USIA - Transcript: Pentagon Spokesman's Regular Briefing, 97-02-13
From: The United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at <gopher://gopher.usia.gov>
TRANSCRIPT: PENTAGON SPOKESMAN'S REGULAR BRIEFING, FEB. 13
(Netanyahu meeting, Saudi Arabia/F-16s, Syria, aid to Palestinian authority,
women/men in services, Tailhook certification process, Persian Gulf war
syndrome, McCaffrey, North Korea defector, Cyprus, Bosnia, CBO, Aberdeen)
(8630)
Pentagon Spokesman Ken Bacon briefed; also briefing was Dr. Bernard Rostker,
Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War
Illnesses.
Following is the Pentagon transcript:
(begin transcript)
DoD News Briefing Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD(PA)
Thursday, Feb. 13, 1997 - 1:30 p.m.
Also participating in this briefing is Dr. Bernard Rostker, Special
Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Gulf War Illnesses.
Mr. Bacon: Good afternoon.
I just want to remind you that at 5 o'clock today Secretary Cohen will have
a full honors ceremony for Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, making his
first visit here to see Secretary Cohen. He's been here before to see
Secretary Perry, but this will be his first visit to see Secretary Cohen.
They have met before, but not in the Secretary's current capacity. If you
want to cover this, for security reasons, unfortunately, you have to be out
there an hour early, but we've held the blizzard off, so it's not all
bad.
Also, tomorrow, and I think you should have been invited to this, all of
you. If you haven't, you can certainly go. Tomorrow at 11 a.m., Deputy
Secretary White and General Shalikashvili are both hosting an Armed Forces
Full Honor Review which is the formal welcome to the Department of
Secretary Cohen. That will be at Conmy Hall at Fort Myer tomorrow at 11.
You're all free to go to that. If you need more details, see Terry Mitchell
in DDI.
Q: On the Netanyahu visit, do you have a list of subjects that they intend
to discuss?
A: Can I just finish with my announcements, and then we can get to
that.
Q: Sorry, I thought you were finished.
A: This is a very important announcement, and I want it to be up front so
you don't miss it.
We have a Blue Top, this afternoon release, noting that the Department has
let $25.3 billion of contracts last year to small businesses. That's a
total of 23.7 percent of the contracts let. You can get more details on
that from Glenn Flood.
Now I'll take your questions. You were asking me about the meeting with
Prime Minister Netanyahu.
First of all, the main reason for his visit to Washington is to talk about
the Mid-East peace process with President Clinton and Secretary Albright.
That's going on right now. I believe they met for lunch, then they're going
to have a meeting, and there will be a press conference after that meeting
at approximately 4 o'clock.
His visit to the Pentagon, as I said, is one, to sit down and talk with
Secretary Cohen in his new capacity as Secretary of Defense, and it will
give Secretary Cohen an opportunity to make several points. The first is
one that the President also will make which is the better the peace process
goes, the more stability we have in the Middle East and the better it is
for both Israel and the United States. That's a very important point, one
clearly that Prime Minister Netanyahu understands.
Secondly, the U.S. has been, is, and will be committed to helping Israel
maintain a qualitative defense edge in the region. We will review with
Israel our common threat assessments, any difference we have in those
threat assessments, any agreement we have with particular focus on the
challenge of slowing or blocking the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction in the Middle East and other changes that can threaten
stability in the Middle East. There will obviously be some discussion of
specific defense cooperation such as the Arrow Program or the Nautilus
Program, but I wouldn't expect that there would be a lot of details on this
because Defense Minister Mordechai is scheduled to meet with Secretary
Cohen here in March, and I would expect that the detailed discussion would
be reserved for that time.
Q: Speaking of the United States committed to Israel keeping its qualitative
edge, does the United States consider that if Saudi Arabia formally asked
for F-16 jets, the United States could sell those jets and still allow
Israel to keep its qualitative edge? And has Israel registered any kind of
advance protest or any kind of advance fear of such a sale?
A: I think those questions are premature. I saw a report yesterday saying
that Prince Sultan does not plan to discuss F-16s when he comes here later
this month. He gave a lengthy speech in which he dealt with the F-16 issue
in Saudi Arabia a couple of days ago.
Q: But he said in that same speech that they are interested in F-16s, and
you yourself said from the podium that Israel is shopping for weapons in
this country.
A: Saudi Arabia.
Q: Saudi Arabia, I beg your pardon.
A: Prime Minister Netanyahu was quoted in the wires yesterday as saying
that such a sale would be of concern to him, and Prince Sultan, the Defense
Minister of Saudi Arabia, was quoted on the wires yesterday as saying that
they don't plan to discuss this issue with the United States when he comes
here later this month.
I want to go back to what I said last week or the week before. We do not
have a firm proposal from Saudi Arabia. I think it's quite clear that we
won't have a firm proposal from Saudi Arabia later this month. This is an
issue that may be discussed later, but won't be discussed with Saudi Arabia
this month.
Q: Would the sale of 100 or so F-16s change the balance of power in the
Middle East according to this building?
