27 September 2001
Transcript: DoD Briefing by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
(Rumsfeld, Shelton discuss rules of engagement in terror attacks)
(5620)
Following are excerpts from a transcript of a news briefing given at
the Pentagon September 27 by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Henry Shelton and others:
(begin transcript)
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Thursday, September 27, 2001
(Also participating was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen.
Henry H. Shelton; Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Victoria Clarke; and Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management
Policy) Charles S. Abell.)
Rumsfeld: Good afternoon. I want to take the opportunity today to
recognize the service and sacrifice of those who have been injured or
killed in the September 11th attacks.
The president, of course, has made clear that the attacks were not
just acts of terror. They were acts of war, military strikes against
the United States of America. As such, those Department of Defense
employees who were injured or killed were not just victims of terror.
They were combat casualties, brave men and women who risked their
lives to safeguard our freedom. And they paid for our liberty with
their lives.
Because we want to recognize them and their sacrifices, we're
announcing today that the members of the armed forces that were killed
or injured in the September 11th attack on the Pentagon and on the
World Trade Center towers will receive the Purple Heart. As you know,
the Purple Heart is given to those killed or wounded in combat.
For most of our history, combat has been something that has been
largely taken place on foreign soil. These strikes were the first on
American soil since the Second World War, and the first attack on our
capital by a foreign enemy since the War of 1812. These assaults have
brought the battlefield home to us. As a result, a large number of DoD
civilians gave their lives in combat. Their sacrifice also requires
recognition. So today, we are also announcing the establishment of a
new decoration for Department of Defense civilians: the Secretary of
Defense Medal for the Defense of Freedom. This medal is the civilian
equivalent of the Purple Heart. It will be awarded to DoD civilian
employees who are killed or wounded by hostile action while serving in
support of the department. The standards for eligibility will be
closely modeled on those of the Purple Heart.
The establishment of this decoration is a fitting honor and a tribute
to the extraordinary dedication and service of the department's
civilian workforce. It's also a recognition that the world has
changed; that we can no longer count on future wars being waged safely
in their regions of origin. I have every confidence that our armed
forces and all the dedicated men and women of the Department of
Defense are ready to meet the challenges ahead.
Mr. Charlie Abell is here to respond to questions on the medals, and
will be available after I take the opportunity to introduce my friend,
General Hugh Shelton. It has been my privilege to serve with him these
past months and to have his very wise counsel on many, many occasions,
but particularly as we prepare the campaign ahead. He has been
instrumental in helping to develop our new defense strategy, the new
force-sizing construct, and the Defense Planning Guidance, which will
move us -- our forces into the 21st century.
We will have a formal ceremony for General Shelton, as I'm sure you're
aware. And I've already had the pleasure of hosting a dinner, farewell
dinner, for him and the chiefs some days ago. But we did think it was
appropriate to have him come down and say a few words to this
gathering.
General, America is grateful for your dedication and your service. You
will be missed by the department, and certainly by me.
Shelton: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
And ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased today to join the
secretary for the announcement of the creation of the award of the
Freedom Medal to our civilians who were killed and injured on
September 11th, and to announce the award of the Purple Heart to the
members of our military family.
I want to again extend my condolences to the families and friends who
lost loved ones at the Pentagon, at the World Trade Center, and in
Pennsylvania. While the names of the victims here -- those that were
killed in the Pentagon -- may not be known to you, make no mistake,
the work that they did was essential for our mission, and they leave a
legacy of service for our nation. We are forever grateful. So it's
fitting that we recognize their courage, their dedication to duty, and
their ultimate sacrifice for their nation.
I also want to thank Secretary Rumsfeld for his very kind words this
morning. It has been truly an honor and a privilege to be a member of
his defense team. But all good things must come to an end, and it is
time to say goodbye.
I'm going to leave the chairmanship on the 30th, so I'd like to take
this last opportunity to commend each of you for the great job that
you do in covering the Pentagon and in covering the Department of
Defense. You share with us, the civilian and military leadership, the
great responsibility of keeping the great citizens of our wonderful
nation informed.
