Text: Defence Secretary and Chief of the Defence Staff: Press Conference - 11 October 2001
Published Thursday, 11 October2001 18:30
The Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon MP, and Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, held a press conference in London on 11 October 2001 at 1230.
Hoon: Good afternoon. Throughout the last four days, the United Kingdom Armed Forces have been closely involved in supporting the United States in military operations against Usama Bin Laden's Al Qaida terrorist network and the military installations of the Taliban regime that supports them.
Since Sunday night, when the Royal Navy participated in Tomahawk missile attacks on terrorist facilities near Kandahar, our forces have been assisting those of the United States. We have continued to make Diego Garcia available for operations. We have provided air-to-air refuelling tankers to support American strike aircraft. This support - along with the contribution made by RAF reconnaissance aircraft that are now operating in the region - has been essential to the success of the mission so far.
The Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, will give you more details about this in a moment.
It is becoming clear that the United States' and United Kingdom's carefully targeted strikes are hitting home. We have inflicted damage on Usama Bin Laden's organisation - particularly its terrorist training camps - and the military infrastructure of the Taliban regime that shelters and protects him. We have also had considerable success in destroying their Early Warning and Air Defence capabilities. As a result, we now have air superiority and are, therefore, able to conduct operations more safely from the air.
It is more difficult to assess the effect on the morale of the terrorists and Taliban soldiers. It is clear that the coalition effort is already having an impact on Taliban cohesion. Reports suggest that some of Mullah Omar's followers are starting to have second thoughts. Some are clearly defecting.
But there is still more to do. The Taliban regime is still refusing to comply with coalition demands that they hand over Usama Bin Laden, shut down his terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, and ensure that Afghanistan no longer acts as a haven for such groups.
We are determined to achieve this. All available pressure, including political and military, will be brought to bear to ensure that that our immediate objectives are met.
These efforts continue to be sustained by widespread international support. We have been supported by the revulsion expressed by Islamic countries for the dreadful crimes that precipitated this action. Yesterday's statement by the Organisation of Islam Conference in Qatar expressed this revulsion very clearly. This demonstrates the key point: that this is not a battle between the West and Islam, but one between terror and justice.
This support has also been bolstered by offers of practical assistance. The United Kingdom is not alone in providing military support to the United States. More is coming from around the world: from Canada, from Australia, from New Zealand, from France, from Germany, from Italy, and from Spain.
As I mentioned on Monday, NATO has decided to redeploy Alliance Early Warning aircraft to the United States to release American assets for operations against terrorism. The five NATO aircraft are already arriving in the US and should be operational tomorrow.
In addition, NATO's Standing Naval Force in the Mediterranean is already deploying to the Eastern Mediterranean, to increase the coalition presence there and, if ordered, to provide direct force protection to high value assets. These, and other actions that NATO announced last week, illustrate the resolve that Alliance countries attach to meeting this challenge.
I am aware that the Taliban are currently claiming that civilians have been killed in a Jalalabad mosque and in the village of Touran. There is no independent verification of these claims but we are, of course, thoroughly investigating them.
Let me repeat and emphasise that we are not engaged in a fight against the Afghan people. We regret the deaths of civilians, including the deaths of the Afghan United Nations workers on Monday. Every effort is being made to minimise the risk to civilians.
I shall now hand you over to Sir Michael Boyce.
Boyce: Well, as the Secretary of State has said, UK forces have been involved in supporting those of the United States since last weekend. And in addition to the Royal Navy's firing of Tomahawk missiles on Sunday night and the continuous use of the base at Diego Garcia, over the last two nights the Royal Air Force has flown around twenty operational sorties. The aircraft involved are playing a key supporting role in providing air-to-air refuelling and reconnaissance, tasks which are vital to the success of sustained air operations.
But before I talk more about our own contribution, I should like to set it in the context of what the coalition, led by the huge effort made by the United States' forces, has achieved so far. It is impressive. But we are very much still at the beginning.
So far, the coalition has struck more than forty targets associated with the Al Qaida network and its Taliban protectors. Battle damage assessments are being made and continuously updated. Our analysis of course of particular strikes may change as we receive new information. But overall, the results we are getting are encouraging, and we have made some good progress against our military objectives, which are:
- to destroy the terrorist camps;
- to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support of Usama Bin Laden;
- and to allow us to mount future operations in Afghanistan.
