• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

11 April 2003

U.S. Has "Absolutely No Desire" to Occupy Iraq, Says Wolfowitz

(Deputy defense secretary briefs April 11 at Foreign Press Center)
(7940)
The United States is not occupying Iraq, but removing a regime that
has been a threat to the world, and will leave as soon as that job is
finished, says Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
U.S. forces, Wolfowitz told journalists April 11 at a Washington
Foreign Press Center briefing, entered Iraq "as liberators, not as
occupiers."
He said "Americans have absolutely no desire to occupy Iraq," and the
Iraqi people now have an opportunity to establish a political system
that reflects their real wishes and interests.
"The United States and its coalition partners will support them in
this. But make no mistake, the task is an Iraqi task: the task is
theirs, just as the country is theirs," he said.
In opening remarks Wolfowitz, said "it is understandable" that people
in the Middle East might view the war is Iraq with suspicion, but the
U.S. aim is to provide the Iraqi people "freedom and independence and
a chance to live in peace."
"The war did not launch a humanitarian crisis, but it is ending one,"
said Wolfowitz, who added that the provision of humanitarian
assistance has been a crucial part of the coalition's mission.
The deputy secretary said that the United States understands the
urgency of the basic humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and that
progress has been made, particularly in Umm Qasr, where civil servants
are returning to work and the port is functioning.
He added that the United States has provided $375 million for 590,000
metric tons of food to be delivered in Iraq and that the U.S. Agency
for International Development has also provided $246 million in
humanitarian relief including blankets, plastic sheeting, hygiene kits
and water containers.
In response to question to clarify what the U.S. officials mean when
they talk about "change in Syria," Wolfowitz said the U.S. is "looking
for a change in the current bad behavior of the Syrian government in
shipping terrorist fighters into Iraq, in sheltering fugitives from
Iraq, and possibly sheltering bad materials out of Iraq."
Discussing how the war in Iraq might affect peace prospects between
Israel and the Palestinians, Wolfowitz explained that he is
"cautiously optimistic" that events in Iraq may create a better
atmosphere for progress.
"The removal of a man who rewarded suicide bombers and funded
terrorism cannot but help to move the process forward," he said.
"I think the key to forward movement is to end the use of violence and
to recognize that the ultimate outcome here has to be two states, one
Israel and one Palestine, living side by side in peace," added
Wolfowitz.
Wolfowitz dismissed criticisms that the U.S. plans to use the victory
in Iraq as a springboard to change the political dynamics of the
Middle East or advance imperialist intentions as "nonsense," and he
urged journalists to listen to the voices of the Iraqi people.
Pressed to discuss who the United States views as a potential Iraqi
partner to facilitate transition to a new representative government
for Iraq, Wolfowitz said that it would take time for a new leadership
to emerge.
"We want the Iraqis to pick an Iraqi face, and that means we have to
try to create conditions for a process in which Iraqis can begin to
talk with one another in a way that, except in the north, they haven't
been free for 30 years to do, to identify what the issues are, to put
forward positions," he said.
Wolfowitz said the U.S. Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian
Assistance for Iraq will not become a provisional government, and its
main function will be to restore basic services.
"Once that happens," added Wolfowitz, "the plan is to turn over those
functions as rapidly as possible to an Iraqi interim authority, which
will assume increasingly greater responsibility for the administration
of basic functions in the country."
"The goal," said Wolfowitz, "is to have a government that truly
represents the people of Iraq, that protects their basic rights, and
allows them live in democracy and freedom."
Also participating in the briefing was Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace.
Following is a transcript of the briefing:
(begin transcript)
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defence
General Peter Pace, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
TOPIC: ISSUES RELATING TO IRAQ
Foreign Press Center 
Washington, D.C. 
April 11, 2003
MR. DENIG: Good morning ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the
Foreign Press Center. We are glad to have you here this morning for a
very special briefing. And I am pleased to be able to introduce to you
the moderator of this morning's briefing, Ambassador Christopher Ross,
a Middle East expert, and also the Special Coordinator for Public
Diplomacy and the Deputy to the Department of State's Under Secretary
for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. He will moderate this
session, and I will hand this over to him.
