06 September 2002
Defense Department Briefing Transcript
(Aghanistan/bombing; Karzai assassination/attempt; Persian
Gulf/helicopter crash; White House/Franks; Afghanistan/ISAF;
Canadian-Pakistani/detainee; Iraq/coalition airstrikes; September
11/perspectives) (4940)
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke and
Air Force Brigadier General John Rosa, deputy director for current
operations for the Joint Staff, briefed September 6.
(begin transcript)
DoD News Briefing
Victoria Clarke, ASD PA
Friday, Sept. 6, 2002 -- 10:01 a.m. EDT
(Also participating was Air Force Brig. Gen. John W. Rosa, Jr., deputy
director for current operations, Operations Directorate, the Joint
Staff.)
Clarke: Good morning. I just have a couple comments, and I'll turn
this over to General Rosa.
We want to express our condolences and sympathies to the people who
were victims yesterday in the bombing, the attack in Kabul. It's
deplorable for a couple of reasons.
First, it was a deliberate targeting of civilians, men, women and
children who were just going about their daily business, and it was
designed solely for the purpose of spreading carnage, instability and
terror.
Second, it was clearly designed to undermine the efforts of the Afghan
people and the Afghan government to get the country back up on its
feet, to establish a free and democratic society in which they can
live and work and worship in peace and security.
We don't know exactly who did this. We don't know exactly who was
responsible for it. But we do know that there are Taliban remnants, as
well as al Qaeda, who have been plotting these sorts of attacks. And
these are exactly the sorts of tactics we associate with those
organizations.
So again, our sympathies and condolences to the people and their
families. And with that, sir --
Rosa: Thank you. Good morning.
Early this morning one of our Navy SH-60B helicopters assigned to the
USS Mobile Bay crashed into the North Arabian Gulf approximately 80
miles west of Bushehr, Iran. There were five people on board the
helicopter. Four of the Navy personnel survived, but a civilian
cameraman from KCBS Television in Los Angeles died in the incident.
Our condolences go out to his family.
The helicopter had been hovering over a Syrian-flagged vessel to
observe a health inspection boarding, and it crashed when the rotor
blades struck the ship's mast.
As many of you have already reported, we experienced two significant
events in Afghanistan yesterday. First, at 6:25 in the morning local
time yesterday, two explosions occurred in downtown Kabul. No
Americans were injured or killed. The second event occurred
approximately at 10:20 yesterday morning, when an assailant fired upon
President Karzai as he was leaving Kandahar's governor's mansion.
Three people were killed in the incident -- the assailant plus two
others. One Special Forces member was wounded superficially, as well
as the Kandahar governor, Shirzai. President Karzai was not injured in
the attempt.
And with that, we'll take your questions.
Clarke: Charlie.
Q: Torie, both the secretary and the deputy -- in fact, the deputy as
recently as yesterday -- have been saying that Afghanistan is a
relatively stable place now. First, is Afghanistan a relatively stable
place, given what happened yesterday? And given what happened
yesterday, does the United States still oppose putting American
peacekeeping troops into Afghanistan in order to expand ISAF?
Clarke: Well, I'd say two things: Compared to what Afghanistan was
like this time last year, it is a much better place. There are still
problems, obviously. There are still going to be people who are
killed. But it is a much more stable and secure place than it was.
Afghan leaders were here a few weeks ago, and they attested to that,
themselves, which I think is pretty powerful evidence. There will be
problems for some time. You don't take a country that through what
Afghanistan has gone through for the last 20 or 30 years and expect
everything to be perfect in the short run.
On the deputy's comments and other comments regarding ISAF, if you
read the deputy's comments yesterday in his remarks, he very carefully
stated what we have stated before. We have no opposition to the
expansion of ISAF. What we need is more support from other countries,
resources from other countries. We're focused hard now on who is going
to take over the head of ISAF after Turkey relinquishes it in
December. We have no opposition to it, but we need the help and
support of others on that front. The United States is heavily focused
in so many different ways that are contributing to stability and
security in that country. We have thousands of people there who are
continuing to root out the remaining pockets of al Qaeda and Taliban.
We are heavily focused on the training and formation of the Afghan
national army, which Karzai, himself, has said is an important
priority for the United States.
So we're working as hard as we can. We need support and resources from
others, as well.
Q: How do you respond to criticism from other -- (inaudible) -- that
the United States needs to seed the force with some troops in order to
get others to step forward and take part?
