• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

21 February 2003

U.S., Coalition Forces Called Ready for Iraqi Operations

(Rumsfeld says there will be a large international coalition) (4840)
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says an ample U.S., British and
coalition military force is in the Persian Gulf region and ready to go
to war against Iraq if President Bush authorizes the use of force.
The coalition military force now assembling includes approximately
150,000 naval, air and army personnel, although that number could
reach more than 200,000 by the end of February, according to press
reports. Rumsfeld, however, would not provide specific figures during
an interview February 20 on PBS television's "NewsHour." Despite the
massive buildup under way, Rumsfeld said, it does not mean that war is
inevitable.
"Everyone's first choice would be to not have to have a conflict,"
Rumsfeld said, but there are three options facing the U.S. and its
allies.
The first option is that Iraq be disarmed voluntarily, though "the
Iraqi regime refuses to cooperate with the [weapons] inspectors, and
with the United Nations," he said.
The second option would be for the regime of Saddam Hussein to leave,
voluntarily or involuntarily, he said.
Finally, Rumsfeld said the last option is to throw out the regime,
"and the president is determined that if that's necessary, he will
lead a coalition of a large number of countries and do that." The last
option would require coalition forces to invade Iraq, change the
regime, and disarm the country, he said.
"Plans have been prepared to deal with a full range of possibilities.
... I think the downsides have been widely discussed," Rumsfeld said,
and that includes preparations for everything from conventional combat
operations to chemical-biological operations and urban street
fighting. He said that a number of countries have been moving forces
into the region and/or providing military capabilities to the growing
coalition.
The secretary said that if President Bush makes a final decision to
use military force against Iraq for failing to disarm itself of an
array of weapons of mass destruction, then the coalition has a
strategy in place and is prepared and capable of accomplishing its
mission.
The new Iraq to emerge after conflict has ended, he said, would be a
single country without weapons of mass destruction that would not
threaten its neighbors, he said.
"It would be a country where the people of that country, the ethnic
minorities and the religious minorities, would have a voice in their
government," Rumsfeld said. The goal, he said, would be to establish
an Iraqi self-governing process and "the sooner the better."
Finally, Rumsfeld said Iraq's oil belongs to the Iraqi people and it
would be produced for their welfare and needs.
Following is a transcript of Rumsfeld's interview:
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense 
News Transcript
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld 
February 20, 2003 
Secretary Rumsfeld Interview On PBS NewsHour
(Interview with NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, WETA TV) 
Lehrer: And now to the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. 
Mr. Secretary, welcome.
Rumsfeld: Thank you. 
Lehrer: No breakthrough yet on the Turkish bases situation; is that
right?
Rumsfeld: That's correct. 
Lehrer: What's the problem? Is it money? 
Rumsfeld: Well, no. It's the fact that Turkey is a democracy. It has a
relatively new government. It is wrestling with a whole set of issues,
and the reality is that what the United States has asked of Turkey is
significant. And so they need time to think it through and talk to
their parliament and give consideration to it. I suspect in the day or
two immediately ahead, why we'll have some sort of an answer, and in
the last analysis, Turkey is our ally in NATO. Turkey is participating
now in Operation Northern Watch, where we have coalition aircraft in
Turkey that monitors the northern portion of Iraq. And they have been
helpful in a number of ways.
Lehrer: What would not having access to their bases do to a potential
military action against Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Well, I don't think that's really the issue, whether we'll
have access to their bases, and whether we'll be able to overfly and
those types of things. We already have that for Operation Enduring
Freedom, the global war on terror. I think the real issue they're
considering now is the extent to which they want to increase that to
permit larger numbers of heavier troops to come in from the north in
the event that the decision is made that force is necessary to disarm
Saddam Hussein.
Lehrer: But if you don't have the 40,000 troops, what I've been
reading, there's 40,000 troops that the U.S. wants to put into the
northern boundary through Turkey for potential conflict with Iraq, if
you can't do it that way, what I'm asking is --
Rumsfeld: We'll do another way. 
Lehrer: You'll do it another way. And it still can be done, and it's
not going to upset things. I just -- did you read the New York Times?
The New York Times quoted a White House spokesman, a White House
person this morning as saying that this was extortion in the name of
alliance, that's what Turkey was up to. Do you agree with that?
Rumsfeld: No. I don't. I mean, I think what it is, is a democratic
country going through the whole series of questions as to what they
think their role ought to be. And I think that's fair. These are tough
issues that countries are wrestling with. I think that's not the way I
would characterize it.
