[EXCERPTS] DoD News Briefing Tuesday, April 28, 1998 - 1:50 p.m. Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA .................... Q: Mr. Butler has said that there's been no progress over the last six months in verifying that Iraq has destroyed the weapons of mass destruction Mr. Cohen had talked about on Sunday, the 50 SCUD missiles, 25 armed with biological agents, four tons of nerve gas. What kind of time table is the United States recommending? Is there a deadline now that the United States is recommending to the UN as far as Saddam, get your weapons out, show us where you destroyed them, where they're buried or whatever? A: That's a good question. This is, of course, Saddam Hussein's birthday today. If anybody were to ask me what advice I would give him on his birthday, I would advise him to give the Iraqi people the present of peace and prosperity by honoring the UN mandates and by meeting the terms that the UN has set to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, to end his capacity to build them, and to meet all the other terms such as full accounting for Kuwaiti POWs and MIAs, return of equipment, etc. Because it's only after he does these that the sanctions will be able to be lifted, and the people of Iraq will be able to return to some semblance of prosperity. It's only after he does this that his neighbors in the Middle East will be certain that he has relinquished the aggressive energies that he's deployed against Iran and against Kuwait in the past. And against Saudi Arabia as well, and Israel. So it is, I think, important for the Iraqi people and for Saddam to honor these mandates, to comply with them as soon as possible so that Iraq can turn to better times. There is no deadline right now. I think that it's been very clear to Saddam Hussein since 1991, when these mandates were adopted by the UN Security Council, that he should comply, and that's why the sanctions have remained in place. That's why they're in place today and that's why they'll be in place tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow, until he complies with them. The next review of the sanctions is, as I understand it, set for October, so the sanctions will be in place until October and the UN Security Council will then again look at his degree of compliance. In this particular case that's received so much attention around the world, weapons of mass destruction, as Ambassador Butler said today, as his report said last week, he has not made progress. He, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi government, has not made progress toward compliance with this mandate. I can run through again, as I have many times, some of the figures here, but he has yet to prove, for instance, that he has destroyed, as he said, the 25 SCUD warheads he claims to have filled with biological weapons, for instance. There are many other failures to comply that I can enumerate. Q: But the pressure will continue to be on sanctions... A: Yes. Q: And the continued presence of higher levels of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region, is that putting a strain on the U.S. military? A: The U.S. military, particularly the Navy, is used to deploying and fighting and patrolling from a forward presence. We usually have from 20,000 to 25,000 people in the Gulf, depending on the number of carriers there and other ships. Now we're up to around 36,000, 37,000, so there has been an addition over the last several months. It's not a huge addition out of a force of 1.4 million people. Seven thousand of those people are in the Army. So this is something that we can work with and have worked with and could continue to work with if we have to. Q: But it's not something that you are comfortable with from a fiscal point of view and from an operational tempo point of view... A: We've asked Congress for more money because it is more costly to have larger deployments in the Gulf. A large part of the cost is getting them over there and getting them back, so the supplemental does request more money to pay for the increased mission in the Gulf. Obviously it does create some operational tempo problems, particularly for the Air Force, which has larger deployments than normal over there now. It also will, in time, could create some operational tempo problems for the Navy -- more in terms of force deployment, I think, than anything else. There hasn't been a carrier in the Mediterranean for awhile because we've had two carriers in the Gulf. So we've also had to deploy some extra air assets into the Pacific because the INDEPENDENCE, which is usually in the Pacific, has been in the Gulf for the last couple of months. But these are what military planners are paid to do -- make these decisions and make these deployments, and they've done it, and they've done it very well and very smoothly. Q: The Navy has said for awhile that they really need 15 aircraft carriers instead of 12. Doesn't this kind of make that case that the United States is short a few aircraft carriers? A: Would one of them be named the ADMIRAL KENDALL PEASE? I think that the aircraft carriers we have now are performing well and are deployed all around the world as necessary. Whether or not we need more carriers is a decision that the Navy and the Secretary of Defense and Congress would ultimately have to make. Q: The Navy has two deployed aircraft carriers in the whole world, and they're both sitting in the Persian Gulf. Other ones are in workup, but there's only two that are actually in deployment. A: I think the EISENHOWER is deployed right now in an exercise. Didn't it leave Norfolk over the weekend for an exercise? Q: On an exercise, then it's going back to Norfolk. It's not what they call deployed. Q: Speaking of carriers, are you going to pull the INDY out of the Gulf on schedule at the middle of May? Are you going to leave it there awhile longer? Are