24 October 2001
Transcript: Pentagon Spokesman's Briefing, October 23, 2001
(Helicopters/hostile fire, civilian casualties, strike targets, al
Qaida/camps, Taliban/air defenses, Taliban/command centers,
Afghanistan/humanitarian aid) (7480)
Pentagon Spokesman Victoria Clarke briefed. Also participating Rear
Adm. John D. Stufflebeem, deputy director of Operations for Current
Readiness and Capabilities, Joint Staff.
Following is the Pentagon transcript:
(begin transcript)
DoD News Briefing
Victoria Clarke, ASD PA
Tuesday, Oct. 23, 2001 - 2:15 p.m. EDT
(Also participating is Rear Adm. John D. Stufflebeem, deputy director
of operations for current readiness and capabilities, Joint Staff.
Slides and videos shown in this briefing are on the Web at
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/g011023-D-6570C.html )
Clarke: Good afternoon. I just want to talk briefly about a couple of
items, and then I'll turn this over to Admiral Stufflebeem.
First, on helicopters: The wheels shown on TV by Taliban officials
were, in fact, from a U.S. MH-47 helicopter. During Friday night's
mission, the helicopter's main landing gear came in contact with a
barrier, which tore the wheels off. The aircraft continued its mission
and returned safely. There was no further damage to the aircraft and
no injuries to the crew.
Secondly, on Saturday, the 20th, a U.S. helicopter conducting recovery
operations of the helicopter that crashed the day before in Pakistan
took fire while refueling at a Pakistani airfield. After sling-loading
the helicopter from the crash site, the recovery team stopped to
refuel at an airfield en route to the forward base location. (Coughs.)
Excuse me. While there, they took hostile fire, aborted the refueling,
returned fire and departed. There were no casualties among the U.S.
crew and no reports of casualties on the ground.
Also this weekend, two intended targets that were missed: At 11:24
[p.m. EDT] on Saturday, a U.S. Navy F-14 missed its intended target
and inadvertently dropped two 500-pound bombs in a residential area
northwest of Kabul. (Coughs.) Excuse me. The intended targets were
military vehicles parked in an area approximately one half-mile away.
At 9:05 a.m. [EDT] on Sunday, a U.S. Navy FA-18 Hornet missed its
intended target and inadvertently dropped a 1,000-pound bomb in an
open field -- an open area near a senior citizens' home outside Herat,
Afghanistan. The intended target was a vehicle-storage building at the
Herat army barracks, approximately 300 feet from the facility.
Although the details are still being investigated, preliminary
indications are that the weapons guidance system malfunctioned. As we
always say, we regret any loss of civilian life. U.S. forces are
intentionally striking only military and terrorist targets. We take
great care in our targeting process to avoid civilian casualties.
And with that, I will turn it over to Admiral Stufflebeem.
Q: Whoa! Whoa!
Q: Wait! Wait! Wait!
Q: Torie, wait. Excuse me. That last one --
Clarke: (Chuckling) Come back!
Q: -- that was -- the F-18 you say was on Sunday?
Clarke: Yes. 9:05 a.m.
Q: Well how about the claim from the Taliban that a hospital was
bombed yesterday and struck at Herat?
Clarke: Don't know anything about their claims. This is the
information we have about what happened near Herat.
Q: So there's no indication that a hospital was hit -- that a bomb
went awry yesterday and hit a hospital?
Clarke: No indication of a hospital. Our information is about what
they are calling -- our people are calling a senior citizens' home
outside Herat.
Q: And that's on Saturday.
Clarke: No, that was --
Q: You have no indications of anything else that was --
Staff: That was Sunday.
Clarke: That was Sunday.
Q: You have no indication of anything yesterday?
Clarke: No.
Q: Torie, were there injuries at the senior citizens' home? You said
it hit a field. Did anything --
Clarke: We have no information on casualties.
Q: Torie, can I ask about the MH-47?
Q: Clarke: Sure.
Q: Yesterday, during yesterday's briefing, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Myers were asked, "Have you got any
idea what it is we are seeing?" Reference to television pictures.
Rumsfeld: "No." Myers: "No, not at all."
Given that yesterday's briefing was some 60 hours after the raid was
completed, why did it take so long for them to get this information,
and what does that say about the flow of information to the Defense
secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs?
Clarke: Well, I think what it says -- and we were talking about this
right before we came out -- it says that the people in the helicopter
were focused on what's important, which was getting out of there. And
Admiral Stufflebeem can speak to it better than I can. These are huge
helicopters. [He] once hit a tree and didn't know [he] had hit the top
of a tree. It is not unlikely that they didn't know what happened at
the time.
