For Immediate Release
Office of the Vice President
January 14, 2004
Remarks by the Vice President to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council Followed by Brief Question and Answer Session
The Beverly Hilton
Beverly Hills, California
12:02 P.M. PST
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you.
(Applause.) Thank you very much. I appreciate the warm welcome today
in California and the opportunity to be back in you great city of Los
Angeles. Let me also thank Eli Broad for his kind words, and the Los
Angeles World Affairs Council for the invitation to join all of you
today.
This is a distinguished group. I see some old friends in the
audience, and I'm also pleased to spend some time with your board of
directors and your officers.
This is not my first meeting with the Los Angeles World Affairs
Council, but it has been a while. I was last here in April of 1990,
when I was Secretary of Defense, back in the days when I had a position
of real power and influence in Washington, D.C. (Laughter.)
My former job now belongs, of course, to man some of you know quite
well, Don Rumsfeld. Don and I have a fine working relationship these
days, but things didn't start out all that smoothly. He and I first
met in the 1960s, when he was a congressman and I was a graduate
student looking for a fellowship on Capitol Hill. He agreed to see me
for an interview, 15 minutes later I found myself back out in the
hallway. Don thought I was a detached academic type, and I thought he
was a brash young politician. We were both on to something.
(Laughter.)
When I finished my term as Secretary of Defense, I had no thought
of ever becoming Vice President. And even a few years ago, no one
would have bet on my joining the ticket. The odds, I suppose, were
roughly comparable to that of an action star becoming governor of
California. (Laughter.) I had a chance today to meet again with your
new governor, and my impression of him is proving correct. I think
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a fine man, a very capable executive, and he's
well suited to the job that you Californians have given him.
(Applause.)
It was three years ago next Tuesday, that President Bush and I took
up our own responsibilities. And next Tuesday, the President will give
his annual report on the State of the Union. Much has happened since he
addressed Congress, and we begin the new Year as a stronger, more
prosperous, and more secure nation. The economy is showing continued
signs of recovery, and steady growth, higher productivity, and
expanding exports. Strong growth has also begun to bring down the
unemployment rate -- and that is a critical objective, as well, going
forward.
Our administration and Congress have also addressed other urgent
needs in domestic policy -- among them, historic Medicare reform
legislation, giving seniors coverage for prescription drugs for the
first time; and tax relief for every person who pays income taxes;
further vital actions in homeland security, reforms in the forest
management to help prevent the kind of catastrophic wildfires you have
seen here in Southern California this past year.
On a whole range of issues, President Bush has worked with members
of Congress, regardless of party, to make progress for the nation. He
believes and has shown that the only way to seize new opportunities for
reform is to get beyond some of the old debates and grievances in
Washington, D.C.
As the President has said many times, he came to office to solve
problems, not simply pass them on to future generations. And in that
spirit, his speech next week will set forth our priorities for the new
Year. You can expect a full domestic agenda, and a thorough report on
the progress the nation is making in the war on terror.
The year 2003 ended with two very significant victories. The first
was the capture of Saddam Hussein by our troops in Iraq, which provides
final confirmation -- (applause) -- provides final confirmation to the
people of Iraq that they will never again have to live in fear of
Saddam Hussein. Then five days later, came the announcement by Libya's
Colonel Muammar Ghadafi that his regime would voluntarily reveal and
dismantle its nuclear and chemical weapons programs, as well as its
longer range missiles and biological weapons-related efforts. Each of
these events was dramatic in its own way. And each came about through
the clear resolve of the United States of America and our allies.
The undoing of Saddam's regime, and the welcome commitments from
Colonel Ghadafi, will bring greater security to the American people,
and to our friends and allies. Yet especially in moments of success,
we need to remember the long-term nature of the struggle we are in, and
the serious dangers that still exist.
On September 11, 2001, our nation made a fundamental commitment
that will take many years to see through. On that morning, we saw the
grief and the destruction that 19 terrorists could inflict with box
cutters and airline tickets. And we became aware of the far worse harm
that these terrorists intend for us. Thousands received training in
the terrorists camps in the years before the attack of 9/11. Scattered
in more than 50 nations, the al Qaeda network and other terrorist
groups constitute an enemy unlike any other that we have ever faced.
They have attacked and killed innocent people many times since
September 11th -- in Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombasa, Istanbul, Bali,
Jerusalem, Jakarta, Najaf, and Baghdad. And as our intelligence shows,
the terrorists continue plotting to kill on an ever larger scale,
including here in the United States.
