23 May 2002
Rumsfeld Says Terrorists Seek Weapons of Mass Destruction
(Defense Secretary interviewed May 22 on PBS News Hour) (3360)
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says global terrorists "wouldn't hesitate a
second to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) if they had them" and
the evidence already exists that they have been trying to acquire such
weapons.
In a May 22 interview on PBS television's News Hour with Jim Lehrer,
the secretary said global terrorist networks such as al-Qaida,
Hizballah and others have formed "very close relationships" with
countries that have expertise in WMD technologies.
Nations on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism
such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North Korea have worked on
chemical and biological weapons programs and some have gone so far as
to weaponize these agents, he said. Additionally, the secretary
pointed to countries with aggressive nuclear weapons development
programs including Iran, Iraq and North Korea.
Rumsfeld talked about the difficulties of defending the United States
from terrorist attacks. "A terrorist has all the advantage; on the
offense they can come at you at any time of the day or night using any
technique of terrorism and using any conceivable type of weapon," he
said.
The secretary noted that the United States also suffers the distinct
disadvantage of not having a federal agency assigned to the task of
gathering intelligence information to thwart domestic attacks. The
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is not permitted to collect
intelligence in the United States.
Much effort has been invested in putting pressure on terrorists around
the world to head off future attacks on U.S. soil, Rumsfeld said.
"We're trying to dry up their bank accounts; we're trying to make
their recruiting more difficult. We're making it more difficult for
them to move between countries," he said, but even so, it doesn't mean
every attack can be stopped.
Following is a transcript of Rumsfeld's interview:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Defense
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Interview with Jim Lehrer, News Hour, PBS TV
22 May 2002
(Rumsfeld Interview with Jim Lehrer, News Hour, PBS TV)
LEHRER: And now to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Mr.
Secretary, welcome.
RUMSFELD: Thank you very much, Jim.
LEHRER: First, just for the record, there was a rumor that swept Wall
Street late this afternoon, caused the stock market to rise 100
points, that U.S. forces had captured Osama bin Laden. Is there
anything to that?
RUMSFELD: I have heard no such report.
LEHRER: There is nothing new on this at all?
RUMSFELD: I have heard no such report.
LEHRER: Does that ... OK, all right, we'll leave it there. You said
yesterday, that we Americans should expect terrorists to use weapons
of mass destruction against our targets. What caused you to say that?
RUMSFELD: Well, I was in a hearing at the Senate Appropriations
Committee and Senator Inouye, the Chairman, asked me the question as
to whether or not I thought the terrorists conceivably could use those
types of weapons and what my assessment was. And I said basically what
I have said for many, many, many months, and it is the following: that
there are six or eight countries that are on the terrorist list. It's
widely known who they are: countries like Iraq and Iran and Syria and
Libya, North Korea.
And many of them have chemical and biological weapons programs where
they have actually weaponized these weapons, and second, most of them
or some of them have very aggressive programs to develop nuclear
weapons; certainly Iran does, certainly Iraq does, and there are
others including North Korea.
Now, these countries have very close relationships with global
terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda, Hizballah and others. It seems to
me we know how those terrorist networks function. They're perfectly
willing to kill thousands of innocent men, women and children by
flying airplanes into buildings. We know that they wouldn't hesitate a
second to use weapons of mass destruction, if they had them, and we
also have enough evidence to know that the global terrorists have in
fact, been trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
So it seems to me that it's perfectly reasonable to recognize that
fact -- that's the world we live in. The proliferation of these
technologies is so widespread that we have to expect that that will be
the case.
LEHRER: But this was not based on any new information?
RUMSFELD: It wasn't. It was basically what I have been saying for
many, many months, since the September 11 attack and before.
LEHRER: You also said that there ... well, it's been interpreted at
least, that you said there is not a lot that we can do about it, that
if they use these weapons, they will use them in some kind of
unexpected way that we cannot plan for. Is that a correct
interpretation of what you were saying?
RUMSFELD: No. There is a great deal that we can do about it, and we
are doing a great deal about it. We have been working aggressively to
reduce proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction and the
ability to deliver them. That's one thing we can do.
A second thing we can do is to recognize that it's very difficult to
defend against a terrorist act. A terrorist has all the advantage; on
the offense they can come at you at any time of the day or night using
any technique of terrorism and using any conceivable type of weapon.
Now, if that's the case, we know of certain knowledge it's not
possible to defend at every time in every place against every
conceivable technique.
Therefore, what we must do is to take the battle to them. That's why
President Bush's position about going after global terrorists all over
the world, wherever they are, and going after countries that are
serving as sanctuaries and havens for terrorists is the only way to
deal with that problem. Sure, you have to be sensitive and have a
heightened sense of awareness. Certainly you have to strengthen your
intelligence gathering and do everything you can to protect against a
terrorist act. And we've taken enormous numbers of steps in the United
States to improve security here at home. But the most effective way is
to take the battle to the terrorists and find them.