Lehrer: The Turkey problem aside, is the U.S. military ready to go
against Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Yes. 
Lehrer: In general terms, I know you don't like to talk specifics, but
in general terms, what is the force that's ready to go?
Rumsfeld: I would characterize it as ample. The United States at the
president's request decided that as the diplomacy took place in the
world, and in the United Nations, that it was important to begin
flowing forces to support that diplomacy. And we've had many, many
weeks now to do that. The United Kingdom has had many, many weeks to
do that. Other countries have taken steps to deploy various types of
assets. NATO did this last week, deployed some capability to Turkey,
for example. Other countries have been deploying things like chemical
and biological detection units to Kuwait. So a number of countries
have been flowing capabilities and forces into that region. And there
has been a good deal of time, so we are at a point where, if the
president makes that decision, the Department of Defense is prepared
and has the capabilities and the strategy to do that.
Lehrer: In general terms of the figures, 150,000 troops, five aircraft
battle groups, and heavy bombers, is that roughly it from the U.S.
point of view?
Rumsfeld: I won't do numbers. 
Lehrer: Okay. That's the conventional wisdom that's in every story. 
Rumsfeld: That doesn't make it so. 
Lehrer: I know. 
Rumsfeld: You know the old rule. People who don't know talk, and
people who know don't talk.
Lehrer: Okay. But, are these -- are there limits to how long these
American forces can remain ready to go?
Rumsfeld: Well, there's obviously a preference. You don't ramp up to a
high level and sustain it for a long period easily. What you have to
do is rotate capabilities in and out over time.
Lehrer: We keep hearing that the time is running out to keep these
forces ready. Is that true?
Rumsfeld: Well, the way to think of it, it seems to me, is the way the
president put it, and that is that it's been 12 years, and what's
being tested now is not whether or not inspectors can go in and find
weapons of mass destruction, that's not what inspectors are for.
They're not finders or discoverers. What's being tested now is whether
or not Saddam Hussein is going to cooperate. And it doesn't take a lot
of time to determine whether or not Saddam Hussein is going to
cooperate. So, once the construct of that issue is placed properly
before the world, it seems to me the answer gets increasingly clear.
We've now had 17 resolutions. It's been 12 years. They've tried
diplomacy. The world has tried economic sanctions. The world has tried
military activity in the northern and southern no-fly zones. At some
point, why the time runs out. And that's what the president has said.
Lehrer: I didn't make my question clear. I meant, is there a time
element involved in keeping those thousands of troops, how many ever
there are, and bombers and hardware, at a state of readiness before
they have to stand down, that's what I meant?
Rumsfeld: Well, as I say, it costs money. It keeps people away from
their homes and families, and their jobs in the case of Guard and
Reserve. So, obviously, your first choice is not to flow forces and
then sustain them there for one, two, three, four years, whatever,
another 12. There has to be some end to these things. Either you use
them or you bring them back.
Lehrer: Well, let's talk about that a moment. Do you feel that just
having this large force that you outlined in general terms is a
momentum for war in and of itself, just because they're there, they
must be used?
Rumsfeld: No, I don't. What I think of them as, Saddam Hussein was
ignoring the United Nations for the past period of years. Saddam
Hussein is not ignoring the United Nations today. He's not
cooperating, but he's not ignoring them. Inspectors are back in there.
They're not being cooperated with, so they're not finding much. But
the only reason Saddam Hussein has changed at all is because of the
flow of forces, and the threat of force.
Lehrer: What would be your, as Secretary of Defense, what would be
your position on pulling those troops back and bringing them back
home? In other words, if there was a peaceful solution to this, I've
heard what you said that you don't think that's going to happen, he
isn't cooperating, but if something pulls, if somebody pulls something
out of a hat, is it -- what's the downside of bringing all those
people back home and all that equipment?
Rumsfeld: Well, I think there -- I still -- I mean, everyone agrees,
the last choice is to use force and have a war. They are dangerous
things, people get killed. Unforeseen things happen. There still is at
least a remote possibility that he could decide to leave the country
at some point. To the extent he is persuaded that it's inevitable,
that he's going to lose his position, and his regime is going to be
cast out, it's at least possible. Was it 1 percent? I don't know. But
it's not zero percent that he might leave. The second possibility is
that the people in Iraq might decide he should leave and help him. So
that's a possibility.
If that happens, if that were to happen, as remote as it may be, it
would only happen because the people in Iraq, he or the people around
him who decide they prefer he not be there, were persuaded that it was
inevitable that he was going to go either voluntarily or
involuntarily.
