20 May 2002
Defense Department Briefing Transcript
(Afghanistan/operational update, Andrews Air Force/Joint Services Open
House/Air Show, Operation Mountain Lion, terrorism, pre-9/11
warnings/future attacks, Iraq) (5040)
Assistant Secretary of Defense Victoria Clarke and Marine Corps Lt.
General Gregory Newbold, Director of Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff
briefed reporters May 20 at the Pentagon.
Following is the Pentagon transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Defense News Briefing
Victoria Clarke ASD (PA)
Monday, May 20, 2002 - 10:00 a.m. EDT
(Also participating was Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, director of
operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff)
Clarke: Good morning, everybody. The first thing I'd like to do this
morning is to offer our sincere condolences to the family of a West
Virginia National Guard soldier who was killed in action in
Afghanistan yesterday when his unit came under attack from hostile
forces. There have been some reports that have named the individual.
Once we are absolutely sure the next-of-kin notifications have been
completed, we will put out a piece of paper from here. But -- and we
expect that to happen shortly -- his death reminds us that Afghanistan
is a very, very dangerous place. It also reminds us of the sacrifices
that are being made every day from the men and women in the military,
and I'd say it strengthens our resolve in the pursuit of the
terrorists, the terrorist networks, and those who are harboring and
fostering and supporting them.
The general will give you an update on the operations, but I did want
to use this morning just to remind people, in addition to what
happened this weekend, 36 American men and women have lost their lives
in and around Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. In addition,
one of our CIA officers, one Australian soldier, and four Canadian
soldiers, as well as many Afghans have given their lives in the
pursuit of the terrorists.
We are deeply indebted to everyone who has suffered and sacrificed in
this noble cause. They are performing an extraordinarily important
role, and I just don't think we can emphasize enough how much we
appreciate that.
I'd also like to take just one minute, on a nicer note, to
congratulate the people out at Andrews Air Force Base who did such a
great job on the Joint Services Open House and Air Show over the
weekend. Despite some unpredictable and unhelpful weather, despite a
water main break, and increased security measures, they did a fabulous
job. I think they said about a quarter of a million people came out
and got to see up-close and personal, what a fabulous job the people
in the military are doing.
And in particular, I'd like to thank Brigadier General Glenn Spears,
who is the commander of the 89th Airlift Wing and commanding general
out at Andrews; Colonel Michael Wyka, who is the director of staff of
the 89th Airlift Wing; and Major Jennifer Cassidy, the press officer
out there, who did such a great job. So thanks to all of them.
And sir?
Newbold: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Clarke.
In Afghanistan, Operation Mountain Lion continues. As you know, that's
an operation to locate, isolate, close with and destroy any of the
remnants of al Qaeda, Taliban -- might exist still in eastern
Afghanistan.
On one of the patrols in the area, as Ms. Clarke said, we lost one of
our Special Forces soldiers, who was operating with the Afghanistan
forces at the same time. He was killed in the vicinity of the Afghan
village of Shkin, S-H-K-I-N. He died as a result of the gunshot wound.
As Ms. Clarke said, our sympathies go out to the families of the
soldier.
In the same action, an Afghan soldier was wounded. And those
operations continue. Our forces did return fire, killing at least one
of the enemy.
Other actions in the CENTCOM region:
Coalition aircraft observed a contrail [condensation trail] from a
rocket or missile directed against them in the southern no-fly zone
and took action against it. Coalition aircraft dropped precision
weapons at a direction-finding system that supported the missile
launch. And as you know, we'll review the battle damage assessment and
get back to you with some results from that as soon as we know.
And that's the only update.
Clarke: Thank you, sir.
Charlie?
Question: General, you spoke about remnants -- that Operation Mountain
Lion's searching for remnants of al Qaeda and Taliban in eastern
Afghanistan. With warm weather here now, and the fact that British and
Australian troops also ran into pockets of al Qaeda and Taliban last
week, is there any indication that these people are regrouping in
significant numbers at all, attempting to regroup or regrouping? Are
these very small pockets that are involved in these firefights?
