DoD News Briefing
Thursday, January 14, 1999 - 2:30 p.m.
Presenter: Capt. Mike Doubleday, USN, DASD (PA)
Capt. Doubleday: If anyone wants to stay around for a few minutes, those of you who do might move up forward and I will attempt to answer some additional questions.
I don't have any announcements. Let me see if there are any questions.
Q: I just wanted to ask about bomb damage assessment from the last several days of strikes in northern Iraq. And also, thus far, gun camera footage has not been released from those strikes, and I'd like to ask why not, and request the footage be made available.
A: I certainly know of your interest in gun camera footage, and on many occasions we are anxious to get gun camera footage released to the media so that everyone can see the effectiveness of our weapon systems.
In this particular instance we have some concerns from an operational security standpoint so we will not be releasing, at least for the time being, the gun camera footage.
Q: What does that mean?
A: That means that in some cases the gun camera footage can provide to potential adversaries information that may be valuable for them in taking measures which would counter our weapons, and to the extent that we can, we want to minimize those, and in those instances we withhold gun camera footage and other information that may prove of value to these potential adversaries.
Q: Is that at all because of the use of this AGM-130 boosted laser... I'm sorry, smart bomb that's been employed? Does that have some different capability from the other weapons you've used that you're trying to protect?
A: This, without addressing the specifics of this weapon system other than to say that I believe that the recent use of that weapon is the first in this kind of a situation; indeed, in many cases as we deploy weapons and before they are widely analyzed by the international community, they provide a capability and an effectiveness to the operational forces that we want to preserve to every possible extent.
Q: But that is, the video you're withholding is the video of the use of that...
A: That's correct. We are withholding the video from that particular weapon system.
Q: There's also a HARM video that's not being released?
A: We have released HARM video in the past. I have not seen any HARM video which is available over the last couple of days.
Q: Why would this material have been a risk to operational security... If it was not a risk to operational security last week, rather, why would it be a risk to operational security now?
A: Well I just haven't seen any HARM video that we even have. There may be some, but I am not aware of any that we even have.
Q: Is this a Defense Department decision to withhold this, or did this come at the request of the White House?
A: This is a Defense Department decision.
Q: Did the White House request that this video not be released?
A: No. No, in fact, they did not.
Q: Does this mean it's a decision by Secretary Cohen himself, or...
A: It means it's a decision by people who are operators and who have a role in this operation and in consultation with others in the building here. Ultimately, of course, Ken Bacon makes the decision.
Q: But you're saying that it is possible for, if HARM missiles are used in this current situation with Iraq, if the types of attacks continue that have been in the past, and HARM missiles are used, that type of video could be released?
A: There are types of video that we have released in the past and that we may be able to release in this situation. I'm not, at this point, in a position to be able to predict exactly which ones we'll release and which ones we won't, but for these particular pieces of gun camera footage, we're not releasing [them].
Q: Can you give us any details on today's, the latest incident today, what..
A: Let me go through this.
There were two separate events this morning. This on the 14th of January. Early in our day on the East Coast of the United States, the first one at about 4:15 a.m. EST, involved a U.S. F-16CJ which was involved in routine enforcement activity over Northern Iraq, fired high speed anti-radiation missile at an Iraqi surface-to-air missile, and anti-aircraft artillery system that posed a threat to coalition forces. That's the first one.
The second one was a U.S. F-15E which launched an AGM-130, one of these precision-guided munitions, at a SAM system that was a threat to coalition forces.
Q: When you say they were a threat, does that mean they were illuminating these specific aircraft?
A: Yes. I think most of you are aware that the aircraft get their best read when they are illuminated.
Q: Were there any missile launches from the ground in either incident?
A: I am not aware of any missile launches, but we're still looking at that. There are some initial reports that give us additional questions that we want to look into.
Q: Were the aircraft fired upon?
A: Well, that's what I say. We don't have any firm indicators at this point but there is some question that we want to look into further.
Q: You said this radar was connected also to anti-aircraft artillery. Was there any artillery fired?
A: That's another thing that we want to look into. There have been some reports of artillery fire, but it's not clear at this point.
