*EPF304 01/09/2002
Excerpt: Afghan Government Building National Army
(Rumsfeld regrets civilian casualties but defends military action) (1620)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld expressed his support for the Afghan interim government's attempts to create a national military to reduce factionalism in the country.

"They're trying to get the various elements to join the national army. And they're using a variety of ways of doing that depending on which county, or which province, and which part of the country," said Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld spoke on the C-SPAN television network January 8 with Connie Brod of the Washington Journal. During the interview he responded to telephone and e-mail queries from the American public.

According to Rumsfeld, the United States was assisting in the effort to build an Afghan national army by buying back manned portable surface-to-air missiles from the Afghan populace. The new Afghan government was also encouraging its citizens to turn in weapons, he added.

"Instead of having all of the various tribal chiefs and warlords and opposition force leaders have their own separate factions of the army, the new interim president, Mr. Karzai, and the new interim minister of defense, Fahim Khan, are attempting to find a way to encourage private citizens to turn in weapons in various parts of the country, to reduce the crime, and to reduce the risks of violence," said Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld also addressed the issue of civilian casualties caused by the coalition military action against the Taliban. "Needless to say, any time there's a civilian casualty one can't help but just regret it terribly," said Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld characterized the Taliban as a "particularly vicious and oppressive regime," and said the military action which removed the Taliban did so with fewer civilian casualties than in previous changes of power in Afghanistan during the past two decades.

"There probably has never in the history of the world been a conflict that has been done as carefully, and with such measure, and care, and with such minimal collateral damage to buildings and infrastructure, and with such small numbers of unintended civilian casualties," said Rumsfeld.

Given the tragic history of the Afghan people over the past two decades, Rumsfeld stated that after the fall of the Taliban, "our hope for the future of those folks has to be one that it will be better than it's been."

Following is an excerpt from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's interview with Connie Brod on C-SPAN:

(begin excerpt)

Brod: Mr. Secretary, let's jump in. Let's start with this e-mail from Ray Cunningham from San Antonio, Texas. Under what circumstances can or will the U.S. government declare we have won the war against terrorism?

Rumsfeld: Well, I would like to take that in two pieces. First, with respect to Afghanistan, it is a question that the president has answered, and he's answered it very clearly. And that is to have the Taliban no longer be the government influencing Afghanistan, and that's been achieved.

And second to capture or kill the senior leadership of the Taliban, and that has not yet been accomplished, although pieces of it have been.

And, third, to capture or kill the al Qaeda at all levels, so that they cannot go around the world killing more Americans or our friends and allies.

With respect to the war on terrorism across the globe, the task is to see that terrorist networks are rooted out, and that the countries that harbor terrorists no longer harbor terrorist networks.

..................

Q: You're welcome, sir. Sir, I would like to better understand the arms buyback that is proposed for Afghanistan. Is that for the Taliban fighters to relinquish their weapons, and then we give them a certain amount of money for them, or does that also include the Afghan freedom fighters?

And also, Mr. Secretary, I would like to know if, and this is like a long-shot, I know, but would that apply also to the terrorists here in the United States of America to gain back whatever weapons that they might have that they bought locally, or have had transported from overseas?

Rumsfeld: No. I've not heard of anything like that that would apply to the United States. With respect to Afghanistan, there have been two pieces to the arms buyback. One was, for some time the United States has been trying to purchase back various manned portable surface-to-air missiles that exist in the country of Afghanistan, and have offered reasonable amounts of money to reacquire them.

The second piece of it is, in Afghanistan, the government, the interim government of Afghanistan, is in the process of attempting to create a national military, a national army. Instead of having all of the various tribal chiefs and warlords and opposition force leaders have their own separate factions of the army, the new interim president, Mr. Karzai, and the new interim minister of defense, Fahim Khan, are attempting to find a way to encourage private citizens to turn in weapons in various parts of the country, to reduce the crime, and to reduce the risks of violence.

And, second, they're trying to get the various elements to join the national army. And they're using a variety of ways of doing that depending on which county, or which province, and which part of the country.

..............................

Q: My second question is, given the instability in Afghanistan in regard to the different tribes in Afghanistan, and in particular various tribal chiefs. How safe is our military? Yesterday, I was watching CNN and there were some journalists that barely escaped with their lives because people or I guess some of the Northern Alliance had turned against them. And I heard recently that the first casualty was as a result of a tribal chieftain setting us up. And it just concerns me that all of the men and women out in the area, and how long is our role in Afghanistan?

Thank you so much.

Rumsfeld: Thank you.

It's difficult to know how long it will take to finish the job in Afghanistan, but we're certainly working hard on it, and the men and women in the armed services that are serving there are just doing a fabulous job. We're very fortunate to have them there. It's a dangerous place. There's no question about it. There's a great deal of crime, there's a great many weapons. There's a good deal of ordinance that's been stashed in various places around the country. There are any number of these tribal factions that sometimes don't get along with each other, and engage in conflict between them even though they both were anti-Taliban, for example.

In addition, there are a number of pockets of al Qaeda terrorists, and Taliban fighters that have not been tracked down as of yet to say nothing of the fact that several of the very senior leaders are still at large.

So, we have a job to do. We have to keep working on it. We are taking reasonable steps to provide protection for our forces. They are taking great care, and yet they have a tough, dirty, difficult job to do, and they're hard at it. We all hope, and I know they hope that we'll be able to wind up this task in the months ahead, and feel that the new government will be able to contribute to peace and stability in that country.

The people of Afghanistan have had a terrible lot. They've had drought, they've had civil war, they've had invasions, they had to fight the Soviet Union. They've had to deal with the Taliban, which was a particularly viscous and oppressive regime. Our hope for the future of those folks has to be one that it will be better than it's been.

..........................

Brod: From Yvonne and Steven, I don't know where they're e-mailing from. But here's a question. Marc Herold, a professor at the University of New Hampshire, calculates that American bombs have killed more civilians than the number of people killed at the World Trade Center on September 11th. America continues to bomb Afghanistan. Has America now lost the moral high ground it enjoyed following the tragedy, and how does the slaughter of thousands of Afghan civilians by American weaponry from 20,000 feet in the air refute allegations that America is a high tech bully?

Rumsfeld: Well, that's a mouthful. First of all, I don't know this individual Herold. And I have asked somebody to try to provide some facts as to how in the world he could have conceivably come up with such a breathtaking statement. I think that if he or others investigate carefully, and analyze it, and talk to people on the ground, we will find that there probably has never in the history of the world been a conflict that has been done as carefully, and with such measure, and care, and with such minimal collateral damage to buildings and infrastructure, and with such small numbers of unintended civilian casualties.

Now, needless to say, any time there's a civilian casualty one can't help but just regret it terribly. On the other hand, if you think about it, Afghanistan has changed power, governments, several times in the past two decades. Each time it has been a horrendous experience with enormous carnage, tens of thousands of people killed. This time, unquestionably, the government has changed, a repressive government has been taken out, and it has been done with the fewest civilian casualties of any time in recent decades. So I think that one needs to go to the source and think carefully about who is saying what, and look at the facts, and the facts are quite the contrary to what he is indicating.

(end excerpt)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents