Defense Department Briefing, September 27
Iraq/freedom of the press, combatant commanders/Iraq, Myers/retiring, increased military role/natural disasters,
military operations/changing nature of conflict, Iraq/Vietnam War comparisons, Abu Azzam/Al Qaida, Iranian
intervention/Iraq, detainee abuse/new reports, Katrina/National Guard forces
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Air Force General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed
the press at a Pentagon briefing September 27.
Following is the Defense Department transcript:
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense
DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers
Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 1:05 p.m. EDT
SEC. RUMSFELD: Good afternoon, folks.
Recently, an Iraqi journalist recounted what life was like for him and so many others during Saddam Hussein's regime.
One month after his wedding, his wife was found dead with four bullets in her head. Her murder was an apparent
retribution for her husband's reporting for a Western media outlet. Today, that journalist has -- his country has some
170 independent news publications. Reporters now have the freedom to ask their leaders questions without fear of a visit
from the secret police.
I mention this because it sometimes seems that we've forgotten what Iraq was really like before Operation Iraqi Freedom
began in March of 2003. The new Iraq, for all its difficulties -- and it does have difficulties -- is on a path towards
freedom and democracy, where it once pursued tyranny and terror. As that Iraqi journalist put it: We'll never go back to
that because now, yes, it's dangerous, but we have promise. We have possibilities. We have a future.
In the coming days, General John Abizaid and General George Casey, the commanders of the CENTCOM and the Multinational
Forces in Iraq, will be in Washington for the Combatant Commanders Conference, which, I guess, we're doing it now about
three times a year?
GEN. MYERS: Yes, sir.
SEC. RUMSFELD: And they'll also have the chance to update the president and the Congress and the American people on the
challenges they see ahead. They've been entrusted with the responsibility of carrying out our missions in that region,
and they're performing their responsibilities exceedingly well, as are the forces under their command. They'll report on
the progress over the past year in the efforts to help create conditions for self-government in Iraq and Afghanistan. In
particular, they'll focus on the growing responsibilities of the Afghan and the Iraqi security forces.
Though the terrorists have been trying to intimidate Iraqis and Afghans from volunteering to defend their new found
freedoms, they've failed. As Iraqi President Talabani noted recently, every terrorist attack on Iraqi forces leads to a
surge in recruitment for these local security forces. But as the coalition moves forward with its strategy, it's worth
mentioning that the enemy has as strategy as well. They have brains to make their pattern of defeats look like progress,
to hold on long enough and to inflict enough damage -- often to innocent men, women and children, Iraqis -- in the hope
that the coalition decides that the cause isn't worth the price, and that the U.S. and the coalition will abandon the
millions who have put their faith in democracy and risked their lives for freedom.
I believe that the coalition will prove the enemy wrong, and that we'll persevere with patience and steadiness and
resolve. As it happens, each of those attributes can be found in the man standing to my right. This will be his last
press conference as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For four decades -- not his last press conference, possibly,
in his life, but just as chairman; you know, who knows what he might do. For four decades, Dick Myers has served, and
for the past six years, he's been a powerful presence in the Department of Defense. (Pause.) Look at that. (Referring to
something in the room.) Two years as vice chairman, four years as chairman, you've been a wise and a valued counselor to
the president, to the National Security Council, to me and to the leadership of the department.
When the history of this time is written, an era of tragedy and turmoil and triumph, I believe, it will be said of Dick
Myers that he was one of the most consequential chairman of the Joint Chiefs in our history. No chairman has been more
deeply involved in more critical decisions involving our country and our security and certainly involving the men and
women in uniform. At a time of historic challenges and opportunities, our country needed the best, and America found it
in Dick Myers, whose courage I've seen, whose counsel I will miss, and whose friendship I value.
Dick Myers.
GEN. MYERS: Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary and good afternoon. Thank you for the kind words. Hopefully this is my last
press conference.
And I would like to one last time from this podium, first of all, express my condolences to the families and friends of
those who have been killed or wounded in this war on terrorism. I know these words may fall short of conveying the depth
of pain and sacrifice that these families have endured, but it's a genuine and sincere attempt to try to recognize and
remember those who have made such sacrifices for our country, such important sacrifices.
