04 October 2001
Transcript: Defense Department Briefing, October 4
(Russia/Plane Crash; Nuclear Weapons/Security; Pakistan Support;
Northern Alliance; International Help; UK/Oman Military Exercise;
Afghanistan/Aid; Rumsfeld Trip; Afghanistan/Winter; General
Dynamics/Newport News Merger; Operation Bright Star; White/Homeland
Defense; Osama bin Laden) (6260)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Craig Quigley conducted
the Department of Defense regular news briefing October 4. Following
is the transcript:
(begin transcript)
United States Department of Defense
DoD News Briefing -- Rear Adm. Quigley, DASD PA
October 4, 2001
Quigley: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have one announcement
today. We are pleased to welcome to our briefing today Mr. Paul
Setsetsi and Ms. Joanne Collinge from South Africa, who are in the
United States under the auspices of a Department of State
International Visitor Program. Mr. Setsetsi is spokesperson for the
Ministry of Justice, and Ms. Collinge has the same position at the
Ministry of Health. They are here to learn about the organization and
role of our government media offices.
Welcome to you both.
And with that, I'll take your questions.
Charlie?
Q: Craig, is there any indication that Ukrainian military accidentally
fired an anti-aircraft -- or fired an anti-aircraft missile that
accidentally struck the Russian airliner which crashed?
Quigley: I asked one question of our folks here in DoD this morning,
and that was: Does DoD have any equities in this tragic accident over
Ukraine? The answer was no. And I stopped asking questions at that
point.
So I would refer you to the authorities in Ukraine and Russia to talk
about this tragic accident.
Q: Well, certainly the United States knows, with its spy satellites
and other things, whether or not an anti-aircraft missile was fired by
the Ukrainian military.
Quigley: There's no "certainly" about it. And if --
Q: I'm sorry?
Quigley: There's no "certainly" about it. The appropriate folks to
talk about the cause of today's accident are those in Ukraine and
Russia.
Q: So nobody in this building knows whether or not a missile was fired
by the Ukraine military?
Quigley: If we have any knowledge in that regard, it would be at a
level that I certainly could not discuss here.
Suzanne?
Q: Could you, Admiral, say whether, though, military authorities in
this country were attempting to contact military authorities in the
Ukraine or Russia about such an incident, given nervousness about
international air travel and --
Quigley: Not to my knowledge, no.
Q: So there was no attempt to get on the hotline or anything with
anybody about --
Quigley: Not that I am aware of, no. Perhaps through the State
Department level, through our ambassador and the country team there in
country. But not that I know of from here, no.
Q: Excuse me. Was the Ukrainian military at that time, the Crimea
Coast, the Coast of the Black Sea, were they conducting air defense
exercises at that time, to U.S. knowledge?
Quigley: I believe that's a great question to ask the Ukrainian
Ministry of Defense.
Q: Craig, you said today's "accident." Does that indicate that you --
Quigley: Well, by that I imply that there was an airliner lost today
with a lot of people on board that certainly was not a planned event.
So I use the term "accident" in the sense that this is a tragic event
that occurred today that was certainly not the intent of the folks
that walked aboard that airliner.
Suzanne?
Q: Is there any potential for U.S. citizens to be on board that
aircraft, though? Given that it came --
Quigley: Certainly a potential, yeah. I have not yet seen a listing of
the nationalities. I believe the airliner had taken off from Tel Aviv,
if -- and I'm getting that from press reporting, so -- and had
stopped, I believe in Bulgaria for refueling, or perhaps to take on
and discharge passengers. So I'm sure you're going to have an
international composition amongst the passenger manifest, but I have
not seen that yet.
Suzanne?
Q: Aren't nations required to alert international airline authorities
if a military exercise is underway, so that the airspace above is not
--
Quigley: Our procedures in the United States would be to put out a
NOTAM or something like that -- shorthand for a Notice to Air
Mariners, or Notice to Mariners, if it's a maritime issue -- saying
that such and such an exercise is taking place.
I'm not familiar with the procedures that the Ministry of Defense, nor
their federal aviation authorities within the government of Ukraine. I
don't -- I know they're similar amongst nations, but I don't know if
they're identical.
Q: Craig, why can't you say whether you know whether or not the
Ukrainian military was conducting an exercise?
