27 October 2004
Dangers of Terrorism Must Be Confronted, Rumsfeld Says
Terrorist enemies "won't be wished away," he says
Each generation must relearn the lesson that weakness can provoke and embolden adversaries, and that "victory ultimately comes to those who are steadfast," Donald Rumsfeld says.
In prepared remarks October 27 to the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA), the secretary of defense said that "a refusal to confront gathering dangers can increase rather than reduce future peril," and that "while there are risks to acting, there can also be risks to not acting."
AUSA is a private, nonprofit educational organization that supports all elements of the U.S. Army -- active duty personel, the National Guard, the Army Reserve, civilians, retirees and family members.
Rumsfeld noted that he had addressed the association 20 years ago, in 1984, and that he had spoken then about "the growing threat of terrorism." He compared the war against terrorism with the Cold War against the Soviet Union, pointing out parallels he considered useful.
For one, the struggle against terrorism "could go on for years," as did the Cold War, Rumsfeld said. And over the long course of the Cold War, there were disagreements with NATO allies, and controversy within the United States itself, over tactics and even aims --- like those the United States is experiencing now.
Rumsfeld then turned to what is different about the war against terror. The terrorist enemy cannot win a conventional war against United States and the coalition, or even win a conventional battle, he said. But that is because the terrorists do not seek conventional war, Rumsfeld said, and because their "weapons are terror and chaos.
"They want the world to believe that the coalition cannot win; that the free Iraqi and Afghan governments cannot win; that the fight is not worth it; that the effort will be too hard and too ugly," Rumsfeld said.
The terrorists try to undermine morale, Rumsfeld said --- "of the Afghans, of the Iraqis, of the coalition, and of the American people. They are convinced that if they can win the battle of perception -- and they are superb at managing the media and affecting perceptions -- that we will lose our will and toss it in," he said.
It was clear after 9/11 that an offensive strategy was needed against terrorists, Rumsfeld said. He named three key aims:
-- First, pursue terrorists and regimes that succor them;
-- Second, make new allies and international coalitions to prosecute the fight; and
-- Third, work with moderate governments "to undermine terrorism's ideological foundation."
Three years after the September 11, 2001, attacks, Rumsfeld noted the successes to date.
Instead of a Taliban regime, Afghanistan now has a moderate leader, a soccer stadium used for games and not public executions, and a free election --- for the first time in its 5,000-year history --in which more than 8 million Afghans voted.
As for Iraq, he said, 9/11 saw that nation brutally ruled by a despotic Saddam Hussein and his sons, who flouted a dozen-plus U.N. Security Council resolutions, shot at U.S. and coalition airplanes enforcing those resolutions, and encouraged suicide terrorists by paying $25,000 to each of their families. Now they have a moderate interim leadership team governing "a liberated nation, determined to fight terrorists and build a peaceful society," with 100,000 Iraqis trained and equipped to provide security, he said.
Following are Rumsfeld's prepared remarks:
(begin excerpt)
U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)
Association of the U.S. Army
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery
by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Convention Center, Washington, D.C.
October 27, 2004.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen. Good afternoon.
... When I spoke to this organization 20 years ago, in 1984, I talked about what I characterized as the growing threat of terrorism. I recall noting that terrorism was "not random nor the work of isolated madmen. Rather, it is state-sponsored, by nations using it as a central element of their foreign policy."
I was concerned that the threat posed by terrorism was dangerously underestimated, and worried about the effect that a single attack might have on the behavior of great nations.
I had been serving as President Reagan's [Middle East] envoy after terrorists had murdered 241 U.S. service members in Beirut, Lebanon. This attack was not the first that civilized nations would suffer at the hands of extremists. And, as we know, it would not be the last.
Seven weeks ago, we observed the third anniversary of September 11th, the day that awakened our country to a new world.
Three years into the global war on terror, some understandably ask, "Is our country safer?" It is a fair question. The answer is: Yes -- without question.
