TOM BROKAW: Mr. Secretary, one year after September 11th, is it possible to quantify how much damage we've done to al Qaida? Fifty percent of the organization destroyed, 75 percent? Can you say?

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DONALD

RUMSFELD: Well, if I knew, I would say. It's very difficult to know. What we do know is that -- that we have killed in the low hundreds, that we've captured in the medium to low hundreds, that the bulk of those that were in Afghanistan have dispersed. They are no longer able to congregate in large numbers and run training camps and use a country as a staging area. On the other hand, there were thousands that were trained over the years in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

So, they're still out there. They're in sleeper cells. They're having much more difficulty recruiting. They're more difficulty raising money, transferring money, moving from country to country. All is much more difficult, but they're still there -- a lot of them and we have to keep after them.

BROKAW: Are they moving their operations to off the subcontinent, into places in Southeast Asia?

RUMSFELD: Oh, I don't doubt it for a minute that some of them have ended up there. They have -- also have ended up in -- they're clearly in Iran. There are some in Iraq. There are some in Yemen. Some may have come to the United States.

BROKAW: Do you have hard evidence that they're in Iraq?

RUMSFELD: Oh, there's no question but that al Qaida has moved through and some have -- have stayed.

BROKAW: And that's not just an assumption? We know that?

RUMSFELD: I know that. Yeah.

BROKAW: And….

RUMSFELD: And we know they're in Iran, and we know they're in Yemen, and we know they're in Saudi Arabia and any number of countries. The problem is locating them.

BROKAW: And are they being protected by the Saudis as well as by Saddam Hussein?

RUMSFELD: Oh, it's hard, you know… They'll all deny it for the most part. The Iranians pretend that they're not there, and that they're not harboring them. But proving that they're harboring them as opposed to that they're unwitting is a difficult thing to do.

BROKAW: Is the presence of al Qaida in Iraq one of the reasons that you're interested in changing the regime and possibly having a military action there?

RUMSFELD: Oh my goodness. The policy of the United States on Iraq has been the same over a good period of time now. The Congress in the prior administration and the executive branch have all agreed that regime change is desirable. I don't think anyone who listens to what that fella says thinks that he's a good thing for the region.

BROKAW: The big question is, is the military option the only viable operation in your judgment?

RUMSFELD: Oh, well, look, the President has been -- this President, the prior President have used diplomatic efforts. They've used economic sanctions. The United Nations has. So obviously there's a spectrum of things one can do.

BROKAW: One of the reasons that the war on terrorism in Afghanistan was so successful, Mr. Secretary, is that you very effectively put together a coalition and used that coalition against the Taliban and al Qaida. Many are wondering why you haven't worked harder at putting together a coalition that could go after Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A lot of the Arab friends of this country are the most outspoken critics including Jordan's King Abdullah.

RUMSFELD: Well, you're quite right. The coalition, with respect to the global war on terrorism, including Afghanistan, has been impressive. We've got, I think, 18 countries physically involved in Afghanistan. We have something like 90 countries worldwide engaged in the global war on terrorism.

At General Frank's headquarters at central command, we've got, I think, 37 nations represented with general officers. So the coalition is broad to deal with terrorism. It's broad and it's deep and it's effective and it's working very well. You know, the President hasn't made any decisions with respect to Iraq, so why would one put together a coalition?

BROKAW: Do we put Iraq under the heading of terrorism however, as part of the war against terrorism?

RUMSFELD: Well, the successive administrations have had a list of terrorist states, and they include Iran and Iraq and Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, any number of countries. It's a published list.

BROKAW: Why are the senior military officers in this building so divided on whether or not we can launch an effective military operation against Iraq?

RUMSFELD: I don't think they are. I haven't heard that they are. I've seen an article recently that speculated to that effect, and there's some retired officers who from time to time make a comment. But I haven't seen any deep divisions any more than there are differences of view among civilians in the department.

It is -- its normal when people are debating are things, and some people are knowledgeable and other people are not very knowledgeable. And some people who aren't very knowledgeable are -- tend to be the ones who talk to the press, and some people in the press who aren't very knowledgeable tend to be the ones that write those stories.

