• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

19 April 2003

Transcript: Wolfowitz Says U.S. Warred on Saddam's Regime, Not Iraqi People

(Deputy secretary of defense interviewed on Egyptian TV April 16)
(5710)
The U.S. and coalition war in Iraq was directed against Saddam Hussein
and his regime, and was designed to liberate the Iraqi people, Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says.
"[I]t's clear now to the whole world ... that this was a war that
ultimately liberated the Iraqi people," Wolfowitz said in an April 16
interview with Egyptian television. "It was only a war against the
regime, and it was a terrible regime, and it's good riddance," he
said.
Asked whether U.S. and coalition forces were allowing looting to
occur, Wolfowitz said, "Oh, no. ...[L]et's be fair. They're still
fighting a war. There are still pockets of resistance. There are still
people actively trying to kill our people. There is a great deal of
work to be done also in terms of catching some of the criminal
elements of this regime before they flee the country. So that force is
very busy." He added that in the north, coalition forces are most
concerned to prevent any ethnic violence among Turks and Kurds and
Arabs.
Pressed further on whether U.S. military forces disdain undertaking a
police function, Wolfowitz explained the U.S. goal of encouraging
local people to come forward and police themselves.
"People don't like to see foreign troops policing their neighborhoods.
They want to police their neighborhoods themselves," he said.
Wolfowitz added that "once we get in there with a small military
force, the local people seem to organize themselves quite well to do
those jobs."
Queried for his reaction to demonstrations outside the April 15
political meeting of Iraqis in An Nasiriyah, Wolfowitz replied,
"Wasn't that wonderful? It's probably the first peaceful demonstration
against anything --- protest --- that's been allowed in that country
for 40 years. ... It's real democracy."
Pressed to elaborate on why the United States should not be worried at
the criticism voiced in the protest, Wolfowitz said, "When you give
people a chance to openly express their views and debate issues, you
find that some points of view have no support whatsoever. And other
points of view begin to represent the important divisions of opinion.
... [D]emocracy is a funny process. It's a disorderly process that
produces a remarkable degree of order and consensus."
As to whether the United States would be willing to support a
Shia-dominated Iraqi government, Wolfowitz said, "I think certain
things are essential, and I think the Iraqi people will judge it's
essential: that it be a government that respects its people; that
represents all of its people; that preserves Iraq as a single country,
and that respects its neighbors....
"Within that range, in other words, if it behaves like a responsible
member of the community and a responsible government of its people,
whatever views they want to hold, I think, is their business," he
said.
A former ambassador to Indonesia, Wolfowitz also said that he expects
Iraqi democracy's character to be shaped by the facts of its
population being 90 percent Muslim and 60 percent Shia, and he noted
that South Korean, Japanese, American and British democracies all
differ in some respects because they are shaped by the character of
their people. But that character does not undermine the basic
essentials: respect for human rights, individual liberty, the rule of
law and equal justice under law.
Wolfowitz also said that "it would be very surprising" if a democratic
Iraq were not strongly sympathetic toward the "just grievances of the
Palestinian people," and speculated that it would be a powerful voice
in the Arab world for "resolving that long-running tragedy."
Asked about harsh U.S. rhetoric toward Syria in the face of the Syrian
government's denial of U.S. assertions that it was sending people into
Iraq to kill Americans, Wolfowitz firmly disagreed. "Excuse me," he
said. "There are prisoners and there are people killed in action who
have Syrian identification on them. There was a bus that the
Australians stopped coming in from Syria with people with instructions
to kill Americans and with $650,000 in cash to support that activity.
This is fact," he added.
The transcript of Wolfowitz's interview follows:
(begin transcript)
NEWS TRANSCRIPT
United States Department of Defense 
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
April 16, 2003
Interview With Egyptian Television
Q: Did the United States underestimate the anarchy that would occur in
Iraq? You knew from the historical examples of Panama and Sarajevo
that chaos and anarchy could happen, but you didn't seem to be
prepared for that in Iraq.
Wolfowitz: Let me answer the question, but let me step back first. We
wouldn't be doing what we're doing at all if there weren't a threat to
our country and the world that came from that tyrant, and that's why
we put young American men and women's lives at risk. But it's clear
now, I think, to the whole world that we were also acting on behalf of
the Iraqi people, and that this was a war that ultimately liberated
the Iraqi people. It was not a war against them. It was only a war
against that regime, and it was a terrible regime, and it's good
riddance.
