DoD News Briefing
Thursday, August 6, 1998 - 1:30 p.m. (EDT)
Presenter: Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD (PA)
....................
Q: With the latest signal from Baghdad on the U.N. inspections and given the fact that U.S. military forces have apparently been the main reason that Saddam has backed down before on such moves, have any preliminary considerations been given to building up the U.S. military force in the Gulf at this time?
A: No, we think we have a very adequate force there. We've got a carrier battle group, the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN; we've got, with that, the planes and the battle group; 167 planes in the theater; we have over 19,000 people in the area; and as you know, after we drew down the force from earlier this year we left behind a much larger complement of Tomahawk cruise missiles, double the amount we had there last year. So we think we have a very strong ready force, ready to, able to defend our interests and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein if necessary.
Q: Does a move like this by Baghdad quickly shorten the force, the prospect, the timeframe for the possible use of military power?
A: I don't think we're at a crisis stage yet. This is a dispute between Iraq and the United Nations and the issue here is whether Iraq is going to comply with an agreement it negotiated with Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations. That's what's at stake. And the UN Security Council is meeting even as we meet here to look at the facts, get a report from Ambassador Butler, and to decide what to do next.
I think that Iraq's goals are clear. One, it wants to try to end the sanctions, and this is the wrong way to go about that. Two, I think it wants to try to end inspections so it can continue work on its weapons of mass destruction program. The U.N. has made it clear year in and year out that it's not going to allow that to happen. I assume that the U.N. won't allow it to happen this time. That's what's at issue here.
Every time the inspectors make a new discovery, Iraq seems to throw a tantrum of some sort to try to interrupt the inspection process and that's what it's attempting to do at this time. As you know, several weeks ago inspectors found a residue of nerve gas on some warhead components and several weeks thereafter Iraq tried to crack down on the inspections. That's what's happening.
I think this is pretty transparent to the rest of the world. Saddam Hussein is up to his old tricks. I think it's an affront to the United Nations. The United Nations is meeting now to consider what to do.
Q: Does the Pentagon consider Iraq in violation of the February agreement now?
A: That's for the U.N. to decide, and that's what the U.N. is meeting on right now.
Q: You say these incidents happened when UNSCOM usually finds something. Has there been any development that you know of that they have found, or that you anticipate shortly in their WMD program that might have led to this latest tantrum, as you call it?
A: First of all, we do know that they did find some residue of nerve gas a month or so ago. Second, I'd just refer you to what Ambassador Butler has said recently. They were making progress on the chemical file and making progress on the missile file, but they still had a long way to go on the biological weapons file. He has described the Iraqi biological weapons program as a dark hole, a black hole. I think that's true.
There's much more information the U.N. needs to be able to assure itself that Iraq has stopped work on the biological weapons program.
Q: On the biological front, didn't some samples from old destroyed artillery shells that possibly had anthrax in them -- didn't that go to a DoD lab of some kind awhile ago? What were the results of that?
A: I think, I'll go back and double-check, but I think you're referring to some indications of nerve gas.
Q: In other words, the results of an anthrax..
A: I'll have to go back and check on that. We do believe they've had an ability to manufacture not only anthrax but botulinum and some other biological weapons.
Q: Can you review for us the current status of Iraqi troop movements, the routine rotational movements you described some days back, and any more recent movements either in the north or south?
A: There were a series of troop rotations over the last few weeks. We believe those are over now. They seemed to be mainly for mobilization and training purposes, not for redeployments in preparation for any sort of military action. Those troops seem to now have completed those movements and returned to their facilities or barracks. There hasn't been any other notable movements in the last few days or weeks.
Q: Could you describe how the no-fly zone operations continued, at what pace, and has there been any kind of alert that you've noticed from their air defense units, anything along that...
A: We did not notice any changes in their air defenses, and the Operation Southern Watch flights are continuing as normal. I don't think I have a number here, but there's been no change in our sorties to enforce the southern no-fly zone.
Q: What's the flow of forces, if you had to bring forces back, we're talking a day or two to bring robust air forces? What's your timeline?
A: I don't want to get into details on that, but one of the things we did when we drew down the force from last spring was to lay out a very clear plan for rebuilding the force if necessary. Units have been identified and they've been given a timeline. We could have very significant reinforcements over there within 48 hours.
Q: Can you give us a rundown on U.S. troops on the ground in the theater there?
A: Sure. There are a total of 19,650 troops in the theater; 2,300 of those are Army; 11,000 are Navy and Marine Corps troops; there are 5,900 Air Force personnel; 4450 joint people in headquarters units, etc. I hope that adds up to 19,650.
Q: 167 aircraft in...
A: There are 167 aircraft in the area and that includes TAC aircraft, combat aircraft, as well as support aircraft.
Q: Does that include the air group off the LINCOLN?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: When you said that you had increased the Tomahawk force, you meant just by virtue of leaving more surface ships and perhaps a submarine. You're talking about by virtue of having more platforms in the area...
A: I'm talking about the number of Tomahawks in the theater ready for near instant use. Since they have to be on platforms, yes, you figure out...
Q: Can you say how many?
A: No. But it's double what we had there last spring.
Q: When?
A: Last fall and last spring.
...................
Press: Thank you.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
