09 August 2002
Defense Department Briefing Transcript
(Puerto Rico/air crash, Afghanistan update, Iraqi opposition/Rumsfeld,
Iraq Liberation Act, al-Qaida massing/Pakistan, anti-terror
campaign/measuring success, al-Qaida/Chinese aid, Afghan/weapons
caches, Iraq/containment policy, Greece/terrorist arrests, direct
energy/microwave weapons, Osama bin Laden/9-11, Saddam Hussein/speech,
V-22 Osprey, ABA report/enemy combatants, Iraq WMD/deterrence) (9200)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman
Richard Myers briefed.
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Friday, August 09, 2002 -- 1:47 p.m. EDT
(Also participating was Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.)
Rumsfeld: Good afternoon. On Wednesday night, a U.S. Air Force MC-130H
aircraft crashed in Puerto Rico while on a training mission. Ten U.S.
service members lost their lives. The cause of the crash is being
investigated.
I certainly want to extend my condolences to the families of all those
killed in this accident. They died in the service of their country,
giving their all to make America safer and more secure in the war
against terror.
On several recent occasions, U.S. forces in Afghanistan have been
attacked. In the most recent instance, they returned fire and several
of the enemy were killed. Afghan officials also report that Afghan
military forces outside of Kabul were involved in a firefight with
suspected al Qaeda fighters. Three Afghans were killed and three were
wounded in those attacks. A dozen suspected al Qaeda were killed, and
there was no U.S. military involvement in that incident.
These recent events underscore the fact that while we've made good
progress in the war against terror, it certainly is far from over in
Afghanistan and throughout the world. Every day the men and women in
uniform are voluntarily risking their lives to defend against
terrorism. At this moment, enemy fighters are still operating in a
number of areas in Afghanistan. Coalition forces are searching them
out and will continue to do so as long as they continue to threaten
the new Afghan administration and the Afghan people.
War is, of course, fought in fog and shadows. One cannot know
precisely where the enemy is or what they'll do next. We do know that
there are fewer of them in Afghanistan today than there were on
September 11th -- a lot fewer. We know that we've killed and captured
a fair number of terrorist leaders and terrorist foot soldiers. We
know that the Taliban has been removed from power and the al Qaeda
network no longer can use Afghanistan as a haven from which to plan
their attacks. And we know they are less able to raise money, cross
borders and plot new attacks against free people. And we know that,
notwithstanding the periodic flare-ups, the security situation in
Afghanistan is good and improving, and that the Afghan people have
chosen a government through the loya jirga process, and that that
government is working hard to get on its feet, and that the Afghan
national army is in the process of being trained, and that the
humanitarian crisis that faced the country has largely been averted.
That is good progress.
I understand you have no opening statement?
Myers: I do not.
Rumsfeld: And we'll start with Charlie.
Q: Secretary, I thought I'd ask you one on Iraq, for a change.
Rumsfeld: You're kidding! (Laughter.) You know I have a -- you know I
have a minimum of high regard for that approach, and I think I'm going
to have an agonizing reappraisal and consider calling on someone else
first in the future.
Q: Just a couple of quick ones. Number one, Bush administration
officials are meeting with Afghan opposition --
Rumsfeld: Iraqi.
Q: Iraqi opposition.
Rumsfeld: That's true.
Q: Do you plan on meeting with them or perhaps taking part in the
teleconference tomorrow with the vice president?
Rumsfeld: I hope to. I have not arranged it yet, but I would like to
find an opportunity to do that. You're correct. There are a group of
opposition leaders who have been invited to a meeting, I believe,
that's hosted by Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman and
Undersecretary Doug Feith. And they're going to -- they're here today,
I guess, and tomorrow. They represent some seven different groups --
six, is it?
Q: Six.
Rumsfeld: Okay, let me count. (Counts down list.) Five, six, seven. I
count seven.
Q: (Off mike) -- it was six, but --
Rumsfeld: Well, I could be right. (Laughter.) Maybe by accident, but
-- it may be six, it may be seven. The ones I've got listed here are
the Iraqi National Congress, that's one; the Iraqi National Accord;
the Kurdistan Democratic Party, comes to three; Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan; Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq; the
Islamic Movement of Iraq -- Iraqi Kurdistan; and the Constitutional
Monarchists. (Note: Six groups will attend. The Islamic Movement of
Iraqi Kurdistan will not participate in the meeting.) How many does
that come to?
Q: Seven.