In the course of doing that, the emphasis of General Franks' plan was
on moving with speed. I think if the military historians go back and
look at this they will probably say there are a lot of things that
didn't happen because of the speed with which we acted.
There was a lot of fear that, for example, the oilfields, which are
the patrimony of the people of Iraq, would have been destroyed in an
absolute environmental catastrophe. That didn't happen.
There was a fear that the Saddam regime would undertake some action
against Israel that would turn this into an Arab-Israeli war. That
didn't happen.
There was a fear that he'd use chemical or biological weapons against
our forces or against his own people. That didn't happen.
I can give you a list of things we really worried about that didn't
happen, and I think in large measure you will find because of the
speed with which we moved. Now that speed also meant that certain
things couldn't be taken care of right away. The looting is something
that is a great loss, but we are stabilizing the situation. The Iraqi
people are coming forward to help. We're finding in most places where
there's a small coalition presence the Iraqi people begin to organize
their own neighborhoods, their own people, to calm things down. We're
going to be taking active efforts to recover as much as we can,
especially of those things that were taken from hospitals or museums
or things that belong to the Iraqi people.
Q: The view is, the perception is, that the military has this looting,
they are looking at this looting and the state of chaos in a different
way from what the politicians are seeing this picture. Because the
military think the problem of the looting and the chaos is a problem,
but not a threat.
Wolfowitz: Oh, no. I think they understand that. For one thing, our
military is a democratic military that takes guidance from its
civilian authorities and they understand. But let's be fair. They're
still fighting a war. There are still pockets of resistance. There are
still people actively trying to kill our people. There is a great deal
of work that needs to be done also in terms of catching some of the
criminal elements of this regime before they flee the country.
So that force is very busy. We're concerned also up in the north,
where we didn't have a large force in the beginning. We want to
prevent any kind of ethnic violence between the Kurds and the Turks
and the Arabs in some of those two big northern cities. So there's a
lot of work to do, and it's not a lack of concern or a lack of
interest. We do want to rely as much as we can on local people, and I
think they're coming forward.
Q: Yes, but CentCom [U.S. Central Command] had already given
statements. They said that -- General Brooks was saying that the U.S.
military forces there are not there to do the police force, it's not
going to be used as a police force. So is it that the military disdain
any non-combat operations?
Wolfowitz: Oh, no. I think it's partly when you think of how do you
deal with civil order in a large country, and it's an Arab country. I
don't need to tell you that. Or it's certainly predominantly Arab.
People don't like to see foreign troops policing their neighborhoods.
They want to police their neighborhoods themselves.
As I said, we find that once we get in there with a small military
force, the local people seem to organize themselves quite well to do
those jobs. And I think that's what General Brooks is referring to.
Look, our real goal, increasingly now, is to develop stability. Our
most important strategic objective in this phase is going to be to
stabilize the situation in Iraq so that basic services can be
delivered to the Iraqi people and so they can begin to create their
own government.
You might say that the poor people of Iraq have been delivered from
tyranny and will shortly be given the power to decide their own
destiny. Those aren't my words, actually. I took them from the
Pakistan Daily Times of two days ago. I think that's a correct
description.
Q: Dr. Wolfowitz, wouldn't you say that at this point when you need a
certain police force to be taking care of the security in Iraq,
because those Iraqis, as much as they need to be free, they need to
feel secure as well. Wouldn't you think it is where the United Nations
should be stepping in and to the job that they've been doing?
Wolfowitz: I don't think it's a job that any external power is going
to do very well. And certainly I think the immediate role for anyone
external -- it falls on the coalition. We do have the forces there
that can help the Iraqis to do that job. But the goal really should be
as quickly as possible to have them do that job. I think we had a step
forward in the larger context of the meeting we had in Nasiriyah on
Tuesday. For the first time ever, I think, the Iraqis -- outside of
the north at least -- were able to meet freely.
I'd like to show your viewers this picture, which I love. It's a young
Iraqi woman who's been living abroad, meeting with two sheiks from
southern Iraq. It was part of a meeting where people discussed what
they wanted for the future: talked about the role of Islam in a future
Iraq.
It was interesting that one particularly fiery Shia cleric from
Nasiriyah gave a speech in which he said: it's very important to keep
religion separated from the government. And a lay teacher came forward
and said: no, no, we're a Muslim country, Islam has to be the state
religion. Those are kinds of issues that Iraqis have to decide for
themselves. And I think the shape of their police force is something
that, it's important -- as early as possible, as much as possible --
to have the responsibility of the local people.