Newbold: I think what you're seeing is, as a result of Operation
Anaconda, the willingness of the Taliban and the al Qaeda to form
large groups that'll stand and fight against our forces has now
dissipated. They've changed their tactics. They operate in small
groups to avoid contact with our forces.
Over time, as we saturate the area with reconnaissance, coalition and
U.S. reconnaissance, we essentially determine which areas they no
longer occupy, and we narrow down the areas that they do. As we do
that and we locate their forces, we go after them, and actions over
the last two weeks are pretty symptomatic of that.
Q: Might I ask, what size groups are you talking about? Five or six?
Ten or 12?
Newbold: I think both are right, to be honest with you. Sometimes we
run into groups as small as three, four, five. Larger groups would
certainly be in the area of a dozen.
Clarke: Jeff?
Q: General, in the case of -- where the soldier was killed, could you
describe a little bit more about that engagement? Was it an ambush?
Did they encounter a group of people? Do you suspect that they are al
Qaeda or Taliban, or could they simply have been people in the area
who were armed and there was some misunderstanding?
Newbold: Okay. We had a mounted patrol operating in the area. It was
Afghanistan military forces with U.S. Special Forces. As they moved to
an area they were surveying, they were taken under fire. And rounds
struck the vehicle, hitting the soldier and one of the Afghan soldiers
at the same time. Returned fire, as I mentioned, killed at least one
of the enemy. We are pursuing the enemy. We don't know precisely the
identity, but we do know that they fired on our forces.
Q: Did they flee across the border?
Newbold: No, they did not.
Q: By mounted, you don't mean horses. You mean military --
Newbold: Good point. Mounted in SUVs.
Q: General, could you speak at all about where these pockets are
coming from? Are they hidden in caves? Do you have any sense that any
local ethnic groups are supporting them? What is keeping them out
there, separate, in those small groups? How are they sustaining
themselves, basically?
Newbold: This is, as you know, a very mountainous, rugged, isolated,
harsh area of southeastern Pakistan. Traditionally, this area had
supported the Taliban. At one time, they'd been sympathetic. In some
cases, these are remnants of Taliban forces or al Qaeda that have come
from other portions of Afghanistan. But in some cases, they may come
from local villages. I'm certain that some of them are living in
caves, but others may come from villages. And therefore, it's
difficult and requires a very thorough effort. It's only substantiated
and supported by saturation reconnaissance units that I've talked
about.
Clarke: Tom?
Q: After the engagement this weekend, General, was a quick reaction
force sent in -- (inaudible) -- of any kind? Was air power summoned to
assist?
Newbold: There was air power. As you know, we do maintain a combat air
patrol over Afghanistan 24 hours a day. These were diverted from their
site to the incident and provided support. And they do in virtually
every instance.
Q: What kind of aircraft?
Newbold: The AC-130 gunships were overhead, and we also had fixed-wing
aircraft. And later, as a matter of fact, we had bomber aircraft that
were in the vicinity -- did not drop munitions, but they were
available.
Clarke: Tom?
Q: There's a report today that the May 12th raid in Afghanistan that
-- by U.S. Special Forces -- those killed were civilian villagers, I
believe, including a 13-year-old boy. Do you have any more information
on that?
Newbold: No, we don't. We have a post-operation review, as we always
do. We feel very comfortable that the intelligence that prompted the
raid was accurate and decisive, and the raid was fully justified. And
we took 32 detainees, as you know. And as we go through them -- and
that'll be painstaking -- we'll find out their affiliation and the
real identity of the people we hold.
Q: What about the 13-year-old boy? Any more on that?
Newbold: I read the report, but I don't have more on that.
Clarke: Tony?
Q: General, could you step back a minute from the tactical situation
and address this issue? Over the weekend we've heard about chatter
that U.S. intelligence has picked up of potential al Qaeda attacks
being planned against the United States. Yet we're hearing here of a
force that's largely dissipated throughout Afghanistan. Their leaders
on the run, and they seem to be on the ropes. Can you kind of square
the circle here?
