• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

19 September 2002

Top U.S. Military Official Says Iraqi Force Weaker Than In 1990s

(Says Iraq has mobile chemical-biological weapons capability) (8340)
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says the Iraqi military
force structure is much weaker than it was during Operation Desert
Storm 11 years ago.
During a September 13 speech at the National Press Club, Air Force
General Richard Myers said that although the Iraqis are "much weaker
than they were back in the early '90s" they have also found ways
around the U.N.'s Oil-For-Food Program to improve air defenses,
military communications and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
programs. As an example, he said, the Iraqis have taken trucks that
were approved under the Oil-For-Food Program to help the Iraqi people
and turned them, instead, into missile carriers or conveyances for
armored vehicles.
Myers said there is "clear and compelling evidence" that not only has
Saddam Hussein ignored all the U.N. Security Council resolutions
calling on him to disarm his WMD programs, but "has actually enhanced
his capabilities in those areas." Myers also said there is evidence
that the Iraqis have "mobile production capability for chemical and
biological weapons."
He was asked about the military consequences of Iraq striking out
against Israel if the United States launches an attack against
Baghdad. "I think the Iraqi regime has been pretty consistent about
its views toward Israel," he said, "[a]nd so if they were threatened,
or even if they're not threatened, that's one of the things you worry
about, is how they would use their weapons of mass destruction against
the state of Israel." This comes after Iraq fought a war with Iran,
invaded Kuwait, and has used chemical weapons against its minority
populations, he noted.
Myers said operational planners have to consider the question: What is
the potential threat of weapons of mass destruction against the other
countries in the region? That question, he said, "would certainly play
into the calculation and . would have to be taken into account."
Asked about missile defense, the chairman said, the United States is
looking for "the best defense for short-range, medium-range, [and]
intercontinental-range ballistic missiles." One of the most important
and efficient ways of defense is to take out a hostile missile in its
ascent phase, he said, "because then any debris falls probably on the
nation that launched it." Geometry is an important part of the
equation, Myers explained, and for that reason using an airborne laser
could be an effective defense as could ship-based systems. Suitable
space-based missile defense solutions are still "a ways away," he
added.
Myers was also asked about possible plans to permanently move the U.S.
Central Command from Florida to Qatar. He said Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld "will make a decision to push forward headquarters
into the region. It just makes sense to have your headquarters in your
area of responsibilities. So I think that's a likely outcome."
Following is the transcript of Myers' remarks:
(begin transcript)
Gen. Richard B. Myers
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Remarks at National Press Club
Washington, D.C.
13 September 2002
MYERS: Thank you. Well, to all the distinguished guests here and
ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the kind of reception when we
walked in. I'm not used to getting applause walking into with a bunch
of journalists and the media.
I know I can't take that too far, but I do appreciate it.
And I'd like to thank you, John, for the wonderful introduction, some
pieces of information there that not everybody knows. I don't know
where you got it all. But thank you for the kind introduction.
It's an honor to be here even though it is Friday the 13th. And even
though it is Friday the 13th, I feel very lucky, and I'll tell you
why. Thirteen's kind of been my lucky number when I was in Vietnam.
Actually flying out of Thailand, I flew with the 13th Tactical Fighter
Squadron. And the peg that I used to hang my life support equipment,
my helmet, my G-suit and so forth was peg 13. So if I can survive
getting shot at and hanging around the number 13, I figured that
showing up at the National Press Club on Friday the 13th shouldn't be
all that big a threat. We'll see.
As I made the trip over here today, I thought of Jules Verne and his
visionary work, "From the Earth to the Moon." And I don't mention that
because I think the military and the media are on different planets,
quite the opposite, matter of fact. I think we're closer than most
realize.
For instance, both professions work odd hours and make sacrifices for
their country. And both are responsible for our country's welfare,
talking about the U.S. press here. And both professions are no
stranger to crisis, and we are reminded of this from time to time in
tragedy, unfortunately.
No, but what made me think about Jules Verne was that for all his
talent he failed to foresee that man's landing on the moon would be
seen live on TV around the world. It was a triumph that was shared by
all mankind because of the miracle of modern communications.
I think that point was also driven home by the events of last
September, of September 11. All Americans and the world now get a
front-row seat as these events unfold. This is a fact whether people
are there in person or whether the event comes into the living room.
It's true whether it's an uplifting event or whether it's a horrific
event.
This week our nation has paused, prayed and remembered the tragic
events of last year, the tremendous human loss, the countless acts of
courage and the sacrifice that it has inspired.
I think this reflection is important. It's been a really tough week
for, I think, most of us that remember those events and were involved
in them in some way or another.
