UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Washington File

09 July 2003

Rumsfeld Says Recent Attacks In Iraq Are Concentrated Around Baghdad

(Coalition forces are forcefully seeking out enemy fighters) (3310)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says most of the recent attacks on
coalition forces in Iraq are occurring in three corridors that extend
west, north and east from Baghdad.
"At this moment, coalition forces are engaged in operations to deal
with the threats in these areas. Indeed, a number [of] the recent
incidents in those regions are the result of offensive operations by
the coalition -- cases where coalition forces have sought out and
engaged enemy fighters," Rumsfeld said July 9 in prepared remarks
before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The hearing was held to
examine "lessons learned" during Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Both Rumsfeld and Army
General Tommy Franks, the former commander of the U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM), testified.
"The problem is real -- but it is being dealt with in an orderly and
forceful fashion by coalition forces," Rumsfeld said. He told
committee members it is not the case that Saddam Hussein regime
loyalists are operating freely throughout the country and attacking
U.S. and coalition forces at will.
Rumsfeld said coalition forces are still engaging hostile forces
nearly 10 weeks after major combat operations ended in part because of
the nature of the enemy.
"In Iraq, coalition forces drove the country's leaders from power. But
unlike traditional adversaries of wars past that sign a surrender
document and hand over their weapons, the remnants of the Ba'ath
regime and Fedayeen death squads in Iraq did not surrender," Rumsfeld
said. "Some were killed or captured, but many others faded into the
population and are forming pockets of resistance against coalition
forces.
"We now have to deal with those remnants of the regime -- just as we
are dealing with the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban hiding in
border areas of Afghanistan. Those battles will likely go on for some
time."
Following is the text of Rumsfeld's remarks as prepared:
(begin text)
PREPARED TESTIMONY BY U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD H. RUMSFELD
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
July 9, 2003
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to meet with the
Committee. Let me begin by saying a few words about the remarkable man
seated next to me -- General Tommy Franks.
On Monday, I was in Tampa to attend the change of command ceremony
where General Franks handed the reins of U.S. Central Command to his
able deputy, General John Abizaid.
It was an occasion to reflect on General Franks and what the CENTCOM
leadership team has accomplished during his tenure as the Combatant
Commander. It is an extraordinary record of achievement.
Think back to September 11th -- a dark day for our country. But how
fortunate our nation was to have General Franks and his team in
command at CENTCOM.
Consider what they have accomplished:
In less than a month, they had developed and were executing a war plan
for Afghanistan employing a range of capabilities-from the most
advanced (such as laser-guided weapons), to the antique (40 year-old
B-52s updated with modern electronics) to the rudimentary (a cavalry
charge) -- they and our Afghan and coalition allies drove the Taliban
and al-Qaeda from power in a matter of months.
The plan they developed for Operation Iraqi Freedom was even more
innovative and transformational -- employing an unprecedented
combination of speed, precision, surprise, and flexibility.
The Iraqi regime very likely expected the war to begin, as did the
1991 Gulf War, with a sustained bombing campaign. Instead, General
Franks started the ground attack before the air campaign -- sending a
large force of Special Operators into Western Iraq, followed by
thousands of coalition forces streaming across the Kuwaiti border.
Instead of a long march through the South, with pitch battles for each
city along the way, they drove through to reach the gates of Baghdad
in a matter of weeks -- liberating the Iraqi capital and toppling the
regime in less than a month.
The plan was adaptable and flexible, allowing General Franks and his
team to turn difficulties into opportunities. For example, the
inability of coalition forces to enter Iraq from the north was
disappointing. But instead of bringing the 4th Infantry Division out
of the Mediterranean to the Gulf, General Franks kept them in the
Mediterranean -- creating the impression in Baghdad that the attack
would not start until the coalition could open the northern front.
This very likely contributed to the surprise of the Iraqi regime when
the war began without those forces in the fight.