BROKAW: Are you saying that there are people of senior rank in this building who are not skeptical about a military invasion of Iraq?

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, the implication of your question is that there's a plan to invade to Iraq, and the President has made no such decisions. He's said so. I've said so.

BROKAW: But there are contingency plans that are being reviewed constantly?

RUMSFELD: Of course. And we -- that's the job of the department. We have to look around the world and we've had contingency plans my entire adult life. When I came in, I started looking at them. I was not terribly impressed and we've shortened the cycle on which they'll be done so they're less stale.

We've created a process that's more iterative where the commander and the department work together to develop those plans. A great deal has changed over recent years and -- and things -- those lessons learned need to be incorporated in those plans. So, we're constantly reviewing -- contingency plan, operations plans, various things around the world.

BROKAW: Any military operation takes place in a political context. When King Abdullah of Jordan comes to this country and says, "It would be a tremendous mistake for the United States to have a military invasion of Iraq," how does that affect your planning?

RUMSFELD: Well, to the United States. And we -- he is -- he's a very friendly person. He's a good ally. We're very cooperative with things, and clearly he lives in that neighborhood, and he has to be concerned about the views in the neighborhood. And it's perfectly proper for him to make public statements -- any public statements he may wish to make. He's a fine man.

BROKAW: But he says that he's reflecting not just his view, but other Arab nations and European leaders with whom he has spoken.

RUMSFELD: I don't know what you read or whether you talked to him. I did and I've read not all the articles, and I -- and the articles may or may not reflect what his views were. But what I did read indicated that he was repeating some of the views that he has heard from neighbors in the region, much less than his own views and much less than European views.

BROKAW: He also raised, however, the British, the French, the Russians and the Chinese as saying this is not a good idea.

RUMSFELD: Look, is this an interview on Iraq? (Laughter) I mean, I told you, the President has made no decision with respect to it. I'm not in the position of trying to defend something or support something that someone else has said when the President has not made any judgments in this area. It seems to me that there is a frenzy going on with respect to Iraq that should calm down.

BROKAW: Let me ask you about….

RUMSFELD: That'll end up on the cutting room floor.

BROKAW: No, it won't. (Laughter) That just made it. It's hard to remove Iraq, however, from the continuing war on terrorism. It is a pivotal state. Saddam Hussein, everyone agrees, is a bad guy who's got a lot of very dangerous weapons at his disposal. And the United States has made it very clear in this administration that they want to remove him. Why shouldn't there be a national dialogue about that?

RUMSFELD: There should, and there is, and that's good. I go up and testify before committees. People ask me questions, and I respond. I think it's a useful thing to do. I think we're in a new security environment in this country and in the world, and I think it's important that we recognize that conventional weapons can kill thousands of people and weapons of mass destruction can kill hundreds of thousands of people.

And the old approach where you could absorb the first blow at Pearl Harbor and lose thousands, and then spend two, three years, four years marshaling your resources and marshaling a coalition and going after and dealing with it has to be weighed against the fact that today, weapons of mass destruction are not gonna kill 3,000. They're gonna kill 300,000 or more.

And therefore, the society, Europe, the United States, the Congress, others have to elevate that, think about it, ask themselves the question, "How will they feel a year or two or three from now in the event that there is such an attack?" And there is no question but that weapons of mass destruction are gonna end up in the hands of these people.

They are. They want them. They're seeking them. They have made some progress. They have close associations with the terrorist states that I listed. And so the question is how are we going to feel if, in fact, we make that judgment that that's acceptable, to accept that first strike -- with weapons of mass destruction?

BROKAW: I guess, and this is the final question on this, I guess the big reservation, however, is whether or not the military option is the only one, and whether it can be done just by the United States, and how long we would have to stay in Iraq if we were successful?

RUMSFELD: Why do I wanna get into that when there's been no decision to do that? It seems to me that it's obvious there are other options. The President and his predecessors and have been engaged in diplomatic activities, in economic sanctions, and the operation northern and southern watch, which is a military option. We have been doing a host of things over the past decade.