Lehrer: And would it be your positions that, hey, look, we won a war
without having to fight it?
Rumsfeld: Oh, my goodness, that would be -- everyone's first choice
would be to not have to have a conflict.
Lehrer: You do understand that people believe there is not a -- as you
know, this is a matter of public debate, that people think, oh, my
goodness, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld have all these forces
there now, and they feel obligated to use them. You're saying that is
not the case?
Rumsfeld: No, the president's determination, and I work for the
president, his determination is that Iraq be disarmed. His first
choice is that it be done voluntarily. The Iraqi regime refuses to
cooperate with the inspectors, and with the United Nations. They have
for many, many years.
Your second choice would be that the regime leaves, voluntarily or
involuntarily.
The last choice would be that the regime has to be thrown out, and the
president is determined that if that's necessary, he will lead a
coalition of a large number of countries and do that.
Lehrer: Let's talk about that option. How would you describe the
mission? If in fact it comes to military action, and those people,
those Americans and the others who are standing by have to actually
take military action, what's the goal, what's the mission?
Rumsfeld: The mission would be to invade the country, make it very
clear that the purpose was, number one, to change that regime, and
disarm the country. That the purpose is to disarm the country of
weapons of mass destruction, and it would be done in a certain way,
adhering to certain principles. And the principles would be that when
that regime was gone, the new government of Iraq, and it would be an
Iraq that would be for the Iraqi people. It wouldn't be a regime, you
know, determined from outside of Iraq.
But it would be a single country, it would be a country with no
weapons of mass destruction. It would be a country that did not
threaten its neighbors. It would be a country where the people of that
country, the ethnic minorities and the religious minorities, would
have a voice in their government. And that there would be some
process, and the sooner the better, that Iraqi people could govern
themselves. The oil is the oil of the Iraqi people. And this
speculation around that somebody is interested in their oil is
nonsense. That oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and it will be
important for the Iraqi people.
Lehrer: On the combat itself, are you planning, are you and your folks
planning for a ferocious war where -- I mean, an all-out defense by
the Iraqi military when the U.S. comes in, and when the others come
in?
Rumsfeld: The task of war planners is to plan for every conceivable
contingency. And they are doing that, from the most pessimistic to the
most optimistic.
Lehrer: Is it likely that -- the Gulf War spoiled everybody, of
course, most of the Iraqi military threw down their arms and
surrendered. Are you expecting that to happen again?
Rumsfeld: Oh, I would expect that there would be Iraqi forces that
would surrender rather rapidly. Their morale is not high. They also
have lived under Saddam Hussein, and know what kind of a person he is.
Lehrer: Is that a central part of your planning? Does that have to
happen for this to be successful?
Rumsfeld: No, no. Absolutely not. No, as I say, General Franks and his
planners have developed plans that will address the wide variety of
contingencies.
Lehrer: What about the use of chemical and biological weapons -- 
Rumsfeld: Including that. 
Lehrer: -- including against our folks. 
Rumsfeld: They've looked at the risk that Saddam Hussein, which says
they have no chemical and biological weapons, of course, would use
biological and chemical weapons against U.S. forces, he could use them
against neighboring countries, like Kuwait, or Jordan, or Turkey, or
Israel. They could also use them against their own population, and
blame them on the United States and coalition forces, they've done
that before. So there are a variety of ways they could use chemical or
biological weapons.
Lehrer: Do you expect them to do it? 
Rumsfeld: What we expect is that it's our job to be prepared for any
conceivable contingency. And, therefore, all the way from that unhappy
thought, and dangerous thought, all the way over to catastrophic
success, where so many people surrender so fast that the task becomes
very quickly humanitarian assistance, and medical assistance, and
water, and those types of things. So, they have developed contingency
plans for the full spectrum of contingencies.
Lehrer: What do you expect the Iraqi civilians to do? To treat
American troops as liberators or as conquerors?
Rumsfeld: Well, I suppose we'll get that across the spectrum as well.
Certainly the people that are close in to Saddam Hussein would know
that their future is not bright. The people who are engaged in
managing or using weapons of mass destruction would have to know that
their future would be bleak.
On the other hand, people who surrender, and people who recognize that
resistance is not wise, that it's inevitable that the United States
and the coalition forces would prevail, and acquiesce in that would be
treated quite differently.
Lehrer: Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the
majority of the civilian population of Iraq?
Rumsfeld: There's obviously the Shi'a population in Iraq and the
Kurdish population in Iraq have been treated very badly by Saddam
Hussein's regime, they represent a large fraction of the total. There
is no question but that they would be welcomed. Go back to
Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering,
flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the
al-Qaeda would not let them do. Saddam Hussein has one of the most
vicious regimes on the face of the earth. And the people know that.