It has been said that the global struggle against extremism will be the task of a generation -- that it could go on for years -- as did the Cold War.
The Cold War was a great victory for freedom, but the 50-year struggle between the free world and the Soviet empire was marked by setbacks and failures along the way, as well as successes.
There were times when the enemy seemed to have the upper hand. There was a time when "euro-communism" was in vogue, when the West considered withdrawing. I was Ambassador to NATO in the early 1970s and recall having to fly back to Washington, D.C., to testify against an amendment in the Senate to start withdrawing our troops from Europe. Many Americans and our allies were exhausted, and favored withdrawing from the struggle.
The West's strategies varied -- from co-existence, to containment, to détente, to confrontation. Alliances wavered. In NATO there were frequent disputes over diplomatic policy, weapons deployments, and military strategies.
In the 1960s, France pulled out of the military organization of NATO and abruptly tossed NATO out of France. In America, columnists questioned U.S. policies. There were vocal showings of support for communist Russia, marches against a U.S. military build-up -- even instances where American citizens saw their own government unfairly challenged as warmongers.
Clearly, many did not always fully comprehend the challenge posed by the Soviet appetite for empire. But our nation -- over a long period -- with our allies, demonstrated impressive perseverance and resolve. We dared to confront what many thought might be an unbeatable foe. And eventually the Soviet regime collapsed.
It seems that that is a lesson that needs to be re-learned from generation to generation -- the lesson that weakness can be provocative and entice others into doing things they otherwise would avoid, that a refusal to confront gathering dangers can increase rather than reduce future peril. That while there are risks to acting, there can also be risks to not acting, and that victory ultimately comes to those who are steadfast.
It's with those lessons in mind that the President and an historic coalition of more than 90 countries have sought to confront a new and perhaps even more dangerous enemy -- an enemy without a country or a conscience -- and one that seeks no armistice or truce -- with us or with the civilized world.
From the outset of this conflict, it was clear that our coalition had to go on the offense against terrorists. The need [was]:
-- To pursue terrorists and regimes that provide them aid and comfort;
-- To establish relationships with new allies and bolster international coalitions to prosecute the war; and
-- To work with moderate leaders to undermine terrorism's ideological foundation.
Al-Qaeda was a growing danger long before 9/11. Osama bin Laden was safe and sheltered in Afghanistan. His network was dispersed around the world.
Three years later, a large fraction of al-Qaeda's key associates have been detained or killed. And I suspect bin Laden spends most of his time every day avoiding being caught.
Once controlled by extremists, Afghanistan today is led by President Hamid Karzai, who is helping to lead the world in support of moderates against the extremists. Soccer stadiums in Kabul, once used for public executions under the Taliban, today are used for soccer.
Three years ago in Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his sons brutally ruled a nation in the heart of the Middle East. Saddam was attempting regularly to kill American and British air crews that were enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones. He ignored more than a dozen U.N. Security Council resolutions; and he was paying $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers.
Last December, Saddam Hussein was captured by Coalition Special Operations Forces and the 4th Infantry Division. He is now a prisoner awaiting trial by the Iraqis. His sons are dead, after refusing to surrender to the Screaming Eagles of the 101st Airborne.
Some 100,000 trained and equipped Iraqis now provide security for their fellow citizens. Under the Iraqi prime minister, Mr. Allawi, and his team, Iraq is a liberated nation, determined to fight terrorists and build a peaceful society.
NATO is now leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, and is helping to train Iraqi security forces. Operating outside of the NATO treaty area for the first time is a truly historic move for NATO.
Here at home, the demands of the global war on terror have given even greater impetus to the need to transform our armed forces, as they undertake an increasingly complex array of missions.
With the leadership of Acting Secretary Les Brownlee and Chief of Staff Pete Schoomaker, and using the President's emergency powers, the size of the active duty Army has increased by about 30,000 troops, and is being reorganized into more agile, more lethal, and more readily deployable brigades, with the protection, firepower, and logistics assets to sustain them.
