DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, February 16, 1999 - 1:40 p.m.
Presenter: Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA
.....................
Q: Ken, given Iraq's threats towards its neighboring countries where we have facilities, can you give us an update on the Pentagon estimate of what Iraq possesses in terms of SCUD missiles, what our Patriot battery strength is in the region, if you're allowed to speak on that, and are there any plans on beefing up any Patriot batteries we have deployed?
A: Sure. First let me say that any attack by Iraq against one of our allies in the region would be a severe mistake and would be met with a very swift and sure response.
I think it's a sign of Saddam Hussein's desperation and isolation that Iraq is making such threats. He's tried diplomacy with his neighbors. He's tried to cajole them into supporting his position, and that's failed. His neighbors -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey -- have all made it very clear that they believe he should honor the U.N. Security Council resolutions. Failing to succeed with diplomacy or cajoling, he's now turning to threats. I think the threats will get him nowhere.
In terms of SCUDs, of course Iraq claims that it's destroyed all its SCUDs. This is one of the central reasons why we had arms inspectors working for years in Iraq trying to get to the bottom of whether or not they have destroyed all their SCUDs. Last year the government put out a report called "Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It says in this report that Iraq had purchased 819 SCUDs from the Soviet Union, and that U.N. inspectors had accounted for all but two of these 819 SCUDs. But there's also the possibility that Iraq was able to manufacture some SCUDs on its own out of parts that it had either manufactured or purchased over the years, and we don't have full visibility on that.
I saw Richard Butler quoted today, Ambassador Butler, who is of course the head of UNSCOM, from a speech he gave in Philadelphia saying that there is still a possibility that Iraq may have some SCUDs, although Iraq claims it does not.
Having said that, the Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, from which U.S. and British planes fly, is at the very outer edge of the range of SCUD missiles. It is protected by now what we call a minimum engagement package of Patriots, called a MEP. They were moved there in the last month or so at the request of the Turks, and they will stay there as long as our Turkish allies feel that they're needed.
We also, of course, have Patriot missiles in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait protecting both our air bases and other air bases in the region -- air bases we use in those countries as well as other air bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. So we do have a number of Patriots deployed in the region. I'm not aware that we've been asked to increase our deployments. We've been very quick to respond to requests that we've gotten from countries in the region.
Q: Ken, can you be broader than just SCUDs? Are there other things that he has that he could use to carry out the threat? What are they, and how serious is the threat?
A: First of all, I want to point out that, whether or not he means the threat to be taken seriously, we have to take seriously a threat like this, and we do maintain not only Patriot missiles, but we maintain a very significant counterattack or deterrent capability in the region. That's why any use of missiles or any other way to attack allied bases in this area would be a huge mistake on Saddam Hussein's part.
I think basically there are three ways that he could attack. One would be SCUDs. Another would be an air attack with planes. And I suppose a third would be some sort of a terrorist attack. I think all of these would be difficult given the circumstances that Iraq faces today. Their Air Force, as you know, has been engaged in these fairly minor no-fly zone violations, which I've characterized as cheat and retreat where the planes dart over into the no-fly zone for a few minutes, going a few miles in, and that's the typical violation. Sometimes the violations have been a little longer, but they typically do it when they know our planes aren't in the air, and if they see coalition aircraft coming toward them, they beat a hasty retreat back into Iraqi territory. Hence the name cheat and retreat.
I don't think they have significant air power to be able to launch a longer range attack against bases deep inside another country's territory, and it would be extremely unwise for them to try to do that given the air defenses that are in the area.
As I say, this has to be seen in the context of what's been happening over the last couple of months: Iraq's increasing isolation, Iraq's increasing desperation. There's an easy answer for Iraq to end the pressures it's under today, and that is to comply with the UN Security Council mandates, which Iraq steadfastly refuses to do. Should Iraq comply, it wouldn't find itself under the pressure that it's facing today.
Q: If Iraq were so desperate, one would think that it would stop provoking the United States. Perhaps it is a sign of strength that they are willing to continue to take the hits that the U.S. is dishing out.
A: I can't psychoanalyze why they're doing what they're doing. Iraq is sustaining some fairly heavy losses to its integrated air defense system by challenging the coalition aircraft, and I have no reason to believe that those damaging counterstrikes will end until Iraq stops challenging the coalition aircraft policing the no-fly zone.
Q: Do you have a summary of how many bombs have been dropped since the end of DESERT FOX, how many targets you have struck, how many sorties...
A: I do not have that summary with me, no.
Q: Apparently some Members of Congress are saying this is beginning to look like a war, a constant air war which is going on over Iraq, and some are wondering if the administration is going to ask Congress for war powers permission. Is that in the cards as far as you're concerned?
A: Since 1991 we have flown tens and tens of thousands of sorties over Iraq to police the no-fly zone. In the overwhelming number of cases they have not resisted or shown any signs of attacking coalition aircraft.
Since the end of DESERT FOX in late December they have aggressively attacked U.S. aircraft. They have violated the no-fly zone by flying into the no-fly zones. They have turned on their radars; they have fired anti-aircraft batteries and also fired missiles at our planes over the last month and a half. We have responded properly against these attacks, and we will continue to respond properly against these attacks. I call this an act of defense on the part of our pilots, and they are working as best they can to protect themselves and to carry out their missions.
As I said, there's an easy way for them to stop receiving attacks from the coalition aircraft, and that's to stop attacking the coalition planes policing the no-fly zone.
Q: Why did the Administration stop releasing gun camera footage? Is it an effort to... Some people suggest it is an effort to manage the public affairs aspect, the public perception of what is going on over there.
A: This is an ongoing operation, and some of the film we have not released for purely operational reasons. In fact I'd say that applies to the decision generally. We have released some gun camera footage early on. We haven't released any since. It's something we review from time to time. Right now we're comfortable with the way it's going, and we think that our way of handling this best protects the ability of our planes to operate safely.
Q: Would you say it is a tactical consideration, not a managing the news situation?
A: I'd say it's a tactical consideration, exactly right.
Q: Ken, there was a report yesterday in a London newspaper that the Iraqi government has signed contracts with the Russians to upgrade and modernize their air defenses. Do you have any information that would tend to verify that, or what do you make of that?
A: I have nothing to confirm that whatsoever. I will note that the Russians have steadfastly denied that report. I've seen nothing that suggests the report is true.
It would strike me as a particularly dangerous act on the part of any country to sell weapons to Iraq in violation of the U.N. arms embargo, particularly a country that is trying to operate through the Security Council to convince Iraq to live up to the U.N. Security Council mandates.
..................
Press: Thank you.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1999/t02161999_t0216asd.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
