Transcript: New Threats Required New Strategies, Cheney Says
(Vice president addresses Los Angeles World Affairs Council) (6310)
U.S. national security strategy shifted with the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney told the Los Angeles World
Affairs Council January 14.
"There are certain moments in history when the gravest threats reveal
themselves. And in those moments, the response of our government must be
swift, and it must be right," Cheney said.
Prior to the 2001 attacks, the various terrorist incidents against the
United States tended to be treated as individual criminal acts, the vice
president said. Now, he said, "we know to a certainty that terrorists will
kill as many innocent people as they possibly can, limited only by the
means at their disposal. We know ... that they are doing everything they
can to gain the ultimate weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, and
even nuclear weapons. Should they ever acquire such weapons, they would
use them without constraint of reason or morality."
Cheney also noted that the Cold War security strategy of deterrence and
containment are no longer sufficient to meet the new threat of terrorism.
"It's hard to deter an enemy that has no territory to defend, no standing
army to counter and no real assets to destroy in order to discourage them
from attacking you," he said.
"Remembering what we saw on 9/11," Cheney said, "and knowing
the nature of
these enemies, we have as clear a responsibility as could ever fall to
government: We must do everything in our power to keep terrorists from
gaining weapons of mass destruction."
According to Cheney, what has come to be known as the Bush doctrine -- any
person or government that supports, protects or harbors terrorists is
complicit in the murder of the innocent, and will be held to account --
grew from that fundamental responsibility.
The corollary is also true, according to the vice president: "Leaders
who
abandon the pursuit of weapons [of mass destruction] will find an open path
to better relations with the United States of America and other free
nations."
The vice president said that the use of military force by the United States
is the last option in its defense against terrorism, but sometimes it must
be used. Being clear in intent and matching resolutions with resolve,
Cheney said, can not only remove a specific danger but also make it more
likely that other dangers can be dealt with through diplomatic means.
Seeking enduring security, the Bush administration is committed to "the
global expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it brings," he
said, "as the alternative to instability, hatred, and terror." That
is
why, Cheney said, the United States is "pursuing a forward strategy for
freedom in the greater Middle East."
Cheney also answered questions on illegal immigration, the Kyoto Treaty,
the Middle East road map, North Korea, and the reorganization of the U.S.
military.
Following is the transcript of Cheney's remarks:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Vice President
January 14, 2004
REMARKS BY THE VICE PRESIDENT TO THE LOS ANGELES WORLD AFFAIRS COUNCIL
FOLLOWED BY BRIEF QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION
The Beverly Hilton
Beverly Hills, California
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. (Applause.) Thank
you very much. I appreciate the warm welcome today in California and the
opportunity to be back in you great city of Los Angeles. Let me also thank
Eli Broad for his kind words, and the Los Angeles World Affairs Council for
the invitation to join all of you today.
This is a distinguished group. I see some old friends in the audience, and
I'm also pleased to spend some time with your board of directors and your
officers.
This is not my first meeting with the Los Angeles World Affairs Council,
but it has been a while. I was last here in April of 1990, when I was
Secretary of Defense, back in the days when I had a position of real power
and influence in Washington, D.C. (Laughter.)
My former job now belongs, of course, to a man some of you know quite well,
Don Rumsfeld. Don and I have a fine working relationship these days, but
things didn't start out all that smoothly. He and I first met in the
1960s, when he was a congressman and I was a graduate student looking for a
fellowship on Capitol Hill. He agreed to see me for an interview; 15
minutes later I found myself back out in the hallway. Don thought I was a
detached academic type, and I thought he was a brash young politician. We
were both onto something. (Laughter.)
When I finished my term as secretary of defense, I had no thought of ever
becoming vice president. And even a few years ago, no one would have bet
on my joining the ticket. The odds, I suppose, were roughly comparable to
that of an action star becoming governor of California. (Laughter.) I had
a chance today to meet again with your new governor, and my impression of
him is proving correct. I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a fine man, a
very capable executive, and he's well suited to the job that you
Californians have given him. (Applause.)
