|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| BUILDING A TEAM | |
 December 28, 2000  |
|
|
President-elect Bush chooses Donald Rumsfeld to head the Pentagon. Margaret Warner discusses the appointment.
|
|
GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): I think it's an excellent choice. I have watched Don Rumsfeld for many years. He brings great experience, not only in the business world, but in his experience in NATO and the Middle East. And I believe he's going to provide management and leadership to the Pentagon and developing this strategy he talks about, which I think is absolutely necessary, with the President and the national security team. I believe Don Rumsfeld was going to be a key element of that team. MARGARET WARNER: What does the choice tell you about Bush's priorities that maybe we didn't know before?
MARGARET WARNER: How do you see it, John Isaacs? JOHN ISAACS: Donald Rumsfeld certainly is a heavyweight but he also is a pretty hard line character. I mean, he's one of the high priests of national missile defense, the chairman of the commission that talked about the missile defense... the threat from rogue nations of missiles. He opposed the comprehensive test ban treaty that the Senate voted on in 1999, which was consistent with President-elect Bush, but he also opposed and testified against the chemical weapons convention, which the first President Bush actually negotiated and he opposed START II agreement. So he's been pretty hard line on arms control. It'll be interesting to see what he does as secretary of defense. MARGARET WARNER: What do you think of the choice and what do you think it says about President-elect Bush's priorities? JAMES WOOLSEY: I think it's an excellent choice. I think Don Rumsfeld is a very talented and successful individual and I think it says that President-elect Bush is willing to have strong-willed, able people around him. He is not one of these people who takes comfort from having yes men or women around him. These are four remarkable people, his national security team. |
||||||||||
| Preparing to fight | |||||||||||
|
The problem he's going to face is that, in addition to improving readiness, which has been run down somewhat from all of the peacekeeping deployments, and improving personnel and quality of life for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, which is going to cost money because the civilian economy's doing so well, we're losing pilots in droves, for example, he's going to need to recapitalize the Pentagon because a lot of the equipment, the tanks, the ships, the aircraft that were bought early in the Reagan administration are now coming up toward the end of some of their useful life. And we've had kind of a spending holiday on procurement for the last eight years, and somebody's going to have to make that up. So I think he's going to have to spend, even with savings, tens of billions of dollars a year more on the Pentagon than is now being spent. We'll still be at an all time low as with a share of the GNP going to defense, but in absolute terms, that'll be a substantial increase, and he's going to have a hard time getting some of that I think through this very divided Congress. MARGARET WARNER: What did you make, General, of this language about, you know, challenge the status quo in the Pentagon and modernizing the military? What do you think Bush and Rumsfeld are really talking about, and what's the resistance to it? GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Well, first of all, I've heard a consistent theme by the President-elect, by secretary of state, the national security designee and by the secretary of defense designee, and that is: What is needed is some sort of clarity of mission. What is it you want the Pentagon, what do you want the military to do? And this clarity I think is absolutely essential as we approach this multitude of threats that we have in the 21st century, but more important are the opportunities that we have. How do we work with our allies? How do we consult not just inform? We have this opportunity of leadership, and I think Don Rumsfeld and this team provide a great opportunity to develop those with our allies and with our partners and our friends and send a clear message to our adversaries. MARGARET WARNER: Which is... GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Which is that the United States is going to participate, is going to provide that leadership and is going to redesign or adapt our military to meet threats that we face in the 21st century. MARGARET WARNER: And, John Isaacs, how did you read the language about readapting, challenging the status quo?
MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that, General, about the constituencies? I mean, somebody's ox is going to get gored if you're really changing things. GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Look, I think you need to set the strategy and that's the President, has to set that strategy for his national security team and soon. And then what follows from that strategy are the procurement items that need to be developed and the training and the readiness, all of that follows the strategy. But until you have that clarity, it's very hard to say what constituencies are going to be... MARGARET WARNER: Don't build this or do build that? GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): And that's been part of our problems that we've had, to me, in the past. And I think the President and his team early on need to set that strategy and set those priorities. MARGARET WARNER: What do you make of, one, how extensive a reforming, revamping job lies ahead; and whether Rumsfeld is well-equipped to do this, having worked so closely with him on that mission? JAMES WOOLSEY: I think he's superbly equipped to do it. He's a good leader, he's firm. He manages by his out box, not his in box. But he has a very good sense of humor. MARGARET WARNER: Explain that. He manages by...