BROKAW: Is what's going on between the Palestinians and the Israelis at the moment part of the war on terrorism?

RUMSFELD: Well, there's no question but that when suicide bombers go in and kill dozens of Israelis, as they do with regularity, that that's a terrorist act. The terrorism is taking capabilities, weapons of one type or another, and killing innocent men, women and children for a political purpose.

BROKAW: Five Americans were killed in the latest attack. If that is an act of terrorism, does the United States have a role in reprisal?

RUMSFELD: Oh, goodness. I -- you know, the United States is basically trying to deal with what we would consider to be global terrorist problems, and it -- there isn't anything that our base can add to what Israel's trying to do to defend itself.

BROKAW: So the United States...

RUMSFELD: Certainly, your heart goes out to the families and the people that were killed, but if you're suggesting that the United States ought to use force in some way in that connection, I would….

BROKAW: I'm just asking….

RUMSFELD: Yeah. I know that.

BROKAW: …should the United States…

RUMSFELD: If that's the implication of the question, I would think it's very unlikely in my opinion. I just can't imagine it. That's something -- the Israelis have been dealing with this problem for years and years and years, and probably are among the best in the world in dealing with it.

BROKAW: Many people in the region and long-time students of the region believe that the United States is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of a new generation of young Moslems in part because of our alliance with Israel during this protracted battle that it's having with the Palestinians.

RUMSFELD: There's no question but that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and the Iranians and other terrorist states are attempting to use the Palestinian problem and the issues between Israel and the Palestinians as a way of creating anti-Western feeling. And that's a fact. The implication is they use disinformation and lies to argue that it's an ad -- it's against the religion, which of course is not true.

It is unfortunate that that's the case. But there are people opportunistically trying to do that. And, of course, it gets carried in the press and on television. And pretty soon people can begin to believe that type of thing unless it's rebutted.

They did the same thing in Afghanistan. The implication was that they -- the Taliban and the al Qaida tried to make it sound as though what we were doing is conducting a war against the Afghan people or a war against the Muslim religion. And, of course, the fact of the matter is that's just flat untrue.

BROKAW: But many of the so-called moderate Arab states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, are saying to the United States, "Don't move against Iraq. And don't try to do other things until you resolve what's going on between Israel and the Palestinians." Has that become an ever larger problem to the United States in its wider war against terrorism?

RUMSFELD: There's no question that those countries are friends of ours. And we've been engaged with them. And we've been working on the Middle East process with them. And that they are -- each of those states is concerned about the effect of that crisis, that problem, that conflict on their streets, on their people and what that implies for that region.

And I can understand they're saying what they're saying. I can understand their concern. And I can understand their desire. And I share their desire to have that problem solved. The problem is the problem's been there since 1947. And it's not likely to get solved in the next five minutes. The Israelis do not have an effective (unintelligible) to deal with. There needs to be a structure. There needs to be a reform of the Palestinian situation.

And the Middle East nations need to step up and help get that accomplished. If there's going -- you can't make peace with an entity that doesn't exist or doesn't believe in peace. And the leadership of the Palestinians, obviously, have not been effective.

BROKAW: Can you ever foresee the time when American military forces will have to be part of the peace keeping operation within the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinian interest?

RUMSFELD: Well, I think it's unlikely. We do have troops in the Sinai. We have for 22 years. And they are -- they were there as part of an earlier peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. I suppose they've served as fulfilled a stabilizing role.

But, I think it's unlikely. But that's not for me. That's for the President, for Secretary Powell, (unintelligible). These are issues that are really out of my lane.

BROKAW: You've been in this office before. Here now facing a whole different future for the United States military. What's gonna be the role of the United States military in homeland security as we go forward in the 21st century?

RUMSFELD: The -- of course, the first task of government is to defend the people. And the President's decided that he needs a Department of Homeland Security to try to pull together the non-military function of the government and so that there's better coordination and cooperation. And I think that's a good idea.

We are standing up a combatant commander for what we call the Northern Command. And which includes the United States. His tacts will be the same as any other combatant -- to be available in the event of need to help do things to defend our country.