AMBASSADOR ROSS: Thank you, Paul. (In Arabic.) Good morning to all of
you. It's no secret that events in Iraq and our determination to help
free the Iraqi people from the oppression and repression of the regime
of Saddam Hussein, a subject that has been of great interest to public
opinion in the Arab and Muslim worlds. And this being the case, we
thought it would be useful to organize some special briefings for the
Arab and Muslim press corps. And we're delighted to and honored to be
able to inaugurate this small initiative with a gentleman whose 30
year career in government and academia has run across the spectrum of
the Foreign Affairs Agencies, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency,
the Department of State, the Department of Defense. This career
mirrors the military and diplomatic complexities of the situation as
we know it today. I first met this gentleman some many years ago, but
my most vivid memory of him is during a visit that he made in the
mid-1990's to Damascus where I was Ambassador. And I remember sitting
with him and his delegation around my dining room table and having to
field some very incisive and probing questions. I won't go on any
longer. This man is very well known to you. But for those who read Al
Kamen this morning, I present "that" Paul D. Wolfowitz.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: Thank you. And I have with me our second
highest ranking Military Officer, General Peter Pace, United States
Marine Corps, and one of the million-and-a-half magnificent men and
women who are serving our country -- and I believe the world -- so
well. (In Arabic.) And if I may begin the way I learned to begin
speeches when I was the American Ambassador in Indonesia -- (in
Arabic) -- the rest will be in English.
I'd like to make a few brief comments at the beginning, and then
General Pace and I will take questions. I'd like to begin by
emphasizing that the United States is sensitive to the fact that
people in the Middle East may view the war in Iraq with suspicion.
Given the history of that region, it is understandable. But as a
nation that had to fight for its own independence more than 200 years
ago, Americans have the greatest sympathy for all people who yearn for
freedom and independence and a chance to live in peace.
At the end of the American Revolution, the father of our country,
George Washington, remarked, "My anxious recollection, my sympathetic
feeling, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited whensoever in any
country I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banners of freedom." That
is how Americans feel today, and it was on our minds as we undertook
this war to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime. And I guess it might
be worth noting that our own independence was aided by foreign
countries and foreign forces, notably from France and Poland. And
it's, perhaps, also worth remembering that it took us a little while
after our independence to organize the government.
I think a little historical perspective is useful in this era of 24
hour news coverage when we expect everything to happen
instantaneously. In fact, the conflict in Iraq now is only three weeks
old. Coalition forces are on track and on plan. Tyranny has lost its
grip and the Iraqi people are liberated -- or being liberated. While
the outcome is not in doubt, however, the war is still going on.
Operations are continuing and pockets of resistance are being
eradicated, both in Baghdad and a number of other towns and cities,
particularly in the north.
From the start, we have made humanitarian assistance a crucial part of
our mission. The war did not launch a humanitarian crisis, but it is
ending one. In fact, I know that on one of the news channels this
morning, an Arab woman, I think in Mosul, or, perhaps, Kirkuk,
standing with her children outside one of Saddam's palaces and saying
in moderately good English -- although she kept trying to go back to
Arabic -- "It's all marble, marble -- 'mar-mar,' I think -- and yet
this man didn't give food to his people. He abused his people." And
this was an Arab woman.
We understand that the immediate need is to address basic needs like
medical care, water, electrical service, and making sure Iraqi civil
servants who administer these functions get paid. Water is being --
I'd make another aside -- people are coming back to Umm Qasr. Iraqi
civil servants are coming back to work; the port is functioning. In
fact, the population of Umm Qasr has grown from 15,000 before the war
to some 40,000 because people see progress. Water is being provided
where needed, particularly in Basra where there was a severe shortage
imposed by the regime. Water supplies are now, we think, at pre-war
levels, but they need to go up further.
Food and other supplies are flowing in. To date, $375 million worth of
food
-- that's 590,000 metric tons -- have been provided by the United
States. Of that amount, $200 million was donated to the United Nations
World Food Program. Other countries have been making large
contributions as well, including Australia and Kuwait. USAID, in
addition, has contributed $246 million of humanitarian relief that
includes blankets, hygiene kits, plastic sheeting, and water
containers, tanks, and treatment plants. In the last few days, to pick
another example, the Spanish ship, Galicia, arrived at Umm Qasr with a
50-bed field hospital that will be moved up into Iraq to help treat
Iraqi patients.
There has been a lot of talk about something we have called -- we do
call the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. Let me
be clear, that office is not a provisional government for Iraq. Its
main function is to make sure that basic services are restored and
running. And once that happens, the plan is to turn over those
functions as rapidly as possible to an Iraqi interim authority, which
will assume increasingly greater responsibility for the administration
of basic functions in the country.
But beyond that interim authority, the goal is to have a government
that truly represents the people of Iraq, that protects their basic
rights, and allows them live in democracy and freedom. The people of
Iraq now have it within their power to establish a constitution and a
political system that will reflect their real wishes and interests.
The United States and its coalition partners will support them in
this. But make no mistake, the task is an Iraqi task: the task is
theirs, just as the country is theirs. We come as liberators, not as
occupiers.
