DoD News Briefing Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 2:45 EDT Presenter: Mr. Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA Q: Now on Aden. Can you fill us in on the threat escalation situation there, in Aden? Bacon: I cannot. There was a bomb threat there, as you know, aimed against the hotel. Fortunately, nothing has happened at this stage. But we did receive a called-in threat, and security measures were taken. The ambassador has addressed that from the theater. And I really don't have anything to add to what she said. Q: Where was the call received? And when? At the embassy? Bacon: I don't know those details. She's spoken to that, and those are available on the wires. There have already been extensive wire service coverage of this. She's made a statement about it, and I don't have much to add to what she said. Yes? Q: Can you tell us about the video teleconference that the secretary had this morning with the CINCs, as to topic, and so forth? Bacon: Sure. The secretary held a video conference call with all the commanders in chiefs, as well as the service chiefs and the service secretaries. And the topic was force protection. This was chaired by the secretary and by General Shelton, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The format was that the secretary and the chairman each made opening remarks, and then, through the wonders of electronics, they spoke to the commanders around the world, the regional commanders: the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Central Command and the Southern Command, and also General Schwartz, who is the commander of our forces in Korea. In addition, they spoke with the functional commands: the Strategic Command, Special Operations Command, the Transportation Command, Joint Forces Command - and I'm sure I've left one out, but all the regional and functional commands. And as I said, the topic was force protection. The goal basically was to make a good system better, and to use the concern that's been generated by the attack against the Cole as an opportunity for the all CINCs, commanders in chief, to make sure that they are reviewing their force protection postures and their procedures; to make sure that they're making any necessary changes. And it was actually very useful because every commander in chief got to hear what the other commanders in chiefs were doing. And they were also able to bring up some common concerns that they all share. Q: What kind of concerns? Bacon: Well, for instance, resources. We have funded all force protection measures, but obviously if there's going to be enhanced force protection in certain ways, it would require greater resources. Q: Well, did Secretary Cohen or General Shelton say it's clear now that we need to make some improvements, and here's some things we need to do? Or did he just say what's your ideas? Bacon: No. They - and I don't think I'll get into specifics, because it's not very worthwhile to protect our troops by listing specific comments that were made, but both the secretary and the chairman had some specific directions that they gave, and then the commanders reported back on actions that they are taking and actions that they plan to take and actions that would be worthwhile to take in the future. One common concern for instance is using more - finding new technological solutions to question like perimeter defense, security, detection. That's something we've devoted a lot of time to, a lot of money, but we do have some other projects in the pipeline. They could be accelerated over time. But that's one aspect that everybody commented on, the need to embrace and utilize the latest technology for force protection, perimeter defense, detection, et cetera. Q: Was there any discussion of perhaps - and this is a view that is expressed by other agencies - that the Defense Department gets too bent or too worried in the aftermath of a situation like this? In other words, a speech from headquarters saying, you know, take all the necessary precautions, but don't go crazy. Bacon: Well, I'm glad you have raised that particular point. First of all, I don't believe, and I know Secretary Cohen does not believe that one can be overzealous in pursuit of force protection. But you have to take this in context, and the context is, we have a worldwide mission to perform, and we are not going to stop performing that mission. We need to remain forward-deployed. Our ships will be at sea. Our soldiers will be exercising around the world. Our airmen will be flying. Our Marines will be deployed in their amphibious ready groups. And the Coast Guard also will continue to patrol sea lanes around the world. So, given the fact that we are a power with worldwide responsibilities, we have to figure out how best to deploy in ways that reduce the risks our troops face. We will never be able to eliminate the risks, but we can take steps to reduce the risks. And, as I've said many times, and as the secretary has said, there is no absolute level of force protection; you never reach a perfect level of force protection. It's something for which you always strive. And this was just another part of our effort to do a tough job a little better than we're already doing it. Q: How did they discuss the nature of the threat? I mean, I think a question on a lot of people's minds is whether the U.S. believes there's some broader attack going on here that goes beyond any specific incident? Bacon: Well, I think everybody who makes a career of serving in the military understands that we live in a dangerous world. And