Many of the terrorist camps have suffered considerable damage, as well as a number of Taliban facilities. And in particular, their early warning and air defence systems have been crippled and so the coalition enjoys air superiority over Afghanistan. But that is not to say, of course, that flying over the country is without risk. For example, it is not possible to remove such things as manned portable anti-aircraft systems - Stinger for example.
However, what we have been able to achieve in degrading their air defence system significantly enhances our ability to conduct operations in the future. Similarly, the destruction of so much of the Taliban's military infrastructure and capability will make future coalition operations much less difficult than would otherwise have been the case.
Equally important is the huge psychological effect of these operations on the Taliban leadership. They may make defiant statements, but the Talibs on the ground can see which way the wind is blowing and they should be getting the message about our determination to root out Al Qaida. They have seen not just the coalition's military power but they have also seen its resolve.
But there is still a great deal to do. Camps can be rebuilt, air defence radars can be replaced and runways can be repaired. We are there for a long haul - the completion of the objectives which are essential to counteract terrorism is not yet in sight - and nothing about the history of campaigns in this country, in Afghanistan, suggests that a quick fix is likely.
As I've said, we are in for a long haul and our deployment of around ten RAF aircraft is a clear demonstration of our commitment. I want to emphasise just what a vital commitment that is. The air-to-air refuelling task carried out by our VC10s and Tristars is an essential part of modern air warfare and one in which our crews are highly skilled and extremely flexible. And frankly, without it, the capability of the coalition strike aircraft would be very much reduced. Similarly, our E-3D AWACS - our airborne warning and control system aircraft - fly long sorties ensuring that the strike packages can carry out their missions as effectively as possible.
I would also like to something about the Canberra PR9 aircraft that we have deployed. Now it is true the Canberra has been around in one shape or another for quite a long time - in fact it joined the Air Force ten years before I joined the Royal Navy. But this modernised aircraft is a very sophisticated and capable reconnaissance platform. It also has a role that goes beyond purely military capability. For example, we will be able to use the PR9 to locate and monitor the refugees fleeing from the Taliban, and this is going to help us much improve the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Afghan people.
Well, the Secretary of State has already said that operations will continue, and of course they will. The tempo of operations is going to be fluid. They will not always be as obvious as they have been over the last four days. There will be no clear-cut process starting and finishing each phase. Sometimes you will know, sometimes you won't, about what's going on, and sometimes we are not going to be able to tell you at the time, or indeed tell our adversaries at the time, much as we would like to, because to do so could cost lives. Similarly, we will not always be able to tell you at the time what we have achieved. Sometimes what we are trying to do could be to forestall attempts by Al Qaida and its ilk to commit other atrocities. But overt or covert, obvious or secretive, our operations are all going to be of a piece with the air strikes currently underway. And as I have mentioned, I do not intend to go into detail about what actions we might take over the coming months, but their aim will be to continue to put pressure on the Taliban to surrender Usama Bin Laden to justice and for them to stop supporting Al Qaida.
We aim to stop their terrorism. Thank you.
QUESTION (Kevin Dunn, ITN): You talk of damaging the terrorist training camps but given that it's widely assumed those camps will have been evacuated in advance of any military action, can you give us some more detail on what success, if any, you've had in locating Usama Bin Laden and actually damaging his terrorist capability?
Boyce: I think it's important to recognise that not only are there movable training camps, there are also some fixed assets and they also have been attacked.
Hoon: Perhaps if I add something to that - and also the fact that we've seriously damaged these camps means that not only will they find it difficult to rebuild but also the terrorists will be pretty discouraged from going back anywhere near those camps, particularly as some of them have been re-attacked so they won't know if they have any safe hiding place.
QUESTION (Sky News): We have had four days of air strikes now and there has always been speculation that there aren't many targets. Last night, it is reported, was the heaviest night so far. How much longer is there realistic work to be done in this manner?
Hoon: There are still targets and the activity will still continue. Obviously, I'm not going to go into precise detail as to the nature of the targets but equally, if I put it this way, one of the results of conducting operations over Afghanistan is that as those operations are conducted, new targets are discovered, new information is secured and that does increase the activity inevitably that is then conducted subsequently.