As the secretary mentioned, the terrorists, the violent extremists are determined to commit despicable acts of violence
in an effort to shatter the will of the United States and our coalition partners. They want to see us leave Iraq without
completing the mission. The enemy knows very clearly they cannot defeat us militarily, so they rely on acts of terrorism
to try to chip away at our resolve, our resolve to win. And that's -- of which Iraq is a part, but it's not the only
part because we're talking here about the long war against terrorism.
So consequently, we must remain steadfast in our fight against this very determined enemy. As a nation, our best weapons
are patience and resolve, or in one word, our will. We simply cannot afford to lose the will to finish the job at hand.
We have the people, we have the plans, and we have the leadership to see this to the end and to see victory.
As I conclude my tenure as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and 40 years of service, a little over 40 years, I have to say
that I am most proud of the accomplishments of our military servicemembers; their determination, their dedication, their
courage, and their professionalism. And I know General Pete Pace feels exactly the same way.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to thank you for your service and your dedicated leadership. I treasure the candid and
professional relationship that we've had over these years, and I value the opportunity to come to this room and stand
beside you and try to tell the American people and the international community about their military, about our
operations, and about the war on terrorism. It's been a real honor, sir.
To the Pentagon press corps, it's also been an honor to work with you. We've talked about this before; in this war on
terrorism, where there are no frontlines, then accurate information is as important a part of the landscape as anything
we do. Essentially, your words replace those frontlines that we draw on a map in more traditional warfare. So you have a
very important job, and I appreciate your daily efforts to getting the story right and to offering context that helps
the audience understand the complex nature of this business that we're involved in.
And I've traveled with most of you and have talked with all of you; only left one of you behind -- (laughter). Well, I
didn't leave -- actually leave him behind, he got left. But there was -- we can talk about that later --
SEC. RUMSFELD: You could have waited.
GEN. MYERS: It was almost impossible, sir. We were in a combat zone. (Laughs.) Could have, actually, if we had known he
was missing -- and talked with all you, traveled with you, and it's actually been a pleasure most of the time to work
with such a fine groups of professionals. Thank you for all you do to do your job and to communicate with the American
public and the international community.
And with that, we'll take your questions.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Charlie.
Q: Mr. Secretary and Mr. Chairman, the president has suggested in the wake of problems with Katrina an increased role
for the military in initial response to major national disasters. And this building is studying lessons learned, and
Congress and other agencies of government are now beginning to study that. I will ask you, how do you all involve, how
do you see such an increased involvement by the military, and perhaps even law enforcement, by active duty troops, which
is somewhat controversial in light of -- posse comitatus would be changed? How do you all see such an increased role?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, I think it's a bit early to say. The president has made some statements that he is interested in
discussing lessons learned in the executive branch, and then thinking about how our country can best be arranged to best
serve the American people. The -- what we saw in the case of Katrina was a situation where our federal system -- the
federal government relies on the state and local governments to be the first responders under the Constitution and under
our current arrangements. The reality was that the first responders at the state and local level were, in large measure,
victims themselves, and as such, somewhat overwhelmed by the catastrophic nature of the Hurricane Katrina and the floods
that followed.
So we had a situation that was distinctively different than the normal situation, which works pretty well for a normal
natural disaster, or even a normal man-made disaster. And the president's point was that there are some things that are
of sufficient magnitude that they require something to substitute for the overwhelmed first responders at the state and
local level. And that is the issue that he's thinking about.
There's a great deal that, of course, the National Guard can do and has done in each of these instances -- Katrina and
Rita. There's a great deal that active duty forces can do, even in -- apart from law enforcement. And that's a very
narrow piece of the task of dealing with a catastrophic difficulty or problem, a disaster of that nature.
Even in the security area there's a great deal that active forces can do that would not be considered law enforcement,
by way of assisting and filling a need that exists.