Quigley: Because I don't think it's appropriate for me to talk about
what
-- the conduct of Ukrainian military exercise. It's a very easy thing
to check with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense to ascertain that.
Tom?
Q: Craig, you probably know that President Putin initially said this
morning that it may have been a terrorist incident. Certainly at this
time, the American people, you know, are going to want to know if
there has been another terrorist incident or not, and I would think
the United States would have an interest in wanting to know that as
well, and trying to get, you know, some clarity.
Quigley: You're absolutely right. And that's not only true of the
people of the United States, but of the world, certainly. If there's
anything we can do to assist in the investigation that tries to
ascertain the cause of this, we will certainly do so, I'm sure. But at
this point there's also sovereignty issues involved and we must
respect those.
Q: Craig?
Quigley: Alex?
Q: Very frequently when exercises are held, the U.S. has observers,
other countries have observers. Was there a U.S. observer involved in
an Ukrainian military exercise today?
Quigley: That was kind of a subset of the first question that I asked
this morning, and again, the answer was no. We did not have any
observers or participants or something in whatever may have been going
on there.
Pam?
Q: Is there -- have there been in the past any concerns -- I know that
there are concerns about loose nuclear material in the former Soviet
states, but is there -- has there been any concern about positive
control of weapons, say surface-to-air missiles or anything like that?
Quigley: There's always a concern about safe operation of military
equipment. I think that's true around the world. Our focus, however,
had principally been on the nuclear material, the nuclear weapons, the
command and control procedures, the security procedures, all those
sorts of issues surrounding the basic issue of nuclear weapons. A lot
of the efforts on the cooperative threat reduction program,
Nunn-Lugar, and things of that sort, in a variety of former Soviet
republics, now independent nations, that has been the focus over the
years.
Charlie.
Q: Craig, can I ask what you meant when you said that you asked today
if the United States had any equities in that? Do you mean --
Quigley: No. If DoD. Yeah, if DoD.
Q: Well, what do you mean by "equities"?
Quigley: Well, kind of going along the question that was just asked
about did we have anybody, any U.S. military involvement in this at
all, did we have any airplanes in the region, did we have any
observers of any activity that may have been going on in the region,
anything. I just asked the question very broadly, and it came back no.
Q: So you didn't ask if the United States knew how this might have
happened, and nobody told you whether the United States knew how this
might have happened.
Quigley: I think that to give you a comprehensive answer to that, I'm
rapidly treading on classified issues. And there's an appropriateness
issue here as well. And the appropriate people to talk about this are
those over whose airspace it occurred, and the nation that owns the
airliner. And that's the Ukraine and Russia.
Q: But you're not denying that the United States might know or suspect
how this happened, you're just not going to discuss it.
Quigley: Charlie, let me just start from scratch, okay? The
appropriate people to discuss today's loss of an airliner are the
governments of the Ukraine and Russia.
Yes.
Q: Yeah, you said that the aircraft stopped off in Bulgaria for
refueling. As of at least a couple of hours ago Bulgarian authorities
were saying it never stopped off and it never landed in Bulgaria. Do
you have privy to some sort of information or --
Quigley: No, other than the press reporting that I had read. And if
that's in error, then I should not have used that. It was my
understanding based on press reporting that it had stopped in
Bulgaria. But I don't have firsthand knowledge of that.
Bob?
Q: When you suggest that the government, the Ukraine government would
have a role in discussing this, are you suggesting that it had a role
in the downing of the airplane?
Quigley: No. I'm saying that in the context here that it happened in
their airspace.
Yes.
Q: Have you had any conversations or communications with Israel, given
that the flight originated there, about this?
Quigley: Not from the Department of Defense that I know of, no.
Yes.
Q: Another subject? About Afghanistan. According to the report I
understand now the United States is not using Pakistan's airspace
because some experts are saying that it cannot be -- Pakistan cannot
be trusted. And due to unrest in Pakistan, and also closeness with the
Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
Quigley: Well, I have -- President Musharraf made his address to the
people of Pakistan -- two weeks ago, maybe? -- something in that
ballpark.