A: This discussion is premature, because that is not an issue that's going
to come up later this month when Prince Sultan comes here, by his own
admission.
Q: It could come up this afternoon from the Israeli side.
A: It could come up this afternoon, but I'm not going to discuss this
because Prince Sultan has said that he's not going to come with a
request.
Q: Let me rephrase the question. From what you just said, you said we want
to enable Israel to retain a defense edge. Are we also committed to
maintain the balance of power in the Middle East?
A: We will do nothing that compromises Israel's qualitative edge.
Q: With the improved stability in the Mid-East, the spreading peace process,
does U.S. military aid to Israel decrease, stay the same, or increase?
A: We've supplied about $30 billion worth of military aid to Israel since
1979, and my anticipation is that this is... That it will stay pretty much
at the same level it's been at. But this is ultimately an issue for the
President and for Congress to decide.
Q: What if there's further progress of peace with Syria?
A: We hope there will be. When there is, we'll look at the changed dynamics,
if that occurs. But one of the pillars of peace since the Camp David
process has been the ability of Israel to defend itself in any situation.
That remains something to which we're committed. We hope that the peace
process ultimately, over time, will reduce the need for arms. We're not
there yet. The peace process has a long way to go, and that's the point of
the discussions between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Clinton
today, looking for ways to accelerate negotiations towards a comprehensive
peace.
Q: With the Camp David process, though, we also expanded significantly our
aid to Egypt.
A: That's true.
Q: Now do we expand aid to Yassar Arafat and Jordan if we get a peace
agreement there?
A: As you know, there is economic aid going to the Palestinian authority.
Q: Change of subject?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you help to clarify a story today quoting a Navy study regarding
pregnancies. One part of the story says that Navy women assigned to ships
have a higher unwanted pregnancy level, a higher abortion rate than shore
duty women. Another part of the story is saying the survey found that women
at sea have a lower pregnancy rate than Navy women on shore and civilians.
Can you set the record straight on that?
A: Actually, Bernie Rostker, Mr. Persian Gulf Illness, is in the other part
of his life the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower, Womanpower,
and Reserve Affairs. He's the man deals with these statistics, so I would
like to have Bernie take that because no one is better qualified to answer
that question than Bernie.
Dr. Rostker: The facts are that the pregnancy rate afloat is lower and in
fact markedly lower in combatant ships. The pregnancy rate for women in the
Navy is lower than comparable pregnancy rates for women in civilian life
across the board. Moreover, it's not a problem.
The Navy could not do without women today. They are an important part of
the all volunteer force. I have personally been on ships that have women.
The story is that there is no story. I would invite any of you to join me
or take advantage of the opportunity to visit and cruise with the
ships.
Q: Can you say what those rates are?
Dr. Rostker: I don't have them here, but we can get you those.
Q: That's the essence of...
Q: Are you familiar with those studies?
Dr. Rostker: I'm familiar with the rates. I just don't have them here. Ken
grabbed me on this. But those are rates and issues that we deal with all
the time. We look at them several times a year. The things that stick in my
mind were the decrease from pregnancy rates in the general population and
the very low pregnancy rate for women on combatants.
The amount of non-available time is a little larger for women than men, but
completely within the realm of the Navy to handle the issue.
Q: Do you have any guidelines as to what percentage of a ship's female
contingent would expect to become pregnant during a six-month deployment?
Dr. Rostker: I don't have it off the top of my head, but we can get you
those numbers.
Q: Can you also provide the general age range that you're dealing with,
average age of women on these ships?
Dr. Rostker: They are from 18 to 40, because they're from the raw recruits
to senior petty officers.
Q: Do you keep statistics at all, how many of those women are married?
Dr. Rostker: I don't know the answer to that question. Probably not. We do
keep statistics on pregnancy rate by age, by officer/enlisted, by grade.
More prevalent in the junior enlisted, very rare in the senior enlisted and
in the officer ranks. But much lower than in the age specific civilian
cohort, and the lowest rates are on our combatant ships.
Q: What do you think about the suggestion made in that report that these
women be put on long term medication such as (inaudible) or other types of
pregnancy preventatives?
Dr. Rostker: Birth control methods are available to women on a voluntary
basis. This is a personal decision. It's the policy of the Department of
the Navy that pregnancy is a normal course of service life for a woman,
obviously, and that we will do everything we can to accommodate that in the
normal career. We do not automatically separate women because they are
pregnant. After 20 weeks the woman must be removed from the ship and would
spend the rest of her pregnancy on shore duty. There is a convalescent
period, and then the expectation is that the woman would go back to a like
billet. So if she was in a sea billet, she will go back to a sea billet.
She must provide for the care of her dependent child, just as any single
parent or married person must provide for the care of their child, and
if they can't do that, that could possibly constitute a hardship,
but that would be a hardship regardless of gender on somebody who had
a dependent that needed care. But the vast majority go back to the
types of positions they have and continue in their naval service.