The reality is that the Department of Defense has capabilities. Now, we're not organized, trained or equipped or
resourced to step in and do domestic events of that type. On the other hand, because we are organized, trained and
equipped to do a vast variety of other things, there is a certain parallel capability that can be brought to bear, as
we've seen in Katrina and Rita. I mean, we've ended up with 72,000 people down on Katrina -- and I've forgotten the
number in Rita, but it's a large number -- very rapidly, with all kinds of ability to do -- to move debris, to assist
with clearing harbors and fixing levees -- the Corps of Engineers; and providing food and medical assistance, and all
the things that have been done; rescuing people by helicopter. We went from up to 72,000 people and something like 350
helicopters, and 20 ships.
So these capabilities exist, and I think that it's up to the country, the government, to think that through and decide
how they want to be arranged for a catastrophic event of that type, and how the responsibilities and relationships ought
to be laid out. And of course, it will be these lessons learned that will help to inform those discussions and
deliberations that are currently under review.
Q: Mr. Chairman, the idea -- just a brief -- the idea to most senior officers, I think, alarms them a bit that active
duty troops might be used to arrest, perhaps even shoot looters. Do you think posse comitatus needs to be changed? Or do
you think that perhaps by increasing the role of active duty troops in other areas that it would free up, say, the
National Guard under state control, or local law enforcement to handle that job?
GEN. MYERS: Well, it's a good point, because you bring up the fact that the National Guard has those authorities today.
And as we know, in Katrina there were over 50,000 National Guard troops involved with Katrina operations, and 22,000
active duty, if you will. And so it does beg the question, do you need that kind of authority. And that's going to have
to be part of the long discussion.
You know, I wouldn't say that senior officers feel one way or another about this in particular. It's something we've
thought about, we thought we could do the job in terms of the responsibilities of Northern Command the troops that
support it, in the support role we've had without it. If we had a more prominent role, we'd have to look at that again,
I think, and decide whether we have the proper authorities or not.
But certainly there are lots of -- there are a lot of ways to go before you get to the fact -- the point where you -- as
the secretary said, before you decide you want to give active duty forces law enforcement authority.
Q: Mr. Secretary?
Q: General Myers, I just wanted to ask you to take a look back and step back for a minute, so perhaps a much broader
question. You began your military service, I guess, during the Vietnam years, when life was a little more simple; the
military goal was military defeat of that stated enemy. You came to office right after 9/11; you leave during Iraq. In
both the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, you've spoken many times that it's not a sole military victory, you need
political and economic progress, and that contributes to the victory -- if I understand everything correctly.
What I'm interested in is your long-term views. What does it mean to have soldiers -- is that where life is headed, into
conflicts where it's no longer a military victory solely? Is it more complex now? What does it mean to ask a soldier to
go into combat and perhaps die, but not to have the goal of clear military defeat of his enemy?
GEN. MYERS: Well, I hope, Barbara, nothing that I've said has been misconstrued as --
Q: No, just a -- you said that against the insurgency --
GEN. MYERS: Right. It's more complex. It requires -- I think the modern security environment requires all instruments of
national power, of which the military is one. But it doesn't mean that you don't have to be victorious. I think we were
clearly victorious in Afghanistan. The United States military was victorious in Afghanistan. I'm speaking about my
current term. I think we will be victorious and will help with victory in Iraq, but Iraq's going to be perhaps a
longer-term issue. It's an insurgency that has to be dealt with probably over a longer period of time in which the
political and economic instruments of power are going to play a major -- major role.
And then if you go to the long war -- and the long war is to get to the point where young men and women don't want to
join jihad, that they have other opportunities, be they political or economic or combinations of those, the military
will certainly have a role, but maybe not even the predominant role in the long war. But in the end, when victory is
achieved -- and I believe we have to win, in a very traditional sense, the long war, the war against terrorism. It has
to be won; otherwise, our future and our way of life is truly at stake. And the military will play a role in that. But
it's a more complex battle space today.
But if you go back to World War II, I mean the military victory was one thing, and then we -- and then this country and
the international community set about trying to establish a Europe and a Japan that were free and had democratic
institutions and had economic viability. And so I don't think -- I think it's almost parallel.