QUESTION (Jonathan Marcus, BBC World Service): Two quick points: you say that you have signs of an impact upon Taliban morale; could you perhaps amplify that statement a little bit? And secondly, the stress is very much on on-going long-term operations. Now, it's impossible to tell whether these reports of civilian casualties are correct or not but if already in the first few days there seems to be an inevitable accompaniment to military action, small numbers of civilian casualties, what do you think the cumulative effect of similar such reports is going to be over the course of time?
Hoon: Well, as I indicated in my remarks dealing with the civilian casualties from the first, there are no independent verifiable reports of civilian casualties. We do, obviously, seek to investigate those where we can. But I assure you that an enormous effort is made, both in the United States and here, to ensure that the risk to civilians is kept to a minimum. The very careful targeting of sites includes a clear assessment of potential risk to civilians. There is always going to be a risk - that cannot be avoided - but I assure you that we seek to minimise that if at all possible.
As far as the Taliban morale is concerned, you will be as aware as I am of the indications of both individual defections, but also of group defections. I recognise that this is a fluid situation in Afghanistan; that the kinds of defections we are seeing do not yet amount to a clear indication of the collapse of the regime. Nevertheless, there are good indications that they are having increasing difficulty in maintaining coherence.
QUESTION (Matthew Hickley, Daily Mail): In terms of possible support for Northern Alliance forces on the ground, there have been various statements here and in the United States and some question mark, perhaps, over the possible benefits of advances by the Northern Alliance, or even them possibly dominating a government in future. Without talking about particular operations, can you give us an idea of your thinking in that area?
Hoon: Well, our thinking is clear and it was set out very precisely by the Prime Minister the other day. Our objective is first and foremost to bring Osama bin Laden and his associates to account and to deal with a regime that has consistently supported them. And in those circumstances what may follow from the military action must mean that whatever government eventually replaces the Taliban regime it is one that does not support or condone terrorism.
QUESTION (The Guardian): You talk about 'long haul' - a phrase that's been used quite a few times in the last few days. Given what you've seen of damage assessment so far, can you give us some idea of - I know the phases aren't sort of beginning and ending and there are rolling programmes and so on - but some idea of the time scale of the air operations and what might happen next?
Hoon: It is very difficult to do so. I think that it could be very short haul if the al-Qaida is detached from the Taliban, they give up Mr Bin Laden and we have a commitment within that country not to support terrorism. But we must expect at least to go through the winter and into next summer at the very least, because with winter coming on in November, things will slow down a bit, although action will obviously still continue and will continue until such time as we achieve our objectives.
QUESTION (Julian Rush, Channel 4 News): The American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was saying yesterday that he envisages a major role for the United Nations in Afghanistan in a post-Taliban world. Does the British Government share the view that, post-Taliban, Afghanistan should become effectively some sort of UN protectorate?
Hoon: Well, I don't think anyone has seen that far forward. Clearly, that is an option and it is something that will have to be pursued in the fullness of time, but in the first week of military actions I don't think it's sensible to speculate too far forward, save to say: what are our clear military aims, which are to create the condition in Afghanistan where there is no government supporting terrorism. Obviously thereafter we will have to look carefully at what efforts are made to reconstruct Afghanistan with a government that both reflects the range of people in that country and one that is not engaged in international terrorism in the way that we judge the Taliban regime is today.
QUESTION: (Several inaudible words) tempo of (inaudible). Given the lack of target, do you think that tempo could slow down in the next 24 hours?
Hoon: I perfectly see the tempo fluctuating and I think it is possible that there will be a slow down in the near future while we take stock and think about what's happening next. But we are very much operating on what we get out of our analysis on a daily basis and will do what one is required to do, dependent on that analysis. So, it will fluctuate a lot.
QUESTION (Mike Evans, The Times): Looking at this purely militarily, is it realistic to imagine that you could find one man in a cave in a country as big as Afghanistan?
Hoon: I think that what you can do is to make the support for that man so difficult that eventually someone's going to give him up. I'm sure that there are people who know where Usama Bin Laden is within Afghanistan, and I think that the pressure that we're putting on the country will actually flush him out and he'll be flushed out by an Afghan person who doesn't support him probably in the first instance and when he finds out, he'll tell us and we'll do something about it.
QUESTION (Robert Fox, Evening Standard): Regarding the troops and forces currently in the area: British troops engaged in Saif Sareea II, could you clarify the position there? We've had conflicting reports of what the Prime Minister appears to have indicated to them. Are they coming out once Saif Sareea finishes its cycle or could some be reassigned to other duties in the region?