But as profound as our sadness has been, we can temper it with a
little bit of pride in the way that we responded in the days following
the tragedy. And by the same token, I think it's also important that
we take stock of how we've done over this past year since September
11. So today I thought I'd use this occasion to give you a "hot wash,"
if you will, a top-level review of this first year on our war on
terrorism. And at the same time, as we get towards the end of my
remarks, I'd like to talk to you about what it is I think we need to
do better as we move forward.
Immediately after 9/11, President Bush set some goals for our war on
terrorism. The first one was to disrupt and deny and destroy terrorist
organizations worldwide. The second was to eliminate their safe
havens. And the third one was to ensure that weapons of mass
destruction do not fall into the hands of terrorists.
It was clear from September 11 that we faced a very different threat,
and we knew we'd need all instruments of national power, and the
president made that very clear from the start.
Now, often our military is looked at as the hammer, if you will, in
the toolkit of American policy. A year ago the president realized that
we needed more than a hammer on this particular threat, and we've been
using all instruments and other tools of power, diplomatic,
intelligence, law enforcement and financial. And we've done that not
just with United States instruments of national power, but all our
coalition partners as well.
So how have we done? What's the report card so far? Let me start by
talking about what the United States military and our coalition
partners have accomplished.
In less than a month after September 11, we launched a major military
operation halfway around the world into a landlocked country. And when
we started, we had no military access in that country or in the
neighborhood. Our nearest fighter base was five hours flight time
away.
Then, within days we had a carrier battle group off the coast ready
for action, and in less than three weeks we and our coalition partners
had opened two new bases-brand new bases-and set up operations,
expanded operations at seven other bases and moved four carrier battle
groups into the area -- two U.S. and two from our coalition partners.
And then less than two months later, and with literally only a handful
of U.S. armed forces on the ground, we helped remove a hostile regime
from power. We took away a major terrorist safe haven, and we did this
with the least collateral damage and loss of innocent life of any
comparable operation in history.
Clearly, this was a major military victory.
It also, most importantly, was a victory for the Afghan people. Now
Afghanistan is a radically different country from a year ago. Two
million refugees have returned home. People are voting with their feet
and they're coming back to Afghanistan. Three million children now
attend school, and this includes both girls and boys, and they have
access to over 10 million textbooks. The traditional political process
has chosen a new national government, plus more than 500,000 metric
tons of food aid has been delivered. That's about 40 pounds of food
for every man, woman and child inside Afghanistan.
How many folks remember the predictions last October about mass
starvation that the Afghanistan people faced? Thank God that never
happened.
Our armed forces have played an important role in this accomplishment.
But a large portion of the credit belongs to other U.S. agencies and
the wonderful cooperation of the international community.
The bottom line is that Al Qaida's major base of operations has been
smashed. And as a result, our other instruments of national power have
become more effective. That's not to say that they weren't effective
before. These and other tools have been playing a crucial role right
from the beginning in our national strategy.
But with the defeat of the Taliban, we can now use our intelligence
and our law enforcement and our diplomatic tools, combined with the
efforts of our partners, to accomplish even more dramatic results.
You'll recall back in March that an Al Qaida operative named Zubaida
was picked up in Pakistan. A couple of months later, our Moroccan
partners arrested some terrorists that were planning attacks against
shipping in the Mediterranean. And there's also been arrests of our
Singapore allies of an Al Qaida cell in their country. The Singapore
police used information that we obtained from our forces and from
detainees inside Afghanistan and broke up an attack that would have
killed many innocent people.
We've also had success here at home. Two weeks ago, you'll remember,
we picked up suspected Al Qaida operatives in Detroit and in Seattle.
All together, we've picked up more than 2,700 people worldwide that
have some connection to terrorism. And these are a credit to our
intelligence and law enforcement agencies, to our diplomatic efforts,
and of course, the efforts of our coalition partners.
Our financial tools have also been active, denying terrorists access
to over $112 million. More than 160 nations have joined these efforts.
Together, we've identified more than 230 specific individuals or
enterprises that have been helping fund the terrorists with money.
These efforts have gone a long way to disrupting terrorists around the
globe.
So what I've described here are victories for all our instruments of
national power and how we've used them in concert to maximize their
effectiveness.
Our military hammer, if you will, smashed the terrorists' safe haven,
and that in turn allowed us to use these other instruments of national
power, like pairs of pliers perhaps, to pluck them, to pluck the
terrorists out of other places that they ran to.
In short, our nation's soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marine and Coast
Guardsmen and reservists accomplished what no one, I think, would have
thought possible. In fact, if you think back to Operation Anaconda,
that's where the Soviet Union had such a tremendous loss of life
during their time in Afghanistan. In fact, they called that same area
that meat grinder. We went into that area with a force ratio of about
1:3:5. In other words, we were outnumbered by 3:5:1 and were
successful and had very little loss of life.