Finally, I want to say that there is no greater job or one that
carries any greater responsibility than to represent the great young
men and women that serve our nation in uniform. They are our best, and
they are our brightest. I've seen it many times over the last four
years. And during my tenure, our military has been involved in some 34
operations. Whatever we ask of them, they perform superbly.
Soon we are going to ask them to take on a tremendous responsibility
as they embark on one of the most difficult missions that the military
has ever been given. It will require every bit of their courage, their
intellect, and their warrior spirit to hunt down and destroy the
groups that are the enemies of the civilized world. And I leave this
job confident that your armed forces, along with our partners, our
friends, and our allies, are up to this challenge.
One of the reasons that I'm very confident of that is the fact that
General Dick Myers is the right man for the chairmanship at this time.
I think our armed forces are very fortunate to have Dick coming
forward to lead them as we face the future.
Mr. Secretary, thank you again for having me here today. And let me
once again thank this great group of professionals that are here in
front of us today, many of whom I consider to be personal friends as
well as great professional acquaintances, for the great job that you
do in keeping our American public informed in a professional and in a
responsible manner. Again, thank you, and we'll be happy to take your
questions.
Q: Mr. Secretary, could I ask -- NORAD has confirmed that mid-level
generals in NORAD have been empowered to authorize the shoot- down of
a civilian airliner in an extreme emergency, if it was approaching a
possible U.S. target. Number one, could you tell us what kinds of
safeguards have been put on that so that there wouldn't be a mistake?
And number two, say the president wasn't available to issue such an
order. Would the order then go down to the command authority, to the
vice president, to you, to General Shelton before it got to these
generals?
Rumsfeld: Since there has been some discussion about rules of
engagement, I'll make a few comments about it, although the normal
procedure is to not get into that subject in any detail. The first
thing I would say is that there are rules of engagement -- a number of
types of rules of engagement. It is not one set of rules of
engagement, and they vary from circumstance to circumstance and from
time to time and depending on the situation. If you think about it,
almost always, rules of engagement in our history have been with a
full appreciation of the fact that an individual service member's life
might be at risk, that in fact they needed the ability of
self-defense. So rules of engagement were fashioned, have been
historically fashioned, when a uniformed service member is at risk, to
allow a degree of leeway for them to protect themselves and to protect
the people and the installations that they're there to protect.
The situation that occurred on the 11th was quite the opposite. The
people in the armed services were not at risk. It was the people in
the aircraft that were at risk. And as a result, one has to recognize
that there is not the need to give a relatively long or large degree
of flexibility to an individual to defend themselves because they
weren't being put at risk. So we had -- it was a reverse situation,
really.
And what happened was that General Shelton and I sat down and
fashioned rules of engagement that we believed were appropriate,
communicated with the CINCs that were involved, and provided them to
the president with our recommendation, which he accepted.
Rules of engagement in these cases tend to do down the chain of
command. And the chain of command is from the president to the
secretary of Defense and then to a -- generally a CINC, a combatant
commander somewhere in the world. There are times when the situation
is sufficiently immediate that the authority is delegated below the
CINC for periods of time, but always, in a case like this, always with
the understanding that if time permits, it would be immediately
brought up to the CINC, and then to me, and if time still permits, for
me to go to the president.
I think that pretty well covers the subject.
Q: Realizing that minutes, perhaps seconds could be at stake here,
many lives could be at stake. For instance, a plane taking off from
Dulles and diverted. Could you ensure the American public that
stringent safeguards are being put on this to make sure there are no
mistakes?
Rumsfeld: Absolutely, there certainly are -- every care in the world.
Not only are rules of engagement provided along the lines that I said,
but then guidance and instruction is given as to the kind of behavior
that is expected, in this case of a pilot, for example. Prior to
making any judgment, every effort is made to dissuade an airplane to
go into any area that's prohibited, for example. And there are all
kinds of ways that that's done. It's done through radio
communications, it's done through hand signals, it's done through
flying in front of an airplane. So there's all kinds of things that
are done in advance, as well as checking various IFF procedures to see
if there's an abnormal signal. There are a lot of safeguards in place.
