A Strategic Lunch With SecDef Rumsfeld: This Week’s Creators Syndicate Column
Via Strategypage.
The intro:
A Pentagon press lunch with the secretary of defense is a rare privilege, especially for a columnist from fly-over country.
I’ve watched Don Rumsfeld perform on television. He treats stand-up press conferences as sparring rings, where he’s the heavyweight champ and reporters are lightweight chumps with glass jaws.
Maybe lettuce and tomatoes mellow Big Don. Rumsfeld seems much less combative with a salad plate plopped in front of him. As the lunch and conversation progressed, I noticed he never picked up a knife, but I’ve no doubt the man can wield sharp cutlery. The glint in the eye is the clue. Sgt. 1st Class Bowen — the Korean War vet who taught Cadet Bay how to use a garrote — had the same steely gleam.
During the conference (on October 23) I asked Mr. Rumsfeld a question crafted by the students in my strategy seminar at the University of Texas.
Last night I received by email a partial transcript of the on-the-record portion of the lunch conference. Here’s my students’ question and part of Mr. Rumsfeld’s answer. The question sparked a long rambling, discussion about “coalition-type” (multilateral) political, diplomatic, and military action throughout the world. Understand you are looking at “raw” transcript– complete with stutters, parenthetical statements, etc..
AUSTIN BAY: Mr. Secretary, this is a question that my students at the University of Texas wanted me to ask you. I had them — they came up with a seminar — a strategy and strategic theory seminar, 12 kids in there, they came up with 10 questions and voted on it, and this is the one they came up with. So I want to ask you — it’s a little bit of a shift from what everyone else is saying, but maybe it’s not.
“North Korea is multilateral diplomacy. Perceptually” — this is the way they put it — “Perceptually” — because I thought you would reject the premise that Iraq was unilateral, so they put the word perceptually in. “Perceptually, Iraq is unilateral. Why this perception? What have been the costs politically, domestically and internationally of this condition, that is unilateralism in Iraq, or at least the perception of it?”
That’s from a bunch of smart 20-year-olds.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Huh. Well, let’s start with the facts. The facts are that after 9/11, the president started putting together a worldwide coalition in the global war on terror which was — today it’s over 80 countries, recognizing that terrorism, like proliferation, like narcotics, are problems that the world faces that can’t be dealt with alone. No one country can manage the counter-proliferation problem alone, for example.
He then, in Iraq, created the — the perception was created that it was unilateral because even though the U.N. resolutions, even though the Congress of the United States said back in the ’90s in the Clinton administration, for regime change there — the perception was created because basically two or three countries were quite adamant and opposed — their opposition to do anything.
The fact is there’s 32 countries helping us right now in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, there are 42, including NATO, which is 26 of the 42. So they are multilateral in that sense.
There’s — you know, in Korea — which is the premise of your question — being multinational, it’s six countries that have been working on it. They’re going to the UN and trying to get more countries to do something besides just say something. And it’s pretty obvious in the case of Korea, it seems to me, that the international community says it does not want to lower the nuclear threshold, they do not want more nuclear nations, they do want to see nuclear proliferation, they do want nuclear weapons or dangerous, lethal weapons to get in the hands of non-state entities and terrorist groups, and yet their lack of cohesion, their lack of cohesiveness has created a situation where the leverage on North Korea is obviously inadequate to the task. And that is what the president’s working on. He’s trying to see that there would be sufficient cohesiveness in the international community so that it would be adequate to the task of dissuading them.
And thus far, you have one good example in Libya that has set aside their nuclear ambitions. And you’ve got Iran and North Korea that have not. I don’t want to get distracted from your question, and I’ll come back to it because it’s a worthwhile question. It seems to me that if you think of the nuclear deterrent, historically it works against a nation-state presumably that has a population and a leadership class and an industrial base they’d rather not lose.
Against a non-state entity — I mean, you think of all Iran gave to Hezbollah — against a non-state entity, traditional nuclear deterrents tend not to be recognized as having much effect.