Q: Oftentimes the charge is made that these women are getting pregnant so
they can get off the job. What evidence do you have of that...
Dr. Rostker: I have the anecdotal evidence of talking to women on the ship
and how proud they are to serve on the ship. Women literally fight to get
on ships. The biggest problem we have is women who don't tell us about
their pregnancy because they want to stay on the ship. That's more of a
concern for us than women who want to get off the ship. And if they do get
off the ship, we return them to the same type of duty. You can't trade sea
duty for a permanent shore position. You will go back to sea unless you
want to leave the Navy on a hardship.
Q: What is the Navy's bottom line, then, on women and men training together
and serving on ships together?
Dr. Rostker: It has not been a problem. It has been a huge success, and I
would encourage you to go out on the carriers, on the small boys, on the
destroyers where we have women. As I said, the story is that there is no
story and that they've done so well.
Q: I believe I read on this subject that male/female sexual relations were
prohibited.
Dr. Rostker: We prohibit fraternization. We strongly discourage relationships
aboard ship that would be detrimental to good order and discipline. That's
not the way we want to run our ships, and that's well understood.
Q: Is there a penalty for the women or for the men that might be responsible?
Dr. Rostker: There is a penalty only if it is fraternization in the legal
sense, which is within the chain of command, and any abuse of power. We
take that very seriously.
Q: What do you mean...?
Dr. Rostker: If it's a petty officer and a seaman. If it's a chief and a
seaman. That would be frowned upon and disciplinary action would be taken
because that constitutes fraternization and potentially an abuse of
authority, and we are very concerned about that.
Q: Of equal rank, there is no infraction?
Dr. Rostker: There's no infraction, and we try to discourage intimate
situations that would be not conducive to a good workplace, just as one
would have in any workplace, and remember, people are on 24 hours a day.
But our main concern in that regard is fraternization.
Q: Do you have similar statistics that show what the absence rate for men
is when you provide us with all those other numbers, and what the reason is
for the highest absent rate for males?
Dr. Rostker: Yes. The reason is discipline for males, which is much lower
in females; it's not quite comparable in the totality of the numbers. We
lose more days with females, but again...
Q: Discipline?
Dr. Rostker: Discipline.
Q: You mean they're thrown in jail?
Dr. Rostker: No, no, no. Mast or other... Men are more likely to miss a
sailing than women are, which is a disciplinary action. But traditionally
in the services, women have had a lower discipline rate than males have.
Again, all of this is within the noise level of the normal operation of a
ship.
Q: Not only absentee rates, but by now you've had several major deployments
on major ships, and you've got a pretty good in discipline track record.
Can you provide not only absent without...
Dr. Rostker: We'll provide...
Q: General statistics on...
Dr. Rostker: ... the last briefing we have internally that tracks the
various trends and numbers.
Q: Do you have anything that indicates shipboard conception?
Dr. Rostker: No. It's very difficult to know when a person conceives. We do
not.
Q: You can take date of birth and subtract nine months, but...
Q: Are they U.S. citizens if they're on a ship?
Dr. Rostker: Let me tell you, they don't give birth on the ship. We do have
a maximum rule. When we estimate 20 weeks of pregnancy, women are taken off
all of the ships.
Q: Isn't this an administrative nightmare for an executive officer of a
ship to have to cycle people on and off?
Dr. Rostker: We rotate people on and off all the time. I wish we had it
stabilized so that you had a crew that trained up and they all went to sea
together. That is absolutely not the case. There's constantly turnover in a
ship, even in the middle of a deployment. So that is not a problem. And
with lead time, the Bureau is able to put a relief in place. So it really
isn't...
What would be more of a problem, given the size of the Navy and proportion
of women in the ships is if we didn't have women, we'd start gapping
billets. What we had before we allowed women, for example, to go to sea is
we would have an aviation squadron and the senior aviation chief might be
female, and she could be with that aviation squadron as long as they were
dockside, and as soon as they went to sea, we couldn't take her to sea with
us. That made no real sense, but that's the way we operated for a long
time. Today that woman goes to sea and she is the senior chief on the
Nimitz in one of the aviation squadrons. That's a true story, because I
talked to that person. She missed a lot of deployments when she was an
aviation technician, but now with the ability to go to sea she doesn't
miss that, and we have more continuity from the shore side to the sea
side than we had before.
Q: Do you have any idea how many women are on how many combat ships right
now?
Dr. Rostker: I don't have it, but I can give that to you. Actually what
happened is the number of women at sea actually decreased until late last
year or early this year because we were decommissioning ships. Now we're
coming back up and the size of the women afloat is increasing. And
increasing, going on more and more combatants.
We also, I think you'd be interested to know, just don't put one woman on a
ship. When we put women on a ship we go in, we do a ship mod, and there has
to be a critical mass. That critical mass is not just young recruits. It's
the entire chain of command, so there is adequate supervision in terms of
chiefs and lead petty officers, first class petty officers, and recruits.
So we make sure there is an adequate supervision... And female officers. We
make sure there is an adequate supervision and support system for the women
when they go on ship.