We are most appreciative of the permissions that he has granted to the
United States in that regard. We have not stated our intention to take
advantage of any of the various offers of support from any of the
nations around the world. We appreciate their offers; we do, in each
and every case. But we have never made any comments as to whether or
not we're going to use this offer or that offer in any regard.
Q: And just to follow, the Indian military experts and defense
minister and national security adviser were here in the building this
week and last week. Any agreement reached with India, or how -- what
-- how the U.S. will get India's help or what India offered yesterday,
day before --
Quigley: I would not take that any further than whatever the Indian
government officials have said publicly.
Let me give you an example of a nation's offer. Prime Minister Howard
of Australia yesterday, I believe, made available an Australian
special forces unit, air-to-air refueling capability, and offered to
extend an Australian frigate that is participating in the maritime
intercept operations in the Persian Gulf as part of the international
intercept ops. We very much appreciate that, and that is an offer that
I can -- readily and gladly can comment on, because that is something
that came from the head of the Australian government in a very public
way.
But a lot of the other countries are simply not in a position
politically, for their own internal reasons, to acknowledge the
support that they have offered the United States and other countries
in the world. So on the one hand, you've got that template, that
countries have asked to be very circumspect in our comments on that
publicly, and on the other hand, you've got the comments made by Prime
Minister Howard yesterday that puts it in an entirely different light.
Yes, sir?
Q: Are there plans to supply the Northern Alliance with arms and
supplies? And if so, can you detail those points?
Quigley: "No" is the short answer to the second question. (Light
laughter.) I think that kind of takes care of the first question.
Q: Just to follow -- (inaudible) -- can you describe for us that in
one hand the Taliban are saying that they are ready to negotiate with
the U.S. and on the other hand they are getting ready to fight a holy
war or jihad against the United States, and also some Taliban
commandos are willing or ready or making a way to leave Taliban or
going against the Taliban? What
-- where do we stand? And can we --
Quigley: I can't sort that one out for you. I'm sorry.
There is certainly no shortage of reporting coming out of that part of
the world right now, and I cannot help you sort that out.
Q: Craig.
Quigley: Yeah.
Q: Craig, on the subject of international help, are we satisfied with
the level of support from Saudi Arabia? And in Secretary Rumsfeld's
trip over there, has he made any specific requests to the Saudis? And
have they been responsive to those requests?
Quigley: I think Secretary Rumsfeld's words from the transcript that
came back from the stop on the trip in Riyadh were that he's very
pleased and appreciative of the agreement on the part of the Saudis to
provide assistance. He was not detailed in what that assistance would
entail. And I won't be able to take it any further than his remarks.
Q: Craig, could I --
Quigley: Yeah.
Q: What role might the United States military be playing in the joint
military exercises that are planned between the UK and Oman in the
coming weeks? Does the United States have a role in those?
Quigley: I do not think so. I believe that's a bilateral exercise
between the armed forces of those two nations.
Q: And there's an additional role that might have been added.
Quigley: Let me -- let me double-check. I don't think so, but let me
take that, and if there's -- we'll let you know, but I don't believe
so.
Pam.
Q: Could you tell us about the humanitarian food drops that the
Pentagon has been told to get ready to do? What kind of timing? What
sort of stuff you're talking about doing or like what's going to be
included?
Quigley: Wow, let me try to take those in order. The president
announced this morning a significant expansion in aid to the people of
Afghanistan. He has tasked the Defense Department to be prepared to
provide assistance in helping to deliver those emergency rations to
the people of Afghanistan. We are making those plans now. We are
prepared to carry out that mission. And we can do so in a variety of
ways. If you choose the air drop method, which is one option available
to you, you've got to do this very carefully, because of the
effectiveness of the drop that you would try to put in place, of the
safety of the aircraft and the aircrews as they carry out what would
be a dangerous mission under any circumstances. So we're prepared to
carry out that as well as other methods, but I won't be able to get
into any details of that for you.
Q: Can you detail the other methods and what they would be?
Quigley: Well, you could provide some sort of assistance via ship to
other nations in the region and haul it over land, if you'd like to do
that. So there's options to do that. And we're prepared to do that in
any way.
Q: Would the food be, though, humanitarian daily rations?
Quigley: Yes. Yes.
Q: And how many does DoD have on hand?