Clarke: You know, right before we came out here, I was saying to some
people here, I heard the tail end of something on the radio this
morning and there was someone who was talking about ISAF and the
expansion of ISAF, and said, "The United States can't be on the
sidelines." And that's such a horrible thing to say. We have taken the
lead in working with the Afghan people to try to restore the country
to some semblance of security and stability. And -- I'll say it again
-- we have thousands and thousands of people there who are putting
their necks on the line every single day to root out the remaining al
Qaeda and Taliban.
We are committing lots of people and lots of resources to the Afghan
National Army. We are helping those who are training the police force,
the border patrol. We are going as aggressively as we can to bring
stability and security to that country. ISAF is one piece of it. It is
an important piece of it. We have no opposition to the expansion of
ISAF beyond Kabul. We need support and participation by others as
well.
Q: Just to make it clear, you would support the expansion of ISAF into
other areas, but you do not support putting U.S. troops into ISAF
because you feel you're doing enough in other areas? Is that --
Clarke: Not under consideration at this time. And we are participating
in ISAF. It's the quick-reaction force, it's in logistics, it's in
communications. We are part of ISAF as well.
Q: Well, some people said that it would take U.S. leadership in
getting the ISAF expanded. Would you say you're taking a lead in that
as well, or you don't want to, or --
Clarke: I'd say the Afghan government is taking the lead on what's
appropriate for long-term stability and security in that country. As I
said, Chairman Karzai himself, President Karzai himself has said in
the past he thinks the number-one priority for the United States in
terms of long-term efforts is the formation and the training of the
Afghan National Army. We are participating across the board and will
continue to do so.
Did you want to add anything, sir?
Rosa: No.
Clarke: Okay. Pam?
Q: Can you give us a little bit more -- everything you know, actually
-- about the assassination attempt, the three killed. The man who was
the assailant, you said he was in military uniform. Was it an ANA
uniform? Do you know if he was a trained member of the ANA, or was he
someone just wearing a uniform? And what can you tell us about the two
dead? Was one of them one of the Afghan bodyguards? And were all three
people killed by U.S. Special Forces, or did the Afghan bodyguards
have --
Clarke: I want to say one thing, and then I'll turn this over to you.
I talked to the secretary about this this morning, and he said, "One
thing I want people to know is what an excellent job the security
forces did."
Rosa: Pam, a lot of the answers to those questions just aren't yet
available. Our folks, the Special Forces, were part of President
Karzai's personal security detail, and they did exactly what they were
supposed to do. After shots were fired, they fired back. I'm not sure
if -- yet -- I've seen some of the initial reports of the three folks
that were killed. One of those was obviously the assailant. I don't
know if the other two were killed just because they were in that
vicinity, standing behind him. We did have initial reports that he may
have been in some type of a uniform, but we don't know if it was ANA.
We don't know what type of uniform it was. I'm sure they do now, but
those reports haven't come in yet.
But it's a dangerous place, and the important thing to remember is
that that is a very tough mission. Any time you have a personal
security detail, it's an extremely difficult thing to do, and our
Special Forces troops did it very well.
Q: So you have no concerns about how they handled themselves from the
time that shots were fired?
Rosa: Right now the final reports, even the interim reports, aren't
in. There's no indication that they did anything except what they were
supposed to do, and do it very well.
Q: Yesterday President Bush said, of Afghanistan, we're not leaving.
And at his last briefing here, General Franks said that U.S. troops
would be in Afghanistan for a long, long time and noted that the U.S.
has military engagements around the world.
The one example he cited was Korea. Can the American people expect
that U.S. troops will be in Afghanistan as long as they've been in
Korea, for 50 years or more?
Clarke: The American people can expect we'll be there as long as it
takes.
Q: Is that --
Clarke: I don't know anybody with any real knowledge who's put a date
certain or even an estimate on how long it will take. But we'll be
there as long as it takes.
Q: Torie, could you give a readout, just generally, what Rumsfeld,
Myers and, I presume, Franks are going to be doing at the White House,
without actually saying what advice they're giving? And also, could
you give the administration's position on any possible U.N. security
resolution you might be thinking about?
Clarke: Well, the meeting in the White House -- General Franks comes
up here periodically. The president made it clear -- the earliest days
-- he was going to have a lot of face-to-face communication meetings
with his combatant commanders -- General Franks obviously in the
spotlight right now. General Franks comes up every two or three weeks
and briefs the leadership, including the president. So it is just an
ongoing series of consultations and meetings with the president. But I
just don't want to go beyond that at all.
Q: Well, going -- (inaudible) -- Rumsfeld and Myers -- and what about
the latest on any possible U.N. Security Council resolution?
