|
11 February 2001
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says the United States faces
today a broader range of threats and therefore deterrence is an
essential part of defense policy.
Interviewed February 11 on Fox television news, Rumsfeld said the goal
of deterrence policies "is to be so capable of winning a war that you
don't have to fight it -- that you dissuade and deter people from
engaging in mischief that they otherwise might do."
He said a proposed Missile Defense system is reasonable. "And what we
know is that with the end of the Cold War, proliferation has spread
these technologies and weapons of mass destruction around the globe.
Any president, looking at his responsibility as commander-in-chief,
would have to say that a policy that is designed to keep the American
people totally vulnerable does not make much sense."
Rumsfeld also addressed issues concerning the collision of a U.S.
submarine with a Japanese fishing trawler, defense expenditures, the
threat of terrorism to national security, the 1972 Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, USS Cole bombing investigation, and weapons
proliferation in Iraq.
Following is the transcript of the interview:
DOD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
February 11, 2001
Interview by Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday
Snow: And now, we're happy to welcome Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld. Secretary Rumsfeld, welcome.
Rumsfeld: Thank you.
Snow: Yesterday, a submarine bursting through the Pacific Ocean -- a
U.S. submarine -- splintering basically a Japanese ship. What
happened?
Rumsfeld: Well, that's what the investigation will have to determine.
It was a terrible tragedy, we know that. And there is still a
search-and-rescue operation taking place to try to find the missing
people.
The captain -- the skipper of the submarine -- has been relieved of
duty, and the investigation's going forward. I've spoken to the
minister of defense of Japan, Mr. Saito, and Secretary [of State
Colin] Powell has spoken to the foreign minister, and expressed the
apologizes and regrets of the United States.
Snow: Wouldn't it be a better idea, at this point, maybe to think
about doing some of that training a little further from shore? It was
only 10 miles from the shore of Hawaii.
Rumsfeld: Certainly that issue and other issues will be examined very
carefully.
Snow: All right. Coming up this week, the point of emphasis for the
Bush administration is going to be national security and national
defense. On the campaign trail, Vice President Dick Cheney said, help
is on the way. But help doesn't mean more money, does it?
Rumsfeld: Well, it may indeed. Indeed, the president of the United
States has indicated recently that he intends to have a one
billion-plus pay increase for the men and women in the armed services.
What he has also said is that he would like me and the Department of
Defense to undertake a defense strategy review, and a focus on quality
of life issues for the men and women in the Armed Services. And we
have put that in motion.
On Monday, the president will be at Fort Stewart in Georgia, and
focusing on quality of life issues with the men and women.
Snow: Let's talk about some of these quality of life issues. One of
them is simply the quality of the equipment. I gather the president
was out at Fort McNair recently, meeting with members of the various
service branches, and hearing tales. For instance, not enough spare
parts for Air Force jets, not enough ammunition for Army training.
There are routine equipment problems with the Navy.
Is the first point of business for this administration to make sure
that we've got proper equipment for the people who are serving right
now?
Rumsfeld: I think the focus has to be on quality of life for the
people. The people are the heart of the Armed Services. Without the
men and women that we're able to attract and retain to man the forces,
then we really don't have a national defense. So, that has to be the
first focus.
And readiness is a part of that, there is no question. If you're
forced to cannibalize your equipment to keep some portion of it
operational, that's not good for morale. That's harmful.
Snow: But you're keeping a relatively lean budget. Does it mean that
right now, the business of keeping everybody fully equipped means also
that you're going to have to put a halt to some weapons development
that may be more costly?
Rumsfeld: Well, what it means is that the president decided to engage
our brains, rather than open the taxpayers' wallets immediately. And
what he wants to do is to conduct a quick, prompt review. It's not
going to take years, and it's not going to take days. It will take
some months. And then we will go back to the President with our
recommendations as to what we believe are the priorities, and what
needs to be done.
