Text and Verification Provided Below
This is one
of many documents on the 9/11 summary to have disappeared since
WantToKnow.info was established. The link became inactive sometime between July and September 2006. Because this information appears to have disappeared,
we provide the text
of the article below. To see the original webpage as we downlaoded it, click here. For further verification, you can use
the Internet archive. Go to http://www.archive.org Copy and paste the original Internet address of the article (immediately
below) into the "Wayback Machine." Then click on the "Take Me Back" button.
Click on any date to see the original article as it was posted on the date
Presenter: Gen. Richard Myers,
chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
6, 2002, 5:30 p.m.
Gen. Myers Interview With CNN TV
(Interview with CNN TV, Evans & Novak)
Hunt: I'm Al Hunt. Robert Novak and I will
question the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Novak: He is Air Force General Richard Myers.
While sending Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Middle East, President
Bush urged Israel to halt its military operations against Palestinians and
called on Arab states to restrain Palestinian terrorists.
Earlier in the week, the Pentagon linked
Iraq's Saddam Hussein to terrorism against Israel.
Rumsfeld: I am simply trying to let the
people of Iraq understand what their leadership is doing, to let the people
of the Middle East and the rest of the world, people in Europe, know what
is in fact being done to arm young people and send them out to blow up
restaurants and shopping malls and pizza parlors.
Novak: Secretary Rumsfeld also brought Iran
into the U.S. war against terrorism.
Rumsfeld: There is no question but that al
Qaeda have moved in and found sanctuary in Iran, and there is no question
but that al Qaeda have moved into Iran and out of Iran, to the south and
dispersed to some other countries.
Novak: Richard Myers joined the Air Force in
1965 as a second lieutenant through the ROTC program at Kansas State
University. His experience as a command pilot included 600 combat hours in
the F-4. He was commander-in-chief of the North American Aerospace Defense
Command before coming to Washington as vice chairman of the joint chiefs in
March 2000. President Bush made him the 15th JCS chairman last October, the
first Air Force officer so named since 1982. We are interviewing General
Myers at the Pentagon.
General Myers, in view of the comments by
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld this past week about the support for the suicide
bombers in Israel by other Arab states, can we say now that the terrorism
in Israel is part of the entire global campaign by terrorists?
Myers: What we've said from the very start is
that the goals on our global war on terrorism are against international
terrorist organizations, those nation-states or others that support them,
and against those who have weapons of mass destruction that could fall into
terrorist hands. So those are the goals that have guided us from September
Novak: And would you say then that the
Palestinian suicide bombers fall into that category?
Myers: I think what the secretary was saying
is that that beautiful young lady that was the suicide bomber in Israel just
recently didn't just wake up that morning and decide to go put on a bomb
costume, that there had to be people supplying the finances to provide the
explosives, to provide the device, the detonating device, and so forth. And
that it was not just -- these aren't just things that people do
capriciously, that there's probably a system of support there. I think
that's what he was trying to say.
Novak: He also, Secretary Rumsfeld also
indicated that the elements of the Al Qaeda have infiltrated into Iran, perhaps
with the help of the government there, infiltrated out. Is the view here at
the Pentagon that Al Qaeda is still a viable military force that could give
us trouble elsewhere in the world?
Myers: Let me just rephrase that a little
bit. I think it's fair to say that Al Qaeda is still a viable force. We
know that are a very decentralized organization, very compartmented, no one
person generally knows everything about every operation, very few key
nodes, many nodes of operation.
So they're certainly still a viable force. We
think inside Afghanistan that there are both pockets of Taliban and Al
Qaeda that are a viable military force to be reckoned with.
Hunt: General, talking about Afghanistan, the
U.S. hopes to train and build an Afghan national army, but most experts say
that's going to take about five years before it's really successful. In the
interim, who is going to provide the security, and how will we guarantee
there won't be other terrorist groups in that country?
Myers: It's a very important point, and I
think the first thing we need to say, as a follow-on to the other question,
is that there are these pockets of Taliban and Al Qaeda that would love to
create instability inside Afghanistan. They would do that by taking on any
of the security forces that are in there right now, whether U.S. or
coalition, and they would also go against the Afghan interim
administration, trying to disrupt it, because they see that in their best
interest. And that's why we'll continue our coalition efforts on the war on
terrorism against Al Qaeda and Taliban.
In addition, as you know, there's a U.K.-led
interim security assistance force in the Kabul area that provides security
for the capital and for the interim administration right now. When Chairman
Karzai of the Afghan interim administration came to Washington, and when I
visited him later in Afghanistan, his number- one priority was to create an
Afghan national army, because he realizes that, in the end, ultimately the
Afghan people are going to have to provide for their own security.
