29 October 2001
Transcript: Rumsfeld Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Oct. 28
(Says war on terrorism will be "a very long process") (3570)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reiterated October 28 that the
effort by the United States and its coalition partners to find and
root out terrorists and their networks will be "a very long process."
In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, Rumsfeld said "We would all
like it to end as soon as possible. The problem is that thousands of
Americans and, indeed, people from another 50 or 60 countries were
killed in the United States on September 11th. Many thousands more are
at risk today from terrorist networks.... And we're going to find them
and root them out, and stop them from engaging in those terrorist
acts."
Asked about reports of civilians killed by errant bombs, Rumsfeld
noted that weapons also are being fired from the ground by the Taliban
and the Al-Qaida, "and that ordinance has to come down, and it hits
people, and it kills people."
The United States, he said, "is very careful about collateral damage.
We have weapons that are undoubtedly more accurate and more precise
than probably any country on earth, and we are careful about what we
do."
He explained that the problem is further complicated by reports that
the Taliban and al-Qaeda are systematically using mosques, schools,
hospitals and residential areas for command and control centers and
for ammunitions storage, thereby putting their own citizens at risk.
Following is the transcript of the interview:
(begin transcript)
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Interview with Wolf Blitzer, CNN
Sunday, October 28, 2001
Blitzer: Today marks the beginning of week four of the U.S.-led
military strikes against targets in Afghanistan, but even before
military action began, the Bush administration warned that the war
against terrorism would be a long one.
Earlier today, I spoke with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
about what the military campaign has accomplished so far, and what may
be ahead.
Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us. Let's get right to the issue at
hand. Did the U.S. military underestimate the Taliban, Osama bin Laden
and his al-Qaeda supporters?
Rumsfeld: Not at all. This is going roughly the way we have said
publicly that it would go. We said it would be long, we said it would
be difficult; we said it would be different and, indeed, it is. There
is no question but that part of what's going on is seen, part of it is
not seen. It is not simply military, it's also economic and financial,
and law enforcement. And we feel it's going very much the way we
predicted.
Q: Some people are suggesting, as you know, that there was this
underestimating of the enemy, of the U.S. enemy in this particular
case, and in part they base it on an October 16th Pentagon briefing. I
want you to listen to what the briefer, Lieutenant General Gregory
Newbold said on that, listen to this.
Lt. Gen. Newbold: I think the campaign has aided materially, I really
do. I think, as I say, the combat power of the Taliban has been
eviscerated, and it will progressively over time.
Q: Now, when he says the combat power of the Taliban has been
eviscerated, that sounds like it's all over.
A: Yes, it isn't all over. Indeed, they still have some jet fighters,
they still have some helicopters, they still have some SAMs
[Surface-to Air Missiles], they still have some Stinger missiles on
the ground. They still have a lot of very seasoned tough people.
Anyone who has ever watched the history of that country, or the effort
that the Soviet Union made to conquer the country has to know that
these people who have spent many, many years fighting, and they live
in caves, and they are perfectly capable of fighting a very tough
fight.
Q: How long is this going to go on, in your opinion?
A: Well, I think the very first day, I said, this isn't days or weeks
or months, this is a very long process. And the task is to root out
terrorists, it's to stop the terrorist networks, and that is a
difficult thing to do. It's not an easy thing to do. And it's going to
take time and patience. And I must say, I hear some impatience from
the people who are, of course, have to produce news every 15 minutes,
but not from the American people. I think the American people
understand the fact that it's going to be long and hard.
Q: The war against terrorism will be long and hard, but what about
doing away with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?
A: Well, they're there, and we are after them. And we've been doing it
very systematically. The first phase of the war was to take out their
air defenses, which has been done. They still have some aircraft
hidden, and they still have some surface-to-air missiles of relatively
short range that are there. But we've done a pretty good job of being
able to now function over that country from the air.
