News from the Washington File
Rumsfeld Says U.S. Continuing to Pressure Terror Networks
(No reward for hostage takers, he tells NBC-TV "Meet the
Press") (5680)
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld praised Pakistan's efforts to
track down the killers of journalist Daniel Pearl, and said that U.S.
policy is designed to prevent hostage takers from gaining any benefits
from their actions.
Speaking on the NBC television news program "Meet the Press" February
24, Rumsfeld said the United States was working closely with the
Afghan interim government and the international community to prevent
cultivation of opium poppies used to produce heroin, and to determine
the best way of building an Afghan national army.
Secretary Rumsfeld called reports that a February 4 missile strike
from an unmanned drone hit innocent scrap-metal collectors
"ludicrous." An assessment team cleared away snow and collected
evidence from the site, Rumsfeld said, but the investigation has not
yet been completed.
Rumsfeld denied that the Pentagon Office of Strategic Influence would
ever issue disinformation. "This department and these people are not
involved, and I am not involved in putting our information to the
American people or to foreigners that is untruthful."
Rumsfeld discussed the case of Air Force pilot Martha McSally, who is
suing the Pentagon for being forced to wear Muslim clothing in Saudi
Arabia. He also said that the department is studying options for
reducing the frequency of protective air patrols now flying in the
United States.
Following is the transcript of Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's interview:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
News Transcript
February 24, 2002
Secretary Rumsfeld on NBC "Meet the Press"
(Interview with Tim Russert, "Meet the Press," NBC-TV)
QUESTION: Our issues this Sunday: An American citizen, journalist
Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, kidnapped, then killed in
Pakistan. Ten U.S. soldiers die in a helicopter crash in the
Philippines. And day 141 of the military operation in Afghanistan, and
still no sign of Osama bin Laden. With us, the secretary of defense,
Donald Rumsfeld.
Welcome back to Meet the Press.
RUMSFELD: Thank you. It's good to be here.
Q: Tragic helicopter crash off the coast of the Philippines. All 10
U.S. servicemen are presumed dead?
RUMSFELD: They are. There's an investigation going on to try to
determine what caused the plane to explode. But they had a good
search, and they recovered several bodies, but all are presumed dead.
Q: Mechanical, no sign of enemy fire?
RUMSFELD: No sign of enemy fire.
Q: Let me turn to the kidnapping and death of Daniel Pearl. U.S.
citizen, journalist for the Wall Street Journal, forced to utter, "My
father was a Jew, my mother was a Jew, I am a Jew," and then the
terrorists literally cut his head off. What's your reaction?
RUMSFELD: I suppose my reaction is the same as people all over the
world, that it's just a terrible tragedy.
Apparently he was, from everything I know, a fine young man, out doing
his job and doing it well. And people who have determined that they
can promote themselves and their views by killing innocent people
captured him and destroyed him.
I mean, just as my heart goes out to the families and friends of the
10 servicemen who died in the helicopter crash in the Philippines, so,
too, my heart goes out to his family and friends.
Q: The Pakistani police say they believe this is part of a wider plot,
including an attack on the American consulate in Karachi. Do you know
anything about that?
RUMSFELD: I do not. I see snippets of information about possible
threats to various U.S. and coalition interests around the world, but
they, in many cases, don't prove to be the case.
Q: The police over in Pakistan also said, quote, "They believe this is
the result of work of a well-trained intelligence organization or a
terrorist group."
Is there any evidence that al Qaeda was involved in the kidnapping of
Daniel Pearl?
RUMSFELD: I think it's premature to try to judge what actually took
place with respect to the Pearl kidnapping and murder.
I was impressed that the Pakistani government made an immediate effort
to try to figure out what had taken place, was successful in tracking
down some leads and discovering the names and locations of some of the
people they believed to have been involved.
It is still, however, somewhat early in the investigation, and I
simply don't have any basis on which to make a judgment yet.
Q: One person who was arrested, Sheikh Omar Saeed, has admitted his
role. He has very close ties to the Pakistani intelligence-gathering
force. Is there any sense that you may have that, in fact, disgruntled
members of the Pakistani intelligence [ISID] may have been involved?
RUMSFELD: ISID is an organization that has disgruntled people in it. I
don't want to make an accusation about it, but President Musharraf has
been in the process of trying -- first of all, he changed the
leadership, with respect to that organization.
