17 March 2002
Wolfowitz Says U.S. Nuclear Objective is Deterrence
(U.S. consulting widely on Iraq, reducing Middle East violence)
(4,230)
The U.S. does not envisage the use of nuclear weapons in its latest
strategy review, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
The objective, he said, is "to deter other people from using weapons
of mass destruction against us."
Speaking in a CNN television interview on March 16, Wolfowitz
reiterated that no decision has been taken concerning military action
against Iraq. He pointed out that Vice President Cheney is consulting
with U.S. friends and allies in the region on a wide range of issues,
including Iraq, the war on terrorism, and the Middle East situation.
Wolfowitz said, "We have countries that have declared, and declare
regularly, their hostility to the United States, countries that are
involved with terrorists, countries that are developing weapons of
mass destruction. That is the most noxious brew possible. That is out
there. We have to do something about it."
Wolfowitz denied that any specific linkage exists between Iraq and
Middle East violence, but said that the United States was continuing
to make every effort to end the violence and restart talks between
Israel and the Palestinians. He also said Saudi Arabia's diplomatic
initiative was important and worth pursuing.
"We have a tragic situation going on there," Wolfowitz said. "Israel
faces a terrible terrorist problem. The Palestinians are suffering
enormously, both from the effects of the siege and from the violence
itself. I think the important thing is to focus on how to get past
this violence and how to get toward a solution."
Wolfowitz also commented on news accounts that a Navy flier from the
1991 Gulf War might still be alive in Iraq, saying the U.S. could not
confirm such reports.
In addition, he noted that the latest successful missile intercept
test on Friday over the Pacific marked steady progress in developing a
missile defense system.
Following is a transcript of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz's
CNN interview with commentators Mark Shields and Robert Novak on March
16:
(begin transcript)
Department of Defense
Deputy Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz
March 16, 2002
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview with CNN Novak and Shields
(Interview with Robert Novak and Mark Shields for CNN's "Novak, Hunt
and Shields.")
Shields: I'm Mark Shields. Robert Novak and I will question one of
America's leading war planners.
Novak: He is Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.
(Begin videotaped background report.)
Novak: President Bush this week was asked about possible U.S. use of
tactical nuclear weapons.
Bush: We've got all options on the table, because we want to make it
very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or
use weapons of mass destruction against us or our allies or friends.
Novak: The president was asked whether he would take unilateral action
against Iraq.
Bush: Again, all options are on the table. But one thing I will not
allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by
developing weapons of mass destruction.
Novak: Paul Wolfowitz has spent much of his career in public service
as a national security official, starting at the Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency during the Nixon administration. President Reagan
and the first President Bush subsequently named him to high-ranking
State Department and Defense Department positions, including
ambassador to Indonesia. He was dean of the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University before President
George W. Bush appointed him to the Pentagon's second-ranking post.
(End of videotape.)
Novak: Secretary Wolfowitz, you in the past have said you don't want
to answer questions about Iraq until the war in Afghanistan is cleaned
up.
But the president has kind of opened that door by talking about Iraq.
So the question I have for you -- and maybe the American people are
entitled to know -- is, sooner or later, will there be U.S. military
action against Iraq? Is that just about assured?
Wolfowitz: That's something for the president to decide. What the
president has laid out, I think, very clearly in the clip that you
just showed is that we have a situation there that's really just not
acceptable.
With 20/20 hindsight, I think we can see that if we'd taken more
seriously the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan five years ago, we
might have prevented September 11th. What the president is talking
about is how to prevent a much greater tragedy that would come from
this linkage of weapons of mass destruction with terrorists. But he
has made no decisions about how to deal with that.
He has identified problems and he's, among other things, sent his vice
president to key countries in the world to talk about how to deal with
that problem. In the meantime, as you alluded in your question, we
have a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. And when people heard us
saying that and thought, "Oh, yes, but it's all over but the
shouting," I think the events of the last couple of weeks have made it
clear there's a lot of fighting still left for us in Afghanistan.
Novak: When the question was asked the president in his press
conference, he twice used the word "All options are on the table." Mr.
Wolfowitz, that was widely interpreted as meaning that, if necessary,
the United States will use nuclear tactical weapons in this war
against terrorism. Is that a correct interpretation?
Wolfowitz: Oh, I think it's hyperventilation, if I might say so. All
options are always on the table, including the diplomatic option. And
I think people who think that you separate diplomacy from the threat
of force don't understand how diplomacy works. So saying that all
options are on the table, I think, is essential -
Novak: That was not a nuclear threat, then?
Wolfowitz: It was definitely not a threat. And what the president said
about nuclear options is something that every president has said. No
president has ever forsworn our ability to use nuclear weapons. But
the essence of it -- and it's very important to say this -- is not to
use nuclear weapons but to deter other people from using weapons of
mass destruction against us.