Q: One more question on this, sorry to belabor it. But the Navy basically
does not want sailors -- male and female -- on ships to have sexual
relations. The Navy does not want pregnancy coming from shipboard. So why
is there not regulation, why is there not an off-limits on quarters to
enforce this?
Dr. Rostker: First of all, we don't have mixed gender berthing compartments.
There are female berthing compartments and male compartments. When I say
berthing, that's what they're called, berthing compartments.
Q: B-E-R. (Laughter)
Dr. Rostker: A term of tradition for the Navy. But they are totally
separate and they don't mix. We don't want situations on any of our ships
that are detrimental to good order and discipline and the operation of the
ship in the most professional fashion. The part we are absolutely concerned
about is any abuse of authority, any harassment, anything that would be in
the chain of command that would be viewed as fraternization.
Q: So the Navy really does not prohibit sexual relations on board
ships...
Dr. Rostker: We recognize it as a biological fact of life, and it is not a
court martial offense, to the best of my knowledge, to do that except to,
to be engaged that way, except in the context of the fraternization
regulations.
Q: Isn't it a Captain's Mast though or Article 15 if the captain views it
as disrupting good order?
Dr. Rostker: It could.
Q: Isn't that the routine punishment for...
Dr. Rostker: It depends upon the circumstances, Pat. There's no hard and
fast rule in this regard. It depends upon the circumstances.
Mr. Bacon: Why don't you direct them all up to CHINFO for these figures?
Admiral Pease and his crack staff are standing by ready to give you all
these figures.
Q: But you're the policy...
Dr. Rostker: I am the Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Navy on these
issues.
Q: Another service that's had great problems recently that they're dealing
with...
Dr. Rostker: I think I've read about that.
Q: Do you have a sense that this is a problem, still, in the Navy? Do you
see reports of rape and harassment and sodomy to the number that you're
seeing in another service here? Not to be critical, but just to offer some
perspective about where this problem is?
Dr. Rostker: The Navy has not been without its problems, and the Navy, as
an institution, has learned a lot from Tailhook. For example, we initiated
a hotline system in 1992. We have a very aggressive system in the Navy and
the Marine Corps for sexual harassment. In the Navy, for example, if a
charge is raised, it must be dealt with or reported to Navy headquarters
within two weeks, and then reported again every two weeks until it's
cleared. The Marine Corps has a slightly different but similar policy. The
Navy has gone out many years ago and created a handbook on sexual
harassment and it talks about red lights and green lights and which
shoulder you can touch, and everybody laughed at it, and it is very
effective. People know, you look at the human relations questionnaires, and
you'll see sharp improvement in the Navy on these issues with the Navy
getting very high marks, particularly on the issue of does the Navy get the
word, do you understand about sexual harassment policies and the like, and
we can share that data with you. Part of it is OSD data. We have our
own questionnaires that go out.
After the Aberdeen situation, we went out in both services and did a whole
range of focus groups with particular emphasis on our schoolhouses. That
went from mid-December to mid-January. Those focus groups were not only
with trained facilitators, but had a, if you will, a relief valve through
chaplains and legal. So if an issue came up that in the focus groups had a
legal aspect, there was a lawyer there to immediately take the case. Thank
the Lord we had no cases that they had to immediately take, certainly none
that I know of.
Q: What kind of focus groups...?
Dr. Rostker: We found that there is a high degree of understanding of what
the Navy policy is. That doesn't mean that we can be complacent. It doesn't
mean that I couldn't be surprised tomorrow morning. But it means that the
leadership is focusing on it and has been focusing on it. We were burned
very badly in Tailhook, as you know, and it's caused a great deal of focus
on these issues. When we put women at sea it caused a great deal of focus
on these issues to make sure we didn't have those problems, and we're very
diligent about that. But we're talking about men and women and unlike
equipment, they tend to be unpredictable and do funny things at times, but
we are quite diligent in watching this.
Q: You say you went out in December and January and looked for complaints?
You asked people...
Dr. Rostker: We asked, we had focus groups throughout the United States and
we can get you information. CHINFO can provide that information also on our
focus group program that went out in December and January.
Q: Does Congress still require you to flag the records of men who were at
Tailhook or had some...
Dr. Rostker: Yes, we still have a Tailhook certification process.
Q: Have you asked this new Congress to undo that yet?
Dr. Rostker: The last... We have not. The last understanding with Congress
is that we would go through one round of Tailhook certification, and once
Congress had passed, had reviewed the record the first time, in light of
Tailhook, we would not certify for subsequent promotions. But we still have
that, and there is a general requirement coming out of that for all
services, that we examine all adverse information through the process, and
that we deal with it and notify Congress of any adverse information of
anybody we are bringing before the Congress for promotion. We have a whole
vetting process now that follows the selection process to make sure we have
reviewed all records.
Q: You've indicated, and I want to ask you this specifically, you found an
indication of superiors, especially training facilities, superiors preying
on the trainees?
Dr. Rostker: That's right.
Q: No hotline reports, nothing through...
