Posted on 03/12/2002 8:45:05 PM PST by Stephie87
Rumsfeld: Don’t expect trapped al-Qaida fighters to surrender
Defense secretary tells NBC’s Brokaw he can’t say when U.S. troops will leave Afghanistan
By Tom Brokaw NBC NEWS
March 8 — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he does not expect many of the al-Qaida and Taliban fighters cornered near Gardez, Afghanistan, to surrender. And in an interview with NBC News’ Tom Brokaw, he says it is too early to predict when American troops will be able to return home.
Tom Brokaw: Mr. Secretary, American forces on the ground and in eastern Afghanistan say that they were surprised by the tenacity and the strength of the al-Qaida forces that they’re now fighting against. Should they expect to have more of those kinds of encounters?
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: You bet, and I can assure you that the senior commanders were not surprised at all. Any al-Qaida or Taliban who wanted to get out of Afghanistan has had plenty of opportunity. The folks that are trapped now in the perimeter that we have surrounded are there because they wanted to be there. They’re very well trained; they’re very tough; they’re well dug-in, and they’re well-supplied.
Brokaw: Mr. Secretary, you were quoted as saying yesterday that you would think that this would end by this weekend or by next week. Do you still stand by that?
Rumsfeld: I think what I said, yeah, it could end this weekend or next week, but it would be days but not weeks or months. I do. I don’t know precisely when it’ll happen. The weather’s really bad right now, so things are slow. There’s not a great deal of activity. Some of our aircraft are not flying. Some of the bombs we use can’t actually be used in this weather. There is some ground-fire, but it’s not anywhere near as heavy as it was in previous days.
Brokaw: So it could go on beyond this week?
Rumsfeld: Beyond the next 10 days, sure. I don’t think it will go beyond; I don’t think it’ll go into two weeks, if that’s what you’re asking. But when it would end depends in part, I think, on the weather, and whether or not they decide to surrender. No one’s given the slightest inclination that they want to surrender yet. Some tried to get out, and they’re being killed, but there are a few people trying to get in also.
Brokaw: Mr. Secretary, you refer to those fighters who’re holed up in eastern Afghanistan as “dead enders.” Does that mean you’re going to have to fight them to the death? You don’t expect them to surrender or to ask for a cease-fire?
Rumsfeld: Well, I’m always hopeful that we won’t have to drag it out, and that they will surrender. We’d like to get some of ‘em, and ask ‘em some questions, and we’d also like to get in there and see what other things we can learn from, because intelligence gathering is terribly important, because we learn things that can stop terrorist attacks in the far reaches of the globe. But I haven’t seen any inclination that they’re going to surrender, although I hope some do.
Brokaw: That is a very substantial force, based on everything that we’re hearing so far. They have middle-to-senior commanders with them. Do you think once you do get in there, you’ll get a better idea of where Osama Bin Laden may be?
Rumsfeld: It’s possible. It’s not a certainty but it’s possible.
Brokaw: Mr. Secretary, there’s been a lot of concern about Taliban and al-Qaida forces slipping across the border into Pakistan and hiding there. And that leads to speculation of course that they’ll just re-group and move back into Afghanistan once the United States begins to draw down its forces.
Rumsfeld: That’s true, Tom. It’s happened over the centuries that people have moved back and forth across these porous borders. The advantage we have today is that the Pakistani government and President Musharraf has agreed to put soldiers along that Pakistani borders. They are not extensively up into the tribal areas where the Pakistani army has historically stayed out of, but they are improving their coverage of that border every day. But you’re right: we could find that in two months from now a cluster of Taliban and al-Qaida, similar to the group we’re dealing with today, might try to reassemble after the winter’s over, and try to destabilize or damage the interim government.
TIMETABLE FOR U.S. WITHDRAWAL?
Brokaw: And how’s that going to your timetable for drawing down American forces?
Rumsfeld: We’re simply gonna have to keep enough forces there until the interim Afghan government is succeeded by a more permanent government and that they have developed an ability to provide reasonable security in their country. We cannot allow Afghanistan, having thrown the Taliban government out, having prevented the al-Qaida from using it as a haven for terrorism, we can’t then simply walk away, and let it once again be taken over by the al-Qaida, and have them train more terrorists to go out and kill more Americans. Therefore, we’ll have to play some role for some period.
Brokaw: A lot of analysts think that we’ll have to be there for a number of years, because already there’s evidence of internecine warfare going on between the various warlords in Afghanistan, and that won’t be quieted in the short term.
Rumsfeld: Well, I would characterize that as a different issue. I think that the Afghans themselves are gonna have to decide how they want to live and how they want to arrange themselves. And one warlord fighting another warlord is a different thing than the country being turned into a haven to train terrorists who are then going to go across the globe and kill thousands of Americans.
Brokaw: But what about the presence of the United States troops? Are they going to be there for at least another year, two years?
