Real Audio of Briefing

      MR. CROUCH: Thank you very much. I'm going to give a few brief remarks, talk a little bit about the secretary's trip to Italy and then on to Munich, Germany, where he attended Wehrkunde. As you know, he began with a stop in Rome, then went on to Aviano and Munich, the last stop being where the Wehrkunde Conference on Security Policy was held.

       In Rome, the secretary met both with Prime Minister Berlusconi as well as Defense Minister Martino, and both reaffirmed Italy's strong support for the U.S. position on Iraq and the need to keep up the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

       In Aviano, the secretary then held a town hall meeting to thank U.S. airmen and women for their services, and to thank our Italian host for the hospitality that they provided to those service men and women.

       And then we went on from there to the Munich Conference on Security Policy, Wehrkunde. This was really, I think, of special importance this year because of the context in which the conference was held. First, it was followed by Secretary of State Powell's presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Iraq. And second, U.S. policy toward Iraq had, obviously, been recently endorsed by public letters, first by a group of eight countries in Europe, and then followed by the Vilinus 10. And third, Wehrkunde occurred really in the context of an ongoing debate in NATO on the role it should play in helping to prompt a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis, and in the prudent defense of a key NATO ally, Turkey.

       The secretary focused in his remarks at the Wehrkunde conference on the strategic environment today and as it is evolving, emphasizing the very lethal nexus between weapons of mass destruction, state sponsors of terror, and terrorist networks. He explored why, in his view -- and I think this view is being more and more broadly shared -- why old strategies, such as containment, are no longer effective and no longer applicable to this particular situation.

       He also emphasized the need for NATO to act in the defense of Turkey and to prepare for that, to do prudent planning to do so. And the danger also that the United Nations faced if it does not react seriously to Iraq's defiance over the last decade of, now, 17 resolutions with respect to its weapons of mass destruction and other matters.

       The secretary also had bilateral meetings with key friends and allies, including a meeting with the Russian minister of Defense, in which the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Korea, to mention a few topics, were discussed. A meeting with the Indian national security advisor, Mr. Mishra, in which they again discussed a broad range of topics, including tensions on the subcontinent. A meeting with the Ukrainian minister of Defense, Shkidchenko.

       Here we talked broadly about our military-to-military cooperation, bilaterally, between Ukraine and the United States, as well as Ukraine's contribution to the global war on terrorism.

       And he met with Georgian Minister of Defense Tevzadze, again talking mostly about our bilateral military relationships, including the train-and-equip program that the United States is currently undertaking in Georgia.

       And finally, we held a meeting with German Minister of Defense Struck, in which we talked about, again, a broad range of topics, including Afghanistan, Iraq and the like.

       So I think I'll stop here and let you focus on questions while I -- can I have some water here? Good -- go for the water. And I'm going to let our host here pick out the first question.

       MODERATOR: As a reminder, please wait for the microphone and remember to state your name, organization and country and the question. Thank you very much.

       We'll start with Russian.

       Q Pavel Vonechkin (sp), Tass news agency of Russia. Sir, I got a question about the meeting or maybe two meetings between Secretary Rumsfeld and Sergey Ivanov in Germany. The Russian Defense minister after that meeting said that they didn't discuss the situation in Iraq; we just informed about the position. And he added that the Russian position is very well-known in Washington.

       So the question is, are you concerned that the different approaches of two countries towards Iraq -- in particular, towards the possible military operation -- will somehow slow down or impede the relation, the military relations, between the two countries? Thanks.

       MR. CROUCH: One of the things that I think is most notable about the U.S.-Russian relationship in the post-Cold War period -- and particularly, I think, as a closer relationship is developed between President Putin and President Bush -- is the fact that friends can disagree over issues.

       Now this is a very important issue and obviously one that -- I think we're going to be looking very -- you know, very closely at the positions of not only Russia but a lot of countries. And it is important, from our perspective, that we try to get the support of our friends and allies.

       But you know, in terms of Secretary Rumsfeld's discussions with Sergey Ivanov, Minister of Defense Ivanov, again, I think they -- it was a frank exchange of views, and it was an exchange of views that certainly was predicated on the idea that we will continue to try to enhance our military-to-military and bilateral relationships.