The situation, as you point out, in some instances things can happen
quite fast. I was called any number of times during the period when
those rules of engagement were in place, and had a number of
conversations with the president during that period, as well. And I
think that's probably all I want to do with that.
(Cross talk.)
Q: Excuse me. I think the American -- the flying public of America
might want just a little more in the way of reassurance. As you've
noted, everything has changed since September 11th. It's hard to
imagine, for instance, a hijacking now taking place in which the
passengers take it sitting down.
If there's a scenario -- and this is something that somebody has to
think about as they get on a plane. If there's a scenario where a
plane has been hijacked, the passengers are trying to overpower the
hijackers and get control of the plane, what reassurance do they have
that they're not going to be shot out of the sky while that's going
on?
Rumsfeld: No planes were shot at, let alone shot down, during that
period.
Q: But I'm talking after these new rules of engagement that you put in
place.
Rumsfeld: The rules of engagement are addressed on a continuing basis
with a great deal of care and sensitivity to all of the points that
you've raised, and others have raised. And I can assure you that they
are under continuous review and given the carefullest consideration.
And it seems to me that is the same kind of assurance that the
American people get with respect to a lot of things that the Defense
Department is involved in.
Q: Mr. Secretary, can I just follow on that tack for a moment? But
before I do, I would like to respond to General Shelton's remarks, and
say that I think many of us are proud to consider him a personal
friend, and I hope you don't just fade away, General.
Shelton: Thank you very much.
Q: Anyway, Mr. Secretary, under the rules of engagement, as they have
been throughout my knowledge of the military, it goes down the chain
of command, but it goes down all the way. And in the worst- case
scenario, if a pilot flying an F-15 or an F-16 saw a plane --
commercial airliner -- heading for the White House, he has the
authority to shoot it down if he can't raise anybody else and has no
time, doesn't he?
Rumsfeld: I'm not going to get into the details of the rules of
engagement beyond what I've provided, and I think I've given you a
very good sense of the fact that they're appropriate to a situation
where the military does not have to defend themselves. Therefore it
does not have to be delegated down very far. It can be kept quite
close to a very senior level.
Q: Mr. Secretary, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz yesterday said, with
regard to the campaign against terrorism, that -- he said everybody
who's waiting for military action needs to rethink this thing. Are we
to take from that -- and could you elaborate -- that in fact military
action is not imminent?
Rumsfeld: I'm -- needless to say, I'm not going to describe the
timetables that we're thinking about for any aspect of this effort.
Q: Question for General Shelton. General, you said a moment ago that
you were confident that America would succeed in its mission against
these terrorists. Is current intelligence sufficient enough -- the
intelligence being provided our armed forces -- for them to be able to
locate and root out these terrorist cells, not only in Afghanistan,
but around the world?
Shelton: Jim, first of all, let me say that this is going to be, as
the secretary mentioned -- this will be a multifaceted,
multidimensional campaign. It will be -- the military is one part of
an overall campaign against terrorism worldwide. The al Qaeda
organization happens to be a priority right now simply because it's --
I think, clear knowledge that they were involved in both the World
Trade Center as well as the Pentagon.
But intelligence will be key. There is no question about it. And I am
confident in our intelligence community's ability to focus its efforts
and to go against these terrorist organizations.
Again, this is something that has been ongoing. It's not something
we're starting today. And there have been some great successes in that
area over the last two to three years. It is being -- it is being
increased at this time. But it is not just starting from a cold start.
And so I am confident that we will have the wherewithal, both in the
intelligence as well as in all the other dimensions of the campaign,
to root out and eliminate the organizations that we focus on. And
we're being helped in this case by our partners and by our allies and
friends around the world. And so it's the civilized world against the
terrorist world, and that includes friends that are in the Gulf
region, friends that are in the Pacific and so forth. And so I think
that we've got, without a doubt, the ability to go after these
organizations and to achieve a victory.
Q: So are you saying that it wasn't necessarily lack of intelligence
but perhaps lack of will on that part of maybe some of our allies,
even the United States, to go after these terrorists?