It was three years ago next Tuesday that President Bush and I took up our
own responsibilities. And next Tuesday, the president will give his annual
report on the State of the Union. Much has happened since he addressed
Congress, and we begin the new year as a stronger, more prosperous, and
more secure nation. The economy is showing continued signs of recovery,
and steady growth, higher productivity, and expanding exports. Strong
growth has also begun to bring down the unemployment rate -- and that is a
critical objective, as well, going forward.
Our administration and Congress have also addressed other urgent needs in
domestic policy -- among them, historic Medicare reform legislation, giving
seniors coverage for prescription drugs for the first time; and tax relief
for every person who pays income taxes; further vital actions in homeland
security, reforms in the forest management to help prevent the kind of
catastrophic wildfires you have seen here in Southern California this past
year.
On a whole range of issues, President Bush has worked with members of
Congress, regardless of party, to make progress for the nation. He
believes and has shown that the only way to seize new opportunities for
reform is to get beyond some of the old debates and grievances in
Washington, D.C.
As the president has said many times, he came to office to solve problems,
not simply pass them on to future generations. And in that spirit, his
speech next week will set forth our priorities for the new year. You can
expect a full domestic agenda, and a thorough report on the progress the
nation is making in the war on terror.
The year 2003 ended with two very significant victories. The first was the
capture of Saddam Hussein by our troops in Iraq, which provides final
confirmation -- (applause) -- provides final confirmation to the people of
Iraq that they will never again have to live in fear of Saddam Hussein.
Then five days later, came the announcement by Libya's Colonel Muammar
Ghadafi that his regime would voluntarily reveal and dismantle its nuclear
and chemical weapons programs, as well as its longer -range missiles and
biological weapons-related efforts. Each of these events was dramatic in
its own way. And each came about through the clear resolve of the United
States of America and our allies.
The undoing of Saddam's regime, and the welcome commitments from Colonel
Ghadafi, will bring greater security to the American people, and to our
friends and allies. Yet especially in moments of success, we need to
remember the long-term nature of the struggle we are in, and the serious
dangers that still exist.
On September 11, 2001, our nation made a fundamental commitment that will
take many years to see through. On that morning, we saw the grief and the
destruction that 19 terrorists could inflict with box cutters and airline
tickets. And we became aware of the far worse harm that these terrorists
intend for us. Thousands received training in the terrorists camps in the
years before the attack of 9/11. Scattered in more than 50 nations, the
al-Qaeda network and other terrorist groups constitute an enemy unlike any
other that we have ever faced. They have attacked and killed innocent
people many times since September 11th -- in Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombasa,
Istanbul, Bali, Jerusalem, Jakarta, Najaf, and Baghdad. And as our
intelligence shows, the terrorists continue plotting to kill on an
ever-larger scale, including here in the United States.
Terrorists were at war with our country long before 2001. And for many
years, they were the ones on the offensive. They grew bolder in their
belief that if they killed Americans, they could change American policy.
In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 of our service members.
Thereafter, U.S. forces withdrew from Beirut. In Mogadishu in 1993,
terrorists killed 19 American soldiers. Thereafter, U.S. forces withdrew
from Somalia. The decade of the '90s saw many more attacks: the bombing at
the World Trade Center in 1993; the murders at the Saudi Arabian National
Guard Training Center in Riyadh in 1995; the killings at the Khobar Towers
in 1996; the simultaneous bombings of American embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998; the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, which cost the lives
of some 17 American sailors.
Over time, the terrorists came to believe that they could strike America
with relative impunity. There was, among policy makers, a tendency to
treat terror attacks as individual criminal acts, to be handled primarily
through law enforcement. Consider the example of Ramzi Yousef, who
participated in and perpetuated the first attack on the World Trade Center
in 1993. The U.S. government tracked him down, arrested him, and got a
conviction. After he was sent to serve a 240-year sentence in a federal
prison, some might have thought, case closed. But we now know that behind
that one man, Ramzi Yousef, was a growing network with operatives inside
and outside the United States, waging war against our country. That 1993
attack was probably the first al Qaeda attack on the U.S. homeland.