One of the most interesting aspects of the campaign was the fact that
the "lessons learned" process began before the war began. General
Franks installed a "lessons learned" team from Joint Forces Command
with his command from the start. They did more than take notes to
improve our performance for the next war -- they provided immediate
feedback, allowing CENTCOM leadership to apply "lessons learned" in
real time and improve coalition performance in this war.
I'll leave it to General ranks describe in detail the lessons he
believes are most important. For my part, I'd say some key lessons so
far include:
-- The importance of speed, and the ability to get inside the enemy's
decision cycle and strike before he is able to mount a coherent
defense;
-- The importance of jointness, and the ability of U.S. forces to
fight, not as individual de-conflicted services, but as a truly joint
force-maximizing the power and lethality they bring to bear;
-- The importance of intelligence -- and the ability to act on
intelligence rapidly, in minutes, instead of days and even hours;
-- And the importance of precision, and the ability to deliver
devastating damage to enemy positions, while sparing civilian lives
and the civilian infrastructure.
Another lesson is that in the 21st century "overmatching power" is
more important than "overwhelming force." In the past, under the
doctrine of overwhelming force, force tended to be measured in terns
of mass -- the number of troops that were committed to a particular
conflict. In the 21st century, mass may no longer be the best measure
of power in a conflict. After all, when Baghdad fell, there were just
over 100,000 American forces on the ground. General Franks overwhelmed
the enemy not with the typical three to one advantage in mass, but by
overmatching the enemy with advanced capabilities, and using those
capabilities in innovative and unexpected ways.
There are many more lessons we will learn from the experience in Iraq,
and we are still in the early stages of studying them. Admiral
Giambastiani and his team at Joint Forces Command are leading this
effort, land the conclusions that are drawn will most certainly affect
how the U.S. Armed Forces, amid the services organize, train and equip
for many years to come.
This will be one of General Franks truly enduring legacies. He led the
coalition forces that liberated two nations. But how he liberated
those countries -- the tactics and strategies he developed and
employed -- will contribute to the freedom of our country and our
people for years to come.
So, while General Franks may be leaving the Service, his service to
our country will live on -- in the impact of Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom will have on budgets and
procedures, training and doctrine. And the people he led, those who
served with him in Iraq and Afghanistan, will now take those
transformational experiences to their next important commands, and
teach them to the next generation.
So Tom, we salute you, and we thank you for your remarkable service to
our country.
Mr. Chairman, Operation Iraqi Freedom will go down in history, not
just for what was accomplished, but also for what did not happen as a
result of the speed and flexibility of the war plan General Franks and
his team employed. Consider just some of the things did not occur:
-- Neighboring countries were not hit with Scud missiles.
-- The vast majority of Iraq's oil fields were not burned.
-- There were no massive civilian casualties, or large masses of
refugees fleeing across borders into the neighboring countries.
-- There was no large-scale collateral damage. The infrastructure of
the country is largely intact.
-- Bridges were not blown, and rail lines were protected.
-- The dams were not broken and villages were not flooded.
So for all the difficulties in Iraq today -- and there are tough
challenges to be sure -- it is important to keep in mind all of the
problems that Iraqis do riot have to overcome because of the way the
war was fought. Today, Iraqis do not have to rebuild oil wells,
bridges, roads and dams that were not destroyed in the war. They do
not have to bury large numbers of innocent civilians, or rebuild
residential neighborhoods, because of the compassion and precision
with which coalition forces fought.
Iraqis do face the enormous challenge of rebuilding from three decades
of tyranny. We must not underestimate how difficult that task will be.
But we can take comfort knowing that, as we freed them from tyranny,
we did not add to their burden by destroying Iraq's infrastructure. To
the contrary, we saved it.
Today, coalition forces are helping the Iraqi people rebuild, and get
on the path to stability and democratic self-government. We are making
progress in helping Iraqis re-establish security and commerce; restore
power and basic services; reopen schools and hospitals; and establish
rule of law. With each passing week, more services come online; power
and water are restored in more of the country; gas lines disappear;
and more Iraqi police are on the streets.