Quigley: I think the nation has something in excess of 2 million. You
know, this would be a stop-gap measure by anyone's yardstick, to help
alleviate the hunger in the refugees in that part of the world. But
there would be a variety -- if this would assist as a stop-gap measure
and stave-off hunger from the refugees in that part of the world, then
we're prepared to assist.
The humanitarian daily rations provide enough calories, and there are
also vitamins and minerals so that you can also build up your body's
health -- each one of them is enough for one person for one day. And
so they are very useful in the situation that we're faced with there.
Q: Craig, can we assume that you would avoid Taliban-controlled areas?
And these drops, if they be drops, would be to areas where refugees
have gathered? In other words, this is -- you're not going to supply
the Taliban; you're going to try to avoid that --
Quigley: Oh, no. Absolutely. Yeah. You would take a very careful look
at where refugee populations have gathered. You know, sadly, I think
we have quite a bit of experience in that over the past 10 years or 15
years in the world, of how to deliver emergency rations to people that
are fleeing unrest in their native lands. We've learned some dos and
don'ts of how to do that over the years, and I think we're quite a bit
better at it now than we were, again, 10 or 15 years ago. But the goal
would not be in any way to support the Taliban, it would be to support
the people of Afghanistan.
Barbara?
Q: Just to clarify, the 2 million that you say you have in inventory,
are those Islamic humanitarian daily rations? I know you have special
meals.
Quigley: They were described to me as "culturally neutral."
(Laughter.) So, I'm -- you know, there are religious and ethnic
sensitivities, as I'm sure all of you know, in a variety of parts of
the world, and they're different. So we crafted the rations to be
culturally neutral so that you would not be
-- you don't want to try to be helpful and then end up providing food
to people who it is against their religion or their cultural beliefs
to eat it. So we're -- that's one of those things, I think, that we've
learned over the last years.
Q: Just one other clarifying question. You talk about trying to target
refugee populations that can actually use the assistance. Are you
including refugee populations that have already moved into the border
areas inside Pakistan?
Quigley: I don't have that level of detail. I mean that -- that would
be something we would work -- we, Department of Defense, would work
very closely with State and with non-government organizations to try
to figure out the smartest way to do this.
Bob?
Q: Is it fair to say -- just to elaborate a little bit on the
ethnically neutral, that what you're talking about is the
"vegetarian's delight"? You're talking about a variety of vegetables
and grains, period, no meat?
Quigley: I do not believe that there is any meat in there. I think
it's largely a rice-based dish that's high in energy, high in protein.
And like I say, it's enriched with vitamins and minerals as well. So
that a person who is in an already weakened condition, probably, and
would be very weakened and more prone to the taking on of disease or
something, we'd like to build them up and give them some natural
resistance to resist getting sick. And so that's the purpose of those
things.
Q: And could I ask one follow-up question, which is, of the various
delivery alternatives, is it fair to say that the favored approach is
the airdrop approach, at this point in the planning?
Quigley: I don't think we're that far along to say that it's favored.
Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and we could do either.
And again, it's that trying to figure out the smart way to do that,
and we're working with the other agencies to figure that out.
Tom?
Q: Were there lessons learned from the drops in eastern Bosnia? Are
you talking basically -- one option is the very same thing you did
there? And if so, were there any lessons that you took from that about
what works and what doesn't work, et cetera?
Quigley: Well, if you -- I was thinking of going further back even
than that and providing assistance to the Kurds in northern Iraq from
Operation Provide Comfort in the early 1990s. That was -- again, a lot
of people did receive food assistance from that program. But if you
look back on it now, from the perspective of 2001, there's some things
that we could have done much more efficiently and been more effective,
simply more effective in providing more food to more people in a more
timely manner.
So there's options of delivery from palletized to dropping from an
altitude, and stuff like that, and scattering over an area. And you
just have to take the geography that you're faced with at the moment
and make your decision in concert with those other agencies, who
probably have some recent experience as to what worked well and what
didn't work well. And you can avoid stumbling in the early stages and
get right to the most efficient way of providing the assistance.
Suzanne?
Q: Craig, can I just follow?
Q: Just to clarify, are you talking about strictly -- from Barbara's
question -- people inside Afghanistan, or potentially also those
refugee populations that have gone across the border, say even into
Iran?
