DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, January 27, 1998 - 1:45 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA
..................
Q: Before we get to all the other stuff, the Lewinsky stuff, is the SECDEF considering whether or not to go to the Middle East in advance, because of the Iraq crisis? He's supposed to go to the Wehrkunde Conference.
A: The Secretary is tentatively planning to go to the Middle East to consult with leaders in the area. The exact time of that trip and the itinerary have not been set yet, but it would likely be in early February.
Q: Would it be part of this Wehrkunde Conference or anything...
A: I think we're working out the details, and when we have the details worked out, we'll get back to you?
Q: Will he be traveling with Secretary Albright, or...
A: No, this would be a separate trip. He would be going over there to talk with military leaders and heads of state as part of the consultation.
Q: To the Gulf?
A: It would be to the Gulf, yes.
Q: What would the purpose of the trip be?
A: The purpose of the trip would be to consult with our friends and allies in the Gulf about possible military action. As you know, the President has not yet made a decision on which way to go, but there is an increasing feeling that the diplomatic options have exhausted themselves and it leaves us little choice to achieve our goals than to look at military action.
Our goals, obviously, are to convince Iraq to stop work on its weapons of mass destruction program. We have tried very hard diplomatically, and will continue to try diplomatically to do that, but if the diplomacy fails, we'll have to look at other options.
Q: Will he be seeking permission from various countries to launch offensive strikes from their territories?
A: If he goes to the Middle East, he'll go to discuss our plans and to consult with the allies.
Q: I refer to a New York Times article today, specifically on warheads being loaded with biological weapons. First your comment on this development that's reported by Butler. Secondly, does this not raise the threshold for some response? Does this not invite response when missiles are loaded and then could be disbursed and not found as targets?
A: Mr. Butler's comments focused attention on what the real issue is here. The issue is weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's continuing ability to build them and it's possible willingness to use them. We know that Iraq has used chemical weapons in the past against its own people and against people in Iran. This report by Mr. Butler is based on his observation in Iraq, his knowledge from his trips there, and his own inspection teams and the information that they've gathered. I think that the appropriate person to comment further on that is Mr. Butler, but it is an important statement because it focuses on the issue here, which is weapons of mass destruction -- the threat that countries in the area can face from Iraq.
Q: But this does not raise the alarm with the U.S. military and the British military about finding these weapons...
A: Our goal through diplomacy has been to stop work on this program. That's what the UN Security Council's goal is, and that's what our goal is too. That's what we've been trying to do for the last couple of months.
Q: Couldn't this biological-filled warhead that Mr. Butler referred to -- doesn't it potentially threaten U.S. troops in the region if Iraq decided to use this weapon which was described as crude, but nevertheless could be a very dangerous weapon. Doesn't it threaten U.S. troops?
A: That's the point that we've been making for months. The existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq threaten people in the area and yes, of course, they threaten troops -- our troops or other troops that are stationed in the area.
We have very adequate air defense capabilities in the area, a number of Patriot batteries spread throughout the area. We have a substantial military force in the area now. I think that Saddam Hussein knew during the Gulf War and knows now that any use of weapons of mass destruction against American troops or American allies would be extremely dangerous; that we would respond with great force and great decisiveness. We've made that clear to him. President Bush made it clear to him. Secretary Perry made it clear to him. Secretary Cohen has made it clear in statements. Our position on that has not changed.
What we would like to do is to go beyond the threat phase to the dismantlement phase, to getting rid of these weapons so they are no longer a threat, so people can't be held hostage by such weapons. That's what the UN's been trying to do. That's why this issue is so important.
Q: If the United States were to launch a military attack against Iraq, how would you describe the end state? How would you describe what it is that has been accomplished once this has happened? Would there be inspections again? Is that your anticipation? Or you would have wiped out all capability from now until eternity that they could do this again, or that there would have to be repeated military strikes? What is the thinking if this were to happen, of how you know you're successful?