Q: You talked about this meeting in Nasiriyah which took place on
Tuesday, yesterday, and there was criticism -- not criticism. There
were demonstrations actually in Nasiriyah --
Wolfowitz: Wasn't that wonderful? It's probably the first peaceful
demonstration against anything -- protest -- that's been allowed in
that country for 40 years.
Q: But my question is about the criticism  -- 
Wolfowitz: It's real democracy.
Q: It is real democracy.  It's too early to judge that now, but  -- 
Wolfowitz: No, but the existence of peaceful protest, which has been
absolutely -- I mean you know what happened to anybody who spoke out
against the official line in that country for the last 40 years. That
fact itself is a huge move forward.
Q: So are you happy that there were demonstrations criticizing the
meeting that some have been excluded and those who were chosen to
attend the meeting were basically chosen and selected by the
Americans?
Wolfowitz: Well we didn't simply consult ourselves in doing it. And by
the way it was a coalition group that organized it. We had an
Australian representative there, a Polish representative, a U.K.
representative. We've now invited the Spanish and the Czechs --
because they have field hospitals in the country -- to join. So we're
trying to spread the responsibility as widely as we can.
But we talked to lots of Iraqis to find out who they thought were the
right people.
But think about this. Suppose we had held a meeting and no one in Iraq
had objected? The only way that happens is when you have the old
Saddam Hussein regime, where no one is allowed to object. There are
going to be differences of view.
I think most of those people who are demonstrating -- this is an
interesting point -- are followers of Bakir Hakim. Bakir Hakim was
invited to send representatives. He chose not to do it. He wasn't
excluded from the meeting. He may have thought he should run the
meeting, should control the meeting. Ahmed Chalabi also was invited --
Q: Has he been invited?
Wolfowitz: Similarly, he was invited to send representatives. We
didn't want the most prominent figures in the country to come to this
meeting and appear --
Q: Mid-level officials only.
Wolfowitz: Mid-level people, so that it would be clear that this is a
first step. It's going to take a process.
I think in one respect -- look, this is a country with a very
difficult culture, a very different history from ours in America. And
we have to be humble about understanding what's going to work there.
But something that really works here, and I think it works in a lot of
other countries I've been involved with, as different as Japan or
Indonesia or the Czech Republic. When you give people a chance to
openly express their views and debate issues, you find that some
points of view have no support whatsoever. And other points of view
begin to represent the important divisions of opinion. Some people,
when they get up and speak, everybody sits silently and listens; and
other people that get up and speak, well, maybe they'll say that guy's
a bad guy from the old regime, or you'll just find they have no
support.
It's a kind of -- democracy is a funny process. It's a disorderly
process that produces a remarkable degree of order and consensus.
Q: So Dr. Wolfowitz, you seem quite elated about the fact that
demonstrators were voicing their opinion for the first time in Iraq,
but that's my question.
Wolfowitz: Elated is not quite the right word. But I believe it is
part of a democratic process. If you believe in democracy, and I do,
you have to accept that it's going to produce disagreement, including
disagreement with things that you may not agree with.
Q: Would you feel the same way if a radical government was elected in
Iraq? This country is made up of 60 percent of, this country of Iraq
is made up of Shia and it is quite likely maybe they will be elected
to run the next government in Iraq. Would you be supportive of that
government?
Wolfowitz: I think there are certain things that are essential, and I
think the Iraqi people will judge [them to be] essential: That it be a
government that respects its people, that represents all of its
people, that preserves Iraq as a single country, and that respects its
neighbors -- that doesn't abuse Kuwait or Iran or any of its
neighbors.
Within that range, in other words, if it behaves like a responsible
member of the international community and a responsible government of
its people, whatever views they want to hold I think is their
business.
If I could give you a real-life historical example: I was involved
very much 20 years ago in the transition to democracy in the
Philippines. There were people here in the United States who said, you
know, Marcos isn't a great guy but he gives us these bases. If you
have a democratic government they may throw us out of the bases. My
reaction was, I'll take that chance. I'd rather have a democratic
government.
Well, we got a democratic government in the Philippines. They threw us
out of the bases. But we have a relationship with that government --
because it really represents its people -- that we could never have
with a dictator.
Q: Since you just gave this example about the Philippines, you've also
served in Indonesia and --
Wolfowitz: I was there for three years.  I love that country.
