20 September 2001
Transcript: Rumsfeld Warns of "Marathon" Fight Against Terrorism
(Refuses to specify military movements, deployments)(5240)
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld emphasized September 20 that
the fight against international terrorism is a very different type of
engagement of national assets than any previous war the United States
has fought.
"We really, almost, are going to have to fashion a new vocabulary and
different constructs for thinking about what it is we're doing,"
Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news briefing.
Warning that this effort would be neither easy nor quick, the
secretary said: "It's a marathon, it's not a sprint."
Rumsfeld noted the international support which the United States has
received recently, specifically the invocation of the alliance with
Australia and of Article 5 of the NATO charter (which considers an
attack against one member of the alliance an attack against them all),
as well as the invocation by the Organization of American States of a
similar provision in the Rio Treaty on September 19.
Rumsfeld acknowledged that he had recently signed deployment orders
for the movement of military forces, but declined to provide details.
Such information "is sufficiently sensitive that I'm not going to
provide specific details of who is doing what, when and where. I just
don't think it's helpful," he said.
The secretary said he would not be able to travel to Naples, Italy,
next week for the semi-annual meeting of NATO defense ministers and a
tentatively scheduled meeting with Russia's minister of defense. He
said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz may attend the NATO
meeting in his place, but whether Wolfowitz would meet with the
Russian minister had not yet been determined.
Returning to the theme of the terrorist threat necessitating a
different kind of endeavor, Rumsfeld responded to a question on what
would constitute victory in this new situation. "I think what you can
do is to go after the problem to a point that you are satisfied that
the American people are going to be able to live their lives in
relative freedom, and have the kinds of linkages with the rest of the
world that we feel are so central to our well-being," he said.
Following is the transcript of Rumsfeld's briefing:
(begin transcript)
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
September 20, 2001
Rumsfeld: Good afternoon.
We're making good progress at the site of the damage there. The rain
helped and damped down some of the asbestos particles that were posing
somewhat of a problem. We don't have a precise date when the site will
be cleared and the FBI's work completed and the renovation beginning,
but they feel very good about it.
I've said before, and I'll say it again: What we're engaged in is
something that is very, very different from World War II, Korea,
Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, Bosnia, the kinds of things that people
think of when they use the word "war" or "campaign" or "conflict." We
really, almost, are going to have to fashion a new vocabulary and
different constructs for thinking about what it is we're doing. It is
very different than embarking on a campaign against a specific country
within a specific time frame for a specific purpose. There's no
question but that the full resources of the United States government
across the entire spectrum -- from the political, diplomatic, the
economic, financial, as well as other areas, plus military -- are all
going to have to be engaged. So the progress that takes place will be
something that will be seen -- most of it will be seen, some of it
probably won't be seen -- but it will occur in different places at
different times in different ways.
The president has made clear, very clear, that this is a -- considered
a direct attack against the United States of America and our way of
life. And he intends to provide for our defense by taking the effort
to the people who are attacking the United States and those countries
that are supporting that, whether it's through harboring, financing,
facilitating, or even tolerating. Because of those differences,
there's no question but that this is going to take time. It will not
be swift. It is not a marathon -- it is a marathon, it's not a sprint.
It is not something that is easy, it's difficult. And it will
certainly require the patience of all of us. And it also will require
a lot of international support, and fortunately, that's coming.
The attacks here in the United States were, in a very real sense, an
attack on the world, in the sense that there were hundreds and
hundreds of people from any number of countries -- 50-plus countries
-- that were killed in these attacks, and the world knows that. That's
why we have seen such an outpouring of support from so many nations.
The NATO Charter has been invoked. The Rio Treaty has been invoked.
Our alliance with Australia has been invoked. And I, needless to say,
want to say that we appreciate deeply these expressions, powerful
expressions, of support.
I don't think it can be said often enough that this is not an effort
that is aimed at any religion or any people, particularly, or even the
people of a country. In many cases, the countries that sponsor
terrorism and facilitate it are actually holding large portions of
their populations at risk. They are dictators. They -- there are many
people in those countries that do not support the regimes and do not
favor the things that regimes like that do. And so it's important that
it be seen as an effort that is against people who are attacking the
United States and our way of life, and not necessarily all of the
people in those countries, many of whom don't believe in or support
that.
I would just add that the problem that we've talked about, from the
day that I've arrived, of asymmetrical threats, of terrorism and
ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, cyberattacks, and weapons of mass
destruction, are something that are front and center to us because of
the problem of proliferation and the problem that, with the end of the
Cold War, there was a relaxation of tension, and almost anything that
people want, they can get their hands on, if they're determined and if
they have the money.