And we are currently increasing the number of these new, more capable Army brigades from 33 to 43, or possibly 48, over the coming two-and-a-half to three years. The Army is re-structuring and re-training the Active component and the Reserve components, to achieve a more appropriate 21st-century distribution of skill sets on active duty, to improve the total force responsiveness, and so that Reservists and Guardsmen will be mobilized less often, for shorter periods of time, and with somewhat more predictability.
The ability of all the armed services -- Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard -- to work seamlessly together is increasing. Jointness must become the rule. Communications and intelligence activities have been improved, and we've significantly expanded the capabilities and missions of Special Operations Forces.
Since the global war on terror began, our coalition has worked to undercut the extremists' efforts to attract new recruits. The world today is divided between regions where freedom and democracy have been nurtured, and areas where people are subjected to tyranny.
In Afghanistan, over eight million people voted in this month's election. One of the earliest voters was a 19-year-old woman. People, dressed in their best clothes, lined up for more than a mile, and a long line of women stayed in line even when there was an explosion only 100 yards away.
Iraq now has an interim constitution that includes a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. There are municipal councils in almost every major city, and most towns and villages, and provincial councils for the provinces. Iraqis now are among those allowed to say, and write, and watch, and listen to whatever they want, whenever they want. And it is clear that governments and people in the Middle East are taking note of that.
There have been setbacks in Afghanistan and Iraq, to be sure. On bad days, it is not a pretty picture. But the road from tyranny to freedom has never been peaceful or tranquil. It has always been difficult and dangerous. It was difficult for the United States. It was difficult for Germany and Japan, and for Italy.
The enemy cannot defeat the coalition in a conventional battle, let alone a war. But they don't seek conventional war. Their weapons are terror and chaos. They want the world to believe that the coalition cannot win; that the free Iraqi and Afghan governments cannot win; that the fight is not worth it; that the effort will be too hard and too ugly.
They attack any sort of hope or progress in an effort to try to undermine morale -- the morale of the Afghans, of the Iraqis, of the Coalition, and of the American people. They are convinced that if they can win the battle of perception -- and they are superb at managing the media and affecting perceptions -- that we will lose our will and toss it in.
They are wrong. Failure in Afghanistan or Iraq would exact a terrible toll. It would embolden the extremists and make the world a far more dangerous place.
Our 26th President and Commander-in-Chief, Theodore Roosevelt (whose birthday we coincidentally celebrate today), wrote in his autobiography, "The worst of all fears is the fear of living." He was correct. We cannot allow these terrorists -- these extremists -- to destroy our way of life.
From Baghdad, Kabul, Madrid, Bali, and the Philippines -- the call to arms has been sounded. And the outcome of this struggle will determine the nature of our world for decades to come. These enemies will not be wished away.
Those who behead innocents seek to enslave, and have shown they are willing to do anything to achieve their goals. The deaths of the innocent people they kill are not incidental in this war. Indeed, innocent men, women, and children are in fact their targets, and the extremists will willingly kill hundreds and thousands more.
The world has gasped at the brutality of the extremists:
-- The hundreds of children in Russia who were killed or wounded on their first day of school;
-- The commuters blown up in the trains in Madrid, on their way to work;
-- Innocents murdered in a nightclub in Bali;
-- The cutting off of heads on television.
And should these terrorists acquire the world's more dangerous weapons, the most lethal weapons -- and they are seeking them -- the lives of ten of thousands could be at stake.
There have been losses, and they have been borne particularly heavily by the U.S. Army -- Active, Reserve, and Guard alike.
Every loss is deeply felt.
Today, as before, the hard work of history falls to our country -- to the Armed Forces. Our people have been entrusted with the gift of freedom. It is for each generation to safeguard and defend. And as the brave men and women in uniform face these challenges, they can know that the great sweep of human history is for freedom, and that that is on our side.
Thank you. May God bless the men and women of United States Army. And may God bless America.
(end excerpt)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
This page printed from: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2004&m=October&x=20041027180458adynned0.5436212&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