Dr. Rostker: Not that I know of. We had an incident about a year and a half
ago in San Diego, and it was dealt with very quickly and directly. But I,
certainly at this point none are pending in my jurisdiction.
Q: But you went looking for it, right?
Dr. Rostker: Yes, sir. We went looking for it through the focus group
process. Again, we can brief you on that whole process that we went
through.
Q: How many schools does the Navy have? Where did you look?
Dr. Rostker: We have all of our, in some ways it's a little easier than the
Army. All of our recruit training now is at Great Lakes. A great deal of
our A School training, our initial technical training, is at Great Lakes,
Pensacola, some in San Diego. We have a limited number of places, and they
tend to be schoolhouses directly. We also, in this process, looked at the
transient barracks where people would come in on a temporary basis for a
day or two or three, and to make sure that in those environments we also
were not seeing anything that was out of the ordinary.
Q: Last night in a long lead story on the Rather show on CBS the Gulf War
Syndrome came up. Without getting specific, first of all, what was your
reaction to it? And secondly, anticipating a follow-up, the story, at best,
implied that the Department of Defense was inefficient in its handling of
data. So again, just basically, how do you feel about that?
Dr. Rostker: One of the things that was very clear to me when I took on
this job... Remember, I had an incubation period where I was able to go
around and talk to everybody -- with a team go around and talk to everybody
-- before I had come to the conclusion and shared that with Secretary White,
that we needed to change our resources and change our focus. In that regard,
some of the things that you saw were some of the things that led me to the
conclusion we had to do things differently.
The other thing that came clear was, and I plowed all of the ground that
CBS reported on, was that there were real people here. When Denny Ross
talked about what he knew and why he reacted to the 1991 UN message, that
that wasn't a conspiracy. That was an analyst trying to do his job. I was
eager to see the face of the people who made these decisions get before the
American public, and it happened that CBS asked for our cooperation in
putting that story together, and frankly, I facilitated the access to those
analysts -- both at the CIA, and they were eager to do that, too, although
you didn't see Larry Fox's face. But we made sure that DIA would make Denny
Ross available... He was the guy who made the call.
You saw him say 'they didn't tell me'. We asked and they didn't tell me.
There's actually a little bit more of a story, and I can share that with
you. In fact, you can see that story on GulfLink, because as we have been
working towards putting our Khamisiyah narrative together, which I had
hoped to be able to share with you today but it just isn't ready -- I'm
looking forward to doing that next week -- As we were putting that story
together, two pieces of information that had, unfortunately, remained
classified became critical, and I ordered them, as soon as I saw them, I
ordered them declassified. CIA was very forthcoming in doing that and
publishing it on GulfLink. You can find that on GulfLink today, just by
going into CIA and looking at the latest release.
What those two pieces of paper talk about was the fact that where Denny
said they didn't tell me, in fact the intelligence community tried to find
out what unit was at Khamisiyah, and the intelligence folks contacted
ARCENT, the Army component commander in the Gulf. They were told, and it's
in the messages, that the 24th Infantry Division was in that vicinity.
That's correct. It was in that vicinity, but they were not at Khamisiyah.
The demolitions at Khamisiyah were done by the 37th Engineer Battalion of
the 20th Engineer Brigade, an element of the XVIIIth Airborne Corps, but
not the 24th Division. So the people who tried to get, for Denny and the
rest of the community, tried to get this information, were given a bum
steer as to where to look.
The second message that was declassified accounts or recounts a phone call
to Fort Stewart, to the 24th, asking them about or what they did at
Khamisiyah. Actually what's redacted is the name of the individual they
called. We have subsequently spoken to that individual. He has no specific
recollection of the phone call. We have spoken to his supervisor who has no
specific recollection of being told about the phone call. So it wasn't like
they didn't tell me because they didn't want to tell me. The intelligence
community, and I can't tell you which arm because that was sources and
methods, but the intelligence community went out, went to ARCENT, went to
the 24th Division, and got bad poop.
Q: Why can't you tell us whether it was CIA or DIA?
Dr. Rostker: It was CIA.
Q: Why can't you tell us...
Dr. Rostker: I can't. It was what was redacted.
Q: The individual, you mean?
Dr. Rostker: The individual. The name was redacted for privacy purposes.
You'll see the message, the addresses and who sent to who, but it was all
within the intelligence community, and you can read the words yourself. It
was a bum steer. The guy, whoever they went to in ARCENT, knew the 24th was
up in that area, in fact they were in that area, but they were to the east
of Khamisiyah, and that just got everybody off on the wrong track.
Q: Maybe I'm confused, but I guess those of us who have been covering the
Khamisiyah story with you, with others here that perhaps know a little more
than people just watching the tube. And I have the greatest respect for
David, but I didn't see the news last night. What was the news peg last
night? What was the news story?
Dr. Rostker: You'd have to talk to David.
Q: What did you see on the news story?
Dr. Rostker: What was the question Dan Rather asked at the beginning? It
was, was there a cover-up or was this bungling? He comes to the conclusion
that it wasn't a cover-up. That was the news story.