Americans have absolutely no desire to occupy Iraq. We will stay as
long as necessary, but not a single day longer. As President Bush said
just a few days ago, the Iraqis are plenty capable of running Iraq.
And that's precisely what is going to happen. That has been a major
goal in our willingness to take this fight to Saddam Hussein, along
with the urgent need to eliminate his weapons of mass terror, and
remove Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists. It is tragic that those
worthy goals could not be achieved without the use of deadly force,
but this evil regime left no other option. And they tried to make the
war as painful as possible, particularly for civilians, by concealing
military targets in civilian areas, by using human shields, and by
violating the Geneva Convention.
We have been through some hundred schools in Southern Iraq so far.
Every single one of them was a regime command and control center with
weapons stored in them. As a result of that behavior, innocent people
have suffered despite extraordinary efforts to avoid civilian
casualties. Those people are victims of this regime just as much as
are the heroic men and women in the coalition forces who have
sacrificed their lives in the call to Iraq's liberation, or the
thousands of Iraqis over the last decades who have lost their lives
fighting this regime.
The sacrifices that people have made can only be understood in terms
of the dramatic events that the world witnessed two days ago. Those
events tell a powerful story, the story of free Iraqis celebrating
their new-found freedom for the first time, welcoming coalition
troops, and tearing down those hideous statues of Saddam Hussein in
Central Baghdad and around the country. It was like watching the
Berlin Wall come down all over again. Lovers of freedom everywhere can
understand the joy of the Iraqi people and their hopes for the future,
but the best spokesman for Iraqis are Iraqis themselves.
Yesterday, the French news agency, Agence France Presse, reported on a
Baghdad street scene that I think kind of sums it up. The reporter
narrated what had happened when a group of disillusioned Syrian
fighters were looking for a ride back to Damascus. They could not
comprehend the celebrations that welcomed American troops. An Iraqi
taxi driver heard them and asked, "Who told you to come here?" He
added, "You were only fighting for Saddam Hussein, who brought the
country to ruins and let you down in the end."
Iraq is full of such stories. And now that people can at last speak
freely and candidly, we are hearing them. I would encourage all of
you, and all of the people throughout the Arab world, to listen with
open minds and help the Iraqis tell their stories to the world.
General Pace.
GENERAL PACE: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I think I will join with you
now, sir, on answering questions.
AMBASSADOR ROSS: Good. I'll be moderating the questions. When I call
upon you, please identify yourself, your organization, and keep the
questions short. And bear in mind please, we have just learned that
General Pace must leave by 11, although Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz may
choose to stay longer.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: So you can point your questions to him.
AMBASSADOR ROSS: That's right.
Yes.
QUESTION: Hanan El-badry, Egyptian Television. I have two questions:
one for Mr. Wolfowitz, and one for General Pace. My first question,
Iraqi federal demilitarized new government will be a great chance for
the Middle East (inaudible) the collapsing of Ottoman Empire or
(inaudible). If you believe in that, can you tell us more details how
the Middle East will be after we have in touch a Democratic new
country or new government?
My question for Mr. -- for General Pace, it will be: Are you going to
allow bad forces to enter Iraq soon -- or sooner or later?
GENERAL PACE: The important word you used is democratic. What the
shape of Iraq is, and what kind of security forces they have are
issues for Iraqis to decide when they have a government that
represents them. It is important to the United States, and I think to
every country in the region, that Iraq remain a unified country. And
that's going to be another challenge, but I think the Iraqi people can
rise to it.
The simplest way I would have of saying it is, I remember years ago
when people throughout East Asia and the world said that democracy
wasn't possible in East Asia except maybe in Japan; that Koreans had
no experience, or that the Filipinos hadn't done very well with it --
the Chinese, and it's a long list.
By now, the Taiwanese have demonstrated that they can do democracy.
The Koreans have demonstrated that they can do democracy. I think the
example of Iraqis demonstrating that Arabs are just as capable of
managing those institutions as anyone else will have a broad and
positive and powerful example, but there is a lot of work to be done
to get to that stage.
QUESTION: For the Middle East, please?
GENERAL PACE: I think for the Middle East, in particular.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: With regard to the Badr Corps, as you
know, there have been members of Badr Corps who have been living in
Northern Iraq, in northeast section of Iraq for some time now, as
there had been members of other military groups. The coalition
military forces have their own mission to overthrow a regime, to find
and eliminate the weapons of mass destruction, to provide a stable
environment inside of which the new Iraqi Government can stand itself
up and take over the operations of the government, and then we can
leave.
