27 March 2002
Rumsfeld Discusses Five Coalition Tasks in Afghanistan
(March 21 interview with two British publications) (3760)
Potentially difficult times lie ahead in Afghanistan for the United
States and the anti-terror coalition, Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld says.
Interviewed March 21 by journalists from the London Sunday Times and
Focus magazine, Rumsfeld said Afghanistan "is a difficult situation."
He noted its history of aversion to foreign rule, as well as
manipulation of internal factions by bordering countries. He added
serious droughts, internally displaced populations and refugees, a
high level of heroin trafficking, and a relatively high crime rate as
part of a baseline for dealing with Afghanistan.
"Therefore, one has to recognize that when you start with that as your
base and then you drive al-Qaida and Taliban out of power and they go
into neighboring countries and wait, or they then go into the
mountains or into the villages and wait, you have to expect there's
going to be potentially some very difficult times ahead. And when you
think of how well trained they were and how well financed they were,
how determined they are to attack Western interests, it seems to me
that anyone who has any sense has to recognize that it's a dangerous
situation," Rumsfeld said.
Rumsfeld laid out five tasks for the United States and its coalition
partners in Afghanistan:
-- To continue to pursue al-Qaida and Taliban forces;
-- To continue to go after al-Qaida and Taliban leadership;
-- To try to be helpful in training a new Afghan national army;
-- To, meanwhile, maintain a stabilizing presence for humanitarian
activities to take place and the new government to establish itself;
and
-- To work with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on
intelligence, logistics and providing a quick reaction force.
Rumsfeld also discussed terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
and the threat posed by Iraq.
Following is a transcript of the interview:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Defense News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
March 21, 2002
(Interview with the Sunday Times of London and Focus Magazine)
Rumsfeld: What can I respond to?
Focus: You are unveiling plans about military court commissions. From
the European perspective, have you been surprised about the criticism
that has developed in Europe on how United States is treating the
detainees in Guantanamo Bay?
Rumsfeld: Surprised. I guess when you're as old as I am you stop being
surprised. People are reacting to something that they didn't know much
about and what they heard was inaccurate. I have not been surprised at
all that anyone who had any knowledge about how we have been treating
detainees in Guantanamo has responded very positively and has been
quite complimentary about the way we've handled them and the
circumstance that they're in, the fact that their treatment is indeed
humane. They are well-fed and well taken care of and getting excellent
medical care and being treated in a humane way.
All the criticism is based on the shrill hyperventilation of a few
people who didn't know what they were talking about, hadn't seen the
situation, hadn't taken the time to understand the situation, and I
suppose that one has to expect when they see these headlines and
statements being made that are inaccurate that they would think gee,
that's not the way the United States ought to be doing it. But in fact
the United States was not doing it that way. Has not, is not, and will
not.
I guess a better word than surprised would be disappointed.
Times: Among the detainees at the moment in Guantanamo there are I
think at the last count five British citizens.
Rumsfeld: I can't validate that.
Times: Let's say a number of British citizens. In your announcement or
in the report of your forthcoming announcement, it suggests that there
may be a difference between men considered sort of the hardest of the
hard, as the phrase has been used, and just ordinary foot soldiers.
Are you in a position to say which category these British --
Rumsfeld: Oh, no. I'm not.
Times: Or what's going to be done with them?
Rumsfeld: I'm not at all knowledgeable about -- We've got hundreds of
people involved in various locations and I don't have knowledge of the
results of the discussions and interviews which they've had.
They're in varying stages of completion. The first task, of course,
was to try to figure out who they are and there's been an enormous
amount of lying and changing of stories and aliases. So it's been very
difficult to get a grip on exactly who the people are, where they're
from, what their nationality is, what their role was, and that's not
surprising. If one reads the training manuals for those folks they
were taught to lie. They were taught to play to the press by claiming
they had been treated brutally. They were taught to dissemble and
confuse and they do that in these interviews.
So they were well trained. So it's going to take a little time.
The arrangements are that they will be first interviewed for
intelligence gathering information with the hope that we can stop
further terrorist attacks. Second, they will be interviewed for law
enforcement purposes. We are having people from the nation that these
people claim is their nationality come down to government and meet
them and interrogate them and develop whatever information they'd like
to develop.