Hunt: Well, yes, but again I want to get to
the question of the interim. Former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke says
we only have 10 percent of the peacekeeping force in Afghanistan that we
had in Bosnia and that we're in danger, he says, of repeating 1989, of
winning the war and losing the peace, if we don't increase that
Can you go along with a larger peacekeeping
Myers: Well, I think the issues that we're
working, we have -- again, I'll go back. We have our coalition forces in
there that are working the remnants of Taliban and Al Qaeda. We have the
issue of ensuring that the warlords cooperate through this period as well.
We have the interim security assistance force. And then we have this army.
And I don't think I would agree that it's going to take us five years to
train an Afghan national army -- which includes, by the way, the border
patrol as well.
Hunt: General, let me tell you how it looks
from far away. It looks like the Iranians are controlling much of western
Afghanistan, there are some of the different elements of Islamic radicals
controlling eastern Afghanistan, heroin and opium production is on the
rise, and Chairman Karzai's control is limited to Kabul and the environs.
You just got back from Afghanistan. How would
you disagree with that picture?
Myers: I would just characterize it slightly
different. Nobody says this is going to be an easy environment or this is
going to be an easy path to peace and prosperity in Afghanistan.
But I would say, due to our actions that
started in October, that this is the best hope the Afghan people have for a
more normal, a more prosperous life. An Afghan interim administration has
been stood up because we provided the environment for which it could hopefully
flourish. We have international attention on that. There are people that
are dealing with the drug problem, the opium production. We know that's a
So this an issue for the international
community. I think it's being addressed appropriately across a wide range
of fronts, to include nongovernmental organizations who are in there trying
to provide services. They will probably either medical or schooling or
whatever or relief aid.
And nobody says it's going to be an easy
Novak: General Myers, Kenneth Adelman, who
held some very important national security posts in the government in the
past, close friend of Secretary Rumsfeld and of Vice President Cheney, has
written that if the United States were to go into Iraq to remove Saddam
Hussein, militarily it would be a cakewalk. And I asked Mr. Adelman about
that a bit more recently, and he confirmed that's what he meant, a
Is that the view here at the Pentagon, that
it would be a cakewalk?
Myers: Well, first, let's establish right up
front that nobody has said that that's going to be a military mission,
nobody has said we're going to do it, and certainly there's been no time
frame set up for that.
As a military person, I think we'd have to
look at that very, very carefully. When we put our young sons and daughters
of this country in harm's way, I don't think you can every call that a
cakewalk. And we've seen how tough it's been in Afghanistan. Tragically,
we've lost some lives. And that was a country that did not have an organized
military, per se. The situation is, you just can't overlay Afghanistan,
that template, onto Iraq. And I would never refer to it as a cakewalk.
Novak: I understand, of course, that there
has been no decision made on an operation against Iraq. But the other side
of the coin, General Scowcroft, former national security adviser, says it
would take 200,000 U.S. troops. Can you give us any idea, which is closer
to reality, that we could need 200,000 troops there?
Myers: Well, what we know is that the situation
since Desert Storm and today has changed dramatically, both for U.S. and
coalition forces and for Iraqi forces.
The Iraqi armed forces are about 40 percent,
in terms of numbers, of what it was in the Gulf War. And likewise, our
forces, we have more precision weapons and so forth. For instance, we use
10 percent precision weapons in the Gulf War. We used slightly over 60
percent in Afghanistan. Our capabilities have grown; Iraqi capabilities
have diminished over the same period of time. Sanctions being part of the
reason, some of the reason their capabilities have waned.
Hunt: General, one big success we had this
week is that U.S.-led security forces went into Pakistan and captured one
of the top Al Qaeda operatives, Zubaydah. Will there be other U.S. missions
in Pakistan to go after and capture Al Qaeda and Taliban who are hiding out
Myers: Let me recharacterize that. I think
the mission was Pakistani-led with U.S. assistance, several agencies and
some Intel agencies.
Hunt: "The New York Times" says
that U.S. forces were essential, is that not right?
Myers: Well, I think everything we've done
with Pakistan has been in a partnership. And I can't characterize it that
way. It was not a military...
Hunt: Do you expect to see other such
partnerships like that in Pakistan going after Al Qaeda and Taliban?
Myers: Absolutely, and not just in Pakistan.
As we've stated many time, that this war needs to be fought with all
instruments of national power, not just the military. And that was a
perfect example of where civil agencies made a very big find in Zubaydah.
