DoD News Briefing

Rear Admiral Craig Quigley USN,
DASD (PA)

15 May 2001

Excerpts

.....

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?

ADM. 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?

ADM. 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?

ADM. 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.

ADM. 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?

ADM. 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?

ADM. 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?

ADM. 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?

ADM. 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?

ADM. 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 --

ADM. 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.

ADM. 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?

ADM. 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.

Q Thank you.