Newbold: Just not -- (inaudible). (Laughter.)
Q: Are they still capable -- excuse me?
Clarke: Preempted the question, but let me -- actually, Tony, let me
take this one and --
Q: Let me -- okay. The point being --
Clarke: Yeah.
Q: -- on one hand, there's a concern that the al Qaeda can plan major
attacks against the United States, and yet they seem to be on the
ropes in Afghanistan. That's -- (off mike) -- reason for. But
militarily, are they still capable -- their cells around the world --
of executing a major attack against the United States?
Newbold: I would make a distinction there --
Clarke: Yeah.
Newbold: -- between what I have described as the military operation
and the larger one, the global terrorist network.
Clarke: And as we said all along, al Qaeda has cells in some 50 or 60
different countries alone. The level and type of activity in those
different places ebbs and flows. But clearly, any organization that
could pull off what they pulled off on September 11th, when you think
about the organization and the planning and the resources that went
into that, clearly they have some organization capabilities that
aren't going to go away overnight.
What we're trying to do, in addition to root out the remaining pockets
of al Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan, is to work with dozens and
dozens of countries around the world so we can not only return
Afghanistan to what it ought to be, but we can use law enforcement, we
can use shared intelligence, we can use a multi-faceted effort to try
to disrupt their capabilities around the world. We believe we have
made it more difficult for them to do business. But clearly, you just
look at the kind of organization it was; there are still elements
there that can and want to do harm to the United States.
I don't think too many people here missed the vice president yesterday
when he said we do expect another attack. They've made clear their
intent. Secretary Rumsfeld has talked often -- we have had some
success in getting some of the leadership, but there are probably a
handful of people who easily could run that organization.
Q: If I can -- victory in Afghanistan doesn't translate into overall
diminishing all of their capabilities?
Clarke: We've always said this was about more than one person, one
network. It certainly is about more than Afghanistan.
Q: One follow-up, though. The "chatter" that the administration has
talked about anonymously, has any of the chatter emanated from the
region, that you're aware of, in terms of planning another attack
against the U.S.?
Clarke: Well, I don't know if I would -- if I want to talk about
anonymous sources chattering about chatter. (Laughter.)
Q: It's been there enough, I'm just asking if any of this intelligence
is chatter coming from the region?
Clarke: Do you mean Afghanistan when you say "the region"?
Q: Yeah.
Clarke: It comes from lots of different places. And again, that's part
of putting the puzzle together, is to take intelligence we have
gathered in Afghanistan, sometimes it's from the people we get,
sometimes it's from the things we pick up in the caves and tunnel
complexes or compounds we've taken over, and it gets pieced together
with information and sources from around the world. So it comes from a
variety of places.
Pam?
Q: Could you describe, General, a little bit more what you mean by
"saturated reconnaissance?" And could you also give us a sense of the
number of bombs that were dropped or planes that were used in this,
and how long this battle continued. Was it just -- was it a brief
firefight followed by a pursuit, or was it some kind of -- something
larger?
Newbold: Okay, to the first question on the saturation with
reconnaissance, this is a well-orchestrated plan developed by the
forces in Afghanistan to isolate the areas that pose the greatest
potential for Taliban and al Qaeda to exist. They provide the
strategic reconnaissance forces that move in, and they provide for
overhead detection, a variety of platforms to locate and discern the
enemy. A lot of the coalition forces over there with us are forming
teams that go into the mountains. They operate along traditional
routes of movement and along routes of movement in which we've
detected the presence of fighters. And, as you probably inferred from
my description, we were moving in rather checkerboard fashion
throughout this area to isolate areas that have the greatest
potential.
As far as dropping munitions, the incident in which the Special Forces
soldier was killed had overhead air cover in support of it. But as far
as I know, they did not drop munitions. The munitions were dropped in
response to the attack on the Australian Special Forces last week. We
do have aircraft up, and it could be that even while we've been
speaking or very recently we've tracked down the people that attacked
our reconnaissance element. So I would not be surprised if aircraft
were used.