So sometimes it'll be military acts that will
be very visible, sometimes it will be other agencies that will -- and not
just in Pakistan, but around the world. That's the kind of cooperation
we're going to need.
Novak: General, we're going to take a short
But when we come back, we will ask General
Myers about current U.S. military capability.
Novak: General Richard Myers, there has been
testimony by generals and admirals before Congress that the U.S. forces,
after the campaign in Afghanistan, are tired, overextended, depleted.
Do you think the U.S. forces have to take an
extended rest period before being ready for a next phase of the war against
terrorism if it's on a military basis?
Myers: First, let me talk about the
statements that have appeared in some of the publications. I think, in
several cases, they were just a little bit out of context and probably
overplayed the issue of exhausted and tired and depleted, because I don't
think any of our commanders think our forces are exhausted or depleted or
The thing we have to realize, this is going
to be a very long war, this war on terrorism. We are in maybe the first
chapter of a many-chapter book. We do need to work our rhythm and our
pacing to make sure that we have the forces needed to do whatever the
president calls upon us to do.
But I can assure you and I can ensure the
American public that we are as ready today as we were before September 11,
and we'll be that way for the foreseeable future as far as I can tell.
Novak: Well, sir let me put it on a
geographical basis. If continuing the mop-up operation in Afghanistan, if
there was another Arab country we were in, could we do all that at the same
time as perhaps dealing with the crisis in North Korea? Could we conduct a
Myers: My belief is we could. That's well
within our capabilities. If you look back at the defense strategy that was
outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review that came out last year, that
was the strategy and those were the force sizing constructs that were used.
And we have analyzed some of that to see how we can fulfill that strategy,
and we're confident we can fulfill it.
Hunt: General, you and Secretary Rumsfeld in
recent days have spoken frequently about the increasingly bad behavior of
Iraq and of Iran. You were asked a question about North Korea the other day
and you said basically not much has changed there.
And I guess my question is why is North Korea
in the axis of evil? Was it affirmative action to say, you know, here's one
non- Muslim country we're going to throw in?
Myers: I don't think that had anything to do
with it. I think the reason that we worry about North Korea is, first of
all, that they have developed missile technology. They have a thoroughly
robust missile inventory, and they're willing to proliferate that to other
states that perhaps wouldn't use this hardware responsibly. We also know
that they're involved in weapons of mass destruction. So I think it's those
two things that lead us to believe it's a country that we have to be
Hunt: Well, you know, South Koreans had
resumed talks with them on their weapons plans, and the North Koreans have
said that they're willing to resume talks with the U.S. now. Former
president Bill Clinton said that it would be a big mistake not to resume
talks with the North Koreans.
From a military point of view, as the top
military office in the United States, could you go along with resuming
talks to North Koreans right now?
Myers: Well, I'd have to see if there's any
quid pro quo here that's being requested. But clearly, the way to resolve
the problem on the Korean peninsula is through diplomacy. And if talks can
lead to that, and confidence building measures and so forth, then I think
that's in everybody's best interest. The last thing we want to do is have a
new Korean War on the peninsula.
Novak: General, it's been widely reported
that we, the United States, has a lot of the available hardware into Afghanistan
and the very special operation there. Is the need to replace those weapons;
is that a real problem for the United States at this point?
Myers: It's not a problem, but it is a
priority. And in both our -- the year '02 supplemental that's in front of
the Congress right now, in the fiscal year '03 budget that's in front of
the Congress, both of them have substantial resources to ensure our
inventories are adequate. And so we're dealing with that.
Novak: So it's not a problem? You don't
consider that a big problem?
Myers: I do not consider it a problem.
Novak: OK. The president, President Bush
during his campaign for president, many times stated that the U.S. military
was hollowed out under the Clinton administration. In the less than eight
months between the time that the president took office and the terrorist
attacks of September 11, had it been rebuilt sufficiently so that we had
these successes, or perhaps was not in as bad of shape as was indicated
during the campaign?
Myers: Well, I think you saw in the '03
budget that went in front of the Congress, there was a nearly $50 billion
increase in the Defense Department's budget.
Myers: And what it funded was some health
care that had been authorized by our Congress but hadn't been funded yet, pay
raises and a lot of the readiness accounts, where we needed to get out of
this pathology, as we called it, poised reliant on the supplemental
appropriation to make up for readiness accounts, deficits in the fiscal
budget that we would submit in February.
So we did all that, and there were some
accounts that needed to be plussed up. And we still have some issues with
modernization. We've got tactical aircraft that are aging. We've got tanks
that are aging. And so, you know, I think that a lot of that has been
worked in the fiscal year '03 budget.
