Perry. More than five years ago, after Iraq was defeated in
Desert Storm, the Kurds in northern Iraq and the Shiites in southern
Iraq tried to seize that opportunity to gain their freedom from
Saddam's oppression. Saddam Hussein sent his battered, but still
large, army to brutally suppress their revolt, killing tens of
thousands of Kurds and Shiites, and creating a million Kurd refugees
who tried to flee into Turkey.
The U.N. responded to this humanitarian disaster by demanding
that Saddam Hussein end the brutality to his own people and authorized
the United States to organize a coalition to conduct Operation Provide
Comfort, which enforced a no-fly zone north of 36 degrees, and later
authorized Operation Southern Watch, which enforced a no-fly zone
south of 32 degrees. ... These actions have kept Saddam Hussein from
committing further atrocities and have sustained an uneasy peace these
past five years.
The two major factions of the Kurds -- the KDP [Kurdistan
Democratic Party] and the PUK [Patriotic Union of Kurdistan] -- have
fought among themselves, with the U.S. attempting to broker a peace
agreement. Recently, one of these factions, the PUK, got some limited
military support from the Iranians. The other faction, the KDP, then
made a strategic blunder by inviting the Iraqis to enter Kurdish
territory to attack PUK forces.
Our intelligence disclosed an Iraqi military buildup under way
more than a week ago, and on the 28th of August, we warned Iraq not to
use military force. The Iraqis, seeing an opportunity to regain
control of northern Iraq at the expense of both the PUK and the KDP,
ignored the warning. They employed a force of about 40,000 men,
including many tanks and hundreds of artillery pieces, which quickly
defeated the few thousand PUK defenders in Irbil.
Now they are pulling their mechanized forces out of Irbil,
leaving infantry behind and moving towards two other cities, one of
which they have been shelling for the last two days.
Our national interests are not tied to which party prevails in
this conflict in northern Iraq, but we do have vital national security
interests in maintaining security and stability in the region. These
vital interests include maintenance of stability, protection of
friendly nations -- including Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and
other gulf states -- and protection of the flow of oil. We believe
that the aggressive military action of Saddam Hussein constitutes a
threat to that security and stability.
The Iraqis, emboldened by their success against the relatively
weak PUK forces, might, if they saw no reaction from the international
community, move to suppress both the PUK and the KDP or they might
move against their neighbors to the south -- as they did in August of
1990 and again in October of 1994. Without a military response, Saddam
Hussein's position in the country and the region would be strengthened
and vital interests to the United States could be threatened.
Iraq's use of force in the past has posed a major threat to U.S.
interests. The issue is not simply the Iraqi attack on Irbil. It is
the clear and present danger that Saddam Hussein poses to his
neighbors, to the security and stability of the region and to the flow
of oil in the world.
Even after their defeat in Desert Storm, the Iraqis still have
the largest and most powerful military force in the region. This
military force has been held in check these past five years by the
military forces of the coalition, buttressing the forces of the
regional powers of the gulf states. Now, Saddam Hussein has
demonstrated once more his willingness to use military power
recklessly, and we must demonstrate once more our willingness and
capability to check that power and deter Saddam Hussein from being the
Therefore, last week, the president -- at the same time he
instructed Secretary [of State Warren] Christopher to send a warning
to Saddam Hussein -- instructed me to put the appropriate military
forces on alert and to prepare a contingency plan for military action,
which we would take if Iraq did not heed the warning. They did not. So
the president instructed me last night to execute that plan.
The plan does not involve the United States in the conflict under
way in Iraq, but it does make Saddam Hussein pay a price for his
aggression, and it does position coalition forces to more effectively
deter any further military ventures he might be considering.
We need to act now to ensure that Saddam does not conclude that
he can upset regional security with impunity. Our response protects
the United States interests by strengthening our ability to contain
future Iraqi attacks. We have chosen the time, the place and the
modality of our response to suit our strategic interests and our
comparative advantage, not his.
We have extended the no-fly zone in the southern region from 32
degrees to 33 degrees. This will be effective at noon tomorrow. This
will substantially weaken Saddam Hussein's ability to pursue military
adventures in the south and, additionally, will weaken his ability to
maintain an air force capable of projecting power in any direction.
Last night, we conducted strikes against fixed SAM [surface-to-
air missile] sites and air defense control facilities south of the
33rd latitude. These were targets south of this 33-degree zone. This
move, this action will greatly facilitate our ability to enforce the
no-fly zone -- particularly this now-extended no-fly zone.