Our general position is that we have no desire to hold people. We
don't fashion that that is our responsibility. To the extent we can
find countries that will come to an understanding with us that they
would take individuals and prosecute them under their laws, as opposed
to letting them go and turning them back out on the street where they
can go kill people, which is not my first choice, and that they would
share the intelligence they get from them, and that in the event we
get information from other people that relates to those individuals
that they would allow us access to them again to be able to question
them.
We, for example, have one individual that was captured over -- well,
he was in captivity over a year before we even began to figure out who
he was. At that point we began to get a great deal of information.
At a certain point if they feel that their situation is not what they
prefer, they sometimes are willing to talk. So it can be that it would
be that long, for example, before the individual would decide to step
up and provide useful information.
We're trying to knit all this intelligence information together in a
way that we and other countries in the coalition are able to prevent
terrorist attacks, as was the case in Singapore.
Focus: Besides the situations of the detainees, the war is still going
on in Afghanistan and yourself have mentioned many times that there
still might be pockets of resistance.
Rumsfeld: Not might be. There will be.
Focus: There will be.
How confident are you that the United States and its allies can avoid
a situation similar to what the Soviets faced during their invasion?
Rumsfeld: Afghanistan is a difficult situation. It has a history of
having tribal wars and conflict. It has a history of preferring that
foreigners not be in there. It has a history of neighboring countries
attempting to play off the factions to their advantage. They've had
some very serious droughts. There are a lot of internally displaced
people, a lot of refugees who are outside the country. There has been
a very high level of heroin trafficking. They have a crime level
pattern that is higher than many nations.
Therefore, one has to recognize that when you start with that as your
base and then you drive al Qaeda and Taliban out of power and they
then go into neighboring countries and wait, or they then go into the
mountains or into the villages and wait, you have to expect there's
going to be potentially some very difficult times ahead. And when you
think of how well trained they were and how well financed they were,
how determined they are to attack Western interests, it seems to me
that anyone who has any sense has to recognize that it's a dangerous
situation.
How do you avoid problems? One thing you do is you try to make sure
that they understand this is not a war against a religion; it's not a
war against the people. That we have freed that country, the coalition
has, of the repressive Taliban regime and the al Qaeda invaders who
aren't Afghans at all, who took away people's rights, and that we have
no interest in staying there.
We don't covet their land, there is nothing we want to extract from
them. We want to leave it a better place than we found it. We're
spending a whale of a lot of money to try to do that and we'd prefer
that it not relapse into becoming another haven or sanctuary for
terrorists that go around the world killing people. We also would hope
that the people who leave that country don't find another country as a
haven or a sanctuary because we would accomplish precious little by
stopping them there and having them reassemble somewhere else.
Times: It was recently announced that 1,700 British troops are going
out to Afghanistan. Are these going to come under General Franks'
command? And can you say anything about what they might do? I think
there's been an element of surprise in Britain that sort of
[unintelligible] from just dealing with pockets of resistance which
the Americans seem to have under control. There are so many British
soldiers who have been required to continue the fighting or to assist
with the fighting if that's what they're going for.
Rumsfeld: I'd prefer you talk to the authorities in London about that.
I've tried to adopt the policy of letting other countries characterize
what it is they're doing and why it is they're doing it.
The task for the coalition generically quite apart from what any one
country may or may not be doing, is to, well, there are several
things. One is to continue to pursue the al Qaeda and Taliban wherever
they are in that country. And as they congregate into groups, go after
them.
Second is to continue to go after the leadership of al Qaeda and the
Taliban.
Third, it is to try to be helpful in training the new Afghan army. The
interim authority has indicated they want to fashion one, and that
training is starting now.
Fourth, by our presence -- our meaning coalition presence in various
parts of the country. In Bagram, in Kabul, in Kandahar, in the
Anaconda activity, that contributes to a higher degree of security in
the country which makes it possible for the humanitarian activities to
take place, the food to be distributed, for hospitals to function, for
trucks to come in and out, for aircraft to come in and out without
fear of being shot down. All of that contributes to beginning that
process of letting that country begin to regenerate itself.