And the weapons are of increasing power and lethality, and it does
call on all of us to recognize the importance of dealing with the
problem of proliferation, given the reality of what we've seen here,
with thousands of lives lost; how important counterproliferation is
and seeing that the weapons of vastly greater power don't come into
the hands and are not used by the kinds of people that attacked the
United States.
Just by way of notice, the question came up the last time how are we
going to deal with the press during this period. We are - Torie
[Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke] and others are looking at how
it's been done previously. That is interesting and I'm sure will be
useful and instructive -- (laughter) -- but -- (laughs) -- I'm sure
there were some pluses and minuses. Needless to say, we'd prefer to do
it right and will hope to do that. But I think it will be different. I
suspect it will be different, because this is a different set of
problems. And so we'll have to find ways that we are comfortable with
and that you are comfortable with, given the responsibilities you
have.
There are a lot of rumors that run around a building like this, and I
understand that. And it is perfectly within everyone's area of
responsibility to try to pursue those rumors. You all know, and I want
you to know that I know, that to the extent we respond to every one of
those and knock down one, two, three, four, and not knock down number
five, we've validated number five. So we're not going to get in the
business of knocking down rumors. And we simply -- first of all, you
don't have enough time in a day to run around trying to chase all
those rabbits. And, you know, 95 percent of them are wrong. The people
who are involved in what's going on in this building, in the kinds of
things you all are interested in are professional and aren't talking.
And the people that are talking are people who either aren't
professional or they don't care. And so I hope you'll not chase too
many wrong rabbits.
And with that, I'll stop and respond to questions.
Yes, sir.
Q: Mr. Secretary, you spoke of a new vocabulary, so to speak, for the
arsenal, the war manual, or whatever you want to call it. Infinite
Justice -- there are reports that you signed a mobilization order for
the military yesterday to begin building up the military for the war
on terrorism. Have you talked to the leaders, the military leaders of
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, who are quite worried about the
fundamentalist movement to the south, about cooperation with any U.S.
military deployment to their countries? And have they agreed to do so?
A: I've concluded, and Colin Powell and I have discussed, the -- how
it's best to handle those kinds of issues. And I've concluded that
it's best to let the international relations piece of this
fundamentally be dealt with at the Department of State. There's no
question but that the defense establishment and the State Department
are talking to a lot of countries, but it's about a lot of things --
talking about resolutions in different international organizations.
We're talking about things like clearances for people to move through
countries and do things in different countries. We're talking about
all kinds of various other relationships that those countries have to
countries that sponsor terrorism or to entities that sponsor
terrorism.
And it's probably best for those countries -- each of which has a
different perspective, their own political sensitivities -- to, for
the most part, announce themselves the extent to which they are
assisting or involved with us in various aspects of what we're doing.
There will be very few countries who are involved in everything we're
doing. There will be any number of countries that will be involved in
a lot of things we're doing. But I'm going to kind of leave that to
those countries because of those sensitivities.
Yes?
Q: Just a brief follow-up on that. Speaking of Infinite Justice and
the order you signed yesterday, could you give us any details at all
on the kinds of forces that you have ordered to move to get ready for
this? I mean, do they include bombers and fighters? Do they -- any
kinds of details?
A: Maybe we ought to have one clear understanding here. I don't know
quite how we establish this, and this is such a different situation.
When someone asks me a question that states a couple of facts, or
presumed facts, and I don't disabuse them of those facts, the
implication is that they're true. And I would have to spend a lot of
time taking the premises that are rooted in the questions, like, "the
order you signed yesterday," that kind of thing. Now, I suppose I'll
have to start knocking down those things, or else people will say,
"Gee, he did sign an order yesterday."
Q: Did you? (Laughter.)
A: That is a fair question. And I --
Q: (Off mike.)
A: Yes. (Cross talk. Laughter.)
Did I? (Laughter.) There is no question but that, to move forces, one
signs deployment orders. And I do that every day. Almost every day I
sign some sort of a deployment order, and -- literally almost every
day, sometimes three or four, that move something someplace or bring
something back or authorize a group of people to go into a country and
do something for training or something. I do it almost every day.
Q: Well, Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that we are moving forces --
A: We are. Yeah.
Q: -- we are moving forces. Did you sign an order, in conjunction with
Infinite Justice, in order to build up forces to fight this war?
A: See, now you're going to embarrass me because I can't remember if
it was yesterday or the day before. I have certainly signed an order,
a deployment order, with respect to the movement of forces. And I just
honestly do not remember when I signed it. It could have been --
(laughter).