Now, is there a risk when that dictatorial system isn't there that
there could be conflicts between elements within the country, get even
type things, yes. And we've got to be careful to see that that doesn't
happen.
Lehrer: What about just the basic idea that they've been told for
years that the Americans are the infidels. I mean, it would be like
welcoming Hitler into Chicago if he had taken over. I mean, is that
not --
Rumsfeld: Jim. 
Lehrer: No, no, I'm just saying, we're the enemy. 
Rumsfeld: My goodness. That's a terrible thought. 
Lehrer: I know, I know. But isn't that -- 
Rumsfeld: If a politician had said that, they'd get in trouble. 
Lehrer: I know. But, I'm just saying, is your planning, the war plan
based on the idea that the Iraqi people are going to welcome American
troops and American invasion?
Rumsfeld: Contingency planning is based on a full spectrum of
possibilities, and that is one, and there are others at the other end
of the spectrum that are less happy. And the plans have been prepared
to deal with that full range of possibilities. But, to suggest that a
war plan depends on one of them happening would be wrong.
Lehrer: It's been suggested that you are emphasizing only the upside
of this, and that you haven't talked publicly about, hey, wait a
minute, they may not -- they may resist, they may do this, they may do
that, thousands and thousands of people could die, including a lot of
Americans. Do you feel that this has been -- that the American people
have been told enough about the possibilities for the downside of this
kind of conflict?
Rumsfeld: I think the downsides have been widely discussed. I mean, I
prepared a list of things that could be very unpleasant back in
September or October, and I've added to the list. And everyone who
works with me has seen the list, including the president, and the
National Security Council, and they know that there are a full range
of things that can be unfortunate, and make life very difficult. And
we've heard them all, the use of weapons of mass destruction, the
possibility of firing ballistic missiles and chemical weapons into
neighboring countries, the possibility that one ethnic group in the
country could take advantage of disorder and attack another ethnic
group, the possibility of using chemicals against his own people, the
possibility of fortress Baghdad, and urban conflict. It goes on and
on, flooding, the possibility of flooding. There are any number of
things that can go wrong. Now, there are also a number of things that
can go right, and what one has to do is to look at them all with a
cold eye, and be very clear that you've simply got to be prepared to
deal with all of them. And that is what General Franks and his team
have been doing. And he's doing a superb job for the country.
Lehrer: You mentioned yourself the possibility of a humanitarian
crisis that could come. Does your -- is the intelligence been saying
-- it's been written up in the papers that Saddam Hussein may
intentionally try to starve his people, may intentionally set the oil
fields afire, may intentionally do all kinds of things to create a
humanitarian crisis, a chaos for his own people. Are we prepared to
deal with that?
Rumsfeld: We are certainly organized, and have thought through what we
would do in each instance where we have either imagined or seen
intelligence that suggests that that regime might do one or more of
those things.
Lehrer: And there are a lot of what they call -- the private aid
groups have been on this program and elsewhere saying that there has
been very little coordination with them from the U.S. government,
they're prepared to help out and all that, and they're waiting for the
calls. Are you all talking to them, are your folks talking to them?
Rumsfeld: Yes, there are interagency groups in the United States
government who have been planning the civil side, a post Saddam
Hussein Iraq. That is to say, what do you do about food, what do you
do about water, what do you do about medicine. And they have been
working for weeks, and they have been coordinating with international
groups. Indeed, there have been stockpiles of various types of
humanitarian assistance that have already begun to flow into the
region, and there's no question but that the United States military is
prepared to participate and help international organizations,
including the United Nations are already storing materials, and I
think probably the information you have is out of date.
Lehrer: Okay. All right. Are you concerned about how just the prospect
of going to war is dividing the world?
Rumsfeld: Well, you always would want unanimity in anything, and of
course, the president is not decided to go to war. So --
Lehrer: I'm saying, just the prospect of it. 
Rumsfeld: I understand. You'd always prefer that everyone agree, and
yet, you say, dividing the world. I don't know that I would say that.
I think that if I were to look at the globe and countries on earth, I
would find people in almost every country who agree, and people who
didn't agree. And you'd find in Europe the eight countries signed a
letter supporting the president, then 10 countries signed a letter
supporting the president. The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously
to support the resolution, 17th Resolution on Iraq, Resolution 1441.