I will now turn the podium over to Gen. Joe Ralston, the vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who will describe the strikes
we conducted and the military rationale for those strikes.
Ralston. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. First of all, I would like to
say how proud I am to represent the men and women in uniform who, over
the last few days and this weekend, have worked to plan and to execute
The operation was conducted by the U.S. Central Command, under
the leadership of Gen. [J.H. Binford] "Binny" Peay. Gen. Peay and his
component commanders are in the AOR [area of responsibility], and I
want to extend my appreciation to them for the many long hours they
have put in in both the planning and the execution.
I'd like to start off with, as Secretary Perry says, with the
33rd latitude no-fly zone. ... There is a major military training area
within that zone as well as two major air bases with airplanes. By
denying this airspace to the Iraqi regime, we have given ourselves
more warning, should he decide to move to the south against our
friends and allies. We have also made a significant impact on his
ability to train. The denial of that training area effectively denies
him the ability to train his ground forces with their air force.
Now, in order to conduct this no-fly zone, coalition aircraft
will have to fly further north into Iraq -- over Iraqi territory --
than they have in the past. The reason for the strike was to take out
those air defenses that would threaten the coalition aircraft. These
are notional sites that you see here. They are not in the exact
location, as you see.
This is a picture of one of those sites, but as you can see, it
has a central radar van, it has command and control facilities, it has
missile launchers with missiles on them. That is not atypical of the
type of targets that were selected.
Our objective was to reduce the defenses that our aircraft would
encounter as they enforce the no-fly zone to the 33rd parallel. Our
objective, once again, is to enforce the no-fly zone. Taking out of
the targets is a means of facilitating that.
The strikes were conducted using cruise missiles -- both the
Tomahawk cruise missiles from the [aircraft carrier] USS Carl Vinson
battle group, which is located in the gulf, as well as conventional
air-launched cruise missiles, or C-ALCMs, from B-52Hs. ...
That completes what I've got in the way of a briefing. I believe
the secretary and I would entertain your questions at this time.
Q. Can you give us any idea of how effective these strikes were
in terms of hitting their targets?
Ralston. We're still assessing, doing the battle damage
assessment. We have not made a determination at this time.
Q. Dr. Perry, could you tell us, if Saddam does not remove his
forces from northern Iraq and stop attacking the Kurds, is the United
States prepared to quickly launch more raids? And would those raids be
easier to launch now that the missile defenses have been degraded in
Perry. We do not discuss future military operations. We certainly
reserve the right to conduct further actions, further military
actions. Whether or not we conduct them and how we conduct them and
against what targets is a matter still to be determined. One factor
which will influence that determination, but not the only factor, will
be the actions of the Iraqis over the days and weeks ahead.
Q. Will expanding the no-fly zone require additional U.S.
aircraft to patrol that area? Also, are other American forces now
being moved into the vicinity by the sea forces and air forces?
Perry. We do not require additional forces to do that. Let me ask
Gen. Ralston to comment further.
Ralston. With regard to the enforcement of the 33rd no-fly zone,
if we require additional forces, they will be minimal. We're assessing
that now to make sure that we have adequate forces to protect our
Q. What about other forces being moved in, such as the carrier
[USS] Enterprise? Are other forces being moved into the region?
Perry. The Enterprise is on a tether, and we can move it into the
region in a matter of days if we decide we need it in the region.
We've not made that judgment at this point.
Q. Have Saudi Arabia and Kuwait agreed that U.S. aircraft based
in their countries can be used to monitor or police this expanded no-
fly zone in southern Iraq?
Perry. We have had extensive consultations with many allies in
the region, particularly with Saudi Arabia. I have talked several
times on the phone with the Saudi defense minister. The president has
talked with King Fahd. And Gen. [John] Shali[kashvili, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff], of course, visited the kingdom just a few days
ago. So we've had extensive consultations.
The most important conclusion from those consultations was their
agreement that they would continue to support Operation Southern Watch
with this extended no-fly zone.
Q. If the problem was in the north, why not extend the northern
no-fly zone further south? Why not make that a no-drive zone, as there
is in the south? And will this extended zone in the south also refer
to the movement of Iraqi troops? That is, will it also be a no-drive
zone south of the 33rd parallel?
Perry. We have acted on what we thought were our most important
national interests. We have seen in the past, and we continue to see,
a greater threat of Saddam Hussein to the ... south. Therefore, that's
where we concentrated our attention. We are responding to where we see
our strategic interests threatened, and that was why we focused on the
Q. Will there be a no-drive zone from the 33rd south? Saddam
Hussein's not supposed to have any major troops movements below the
32nd. Does that now apply to below the 33rd?