Secondly, what we're really focused on right now is the military
operations, to go after the Taliban, to go after the terrorists, and
it just was not information that came forward until recently.
Q: Were there troops on board the helicopter? Was it fully loaded?
Clarke: We'll have to ask Admiral Stufflebeem that when he comes up.
Q: Can you give us the location where the salvage helicopter took
fire?
Clarke: It was in Pakistan.
Q: Pakistan. But where?
Clarke: That's all I have for you --
Q: And that was Saturday?
Clarke: That was on Saturday.
Q: Torie, the Saturday one -- you said at 11:24 p.m.?
Clarke: I'm sorry. Are you on --
Q: The first one --
Clarke: On Saturday, 11:24 p.m. That's right.
Q: And you say it was a residential neighborhood, and what were -- and
were there injuries?
Clarke: Northwest of Kabul. We don't have any reports on injuries.
Q: Torie, were these dumb bombs -- the 500-pounders that were dropped
by the F-14?
Clarke: Ivan, I'll have to get back to that -- for that information --
Q: Because if they were dumb bombs, we understand, but if not, if they
were laser-guided, I mean, is there an internal guidance problem, or
was it human error, or, you know --
Clarke: We'll get you some information. [The weapons that went
off-target were precision-guided munitions; preliminary indications
are that the weapons' guidance systems malfunctioned.]
Q: Are those their time, local time --
Clarke: Those are all Eastern time. Mm-hmm. Right.
Q: And these residential areas -- is one of them the village of
Chowker?
Clarke: Don't have information on that.
Q: So you don't have the village names or other --
Clarke: We don't. No, we do not have the village names.
Q: About the hostile fire incident near the downed helicopter, does
that lead you to any information about whether the helicopter may in
fact have been shot down?
Clarke: Which one are you talking about, Phil?
Q: The helicopters that went to the downed --
Clarke: No, the helicopter that they went to recover crashed, and the
information we have is that it had to do with something that was
happening when it was landing, and the dust was being kicked up, and
there was disorientation, and that's what caused the crash. It was not
shot down.
Q: Where was the shooting? Was that close to --
Clarke: No, it was at an airfield. They had stopped to refuel, and it
was in an airfield on the way back to the forward base.
Q: So it was a separate location?
Clarke: Yes.
Q: But is there any indication as to who had opened fire?
Clarke: We do not --
Q: Were these Pakistanis? Were they --
Clarke: We don't have information on who it was.
Q: Does the wreckage remain there, or have they made an attempt to go
back again to get it?
Clarke: I think the recovery efforts are under way. I don't know the
status of that.
Q: There were two helicopters, were there not, and one was a "Jolly
Green Giant" that was actually lifting the downed helo?
Clarke: That's -- it had gone in to pick it up. It had it in its
sling. On the way back to the forward base, it stopped to refuel at an
airfield, and that's when they took fire.
Q: There were two. If they returned fire -- I mean, was there another
gunship or something with them or just one Jolly Green Giant? Because
I was told there were two.
Clarke: I'll have to check that for you, Otto. [Two U.S. transport
helicopters were fired upon during refueling operations]
Q: Torie, when the helicopter crashed on Friday night, was it not at
its forward base? Was it at some other location? You said it was
trying to land. Why was it landing somewhere else other than at its
base?
Clarke: It was at a location in Pakistan. That's all I have.
Q: But not at its base?
Clarke: All the information I have is that it was landing in Pakistan.
Q: Well was it making a routine landing or some kind of an emergency
landing?
Q: Refueling?
Clarke: I don't know, Charlie. I'll have to let you know. [The cause
of the mishap is under investigation]
Q: I'm talking about the helicopter that crashed.
Clarke: Right. I will check that out and get back to you.
Q: The wheels that were torn off were on the way in or the way out of
Afghanistan?
Clarke: It was on its way out.
Q: Of Afghanistan.
Q: The Blackhawk, when it was trying to land, was it coming back from
Afghanistan?
Clarke: Yeah, I don't have information on what it was doing.
Q: Can you get back to us?
Clarke: Yes.
Q: Please.
Clarke: I'll take that one. [The helicopter that crashed Friday did
not enter Afghanistan; it was supporting the special operation mission
that went into Afghanistan]
Q: Do you have any other incidents in the region of U.S. military
assets -- I guess especially helicopters -- taking this kind of local
fire as they move in and out -- either in Pakistan, Uzbekistan or
other areas? Are they taking local fire?
