Pentagon Spokesman's Briefing

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT REGULAR BRIEFING
BRIEFER: REAR ADMIRAL CRAIG QUIGLEY, USN, SPOKESMAN
PENTAGON BRIEFING ROOM, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

1:45 P.M. EDT - TUESDAY, MAY 15, 2001

Q: Is there any review under way here of the enforcement policy in the
Northern and Southern no-fly zones, and if so, what's prompting that
review?

Quigley: You're always taking a look at what might be a more effective
way to carry out that mission. As you know, the administration is
taking a look at Iraq policy writ large. The military aspects of that,
whether it's flying in the Northern no-fly zone, Southern no-fly zone,
maritime intercept operations in the Arabian Gulf, any military aspect
is but one aspect of a larger policy. Options are being discussed. No
final decisions have been made. I don't think you're going to see any
military piece of that taken out in isolation and announced in
isolation. I think it will be factored into the thinking by the
president and the entire national security team as to what should be
this administration's policy on Iraq.

Q: And is the increased activity by the Iraqi air defenses and the
apparent determination of Saddam Hussein to shoot down a U.S. or
coalition aircraft one of the factors that's being calculated, that's
being considered?

Quigley: No, I don't - there has been a lot made of that recently,
and that's not new. I mean, Saddam has announced his goal of downing a
coalition aircraft for a very long time. I remember more than year
ago, I mean, there was announcements within Iraq that he was offering
a reward for an Iraqi anti-air system crew that brought down a
coalition airplane, and he would offer a reward to that crew if they
were successful in doing that. So that's not new. His enthusiasm and
repeated goal of bringing down a coalition aircraft, that may have
been freshened recently, but to me, that's an old enthusiasm that he
has shared. I don't see it diminishing one bit, but I don't think it's
new, either.

....

Q: Just back to the no-fly zones for a moment. Has either General
Joseph Ralston, the European commander, or General Franks, the CentCom
commander, either been asked for or made recommendations about
changing the way that the no-fly zones are enforced?

Quigley: I think they both have discussed options with the secretary.
I don't know as if either have made a recommendation as to a single
way ahead; I don't believe so.

Q: They did recommend a cut-back in the Northern and Southern Watch.

Quigley: Not that I'm aware of, Pat. They discussed options with him,
and I don't think there were recommendations made as to a preferred
course of action amongst them.

Q: And has there been an upswing in activity in terms of the number of
either missiles or shells that have been fired at U.S. or allied
planes patrolling the no-fly zones in recent weeks or months?

Quigley: Yeah. If you take a - and this is somewhat arbitrary, Jamie.
But if you take a look at starting the first of - calendar year 2001,
go back to January time frame, you've seen a considerable increase in
activity in the northern no-fly zone. I don't think I can characterize
it as an increase in any particular type of antiaircraft capability,
but it's been both gunfire, missiles, and it's an increase in volume
in the north.

Q: And another, the United States doesn't patrol the no-fly zones
every single day. Has there been any decrease over a period of time in
the number of patrol flights that the U.S. has flown?

Quigley: No, I think it's been pretty consistent. You're right. Bad
weather notwithstanding, there are down days for training, for
maintenance, for whatnot. But I don't think that the pattern has
changed over the past several months.

Q: And any close calls in which U.S. planes have come close to being
shot down?

Quigley: Not that I have heard described, no.

Chris?

Q: That increased activity you talked about in the north, is that
strictly air defense activity, or are they flying in the north?

Quigley: No. Air defense. Ground-based anti-air systems.

Tom?

Q: As far as the north is concerned and the policy options being
considered, is one of the options to find some other way of protecting
the Kurdish population there other than enforcing the no- fly zone?

Is that - is that precisely an option that is being looked at?

Quigley: I won't describe the options being considered. I'm sorry.

....

Q: Craig, I want to segue on McIntyre's last question about Iraq. We
knew that in January anti-aircraft activity had ratcheted up. That led
to the February 16th raids. A lot of the publicity since then has said
since the raids in February, Saddam Hussein has upped the ante and has
increased activity against U.S. fliers and British fliers. In that
time frame, has there been an increase in activity, from mid-February
--

Quigley: Well, I need to go back and correct you on the first part of
your question. The February 16th raid was done because of an increased
capability that we were observing in the Southern no- fly zone, not
Northern.

Q: I understand that.

Quigley: Then maybe I misunderstood your question, I -

Q: The point - we knew that there was increased activity against U.S.
fliers and they were hot-wiring their systems and that, but since
mid-February through March, have anti-aircraft activities accelerated
even beyond January?

Quigley: No, I - no. I don't see it on a constant upward curve, Tony,
no. But it is at a higher level than it was six or nine months ago, if
you want to go back there as a starting point. Since roughly the first
of the year, we have seen a higher level of activity, but it is not a
constantly increasing level of activity.

Thank you.