Rumsfeld: Way to go! (Laughter.)
I might just mention that the Iraqi Liberation Act, passed by Congress
and signed by President Clinton in 1998, established as U.S. policy --
and that policy remains in effect today -- regime change in Iraq.
Specifically, the law says, quote, "It is the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam
Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a
democratic government to replace that regime." And it is in that
context that these various Iraqi opposition groups are in the country
and the meetings are taking place.
Q: Do you plan -- would you plan to meet directly with them or perhaps
take part in the teleconference?
Rumsfeld: I just haven't decided. I haven't worked out my calendar.
Q: What do you -- might --
Rumsfeld: But I hope to have a chance to meet them and say hello, at
least.
Q: A brief follow-up. Could I ask why the Defense Department is now
financing these groups, as opposed to the State Department?
Rumsfeld: I guess they're not. The department is not. My understanding
is that the State Department, DOD and the INC are working together on
transferring some responsibilities for information-gathering
activities by the INC from State to DOD. The details have not been
worked out. The discussions are under way. And as it involves
information-gathering, I guess that's all I'd be inclined to say about
it. From my understanding it's being discussed, is all --
Q: (Inaudible) -- take over financing these groups?
Rumsfeld: I've really just exhausted my knowledge on the subject. It's
an administrative issue that's being sorted out.
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: Yeah?
Q: Can we go back to Afghanistan for a moment? There are published
reports --
Rumsfeld: It would be a pleasure.
Q: Thank you. There are published reports that at least two large
groups of al Qaeda, backed by Taliban, are massing in Pakistan,
preparing for large-scale attacks on the current government in
Afghanistan. Can you shed some light on that? Are those reports
accurate? And if so, why can't we find those groups?
Rumsfeld: Well, I don't know if it's true. If it proves to be true
that large gatherings of these folks actually can be located and they
actually -- it actually happens and can be located, you can be sure
there will be people interested in that.
Q: Following up for a moment, the reports go on to say that the
training camps or the staging areas are at least a hundred miles from
where Pakistani authorities and U.S./coalition troops are looking for
-- (pauses) --
Rumsfeld: That's a statement, not a question.
Q: Well, but sometimes you'll react well to statements, sir, as
opposed to questions.
Rumsfeld: (Chuckles.)
Look, there are going to be reports all the time. Everyone has an idea
where people are, where individuals are, where clusters are. We have a
lot of intelligence information. The Pakistanis have been helping, the
Afghanis have been helping. And to the extent information comes
together and it proves to be true, as opposed to speculation in the
press, then people go out and try to find those folks and visit with
them.
Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, you've said a couple of times recently that the war
on terrorism is closer to the beginning than the end. And I just
wondered, do you feel the United States is winning the war on
terrorism --
Rumsfeld: Oh, indeed.
Q: -- and if you do, could you tell us how to measure that?
Rumsfeld: Well, it's -- first of all, the way to think of the thing is
like an iceberg. There's a certain amount of it above the surface of
the water and then there's a great deal going on that's below the
surface of the water. And since terrorists don't have armies, navies
or air forces, one has to assume, as I pointed out in my opening
remarks, that there's fog and shadows where those folks are operating
and there's an awful lot we don't see.
If you want to know what the progress is and how you can measure it,
why I cited a number of things. Afghanistan is no longer a training
camp for terrorists. That's a nice thing, that's a good thing. Those
people have been liberated. That's a good thing. The al Qaeda that
were there are either dead or captured or on the run and they're in
other countries. And I've listed four, five, six other countries where
we know they've gone. The pressure is on these networks. And it
doesn't mean that the pressure is sufficient or the success has been
sufficient or the progress sufficient that there won't be more
terrorist attacks.
We know there are thousands of these people around the world, and we
know, for example, that there are clusters of hundreds in a number of
different countries that have escaped from -- and fled from
Afghanistan or congregated in different places.
But the way you -- one would think that you would measure success
would be the extent to which you get other countries to cooperate.
We're now up to something like 90 worldwide. The extent to which other
countries are willing to share intelligence, and that's an enormous
number. The extent to which countries are more aggressively pursuing
terrorist cells in their own countries. And as I've indicated, there
are over 2,000 people, who have been swept up off the streets in
dozens and dozens and dozens of countries, who are being interrogated.
So I think the American people have a pretty good sense that this is
not a set of pitched battles on a continent, in the air or at sea.