A: I can't get into specifics, obviously, about what any military action would involve. I want to stress again that the President has not made a decision on military action. But I think you have to look at diplomacy and any possible military action as part of the same continuum and they're designed to achieve the same goal. That goal is to dismantle, get rid of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We've been trying to do that through the UN Security Council, we've been trying to do that with inspectors, we've been trying to do that the same way we proceeded through the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency with the Iraqi nuclear program. We've tried to apply the same mechanism, the same procedures to chemical and biological weapons. So far we have not succeeded.
There's still room for diplomacy to work. It is still our hope that that will work. But if it doesn't, then we'll have to look at other options. But the goal will be exactly the same, which is to end the threat to the area and to our forces in the area potentially.
Q: Can I follow that up? I think what we're trying to say is, are we trying to force compliance with inspections, or are we trying to destroy the capability? Can you be more specific at all?
A: Our goal overall goal is to get rid of the threat of weapons of mass destruction -- particularly chemical and biological agents. The preferred way to do that is through inspections. We would like to do that through inspections and follow-up actions now. Our hope would be that we could do that even after military action. We could have inspectors back and on the ground. But our hope, our main hope is to do this through diplomacy. We've made that very clear, and we continue to make that very clear.
Q: If American troops face a weapon of mass destruction, you said Iraq will face a serious threat. They already face 325, soon to be 375 combat aircraft and a substantial force. You're talking about another level of force, of violence? Can you be more specific?
A: No. All I'm saying is the response would be decisive and devastating.
Q: As far as any potential attacks now if diplomatic means don't work, the SECDEF made it clear in an interview with CNN on the trip that places where these weapons are being made, built, or planned would be hit, likely be hit. Would it go beyond that, to military targets beyond where things were being made?
A: I don't think that...
Q: He did use the term "targets which are important to Saddam". Did he mean beyond chemical and biological targets?
A: Well, there are a range of targets that are important to Saddam and that he may use to support his regime. Republican Guard units, special Republican Guard units that provide security forces, intelligence, command and control. But I don't think it's profitable for me to get into discussions of targets. I don't think that we want to use Reuters to telegraph the end goals of military action to Saddam Hussein at this stage.
Q: Can Saddam Hussein be concerned that he personally might end up being a target of one of these attacks?
A: I think that our goal, our primary goal is to deal with weapons of mass destruction, and I'd just like to leave it at that.
Q: In terms of the goal, the weapons of mass destruction, it's been said in this room, in fact last fall, that a military attack faces some significant technical problems. Marrying intelligence -- where the weapons are -- with the technology to destroy them. Does that problem still stand? And if not...
A: Obviously there are technical problems facing any military action. That's one of the reasons why we think diplomacy offers the best result here. Successful diplomacy, and let me say so far the diplomacy has not been successful.
There obviously are a number of ways to deal with the weapons of mass destruction challenge. One is to go after the stockpiles themselves; another is to go after the way they're delivered; a third is to go after the production facilities and the facilities that are associated with production. Those are all things that we would look at.
Q: Following that up, though, isn't it awfully difficult to drop a bomb on any kind of CW plant without it spewing the atmosphere full of poison that could be perhaps more of a problem than you solved?
A: That's certainly something that the planners would take into account, but without getting into specifics, I can't go beyond that now.
Q: Can you describe in a general way how military technology and military armaments have improved in the six years since the end of the Gulf War? What will he face that's new and different?
A: The basic idea of precision guided weapons has not changed. That was well established and proven by the Gulf War. What has changed is the ability of those weapons; the software packages have changed, the amount of weapons available, the variety has changed somewhat. So there have really been improvements in the concept more than new concepts guiding the type of weapons we would use.
Q: There was a, if I recall it correctly, there was an article by Ambassador Murphy in the paper within recent days suggesting that an air campaign alone would probably be unsuccessful, that to be sure you had actually knocked down any sort of biological or chemical capabilities would require the use of ground forces. How do you view that argument?
A: The problem is not just limited to storage facilities, it includes delivery capability, manufacturing capability, research, etc., command and control. So you have to look more broadly than just storage. I would not encourage anybody to think in terms of use of ground troops here.