Six people died in the '93 attack on the World Trade Center. Eight years
later, the casualties ran into the thousands. We know to a certainty that
terrorists will kill as many innocent people as they possibly can, limited
only by the means at their disposal. We know, as well, from the training
manuals we found in Afghanistan and from the interrogations of terrorists
we have captured that they are doing everything they can to gain the
ultimate weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear
weapons. Should they ever acquire such weapons, they would use them
without any constraint of reason or morality. Instead of losing thousands
of lives, we might lose tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives as the
result of a single attack, or a set coordinated of attacks.
Remembering what we saw on 9/11, and knowing the nature of these enemies,
we have as clear a responsibility as could ever fall to government: We
must do everything in our power to keep terrorists from gaining weapons of
mass destruction.
This urgent responsibility has required, above all, a shift in America's
national security strategy. There are certain moments in history when the
gravest threats reveal themselves. And in those moments, the response of
our government must be swift, and it must be right.
September 11th has been aptly compared to December 7, 1941 -- another day
in our history that brought sudden attack, national emergency, and the
beginning of a sustained conflict. Perhaps a closer analogy can be drawn,
not to the days of Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, but to the
decisions that faced Harry Truman at the outset of the Cold War.
Within a few years, after Germany and Japan surrendered, Truman and his
advisers saw the rise of new dangers. Imperial communism presented a
challenge of global reach, demanding a comprehensive, long-term response on
many fronts. President Truman made clear at the outset that the United
States recognized the danger, and that -- for the sake of future
generations -- we would face it squarely. In a short time, our government
created the architecture of national security we know today: the Department
of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council.
To defend ourselves and free Europe, the United States helped to found
NATO. To build and strengthen new democracies, our government led in the
reconstruction of Japan, and devoted the present-day equivalent of over
$100 billion to European assistance through the Marshall Plan. And when
aggression occurred on the Korean Peninsula, it was President Truman's
decision and America's sacrifice that saved South Korea.
All those early commitments, made by one president and carried forward by
eight of his successors, helped to bring victory in the Cold War, and
unprecedented success for the cause of freedom. In this new century,
facing new dangers, the commitments we make will also be decisive.
President Bush has recognized this from the beginning. And by the strategy
he has set for our government, we will overcome the threats of our own
time, and, as the president has said, advance the cause of freedom and the
peace that freedom brings.
To make the United States safer from terrorist attacks, we have created the
Department of Homeland Security -- the largest reorganization of the
federal government since the Truman years, bringing together 22 agencies
and more than 170,000 federal employees in one department. In a free
country, especially a vast continental democracy like ours, there is no
such thing as perfect security. But this new department allows us to track
and prevent acts of terror in a systematic way -- analyzing threats,
guarding our borders and airports, protecting critical infrastructure, and
coordinating the response of the nation in any future emergency.
To strengthen the international battle against terrorism, the United States
is working with our allies in an enlarged NATO. The presence of new
nations in NATO surely indicates the historic turn our time has taken.
President Bush has also challenged the United Nations to live up to its
promise, to become a body that not only passes resolutions, but enforces
them. We are currently working with the U.N. Secretary General to return
U.N. teams to Iraq, and to have them play an important role there in the
months ahead. And in Afghanistan, NATO is taking a leading role in
securing peace in that war-torn country.
Our national security strategy also recognizes that the doctrines of
deterrence and containment, which served us so well during the Cold War,
are not sufficient to meet the threat of terrorism. It's hard to deter an
enemy that has no territory to defend, no standing army to counter, and no
real assets to destroy in order to discourage them from attacking you.
Containment is meaningless in the case of terrorists. And neither
containment nor deterrence offers protection against rogue regimes that
develop weapons of mass destruction and are willing to pass along those
weapons secretly to a terrorist on a suicide mission.
Given these realities, there can be no waiting until the danger has fully
materialized. By then it would be too late. And so we are waging this war
in the only way it can be won -- by taking the fight directly to the enemy.
In these 28 months, we -- and our friends and allies in many countries --
have inflicted heavy losses on al-Qaeda's leadership and foot soldiers,
tracking and finding them hiding in places from Pakistan to Indonesia.