Terrorists were at war with our country long before 2001. And for
many years, they were the ones on the offensive. They grew bolder in
their belief that if they killed Americans, they could change American
policy. In Beirut in 1983, terrorists killed 241 of our service
members. Thereafter, U.S. forces withdrew from Beirut. In Mogadishu
in 1993, terrorists killed 19 American soldiers. Thereafter, U.S.
forces withdrew from Somalia. The decade of the '90s saw many more
attacks: the bombing at the World Trade Center in 1993; the murders at
the Saudi Arabian National Guard Training Center in Riyadh in 1995; the
killings at the Khobar Towers in 1996; the simultaneous bombings of
American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; the attack on the USS
Cole in 2000, which cost the lives of some 17 American sailors.
Over time, the terrorists came to believe that they could strike
America with relative impunity. There was, among policy makers, a
tendency to treat terror attacks as individual criminal acts, to be
handled primarily through law enforcement. Consider the example of
Ramzi Yousef, who participated in and perpetuated the first attack on
the World Trade Center in 1993. The U.S. government tracked him down,
arrested him, and got a conviction. After he was sent to serve a
240-year sentence in a federal prison, some might have thought, case
closed. But we now know that behind that one man, Ramzi Yousef, was a
growing network with operatives inside and outside the United States,
waging war against our country. That 1993 attack was probably the
first al Qaeda attack on the U.S. homeland.
Six people died in the '93 attack on the World Trade Center. Eight
years later, the casualties ran into the thousands. We know to a
certainty that terrorists will kill as many innocent people as they
possibly can, limited only by the means at their disposal. We know, as
well, from the training manuals we found in Afghanistan and from the
interrogations of terrorists we have captured that they are doing
everything they can to gain the ultimate weapons: chemical, biological,
radiological, and even nuclear weapons. Should they ever acquire such
weapons, they would use them without any constraint of reason or
morality. Instead of losing thousands of lives, we might lose tens or
even hundreds of thousands of lives as the result of a single attack,
or a set coordinated of attacks.
Remembering what we saw on 9/11, and knowing the nature of these
enemies, we have as clear a responsibility as could ever fall to
government: We must do everything in our power to keep terrorists from
gaining weapons of mass destruction.
This urgent responsibility has required, above all, a shift in
America's national security strategy. There are certain moments in
history when the gravest threats reveal themselves. And in those
moments, the response of our government must be swift, and it must be
right.
September 11th has been aptly compared to December 7, 1941 --
another day in our history that brought sudden attack, national
emergency, and the beginning of a sustained conflict. Perhaps a closer
analogy can be drawn, not to the days of Franklin Roosevelt and World
War II, but to the decisions that faced Harry Truman at the outset of
the Cold War.
Within a few years, after Germany and Japan surrendered, Truman and
his advisers saw the rise of new dangers. Imperial communism presented
a challenge of global reach, demanding a comprehensive, long-term
response on many fronts. President Truman made clear at the outset
that the United States recognized the danger, and that -- for the sake
of future generations, we would face it squarely. In a short time, our
government created the architecture of national security we know today:
the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
National Security Council. To defend ourselves and free Europe, the
United States helped to found NATO. To build and strengthen new
democracies, our government led in the reconstruction of Japan, and
devoted the present-day equivalent of over $100 billion to European
assistance through the Marshall Plan. And when aggression occurred on
the Korean Peninsula, it was President Truman's decision and America's
sacrifice that saved South Korea.
All those early commitments, made by one President and carried
forward by eight of his successors, helped to bring victory in the Cold
War, and unprecedented success for the cause of freedom. In this new
century, facing new dangers, the commitments we make will also be
decisive. President Bush has recognized this from the beginning. And
by the strategy he has set for our government, we will overcome the
threats of our own time, and, as the President has said, advance the
cause of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.
To make the United States safer from terrorist attacks, we have
created the Department of Homeland Security -- the largest
reorganization of the federal government since the Truman years,
bringing together 22 agencies and more than 170,000 federal employees
in one department. In a free country, especially a vast continental
democracy like ours, there is no such thing as perfect security. But
this new department allows us to track and prevent acts of terror in a
systematic way -- analyzing threats, guarding our borders and airports,
protecting critical infrastructure, and coordinating the response of
the nation in any future emergency.
