Posted on 10/22/2006 7:19:27 PM PDT by MaximusRules
Q&A from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's Townhall Meeting at Maxwell AFB AL and questioned about US nuclear deterrence strategy in an age of terrorism...
Q Well, first, sir, I want to thank you for being here today and likewise thank you for your service to our country during these challenging times.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Thank you.
Q Sir, I'm sure you anticipate some questions on North Korea's nuclear activities, and I'd like to approach that issue this way. And that is that our strategy and statements on nuclear deterrence need adjustment in the era we're living in today. You alluded to that, that we are in a world of terrorists of global reach, rogue nuclear states proliferating nuclear WMD capabilities and expertise, and terrorists or proxies that may use those weapons against us.
So I'd suggest we must recast our nuclear deterrent strategy and rewrite it in more unambiguous terms and make clear that it's unacceptable for there to be a catastrophic WMD event on U.S. soil under any circumstance or relationship.
And as part of our counterproliferation strategy, we need to hold at risk the entire network of proliferators, from states to individual actors -- and we know who they are, A. Q. Khan, Iran, North Korea, and possibly even China, sir, I would submit -- and translate the intelligence burdens from us onto them for counterproliferation, make them police themselves and make them understand that they may well be held strategically culpable if there's a nuclear detonation on U.S. soil.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well --
Q That was my easy question, sir. (Laughter.)
SEC. RUMSFELD: That's a thoughtful question. (Laughter, applause.) But I'm going to answer it.
The world is different. If you have countries with nuclear weapons and everyone knows they're nuclear countries, and they have governments to protect, populations to protect, industrial base to protect, deterrence of the classic types tend to work. They have worked. Conversely, if you have countries that are nuclear countries and one of two things happens -- they transfer those capabilities, their illegal capabilities, to non-state entities, terrorist organizations of one type or another, or they're led by somebody who has a martyr complex and believes that it's okay to have great catastrophic events occur in the world, in those cases, standard deterrents don't work.
And I quite agree with you, and the president agrees with you. And within the last -- in the days since the North Koreans tested a nuclear device, the president indicated that a -- I'm going to try to use his precise words -- that were a nuclear country to transfer nuclear capabilities to a non-state entity, that they would be held fully accountable for that. And that's the first part of your question.
And the second part of your question had to do with counterproliferation, and you suggested there's some way that they could police themselves. I don't know that they could police themselves with that type of declaratory policy, but clearly they would have -- the nuclear powers would have an incentive to be quite careful about proliferating.
That does not mean they wouldn't. This is one of the hardest things we do. You can proliferate via land, sea or air. We now have the Proliferation Security Initiative where the president's fashioned some 70 nations as part of that activity, and there's so much moving around the world by land, sea and air that it is practically impossible -- not impossible, but certainly it would take a lot of countries cooperating with a high degree of cohesion -- but if you think about it, think of the countries of the world that are viewing with alarm the Iranian and the North Korean nuclear programs. They are concerned about lowering the nuclear threshold. They're concerned about having more countries become nuclear countries -- North Korea and Iran. And they obviously look at the world and realize that if Iran and North Korea become fully operating nuclear-capable countries, there's at least a reasonable likelihood that some other countries will decide that they need nuclear weapons. And you could have -- in a relatively short period, you could have two, four, six other countries decide that.
So the effect of what's happening in the world is exactly the opposite of what the international community wants to have happen -- a lower nuclear threshold, more countries with nuclear weapons, a greater likelihood that one of the countries or more might transfer those weapons to a non-state entity. I mean, think of what Iran -- just gave all these weapons to Hezbollah is a classic example. Now, they're resupplying them right now.
The only thing that will do it will be a high degree of cohesiveness and cooperation on the part of the international community, and that has been something that has been lacking. We have not seen that kind of cooperation that would have a high probability of being able to prevent a continued proliferation moving from conventional capabilities into unconventional capabilities. And it seems to me that the world has to look at that problem and ask itself if it's comfortable going down the path we're going with a sufficient -- with an insufficient degree of cohesiveness to apply sufficient leverage on North Korea and Iran that they would discontinue their programs.
Problem is, once you talk up the team on the Axis of Evil, and two of the axis of evil already gained, or will soon have obtained nuclear capability, and we don't, haven't, or won't do a whole lot about it, the team's momentum seems to deflate.
And don't come at me about using the UN for sanctions line. I'm sick of hearing about that. Cheney is getting old and thinking about writing a book, Wolfowitz flew the coop to the world bank. We've had five years of GWOT, about the same as WWII, and people want to see results. That is the only way to get the momentum back, if possible. After the Nov elections, Bush needs to clean house, and put out one last crush against the sectarian violence. Take out Al Sadr and his army, divide Iraq up into Shia and Sunni, and Kurds to the north. Give assistance to whomever straightens up.
As for Afghanistan, things are coming along a little better.
Very little.
Amonth or so ago, I read an excellent thoughtful post from someone who has been over there and proposed something along the lines you suggest.
Basically he was very high on the Kurds. I'm paraphrasing, but they have democratic blood in their veins, they are excellent entrenpuers, and everyone fears their fighting men - the Peshmerga. He felt that if you let the Kurds have the northern part of the nation, and get the Peshmerga to police the south, the violence would soon stop. Primarily, because the Kurds won't fight a PC war like we are. They'll roll heads with the best of them.
Of course the Turks would have a problem with the Kurds having their own nation - but maybe EU membership could be the carrot to keep them in line.
I hope some of Bush's guys are thinking outside the box like this. We need to change tactics - this migh be a part of it. The other part is slapping Iran and Syria upside the head to get them to stop funding the insurgency!!
"The other part is slapping Iran and Syria upside the head to get them to stop funding the insurgency!!"
Well, since this administration really doesn't have the 'nads to address this, sanctions need to bleed these two countries dry. Problem is, their current leadership.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.