       Q Giampiero Gramaglia, the Italian news agency ANSA. I have two questions. The first one is concerning Italy. During the meetings in Rome, did Secretary Rumsfeld discuss the possibility that an Italian will be the next general-secretary of the alliance of the NATO, mainly, Minister Martino. And even if that was not discussed during the meeting, how do you see this possibility? That is the first question.

       MR. CROUCH: Okay -- (laughs) -- in the meetings, there wasn't a discussion of whether or not any particular person would be picked for secretary-general. Secretary Robertson, as you know, will be secretary-general, I think, through the end of this year. We're still early in the year. But I think, obviously, allies are beginning to talk about the possibility of who the new secretary-general might be. And while this wasn't a topic of discussion at these meetings, there certainly is an understanding that Minister Martino is a qualified -- very qualified person. And I know that there are -- like, as I said, there are a number of names that are floating around. But I think particularly from me, it would be inappropriate since this is a discussion that will be held at very high levels, I'm sure, in capitals. It would be inappropriate for me to comment directly on support or lack of support one way or another.

       Q I was asking just because when President Berlusconi was here in Washington a few days before visiting Rome with Secretary Rumsfeld, this topic came into discussion between Mr. Berlusconi and Mr. Bush. That it was --

       MR. CROUCH: Then you have much better sources than I do. (Laughs, laughter.)

       Q The second question is regarding the Ukraine. I'm sure I missed something. You spoke about the contribution of Ukraine to the war against terrorism. Is that -- the question: The problems that there were between the United States and Ukraine for the support from Ukraine to Iraq are now solved -- are now over?

       MR. CROUCH: As I said, they talked broadly about not only the contributions of Ukraine but also our bilateral military-to-military relationships, which we think are very important and which we plan on continuing.

       The issue that you refer to is a serious one. It's one in which we have an ongoing -- this is the one over the so-called Kolchuga radar. It's an ongoing discussion that we will continue to have. And obviously, we are very concerned about any types of military capabilities that might be provided to Iraq, given the circumstances that we're in today. But, no, I think that -- you know, I -- so I think it's a continuing item of discussion, but at the same time I think that the minister of defense and Secretary Rumsfeld came out of that meeting redoubling their efforts to have a strong bilateral military-to-military relationship, and we'll continue to work on that.

       MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

       Q Raghubir Goyal from India Globe and Asia Today. Sir, two questions, one on Iraq, one on India. First on India, as far as the meeting between the secretary and national security adviser Mr. Brajesh Mishra, what was the discussion between the two, and also, now, can you describe military-to-military relationship as far as India and the United States is concerned because a number of exercises are going on, one I witnessed in Agra in November, and one is right now going on in Bangalor. So where do you put these relations now comparing in the past?

       MR. CROUCH: I think the relations -- in fact, one of the topics that the two of them discussed was how the relationship had really changed. And, you know, one of the benefits of the end of the Cold War I think was -- is the ability of the United States and India to enhance their military-to-military relationship as well as their general relationship. India is a very important country in the world. And it's a democratic country, it's a country with which the United States has a lot in common. It's very important, I think, from our perspective, and it will play a key role, obviously, in maintaining peace and stability in the subcontinent and in the region generally.

       So they talked about, as I said, a broad range of issues. They touched on the situation in the subcontinent. They talked about Afghanistan. They talked very briefly about Iraq. And so I think it -- it was the kind of view, an exchange of views that one would expect from two countries that are developing and deepening their strategic relationship.

       Q On Iraq, being -- coming from the Defense Department, how soon, or do you see this war that we have been talking about every day, or do you see Saddam Hussein to leave voluntarily without any war?

       MR. CROUCH: The -- obviously, we are very hopeful and continue to be hopeful that we can resolve this issue peacefully, and this issue is that Saddam Hussein must comply with his obligations under not only U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, but the U.N. Security Council resolutions that preceded it, which was endorsed in 1441.