And second, he has been taking some steps to see that it functions in
a manner that's consistent with his government's policies. And that is
not an easy thing to do, to change the culture, to change the people,
and to get it working in lockstep with the direction you want to go.
He has let some people go. And there's no question, when you let
people go, there's some disgruntled people who are capable of doing
things that are not what the government of Pakistan would like.
In saying that, I don't want to suggest that I am validating the
charge that's being made, because I simply don't have that knowledge.
Q: Sheikh Omar Saeed acknowledged that he was part of the kidnapping;
also admitting meeting with Osama bin Laden after September 11. He
also is involved in previous kidnappings of Americans back in '94. In
fact, Newsweek reports he was secretly indicted earlier last year.
What can you tell me about that?
RUMSFELD: I'm really not in the law-enforcement side of these things.
And to a large measure, those questions are ones that the
law-enforcement people are checking into. There also were reports that
he had been captured previously and let go by some government.
Until the dust settles on this, I don't think we'll really know the
answers to all those. But there's no question but that the Pakistani
government has done a good job in running down early leads.
Q: If Sheikh Omar Saeed has admitted being part of the kidnapping,
will we try to extradite him? Isn't he a perfect candidate for a
military tribunal?
RUMSFELD: He certainly would be someone that has committed a crime
against an American and would be someone, I assume, that our
law-enforcement people, the Department of Justice would try to
extradite.
It's the president's call, as to who would be appropriate for a
commission, a military commission under his military order. And the
only thing that would bar a person, really, is that they'd be
American. And this individual, to my knowledge, has no claim on
American citizenship. So he certainly would be eligible.
Q: If General Musharraf said, you know, if I extradite the sheik, the
ISI will be upset with me, I could really destabilize my government, I
better not do this. Is that enough reason?
RUMSFELD: He won't say that.
Q: He'll cooperate?
RUMSFELD: He has been wonderfully cooperative with us. And what he may
say is he would prefer to prosecute him for committing a crime in
Pakistan and proceed against him legally within his own judicial
system.
Q: Would that be acceptable to us?
RUMSFELD: I'm not in the law-enforcement business. Those are really
questions that the Department of Justice and the government would have
to address.
Q: The Wall Street Journal provided the Defense Department a
hard-drive computer disc at the end of last year, which had valuable
information. Do you think there's any connection between the paper
providing that computer disk and the kidnapping of Daniel Pearl?
RUMSFELD: I don't. I think you're quite right, the Wall Street Journal
was enormously helpful by purchasing and then discovering on this used
laptop that it had a great deal of information that would be helpful
from an intelligence standpoint. They did provide it to us. We are
appreciative of that.
But my impression is that what took place with respect to Mr. Pearl
was really more opportunistic, that these people were looking for
people they could grab. And they found him and tricked him into moving
into a location that they were able to seize him.
Q: It seems to have been a sophisticated, intricate operation, carried
out by people who knew what they were doing.
RUMSFELD: Oh, you bet. These people, the terrorist networks, are very
well trained. They are very well organized. They are well financed.
They are all over the globe. They are not just in Pakistan or
Afghanistan. They're in many, many countries of the world. And they
know their business. And we simply have to keep going after them and
finding them.
Q: There have been reports that the U.S. government's policy towards
kidnapping overseas has now been changed or altered. This is how the
newspapers reported it: "U.S. plans to act more rigorously in hostage
cases. After protracted debate between the State and Pentagon, the
Bush administration has adopted a new policy. It requires the federal
government to review every kidnapping of an American overseas for
possible action. Administration officials say under the policy, a
committee of officials from several agencies, led by the National
Security Council, the hostage subgroup, will examine every case in
which an American is taken hostage in another country to assess
whether intervention is warranted. In the past, the government
sometimes declined to review cases that did not involve American
officials or members of the armed forces." Is that accurate?
RUMSFELD: I don't know. I'm not aware of any debate taking place
within the government about it. Our policy -
Q: Is there a new policy?
RUMSFELD: I don't know if I'd characterize it as new. But our policy,
as a government, is an appropriate one, and it's designed to try to
not reward hostage-takers -- people who take hostages and then try to
benefit from that for any reason at all. That is to say, benefit by
getting money or benefit by getting publicity or to benefit by having
other prisoners released or benefit by a change in policy.
To do that creates an incentive for people out there in the world to
go ahead and seize more American hostages. And the last thing we want
to do is provide an incentive for that.