But our readiness and we've always stated
that our readiness for first-to-fight units has always been very, very
high, and that's been true for many years now.
Hunt: General, going back to Middle East,
given the incredible animosity between Arafat and Sharon, a number of
experts think that if the Tenet plan were to be adopted and if there were
to be a cease- fire, it only could be guaranteed with the presence of U.S.
military forces in the West Bank.
Would you go along with that, if necessary?
Myers: It's a little bit more complex
problem, I think, than just putting forces on the ground. We'd have to
first of all, there's not been any requests that I know of or any proposal
on the table that we've evaluated. So I can't give you a very good answer
for that specifically.
But one of the things you have to consider
when you talk about either peacekeeping or peacemaking is what will the
mission be? Is it going to be a peacekeeping mission? Is it going to be a
peacemaking mission? What are the rules of engagement you abide by? What
are the command and control arrangements? What do both parties expect out
of this? Duration? Lots of questions that we haven't even started to
So I think it's probably premature to say
whether or not it'd be a good idea or not. It just hasn't come up as an
Hunt: General, we're going to take another
quick break now.
And when we come back, we'll have the Big
Question for General Myers.
Hunt: The Big Question for General Myers: One
embarrassment for the U.S. has been that, in almost seven months after
9/11, we still haven't captured Osama bin Laden. With the apprehension this
week of one of his top lieutenants, have we gotten enough information to be
any closer to maybe finally getting bin Laden?
Myers: Well, if you remember, if we go back
to the beginning of this segment, the goal has never been to get bin Laden.
Obviously, that's desirable.
Interesting, I just read a piece by some
analysts that said you may not want to go after the top people in these
organizations. You may have more effect by going after the middlemen,
because they're harder to replace. I don't know if that's true, or not, and
clearly we would like to eventually get bin Laden.
But I think the fact that we've been able to
disrupt operations, get a lot of the people just under him and maybe just a
little bit further down, has had some impact on their operations. We know
have disrupted, you know, four, five, six, seven active operations that
they had planned and probably more that we don't know about.
So we're going to keep the hunt on. Finding
one person, as we've talked about before, is a very difficult prospect, but
we will keep trying.
Novak: General, we have less than a minute
before we take another break.
All the reports are that enlistments for the
all-voluntary force have not risen, despite the obvious patriotism in the
country since September 15, and they never did -- the enlistments never did
rise. How can you explain that?
Myers: I don't know whether I can explain it.
I do know that enlistments -- we're meeting our enlistment targets right
now and our re-enlistment rates for most of the services (Unintelligible).
I do know that the morale of the troops that I see in Afghanistan and the
surrounding areas is very, very high.
Novak: So the enlistment rates don't bother
Myers: I think -- I think we're fine right
now. And I just gave a presentation last night in a school where public
service is what they teach. And they said their enrollment is way up
because people are very much interested in public service, whether military
or in the rest of government.
Novak: General Richard Myers, thank you very
much. Al Hunt and I will be back with a comment after these messages.
Hunt: Bob, the general gave the official line
on Afghanistan. But between the lines, I think you can sense a little bit
of concern that picture there really is worrisome. Iranians in the west,
heroin on the rise, Karzai really limited to Kabul. I think Holbrooke could
be right. We could lose the peace after winning this victory in the war.
Novak: I was struck how firmly the general
put down Ken Adelman's comments that it could be a cakewalk if the U.S.
attacked Iraq. He says there's no cakewalk when you're going against a big
army like that. But he also said that the Iraqi army is not what it used to
be. The U.S. has a lot more weapons. He kind of indicated that General
Scowcroft, talking about 200,000 troops needed was exaggerating a little.
Hunt: Well, yeah, and also in response to
your question about the campaign 2000, charges about the hallowed army, I
guess what we are really seeing is just incredible growth in eight months,
Bob, it's a miracle, isn't it? The army is doing awful well.
Novak: We shouldn't be sarcastic, but I will
say this, you know, we have all heard great speeches of Douglas MacArthur
and George S. Patton Jr., and General Myers is not a MacArthur or a Patton,
but he is I think a very articulate enunciator of the policy -- of the
civilian policy, and I thought he was very effective.
I'm Robert Novak.
Hunt: And I'm Al Hunt.
Novak: Coming up at 7:00 p.m. Eastern on
CAPITAL GANG, we'll debate Secretary Powell's diplomacy deployment in the
Middle East, and what it means to the Bush administration's foreign policy
Hunt: That's all for now, thanks for watching
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been
specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding
of criminal justice, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information
for research and educational purposes. For more information
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site
for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must
obtain permission from the copyright owner.