Rumsfeld Defends the Decision for War

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that the United States’ decision to go to war with Iraq was based not on new evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, but on old evidence reinterpreted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction,” Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9/11.”

In a packed hearing room, Rumsfeld fielded questions from senators who praised U.S. commanders and troops for their actions in Iraq but repeatedly questioned whether they could sustain their long and grueling deployment and whether the administration overplayed intelligence assessments of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.

Responding to persistent questions from committee Democrats about whether the administration has a clear strategy for rotating out U.S. forces serving in Iraq, Rumsfeld said the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division is starting a phased pullout of its 16,000 troops.

The division’s forces are some of the longest-serving in Iraq. The secretary said other nations will soon send troops to relieve the burden on U.S. forces, but he acknowledged under questioning that the number committed by foreign governments is small. He estimated that U.S. military operations in Iraq are costing $3.9 billion a month.

Rumsfeld’s testimony came a day after the White House acknowledged that President Bush’s claim in his State of the Union speech that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa was based, in part, on forged documents. Congressional committees are investigating whether the administration may have used faulty or exaggerated intelligence on Iraq’s weapons to bolster its case for war.

Bush said he stands by the central argument of his speech.

“I am confident that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program,” the president said during a visit to South Africa on Wednesday. “I am absolutely confident in the decision I made.”

Ten weeks after Bush declared that major combat operations had come to an end, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found in Iraq. As time passes and no evidence of such weapons surfaces, the administration faces intensifying questions about whether it exaggerated its claims.

At a news conference Wednesday by the Arms Control Assn., a Washington-based private advocacy group, a spokesman said the administration misused information on Iraq.

“I believe the Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq,” said Greg Thielman, who retired in September as director of the strategic, proliferation and military affairs office in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. “When we began military operations, Iraq posed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States.”

In the Senate testimony, Rumsfeld did not go into great detail on how Sept. 11 had influenced assessments of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, but he noted that the attacks “changed our appreciation of our vulnerability and the risks the U.S. faces from terrorist states.” He faced no further questions on the topic.

Rumsfeld defended U.S. intelligence on Iraq leading up to the war as “quite good” and insisted that finding weapons of mass destruction is only a matter of time.

The secretary faced some of his toughest questions from senators concerned about protection of U.S. forces in Iraq and the scope and length of their mission.

With 29 American troops having been killed in attacks since May 1, Democrats and Republicans questioned whether the Pentagon had done enough to ensure that sufficient forces are on the ground to head off threats from insurgents.

“I’m now concerned that we have the world’s best-trained soldiers serving as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said.

Kennedy and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) also grilled Rumsfeld on whether he had worked hard enough to secure a commitment from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to send troops. “Why have we not asked NATO to formally decide as NATO to raise that force and to give its endorsement to our action? Is it because we’re afraid France might not go along, or what?” Levin asked, referring to tensions between Washington and Paris over France’s opposition to the war.

Rumsfeld responded that administration officials have reached out to NATO on the issue of sending troops to Iraq, and he denied that lingering tensions with France or any other country were influencing the Pentagon’s decisions on where to seek help.

“I have no problem ... in having NATO involved,” Rumsfeld said. “Indeed, I think it would be a good thing.”

He also said that the security situation in most of Iraq is considerably better than that in Baghdad. While fighting with remnants of the Hussein regime “will likely go on for some time,” Rumsfeld said, significant progress is being made on security.

“The problem is real,” he told the committee, “but it is being dealt with in an orderly and forceful fashion.”

About 19,000 troops from 19 countries besides the U.S. are in Iraq, Rumsfeld said. Another 19 countries have committed a total of 11,000 troops, and discussions are underway with 11 additional countries. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who led U.S. forces in the war and testified alongside Rumsfeld, said talks were continuing with Pakistan and India.

Recently, Army officials have warned that the heavy and prolonged commitment of U.S. troops in Iraq -- more than 140,000 are there now -- was straining the military’s ability to protect against potential threats elsewhere.

Asked how long U.S. troops would have to stay in Iraq, Rumsfeld said nobody knows.

“We intend to see it through, and it’s going to take some patience,” he said.