• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

DoD News Briefing

.................

Q: Would you be kind enough to defer just for a moment and tell us what you can about the situation in Iraq today?

Secretary Cohen: The situation is that at approximately 1:30 this morning four British aircraft were continuing their no-fly zone operations in the southern part of Iraq, during which time they were tracked by Iraqi radar and as a result of that tracking, a HARM missile was fired by a U.S. F-16 aircraft at the site, at the site of the radiation. Beyond that, I don't have any information that would add to what you already know in terms of the consequences of the firing of that missile.

At this point we cannot determine with any certainty whether the missile hit any radar or whether it missed.

Q: Is this a rogue act, do you think, or is this...

Secretary Cohen: We don't know. It could be simply an isolated example. We have not seen any evidence on the part of the Iraqis altering their air defense system. We've not seen any examples of higher alert. We've not seen them moving their radars and tracking systems around in any sort of aggressive fashion, so it might be a situation of an isolated example.

Q: Mr. Secretary, the British fighters were the first to recognize that the radar was activated. Why was it up to the U.S. then to fire on them? Why didn't the British flyers or a British long range missile...

Secretary Cohen: The U.S. aircraft in the area was armed with the HARM missile which was deemed to be the most effective weapon to target that radar site at that time. It was a split second type of operation. We have a lock on of the radar for only seconds at a time so this decision was made on that kind of a split second decisionmaking status.

Q: Now that the U.S. has drawn down to nearly half the force that it had a month and a half ago, is this going to alter any of your plans on keeping it or are you going to just watch and wait and keep the force level...

Secretary Cohen: This will not alter our plans. I don't think we should draw any conclusions from this particular one incident. Obviously, if the situation changes, then we would change our plans, but right now we have more than adequate capability to deter any attack upon U.S. forces or allied forces and more than sufficient capability of inflicting substantial harm. So we see no need at this point to change anything.

Q: Mr. Secretary, what message should this send to Iraq's Saddam Hussein?

Secretary Cohen: The message is a very simple one, that our forces are going to protect themselves. This is an act of self defense. We believe very strongly that our aircraft and those of our friends are going to fly without being attacked or the threat of attack. Should that threat manifest itself, it will be responded to immediately. Beyond that, I think that's the single message we want to send.

Q: Iraq has denied targeting the U.S. planes and labeled this an act of aggression. Your reaction?

Secretary Cohen: You have four British aircraft that identified their aircraft as being illuminated, or the one aircraft being illuminated, but it was confirmed by three other British aircraft plus the U.S. F-16. There is no need for the United States or the British or the French, should that be the case in the future, to try to either create a situation of aggression or conflict. They are simply engaging in their own self-protection and they will continue to do that. We hope this will be seen as an isolated example and not see any escalation on the part of the Iraqis.

...............

Q: A question on Iraq again. If this wasn't a hostile action by Iraq, as you say it might not have been, what could it have been?

Secretary Cohen: I didn't say it wasn't a hostile action. The question was whether it was an isolated one, whether it was an effort to deliberately target this either on the part of the operator on his own, or whether or not it was something that was mandated and commanded to do, whether it was simply an isolated example. We don't know the answer to that. I think it would not behoove us to speculate what the motivation may have been. We will watch very carefully, we will continue to fly the no-fly zone, we will continue to engage in force protection, self-protection, and to do whatever is necessary to protect our pilots, but I don't know that we're in a position to speculate as to what the motivation may have been. I think we will see what the consequences are as far as the Iraqi reaction. Hopefully, we will return to the same bases that we have been engaged in for the past several months now. They have made no aggressive moves, that we have detected at least, toward any of our aircraft, so it may be an isolated case.

Q: As a result, are U.S. or allied pilots in Operation SOUTHERN WATCH on any higher state of alert? Have they changed their procedures at all as a result of this incident?

Secretary Cohen: They are always on a fairly high state of alert in terms of making sure that they are protected. They will perhaps be a little more acute in terms of their actions right now but we would maintain the same level of protection.

Q: Given that U.S. planes have control of the skies, what is the delay in the battle damage assessment?

Secretary Cohen: I can't answer that question in terms of whether the assessment has been completed yet, in terms of all of the imagery information coming down and being analyzed. I don't know that the target was hit. It seems that perhaps it was not hit, but I don't have the information that would confirm that.

Q: ...the fact that President Clinton wasn't notified of this incident until some eight hours after the fact.

Secretary Cohen: In view of the fact that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and other officials were notified, it was determined apparently that it was not necessary to interrupt the proceedings in China right now. If it had been more serious, obviously this information would have been communicated right away. But a determination was made that it was isolated in nature and it was left at that.

Q: You said there's a possibility the missile did not hit the radar, but do you have to hit each radar in order to effectively prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening U.S. planes?

Secretary Cohen: The answer is no. I think you can send a signal that we intend to engage very vigorously enforced protection, that if any of our aircraft or those of our allies are targeted, then they will be met with a very vigorous response. I think that that signal was sent and hopefully it will rest there. Hopefully it was simply an isolated example and not a concerted effort on the part of Saddam or any of his troops to put our forces in jeopardy. Should they be put in jeopardy, then obviously that would call for a very vigorous response on our part.

Q: Are you convinced that the analysis of the Iraqi warheads, the finding of VX is correct? Are you convinced that they had it, loaded it, and then disposed of it?

Secretary Cohen: I really don't have that kind of information that I could make a statement. I believe there has been a pattern of deception and lying on the part of the Iraqis from the very beginning. They originally indicated they had no VX, had no anthrax. All of that of course has been proven to be incorrect. They also stated categorically that they had not weaponized their missiles.

The evidence that has been presented by Mr. Butler and the UNSCOM inspectors would appear to contradict that. The judgment as to whether or not that evidence is persuasive remains with the United Nations for the moment, but I think you have to go back and look at the pattern of behavior on the part of the Iraqis and then make a calculation or a judgment in terms of whether or not this would appear to be very accurate information.

Q: Therefore no sanctions relief?

Secretary Cohen: I believe until such time -- I've stated this time and time again -- until such time as the Iraqis fully comply with the U.N. Security Council resolutions, and that means not only is the burden upon the UNSCOM inspectors to search throughout Iraq, a country the size of the state of Wyoming, looking for evidence and fragments of chemical and biological agents or weapons, the burden is also fully upon Saddam Hussein to produce evidence that he has in fact done what he claims he has done, namely destroyed all of the VX and the anthrax and the missiles that have been banned by the Security Council Resolutions. So he has an affirmative obligation not to prove a negative, but to prove a positive. Until such time as that takes place, there should be no consideration of lifting the sanctions.

...................

Press: Thank you.