Second, against a state entity that has a martyrdom complex and may be willing to have chaos and turmoil in the world, the standard deterrents many not work as well, one would think. But it strikes me that the president’s efforts to try to get sufficient — and if you think of North Korea, it is very different from Iran. And it is — you know, there’s — people are starving. They have people going in the military that are under five feet and less than a hundred pounds because of the lack of nutrition in the country. The same people, North and South, same resources, North and South, no reason for it.
And so one would think that if those six countries and the rest of the world, the U.N. and the international community, could develop enough leverage that it would affect them. It’s not likely to do much less of an effect on Iran, I would surmise.
But — so I think the approach — it is — the approach for North Korea it seems to me to be appropriate for North Korea. And I think the biggest risk they pose — it’s not that they pose no risk to South Korea or others because of their nuclear detonation, but the real risk to them is they’ll sell anything at their risk is as a proliferator both of missile technologies as well as now nuclear technologies.
Well, I didn’t really answer your question very well.
AUSTIN BAY: Because it comes back to the perception issue. And if Iraq is indeed a multilateral effort — which I happen to think it is — but this is the way the students –
SEC RUMSFELD: Sure.
AUSTIN BAY: — I know it is because of — from what I’ve done –
SEC RUMSFELD: We’ve been there.
AUSTIN BAY: — exactly — and who I worked with. But this — again, this is a 20-year-old’s perception of something. Why has that not been counteracted politically or information wise by the administration, at least effectively?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, the –
AUSTIN BAY: Are you paying a domestic price for it or are you paying an international price for it? And that’s what –
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, sure. Both, yeah. Both, yeah.
Check out the entire column.
Austin, doesn’t your conclusion re “United Action” assume that government bureauocracies not only are re-engineered, but de-politicized? How much of the Preisdent’s policies have been sabotaged by (individuals in) departments of the Executive Branch? When since WWII has there been the kind of unified national consousness required for United Action? The enemy we face enjoys, at least, that strategic advantage, which becomes a logistic advantage. They’re all on the same page and are coopeerating across boundries and other political constructs. Our greates challenge in fighting this war may not be military, but cultural, moral and educational.
Comment by Scott Sterling — 10/25/2006 @ 7:55 am
Darn it, Austin, you get to do all the cool stuff!! A.L.
Comment by Armed Liberal — 10/25/2006 @ 9:02 am
Bush Rockin’ a News Conference in a Few… He’s addressing Iraq. Along with this Mark Kennedy ad in Minnesota, is this a signal of a bolder move to politically face the Iraq issue head-on? In the past, whenever Bush has spoken frankly about Iraq in successive speeches, his numbers have……
Trackback by Mary Katharine Ham — 10/25/2006 @ 9:36 am
The fact is there’s 32 countries helping us right now in Iraq It does nothing to dispel the perception of unilateralism to give a lame statistic like this one, and on top of that to get the number wrong. There are only 23 countries that are providing any direct military help in Iraq right now, according to Global Security. Of those 23, only the first 7 have any significant world influence; and the other 16 are only providing a grand total of about 2,000 troops. 2,000 troops is what you might expect from one ally, not 16 of them. In fact most of these countries are just trying to win favors from the United States that have nothing to do with Iraq. Only four countries listed — the UK, Italy, Australia, and Denmark — are serious allies. South Korea is paying blood money in exchange for protection from North Korea. The entire rest of the list is at the level of “Borat wears a helmet”. And Italy is pulling out in two months, as is Poland.
Comment by Jim Harris — 10/25/2006 @ 9:59 am
Early in WWII, Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Joe Kennedy told the German Ambassador that he would support selling out England for Germany. Alger Hiss was FDR’s administrative master at Yalta and later for the formation of the UN. He was a paid agent, admirer and support of the Soviet Union and communism. Washington had Benedict Arnold. Lincoln had the Copperheads. Today we have the Democratic Party, the State Department and the MSM. Nothing changes. Enemies, foreign and domestic.
