15 August 2002
Defense Department Briefing Transcript
(Afghanistan/infrastructure and resources, Afghanistan/ISAF,
Afghanistan/humanitarian aid, Iraq/U.S. operations, Army Special
Forces/humanitarian assistance, Pentagon/moving in, Pentagon/Osama bin
Laden, Iraq/dispersing military forces, war plans/news leaks,
Afghanistan-Pakistan/cross border issues) (7040)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army General Tommy Franks,
commander of the U.S. Central Command, briefed the news media August
15 at the Pentagon.
Following is the transcript:
(begin transcript)
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL UPDATE BRIEFING
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD RUMSFELD;
GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS, COMMANDER, CENTRAL COMMAND
PENTAGON BRIEFING ROOM, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
AUGUST 15, 2002
Rumsfeld: Good afternoon. I have promised this distinguished group
that from time to time, when General Franks was in town, I would
invite him down to meet with the Pentagon press corps, and here he is.
Q: Yea!
Rumsfeld: I should add that we've been discussing Afghanistan, so I
would caution you to -- against jumping to conclusions about Iraq --
just a word for the wise.
We keep reading today that the situation in Afghanistan is difficult
and that the security situation is supposedly deteriorating. Most of
the comments, I suspect, are coming from people who are well-
intentioned but may not be current with what's taking place on the
ground, or may be looking at one particular portion of the country.
Truth be told, the security situation in Afghanistan is reasonably
good. There's one region where there is difficulty -- southeast of
Kabul. But throughout the rest of the country, in Mazar and Herat,
Kandahar, Kabul, the situation is reasonably stable.
We have U.S. Special Operations teams embedded with regional forces,
and they are really able to counsel restraint and communicate with
each other and create situational awareness that contributes to a more
secure situation. We also have civil affairs teams that are in most of
the regions, digging wells, rebuilding schools, bridges, roads and
hospitals. General Franks is going to comment a bit on this shortly.
U.S. and coalition forces are training Afghan National Army troops,
and in some cases providing humanitarian assistance directly or
setting conditions on the ground so that humanitarian workers can
deliver aid.
The ISAF is in Kabul, and we're backing it with logistics,
intelligence and quick-reaction support.
Is the situation perfectly tidy? No. Nor is it particularly tidy in
any city in the world. But I suspect it would be accurate to say that
the security situation in Afghanistan is the best it's been probably
in close to a quarter of a century. Afghanistan has a transitional
government with a popular mandate. It's no longer a safe haven for
terrorists. Humanitarian aid is flowing. Women are able to work.
Children are back in school. And executions in soccer stadiums have
stopped. Over a million refugees have returned to the country. They're
voting with their feet, and the country has been liberated.
The real problem, in my view, in Afghanistan is not security, it is,
rather, the challenge of bolstering the new government, the new
central government, and the fact that the international community is
not yet delivering the level of assistance to President Karzai and his
team that is needed. The loya jirga met. It chose a representative
government. He took office, appointed ministers, but the ministers
don't have a structure under them so that they can actually govern the
entire country, nor do they have the budgets necessary to conduct a
government. And it simply takes time to get that infrastructure in
place so that they can actually function as a working government as
opposed to a government essentially in name.
They need to get on their feet. To do that, they need resources. There
have been several donor conferences. The United States has
participated, led or co-led each one. The pledges are something like
$5 billion in aid, if I'm not mistaken. But the money has not been
coming in as fast as it needs to come in. I'm told that less than a
third of the aid pledged for this year, at the Tokyo conference, has
arrived thus far, and it's September almost. In many cases the
promised contributions are spread out over several years, and in still
other instances, they are in kind as opposed to in cash, and that
means that managing it is more difficult than it would be with cash,
although all of it's helpful and all of it's needed and all of it's
appreciated.
Others of the donations are saddled with various prohibitions, that is
to say most of them prohibit their being used for security activities.
It all helps, but it does need to be increased. We would like to see
the ISAF be able to function and contribute as it has been in the
past. As you know, the British have passed off to the Turks. The Turks
end in December. We're already out looking for someone to follow the
Turks. And each of those countries deserves a great deal of credit for
taking the leadership, which is a big responsibility, as well as for
working with us to try to see that we have enough forces in the
International Security Assistance Force to do the job. Our task is to
try to see that the ISAF continues after December, that we do have a
new leader and that we do have enough countries participating so that
it can contribute to peace and stability in the country.