Quigley: I don't know of any that have gone into Iran. I think the
focus of the president's announcement this morning was providing the
food assistance and humanitarian assistance to refugees inside
Afghanistan -- was the focus.
Can I go back with one previous question? There was a question on the
Oman-U.K. exercise. It is bilateral, and there is no U.S. involvement
in that exercise.
Q: Just to follow --
Quigley: Yes.
Q: There were reports of an ebola-type of virus that's been going
around northern Pakistan. Is the United States -- have you sent aid,
or is anyone in DoD doing anything to either help them with that or
try to protect its own -- any particular troops, U.S. troops that
might be going into that area?
Quigley: I had not heard that. Let me take that question, and we'll
see what we can find out. [Army Medical Research Institute for
Infectious Diseases indicates that World Health Organization has
confirmed that the disease is an outbreak of Crimea-Congo Hemorrhagic
Fever. This has not been independently confirmed. This is a seasonal
occurrence of this fever in this area, not something new.]
Yes.
Q: Thank you, sir. Going back on the food assistance, in the past,
most of the U.S. food assistance aid to Afghanistan was used by the
Taliban, and they left their people to die. What is the guarantee now
that you will keep away Taliban, not following the same thing what
they did in the past with their own people?
Quigley: I guess we're very much aware of that. And we'll try our very
best to not let that happen again.
Yes, sir.
Q: Yes. When do you think (inaudible) could be airdrops of this food,
the supplies start? And the second question, have you started dropping
leaflets to explain the U.S. position?
Quigley: I can't give you a time line. We're just not to that point
yet in our planning to offer you a time line of when that might start
occurring. And I am not aware of any leaflets. I think the focus here
is the provision of food. If there would be the necessity for some
sort of explanation commingled with the rations as to how to use it
and how to open it, if it's difficult, that might be appropriate. I
can't say that that's not a part of it. But I don't know of any other
leaflets.
Q: I meant in terms of a different operation, of course, a military
one, explaining the U.S. position and the campaign and the future --
future campaign.
Quigley: I'm just not going to get into any operational details in
that regard.
Tammy?
Q: Craig, about the risks to aircraft that would perform this sort of
humanitarian mission. Can you tell us what the major risks there are
in that part of the world, in Afghanistan in specific? And also, if
the air defense risk necessitates dropping from a much higher
altitude, what would the accuracy be like?
Quigley: Well, you're very much sensitive to the weather conditions as
to how you deliver that: crosswinds, downwinds, things of that sort.
And you would just position yourself to accommodate for the weather
conditions. You would simply have to factor that into your planning.
On the first part of your question, on air defenses, that is what
makes this a particularly dangerous undertaking, should we choose the
airdrop method. And again, you'd have to be smart in your planning.
And generally speaking, we know the Taliban have anti-air
capabilities. It's not at all clear what the specific capability of
their systems is. But as best we could ascertain that through a
variety of means, we would plan accordingly and help to plan the
altitudes and the flight profiles and things of that sort to try to
accomplish both objectives: be able to provide food in meaningful ways
to the people of Afghanistan and allow the aircraft to get in and get
out in a safe manner.
Q: Would you escort?
Quigley: Yes.
Q: The 2 million figure, is that -- are we willing to commit all of
that, or do we have to hold some of the food in reserves in case there
are other humanitarian needs that we might be committed to around the
world.
Quigley: I don't know the answer to that.
Yes, sir.
Q: Aside from consulting with allies, is any part of Secretary
Rumsfeld's mission to reassure governments and maybe even stress the
need to stay on board? And secondly, in an exercise like this, in this
kind of terrain, does the coming of winter play any role in the
planning?
Quigley: Secretary Rumsfeld has described his visit to the four
countries that he's visiting as to discuss a variety of issues that
are relevant to Operation Enduring Freedom. And I think I'll leave it
there.
And the coming of winter is very much an issue in that part of the
world. It comes earlier than this part of the United States, let's say
as an example. Afghanistan is at a higher elevation, and winter comes
much earlier. Say, by the first of November, give or take, it's
arrived for real. And it's arrived to stay during that part of the
world.
Dale.
Q: And therefore -- how does that figure into any planning?