Shields: Mr. Secretary, a kindred soul of yours, former colleague Ken
Adelman, has said if the United States does go into Iraq that it will
be a cake walk. Yet military folks that we talk to say we're talking
about a force required of up to 250,000 American troops. Who's right?
Wolfowitz: You know, I have enough trouble dealing with the views that
are attributed to me. I can't deal with all the news attributed to my
friends. We have not made any decision yet about what to do in Iraq
militarily or any other way.
I mean, the president has stated that there's a problem. He has all
his options on the table, as he said. I think in every case our
preference is always to try to solve these things through diplomatic
means if it's possible. Obviously this is a man who's shown great
resistance to accepting any reasonable outcomes. But there's been no
decision yet made on using military force.
Shields: This war on terrorism is the first war since the
Mexican-American War the United States has entered without a draft and
without a tax increase. Don't you think it requires a debate, a full
debate in the country, and a declaration of war, if, in fact, we are
going to go to war?
Wolfowitz: I think the Congress has already made very clear its strong
support. The American people have made clear their very strong support
for what the president is doing. It is a different kind of war. In
fact, sometimes one is more inclined to call it a campaign than a war.
It is -- I don't think we've ever had a, quote, "war" in which the
work of the intelligence community and intelligence services around
the world have been as important as in this one.
We're not just talking about fighting in Afghanistan, as the president
has said over and over again. Al Qaeda is present in some 60 countries
in the world, including the United States of America. So I think we
have not only all the authority the president needs but the incredible
backing of the American people, because they understand that what is
at stake is our physical survival and the survival of the values that
we care about.
Novak: Mr. Secretary, there's been considerably less talk by
administration officials in recent months about trying to link Saddam
Hussein to the terrorist attacks on America of September 11th. Can we
infer, can the American people infer, that it is not necessary to link
the Iraqi dictator to those attacks in order to have military action
against him?
Wolfowitz: Let me go back and say what the president made, I think,
very clear, crystal clear, in his State of the Union message. And I
have to say it's exactly the same kind of clarity, I think, that
Ronald Reagan introduced in understanding the Soviet Union, is that we
have a problem.
We have countries that have declared, and declare regularly, their
hostility to the United States, countries that are involved with
terrorists, countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction.
That is the most noxious brew possible, and it makes the possibility
of an event in which tens of thousands or millions of Americans are
killed, something that would make September 11th pale in comparison.
That is out there. We have to do something about it.
Exactly what we do, I think, is something that we've got to work with
the American people; we've got to consult with our allies. But what we
can't do is just wait another 10, 20 years and hope that nothing
happens.
Novak: Mr. Secretary, this week the Washington Times has run almost a
daily story on the fate of Lieutenant Commander Michael Speicher, a
U.S. aviator who was downed in the early stages of the Gulf War. His
status was
-- he was deemed killed in action. That status has been changed.
There's no evidence that he is alive, but Pentagon sources are quoted
as indicating he could be alive.
Now, there is some suspicion that this is part of a buildup to go to
war against Iraq if there is -- if they are actually holding or
withholding information on this aviator. Could you enlighten us why
there was a silence by the Pentagon for a decade and now this is
suddenly coming to light?
Wolfowitz: I can't -- look, it hasn't been silence for a decade. In
fact, we moved Speicher from the killed-in-action list to the
missing-in-action list a few years ago, during the last
administration. It was based on pretty hard evidence that he wasn't
killed when his plane was shot, that he somehow survived his crash.
That's the only hard evidence I know of.
It's a subject that obviously excites a lot of concern, a lot of
anxiety. We still see, 25 years, nearly 30 years after the end of the
Vietnam War, people are very concerned about what happened to people
who were missing in action where we think the enemy country has some
reason to know what happened to them and they're not coming clean. I
don't know of any recent information about Speicher. I wish we had it.
Shields: Are you suggesting that there are still POWs of the United
States who are unaccounted for, that somehow -
Wolfowitz: I didn't say POWs. I say -
Shields: Missing in action.
Wolfowitz: -- we have large numbers of people missing in action from
the Vietnam War, we had this one individual from the Persian Gulf War,
about whom we do not know their fate and where we have reason to think
that other countries have knowledge about their fate. And that is
something we continue to press; we press aggressively.
Shields: Saddam Hussein has been called Hitler by the American
president, a devil and worse. If, in fact, invasion is made by the
United States or led by the United States, he has to know that his
removal, his death, are inevitable, or that's the logical course. What
is to restrain him anyway from the use of chemical, biological
weapons? What's to restrain him in any way from attacking Israel?
Wolfowitz: First of all, there's been -- there has been no decision by
the president about what to do. Let's make that clear.
Novak: You've made that clear.