so the idea that we live in a time of threat isn't new to any of the CINCs. There was no specific discussion of threats. What there was was a general and universal appreciation of the fact that our soldiers, sailors, airman, and Marines face threats everyday. And that we have to do the best possible job we can to protect them against those threats. So, there was not - this was not an opportunity - the purpose of the call was not to talk about threats, it was to talk about force protection. Yes. Q: Can I have two questions that came out of testimony that was on the Hill yesterday? Q: Could I ask you one question before we - just on the same thing? Bacon: Sure. Q: I know that the secretary has occasional radio teleconferences with the CINCs, but is it at all unusual to have that broad of a participation of - you know, there were commanders and surface chiefs and surface secretaries all at one time? Is that normal? Bacon: I can't - I mean, he has video conference calls frequently. Usually they're a little more specific than this as to participants; maybe a smaller group. But this isn't unusual for him to do that. I don't know when the last time he did it was. But this is an important issue and everybody sees it as an important issue. They did before the call, and they did certainly after the call. Q: Did it - still following up on that -- Bacon: Sure. Q: Did anyone during this conference call express concern that current force protection measure are inadequate? Bacon: No. People talked about steps they are taking to make a good system better. And I think there is wide appreciation throughout the military, from the newest private to the most senior admiral, that the Pentagon has done an awful lot since Khobar Towers in 1996, and that force protection is atop everybody's list of priorities. But it doesn't mean that there aren't ways to improve force protection, and the point of this conference call was to focus on some of those steps that can be taken. Barbara? Q: If you say there's a growing understanding that you possibly need to improve and possibly need more resources, what steps are you going to take now to put together a pool of money and fund some of these improvements, and where will the money come from? Do you have any kind of ballpark figure, what you're looking at here? Bacon: No, I don't think we're looking at that stage. But I - in my conversations with commanders around the world, they generally say that if they make specific requests for force protection, those requests are granted. I can't say that happens in every particular case. I mean, everybody has to set priorities. But you have to realize that the easiest way to protect our forces, I suppose, would be to bring them back and to put them into huge, well-protected forts in the middle of nowhere in the United States. We're not going to do that. We have to continue to sail, we have to continue to deploy. And so the question is, given our worldwide responsibilities, how do we perform them in the safest possible way? Q: Just a small point. Was the Coast Guard included in this meeting? Bacon: The Coast Guard was not included in this particular SVTS [secure video teleconference system]. Yes? Q: (Off mike) - what time was it, and how long did it last? Bacon: It began at 11:00 and ended at 12:16. Q: One-six? Bacon: One-six. .... Q: Ken, earlier this week, a local television station in New York did a series of pieces where the reporter apparently went out and rented motorboats and went to three different naval facilities on the East Coast, and during the course of several hours on the water, went right up to submarines, to ammunition ships, and the Enterprise. They never encountered any security, they were never told to go away, they never saw any water-borne security of any kind. First of all, do you have a comment on what it tells us about how open we are in our country? Is it something that the Navy or the Pentagon should be concerned about? Bacon: I didn't see the report, so I'd better not comment on it. All I can tell you is that it's very clear to me, following the conference call this morning, and certainly before the conference call, that security is a concern all around the world, not just in the Middle East, not just in Asia, not just in Europe, but in the continental United States as well. Q: Well, Ken, what John is describing is no secret to any boater who has been out there. You know, it's pretty common knowledge that you can bring your private craft fairly close to U.S. naval vessels. And the public might be surprised to find that out. But is there going to be any change in that procedure? Bacon: I'm not a boater, so I can't - I don't know whether it's common knowledge or not. But I can tell you that all security procedures are under review. Whether there will be a change or not, I can't predict at this stage. .... Q: Is it a concern that a small boat goes up and the guy puts his hand on the hull of the Enterprise or touches a U.S. submarine while it's sitting in a domestic port? Bacon: Well, as I said, there are - there is a review going on now of force protection all around the world. That was one of the points of the conference call. And I cannot comment specifically on what the Navy procedures are on any base domestically. Q: However, you did say that all the forces in the United States were at Threatcon Alpha. Bacon: I didn't say that. Q: But immediately following the attack on the Cole, there was a notice put out that all forces worldwide would be at least at Threatcon Alpha. Bacon: That is correct. Q: So these