Clarke: We talked this morning -- if we were going to be talking about
the moon today for Pam Hess. And we won't. This is -- all I want to
say is, reiterate what the president, the vice president, Secretary
Rumsfeld and others have said -- is that the road ahead -- there is
going to be a lot of close consultation and coordination with
Congress, with our allies. There will be close work with the U.N.,
obviously. I'm not prepared to go into any details about that. The
road ahead will also include sharing information as we can and as is
appropriate -- with Congress, with our friends and allies, with the
American people. That's really all we want to say right now.
Q: Can you say, though, just generally, whether there is some thought
of any resolution? I mean, just as a general -- not -- without getting
into the details --
Clarke: It's just not for us to talk about. There'll be very, very
close coordination and consultations. There will be sharing of
information. And beyond that, I'm just not prepared to say.
Q: Is the Defense secretary talking with Ivanov or the French defense
minister or others on the possible shape -- the possible shape -- of a
U.N. resolution, to make it tough enough for inspectors to go in?
Clarke: He talks to his counterpart from Russia frequently. And beyond
that, I won't say.
Q: General, how do you view the possibility for success -- this idea
of coercive inspections, where we would tell them we want to see
something, and if they don't allow it, troops would attack somewhere?
Rosa: That's really out of my lane as the ops briefer. That would be a
policy -- if it got down to that decision, we definitely have a course
of action to do what we're supposed to do.
Q: The prospects of something like that working, having troops in the
right places to do such a thing -- is this militarily --
Rosa: A speculative question like that I really -- I'd hate to even
try and answer that.
Clarke: Let's go in the back.
Yes.
Q: What can you tell us about the case of Omar al-Khadr? He's the
Canadian-Pakistani teenager being held off Bagram Air Base in
connection with the killing of the U.S. soldier. Do you know if he
will be given access to Canadian officials? And how will the case be
prosecuted?
Clarke: We just don't' talk about individual detainees.
Q: No information whatsoever?
Clarke: No. Mm-mm.
Alex?
Q: General, going back to an operational issue: When you have
incidents like what happened yesterday in Afghanistan -- and it's just
the latest in a series of such events -- it appears that it contrasts
-- yeah, setting aside a year ago, things are, in fact, getting worse,
not better, now, in terms of this insurgency. So how are you going to
cope with this type of trend?
Rosa: Well, I would not characterize it as getting worse not better.
We graph and we normalize all the attacks, every attack that we have.
And really, the attack on President Karzai is very, very visible; the
car bomb is very visible. But we've had attacks for the last four or
five months in the Khost area. And what we do is we search out each
one of those. We learn from what we can learn in those attacks. And
that's why we continue to have forces that are doing intelligence
gathering, reconnaissance operations. We're searching those. Every
time we go out, we find weapons caches. We just found two this week.
So that's part of the operation of being very visible in going out and
doing intelligence reconnaissance and those types of operations.
Q: Do you feel you've had some successes that we haven't heard about
in terms of presenting incidents that would be --
Rosa: We have. And when we talk about successes, what we're talking
about is where we discover something before it happens. We keep that
relatively close hold because of the ways and the means that we found
that information out. But there have been successes and we continue to
improve our techniques, tactics, procedures every day.
Clarke: Well, I'd also push back on your statement that -- suggesting
or stating that the situation is far worse than it was. A little while
ago, we went back and looked at some reporting pre- September 11th out
of Afghanistan, of which there wasn't a whole lot. Now, back in those
days, attacks and killings and injuring people, civilians, were a
policy of the government; it was a policy of the al Qaeda. People were
starving because of what the Taliban government was doing. The
situation was far worse.
I don't want anybody to say we, you know, didn't think much about what
happened yesterday. That is a terrible tragedy that innocent civilians
were targeted in that fashion. Those are the kinds of things we're
trying to stop. But I do think we need to keep some perspective about
it. It is terrible when it happens, and the situation is not
wonderful. It's not like my neighborhood up the road, but it is better
than it was. And again, the Afghan leaders were here themselves a few
weeks ago and were attesting to that.
Q: (Off mike) -- should be more secure than they are.
Clarke: And that's where -- that's what we're trying to get to. That's
why we're working so closely with the Afghan government. That's why we
are contributing in all those situations that I was talking about --
our participation in ISAF, creation of the Afghan national army; the
fact that we have thousands and thousands of people there still to
this day, who risk their lives every single day trying to root out the
remaining pockets of these people who do the kinds of things that they
did yesterday.
Let's do Jim, and then back up.
Q: Is -- I mean in this particular case, in the case of Karzai, also
in the case of the vice president, is it the sense that these are
actions that are being directed by al Qaeda, or that they're being
directed by internal Afghan opposition? Because in the case of the
vice president, there were suggestions that it may even have been
enemies within the government.
