'A Single Thread Runs Through The World'

Revelant excerpts of the News Briefing by Secretary Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

On Friday, we returned from a trip to Europe, the Gulf and South Asia. I suppose ifthere's a single thread that runs through these very different parts of the world, it isthat all of the countries we met with are very much in agreement with President Bush onthe global war on terrorism. In the process of fighting the war on terrorism, and it willbe a long one, and because of the broad coalition support, America has the opportunity toreally reshape relationships in the world in ways that can contribute significantly topeace and stability over the coming several decades.

Also visited Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, was very well received by all three countries.Each is being helpful in the global war on terrorism.

Q: Mr. Secretary, I'm sure somebody will get back to theshoulder-fired missiles, but I'd like to ask you about reports this weekend -- you justsaid that you found in your trip to Europe, the Gulf and South Asia, generally, people arein step with the United States on the war on terrorism.

Rumsfeld: Well, clearly, there is broad understanding of the terroristthreat. Many of those countries have experienced those threats, and we receive -- we'recurrently receiving already good support from them. And indeed, the trip reinforced that.

Q: Thank you.

You have said, as the president has said repeatedly, that this can't be a defensivewar, but you must, as you say, go after the terrorists actively. There are reports thatUnited States - this department specifically is forming a new policy, where it would becentered around preemptive attacks on not only terrorist groups, but on states thatsponsor terrorism. Number one, is that true? And number two, isn't that extremelydifficult in today's political world, to launch preemptive strikes against states and thenhave to show the world, in fact, we were right in doing so?

Q: Well, first, it's not true. To my knowledge, this department is notfashioning such a doctrine or policy. The National Security Council is, as I believe, beenpreparing a national security strategy. And it may be that comments about that have beenin the press and led someone to think that it's something here. But I think probably it ismore a reflection of the president's speeches, where he has been commenting on this, andvery likely the work that's being done on the -- in the National Security Council for anational security paper of some sort.

"Isn't that difficult?" is the second part of your question, as I recall. Youknow, life is difficult. It would also be difficult to know that a terrorist organizationwas about ready to fly airplanes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and not dosomething about it preemptively. In other words, what else can you do other than go afterthose terrorists that have publicly and privately organized, trained and equipped toattack America and American interests and free people -- innocent men, women and children?There is no choice with terrorist acts, other than to find them, and that is exactly whatwe did in Afghanistan, if you think about it. You can call that defense, which I do,because it is the only way in the world to deal with that type of problem, or you can callit preemptive.

It is what it is. It is simply a conscious decision on the part of the president of theUnited States. And I believe the overwhelming majority of the American people, andcertainly the Congress, that in the event you have people who are determined and dedicatedto killing innocent men, women and children, that the only thing you can do is to try tofind them and stop them. And that is what this global war on terrorism is all about.

Q: But how about countries -- for instance, Iraq, Syria, countriesthat support terrorists? How about preemptive strike against whole countries that --

Rumsfeld: Those decisions are not for me. But what I have said is afact; that we made a conscious decision that Afghanistan was a threat to this country, theTaliban government and the al Qaeda that were using it for terrorist training; and we havegone and done something about it. And that is self-evident.

Q: Sir, back to your trip to the region. The administration's policyis to promote regime change in Iraq. President Bush has not talked about how he would goabout regime change --

Rumsfeld: I think it's more than the administration; I think theCongress has expressed itself on the subject.

Q: You also. But my question is this: In your trips to the Gulfregion, did Bahrain and some of the other places you visited, share that view that Iraq issuch a serious threat there needs to be a regime change, or did you spend a lot of timeconvincing them of the administration's perception on this issue?

Rumsfeld: I had very good meetings in each country, and I don't intendto discuss the private conversations.

Q: Follow-up?

Rumsfeld: Yes.

Q: To follow up on Charlie's question earlier, when you said aconscious decision was made that Afghanistan, as it was, posed a threat, has theadministration made the conscious decision that Iraq, in fact, poses a threat to thesecurity of the United States?