Indeed, civil society is beginning to form. There are now dozens of
independent newspapers sprouting up, in Baghdad and throughout the
country. Town councils and associations are forming, and people are
expressing opinions openly for the first time in decades.
Vendors in Baghdad are selling videotapes detailing the atrocities
that took place in Saddam's prisons. As the President put it last
week, these are "the true monuments of Saddam Hussein's rule -- the
mass graves, the torture chambers, the jail cells for children."
Despite the difficulties they face, most Iraqis are far better off
today than they were four months ago. The residents of Baghdad may not
have power 24 hours a day, but they no longer wake up each morning in
fear, wondering whether this will be the day that the death squads
come to cut out their tongues, chop off their ears, or take their
children away for "questioning" -- never to be seen again.
It is true there are some Iraqis who are not better off today -- those
who comprised the small, elite segment of Iraqi society that benefited
from the dictatorship. Such people exist in any dictatorship. And they
are understandably unhappy now that the regime that favored them has
been removed from power. Today some of them are in hiding. Others are
engaging in acts of sabotage and violence.
Let me say a word about the security situation in Iraq today. There
seems to be a widely held impression that regime loyalists are
operating freely throughout the country, attacking coalition forces at
will. That is not the case.
Large portions of Iraq are stable. Most of the recent attacks have
been concentrated in Baghdad and three corridors reaching West, North
and East out of the Iraqi capital.
At this moment, coalition forces are engaged in operations to deal
with the threats in these areas. Indeed, a number the recent incidents
in those regions are the result of offensive operations by the
Coalition -- cases where Coalition forces have sought out and engaged
enemy fighters.
Mr. Chairman, the problem is real -- but it is being dealt with in an
orderly and forceful fashion by coalition forces.
Some may ask: why is the Coalition still engaging hostile forces
nearly 10 weeks after major combat operations ended? The answer has to
do with the nature of the enemy.
In Iraq, coalition forces drove the country's leaders from power. But
unlike traditional adversaries of wars past that sign a surrender
document and hand over their weapons, the remnants of the Ba'ath
regime and Fedayeen death squads in Iraq did not surrender. Some were
killed or captured, but many others faded into the population, and are
forming pockets of resistance against coalition forces.
We now have to deal with those remnants of the regime -- just as we
are dealing with the remnants of al-Qaeda and the Taliban hiding in
border areas of Afghanistan. Those battles will likely go on for some
time.
In Iraq, we face added challenges. In addition to remnants of the
former regime, coalition forces are also dealing with tens of
thousands of criminals the regime released into the streets before the
war began. They are now at large and are doing what criminals do --
looting, robbing and killing people.
In addition, our forces must also deal with foreign terrorists who
crossed into Iraq for an opportunity to harm the coalition and to try
to shake our resolve in the war on terror. They will not succeed.
So there are a number of sources of instability. But this much is
certain: Iraq has been liberated. The Ba'athist regime has been
removed from power, and will not be permitted to return. But our war
with terrorists -- the remnants in Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorist
networks across the globe -- continues. And it will take time.
Just as we are dealing with terrorist networks in Afghanistan --
breaking them up as they attempt to reconstitute -- we will deal with
them in Iraq. It will take time, but we will prevail.
As President Bush made clear last week: "There will be no return to
tyranny in Iraq. And those who threaten the order and stability of
that country will face ruin, just as surely as the regime they once
served."
To help ensure long-term security, the coalition is forming a new
Iraqi Army. Walt Slocombe, the Director of Security Affairs for the
Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, announced last month the
start of recruitment for the new Army, with an initial goal of having
a division of 12,000 men ready within a year, and 40,000 less than
three years. As with the training of the Afghan National Army, the
objective is to create a situation where, over time, Iraqis can take
responsibility for their own stability and security, and not need to
depend on foreign forces.
