DoD News Briefing
Thursday, December 2, 1999 - 1:30 p.m. EST
Presenter: Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, DASD PA
........
QOn Iraq, can you update us on where we believe Iraq stands in terms of reconstituting weapons of mass destruction programs, chem, bio, nuclear, ballistic missile?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Yes.
QWell, what can you share with us?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Any of the WMD programs. It remains an area of concern to us. I mean, you've heard Secretary Cohen, Secretary Albright and many others express their continuing concern about what we don't know. With the departure of inspectors on the ground last year, there was the loss of a very valuable, accurate means of determining what it is we really have. There are other means of -- intelligence means -- of gathering as much information as we can, and those continue. But we don't know what we don't know, and that's what's disconcerting. Given Saddam Hussein's past track record, there's no reason to believe that he is not engaged in some sort of activity hoping that we won't catch him at it. But that remains a very real concern to all of us.
QWhat do we know specifically in terms of his maybe reconstructing facilities that were targets in Desert Fox last December, or what sort of visible evidence is there of his reconstituting, if any?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Well, I rapidly get into intelligence means and sources there that I can't go -- I'm sorry. I think I need to stick with my statement: that we have enough information to give us concern about what we don't know to want to know more.
And we're always eager -- knowledge gives you a certain level of information about progress or lack of progress that is irreplaceable. And we're short of that specific knowledge, particularly that actual on-the-ground inspectors gained through their own eyeballs and seeing documents and facilities and things of that sort. And it's just this feeling of uncertainty that you don't know what you don't know, coupled with Saddam Hussein's track record of many years running, of attempts to beat the system, if you will. And given his known possession of weapons of mass destruction prior to the Gulf War, it's just something that's a very real concern to us.
QIs there an assumption that reconstitution is in progress? And given the limitations that the U.N. inspectors experienced when they were on the ground, of how much value is their presence there?
ADM. QUIGLEY: We have no hard evidence of a substantive reconstitution effort under way. But it's an area that -- again, where we can't say with conviction that this is the case or this is not the case, absent the knowledge and the access and the visibility into activities on the ground.
But again, we go past -- with his past track record, known possession of weapons of mass destruction in the past, and the absence now for nearly a year of inspectors on the ground, and combined, that gives us cause for concern.
QAnd the value of the U.N. inspectors there, given certain restrictions that they've lived with, even when they were there?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Yeah. Understanding the restrictions, it was still better access and visibility and knowledge than we have today, even given restrictions.
Ma'am?
QSo, given that Desert Fox sort of marked the end of the time when U.N. inspectors could be in there, and since then, the only attacks that have been made have been against integrated air defenses and SAM sites and radar sites, so has the last year of degrading the integrated air defense system in Iraq done anything materially to slow the weapons of mass destruction program down? I mean, has this policy --
ADM. QUIGLEY: Apples and oranges, really.
QYeah. So essentially it's been a year -- he's had a year of unfettered rebuilding, if he chose to do it.
ADM. QUIGLEY: There are many fetters on his attempts.
QCould you name them?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Yeah. The ongoing embargo, first and foremost, I would say, is one of the principal means of stopping him or denying him access to the means through which he could freely reconstitute a WMD program. So I would say there are many fetters.
On the other hand, getting back to Chris's question, we come back to this "I don't know what I don't know," and that is worrisome to us.
But through the last year, your point on the integrated air defense system, retaliation to the attacks on coalition aircraft -- that's one thing. WMD reconstitution efforts is really a separate program.
QA year after Desert Fox, then -- that was sort of the thing that I guess made Saddam Hussein finally dig in his heels and say, "Absolutely not." Prior to Desert Fox, he was at least allowing a small bit of access, although it was less than what he had agreed to. So a year after Desert Fox, now we haven't had any access for almost 12 months. Was Desert Fox a good idea?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Oh, I still think the answer would be yes to that, unequivocally. There must be a price to pay for the activities that go against the will of the international community of nations.
One second, John.
Otto, go ahead.
QOn Iraq, since they cut off their legitimate shipments under the oil-for-food agreement, has the 5th Fleet noticed any increase in attempts to smuggle oil out of Iraq?
ADM. QUIGLEY: It's very -- it's sine wave. It comes up; it goes down. It comes up; it goes down -- nothing of a sustained nature, no.
John?
QAs we are almost approaching the year anniversary since the last major military action in Iraq, can you provide us with numbers of sorties, numbers of bombs, numbers of targets hit in the last year, since official hostilities ended, for Desert Fox?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I think we did that to the greatest extent that we could as of a couple of months ago.
QWell, that was a couple months ago.
ADM. QUIGLEY: And we will see if we can update that list from -- I want to say it was two, maybe three months ago, something in that regard. I'll see if we can provide an update to that.
QWhat has not been provided is any attempt at accounting for the amount of munitions which have been dropped on Iraq. You generally give sites that have been attacked. Is there a reason for not providing us with some gross quantification, other than political?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I can't give you a meaningful gross quantification that is not supported by some sense of detail. And I don't want to provide the detail -- numbers, types, circumstances of employment -- without providing some advantage to the Iraqis that would be turned around and used against our own coalition aircraft. I can throw any number out there, but I can't back it up with the specifics. And I don't see that --
QIf you say that we've dropped a thousand pieces of ordnance on them in the last year, that gives Iraq some big advantage?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I'll see what we can do, but I don't think I will be able to provide a meaningful number in that regard.
Chris?
QJust for the record, you started the year giving very specific weapon systems and numbers, and then they phased that out. I mean, we even have pictures of some of the early things, and then that went away. So I don't see why a gross number of totals would compromise anything.
ADM. QUIGLEY: I will see what I can do. We could agree to disagree in that regard, but I'll see what I can do.
QIs the decision based on political factors or is it based on security factors?
ADM. QUIGLEY: Security factors and risks to coalition air crews.
QAnd I have a related question.
ADM. QUIGLEY: Sure.
QIn the last year, have there been any interdictions of kinds of technology or things going into Iraq that would point to weapons of mass destruction; culture mediums, things like that, anything, as in the past, there have been many such things?
ADM. QUIGLEY: I don't think I can give you a good answer to that question without probably getting into intelligence sources that I couldn't divulge from the podium.
Yes, Jan?
QAnd as you update the other numbers, the sortie counts, munitions dropped, et cetera, a revised bomb damage assessment. A few months ago, Ken had some very rough percentages, and there have been a lot more bombs dropped since then. So if there is some way to characterize --
ADM. QUIGLEY: Well, we can bring those figures that were alluded to in both questions up to now, up to December.
...............
THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., WASHINGTON, DC. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. FOR OTHER DEFENSE RELATED TRANSCRIPTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE, CONTACT FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE AT (202) 347-1400.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1999/t12021999_t1202asd.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