The next phase is to assist the opposition forces. We have been doing
that in the north and the south. There's been a good deal of activity
up around Mazar-e Sharif, and in north of Kabul, as well as down near
Kandahar. So, I think that the phases -- I think it was General Franks
or I at the very beginning who said the task is to set conditions so
that we can conduct a sustained operation, recognizing that they have
miles and miles and miles of tunnels and caves that they can hide in,
and that makes it a very difficult task. It's like looking for a
needle in a haystack to find some senior people in those
organizations.
Q: Can those 5,000-pound bunker busting bombs, those precision-guided
bombs, get into those caves and destroy those caves?
A: There's no question that we have been systematically working on the
caves, and on the tunnels, and on their openings, and we've had some
success. Now, the problem is there are a great many of them, so it's
going to take some time to deal with them and make them less
habitable.
Q: I don't know if you saw the comments this week. I interviewed
Congressman Steve Buyer of Indiana. He says if those 5,000-pound bombs
can't do the job he would want you to consider using tactical nuclear
weapons. Not the strategic nuclear bombs, but the smaller tactical
nuclear weapons to destroy those facilities. What do you think about
that?
A: I think the 5,000-pound bombs are going to be able to do the job.
Q: So, you're ruling out any consideration...
A: I don't rule out anything, but my answer very simply is, we are not
having a problem in dealing with those tunnels in terms of the
ordinance. The problem is that there are so many of them, and locating
them, it just takes time. And we're systematically working on the
problem, just as we are working on the Taliban and the al-Qaeda
military, finding concentrations of those people. They're well
burrowed in, and the task is to get the opposition forces moving in a
way and helping with targeting so that as they force and put pressure
on the al-Qaeda, and on the Taliban that we're able to then target
them successfully, and that has increasingly been the case.
Q: As you know, during the Gulf War, the U.S. deliberately refused to
rule out a nuclear strike, if you will. If it were determined that
Saddam Hussein were using weapons of mass destruction, whether
chemical, biological, or himself nuclear, what is the U.S. position
right now?
A: The United States has historically refused to rule out the use of
weapons like that.
Q: Nuclear weapons, and that's the case right now.
A: Uh-huh.
Q: Let's move on and talk about what some critics are saying, you're
playing into the hands of the Taliban by allowing this pounding, some
of the errant weapons that go astray killing civilians to coalesce
support for the Taliban within Afghanistan.
A: Well, we get all kinds of scraps of information, intelligence, we
get it from people on the ground, and we get it from people who are
leaving the country, we get it from various other sources, and our
information is that that's not the case. That there are all kinds
of-you can find information across the spectrum, intelligence
information, but one of the things that we're increasingly seeing and
hearing is the fact that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda are
systematically using mosques, and schools, and hospitals for command
and control centers, for ammunition s storage. They're playing
artillery and tanks and armored vehicles in close proximity to
hospitals and schools in residential areas. And the people who live in
those residential areas, and the people who are in those hospitals and
schools don't like it. They are increasingly dissatisfied with the
Taliban for putting them at risk. And, as you know from your
experience covering the Pentagon, the United States of America is very
careful about collateral damage. We have weapons that are undoubtedly
more accurate and more precise than probably any country on earth, and
we are careful about what we do. Notwithstanding that there are going
to be people who are going to be killed, but the weapons, the
ordinance that's being fired, is not only being fired from the air by
the United States and coalition forces, it is also being fired from
the ground by the Taliban and the al-Qaeda. And that ordinance has to
come down, and it hits people, and it kills people. And so to show a
dead person and contend that it necessarily is the United States is
just plain false.
Q: So this strategy that they have, as you describe it, put their
weapons, their military within civilian areas, will that deter the
U.S. from going after those targets?
A: Well, it complicates our problem. We clearly are being sensitive
about collateral damage, and recognizing that it can cause a problem
with the feeling about what's taking place. We have to be more
careful. And that means you can use only limited types of ordinance,
or limited types of platforms, aircraft. In the event that it is in
close proximity to residential areas, and even then, of course,
weapons are not perfect. Our weaponry, probably the best is probably
85-90 percent reliable. It's a heck of a lot better than automobiles
and bicycles, but nothing is perfect. So there are going to be
instances where-there was a case where we hit a warehouse that the Red
Cross has some things stored in. Fortunately, no one was killed. But I
think this happened in the last day or two.