Those not yet captured or killed live in fear, and their fears are
well-founded. We are also working with governments on every continent to
take down the financial networks that support terror -- the hidden bank
accounts, front groups, and phony charities that have helped them function.
And our government is working closely with intelligence services all over
the globe, and our own officers continue to be engaged in some of the most
perilous and sensitive intelligence work ever carried out. This work has
brought many successes -- including the discovery of terror plots that we
were able to stop in their tracks. Americans can be grateful every day for
the skillful and the daring service of our nation's intelligence
professionals.
On the very night this nation was attacked, President Bush declared that
the United States would make no distinction between terrorists and those
who support them. This principle -- it's come to be known as the Bush
doctrine -- is now understood by all: any person or government that
supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the
innocent, and will be held to account.
The first to see its application were the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan by
violence, while turning that country into a training camp for terror. With
fine allies at our side, we took down the regime and destroyed the al-Qaeda
camps. Our work there continues. We have 13,000 soldiers and Marines in
Afghanistan, as part of an international security force that now includes
38 nations and a major role for NATO. This force is on the hunt for the
remaining Taliban and al-Qaeda members. We are helping to train a new
Afghan army, and providing security as the new government takes shape.
On the political front, the loya jirga has now approved a constitution that
reflects the values of tolerance and equal rights for women. Under
President Karzai's leadership, and with the help of our coalition, the
Afghan people are building a decent, a just, and a democratic society --
and a nation fully joined in the war against terror.
In Iraq, the United States and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a
murderous dictator, and rid the world of a menace to our future peace and
security. Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and sudden
aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the al-Qaeda
network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass destruction.
Year after year, the U.N. Security Council demanded that he account for
those weapons and that he comply with all the terms of the 1991 Gulf War
cease-fire. Year after year, he refused.
Against that background, the Congress of the United States voted
overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The U.N. Security
Council unanimously found Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and
vowed serious consequences in the event Saddam Hussein did not comply.
When Saddam Hussein continued his defiance, our coalition acted to deliver
those serious consequences.
In the liberation of Iraq, the American military acted with speed, with
precision and with skill. And to this hour they continue their work --
striking hard against the forces of murder and chaos, conducting raids,
countering attacks, seizing weapons and capturing killers. Members of our
active duty Armed Forces, the National Guard, and Reserves have faced tough
duty, long deployments, and the loss of comrades. We have, today, more
than 125,000 Americans serving in Iraq. They are confronting terrorists
every day in that country, so that we do not one day meet the same enemies
on the streets of our own cities. At the same time, American and coalition
forces are treating Iraqi citizens with compassion, and showing respect for
Iraq's great culture. Our servicemen and women are demonstrating the best
qualities of the United States, and we are proud of each and every one of
them. (Applause.)
The use of military force is, for the United States, always the last option
in defending ourselves and our interests. But sometimes the last resort
must be taken. And by acting in Iraq to enforce the just demands of the
U.N. Security Council, America and our allies not only removed one danger,
but made it more likely that other dangers can be dealt with through
diplomatic means. In making our intentions clear, and in matching
resolutions with actual resolve, we have seen and sent an unmistakable
message: The pursuit of weapons of mass destruction only invites isolation
and carries other costs. By the same token, leaders who abandon the
pursuit of those weapons will find an open path to better relations with
the United States of America and other free nations.
In the case of Libya, the announcement in December by Colonel Ghadafi is a
very significant development. Already, with the cooperation of Libya's
government, American, British, and international inspectors have examined a
sizeable lethal weapons program. In the months to come, the inspectors
will complete a full inventory, and assist Libya in dismantling its entire
WMD programs and its longer-range missiles. As Libya keeps its pledges and
cooperates fully in the international fight against terrorism, that nation
will have a chance to rejoin the community of nations. America, Britain,
and other nations stand ready to help the Libyan people build a country
that is more prosperous and more free.
