DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, October 20, 1998 - 1:50 p.m. (EDT)
Presenter: Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD (PA)
...................
Q: A new subject. Can you bring us up to date on the Iraqi, on aid to the Iraqi opposition and what that might be, and if the Administration will sign it; and there is some skepticism about whether or not it will work, and is that skepticism shared by the experts in this building?
A: Skepticism? [Laughter] Well, first of all, I fully anticipate that the President will sign this bill, although that's probably more for the White House to say than for me, but my anticipation is that he will sign it.
Second, we, the Administration, agrees with Congress that a more active Iraqi opposition is desirable. In fact, this Administration has been working hard to encourage a more active Iraqi opposition.
As you probably recall last month, two Kurdish leaders, Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani met with Secretary Albright. It was their first meeting in over four years. They decided to try to work together to bury their differences so they can work as a more unified front. That's progress, but it may be slow progress.
The Administration has been looking at other ways to encourage opposition within Iraq. This new money and congressional resolution will give us more wherewithal to do that.
Q: Further on Iraq, there's an article today saying that, Kofi Annan saying, and I quote, he "believes Iraq will never be fully disarmed and that U.N. weapons teams may have to avoid confrontational inspections in order to regain Baghdad's cooperation and determine the scope of Iraq's current arsenal." Is that a retreat? It sounds like a retreat.
A: Well, I don't know the full context of the U.N. Secretary General's remarks. In the most obvious sense, of course, nothing in the U.N. Security Council Resolutions requires complete disarmament by Iraq. They are allowed to maintain infantry divisions and an air force and armor, etc., and some naval vessels. They're allowed to maintain conventional forces.
The U.N. Security Council Resolutions of most import are directed at their weapons of mass destruction programs. Right now the U.N. is insisting that it meet those demands.
I think everybody realizes that in a country as large as Iraq, where secrecy and deception are ways of life, that it's going to be difficult, absent thousands and thousands of inspectors all over the place to know with complete certainty that every single chemical warhead or biological warhead has been collected and destroyed. I think we can know with a fair degree of certainty that, generally, their weapons of mass destruction program has been suppressed.
Remember, the primary goal of the U.N. policies now is to protect Iraq's neighbors, to contain Iraq from attacking its neighbors in the region. Either through conventional forces or with weapons of mass destruction. I think that policy has worked.
The design of the policy, though, is to make sure that it can work into the future by eliminating their weapons of mass destruction capability.
Q: But does the U.S. maintain a zero tolerance policy on the weapons of mass destruction?
A: The issue is the U.N. here. It's the U.N. Security Council Resolution. As you know, this regime against the weapons of mass destruction remains in effect. There is discussion of how to review compliance with the regime. That discussion is going on today in the U.N.
Mr. Butler, Ambassador Butler, last week said there were still significant and substantial questions about its compliance, Iraq's compliance with -- particularly in the biological weapons front. I think that there is still a lot of work to be done by Iraq to comply with the U.N. Security Council mandates.
Q: But Ken, is it realistic to think that by funding opposition groups that can result in an overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime?
A: I suppose it's more realistic to think that than by not funding them.
Q: Will the Pentagon draw down weapons and other supplies and give them to this group?
A: The President has discretion under this provision. I don't think any decisions have been made to do that at this stage, and before any plans are made to do that we'll have to review whether aid would meet our regional objectives and we'd probably want to talk to our allies in the region as well.
Q: When the B-2s recently deployed to Guam, we were told that this was essentially an exercise. Now I read in Defense Daily that the commander of the unit said that this in fact wasn't an exercise, that some of his aircraft were on alert because of a real world situation. Can you clarify what the mission of the B-2s that went to Guam was?
A: The mission of the B-2s in Guam was to send a powerful signal about our global reach and the indispensable force of air power to the United States.
Q: Was it an exercise?
A: Well, they weren't used in any military action, so I suppose in that sense it was an exercise.
Q: Was it particularly aimed at any one country in particular, any country in particular?
A: It was aimed at anybody who was watching.
............http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct1998/t10211998_t1020asd.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