LEHRER: But are you also talking about taking the battle to the
countries who have these weapons of mass destruction before they put
them in the hands of terrorists?
RUMSFELD: There is no question but that that's exactly what we did. We
went into Afghanistan and we, where the government was serving as a
haven for the al-Qaida, and we have thrown the Taliban government out
and we've got the al-Qaida on the run. They're still there. We still
have to stay there and work the problem. But the President made that
decision and it's been successful and we have to stay at it now and
see that it does not revert back to a terrorist haven.
LEHRER: But what about these countries that you say have either ...
either have weapons of mass destruction or are developing weapons of
mass destruction, should we take overt actions against them in place
before they get these weapons to terrorists? That's what I'm asking.
RUMSFELD: Well those are decisions of course for the country and the
president and the Congress to make. It's not for me. But clearly we
are doing a host of things around the world to put pressure on
terrorists. We're trying to dry up their bank accounts; we're trying
to make their recruiting more difficult. We're making it more
difficult for them to move between countries. We're using all elements
of national power. And it seems to me that we've got a "full-court
press" on terrorists around the world. That doesn't mean you can stop
every terrorist attack to be sure.
One other thing that we can do is to recognize that these
"asymmetrical attacks," as they call them, are the types of things
that we're going to have to deal with in the United States, which
makes it so important for to us transform our military and see that
we're arranged for the kinds of threats and the kinds of capabilities
that can be used against us in the coming decade or two.
LEHRER: Your comments yesterday before the Senate hearing, you just
explained how they, how they came about, have been put in a pattern
here, because also yesterday there was a report of a, a particular
terrorist alert in New York City, the day before that the head of the
FBI said we should expect suicide bombings; they should be expected;
they were inevitable. The day before that the vice president said,
it's all but certain that the United States will be attacked by
another ... have another terrorist attack in the same league with
September 11. What's going on? Are all these things a part of a
pattern?
RUMSFELD: Well, the vice president was on "Meet the Press" and asked a
question by Tim Russert, and he answered it. I was before a Senate
Committee and was asked a question by Senator [Daniel] Inouye, and I
answered it. There is no pattern. It's just the truth. The truth is
that there were hundreds of terrorists trained very well in al-Qaida
training camps, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They are around the
world in 40 or 50 countries. They have money. They are skillful at
what they do, as we saw on September 11.
We know they have been actively seeking out weapons of mass
destruction, and we know that they have close relationships with
terrorist countries that have those weapons. So if I'm asked that
question, I didn't answer that question any differently for Senator
Inouye in the hearing yesterday than I have answered it every week or
two for the past six months.
LEHRER: As you know, it's been suggested by some members of Congress
and commentators in the last couple of days that the Bush
Administration is seeking to change the subject from the questions
that have been asked about some lack of closing some dots
pre-September 11. Is there anything to that?
RUMSFELD: Not to my knowledge. I certainly ... I have no reason to
want to do that or to, to try change the subject at all. This is a
subject I've been on month after month. You've asked me this
question...
LEHRER: Sure.
RUMSFELD: ... on this program. I have answered it to you exactly the
same way I did this evening.
LEHRER: What do you make of these questions that have been raised
about pre-September 11? Are they appropriate? Are they within the
bounds of a legitimate discourse in a democratic society?
RUMSFELD: Oh, sure. I think people can raise questions about anything
they want. We have free speech. I think people when they do that have
to be willing to take the benefit and the burden both of asking
questions, and to the extent people ask questions that are
constructive, I think the American people will respond and say that
that's a thoughtful, useful thing to be doing.
To the extent people raise questions in a way that is destructive or
harmful or unhelpful, then I think those people tend to not be well
thought of by the American people. And in the last analysis the
American people make their own judgment. They've got a good center of
gravity.
LEHRER: What about your own view? Have you heard any questions being
asked destructive that are hurting what you're trying to do as
Secretary of Defense in this area?
RUMSFELD: I'll tell you, I have not felt ... of course I'm not really
a part of discussion to any great extent, and I really don't have much
time to read all the papers and see all of the questions that are
asked. So I don't know whether I'm a good judge. I do think that we
have got a lot of work to do. The intelligence gathering information
task is an enormous one. I see all these intelligence reports, and for
the most part very few of them are actionable; very few of them are
specific.
The overwhelming majority of them prove not to have been valid. And
trying to piece things together in a way that we can improve how we do
things is a task that the entire government in the Central
Intelligence Agency for foreign intelligence and certainly the law
enforcement agencies in this country work very hard at.
We are unique as a country, almost, I mean, I don't know how many
countries there are that do not have a domestic intelligence gathering
organization. We simply don't have one. We have a foreign intelligence
gathering organization.
But for a whole host of reasons historically the United States has
never had a federal agency that had as its task gathering intelligence
to prevent attacks here, probably because we have two big oceans and
we have friends on the North and friends on the South, and we have not
felt vulnerable to foreign attack inside of our own country. Other
countries have, from their beginnings, had those kinds of agencies
that do that task. So we really have a disadvantage in terms of
pulling information together.