|
 |
||||||||||
| National missile defense | |||||||||||
|
JOHN ISAACS: I don't think there's any question that the president and his team is committed to national missile defense. Although that does not necessarily mean that they are committed to deployment anytime soon. If you listen to the President-elect's word today, he said, "we're going for a missile defense system that works." And one thing that's clear today is that there's no missile defense system that works. MARGARET WARNER: The technology isn't there? JOHN ISAACS: The technology is not ready. Moreover, the Republican Party has a split between those who want to build the Bill Clinton missile defense system, starting with land-based deployment in Alaska, and then expand from there perhaps to missile defense at sea and in space, and those including I believe Jim Woolsey who say let's junk the Clinton plan and started all over again and build an expanded system in sea and in space. And I don't know where Rumsfeld stands on this, but this is not going to be an easy decision for the Republican Party and for this administration. MARGARET WARNER: Weigh in on this, Jim Woolsey. JAMES WOOLSEY: I do think we need to move to a national missile defense. MARGARET WARNER: You mean of the kind that Bush sketched out? JAMES WOOLSEY: Well, he hasn't been precise yet about exactly what he was going to do, but I do think the Clinton administration system was badly conceived. The mid course system that Clinton proposed really is trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. It's the hardest way to do missile defense. MARGARET WARNER: I guess what I'm really asking is: What's your sense of where Donald Rumsfeld is on that? JAMES WOOLSEY: I don't know. The only thing I'm confident on is that he'll look at it objectively, hear the best arguments and make a clear recommendation to the President. I think he'll be very business like about it. I think he is committed, as I take it the President-elect is, to having a national missile defense, but what kind I don't know. MARGARET WARNER: But he would have a real sales job with, for instance, our European allies, wouldn't he, General Joulwan? GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Absolutely. But again, this is the consultation that I talk about not just information. The Europeans would call it theater missile defense, and there is a proposal, an initiative in NATO to study that. So I think if we have the leadership here, that this new administration can consult with our allies on their theater missile defense, as we also talk about national missile defense, as well. |
 |
||||||||||
| Potential for disagreement | |||||||||||
|
MARGARET WARNER: Finally, John Isaacs, how do you think Rumsfeld will fit into this team? You have of course Colin Powell, secretary of state, Condi Rice, national security advisor, Dick Cheney, the 800-pound whatever, former defense secretary. There was a lot of question about whoever took this job, would they be overshadowed? What's your sense of Rumsfeld and his ability to go toe to toe?
MARGARET WARNER: President-elect Bush said he hoped there would be disagreements. Do you see -- where do you see the fault lines or do you see any fault lines in this team potentially. JAMES WOOLSEY: I'm not sure there will be any continuing fault lines. They'll disagree on things because they're all smart and people of forceful will. But the interesting thing is that Colin Powell and Condi Rice both have a reputation and have explicitly said they're reluctant to use U.S. troops abroad, more reluctant than the Clinton administration has proven to be. And often the secretary of defense is the one who says, "look, I'm not really sure we want to use force. Here are the criteria, here is why it could be difficult." The secretary of defense often is sort of dragged along in many administrations to using force if you... MARGARET WARNER: Whereas it's usually the secretary of state who's saying, "get in there." JAMES WOOLSEY: Sometimes that's the case. It'll be interesting to see if that's what happens here and if so, you'll have everybody reluctant to use force here. It's my hunch that these people are pragmatic enough that each case is going to be on its own merits and you'll have a lot of vigorous discussion among strong-willed people. The president will make the final decision. MARGARET WARNER: Do you see that possibility, general, that you could have a team of reluctant warriors?
JOHN ISAACS: Can I say something on that? This is an area with potential major disagreement with our European allies. The specific test case in the first year is whether U.S. Troops remain in Bosnia and Kosovo. During the campaign, President-elect Bush talked about getting U.S. Troops out. Well, the European allies say, "we have 80 percent of the troops there -- the U.S. should have a major role there, too." And I don't know where Rumsfeld and Powell and the whole team are going to come down. So both missile defense and troops in the former Yugoslavia are major areas of potential disagreement. MARGARET WARNER: I know you want to jump in -- very briefly. GEN. GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Yes, that's where consultation comes in.