Now, we've done all this while also patrolling our skies and cities
and ports here at home to an extent that's never been done before in
America, and we've reinforced that valuable lesson that we can
accomplish more when we work with out teammates, the other federal
agencies and our coalition partners.
So that's the good news. We've made some progress.
The not so good news is what we've learned about the enemy that we're
up against. There's a revealing contrast between how we operate and
how the terrorist operates.
For instance, we go to great lengths to spare the lives of innocents.
And often that means that we add difficulty and even danger to our
mission in order to accomplish the task and not endanger innocents.
And when we make a mistake-and we're not perfect so when we make
mistakes-when we make mistakes, we investigate it and try to take
corrective actions so they don't happen again.
I think the bottom line is that our modus operandi really reflects our
respect for the dignity of human life.
The terrorists, of course, couldn't be more different. They make it
their purpose to kill the innocent. The more innocent men, women and
children they kill, the happier they are. The World Trade Center is
not the only example. Last week in Kabul, if you remember, they
exploded a bomb, a small bomb, and that explosion drew a crowd, and
then they exploded a larger bomb, killing many other innocents.
And they didn't just kill soldiers, that wasn't their intention. They
murdered their fellow Muslims. These people were on their way to work.
They were on their way to school. They were on their way to market.
And they were on their way to the mosque.
We've also learned that Al Qaida is a global network disbursed in over
60 nations worldwide, including our own. They're much better
organized, trained, financed and focused than terrorists have been in
the past. Al Qaida is a shrewd, patient and adaptable group and
they've made it an art form to be able to hide among civilians. Of
course, this makes our ability to go after them very, very difficult.
And we've learned that the enemy we're facing is willing to commit
suicide in order to achieve their objectives. That's significant. How
do you deter people that are willing to kill themselves to advance
their cause?
This is a dramatic departure from the type of enemy we faced in the
past. During the Cold War we deterred the Soviet Union in part because
they had something to lose. We knew what their capabilities were, so
we worked to try to help influence their intentions. We placed at risk
something that the Soviets valued: the survival of their nation. And
that was the basis for our deterrent strategy.
Today, we're facing just the opposite of that situation.
I think we know clearly the enemies' intentions: to destroy this
American experiment in democracy and freedom.
But we're less sure, much less sure of their capabilities. We know
that they have nothing to lose, no homeland, no capital cities, no
bridges, no factories. So this clearly means that the old deterrence
theory just won't work now.
This past year, we've also learned that the Al Qaida network is
actively seeking weapons of mass destruction. The tapes seen recently
on CNN offer all of us a very sobering reminder of what that really
means.
These videos make clear that with a single event terrorists might seek
to devastate our society and those of our allies with chemical,
biological or even nuclear weapons. And these videos show that the Al
Qaida has the desire. We just aren't sure yet if they have the
capability.
To emphasize the importance of this, think about how the terrorist
acts have changed: Thirty years ago, a terrorist group known as Black
September killed 11 Israeli Olympic athletes in Munich. One year ago,
the Al Qaida killed more than 3,000 innocent people. And tomorrow,
given the chance, they'll probably want to kill thousands or hundreds
of thousands of people.
The defining question for all of us is, "how do we respond to these
changes?" What are the things that we, as a nation, must do? In my
mind, there are two broad areas that we should address as we go
forward. First, I'm reminded of what Casey Stengel once said, speaking
of the New York Yankees. And he said to his team, "You know, if we're
going to win the pennant, we've got to start thinking we're not as
good as we think we are."
What that means to me, and the military, as good as our armed forces
are, we can't rest on the success we've had to date. While we must
fight this war on terrorism with a great ferocity and tenacity, we've
also got to improve as fast as we can. And that means we've got to
transform our military forces. And I say this because the war on
terrorism is going to take a long time.
But we can't wait to transform. We have to be very aggressive here, or
we'll be going backwards. Now in this town, there is a lot of talk
about what transformation is all about. For me, transformation is a
lot more than putting wheels on armored vehicles, or making a
stealthier aircraft or putting new missiles on submarines. These types
of changes are important.
But if we still use our military forces as we have for the past 50
years, the changes really won't be of much use. Transformation is
about creating new relationships and a new operating culture.
In my view, the most important element will take place between the
ears of our war fighters. It means becoming a dramatically better
force. And the core of this better force will be getting the right
information to the right outfit at the right time.