Rather, it is like an iceberg where there will be periodic places
where we'll see it above the surface. And this is something I think I
said in September almost identically; that this is the nature of what
we're up against.
Q: One more thing on that. Would removing Saddam Hussein from power be
a major victory in the war on terrorism, or is it a discrete issue?
Rumsfeld: It would seem that it's the policy of the United States
Congress and the executive branch of successive presidents that regime
change in that country would be desirable for a host of reasons. I
would have to go back and read the legislative debate as to what led
the Congress to decide that, but I assume it had to do with weapons of
mass destruction, I assume it had to do with him trying to impose his
will on his neighbors. I also assume that it's because he's been
elevated to the status of a terrorist state.
Yes?
Q: General Myers, can you help us a little bit put this Christian
Science Monitor story in perspective? It has three main sort of
startling allegations. One is that al Qaeda is massing in Pakistan; is
there any evidence of that? Two, that Osama bin Laden and his top
lieutenant, Zawahiri, have both been spotted recently; have there been
any credible sightings of them that you're aware of? And three, that
the al Qaeda in Pakistan is seeking or obtaining help from China to
get anti-aircraft missiles to threaten U.S. planes.
Can you help us put that in perspective? How much credibility should
we put into those kind of accounts?
Myers: Well, I think on the issue of massing along the border, the
secretary pretty much covered that. We know that's where there are --
that's where a lot of the al Qaeda fled, some of the Taliban,
probably, for that matter. And it's a long border. And I guess there's
no doubt that there are pockets of them. Whether they're massing or
not, I think, remains to be seen. I would just tell you that from what
I've seen, we have no evidence of that. On the other hand, General
Franks -- this is something that he and General McNeill inside
Afghanistan work on a daily basis. We've got reasonably good
intelligence. We get good cooperation from Pakistan and from
Afghanistan. And so, you know, I don't know there's any truth to that
particular story.
On the issue of UBL, I'll give you my standard -- I've not seen
anything that says we know where he is. And the last issue, on help
from China, we know that they want weapons, they want weapons of mass
destruction. They probably need all sorts of supplies. And they'll go
to whoever will provide those. I would be -- I would be very surprised
that China would help, that the government of China would help. We get
-- have gotten pretty support from China on the war on terrorism, and
it would be hard for me to believe that they'd want to help the al
Qaeda.
Q: Speaking of help --
Rumsfeld: Could I make just a comment, which I find interesting here.
I've mentioned that we're getting a lot of tips from Afghan people in
villages all across the country saying that we ought to go look in a
certain place. And we've gone and looked.
And here's a -- this is only through July 16th, but this is from 345
caches that have been identified, mostly by other people telling us
about them: 1,785 AK-47 rifles; 375 -- correction, 370,000 rounds of
ammunition for the rifles; 30 heavy machine guns; 3.5 million rounds
of ammunition for the machine gun; 72 mortar tubes; 52,000 rounds of
ammunition for the mortars; 142 recoilless rifles with 1,700 rounds;
2,100 air-to-air missiles; 2,800 rocket-propelled grenade launchers,
with over 4,000 grenades; 43,000 rounds of rockets, 107-, 122-mm;
shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, 319 missiles, 269 were SA-7s;
50 tanks; 40 armored vehicles; 2,000 mines; over 20 anti-aircraft
weapons.
Just -- the nation is filled with weapons. It is a country that has --
they've been pouring in from all countries. The reason I mentioned it
is in a number of these caches, you do find things from China. But you
find 'em from country after country after country. So, it isn't
anything distinctive.
And a lot of it's -- a lot of it's quite old and probably not stable.
We've destroyed a good portion of it, and my conservative background
leads me to -- my background in the Depression -- we're saving as much
as we can for the Afghan army, I assure you. We're not going to waste
anything if we can avoid it.
Q: Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask you about the comments from House
Majority Leader Dick Armey, suggesting that the United States cannot
move against Iraq without significant provocation. Are those kinds of
statements unhelpful?
Rumsfeld: No. Dick Armey's a fine congressman and a good friend, and I
think it's important for people to say what they think on these
things, and that's the wonderful thing about our country. We have a
public debate and dialogue and discussion on important issues.
Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, to follow on that, he -- House Majority Leader Armey
said, "As long as Saddam Hussein behaves himself within his own
borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against
him." Do you believe that containment of Saddam Hussein has worked, is
working? Without getting into the hypotheticals that I know you don't
like.