Q: So it was inefficiency or bungling?
Dr. Rostker: That's the way they highlighted it, and they answered their
question.
Q: What the news was, here is another CIA disclosure. That they went to
ARCENT and ARCENT... ARCENT goes to the 24th, or CIA goes to the 24th?
Dr. Rostker: CIA went to the 24th. ARCENT simply tells them that the unit
that was in the area was the 24th Infantry Division.
Q: Did the CIA tell ARCENT we're looking for chemical exposure of the
troops? We may have a chemical exposure thing?
Dr. Rostker: They indicate that in the message, but I think the important
part of the message is trying to find the troops, and they got off on the
wrong track.
Q: But they did contact the 24th, is that right?
Dr. Rostker: They contacted a person in the 24th who six years later has no
recollection of that, and we find no other... That's where the trail
ends.
Q: Did this individual say he heard a lot from the CIA?
Dr. Rostker: He has no recollection of ever being contacted.
Q: By the CIA?
Dr. Rostker: By anybody on this issue.
Q: Don't you find that strange, given the heightened awareness and the
questions that were being asked during the Gulf War, even before the troops
went over, the concern about chemical warfare by Saddam Hussein, that
somebody wouldn't remember something like that...
Dr. Rostker: I don't know the way the question was asked. The question may
well have been asked, which implied, is were you guys at Khamisiyah or a
place called Khamisiyah? If I were the person in the G-2 section who got
that question I would have said no, and that would have been the end of the
conversation.
Q: Wouldn't you check a map?
Dr. Rostker: They weren't a Khamisiyah.
Q: According to the commanding general they were within 30 to 40 klicks...
Dr. Rostker: They weren't at the ammo dump at Khamisiyah. That's like
saying are you in Baltimore, and I'm saying no, but I'm within what, 50
miles of Baltimore. The question is, was I at Baltimore.
Q: Did you talk to General McCaffrey after this?
Dr. Rostker: Yes. I have talked to him, yes.
Q: What does he say now? His entire division was there, or...
Dr. Rostker: It's very clear that the database that we have been relying on,
that the Army put together, is built from the bottom up. In other words,
the people, the technicians who built the database were looking for pieces
of record that would have position, time, and unit. We followed through,
what Pat's talking about is General McCaffrey's concern. We followed
through and reassessed the journals that General McCaffrey suggested we
reassess, and it showed no more light on a bottom-up. What is very clear is
we've got to come top-down. We've got to bring the G-3s in and sit down and
compare their recollections and the bottom-up database. We don't have a
good picture. We will be doing that with the Army who is the executive
agent for this. We'll be doing that in the spring. But we concur with
General McCaffrey's concern that we don't have a good picture. So you would
have to say at this point the 20,000 is the best number we have, but not a
final number.
Q: This spring you could revise it substantially.
Dr. Rostker: Right. We could. One of the other things you need to know is
that Khamisiyah lies next to a major highway, and over the ten days of the
period that we have identified, we don't know who transited that highway.
So I can only tell you, we have one estimate which we are quite agreed with
you, Pat, is not a definitive estimate, and we will be trying to get a
better picture of who may have been there during the ten-day period.
Q: Why do you have to wait until this spring?
Q: Why can't you do it by next week? That's what we want to know.
Dr. Rostker: Because I've got other things I need to do next week, like do
the Khamisiyah narrative, like continue to work on the questionnaires we're
getting back from Khamisiyah. In good order, we will do this.
Let me remind you that the main thing you get if you're within 50
kilometers is a letter which says please come in if you have a health
concern. That request goes out to everybody all the time. If you have a
health concern, we want you to come in. So there's no great ticket here by
being or not being, as far as our database is concerned, within the 50
kilometers. But we are committed to try to get the best picture, and in an
orderly fashion we will bring in the people who can give us a top-down view,
as well as having a bottom-up view.
Q: It goes to the heart of your survey of people in the area of Khamisiyah,
doesn't it?
Dr. Rostker: I agree with you. It is not a 100-percent sample of the people
in Khamisiyah, so we will, instead of calling it a 100-percent sample, we
will say it is a sizable sample. We've sent out 17,000 questionnaires. That
should give us a good sense of what went on around Khamisiyah and the
health impacts, and we will be doing subsequent inquiries. But I'm just not
there yet.
Q: When you say this spring, do you mean the vernal equinox or...
Dr. Rostker: I'm just starting to talk to the Army about the need to do
this and when we're going to set it up. We have not set a date.
Q: They don't want to talk about it, I don't think.
Dr. Rostker: No, the Army has agreed that they will work with us and
sponsor a conference to bring in the higher level people to compare the two
approaches, but that takes a bit of preparation, and we have just started
that. I can't give you a date because I don't have a date.
Q: It's hard to get anybody better than Barry McCaffrey, isn't it?
Dr. Rostker: But Barry is not the only unit that was up there. There are
other units in the XVIIIth Airborne Corps. If we have a problem in
Khamisiyah we may have problems in other places. We want to do it in a way
that is most productive, that gives us the best information.
