One day after the number of U.S. military fatalities in Iraq reached 1,000, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke to three television news programs about the need to persevere in the fight against the insurgents in order to establish freedom and democracy in Iraq.

"The greatest tribute we can pay to these brave, wonderful young Americans, who have given their lives, is to persevere, to keep moving forward, to defeat this insurgency, to defeat this enemy, to give the Iraqi people what they deserve. And that is a country that rests on the rule of law, that rests on popular representation of the leaders of that country," Powell said in a September 8 interview with ABC television's Charlie Gibson.

Gibson questioned this stance, however, saying that there was no link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and terrorism and asking whether the war was worth "1,000 lives and $200 billion in American treasure."

Powell responded that the links existed and that Iraq had been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism for many years. He went on to say that a dictatorial regime has been removed and replaced by an interim government that is working to stabilize the country.

"What we have to do is to keep our eye on the goal, and that is to have a free Iraq with a democratically elected government," he said.

Gibson questioned whether there is in fact progress being made, saying that the weekly number of attacks on U.S. soldiers had more than tripled since the beginning of 2004.

Powell responded that the coalition had expected a rise in violence following the transition of power to the interim government and during the period leading up to elections. He said that the insurgents could be expected to challenge this new government. He added that the north and the south are "relatively quiet," and that the main problems lie in the Sunni triangle and in Baghdad's primarily Shi'a suburb, Sadr City.

NBC television's Matt Lauer noted that the majority of American casualties had occurred since the capture of Saddam Hussein and questioned earlier statements by the Bush administration that "the capture or killing of Saddam and his sons would be a turning point, that once that happened the Iraqis would no longer fear a return of the old regime and they would embrace their freedom."

Powell answered that he had always believed there would be an insurgency, fueled not simply by Saddam, but by those in the Sunni triangle who were losing positions of power and privilege. He said that the coalition is now focused on putting down this insurgency and building up Iraqi security forces.

Lauer questioned, however, whether the coalition was effectively confronting the insurgents given its pullback from several cities, including Fallujah and Najaf.

Powell said that all of the cities harboring insurgents would be dealt with, using a combination of political and military means.

"We cannot go into the future with these places under the control of these dissident elements," Powell said.

Lauer also questioned whether the sacrifice of American forces was worthwhile, given that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.

"We believe strongly, and there's nothing that we've seen to doubt it, that Saddam Hussein had the intention and the capability of having, and perhaps once again in the future using, weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, as he had in the past," Powell responded.

Responding to a similar question from CBS television's Harry Smith, the secretary added, "The challenge before us now is to make sure that that loss [of life] was not in vain, to persevere, to not grow faint, to recognize that we have challenges ahead of us."

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
September 8, 2004

INTERVIEW

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
On ABC's Good Morning America with Charlie Gibson

September 8, 2004
Washington, D.C.

(7:08 a.m. EDT)

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, as everyone knows now, the number is 1,000 dead, no end in sight. As a former military commander, doesn't that number just torment you?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, we mourn the loss of every one of those brave Americans who fought in the cause of freedom and our hearts go out to their families who mourn their loss. But they're fighting in a good cause. We have to remember what the stakes are. The stakes are whether or not freedom and democracy triumph or whether or not we fall for the rule of the bomb, whether people can just simply kill others, innocent people, in order to impose their will, in order to take us back to the past, to take us back to the days of a Saddam Hussein-like regime.

The same situation applies in Afghanistan, where we've also lost brave young Americans fighting in the cause of freedom. In Afghanistan yesterday, a free election campaign began with 18 candidates running for office. That's progress. And we're going to see that same kind of progress in Iraq.

So the greatest tribute we can pay to these brave, wonderful young Americans who have given their lives is to persevere, to keep moving forward, to defeat this insurgency, to defeat this enemy, to give the Iraqi people what they deserve. And that is a country that rests on the rule of law, that rests on popular representation of the leaders of that country, and not get faint at this point but to persevere and to defeat the insurgency and to go forward with elections at the end of this year, the beginning of next year, and turn over increasingly security responsibilities to Iraqi forces as they are trained.

QUESTION: But that answer presumes that this was a necessary war, which a lot of people dispute. And the President keeps asking on the campaign trail: Aren't we better off with Saddam Hussein gone? There's been no link between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and terrorism and a lot of people feel the question ought to be: Was this war really worth 1,000 lives, getting rid of Saddam Hussein worth 1,000 lives and $200 billion in American treasure?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, you answered the question partly by saying we've gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. There was linkage between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. There was linkage. He was a state sponsor of terrorism. He was listed as such for many years. We don't have to go through all of that issue again, but the fact of the matter is that Saddam Hussein is gone. A dictatorial regime has been removed, a dictatorial regime that gassed its own citizens, gassed its neighbors, invaded its neighbors, put people into mass graves, had rape rooms, torture rooms. That regime is gone. And what's replaced it? An interim government that is working hard to bring stability to the country, to get the country up and going again, with the support of the coalition, the support of the American people and the American Congress.