Perry. That decision is yet to be made as to whether to extend
the no-drive from the 32nd to the 33rd. The decision that's been taken
was to extend the no-fly zone to the 33rd.
Q. Mr. Secretary, you have in effect spanked Saddam Hussein and
made it easier for U.S. and coalition aircraft to fly safely now up to
the 33rd parallel, but you haven't done anything to halt the actual
fighting and the aggression against the Kurds in the north. If this
aggression continues, as you've said it seems to be, what moves are
possible to actually stop that, short of putting ground troops in?
Perry. We have many other options available to us. I would not
describe them at this time, and I would not want to forecast whether
we will have to implement them. We would hope this move would be
sufficient -- that it will have the desired effect. But we have to
watch very carefully what happens in the days and the weeks ahead.
Q. What connection is there between the Iraqi actions in the
north and your statement that Saddam could pose a new threat to the
south? Is there any evidence that Iraq has been posing a new threat in
the southern part of the region?
Perry. There have been major threats to the south in recent
history -- in October of '94 and again in August of '95 - - in both of
those cases, sufficient to require us to deploy major forces to the
area. We still see that as the principal threat, and our concern is
that if Saddam Hussein is emboldened by what he would see as a success
in the north, he might strike out in areas which are of greater
strategic importance to him as well as to us, in the south. So we want
to keep our focus on where our vital national security interests are.
Q. So what you're saying is there is no new threat in the south?
Perry. There is a continuing threat in the south. The threat in
the south is there every day. Iraqi forces continue to be positioned -
- ground forces -- so that they could pose a threat to the south. What
is crucial to keep that theoretical threat from becoming a real threat
is curtailing any ability to provide them with air support and also
providing very strong and very rapid coalition air to strike any such
moves to the south. So this is very, very relevant to that.
Q. What message is Iran supposed to get out of this, if any?
Perry. We have separately warned Iran not to meddle in this
conflict in northern Iraq.
Q. Gen. Ralston, can you give us an assessment of what effect the
attention of these air strikes would have on the Iraqis' integrated
air defense system? Clearly it's degraded their ability between the
32nd and 33rd parallel, but how does this affect its air defenses
across the whole country? Is this an integral link, or is there any
assessment of that?
Ralston. Certainly the targets that were chosen were not only
surface-to-air missile sites, but the integrated operation centers of
his air defense system. These are "internetted," tied-in, to the
overall air defense network. When you take out pieces of it, it makes
the overall network less effective.
Q. Gen. Ralston, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit
more about the raid itself. Several of us were curious why B-52s had
to be brought over from the United States and why the Navy Tomahawks
couldn't do the job themselves.
Ralston. There is what I will call a division of labor. There is
a lot of planning that has to be done when you have targets such as
this, and so it was appropriate that we have ... The planners for TLAM
[Tomahawk land attack missile] are working very hard on a set of
targets; the planners for C-ALCM were working very hard on their set
of targets. I believe the two working together were able to do the job
quicker and more effectively than what we could have done with either
Q. Why daytime? Why was this done in the daytime?
Ralston. I don't want to get into the reasons that we choose
particular times of day.
Q. Gen. Ralston, Saddam Hussein, I believe, claimed in a speech
this morning that his forces shot down most of our missiles. How would
you react to that?
Ralston. We certainly have no evidence of that.
Q. Has there been any misfiring of the missiles?
Ralston. We have no evidence that there was any misfiring of the
Q. Gen. Ralston, it's about 5 p.m. or later Iraqi time now. You
don't have any indication at all whether this raid was successful or
whether these missiles hit their targets and destroyed the radars?
Ralston. What I said was, we do not have a complete assessment of
the battle damage done as yet. We certainly have indications tha by
all means, the raid was effective.
Q. Why did the B-52s have to go the long way around? The last
time they shot ALCMs they flew straight from Barksdale [Air Force
Base, La.] across the Mediterranean and shot from a box over Saudi
Ralston. The flight time from CONUS [continental United States]
to the target area is approximately the same as from Guam to the
target area. We routinely position B-52s in Guam and other places to
conduct global power missions. This was the route that was chosen this
Perry. I might say that this whole mission could have been done
by TLAMs. The whole mission could have been done by B-52s. The whole
mission could have been done by Navy-based air. We have many options
for how we conduct a mission like this. We considered many of those
options. One of the great advantages of the cruise missiles is the
minimal risk to the U.S. forces involved. The choice of a combination
of TLAMs and B-52s is a choice of convenience, not a necessity.