you going to deploy the IKE from Norfolk more quickly? A: All those questions will be answered after the President decides on what level of forces should remain in the Gulf. He hasn't made that decision yet. I anticipate he'll be making it in the next couple of weeks, but that's something for him to decide. Q: Just to clarify, so when we heard that a decision had been made to maintain the level of forces, that was not the final review? A: I think the right way to describe it is no decision has been made to change the level of forces. Q: Has the Secretary recommended a change, or has General Zinni recommended a change? A: I think their recommendations should remain private until the decision is actually made. They are recommendations to the President, and it's ultimately the President's decision. Q: How long of a period is the President considering? This decision that he's got to make in the next week or two is for how long of a period? A: First of all, we've asked for funding to maintain two carriers in the Gulf until the end of the current fiscal year, which is September 30th. The President will have to decide whether two carriers is the proper level or whether we should move down to a lower level. Remember, before this began our level of deployment was... We had one carrier there 75 percent of the time -- 270 days out of the year we had a carrier there; 180 days out of the year we had an amphibious ready group, a Marine expeditionary unit in the Gulf. The President will make a decision, and I suppose that whatever he decides will be subject to change when and if conditions change. That's been our history in the Gulf. When there was a need to deploy more assets, more planes, more soldiers, more ships, we did it. Q: ...even be considering this right now? A: Well remember, when this buildup took place, when it began, two things were happening. The first was that Iraq was threatening to shoot down planes patrolling as part of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. It was also publicly threatening to shoot down U-2s that were flying in support of the UN mission. He had thrown inspectors out of Iraq, and was threatening to violate, to continue to violate UN mandates. Since then, since February, he has worked out an arrangement with the Secretary General of the UN to allow inspectors back in to certain sensitive sites. Those inspectors have gone in and done their inspections. Mr. Butler said that they have to be able to inspect more, and in different sites, and we hope they'll be able to do that. He had stopped threatening publicly to shoot down American and allied planes around the end of October, early November, when we deployed the George Washington into the Gulf, so the language is less bellicose, less threatening, and his actions have been more receptive to UN Special Commission inspectors. Those are two things that have changed. In addition, the UN has decided to leave the sanctions in place until October when they'll be reviewed again, and no one expects the sanctions will be lifted in October unless Saddam Hussein dramatically changes his policy and is more forthcoming with the inspectors and more aggressive about destroying his weapons of mass destruction. But right now, I think the conditions are somewhat less threatening than they were several months ago when the forces were built up. Q: Can you tell us why it takes another week or two to make the decision? Has the President asked for more information or some other input or... It seems like the facts are out there. He either decides to do it or... A: I don't think this is an unreasonable amount of time. The UN Security Council just reviewed the UNSCOM report yesterday. It voted on the sanctions or decided to leave the sanctions in place yesterday. I don't think this is an unreasonable amount of time at all. This is a complex decision. It affects potentially thousands of people. It also will be interpreted, rightly or wrongly, as sending some sort of a message about how we see the situation in the Gulf. So I think it's fully appropriate that the Secretary take his time to review this and that the President take his time to review it and make sure he has all the facts. Q: Is a presidential matter and a decision on the force structure focusing primarily on the two carrier option, or will he also be looking at the number of aircraft? A: I think he'll look across the board at aircraft, ships and soldiers in the Gulf. As you know, we have some extra bombers there, some extra fighters. The F-117s, for instance. There's an air expeditionary force in Bahrain. Q: Is it more likely that... Will this decision entail whether or not to go down to one carrier, or possibly to having one carrier in for a brief period of time then going back up to two when the EISENHOWER is scheduled to... A: I think whatever decision the President makes in the next couple of weeks when he reviews this will be subject to change if conditions change. We would like conditions in the Gulf to remain peaceful. We would like Saddam Hussein to cease from threatening his neighbors or threatening military forces in the area that are carrying out UN mandates. But if he refuses to remain peaceful and placid, then we will have to build up our forces again if the circumstances call for that, and I'm confident that we will. One of the things we've proven over the years since DESERT STORM was that we can surge forces into the Gulf very quickly, and we have built up our infrastructure in the Gulf quite dramatically with prepositioned equipment and continuing operations throughout the Gulf so that we can accommodate a large surge in forces. We've shown that time after time, and no one should doubt our resolve to do it again if we have to. We could surge our forces beyond where they are now. ............. (end transcript)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