LEHRER: Is it time to fix that?
RUMSFELD: I don't know. It's not for me; it's not something that the
Department of Defense would be involved in. It's really for the
president and others, the Congress, and other departments to consider.
But it does make it different in terms of our interaction with other
countries. The Central Intelligence Agency, as you well know, is not
allowed to gather intelligence in the United States.
LEHRER: What you would say to those who say that we have got to be
careful here that we don't create a kind of no-fault government --
that's what George Will has written about in the past, as you know --
that when things go wrong, that instead of saying, hey, the guys in
charge, nobody steps forward and says, hey, look it's my
responsibility, I'll take the heat, everybody runs for cover. And why
wouldn't the leaders of the government -- if anything went wrong prior
to September 11 why wouldn't they want to know more than anybody else?
RUMSFELD: Well, they would, we would, my goodness. I'm continuously
reviewing things. And, or example, take the conflict in Afghanistan.
One of the first things we did after we began was to put in place a
"lessons learned" activity so that we could almost simultaneously as
we were going through the process find things that we were doing that
might have been done differently or might have been done better and
begin to feed that, that knowledge into the process so that General
Franks was involved and others of us were involved in establishing
that -- and it's been a good thing. So we're constantly trying to
improve what we do.
LEHRER: New subject: the Crusader. I won't read all of the quotes I
have here from the senators who have been jumping all over you since
you decided to cancel the Crusader tank project. Are you having any
second thoughts at all, Mr. Secretary?
RUMSFELD: Oh, not a bit. My goodness gracious, if you can't do this
one, then we're not going to be able to transform the armed forces of
the United States; and we simply must do that. This is a good weapon
system, it's capable, it's better than the one we currently have. It
will not be as good as the one that follows on from it in the future
combat system.
The ... if we funded every single thing that all of the services
wanted, the defense budget would double and triple within a period of
a decade or two, and there is just no way to do that. Choices have to
be made. The American people know that. The American people get up
every day and in managing their own affairs know that they have to
pick and choose what they're going to do, what they're going to spend
their money on and make judgments about it and sometimes it's very
hard choices they have to make. And that's what we're doing.
It doesn't bother me a bit that the services want more than they're
going to get. That's the way life is; everybody would. If I were a
head of one of the services, I would be pushing for various things as
well. The task is not to simply agree to everything one of the three
services wants but to recognize that a combatant commander out in the
field doesn't fight with Army equipment or Navy or Air Force; he
fights joint and he has got to have all of those things connect in a
way that is rational and coherent. And the decision we have made on
the Crusader is exactly the right decision, and I think when the dust
settles, we'll find that the Crusader has been canceled.
LEHRER: But you think you're going to win this one, huh?
RUMSFELD: I do think we will. I think we will because it's the right
thing to do. It's the right thing for the country. The American people
need to be served, and we have got to be respectful of the taxpayers'
dollars, and the time to make changes is not when the bow wave is
going to run us over; the time to make changes is early. And the
Crusader does not exist. It's been taken from 60 tons down to 40 tons,
they hope, but they haven't gotten to the point...
LEHRER: That's for each one of these...
RUMSFELD: Each single one. And then if you add the people and the
ammunition and the support vehicle, it's 97 tons. To take 18 -- a
battalion of Crusaders into a battle -- it would take 60-to-64 C-17
transports. And that's half of our entire fleet.
LEHRER: Now, Senator [James] Inhofe, when you said that before the
committee, he said that was not true; he challenged you, he said that
he didn't believe you.
RUMSFELD: I'm right.
LEHRER: Have you talked to him about it since?
RUMSFELD: Sure. He's a good man. He's worked hard on this, and it
happens the information I have comes from the transportation command
and from the Army people and when you connect them, that is what it
takes to move 18 Crusader artillery tubes, the fuel, the ammunition,
the people, and the support vehicle that you need to supply the
ammunition into a battle.
LEHRER: Back to what you said at the very beginning on this, if you
don't win this you don't think your attempts to reform and change the
military are going to go anywhere?
RUMSFELD: Well, I think it's awful tough. I mean, the president is
determined on this; I am determined on this. It is the right thing to
do. I think we have to be persuasive, we have to make our case, and
the, the argument that you need the Crusader, because it can do A, B,
or C is a poor one.
It's a weak argument, because a combatant commander, what he wants to
do is he wants to put firepower on a target, and he does not care
where that comes from. He does not care if it comes from an artillery
tube, or a mortar, or a rocket, or an attack aircraft, or a bomber, or
a cruise missile. All he wants to do is get it.
And we have an overwhelming power, capabilities, a variety, a spectrum
of capabilities to put firepower on a target. And the idea that a
single artillery tube is going to make the difference in this case is
simply not factual.
LEHRER: All right. Mr. Secretary, good to see you again. Thank you
very much.
RUMSFELD: 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
|
|
|