Clarke: Well, for instance yesterday, we don't know for certain, and
we may not know for certain. We do have some evidence from a variety
of sources that it was likely it could have been Taliban. We do not
know for certain. But we do know, because, again, it has been stated
by the Taliban and al Qaeda, their intent and desire to continue to
disrupt things. And so we know these sorts of things will happen.
Q: Can I ask another question on a separate subject? There was a
report that yesterday's airstrike into Iraq was the biggest in four
years and involved as many as 100 aircraft, and that it marked some
sort of a preparation -- or a possible preparation for future action
there. Could you comment on --
Clarke: I'd just say one thing, and then turn it over to you for the
strike itself.
Rosa: Sure.
Clarke: People are trying to connect dots and patch things together to
come to a conclusion. Don't read more into things that you've seen
than you should.
Rosa: Yeah, when I read that article, I thought maybe we'd had another
strike I didn't know about. I guess if you went and took every
airplane that was airborne at the time, I still think the estimate of
a hundred was high. The strike that we conducted was one of 25. It was
our 25th strike in the South. We've done 10 in the North this calendar
year. That was the 25th. There were 12 airplanes, dropped 25 weapons.
Was it bigger than most? It was bigger than the ones we'd done in the
last probably two weeks, but we've done strikes of that size several
times over the last 10 or 11 years. And it was a strike on a critical
command-and-control node, part of their air defense -- their
integrated air defense system, which is a pretty complex,
sophisticated system.
Clarke: But also the kinds of targets we've gone after before. And
also, when these stories pop up, I always go back and look at the
numbers and say, okay, how does this compare historically to years
past? In terms of numbers, it's about at the same level.
Rosa: The other thing that I think is important is, we were fired upon
when we were in that no-fly zone. We were fired upon and we responded.
And we will continue to do that. We've done that for the last 10, 11
years, and we'll continue to do that.
Q: The strike was also at a target at an airfield.
Rosa: Right.
Q: Is that unusual?
Rosa: No. I think that when you lay out their air defense system,
because it was a pretty good distance out to the west, people think,
well, most of the targets have been over here in the east. When you
look and see how they tie that system in, that's a critical node in
triangulating and looking and measuring where our airplanes are. So if
you take that node out, it makes it more difficult to track your
airplanes.
Clarke: Charlie?
Q: General, you said at the beginning of the briefing that the SH-60
that crashed was hovering over a Syrian -- I guess a Syrian flag
vessel. I think you said for a health inspection landing or a medical
inspection. This wasn't, I guess, part of the embargo. And was this an
accidental crash? What happened?
Rosa: We don't know exactly what happened except that the rotor struck
the ship that it was hovering over's mast. It was part of maritime
intercept ops -- operations. We've been doing those for many, many
years, as we stop vessels, look at their manifest, and that was just
part of an ongoing operation.
Q: But it wasn't a -- I thought you said part of a health inspection
of some sort.
(Q/Clarke): Health board.
Q: I thought you said a health board.
Rosa: It was a detained vessel -- a vessel we had detained and we were
doing a routine health-and-comfort inspection while the ship was
detained.
Q: Okay.
Q: How long had it been detained?
Rosa: Four days.
Q: Were the crew rescued by the crew of the ship? Who rescued the crew
of the helicopter?
Rosa: Don't know. Don't know.
Clarke: (To staff.) You can try to find out? Okay.
Back here.
Q: You talked about the attack in Afghanistan may have been
perpetrated by the Taliban. Can you give us an assessment now as to
the command and control structure, then, in the Taliban, how
coordinated they are, who's calling the shots?
Clarke: No. Severely debilitated. Disrupted, to a large extent. But
you know, the age-old -- we know there are still pockets out there.
But no, I couldn't give you any kind of assessment of numbers or
anything like that.
Q: Forgive me; you may have mentioned this earlier. I came in late.
But re: not making too much of things, what is one to make of the $660
million in airlift contracts let yesterday?
Clarke: We move people and resources all the time. We have exercises
going on around the world. So I just wouldn't connect too many dots
right now, if I were people, and not read too much into it.
Q: You're saying -- (off mike) --
Clarke: I would just say don't read too much into these things.
Q: Torie?
Clarke: Mm-hmm.
Q: May I ask a 9/11 question, please?
Clarke: Sure.
Q: As you both are aware, this is certainly the weekend before the
anniversary, and I was wondering if there was any particular thoughts
that either one of you might have about this upcoming anniversary and
about the Pentagon commemoration on Wednesday.
Clarke: Yeah. The secretary will address this next week. We've -- a
lot of us have talked over the last week or so, and some of us were
out last night. It is extraordinary that a year's gone by. It is just
-- if you told me it was two months ago, I'd believe you. It's just
extraordinary that a year has gone by.