So to say that it's dividing the world, I think is a bit of an
overstatement. There are an awful lot more people who didn't
demonstrate than who demonstrated. And demonstrations occur in
democracies, that's what we do. We have free speech, and that's fine,
and that's fair. And these are tough issues. These are not easy
issues. The idea of having to think about the prospects of the use of
chemical or biological weapons by a terrorist state, or by a terrorist
network, killing hundreds of thousands of people is not a nice thing
to think about. And it's not something that people immediately say,
well, we have to avoid that. We have to think about that a while.
Lehrer: But, it has not given you any pause at all to consider whether
or not, the numbers you just laid out, that aside, that the message as
to why this military action may have to be taken has not gotten
through to everyone. You feel it so strongly, clearly, so does the
president, so do a lot of other people, Tony Blair, others, and yet it
hasn't gotten through to a lot of other folks. Does that not concern
you, bother you?
Rumsfeld: Of course, you always would prefer everyone agree. But, I've
never seen a situation where everyone agreed. In democracies everyone
never agrees. And it doesn't mean that someone is right, and someone
is wrong, it means that in my mind, at least, it means that in this
instance these are difficult issues for people to wrap their heads
around. And yet, the risk of being wrong, the risk of inaction,
there's risks to action, and you've been discussing them at length
here, there are also risks to inaction, 3,000 people were killed in
the United States on September 11th in a very conventional,
unconventionally delivered, but a conventional attack. If that had
been chemical weapons or biological weapons it might not have been
3,000, it could have been 30,000, or 300,000, or a million, and we
know that, and the world has to think about that. Now, there's a big
effort going on in the Congress to try to connect the dots, who knew
what before September 11th, what could you have known, a phone call
here, a credit card there, someone taking flying lessons, how do you
connect those dots. How many countries would have anticipated in
trying to stop that before it happened, based on that fragmentary
information? And yet, we had Secretary Powell's powerful presentation
to the United Nations, laying out the case as to what the Iraqi
government has been doing.
Lehrer: As you know, they're all over you in Europe and elsewhere,
because of remarks you made about Germany, and France, and all of
that, and they're suggesting that you, above a lot of others, really
are not that concerned about what the governments --
Rumsfeld: I am concerned. I mean, I just went over to Munich and spoke
to their Werkunde Conference, the security conference, and met with
all of those folks. Needless to say you're concerned. You want as many
people as possible to agree with you. And the president has taken it
to the United Nations. I keep reading things like, unilateral, I can't
make a prediction, but I'll bet anything there is at least a 50/50
chance that there would be more countries, if the decision is made,
that there would be more countries supporting the United States and
the coalition of the willing, with the United Kingdom and other
countries in this coalition than there were in the Gulf War in 1991.
So the charge of unilateral just isn't right. The allegation that the
United States has an issue with Europe isn't right. The issue in
Europe is between Europeans. It's basically between France, Germany,
and the rest of Europe.
Lehrer: What's your own view about the positions of France and Germany
on this?
Rumsfeld: I think they're democracies, they have to decide what they
want to decide. They're sovereign countries. People elected those
people to office, that's what they think, and that's life. But, the
idea that therefore there is a split between the United States and
Europe I think is a misunderstanding. There is a split between most of
the European countries, the eight and the 10, and France and Germany.
Lehrer: But, there's also a split between the United States and
France, and Germany, as well.
Rumsfeld: But, not with the 18 countries of Europe. 
Lehrer: No, but there is with France and Germany. 
Rumsfeld: On this issue, and we're allies in NATO. 
Lehrer: Do you think that's all it is, is this issue? 
Rumsfeld: Well, certainly that's all it is today. I mean, I think they
made a mistake on Turkey, and I think they've corrected it now. They
opposed sending defensive capabilities, chemical and biological
detection units to Turkey, in the North Atlantic Council, and since
then they've permitted it to happen, and they've since been deployed.
So I think they've changed their position on that, which is a good
thing.
Lehrer: Do you think eventually they could even change their position
on military action?
Rumsfeld: I don't know. I wouldn't want to predict. Of course, you
know, things change, times change, if the inspectors found something
that was disturbing to them, I just don't know what will happen. We
would much prefer that Germany and France were in agreement.
Lehrer: But, it's not necessary? 
Rumsfeld: Well, you'd prefer it. The president has indicated that he
will -- if Saddam Hussein doesn't cooperate, and he doesn't flee, and
he isn't removed, and he is -- the president is determined to see that
he is disarmed, then he will lead, as he said, a coalition of willing
countries, and it will be a large coalition. There will be a lot of
countries.
Lehrer: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. 
Rumsfeld: Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)