Rumsfeld Firm on Iraq War at Summit

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pugnaciously defended the war in Iraq to his harshest critics during a European security conference Saturday that was intended to ease diplomatic tensions over Washington’s policy in the Middle East.

European leaders and Rumsfeld spoke eloquently of reconciliation but their overall tenor underscored the differences still existing between them over the Iraq invasion and how to handle future threats against world order. The Europeans -- although in softer rhetoric than their condemnations of the war a year ago -- insisted that unilateral actions by any country weakened alliances such as NATO and the United Nations.

Statements on Saturday by Rumsfeld and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer highlighted the transatlantic differences. Both men said instilling democracy and freedom in the Middle East would stem terrorism and the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld endorsed preemptive military action against rogue states -- a view not easily shared by Fischer.

Rumsfeld’s effort was the latest in a week of appearances by top administration figures seeking to justify U.S. policy in invading Iraq. Before the war, the administration said it was trying to halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but no such weapons have been found.

Rumsfeld said Iraq triggered the war because of Hussein’s “deception and defiance. It was his choice. And if he had chosen differently -- if the Iraqi regime had taken the [disarmament] steps Libya is now taking -- there would have been no war.” He added that the terrorist threat to the world is too dangerous to ignore, saying: “In a world where a small minority of extremists have the power to kill innocents on a massive scale, every other hope of free people is threatened.”

Russian Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov said, “It is wrong to fight terrorism with illegal means and only with military force.”

Much of the 40th Annual Munich Security Conference was dedicated to moving beyond the animosities that have divided North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies over the last year. European officials acknowledged that successes in Iraq and Afghanistan were key to world peace. Such sentiments are crucial for the U.S., which is seeking an increased role for NATO in the Mideast and Central Asia.

So far, Germany and France, bitter opponents of the Iraq war, may not commit troops to Iraq in the near future, if at all. But NATO’s new secretary-general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, indicated that even reluctant NATO countries should be compelled to send forces to Iraq under certain conditions.

“It’s time to put the differences of the past behind us,” Scheffer said. “It’s time to get back to business. The transatlantic community has realized that we have no more time to waste.... There cannot be the slightest doubt that winning the peace in Iraq is in everybody’s collective interest. If a legitimate Iraqi government asks for our assistance, and if we have the support of the United Nations, NATO should not abdicate from its responsibilities.”

Fischer suggested that a large NATO role in a precarious Iraq would be too great a gamble.

“The risk of failure and the potentially very serious, possibly fatal, consequences for the alliance absolutely must be taken into consideration. Honesty demands that I do not conceal my deep skepticism on this account.”

The conference illustrated the difficulties facing the U.S., NATO and the European Union. Alliances forged during the Cold War are being tested in an era of global terrorism. At the same time, Europe, feeling the need to assert more influence in world affairs, is increasingly challenging U.S. policy and is building a military force to supplement NATO. This comes amid debate over how to respond to the West’s most pressing security concerns in the Mideast and North Africa.

Fischer said Europe and the U.S. must form a “new transatlantic initiative for the Middle East.” The West, he said, must bring globalization, civil rights and economic development to that region to counter terrorism and oppressive regimes.

Rumsfeld spoke often of terrorists and dangerous regimes. He did not dwell on U.S. intelligence failures in assessing Iraq’s weapons capabilities. When asked about such lapses by a member of the audience, Rumsfeld suggested that there was a need for precise information.

“If you’re going to live in this world, and it is a dangerous world, you do [need] elegant intelligence,” he said.

But Rumsfeld was unwavering about U.S. action in Iraq, saying that those who supported the war “have been reinforced in their conviction

The defense secretary, for a moment breaking the conference’s conciliatory atmosphere, said of the Iraq war: “There were prominent people from representative countries in this room that opined that they really didn’t think it made a hell of a lot of difference who won. Shocking. Absolutely shocking.”