Q: -- and Singapore. Some of your critics were saying Dr. Wolfowitz is
looking at post-war Iraq from the same rosy prism from which he saw
how the transfer to democracy happened in these countries in
Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines.
Wolfowitz: First of all, the prism isn't rosy. I've seen problems in
every one of those countries. And Indonesia, God knows, has,
unfortunately, more than its share because of the terrible shape that
Suharto left the country in.
No, I am a realist. I don't believe you get to perfection. But I do
believe -- I think it was Winston Churchill who said that democracy
may not be a great system, but it's better than any of the
alternatives. It produces government that respects the people,
government that has a kind of stability that dictators can't have.
Q: Dr. Wolfowitz, is there an eastern democracy and a western
democracy or --
Wolfowitz: You know  -- 
Q: -- just universal?
Wolfowitz: I think respect for individual rights, individual freedom
is universal. I think the desire for those things is universal. I
remember being told once upon a time that Koreans don't care about
individual rights. They believe in Confucian hierarchy. That's
nonsense.
The same people said Korea has had no experience with democracy, which
was true. But Korea now has had a functioning democracy for some 15
years, but it is a Korean democracy. Japanese democracy is uniquely
Japanese. Our democracy is different from what they have in England.
So I think certain principles are the same, but take the most obvious
thing. You referred [to the fact that] 60 percent of the Iraqi
population is Shia. Probably 90 percent or more is Muslim. That's
going to shape the character of Iraqi democracy. But the basic respect
for human rights, I think, for individual liberty, for the rule of
law, for equal justice under law -- I think those are universal.
Q: So Dr. Wolfowitz, earlier last week in the briefing to the press
center, you said the U.S. understands the Arabs are sensitive towards
this issue in Iraq. Do you care about how the Arabs feel about this
whole matter in Iraq?
Wolfowitz: Yes. I mean, I'd say first I care how the Iraqis feel about
it, including Iraqi-Arabs, which is over two-thirds of the population.
But I think it's also very important for the rest of the region that
this be understood as a war of liberation.
Would we have preferred it be a liberation undertaken by Iraqis
themselves? Absolutely. Let's not forget that actually tens of
thousands of Iraqis have died fighting this horrible regime, and it's
one of the reasons I think that more didn't fight right now, because
they weren't sure what would happen to them. They'd been let down
before.
But I think it's very important for the future of that important part
of the world -- it is the Arab world, and even the entire Muslim world
-- that this be seen as not a repeat of the 19th- or 20th-century
episodes of colonialism. But that we mean it as Americans when we say
we believe in people's right to determine their own future, and we
don't just say that because we're the first altruists in history.
We're not. We have had a wonderful experience with countries that are
much better partners for us, much better allies, because they're
democratic, than any dictatorship could ever be.
Q: Dr. Wolfowitz, one of the concerns in the Arab world is the
appointment of Jay Garner, General Jay Garner, to be the civil --
Wolfowitz: Mr. Jay Garner.  He retired quite a few years ago.
Q: He is retired?
Wolfowitz: He is retired, yes.
Q: But he's a general?
Wolfowitz: He was once a general.
Q: His appointment to be the civilian administrator of Iraq has raised
concerns or question marks in the Arab world. They are looking at him
with skepticism, although he has not started his job yet, because of
his affiliation to Israel. He has been in JINSA, the Jewish Institute
for National Studies, and he had been pronouncing his views regarding,
his pro-Israel views, that is, that hailed Israel for its exercising
restraint in curbing the Palestinian Intafada.
What would you say, how would you respond to that? How would you
respond to that skepticism and concerns on the part of the Arab
street?
Wolfowitz: I have to let Mr. Garner, and he's now Mr. Garner, answer
for his own views. But I can tell you -- and I like this opportunity
to tell the whole Arab world -- that this notion that we acted in Iraq
to advance Israel's interests is simply not true.
We felt a threat coming from Iraq. And also, those of us -- myself
very much included -- who have been dealing with Iraqi people for many
years now and I, particularly since the end of the Gulf War, feel
acutely the suffering that those people have endured under one of the
worst dictatorships in the world.
General Garner's -- former General Garner's -- one of his principal
qualifications here in my view is that he was part of that operation
that went into northern Iraq in 1991 to create a safe haven for the
people of the north, primarily Kurds. The forces that he commanded
left Iraq six months after they came in -- left the administration of
that part of the country entirely in the hands of the people of
northern Iraq, who managed pretty well, when you think about the
pressure they were under from Saddam. And I know Garner. He is deeply
democratic. He believes deeply in the right of the Iraqi people to
decide their own future, certainly to decide their own foreign policy.