       Obviously, there are a number of potential outcomes here, and the -- Saddam Hussein and his immediate coterie could decide to leave. They could decide to turn over a new leaf and cooperate with the United Nations. And we know what cooperative disarmament would look like. We've seen it in South Africa, we've seen it in Kazakhstan, we've seen it in a number of other countries. We have not been seeing it in Iraq.

       But I think that, as our president has said, that one way or another, Saddam Hussein will be disarmed. And no decisions have been made either here or by other -- in the context of the U.N. yet on the use of force. But, obviously, the United States and its coalition partners are moving forces into the region in an effort to make Saddam Hussein understand that this is his last opportunity to cooperate.

       MODERATOR: Over here.

       Q Peter Spiegel with the Financial Times. In talking to European officials in Munich, they sort of -- after Mr. Rumsfeld's speech, they sort of point out two themes that I picked up, anyway. One was the constant reference, as you did again today, to both the Vilnius 10 letter and the London 8 -- whatever, for lack of a better word -- letter. There was repeated mentions that they saw the Vilnius 10 letter, in particular, as being orchestrated by the U.S., and that as a result, they saw this as an effort to try to isolate Germany and France within Europe, try to surround it, essentially, and isolate them.

       And one other comment that sort of was repeatedly picked up on was the comment that he made again this morning, that he sees more differences within Europe than between the U.S. and Europe. And they said that -- there was a couple of people who mentioned to me, they see this as sort of an ongoing effort for the U.S. to try to sort of divide and conquer; that on the one hand they want NATO to close the capabilities gap and Europe to be united on this, but on the other hand, they'd like to see Europe in little pieces so they can have bilateral relations as opposed to Europe as a whole.

       Can you respond to those two --

       MR. CROUCH: Yeah. You know, I think -- my key impressions, I think, coming out of the conference is probably the best way to put it in his remarks.

       I mean, I think allies are beginning -- and many allies fully understand that we're in a new security environment, and particularly that there's an urgent danger posed by this nexus between weapons of mass destruction, terrorist states and terrorist networks. I think that what I saw was, you know -- I found strong support and a momentum, if you will, building to put maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions. There is, you know, certainly, you know, no effort by the United States to isolate anybody. But I think that there have been -- that there are differing views and as the secretary pointed out, one of the healthy aspects of Wehrkunde is the ability for allies to come together and talk frankly about their differences.

       And, you know, in my -- in this particular case, you know, I don't know of any inspiration, if that's what you're looking for, for either one of these letters. I think they came primarily because these countries believe that it was time to show solidarity with the United States, but particularly because we have a shared goal, which is to put maximum pressure on Saddam Hussein. And when you think about it, the best way to work toward a peaceful solution is to make sure he understands he doesn't have alternatives to complying, hopefully peacefully -- (chuckling) -- with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441.

       You know, there have been a lot of crises in the NATO alliance over the years. One of the things that -- and there have been a lot of headlines saying, you know, this is the end of NATO and the like. And if you go down, you'll find that NATO not only survived those crises, but usually emerged stronger from those crises. And I have no reason to believe that in this situation over Iraq that NATO won't do that, as well.

       Q Dr. Crouch, my name is Maria Isabel Gonzalez and I'm with a Mexican newspaper called Reforma, so that's why I'm going to ask you a question regarding Mexico. The question is, what is the expectation the Pentagon has regarding Mexico, if any? And as you know, the Mexican territory is now under the NORTHCOM. That means it's linked to the homeland security. I wanted to know if there was anything asked from the Pentagon to Mexico or if there was anything offered to the Pentagon?

       And the other thing is if you know that President Fox has talked against a war?

       MR. CROUCH: Well, let me begin by saying that I do not -- and this is not an attempt at a cop out on the question -- but I do not follow Mexico day to day. I have Europe and Russia. There's another assistant secretary named Peter Rodman who has Mexico in his portfolio, and he could probably answer a much more detailed question -- give you a more detailed answer.

       But I will say this. Obviously, President Bush has placed, I think, a lot of stock in his relationship with the president of Mexico and in the importance of positive American-Mexican relations. We, in this global war on terrorism, have a common concern, and that is the potential movement across our borders of materials that could be used in a weapons of mass destruction attack. And so, I think there is an -- it is an absolutely important opportunity that both countries seize on to improve their security ties, because the kinds of threats that we will face in the future are not threats from armies, navies and air forces, which, fortunately, we over here in the Western Hemisphere have not had to worry about too much.