boats in question should have been under that threat -- Bacon: Well, I'm not going to comment on this specific incident that I have - I'm sure this was an ABC station that did this. I did not see the reports. (Laughter.) But maybe you could make them available to me, and I'll send them to the Navy, and they can comment. But I can't comment on these specific details. Q: When will Admiral Gehman and General Crouch be in Aden? How long? And what's their -- Bacon: I'm not going to give their itinerary, for obvious reasons. Q: They're there now? Bacon: I'm not going to give their itinerary. Yeah? Q: In Aden, can you talk about the plans for the next days and weeks, about what the footprint will look like in Aden, and what the forces will be doing and that sort of thing? It's about 5,000 people now? Bacon: Well, there are 5,400 people afloat on a number of ships. And there are, I think, about 280 people in Aden on the ground. That number is coming down and, I anticipate, will continue to come down. The attorney general noted today that the FBI is beginning to bring back some of its investigators because they've completed their work. They're bringing back much of their equipment as well. They had a laboratory set up over there. And they've reached the point where they can repatriate these agents and bring them back to the United States, and so they're doing that. And as the investigatory footprint shrinks, I assume that the security footprint that - would shrink as well. But that's going on now and, I think, will continue to over the next few days. Yes? Q: I know you don't like to talk about specific threats, but there was a piece on the wire overnight that contained specifics about the threat in Qatar and Bahrain, talked about the threat against the school in which American children went - go, talked about threats against the embassies. Can you in any way talk about that? Bacon: I'm not going to talk about -- Q: It cited a "senior Defense official." Bacon: I'm not going to talk about anything specific. I think it's very clear that in Bahrain and Qatar, where we have Threatcon Delta, Threat Condition Delta, that there have been threats, sometimes multiple threats, and that they're ones we take seriously. Therefore, we've put our forces there on the highest state of alert. Q: Aside from Bahrain and Qatar, are there any other places in the world where U.S. forces are at Threat Condition Delta? Bacon: Yemen. Q: And Yemen. What about Threat Condition Charlie? Are there any -- Bacon: Well, throughout the Middle East in the CentCom AOR, Charlie exists except in the places where Delta is the applicable level. Q: You said that the FBI finished its work. Which part of their work have they finished? Bacon: Well, I think they should talk about their own project. I only mentioned it because they come back in Air Force planes, so that's why I know that they're leaving with some of their equipment. But I think it's more appropriate for the FBI to describe the scope of their work and the schedule of it than for me. Q: Ken, is there any consideration or move afoot to bring home dependents from Bahrain, military dependents? Bacon: Not that I'm aware of at this stage. Q: Ken, for the second time, the president of Yemen has made reference to a particular group that's being focused on in terms of responsibility. I'm wondering, at the Pentagon, how much credibility or authenticity the Pentagon puts in the comments of the president of Yemen. Bacon: First, I'd like to say that the Yemeni government continues to be extremely cooperative and they're working in partnership with us -- Director Freeh has said that we're the junior partners in this effort -- to get to the bottom of what happened and who's responsible. Beyond that, I can't comment on any particular names right now. Yes? Q: Ken, if military aircraft, you said, were bringing back FBI personnel, have any U.S. military aircraft brought back any Arab-speaking suspects on behalf of the FBI or the Justice Department? Bacon: I can't answer that question. That's really a question for the FBI to answer, what's happening in their investigation. Yes? Q: A few years back, I know the Marine Corps FAST [Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team] teams were, I guess - that accompanied Navy ships were pared back. Is there any talk now to at least incorporate those on some ships that are now deployed somewhere or anything like that? I know at the hearing yesterday it was mentioned that this particular crew, it was the first time that they were actually in this area, so I didn't know if that was one of -- Bacon: This particular FAST team, or the crew of the Cole? Q: The crew of the Cole. Bacon: I can't say specifically whether there is thought being given to deploying FAST teams or groups of Marines with every - additional Marines with every naval ship. What I can tell you is that we're looking at a variety of potential changes - the services doing that on their own, and we're doing it corporately at the Department of Defense. And, of course, we'll be helped in that effort when we get the reports back from General Crouch and Admiral Gehman, when they complete their work. Q: Thank you. Q: One more. Now that you have specified the threat conditions in Yemen, Bahrain and Qatar as Delta and Charlie, can you give us your assessment as to where Incirlik is? Bacon: I could, if I knew, but I'm just not sure I know accurately what it is. Q: Can you give us any update on what the actual security threat is at Incirlik? Bacon: No, I can't. Thank you. Q: Okay, thank you.