But whether that's a change in policy, I can't say.
Q: But we won't be shy in intervening with U.S. armed forces, if we
see a need or an opportunity to free somebody?
RUMSFELD: The policy of the United States government is not such that
in every instance where someone is taken hostage, we would intervene
with armed forces, for a number of reasons. First of all, it's not
possible. You can't be all over the world.
There's lots of hostages taken all the time. We have two who have been
in captivity in the Philippines by a terrorist organization for,
goodness, over a year. And that organization has killed a number of
the hostages that were in that cluster of people that they seized.
In Colombia, there are hostages taken every week or month, you know,
8, 10, 12 in a year. This is a problem that exists in the world.
In some cases, it's a criminal act, as opposed to an act of war, if
you will, or a terrorist act. In some cases it's related to drugs. In
some cases, it's a way of making money. Simply, they get into the
business of taking hostages and selling them back.
Companies have insurance for that type of thing. People who take those
risks and go into areas where hostage-taking is common, as it is in
several countries of the world, assume that risk. And it's not
possible to put U.S. forces in every country in the world every time a
hostage is taken.
So there are times when it's appropriate. And as the article
suggested, they would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, I
believe.
Q: Is Osama bin Laden still alive?
RUMSFELD: Well, it's a good question, and it's not something that can
be known at the present time. We see snippets that he is, snippets
that he isn't. And the short answer is, we've not seen any hard
evidence that he's alive in recent weeks.
Q: If he is alive, where do you think he is?
RUMSFELD: Oh, you know, if you don't know where he is, you don't know
where he is. He may be in Afghanistan. I think that's the likeliest
possibility. He could be across the border in a neighboring country.
Q: Up in Kashmir?
RUMSFELD: That's a possibility, I suppose. I have not seen any
evidence that would suggest that.
Q: Why is it so hard to get him?
RUMSFELD: Well, it is -- why is it hard to find any single human
being? Think of the number of people who disappear every year. Think
of the people on the 10 most wanted list of the FBI. It takes decades
and decades to find those people.
It's not like you're going out and dealing with an army or a navy or
an air force and you have a battle and you can find them. The
Department of Defense certainly isn't organized and arranged to go out
and find single individuals. That's basically a law-enforcement task.
It is a difficult task, and we all know that. Everyone knew that, when
we started.
The real test is -- is he able to manage effectively the al Qaeda
network and engage in additional terrorist acts? Is he leading that?
Is he raising additional money? Is he the power and force in
recruiting more people? And the short answer is, no, he is very busy.
If he's alive, he's very busy hiding somewhere, and he is having a
dickens of a time communicating with his people. And, undoubtedly, if
additional terrorist acts occur, they very likely will have been
initiated by people who had been trained previously, placed
previously, financed previously and probably directed by some of his
lieutenants who are still loose.
Q: On February 4, a CIA drone fired two missiles in Zhawar Kili.
Villagers say that they hit scrap metal collectors. The DNA of those
who had been killed has now been brought back to the United States.
What can you tell me? Who do you think was killed on that attack?
RUMSFELD: Well, I've watched the video from the Predator unmanned
aerial vehicle, and the suggestion that those people were scrap
collectors is ludicrous. I watched them over a period of many, many
minutes, moving around, doing what they were doing, and it had nothing
to do with scrap collecting. That is utter nonsense.
Q: Who were they?
RUMSFELD: We don't know who they were. They were watched over a long
period of time, apparently. I didn't see that portion; I saw it after
the fact. But they were watched over a long period of time with a
larger group and they were clearly having meetings, conducting
business and moving from place to place and trying to conceal
themselves in a behavior pattern that suggested they may either knew a
Predator was in the vicinity or that they knew that a Predator might
be in the vicinity.
Q: Could it have been Osama?
RUMSFELD: If you don't know, you don't know, Tim, and I just don't
know. Q: When will we know?
RUMSFELD: Apparently, what happened was they went up there and they
cleared away snow in a large circle around where it appeared that the
Hellfire missile went in. They picked up all kinds of things, and they
have brought some of those pieces back to the United States for
examination. And we'll know what we'll know when those examinations
are completed, and they have not yet been completed.
Q: Afghanistan, it seems to continue to be very unstable. Will the
United States maintain peacekeeping forces, not only in Kabul but
throughout the entire country, in order to make sure there is security
and peace in Afghanistan for a long time to come?