Hoon: At the moment, the intention is that the Saif Sareea exercise will complete as designed, as planned. We have not taken assets away from Saif Sareea in terms of troops for this operation, but we would be mad not be looking to see whether or not it would be sensible to leave some support effort there when the time comes together, and we're actually doing that evaluation at the moment; we haven't come to a decision yet. A lot will depend of course how the campaign's going. But the exercise is not due to finish for three or four weeks yet so there's time enough yet to make our minds up about that.
QUESTION (George Pascal Watson, The Sun): Can I ask the Chief of Defence Staff: again, Saif Sareea-related, we have 3 Commando Brigade out there, I think, right now on exercise. They would be an appropriate set of forces to send into an Afghanistan situation; can you tell us whether or not they form part of your plans?
Boyce: Well you're quite right: there are taking part in Saif Sareea and you're equally correct in saying they are our expert (inaudible) and winter warfare troops, so if we were going to be thinking about doing any operations in Afghanistan on the ground, then clearly they would be one of the units that we'd actually give very close consideration to.
QUESTION (Daily Telegraph): Just looking at the future again: you're faced with a diffuse enemy; if they stare you out and you've destroyed what infrastructure they've got, how are you going to keep the pressure on them? Doesn't it inevitably lead to the commitment of ever greater numbers of ground forces? If you're going after individuals rather than infrastructure, you're going to have to mix it with them in the end.
Hoon: We've certainly made quite clear that there are a range of military mechanisms for dealing with Usama Bin Laden and his associates as well as the Taliban regime that supports them. We've made it clear equally that this is very much the first stage of those military operations and that there are further options that we will be considering in time. All I would say is that no specific decisions have been taken either here or) in the United States as to what those options will be, but certainly they will include a range of different ways of, in the words of the Chief of Defence Staff, 'flushing it out'.
QUESTION (Paul Adams, BBC): If I could just pick up on that last question and ask the Chief of Defence Staff: obviously we don't expect any indications as to when any grounds activities might begin, but I wonder if you could just give us a sense of what factors come into play when you assess when the time is right for that kind of activity to begin? What situation needs to prevail on the ground before that can happen?
Boyce: I think it's very important to take into account all the other activities that are going on to deal with this particular problem. I don't mean military actions, I mean also what the humanitarian situation is, what are the financial leverages we're putting on the company, political, diplomatic and so forth. If it is felt that inserting ground troops will aid the overall strategy of getting Afghanistan, or getting the Taliban, to stop support supporting terrorism, and there's a very clearly defined objective for those ground forces to undertake, then we would do that, but there needs to be a very clear reason for going in. It's not a country, as history has told us, as I've mentioned before, for us to linger in and go in other than for a very specific task and then probably withdraw again.
QUESTION (Robin Atley, CNN): There seems to be some divergence now between Washington and London and the language used about how wide the military effort against terrorism and the sponsors of terrorism should go. The Prime Minister said yesterday that there was no evidence linking Iraq with the events of 11 September. If such evidence emerges, will Britain join the United States in military action against Iraq?
Hoon: Well it's not just the Prime Minister who said that. Colin Powell has said precisely that on the record and obviously, it's important that we allow the investigation to continue, both as to those who were responsible for the appalling events of 11 September; equally, to identify other international terrorist organisations and their sponsors, and that work is underway. I have made clear, as has the British Government, that our priority, and certainly our military priority, remains dealing with Afghanistan and I actually believe that that sends a very strong signal that to any country or any government that was tempted to continue its support for international terrorism and what they might expect. One last question?
QUESTION (Alex Nicholl, Financial Times): Do you expect that aid drops could be stepped up in Afghanistan or could they be delivered in other ways now that the military actions so far have taken place?
Hoon: Well in fact that gives me opportunity of making a commercial for tomorrow's press conference, when I anticipate my colleague Claire Short will be here to deal specifically with the aid question. But can I underscore the fact that alongside military operations, the United States have deployed a number of heavy aircraft, packed with aid that has been dropped into those areas of Afghanistan where we know there to be large numbers of refugees, so we have recognised, as has the United States, the importance of not making those refugees suffer more than they have suffered already at the hands of the Taliban regime.
Thank you all very much.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Available on the UK Ministry of Defence Web site: http://www.mod.uk)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