We are going to ensure, as best that we can, that all areas of Iraq
remain stable, that we do not favor one group or another group, so
that the Iraqi people can meet in the open, have open debate, and
select their own form of government so that we can leave.
AMBASSADOR ROSS: In the back, in the back row. No, you've got it. Yes.
QUESTION: Again, (inaudible), Egyptian Television, Nile News Channel.
Mr. Wolfowitz, we talked about change in Syria. Now what kind of
change you are looking for? And if your demands are not responded to
positively, would it include regime change in Syria?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: You're way, way ahead of everything.
You're not unique in that. What we are looking for is a change in the
current bad behavior of the Syrian Government in shipping terrorist
fighters into Iraq, in sheltering fugitives from Iraq, possibly
sheltering bad materials out of Iraq. Syria should not meddle in Iraq.
It should not be assisting the people who supported that evil regime,
and that behavior just has to stop.
QUESTION: I have a follow-up with this.
AMBASSADOR ROSS: Follow-up here, sorry.
QUESTION: Mahtab Farid from Radio Farda. Mr. Wolfowitz, Secretary
Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and Mr. Bolton repeatedly asked Syria and
Iran to stay away, and Jack Straw is going to send some envoy to speak
to the governments. Have you guys had a chance to discuss what Mr.
Straw is going to discuss with those two governments?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: I know that Secretary Powell and Foreign
Minister Straw have discussed these issues. I think, hopefully, the
Syrians are starting to get the message.
QUESTION: Thank you. I'm afraid this is a question again by Egyptian
Television.
(Laughter.)
A PARTICIPANT: Raise your hands if you're from Egyptian Television.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: That's the last one. I'm the last one from Egyptian
Television.
Dr. Wolfowitz, the question is -- yeah, the question is for Dr.
Wolfowitz. Are you very surprised at all that Saddam Hussein and his
regime did not use weapons of mass destruction against you?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: Clearly, that was perhaps our single
greatest fear. But I think it's also clear that this plan of General
Franks, which we heard so much second-guessing about two or three days
into the war, was actually rather remarkably effective in getting in
there with a very capable force before, I think, the regime knew what
was happening.
I think if we can get to the bottom of what did and didn't happen, we
will find that that had a lot to do with what didn't happen and had a
lot to do with the fact that there wasn't an environmental disaster in
the south when the oil wells would have been exploded; that the
explosives that were put on the oil platforms in the Shahab hadn't
been rigged yet; that we haven't had what would have been a true
disaster if oil wells in the north are exploded, because they are
particularly noxious in what they put out; that we didn't have
missiles launched at Israel, which was one of our fears. Many things
didn't happen. We don't yet know the reason why.
We do know one thing, though. At least one Iraqi soldier who
surrendered in the south told us that while he was very much afraid of
what the regime would do to him if he didn't carry out orders to
destroy oil wells, he'd read all those leaflets we dropped about what
we would do if he did. He was torn between fear of the regime and
recognition that we were coming. I'm sure that knowing that we were
already there made a big difference.
GENERAL PACE: If I could add also that there is still fighting going
on. It is still possible that there are those in control of some of
those weapons. So we still have Iraqi leaders who have freedom of
action and freedom of decision, and they need to do what they have
been doing, which is to understand that it is their free will; that
they can choose to either become part of Iraq's future or to be part
of Iraq's past; and that their actions will be judged when this is
completed. But it is still possible that there are those out there who
have weapons of mass destruction, who -- so I don't want to leave the
impression that this fighting is done, by any means.
QUESTION: This is Umit Erginsey of Turkey's NTV Television. Mr.
Secretary and General Pace, regarding the tensions in Northern Iraq,
in the event the Turkish army storms into Northern Iraq, despite all
warnings by the United States, would you ever consider using military
force against Turkish troops? And from this point on, what could be
done to re-warm up the relations? Thank you.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: Look, the premise is that we're -- let me
say. A great deal, I think, is going in a positive way between the
United States and Turkey, between the coalition forces and the Kurdish
groups in Northern Iraq. Those two cities fell. They fell surprisingly
quickly when the regular army saw those statues toppling in Baghdad.
We have now U.S. forces, a significant presence in Kirkuk. There will
soon be a significant presence in Mosul. Turkey is sending liaison
officers with those coalition troops so Turkey will have a clear view
of what's going on. I think people understand the dangers of pushing
things, misbehaving in those crucial cities. You're going to have some
problems going forward sorting out competing property claims, as I
think you know. That process has to be done carefully in a legal
manner, not by force.