Q: What is the effective range of these anti-aircraft artillery systems? We know that surface-to-air missiles have the capability of reaching planes, but what's the effective range of artillery into U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones? Do they routinely fly above the effective range of artillery?
A: The answer to the second question is that they fly above the range of AAA, and I can't give you a range right now, but it's significantly less than the altitude at which our aircraft fly.
................Q: And can I ask a follow-up, more on a policy level. From the Pentagon's point of view, just how long does this sort of daily, every morning, tit for tat, go on? Does it go on until they run out of SAMs, and radars because you've taken them out one by one? I mean what do you do about all of this?
A: Well, certainly the United States has been involved in this effort since 1991 in the North and 1992 in the South. As I mentioned on Tuesday, we've flown 140,000 sorties in support of these no-fly zone enforcements. All together the coalition has flown 200,000 sorties.
We are determined to continue to enforce the no-fly zones as part of our overall policy with regards to Iraq.
Q: I guess that's what I'm asking. What is the overall policy now? Is it in fact just to keep doing the once every morning hit on Iraq? Or is there some possibly [of a] more comprehensive solution available?
A: I think you know that the central elements of our policy with regards to Iraq are that number one, they must comply with all of the relevant Security Council resolutions; and secondly, that in accordance with the U.N. Security Council demands that Iraq must be disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction. As part of U.N. Security Council resolutions and pursuant to those that have been set up over the years, the coalition established these no-fly zones to essentially protect these population segments from Saddam Hussein and, as I say, to provide this capability for early warning.
We're determined to continue doing that. And it is not a determination that is going to be marked in days or months, it's going to be marked by the actions of Saddam Hussein.
Q: Mike, this week Baghdad has made some strong statements saying it doesn't recognize the borders of Kuwait. To what extent is that a cause for concern?
A: I think you've seen Secretary Cohen address that. He considers that a very serious matter. But the statements of the Iraqis in the past have come frequently, and what we hear in the Pentagon and out in the NORTHERN WATCH areas and the SOUTHERN WATCH areas are doing, is to watch his actions more than to analyze his words.
Q: Are there any actions to back up those words? Any troublesome movements of troops or other preparations that would indicate Saddam might be considering a move to the South?
A: No, we have not seen any kind of ground activity that indicates that.
Q: In the past four days there have been what, about half a dozen instances where we've dropped bombs or we've fired missiles at Iraqi sites. I can only think of two where they have said anything about whether or not there was a hit. What's the effectiveness been? Do you have any more details on...
A: I don't have a full rundown on the effectiveness. I can say this, that we fire those weapons when we believe that our air crews and pilots are threatened by SAM sites or by radar systems that are integrated into an air defense unit. We'll continue doing that.
I think you know from yesterday that there was a strong indication that we have been very effective. There are other occasions where we have not been so effective. But we will continue to enforce the no-fly zones as we have in the past.
Q: In the situations where -- this is my next question also. We haven't been getting a lot of bomb damage assessment recently, and at roughly the same time we stopped receiving gun sight camera video. Shouldn't the bomb damage assessment from these incidents be in by now? Is this something that's just not being made available to us for whatever reason? Or should we assume that these are misses if we don't get the BDA and don't get the tape as to what happened?
A: Well, that's a good question and we'll try in the future get a little finer analysis of the assessment, and to the extent that we can, we'll provide it to you.
....................Q: And Mosul?
A: Oh, Mosul. I think... First of all, when we talk about location here, we use that because that particular city is marked on most maps that are available to you. Actually, the site is some distance from the city, or these sites. There are an array of them. I think that the reason that much of this activity has been up there is because this is where they have a lot of these SAM sites. This particular area is probably the largest of the communication and oil infrastructure hubs up in that part of Iraq, and it may be that the Iraqis have deployed these systems because of that particular capability.
Q: Has the Department changed its view of Oil for Food?
A: First of all, I would refer you to the Department of State on Oil for Food. I think that it is best for them to address that subject.
Q: New subject? Or do you still have Iraq questions?
.............
Press: Thank you.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan1999/t01141999_t0114asd.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