Coalition forces are busy, under General Franks's leadership, rooting
out Taliban and al Qaeda. They're training the Afghan national army,
along with coalition forces. We're working to bolster the transitional
government that the Afghan people have selected. Our goal for
Afghanistan is for it to achieve effective self-government and
self-sufficiency and never again become a haven for terrorists. That's
our interest. It's clearly in the interest of the international
community. And it is very much the goal of the Karzai government.
General Tom Franks, combatant commander of the Central Command. Sir,
welcome.
Franks: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Pleasure to be here today.
I'm especially pleased that the secretary has permitted me to bring my
wife to the session. She's --
Rumsfeld: Here, here! (Chuckles.)
Franks: -- in the back of the room. From time to time, that's a very
good thing for me, because she keeps me from making these horrendous
mistakes of judgment, such as the one you recall Dick Myers made at
one -- (laughter).
Rumsfeld: (Laughs.) We've all learned from that.
Franks: I was looking around over the last few days, and we were
thinking about where we are in Afghanistan, and I think the secretary
has just described where we see ourselves today. And it occurred to me
that much reported is the business of the kinetic work, the
operational work that goes on day by day in Afghanistan. Receiving not
so much notice is the tremendous international effort that has gone on
and continues to go on in humanitarian assistance. I wanted to just
touch a few high points of that sort of activity. And then, sir, I'd
be pleased to turn to questions.
If you just look at major projects that have been sponsored by our
coalition, or by our country, as the lead to this coalition in the
past four or five months, you can find some incredible
accomplishments. I'll give you a couple.
About 60 projects have been completed inside Afghanistan, and you
perhaps know about some, probably don't know about others --
tremendous number of water wells having been completed; roads and in
fact a bridge that assists in connecting Bagram, to the north, with
the city of Kabul, a major route that provides for access all the way
up to the northern countries of Central Asia, and a major sort of
effort. It's being completed now. More than 38 schools have been
rebuilt and opened by the Afghans themselves, with support of
coalition members associated with the Operation Enduring Freedom Task
Force. Medical facilities have been opened in every one of the larger
cities inside Afghanistan. People who had not been able to receive
medical treatment for perhaps the two decades that the secretary
mentioned are now able to do that.
In addition to that, we're working another 55 or 60 projects. And when
I say we're working, let me describe that for a minute.
The secretary mentioned that we have special -- some of our Special
Forces people and some of our civil affairs teams out operating all
over the country. On a given day, somewhere between 40 and 50
different places inside Afghanistan, we find members of the military,
our own U.S. military, as well as coalition members, working hand in
glove and side by side with more than 300 nongovernmental
organizations in order to try to place benefit -- the benefits of
renewed infrastructure in the hands of the Afghans.
In addition to that, we are -- the coalition members are operating
three hospitals right now. The Koreans are operating a hospital. The
Spanish are operating a hospital. The Jordanians alone, up in Mazar-e
Sharif, since they opened that hospital, have seen more than 100,000
people, mostly women and children. It sort of reminds me of the fact
that prior to October of last year, 26 million people in Afghanistan
had not had much medical capability, and women for sure had had no
medical capability, because of the specific practices in that country.
Women were not permitted to see physicians, because women were not
permitted to be treated by men, and men were the only qualified
doctors in the country.
All that's changed. Six hundred to 700 metric tons -- in addition to
what I talked about, 600 to 700 metric tons of things like plywood and
Plexiglas in villages to provide opportunities to close in some of
these mud huts and some of the very poor infrastructure that we see in
these villages, in order to permit the Afghans themselves to open
schools, to create medical facilities, to create police precincts, and
so forth.
And so I guess I'd close the way Secretary Rumsfeld did. Does that
mean everything is just right in Afghanistan? No. To be sure, it is
not. But what it does mean is that there is a government in
Afghanistan that is trying to move forward to the future, and I think
our coalition is pleased to be part of that move.
And with that, sir.
Rumsfeld: Thank you.
Questions?
Q: Okay.
Rumsfeld: It's not mandatory. (Laughter.)
Q: Her name is Debbie.
Rumsfeld: Debbie. Greetings, Debbie.
Q: Thank you. It's good to hear that things are better in Afghanistan,
but obviously things are not wonderful in the region. And so I feel I
have to ask about one particular serviceman who's been in the news in
the last couple of days, that's Captain Speicher. Is his status to be
changed? Is it being considered? What's the latest movement on that?