Shelton: In terms of what, Jim.
Q: You were saying that we're not -- we don't have a cold start.
There's already intelligence out there. Well, why then wasn't it used
previously? Are you saying that --
Shelton: Oh, it has been. It has been. This has been ongoing campaign.
There have been a lot of successes. And one of the things about a
campaign of this nature is that there will be a tremendous amount that
is done that will never be visible because of the type of a foe that
you face. We have the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central
Intelligence Agency, a lot of elements of this government that have
had successes and will continue to have increased successes with the
increased assistance, I think, that we're finding. The whole world
recognized the barbaric act that was carried out here, and it wasn't
related to anything but an attack against the civilized world. I mean,
if you look at the number of people that were killed in the World
Trade Center from the various nations, it was against everyone. And so
those nations have joined in the fight, and I think that will help us
all in the ongoing campaign.
Rumsfeld: Could I say a word about the rules of engagement to further
elaborate on your question, because I think it is an important
question, and there's two aspects that I failed to mention. First, the
rules of engagement ought to be thought of in this way, that Americans
can have a high degree of certainty, it seems to me: the president,
the secretary of Defense and the combatant commanders are never more
than a minute or two away from a secure phone. And I was called
numerous times during the period on and after September 11th, up
through recent periods about concerns, questions about what various
aircraft might be doing in various locations of the world and in this
area. And it is a process that works. Very, very senior people are
able to address a matter in real time and ask the right questions and
make the right judgments. And it seems to me that that ought to be an
assistance, with respect to assurance, that those calls still come in
at all hours of day and night, as I can say.
Q: Sir?
Rumsfeld: Yes?
Q: The rules of engagement are one part of it, but the reason that the
fighters that were scrambled on September 11th never got a shot off is
because it took them about six minutes to get up in the air, and by
then it was too late. Does the suggestion that the Air Force now has
this authority mean that combat air patrols will continue, or will
even increase, over major American cities?
Rumsfeld: We have made a number of adjustments in the combat air
patrols. In some instances, we've provided combat air patrols for
various particularized situations. We have tended to provide it in the
Washington, D.C. area and the New York area, during this period, as
I've announced previously. We do have aircraft on strip alert at any
number of places around the country. And -- but we have, because of
the stress on the force, and because of the nature of the threat
evolved, we have altered that from time to time, and we will continue
to do so.
The last thing I would say about the rules of engagement is that to
the -- I'm sure you all appreciate this very well -- but to the extent
one becomes exceedingly precise about what the rules of engagement
are, it does provide assistance to those individuals who would attempt
to use those rules of engagement to their advantage to bring damage
and harm to the United States, which is why we have a standing rule
here to not get into the details about exactly what they are and what
the procedures are. And I think it's a good practice and a good
policy.
Q: Mr. Secretary, from time to time you've had fly-bys, close
encounters here at home and with military forces deployed around the
world with aircraft of uncertain intent flying into restricted areas
-- around military people, threatening them, or perhaps potentially
threatening them. Are there new rules of engagement in those instances
as well, over military installations in this country?
Rumsfeld: Well, I think the events of the 11th obviously create a
greater sensitivity about certain types of installations and
activities. And as intelligence information is reviewed and judgments
are made as to the validity of it or possible validity of the
intelligence information, we then of course might shift our focus and
be more attentive to or more concerned about different types of
things.
So it is -- one size does not fit all in this case.
Q: Does the military have a new mission or a new role to play in
enforcement of restricted airspace over various parts of the United
States that it didn't have before September 11? And can you elaborate
on that at all?
Rumsfeld: Well, I mean, if you stop and think about it, the thought of
anyone suggesting that the Department of Defense ought to have fighter
aircraft in the air prepared to shoot at an American airliner is just
beyond -- almost beyond belief. And so the answer to your question is,
you bet. To the extent that we have aircraft up or on alert today,
their assignment is a distinctively different one from the kinds of
assignments that we have expected the Department of Defense to be
engaged in, which have always tended to look out, not in. And it is a
different situation.