RUMSFELD: Well, I don't know that anyone can assure that there will be
peace and stability and security in Afghanistan for a long time to
come except the Afghan people. And we have to help them do that and
help them figure out a way to do that.
The interim government headed by Mr. Karzai has a desire to create a
national military force that will provide for that security. The
alternative way of doing it on an interim basis is to expand the
International Security Assistance Force, which is led by the British,
and have them not just be in Kabul, where they currently are, but
being also in the six or eight other centers like Mazar and Kandahar
and Herat and various other places.
The discussion taking place in the government and in Afghanistan and
the government here up at the U.N. and among the various interested
coalition parties is what's the best way to do it? Should we spend the
time and money and effort in training now to expand the International
Security Force, which ultimately will leave and create an unstable
situation when they leave unless there is something to take their
place? Or should the time and money and effort and training be spent
now to create that national army? And that's the discussion that's
taking place.
And my guess is, we'll be having our country's views, which will be
discussed with the Karzai government's views and with Kofi Annan
[Secretary-General of the United Nations] and others who are
interested in this in the weeks and days ahead.
The Pentagon currently has an assessment team in there to come back
and make a report to me as to how long they think it would take for
the Karzai government to develop a national force, and what it would
cost and who might be helpful, who could assist with the training and
those types of things.
But you're quite right, we, as a country, have a big interest in
saying that country -- that we're able to give them a good start
towards having a secure and stable situation.
Q: One of the things the Taliban did do was prohibit the growth of
poppy. And now the Taliban have left and driven out; Afghan farmers
are again growing poppy, which is used to make heroin. Will the United
States stop the Afghan farmers from growing poppy and contributing to
drugs, which support terrorists throughout the world?
RUMSFELD: Your statement that the Taliban government stopped the
growing of poppy and having it turned into heroin is somewhat of an
overstatement. They had an uneven record with respect to that. There
was a good deal of poppy still being grown and a good deal of heroin
still being exported. Although you're quite right, there was a decline
for a period.
There is no question but that the interim government of Karzai is
committed to trying to eliminate that trade. It is a powerful,
powerful drive from a financial standpoint. The money they make
selling heroin around the world, because of the demand for it in the
world, is enormous. Have we been successful in our country in stopping
the bringing in of drugs? No. The American people are spending
enormous sums of own to bring drugs into our country from a demand
side.
Will the government of Afghanistan do their best? Will the United
States government do its best? Will the international security
assistance force do its best to stop poppy growing? You bet.
Q: Will we destroy the poppy crops and provide resources to grow an
alternative crop?
RUMSFELD: The United States will work with the international
community. We co-hosted a donors' conference in Japan. And it will be
many nations plus the Afghan government, and the people of Afghanistan
who will have to deal with this problem. Will we help? Certainly.
We've been helpful already.
Q: What's the Office of Strategic Influence at the Pentagon?
RUMSFELD: First of all, it doesn't have a charter, and it was in its
early formative stage when all of this broke in the press about
suggesting that it was designed to do things that are against the law
and that the Pentagon has no business doing and that we haven't done,
are not doing today and will not do in the future.
I've not seen the charter because it was still being discussed. What
happened was, we have certain needs for information operations, if you
will. And there was an office in the joint staff that was interacting
with the inter-agency groups and the National Security Council, and
our people in the policy shop felt that it should have some civilian
involvement rather than be purely military. And so, this office was
started up, and it's been its early stages.
It's not clear to me now -- I think the person who's in charge is
debating whether it should even exist in its current form, given all
the misinformation and adverse publicity that it's received. Q: So you
may, in fact, eliminate it?
RUMSFELD: It wouldn't be me. It would be the people who are worrying
this through. I've never even seen the charter for the office. Q: But
you are the secretary of defense.
RUMSFELD: I am. I am, but I will certainly meet with them and talk to
them about it. And I know they are considering what to do about it.
But let me just make the case. The Taliban were saying that the food
packets we were dropping were poison. That was a lie. We needed to
find a way to tell the Afghan people that that food packages were not
poison. So we dropped leaflets down and told people that those were
good food, they were culturally appropriate for them and they could
eat them.
Second, we dropped leaflets and told people where they could get
assistance, humanitarian assistance. We dropped reward leaflets
explaining to people that if they went out and found Omar or UBL,
Osama bin Laden, Laden, that they'd get a reward for that.