To strengthen the international battle against terrorism, the
United States is working with our allies in an enlarged NATO. The
presence of new nations in NATO surely indicates the historic turn our
time has taken. President Bush has also challenged the United Nations
to live up to its promise, to become a body that not only passes
resolutions, but enforces them. We are currently working with the U.N.
Secretary General to return U.N. teams to Iraq, and to have them play
an important role there in the months ahead. And in Afghanistan, NATO
is taking a leading role in securing peace in that war-torn country.
Our national security strategy also recognizes that the doctrines
of deterrence and containment, which served us so well during the Cold
War, are not sufficient to meet the threat of terrorism. It's hard to
deter an enemy that has no territory to defend, no standing army to
counter, and no real assets to destroy in order to discourage them from
attacking you. Containment is meaningless in the case of terrorists.
And neither containment nor deterrence offers protection against rogue
regimes that develop weapons of mass destruction and are willing to
pass along those weapons secretly to a terrorist on a suicide mission.
Given these realities, there can be no waiting until the danger has
fully materialized. By then it would be too late. And so we are
waging this war in the only way it can be won -- by taking the fight
directly to the enemy.
In these 28 months, we -- and our friends and allies in many
countries -- have inflicted heavy losses on al Qaeda's leadership and
foot soldiers, tracking and finding them hiding in places from Pakistan
to Indonesia. Those not yet captured or killed live in fear, and their
fears are well founded. We are also working with governments on every
continent to take down the financial networks that support terror --
the hidden bank accounts, front groups, and phony charities that have
helped them function. And our government is working closely with
intelligence services all over the globe, and our own officers continue
to be engaged in some of the most perilous and sensitive intelligence
work ever carried out. This work has brought many successes --
including the discovery of terror plots that we were able to stop in
their tracks. Americans can be grateful every day for the skillful and
the daring service of our nation's intelligence professionals.
On the very night this nation was attacked, President Bush declared
that the United States would make no distinction between terrorists and
those who support them. This principle, it's come to be known as the
Bush doctrine, is now understood by all: any person or government that
supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of
the innocent, and will be held to account.
The first to see its application were the Taliban, who ruled
Afghanistan by violence, while turning that country into a training
camp for terror. With fine allies at our side, we took down the regime
and destroyed the al Qaeda camps. Our work there continues. We have
13,000 soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan, as part of an international
security force that now includes 38 nations and a major role for NATO.
This force is on the hunt for the remaining Taliban and al Qaeda
members. We are helping to train a new Afghan army, and providing
security as the new government takes shape.
On the political front, the loya jirga has now approved a
constitution that reflects the values of tolerance and equal rights for
women. Under President Karzai's leadership, and with the help of our
coalition, the Afghan people are building a decent, a just, and a
democratic society -- and a nation fully joined in the war against
terror.
In Iraq, the United States and our allies rid the Iraqi people of a
murderous dictator, and rid the world of a menace to our future peace
and security. Saddam Hussein had a lengthy history of reckless and
sudden aggression. His regime cultivated ties to terror, including the
al Qaeda network, and had built, possessed, and used weapons of mass
destruction. Year after year, the U.N. Security Council demanded that
he account for those weapons and that he comply with all the terms of
the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire. Year after year, he refused.
Against that background, the Congress of the United States voted
overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force in Iraq. The U.N.
Security Council unanimously found Iraq in material breach of its
obligations, and vowed serious consequences in the event Saddam Hussein
did not comply. When Saddam Hussein continued his defiance, our
coalition acted to deliver those serious consequences.
In the liberation of Iraq, the American military acted with speed,
with precision and with skill. And to this hour they continue their
work -- striking hard against the forces of murder and chaos,
conducting raids, countering attacks, seizing weapons and capturing
killers. Members of our active duty Armed Forces, the National Guard,
and Reserves have faced tough duty, long deployments, and the loss of
comrades. We have, today, more than 125,000 Americans serving in
Iraq. They are confronting terrorists every day in that country, so
that we do not one day meet the same enemies on the streets of our own
cities. At the same time, American and coalition forces are treating
Iraqi citizens with compassion, and showing respect for Iraq's great
culture. Our servicemen and women are demonstrating the best qualities
of the United States, and we are proud of each and every one of them.
(Applause.)