Wolfowitz: (Laughs.) Okay. Clearly we're dealing with a very dangerous
man. And the kinds of things that you referred in your question are
obviously one of the things the president has to take into account in
figuring out a course of action. They're also the kind of thing that
has to be taken into account if you continue to pursue a course of
inaction.
For 10 years we've more or less claimed that Saddam Hussein was in his
box while his capabilities have grown. And I think what we've seen
with September 11th is there are a lot of ways to attack the United
States that are not necessarily conventional means. And it's a problem
we've got to take seriously. But the issues you raise are among the
very serious issues that the president is considering right now.
Shields: Well, on that very subject, Vice President Cheney, in his
trip, apparently to round up support, to test the waters, to enlist
allies, has gotten, from all reports, cold shoulders at virtually
every capital he's visited, or at least been told time and again that
the United States, rather than invading Iraq at this point, ought to
devote energy, time and effort to resolving the still thorny and
difficult and painful problems between Israel and the Palestinians. Is
that a correct analysis of the reaction?
Wolfowitz: Well, Vice President Cheney's trip is to consult about a
wide range of issues with a number of countries that are absolutely
crucial to this war on terrorism and crucial to our interests in the
Middle East.
There's a long record in diplomacy, particularly in the Middle East, I
think it's fair to say, where people say one thing in public and
another thing to you in private. I don't know yet what the vice
president has heard in private, so I would not jump to conclusions
about what he's heard.
On this larger issue, one of the subjects on his agenda is very
definitely to find ways to end the horrible violence that's killing
Palestinians and Israelis alike. It is something that we're putting
great effort into trying to reach a settlement. The president has sent
General Zinni out there.
The Saudis, as you know, I think, have a new initiative, something
that is quite a new position for the Saudis. And I'm sure that's one
of the things the vice president is interested in pursuing.
I think we need to make progress in the war on terror. We need to make
progress in the Arab-Israeli issue. I don't think they're linked, and
the vice president made it clear that he doesn't think they're linked.
Shields: Okay, we have to take a break. But when we come back, we'll
ask Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz about the outlook in the
war in Afghanistan.
(Announcements.)
Novak: Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, you have made clear
the war in Afghanistan is not over, but apparently Operation Anaconda,
which had some American lives lost, has been a success. Can we at
least say that it may not be quick, but the United States is in a
mop-up operation in Afghanistan right now?
Wolfowitz: I really hesitate with a word like that. We have -- I mean,
Operation Anaconda is the biggest operation of the conflict so far,
and it's months into it, and it happened after the Taliban had fallen
and it happened after we'd taken hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban
prisoners.
I think it's more reasonable to expect that there will be more actions
like Anaconda. On as big a scale as Anaconda, I really can't predict.
But there are still significant numbers of terrorists. It's a huge
country. It's the size of the state of Texas.
And that doesn't even do it justice, because the terrain is much more
formidable. The terrain is like the Canadian Rockies. We had people
fighting at 10,000 feet, climbing 3500-foot cliffs in a couple of
hours. It was -- it's an incredible performance that our men have put
in in that fight.
Novak: Sir, there are many Democrats on Capitol Hill who say that in
order for Afghanistan, after the fighting is done, not to return to
its status as a breeding ground for terrorists who threaten the lives
of Americans, the United States has to -- I hate to use the word --
engage in nation-building, with a long military presence. Do you agree
or disagree with that?
Wolfowitz: You know, I agree with the goal. I think we all agree on
the goal that we don't want Afghanistan to revert to what it was,
which is a sanctuary for the world's worst terrorists. How you achieve
that goal, I think, is not something we can write formulas for. We
can't approach it with dogma, I don't believe.
It is a country that historically has never had a strong central
government. And I think, as we approach it, what we have to achieve, I
think, is the right balance between this new interim authority, which
has shown very promising initial steps toward developing a kind of
consensus among the Afghan people, but a very considerable
decentralization of real power and authority in that country.
And it would be, I think, stupid to come in with some blueprint
written for some other country, whether it's Germany after World War
II or Somalia or Bosnia. Afghanistan is unique, and we'll have to have
a unique solution for it.
Shields: Mr. Secretary, this week we saw the biggest Israeli military
operation since 1967, 20,000 troops, with United States-supplied
Apache helicopters, American tanks. Is there any way, when we're the
principal supplier of the armaments for Israel, that we can exercise
any restraint on General Sharon as they invade Israeli -- the
Palestinian towns and camps?
Wolfowitz: You know, again, that's something where the president calls
the shots. We have a tragic situation going on there. We have --
Israel faces a terrible terrorist problem. The Palestinians are
suffering enormously, both from the effects of the siege of the
blocking and from the violence itself.