And last, the United States forces at least, have signed an agreement
with the U.K. that we would assist the ISAF which they are the head
of, with intelligence, with logistics, and with a quick reaction force
in the event that there are serious problems. We have quick reaction
capabilities.
So those are the kinds of things that the coalition is doing.
Times: To follow up on that, there's a big [inaudible]. Would you have
any indication of a time scale? The Russians --
Rumsfeld: Well, I think looking for a parallel between what's
happening in Afghanistan today and what happened -- and you keep using
the word Russia. It wasn't Russia, it was the Soviet Union. That's a
very different thing. Russia today is not the Soviet Union. And the
Soviet Union's motive and general demeanor was notably different that
that of the coalition. So I think constantly going back to that,
looking for some parallel is fruitless. There isn't any.
Times: In general terms of the timing, it's often been said that in
military campaigns you should have an exit strategy, a phrase that's
been bandied about a lot.
Rumsfeld: Yeah.
Times: Do you have an exit strategy yourself of how the Americans will
get out, at what point they will be able to -- and not only the
Americans, the coalition forces --
Rumsfeld: There are more coalition forces in Afghanistan than there
are Americans. If you count the ISAF. There are fewer U.S. than there
are coalition forces.
Sure. I gave you what our goals were, what we need to accomplish. We
need to see that that's not a sanctuary for terrorists. We need to do
that, we need to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda that are still in
the country. We need to train an Afghan army so it can offer some
degree of security for its own people, which is the only way that
country is ever going to make it. Then we need to get about our
business elsewhere in the world and see that no other country becomes
a sanctuary. What kind of an exit strategy? One way to say it is when
you win. We don't plan to stay.
We'd like to see an interim government be followed by a more permanent
government and that's representative of the people of that country and
that can contribute to its reasonably stable situation. Other nations
of the world can provide the kind of assistance to a country that's
gone through that kind of a difficult series of years that I and a lot
of us want them to have. And then that they continue their policy of
being determined to keep terrorists from regaining control of their
country, and heroin traffickers from supplying a major fraction of all
the world's heroin.
Focus: In that context how important is it now to finally get Osama
bin Laden, Mullah Omar, other senior al Qaeda leaders?
Rumsfeld: The reason we're captive is because they flew airplanes into
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and killed thousands of
Americans. It's because we have information to the effect that they
want to kill thousands more. We have information that they're actively
seeking weapons of mass destruction in which case they wouldn't kill
thousands, they would kill tens of thousands. It seems to me that that
is what we are doing. That is why we're at this task. And that seems
to me sufficient reason to be doing what we're doing.
Focus: I meant is it enough to drive them out, to take away all the
communication and all the operational base they have, or is it
necessary in fact to get them, to arrest them or to kill them?
Rumsfeld: Two specific people?
Focus: Two specific people.
Rumsfeld: Oh, I see.
Focus: -- why you are fighting the war.
Rumsfeld: Sure. Well, it always would be nice to have the top two
leaders.
Let's pretend -- wars can end without having found the leaders and the
reason you fought them is not frustrated by that. It's preferable to
find them, we're looking for them, I believe we will find them. But
the goal is to stop the terror, which is the earlier part of my
answer. That is that we're about. To the extent that can be done, then
we've succeeded.
On the other hand, conversely, you could be very successful in getting
those two leaders and have the terrorists go right on because there
are plenty of people in the al Qaeda and Taliban who can pick up the
baton and continue the race.
Focus: Just one follow-up to this. You've talked about future steps
that needed to be done. How do you see in the future role of
terrorism, the United States role within NATO? There is this
overwhelming weapons technology you have compared to many of the
allies. Is there any other role for the U.S. left than being the
world's policeman and its allies more supportive?
Rumsfeld: We have no intention of being the world's policeman. The
United States' task in this instance, in the global war on terrorism
is to do what we an with our friends and allies to see that people do
not go around being increasingly horrible weapons with increasingly
greater reach and killing increasing numbers of people.
The other day I looked at the ships in the Central Command, and there
are something like 102, and more than half of them were not U.S.