One of the challenges facing the coalition is finding Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction programs. We are still early in the process, and
the task before us is sizable and complex. Major combat operations
ended less than 10 weeks ago. The Iraqi regime had 12 years to conceal
its programs -- to move materials, hide documents, disperse equipment,
develop mobile production facilities, and sanitize known WMD sites --
including four years with no UN weapons inspectors on the ground.
Uncovering those programs will take time.
The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic
new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of WMD; we acted because we saw the
existing evidence in a new light -- through the prism of our
experience on 9/11. On that day, we saw thousands of innocent men,
women and children, killed by terrorists. And that experience changed
our appreciation of our vulnerability -- and the risks the U.S. faces
from terrorist states and terrorist networks armed with weapons of
mass murder.
The United States did not choose war -- Saddam Hussein did. For twelve
years, he violated 17 United Nations resolutions without cost or
consequence. His regime had an international obligation to:
-- To destroy its weapons of mass destruction; and
-- To prove to the world that they had done so.
He refused to do so.
It was the UN Security Council which passed the 17th resolution
declaring Saddam Hussein was in "material breach" of his disarmament
obligations, and giving him one "final opportunity" to disarm. If he
had in fact disarmed, why didn't he take that final opportunity to
prove that his programs were ended and his weapons destroyed? Why did
he continue to give up tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue
under UN sanctions, when he could have had those sanctions lifted
simply by demonstrating that he had disarmed? Why did he file what all
agreed was a false declaration with the UN? Why didn't he cooperate
with international community-as Kazakhstan, Ukraine and South Africa
did?
Had he done so, war could have been avoided. If he had in fact
disarmed, he had everything to gain and nothing to lose by cooperating
with the UN. Yet he did not cooperate. He continued to lie and
obstruct the UN inspectors. The logical conclusion is that he did so
because he wanted to keep his weapons -- and believed that he could
continue to outwit the international community for another 12 years --
just as he had for the past 12 years -- and survive.
Mr. Chairman, terrorist regimes have been removed in Iraq and
Afghanistan -- but the global war on terror continues. The President
declared last week:
"As long as terrorists and their allies plot to harm America, America
is at war .... From the beginning, we have known the effort would be
long and difficult, and that our resolve would be tested. We know that
sacrifice is unavoidable .... We did not choose this war. Yet, with
the safety of the American people at stake, we will continue to wage
this war with all our might."
The objective in the global war on terror is to prevent another attack
like September 11th -- or a biological, nuclear, or chemical attack
that could be far worse -- before it happens.
One wonders, looking back on history, what might have happened if the
world heeded Winston Churchill's warnings in the 1930s -- if, instead
of ignoring the growing evidence, free nations had united, and formed
a coalition to intervene and stop Hitler before he completely rearmed;
before he invaded Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and set Europe aflame.
Consider the lives that would have been saved if the world had faced
up to the mounting evidence and the compelling logic of the case
Churchill presented, instead of waiting for perfect evidence of his
capabilities and intentions in the form of 25 million dead human
beings.
The historical record of appeasement is a sorry one. And in an age
when terrorists and dictators are seeking nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons of mass murder, we need to consider the lessons of
history.
We can look to our experience on September 11th. We can look to Saddam
Hussein's brutal record of using chemical weapons on foreign forces
and on his own people, his history of aggression against his
neighbors, his rewards to families of suicide terrorist bombers, and
his stated hostility against the United States. We can look to his 12
years of defiance of the international community's demand that he
disarm -- and the near unanimous assessment of successive Democratic
and Republican administrations, the intelligence community (both ours
and those of foreign countries), the Congress, and the UN that he had
weapons of mass destruction. We can look at all this and imagine a
world in which such a dictator was permitted to develop nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons, while the world's free nations stood
by.
We can say, with confidence, that the world is a better place today
because the United States led a coalition of forces into action in
Iraq -- and because of General Tom Franks' skilled execution of the
President's orders.
So, yes, we are paying a price in Iraq and elsewhere around the world
today -- a price in lives and treasure. But it must be compared to the
price we paid on September 11th and the price we would have paid far
doing nothing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list