Rumsfeld: I'm told that there's discussion that's taken place in the
Department of the Navy -- it is a Navy decision -- and that the
Department of the Navy has not made a decision as yet with respect to
whether or not to change the status.
Q: Well, just a quick follow-up. Is there any new evidence that he is
alive, that his remains remain in Iraq?
Rumsfeld: I think I'll leave it to Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
who has been working with the Department of Navy, and to Gordon
England and the chief of Naval Operations. They are the ones who have
been discussing it. And I think speculating about new evidence would
be way out of my lane.
Q: Mr. Secretary, may I ask a question of General Franks, but feel
free to jump in, if you like. There has been a lot of discussion here
in recent months about a sort of schism between the two of you on the
way that you would prosecute a war in Iraq if the commander-in- chief
decides to go that way. Part of what we're hearing is that General
Franks, as an Army officer by profession, you would like to go in
heavy with lots Abrams, Bradleys and lots of troops on the ground,
whereas perhaps the civilian side -- and, Mr. Secretary, you tell me
if that's correct -- (laughter) -- would like to go in lighter, leaner
and meaner. And so the two-part question is, have you resolved
whatever differences you have? And are you ready to go if the balloon
goes up?
Franks: Question for me or question for the secretary?
Q: For you, too. We have -- (inaudible) --
Franks: Thanks for the question. (Laughter.) I enjoy waking up each
day to see what the stories are about the schism, which is a word I
didn't know until about a week ago, between me and Secretary Rumsfeld
is.
Actually, irrespective of the specific examples you gave -- light,
heavy, early, all that sort of stuff --
Rumsfeld: Or even the country.
Franks: Or even the country. (Laughter.) I actually -- or even
Afghanistan. I mean, I could carry this thing all the way back to
Afghanistan. If you remember October and November, it seems to me that
you were about to let me go as far as I remember because we were --
Rumsfeld: I read that.
Franks: I read it.
Rumsfeld: I read that somewhere, yeah.
Franks: Actually, the --
Rumsfeld: It didn't happen to be true?
Franks: The secretary can comment on this. I actually don't think that
there is any daylight between the principals in the department,
whether it's myself, Secretary Rumsfeld or whether it's between the
people in the building, the services and Secretary Rumsfeld. Not my
business to talk about them. But it is my business to talk about the
relationship between me and my boss as it serves the American people,
as it serves the president of the United States. We have a chain of
command. It's very, very clear. We have an opportunity here, and the
secretary can tell you that I engage in that opportunity to share very
frankly and very freely the ideas that I have as a combatant
commander. Do that. The secretary does the same thing with me. And I
actually have never one time sensed animosity.
Sir?
Rumsfeld: I think that that probably was the understatement of the
day. I think, from my standpoint, the relationship is superb. It is an
iterative process, where I learn every day. We probably are together
close to once a week or once every other week, and we're on the phone
or on secure videos more than once a day. And I could not ask for a
better working relationship. So, obviously, you're reading the wrong
journals, sir.
Q: Only ask you about the second part of the question. Are you ready
if somebody says go?
Rumsfeld: Why in the world would one want to answer a question like
that when nobody has said go? I mean, really!
Yes?
Q: General, to go back to what you were talking about on the
activities in Afghanistan, could you characterize a little more how
much of the U.S. military is involved in these sort of non-warfighting
actions? And how long do you anticipate those would be necessary?
Franks: I see the headline tomorrow that, you know, "Franks Commits
the United States of America to, you know, to Nation-Building" or
something. And so, you're not going to get that.
What I prefer to do is think about the amount of energy that is
devoted to what I call kinetic work in some provinces and places
inside Afghanistan, where there is much work left to be done, and then
work which is much more humanitarian, if you will, in nature, that
goes on across 10 to 12 additional provinces in Afghanistan.
I won't talk too much about the Mountain Lion operation and our
operations going back to Tora Bora, Anaconda and so forth like that,
because those operations continue. I mean, we have that going on now.
Coupled with that, the Special Forces teams even in that kind of
operation are providing humanitarian assistance locally, and I mean
where we -- I can think of so many cases where the medics which work
with our Special Forces have worked in one of the villages in order to
treat children for -- you know, with a variety of ailments.
In the other provinces, where we see a much greater sense of
stability, is where you'll find Civil Affairs teams. On a given day,
you'll find somewhere between 100 and 200 troopers actually in small
groups, out moving around through the villages and working with, as I
said, more than 300 non-governmental organizations to help them focus
and pipe the humanitarian assistance from their agencies into places
of need.
