• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

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

QUESTION: Today several occasions, several times US warplanes attacked several Iraqi targets. After the Operation Desert Fox, the United States announced that if Saddam Hussein and Baghdad government repeated this kind of action, you can ready to answer some kind of this issue of attack or response, but still you are waiting. What is the purpose of this wait?

MR. FOLEY: I didn't understand your --

QUESTION: Why are you waiting to respond to the government of Baghdad?

MR. FOLEY: Why are we waiting to respond to the government of Baghdad?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. FOLEY: Concerning what?

QUESTION: Because they didn't give the permission to UMFOR to - they are not doing their job. They are attacking to US airplane.

MR. FOLEY: I think you're talking about different issues. If you're talking about the disarmament regime in the form of UNSCOM, and its ability to go back into Iraq and do its job, we would certainly like to see an effective UNSCOM go back into Iraq and continue the process of verifying the current status of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, with a view towards eliminating them totally. That's not happening now. The United States undertook significant military action, along with Great Britain, in December, precisely because Saddam had thwarted the work of the weapons inspectors. We have stated that, in the absence of a functioning UNSCOM in Iraq, that we will remain prepared to use force again, if we see that Iraq is reconstituting its weapons of mass destruction, or threatening its neighbors.

Insofar as the incidents which occurred today is concerned, you're referring to the Coalition enforcement of the no-fly zones, which have been in existence for many years. As you know, both Operation Northern Watch and Operation Southern Watch are being conducted in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 688, which authorize the United States and other coalition members to take necessary action to deter or prevent the Iraqi Government's repression of its civilian population, and to prevent any threats to Iraq's neighbors. The Security Council acted wisely in this regard, given the fact that Iraq has brutalized its own population in both the northern and southern parts of the country.

In terms of the current state of no-fly zone enforcement, for several weeks now, Iraq has been challenging both the Northern and Southern no-fly zones. It has moved additional surface-to-air missile sites into both zones, and has been trying to shoot down coalition aircraft. We have responded in self-defense to enable us to continue enforcing these no-fly zones.

At approximately 1:25 this morning US Eastern time, coalition aircraft flying in support of Operation Southern Watch attacked an Iraqi SA-3 surface-to-air missile site and associated integrated air defense systems. The incident occurred north of the city of Basra in the Southern no-fly zone. Two US Air Force F-15 Eagles and four FA-18 Hornets were conducting routine enforcement of the Southern no-fly zone when they responded to threats by anti-aircraft artillery fire, and by two Iraqi Mig-21s and two Iraqi Mig-23s flying south of the 33rd Parallel in Iraq: in other words, into the Southern no-fly zone.

We have seen reports - and most recently on television - from Baghdad of civilian casualties in Basra as a result of this action. We do not have independent confirmation of these reports. I believe the Pentagon is still assessing the information available to it. The Pentagon may be able to convey more information on this later today, and I would expect a more complete assessment by tomorrow. I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon for those kinds of operational details.

What I can say is that civilians are most definitely not targeted in these operations. Our forces take every precaution possible to protect civilian populations. If, in fact, a missile has gone astray and civilians have been injured or killed, that is something that the United States would deeply regret. But as I said, we, number one, do not have confirmation of what may have occurred there today; and number two, we hold Saddam Hussein responsible for his violations of the no-fly zone, which seem to be part of an increasing pattern over the last several weeks.

QUESTION: Also, the Prime Minister of Turkey accepted Ambassador Parris and they discussed lengthy about this subject. We know that Prime Minister Ecevit is against the use of Incirlik base. Do you have any read-out on this subject?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I understand that Ambassador Parris paid a courtesy call on the Prime Minister today, in view of his assumption of his new responsibilities. They reviewed the full range of issues on the US-Turkish bilateral agenda.

Ambassador Parris told Prime Minister Ecevit that the US considered our cooperation with Turkey on Iraq since the Gulf War to be a real bright spot in our very important bilateral relationship. Both he and the Prime Minister agreed that the US and Turkey should continue our close cooperation and consultations on Iraq. Again, it was a cordial meeting - a useful opportunity to exchange views on a range of issues on the bilateral agenda. I have no specific information confirming what you just said. I don't believe it's true.

