DoD News Briefing
Thursday, February 11, 1999 - 1:30 p.m.
Presenter: Captain Mike Doubleday, DASD (PA)
...................
Q: Captain, can you update us on whether there have been any additional strikes today in the southern part of Iraq?
A: Let me see if I can give you a rundown on what has been going on there. In fact there has been some activity within the last couple of hours.
Altogether, by my count, there's been activity in both the north and the south. There were five sites in the north that were struck by coalition forces and two in the south. I can go through this in more detail if you'd like it. It's a combination of aircraft, and what I'll be doing here is working off of draft press releases, and we'll have the final versions of those for you shortly after the brief.
First of all to address the activity in the north, that included... First of all let me say there was an F-15 flying enforcement of the northern no-fly zone and that aircraft observed Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fire, and then it was subsequently illuminated by an Iraqi radar. This occurred near Mosul.
As a result of that activity one F-15E dropped four GBU-12's on an Iraqi surface-to-air missile communications site, and two F-15Es launched an AGM-130 and dropped four GBU-12's on an Iraq surface to air missile system, which I think you know we consider a threat to coalition forces.
About an hour after that, U.S. Air Force fighter aircraft again responded after being targeted by Iraqi radar in three separate incidents. First a U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle dropped GBU-12 munitions on an Iraq surface-to-air missile site. This was west of Mosul.
About two minutes later a U.S. Air Force F-16CJ launched an AGM-88, which is a high speed anti-radiation missile, at an Iraq radar site which is located northwest of Mosul.
Then a few minutes after that, a U.S. Air Force F-15E dropped GBU-12's on a surface to air missile communications site east of Mosul.
Those are the activities that occurred in the north.
In the south, at about -- these times that I'm going to give you in the south we've put in eastern standard time. I have some times in the north, but they're still in [local] Iraq time.
At about 10:45 this morning (EST), there were...first of all this one started off by MiG-25s (sic) violating the southern no-fly zone. As a result of that activity, the Air Force F-15s -- this was a combination of F-15s, Navy F-14s, Navy F/A-18s -- operating from both land and sea bases in the region -- hit sites. These included radar sites and also some associated facilities near a town that I believe is pronounced Al Habbariyah. I'll spell that if anyone would like. It's A-L. Then it's H-A-B-B-A-R-I-Y-A-H. That's about 135 miles southwest of Baghdad. And at another site called Al Amarah, which is miles about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad.
In all cases -- both in the north and the south -- all of the aircraft returned safely. We're still looking at the battle damage assessment.
Q: The Iraqis say that two people on the ground were killed and several were hurt.
A: I think you know that these statements from the Iraqis occur from time to time. I don't have anything to confirm or contradict what they're saying. I think you're also aware that we go to extreme measures to ensure that as we attack these targets we do so in a way that minimizes risks to the civilian population.
Q: What is a SAM communications site?
A: I think you're aware, as we've talked before, that the Iraqis have been using their air defense systems in a very integrated way. In some cases what they have done is to use systems in one part of the country to obtain early warning information, and then relay that information to other sites elsewhere in the no-fly zones, with an eye toward avoiding illuminations from their radars in the no-fly zones. In other words, it's kind of a force protection effort on their part.
So what we have said is that we are going to take actions that we believe are effective in reducing these threats, wherever they may occur.
Q: Captain, Doubleday, what was the time difference between the provocation in the south, the incursion by the MiG-25s...
A: I don't have...
Q:...and the strikes that took place as a result.
A: I don't have an exact timeframe for you. I'll see if we can get that.
Q: The reason I ask is it appeared that in the incidents in the north, each time there was some sort of provocation -- AAA fire or radar being turned on -- and then a fairly swift response from the coalition aircraft; whereas in the south it appeared as if the stated provocation, the incursion, there was a long time between that and the strike.
A: There may have been some period of time that elapsed between the no-fly zone violation. But as we have made very clear, the coalition commanders in both the north and the south have broad authority to take actions that they believe are necessary in order to protect their forces, and to reduce those threats as they feel are necessary.
Q: Are these strikes in fact pre-planned offensive strikes rather than any response to a particular provocation?
A: Well, Jamie, I'm not going to get into details of exactly how we determine targets except to say that we certainly keep an eye on the activity of the Iraqis. We keep an eye on the sites that we believe are threatening to coalition forces. And when there are these provocations we take actions that we feel are appropriate to reduce the threats that are posed by the Iraqis.
Q: When U.S. pilots leave for their no-fly zone patrols do they take with them a list of potential targets that they can hit if there's a provocation?
A: I have no idea whether they take any kind of a list like that with them.
Q: Mike, if these are - [if] what the United States is doing is retaliating, are we actually doing this in self defense in every instance? Is it correct, does it require having some indication where that radar is, where that missile site is, in order to have a successful strike? Is that necessary for them to illuminate?
A: First of all, I'm not going to get into rules of engagements, and what exactly triggers strikes or does not trigger strikes. What I have said in the past, and I think others have certainly referred to, is that the Iraqis over the last several weeks, ever since DESERT FOX, have been acting in a very aggressive way to violate the no-fly zones. They've been doing this in a variety of ways including violation by their aircraft, violation by firing off AAA, violations by firing surface to air missiles. All of these we consider to be threatening. And we have said that commanders in the area have broad authority to respond as they see fit to reduce the threats that are posed by the Iraqis. That's what we've been doing and that's what we will continue to do.