But Secretary Powell has had, I know, at least one important, probably
several, conversations with Foreign Minister Gul. I think we're in
good communication. I think everybody -- Turkey, coalition forces,
Kurds -- are behaving responsibly. And I think, going forward, it's a
very good sign, not only for the future of Iraq, but I think for the
future of U.S.-Turkish relations.
QUESTION: Thank you. My name is Said Arikat from Al Quds Newspaper. To
General Pace, how confident are you, sir -- or are you confident --
that you will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
And to Secretary Wolfowitz, both Prime Minister Sharon and Defense
Minister Shaul Mofaz advised the Palestinians to learn the lessons of
Iraq. And do you expect that an emboldened Sharon will even carry more
aggressive policies in the West Bank and the occupied territories, and
should the Palestinians have lower expectations as to what kind of
peace settlement they will get as a result of this war?
And on a lighter note, sir, some people are calling you Wolfowitz of
Arabia. How would you respond to that?
(Laughter.)
GENERAL PACE: With regard to the first question, there is absolutely
no doubt in my mind that we will find the weapons of mass destruction.
He has already used those weapons against Iran. He used those weapons
against his own people. He had caches of those weapons that even the
UN inspectors who were there found, in part. So the intelligence
communities have never been more united, nor had more proof of these
kinds of activities.
And I believe that once the Iraqi people feel comfortable that the
stability that we are bringing to them is real, that they will, in
fact, have the freedom to devise their own government and that they
can freely speak and come forward, that they will begin to show us
where these caches are hidden.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: I would just say very quickly, the
President has made it very clear, I think most notably in the meeting
in the Azores with Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Aznar, the
importance we attach to progress on the Arab-Israeli issues, and
particularly Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
I think it's fair to say that some of the more catastrophic scenarios
that Palestinians feared might take place if this war happened -- had
not happened. I think I'm cautiously optimistic that the events in
Iraq may give us a better atmosphere for progress in the peace
process. Certainly, the removal of a man who rewarded suicide bombers
and funded terrorism cannot but help to move the process forward. I
think the key to forward movement is to end the use of violence and to
recognize that the ultimate outcome here has to be two states, one
Israel and one Palestine, living side by side in peace.
Oh, and on your last question, I think it's amusing but not very
accurate.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Thank you. I am Yasemin Congar with Turkish newspaper
Milliyet and CNN Turk. To go back to the question on Northern Iraq, I
have a two-part question on -- especially, on Turkey again. I think
the first part maybe goes to the General.
General, should we expect a complete withdrawal of Kurdish pesh merga
from Kirkuk? Because there has been a pledge to that effect, but the
reports from the region is that they are still in the city. They are
in very much control of the city still.
And the second part of the question is a little bit broader and it's
to you, Mr. Secretary. You talked about the future -- possible future
problems in the region. And, as you know, Turkey has said it is a red
line not only for the Kurdish pesh merga to take control of these
cities, especially Kirkuk, but also for a massive relocation of Kurds
to the city. Now you have on one side Kurds who are having good allies
to you in this war, who are claiming that they have been relocated by
Saddam from their city; that their families have deeds, and they are
ready to reclaim their property in the city.
And, on the other hand, you have your good friend and ally, Turkey,
who says this is a causus belli, there will be -- thousands and
thousands of Kurds are relocating into Kirkuk. How do you reconcile
that difference?
GENERAL PACE: Well, I'll start with the answer to your first question.
And that is, as a military person, I, and my compatriots certainly
understand the very difficult relationships that exist in Northern
Iraq, and the decades of animosities that have grown in the ebbs and
flows of power.
We also know, as military men -- and we are talking
military-to-military, U.S. to Turk to Kurd to Turkomen -- we all
understand that what is best militarily is just to not have one group
get greater influence or take advantage over another group. And we
have had these conversations before this topic began. We are having
them as we speak, and we will continue to have, and because the intent
is to have a stable environment.
And the best way to have a stable environment is not to have one group
get any kind of advantage over another group, but to give everybody
the opportunity inside of a peaceful environment to speak up as
individuals, to vote freely, and to have the dialogue that will allow
their people to design their own form of government without resorting
to weapons.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: I have another question here. We spend a
lot of time -- I have personally -- with Turkish officials talking
about the issues of Northern Iraq going back to -- in most recent
episode -- going back to July -- actually, in my case, going back over
many years. And we understand Turkey's very legitimate concerns about
Northern Iraq. And I would say, particularly the concerns Turkey has
is a result of the fact that terrorists who had sanctuary in Northern
Iraq killed thousands of Turks during the course of the 1990's.