Q: Mr. Secretary --
Q: But what's your view, sir, on whether the U.S. military should stay in Iraq until the insurgency is defeated? Because
you said yesterday on the record, "As soon as we leave Iraq, perhaps having not won, the next 9/11 will be right around
the corner." So do you stay until there's military victory?
GEN. MYERS: What I was referring to then was if we were to -- the United States military and our coalition partners were
to leave Iraq before Iraq security forces and the Iraq political process is capable of handling the insurgency, and the
insurgents then and the al Qaeda dominated Iraq, then, in my view, we would have lost and the next 9/11 would be right
around the next -- right around the corner, absolutely.
But make no mistake about it, we can win in Iraq. And when I say "we," it's the coalition. The coalition is -- a major
part of the coalition today are Iraqi forces. And again, it's like all insurgencies, they don't just yield to military
solutions, they yield to political, economic -- the whole spectrum of elements of national power need to be brought on
the problem.
Q: Mr. Secretary -- and perhaps General Myers in his "farewell to arms" would want to jump in too -- you have often
said, sir, there is no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam, and yet this past weekend some 100,000-plus people
demonstrating against the war marched on the Mall. It was reminiscent of when you and I were both here in 1969 when a
comparable number marched against the war in Vietnam. And it was the lack of public support that in many ways forced the
United States to withdraw from Vietnam, even though many military people said we were winning. And I know you don't like
polls, but current polls show there is a dwindling or waning public support about the war in Iraq.
Are these not comparisons? And is there a danger, perhaps, sir, that these polls and the lack of public support would
force the president to withdraw and cut and run?
SEC. RUMSFELD: I think anyone knowledgeable about history will note a great many more dissimilarities than similarities
between the war on terror, or the situation in Iraq, and the situation in Vietnam. The differences are notable, many and
marked.
The answer to the other question is no. The president has been very clear repeatedly that he will -- is determined to
see this through and will see it through, and I have every confidence that that's the case.
GEN. MYERS: Can I tack onto that? Obviously, you know, I fought in Vietnam and have a lot of comrades and friends that
did likewise. But I think in comparing the two efforts, that the stakes today in the war on terrorism, of which Iraq is
a key part, certainly to the al Qaeda -- a victory there would be huge for al Qaeda and their interests -- that the
stakes are much higher today. I mean, if we are not successful in the global war on terrorism, then our way of life is,
indeed, at stake. I mean, it's just -- it's just that simple.
Another thing I would say is today, and we -- I kind of briefed this once before, but I -- I went -- went around the
world in 10 days, talking to our troops. They are so articulate about what this is about. You can pick any of them at
random and say, Why are you here in Afghanistan, why are you here in Iraq, what are you doing in Djibouti, they know the
mission, they know the importance of the mission, they believe it can be done, they believe it can be done, and they
want to do it. And they want to do a little bit more. They always go just a little bit more than just the mission
they've been given, whether it's an orphanage or helping out in a village clinic somewhere, or whatever it is. There's
so many differences, Ivan. I mean, it's almost -- I mean, people that try to make comparisons --
Now, the one thing they have in common is public will. And that's why I mentioned it in my statement. Of course it's
important.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Yes.
Q: Mr. Secretary, General Myers, can you talk about the capture of Abu Azzam -- the killing, rather, of him, and what
this says about the chances of catching Zarqawi himself?
SEC. RUMSFELD: (Pause.) Go ahead.
GEN. MYERS: Okay.
Well, I think we considered him the number two al Qaeda operative in Iraq, next to Zarqawi. And we put pressure on all
the senior leaders; clearly Zarqawi knows that he's under a lot of pressure. I think we've come close to stepping on his
tail several times, but he always seem to escape. But his lieutenants haven't, and now the number two person, the person
that is his primary facilitator, his -- the one that is -- organizes things, operationally, but certainly in Baghdad,
and has a lot of responsibility for the al Qaeda finances in Iraq, he's no longer on the scene. So they're going to have
to go to the bench and find somebody that's probably less knowledgeable, less qualified. I think it's a -- it's like --
it's like fighting the al Qaeda network. It's a -- it will have some impact. But over time they'll replace people, and
that's why the long war issue is getting to a point where politically and economically and -- people have opportunities,
they don't want a joint jihad, that they find another way forward, that they're -- that they're -- they're exposed for
what they are, and this is uncivilized folks that are terrorizing not only the region, but the world.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Yes?
