In keeping with his disdain for "Washington insiders," George W. Bush named Donald Rumsfeld as his Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld first served in the Ford administration, and brings needed experience and, as the press continues to say, "gravitas," to the Bush administration. In his first trip overseas, Rumsfeld met with Western European defense ministers and tried to allay their concerns about the US plan for a missile intercepting defense system. The proposal for this system dates at least back to the Reagan years, when it was referred to as "Star Wars."

Doc Nagel: Secretary Rumsfeld, could you articulate your role in the Bush administration? I mean, to what degree are you responsible for setting defense policy, not just enacting it?

Donald Rumsfeld: President Bush has found a group of advisors in whom he can place his trust. I am honored to be among this group - all persons of intergrity and character.

DN: Aside from not using our armed forces to settle personal vendettas, what do you mean by "trust," "integrity" and "character"?

DR: The new administration is cleaning up the White House and cleaning up Washington.

DN: Would you characterize President Bush's input in defense policy as active? It has been suggested that Bush doesn't spend a lot of time on the details of policy. Would you agree?

DR: I disagree entirely. President Bush has been very active in naming an experienced and able cabinet. Not only in defense, but in the State Department, Justice...

DN: His active role is limited to nominating cabinet secretaries?

DR: When Vice President Cheney offered me the post, he and I discussed the Bush administration's stance regarding defense policy at length.

DN: You discussed the administration's policy with whom - Mr. Cheney or Mr. Bush?

DR: With Mr. Cheney. Mr. Bush was in the room. Most of the time.

DN: Let's turn to defense policy, then. During the campaign, Bush repeatedly criticized the Clinton administration for its involvement in the Baltics, Africa, and South America. Has there been a decision about where to scale back US forces abroad?

DR: Right now we're reviewing the current situation of forces abroad, so I can't really comment on that.

DN: What would be the criteria for intervening in foreign disputes?

DR: The previous administration never set targeted goals for its aims for military interventions. That would be one thing we'd do. And we would only get involved if our national interests are at stake.

DN: The Clinton administration articulated its policy by saying peace and global stability are in the US interest. Does Bush disagree?

DR: As I said, we're reviewing.

DN: You had a fairly rough first month on the job, having to go to Europe and defend the administration's aggressive pursuit of Star Wars. What were the objections you heard?

DR: Most of them were in foreign languages.

DN: Yes, the French objected that the plan would undermine NATO, because the US would have no reason to be involved in the defense of Europe if it had Star Wars.

DR: I object to that characterization of the plan. "Star Wars" was a science fiction movie. The plan we have now is for a realistic defensive shield [demonstrates by webbing his fingers together, palms down, as though covering the top of a basketball] preventing missile attacks from striking US soil.

DN: I believe it was the Germans who protested that the plan would violate the ABM treaty, and could result in a new arms race.

DR: ABM, Schmay-BM. That treaty never referred to a defense shield.

DN: The ABM treaty? That stands for Anti-Ballistic Missile doesn't it?

DR: Of course.

DN: Wouldn't a missile defense system involving launching smaller missiles designed to attack enemy missiles count as an anti-ballistic missile system?

DR: You have to understand the system as a [again demonstrating] shield. Yes, there would be ground-based and air-based defensive weapons, but as a whole, the system isn't a missile system, it's a shield, like a big umbrella open over our nation.

DN: It's a big nylon dome? I thought the plan called for launching missiles to intercept and destroy enemy rockets - is that not correct?

DR: No, that's not quite right, because those interceptors form a [again demonstrating] shield.

DN: Why wouldn't this result in a new arms race?

DR: As we've told the European defense ministers, we would share this technology with our allies.

DN: But we're not in an arms race with our allies.

DR: And we will never be, as long as I'm in charge of the military.

DN: Oops, you misspoke there, Secretary Rumsfeld. President Bush is commander in chief; he's in charge of the military.

DR: Right.

Under the new administration, US citizens can look forward to four years of a stronger military, thanks in no small part to the seasoned leadership of men like Donald Rumsfeld.