Rumsfeld: Well, I think the fact that the Congress has expresseditself on regime change, the president has, indicates that the United States and a numberof other countries believe that the world would be a safer place if there were regimechange. And as a result, the United States has been and is currently doing a variety ofthings. That's why we have coalition forces in Operation Southern and Northern Watch.That's why we have various diplomatic activities taking place in the United Nations.That's why the United Nations had sanctions on the country. That's why there wereinspectors in there. And, of course, that's why the regime threw the inspectors out. So itis -- I don't know -- I just don't --

Q: But the decision by the U.S. government, the Congress and theprevious administration, to seek a regime change was made some time ago. Has -- does Iraqpose any greater threat today?

Rumsfeld: Well, sure.

Q: Than when Congress originally passed a resolution declaring thatthere should be a regime change?

Rumsfeld: It does. Every day that goes by, its development programsmature. And to the extent they become more mature, obviously, the capabilities both forthe weapons of mass destruction themselves, as well as the ability to deliver them, evolveas well.

Question? Yes?

Q: As you look at what has recently transpired in Morocco, at thebombing of the American consulate in Karachi shortly after you left, the bombing of thesynagogue in Tunisia, other recent events, what's your sense of the current status of theal Qaeda, their dispersement around the world since the operation in Afghanistan, just howdispersed they are, how active they are, what some of these operations that they may haveundertaken really represent right now, and the future threat you believe they pose?

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. Yeah. Well, I'm really not in a position to -- atthe moment to run a thread from al Qaeda to any one of those things you have mentioned. Ittakes time after the fact to try to determine -- sometimes people take credit, if youwill, to misuse the word "credit." And I think that it's premature to knowprecisely the instigators of those various actions.

From the very outset, we have pointed out that al Qaeda is -- was a global network,that it was spread across the globe, that it was not concentrated in Afghanistan.Afghanistan was where the individual who seemed to be the leader of al Qaeda was located,and it is -- was Afghanistan that -- where much of the training took place, although thetraining has taken place in other countries as well. And so they were already all over theworld -- 40, 50, whatever number of countries; it's hard to know.

I don't doubt for a minute but that the work we've done in Afghanistan has made it acountry that's less hospitable to al Qaeda. The training camps are destroyed. So trainingis being done somewhere, one has to assume, and -- but not likely to be in Afghanistan.And if we found it, we'd do something about it.

There are still al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and they're certainly in the neighboringcountries. That suggests to me that a number were killed and a number have fled, and verylikely a number are still there. They're trying to blend into some way that they can hide.The activity in Afghanistan clearly instigated a dispersion of these people, which I thinkis much better than having them training and managing terrorist acts around the world.Does it make it harder to find some of them? Well, it was hard to find them there, so Idon't know if it makes it harder. What we do know is that the 60-plus countries that areinvolved in the coalition are, together, putting pressure on these folks and making lifedifficult for them. And that is a good thing. It is making it more -- they would be doingmore terrorist acts were that pressure not on them. They would be raising more money,recruiting more people, and killing more innocent men, women and children.

Yes?

Q: Are you surprised that there have been three U.S. citizensallegedly involved with al Qaeda? Do you expect more?

Rumsfeld: Well, I guess I'm not surprised, and I would think there aremore. We just haven't found them. You know, we have a big country, couple of hundred-plusmillion people. We've got people who think everything in the world in this country ofours. And it doesn't surprise me at all that some would be affiliated with thatorganization.

Yes?

Q: What's your current assessment of the links between Iraq and alQaeda? Are you finding links between them as time goes on and as you pursue yourinvestigations?

Rumsfeld: I think I'm going to pass on that one. It's something thatpeople think about and they look into and as information is developed, it gets tested andexamined. And to the extent it looks promising or interesting or worth pursuing more,talking about it becomes the least interesting thing in the world from our standpoint. So,we are on a full-court press to find al Qaeda anywhere in the world. And we know someplaces where they are, and to the extent we get cooperation of the countries, like we doin the case of Pakistan, we go after them. To the extent they're in Iran, where we're notgetting cooperation, obviously we don't. But they're in lots of places.

Q: Can you say whether you've found any connection between the two?

Rumsfeld: That's not for me. That's not the Pentagon's business.That's intelligence gathering, that type of thing.

Q: But if you don't find those links, does it not make your job andthe administration's job, of rationalizing and selling a campaign against Iraq much, muchmore difficult?