Clarke: You know, I think I'll leave that one for Admiral Stufflebeem
to talk. So far, what we have seen has been a relatively light
resistance, but I'll let him take that one.
Q: Can you give us the location of the senior center, first of all?
And second of all, is it possible that the senior center you're
talking about is what the U.N. workers there are calling the hospital
-- military hospital inside a military compound?
Clarke: I'll try to get you something better in terms of information.
I just have it's outside Herat. But yes, it is possible. But it's been
described to us as a senior citizens' center.
Q: And the 300-foot distance? What was that? From where to where?
Clarke: The intended target was a vehicle-storage building at the army
barracks, which is approximately 300 feet from the facility.
Q: So the bomb landed in between those two?
Clarke: Right.
Q: When you're -- you don't know the village names, and I don't know,
maybe Admiral is the better person to take this, but there are now two
villages reporting in with a fair number of injured and dead, one of
them nearly a hundred people dead, they are claiming, with pictures of
dead bodies. And the other one a place called Tarin Kowt, where
they're reporting about 30 dead.
You don't know specifically anything about those?
Clarke: We don't. Most of the information that has come out from the
Taliban, I daresay just about everything we've heard for the last few
weeks, has been wrong and outright lies. And they regularly throw out
numbers about casualties, most of which are completely outrageous.
What we're trying to do in as timely a fashion as possible is, as we
get the information about things that have happened, we're trying to
get the information out for you. Since we do not --
Q: When you -- you said that two 500-pound bombs went into a
residential area near Kandahar. Is that --
Clarke: Those were in Kabul.
Q: Kabul, I'm sorry. That is, in Kabul itself?
Clarke: No. Northwest of Kabul. And I'll try to get -- if we can get
some distance, I'll try to get that for you. [Impact was 3.6 miles
from the center of Kabul]
Q: So that would be a village, probably? Okay.
Clarke: Okay? Rick.
Q: The -- of course the United States expresses its sadness when there
are casualties in that fight. But beyond that, is there a concern that
the casualties which seem to continue at one level or another almost
on a daily basis could become a problem for the world's reaction,
particularly the Muslim world's reaction, to the U.S. war effort?
Clarke: Well, we take extraordinary care on the targeting process. Our
targets are military. Our targets are al Qaeda. That is what we're
going after. There is unintended damage. There is collateral damage.
Thus far it has been extremely limited, from what we've seen. And I
think you look at what is going on around the world in many Muslim
nations and their support for what we're doing, and we feel quite good
about the support we're getting around the world in the war on
terrorism. But I'll say again, we care deeply about the loss of life,
unlike the people who on September 11th went to great pains to kill
thousands of innocent people.
I'll take one more question, then turn it over to the admiral.
Q: Torie, when the thousand-pound bomb was dropped, was there
intelligence that said that was a senior citizens home 300 feet away?
Clarke: I don't know what the intelligence said, and I probably
wouldn't be saying it from this podium, anyhow. But the target clearly
was a vehicle storage building in an army barracks area.
So, Jonathan, let me take that later if you need, but I'll turn this
over to the admiral.
Stufflebeem: Good afternoon. Let me give you a brief recap of
yesterday, and then we can get back into answering more of your
questions.
Well, yesterday we entered the third week of operations against the
Taliban and al Qaeda network in Afghanistan. Yesterday we struck 11
planned target areas, and those included airfields, radar, Taliban
forces, which includes armor, vehicles and buildings, and those
include targets that are in garrison and deployed; lines of
communication, military training facilities, and striking targets of
opportunity in a few engagement zones. The CINC used about 80 strike
aircraft. About 60 of those were carrier-based tactical jets. About 10
land-based tactical aircraft were used, and that includes AC-130s, and
about 10 long-range bombers were part of the strikes.
We also flew four C-17 missions in support of humanitarian relief to
people in Afghanistan. They delivered approximately 57,000
humanitarian daily rations. And that now takes our total to up over
three-quarters of a million. Yesterday we also assisted USAID in
delivering 30,000 blankets to Islamabad.
Today we have one set of pre- and post-strike images to show you from
Sunday: a bunker and communications complex near Kabul. This is used
to store ammunition and equipment and is also a Taliban communications
station. In the post-strike image, you can note that a portion of the
bunker and entrances are collapsed.