And the reason why I say that information sharing is a catalyst for
transformation can be seen in the story that I'll relate to you now
about a guy that was just about to get married. He was very nervous
about this. And on the day of the wedding he said, "You know, I've got
to say some words and so forth, and I'm really nervous." So all the
groomsmen took him aside and said, "Listen, all you've got to really
say is 'I do.'" And so they rehearsed that for hours. And then came
the time of the wedding. And the first thing the pastor says, "Is
there anyone here who objects to this marriage going forward?" And out
yells the groom, this is his time, "I do."
Well, the lesson of course, is right information, wrong time. And in
the war on terrorism-I was betting whether I would get a laugh at
that, by the way.
Do I win this, or? In the war on terrorism, it's extremely important
that we get the right information from whatever the source to the
right outfit at the right time.
It's never been more important. We have to have our decision cycle
very, very quick, because of the characteristics that I described
earlier about our terrorist adversaries. Information sharing is the
key to becoming more agile, more flexible, and faster in our decision
loop than the terrorists. And if and when we uncover one of their
plots to use weapons of mass destruction, we've got to have the
ability act before they can attack.
So transforming our forces is the first broad area where we as a
nation must build on from we've learned from the past year. The second
broad area involves the American public. In my view, every American
has a role to play. And it all begins with us doing what Americans
have always done.
Since the first landings at Jamestown or Plymouth Rock, we Americans
have sacrificed in our community, in our nation for others. Last year,
we witnessed a resurgence of this sense of public service, and it made
all of us, of every race, religion, and ethnic background, I would
say, very, very proud. Our challenge is to keep that commitment alive.
To do so, we simply need to be Americans. One of our strongest
traditions is national and community service. In my view, there has
never been a more important time to serve our nation than now. And the
service of course comes in many forms. If you think this is going to
be an advertisement for military recruiting, you're wrong, because you
can serve many, many ways. You can be in the Marine Corps, the
diplomatic corps, the press corps, Peace Corps. You can serve as a
volunteer with your church or with your youth leagues. The
possibilities are only limited by your imagination. The point is to
participate actively in this marvelous range of activities that make
our culture so strong.
Another American characteristic that we must reinforce is to be vocal.
We should participate in public discussion on how we should respond to
this terrorist threat. Such a discussion should focus on a variety of
key questions. For instance, what do we expect of our government in
times like these? What cost do we think as a society we can bear? What
level of risk today is acceptable before we take action? What should
be our relationship with our friends and our coalition partners?
And does this unprecedented threat, in terms of the potential for
tragedy, for human tragedy, does this unprecedented threat require a
new approach to national security? Obviously, these are serious
questions, but these are also very, very serious times.
These are not questions for just public officials or four-star
generals, talk show hosts and pundits. They're questions for dinner
tables, classrooms and boardrooms. These are issues, in my view, for
all Americans to express their opinion on.
And that, of course, is where you come in. You facilitate the national
discussion, like the one the president has called for. You're the ones
with the most important element of developing a national consensus,
and that is, you provide the information for the most part. We can't
prosecute this war on terrorism without you, the press. And we
absolutely can't win it without you.
In fact, a free and professional press is an invaluable addition to
U.S. national security. Your criticism and your commentary refine the
thinking of our leadership while they inform the public. America is
counting on your diligence and your objectivity as much as it's
counting on the courage and skill of those in uniform.
And finally, you can help with a key element in our ultimate victory
over terrorism, and that is, that this fight is going to take a long,
long time. America is going to need a great deal of patience. So we
must remain focused on the threat and the task at hand. We need to
realize that it's going to involve activities that are in plain view
and covered by the media and is also it's going to involve activities
that are far from public view.
Now, some might suggest that being patient is sort of an un- American
trait. After all, we live in a society that is viewed as fast-paced
and impulsive. I don't think it's entirely accurate. I think if you
stand back and take a broader perspective, we know we're a nation
that's 226 years old, and truly, there are other cultures that date
back thousands of years. But the fact is that, America, this great
experiment in freedom, is a nation with the oldest written
constitution.
To me, that means our government is the oldest formal government
around. We haven't always been perfect far from it-but we've been
patient.
The pioneers who took six months to cross the plains, they certainly
had patience and perseverance. We stuck it out in World War II. We had
the patience to rebuild the societies of our opponents, even though it
took decades. And we kept our focus through 40 years of the Cold War,
so now we must keep our focus and remain patient yet again.
From time to time, folks suggest that the war on terrorism isn't a
real war. They recall how the American public made dramatic sacrifices
during World War II. For instance, families grew victory gardens that
produced over 40 percent of our vegetables, and 15 million men and
women served in uniform, and industry shifted to a wartime footing. So
far, we haven't had to make those kinds of sacrifices for this war on
terrorism. But I think it's wrong to kind of make those comparisons.