I think the important thing is to focus on how to get past this
violence and how to get toward a solution. Two years ago there was
virtually no violence and there was serious negotiation heading toward
a solution. I think what General Zinni is there (for) is to try to at
least tamp down the violence so the two sides can begin to talk to one
another about a better outcome.
Shields: One of the targets of United States opprobrium and interest
and concern has been those countries involved in the distribution of
weapons of mass destruction. And yet exempt from any mention are
Russia and China, the two principal purveyors, suppliers of the
technology and, in fact, the instruments themselves. Why is that? Do
we want to pick on the little guys and exempt the big guys?
Wolfowitz: Look, our issues with Russia and China are issues about
proliferation. And in some cases we think it's proliferation that may
be actively approved by the government. In some cases it's companies
that operate out of control of the government.
It's a very different thing from countries that have declared
hostility to the United States, that have declared openly a desire to
kill Americans, that have engaged in killing Americans. That's a
different story entirely.
And I think that's what the president was talking about when he talked
about evil regimes -- and regimes, by the way, that are in a different
category of evil when it comes to mistreating their own people. It's
not an accident, I think, that the countries that express this kind of
profound hostility toward the United States have hundreds of thousands
of their own people in concentration camps.
Novak: We have time for one more question before we take another
break, Mr. Secretary. The expenditure of our arsenal, the U.S. arsenal
in Afghanistan, particularly in the early stages of the war, has
depleted, according to Pentagon sources. Has that been built up, or is
it going to take a long period before we have enough missiles, bombs,
to continue to launch a similar operation anyplace else?
Wolfowitz: Well, you're right that we've been using a lot of important
munitions at pretty high rates and with great effectiveness. And
almost from day one, we've started addressing measures to rebuild
those stocks, because we realized how important they would be.
But anyone in the world would make a huge mistake to think that the
United States has exhausted its military capability with this campaign
in Afghanistan. We have enormous strength to do whatever the president
asks the U.S. military to do. And as you know, our men and women will
do it with great skill and great will and great bravery.
Shields: We have to take a break. When we come back, we'll have the
big question for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
(Announcements.)
Shields: The big question for Paul Wolfowitz. Last night an
interceptor smashed into a dummy warhead, making the third successful
test of six attempts. Are we ready to declare success now and say that
the missile defense system is ready and on course and Americans should
feel better?
Wolfowitz: By no means. But I think what we can say is that our test
program is proceeding and showing some quite impressive success. I'll
say right off the bat, before some critic discovers it, this was not
a, quote, "realistic" test of exactly what an intercept would have to
do. But it's the first time we've had anything that looked like a
decoy warhead, and it picked out the real warhead from the decoys.
They're not as good a decoy as we would expect to face later.
We're in a development program; people need to understand that. We are
going to push where there's success. We killed one program this year
because it wasn't working well. As we have said over and over again,
it's an important area where we're going to go down the avenues that
work and cut off the avenues that don't work.
Novak: Mr. Secretary, the critics of this program say it's useless;
the Cold War is over. But the question I have is that, if and when
this program is really operational, would the purveyors of the "axis
of evil" that President Bush talked about, North Korea, Iran and Iraq,
would they be neutralized by this missile defense system?
Wolfowitz: We'd be a lot better off than in a situation where we're
completely vulnerable. I think those people ought to go -- if, in
fact, the Cold War is over and there's no threat, they ought to go and
ask those countries why they're investing such a large part of their
pretty small national treasure --
Novak: It would be effective against them, though, you think?
Wolfowitz: It will be -- it's designed to be effective, not against
the kind of massive attack that we would have faced from the Soviet
Union, but from the more limited capabilities that these countries
have. That's the intention, yes.
Novak: Paul Wolfowitz, thank you very much.
Mark Shields and I will be back with a comment after these messages.
(Announcements.)
Novak: Paul, Secretary Wolfowitz has widely been regarded as a leading
hawk in the movement to move against Iraq with military action. But he
certainly, in our conversation with him, was the voice of reason. He
was saying that's up to the president. He did not -- he issued less of
a clarion call for action than the president did in his press
conference this week.
Shields: And, Bob, on the subject of Iraq, he wouldn't say whether he
agreed that some said it would be a cake walk or it would require up
to 250,000 troops. But I think it does highlight the need for full
public debate in the Congress and in the country about what our
commitment is there and what we're willing to do.
Novak: Paul Wolfowitz more or less flatly said that the president
saying all options are on the table was not a statement that we are
ready to use nuclear weapons in the war against terrorism. He said, of
course, no president ever forswears the use of nuclear weapons, but
that wasn't what he meant.
Shields: The other point that he made was that in spite of Vice
President Cheney getting a public rebuff and apparently criticism on
his Mideastern trip about Israel in particular, the United States need
to bring peace there between the Israelis and the Palestinians, at the
same time he said that there was no linkage between Palestinian peace
and Iraqi invasion.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