The use of military force is, for the United States, always the
last option in defending ourselves and our interests. But sometimes
the last resort must be taken. And by acting in Iraq to enforce the
just demands of the U.N. Security Council, America and our allies not
only removed one danger, but made it more likely that other dangers can
be dealt with through diplomatic means. In making our intentions
clear, and in matching resolutions with actual resolve, we have seen
and sent an unmistakable message: The pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction only invites isolation and carries other costs. By the
same token, leaders who abandon the pursuit of those weapons will find
an open path to better relations with the United States of America and
other free nations.
In the case of Libya, the announcement in December by Colonel
Ghadafi is a very significant development. Already, with the
cooperation of Libya's government, American, British, and international
inspectors have examined a sizeable lethal weapons program. In the
months to come, the inspectors will complete a full inventory, and
assist Libya in dismantling its entire WMD programs and its longer
range missiles. As Libya keeps its pledges and cooperates fully in the
international fight against terrorism, that nation will have a chance
to rejoin the community of nations. America, Britain, and other
nations stand ready to help the Libyan people build a country that is
more prosperous and more free.
As our administration carries forward our commitment to overcoming
new dangers, we recognize that lasting security depends on more than
military power. As President Bush has said, America seeks the "global
expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it brings, as the
alternative to instability, hatred, and terror."
Here, too, we find an lesson from history. Twice in the last
century, the United States sent armies to Europe in order to prevent
the destruction of liberty on that continent. Yet in the decades after
World War II, dangers in Europe fell away as the frontiers of democracy
advanced -- in Germany and Italy, and then behind the Iron Curtain.
The lesson is that the spread of democratic institutions is the surest
way to bring peace among nations.
That's why America today is pursuing a forward strategy for freedom
in the greater Middle East. Millions in that region have known decades
of dictatorship and theocratic rule -- resulting in misery, bitterness,
and ideologies of violence that directly threaten us. And as the world
has witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan, people liberated from
dictatorship welcome the arrival of freedom, welcome the chance for a
better life, welcome the responsibilities of governing their own
country.
By its very nature, freedom must be chosen. And the path to
democracy is not an easy one. It takes time and effort and patience
for democracy to take hold, and the greater Middle East has a long way
to go. But all who choose the path, by opposing terrorism and
encouraging reforms, can know this: They will have the friendship and
support of the United States of America.
In answering the great challenges that have come to us, our
government will go forward with confidence, but without illusion.
Defeating a resourceful and determined enemy, and advancing the cause
of human freedom in a vital and troubled region will place great
demands on us far into the future.
At the start of the Cold War, President Truman said: "Events have
brought our American democracy to new influence and new
responsibilities. They will test our courage, our devotion to duty,
our concept of liberty." Fifty-five years later, America and our allies
look back with pride on the perseverance and the moral clarity that saw
us through those many tests. Americans of today, and our President,
have those same qualities, as we have seen many times since the morning
of September 11, 2001. We cannot know every turn that lies ahead. Yet
we can be certain that by the strength and character of this country,
and by the rightness of our cause, we will prevail.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Q Mr. Vice President, many questions here on illegal
immigration. There's a major problem here in California. Why should
we give millions of people in our state a break for a prima facie
breaking of the law? Is there any other country in the world,
including Europe and Latin America, that would do so?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: You're talking about illegal immigration?
Q Illegal immigration.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. There's no question it's a serious
problem. The President last week announced a new initiative, a new
proposal that we would like to see considered by the Congress and
hopefully ultimately adopted that basically provides for a temporary
worker program, for people to be able to come into the United States,
take a job, receive approval and authorization to be here, take jobs
that -- where they, in effect, come in when they know there is a job
there, a job that an American will not fill, to regularize that flow.
The problem we have today is we have millions of illegal,
undocumented workers in our midst. We do not know when they came. We
do not know how long they stay. We do not know what they do while
they're here. We do not know when they leave. From the standpoint of
homeland security and securing the nation's borders, it is a major
hole, if you will, in terms of our overall situation.
And we think -- the President believes, as he's discussed in the
last few days, that it's very important for us to try to get a handle
on that. It's also a humane measure, as well, at the same time. Those
illegal, undocumented workers who come in and take these jobs, in often
cases, live in the shadows of our society. They're exploited unfairly
and oppressed, in many cases. And we think it would be far better for
us to take this approach of, in effect, a temporary worker program.