Q: Well, is there anything you found in this raid that makes you -- puts you closer to Zarqawi or any evidence that --
SEC. RUMSFELD: If there were, we wouldn't discuss it.
Yes?
Q: Secretary, this week the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said many times that the Iranian intervention
in Iraq will have negative impact on the region.
SEC. RUMSFELD: We agree.
Q: Do you agree with him?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah.
Yes?
Q: Mr. Secretary, last week three former members of the 82nd Airborne Division reported to a human rights organization
new abuses regarding detainee abuse in Iraq that occurred in the fall of 2003 and spring of 2004. One of these, a
captain, who's still on active duty, said he tried to report these allegations to his chain of command -- company --
(inaudible) -- brigade level -- and was basically put off for various reasons. I'm wondering to how much -- what concern
you have that there still may be reticence out there to report these kind of abuses up the chain of command, for
whatever reason, and how serious do you believe these current allegations are?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, we take every allegation seriously. My recollection in this case -- it's all secondhand
information. I don't believe he has any firsthand -- at least I have not -- what I have seen -- read in the press
doesn't suggest that he had firsthand information. It sounds like it's what -- things he's heard.
All I know is that the Army is taking it seriously. They're -- they have -- the CID is investigating it, and they will
pursue it. And to the extent somebody's done something that they shouldn't have done, they'll be punished for it. And in
any event, we'll know the truth.
Yes?
Q: Could I go back to the National Guard question? Given the extent to which you're relying now on the National Guard
for overseas deployment, would there be merit in setting aside some certain proportion of Guard troops exclusively for
domestic duties, like disasters, et cetera?
SEC. RUMSFELD: It's a useful question, and I think it's something that in the lessons learned people may very well
discuss.
We of course use Guard for a lot of things all the time. They fight fires. They do all kinds of things around the
country.
The fact of the matter is that in the next rotation, we're going to be using only 20 percent Guard and Reserve, instead
of the 40 percent Guard and Reserve in the current rotation. So there will be vastly more Guard available in -- for
non-deployed -- deployment activities.
Second, General Blum pointed out that even at the peak, when we had, I think, over 50,000 involved in Katrina, National
Guard, and another 22,000 active forces, he said he still had 270 [,000] or 300,000 Guard people available in the
country. So it's not like they were strapped. They weren't strapped. They had an ample number of people they could draw
on for all of the things that were needed to be done.
And of course the Guard, as opposed to the active force, tends to have a higher proportion of people who do things that
are appropriate in a domestic setting -- civil affairs, military police, combat support, combat service support, various
types of things like that -- as opposed to the active force, which is heavier on artillery, tanks, shooters of various
type, and who are less appropriate for the domestic activities.
Q: Mr. Secretary, you talked in the response to Hurricane Katrina, local authorities being overwhelmed and --
SEC. RUMSFELD: I didn't say "local authorities"; I think I said the designated first responders -- policemen, firemen,
county officials -- all of those people who have that task under the federal system and the federal response plan.
Q: Right. And as I read that federal response plan, that's the very consequence that's supposed to trigger the federal
response, when the local folks are overwhelmed.
That being the case, what is it that in your after-action- analyses went wrong? Why wasn't there a quicker DOD response?
And would it have helped to have had General Honore dual-hatted, as opposed to active and Guard commander?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, the forces, the DOD forces, went in very rapidly and peaked very fast. And they tend
not to go in until asked for. So that's part of the arrangement, that you don't tend to put forces into a state without
being asked, unless there's some situation that's distinctly different under the law, which could be done. But the
pattern has been that the request is made.
And what was the second question?
Q: Dual-hatting General Honore.