       We've basically been friends and don't have any major concerns in that regard. But these transnational threats and ones that are really based on terrorist networks can move very clandestinely between countries.

       The other thing I would point to is, you know, the creation of NORTHCOM. We thought it was very important to begin to view North America as a geostrategic whole, if you will; that we can work together not only with others across the oceans but also with our friends to the north in Canada and our friends to the south in Mexico to try to create a more effective defense against these kinds of emerging threats.

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. CROUCH: That, as I said, I'm not involved in. I'll just give you a frank answer. I'm not involved. You should not take from my question either a yes or a no to that, okay? Because I really don't know. (Laughs.) And Mr. Rodman, I'm sure, could very easily answer that question.

       Q Samir Nader, Middle East Radio Network, Radio Sawa. There were reports yesterday or today that the U.S. is considering reducing its troops in Germany or other European countries. Can you tell us anything about this?

       MR. CROUCH: Yes. I've seen those reports. The president tasked the secretary of Defense, when he first came into office, to look at how the United States is arranged, not only here in the United States, but globally. We're looking at our base structure here. We're looking at how we're arranged overseas. And we've been doing this for quite some time. And obviously, there are changing strategic environments, changing requirements and the like. And we're doing this in a fairly methodical and systematic way.

       I think the questions that have come up in the press lately have been somehow geared toward the notion that the United States is looking at making, you know, some kind of major change in Germany as a result of differences between the two countries. I don't believe that's the case. What we are doing is looking at where we are arranged in every country in the world and seeing whether it's appropriate. And again, no decisions have been made. And this would obviously, given -- if changes were made, it would be something that would be done in the context of consulting with those allies where we currently have forces.

       Q Just a follow-up to that question.

       MODERATOR: Would you please identify yourself?

       Q Oh, sorry. I'm Hiraida (ph) with Kyodo News. When did the president ask the secretary of Defense to make that kind of review? And is there any deadline for that review process? And does that include, of course, East Asia, Japan and South Korea?

       MR. CROUCH: The -- there's no deadline that I know of. In fact, this was really something that came out of the campaign, that the president asked -- you know, wanted to transform our forces to deal with 21st-century threats. Part of that is looking at the technology that we have and whether it's appropriate. It's looking at the force structure we have and making sure it's the kind of forces that we need -- making a transition, for example, from relatively heavy forces that were used during the Cold War, to lighter, more agile forces. And part of it is looking at the whole issue of where we are arrayed.

       And you know, obviously, another point here and a particularly difficult point is that there are places here in the United States, places overseas where we have bases where we may need to make adjustments. And those adjustments have an impact in the local areas. There's no question about it.

       And that's why, as we look at this, we're going to be working very closely with the allied nations involved. And I think, as I said, there's no timetable that this is on, but it's something that will be ongoing.

       Q (Off mike) --

       MODERATOR: Take the microphone, please.

       Q Sorry. Giampiero Gramaglia, Italian News Agency ANSA, again. Just for clarification, what you are telling us now -- does it mean that if we are told in the near future that some American troops will move from Germany to another European country, that has nothing to do with the situation now between the United States and Germany?

       MR. CROUCH: Well, first of all, I am unaware of any decisions that would be made soon in that respect. But yes, I think the general answer to your question is yes. The -- you know, the -- we began thinking about this problem, you know, well before the current political environment. And I am quite certain we will continue to think about this long after this particular political environment passes.

       So -- and again, there's nothing peculiar about Germany in all this. We're looking at broadly how our forces are arrayed around the world, not just in the European theater but elsewhere as well.

       MODERATOR: In the back. Yes, sir.

       Q Alexander Yurin (sp), International Affairs magazine. Within the last 12 years, I think, Iraq never threatened to Turkey. How could you explain that enormous U.S. pressure on -- in NATO on the question of defending Turkey? And why so urgently? Why couldn't it wait? For example, it's only one week till coming Friday after report of international inspectors in Iraq.