If you stop and think about it for a moment, Iraq is a predominantly
Arab country. We've said that. It's an overwhelming Muslim country. It
would be very surprising if a democratic Iraq doesn't have a very
strong sympathy with the just grievances of the Palestinian people.
It's going to be maybe the first democratic ally they've had in the
Arab world. That's going to be a powerful voice on their behalf. And I
think it's one of many things here that I believe will contribute to a
better chance for moving forward and resolving that long-running
tragedy.
Q: Let's move to Syria. All of a sudden the U.S. administration is
turning its attention so conspicuously to Syria, threatening it. The
Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, and then Secretary Powell, and
recently President Bush. Why Syria now? And why are you turning your
attention to Syria now? There's this conception that you're trying to
distract attention from what's happening in Iraq.
Wolfowitz: Nonsense. Let's look at what Syria has been doing most
recently.
Syria sent people -- I guess they're Syrians. Some of them are not
Syrians. They appear to be civilian volunteers, but we don't even
know. They may be army people who took their uniforms off. Into Iraq
to kill Americans. That's what they did. And then they started
sheltering war criminals and regime elements fleeing Iraq to escape
their just deserts, in Syria.
Syria has basically started to intervene in a harmful, dangerous and
threatening way in Iraq. And what everybody has been telling them is
this is a very stupid policy. It's taking Syria down a very bad
course.
But you know, the door has been open to Syria for a very long time to
go down a different track: to give freedom to Lebanon; to resolve the
issue of the Golan. There were, I thought, very promising moves on the
peace process between Israel and Syria which floundered: to move away
from a militarized country to one that is open to the world and where
the Syrian people benefit.
But whatever they decide about those larger issues, I think it should
be obvious why the United States cannot put up with Syria sending
people into Iraq to kill Americans.
Q: But Syrians are just flatly denying those accusations. They are
saying --
Wolfowitz: Excuse me. There are prisoners and there are people killed
in action who have Syrian identification on them. There was a bus that
the Australians stopped, coming in from Syria, with people with
instructions to kill Americans, and with $650,000 in cash to support
that activity. This is fact.
Q: President Bush said there are many ways to deal with Syria. Do you
know what he meant by mean means to deal with Syria? My most direct
question would be: Are you thinking of a military action against
Syria?
Wolfowitz: Look, when you face a problem, you think about all the
different ways you can deal with it. I think what the President was
really trying to say to people is: Don't jump to the conclusion that
the solution here is a war or military action. There are many things
that can influence Syrian behavior. It would not seem to be that
difficult to persuade them that interfering in the internal affairs of
Iraq is not a good thing to do now.
Q: Secretary Powell yesterday said there is no war plan to go and
attack someone else, either for purpose of overthrowing their
leadership or for the purpose of democratic values. Is that the
Pentagon line as well?
Wolfowitz: He's speaking for the whole government when he says that.
Q: So you do agree that military action is considered right now
regarding Syria?
Wolfowitz: Just to be safe I [had] better leave it where the President
left it. But I think it's very clear, if you look at what the
President was saying, that he's saying this is a problem that ought to
have a diplomatic and political solution. We're not asking the Syrians
to do a great deal: just stop inter --
Q: One of the things that has been brought up in the accusations and
charges to Syria was weapons of mass destruction [WMD]. This is like
ignoring the big elephant in the room: Israel. If the United States
feels threatened by Syria, then the Arabs are feeling threatened by
Israel's possession of weapons of mass destruction, a big arsenal,
nuclear arsenal, and they're not denying that.
Wolfowitz: I think the whole issue of -- the larger issue of weapons
of mass destruction in the Middle East -- is one that clearly has to
be addressed. One thing that has to be addressed also, in the larger
political context, is how you get to a really stable enduring peace,
and that is clearly something that's very much in the interest of my
country. And we've worked very hard to get there. I think there's a
lot of statesmanship shown in Egypt that brought a peace that's now
lasted for 20 years.
That's what we need to extend to the whole region, and I think in that
context one can talk about, hopefully, some radical steps to deal with
those weapons.
But let's be clear. What concerned us with Saddam Hussein, and what
concerns us with some of the other countries the President has spoken
about, is this very dangerous connection between weapons of mass
destruction -- or I prefer to call them weapons of mass terror -- and
terrorists who have shown themselves willing to kill civilians without
any restraint whatsoever.
