Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Saturday Morning News
The Novak Zone: Interview With Donald Rumsfeld
Aired November 23, 2002 - 09:12 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KRIS OSBORN, CNN ANCHOR: This week, we begin a new feature on CNN SATURDAY. Robert Novak goes one on one with the top man in the defense department, Donald Rumsfeld, in "The Novak Zone."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERT NOVAK, HOST: Welcome to The Novak Zone.
Our guest this week is U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He joins us from the NATO summit in Prague.
Thanks for joining us, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, the president the other day gave the impression that if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government, as promised, on December 8 say they have no weapons of mass destruction, that the United States will begin military action without waiting for U.N. weapons inspectors. Is that a correct interpretation?
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Oh, I think the correct interpretation is that the president has determined that Saddam Hussein disarm consistent with the 16, 17 U.N. resolutions.
And my feeling is that what he would do is accept such a declaration as an indication by Saddam Hussein that he was unwilling to disarm and unwilling to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors.
But what precisely he would do or where he might do it, whether in the U.N. or elsewhere, I think, is a question for the president.
NOVAK: Mr. Secretary, in July in a press conference, you commented that weapons inspectors would be ineffective. Do you still agree -- do you still hold to that position? And if so, why is the United States going through with this if you feel they would be ineffective?
RUMSFELD: Well, I think what I said, or what I hope I said, was that inspectors tend to be successful when there is a voluntary compliance on the part of the country that they're inspecting. That is to say, a country that invites in inspectors for the purpose of opening up their country to prove to the international community that in fact what they are saying is true, then inspections can work.
My view of the past with respect to Saddam Hussein that he spent all of his time trying to deceive inspectors and trying to prevent them from having knowledge of exactly what he has. And we know he has weapons of mass destruction, and thus far he denies it.
So that situation suggests that he is not in a position of inviting in inspectors for the purpose of proving to the world that he doesn't have those weapons.
The reason the president decided to go into the United Nations and accept the reality that inspections might not work was that he concluded that war is the last choice, not the first choice, and that Saddam Hussein might see the seriousness of purpose, the resolution on the part of the international community, as a sign that the game was up and it was time for him to maybe leave the country and go somewhere else with his family and friends.
It might be that he would change his mind and open his country up and say, Well, I'd rather stay in power, then I'm willing to give up my weapons of mass destruction.
NOVAK: Sir, Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense and chairman of your Defense Policy Board, has been highly critical of Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat who is the chief U.N. weapons inspector. Do you share Mr. Perle's views, or do you have full confidence in Mr. Blix?
RUMSFELD: Richard Perle is speaking for himself and not speaking as an official of the U.S. government. I don't know Mr. Blix. I do think that any inspector would have a very difficult time being successful if the nation and the government, the regime, was determined to frustrate their efforts. And I think most rational people who observe these things would agree with that.
NOVAK: Mr. Secretary, you're in your old stamping ground, NATO. You were the ambassador, U.S. ambassador to NATO some 30 years ago. You've just admitted seven new former Eastern Bloc members into NATO.
Do you envision that these, that NATO in its -- this expanded NATO would have any kind of important role if there is a military operation against Iraq?
RUMSFELD: Well, there's no question but a large number of NATO countries would be participating in one way or another. Today, bringing in seven new members, Warsaw Pact countries and former republics within the Soviet Union, was a thrilling, thrilling experience.
I am (UNINTELLIGIBLE) convinced that the energy and enthusiasm that these countries bring, having lost their freedom and been without it for decades, to have their freedom back and then to be able to assure their security by participating in this Western alliance, the most important alliance on the earth, I think, is just a wonderful thing.
And I was moved very deeply by the statements that were made by the prime ministers and presidents that were recently invited to join.
NOVAK: Secretary Rumsfeld, your old friend and former colleague Kenneth Adelman, who is a member of the Defense Policy Board, advisory board, has said on many, many occasions that a military operation against Iraq, against Saddam Hussein, would be a cakewalk. Do you share that analysis?