Rumsfeld: I wouldn’t want to speculate. The president has said they’re going to be there so that the new government has a chance to get going and so that we see that Afghanistan does not become again a haven for international terrorism. Furthermore, we do have to make sure that the al-Qaida in other countries throughout the world don’t find other sanctuaries. We can’t allow safe havens to develop that just replace Afghanistan as a place where terrorists are trained. And that is why this war against global terrorism is so very important.
Brokaw: Senator Tom Daschle, who’s the Democratic Majority Leader in the Senate, said recently that this war on terrorism is not over and won’t be over until we have broken the back of al-Qaida. Some of his Republican counterparts were critical of him for those remarks. How did you feel about them?
Rumsfeld: I can’t imagine why anyone would be critical of him saying that the global war on terrorism won’t be over till we’ve broken the back of international terrorists, if that’s roughly the quote you gave. I certainly agree with that. It sounds like it’s the president’s words.
CONCERN ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST
Brokaw: Mr. Secretary, let me ask you about what’s going on in the Middle East today, and has been going on for some time now. It is another murderous day between the Israelis and the Palestinians. How concerned are you about that affecting the moderate Arab states that are part of our anti-terror coalition?
Rumsfeld: Well, it’s a bit of a worry, but I think that the moderate Arab states have a long history of living in that neighborhood and as you and I know, for the last forty or fifty years, we’ve seen difficulties in the Middle East. Sometimes they flare up into wars, other times it’s at a lower level of violence. It’s always disappointing; it’s always disheartening to see people killed there. On the other hand, it’s my impression that the global war on terrorism will proceed because it must proceed. We have to go after the terrorists where they are. It’s the only defense, is offense and we have to get them and break the back of those terrorists before they gain weapons of mass destruction. And there’s no question but that they’re trying to get access to those weapons.
Brokaw: But whenever you meet with your counterparts from the Arab states, don’t they always raise the place of Israel in that part of the world and American support for it?
Rumsfeld: Sure, they do, and [Egyptian] President [Hosni] Mubarak was here and King Abdullah of Jordan was here recently, and there’s no question that subject comes up. There’s also no question but that they know the neighborhood, they’ve lived there. It’s a difficult situation, and we all are hoping and the president and Secretary [of State Colin] Powell and [Central Intelligence Agency head] George Tenet have all worked very hard to try to reduce the level of violence. And we’re hopeful that these recent initiatives will contribute to that. But the rest of the world goes on.
LESS FOCUS ON SADDAM HUSSEIN?
Brokaw: Does this fighting that is going on now in the Middle East provide some cover for Saddam Hussein and Iraq, take the attention off him?
Rumsfeld: Oh, I don’t know. I think he is what he is and the world knows it. He’s trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. He has chemical and biological weapons. He’s already used them against his own folks. He’s aggressively trying to develop nuclear weapons. I don’t know that it takes the heat off him.
Brokaw: There was an Iraqi delegation in New York as you know yesterday meeting with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan about the possibility of inspections resuming again in Iraq. What would it take for Iraq to remove itself from the so-called “axis of evil?”
Rumsfeld: Iraq, the problem with Iraq is the weapons of mass destruction and its willingness to invade its neighbors, and the fact that it publicly declares as delegitimate the neighboring governments. He is a danger to the region. That is clear. Inspections, to be effective, would have to be so intrusive that we could be assured that the weapons of mass destruction programs have ended. The old regime of inspections was constantly frustrated by Saddam Hussein and most of the information we actually got was not because of the inspections in the first instance, but because of defectors getting out of Iraq, telling us what was going on in there, and then pointing us, so that we could go find — the inspectors could go find — some of those indications of their [weapons of mass destruction] efforts. We know we never found them all, so I can’t quite imagine what kind of inspection regime would enable us to go in and have high confidence that we’ve really addressed his weapons of mass destruction programs.
Brokaw: Mr. Secretary, can the war on terrorism be successful unless there is a regime change in Iraq?
Rumsfeld: Well, if for whatever reason we didn’t have to worry about methods of mass destruction with Saddam Hussein and the risk that those weapons would fall into the hands of others or be used to others, the neighboring countries in the region. But it’s not for me to make those judgments, that’s for the president.
Brokaw: But it sounds as if you’re saying that you have no confidence whatsoever that we’re going to be able to get back in and do really effective inspections. Therefore, he will continue to build up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, he will continue to be a threat to the world. Therefore, what is his part in this war on terror?
Rumsfeld: Well, let’s just be realistic. If the inspectors when they were in there were constantly frustrated by the government of Iraq, and tricked, and if he in the intervening years has been able to go underground, develop mobility with respect to his biological and chemical capabilities and developmental capabilities, and we weren’t able to find them when we had inspectors in there, I’m trying to imagine what kind of an intrusive regime would be necessary for us to have a high confidence level that we have a good understanding of the fact — of what his weapons of mass destruction capability is. Now, if that were possible, fine. Then the problem would recede. Do I think that he’s likely to permit that kind of intrusiveness? No. He’s been quite arrogant, and determined.
