point out that this is not the first time the Army has gotten into the "social betterment" business, as you call it. The Army confronted racial integration when it was still unpopular in society. It has been struggling to more fully integrate women. Its troops, after all, reflect society.

Cherry Hill, NJ: Dana:

Hopefully Colombia will soon get its financial support to fight the guerillas and the narcotraffic. As soon as the Colombian government forces probe to be successful in their mission, it is my opinion that the guerillas and the narcotraffic will overflow inmediately onto the neibhoring countries, mainly into Ecuador because of its geopraphic location and in order to continuing satisfying the US market.

My questions:
Are there any contingency plans to be implemented by the US or Colombian Army so this situation doesn't occur.
If this occurs, Ecuador is totally unprepared. Because of its present finacial and political situation, Ecuador will be a perfect location for Colombians to continue with their business as usual. Do you know of any plans so this doen't happen? Please make comments in regard to this possibility. My family lives in Ecuador only 80 miles south of the Colombian border. Thank you

Dana Priest: I'm sorry to say I don't know whether there are contingency plans to help out Ecuador if drug traffickers move its way from Colombia. I do know that some key military leaders involved in developing the plan are indeed worried about its impact on other countries and part of their concern is the exact issue you raise. If nothing else, the chunk of money for Colombia is so large--compared to the military assistance given to surrounding nations--they worry that the administration and Congress would be willing to spend much more elsewhere in the region.

Middletown, RI: I'm a Navy PAO writing a paper for the Naval War College about the operational impact of public affairs during conflict. Do you feel that media coverage is playing a greater role in the outcome of military operations of late? If so, why do you think this is so?

LCDR John Kirby

Dana Priest: Indirectly. That is, it affects operations only if the leaders of those operations--and here I mean the political leaders who give the military perimeters in which to operate--respond to what they see in the media. In Kosovo conflict, for example, media coverage of the accidental bombing of civilians caused the politicians to require the military to restrict the use of certain weapons (cluster bombs after one big disaster) and not to hit bridges during daylight when civilians might be traveling on them. The military, though, also uses the media to get messages across to the adversary that they hope will hasten the war's conclusion.

Chicago Illinois: Are there any new activities within DOD or in the administration to define opportunities for further consolidation of operations between the services? -e.g., combining training, logistics and facilities, out-sourcing and privatizing, etc-. I know this is an unpopular issue with the individual services, but in the interest of streamlining and maximizing cost-benefits, it's in the best interests of the nation.

Dana Priest: I don't think the Pentagon takes jointness as seriously as they would like you to think, or as seriously as they talk about it. But among the most important initiatives is the creation of the Joint Forces Command--which used to be the Atlantic Command. Part of the new command's mission is to promote jointness and joint experimentation. Since there's a four-star Commander-in-Chief at the top, you can bet he'll push that agenda.

Mt. Rainier MD: At the time that the Indonesian army and the militias supported by the army were tearing East Timor apart, our military was arguing for a more diplomatic approach to Indonesia's army. They seemed to feel that they had close enough ties to Indonesia's General Wiranto that they could persuade him to back off. It's clear they were wrong. It seems that we hope we can influence foreign militaries with training and arms contracts to think as we do about human rights and civilian control. Instead these foreign armies cheerfully accept the training and arms, then do what they bloody well please to civilians. Shouldn't the Pentagon re-think their ties to foreign armies? The School of the Americas was one notorious occasion where our military seemed to be more influenced by thuggish rightists than to be a beneficient influence themselves.

Dana Priest: Without accepting or rejecting the premise that leads to your question, I would say that the administration acted predictably when it was forced by events to disclose its previous relationship with the Indonesia special forces, and then when Wiranto, whom it supported, turned out to be implicated in the violence in East Timor. Predictably, it then cut off all ties and the US military is, in fact, forbidden to have discussions with top Indonesia leaders without the approval of civilian superiors in the administration. Something to think about is this: when a nation is in a crisis, is it prudent to cut the phone lines? We did the same with Milosevic during the war, pulled all diplomats out of the country. Seems like that's the time you need to be able to exert pressure. Just a thought.

Spartanburg. SC: Good morning Dana,
Would you by chance have current data on the rate of attrition among officers in the armed services? I am interested in knowing, on average, how long Service Academy graduates and ROTC graduates remain in the service after their education obligation is complete?

Dana Priest: Not on hand, but you could call the Pentagon public affairs office at 703-697-5131.

Herndon,VA: Ms. Priest: My terminology was poor, by "social betterment" I was trying to indicate the enlistment of individuals who, by the Armed Forces own standards, aren't qualified to serve.

Dana Priest: Okay. Well, I still think Caldera's point is that he doesn't believe these applicants are necessarily unqualified because they don't have a diploma. I know he's particularly sensitive to concerns in the Hispanic community where, some would argue, there are a lot of reasons people drop out of high school, and only some of them are related to ability.

Dana Priest: Thanks for all the questions, I have to go now. I look forward to chatting next month. Dana