And what we have to do is to keep our eye on the goal, and that is to have a free Iraq with a democratically elected government. And it is tough going. It is tough going. But let's not forget that we are capable of dealing with these kinds of challenges. We've done it before in our past and we have to keep moving forward.

QUESTION: But, Mr. Secretary, how can you maintain we're making progress? The average number of attacks in a week against U.S. troops has more than tripled since the beginning of this year. It's getting worse.

SECRETARY POWELL: We have said that once the interim government took over at the end of June, early July, and as we move toward elections, those who do not want elections, those who want to go back to the past, those who want to see a dictatorship again, will increase their attacks. They will challenge this new government. And what we have to do is respond to that challenge. Now we're paying the cost for it. The Iraqis are paying the cost for it -- their police forces, their military forces, political leaders, coalition forces. But there is no alternative to persevering and going forward.

Now, the whole country is not in an uproar, as would be suggested. The south, once we resolve the situation in Najaf and Kufa, is relatively quiet. The north is relatively quiet. The major problem is in the Sunni triangle in the center, where we're having difficulty with Sadr City and some of the other cities in the Sunni triangle and with the lines of communication.

So we know what the problem is and we have to go after that problem with our forces, other coalition forces and increasingly with a built-up Iraqi force, which we are working on as our first priority.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, good to have you with us. Appreciate you joining us this morning.

SECRETARY POWELL: Thank you, Charlie.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
September 8, 2004

INTERVIEW

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
On NBC's Today Show with Matt Lauer

September 8, 2004
Washington, D.C.

(7:07 a.m. EDT)

MR. LAUER: Mr. Secretary, good morning to you.

SECRETARY POWELL: Good morning, Matt.

MR. LAUER: You know better than most people how difficult and deadly war can be. You've served this country in different capacities in several wars. Did you ever think, sir, that we'd be sitting here a year and a half after the invasion of Iraq with 1,000 dead and almost 7,000 wounded and still no end in sight to the insurgency?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, of course, I couldn't have known that. But what I did know was that it was not going to be a simple matter in the aftermath of the war last year, that it would take us time to consolidate, it would take us time to put in a place a new Iraqi government that would be responsible for this country of such promise. And I knew that we would lose lives in the course of that work.

We mourn the loss of every life and our hearts go out to the family members. But these young men and women died in the cause of freedom, of bringing to this country a chance for freedom, to get rid of a dictator, to get rid of the possibility that this dictator would be gassing people again or would continue to be such a disruptive influence throughout the region.

We also have lost youngsters in Afghanistan as well. But in Afghanistan, 17 candidates plus Mr. Karzai, 18 candidates total, are now out campaigning for election. So we are seeing progress. The progress comes slowly and there are dangers ahead, and we knew this period between the taking over of responsibility by the Iraqi Interim Government and through to the elections would be a particularly challenging time.

MR. LAUER: But what about the families out there who say, you know, a couple of the reasons we went to war in the first place have turned out to be unfounded, no weapons of mass destruction, the 9/11 Commission found no concrete ties between Saddam and al-Qaida. Why was it worth the sacrifice of their sons and daughters?

SECRETARY POWELL: We believe strongly, and there's nothing that we've seen to doubt it, that Saddam Hussein had the intention and the capability of having, and perhaps once again in the future using, weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, as he had in the past. Where our intelligence was flawed was in the judgment that those stockpiles now existed. We haven't found them yet, but everybody had every reason to believe that those stockpiles were there.

So it was a real danger and the President felt that if the pressure was released, if we didn't deal with this now, after 12 years of Saddam Hussein ignoring UN sanctions, we'd have to deal with it in the future. This was the time to do it, and with a coalition of willing nations, we went in and we did it. And that's not a danger we have to worry about any longer. The danger we have to worry about now is this insurgency. And we must not lose heart. We must not fall faint now because we can prevail. We know how to deal with this.

MR. LAUER: During the early stages of the war, the Administration said on several occasions that the capture or killing of Saddam and his sons would be a turning point, that once that happened the Iraqis would no longer fear a return of the old regime and they would embrace their freedom.

Before Saddam was captured, 459 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq. Since he has been captured and his sons have been killed 541 troops have been killed. So did we miscalculate what was driving this insurgency?

SECRETARY POWELL: It was always my belief that there would be an insurgency, not fueled simply by Saddam Hussein or his sons, but by disaffected elements of the former regime who were losing power, those individuals within the Sunni triangle that had such privilege and power and money over those years and who lost so much when this dictator was removed. And so we fully expected, I fully expected, that insurgency to continue for a while until it was put down. And that's where we're directing our efforts, at putting it down with the use of coalition troops, as well as building up as rapidly as possible Iraqi security forces.