Quigley: The weather is a factor in the planning of every military
operation since forever.
Dale.
Q: Different subject? Secretary Aldridge is quoted this morning
suggesting that the department has pretty much made up its mind not to
interpose any objection to the competing merger proposals involving
Newport News Shipbuilding. Can you tell us that that is the case, and
give us a little more than he provided on the department's read?
Quigley: I would read Secretary Aldridge's words from the article that
appeared this morning exactly. He is quoted accurately, but there's an
inference in the article that his words do not provide. But I will
tell you that he is quoted accurately in the article.
Time line --
Q: (Off mike.)
Quigley: I'm sorry, go ahead.
Q: Do Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Wolfowitz share his views on
this subject?
Quigley: This was an interview that he did, and this is an item that
they have discussed, but I don't know the exact answer to your
question.
Q: On the aid -- this aid package, since Afghanistan is a landlocked
country, it would seem to me that delivering food aid via ship
wouldn't really get it in there. So --
Quigley: Well, not directly, no, of course.
Q: So is there another way of getting it in there besides air drops,
or am I making --
Quigley: Well, the example I gave, there are options, and the options
would be to deliver it to a country with a coast and a port, and from
there transport it over land. So there's always more than one way to
carry out this mission.
Q: Can we go back on something? You were talking about -- and you, you
know, kind of opened the door on the notion that you have to
acknowledge the air defense issue if you're going to do food drops,
because it's there.
So help us understand the Pentagon's thinking. Are you saying that one
option on the table in fact is to -- under the president's direction,
to begin humanitarian assistance prior to any consideration of actual
military action in the way we might understand that to unfold? Because
you're going to deal with the air defense issue as you drop, and
that's coming first?
Quigley: It's a time line I can't provide. I'm sorry.
Chris?
Q: Is there any possibility the secretary will add stops to his trip
-- say, in other places in Southern Asia?
Quigley: Not currently scheduled. I'll put it that way. Never say
never, but not currently scheduled.
Yes, sir?
Q: Could you walk us through his itinerary?
Quigley: I can tell you in a historical sense where he's been. I will
not project the last couple days.
Q: Do you know which units are involved in Operation Bright Star --
Exercise Bright Star?
Quigley: It's a large grouping of the units. I believe the aggregate
is something like 70,000. I don't have a listing of those. You might
want to give Central Command a call. I know it comes under their
aegis.
The exercise starts Monday; I know that. We did -- I believe they're
making a release on that today, I believe.
Q: They had a release today, but they didn't say which specific U.S.
units were involved; it was just sort of --
Quigley: I'm sorry. I don't have that.
Q: (Off mike) -- 70,000 American, either?
Quigley: Oop, no. (Cross talk.) Let me take that. We'll get the
numbers.
Q: Going back one more on APEC and the food aid package, if the U.N.
or any other nation is playing part in this program, and number two,
if anybody's in touch with the Taliban in Pakistan -- I mean
ambassador -- if they will allow peacefully food aid for the dying
Afghanis inside Afghanistan?
Quigley: I don't know is the answer to both questions. If other
countries choose to participate -- and I believe they have, and have
been over a period of time -- they would make their intentions known
themselves.
Certainly nobody in the Department of Defense has any conversations
with the Taliban. I don't know if there's any from other arms of the
government.
Tom?
Q: Are the aircraft that you've got available for Enduring Freedom
appropriate and adequate for the airdrop operations?
Quigley: If you -- I guess I'm thinking about it in two different
ways. Enduring Freedom is very broad by design, but I'm really -- I
guess I would look at the provision of humanitarian support as a
subset of that, maybe not a direct piece of that. So you may very well
find yourself with a very different mix of aircraft, configured very
differently, and things of that sort. And you -- the duration of that
would not be clear either.
But we would take a look at the needs, and they use the cargo -- heavy
cargo-lifting type of aircraft to provide the food supplies that you
need in this case.
Q: Do the aircraft that you've got there now include the ones that you
would need like that?
Quigley: I won't be specific about the composition.
Q: Craig, would 17s and 141s more likely to be used than big C-5s or
small 130s? Would it be 17s --
Quigley: I don't know if we've got to that level of detail yet either.
I don't know.
Alex?