Q: Do you remember what it said? (Laughs.)
A: I remember what it says. (Laughter.)
Q: Could you give us the details of what's in it? (Laughter.)
Q: Yeah! We don't care what day!
Q: At least some general idea, sir, some general idea of what the --
A: You know, if I start giving general ideas of what it is --
Q: Specific ideas. (Laughter.)
A: -- and then I leave something out, someone is going to say, "Oh, my
goodness, you didn't mention you were doing that."
What we're doing is we are trying to get ourselves arranged in the
world with our forces in places that we believe conceivably could be
useful in the event the president decided to use them for one thing or
another. And I am not going to describe what forces we're moving, I'm
not going to discuss the dates and times of when they leave and when
they're going to arrive.
There's no question but that when I sign a deployment order, what
happens is someone in some state is told, "Pack your bag," and he goes
home and tells his wife or she goes home and tells her husband, "Told
to pack the bag. We're leaving in X number of hours." And then all of
a sudden, people see things moving around an air base, or they see
things moving around a port, and the local press reports it.
So it's not like it's all a big secret. But it is sufficiently
sensitive that I'm not going to provide specific details of who is
doing what, when and where. I just don't think it's helpful.
Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, you spent the first part of your statement talking
about how you're concerned about proliferation. Well, up until a
couple of weeks ago, India and Pakistan were part of those
proliferation concerns, and now the administration seems to be
advocating that we at least lift limited military sanctions against
them. Are you worried at all that that may deepen the problem? And as
a part of that, are you worried that --
A: Well, let me -- let me tackle that one --
Q: Sure.
A: -- or else I'm going to have to start writing down a couple part
questions.
With respect to India and Pakistan you're right. When they -- I
believe it was when they exploded a nuclear weapon, each of them, that
they were placed on some sort of a proliferation list or sanctions of
some kind were imposed. Clearly, a judgment will be made as we go
along as to how long those restrictions seem to be appropriate.
And for myself, I am of the opinion that you take life like you find
it, that is where it is. And we need to deal with those two countries
for a very real and immediate reason. And exactly what the Department
of State and the president will decide with respect to the other
aspects of those relationships will have to be worked out.
But I believe it's very appropriate for us to be talking to both
countries with respect to the current situation.
Q: Mr. Secretary, may I do a follow-up on Charlie's question, please?
A: You bet.
Q: I know you're not going to discuss operational details, and yet
what we've been able to find out about the movement of these forces,
including the carrier battle group and the Roosevelt and some of the
Air Force aircraft -- they're reminiscent of the buildup prior to the
Gulf War 10 or 11 years ago.
Now one question, specifically. Have you been able -- or have you been
informed that there is a linkage between the terrorist attacks of last
Tuesday and Saddam Hussein and Iraq? And moving these forces into that
area, is Iraq a potential target again?
And the second part of the question is, no one's talking about Special
Forces. You talk about a new type of vocabulary here. It would seem
that Special Forces would be the ideal troops to use moving into raids
on Afghanistan and elsewhere. Can you tell me if that's part of the
planning?
(Pause.) (Laughter.) I like your smile, Mr. Secretary.
A: You've got to be kidding. (Laughter.)
Q: You said once before, when I talked about a strike on North Korea
-- (off mike) --
A: First of all, you say the movements are reminiscent of the Gulf
War. If I could do anything today, I'd like to disabuse people of
trying to draw parallels between previous conflicts and this one. I
think it's not useful, and I think it'll prove to be in a direction
that is not helpful and not going to prove to be a correct one.
We're not going to -- for the most part, I think the president will be
indicating, when he speaks to these issues, who he considers to be the
immediate problems, and I suspect that it will be seen over time as a
broad set of problems and not a particular one. And as you well know,
I'm not going to announce which ones may be of immediate interest.
Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, how did these terrorist attacks affect your agenda
with your Russian colleague in Italy next week?
A: Well --
Q: I'm sorry. And is missile defense still the first priority of these
talks? Is missile defense still the first priority, the issue, of the
talks?
A: Well, first, it affected it by canceling my trip to Naples. I'll
not be going. I've had phone conversations with Minister Ivanov. And
in fact, I got to make a note and remember -- (chuckling) -- to tell
him something. (Laughter.)
(Chuckles.)
Q: He may know by now! (Laughter.)
A: Yeah. In any event, there's no way I can go to Naples. I've just
got too many things to do here.
I believe Paul Wolfowitz may be going. Whether or not he would have a
meeting with Minister Ivanov, as I had planned to, or not I do not
believe has been sorted out because I have not gotten back to the
minister to tell him I'm not going.