There's an awful lot of talk about the United States, but the fact of
the matter is that a lot of countries have been doing a lot of very
fine work, including the United Kingdom and Germany and Australia and
Japan and you name it: twenty, 30 countries. We had all of the liaison
people up here on March 11th to go to the White House. These are the
folks that are military liaison with the Central Command in Tampa,
Florida. I think there were 29 of them that are that intimately
involved in what we're doing.
So I think it's a mistake to think of the United States in isolation,
separate from all of the things that are being done.
The intelligence that's being gathered is being gathered by 40
different countries. Some of them quite willing to mention it and
others not terribly willing to have it be known that they're helping.
The closing of bank accounts, dozens and dozens and dozens.
No, I don't think the United States pushing (inaudible) at all. We
obviously believe in our system. We don't intend to have terrorists or
anyone else deny the American people their way of life, which is to
live as free people. And the only way to deal with terrorism, you
can't defend against it. All of the advantage is to the attacker. They
can attack anywhere, any time, using any technique. We can't defend
everywhere at every time against every technique. So what we have to
do is go find them.
Times: One issue that's (inaudible) in Britain from the families of
those being held. Is there, in your plans is there going to be any
provision for relatives to visit people who are in detention?
Rumsfeld: Oh, I would doubt it. I haven't been addressed that
question. But the accommodations down there are very modest. We have
to stage in the 25 or 30 countries that have people down there so they
can get in. It's a very small base. Security is a very serious problem
there. No, I would think that would be highly unlikely. We're busy
providing them medical attention and we're busy feeding them, we're
busy taking care of their needs, and letting representatives of the
countries go down there and interrogate them, and we're in the process
of trying to gather intelligence. But it is not a subject that I've
addressed.
Times: Is that likely to last indefinitely or will it likely change?
Rumsfeld: What?
Times: Them not being able to see relatives or have visitors.
Rumsfeld: I just told you it's not a subject I've addressed. I'm
without a (inaudible). If they went back to their countries of origin
because we were able to work out the proper arrangements that I
described for you, obviously that would be up to those countries.
Assistant Secretary Clarke: They have had visitors. They've had ICRC,
they've had representatives of --
Rumsfeld: The International Committee of the Red Cross has been there
and representatives of a lot of the countries have been down there. So
they have people see them and doctors see them and chaplains see them.
Focus: Just a last question, at present after Vice President Cheney's
trip at least in public Arab countries haven't voiced support for a
possible military action against Iraq. How confident are you that you
will get the support for whatever action you might see necessary in
the future?
Rumsfeld: Well I've not had a chance to talk to the Vice President
since he got back. I've really (inaudible). And I think your question
presumes that he was looking for support and didn't get it. It's not
clear to me that either aspect of the elements of that question --
Focus: -- reaction --
Rumsfeld: I just have not had a chance to talk to him. But it's not
clear to me that either element of the question is necessarily
accurate.
Times: Does it matter to America what other countries feel about any
plans you may have?
Rumsfeld: The problem with that is the President may or may not have
plans at some point in the future, and it seems to me it would be very
difficult for other countries to even have much of an opinion until
such time as the -- which if he were to decide that he wanted to do
something with respect to Iraq, whether it be diplomatic or economic
or whatever. There are lots of elements of relationships among
countries.
The fact remains that the sanctions [leak] and that things are getting
in under dual-use, under the guise of dual-use that are being
immediately turned to military advantage. The question people in the
world have to ask is how do you feel about that, to be providing that
type, under the guise of oil and food, and food for the Iraqi people,
and for shelter in Iraq and (inaudible) in fact that money is going to
(inaudible) food for the people of Iraq. That's for sure.
All right, folks.
Times: It's very good of you to spend the time.
Rumsfeld: Glad to do it.
Focus: Thank you very much.
Rumsfeld: It's good to see you both.
Focus: It's so rare for a foreign correspondent to get an interview
with a senior administrative official.
Rumsfeld: Is that right?
Focus: -- the Clinton Administration.
Rumsfeld: Is that right?
Focus: Eight years of Clinton, no access. One year Bush
Administration, here I am sitting.
Rumsfeld: Good. Well, I'm glad to do it. We care about Europe and our
friends and allies there.
It's good seeing you. Thanks for coming in.
Focus: Thank you very much.
Times: I appreciate it.
(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
|
|
|