The Europeans are building a European force. There's a great opportunity,
I think, it can be a win-win with what we would like to do in MARGARET WARNER: All right, and we have to leave it there. Thank you all three very much. |
 |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
MARGARET
WARNER: For more on the Rumsfeld choice, we go to: James Woolsey, a
former CIA director and navy undersecretary who served on the Missile
Defense Commission chaired by Rumsfeld; retired General George Joulwan,
who was supreme allied commander of NATO when NATO sent troops into
Bosnia; and John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World,
an arms control advocacy group. 
GEN.
GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Well, I think he's putting a very strong priority
on the defense and the military. And Don Rumsfeld's a heavyweight that
he's bringing in to this team and I think he's going to have a seat,
a big seat at this table, and I think that is very good for soldiers,
sailors, airmen and Marines and also for the country in trying to define
this security strategy for the 21st century, absolutely essential. 
JAMES
WOOLSEY: Well, there are changes that need to be made. But a lot of
what you need to do in the Pentagon when you're not fighting is prepare
to fight. And that's largely the battle of the budget. There are savings
that can be made -- a lot of them through I think base closures and
contracting out. But often Congress fights those because it runs up
against constituent interests in various districts.
JOHN
ISAACS: Well, what the President talked about and what Rumsfeld talked
about is preparing for the kind of challenges we will face in the next
decade and next decades. But that does not include building a lot of
these what other people call the legacy weapons, the weapons really
were designed to confront the Soviet Union during the Cold War. And
President-elect Bush talked about skipping generations of weapons, and
that could mean challenging some of the major weapons programs within
the Pentagon, perhaps the joint strike fighter, the F.-22 for the Air
Force plane, the F-18-EF for the Navy, and if Rumsfeld and Bush actually
want to tackle this, they're going to tackle major constituencies in
Congress and major bureaucracies in the Pentagon, and I don't know whether
that team and whether Rumsfeld is strong enough to do that. 
JAMES
WOOLSEY: He sets priorities, he sets deadlines, he imposes, I think,
his structure on an organization. But he is a man who tolerates disagreement
well; he likes to have argument. He has a very good sense of humor,
and that makes things I think go better. I think the problem is that
the period we're in now is a period in which the threats are not clear.
We may need to deal with China in the Taiwan Straits, we may need to
deal with North Korea coming in -- South Korea and we may need to deal
with Iraq coming against Kuwait again. The situation is much more to
the way it was say in the '20s or early 1930's after we had won World
War I. That this time we won the Cold War, but there isn't a single
threat. So although we can hope for clarity in the sense of being precise
about what we're trying to do, we can't really hope for clarity in picking
a single foe and organizing to defeat in the way we did in the Cold
War.
MARGARET
WARNER: Now, national missile defense, John Isaacs, you mentioned this
originally when we went around and so did the President-elect. Does
this signal to you that Bush is really serious about pushing this? And
what difference can it make if a Donald Rumsfeld is defense secretary?
JOHN
ISAACS: Well, I think Rumsfeld is a pretty strong figure, he will be
able to go toe to toe with the team. But there's a real potential for
major divisions within this administration. When you force such strong
figures, what you need is a very strong President to make the decision
to choose between the options presented by the different teams, and
this is not President-elect Bush's strongest field, shall we say mildly.
And so if there is a disagreement, I'm not sure who's going to settle
it, unless it's Condoleezza Rice, the national security advisor elect
or select. 
GEN.
GEORGE JOULWAN (RET.): Well, I think just the opposite. I think you're
going to get from both the State Department and Defense Department,
particularly with someone like Colin Powell who understands what conditions
you need before you commit forces, you're going to find someone that's
going to fight diplomatically to get those conditions, to work with
our allies, to make sure you have rules of engagement, for example,
that can work before you commit the force. So I see a sympathetic ear
in the State Department and a Don Rumsfeld who's very strong that's
going to insist on those conditions before we commit the force. So I
really see not so much argument as much as complementing one another
on the vital issue of when you commit forces.