Q: Will there be CAP over NFL football and the World Series, perhaps?
Rumsfeld: Oh, I'm not going to get into that kind of thing.
Q: Secretary, looking ahead on your military revamping, how important
is it now to go forward with the military revamping, particularly
given this attack? And also, your opinion as well as the general's.
Rumsfeld: Sure. In my view, if anything, this unusual and to be sure
asymmetric attack that's taken place and the ones that we anticipate
focuses attention on the transformation that we've been embarked on
and the concern that all of us have expressed about the variety of
asymmetrical threats running from terrorism to cruise missile threats
to ballistic missiles to cyber-attacks. And I think that it is
exceedingly important that we go forward and see that we're arranged
and have the kind of flexibility to do those things that are necessary
to help provide for the defense of our country and the defense of our
way of life.
General?
Shelton: I certainly would just underscore what the secretary said and
say that this has been a process that has involved the Joint Chiefs
and the services, and that I think you'll see, when it comes out, that
it does address these -- we went back and reviewed to see if we had --
if we had adequate attention paid to it in terms of homeland defense
or homeland security, and the general consensus is that it is, and
that it was addressed.
We've got work to do; we've known that. But you know, we were looking
at homeland security even prior to this previous QDR and had a plan to
evolve into a command to help the lead federal agencies in this area.
And so we think it's on mark and moving in the right direction for
sure.
Q: General? General, you've described that the war on terror has
actually been going on for some time, that there have been successes
of the CIA and the FBI. But can you tell us what has changed in terms
of the military's role in supporting those agencies or working with
those agencies? What has really changed as of September 11th?
Shelton: Let me -- before I address that, let me go back to rules of
engagement just one second, because I think it's important that
everyone understands.
We have got a great Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Army -- but
specifically the pilots that fly. They are bright, they are dedicated,
and they are very, very good. They're the best in the world. The last
thing in the world that one of them wants to do is engage a commercial
aircraft. And so, don't get the impression that anyone that is flying
around out there has a loose trigger finger. That's not the case.
My concern is that -- is exactly the opposite, that we will in fact,
because of wanting to make very, very sure -- you know some of these
time lines could be very short, before -- and so, I'd be concerned the
other way. I don't think our American citizens have to be concerned
about the things that we are doing right now to protect the American
citizens. All of these pilots that fly these aircraft were sworn to
uphold and protect the great citizens of this nation, and it's not in
their makeup to want to go out and shoot at anything that could
possibly hurt one of our own civilians.
Now let me go back to the question on terrorism. I wouldn't say that
an awful lot of -- we've got great capabilities right now, but we are
focusing that effort in a way that we haven't focused it in the past.
And so the combination again, of a multifaceted, multidimensional type
of a campaign, I think, will prove to be even more effective than the
one that we've waged for the last couple of years.
Q: General, in terms of military planning, when you talk about your
confidence in the ability of U.S. forces to hunt down and destroy
these enemies of civilization, there's a term of art called center of
gravity, that you're well aware of. Has the military identified the,
quote, "center of gravity" for al Qaeda and the Taliban sufficiently
that you know, if you apply a sufficient amount of military force,
you'll be able to accomplish your mission?
Shelton: Tony, I -- you know, let me go back. It is a multidimensional
-- it is a governmental effort right now, and we have a lot of
elements of our government that, as President Bush has said so
correctly, that if we apply all of that, we'll stand a much better
chance of defeating an enemy than you will if you approach it with a
single effort.
Some of the elements of terrorism are best defeated by some of our law
enforcement agencies, the Central Intelligence Agency, economic tools
can come into play. You have to put it all together. And I am very --
as a military individual, I am very happy with what I see at the
interagency approach to the campaign against terrorism. And that'll
make it considerably more effective than just trying to use one tool
that's in the kit bag, which is your military.
Q: What can that -- what can that tool though accomplish that the FBI
or going after their bank accounts can't?
Shelton: We know what their centers of gravity are. Some of those can
be attacked by the other elements of our government. Some could be
attacked by us. To tell the enemy that I've identified your center of
gravity is not something I want to stand here and do. Thank you.