You've got to remember that the terrorist struck at one of our symbols
or symbols of our economic promise, the World Trade Center. And they
also struck at another center of our military might, the Pentagon. But
they really fundamentally tried to do is destroy the core of our
societies-our liberties and economic strength. Of course, they failed.
But our best response is to reinforce those values and institutions
that make us great, to exercise our freedoms, to demonstrate our
selflessness and to grow our economic power. After all, we're a nation
that's not built on wealth and power. We're built on our ideas and
ideals. We're built on diversity, on vision and on values.
The liberties we cherish are nurtured in the homes of more than 285
million people. We are Christians, we are Muslims, we are Hindus, we
are Jews, we are atheists, of every possible description and
background, but we're all Americans. And this is a fight about our
resolve to hold on to those values and liberties. And every American,
in my view, has a role to play because America includes everyone.
So it may appear undramatic to suggest that Americans should
participate in public service, to express their opinion in a public
discourse, to welcome a robust and free press and to be patient. But I
think that's just about the best approach I can think of for this very
different type of war that we're involved in.
After all, to defeat the heartless force that opposes us, we need to
have the exact characteristics that they lack, and we need to have in
abundance kindness, unselfishness, diversity, tolerance, cheerfulness
and, I'd say, a sense of humor.
At the beginning of the second year of the Civil War, President
Lincoln said, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the
stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty. As our
case is new, so must we think anew and act anew."
As we start this second year in the war on terrorism, we, too, must
think anew and act anew. For our nation's military, we're doing this
by pressing ahead with transformation. As a result, we'll be a more
capable force in this war on terrorism, and we'll be ready for
whatever tomorrow's challenges bring.
For our nation, we should embrace Lincoln's words and keep alive our
service to the nation, engage in public discourse on how to respond to
the terrorist threat, and most of all, have patience as we pursue this
very important task.
Once again, I'm honored to be here today. It's places like the
National Press Club where thoughtful people have always been able to
address the most important issues of the day and that are facing our
nation. Jules Verne may have overlooked the importance of the media,
but I don't. Thank you very much.
MODERATOR: General, a large number of the questions deal with Iraq, as
you might imagine.
Most or many U.S. allies, even Arab leaders, privately seem to agree
that Saddam Hussein might be a bad guy, dangerous but ask then, what
has changed? What is so compelling now in terms of immediacy to take
action against Iraq? Let me broaden that to say-to ask-have you seen
clear and convincing intelligence evidence that Saddam Hussein is
prepared to use weapons of mass destruction or to provide them to
someone else?
MYERS: Well, I think the president said it best yesterday in his
speech at the U.N. where he talked about the way Iraq has absolutely
ignored the Security Council Resolutions that have called for him to
disarm, as regards his weapons of mass destruction. And I think we
have clear and compelling evidence that in fact he has not done so. In
fact, over the last decade he has actually enhanced his capabilities
in those areas. He still has a very active research and development
and production and weaponization of chemical and biological weapons
and a thirst for nuclear weapons.
And the president went on to say that this is a threat to the peace
and stability of the region. You mentioned allies. The president went
on to say that he is going to consult with our friends and allies. He
is going to consult with Congress. But I think his last point is
probably the most important, that the only course that's unacceptable
here is inaction, that if we don't act, that this nexus between
weapons of mass destruction and terrorism could bring a great harm to
a great many people.
MODERATOR: Last month, General Schwarzkopf, on one of the Sunday panel
shows, said that the U.S. should not go it alone against Iraq, and
that Iraq has 400,000 troops, 100,000 of them well trained.
What kind of force structure is needed to deal with that kind of force
structure on the opposing side?
MYERS: Would you be surprised if I declined to go into the details of
an operational force structure, against any country for that matter?
And that's a real problem, and I've talked about this with the
Pentagon press corps, and that is, as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, it's very difficult to make any comment on an operational
naturebecause it could be turned around by an adversary, then be used
in a way that would be very unhelpful and perhaps a danger to our
forces. So I've got to be careful about that.
But what we do know, and this is-obviously the president hasn't made
up his mind. And that's another thing he said yesterday, he said: I
have not made a decision on what I'll do about Iraq. But he did say
that, again, that indecision wasn't the answer.
Having said that, I can talk a little about Iraqi force structure.
They are much weaker than they were during Desert Storm, and their
forces have generally become-been less and less, although Iraq has
found ways around the oil-for-food program to boost some of his
defenses, in his air defenses, his communications and his weapons of
mass destruction.
We've seen him take trucks that are OK under the oil-for-food program
that should be helping the Iraqi people and turn those trucks into
either missile carriers or to be able to transport their armored
vehicles with them.
So he's found ways around some of these regimes, the oil-for-food
program is what I'm talking about, and used it to bolster his forces.