We are not supporting amnesty. We do not believe in granting
citizenship to people who broke the law to get here, nor do we believe
these people should get at the head of the line when being considered
for citizenship. They need to return to their home countries and come
through normal procedures.
But we think this is the right way to go. We expect it will
generate a significant debate, as it should. These are important
issues. They're controversial. And they're never easy for us to deal
with as a government. But we think the issue needs to be addressed,
and the President has given us, I think, a good proposal.
Q Several questions here -- (Applause.) Several questions on
global warming. Why is it that we did not confirm the Kyoto treaty?
And what are we doing to reduce global warming after our failure to
endorse the Kyoto treaty?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the Kyoto treaty -- it's important to
remember had been signed at the last minute by our predecessors. A
proposition that embodied the basic principles of the Kyoto treaty had
been considered by the United States Senate -- before we ever arrived
-- and rejected 99, zip. There was almost no support in the United
States Congress for the exact provisions of that treaty.
We believe that it was inequitable in terms of how it applied, and
that it would not seriously address the problem that it was intended to
address. For that reason, the President basically made the decision
that he did.
That doesn't mean global warming is not a problem, but we think it
ought to be addressed through the development of hard science. We've
spent a fair amount of time on the issue since, and we'll continue to
work on it. It's an issue that does need to be addressed. But we need
to address it based upon facts and not just emotion. And that's the
process that we're involved in now.
Q Would you comment on the Bush administration's road map in
the Middle East? When we will see -- will we see a more active effort
to bring the nation's of the Middle East together for progress in
achieving peace?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think -- the road map, of course, refers
specifically to the situation between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. It was put together with the United States working with
the European Union, with the United Nations, and with the Russians. It
lays out specific steps that parties on both sides of the dispute
should undertake. It's still on the table. It has not been
implemented, certainly. By the same token, right now, it's about the
only plan in town.
With respect to the President's commitment to the
Israeli-Palestinian question in terms of trying to resolve it, he is
the only President who has ever stood up and come forward and stated
specifically that he will support a Palestinian state as a part of the
process here that ultimately leads to resolution of this conflict.
He traveled to the Middle East last year, met with Middle East
leaders at Sharm el-Sheikh; later on, had sessions with the then
Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen and with Prime Minister Sharon.
He's devoted significant time and effort to the problem.
The difficulty we have -- and it is a continuing problem -- is that
after years of effort, it's become clear that as long as Yasser Arafat
is the interlocutor on behalf of the Palestinians, as long as he is in
control, we think any serious progress is virtually impossible.
I'm always struck by the memory that I'll always carry of January
20, 2001, when President Bush and I were sworn in. We went to -- as is
traditional that day, you go to church service, and then you go over to
the White House and have coffee with the outgoing administration -- in
this case, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and their families.
And you spend several hours together by the time you go through the
ceremony, the swearing in and so forth. And Bill Clinton talked
repeatedly all day long about his disappointment in Yasser Arafat, how
Arafat had, in effect, torpedoed the peace process.
Arafat was in the White House and the West Wing more often than any
other foreign leader during the eight years of the Clinton
administration. Bill Clinton did everything he could to try to put
together a settlement and came fairly close. In the final analysis,
Arafat refused to say yes.
Subsequent to that, the President made a speech in June of 2002
that laid out our basic principles. And at the front of that was the
notion that there has to be reform of the Palestinian Authority, that
before we get an interlocutor, somebody we can trust, somebody we can
relate to, somebody that we can work with in terms of trying to make
progress. The Israelis are never going to sign up, nor should they
sign up to a peace unless, in fact, they've got confidence that there's
someone there on the Palestinian side prepared to keep those
commitments.
There has to be a way found to end terror emerging from the
Palestinian areas into the Israeli areas. We had another four deaths
just within the last 24 hours in Gaza, with a suicide bomber. And
until the Palestinians have an organization, a government in place
that's capable of dealing effectively with the structure of terror, I
don't think significant progress is likely.
In the meantime, we'll keep working it. The President is engaged.
A lot of us have spent time on the problem, but it's going to be
essential that that authority be transformed, I think, before anybody
can realistically expect a positive outcome.