RUMSFELD: Well, I really don't. I think any time the use of force is a possibility, people have to recognize that it is your last choice, not your first, that anytime peoples' lives are going to be put at risk, you to have to have a darn good reason, and you have to recognize that the history of warfare is one of surprise and things unfolding that were difficult to anticipate.
So I think that the Desert Storm lasted a relatively few number of days. It's true, there were a great many of Iraqi soldiers who had no stomach for defending the Iraqi regime and Hussein, 70,000, 80,000 of them defected and changed sides almost instantaneously.
So I suppose someone looking at that can say, Well, it could be relatively easy. On the other hand, notwithstanding the fact that Saddam Hussein's forces are considerably weaker today than they were then, and our forces are considerably stronger, the fact remains that the existence of weapons of mass destruction change the equation.
And so the very reason why it's important for him to disarm also changes the circumstance quite substantially. And one has to be sensitive to those risks.
NOVAK: We're almost out of time, sir. The big question for Donald Rumsfeld, do you -- some military officers tell me that the U.S. military is stretched very thin. Do you believe that a substantial or any expansion in manpower is needed to meet our responsibilities in the world?
RUMSFELD: Well, of course we have already expanded our manpower by some 70,000, Guard and the reserves being called up. We're now down, I believe, around 48,000 that are still on active duty. And we have asked a number of people who were due to get out of the service to stay in. And that number was about 20,000.
So we're doing two things. We're using the total force concept, the Guard and reserve, and goodness knows they are doing a wonderful job, and their employers have been cooperative, their families have been supportive, and we're very much in their debt.
We're doing one other thing, and that's we're trying to stop doing things with men and women in uniform that aren't military assignments. So we're trying to -- we're phasing down some operations elsewhere in the world in an orderly way. We're also trying to move military people from civilian functions into military functions.
And we're also trying to use contractors and civilians for things like force protection in the United States and various other assignments that don't necessarily require men and women in uniform.
We're balancing all of that and trying to do it in a thoughtful way, and I think so far we have been able to do so.
NOVAK: Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, thank you very much. RUMSFELD: Thank you, Bob.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired November 23, 2002 - 09:12 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KRIS OSBORN, CNN ANCHOR: This week, we begin a new feature on CNN SATURDAY. Robert Novak goes one on one with the top man in the defense department, Donald Rumsfeld, in "The Novak Zone."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROBERT NOVAK, HOST: Welcome to The Novak Zone.
Our guest this week is U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He joins us from the NATO summit in Prague.
Thanks for joining us, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary, the president the other day gave the impression that if Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government, as promised, on December 8 say they have no weapons of mass destruction, that the United States will begin military action without waiting for U.N. weapons inspectors. Is that a correct interpretation?
DONALD RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Oh, I think the correct interpretation is that the president has determined that Saddam Hussein disarm consistent with the 16, 17 U.N. resolutions.
And my feeling is that what he would do is accept such a declaration as an indication by Saddam Hussein that he was unwilling to disarm and unwilling to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors.
But what precisely he would do or where he might do it, whether in the U.N. or elsewhere, I think, is a question for the president.
NOVAK: Mr. Secretary, in July in a press conference, you commented that weapons inspectors would be ineffective. Do you still agree -- do you still hold to that position? And if so, why is the United States going through with this if you feel they would be ineffective?
RUMSFELD: Well, I think what I said, or what I hope I said, was that inspectors tend to be successful when there is a voluntary compliance on the part of the country that they're inspecting. That is to say, a country that invites in inspectors for the purpose of opening up their country to prove to the international community that in fact what they are saying is true, then inspections can work.
My view of the past with respect to Saddam Hussein that he spent all of his time trying to deceive inspectors and trying to prevent them from having knowledge of exactly what he has. And we know he has weapons of mass destruction, and thus far he denies it.
So that situation suggests that he is not in a position of inviting in inspectors for the purpose of proving to the world that he doesn't have those weapons.
The reason the president decided to go into the United Nations and accept the reality that inspections might not work was that he concluded that war is the last choice, not the first choice, and that Saddam Hussein might see the seriousness of purpose, the resolution on the part of the international community, as a sign that the game was up and it was time for him to maybe leave the country and go somewhere else with his family and friends.