Rumsfeld: Containment has -- you can't say it's worked or not worked.
It has not done the job in this sense. Economic sanctions,
historically -- not just in the case of Iraq, but I believe
historically -- once they're applied, they're effective for a
reasonable period of time and then they tend to be eroded for a lot of
reasons. People decide they don't agree with them any more and they
start trading. People figure clever ways to get around them with
dual-use technologies. People do it illegally across borders -- and
these are porous borders. And it is very clear that the political and
economic sanctions have -- with respect to Saddam Hussein -- have not
worked, the containment.
A third part of the containment, clearly, was Operation Northern and
Southern Watch. And we know for a fact that he is continuing to
operate in those areas and doing things that it's very hard to stop
him from doing because he's got mobile anti-aircraft capabilities, and
when he shoots at us, we shoot back. He hasn't hit us, fortuitously.
But by the same token, we've not done a great deal of damage to his
air defenses or any of his other capabilities.
The big thing that was there was the weapon of mass destruction issue,
and he had agreed, and the U.N. had agreed, that he would not have a
WMD program. We know he does have one and he is continuing it.
So there's no way any reasonable person could look at that record and
say that it's worked. It hasn't worked and it's not working. It
started out working better than it is today, and it's kind of
declined, as is the case in most of these types of things, which means
that he's moving farther and farther away from the circumstance he was
in when they were first imposed.
Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, since you are well-known internationally as a
fighter of war against terrorism globally, how do you assess the
recent arrest in Greece by the Simitis government, members of November
17 terrorist organization, responsible also for killings of Americans?
Rumsfeld: It is an important success for the Greek government. The
November 17th terrorist group has been the target of a great many
countries, including the Greek government. But I personally have
raised the issue with the Greek government each time I've met with
them, since I've been back in this post. They are responsible for the
deaths of a number of Americans, including a CIA station chief, four
or five defense employees, and one or more local workers who -- Greek
local nationals who worked with the Defense Department. And certainly
for those families and for the families of all the other people who
have been killed by the November 17th, the arrests that have been made
are most encouraging and gratifying.
Q: Mr. Secretary, can I ask you a question about some of the
technology that you're developing to fight the war on terrorists,
specifically directed energy and high-powered microwave technology? Do
you -- when do you envision that you can weaponize that type of
technology?
Rumsfeld: Goodness, it is in -- for the most part, the kinds of things
you're talking about are in varying early stages.
(To the general.) Do you want to -- do you have anything you would
add?
Myers: I don't think I would add much. It's -- I think they are in
early stages and probably not ready for employment at this point.
Q: How promising is the technology, though?
Rumsfeld: It's early. It's early. You never know. I mean, if you think
about it, the UAVs that were used in Afghanistan, the unmanned aerial
vehicles that were used in Afghanistan, were not -- had not reached
their full development. They had not been authorized for use. They
were still in a development stage and experimental, and yet you use
them. So it's -- in the normal order of things, when you invest in
research and development and begin a developmental project, you don't
have any intention or expectations that one would use it. On the other
hand, the real world intervenes from time to time, and you reach in
there and take something out that is still in a developmental stage,
and you might use it.
So the -- your question's not answerable. It is -- depends on what
happens in the future and how well things move along the track and
whether or not someone feels it's appropriate to reach into a
development stage and see if something might be useful, as was the
case with the unmanned aerial vehicles.
Q: But you sound like you're willing to experiment with it.
Myers: Yeah, I think that's the point. And I think -- and it's -- and
we have, I think, from the beginning of this conflict -- I think
General Franks has been very open to looking at new things, if there
are new things available, and has been willing to put them into the
fight, even before they've been fully wrung out. And I think that's --
not referring to these particular cases of directed energy or
high-powered microwaves, but sure. And we will continue to do that.
Rumsfeld: Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, like -- you said that Afghanistan is no longer a
camp for terrorists, but Afghanistan -- Pakistan is still, because
most of -- they have come across the border into Pakistan. And two, if
these al Qaedas are planning in a big way to attack the current
Afghanistan government, then who is directing them if Osama bin Laden,
you've said in the past, is dead, most probably?
Rumsfeld: Oh, I don't think I've said most probably. I think I've said
I don't know. I think I've said he's either alive and in Afghanistan
or somewhere else, or he's dead. And I don't know.