And the most interesting thing about all of that is that it -- what it
does for us -- is it gives us a chance to be closer to the
administration inside Kabul, because what one would like to think is
that -- through the loya jirga process, a transitional administration
has been named. And so we are interested in working through that
transitional administration in order to reach out to provide the
humanitarian assistance. And we'd like to funnel it that way.
Rumsfeld: Yes.
Q: Mr. Secretary, as you know, members of the Marine Corps today here
in this building are moving back into their rebuilt offices at this
ground zero for the first time. I would like to ask you to reflect for
a moment on what it means for these people to move back into their
offices, the message it sends to terrorists.
And with all due respect, sir, the reason I'm asking you this now is,
we've been told that you will be visiting this area of the building
later today, that news media coverage of your visit there will not be
allowed. In fact, we were told we'd be barred from leaving this room.
So this is apparently --
Rumsfeld: (In elongated, jocular tone.) No, Barbara.
Q: Sir, please don't joke. We have heard that from your staff.
Rumsfeld: No one will bar you from leaving the room.
Q: We were told that by --
Rumsfeld: That would be wrong.
Q: It certainly would be. But we were told that by your staff prior to
this briefing, sir. So this is our only opportunity to ask you to
reflect on what it means for the rebuilt portion of this building to
be reoccupied by U.S. military personnel today.
Rumsfeld: Wow. Well --
Q: And you could reconsider your media policy --
Rumsfeld: My -- I'm without a media policy. The fact is, I said this
morning to Ed Giambastiani that I thought I ought to take a walk down
and take a look at the E Ring and see the folks moving back in. So
that's what I intended to do sometime today. I had not picked a time
or a place. And it was not a media event; it was simply -- like I do
all the time, I walk around the building and go to lunch in the
cafeteria, or I stop different places.
Q: Would you?
Rumsfeld: And they need not be media events.
Q: Would you?
Rumsfeld: It changes it. It eliminates the ability I have to talk to
anybody in the E Ring if there's a crowd of people around. But I will
assure you, no one in this room will be barred from leaving the room
when the press briefing is over. And --
Q: All right.
Q: We appreciate that. Now would you mind reflecting on your views on
the matter?
Rumsfeld: I'd be happy to. I think it's -- that it certainly says that
the folks who have been working day and night to finish this building
have just done a superb job. And it is a real compliment to them that
they are able to begin the process of moving in this E Ring, and they
expect to be able to complete it, as I understand it, by September
11th. And we are all grateful to them for what they've done and for
the dedication and the patriotism that they've shown.
I think the fact that this building never shut down and the fact that
it is going to be well along on September 11th, back in the shape it
was in before September 11th last year, is an indication that the
Department of Defense is in business, and it intends to stay in
business.
Q: And what does this say to Osama bin Laden?
Rumsfeld: We don't even know where he is or if he is. So -- and I
don't speak Arabic or -- I have no idea what it says --
Q: I guess what I'm asking you, sir, is, do you think this is a
symbolic and a real message to terrorism?
Rumsfeld: Well, I think it is more a statement about the United States
of America: that we intend to live our lives as free people and to go
about our business and to do everything we can to defend our people,
our country, our allies and our deployed forces against terrorist
acts. And we know that terrorists can attack at any time, at any
place, using any technique, and it's not possible to defend every time
at every place against every technique. So it is a difficult task that
we're faced with, but we are determined to go about our lives like
free people and not allow a terrorist to win simply by threatening and
intimidating.
Q: May I ask General Franks a question about Iraq, the situation on
the ground in Iraq. Do you see any evidence that the Iraqis are
dispersing elements of their military capability, whether it may be
conventional or otherwise?
Franks: We do not see evidence of some magnitude of shift that would
sort of go probably in the direction that you're trying to go. As you
know, because of Operation Southern Watch, we pay attention to what's
going on there. You know, we have an obligation under Security Council
resolutions to continue to do our intel, surveillance and
reconnaissance activities inside these so-called no- fly zones, and so
we watch that. And the specifics of, I guess, what we see when we look
at that, I wouldn't want to get into, and I think you'd probably
understand that.
Q: But the point is, there's been no significant change is what you're
saying?
Franks: I'd probably just repeat what I said.
Q: General Franks, three of the most repeated words in news accounts
in the last three months have talked about "leaked war plans." To what
extent at your level do these numerous stories compromise your ability
to craft options, recommend courses of action to policymakers or not?