WILL IRAQIS TOPPLE SADDAM?
Brokaw: Mr. Secretary, final question about Iraq: during the administration of George Bush the 41st, there was great hope that he would be toppled by his own people or by the Kurdish opposition. Do you have any hope of that kind, or do you think that Saddam Hussein can only be brought down by outside forces?
Rumsfeld: Oh goodness, I don’t know that I know the answer to that. You know, oppression works. It worked in the Soviet Union for decade after decade after decade. It’s worked in Iraq for decade after decade. On the other hand, at a certain moment, things can change, and if you think how quickly the Soviet Bloc countries fell. They were vicious, repressive, dictatorial countries. Take Romania, take some of these other countries. And yet at a certain moment, people acted; they went to the streets, someone killed somebody who is a repressing dictator. It’s not possible to know how things are going to happen. I think that there’ll be no peace until the people are free, and the people of Iraq are not free, and I suspect that they don’t like the repression, and that there are people in that country who would very much like to see a regime change.
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Rumsfeld, click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Rumsfeld | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
But, for $1,000 they can stay in America. (cynical chuckle)
Our biggest problem in dealing with Iraq, is to make certain we take out Suddam, and not one of his many impersonators. Our next biggest problem is -- who will replace Suddam? And we need to be very careful, for we have chosen badly in the past in other countries.
We also need to be wary of the Kurds we are supporting, to make certain they do not represent the same run of Islamic extremists that became the Taliban and/or the AlQueda who flew planes into the WTC.
Not cynical just ridiculous.
Don't get me wrong, in the end Russia couldn't shake the Afghans' resolve. The US is plowing through successfully. I'm glad they are. But to be fair, we must properly evaluate the enemies during actual battle. Could you imagine the resistance of the entire Afghan population, fighting to the death like this current cell of Al Quaida? That's what Russia faced. Apples and oranges!
What are you talking about. They have never been trapped. The Afganistan fighters went to the hills and caves against the British, they did it against the Russians, and they are trying it against us.
At no other time have they been trapped. In every other case they maintained the impregnable fortress. This time are trapped. Their fortress is nowhere near impregnable. It is a death fortress.
Always before they were in the caves and the only way in was to try to bomb or shoot your way in. The air weapons used against them were not good for the task. When the Russian planes got close enough to do dammage they were close enough for the Afghanistan troops to shoot down. The number of Russian aircraft wrecks (both fixed and choppers) in the valleys of Afghanistan are incredible. They have only taken a few of ours down.
When the Russians tried to assault the mountains, they were killed. After each Russian retreat the Afghanisatn troops sent their women down to strip the dead Russian bodies. Then the Russians would try again. WE have the weapons to kill them. All it takes is a few days of clear weather. Winter will end and summer will come. And as soon as we have a few clear days they are all dead.
This time we have the kinds of airweapons that can hit targets from a distance that protects our aircraft, and still allows accurate missile attacks. We have people close enough to spot and kill them as they try to escape. With our weapons their caves turn out to be death traps. Our missiles just blow the cave openings shut. Real shut. Mostly the explosion takes all the air and kills all inside while blowing the opening shut. Even if they survive inside and try to use explosives from inside the cave to blow it open, they just blow it more shut. Those that surivive in side will run out of fuel to burn for heat and light, food to eat, and water to drink. Then they slowly die in their caves. They have never faced this kind of siege before.
We were well aware of what we were going to face. The reason the Taliban left the cities and went to the hills with out a fight, was so they could surivive to take the nation back. They did not make us fight door to door to take the cities because the felt they could surive and retake the cities with guerilla tactics from the safe haven of the mountain caves.
They felt such tactics would result in a low cost victory for them once again. After all it had worked before. What they failed to understand is that we were hard at work on a the tactics and weapons to beat their stratety well before we ever made a move in response to 911. If we were not certain that we could win, we would not have made the move.
Only the media could believe we did not see where this was going and prepare for it. If you look at my old posts starting in mid october of last year I was talking about the siege of the Taliban in the mountains as being the major battle for Afghanistan.
Last fall I did not know we had weapons to kill them in the caves. I did know we had the force necessary to keep them from escaping from the mountains. And if we had that there was no way the Taliban could survive.
This is going exactly according to plans drawn up last september. The only think we can't control is the weather. But that only effects the timing, not the result.
Brokaw questions the timing hoping viewers will be dumb enough to question the result. As usual, Tom figures his audience correctly.
Translated "Rumfeld: Don't Expect the USA to take prisoners. It's grind up into lamb meal time."
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.