Q: How long was, then, the engagement itself? Was it just a quick
exchange of fire, or did it go on for much longer?
Newbold: It was a quick exchange of fire.
Clarke: Barbara?
Q: Can we go back a minute? Because I'm just not clear. When you talk
about their ability to do operations, are you guys saying that largely
you believe the al Qaeda ability to control an operation out of
Afghanistan now is fairly well neutralized? That's question number one
I guess I don't understand. Do you believe that they are still moving
back and forth across the border with Pakistan? And if some of this
chatter the administration has reported coming from there, could
something be controlled out of Pakistan? Or do you believe it's pretty
much the other countries around the world where the al Qaeda's
actually -- I'm not clear what you feel has been dealt with and where
you think this chatter is emanating from.
Clarke: I don't think I said "largely." I think I said, "We believe we
have made it more difficult for them to do their business." I also
underscored: We also think that it's likely that there will be another
attack. They have made clear their intent. They have made clear their
desire to harm and kill Americans. It clearly is an organization with
some real capabilities to have pulled off what they pulled off on
9/11. And all the planing that went into that -- you've got to believe
there must have been something else in the pipeline.
Two, in terms of in Afghanistan itself, the al Qaeda, the Taliban that
are remaining are probably going back and forth across the borders.
It's a very porous border all the way around. So I wouldn't take it on
Pakistan. The general has said, there is an area of interest there,
based on intel, that we're focused on, because we think it's likely
that's where some of them are.
Newbold: I think that's exactly right in all its characterizations.
Remember, the al Qaeda have really two purposes: One was largely
military, in Afghanistan. The other was global terrorism. What I'm
describing is our military operations in Afghanistan are designed to
crush that military capability they had on the ground. They had used
Afghanistan a training base. That no longer is an opportunity for
them.
Q: Can I just follow up on a couple of -- when you talked about, you
know, an organization with real capabilities, "We think it's likely
there will be another attack" -- is it your sense that that kind of
likelihood -- that that type of thing is being planned outside of
Afghanistan, then, because you have somewhat dealt with their military
capability and their organizational capability inside the country? Do
you think the essential planning capability has now moved outside of
Afghanistan?
Clarke: I wouldn't comment on it from up here. I'll point to one
specific thing, though: Afghanistan was an easy place for them to use
for the terrorist-training camps. We think many, many, many people
were trained in Afghanistan at those camps to conduct terrorism around
the world. That system largely stopped. So that's one good sign.
Q: And I know it sounds like a somewhat ridiculous question, but if
the military -- the U.S. military, which you guys represent, says it
does believe another attack is likely, is there anything you can or
are doing to lessen that risk? (Inaudible) -- difficult it would be,
obviously.
Clarke: We were talking about that this morning. You know, so many
people put the world now in "pre-9/11" and "post 9/11." There have
been extraordinary changes since 9/11 with that exact intent -- to
prevent future attacks on Americans. There is increased coordination
and fusion of the intel gathering and how it is used and how it is
analyzed. There is increased security at our borders and ports around
the country. We are standing up NORTHCOM this fall, with the expressed
purpose of focusing largely on homeland defense. There's unprecedented
cooperation with dozens and dozens of countries around the world -- on
law enforcement, on military operations, on intel. That has never
happened before. That's unprecedented. That will help in our shared
goal to try to prevent future terrorist attacks.
But as Secretary Rumsfeld and everyone else has said from up here, you
can't protect against every attack. You couldn't build a bunker deep
enough. You couldn't have enough people to prevent every attack, which
is why we're on the offense, which is why we're going after these
people. Now it's an important point, Barbara. It is why we're not
waiting, we're not just saying 'let's do whatever we can to protect
ourselves against these things that we think will happen.' It is why
we are making such an incredible effort to go after them and to go
after those who harbor and support them.