Q: And third, do you --
Rumsfeld: But the answer to your question is this. It is true that
terrorists, al Qaeda and other types, have left Afghanistan in large
numbers, the ones who weren't captured or killed and the ones who are
still not there hiding and waiting to do something. And they've gone
to four, five, six, eight countries in reasonably sizable numbers.
It's not knowable who is operating that apparatus, although it's
pretty clear that there were any number of people, a couple of
handfuls, who probably knew the bank accounts; knew the people who'd
been trained; knew the cells, sleeper cells, around the world; knew
the financiers, the people who were putting the money in; had the
techniques for moving people around the world with the aliases and
false passports and had access to those fake documents. So, my -- it
may be that no one person is doing it, if he's not -- he may be doing
but, it may be that no one person is doing it, if he's not; it may be
a number of people doing pieces of the task.
Let's go to --
Q: Sir, just a two-parter, I'm sorry. Are you -- (inaudible) -- can
you say today for on the record that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11
and other terrorist acts against the United States, in every way,
including planning, and you don't agree with General Musharraf in a
New Yorker interview that he was not?
Rumsfeld: I -- you phrase it as though you want me to disagree with
President Musharraf --
Q: Not at all. Your comments, please.
Rumsfeld: -- which I would not want to do. I have not -- I have not
read his comments. Therefore, I'm not in the position to comment on
his comments.
I can say that we believe, in the United States of America, that it is
not debatable, that in fact there is ample evidence. Indeed, the words
of the gentleman -- no, he's not a gentleman -- the words of the
individual proclaim his guilt and take pride in his accomplishment.
You know, I have no knowledge of what anyone else might say or think
about it, but UBL has certainly announced from the highest hilltops on
video that he was involved.
Yes?
Q: For General Myers. President Clinton has been quoted making remarks
about why bin Laden -- no military plans were put into play to get bin
Laden prior to now. And he said that the military advised him against
it, advised him that -- I shouldn't say, I'm sorry -- didn't advise
him against it; advised him that there was a high probability of
failure both because without going after the Taliban, it was quite
difficult to go after bin Laden, and also the high risk of collateral
damage because bin Laden tended, when he went to Kandahar (stumbles
over pronunciation) -- I can't speak today, I'm sorry -- when he went
to Kandahar, he tended to be in very populous areas. Is this accurate?
Did the military advise President Clinton that in fact there was a
high probability of failure for such a mission?
Myers: There were -- obviously, there have been discussions on -- and
have been for quite some time, I don't know how far back they go, but
for quite some time -- on how to deal with this particular terrorist
organization and Osama bin Laden. I don't think it's -- and I'd have
to go back and check, but I don't think -- my memory would not say
that that's how it was characterized. There were lots of -- there were
options discussed and lots of considerations. I wouldn't characterize
it exactly like that. I'd have to go check, of course. But on the
other hand, I don't think it's the kind of thing we need to get too
much more in depth into, because it gets into some of our operational
methodology.
Yes?
Q: Do you see that the recent attacks in Afghanistan are evidence that
a new offensive, a new coordinated offensive against the Karzai
government is either underway or imminent?
Rumsfeld: No. No. I mean, my view is that there are Taliban and al
Qaeda in the country, there are Taliban and al Qaeda across the
borders, and they would dearly love to come back, and they would take
any opportunity they could to find ways to weaken and harm the Karzai
government. And the task of the Karzai government and the coalition
forces is to see that that does not happen and to manage the
transition from where it's a war zone to move the al Qaeda and the
Taliban out and to return it to the Afghan people, which we have now
done, to the stage where we're currently addressing reasonably large
pockets of Taliban and al Qaeda, to a stage where you're dealing with
relatively small numbers of them and the Karzai government gains
strength and begins to develop an army and begins to develop a police
force and begins to develop border patrols, and at some point it then
provides for its own security.
And our task is to -- and at that stage where they're capable of
preventing the al Qaeda and the Taliban from coming back, then they
will have demonstrated the fact that they've transitioned to a stable
Afghan government. And that's clearly the goal, the end state that one
would be looking for.
Q: Mr. Secretary, we can't let you leave without getting your reaction
to Saddam Hussein's speech yesterday. If you could both tell us what
you thought of what the Iraqi leader had to say.
Rumsfeld: I have been so busy, I have not read that little dickens.
(Laughter.)
Q: General Myers?
Rumsfeld: (To General Myers) Have you read it?
Myers: I have not read it. I --
Rumsfeld: You don't have enough work to do, if you read it! (Laughs;
laughter.)