As our administration carries forward our commitment to overcoming new
dangers, we recognize that lasting security depends on more than military
power. As President Bush has said, America seeks the "global expansion
of
democracy, and the hope and progress it brings, as the alternative to
instability, hatred, and terror."
Here, too, we find a lesson from history. Twice in the last century, the
United States sent armies to Europe in order to prevent the destruction of
liberty on that continent. Yet in the decades after World War II, dangers
in Europe fell away as the frontiers of democracy advanced -- in Germany
and Italy, and then behind the Iron Curtain. The lesson is that the spread
of democratic institutions is the surest way to bring peace among nations.
That's why America today is pursuing a forward strategy for freedom in the
greater Middle East. Millions in that region have known decades of
dictatorship and theocratic rule -- resulting in misery, bitterness, and
ideologies of violence that directly threaten us. And as the world has
witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan, people liberated from dictatorship
welcome the arrival of freedom, welcome the chance for a better life,
welcome the responsibilities of governing their own country.
By its very nature, freedom must be chosen. And the path to democracy is
not an easy one. It takes time and effort and patience for democracy to
take hold, and the greater Middle East has a long way to go. But all who
choose the path, by opposing terrorism and encouraging reforms, can know
this: They will have the friendship and support of the United States of
America.
In answering the great challenges that have come to us, our government will
go forward with confidence, but without illusion. Defeating a resourceful
and determined enemy, and advancing the cause of human freedom in a vital
and troubled region will place great demands on us far into the future.
At the start of the Cold War, President Truman said: "Events have brought
our American democracy to new influence and new responsibilities. They
will test our courage, our devotion to duty, our concept of liberty."
Fifty-five years later, America and our allies look back with pride on the
perseverance and the moral clarity that saw us through those many tests.
Americans of today, and our president, have those same qualities, as we
have seen many times since the morning of September 11, 2001. We cannot
know every turn that lies ahead. Yet we can be certain that by the
strength and character of this country, and by the rightness of our cause,
we will prevail.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
QUESTION: Mr. Vice President, many questions here on illegal immigration.
There's a major problem here in California. Why should we give millions of
people in our state a break for a prima facie breaking of the law? Is
there any other country in the world, including Europe and Latin America,
that would do so?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: You're talking about illegal immigration?
Q: Illegal immigration.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. There's no question it's a serious problem. The
president last week announced a new initiative, a new proposal that we
would like to see considered by the Congress and, hopefully, ultimately
adopted that basically provides for a temporary worker program, for people
to be able to come into the United States, take a job, receive approval and
authorization to be here, take jobs that -- where they, in effect, come in
when they know there is a job there, a job that an American will not fill,
to regularize that flow.
The problem we have today is we have millions of illegal, undocumented
workers in our midst. We do not know when they came. We do not know how
long they stay. We do not know what they do while they're here. We do not
know when they leave. From the standpoint of homeland security and
securing the nation's borders, it is a major hole, if you will, in terms of
our overall situation.
And we think -- the president believes, as he's discussed in the last few
days, that it's very important for us to try to get a handle on that. It's
also a humane measure, as well, at the same time. Those illegal,
undocumented workers who come in and take these jobs, in often cases, live
in the shadows of our society. They're exploited unfairly and oppressed,
in many cases. And we think it would be far better for us to take this
approach of, in effect, a temporary worker program.
We are not supporting amnesty. We do not believe in granting citizenship
to people who broke the law to get here, nor do we believe these people
should get at the head of the line when being considered for citizenship.
They need to return to their home countries and come through normal
procedures.
But we think this is the right way to go. We expect it will generate a
significant debate, as it should. These are important issues. They're
controversial. And they're never easy for us to deal with as a government.
But we think the issue needs to be addressed, and the president has given
us, I think, a good proposal.
Q: Several questions here -- (Applause.) Several questions on global
warming. Why is it that we did not confirm the Kyoto Treaty? And what are
we doing to reduce global warming after our failure to endorse the Kyoto
Treaty?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the Kyoto Treaty -- it's important to remember
had been signed at the last minute by our predecessors. A proposition that
embodied the basic principles of the Kyoto Treaty had been considered by
the United States Senate -- before we ever arrived -- and rejected 99-zip.