Snow: It's an old clich?in defense circles that every general is
preparing to fight the last war. Are we unprepared for the challenges
of the future?
Rumsfeld: Well, there's still a lot of rhetoric that sounds like the
Cold War. We hear it from people across the country. They talk about
the -- they talk in Cold War-think words. And "massive retaliation,"
and "strategic nuclear exchanges" and that type of thing.
The concern for the United States today is not a massive nuclear
exchange with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is gone. It doesn't
exist. Russia's there. And Russia's a very different thing than the
Soviet Union. We don't expect a massive attack across the North German
plain with tanks and artillery pieces, and that type of thing.
Snow: So the key question then is: tanks. The kind of tanks we have
right now -- vestiges of the past?
Rumsfeld: Well, I'm not going to get into specific weapons systems,
Tony, because that's the purpose of this defense review. We're looking
at all of those questions.
Snow: But it gets to the question. You're seeming to imply that the
kind of forces we have right now really are not well suited to what
the president talked about on the campaign trail, which was fast,
mobile outfits in each service branch that can react across the globe
swiftly.
Rumsfeld: There's no question but that speed and agility and lethality
are important.
Snow: And we don't have that the way we need it right now.
Rumsfeld: Well, the word "transformation" is one we hear a lot about.
We hear it in the Pentagon, we hear it in the speeches of people in
the Congress. And it is important. There's no question that the United
States of America needs to get arranged, so that we can effectively
deter and defend against threats that are new and emerging. And
they're quite different than massive land wars, or massive air wars,
or nuclear exchanges and that type of thing.
Snow: Well, if we don't have to worry about nuclear exchanges, why is
missile defense important?
Rumsfeld: Well, I didn't say we don't have to worry about things. It
isn't this or that. It's really a broader range of threats and
concerns, and therefore a deterrence.
The goal isn't to win a war. The goal is to be so capable of winning a
war that you don't have to fight it -- that you dissuade and deter
people from engaging in mischief that they otherwise might do.
Missile defense, it seems to me, is very reasonable. And what we know
is that with the end of the Cold War, proliferation has spread these
technologies and weapons of mass destruction around the globe. Any
president, looking at his responsibility as commander-in-chief, would
have to say that a policy that is designed to keep the American people
totally vulnerable does not make much sense.
Snow: So the question is, was the missile defense plan adopted by
President Clinton such a defensive scheme -- one that keeps us
vulnerable?
Rumsfeld: What I am going to be doing, and am doing, is to take a good
hard look at all the different ways we can manage to deal with
relatively small numbers of ballistic missiles, with weapons of mass
destruction, regardless of where they come from, and regardless of
whether it was accidental, or unintentional, or intentional. That's
what this system is designed --
It threatens no one. And it should be of concern to no one, including
the Russians or the Chinese, unless someone has an intention of doing
damage to other people.
Snow: The president said during the campaign that he was going to
offer amendments to the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty, which as
you pointed out, was signed with the Soviets in 1972.
Rumsfeld: Right.
Snow: It's been seen as the greatest bar to doing any large-scale or
flexible missile defense. The president has said if the Russians would
not accept the amendments, he would go ahead and serve notice that
we're going to get out of the treaty and go ahead with missile
defense. Is that still the administration position?
Rumsfeld: Well, the president's not changed his words or his mind.
What we are going to do is reviewing the various ways that we can deal
with this problem, making a recommendation to the president and his
national security team.
And to the extent that it fits within, or doesn't fit within, the
president and Secretary Powell then have to make judgments. And we'll
have time to consult with our allies, and to consult with our friends
around the world. And obviously, to engage in discussions with the
Russians.
Snow: How soon should we begin deploying missile defense?
Rumsfeld: Well, it seems to missile defense ought to be deployed at
that point where we have fashioned a program that makes the most sense
for us and for our friends and allies. We're not in this alone. And
second, that the technologies evolve in a way that we can be
reasonably confident.