Q: During the Gulf War the Pentagon had expressed some concern about the possibility of some sort of terrorism incident in the U.S. that could be traced back to Saddam Hussein's regime. Is there any intelligence that the Pentagon has discussed, that there's an increased chance of that at this point?
A: First, obviously I can't discuss intelligence in any detail. Second, it's clearly a concern and something that we're watching as closely as we can. Third, in terms of our troops in the area, you know that force protection is a major, major concern. And we are also doing our best to upgrade our capability to deal with terrorist attacks domestically. But the fundamental wall for interdicting terrorism is intelligence, and we do spend a lot of time focusing on intelligence about domestic terrorism.
Q: Isn't the same air campaign over several days, isn't that in fact a war?
A: First of all, I don't want to answer a question in a way that suggests that I buy into a sustained air campaign over a couple of days. I think we'll have to wait and see one, if military force is authorized by the President; and two, what type of tactics he would approve. I think that's a question for lawyers to answer.
Q: Is there any consideration being given to sending biological detectors such as Portal Shield over there?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that going to happen?
A: I think that one of the things we're looking at is upgrading our chemical and biological detection capability, and that's one of many things we're looking at right now. We will do everything we can to make sure we're as well prepared as possible for that type of environment.
Q: Are there Portal Shield units, if you will, that are on alert for this?
A: I don't know whether alert is the right term, but we are clearly looking at ways to upgrade our ability in the area.
Q: When do you expect INDEPENDENCE to arrive? And how long a time will there be when there are three carriers in the Gulf? What's the expectation now?
A: That's a good question. The INDEPENDENCE is scheduled to arrive in early February. There will be some overlap among the three carriers in the Gulf. Of course there's actually a fourth carrier, because the British INVINCIBLE is there as well.
But we believe that under all reasonable or expected scenarios that two carriers will be enough to do the job. Having said that, there is still a possibility of an overlap for some short period of time, but that hasn't been determined yet. It remains a possibility that has not been decided.
Q: I just wanted to check, has the President ruled out a response to weapons of mass destruction with our own weapons of mass destruction?
A: The Administration's policy on this is very clear. We will respond decisively with devastating force.
Q: The reason I ask is because if some of these targets are buried targets, the best weapons to get after them are the nuclear penetrating bombs. Has that been ruled out?
A: I don't think we've ruled anything in or out in this regard. Our position is that we would respond very aggressively.
Q: Does the Administration have a position on whether or not it is going to seek additional approval of some kind from the UN Security Council in the days of weeks ahead, prior to doing anything?
A: That's the type of question that Jamie Rubin -- it would be more appropriate for him to answer than for me. So I recommend that you talk to Jamie about that, who's very well qualified to deal with questions like that.
Q: You talked about improving chemical and biological detection capability. What about the vaccines or medicines for troops in the region?
A: It's certainly one of the issues under consideration.
Q: Giving them what?
A: I think that consideration means that decisions have not been made, and until they're made, I'd rather wait and not speculate.
Q: We've already had a decision, haven't we, on anthrax, one new vaccine, anthrax?
A: We've had a preliminary decision to vaccinate all active duty and reserve military people with anthrax. Now that's a preliminary decision and there are several more checks that have to be made before that's a final decision.
Q: What part of our forward deployed troops have that vaccine now?
A: There are small numbers of troops whose vaccinations are current for anthrax -- some special forces, some troops that deal in chem/bio detection and control units. As I say, small numbers of troops. I can't remember the number but it's in the hundreds, I think. Maybe a little more than that.
What we're talking about here is something a little different. As I say, there aren't final decisions, but there are a number of options for dealing with anthrax, and what we're doing is looking at the range of health options.
Q: Does the Pentagon currently know, or can you say if Iraq has operational missiles with warheads loaded with biological components that can be used against U.S. forces or Israel or Saudi forces at this time presently?
A: I saw the statement by Mr. Butler. As I said, he has been in the area. His teams have been working very aggressively in the area. They've been collecting documents, they've been talking to people, they've been inspecting places. He based that statement on his knowledge, and the appropriate person to ask about that is Mr. Butler. I don't want to comment on any intelligence matter. He's made a public statement, and I would encourage you to follow up with him on that.