There was almost no support in the United States Congress for the exact
provisions of that treaty.
We believe that it was inequitable in terms of how it applied, and that it
would not seriously address the problem that it was intended to address.
For that reason, the president basically made the decision that he did.
That doesn't mean global warming is not a problem, but we think it ought to
be addressed through the development of hard science. We've spent a fair
amount of time on the issue since, and we'll continue to work on it. It's
an issue that does need to be addressed. But we need to address it based
upon facts and not just emotion. And that's the process that we're
involved in now.
Q: Would you comment on the Bush administration's road map in the Middle
East? When we will see -- will we see a more active effort to bring the
nations of the Middle East together for progress in achieving peace?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think -- the road map, of course, refers
specifically to the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
It was put together with the United States working with the European Union,
with the United Nations, and with the Russians. It lays out specific steps
that parties on both sides of the dispute should undertake. It's still on
the table. It has not been implemented, certainly. By the same token,
right now, it's about the only plan in town.
With respect to the president's commitment to the Israeli-Palestinian
question in terms of trying to resolve it, he is the only president who has
ever stood up and come forward and stated specifically that he will support
a Palestinian state as a part of the process here that ultimately leads to
resolution of this conflict.
He traveled to the Middle East last year, met with Middle East leaders at
Sharm el-Sheikh; later on, had sessions with the then-Palestinian Prime
Minister Abu Mazen and with Prime Minister Sharon. He's devoted
significant time and effort to the problem. The difficulty we have -- and
it is a continuing problem -- is that after years of effort, it's become
clear that as long as Yasser Arafat is the interlocutor on behalf of the
Palestinians, as long as he is in control, we think any serious progress is
virtually impossible.
I'm always struck by the memory that I'll always carry of January 20, 2001,
when President Bush and I were sworn in. We went to -- as is traditional
that day, you go to church service, and then you go over to the White House
and have coffee with the outgoing administration -- in this case, President
Clinton, Vice President Gore, and their families. And you spend several
hours together by the time you go through the ceremony, the swearing in and
so forth. And Bill Clinton talked repeatedly all day long about his
disappointment in Yasser Arafat, how Arafat had, in effect, torpedoed the
peace process.
Arafat was in the White House and the West Wing more often than any other
foreign leader during the eight years of the Clinton administration. Bill
Clinton did everything he could to try to put together a settlement and
came fairly close. In the final analysis, Arafat refused to say yes.
Subsequent to that, the president made a speech in June of 2002 that laid
out our basic principles. And at the front of that was the notion that
there has to be reform of the Palestinian Authority, that before we get an
interlocutor, somebody we can trust, somebody we can relate to, somebody
that we can work with in terms of trying to make progress. The Israelis
are never going to sign up, nor should they sign up to a peace unless, in
fact, they've got confidence that there's someone there on the Palestinian
side prepared to keep those commitments.
There has to be a way found to end terror emerging from the Palestinian
areas into the Israeli areas. We had another four deaths just within the
last 24 hours in Gaza, with a suicide bomber. And until the Palestinians
have an organization, a government in place that's capable of dealing
effectively with the structure of terror, I don't think significant
progress is likely.
In the meantime, we'll keep working it. The president is engaged. A lot
of us have spent time on the problem, but it's going to be essential that
that authority be transformed, I think, before anybody can realistically
expect a positive outcome.
Q: How do you see our relationship with the U.N.? And would we take
action in North Korea without a Security Council resolution?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Repeat the last part of your question, would we --
Q: Would we take action in North Korea without a Security Council
resolution?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, what we've done with respect to North Korea is
to approach it on a regional basis. It has not yet gone to the United
Nations, although, obviously that's a step that could be taken given the
fact that they've -- the North Koreans have kicked out inspectors and
appear to be in violation of the nonproliferation treaty that they're
signatory to.
The president made the decision, and I think a very sound one, that we
would work specifically with the Chinese, but also the Japanese, the South
Koreans, and the Russians to convey the message to the North Koreans that
the only choice available to them if they want to have any kind of a
relationship at all and have access to the international community is for
them to give up their aspirations to acquire and deploy nuclear weapons.