Q: Can we try a few questions for Ken?
Press: Thank you.
Mr. Bacon: Thank you very much, Bernie. Bernie just came by because
standing here and taking your questions is a lot more fun than all the
alternatives he had today. (Laughter)
Q: The Korea defection. What does the Department believe the significance
of that, the defection of the North Korean high level official?
A: I think it's another sign of strains in North Korea. A sign of possible
strains afflicting the regime, as well as the country as a whole. We
already know that they're facing a hunger problem, a food shortage. We know
that their training levels have been substantially below their norms for
their military recently. We know that it's a regime that appears to be
changing the way it deals with the outside world, that's less hermetic than
it was in the past. We know that for one good reason alone, which is the
Framework Agreement signed in 1994, under which they agreed to give up
their nuclear program and to deal with us and other countries to help them
reconstitute a domestic civilian power program.
So we, I think, will learn more over time from this than we know now. It
only happened recently. We have not yet spoken with the defector, Mr.
Hwang. It's probably premature to draw firm conclusions as to the
significance until there's more time to learn what he is saying.
Q: ...in terms of any heightened alert on either side of the line? Is there
any increased tension because of this defection?
A: We have not seen anything along those lines yet. I say we have not seen
anything along those lines.
Q: Has the U.S. military attache's office at the Embassy in Beijing asked
to participate with the South Koreans in interviewing Mr. Hwang? And does
the U.S. have anything to say about Mr. Hwang's freedom to leave China?
A: We work very closely with our allies, the South Koreans. I don't know
what conversations we've had with them on this particular case, but I would
expect that we would continue to work very closely with them on this, and
with all issues affecting the political stability of the Korean peninsula
and the security of the Korean peninsula.
Q: The U.S. DIA would expect to be invited by the South Koreans to
participate?
A: I think I've said all I'm going to say about our close relationship with
the government of the Republic of Korea.
Q: Can you run through what you know about Mr. Hwang's role in the North
Korean government and how high level he really is?
A: Much of this has been reported in the press, and you can read it as well
as I can. He is in his early 70s. He has helped educate the current leader
of North Korea, Kim Jong Il. He helped write many of the ideological tracts
and monographs that were issued by the North Korean regime over the years.
He ran the Kim Il Sung University for quite some time, and it was in that
capacity that he tutored Kim Jong Il. He was close to Kim Jong Il's father,
Kim Il Sung as an advisor, as a ideological advisor among other things. He
has not only educated Kim Jong Il but many of the top leaders of Korea. He
has a job that's equivalent to being the Chairman of the House Foreign
Relations Committee, House International Relations Committee. He is married,
reportedly married to a relative of Kim Il Sung's, and therefore Kim Jong
Il's. He has been one of the major figures in North Korean external
relations. He's a figure who's been allowed to travel. In fact he was
coming back from a trip to Japan where he, among other things, was trying
to raise money to help North Korea deal with its food shortages.
Q: As Secretary Cohen testified yesterday before Congress on the issue of
missiles to Cyprus, quote, "It's a very sensitive situation. Things are
getting really out of hand. It could provoke a conflict."
I am wondering why, since Mr. Cohen imposed already the (inaudible)
moratorium over Cyprus which existed, and the Cypriot president accept the
fact of the U.S. proposal of not deploying those missiles for the next 16
months, even without any kind of guarantee. Could you please elaborate, why
Secretary Cohen is so anxious now at this particular time?
A: As has been stated from this lectern, from Nick Burns' lectern at the
State Department, and from Mike McCurry's lectern at the White House, we
believe that all disputes between Greece and Turkey should be resolved
peacefully. Not just this dispute in Cyprus but all disputes between those
two NATO allies should be resolved peacefully. And we believe that the
introduction of high performance weaponry onto Cyprus and into the area can
only destabilize the situation. And we've made that very clear. It remains
our view. That's what Secretary Cohen was expressing.
Q: In the same testimony, Secretary Cohen stated regarding Cyprus, quote,
"should (inaudible) certain types of missiles that could provoke the other
side to try and take them out."
Based on this statement, the Turkish military today, in Ankara is thinking
about preemptive strikes against the (inaudible) for Cyprus. Therefore, I
would like to know what Secretary Cohen meant exactly with this particular
statement.
A: Secretary Cohen meant that introducing new sophisticated weapons into
that theater is provocative and therefore dangerous and destabilizing, and
we're against that.
Q: And according to a U.S. memo attributed to DoD in January, "Advance
authorization has been granted by the Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis
for the Greek armed forces to retaliate immediately (on an equal way) if
Turkey attempts any bilateral (inaudible) of Cyprus or in the Aegean. If
Turkey," according to the same memo, "will attack in Cyprus, Greece will
reply against targets in Turkey, and not in Cyprus, such as bridges,
military bases, etc. If Turkey responds (inaudible) to hit in the Aegean,
taking over the Greek islands, Greece will retaliate and taking over an
island, too."