Q: Is there anything that --
Q: In the pre-9/11 world that you talked about, it's been documented
now that the -- at least two FBI agents had warned their superiors
that the terrorists could use airliners as potential weapons. Were
those warnings shared with the Pentagon or the U.S. military? Did the
Pentagon or U.S. military have its own independent information to
indicate that? And did the U.S. military take any steps at their
bases, particularly overseas, to protect against such terrorist
attacks by commercial airliners -- suicide bombings?
Clarke: Do you mean the Phoenix memo and the Minnesota memo, I guess,
as they're calling them?
Q: Right.
Clarke: Secretary Rumsfeld was asked about that the other day, and he
was not aware of those reports until after 9/11, when it was reported
in the press, actually.
Q: So in other words, that information was not -- because there's a
report out today that the information was shared with the FAA. And it
would seem, since the August 6th memo, the one that went through the
various scenarios of what could happen, that was briefed to President
Bush, talked about potential hijackings and the like, and the thought
then was that the attacks would be on U.S. targets overseas. Well,
most "U.S. targets overseas" many times mean U.S. military
installations. And I was just wondering if the U.S. military or
Pentagon was ever -- if those warnings were ever shared with the U.S.
military to permit them to try to prevent such attacks.
Clarke: Those specific ones that you're talking about, Secretary
Rumsfeld was not aware of. Now somewhere in the 2 million people that
work for the Department of Defense around the world -- I don't know if
anybody was aware of them. The general can speak to it better than I
can. But individual commanders change their conditions based on their
information, and it changes and ebbs and flows according to what's
going on in their region. But I know Secretary Rumsfeld has been asked
about those specifically, and he was not aware of them.
Q: And in the post-September fusion of intelligence, is the
intelligence now that's shared between the FBI and CIA -- is that
immediately transferred over to the military? Is that sharing going
on?
Newbold: We have two meetings a day -- it's conducted by secure video
teleconference -- in which the interagency represents the best
intelligence they have at that particular time of day. We participate
in that. That is OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] and the
Joint Staff. And the communications are very, very good.
Q: And is that a two-way street? Does the military provide input to
that?
Newbold: We do.
Q: And that's just been since September 11th?
Clarke: Mm-hm. (Affirmative response.)
Q: Can you say who takes part in that video teleconference?
Newbold: I'm sorry?
Q: Can you say who takes part, what agencies -- how many agencies,
which officials?
Newbold: Well, I wouldn't provide you a number, but I would say all
the agencies associated with intelligence collection and, in our case,
operations, are privy to that, those who both develop intelligence and
those who use it.
Q: Following along Jim's question about these memos preceding 9/11,
was one of the reasons that the Defense Department was able to respond
as quickly as it did to 9/11, in roughly a month's time, to go after
al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan, that there was some planning already
in place prior to 9/11 to hit exactly those targets?
Clarke: No. They did what they did because there was an extraordinary
effort. But I know there were some questions about that over the
weekend. There were no plans in place or contingency plans that were
pulled off the shelf and dusted off, on Afghanistan.
Q: Have U.S. forces in the Gulf and Middle East area, or elsewhere
around the world, been put on a higher DEFCON status, based on this,
quote, "chatter," recent chatter, that we're talking about? Or is it
non-specific -- wasn't specific enough to perhaps put U.S. forces on
higher DEFCON in certain areas?
Newbold: I think that's a good characterization. As you know, we have
our forces at higher state of alert, force protection conditions, ever
since 9/11. In response to what you've heard over the weekend, I would
say it is relatively non-specific, and we are watching it extremely
closely. We can enhance the force protection conditions to a rather
general or specific locale or worldwide.
Q: But it hasn't been done?
Clarke: I'm sorry?
Q: But it hasn't been done yet? I mean higher Defense Condition?
Newbold: Not in response to what you're hearing about this weekend.
But I would tell you that in most locations they're already at a
threat condition or force protection condition which would accommodate
it. That's a very important point, though; they're prepared for that
at any time.