And you know, my personal reflection -- it is extraordinary what
people have done. I mean, it was so awful what happened on 9/11. And
talking to the families of the victims, both here in the Pentagon and
in New York, one thing they tell you again and again and again is, "We
don't want people to forget. We don't want people to forget that our
friends, our relatives, our loved ones were slaughtered on 9/11."
And so then I go through the last year, and I think about the amazing
efforts of the people in uniform, who are putting their necks on the
line every single day, trying to make sure those things don't happen
again. I think about the people out at the crash site who worked so
hard to get this building finished in one year, which is an
extraordinary accomplishment.
And so as awful as it was, what happened on 9/11 -- and it truly was
-- I think an awful lot of good things have happened since then.
Sir?
Rosa: I think about the nearly 200 people that lost their lives. When
you go by the big displays and you look at each picture, that's a life
and a family. That means a lot.
Yesterday -- I went to a meeting yesterday afternoon. As I walked out,
my mind was someplace else. And for a split second, I looked up, and
it was the same color sky, the same type of day, not a cloud in the
sky, no wind, about the same temperature as the day we that we had the
attack. And it was an eerie, eerie feeling. That just -- that came
upon me, and I thought, "Gosh, it's been a year already."
Clarke: Pam.
Q: The --
Clarke: That'd be a nice one to stop on, Pam.
Q: Yeah --
Clarke: But if you want to drag us back to -- (laughs).
Q: On the car-bombing, was there anything remarkable about that -- you
know, in the materials that were used or in the size of the blast that
would mark it as Taliban or al Qaeda?
Clarke: I will just say one thing -- because the short answer's no --
but one thing: Again, going back to -- let's think about the kinds of
people who did this and what their intent was. The notion that there
was a small bomb to get a bunch of people to the scene and then a
larger one -- horrible, for all the obvious reasons. But I don't think
we have much information yet as to the size and scope of the larger
one.
Yes, sir.
Q: Are U.S. forces assisting with or doing the investigation of both
incidents? The Afghans, as you know, have come under some criticism
for their investigations of, certainly, the two assassinations.
Rosa: I would pretty much -- because our troops were involved in the
Karzai incident, we'll definitely play a part in that. I do know that
Marines from the embassy responded after the bigger bomb, and I don't
know what part they'll play in the investigation, if any.
Clarke: Let's go back here and then back to Charlie, and we'll finish
up.
Q: I've been hearing for months -- I'm sure this is true, too -- that
there's no infrastructure in Afghanistan. Whatever there might have
been has all been destroyed by the two decades of war and so forth.
And so I'm wondering, is there any discussion at all of deploying the
Army Corps of Engineers to build roads and bridges and things like
that over there?
Clarke: Well, to push back on your statement -- and we can give you
fact sheet after fact sheet. I actually wasn't here when this
particular briefing was done. But there was a pretty good recitation
of what has been done in terms of roads, in terms of wells.
Q: (Inaudible.)
Clarke: Sure. But roads are very, very important. That's an important
part of the -- you know, it's only so much the country can absorb at
any one time. Clearly, that's -- the significant, complex
infrastructure you're thinking of is where you want to head. But
incredible progress made, in terms of roads and wells, civil,
humanitarian side. Again, United States government and others --
heavily involved in those activities. But we can give you a lot of
information on it. And that -- you know, sometimes people will get
inquiries from the public or say, or they'll say, "Well, why's the
U.S. military involved in that?" That is an important part of
achieving long-term security.
Q: One last question.
Clarke: Okay, we've got some facts and figures for you. And let's go
back to Charlie, and we're going to finish up.
Q: Buried in a New York Times report on the front page this morning
was an indication from a former U.N. -- a weapons inspector in Iraq
that satellite photos -- current satellite photos show that there are
active nuclear-arms-development sites in Iraq. Is there any indication
of that? Is there any evidence of that?
Clarke: All I know is what I read in the story.
Rosa: Yeah, that's what I was going to say. I haven't seen any kinds
of reports like that, Charlie. I mean, I read the article this morning
as well.
Clarke: And don't read too much into what I'm about to say, but I'll
just repeat what I said before. As the president and the vice
president and the secretary, and I've heard the secretary and the vice
president talk about this with members recently, to the extent
possible and the extent appropriate, as we go forward, we will be
sharing information with our allies, we will be sharing information
with Congress, we will be sharing information with the American people
to demonstrate what a real and growing threat we're talking about.
That's it. Thanks, guys. Have a good weekend.
(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
|
|
|