I mean, do these represent things that are actually bubbling up from
CENTCOM or just things you haven't even been able to track that have
little or no relevance to your process, whatever the process ends up
being?
Franks: Let me give you an answer that's too clever by half, by saying
on the day that we permit what we read in our media to affect what we
try to do as part of the Department of Defense on behalf of the
nation, that would be a sad day. And so probably that's the most
direct answer that I can give you.
I think the secretary, and I think perhaps others, have said that the
intentional leaking of any sort of activity that carries a
classification by anyone is wrong. And so we take that as a given, but
we continue to do the work that the president and secretary ask us to
do in CENTCOM.
Q: The point, though, is a lot of the press is being seen as, you
know, traitors, fellow travelers, for putting this stuff out. You're
the chief planner. Have any of the stories, to date, actually resulted
in national security compromises as you, as the tactical military
commander would understand --
Franks: I think we probably want to be careful to either confirm or
deny something that could be helpful to a potential adversary. And so
I really can't -- I really can't give you a good answer to it.
We're going to continue our work. I'll say that.
Q: General, I wanted to take you back to Afghanistan and talk a little
bit about the cross-border activity between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
If you could talk a little bit about al Qaeda activity in Pakistan,
the northwest areas, and the efforts to root out those folks there?
Some military, obviously, are sort of comparing it to Cambodia to
Vietnam, that they keep leaking across the border.
Franks: You know, I've read some of that. I think that the leadership
in Pakistan remains as committed to rooting out terrorism in that
country, al Qaeda the example you use, as we do. The specific
coordinating relationships that we enjoy both within Afghanistan and
with the government in Pakistan, I think we're not served to talk to
the specifics of those. But let me just say that that cooperation has
been very good. It remains very good today. And I believe the
government of Pakistan is just as interested in doing away with what
you described as the cross-border back-and-forth and so forth as we
are. And I would even go one step further and say that it will only be
a matter of time until, in fact, we have that in the box that we want
it in -- I'm talking about the movements back and forth and so forth.
So, our government continues, with the coalition, to work with
Pakistan and her leadership on this problem.
Q: Speaking of time, there was an unnamed U.S. official yesterday or
the day before that said that the U.S. military will be in Afghanistan
for years. Would you agree with that?
Franks: I would agree with that because my experience when I visit a
great many countries around the planet is that we are militarily
engaged in security cooperation with a great many countries. And so, I
mean, I could use -- I could use examples in my own region. I can use
the example of Korea. We are engaged in military-to-military
relationships in a great many countries around the world. So, it does
not surprise me that someone would say, "Oh, gosh! We're going to --
the military's going to be in Afghanistan for a long, long time." Sure
we will be.
Now, the numbers are something that I think we're just going to have
to continue to work. One would expect a maturation of the government
inside Afghanistan. One would expect the training of the Afghan
national army border security forces, police forces and so forth to
come along in accordance with a plan, and it is likely that when one
sees that, one will see less need for the level of security
cooperation -- that means the number of troops we have now. And I
think we would not be wise to put a timeline on when we see that
happening.
Rumsfeld: If you think about the beginning, the beginning was between
September 11th and October 7th. It was a matter of moving forces and
setting the conditions for a conflict in Afghanistan to depose the
Taliban and chase the al Qaeda out. From October 7th until some other
period, we were going after cities, large numbers of concentrations of
Taliban and al Qaeda. Forget what the date was, but at some point, the
large concentrations disappeared. They were either killed or captured.
The cities had all fallen to the Karzai government or what became the
Karzai government. The Taliban no longer ruled the country. Large
concentrations moved out. They moved into neighboring countries; they
moved south.
So you go into a new phase -- the phase we're in now, phase three, if
you will -- a phase where the task is to chase out -- to prevent
concentrations from forming again, to prevent them from flowing back
into the country from the neighboring countries in large
concentrations, to prevent the Taliban from taking the country back
over and turning it into a terrorist training camp and to begin the
process of, as the general said, civil action and humanitarian
support. So at the present time, because we're no longer chasing after
large concentrations or trying to conquer cities, the military is, as
he indicated, doing a good deal of many sweeps, providing security,
but in addition, doing various types of humanitarian assistance.
As the Karzai government gets strength, as the Afghan national
government -- Afghan national army grows, as the border patrols and
the police are trained and as money begins to flow into that country,
the goal is not for the United States or the coalition or ISAF or
anyone else to provide security in that country. The goal is for the
government of Afghanistan to provide security in that country. And
that is what we're attempting to do in the four or five or six ways
that I described.