Q: To follow up on this post-9/11 intelligence-sharing environment, to
what extent does that include our allies, our new allies, in the war
against terrorism? Is there a system being cobbled together to better
share both across the Atlantic and through Southeast Asia?
Newbold: There is, but I think you probably ought to direct that one
to the intelligence agencies. But I can tell you we're privy to shared
information that's coming from a broad coalition, in surprising range
and depth. That ought to be a comfort --
Q: (Off mike) -- prior to September 11th?
Newbold: Absolutely. Dramatic.
Clarke: Pam? In back --
Q: Last week, I think it was -- I was listening to a White House press
briefing, and I believe it was -- there's been obviously so much
information thrown at us about this -- I think Ari Fleischer said
something about how the military began, shortly after the Bush
administration took over, coming up with a plan for dealing with al
Qaeda. Could you explain what that process was and where it was when
September 11th happened?
Clarke: It was -- I've asked -- again, I did not see Ari's brief. I
haven't read the whole transcript. But I got a couple calls on it and
we checked --
Q: (Off mike) working.
Clarke: That what he really was referring to, in my understanding, was
an intel community plan. It was not military plans per se.
Q: (Off mike) Military, because I thought --
Clarke: But I think he referred to -- no, I think he referred to it as
a battle plan, but in a --
Q: Yeah.
Clarke: I think. I just want to be very careful, because I didn't read
the transcript. But I got a few calls on it, and we did check around,
and I checked around this morning. And it was intel community side of
the fence.
Q: General Newbold, anything?
Newbold: Not inconsistent with that. I would tell you that we are in a
constant state of planning. So we're not bored. (Laughter.) We have
plenty to consider, and we were pre-9/11 and certainly have been
since.
Clarke: Let's do one more. Jim?
Q: Does your belief that another attack is likely -- does that stem
from the fact that with all this intelligence that you've gotten since
September 11th, that you have greater clarity on the way al Qaeda is
operating, where their cells are? Or is it sort of the way it was
before, that you believe it's likely because you don't know what's out
there?
Clarke: I'm not sure if I understand the question, and I'm not the
expert on intel. But my understanding is, based on clear intent and
desire, expressed repeatedly by the al Qaeda, to do exactly that,
based on experience that an organization that could spend the months,
years, whatever it took to pull off 9/11, and the resources and the
funding, probably had some other things in mind -- you know, lots of
examples of things they have done -- and then intelligence, which I
believe -- and I want to be very careful here, because it is not my
area at all -- of a general nature that leads us to believe it is
likely there will be another attack.
You want to clean that up at all for me?
Newbold: I think that's exactly right. They definitely have the will.
They've shown that. They have the numbers of people, who operated out
of training camps in Afghanistan for a number of years. And, as Ms.
Clarke says, they have the resources. So I think it's predictable.
Q: Can we do a quick Iraq -- (inaudible)?
Clarke: Sure.
Q: General Newbold, the strike in [Operation] Southern Watch, their
use of aircraft-direction-finding equipment -- is there anything in
that that you find particularly interesting? That's not something they
use every day of the week. And they've turned this system on recently
apparently twice in two weeks to target coalition aircraft.
Newbold: These are fixed sites. They're permanent. They're for -- they
are used in directing or coordinating their attacks. They help to
increase the effectiveness of the Iraqi air defense, and when they
continue to threaten our forces, as you've seen in the past, we're
going to take actions that reduce their ability to do that.
Q: But any idea of why they've suddenly used it once again? Is there
any sense that they're re-establishing the grid or the linkages across
Southern Iraq that they previously had?
Newbold: I would rather characterize it as, they are always, always
trying something new, different, in order to confront our aircraft.
And we're always willing to make sure that they can't do it
effectively.
Q: Sir, is there any evidence that the Iraqi military is taking steps
to prepare against a potential U.S. attack?
Newbold: I think the Iraqis are probably reading the newspapers and
the reports as well as anybody is. And I think they're spending a good
deal of time in planning to --
Clarke: Thank you. 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
|
|
|
