DoD News Briefing
Thursday, March 5, 1998 - 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD (PA)
......................
Q: On Iraq, has any decision been made to rotate that AEF out of Bahrain?
A: No. Not that I'm aware of.
Q: No plans...
A: We're going to maintain our forces in the Gulf for the foreseeable future. The President will decide how long he wants to maintain the current force levels there. This refers to all forces -- Army, Air Force, and Navy forces, and also, as you know, we have a Marine Amphibious Ready Group there as well.
There's no decision yet made to reduce the forces, and I wouldn't anticipate that any decision will be made until we've had time to test Iraq's compliance with the UN Security Council agreement that was signed recently.
Q: What about replacing those forces with fresher...?
A: There is constant rotation going in and out of people, but in terms of the number of assets there -- planes, ships, soldiers to run tanks -- I don't foresee any diminution of that force for awhile.
Q: Was there ever a request or a suggestion from Bahrain that U.S. aircraft leave the country by mid-March? There was evidently a report to that nature.
A: Let me deal with that report. There was no request about that in any way. In fact, the day that that report ran -- and the report was denied by the White House, and it was denied by the Pentagon as well -- the day that report ran Secretary Cohen spoke with the Crown Prince of Bahrain and expressed his thanks for the support that Bahrain has given us over the last few months, and the Crown Prince said that that support would continue. So I'm mystified about where this report came from.
Q: You said from the podium that Emir had given the President personal assurances that strikes would be allowed from Bahrain.
A: We're talking about a different issue here. We're talking about the Air Expeditionary Force, but I did say that, yes. But this is a separate issue. This was about an NBC report that suggested that Bahrain was going to expel some or all of the Air Expeditionary Force and we have -- I think that report was just wrong.
............
Q: Back on Iraq for one second. What have you seen in the disposition of Iraqi forces since the agreement was reached with the UN? Remembering that right before that agreement you had commented that we had seen a disposition into defensive positions. Are they back now? Have there been any shifts since the agreement was signed?
A: The air forces remain dispersed defensively. There's been some regrouping of ground forces. There is beginning to be a regrouping of their air defense missile forces as well.
I want to point out that during the last month or so, when they were rapidly moving around their missiles, they were doing that to increase their defensive posture, or to decrease our ability to target their missiles. While they were doing that, however, they degraded their air defense system. They are beginning now to put back together their air defense system in a more predictable way.
Q: I was going to ask you, maybe that's part of the next answer then to draw a conclusion about, what this regrouping of air defense and regrouping of ground forces actually means, what conclusions are we drawing from that?
A: I think that it's very difficult to psychoanalyze what's in the minds of Saddam Hussein and his military commanders, but if I had to guess, he sees the tensions as declining.
Q: Does regrouping of the air defenses somehow, are you saying it strengthens the integration...?
A: I'm saying that when the air defense systems are in a state of constant motion that they do not integrate as well and operate as well together. There is some diminution of his air defense capabilities when he's moving them around. To the extent that he stabilizes them and stops moving them as much as he did before, it would allow him to gain some ability of his air defense systems.
It is fairly standard operating procedure in Iraq for them to move their missiles around fairly regularly. The tempo of those missiles does change from time to time.
Q: If he regroups the ground forces, one would expect that that might make them more vulnerable to attack. Does this lead you to believe that he has no intention of violating this agreement and therefore is not worried an attack?
A: We certainly hope he has no intention of violating the agreement because the agreement is the best path to what he and what the international community wants. He wants inspections to stop and the sanctions to be lifted. The international community wants the inspections to continue so we can be assured that the weapons of mass destruction program is under control.
Q: Would the regrouping of his ground forces make them more susceptible to attack?
A: To the point they're concentrated, it would make them more susceptible to attack. That's why he disbursed them, in order to reduce the size of potential targets.
Q: Now they're going back into garrison?
A: They're beginning to regroup, yes.
Q: That regrouping is going back to more normal operations?
A: They are going back to more normal operations, yes.
Q: In the testimony on the Hill the other day, General Zinni urged Senators to support a tightening of maritime interdiction efforts against Iraq. What measures are the Administration considering, military or otherwise, that would achieve that?
A: I'm afraid I can't answer that question. I'll get back to you on it.
..........
Q: I think you said on Tuesday that the anthrax vaccinations were supposed to start this week in the Gulf. Do you know if they have or if you're still waiting for word on it?
A: They have not started yet. I anticipate they will start at the very end of this week or the beginning of next week. They may start -- each service will handle its own vaccination procedures for its personnel, but they'll be under the central command of CENTCOM.
.............
Q: The Washington Times reported this week that a lieutenant colonel on the Joint Staff in an e-mail note made some disparaging remarks about Congressman Curt Weldon, a senior member of the House National Security Committee, and the memo also said that he suggested withholding information from Congressman Weldon about missile defense, a controversial issue.
Is this the case, and does the Defense Department condone those kinds of remarks and the idea that information would be withheld from a senior member of Congress?
A: First of all, we take the topic of missile defense very seriously. We're spending billions of dollars a year, I think $4 billion this year on theater missile defense, and we're working also aggressively on a national missile defense program. These are dauntingly complex technical challenges. We are moving forward. We believe that theater missile defense is one of our top priorities in protecting our troops around the world, in places like the Gulf. We've done a lot of work with our existing system, the Patriot system, but we're developing a range of new systems as well.
Secondly, we try to cooperate fully with all members of Congress in this area, including, and, particularly, Congressman Weldon. I think we have gone up there and testified many times. We will do it in the future. We've tried to explain what our programs are, and we've tried to work with Congress to make sure that the programs are adequately funded and kept on an appropriate schedule.
Q: Does the Pentagon consider Lieutenant Colonel Trimmer's remarks appropriate?
A: I read in your newspaper that in his own e-mail, which was actually sent almost a year ago -- this isn't a recent story, the e-mail was sent in April of 1997 -- that in his own e-mail he said, "I probably should not say this," and I suspect he wishes he hadn't.
Q: Is he still part of the delegation going to Geneva on the demarcation...
A: Yes, he is. I am informed that he is still on the delegation.
Q: Just before the briefing I became aware, and I'm not sure if you know much about this or not, but apparently I heard there was a report that there had been some arrests involving -- in Virginia -- involving attempts to sell F-14 spare parts to Iran. Are you aware of this story in particular? And if not, in general, does the United States believe that Iran is attempting to acquire spare parts for its F-14s?
A: Well, the short answer to that question is yes, we are aware of efforts by Iran to purchase not only spare parts for existing weapons, but also to expand its current arsenal with more modern weapons. I can't comment on this report. It's a law enforcement matter, not for me to comment on, but I think you can deduce from the report that we take these efforts seriously. We're working hard as a government to enforce sanctions we have against Iran, and we're working very hard to prevent proliferation in the Gulf by Iran.
Q: Do you have any assessment of the current state of readiness of Iran's F-14s? Are those planes capable of flying still?
A: Some of them do fly, I believe, but I'd have to do some research before I could give you a detailed assessment.
Q: Can we get a number for how many F-14s we think they have?
A: Possibly. I guess you want to know how many are operating, not just how many they have.
Q: That too.
A: Okay.
................
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