Q: So you're talking about a larger political context for dealing with
WMD and a radical step. Would you be thinking about a multilateral
approach, perhaps, to that problem?
Wolfowitz: Now you're getting me into State Department business.
I didn't mean to say a particular course. I think anything that gets
you there [is acceptable]. But there's, I think, a clear recognition,
certainly in my government, I think almost throughout the world, that
there has got to be some effective settlement of, peaceful settlement
of, the several major issues between -- that divide Israel from either
the Palestinians or from Arab countries. That's a big task. I don't
know that you can do it all in one single process, but it needs to get
done.
Q: Former CIA Director James Woolsey, a couple of weeks ago he was
speaking at UCLA and he was saying that the United States is currently
engaged in World War IV that is going to last for a long time. Would
you concur with that view?
Wolfowitz: I certainly don't like that description, and I think -- I
would go back to what the President said about the war on terrorism.
He said right after September 11th that we recognize now, maybe we
should have recognized before, that terrorism in this era,
particularly with weapons of mass destruction potentially available to
terrorists, is not just a sort of minor unpleasant aspect of
international life that you life with. We can't really live with it
any longer. Therefore we're going to be engaged in a struggle and it's
going to take some time to really root out terrorism: not just one
particular terrorist or one particular terrorist network, but to
really end the whole support structure for terrorism.
But the President also said something very important, I believe, and
very strongly, in the same State of the Union message that got so much
attention because of the "axis of evil" comments. He also talked about
the importance of supporting the forces of moderation, particularly in
the Muslim world.
I was American Ambassador to Indonesia for three years. It's the
largest Muslim population of any country in the world. And I know from
my own experience that hundreds of millions of Muslims are on the side
of moderation. That the last thing they want to do is have their fates
determined by the likes of Osama bin Laden. So I don't think we should
talk about it as though we're at war with most of the world. We're at
war with that evil and dangerous minority that believe that the path
to progress is to kill people.
Q: After the war in Iraq do you think America now is a safer place?
Wolfowitz: You can't measure these things on a daily basis. I think we
made enormous progress in the war against terrorism. I think a number
of the things that have been accomplished in the course of this
conflict have damaged the terrorist cause. But you're not going to be
able to say whether it's a net gain or a net loss until you see what
comes afterwards.
Q: So the pre-emptive strategy that the United States is adopting, is
it going to be a strategy that is going to be used with every and each
country, that --
Wolfowitz: I don't like that word, and this was not a case of
pre-emption. This is a country, or a leader -- it wasn't a country,
actually -- it was a criminal leader who really never accepted the
ceasefire that ended the war in 1991. As far as he was concerned, it
continued by any means that were available to him, including
terrorism. And we weren't pre-empting, we were actually enforcing 17
U.N. resolutions.
I know that word has been used. It certainly doesn't apply to this
case. And I think the broader issue really is how to create
conditions. And it's not addressed by going to war everywhere you can
think of. Create conditions of progress so that people aren't enticed
down the road of terrorism. So that young people see a future for
themselves. So that countries -- and since this has a certain Muslim
character to it, particularly Muslim countries -- recognize that the
path of freedom and democracy is the way to go. It's the future.
Q: A last quick question. The Bush administration remains divided
between the State Department and the Pentagon over the authority that
is going to be ruling Iraq. The State Department wants more Iraqis to
be involved while the Pentagon wants more control, U.S. control over
that government and more involvement of Iraqi expatriates, those who
are exiled, and they want to have more control over the agenda and the
approach.
Wolfowitz: Most of the question isn't correct. Look, first of all --
Q: It's in the papers. In the Washington Post and the New York Times
--
Wolfowitz: I know, and I hate to say it but there are some things in
the papers that are inaccurate.
But first of all, at the senior levels of our government there is much
less disagreement than there may sometimes turn out to be at some
lower level, where somebody thinks the President should have adopted
their particular point of view. Nor do I believe that everybody in the
State Department holds the views that some people in the Pentagon
think they hold; and I know that many people in the Pentagon don't
hold the views that some people in the State Department think they
hold.
Look, the most important thing, I think, is that we are in complete
agreement on the importance of transferring authority as quickly as
possible to Iraqis. Of all the things I heard you say, that is one I
can --
Q: How soon?
Wolfowitz: As soon as they're able to.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)