It might be that he would change his mind and open his country up and say, Well, I'd rather stay in power, then I'm willing to give up my weapons of mass destruction.
NOVAK: Sir, Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense and chairman of your Defense Policy Board, has been highly critical of Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat who is the chief U.N. weapons inspector. Do you share Mr. Perle's views, or do you have full confidence in Mr. Blix?
RUMSFELD: Richard Perle is speaking for himself and not speaking as an official of the U.S. government. I don't know Mr. Blix. I do think that any inspector would have a very difficult time being successful if the nation and the government, the regime, was determined to frustrate their efforts. And I think most rational people who observe these things would agree with that.
NOVAK: Mr. Secretary, you're in your old stamping ground, NATO. You were the ambassador, U.S. ambassador to NATO some 30 years ago. You've just admitted seven new former Eastern Bloc members into NATO.
Do you envision that these, that NATO in its -- this expanded NATO would have any kind of important role if there is a military operation against Iraq?
RUMSFELD: Well, there's no question but a large number of NATO countries would be participating in one way or another. Today, bringing in seven new members, Warsaw Pact countries and former republics within the Soviet Union, was a thrilling, thrilling experience.
I am (UNINTELLIGIBLE) convinced that the energy and enthusiasm that these countries bring, having lost their freedom and been without it for decades, to have their freedom back and then to be able to assure their security by participating in this Western alliance, the most important alliance on the earth, I think, is just a wonderful thing.
And I was moved very deeply by the statements that were made by the prime ministers and presidents that were recently invited to join.
NOVAK: Secretary Rumsfeld, your old friend and former colleague Kenneth Adelman, who is a member of the Defense Policy Board, advisory board, has said on many, many occasions that a military operation against Iraq, against Saddam Hussein, would be a cakewalk. Do you share that analysis?
RUMSFELD: Well, I really don't. I think any time the use of force is a possibility, people have to recognize that it is your last choice, not your first, that anytime peoples' lives are going to be put at risk, you to have to have a darn good reason, and you have to recognize that the history of warfare is one of surprise and things unfolding that were difficult to anticipate.
So I think that the Desert Storm lasted a relatively few number of days. It's true, there were a great many of Iraqi soldiers who had no stomach for defending the Iraqi regime and Hussein, 70,000, 80,000 of them defected and changed sides almost instantaneously.
So I suppose someone looking at that can say, Well, it could be relatively easy. On the other hand, notwithstanding the fact that Saddam Hussein's forces are considerably weaker today than they were then, and our forces are considerably stronger, the fact remains that the existence of weapons of mass destruction change the equation.
And so the very reason why it's important for him to disarm also changes the circumstance quite substantially. And one has to be sensitive to those risks.
NOVAK: We're almost out of time, sir. The big question for Donald Rumsfeld, do you -- some military officers tell me that the U.S. military is stretched very thin. Do you believe that a substantial or any expansion in manpower is needed to meet our responsibilities in the world?
RUMSFELD: Well, of course we have already expanded our manpower by some 70,000, Guard and the reserves being called up. We're now down, I believe, around 48,000 that are still on active duty. And we have asked a number of people who were due to get out of the service to stay in. And that number was about 20,000.
So we're doing two things. We're using the total force concept, the Guard and reserve, and goodness knows they are doing a wonderful job, and their employers have been cooperative, their families have been supportive, and we're very much in their debt.
We're doing one other thing, and that's we're trying to stop doing things with men and women in uniform that aren't military assignments. So we're trying to -- we're phasing down some operations elsewhere in the world in an orderly way. We're also trying to move military people from civilian functions into military functions.
And we're also trying to use contractors and civilians for things like force protection in the United States and various other assignments that don't necessarily require men and women in uniform.
We're balancing all of that and trying to do it in a thoughtful way, and I think so far we have been able to do so.
NOVAK: Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld, thank you very much. RUMSFELD: Thank you, Bob.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