       Does it mean that you are very close to the offense -- military offense in Iraq, and just could not wait for preparation?

       MR. CROUCH: Well, let's -- let's look at what has been asked at NATO. What has been asked is to begin planning for the defense of Turkey. The request that is currently pending before NATO would not in and of itself move forces, it would not deploy things. And as you know, these things take considerable time, once those decisions are made. But those would be subsequent decisions. The only decision that's before NATO right now is to focus on planning. And given the security environment, given what's going on, we think that, obviously, it's prudent to do that kind of planning, and we think it's important, because NATO is, you know, the central security organization for its members, that NATO be allowed to do that kind of planning.

       But a second point, I think, and maybe the more important point is, it's really up to the country threatened to determine whether or not it feels that NATO ought to be doing planning or taking steps for its defense. That is true if it were the United States. And in this case, I think it clearly was Turkey's desire that NATO begin to move in this direction.

       So in some ways, I'm saying maybe the most appropriate place to direct the question would be to Turkey. But we certainly support Turkey, and we are pledged very much to making sure that Turkey is defended in this circumstance.

       Q My name is Gabor Horvat (sp) the Hungarian daily Nepszapadsag. Sir, let me take you back to the reform of the deployments of the forces in Europe. Do you have any plans to turn -- do you consider the Taszar Air Base to be part of this lily pad system, described by the commander in Europe? And do you have any plans, have you seen any plans to turn the Taszar Air Base into a permanent U.S. or NATO military base?

       MR. CROUCH: The answer to the second question is no. The answer to the first question, I'm not quite sure what it was; something about -- what did you say, lily pads?

       Q Yes. It was in the New York Times -- (off mike) --

       MR. CROUCH: Ah, the New York Times! (Laughs; laughter.)

       Q (Off mike.)

       MR. CROUCH: Yeah. Like I said, you know, no decisions have been made on doing anything at this point. We are looking at where we might be able to array our forces that would make them more -- you know, more proximate to threats. We're looking at the question of how we can work together with our NATO allies to train in areas that we may be able to train together. There are a lot of different factors that will go into any kind of an assessment, as well as, I think, maintaining close ties with the countries that we are currently in. And that is also a very important factor.

       So like I said, no decisions have been made, and I think that as we -- the appropriate thing for us to do, as we come near decisions or recommendations on this, will be to consult with allies very intensively as part of the process of rearranging ourselves.

       MODERATOR: Right here. Time for one more question.

       Q Hi. I am from Nikkei newspaper, Japan. And I have a question -- a follow-up question about U.S. military presence abroad -- the review process of U.S. military presence abroad. And does it include -- today I think that Secretary Rumsfeld also mentioned about it. Does it include U.S. troops in Korean peninsula, and also Japan? And my second question is that recently many U.S. officials are saying -- emphasizing that there are many, many countries who are supporting war against Iraq when it is necessary, and there is several numbers, like 15 allies, or 21, and -- you know, there are variation of numbers. Does it include Japan or not?

       MR. CROUCH: The first -- the first question is you said does "it" mean this? And if the "it" in your sentence is, is the United States looking at the issue of its overseas basing on a global basis, which would certainly include the two countries you mentioned, the answer is yes. Is it looking specifically at those two countries? The answer is no. As I say, we're looking globally at this, and certainly, you know, one of the more -- most valuable relationships we have had is our defense relationship with Japan -- and Korea, for that matter. But -- so I think, you know, as I said, there are no decisions that have been made. And one of the things that we will certainly be doing, we've had, I believe the minister of defense or minister -- the head of the Japanese defense forces here recently in the United States. We've also had the minister of defense of South Korea here. And we continue those dialogues, continue to talk to them about these issues as well as other areas in our bilateral military- to-military relationship.

       Japan has been a strong supporter in the global war on terrorism. And we appreciate that support. It's -- and we see no indication that that support is flagging in any way.

       MODERATOR: Dr. Crouch, thank you very much for coming.

       MR. CROUCH: Thank you very much.

       MODERATOR: And thank you all for being here.