QUESTION: Could you explain why the United States thinks this is a good, sort of, tactic to, sort of, wait until Saddam shoots off another - targets US planes and then to go after him? Why you're adopting a defensive position, rather than another sort of offensive operation, like you did in December?

MR. FOLEY: Well, I wouldn't want to prejudge or rule out or rule in any kind of response on our part. Our forces will do what they need to do to protect themselves. In terms of our willingness to use force for larger purposes related to Iraq's reconstitution of weapons of mass destruction or threats to its neighbors, we demonstrated in December that we are not only able but we have the will to undertake such action, and we will do so again if that proves necessary.

The no-fly zones were imposed under Security Council resolutions to protect the people of Iraq. We have talked to you about credible information, over the last month or two, about a continued brutalization of the people of Southern Iraq by the Iraqi regime. Iraq's track record of brutalization of the people - especially the Kurds of Northern Iraq - is well documented, to include the use of chemical weapons on those people. The Baghdad Government's repression and misgovernance of all Iraqis in all parts of Iraq is certainly not a secret to anyone.

So these no-fly zones serve a humanitarian purpose in protecting the people of Iraq most targeted by Saddam Hussein. We will continue to enforce the no-fly zones, and we will continue to do what is necessary to protect our pilots who may be attacked. I think that it's clear that, since the conclusion of Operation Desert Fox, which was marked by the noted absence of the Iraqi military during that four-day engagement, that the Iraqis have undertaken an aggressive policy of violating the no-fly zones in both the south and the north. They are now using their entire air defense systems against coalition aircraft.

Prior to this past month, violations of the no-fly zone were isolated and pinpoint in nature. What we're beginning to see now - and I think it relates to your question - is what appears to be a highly orchestrated, across-the-board series of challenges to, and attacks on no-fly zone enforcement. We are certainly not going to be intimidated by Iraqi actions in this regard.

But I think it's also important not to be drawn into the political game that Saddam Hussein is obviously playing, in undertaking these challenges to the no-fly zone. Again, as we've seen on the question of food and medicine -- of the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people -- Saddam Hussein has tried to exploit, and even exacerbate, the suffering the Iraqi people, in order to build support for the lifting of sanctions. We have seen how he has thwarted the efforts of the international community, led by the United States, to increase the availability of food and medicine to the Iraqi people. I think in this respect, as well, his challenges to the no-fly zone are intended to serve the obvious political aim of trying to build international support for the elimination of sanctions.

I know you have another question, but if I can conclude in this vein, I think that the international community is seeing through his game. We saw the Arab League meet yesterday in Cairo. It's very obvious that all the members of the Arab League -- all the nations of the Arab world -- feel a tremendous amount of understandable sympathy for the people of Iraq, for what they have gone through under Saddam Hussein's regime. But what is equally clear is that the members of the Arab League make a distinction between the people of Iraq, who are innocent victims of Saddam's policies, and the Iraqi regime which is responsible for the plight of Iraq's people.

We share the view of the members of the Arab League that Saddam Hussein must be held to his commitments to disarm, must respect his obligations, and that the humanitarian situation involving the Iraqi people is something which must be addressed by the international community. That's why we have been in the lead on this issue over the last years, and that's why earlier this month the United States proposed eliminating the ceiling on Iraqi oil exports, provided that all revenues are controlled by the UN, and go towards exclusively the purchase of food and medicine for the people of Iraq.

QUESTION: Senator McCain has said that the United States should go more aggressively after command and control centers. Are you suggesting that if -- that the United States feels that if it were more aggressive towards Saddam right now, instead of, sort of, allowing these sort of provocations, which seem to be occurring with great regularity, to be taken care of by some similar four-day intensive bombing campaign, that that would play into Saddam's hands and his efforts to stoke sympathy for -- international sympathy for his people?