I think it's worth pointing out that in the war against those
terrorists, not only were the U.S. and Turkey close allies, but
enormous help came from the two main Kurdish groups in the north, the
KDP and the PUK. The question you raised specifically has to do with
this issue of disputes over who owns which houses in those major
cities, and probably elsewhere in Northern Iraq.
My understanding is there was a fairly systematic and ruthless kind of
ethnic cleansing that the old regime undertook to remove Turks, as
well as Kurds, from their houses and bring in Arabs. These issues are
real, but they cannot be settled by violence, and they cannot be
settled by vigilante justice. They have to be settled in an orderly
legal process, and we will work [on this]. It's going to take some
time, but I think it can be done. And I would say that so far all the
parties have behaved pretty responsibly.
QUESTION: Samir Nader, Radio Sawa. Mr. Secretary, what about -- if you
can tell us something about General Garner. Is he still in Kuwait?
And, if so, when do you expect him to go to Iraq, and what will be his
priorities -- like what first resolution -- what relief workers first
on as priorities?
And the second question to the General, if you can -- if we can learn
your assessment on the disappearance of Saddam and the senior leaders.
All of them, as they go, do you feel that they were killed, or fled,
or if you can tell us anything about this? Thank you.
A PARTICIPANT: Please don't say, "I don't know."
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: Finally, a new way to say I don't know.
(Laughter) Mr. Garner retired from the Army a few years ago. He is a
civilian. I am not sure when he is going to go back in, to be quite
honest. In spite of some of what you read a couple of weeks ago, this
plan is proceeding much faster than anyone expected, and he is going
to have to move into Iraq sooner than anyone expected. His main
priorities when he gets back in are going to be things like water,
sewage, food, medicine -- basic essentials of life.
GENERAL PACE: With regard to the question about Saddam and the
leadership of the regime, the intelligence that we had the night that
we made the first strike where we thought he was, was very, very good
intelligence corroborated by several different means, and all that
told us that at that point and time he was in that location. Since
that time, all of our intelligence has not shown him to be alive any
place. That does not mean that he is dead. It just means that the same
intelligence that led us to believe he was alive in a particular
location before we struck does not point us to any new locations for
him, so he has disappeared. He either disappeared because of the bombs
that helped him disappear, or he is still alive. And if he is still
alive, he has proved himself to be one of history's worst generals.
QUESTION: My name is Adu-Asare, Africa Newscast, Ghana. In order not
to upstage my Middle Eastern colleagues, I am going to ask a general
question. You, Dr. Wolfowitz, come from the academic background, from
the academic world. In recent times -- I mean, in the past couple of
days, the most ardent critics of U.S. action in Iraq have come from
your former colleagues in the academic world.
You have told us that U.S. is not going to stay any time longer than
is necessary in Iraq. But the critics on the radio and in the press
have indicated that you have a plan advising the President to use the
victory in Iraq as a spring board to restructure the political
dynamics in the Middle East; and that after that it is going to be a
focus on U.S. led world imperialism. I would --
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: Let me stop you. I can't -- I can't
respond to every piece of nonsense that is written by thousands of
academics. I think on the basic question you asked, we have academics
saying one thing, we have the Iraqi people saying something else. I
think the Iraqi people are the authorities, and tell you how to think
about quite a bit of the nonsense that we have heard over the last few
weeks, or months actually, or years, for that matter.
Iraq is -- with the possible unfortunate exception of North Korea --
unique in the way it mistreats its people. It's unique in the way it
has defied some 17 UN Security Council resolutions, or it was. I think
it's a real mistake to generalize. I think every country is different.
Every country has to be approached differently. I think people who try
to generalize from this Iraqi case are making a mistake.
AMBASSADOR ROSS: Salameh, back there.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.  Dr. Wolfowitz  -- 
AMBASSADOR ROSS: Identify yourself please.
QUESTION: Yes, my name is Salameh Nematt, Al Hayat newspaper and LBG
TV. People are wondering in the region when they are going to start
seeing an Iraqi face to the new Iraq. People were shown on television
today because of the looting, and because of the food and water
shortages, they are appealing to the President, the U.S. President, to
come and save them. They don't have an Iraqi reference point.
All the talk is about the Iraqis determining their own future, yet
there is no Iraqi partner in this campaign, basically to address
people, to handle political issues. The ambassadors of Iraq abroad,
many of whom today were shown basically speaking on behalf of the
Iraqi regime. Who takes a decision on the foreign diplomats that
represent Iraq today? This is one question.
The other question: Did you watch the movie, "Lawrence of Arabia?" If
not, do you intend to, and what do you think of it?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: No, I haven't. And after that question, I
think maybe I'd better not.