The focus of the talks were in the first instance much broader than
missile defense. They were political and economic and diplomatic, and
they involved a whole set of relationships that involved national
security issues. Terrorism, for example, was discussed. Missile
defense was discussed. Other things were discussed. Various ways of
cooperating. So I would think that to think of the discussions with
Russia as being essentially missile defense would not comport with
what actually takes place in those meetings.
Q: Mr. Secretary, you keep talking about the need to develop a new
vocabulary, and war is a word that connotes a lot of things to the
American people.
A: Mmm hmm.
Q: Help us with a vocabulary that is more descriptive, and maybe there
isn't, for the kind of conflict you are envisioning and the magnitude
of it.
A: I wish I -- I ought to sit down and think about that a bit. In
fact, I think we all ought to if we want to serve our audiences well.
I haven't had time to do that. What I do know is the standard words
jangle in my head when I hear them, and then I put them onto the
subjects they're relating to, and I know what's going, and I think to
myself, Gee, that isn't really as good a word as we ought to be able
to find. And I will invest a little time on that, and -- I'm still
working on English though. (Laughter.)
Q: Speaking of vocabulary, is Infinite Justice the name of this
operation? And I ask that for a very specific reason.
A: I have heard those words. I do not know that they've been adopted,
and I think they're probably under review.
Q: Because in talking to several Islamic scholars, they find that name
offensive. The only person or thing that can grant infinite justice,
according to their religion, is Allah.
A: I understand. I understand. And obviously the United States does
not want to do or say things that create an impression on the part of
the listener that would be a misunderstanding, and clearly that would
be.
Q: So it would probably be changed? Whatever the name becomes, it
likely would not be that? Is that --
A: I -- as I say, I have heard that someone somewhere in some place
selected those words, and in some preliminary aspect of things use
them. Whether they will persist, given what you've said and what I was
aware of, I just don't know the answer, but I doubt it. I just don't
know the answer, but I doubt it.
Yes?
Q: Sir, you speak of a new vocabulary, a new approach, yet what we're
witnessing right now I think could be described in modern times as the
traditional reaction to a provocation, which certainly is to
understate it. That is to say, a fairly open display of military power
moving to a particular region. Can we assume that this movement is a
precursor for combat coming sometime in the foreseeable future?
A: Well, there's that word "combat". And the question is, what are we
really talking about combat? Are we talking about another Gulf War?
Are we talking about Vietnam? Are we talking about World War II? I
think I've -- I've tried to provide a sufficient level of detail that
would drive a person away from a traditional view of that word.
Q: But, having said that, sir, at the same time there's a very
traditional movement of combat forces right now to the region, in the
same way that it's been done before.
A: There are probably --
Q: One can make of that dissonance.
A: There are probably also other things going on.
Q: Can you help us with this a little bit?
A: Well, I've just listed them. I've listed a whole series of baskets
-- political and diplomatic and financial and military and other
things. You know, some things are more visible. You can't move a ship
or a plane or a tank without having someone see it move. You can do
some other things.
Yes?
Q: Sir, what constitutes a victory in this new environment. I mean,
Cap Weinberger in 1987 laid down some pretty clear rules for engaging
U.S. forces. One was clear goals that are militarily achievable, that
you can explain that there's an endgame. What's some of your early
thinking here in terms of what constitutes victory?
A: I've laid down some guidelines for myself. The first month I came
here, I sat down and in full recognition of the importance and
significance and -- of committing people's lives to risk, I sat down
and set forth the kinds of things that I think ought to serve as a set
of guidelines or a checklist to have thought through.
And that's a good question, as to what constitutes victory. I would
characterize it this way. I think that we're unlikely to be successful
in changing the nature of human beings. That's for others. What we
need to do is to recognize that we live in a world that's a dangerous
world, it's an untidy world, it's a big world. We have to engage in
that world as free people, because the linkages we have across this
globe are so centrally a part of our lives, as to how we live our
lives, that we have no choice but to contribute to a more peaceful and
stable world.
It is not humanly possible, however, to think that anyone in any
country or any group of countries can change people's behavior so that
people in countries across the globe may -- you can't stop them from
doing things that are unpleasant to their neighbors or their
neighboring countries. So what can you try to do in this regard?
I think what you can try to is to go after this worldwide problem in a
way that we can continue our way of life. That it strikes at our way
of life, and while we may not eliminate it completely from the face of
the Earth, which we surely will not, it's been a part of our society
since the beginning of man, I suspect. We have been privileged,
because of our geography and because of our circumstance, to not have
been burdened with this type of thing previously.