Now, we had a radio program broadcasting trying to counter the lies
that this was a war against the Afghan people or a war against
Muslims, which it wasn't.
And the Pentagon needs to do that type of thing and that is all that
the Pentagon does. The Pentagon does not lie to the American people.
It does not lie to foreign audiences. It does not engage in those
types of things.
Q: All those things you mentioned, no one complained about. The press
certainly didn't object.
RUMSFELD: Right.
Q: It was people at the Pentagon talking about a dramatic expansion.
This is how the New York Times editorial categorized it. "Managing The
News: Plans being developed by the Pentagon's Orwellian new Office of
Strategic Influence, calling for planting false stories in the foreign
press, running other covert activities, manipulate public opinion.
Secretive new office headed by Air Force General Simon Warden (ph)
envisions using a mix of truthful news releases, phony e-mails from
disguised addresses to encourage the kind of news coverage abroad the
Pentagon considers advantageous, while using clandestine activities
including computer network attacks to disrupt coverage it opposes.
Donald RUMSFELD should call a halt to this misguided experiment in
news manipulation."
This came from articles in the Times, and I'll just show you, Mr.
Secretary. "Pentagon readies efforts to sway sentiment abroad." It
quotes senior administration officials talking about black campaigns
that used disinformation.
And goes on, the next graphic we'll show you. The Pentagon has hired
the Rendon Group, a Washington-based international consulting firm,
being paid $100,000 a month, that's $1.2 million a year. They've done
work for the CIA and the Kuwaiti government, the Iraqi National
Congress. It sounds like this was pretty far advanced and you didn't
know a lot about it.
RUMSFELD: It's not clear to me that what you just read is true. You
read it as though it were fact. To my knowledge, no people are quoted
by name as to whether or not those things are true. I don't believe
they're true. I know that if they are true, they won't happen, so --
because I'm not going to allow it to happen.
Q: Categorically? Categorically, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
will not allow the Pentagon to put out any false press releases, any
disinformation here or abroad?
RUMSFELD: This department and these people are not involved, and I am
not involved, in putting out information to the American people or to
foreigners that is untruthful.
Let me give you one example, however, of something that is done by the
military and thank goodness it is. Let's say we have special forces on
the ground, and let's say they're going to go into a compound, and
let's say they're going to go in from the south. That's the most
advantageous way to do it.
Q: -- the enemy.
RUMSFELD: They may very well create, not -- they won't have a press
conference and lie and say we're going to go in from the north when
they're going to go in from the south and try to fool the press. What
they will do is behave in a way that will complicate the problem for
the enemy so that they won't know which way they're coming in. Q:
You'll do maneuvers.
RUMSFELD: And that is -
Q: We will report them.
RUMSFELD: Exactly.
Q: And the enemy can make their own judgment.
RUMSFELD: Exactly. But that is tactical surprise and certainly
appropriate. And I'd be ashamed if we put people's lives at risk and
did not do things like that.
Q: No one's questioning that. It's the disinformation that concerns
people.
RUMSFELD: And I have not seen a single name quoted who says that we
have done anything like that.
Q: Are we prepared today -
RUMSFELD: And I don't believe we have, but I just don't know
everything. You can't know everything in the world. But to my
knowledge, that was not where this office was going, and it certainly
is not where it will go now that I'm aware that may be someone was
thinking that it might go that direction.
Q: And maybe somebody leaked it to try to get you to stop it.
RUMSFELD: Entirely possible.
Q: Are we prepared today, if we wanted to, to maintain a robust
military operation against Saddam Hussein? Reports in the press saying
that it would take at least a year for us to be up and running because
of a lack of parts and munitions.
RUMSFELD: I don't want to describe when it is that we would be capable
of doing something like that. Those aren't decisions the Pentagon
makes. Those are decisions the president and the country make.
Let me just put it this way. We engaged in an intensive activity in
Afghanistan. We used weapons; we used supplies. You need to replenish
those; that's true. And that process is under way and, indeed, the
infrastructure is being expanded so that we are able to replenish, not
just to the old requirement level, but if we found, as we did, that we
used a higher number of weapons, certain types of weapons in a period,
then the requirement changes to that new level. So we have to not only
replenish to this old level, but to the new level.