Myers: But -- but I heard some elements of it, and I think it's
bluster that is fairly characteristic of the Iraqi regime and the man
himself.
Rumsfeld: Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, there have been some who have suggested that the
V-22 Osprey is fundamentally flawed. Others say they question the
aircraft, but they'll kind of wait and see how it comes through the
tests. There are some who say it will be cancelled even if it does
perform well.
Rumsfeld: Good spectrum of opinion. Isn't that wonderful? (Laughter.)
Q: If the Osprey manages to perform well in the rapid descent tests
that are going to start in the next couple of months, is it possible
that the Osprey can survive, return to operational status and the
acquisition program would continue?
Rumsfeld: Yeah, I got you. We have studies going on any number of
programs. You have reasonably accurately characterized the things that
are being considered there with respect to that particular program.
I've decided I'm not going to get into the business of commenting on
them. The studies are underway. The decisions and -- the results then
will get briefed, the decisions will then get made as part of the
budget bill this fall, towards the '04 to '09 budget, which will be
sent to the OMB in probably November and announced by the president in
February. When those studies get worked through, we will all get
briefed. There will be extensive discussions on each one of these, and
there are several dozen of them that are underway, and then decisions
get made.
I think that it would be wrong to think that any single program's
decisions are going to be based solely on that program. I think that
one has to recognize that you need to take these different things that
are moving along and then -- from the services, and then bring them
together into a joint war-fighting capability and establish priorities
so that the totality of it is coherent and provides our country what
we need to contribute to peace and stability in the world. And so it
ought to be that each of those programs will be considered in a
multi-dimensional way rather than a single dimensional way.
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Rumsfeld: That was a very good answer I gave him. (Laughter.) And it
has the benefit of being true. And that is exactly the process that I
hope will take place. It doesn't always. Sometimes things get dealt
with separately, and that's less helpful, it seems to me.
Yes?
Q: Such a good answer, I'll ask General Myers.
Rumsfeld: Good. Good. (Laughter.)
Q: With regard --
Rumsfeld: Good question, too.
Q: With regard to the soldier who was shot two days ago in the chest,
apparently in looking back at that incident, there are indications
that there was some tactical awareness on the part of the opposition,
the people who shot him, that there was surveillance, and some
indications that they're getting a little more organized in going
after American forces. This, I guess, was an ambush and there was some
pre-thought, it wasn't just bumping into people.
Are you seeing a more organized, more thoughtful opposition as they
apparently get their act together to go after your forces?
Myers: I think, Jack, we've seen almost from the beginning, but
certainly in the latter stages of our work against al Qaeda and the
Taliban inside Afghanistan and then in the border area, that we're up
against a thinking enemy that can adapt, and they do adapt. They adapt
to our tactics as we adapt to theirs. And I think that's what we're
seeing now. And so the point to our commanders and the point, I'm
sure, that General Franks has emphasized at the lower echelons of his
command, to the people under his command, is that we can't be
predictable. And I think it's true they'll adapt. They'll find out --
if we become predictable, if we do things a certain way with a
standard operating procedure and we're not flexible in how we approach
things, then we can be susceptible to their ambushes and so forth.
Q: Mr. Secretary, today the American Bar Association released a report
about the Bush administration's treatment of enemy combatants,
specifically the U.S. citizens named as enemy combatants, saying that
they shouldn't be denied access to counsel, should be given judicial
review to challenge the decision. Any response to that? And why --
Rumsfeld: No. That's totally the Department of Justice. All of that is
in the Article III of the Constitution category and has nothing to do
with the Department of Defense.
Q: But they're being held as enemy combatants in defense military --
Rumsfeld: The circumstance that you've described and what the -- I
didn't read their statement, but I'm knowledgeable, reasonably
knowledgeable about about it -- and the subject they've addressed has
nothing to do with the Department of Defense; it has everything to do
with the Department of Justice's detainees that are all in the Article
III of the Constitution court system and not the military justice
system.
Q: Mr. Secretary, do you have any particular --
Q: Going back to Iraq for just a second, on the meetings that you
might have with the opposition groups there -- as you mentioned, there
are seven -- does it concern U.S. officials that there are so many
opposition groups that it may -- they may have had difficulty speaking
with one voice?
Rumsfeld: No, no, that doesn't bother me ever. I mean, think how much
fun we have here. (Laughter.)
(Chuckling.) The --
Q: (Off mike.)
