• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

19 February 2003

Excerpt: Rumsfeld Says U.S. Will Help Iraqi People Form Own Government

(U.S. will not abandon Afghanistan, he says) (1700)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the United States -- in a
post-Saddam Hussein Iraq -- would seek to create conditions where the
Iraqi people can form a government in their own way, just as Afghans
have done with their representative government that is uniquely
Afghan.
"The goal would not be to impose an American style template on Iraq,
but rather to create conditions where Iraqis can form a government in
their own unique way," he said during remarks February 14 in New York.
"We would work with our partners as we are doing in Afghanistan to
help the Iraqi people establish a new government that would govern a
single country, that would not have weapons of mass destruction, that
would not be a threat to its neighbors, and that would respect the
rights of its diverse populations and the aspirations of all the Iraqi
people to live in freedom and to have a voice in their government."
Rumsfeld also said that whatever happens elsewhere in the world, the
United States will not abandon Afghanistan. He said it remains an
important ally, not just in the war on terrorism, but in the greater
struggle for freedom and moderation in the Middle East.
Finally, he said that if the United States does lead an international
coalition into Iraq, it will be guided by two commitments -- stay as
long as necessary, and leave as soon as possible.
Following are excerpts from Rumsfeld's remarks:
(begin excerpt)
Beyond Nation Building
Remarks as delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
11th Annual Salute to Freedom, Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum
New York City
February 14, 2003
... After Pearl Harbor our country fought back and defeated those who
attacked it. But we also made clear that America was not interested in
conquest or colonization. And when the hostilities ended after World
War II we helped the Japanese people rebuild from the rubble of war
and establish institutions of democracy. Today Japan is of course a
staunch friend and a steadfast U.S. ally.
Similarly, after the September 11th attacks we fought back in
Afghanistan. We also made clear that America was not interested in
conquest of colonization. Today we're helping the Afghan people
rebuild from the rubble of war, establish institutions of government.
That indeed is the American way.
In a way it's ironic that the terrorists really attacked us [for] who
we are, a free people, yet the result of their attacks was the
liberation of the Afghan people. ...
... Before September 11th Afghans lived in fear. The freedoms we enjoy
were for them but a distant dream. Today the Afghan people are free.
Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. It has a
transitional government with a popular mandate. Girls and boys are
back in school. And well over one million refugees have returned to
their homes. They're voting with their feet and making a conscious
decision and judgment that what's taking place in that country is
going to work. This is a remarkable transformation. ...
From the outset of the war our guiding principle has been that
Afghanistan belongs to the Afghans. The United States does not aspire
to own it or run it. This shaped how we approached the military
campaign. General Franks would not send a massive invasion and
occupation force as the ... Soviets had. Instead he keeps the
coalition footprint modest. He adapted a strategy of teaming with
local Afghan forces that opposed the Taliban. And the careful use of
precision-guided weapons helped ensure that there were fewer civilian
casualties in this war than perhaps in any war in modern history. As a
result we did not alienate the Afghan people.
Not only did we make every effort to avoid civilian deaths, we worked
hard to save civilian lives. Coalition aircrews dropped more than 2.4
million humanitarian daily rations to Afghan villages, reinforcing the
message that we were coming not as a force of occupation but as a
force of liberation. These principles which brought success in war are
now guiding our efforts to shape the peace.
Afghanistan belongs to the Afghans. The objective is not to engage in
what some call nation building. Rather it's to try to help the Afghans
so that they can build their own nation. This is an important
distinction. In some nation building exercises well-intentioned
foreigners arrive on the scene, look at the problems and say let's fix
it. This is well motivated to be sure, but it can really be a
disservice in some instances because when foreigners come in with
international solutions to local problems, if not very careful they
can create a dependency.
A long-term foreign presence in a country can be unnatural. This has
happened in several places with large foreign presence. The economies
remained unreformed and distorted to some extent. Educated young
people can make more money as drivers for foreign workers than as