Rumsfeld: (Chuckles.) There are a number of global terroristorganizations -- al Qaeda is one of them. There are a number of countries that are on theterrorist list. Of those countries on the terrorist list, there are a number that haveand/or are developing weapons of mass destruction. It seems to me that the nexus betweenterrorist organizations and terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction is somethingthat merits the attention of the American people and other like-thinking nations acrossthe globe.

Yes?

Q: Along those same lines, you mentioned that the Iraqis' developmentprogram continues to mature. Any hard evidence of that? Do you assume, because theinspectors haven't been in for a number of years that they are rebuilding? And have youseen anything from satellites, let's say, of rebuilding particular sites? Can you give usanything on that?

Rumsfeld: I could, but I won't. There's no point in getting intointelligence and telling the world that this country or that country is doing this, thator the other thing. It doesn't serve our purpose.

Q: So there is hard evidence that --

Rumsfeld: I'm -- I'm -- I'm not going to get into intelligencematters.

Yes?

Q: Can we go back to al Qaeda just for a second? There have been anumber of reports in recent days that the scattering of al Qaeda in Afghanistan has madethem more dangerous and/or difficult to deal with. Do you disagree with that? Is that whatyou're saying?

Rumsfeld: Well, I mean, how do you make an al Qaeda more dangerous?He's trained to go out and kill people and fly airplanes into buildings. Big appetite forweapons of mass destruction. Threatening free people all across the globe. Bombedembassies. You know, done a whole series of things. What gradation of "moredangerous" are we looking for here?

Q: Perhaps more difficult for you to counter.

Rumsfeld: That's a separate issue -- more difficult. No. They weredifficult there, they're difficult no matter where they are. They're not going tocongregate in large groups and say, "Here's our army, here's our navy, here's our airforce." The nature of this is that it's hard. The defense establishment was organizedtrained and equipped to go out and fight armies, navies and air forces. The globalterrorist networks do not have armies, navies and air forces. It becomes very much a lawenforcement and intelligence gathering, a coalition, a task of bringing all elements ofnational power to bear -- political, diplomatic, economic, financial, intelligencegathering, overt, covert -- all of that. It's a totally different ball game. It has becomea defense issue because the danger is so significant to our country and to our forcesoverseas and to our friends and allies. So the Department of Defense is engaged in thesetasks, and that is why these sweeps are being done in Afghanistan. That is why we'recooperating with Pakistan, trying to find -- that's why we're training people in Yemen andin Georgia and in the Philippines, trying to be helpful -- for them to be able to do abetter job or going after them -- the terrorists. That is why we're adjusting, how we dothings, so that we can participate more fully in what has historical been anintelligence-gathering and law enforcement effort -- a manhunt, if you will -- apeople-hunt -- trying to prevent those kinds of things from happening.

Q: What would an example of the "adjusting" that you'redoing be? You said you were "adjusting."

Rumsfeld: Well, we've changed our defense strategy. We've adjusted inour Defense Planning Guidance. We are shifting our emphasis, in terms of budgetallocations, what we're doing. We have recognized the fact that there are a variety ofthings, such as unmanned aerial vehicles and Special Forces and things that aredistinctively helpful in the task we're currently engaged in. We're beefing up ourintelligence. We're improving various other types of capabilities, so that we can try todo over the coming year, two three. We've increased homeland defense -- we've reorganizedfrom the standpoint of the Northern Command. There's just a lot of things we're doing thatreflect that reality that the world has shifted. And we're going to have to be arrangedand organized and equipped to deal with it better.

Yes.

Q: Mr. Secretary, some Pakistani leaders acknowledge that there are alarge number of al Qaeda fighters and perhaps leaders inside their country, as U.S.commanders believe. And is there a possibility that more U.S. troops may be used inconnection with Pakistani troops to go after them?

Rumsfeld: There's no question but that the Pakistanis understand thatthat border's porous, and a lot of folks came over -- Taliban and al Qaeda. There's alsono question but that President Musharraf is bound and determined and -- if, and, and whenhe finds al Qaeda or Taliban milling around in his country, he's is determined to go getthem. And he has demonstrated that and been enormously helpful. If I'm not mistaken, he'sjust put some more forces on --

Myers: That's correct.

Rumsfeld: -- within the last 24 hours, which --

Myers: Yes, sir.

Q: There are more U.S. troops?