Rumsfeld: I mean, really, the -- there isn't anyone who is in a
position or who even ought to want to impose their will on the Iraqi
opposition people, including Saddam Hussein. He wants to, but he
shouldn't.
My attitude about it is that it's not for other people to make those
judgments. It's for people who agree with the U.S. policy that we
prefer regime change and that there are a variety of political and
economic and military things, such as the Operation Northern and South
Watch and various other things, that can be done, and that these
people all have every right in the world to wish better for their
country. And it doesn't worry me one whit that there's more than one.
In fact, I would say that it would be worrisome if there were only
one. Now why do I say that? I think that it's from the competition --
the competition of ideas, the competition of developing support -- I
mean, that's how we elect people to public office. That's the -- we
believe in that. So I think it's a good thing that there are elements
that represent different parts of that country, different perspectives
from that country, different tribes, different religions, different --
and some are military, some are civilian. I think it's a good thing.
Q: May I follow up --
Q: Would you have any particular --
Rumsfeld: Yes.
Q: Would you have any particular --
Q: Following up on that, sir, doesn't it -- does it concern you at all
about what will be left after Saddam is overthrown, in that case?
Rumsfeld: Sure. Well --
Q: You know, are you afraid that you'll have a situation somewhat
similar to Afghanistan, where there's groups fighting each other?
Rumsfeld: Well, wait a second. Let's go back -- before we go to that,
let's go back to Afghanistan. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if Iraq
were similar to Afghanistan, if a bad regime was thrown out, people
were liberated, food could come in, borders could be opened,
repression could stop, prisons could be opened? I mean, it would be
fabulous. The idea that Afghanistan should be held up as something
that one would not want to have happen is just exactly opposite from
the truth. Afghanistan is a model of what can happen if people are
liberated and begin to try to elect their own people and people are
allowed to vote who weren't allowed to vote and people are allowed to
work who weren't allowed to work. It is a breathtaking accomplishment.
Now, of course one worries about what will follow. We worried about it
in Afghanistan, and we still are. We're still anxious to see that
government put in place by the Afghan people find its sea legs and
start getting some support from the rest of the world and have these
countries that promised to send money send money, instead of promising
to send money. There's a lot of money that hasn't been sent, and it
needs to go into the Karzai government, into the central government,
so he has the ability to begin to assert some influence in the
country.
He's got to have money to pay for his army and for his border patrol
and for his policemen. He has to have money to be able to show that
the circumstance in Afghanistan today is -- to the people out in the
regions, that it's better than it was before, and they ought not to
allow the Taliban to come back and they ought not to allow the Taliban
to invite the al Qaeda back into their country, and they ought not to
turn it back into a terrorist training camp.
And that's something that takes time and effort and it -- because it's
reasonably democratic, it's kind of untidy. And one looks at the
untidiness and says, "Oh, my goodness, it's untidy!" Well, my
goodness, democracy's untidy. Freedom is untidy. Liberation is untidy.
It's a very good thing that's happened in Afghanistan, and all this
Henny-Penny "The sky is falling!" and "Isn't it terrible?" is
nonsense.
Q: The seven --
Rumsfeld: I'm coming to Iraq. I'm just a little slow. (Laughter.)
Now, with respect to your question. (Laughter.)
Q: (Off mike) -- sufficiently chastised, huh?
Rumsfeld: (Laughs.) Oh, my! I needed a hook to hang my anger on, so I
--
Q: Glad I could oblige, sir.
Rumsfeld: (Laughs.) The situation -- any time someone wants to tear
down what is, you have the responsibility of suggesting something
better. And what we have said thus far is relatively simple and
straightforward, and it fits the act of Congress, the statute, the
government policy of our country that passed the Congress of the
United States.
It is -- we would like to see a country that is a single country, and
not have Iraq broken up into pieces.
We would like to see a country that forswears weapons of mass
destruction and says, "That's really not in the interests of the
people. It's not in the interests of the region, and we're not going
to take the people's money and invest in chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons," which they are doing today. Money that's coming from
the so-called food-for-oil -- or oil-for-food money, that's not going
for food; it's going for weapons of mass destruction.
Third, we'd like to see a regime that decided it didn't need to invade
its neighbors. Kind of a reasonable thing. Certainly would make that
part of the world a more peaceful place.
Fourth, we would think that it would be desirable if the people of the
country had a voice in their country, and that these institutions that
have served other countries across the globe so well, of some
reasonable rule of law, and some respect for the rights of minorities,
and some way for people to have their views represented with respect
to their government.