doctors and civil servants. Despite good intentions and the fine work
of humanitarian workers individually, there can be unintended adverse
side effects.
For example in East Timor, which is one of the poorest countries in
Asia, the average income is about a dollar a day yet the capital of
East Timor is now one of the most expensive cities in Asia. Local
restaurants are out of reach for most of the people. They cater to
international workers who have salaries that are some 200 times the
average local wage. In the city's main supermarkets prices are
reportedly on a par with London and New York.
Take Kosovo where a driver shuttling international workers around the
capital can earn ten times the salary of a university professor in
that country. A recent Wall Street Journal story described how three
years after the war the United Nations still runs Kosovo really by
executive orders. They issue postage stamps, passports, driver's
licenses and the like and decisions made by the local parliament are
invalid without the signatures of the U.N. administrators.
Our goal in Afghanistan is to try and not create a culture of
dependence. ... Long-term stability comes not from the presence of
foreign forces but from the development of functioning local
institutions. That's why in the area of security we have been helping
to train for example the Afghan National Army. Our coalition partners
have been training the police. And the goal is so that Afghans over
time can take full responsibility for their own security and stability
rather than having to depend on foreign forces ... for a sustained
period.
Our challenge in the period ahead is to put similar principles to work
and guide our efforts to aid Afghan reconstruction.
The United States, interestingly, has already provided some $850
million for that task with another $3.3 billion [$3,300 million]
authorized over the next several years. It's a sizeable investment and
we need more help from the international community.
This year we are embarked on a major international effort to bolster a
new Afghan government. Our goal is to begin moving toward an end state
in which the Afghan government is sufficiently established so they can
provide security and stability for the country. Some ask what lessons
our experience in Afghanistan might offer for the possibility of a
post-Saddam Iraq. It has a nice ring, doesn't it? A post-Saddam Iraq.
As you know, the President has not made any decision with respect to
the use of force in Iraq, but if he were to do so that principle would
hold true. Iraq belongs to the Iraqis and we do not aspire to own it
or run it. We hope to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and
to help liberate the Iraqi people from oppression.
If the United States were to lead an international coalition in Iraq
-- and let there be no doubt it would be a very large one -- it would
be guided by two commitments. Stay as long as necessary, and to leave
as soon as possible.
We would work with our partners as we are doing in Afghanistan to help
the Iraqi people establish a new government that would govern a single
country, that would not have weapons of mass destruction, that would
not be a threat to its neighbors. And that would respect the rights of
its diverse populations and the aspirations of all the Iraqi people to
live in freedom and to have a voice in their government.
The goal would not be to impose an American style template on Iraq,
but rather to create conditions where Iraqis can form a government in
their own unique way just as the Afghans did with the Loya Jirga which
produced a representative government that is uniquely Afghan.
This is not to underestimate the challenge that the coalition would
face. Iraq has several advantages over Afghanistan. One is time. The
effort in Afghanistan had to be planned and executed in a matter of
weeks after September 11th. With Iraq, by contrast, there has been
time to prepare. We have set up a Post War Planning Office to think
through problems and coordinate the efforts of coalition countries and
U.S. government agencies. General Franks, in an interagency process,
has been working hard on this for many months.
A second advantage is resources. Afghanistan is a poor country that's
been brutalized by continuous war -- civil war and occupation. Iraq
has a solid infrastructure with working networks of roads and
[resources] and it has oil to help give free Iraq the means to get on
its feet.
But let me be clear, whatever happens elsewhere in the world we will
not abandon Afghanistan. Afghanistan remains an important ally, not
just in the war against terrorism but in that larger struggle for
freedom and moderation in the Muslim world.
If we succeed, Afghans will take hold of their country, develop their
institutions of self governance, reclaim their place as a responsible
member of the international community. Such a transformation we
believe is possible because of the courage and sacrifice of many brave
Americans who have served in Afghanistan and who serve there today.
...
(end excerpt)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)