You can be sure that the United States is not going to engage in
something we're not capable of engaging in. I mean, that's -- I read
that article. Q: So it may take some time to get ready?
RUMSFELD: I didn't say that.
Q: I'm drawing an inference.
RUMSFELD: Yes, you would be -- it would be a mistake for you to draw
inferences from what I just said other than what I said, which is that
we are rapidly replenishing the things we need. And we have no
intention of trying to do things we're not capable of doing.
Q: Secretary of Air Force James Roche said that Operation Noble Eagle,
which is the continuous flying of planes around New York and
Washington since September 11 -
RUMSFELD: And plenty of other places.
Q: Other places in our country, making sure we're safe -- it involves
about 265 airplanes, 12,000 airmen. He's suggesting that the nonstop
flight be stopped and we probably go to a strip alert where planes are
on the ground ready to react if necessary, because of the high cost of
maintaining that operation.
Will you support him?
RUMSFELD: Well, it isn't a matter of my supporting him. It's a matter
of my making a judgment as to what's appropriate for our country. And
what it requires is an analysis of what the threat is and an analysis
of what the cost and the stress on the force is.
And there is no question but that, to the extent the United States
continues to fly combat air patrols all across the country and, in
addition, maintains a large number of fighter aircraft on strip alert
across the country, that the stress and the cost is substantial. And
one has to balance the use of those assets for that purpose against
the threat that one sees and makes some judgments about it.
My personal view has been that what we need to do is what we have
always done historically, and that's to have different threat levels.
And as we see changes in the threat condition, adjust up or down.
We have been at a relatively high threat level for some period of
time, which has been appropriate given the threat information that I
read every day.
We are currently in interagency discussions with the appropriate
people in the government to make a judgment as to how we want to be
arranged going into the future. And my hope, obviously, is that the
threat condition will be such that we will not need to maintain that
level of combat air patrols and AWACS and strip alerts, and we will be
able to reduce the stress that's been put on the force and reduce the
cost to the American taxpayer.
Q: When will that take place?
RUMSFELD: As soon as I make that judgment. Q: And when will that be?
RUMSFELD: It is something that is reviewed continuously.
Q: But there is a good possibility that the continuous flights that
began after September 11 will be decreased or eliminated and will go
to a strip alert system?
RUMSFELD: It's probably going to be a mix of some combat air patrols
over certain locations and strip alerts and at a lower level. But you
shouldn't go away with the conclusion that there is a good possibility
of it because there could be -- I could go back to my office today,
read a threat report that would say to me that would be not a good
decision.
So what we need to do is get gradations of threat conditions and be
able to move them up and down, depending on our best judgment and hope
we're right.
Q: Before you go, Lieutenant Colonel Martha McSally, the Air Force's
highest-ranking woman fighter pilot, says that she is forced to wear
Muslim garb in Saudi Arabia, can't drive a car, must be escorted by a
man; this is humiliating and demeaning. And she is suing the Pentagon
to stop it.
RUMSFELD: That's true that she is suing the Pentagon.
Q: Is it humiliating and demeaning for her to have to do those things?
RUMSFELD: Those are things that a person feels.
Rumsfeld: And there's no question but that she is a sincere, talented
officer and a good officer. And I can't for a minute suggest that she
doesn't feel that way.
It's my understanding, however, that it is not correct that she is
required to wear a veil. That, conversely, my understanding is, I
think the current policy that was put out by the commander has a
policy that strongly recommends but does not require that.
If you think about it, what you're dealing with here is you're dealing
with a commander, combatant commander for a big region. We are guests
in certain countries. At our request, they allow us the use of bases
or fields or things, and they have their own laws, they have their own
rules.
And we have to make a balance: Is it more in our country's interest to
be in that country and recognize that we have to live with some of
their laws and rules and customs? Or would we rather not be in that
country and allow every single person who would be in that country the
right to do whatever they want or live according to our laws?
So the commander has three things to balance: local laws and local
customs, the individual interests and rights and preferences of an
individual service person, and, third, force protection. To the extent
a person behaves in a way that's inconsistent with local laws or
customs, there's a force protection issue, which we have to address.
Q: We're not changing our policy?
RUMSFELD: I believe the policy was changed by Commander Tom Franks
some weeks ago, where he switched it from mandatory to recommended but
not required.
Q: We're going to have to leave it there. Mr. Secretary, we always
thank you for joining us with your views.
RUMSFELD: Thank you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