Q: Could you please confirm this memo? Clarify why Greece, (inaudible) to
take over islands which are Greek.
A: I know nothing about that memo, and therefore, I can't comment on
it.
Q: What did you say?
A: I know nothing about that memo, and therefore, I can't comment on
it.
Q: Are you aware of any kind of special precautions or movements of forces
in SFOR in anticipation of this Brcko arbitration agreement?
A: First of all, both the leaders of the Serb side, Madame Plavsic, and the
leader of Bosnia-Herzegovenia, President Izetbegovic, have stated that they
plan to cooperate with the arbitration decision and to do their best to
make it work. So we don't anticipate that there will be big trouble when
this decision is announced, probably tomorrow.
Secondly, General Crouch has met with Madam Plavsic, and she has also said
that she believes that the parties must fully support the upcoming
decision.
Beyond that, there have been meetings at Camp McGovern, which is where the
U.S. forces are based nearby, of local police authorities and civic
authorities, and they have said that they will support the decision no
matter how it turns out, so there have been statements from the leaders and
from the local police and civic officials that they do not anticipate
problems, and hope to cooperate.
Having said that, the U.S. has about 1,000 people stationed at Camp
McGovern which is approximately five kilometers away from Brcko, and over
the last several days, weeks, they have increased their patrols, they have
increased their surveillance. There has been a very extensive education
campaign underway using radio, using newspapers, meetings, etc., to reach
out and talk to people on both sides to help prepare the way for this
decision, and to impress upon them the importance of reacting peacefully to
whatever the decision is.
There are also, we don't anticipate that there are going to be problems.
SFOR is not the police force in the area. We have, working with the allies
in the contact group, actually increased the international police task
force in the area from about 120... We're in the process of increasing it
to 120 from approximately 20 now. It will be up to the local police forces,
working under the guidance and in cooperation with the IPTF, to provide the
police network that would respond to demonstrations or very local security
problems.
So over the short term the IPTF is being increased. Over the longer term,
the members of the contact group will look at trying to create maybe a new
police force that can work with or monitor the existing police forces, the
Serb and the Bosnian police forces in the area. But that's a longer-term
solution.
SFOR will continue to provide area security, just as it does now. It will
continue to focus on stability throughout the entire country, leaving the
police to do the police tasks.
Should there be problems, and as I say we don't anticipate problems, we do
have a fairly robust reserve network, reserve forces in the area that can
be moved in quickly. There are both theater reserves and there are out-of-
theater reserves that could be moved in if necessary. But those are
basically the changes that we've made so far.
Q: The Congressional Budget Office has another report out today on the
Department's tactical aircraft programs. It says the cost of the F-22 and
the Joint Strike Fighter seem to have been substantially understated by the
Department, and it suggests that all the Tac Air programs are unaffordable.
Is Secretary Cohen comfortable with those cost estimates now? And does he
think the programs are affordable as now projected?
A: As was explained to you during the background budget briefing last week,
the Secretary of the Air Force has asked the contractor to take a very hard
look at the F-22 program costs, and the whole cost of the program now is
under review, and I think it would be premature to comment on it. Also, the
whole question of Tac Air, the mix of Tac Air, the affordability of Tac Air,
the way Tac Air fits into our strategy, is under review as part of the
Quadrennial Defense Review right now. I think that Secretary Cohen will
withhold his conclusions until one, he gets firmer cost estimates on the F-
22 program and maybe other programs; and two, until he has a chance to
evaluate Tac Air in the context of the QDR findings.
Q: Does Secretary Cohen remain confident in the leadership by Secretary
West and General Reimer on the issue of sexual harassment?
A: Yes. He has confidence... He has been talking to them on a regular basis
about what's going on with sexual harassment. It's a multi-part approach to
the problem. It's a problem that cannot be resolved immediately.
As you know, there's first the judicial part, the prosecution of people who
have been charged, the examination of those charges, and the legal
proceedings that follow from the charges. TRADOC has done a review of
training. There has been a review throughout the Army of the sexual
harassment rules and some refresher courses given throughout the Army and
all this. That's pretty much complete now except for reserve units. The
Secretary of the Army has set up a senior panel to look at training and to
recommend changes that might be necessary to deal with this problem. That
panel was supposed to complete its work and submit a study in June with, I
think, a preliminary study in May. There's also an Army IG investigation
into a variety of questions including the reaction of the chain of command
at Aberdeen and other places to these charges.
Underlying all of that, of course, is the hotline which continues to
receive calls from people throughout the Army, and in fact sometimes from
people from other services as well, because the hotline number has been so
publicized that people from other services are just calling that number as
the one they see. Those cases are being investigated.
I think more than 1,000 cases have been turned over to the CID for an
investigation. So this is an aggressive program with many components, not
all of which can be completed immediately.
Q: He's confident in their leadership.
A: Yes, he is.
Press: Thank you.
(end transcript)
From the United States Information Agency (USIA) Gopher at gopher://gopher.usia.gov
|