We've also got three gun camera clips from yesterday's operations. The
first two clips highlight our efforts to attrite Taliban V Corps in
the north, near Mazar-e Sharif. The first hits show on a Taliban
command post, eliminating key parts of the command and control that
helps us limit their ability to run ground operations against the
Northern Alliance. The second clip shows a direct hit on the Taliban V
Corps, in this case a tank in a defensive position in a wadi. The
third clip is from southern Afghanistan near Kandahar and shows an
armored vehicle from the Taliban's I Corps. You'll note that the first
weapon either misses or skips off the vehicle without exploding, but
the second weapon detonates on impact.
And with that, I'll take your questions. Charlie?
Q: Admiral, that's interesting, what you said about the V Corps. Are
you making any progress? Is the V Corps gathered tightly? Are you
making any progress in destroying it, being kind of the heart and soul
of the Taliban? And is the Northern Alliance taking advantage in any
way of these direct strikes on the Taliban front line? Do you see any
progress at all by the Northern Alliance toward Mazar-e Sharif or
Kabul?
Stufflebeem: Well, we are seeing advances, I guess, in our strikes.
And this is just by some small pieces of evidence as we hit those
military -- either pieces of our hardware or command posts. And so we
know that that's having an effect and an impact on the corps. Whether
or not that is having a direct impact into the Northern Alliance
movement is not yet clear, certainly not to me.
Q: And how about the damage to the V Corps?
Stufflebeem: Well, we know we're attriting elements of the V Corps,
and so their effectiveness, we know, is being degraded. To what
degree, we don't know.
Q: Admiral?
Stufflebeem: Yes, sir?
Q: Going back to the raging battle, apparently, between the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance at the airport at Mazar-e Sharif, because of
the airstrikes now on the Taliban directly, are they hunkered down --
to follow upon Charlie's question? And is the Northern Alliance -- are
their troops advancing on the airport, and have they captured the
airport, or are they close? What can you tell us about that?
Stufflebeem: I don't know the current state of the battle that's going
on at the airport. I feel confident to say that we are still watching
a battle that is moving back and forth. And if you listen to Taliban
reports, I think they will claim to continue to have the upper hand
and that they're not taking the hits that we know they are. I think
the Northern Alliance has also made allowances or overtures that they
wish that we had more to apply to them in a particular area at a
particular moment. But we know it's also having a positive effect.
You heard the secretary yesterday in his hopes for what the Northern
Alliance would intend to do, and we know that we are positively
helping that. But that particular time line or their particular
objectives of when to move is not necessarily clear or open or even
meshed with ours.
Q: Part of my question, do you get indications that the Taliban forces
around Mazar-e Sharif are hunkered down now? Are they dispersing? Can
you tell us anything about that?
Stufflebeem: You know, I really don't know. I know that they hunker
down when an aircraft is overhead. I don't know what they're doing if
an aircraft is not overhead.
Q: Members of the Northern Alliance, while not blaming anyone, said
that some of their positions were mistakenly bombed, or they believed
were mistakenly bombed, in recent days. Do you have anything on that?
Stufflebeem: I have no reports, Jamie, that we have inadvertently
struck their positions. But it's a tight line. They're in artillery
range one of another. That's close. And that means that we've got to
be very precise in where we're putting our ordnance down. And I would
tell you that our pilots are positively identifying their targets
before doing that. If, in fact, there may be weapons that are landing
close to the Northern Alliance, then I would suspect that's where
they're hunkered down.
Q: Are you getting -- particularly in situations like that, what kind
of targeting advice, counsel, instructions, information are you
getting from Northern Alliance troops on the ground? I mean, it would
be helpful to have a ground FAC there, I guess, to make it even more
precise.
Stufflebeem: Well, your second observation is absolutely correct. But
you're getting into an all-source intelligence capability that we
have, and I don't want to get into that.
Q: Admiral, can you give us any kind of a tally to date on the types
of targets and the numbers of targets that have been hit in terms of
terrorist camps and Taliban military units?
Do you have any kind of a tally of that?
Stufflebeem: I can tell you that we have struck all of the terrorist
training camps that we are aware of. I can't tell you that I know what
a number is, and I think that you can appreciate that if al Qaeda has
an ability to train, they will try to make or find a camp that they
can use. There aren't going to be any camps that we're going to allow
them to use, and when we find them, we'll strike them.
I think that to get sort of down into the details of the exact numbers
of how many there have been and how many there are are not nearly as
important as the larger perspective of the campaign, that we're going
after al Qaeda in its entirety. So wherever we find it and whatever
evidence we have that there are training camps, we're going to attack
it.