Q: Craig, earlier there was a reference to nuclear safety, and it got
me to thinking, is the Department of Defense concerned about the
safety of Pakistan's nuclear facility? Has it expressed any concerns
to Pakistan? And were nuclear issues among the subjects that were
discussed when the Indian minister was here this week?
Quigley: I would say in general that we are concerned about nuclear
safety issues around the world, but I'm not going to get into the
specifics of discussions with other countries.
Q: Not even a readout on the talks with the Indian minister?
Quigley: I will see what I can do.
Q: Is it possible that some of the forces involved in Bright Star
would be diverted to Operation Enduring Freedom at the end of the
exercise, or is that highly unlikely because it's a training exercise?
Quigley: I can't give you a good answer to that. I'm sorry.
Q: I'm sorry, just to follow up?
Quigley: Yes, sir?
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld, yesterday, I believe, said that he's seen
satellite pictures of refugees streaming across the desert. I'm just
wondering, is this information that you would share in detail with
humanitarian organizations, NGOs? And are these kind of images that
would be made available for publication at all?
Quigley: We have in the past shared locating information on
concentrations of refugees, because the goal is to provide assistance
to those people in the most efficient way. There has historically been
a sharing of information. If a non-government organization has already
been on the ground in an area of strife and can provide us, and other
countries and organizations, that critical, "I'm there; I'm looking at
it with my own eyes" sort of information, that's very valuable. And
again, it goes back to an earlier question; it allows you to get
assistance, whether it's food or medicine or what have you, to the
people that need it most in a quick manner.
We have provided -- and the second part of your question, on publicly
releasable, we have provided imagery publicly in the past. We're very
careful when we do so. And it's a decision that we make each and every
time on a case-by-case basis.
Can I go back to the Bright Star question a minute? There are 23,000
U.S. troops; 70,000 total from 10 countries.
Bob?
Q: Secretary Rumsfeld also said yesterday that he had some idea about
the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. Can you elaborate for us?
(Laughter.)
Quigley: No, I can't.
Q: Craig?
Quigley: Yeah?
Q: On the question of the airdrop, if U.S. planes encounter hostility
from Afghan air defenses, how would that change things in terms of
would we then consider ourselves to be at war with the Taliban?
Quigley: We would take appropriate action, should that occur.
Pam?
Q: Is there a precedent for sending in armed escorts with a
humanitarian aid flight?
Quigley: I don't recall having done that in the past. I certainly
wouldn't rule it out. It's not something we would discuss publicly.
Yes?
Q: Have there been any discussions or actual redeployment that you can
discuss from the Balkans that would involve troops that might be
becoming involved in Enduring Freedom?
Quigley: Would you ask that again?
Q: Have there been any redeployments of troops that are currently in
the Balkans or are scheduled to be going to the Balkans, in light of
Enduring Freedom, or any discussions with NATO allies to allow for
redeployment?
Quigley: We have not provided information as to the destination or
identity of units that have received orders to deploy around the
world.
Yes?
Q: What kind of lessons are you -- will you be using what you've
learned from your humanitarian operations in Somalia that you would
use here?
Quigley: I think you would use them all. I mean, from the various
operations that you have -- that we have been a part of over time, it
would be something -- you might choose this lesson learned from that
operation, and these two from this instance over here. But each and
every time, you're going to go back and take a look at the database
and what is similar in the circumstances that we confront today,
what's different, and pick and choose the lessons there that suit your
needs. Again, always, always getting smarter each time you do this,
with the goal of trying to more efficiently provide assistance.
Q: For example, can you tell -- all of them?
Quigley: I mean, the Balkans, both Bosnia, Kosovo, northern Iraq,
Rwanda, Somalia; sadly, I could go on. I mean, but there's lots of
geography types, lots of altitudes, lots of different cultures that
have -- that we have provided assistance to over the years.
Dan?
Q: Secretary Wolfowitz said this morning that Secretary White's
position as executive agent on the homeland security effort would be a
temporary thing. Can you tell us any more about what he'll be doing,
how long you expect he'll be doing it, and what uniformed commands he
will be using?
Quigley: Sure. I can't give you any estimate at all on the duration.
But I will tell you that Secretary White has already set about his
task.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