Whatever that's called, the next phase is one where, instead of doing
5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 percent humanitarian and civil work, the military
very likely would be doing a larger percentage of civil work and less
providing security, because as the Afghan government develops those
institutions and those capabilities, they're going to be able to
provide that. And we're very interested in seeing that developed,
which was the import of my remarks today.
The last phase, end-state, if you will, whenever that is -- I mean, we
didn't go in there in a way to leave in a way that allows itto turn
back into a terrorist training camp. We went in there so that that
would not happen. And end-state is when the Afghan government has the
capability to provide for its own security and, in fact, is able to do
that and has the capabilities, with respect to armies and border
patrols and what have you, to keep the al Qaeda out, to keep the
Taliban out, and so that the people of the country can begin to
prosper after 25 years of terrible, terrible, terrible circumstances.
Q: Well, along those lines, there are some who argue that you should
redouble efforts to create a national army and police force, and so
forth. Is there any thought to --
Rumsfeld: We are thinking about ways that that can be done faster. It
is important that it be done at a pace that they can manage it. And
I'd like to see the police forces being trained somewhat faster; I'd
like to see us be able to do maybe some more Afghan army training at a
faster clip.
Q: Does that call for more U.S. troops to do that training?
Rumsfeld: Oh, there's all kinds of people helping do this. The ISAF
has trained some of the army, the French have been helping, other
countries have been helping. It would call for a higher level of
effort.
I think the thing I would say, if I were to look at the Afghan
situation and drop a plumb line through it and be asked, is it
basically a security problem today or is it basically a problem of
getting the civil institutions in place and getting the capabilities
of that country and the money and the resources and the budget and --
right now you've got Karzai, you've President Karzai and you've got
his ministers. And underneath his ministers is not a lot; that is to
say, the linkages between the central government in Kabul and the
regions are relatively modest. And what's needed is the civil side. It
needs a court system, it needs the rule of law, it needs the ability
raise revenues and collect taxes and duties. It needs to guard its
borders and to manage its neighbors with -- its relationships with its
neighbors. Those are the things it needs.
And if you said to me, where on the spectrum between security and what
I've just described as the civil side ought we to focus, I would say
they need more money, they need more assistance on the civil side;
they need support there. The security situation, you could fill the
country with armies and all kinds of military and police and
everything else --
Franks: The Soviets did.
Rumsfeld: -- the Soviets did. They had enormous numbers of people
there and they still couldn't pacify it. What pacifies a country, what
provides security for a country is that the people feel they have a
stake in it and they want it to work and they support their
government. And the kind of support that I'm talking about is the only
way for that to take place and to take hold.
And I think it's a misunderstanding of the situation to think that
because periodically there's a security problem in one or more parts
of the country, that the answer is to keep flooding in more security.
What we want to have is a civil side grow up, provide that kind of a
circumstance for the people, and then the Karzai government provide
for its own security, and we're helping in all of those ways. But I
think that the public dialogue and debate on this subject is
off-track. I think that it is way over on the security side instead of
on the side of supporting civil action and civil institutions. And
that's where we need to focus more.
Q: Mr. Rumsfeld --
Q: Mr. Secretary --
Franks: If I could just add one, also, to that. I think we've said
this on numerous occasions, to the secretary's point, but -- you know,
the Afghan people themselves would like to see this environment of,
you know -- grow and improve and mature. And a great deal of what we
read indicates what, you know, what the United States of America is
doing to something inside Afghanistan, rather than sort of recognizing
that the Afghans themselves at some point in the future identified by
the secretary take responsibility in every way for their own security,
for their own -- for their own country. And I -- it's -- I think it's
important to not forget that the Afghans want that very badly. And so,
it's working with, rather than working in the face of this evolving
leadership in Afghanistan.
Rumsfeld: And with that -- with that, I'm going to excuse myself and
leisurely walk through the E Ring and on the way out, I'm going to
make sure, positive, absolutely certain, that not a door is locked,
that no one is held hostage. The implication that we would even think
of that, I think, is unfortunate. It's all wide open.
Q: Mr. Secretary, can you just say one thing --
Rumsfeld: I'm really going to go -- got to do it.
Q: How about just --
Rumsfeld: I'm really going to leave. (Laughter.) You don't believe me?
Just trust me.
Q: Just a quick question, sir.
Rumsfeld: I'm gone. General Franks -- he can stay all afternoon.
(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
|
|
|