To date, I think we feel like we've made some progress. There have been
two sessions in Beijing. First the session with the Chinese, the Americans
and the North Koreans. The second one, of course, with all six of us.
We've had extended conversations with the Chinese and are now working on
convening another session going forward. The Chinese have been crucial in
the process, and I might say they've been very responsible in the process.
And we're doing our best to get the matter resolved by peaceful diplomatic
means, and that requires a concerted effort by all of those nations that
are directly affected.
It's not in anybody's interest to have nuclear weapons deployed on the
Korean Peninsula. It's clearly -- if that happens, it begins to change the
balance in that part of the world. And then other nations there may find
it necessary to alter their policy and their attitude towards those same
kinds of systems, and that's not in China's interest. It's not in our
interest. Clearly, we all have a stake in trying to resolve that matter
peacefully as soon as possible. And that's what we're doing.
Q: Before Mr. Broad comes back to close the program, we're going to have
time for this last question. Let me combine the two here. Would you
please comment on Secretary Rumsfeld's plans for the reorganization for the
Defense Department in light of the changing geopolitical conditions in the
world? And concurrently with that, does our strategic plan need to be
revised? Or are we still able to respond to two MRCs (nearly simultaneous
Multiple Regional Contingencies) at a given time?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we have revised our thinking, I think, in many
respects, and are in the process of revising our thinking as a result of
the lessons learned over the last few years. There's nothing like the
operations we went through, for example, in Afghanistan and Iraq to lead us
to study those and see if there are lessons learned that need to be applied
in terms of force structure, strategy, doctrine and so forth. And Don is
actively involved in doing that.
I think if I had to speculate that we'll see -- one of the legacies of this
administration will be some of the most sweeping changes in our military,
and our national security strategy as it relates to the military, and force
structure, and how we're based, and how we used it in the last 50 or 60
years, probably since World War II. I think the changes are that dramatic.
Certainly, Secretary Rumsfeld is spending a great deal of time on it, as
are our senior uniformed personnel, the chiefs and other seniors officials
of the department. The president is. The president has spent a fair
amount of time on these sessions, as well, too.
So I am quite confident that we will make significant changes going
forward. I don't want to speak for the secretary -- well, why not?
(Laughter.) No, I -- as I say, I am a great believer that we very much
need to do that. And we'll see some changes that are badly needed.
We're still positioned, if you think about it -- if you look at Europe,
when I was secretary -- that was back in '89 to '93 -- we made significant
changes in our posture there. We inherited the Cold War. We had 330,000
troops in Europe. We cut that back to about 100,000 -- but our base
structure and where they were deployed and the kinds of forces we had,
basically just a scaled-down version of the Cold War force. If you go to
Asia, the same thing.
The United States needs to be forward-deployed. We don't want to end that
practice at all. It's going to be vital for us to maintain our
relationships and our alliances around the world to do that. But what
we're finding increasingly is we need forces that can move on relatively
short notice. We need warm bases, bases we can fall in on, in a crisis and
have present the capabilities we need to operate from. But today, we've
got forces deployed in places like Uzbekistan, as a result of operations in
Afghanistan over the last couple of years.
We're much more reliant these days on Special Operations Forces, on those
kinds of units that can go in and do what we did in Afghanistan, where we
married up our Special Forces, A teams, CIA agents, some of our Special Ops
folks and were able to go in using their linkage to our precision air
capabilities now. And with a few thousand people, in effect, wrap up that
problem in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks -- a very different scenario
than was true in the past.
So I think we've only seen the very beginning of an important debate in
this area. I do expect and have a high degree of confidence that we'll see
a lot more and that Secretary Rumsfeld and his folks at the Pentagon,
following the president's wishes, are, in fact, aggressively addressing
these kinds of questions.
Thank you. (Applause.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
============================================================
See also: http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/
============================================================
TO GET OFF THIS LIST:
Send a message that says SIGNOFF US-IRAQPOLICY
to
LISTSERV@LISTS.STATE.GOV