Q. With the intent of moving the no-fly zone a little farther
north and providing more defense against the south, how does that stop
Saddam from continuing in the north? What practical effect does it
have on that? And No. 2, what does he actually have to do now to
comply with whatever goal you've set down in this latest strike?
Perry. Do you want to take a stab at the second part of that?
Ralston. Let me try the second part of that first. We expect
compliance with the no-fly zone instructions. That says we expect no
flight below the 33rd parallel. And if there is flight, we will take
Q. I understand that, but how does this affect what's going on in
the north? And what does he have to do in the north in order for you
all to be satisfied that he's in compliance?
Ralston. Let me take the first part of that, if I may. By
impacting his training of his forces -- of his air forces -- and
impacting the integrated training of his air forces and his ground
forces, we believe that is a significant constraint on the training
and, therefore, the combat readiness of his forces.
Q. In the north as well?
Ralston. All over.
Q. Mr. Secretary, how viable is it still to try to maintain a no-
fly zone in the north, given, as your map shows, that the KDP controls
much of that territory, and they have now allied themselves with Iraq?
Perry. It is still viable to maintain a no-fly zone in the north.
We will watch very carefully what happens politically with the KDP and
the Iraqis and the PUK in the weeks ahead to determine the political
desirability of doing that.
Q. Can you answer the part of the question about what he has to
do in the north? How fast and how extensive do his actions have to be
in the north now to comply with what conditions we're ...?
Perry. We're not going to make any public declaration of what
actions Saddam Hussein has to take at this time. We have sent a very
strong message to him. We expect that there will be a change in his
behavior as a result of this. We'll be watching very carefully to see
what that is. But I'm not going to draw any specific criteria for what
Q. What does he need to do, though? Pull back all his troops?
What does he need to do exactly?
Perry. I'm not going to describe any specific set of criteria for
him. We have given him a strong message. We expect to see changes in
behavior. We will be watching very carefully. We reserve the right to
take future military actions.
Q. Since you have this new area of the no-fly zone in the south
between the 32nd and 33rd parallel, has this in the past six months or
a year been a site of heavy Iraqi air activity by helicopters and
Perry. The short answer is yes. Do you want to elaborate on that,
Ralston. Just to clarify it. Below the 32nd parallel, the no-fly
zone has been very effective. But between the 32nd and 33rd, where he
has major fighter bases there, there has been significant training
activity in that zone between the 32nd and 33rd parallel.
Q. ...in the north, though, in his move against the Kurds? Has he
used air power at all?
Ralston: He has not used air power north of the 36th no-fly zone.
Q. What does the apparent lack of public support today from Saudi
Arabia, from Jordan, from Turkey suggest about the durability of the
coalition to contain Iraq? It seems to suggest that it's fragmented.
Perry. First of all, let me say that we acted on our own national
interests, which is the president's responsibility. We believed we had
to act quickly. We did, however, have extensive consultation with
allies -- the president, the secretary of state, the national security
adviser, Gen. Shalikashvili, myself, all have been consulting with our
We expect most of our allies to be supportive. And most
importantly, I would point out we did not need their participation in
this strike. We have the national resources to conduct this strike. We
do need their continued cooperation -- and in the case of some
countries, their participation -- to continue to maintain the no-fly
zone, the Operation Southern Watch and the Operation Provide Comfort.
And we have been assured by our allies we will continue to have that
cooperation and support. That is the key.
Q. Does that include France? They made very strong reservations
about ... . They will continue to take part in ...
Perry. We expect France to continue to participate in Operation
Q. Your reaction to the Iraqi statement that this new no-fly zone
is "null and void"?
Perry. We have never, from the beginning, sought their permission
for establishing the no-fly zone. They never concurred or supported
the no-fly zone to the 32 degrees. We would not expect them to support
the extension of it to 33. This is not an issue in which they have a
Q. Mr. Secretary, what changes in Saddam's behavior do you hope
Perry. What we are looking for primarily is deterrence --
deterrence of future military adventures. This, on the one hand, sends
a strong message, but I think even more importantly, it positions the
coalition forces so that if that message is not accepted, we are in a
stronger position to deal with any further military actions he might
take. Thank you.
Published for internal information use by the American Forces
Information Service, a field activity of the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), Washington, D.C. Parenthetical
entries are speaker/author notes; bracketed entries are editorial
notes. This material is in the public domain and may be reprinted
without permission. Defense Issues is available on the Internet via
the World Wide Web at