Q: Has there been any change in the disposition of Iraqi forces at all on...
A: Nothing major, no. They continue to move their missiles around in ways that they've been doing actually for months. Ways that make them more difficult to target should we want to do that. And also give them the ability to make some adjustments in their capability by moving around new targets or into new locations. But we haven't seen anything major beyond that.
Q: Do you have anything to say about, without being specific, timeline, time running out, clock ticking, all of those sorts of sentiments? Is this an indefinite process or...
A: It's clearly not an indefinite process. But first of all, the President has not made a decision yet, and even if he were to make a firm decision to use military force -- and he has not, but if he were to make that decision, up until the very moment that force is invoked, there's still an opportunity for Saddam Hussein to realize that the best option for him and the best option for everybody else is to allow inspectors in to do their job with unfettered access to the weapons of mass destruction sites. That's what this... That's the issue. That's what we're trying to achieve. We've been trying to achieve it diplomatically. We continue to try to do that. That will be our goal until the last minute.
If, as is currently the case, that seems to be a fruitless, unachievable goal, then obviously we'll have to do something else. But I don't think that I should give specific dates at this time. That's for the President to decide. It's very clear that the train is leaving the station here. Mrs. Albright is going off, Ambassador Richardson is going off. Secretary Albright's going to go to Europe and to the Gulf states to talk to people. Ambassador Richardson is going around the world talking to the seats of government, to members of the UN Security Council. And Secretary Cohen is prepared to go to the Gulf at the appropriate time.
So we are very serious about trying to come to the resolution here, and to talk to our allies about what our options are.
Q: Back on the preparations for chemical/biological warfare. The preparations for detection, are you basically talking about deploying some of these Army and Marine Corps units -- I forget the acronyms for them -- CBORG [CBIRF -- Chemical Biological Incident Response Force] or something like that, these units whose mission it is to deal with chemical and biological attacks?
A: We're considering a number of options designed to enhance our ability to deal with chemical and biological weapons. These involve detection teams or kits. Portal Shield is a shorthand description of one that deals primarily with biological detection, as I understand it. We would presumably look at decontamination capability in teams. Make sure that we had the proper defensive garments and other material necessary to deal with a chemical or biological threat. But detectors would be the first line of defense. But these remain in the study stage at this time.
Q: Also on the health end of it, as I remember from the anthrax briefings it takes something like what, six months...
A: Yeah. There are alternative ways to do it. I don't know enough about the science of it to discuss it.
Q: Alternative ways to vaccinate, or alternatives other than vaccination?
A: There are alternative medical protection techniques.
Q: It said somewhere in those briefings that if you're immediately treated with antibiotics it's not fatal. Is that what you're talking about?
A: That is certainly an option, yes.
Q: Have the flights patrolling the no-fly zone increased at all? Is there any plan to increase it?
A: No. They've stayed pretty much at the same high level they've been at for a long period of time.
Q: (Inaudible)
A: Well, that's the type of thing that obviously we'll be looking at in the next couple of days. We think we have a very adequate force there now, but the question is, are there elements that have to be enhanced, and we are studying that.
Q: Aren't any of the bio/chem detectors and teams and protective garments, aren't those already in theater in fairly large numbers?
A: We have a whole variety of equipment, and I don't know exactly what's over there right now. But one of the questions is what can we do to enhance what's already there.
Q: Have the Gulf countries given us permission to use our planes that are stationed there?
A: We are quite confident that we'll be able to do what we need to do if military action is selected.
Q: Including using those airplanes? Or are you talking about using other airplanes?
A: I believe that we will have the flexibility we need.
Q: The train leaving the station comment took me back to another subject, took me back in time. I think it was the Watergate craze. But my question really is, is Ms. Tripp still working in a Schedule C job today?
A: She is.
Q: Is there any consideration of removing her from that job?
A: Not that I'm aware of.
.......................
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