Q: How about the Taliban? Can you assess what kind of damage over the
three weeks so far that they've sustained?
Stufflebeem: In terms of things, in terms of aircraft, in terms of
pieces of air defense -- air defense assets, we are keeping track as
best we can from what we knew that they had operational or how much
they might still have. We're not going to allow ourselves to become
confident in the air and not maintain our prudence that they still
have some capability that they couldn't use somewhere that we just
hadn't planned on. But we know that in the majority, their air defense
capability is gone. Their country-wide command-and-control capability
is gone. They have got to be feeling, from my opinion, quite a bit of
stress at not being able to do what they thought they would be able to
do.
Q: Admiral, in some of the gun-camera footage we've seen over that
last few days, there's been several examples lone tanks being hit in
what I assume are engagement zones. Can you say whether or not there
have been strikes against massed forces, or has this really become a
tank here, a tank there? And how do you know whether these tanks are
even operational? Are they moving? Are they --
Stufflebeem: Well, there's all kinds of ways to know if they're
operational or not. Obviously, if a tank was not in a wadi the day
before where it was yesterday, then we know how it got there.
Q: But in terms of like armored forces that are massed, where you're
hitting more than one tank in a single strike.
Stufflebeem: We're not finding evidence that they are trying to amass
firepower.
I think that they're learning from this campaign that we have a
tremendous lethality in going after their military articles. And
therefore, I think we are seeing that they are trying to disperse them
to save them. I am seeing anecdotal reports that they are considering
using neighborhoods and mosques and other areas where they can try to
hide or get in the close proximity of to try to salvage some of their
capability.
Q: Yesterday General Myers was saying the Taliban is trying to
reinforce their units using trucks, since all the aircraft have been
taken out. Have they been successful in doing this, and are you taking
out their trucks as well?
Stufflebeem: Well, I would say that we are systematically working on
what we find. I wouldn't comment on what we're doing today, but you
notice that one of the planned target sets was a line of communication
or lines of communication. Lines of communication, to a strike fighter
pilot, means an area probably to be used as a road, road
transportation, trucks, and so those are the kinds of things that I,
as a strike fighter pilot, would go after in a line of communication.
Q: I'm asking specifically about reinforcements. Have they reinforced
their lines anywhere in the North, anywhere else?
Stufflebeem: I don't know if they have reinforced their lines. I am
hearing anecdotal reports that they want to do that. But I think that
we have -- are doing a good job of making that difficult.
Q: Admiral, have you seen -- what do you know about -- that you can
share with us about the Taliban's supply -- resupply capabilities?
They have to have food. They have to have fuel. What is the situation?
And they have to have ammunition.
They were reliant on Pakistan for a lot of their wheat and for their
fuel imports. That border is closed. Can you talk about -- are they
getting resupply, or are you -- have you fairly seriously dented their
ability to resupply?
Stufflebeem: Well, I'm not going to characterize that we have somehow
taken all of that away. We have to assume that they are able to
resupply.
But I've seen a couple pieces of anecdotal information which I would
say, in my mind, sort of set a little bit of the tone to help answer
your question. One is that the Taliban have taken over some Red Cross
warehouses of foodstuffs. They're denying that to the people who need
it. I make an assumption that they're keeping that for themselves,
because they don't have an ability to resupply easily.
We have targeted their petroleum facilities that they would count on
or were counting on for resupply of their armored vehicles. But the
fact that their armored vehicles are still moving tells me this is
going to be a very long and slow process.
Q: You've said that you're targeting --
Q: Admiral, the U.N. has expressed concern that more airstrikes are
going into residential areas around Kabul, and they say that that's in
part because the Taliban are dispersing their forces in those
residential areas.
Have there been more airstrikes in residential areas around Kabul? Are
you seeing Taliban forces move into those areas, and are you striking
them in those areas?
Stufflebeem: Probably the cleanest way to answer that in all three
parts is no. And let me go back and parse that out just a little bit.
We are not going into the cities to attack the cities. What hits that
may have occurred in residential areas are rare mistakes -- or rare
errors is probably more appropriate. When we do go into Kabul, as we
have done, we're going after a very specific military target, Taliban
target, and we're using very precise ways to get at it. So the only
way that we would not be hitting that target is through some sort of a
system error or a weapon error, or maybe even an atmospheric.