The big distinction will be that, given the laws of our land, so-called (unintelligible) -- the military in the United States has historically not been a police force -- a national police force. It's not been a first responder to domestic issues. On the other hand, as we all…

BROKAW: It might have to change in your judgment at some point?

RUMSFELD: I don't think we need to change the (unintelligible) statute. I think we can serve in a supporting role which we have done. For example, we had more troops at the Olympics this year than we had at -- in Afghanistan. But we weren't there as being in charge of security for the Olympics. We were there in a supporting role to the state and local and federal authorities that had the principle responsibility.

BROKAW: And will we ever see, as we do in the Middle East or in Europe, a more conspicuous military presence in this country around airports and other areas of sensitive and strategic importance?

RUMSFELD: Well, of course, we did see that. The -- we were called on to respond after September 11th. And put people in the airports and border patrols and Customs and INS. And we did that. But the arrangement I made with those domestic agencies was that that is not our job.

We didn't organize, train and equip people to do that. And we'll help out on a short term basis. But we find the (unintelligible) of understanding that they would replace our people with civilians to do those jobs which are civilian jobs so that we could have our people available for truly military functions, war fighting.

BROKAW: Now, a year after the attacks of September 11th do you worry that the American people have drifted away from the urgency that they felt in the weeks immediately after the attacks?

RUMSFELD: No, I don't. Not at all. Indeed, quite the contrary. The only place I find that is with the media asking the question and speculating about it. But if you go out across the country as I do -- I find that the understanding of what terrorism is and the reality that it's going to be a long term battle for us. And that we're gonna have to face it and stick with it and be purposeful over a sustained period. I think the American people understand that very, very well. They have a good center of gravity.

BROKAW: Looking forward from September 11th in the next year or so, when will the United States have a conspicuous military presence that we're now not involved?

RUMSFELD: Oh, my. You know in Secretary McNamara's confirmation hearings for secretary of defense no one once uttered the word, "Vietnam." He didn't and the Senators didn't. When Dick Cheney was up for his confirmation hearings the word "Iraq" was never raised in the entire hearing.

When I was up there a year and a half ago, plus, the word "Afghanistan" never crossed anyone's lips. I think that it is that -- that ought to make one humble about speculating as to what we might need to do. I think it's not possible to know. You know, in the earlier periods of my life you could identify enemies. And it was clear.

It was understood. And you knew where the threat could come from. And you could organize and arrange yourself to deal with that threat. Today, it is not possible to know exactly from whom or where a threat will come. Therefore, what we have to do, and we've changed our strategy to do this, we have to organize and train and equip to cope with capabilities that can threaten us regardless of where they come from.

BROKAW: You have identified Saddam Hussein and Iraq and your advisors in this building, Richard Perle, prominent among them, on television saying there will be a military invasion by this administration of Iraq. We will change that regime.

RUMSFELD: He's a private citizen. He used to work in this building. He's now on the policy board. But, because one person is saying something like that, I think, doesn't mean that that's true. I just don't. I think that the President's the one who makes those kinds of judgments and the Congressmen and the American people and those judgments have not been made.

BROKAW: I wanna go back over just one more part of Iraq if I can. You say that al Qaida is in Iraq. RUMSFELD; There are al Qaida in Iraq, yes. And in all the other countries I mentioned.

BROKAW: And they're there…

RUMSFELD: Including the United States.

BROKAW: They're there under the protection and under the sponsorship of Saddam Hussein?

RUMSFELD: And I responded by saying, look to say something in my position I have to prove it. And there's -- there isn't a country today in the world that wants to stand up and volunteer that they're harboring al Qaida. That is not a prudent thing to be doing today.

And therefore, no matter what anybody says, it will be denied. And the Iranians deny. And we know they're in Iran. So…

BROKAW: But it's more than an assumption on your part. You have seen hard evidence of this?

RUMSFELD: I have listed four, five, six, seven countries; I could list more where there are al Qaida.

BROKAW: Secretary, thank you.

RUMSFELD: Thank you.