MR. FOLEY: Well, his aim is not simply to stoke international sympathy for his people, but to exploit that sympathy; to escape from his obligations to disarm, and to escape from UN sanctions without disarming. So I think that's an important clarification.

As I said a few minutes ago, I don't want to prejudge, rule in, rule out anything that the United States may or may not do in regard to the provocations we're facing, and the challenges we're facing to the no-fly zone. I think we demonstrated in December that we're capable of mounting a serious and sustained attack on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction facilities, and on his military assets and infrastructure. That's a capability that we retain, and that we may use again in the future under circumstances which I described.

I would note also, during four days of sustained bombing, that we did not see footage on Iraqi television of collateral damage and of civilian casualties. So we would certainly regret, as I said, if any occurred in this latest incident. But this is obviously something, again, which is part of Saddam's many-year record of exploiting humanitarian concerns for his own political purposes.

QUESTION: Jim, do you think that Saddam's tactic here is to create incidents in the no-fly zones, with US air power, that will draw sympathy to his cause from the other Arab countries? Is that his strategy in this, do you think?

MR. FOLEY: I think I suggested something along those lines in my extended remarks. But I don't see that as succeeding. I think the Arab League itself demonstrated that it would not be fooled by such a strategy. I think the peoples of the Arab world, while they are sympathetic with the people of Iraq, recognize that the person responsible for their plight and their suffering is Saddam Hussein.

I think if you compare the situation to the time of the Gulf War, I think that there has been a great, growing, and great realization throughout the region, that Saddam is the one who has put his country through eight, nine years of isolation, of sanctions and periodic military action, because he refuses to give up those weapons of mass destruction.

QUESTION: While you're awaiting more information on whether or not civilians were hit, can you tell us whether the area north of Basra, where the missiles landed is, in fact, an area populated by civilians?

MR. FOLEY: I have no operational details for you, Mark. Again, I'd have to refer you to the Pentagon on that.

QUESTION: One other that may fall into that category - let me ask you anyway - has it been the Iraqi practice to put anti-aircraft missile sites in populated areas?

MR. FOLEY: I would love to try to answer that question, but I think it's prudent to let the Pentagon speak to that, because I don't have the answer you're looking for.

QUESTION: Just one more. Is there - do you have any information that the strikes today were connected to Iraq's brutalizing of the people of Southern Iraq, or where they in response to violations of the no-fly zone?

MR. FOLEY: That's a good question. I mean, certainly there have been press reports, which we have not corroborated, that there was movement of the Iraqi military into Southern Iraq in the last week. As I said, we were not able to confirm that. But the pattern, the record, the history of Baghdad's repression of the people of Southern Iraq, is well-documented and has continued into recent months. So you can't rule out that as a possible explanation for what's going on. But I think it's also undeniable that Baghdad has a larger political objective here, which is to try to build international sympathy and support for the idea of having the sanctions lifted.

I think that this pattern of challenge -- of increasing, systematic challenge to the no-fly zone that we're seeing over the last few weeks -- certainly has a lot to do with that political strategy.

QUESTION: You designated seven Iraqi opposition groups which got US money for toppling the Saddam regime. But two of them -- which one is Barzani's group and the other one is, I believe, the Shiite group - they said that they are against this money; especially Barzani's group. They declared that they don't want to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. Do you have any answer on this?

MR. FOLEY: Well, none of the seven groups that the President designated, including the KDP - and SCIRI that you referenced - approached the United States Government to ask for either designation or aid. We understand, though, that both of those groups want to work cooperatively with other opposition groups to establish a united, pluralistic and democratic Iraq government, after the current regime ends.

They support elections and human and political rights for all Iraqis, and we support these political goals, and will seek to support them in the most appropriate way.

QUESTION: Jim, point of information: Just before this briefing began, I learned from the Pentagon sources that General Zinni will be giving a briefing at 5:00 p.m. today at the Pentagon.

MR. FOLEY: Is that a question or a piece of information?

QUESTION: No, that is a piece of information I would suggest everybody check out.

(The briefing concluded at 2:10 P.M.)

[end of document]