I don't have a template or a model in my mind at all. But it seems to
me that if you dropped a plumb line through all of the opposition
groups and said what would they like, I would think the things I've
just said would be very high on their list. If you dropped a plumb
line through the nations of the world that are doing reasonably well
for their people, you would find that those things I just said would
be reasonably representative of all of those countries. And
conversely, if you dropped a plumb line through all the terrorist
states, you'd find they look very much like each other; that they're
dictatorial and they're repressive and people do not have rights and
people are jailed without any rights, people are not allowed to vote,
except in a sham election, and the will of the center of the
government is imposed on them viciously.
And I thank you for the question.
Last question.
Q: Mr. Secretary, to go back to your statement about containment not
working, this government pursued a policy of containment against the
Soviet Union --
Rumsfeld: But I said it isn't work or not work, it's gradations.
Q: Well --
Rumsfeld: It's clearly worked for a while, it clearly has delayed
things, it's clearly made life more complicated for Saddam Hussein.
But if by "work" you mean has it actually stopped them from WMD
activity? No.
Q: Well, the Soviet Union was a greater threat to us and the world,
you know, than Iraq is, and yet that -- containment was our policy for
50 years and it finally worked.
Rumsfeld: It did indeed.
Q: So why won't it work against Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Well, there are a variety reasons. And that's an important
question. One is, the Soviet Union was a nuclear power, as were we,
and we developed a way to deter each other and dissuade each other
from -- we persuaded the Soviet Union that they could not endlessly
expand their empire by absorbing other countries. We persuaded them
that it was clearly not in their interest to think they could threaten
the use of or use nuclear weapons against the United States or Western
Europe to their advantage; that the penalty would be so severe that it
was not in their interest.
We then, thanks to successive generations of Americans and Western
Europeans, fashioned institutions like NATO and went into our
taxpayers' pockets and took dollars and invested so that we had
sufficient strength to make that deterrent credible and to, in fact,
successfully contain a large nation with an appetite for a growing
empire. And it worked, and it took 50 years before they threw the
towel in.
Why doesn't that work for a terrorist organization, is your question,
why doesn't it work for a terrorist state? The terrorist organization
does not have armies, navies or air forces that you can demonstrate to
them that you can deal with them symmetrically; they have asymmetrical
advantages because they're wiling to kill innocent men, and women and
children, they're wiling to attack any place, any time, using a whole
host of techniques.
And the difference is when those terrorists and terrorist networks
begin to move towards weapons of mass destruction, and have said
publicly, repeatedly, a host of things that indicate that they want
them, that indicate that they're getting them and have them, in some
respects, and are continuing to have them mature every year, and that
they're getting closer and closer to having even more severe and more
powerful and more lethal weapons, and it's pretty clear they're not
deterred by the things that would normally deter a country or a
terrorist network. A terrorist network has -- al Qaeda has no nation
to lose.
Q: But Iraq does.
Rumsfeld: Iraq does. And so your question is, why aren't they deterred
by our nuclear capability. Well, I would answer it by saying our
nuclear power did not deter the war in Korea, it did not deter the war
in Vietnam, it did not deter Desert Storm. In no case did anyone in
the United States or Western Europe believe that the deterrent that
worked on the Soviet Union worked across the spectrum. We always knew
that as you move down the spectrum, away from a superpower, that the
deterrent effect had little effect on those people. Otherwise, you
wouldn't have had all those wars, all those conflicts. Otherwise, you
wouldn't have had previous terrorist attacks, whether it's Khobar
Towers or the Cole or the U.S. embassies or any number of things.
So, there is a distinct difference between what works in one case and
what works in another case. It doesn't mean that containment is a bad
concept. It simply means that one ought not think that one size fits
all, that there's a silver bullet that worked 50 years -- for 50 years
with the Soviet Union, and that same element of dissuasion would
necessarily work for all these other things, when we've already got
evidence that it didn't work on dozens of things throughout the past
50 years.
Q: General Myers --
Rumsfeld: Goodbye. We're leaving.
Q: Just one quick question --
Rumsfeld: We're leaving. We will see you again.
Q: But we understand the two CENTCOM computers have been found in
someone's house.
Q: Have a nice weekend, sir.
Q: Can you provide any details on those two laptops?
Myers: I cannot. I'm afraid I can't. I don't know.
(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
|
|
|