Q: You probably saw the comments that President Musharraf of Pakistan
said on Saturday, and I'll put it up on the screen, he said military
action must be brought to an end as soon as possible, unable to
achieve its military goals in a certain time, we need to switch to a
political strategy. It sounds like he's being impatient with the U.S.
military strategy.
A: Well, there's no question but that he has a very difficult problem.
He's doing, in my view, an excellent job in dealing with a complicated
situation. He says it should end as soon as possible. Of course it
should; nobody wants to go on longer than is necessary. We would all
like it to end as soon as possible. The problem you're facing is that
thousands of Americans and, indeed, people from another 50 or 60
countries were killed in the United States on September 11th. Many
thousands more are at risk today from terrorist networks. It's our job
to go out and root out those terrorist networks. The problem in the
world is not the United States of America; the problem is terrorists.
And the president, properly, said we're going to go after them, and we
are. And we're going to find them and root them out, and stop them
from engaging in those terrorist acts.
The situation for Pakistan is something that we're respectful of, and
interested in, and anxious to have him be successful in managing. He's
been very, very helpful to us.
Q: As you know he'd also like you to pause for the Muslim holy month
of Ramadan, which starts November 17th.
A: Of course, the fact is that there have been-the Northern Alliance
and the Taliban fought through Ramadan year after year, there was a
Middle East war during Ramadan. There is nothing in that religion that
suggests that conflicts have to stop during Ramadan.
Q: So the U.S....
A: You can be certain that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda will continue
right on with their repressive ways, and attempting to take advantage
just as they do today by putting ammunition storage in mosques.
Q: So the U.S. will not pause or change in any way because of Ramadan?
A: The United States does not announce what we plan to do in advance.
Q: Okay. What about reports that you want to see the Northern
Alliance, the anti-Taliban forces in the North, take Mazar-e Sharif in
the northern part of the country, but not move on Kabul, out of
concern that the Pakistanis would not be happy about that?
A: That's not true. The military effort by the United States was
designed in the first phase to go in and try to take out the air
defense radars, and to create an environment where we could provide
humanitarian assistance, and where we could provide effective
air-ground support for the opposition forces, both in the North and
the South, including the Northern Alliance, and including the forces
arrayed against Kabul. We are now doing that. We are doing it with
respect to Mazar-e Sharif, we're doing it with respect to Kabul, we're
also doing it with respect to Kandahar. And we have been very
energetic in assisting the Northern Alliance forces that are arrayed
against Kabul, as well as Mazar-e Sharif, and indeed down in the
Kandahar area.
Q: What's stopping you from letting those Northern Alliance forces go
into Kabul right now?
A: I think there's a misunderstanding. The Northern Alliance forces
are not stopped. They have not been stopped. They are not currently
stopped. And they will not be stopped in the future.
Q: But, are you doing enough to help them?
A: Well, my goodness. I've just explained what we're doing. We're
dropping thousands of pieces of ordinance to assist them in addressing
the Taliban forces that are arrayed against them, both there and over
at Mazar-e Sharif, and down in Kandahar. The thing you're reading in
the paper that the United States for some reason is restraining these
people is just factually not true. We're providing food, we're
providing ammunition to the extent we can, we're encouraging them,
we're providing air-ground support. We're taking targeting information
from the ground to increasingly greater effect. And it's having the
effect of damaging the Taliban and damaging the al-Qaeda military
capabilities opposite those forces.
Q: As you know, Abdul Haq, the guerilla leader, Afghan guerilla leader
was executed in Afghanistan this past week. Was he on a U.S. mission
in Afghanistan?
A: Not to my knowledge. He of course was an Afghan who had been
involved previously, who had been living out of the country, had
decided to come back to the country and get re-engaged, which he was
en route to do, and clearly was killed, captured and killed by the
Taliban.
Q: Some reports suggesting he was working with the CIA, trying to
foment opposition to the Taliban.