But basically Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the early
'90s.
MODERATOR: As we're talking about force structure, General, given the
war on terrorism, the broader picture, and American commitments around
the world, are U.S. forces stretched manpower-wise to a dangerous
level or to a level that might concern you? Is the U.S. force
structure stressed?
MYERS: Let me start by saying that we have a magnificent armed forces,
thanks to the American people, to our Congress and to the political
leadership. We have a very strong armed forces that is ready.
As we look at the new strategy that was laid out by Secretary Rumsfeld
and the rest of the senior leadership of the Pentagon, the so-called
Quadrennial Defense Review, we laid out in some detail what it is we
expect the armed forces to be able to do.
And as you look at that strategy and you say, "OK. We're prosecuting a
global war on terrorism. Can we fulfill the other aspects of this
strategy-homeland defense, major contingencies in other parts of the
world-and still have a strategic reserve in case you would need one?"
And the answer is, while we are working very hard right now, that we
can do more than one thing at a time. And we have the capacity and the
capability to do what the president could possibly as us to do.
And I'll just leave it at that. But the military is ready to do that.
Now, before I leave that question. Are people stressed? I would like
to say it like this. People are working very hard. But I've traveled
throughout the Middle East, Afghanistan, the surrounding central Asian
countries, to Asia, to other places where we have our armed forces
stationed and here in the United States, as well. The one thing, if
you ask any member, I think, of our armed forces, they understand very
clearly how important it is right now for them to serve. And you do
not hear them complaining.
I've been to some very, very bad places, where we haven't had bases
before, where we have our military forces living and where the food is
not the best and where all the creature comforts are not very good.
They don't complain about that. They never complained once about that.
Their only complaint was, "You know, how can we do more?"
In fact, we just had some folks in the office this morning. And I was
getting briefed by some people who had spent-oh, I think they have
probably spent six months out of the last year in Afghanistan, getting
ready to go back in a very, very, very tough job. And I said, "Well,
what impact is this having on you and your family?" And he said,
"Listen, all of us in my unit understand how important this task is.
This is not something we can fail at. We've got to be victorious and
we're ready for whatever it takes."
MODERATOR: General, in November, 600 personnel are going to be sent to
Qatar for an exercise. What's the purpose of the exercise? And do you
expect a permanent presence there?
MYERS: I think this question goes to the issue of a Central Command
headquarters forward in the region. Our Pacific Command has its
headquarters in Hawaii, basically in the Asia Pacific region. Our
European Command has its headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany, basically
forward in the region. And then we created Central Command, and it is
in Tampa, Florida. And there has been a debate for as long as Central
Command has been around is, where is it best positioned? In fact,
there's been debate in the paper about where it should have been
positioned for the fight in Afghanistan.
If it weren't for the modern technology I referred to in my remarks,
it would have been impossible to keep them in Tampa, Florida. But even
at that, I'm sure, Tommy-General Franks-thought about that very often.
You know, "Where should I be?"
MYERS: In fact, he made numerous trips to the region to be close to
where the action was happening. And in that context, you know, we move
things around a lot. And I know there's been a lot of focus on
movements of things like this. The headquarters will be part of an
exercise. It may stay there permanently, because we're-a decision
hasn't been finally made.
But my guess is, there will be-the secretary will make a decision to
push forward headquarters into the region. It just makes sense to have
your headquarters in your area of responsibility. So I think that's a
likely outcome. And it doesn't say I don't think anything about
potential action in the region. It's just that we've got to be ready
for action and for activities, no matter what we're called upon to do.
And I'm talking about the gamut of activities here from humanitarian
activities to non-combatant evacuation activities, to more serious
activities that-real crisis.
MODERATOR: Among the facilities being constructed in Qatar,
reportedly, is a control center-to replace one or to compliment one at
Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia since Saudi Arabia has said
it's soil could not be used for any subsequent attack on Iraq.
Nonetheless, how big a setback is the Saudi position on that and even
potential denial of use of their airspace?
MYERS: Let me just say at the outset that the support we've gotten
from Saudi Arabia on the war on terrorism, on the peace in Afghanistan
and other pieces in the region has been very, very good. And we
appreciate that support.
Without going into a lot of operational detail, we have backup
locations for lots of our command facilities, as you would probably
think is smart. And I think that's what you're seeing here, not a
major shift in U.S. policy, that's for sure. And I would anticipate in
any future operation that we would have cooperation from our friends
and allies, and that would include Saudi Arabia.
MODERATOR: This questioner says senior defense officials say Saddam
Hussein is using tractor-trailer trucks to house biological weapons
labs. Have you seen intelligence to support that, General?