SEC. RUMSFELD: You know, we've done that for some -- first of all, there has to be an agreement between the governor and
the president to do a dual-hatting. We've done it in a couple of instances for very small activities; a convention or an
APEC meeting, or something like that. It's never been done for something of that magnitude, where you'd put that many
tens of thousands of troops under the control of a single person. It could be done, but it does take an agreement
between the two, under the normal circumstance.
Q: Would that have helped, in this case?
SEC. RUMSFELD: It's hard to tell. I think the after-action reports will tell. I mean, my impression of General Honore is
that he worked very, very well with the state and local officials and with the adjutant general in all the states.
And I also think that one size doesn't fit all. I mean, if you think about it, we've had major problems in three states:
Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. And the situation in Texas and Mississippi went along one way. And in Louisiana, where
the flooding came after the fact, the situation was somewhat different. But I did not have the impression that General
Honore and his interaction with those people, absent a dual-hatting arrangement, caused a problem. Now, maybe the
after-action will suggest that it did, but I thought he handled it very, very well and they worked quite cooperatively
in all three situations.
GEN. MYERS: My impression was that General Honore was able to achieve unity of effort with the response because he
worked so well with the adjutant generals of the two states involved in the first one -- Mississippi and -- two major
states -- Mississippi and Louisiana, where the major damage was done.
And the secretary is exactly right, in my mind; you have to wait till the after-action to see if it could have been
improved to the point where you could have brought resources to bear faster and quicker.
Q: General Myers, we've heard reports before of this top lieutenant of Zarqawi being killed or captured, that top
lieutenant of Zarqawi being killed or captured. Just how serious a blow do you think the killing of Abu Azzam is to the
Zarqawi organization? And why, even if that kind of progress is being made against the Zarqawi operation, is his al
Qaeda in Iraq able to continue to operate so effectively?
GEN. MYERS: We have captured or killed almost every time they name new lieutenants. But the number one person we're
after in the al Qaeda organization in Iraq currently is Zarqawi. The number two person was this fellow. So he was not
just a lieutenant, he was the number two person, and he's responsible for operations in Baghdad, which is the capital,
of course, of the country, which is -- it's important. And since he was so involved operationally in what was going on,
and some say, you know, kind of ran the day-to-day operations because Zarqawi wasn't always in good communications
because he's running a lot of the time, and because he was so involved financially in making sure these operations are
properly resourced that, no, I think it will have some effect.
But it's -- but there are others -- you know, there's foreign fighters marching to the guns on a regular basis. So no
doubt they'll try -- I don't know of anybody this caliber; probably not. So it will take them a while to replace
somebody like that. It will have an effect.
Q: Kind of a related question maybe for both of you. We're talking about Zarqawi is the number one target in Iraq;
obviously Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri is still alive. How much do you think the fact that these three are still
at large has hurt the wider effort against terrorism in terms of symbolism? We know that these are just individuals;
there are many in the ranks; there will be for many years to come. But there seems to be a lot of experts, people in
other countries, particularly in that part of the world, who will say the fact that the United States has not killed or
captured these top three has really hurt the overall American effort just in terms of symbolism; that young recruits out
there see that their leaders, or their inspirers, if you will, are still on the run and, you know, the greatest army in
the world can't find them.
GEN. MYERS: I would say that -- you've named three individuals. I don't know how many al Qaeda leaders that we have
captured, but we've -- I mean, it's over 600 of their leadership. The leadership that was sitting on 9/11 have all been,
except for the ones you mentioned, have been wrapped up. We have to keep redoing our charts. And the last one was
al-Libbi.
So we're -- you know, I don't think they would take much heart out of the fact that there are three at the top that are
still remaining. I think the conclusion they would probably draw is that the coalition, along with our friends and
allies in this -- and I'd say notably Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, those countries and others that have gone very
aggressively after the al Qaeda -- are having some effect. I mean, the leadership -- al Qaeda leadership in Saudi Arabia
has, again, been virtually wiped out. This is -- I don't think that's what they'd be saying. I think they'd be saying,
"Gee, it's getting hard to have a poker hand around here."
SEC. RUMSFELD: Thanks, folks.