Q: You've identified it though? There are centers of gravity the
military can influence?
Shelton: There are centers of gravity the military can have an
influence on, and along with the others, we'll be using all of those
tools to go after the organizations. And I say organizations because
its not just one organization, it's many organizations.
Q: Mr. Secretary, following up briefly on Bob's earlier question about
timing, which you've made clear you're not going to answer --
(laughter) -- would it be -- would it be -- would it be safe to say --
would it be safe to say that military force for the time being is
taking a back seat to diplomacy and coalition-building?
Rumsfeld: Since we're not willing to discuss it, then it would not
probably be safe to say anything.
Q: Mr. Secretary.
Rumsfeld: Yes.
Q: You and the president have said that this is a declared war on
terrorism, yet there are some things that the United States does when
there is a declaration of war, things that people in uniform get by
way of compensation and by way of national defense service medals, so
on and so forth, that haven't kicked in yet. And there are people in
uniform who are starting to ask even reporters what kind of war is
this if we have to go all out, if we have to go into harm's way, yet
these things that happen in time of war haven't happened yet?
Rumsfeld: That's true, because it's a distinctly different type of a
campaign or effort. And as we move through it, we will be addressing
those types of things. I mean, there are any number of other things
that happen in terms of lines of responsibilities change, and in some
instances we've addressed that and decided not to alter lines of
responsibility because we think that they're -- probably for this
circumstance, they're better the way they are. There are any number of
things we're reviewing and in numerous -- as General Shelton said,
numerous inter-agency processes.
Q: So it sounds like we're creeping into a state of war rather than
jumping into a state of war.
Rumsfeld: Well, to characterize the administration's approach as
measured I think would be correct. It is. We are determined to try to
do this right, to put in place the capabilities and the architectures
and the process that will enable us to proceed in an orderly way over
a sustained period of time. We're trying to help the world understand
what it is this is about, and it's new for them as well. And my
impression is that you're right, we're not leaping into this, we're
moving into it in a measured way.
(Cross talk.)
Rumsfeld: Excuse me, just --
Shelton: If I could just add to that, Mr. Secretary, I -- from a
military standpoint, you know, it is very easy, when you're faced with
a crisis, to default automatically to the military, because we can
move fast and we can do things that will show up well in the
television or in a newspaper. On the other hand, if you really want to
be effective, you have to understand that in some situations, such as
the one that this country's faced with now, we have a lot of tools,
and we'll be much more effective if we bring it all together and apply
it at the enemy's center of gravity, to use Tony's words, as a
multifaceted, multidimensional, because that's what it's going to take
over time. And so not overreacting and going after it with just the
military, in my military opinion, is the right way to do it.
Q: So you're saying that bouncing the soil, dropping bombs at an
inappropriate time can have a terribly negative impact on your overall
goal? Is that what you're saying?
Shelton: I think that what I am saying the effectiveness of a campaign
against terrorism is best when you use all the tools available to you
at the appropriate time and at the appropriate place. And that's what
this government plans to do.
Q: General Shelton, do you feel any personal frustration --
Rumsfeld: We'll make this the last question, and then -- for us. And
then we're going to slip away, and then Charlie Abell is here who can
respond to questions on the medal.
Q: Do you feel a personal frustration that you're not going to be here
to see this through to the end? This happened on your watch.
Shelton: I guess the analogy that I would use is I feel like the
quarterback of a football team that went out on the field, and he's
behind by one touchdown, but he knows his team's going to come through
and win. But you're in the first quarter and all of a sudden the coach
sends a player out to tell you your eligibility just expired.
(Laughter.) And, you know, I'd probably break down in tears, except
that as I look over at the bench, I see an all-American quarterback
that's suiting up getting ready to come in, and his name is Dick
Myers. And he, along with the team, will go on to victory. So I feel
very good about that.
Q: Not Jeff George! (Laughter.)
Shelton: Thanks very much to all of you. God bless you. Thank you.
(Applause.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