Now, the argument against every weapons system almost in history is --
the first argument is that it cost too much. And the next argument is
that it won't work. And the next argument is that it will work so
well, that it will be destabilizing.
Well, we're hearing all of that now. But that would have been true of
anything.
Snow: What do you mean? It would have been true of anything that --
those arguments would have been --
Rumsfeld: -- Those arguments, they would have made the same arguments
against every weapon system known to man. So I don't particularly find
them very valid.
Snow: President Reagan promised to share Strategic Defense Initiative
technology with all countries. Will we share that technology? Will we
make that offer to share it with other nations?
Rumsfeld: We certainly do -- we already are working with several
nations on the subject of missile defense. And obviously, you do not
want major differences in the vulnerability of the United States and
our allies in Western Europe, for example.
Snow: Now, one of the other threats emerging is so-called
transnational terrorism, people like Osama bin Laden. How do we fight
them?
Rumsfeld: Well, that's true. It is a very serious problem. And if one
thinks of all of the so-called asymmetrical threats -- the kinds of
things people would do, or threaten doing, rather than to try to
contest Western armies, navies and air forces, which doesn't work,
obviously. The Gulf War proved that.
Terrorism, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, cyber warfare,
information warfare. These are all things that are cheaper than land
wars, and where the technologies are currently available. And the
United States has to recognize those emerging threats, and see that
we're arranged so that we are not subject to nuclear or terrorist
blackmail.
Snow: We have talked about -- and also, President Bush has talked
about -- swift and decisive responses to those who harm Americans. Say
Osama bin Laden or somebody like that orders a strike. Would it be
appropriate for a president to revise policy and to go ahead and
approve assassination attempts against such people?
Rumsfeld: That's not a subject that I -- that has been addressed with
the new national security team that President Bush has assembled.
Snow: There's a member of Congress, Bob Barr of Georgia, who says he's
going to introduce a bill that would lift the assassination ban. Would
you support or oppose it?
Rumsfeld: It's not for me to support or oppose, Tony. It's for the
president of the United States. Obviously, it would lead to -- were
such a bill to pass the House and the Senate, and come down to the
president for consideration, it would then be a subject of discussion
by the president with his national security team, and I would
participate fully in the discussion.
Snow: Is Iraq a nuclear threat?
Rumsfeld: Iraq is probably not a nuclear threat at the present time.
There's no question but that its nuclear capabilities were well
advanced, and much farther advanced than Western intelligence
capabilities knew. And we were very fortunate that the Israelis went
in some time before, and took out their nuclear capability.
Because in the Gulf War, information was developed to show that the
Iraqis were quite close to having a nuclear capability, and there's no
question but that he has that desire. He's got an enormous appetite
for nuclear, and chemical and biological weapons. And he's spent a lot
of money on it.
Snow: That being the case, we're going to spend $4 million trying to
help internal opposition to Saddam Hussein. Are training troops?
Rumsfeld: The subject of Iraq is something that the national security
-- the Bush National Security Council team has discussed. The
president's interested in the subject, as to how Saddam Hussein can be
deterred and dissuaded from continuing to develop weapons of mass
destruction.
Secretary Powell is leaving very soon for the Middle East, and will be
discussing the subject with our friends and allies in the region and
with the coalition members. And the president's not made any new
announcements on the subject.
Snow: Isn't it safe to say we want him out of power?
Rumsfeld: Well, I think the Congress has passed legislation that
suggests that a regime change in Iraq would be desirable.
Snow: Final question. What do we know about the USS Cole? Are we close
to getting the people responsible?
Rumsfeld: The investigation's going forward, and you never know how
close you are till it's over. And the investigation's still underway.
Snow: So, stories out of Yemen right now may be a little overblown,
saying that they're closing in on the guy?
Rumsfeld: You know, it's not over till it's over.
Snow: (Laughs.) All right. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
thanks so much. Artfully done.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
Return to the Washington File
|