Q: You mentioned the integral system that Iraq has. Is it not some point, some place, some group of locations that could be eliminated that would de-integrate this system that the Iraqis have? In other words, would it not be less risky for U.S. pilots to go to the source of their anti-aircraft system?
A: I'm not going to debate your theories on what we should be doing except to say that the Iraqis have been using their air defense systems, their radars, their communication sites, their surface to air missile radar sites in an integrated way. We've seen this, we've observed it, and we are taking actions that we think respond to the threats posed by these integrated systems.
Q: Could you tell us a little more about the communication site? Was this attack basically made on a telephone exchange, or is it some more elaborate way of moving radar data from point A to point B?
A: The communication site, as I understand it, was... first of all, to say it was a telephone exchange is not accurate. This was a military communications site. I think that's probably the best way to describe it. It had the capability to communicate information from one location to another which could then be used in targeting coalition aircraft.
Q:...pictures from the radar screen...
A: I don't know whether it was pictures or whether it was data, but it was a capability that they had used in the past, and that was being used to threaten coalition aircraft.
I misspoke earlier. I think I gave you the wrong MIG type that was involved in the violation in the south. It was caused by MiG-23s, not by MiG-25s.
Q: How many of those?
A: Usually they fly in pairs, and I would think that was the case in this particular instance. But we'll check on that for you.
Q: Is this a unique violation that happened the other day, like tens or even hundreds of kilometers deep, or...
A: Since this one happened so recent I don't have a good feel for that.
Q: You've mentioned Iraq aggressively violating the no-fly zone. Has there been any change in that level of provocation over the last week or so, or are you continuing to see the same pattern of behavior?
A: There were a few days that there were not the violations we had seen over the last several weeks. I don't think you can characterize it as a daily occurrence, but it happens with great frequency, and certainly in the last couple of days, last three days, there have been at least as many as at any other time in the last five or six weeks.
Q: Can you give us any idea what affect these strikes [have had] since the end of Operation DESERT FOX in degrading the air defenses of Iraq?
A: I am going to be very general here, just to say we believe they have had a very grave impact on the Iraqi military defenses. Particularly these integrated air defenses.
I can't give you a percentage, but we believe that we have been effective in hitting the targets that have been threatening to our coalition forces, and as I mentioned before, our intention is that as long as the Iraqis continue these provocative actions we're going to continue to respond.
Q: One last thing. Can you either tell us or provide at a future date some sort of accounting of how many bombs or munitions have been dropped or launched against Iraq since the end of Operation DESERT FOX, and how many sorties of planes have been flown?
A: I will do my best to see if we can accumulate that information.
Q: Is it correct to assume that the responses to Iraqi violations are limited to the air defense system? Is there a possibility that the U.S. might expand its target list? In other words, if they violate the no-fly zone then the U.S. can go and hit a factory, for example?
A: First of all, I'm not going to get into the details of the rules of engagement. I think you've seen -- by the actions that we've taken over the last several weeks -- that there indeed have been some targets that have been hit that are not air defense in nature. I think the most recently example that I'm aware of are those seersucker sites.
But I think it is safe to say that our responses have to do with the capabilities that the Iraqis have that are being used in a provocative way and are threatening to coalition forces -- both in the north and in the south.
Q: New subject.
A: Just one more...
Q: Are there any kinds of threats on the ground? Any kind of movements involving Iraqi troops?
A: No, I'm not aware of any kind of...
Q: Are there times when there are a lot of U.S. planes or coalition planes flying in the no-fly zones when there are not threats from the Iraqis? What's the correlation between U.S. activity and the threats?
A: We patrol those no-fly zones on, I won't say a daily basis, but certainly on a very regular basis. I'm not sure what exactly your question is. We have flown 200,000 sorties since the end of the Gulf War. So...
Q: How many...
A: Yes, we're going to be in the air. Have they always illuminated us? No. Actually, they haven't.
Q: Just in recent weeks, since the end of DESERT FOX, there have been a lot of times when they've either fired missiles, fired anti-aircraft artillery or illuminated. Is it only when there are a lot of planes around, or are there times when there are a lot of planes around when they haven't done anything? In other words, are they targeting us when we're there, or are they only targeting us when we're there sometimes.
A: I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Does it take us being up in the air for them to do the things that they're doing? No. Sometimes actually...
Q: (Inaudible)
A: I think they actually do these violations into the no-fly zones with their aircraft when we are not in the vicinity. As General Zinni indicated when he was up here several weeks ago, their tactic is in some cases an attempt to lure coalition aircraft into a trap involving their surface-to-air missile sites.
Okay, next one.
Q: There have been some reports of two U.S. carriers moving to the Red Sea to help with the Ethiopia/Eritria conflict, in terms of evacuation.
A: It wouldn't be the Red Sea.
Q: The Red Sea.
A: To the Red Sea?
Q: Yes.
A: No, no. We have some ships off the east coast of Africa that have been participating in an exercise. That's an amphibious ready group centered around Boxer. But to my knowledge there are no ships moving into the Red Sea for that purpose.
Press: Thank you.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1999/t02111999_t0211asd.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