Q How do you see our relationship with the U.N.? And would we
take action in North Korea without a Security Council resolution?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Repeat the last part of your question, would
we --
Q Would we take action in North Korea without a Security
Council resolution?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, what we've done with respect to North
Korea is to approach it on a regional basis. It has not yet gone to
the United Nations, although, obviously that's a step that could be
taken given the fact that they've -- the North Koreans have kicked out
inspectors and appear to be in violation of the nonproliferation treaty
that they're signatory to.
The President made the decision, and I think a very sound one, that
we would work specifically with the Chinese, but also the Japanese, the
South Koreans, and the Russians to convey the message to the North
Koreans that the only choice available to them if they want to have any
kind of a relationship at all and have access to the international
community is for them to give up their aspirations to acquire and
deploy nuclear weapons.
To date, I think we feel like we've made some progress. There have
been two sessions in Beijing. First the session with the Chinese, the
Americans and the North Koreans. The second one, of course, with all
six of us. We've had extended conversations with the Chinese and are
now working on convening another session going forward. The Chinese
have been crucial in the process, and I might say they've been very
responsible in the process. And we're doing our best to get the matter
resolved by peaceful diplomatic means, and that requires a concerted
effort by all of those nations that are directly affected.
It's not in anybody's interest to have nuclear weapons deployed on
the Korean Peninsula. It's clearly -- if that happens, it begins to
change the balance in that part of the world. And then other nations
there may find it necessary to alter their policy and their attitude
towards those same kinds of systems, and that's not in China's
interest. It's not in our interest. Clearly, we all have a stake in
trying to resolve that matter peacefully as soon as possible. And
that's what we're doing.
Q Before Mr. Broad comes back to close the program, we're going
to have time for this last question. Let me combine the two here.
Would you please comment on Secretary Rumsfeld's plans for the
reorganization for the Defense Department in light of the changing
geopolitical conditions in the world? And concurrently with that, does
our strategic plan need to be revised? Or are we still able to respond
to two MRCs at a given time?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we have revised our thinking, I think,
in many respects, and are in the process of revising our thinking as a
result of the lessons learned over the last few years. There's nothing
like the operations we went through, for example, in Afghanistan and
Iraq to lead us to study those and see if there are lessons learned
that need to be applied in terms of force structure, strategy, doctrine
and so forth. And Don is actively involved in doing that.
I think if I had to speculate that we'll see -- one of the legacies
of this administration will be some of the most sweeping changes in our
military, and our national security strategy as it relates to the
military,
and force structure, and how we're based, and how we used it in the
last 50 or 60 years, probably since World War II. I think the changes
are that dramatic.
Certainly, Secretary Rumsfeld is spending a great deal of time on
it, as are our senior uniformed personnel, the chiefs and other seniors
officials of the department. The President is. The President has
spent a fair amount of time on these sessions, as well, too.
So I am quite confident that we will make significant changes going
forward. I don't want to speak for the Secretary -- well, why not?
(Laughter.) No, I -- as I say, I am a great believer that we very much
need to do that. And we'll see some changes that are badly needed.
We're still positioned, if you think about it -- if you look at
Europe, when I was Secretary, that was back in '89 to '93, we made
significant changes in our posture there. We inherited the Cold War.
We had 330,000 troops in Europe. We cut that back to about 100,000 --
but our base structure and where they were deployed and the kinds of
forces we had, basically just a scaled down version of the Cold War
force. If you go to Asia, the same thing.
The United States needs to be foward-deployed. We don't want to
end that practice at all. It's going to be vital for us to maintain
our relationships and our alliances around the world to do that. But
what we're finding increasingly is we need forces that can move on
relatively short notice. We need warm bases, bases we can fall in on,
on a crisis and have present the capabilities we need to operate from.
But today, we've got forces deployed in places like Uzbekistan, as a
result of operations in Afghanistan over the last couple of years.
We're much more reliant these days on Special Operations forces, on
those kinds of units that can do in and do what we did in Afghanistan,
where we married up our Special Forces, A teams, CIA agents, some of
our Special Ops folks and were able to go in using their linkage to our
precision air capabilities now. And with a few thousand people, in
effect, wrap up that problem in Afghanistan in a matter of weeks -- a
very different scenario than was true in the past.
So I think we've only see the very beginning of an important debate
in this area. I do expect and have a high degree of confidence that
we'll see a lot more and that Secretary Rumsfeld and his folks at the
Pentagon, following the President's wishes, are, in fact, aggressively
addressing these kinds of questions.
Thank you. (Applause.)
END 12:40 P.M. PST
|