24 January 2002
Transcript: DOD's Quigley on Future of U.S. Military Bases in Central Asia
(Central Command spokesman says bases not permanent) (1320)
The United States has "no intention" of establishing a chain of
permanent military bases throughout Central Asia, says Rear Admiral
Craig Quigley, but a time limit has not yet been established for U.S.
deployment in the region because the war on terrorism is not over.
"I just can't put a finger on any particular length of time because
I'd have no confidence in it. All we know for sure is that there
remains much work to be done inside Afghanistan to make sure that
Afghanistan is free of terrorist elements, as free as we can make it
and it will stand on its own as a viable, stable nation in Central
Asia," he said.
Quigley, director of public affairs for the U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM), spoke with reporters in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, following a
press conference by CENTCOM Commander-in-Chief General Tommy R.
Franks.
Asked about Russia's reaction to the U.S. military presence in Central
Asia, Quigley said the United States has tried to be as transparent
and "above board" as possible about the purpose of the deployments
"not only to the Russians, but other nations as well, that this is
about a variety of support functions. Sometimes combat aircraft,
sometimes humanitarian assistance, sometimes re-fueling aircraft, and
a variety of support functions."
Following is a transcript of his remarks provided by the U.S. Embassy
Tashkent:
(begin transcript)
COMMENTS WITH REAR ADMIRAL CRAIG QUIGLEY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS,
U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND, FOLLOWING PRESS CONFERENCE WITH GENERAL TOMMY
FRANKS
January 24, 2002
Tashkent, Uzbekistan
PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER MARK ASQUINO: We said that we would take a
couple of minutes and take a couple more questions.
ADMIRAL QUIGLEY: If you didn't have an opportunity to ask a question
or if something that General Franks said was unclear I'll try to
clarify.
QUESTION FROM INTERNEWS: Could you give a little more detail about
exactly what the time line is for the bases here? We know it's not 25
years in the instance of Khanabad, but are we talking about another
two, three, four years...?
ADMIRAL QUIGLEY: There is no time line. There has never been a
specific discussion of duration with any of the governments in the
region. Everyone, I think, recognizes that the work is not yet done
inside Afghanistan. Indeed, Afghanistan is only the first part of the
global war on terrorism that so many nations have signed up to fight
together. So, there just is no time limit on any of this stuff. But,
as General Franks and others in the American military and the American
government have said, there is no intention to have some string of
American bases in this region. There is just no intention of that at
all.
QUESTION: There is increasing concern coming out of Russia, especially
out of communist and nationalist circles...U.S.-Russia relations have
come a long way during the last few months and there is, as I've said,
increasing concern about the duration of the presence of U.S. bases.
Are you concerned about the nature of U.S.-Russian relations,
specifically, military relations given the increasing criticism?
ADMIRAL QUIGLEY: We have tried to be as transparent as we could about
the types of cooperation from regional governments, the purpose for
having U.S. forces stationed in neighboring nations, and tried to be
as transparent as we could be. Clearly explaining not only to the
Russians, but other nations as well, that this is about a variety of
support functions. Sometimes combat aircraft, sometimes humanitarian
assistance, sometimes re-fueling aircraft, and a variety of support
functions. And I think that that has proven to be the key to success.
Making sure that it is just as above board as we can possibly be, and
there is nothing under the table or not out there for all the world to
see as to what the sorts of support that so many nations in the region
are providing. But again, there is just no intention of permanent U.S.
bases in the Central Asian region. We look forward to a continuing
process for many years to come of close military-to-military
cooperation with a variety of nations in Central Asia. But that does
not mean a permanent string of U.S. bases in this region.
QUESTION: The work you're doing at the Manas base at the moment does
however for an untrained eye, look like you are actually planning on
being there for quite a while. I'm talking about things like
establishing a rotation of soldiers instead of putting them out as an
emergency short-term.... Could you be a little more specific about
times here? What are we talking about? We're not talking about these
soldiers gone in a year are we?
ADMIRAL QUIGLEY: Well, you're looking at rotation, at least on the
U.S. military now, other nations I can't speak for them, but, we fully
realize that the international effort and the war on terrorism is
going to last for a very long time. So we have no intention of burning
out either people or machines that are forward deployed to this part
of the world. So, as both units and their equipment come to this part
of the world, operate for some period of time, some number of weeks or
months, whatever, we are very careful to rotate them back, replace
them with forces that are appropriate for the circumstance that we
find on the ground in Afghanistan at the time, so that there can be
some rest, some replacement of equipment, and maintenance can be
performed, and our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines can spend
time together with their families. I just can't put a finger on any
particular length of time because I'd have no confidence in it. All we
know for sure is that there remains much work to be done inside
Afghanistan to make sure that Afghanistan is free of terrorist
elements, as free as we can make it and it will stand on its own as a
viable, stable nation in Central Asia. But I just can't put a time
frame on it, I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Is there a minimum?
ADMIRAL QUIGLEY: We've already passed the minimum, it's ongoing. No, I
have no idea.
QUESTION: There's increasing focus on setting up bases in Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan. Why is that? Some people have suggested that
Uzbekistan has not been quite as accommodating perhaps as the United
States would have liked.
ADMIRAL QUIGLEY: Every nation in the region comes to its own
conclusions as to the sort of support it is willing to provide, the
extent of that support. And you're going to find different answers
from different nations in the region. The key is that it is very
important from our perspective to have a variety of locations that are
in this general part of the world from which you can do many things
over a period of time. Whether it's combat activity or the provision
of humanitarian assistance, moving supplies into Afghanistan, or
re-fueling other airplanes that might be working over Afghanistan. You
have all of these different needs and it's very easy to rapidly fill
up any one site in order to provide the forces that are in Afghanistan
with the level of support that they need. So, rather than put all your
eggs in one basket, any single location, what we have done is enter
into a series of bilateral discussions with the governments in the
region and every nation will come up with its own answer and we're
perfectly comfortable with that. And as long as at the end of the day
we do have a variety of places from which to work and provide the
volume of support that will be needed in Afghanistan for the time
ahead.
Thank you all very much.
(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
|
|
|