Now, so what can you do? I think what you can do is to go after the
problem to a point that you are satisfied that the American people are
going to be able to live their lives in relative freedom and have the
kinds of linkages with the rest of the world that we feel are so
central to our well-being.
Now, it is not static, however. Because of the end of the Cold War and
because of the Gulf War, which told people not to compete with armies,
navies and air forces, countries do look for asymmetrical ways they
can threaten the United States and Western countries. With
proliferation, with the relaxation of tension, that proliferation
enables people to get their hands on capabilities that are
increasingly powerful, powerful to the point that you're not talking
about thousands, you're talking about multiples of thousands of
people.
And that says that this is a critical moment for this country and for
the world. That we have to be able to live in this word; and to live
in this world, we have to recognize the magnitude of the threat and
the extent to which people are willing to give their lives, as these
pilots of these airplanes did, and impose damage on us.
Now, what is victory? I say that victory is persuading the American
people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter
that's going to be over in a month or a year or even five years. It is
something that we need to do so that we can continue to live in a
world with powerful weapons and with people who are willing to use
those powerful weapons. And we can do that as a country. And that
would be a victory, in my view.
Q: Mr. Secretary, can I follow up on that? You've talked so much here
today broadly about counterproliferation. Can you give us any of your
assessment about, today, terrorist networks' capabilities to get a
hold of terrorist-level chem/bio [chemical-biological weapons]? Are
they trying to get a hold of it? Do they have it? And I guess, to be
blunt, specifically the bin Laden network.
And what preparations need to be made for U.S. troops going into this
kind of theater; what kind of threat do they face? And what kind of
challenge is posed to you by the fact, for example, that the anthrax
program is in so much trouble?
A: Yeah.
Q: What are you walking into?
A: There are any number of public publications that are open,
unclassified, that are available from the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Department of State, and other organizations, that discuss
countries that have chemical and biological and nuclear programs. When
you compare that list to the list of countries that are on the list of
states that have either been involved in terrorism or who have
facilitated terrorism, harbored them, one can begin to see, "Gee,
isn't it possible that there could be relationships that would be a
problem?"
So you're right, we have to be aware and attentive that our forces --
I mean, we know that, for example, at least a couple of countries that
have used chemical weapons against each other, and in one case used
them against their own people.
Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, in this military campaign, how is your cooperation
with Greece, and specifically with the Greek Minister of Defense
Apostolos Tsokhatzopoulos? Did you have a chance to communicate with
him, since America has a naval installation in the Island of Crete in
the Eastern Mediterranean?
A: Well, Greece is, of course, a part of NATO, and NATO has acted
jointly in support of this effort. And beyond that, I'll leave it to
individual countries to characterize it.
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Q: Mr. Secretary?
A: I missed you earlier.
Q: Which countries, could you tell us, have publicly committed their
military forces, not those behind the scenes, but those that have
publicly. Because I'm not sure that any of us have a complete list.
And do you support the legislation on Capitol Hill that we give Purple
Hearts to the civilian casualties of the terrorist attack here?
A: I have not had a chance to address the latter question. And with
respect to the first question, I think I answered it earlier, that the
countries that have offered military assistance of various types vary,
and some have done so publicly and some have done so privately, and
therefore, it would be uncomfortable for me to try to create a list
that would be incomplete.
Last question.
Q: Mr. Secretary, this was originally described to the American people
and the world as a war on terrorism. Now you are introducing the idea
of proliferation and countries that are engaged in proliferation. Are
you in fact broadening the characterization of the kind of operation
that the United States is about to undertake from terrorism to
terrorism and proliferants?
And as part of that question, are you still as deeply concerned as you
ever were with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction program and
its -- the danger of Iraq as a proliferant?
A: I don't think I'm broadening it, in the sense that the United
States of America, successive administrations, particularly since the
end of the Gulf War, have been very interested and involved and
aggressive in trying to deal with the problem of proliferation.
Regrettably, the success has been moderate. But it is an important
effort. It needs to be emphasized. And as the weapons grow more
powerful, its importance increases.
With respect to Iraq, the United States of America and the United
Kingdom and coalition forces have airplanes that are at risk every day
with respect to Iraq. We know there are no inspectors on the ground.
We know that there is an enormous appetite for powerful weapons and an
aggressive attitude to their neighbors to the South. So anyone who is
not concerned about that combination of attributes, it seems to me,
would not fully understand the situation.
Thank you very much.
Q: Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Programs, U.S. Department
of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