MR. LAUER: Under pressure from the new Iraqi Government, the U.S. military has pulled back from five Iraqi cities. We're talking about Najaf, Fallujah and several others. The idea, I think, was to lower the U.S. profile in that area, reduce tensions. Some critics have said it's simply created a safe haven for these insurgents. Can that situation be allowed to continue?

SECRETARY POWELL: It can't continue indefinitely and we know --

MR. LAUER: You have to change it prior to elections in January?

SECRETARY POWELL: We know fully that those places have to be brought under control. Najaf is now being brought under control after a standoff. You have to consider military issues as well as political issues in a complex environment such as this. We did that in Najaf. We did that in Kufa. The south is relatively quiet although there are always opportunities for something to happen. The north is relatively quiet. Our problem is in Sadr City in Baghdad and in the cities of the Sunni triangle. Some of those cities are not anywhere near in the kind of situation we would like them to be; Fallujah, for example.

Slowly but surely, coalition forces and improving Iraqi security forces have to take every one of these places back. We cannot go into the future with these places under the control of these dissident elements. But we have to try to do it first with political efforts on the part of the new government and then the use of force. That's what they did in Najaf. Forces came in. We squeezed the militia of Muqtada al-Sadr and then a political solution was found to get those militias out and to remove the influence of Mr. Sadr from Najaf.

MR. LAUER: Let me just turn real quickly to a final subject. I don't know if you've seen this footage we showed this morning taken inside that Russian school when those kidnappers killed all those children. Russian President Putin is said to be upset with the United States for past contacts between U.S. officials and Chechen separatists. Have we done enough to support President Putin in his own war on terror?

SECRETARY POWELL: I think we have and I think he would say that. He is engaged in a serious war against terrorists out of Chechnya and we have said that he should fight it with all the energy and resources that he has. But as the Russians have said in the past, ultimately a political solution has to be found. We have not met here in the Department at any level with any Chechen representatives for a couple of years, but we have from time to time had contacts with them in 2001 and 2002 as people were looking for opportunities for dialogue.

But there is no excuse for what has happened. Nobody can justify the killing of children. The tape is absolutely horrific and I know why President Putin feels so strongly about it. How could you not feel that strongly? And I know that he's going to go after these terrorists. And you should not negotiate with terrorists who would kill children in this manner.

MR. LAUER: Secretary Powell, I thank you for your time.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
September 8, 2004

INTERVIEW

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
On CBS's Early Show with Harry Smith

September 8, 2004
Washington, D.C.

(7:07 a.m. EDT)

MR. SMITH: Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

SECRETARY POWELL: Good morning, Harry.

MR. SMITH: You supported this war. You helped sell it to the United Nations and to the American people. Is the price in human life -- has it been worth it?

SECRETARY POWELL: Well, Harry, you know we mourn the loss of every one of these brave Americans who served their nation so well and they served their nation in the cause of freedom. In Afghanistan and in Iraq, what we have achieved is the removal of two terrible regimes that were sponsors of terrorism, that were dictatorships and that threatened not only their own people in the region but threatened us ultimately. And so to the extent that those regimes are gone and they're not coming back, it was a good cause in which these young Americans lost their lives.

MR. SMITH: But when we --

SECRETARY POWELL: The challenge before us now -- The challenge before us now is to make sure that that loss was not in vain, to persevere, to not grow faint, to recognize that we have challenges ahead of us. But an election campaign began in Afghanistan yesterday with 18 candidates in Afghanistan out lobbying and looking for votes. That, I think, is progress. In Iraq, we are facing a rather determined insurgency and we have to defeat that insurgency using coalition forces and increasingly built-up Iraqi security forces.

And we knew that this would be a difficult time. We said that once the transition to Iraqi leadership took place, the insurgents would come after that leadership and come after us. And we'll have to deal with it and we will deal with it.

MR. SMITH: Let me ask you this, though. So much of this war was based on "what if's." What if Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction? What if he has nuclear capabilities? Should a war be based on "what if's"?

SECRETARY POWELL: It wasn't a "what if." In our judgment, at the time that the President was making his decisions and at the time that we were presenting our case to the world, to the United Nations, the body of intelligence that we had, that our allies had and that the UN, frankly, had accumulated over many years suggested that he did have the intention and the capability to have weapons of mass destruction. And there is no doubt about that. What was not clear in, you know, in retrospect, was whether or not he actually had stockpiles.

But there was no doubt in my mind that a regime of this nature which had used such weapons in the past against its own people and against its neighbors, and retained that intention and had that capability, would eventually reconstitute stockpiles if they didn't have them now. And anyone who thinks that if Saddam Hussein had gotten out from under those sanctions, out from under the pressure that was being applied against him, had gotten a free pass on this, would not have returned to past behavior, I think is mistaken. And the President was not about to put the region and America at that risk.

MR. SMITH: All right. Secretary Powell, we thank you for your time today.