Comment by Paul from Florida — 10/25/2006 @ 10:11 am
If I could put one question to the Secretary of Defense it is this: The enemy has said tht half of the war is in the media, i.e. the media battle space. Who in the Defense Department is in charge of that half of the war? They might consider someone like James Carville who has had media war room experience.
Comment by Merv Benson — 10/25/2006 @ 11:14 am
Did he strangle anyone during the interview? A waiter or a reporter perhaps?
Comment by spacemonkey — 10/25/2006 @ 11:20 am
Perhaps I am suffering from the ill effects of exasperation, but seriously, why on earth does it matter today, or even if only in retrospect, whether the invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq is perceived internationally and/or domestically as unilateral rather than multilateral!! At best this line of questioning amounts to little more than beating a dead horse, and indeed at this point it is a completely unnecessary exercise in navel-gazing and self-loathing. The real issue is not who is with us, but rather who is against us, and to that end we need only ask whether we resolve to win or instead resign ourselves to will of evil men. We should not care one wit what those opposed to this war think for a multitude of reasons. Furthermore, we should cease immediately the counter-productive effort of attempting to ameliorate those who, for whatever specific lunacy articulated in the form of rational thought, believe the world would be better off with Saddam still in control of Iraq. While the notion that without the support of France and Russia any international intervention is unilateral despite the contribution of several other nations is patently ridiculous and totally illogical. Unless of course the other nations in the “coalition of the willing†do not count because, they are not “real†nations, or since their contributions and sacrifices are too “insignificant†to be meaningful – liberal paternalism at its best I suppose. Furthermore, the argument that the international effort of regime change and democratization in Iraq is an unjust unilateral intervention by the United States reflects the intellectual detritus of an atrophied and exhausted mind. The pressing issues, which remain for serious consideration, all revolve around HOW TO WIN. First, should we stay and fight, or run and hide? Second, assuming we decide victory in Iraq is preferable to defeat and retreat, then how do we achieve what at the moment appears to be the elusive prospect of victory? More specifically, do we continue to chart a new course in the history of armed conflict by attempting to pacify and liberalize an occupied nation without actually conquering it or at least definitely defeating the opposition – or alternatively - do we follow a course of action fortified by the historic examples of successful invasions by applying overwhelming force to completely crush all enemies to the formation of a democratic Iraq, brutally and absolutely imposing our will on the whole battlespace regardless of international borders and international acrimony to the contrary. Military success and lasting peace may not be achievable over night but they are certainly unachievable if we do not exterminate those who stand and fight against the effort. ED NOTE: I agree with your central point. However, this is the question the students wanted to ask. Rumsfeld respected it and answered it, though he didn’t get around to answering part of the question– why has the Bush Administration failed to counter the “unilateral” perception (if the perception is indeed wrong, etc)? At a later point he tried to return to it but other guests asked their own questions. That’s the nature of this kind of interview. I think some of the perception problem was generated by the rather inept CPA press and infromation operation in Baghdad from June 2003 through, say, mid-2004. An American general ran the briefing almmost every day. We needed a “coalition report” –a brief that included Iraqis, allies, etc. Instead, we had a daily “spotlight” tv brief featuring (predominantly) two Americans, one military, one civilian. That was bad, and I thought so at the time as I watched those “performances” on tv.
Comment by TheMarine — 10/25/2006 @ 4:38 pm
You can smell it in the air. The Democrats will sell out the people who are fighting at our side again. Should we stop sending ammunition to Iraq and Afghanistan right now or wait a few months. That is what happened in Vietnam. The shame and the costs echo down through the decades. This is how our enemies hope to win, it is the only way they will win. We are beating the stuffing out of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and for that matter Sader, in every direct fight. So the Democrats want to cut and run. Thank you ‘60 generation, thanks a lot.
Comment by Rob — 10/25/2006 @ 8:00 pm
Wow, blaming the democrats already and they don’t even have a majority. Well the President and his Republican majority created this mess and their going to have live with the consequences of their choices. This was a huge strategic error and no one has accepted any reponsibility for it. Both democrats and republicans are going to have to work together to remedy this cluster you know what.
Comment by Jack — 10/30/2006 @ 1:07 am