But, on the first part, which is -- it's a very important serious
question. But let's remember, as General Pace has said a couple of
times, there is still a war on; there is still even the possibility of
chemical or biological weapons being used; there is still execution
squads out trying to kill Americans, to kill civilians, to kill
Iraqis.
This whole thing has happened with extraordinary speed, and while the
questions you ask are legitimate ones, the expectation that these
issues would be resolved at this point is totally unreasonable. That's
point number one. In fact, I mentioned -- I made an allusion to our
own history and I hope things will go fast in Iraq, but just think
about how long it took the United States to get its act together after
a revolution. And you can go back and read about stories of scores
being settled and people driven out and so forth. There will be some
messiness, no question about it. But on this issue of "an Iraqi face,"
which is very important, there is a dilemma here.
On the one hand, we'd like an Iraqi face. On the other hand, every
time somebody thinks that somebody is the American choice to be the
Iraqi face, we immediately get accused of imposing a government on
Iraqis. We want the Iraqis to pick an Iraqi face, and that means we
have to try to create conditions for a process in which Iraqis can
begin to talk with one another in a way that, except in the north,
they haven't been free for 30 years to do, to identify what the issues
are, to put forward positions. And let's see what positions Iraqis
generally applaud and what positions they generally boo.
Did someone get up and demonstrate that he can be an effective
speaker, an effective leader, or someone get up -- else get up and try
to be a leader and have everybody say yes, but I know he's a criminal
who executed prisoners? Those are the kinds of things that can only
happen in the course of a process. We're trying to get a process
organized.
But I think, people, it will help -- that's why I sort of talk about
the premise of your question -- if you who write about this situation
and the people in the region and people outside calibrate their
expectations to understand this is an extraordinary historical event,
incredible things are happening every 24-hour period. You can't expect
everything to gel and solidify in a short period of time.
QUESTION: I'm Perez Trut with the Parasuram of India. Supposing that
non-Arabs are also interested in Iraq, and one question I want to ask
is different kinds of democracy. The British parliament, this is
termed (inaudible) system. And I want to ask you whether Iraqi
democracy will (inaudible) constitute an assembly, or go to an
institutional arrangement for establishing democracy.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: You know, I'm the wrong person to ask that
because you'd have to ask an Iraqi, and all you'd get is the opinion
of one of 20 million, which is why I talked about the need for this
process. But I appreciate the question very much because I think one
of the sort of myths we've been coping with for the last year or more,
or even longer, I would say, is this idea that there's only one system
of democracy, it's the Anglo-American system. The truth is, that's
already an acknowledgement of two different systems, because we don't
have the same one.
I know quite a few Asian countries that are democratic. Every one of
them has a different version of democracy. If you look at the newly
liberated countries of Central/Eastern Europe, you will find that
almost every one of them has a different system.
This is an opportunity for the first time, with the tragic partial
exception of Lebanon, for Arabs to make decisions about what kind of
democracy they want -- excuse me, for Iraqis -- for Iraqis to make
decisions. Some of them are Arabs, some of them are Turks, some of
them are Kurds. And they may make decisions that people in another
Middle Eastern country will say, well, we don't like that Turkish --
that Iraqi system, we like ours.
The essence of democracy is that people choose their system, but that
they are free to choose their system; that the system respects their
rights, that torture and evil practices of that kind are gone, that
people have freedom and they have freedom to change and redirect their
government. I think that's the heart of it.
QUESTION: My name is Tamar Alabarazi from Alwatan Alarabi Magazine
[Egypt]. Sir, when you said every country will choose its own
democracy, now we see
-- I mean, like what happened in Najaf yesterday, killing of al-Khoei
by reported -- we don't know if we are sure -- by Hakim group, you
know, the people who Ayatollah Baqir Hakim, they accuse him.
So now what we are seeing that people want maybe their democracy
replacing (inaudible) Saddam now (inaudible) Hakim, so it will be
another ayatollah --
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: That's not what democracy  -- 
QUESTION: No, no, but will you accept that, I mean, if they choose
that?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: I think that the essence of a democratic
process is that people resolve issues and debates peacefully and not
through the use of force and violence.
The killing of -- the murder of Ayatollah Khoei is a tragedy and all
the more so because I think he was a moderate leader of enormously
important standing. We still don't know the circumstances exactly or
who was responsible or whether he was the main target or a regime
cleric was the main target. It's a setback, there's no question. There
may be other setbacks.
But I think the essence of what we hope can happen, and many people
around the world have demonstrated they're capable of it, is to put
behind the era when politics is decided by bullets and go to an era
when politics is decided by ballots.