There is not an intention to open or widen attacks into cities. We
will find other ways, as the chairman has said, using the
full-spectrum capability of our military to get at those who might
cowardly decide to hide in residential neighborhoods.
Q: Admiral, are you seeing that happen? Are you seeing that phenomenon
now? You said they're learning from their mistakes. Are they moving
more into residential areas? And are you taking fire from residential
areas?
Stufflebeem: Well, we know they're not using the compounds that they
have used for garrisons. And we have brought you some visual evidence
about how we're systematically taking those away. So they are trying
to find places that they can go to husband their assets -- or to
protect their vehicles.
Give me the second part of your question again.
Q: Well, are they then using that -- that they are going into -- do I
take that to mean you are seeing evidence they are moving into
residential areas, then?
Stufflebeem: I would say I'm hearing anecdotal reports that they're
going in --
Q: Okay. And do you give those reports credence?
Stufflebeem: I'm sorry.
Q: Do you give those reports credence? Do you believe those are
reliable reports?
Stufflebeem: I personally believe that the Taliban will use whatever
means they have, including the people of Afghanistan, to shield their
capability, yes.
Q: Are you taking fire from those areas? Have they moved their
capabilities into the residential areas, and are they now directing
fire?
Stufflebeem: I've not seen any reports that any of our aircraft have
been taking fire from within the residential areas.
Q: Admiral, in recent days you've struck at caves or bunkers of the
Taliban or of al Qaeda. Do you have any idea how many of them there
are and what -- if, in fact, you have struck at them, what
capabilities have you been using to do so?
Stufflebeem: Well, caves are clearly in target sets, and because
that's where al Qaeda has traditionally hidden. The numbers I don't
think are known to anyone on this earth. There are hundreds if not
thousands of caves. We're using all kinds of weapons available in our
arsenal. And we're not going to get into specifics of what particular
weapon and on a particular target is necessarily the best, if that's
what you were asking.
Q: Well, you did say that you've used bunker-busters in the past, the
bunker-busters. Are you using AGM-130s as well?
Stufflebeem: We're using every weapon that's available to us in the
inventory.
Q: Admiral, could you clear up just one thing about this -- the
helicopter that had its landing gear clipped, MH-47? How many troops
were on board at the time, and was this the most significant damage to
any of the U.S. forces during that raid?
Stufflebeem: I don't know how many were on board the aircraft when
that aircraft hit something. I'll tell you, though -- let me give you
a little bit of a cockpit perspective of that.
I've had an opportunity to train with special operating forces and
have been in a 47 at nighttime on goggles, lifting out of a "hot
zone", as it's called. And when you load the troops that you're
supposed to have and you lift, you're going to fly in as low and as
fast as you can possibly get out of there. Ms. Clarke referenced an
experience that I had, which was I thought we'd hit something as I sat
as a passenger; no one else seemed to notice. But when we landed back
at our home pad and got out, the undercarriage was full of treetop
[brush]. In this case it would seem evident that this particular H-47
clipped a wall or something on his left, and it knocked off a wheel.
It did not knock the aircraft down. The aircraft and all of the
soldiers were safely lifted out. And I think that the way to
characterize the most significant damage that we have experienced
would be the aircraft mishap -- mishap -- that occurred in Pakistan,
where we had lost that aircraft.
Q: Well, I guess what I'm just trying to get at is people may wonder
why, since this came up in yesterday's briefing, why it took so long
for the information to get out from the secretary of Defense and the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Stufflebeem: Well, it's not a perfect system. And it's unfortunate
that we didn't bring that information forward to the secretary so he
had that at his fingertips. I think that when I put myself in those
commanders' positions down there, they are very concerned about their
operations, and at that time they're very concerned about getting the
troops out after an operation.
And probably the last thing that's on their minds is what amounts to
somewhat of an irregular, but not uncommon, air event that occurred
with that. The fact that I was in a helicopter that managed to clip
some treetops wasn't intentional, certainly, and it didn't cause any
particular damage. But it's part of the hazard of that kind of
business, and I think that this is just another one as that.
So I think that the significance of that is really pretty far down in
terms of the chain below. I suspect now that there's a sensitivity to
make sure the secretary is armed to be able to answer the questions.
Q: At a news conference in London today, the British defense minister,
Geoffrey Hoon, said that we -- meaning the U.S. and the Brits --
destroyed all nine al Qaeda terrorist camps in Pakistan (sic). Whether
the number is eight, 10, nine, do you know if in fact coalition
attacks destroyed all of the al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan?