MYERS: There is evidence to support mobile production capability for
chemical and biological weapons. It does not take a lot of space for
some of this work to go on. It can be done in a very, very small
location. And the fact that you can put it on wheels makes it a lot
easier to hide from people that might be looking for it. And so, yes,
we have evidence that's...
MODERATOR: On the subject of biological and chemical warfare
capabilities, General, this questioner asks, if the U.S. were to bomb
Iraq's biowar stockpile sites, could that not result in a massive
release in which potentially huge civilian casualties could be caused
on the ground there?
And secondly, would it not guarantee that Saddam would subsequently
use other stockpiles in a "use 'em or lose 'em" kind of theory?
MYERS: Well, now we're getting a little bit close to operational
matters. I'm going to pull back just a little bit from that. But in
general, as we do, just like we did in Afghanistan, I think, if people
saw the process that we went through for targets, sensitive targets,
where we might have the potential for the loss of innocent life or to
damage structures that weren't the intended target, it's a very
detailed process with lots of modeling that tries to predict injuries
and damage.
That same thing in a hypothetical way, because I'm not going to
address Iraq, certainly would apply to a-let's say you have a rocket
propellant production facility. They have very caustic chemicals
there. If it were struck, it would release plumes that could hurt
people. And so we model that very carefully, too.
And then you have to do the risk, as required by international
dimension, you have to say, "Is the military worth of this target
worth the risk of injuring X number of people or of potentially
causing harm?" And we do that on every sensitive target. Like I said
before in my remarks, this is time consuming, and often we default to
creating conditions that might pose more hazard and more danger to our
armed forces and those of our coalition partners before we'll take a
chance of hurting civilians.
MODERATOR: General Myers, this is a question you declined to answer in
your appearance I referred to in Savannah, but as a military man you
must, we understand, consider the possible military consequences of
any action. So what would be the military consequence if the U.S.
wages war on Iraq of an Iraqi strike against Israel and Israeli
retaliation?
MYERS: I think the Iraqi regime has been pretty consistent about its
views toward Israel. And so if they were threatened, or even if
they're not threatened, that's one of the things you worry about, is
how they would use their weapons of mass destruction against the state
of Israel. And we saw what the Iraqi regime did to one of its
neighbors, Iran. We saw what they did to Kuwait. We saw what they've
done to their internal-some of the populations inside their country,
minority populations.
And so there's no doubt that you would have to consider-I mean, I
think we consider that today: What is the potential threat of weapons
of mass destruction against the other countries in the region?
It would certainly play into the calculation, and it would have to be
taken into account. And that's probably as far as I'm going to go.
MODERATOR: General, back to the question of manpower-personnel levels.
The army recently announced its third stop-loss order to prevent
soldiers from leaving the service. Is this going to be a permanent
thing? Does the army need 400,000 more soldiers, as some in
Congress-40, 000 more soldiers as some in Congress say?
MYERS: That last issue on the number is still being debated in
Congress and between the Department of Defense.
One of the things that helps us in times like these when we have a
global war is the Reserve component, both the National Guard and the
Reservists. We are working them very hard. A lot of them had been
called up for a year. Some of those are just now returning back home,
and others are going forward. It's hard on their family life. It's
hard on their employers who have to let them go.
At the same time, I'll remind you again, this is such important work
that most of them are happy to serve. In fact, some of them have
volunteered to serve a second year. Last night, we just said farewell
to some folks that came on active duty for a year from Ohio, mostly
from Columbus. And they were part of my personal security detail,
which I didn't have before September the 11th, but which I now have.
And these individuals came on duty for a year. They left their wives
and left their other jobs and supported me in my mission here in
Washington, D.C. That's not easy for them, but not one of them
complained about being called up.
So one of the ways we handle the manpower issue is the Reserve
component, and they have played a marvelous role.
The other piece is that what the secretary is trying to do is to make
sure that if you wear a uniform, you're doing something that requires
somebody in uniform to do. And he's trying to press the services.
He said, "If you have need for additional manpower, that's fine. But
let's first make sure that we don't have anybody in uniform doing jobs
that we can contract out, that can be done by a civilian workforce and
so forth." And I think that's the right approach. That's the only way
to make sure that if you're wearing the uniform, you're doing a job
that needs to be done by somebody in uniform by the military. And
that's the course he's on.
MODERATOR: General, we have a few more related questions. But I'm
going to take care of it right now-take care of something I neglected
to do earlier. In introducing the head table, I passed by one of our
correspondents at the table. Andrea Stone, national security reporter
for USA Today. I apologize for the oversight and welcome you.
General, please comment on the implication of the criminal charges
brought today against U.S. F-16 pilots involved in friendly- fire
deaths of four Canadian soldiers. Is this unprecedented? Does it have
impact on morale of U.S. forces?