A: Well, there are all kinds of people working with agencies of the
United States government trying to create opposition to the Taliban,
and that's happening all across the country. There's no question but
that we're engaged in those kinds of activities.
Q: Has the U.S. government now signed off of this new policy of
targeted killings, as it's called, going after suspected terrorists
and executing them, killing them, assassinating them, whatever words
you want to use?
A: Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I can tell you this, that it is not
possible to defend against terrorists at every single location in the
world, against every conceivable type of technique, and at any given
moment of the day or night. The only way to deal with the terrorists
that has all the advantage of offense is to take the battle to them,
and find them, and root them out. And that is self-defense. And there
is no question but that any nation on Earth has the right of
self-defense. And we do. And what we are doing is going after those
people, and those organizations, and those capabilities wherever we're
going to find them in the world, and stop them from killing Americans.
Q: Even if it means assassinating them on the spot?
A: I wouldn't even think the word was appropriate. I don't know, I'd
have to get a dictionary and know what the difference between what I'm
saying and you're saying is. But, if the question is, do we have a
right to defend ourselves by going after people who murder thousands
of Americans in a preemptive way, to defend ourselves, you bet your
life we do, and we're doing it.
Q: What about Mohammed Atta's two meetings that he had with a senior
Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, before the September 11th
attack. Mohammed Atta, the suspected ringleader of the September 11th
terrorist attack. Does that suggest to you that Iraq was involved
somehow in that September 11th attack?
A: I guess I'm kind of old fashioned, I like to talk about things I
know something about. And what we do know about Iraq is that Iraq has
been a nation that has been a nation that has been engaged in
terrorist acts. We know they have been a nation that has harbored
terrorists, and facilitated and financed, and fostered those kinds of
activities. We know they have occupied their neighbor Kuwait, and we
have thrown them out. We know they have imposed great damage on their
Shia population in the South, and on the Kurds in the North. We know
they have used weapons of mass destruction against their own people,
as well as against some of their neighbors. That regime is a bad
regime, it is a regime that is a dangerous regime. What the meaning
was in this particular instance is something that I think we'll have
to unfold, and learn more about.
Q: So you don't see that necessarily as a smoking gun linking Iraq to
September 11th?
A: As I say, I like to talk about things I know something about. And
that's something that's in a state of evolution in terms of
understanding what actually took place.
Q: I know our time is running out, but a quick question on Saudi
Arabia. The criticism is they're not sharing information, they're not
freezing assets that the United States has frozen of groups associated
with al-Qaeda, they're not allowing the U.S. to launch strikes from
Saudi soil. The criticism of Saudi Arabia is that they're a
fair-weather friend.
A: I don't know where this is coming from. I met with the Saudis when
I was over there very recently. My impression is that they've been
very cooperative, they've provided enormous assistance in a variety of
different ways. They have over the years; it's been a good
relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. Of late I've
read a series of article to that effect. But, my attitude is that
they've been very helpful, they are being helpful today, they have a
complicated problem. Most of the countries in the region do. They have
to measure what they say. Some countries are more helpful publicly,
and others are more helpful privately. My attitude about it is, we
want help from all of them, and we want them to do it in a way that's
comfortable for them. To the extent we start saying, everyone has to
help on this, or everyone has to help publicly but not privately, we
hurt ourselves, we hurt our goal, our target of trying to end these
terrorist networks. So I'm very respectful of the situation that Saudi
Arabia has, and I, and I know others in our government are very
appreciative for all that they're doing to help.
Q: The anthrax letters that have been mailed here in the United
States. Do you suspect that that's the work of domestic American
groups, terrorists here in the United States, or international
terrorists?
A: I'm without a view at the moment. There are a lot of very fine law
enforcement people who are pursuing that, as well as public health
officials. And in my view they're pursuing it as aggressively as is
humanly possible. And speculation on my part, or frankly on the part
of others, it seems to me is not terribly useful.
Q: Mr. Secretary, thanks for joining us.
A: Thank you.
(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
|
|
|