Stufflebeem: I know that the coalition has struck all of the known al
Qaeda camps. I personally do not know what that number is.
I would go on to say that I think that the finite number is relatively
unimportant. Whether it was nine or eight or 10 is not as significant
as the fact that there were camps that we knew of; they were struck.
If al Qaeda were to ever raise their head to train again, we will try
to find those camps and strike those camps. I don't think that it is
something that we can feel comfortable that we struck camps and
therefore the problem is over. For as long as al Qaeda has a
capability to put terrorists on this Earth, they will find a place to
train. Our job will be to go after and find those and take them away.
Q: Admiral, the defense minister also said that the British were very
close to making a decision on whether to commit their ground troops to
the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Does the Pentagon have any idea
how they might use British ground troops in the current conflict
inside Afghanistan?
Stufflebeem: I have no first-hand knowledge of how the coalition would
work in the other countries who wish to and will participate. I think
we probably would do better to get back to you once we've solidified
that.
Q: Admiral, on this podium last week, it was said that at least 2,000
bombs and missiles have been used in the campaign. Could you update
that number for us at a minimum on how many bombs or missiles have
been used?
Q: Just a round number?
Q: A round number, as a --
Stufflebeem: Charlie, let us take the question and get you a good
answer.
You have to understand that at least in what it is that I do, I'm not
very much focused on these finite numbers. I am much more interested
in the effects that we wish to have and the campaign that would get us
to those effects. And so I just don't actually track those numbers
down. So please let us take that, and when we can provide it to you,
we'll get it back to you. [More than 3,000]
Q: Can you follow up on that question I asked Torie -- other incidents
or a general description of the experiences of taking small arms fire
around the region, as your helicopters move around? She indicated you
could provide further information on that.
Stufflebeem: I can talk about small arms fire, but Barbara, give me a
little bit more about the question.
Q: Well, you know what the helicopter in -- when it went back to
retrieve, it took some small arms fire in the region. And we have
heard reports that there have been similar incidents around the
region, that forces are operating -- not that your aircraft have taken
fire, but that you've had other incidents of taking perhaps small-arms
ground fire as your helicopter forces have moved in and out. And if I
understood Torie, you perhaps had other indications of that.
Stufflebeem: Well, we do know that we have been fired upon. We have
pilot reports who come back and have described -- and many of you have
seen the reports as well, that have come off the aircraft carriers and
from the bomber crews, of what they experienced and what they saw.
This incident in Pakistan is a little bit different, in the sense that
this was an administrative -- I'll call it "administrative" because
there's not a war zone left. This was a larger helicopter
sling-loading a smaller, disabled helicopter within a country that is
supporting the United States. There was some confusion -- apparently,
a lot of confusion on the ground. We don't know where the firing --
or, I should say, we don't know who was firing on our forces. We
returned fire to stop it. The mission commander called an abort to the
mission, which was to refuel, and just collected everybody out and
left. We feel very confident that the Pakistanis will take control and
that we'll be able to go back and recover the aircraft that was lost
in a mishap.
Now the other part of your question is one that I have to tell you, as
a pilot, is a supposition. I would never fly into a hostile
environment and assume that I wasn't being shot at by small arms or
MANPADS. I am assuming that I am being fired at when I'm there, and
therefore I'm going to fly in the smartest way I can to avoid that.
Whether I actually observe that or not depends on a lot of things, but
probably mostly luck, because I'm going to be very focused on my
target and not so much on what else is happening around me.
Q: Have you had other incidents of small arms fire in Pakistan as you
have moved in and out, or except for Afghanistan, other countries in
the region where you may be operating?
Stufflebeem: This report in Pakistan is the only report I've seen of
us taking small arms fire.
Q: I have a question about the pace of the campaign and what impact
weather is having -- anticipation of bad weather is having on the
planning considerations. One, in particular, laser-guided bombs get
degraded by atmosphere, as you alluded to, and electro-optical sensors
can't see through clouds. How is that going to -- how is that planning
complicated -- or, the weather complicating the pace of operations and
what you want to accomplish before the onset of bad weather?
Stufflebeem: Well, if it was a perfect world, we'd like to wrap this
up before the bad weather moved in. We don't think that that's
realistic.
We are an all-weather-capable force. We have weapons that will work in
some kinds of good weather, and some that will work in all kinds of
weather. So the planners will adapt to whatever the conditions are at
the time to be able to put the most effective weapon on the target so
we can identify.
