Live Q&As

Well, I spent five years as Foreign Editor of this newspaper and six years as a foreign correspondent (though not in Afghanistan). So I do believe I have some qualifications to offer an opinion.

Thank you for your service, Mr. McGlothlin. The jury's not entirely in on Iraq yet, but yes, it looks as if we're going to have a better outcome than I had predicted. I know that al-Qaeda would make every effort to return to Afghanistan and reestablish a base, but I don't see how what we're doing now is going to prevent that -- unless we stay forever. Iraq, I think you'll acknowledge, has some advantages that Afghanistan doesn't -- modern infrastructure, an educated population, huge oil reserves. I just think the idea that we're going to reshape Afghanistan is overly optimistic.

If you listen carefully, you hear references to the strategic position of Afghanistan -- between nuclear-armed Pakistan and nuclear-wannabe Iran. And we've built a huge base at Bagram, plus other facilities, that would be quite useful in the projection of U.S. power in the region. I don't think anyone contemplates just turning off the lights and walking out. The question is whether we have 100,000 troops there indefinitely, fighting a war with amorphous goals, or reduce our presence to a much smaller footprint that focuses on keeping al-Qaeda under attack -- and that gives the United States a continuing presence in a dangerous neighborhood.

The very idea of a "declaration of war" sounds almost quaint, but I agree that when we do fight a war, we ought to do so with the support of the American people as expressed through Congress.

Yes. And there are other possible variations on that theme. But that would mean following a counterterrorism strategy (as VP Biden and others have argued) rather than the counterinsurgency strategy that's being pursued now.

The answer is counterinsurgency -- defeating the Taliban by winning hearts and minds, creating a viable Afghan national government, training and expanding the national military and police, building roads and schools... That's what we're trying to do, and I think it's the wrong approach.

It's certainly possible that you're right. But what is winning? How will we know when we've won? The Pashtun ethnic group, in which the Taliban is based, isn't going anywhere. Our Pakistani "allies" are not likely to allow the Taliban itself to be finally vanquished, because it was the Pakistanis who created the Taliban. I agree that we will be leaving behind a dangerous region is we pull out the bulk of our combat forces next year. But I'm confident thta we would be leaving behind a dangerous region if we stayed until 2015, or 2020.

44: Sharron Angle: Press should 'ask the questions we want to answer'

Not in recent memory. Alvin Greene in South Carolina, maybe? But even he, I think, understands that "ask the questions we want to answer... report the news the way we want it reported" is not the way the news media are supposed to work.

I'm trying to work with your analogy. My question is whether you need 100,000 combat troops in that attic, trying to remodel it with hammers, nails and bombs. Or whether you focus more narrowly on that loose tile.

As a journalists, I'm a big advocate of sunshine. I have to say, though, that I'm struggling a bit with the WikiLeaks question. Imagine, say, that The Washington Post had been the recipient of all this leaked information, direct from the source. I have faith that our editors would have been able to evaluate the credibility and motives of the source, vet the material for information that might be genuinely harmful to national security or that might imperil lives, put the material in its proper context, etc. I'm troubled that the information was filtered through a middleman organization, WikiLeaks, that has its own motives. Makes me nervous. I don't think, though, that the administration will go after Assange. Its emphasis is on trying to stop leaks at the source.

It's true that the Iraq story is far from over. But it's also true (I have to be honest) that I thought that at this point, Iraq would be an ungovernable slaughterhouse, as opposed to just a dangerous mess. People say this proves that the "surge" worked. I would add that it also proves that Iraqis (and, by extension, Afghans) will somehow sort out their situation when they know that the Americans are really going to pull out the combat brigades.

I've seen no evidence of a racial motive in the charges against Charlie Rangel or Maxine Waters. To be fair, I think you should also read Rangel's 32-page response to the charges against him. I'm not defending him or what he did, just urging people to hear his side of the story. (He points out, for example, that all taxes, plus penalties and interest, have long since been paid. That doesn't excuse not paying them in the first place, of course, but the coverage has given the impressiont that he still owes Uncle Sam, and he doesn't.)

No, I'm just recognizing that the end of the story hasn't been written. We'll see what happens in Iraq -- whether, for example, a new government finally gets formed. I thought the war was a terrible mistake, a reckless misadventure into which we were misled. That's what I still think, and I would bet that that's what it looks like 15 years from now. But obviously I can't be sure.

This fact has been spun by the Pentagon as a reflection of how today's military empowers individuals, from top to bottom. I think it's crazy that a PFC can access all this "secret" material, capture it and leak it (if, indeed, the suspect identified in reports actually did it).

Yes, but really I'm being old-fashioned here. I've been at this paper for eons, and I've been in the room when decisions were made on whether to publish sensitive information -- over the objections of officials who said national security would be damaged. Sometime we published, sometimes not, but I watched the process and I was proud of it. I know the same thing happens at the New York Times and the other major news organizations. The mindset has to be weighing the public's right and need to know -- rather than trying to influence policy in a certain direction, as WikiLeaks wants to do. People who leak information have their own motives, and news organizations have to evaluate them. But I guess I'm more comfortable when competent newsrooms are dealing with the original source, rather than a middleman with an ax to grind. There's always a danger that you're being played by a source, and you don't want to have to worry about being played by WikiLeaks, too.

Folks, my time is up for today. See you again next week.