QUESTION: Thank you. The question is for Dr. Wolfowitz. I'm Shafaq
Mehraliyera with Azer TA News Agency. Dr. Wolfowitz, what do you see
as a role for Caucasus countries, and particularly for Azerbaijan, as
an active member of coalition? What are your expectations from them in
Iraq's reconstruction stage?
And I know that this month Defense Minister of Azerbaijan Abiyev
visiting Washington on the invitation of Secretary Rumsfeld. Is this
issue going to be one of the items on the agenda of negotiation?
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: I know Azerbaijan is one of several Muslim
majority countries that have offered to assist in what we call
stability operations, the need to provide some safety and security in
the post-Saddam era. And I think particularly given the possible
sensitivity of issues like protecting religious sites, it will be
particularly helpful to have the assistance of countries like
Azerbaijan.
I think you should have the next question go to General Pace. He's
getting off too easy here.
AMBASSADOR ROSS: One more for General Pace and one more for Deputy
Secretary Wolfowitz. Right there.
QUESTION: Thank you. Just to follow up the previous question about the
fate of President Saddam, I mean, we're not -- sorry, my name is
Khaled Dawoud from Al-Ahram Newspaper, an Egyptian. My question is not
just the fate about President Saddam, but we are talking about a whole
government. We're talking about his deputies, ministers, everybody.
Just to be able to get a whole picture, where did these all people go
and did you expect that, you know, people in our part of the world --
and I'm sure Mr. Wolfowitz knows that -- are already speaking about a
deal of some sort. So if you can just give us a picture.
And for Mr. Wolfowitz, for you, sir, what does it represent the fact
that for the first time an Arab country is being occupied by the
United States? What does that mean for you? Thank you.
GENERAL PACE: From the standpoint of the leadership, and where they
are right now, not only with Saddam but with the top leadership of his
regime, we have tracked them very, very closely, as best we could,
with various means of intelligence. They are military targets, may
have been attacked militarily. It's going to take us a while to sift
through all the rubble where they used to be to find out whether or
not we actually killed them.
But the point of the matter is that the regime itself no longer is
commanding and controlling, and that the Iraqi people are beginning to
emerge as free people. And as they do, they will point out to us what
has happened to the leaders whose bodies we don't have. But right now,
our focus is on the military battle. The leadership is part of that
military battle. When we know where they are, we target them with our
weapons, and when we have the stable operations inside of which we can
do so, we will determine what their fate was.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: We are not occupying -- let me say very
clearly -- we are not occupying an Arab country. We are removing a
regime that is a threat to the United States, a threat to the world,
and has clearly been a threat and an abuser -- that isn't even an
adequate word -- of the Iraqi people for decades. We're not yet
finished with that job. When we are finished, we'll leave as soon as
we can.
And if you have any doubt about it, we liberated Kuwait and we left.
We liberated Northern Iraq in early April of 1991. We left on
September 1st of 1991. We will leave as soon as we can because,
believe me, we don't need extra work to do. But if we leave too soon,
everyone will say you left the place in chaos and created more
suffering by departing too quickly. We will leave when there is a
legitimate government of Iraq to hand over to.
AMBASSADOR ROSS: This is the last question.  It's right there.
QUESTION: Savas Suzal from the Turkish daily VATAW Journal. Is Turkish
officers in the Northern Iraq, are they the observer will be, or the
liaison officer?
GENERAL PACE: You may be making a distinction that's not perfectly
clear to me. First of all, as you know, there have been Turkish
officers with some small units in Northern Iraq for many, many years.
The ones that --
QUESTION: I am talking about Secretary Powell and the Secretary -- the
Turkish Foreign Minister Gul, they reach an agreement that some kind
of Turkish officer will be (inaudible) under the control of the
American commander in the Northern Iraq.
GENERAL PACE: I do not know what the Prime Minister -- excuse me, the
Foreign Minister -- and my Secretary of State talked about. I can tell
you what we know on the ground militarily, and that is that there are
military officers from the Turkish armed forces who have come to
locations like Kirkuk who are observing what is happening so that
there is no doubt to the Turkish government that, in fact, we are all
playing on a level playing field and that we are all working together,
as we promised each other we would, to assure that nobody takes
advantage. So whether or not you call them liaison officers or
observers, I'm not sure of the distinction you're making. But what
they're doing is observing what is going on, reporting back to their
government, and assisting all of us in making sure that each group
that has interests, has visibility on what's going on, so there are no
surprises, and no one is taking advantage of a particular situation.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: Thank you. General Pace will be glad to
come back another time.
GENERAL PACE: Thank you all.
DEPUTY SECRETARY WOLFOWITZ: Thank you very much.  (In Arabic.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)