Q: Precision is key here because you -- as you can see here, one or
two bombs going awry is causing international episodes. JDAM bombs
have a, you know, 90 feet error of probability, whereas laser- guided
bombs are more effective and more precise. Are you concerned that as
you move into -- if you use less laser-guided weapons you're going to
be hitting more civilian targets, actually, that way?
Stufflebeem: Well, the one thing that you have to know about
Afghanistan is that even as the winter comes on, it's not going to be
overcast and full of snow throughout the entire country, throughout --
for the entire period of the winter. There are going to be good flying
days. There are going to be days where it's not so good, and for those
days that we have targets that we can identify, we'll mix it with the
appropriate weapon.
Now, I can assure you and would assure anyone who would ever have a
concern there will never be an indiscriminate way of targeting, and
that collateral damage is always going to be considered. So if any
particular weapon is not the one that would give us a comfortability
in respect to collateral damage, then we'll move to one that does give
us that.
Q: Can you talk to us about the psychological operations part of this?
Are you seeing any effect at all from the Commando Solo broadcasts in
terms of getting Taliban to lay down their arms, or getting people who
live in these areas to rise up against them? And have those broadcasts
changed?
Are you still broadcasting the radio messages that we heard, or are
there -- I understand during the Bosnia and Kosovo operations there
were regular programs, news programs, that you did in addition to the
more propaganda kind of things that we've read in terms of encouraging
people to give up.
Stufflebeem: The last part of your question, I'll have to ask if we
can take that. I don't know what we're broadcasting. Commando Solo is
continuing to fly and to pass messages. [There is other programming,
to include local music, played during the broadcasts.]
We are hearing anecdotal reports that there are still defections, that
there are still those who are changing sides. I think that you are
reporting, or at least members of the press are reporting, those who
may have changed sides between the Northern Alliance and the Taliban
forces across from them. And that, as the secretary has alluded
before, is sort of the ilk of this area. You know, Afghanistan is not
so much a country as it is a frame of mind. These are tribes, and the
tribes and their leaders have allegiances that, one, allow them to
survive and to be able to flourish. And so I think that when they are
getting the message through these radios, when they're getting the
leaflets, or when they're seeing that the tactical advantage is moving
against them, they'll do what they need to do to survive. And
therefore, I think that -- I'll use that as anecdotal. We're not
keeping any kind of a tally on that one.
Q: Admiral, given that the Pentagon has said it's targeting Taliban
and al Qaeda forces, and given that there's been an increasing
emphasis on troops at or near the frontlines, do you believe that
there are al Qaeda fighters among the Taliban positions on the
frontlines? And if so, in any significant numbers?
Stufflebeem: I, personally, believe there are al Qaeda fighters. I
believe that because there has been an arrangement that is well known
within Afghanistan between Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar for some
time. They are mutually supportive. I'd be surprised if one can
survive without the other. To believe that Afghan foreigners can come
to the country and train and not fight, just doesn't seem credible.
So we believe that al Qaeda do have fighters that are with the
Taliban. We're not keeping a particular score of how many have we
accounted for. That's not a tactic were interested in. We're
interested in destroying al Qaeda, we're interested in making the
Taliban give up their support of al Qaeda, and we're interested in
getting at weapons of mass destruction that can be made available to
terrorists worldwide.
Q: Isn't the heart of the Fifth Corps al Qaeda? Aren't most of those
people in the Fifth Corps al Qaeda?
Stufflebeem: I'm sorry, I think what you're referring to is the 55th
brigade.
Q: I'm sorry. The 55th brigade.
Stufflebeem: Right. And I've not heard it specifically attributed to
the Fifth Corps.
Q: Fifty-five -- you mean the 55th brigade.
Clarke: One more question.
Stufflebeem: One more question.
Q: Admiral. Admiral. You spoke earlier about the possibility of
Taliban forces hiding in the cities, hiding in mosques, et cetera. And
you referred to the wide spectrum of resources that would be available
if that eventuality occurs. Are you talking, sir, about the use of
ground forces, since anything from the air would be more
indiscriminate?
Stufflebeem: I'm talking about our full-spectrum capability.
Q: But can you elaborate on that at all?
Stufflebeem: I would say that there will not be any elements of
coalition capability that will be disregarded. Everything will be
considered. And the best possible or most effective way to be able to
root out this military will be done. If it is done with all of it,
which includes air power and ground power, I can't imagine that it
wouldn't be considered.
Have a good afternoon. Thank you.
Q: Thank you.
(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
|
|
|