MYERS: Just so everybody knows, this relates to the incident where we
had two U.S. F-16s. They dropped ordnance on some Canadians in the
vicinity of Kandahar that were exercising at night and killed four
Canadians.
The reports were released today by-Good reports and reports that were
participated in by both U.S. and Canada. And then this morning, we
also-so those reports are being released at noon. And then, also, I
guess, the Air Force announced that they had brought charges on these
pilots.
To avoid any undo command influence on any of this, even though I'm
not in the command chain, I can't speak on those issues. We have to
let the process play out.
MODERATOR: Two quick questions not related directly to the war on
terror or Iraq, General. Has the V-22-that's the Osprey-re- entered
flight testing yet at Edwards? And if so, tell us a little bit about
how it's going.
MYERS: I don't follow that real, real closely. But I do understand,
yesterday, it flew, I think, a little over four hours on two different
sorties. So it's starting to re-enter the test phase again. And there
is a plan to work the production aspects of that aircraft to ensure
that it's safe and operationally effective and reliable. There's a
test plan that they're going to go through. And we need to just let
that play out and see how it performs. So, yes, it's flying.
MODERATOR: OK. Question about something we mentioned very briefly in
the introduction and then have not talked a lot about, space-base
defense. What happened to the idea, this questioner asks, of sharing
more evenly the cost of space operations among the services? The other
says, being an Air Force general, you perhaps naturally support a
national missile defense system based in space or intercepting in the
air, but are you considering a secondary based system using ships as a
platform? And if not, why not?
MYERS: You know, it's interesting what people attribute to me based on
this uniform and my previous assignments. And it's been fascinating to
read ever since I was nominated that, "Gee, we know why Myers is being
nominated. It's because of his support for missile defense." I dare
anybody to go back and do the research and find out anything I said
about missile defense that would lead them, perhaps, to that
conclusion.
Having said that, you have a very important question here. And the
missile defense program that was reorganized by Secretary Rumsfeld and
under the guidance of Lieutenant General Ron Kadish down at the
Missile Defense Agency, I think is exactly on the right track. And
it's a broad front of many technologies and then sorting out those
capabilities that work and take them forward and take the ones that
aren't ready yet, that need more research and development or invention
and put them to the rear. And that's what's going on.
I can guarantee you that what we're looking for is the best defense
for short-range, medium-range, intercontinental-range ballistic
missiles. And it's irrespective of what you can bring to it.
Sure, I serve as the commander of U.S. Space Command, but that does
not bias me toward a space solution. I'm for what works. And we're
moving along that path.
Just coincidentally, one of the more important ways and efficient ways
to bring down a missile is in the ascent or the boost phase, because
then any debris falls probably on the nation that launched it.
Geometry there is very important. And that would argue for things like
airborne laser. It would argue for things like ship-based systems. And
I think we're a ways away from any space-based solution.
So just because I wear this uniform, I very rarely think about myself
as an Air Force officer. Next week, I'm going to go to the AFA (Air
Force Association) convention because they're going to offer me some
award.
MYERS: I will probably feel like an Air Force officer for a few hours
that night. But the same would be true of my colleague here, Keith
Kellogg (ph), who is our J-6 (ph) or director of communications,
commander and control on the Joint Staff. I don't think Keith thinks
of himself as an Army officer. He's trying to do what's best for the
country.
MODERATOR: General, two very quick questions, please. We're running
out of time here. We have specific questions about potential roles for
Japanese forces, for Japan, and for German forces in a potential Iraq
crisis.
MYERS: Well, I'm not going to get into talking about what other
countries ought to do. That'll be their decision. And of course Japan
has very unique circumstances that I know reasonably well.
Let me just tell you, though, that they have been terrific in
supporting this global war on terrorism. They have provided I think
it's 48 million gallons of fuel, and that's about a week old, to our
Navy ships that are transiting the Pacific. And they've also
participated in helping with security with their ships, originally
around Diego Garcia and in other places. So of course Germany's
involved in training police in Afghanistan.
There are lots of things to do. We have a lot of work left to do in
Afghanistan in terms of security and in terms of reconstruction.
There's lots of ways countries can contribute. And as I said, we have
a coalition helping our military of about 90. The coalition is even
bigger than that if you think about other contributions. And I'll let
other-we'll just let other countries decide how they can best
contribute.
MODERATOR: General Myers, on behalf of the National Press Club, allow
me to present to you this certificate of appreciation for your being
our guest today.
And the coveted National Press Club mug, appropriate for individual
service or joint services coffee.
MYERS: It looks like a joint service thing. I'll hold this very close
to my heart. Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)