Pentagon Spokesman's Regular Tuesday Briefing
DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 1:30 p.m. EDT
Presenter: Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, DASD PA
Q: Craig, could you discuss the high alert levels in the Gulf region
and exactly what prompted the U.S. military to go to those levels?
Quigley: I'll try. As I'm sure all of you are aware, the entire
Central Command area of responsibility went to what we call Threat
Condition Charlie immediately after the attack on the Cole. Now,
today, the circumstance is that we have gone to a higher level,
Threatcon Delta - Threat Condition Delta - in both Qatar and
Bahrain. We did that, as we do with all such continuous assessments,
based on a receipt of credible - or, I'm sorry - specific threats
against U.S. forces in those two areas. But in some cases, and this
one in particular, the credibility of the threat information was
simply unknown to us. But given the circumstances, the recent attack
on the Cole and the generally higher level of threat throughout that
region, we thought it was simply the prudent thing to do to go to that
higher threat condition in those two specific areas.
Q: What about Turkey?
Quigley: As I'm sure you all are aware, the focus, or the local
commander, we feel, is the best person to have a fundamental
understanding of the threats that are facing his or her area of
responsibility. So we put a great store in that local commander's
judgment and initiative to go to a higher level of a threat condition
if they think that's the appropriate thing to do.
In this case, given the receipt of the threat information against U.S.
forces and the recent attack on the Cole, that initiative in those two
areas was supported by the Central Command commander, and that's where
we find ourselves today.
Q: You say the credibility is in question, of these threats. Where
were the threats received? Were they intercepted by intelligence, or
were they direct threats being made to the military, or what?
Quigley: I will say that they come from intelligence sources, Charlie,
but I hope you'll forgive me if I am not forthcoming in being more
specific in the detailed composition of those threats. They were
specific enough - and, again, given particularly the backdrop of
recent events in that area - to, again, say to those local commanders
that this is the prudent course of action to take and we would
certainly support their initiative.
Q: Craig, you made it sound like the initiative started by the
commanders in theater. Is that correct?
Quigley: The information on the threats that was perceived by the
intelligence community against the U.S. forces in those areas is
communicated not only to the local commanders but up and down the
chain of command, Carl. So it was not like it was only shared with the
local commanders. But given the information that those local
commanders have at their disposal, this is a continuous iterative
process, I guess I would call it. And there's the discussions with the
local commanders, with the theater commander, CINCCENT, General Franks
and his staff, the joint staff. This is a collaborative process in
each and every case, and that was certainly the case here.
Pam?
Q: Last night some of the people that I talked to, some of whom you're
intimately familiar with, said that Incirlik was on that list.
Quigley: That was a report that was just simply wrong. Incirlik was
not on that list.
Q: And to continue --
Quigley: Elizabeth?
Q: - along the same line, parts of Saudi Arabia were mentioned by the
same people.
Quigley: Also incorrect, I'm sorry to say. The two that have gone to
the higher threat condition, the Delta, are Qatar and Bahrain.
Q: So nowhere in Saudi Arabia or Turkey are any installations at
Delta?
Quigley: Correct.
Carl?
Q: Can you tell us a little bit about how many U.S. forces are
involved in this and what they will now do, what sort of action
they'll now take?
Quigley: Well, in each of the threat conditions, where you go up with
Alpha, Bravo, Charlie and Delta, each is a more restrictive set of
security precautions that you take on the local level. They are
increasingly restrictive in the movement of people, in the checking of
visitors, in the checking of vehicles, in the offset of allowed
parking next to facilities, buildings and the like. So each of them is
more - progressively more stringent in the application of security
procedures. Each is also more difficult to sustain for an indefinite
period of time. But you do what you need to do, and if you really do
have information that you think is specific and credible and presents
a real possibility of danger to your forces at the local level, you're
going to take the prudent course of action, the conservative course of
action and go to that higher level.
Q: And the numbers of the people?
Quigley: The numbers of the people that we're talking about here in
the three - or the two areas, I'm sorry, there's approximately 1,100
U.S. military personnel in Bahrain.
Q: Plus civilians, or --
Quigley: Now, to that I would add family members. And I don't have a
number for family members on that.
Q: Plus family members.
Quigley: Plus family members, that's right.
Q: Does that include --
Quigley: Contractors would also not be included in that, as they are
not necessarily permanently stationed there.
Q: Does that include ship crews?
Quigley: No. This does not include ship crews, no. These are
principally the U.S. Fifth Fleet staff. But there are others. There's
a naval support activity that supports the fleet operations and
whatnot.
Q: But if a ship is in port in Bahrain, they would also come under
this Delta, right?
Quigley: If - yes. Any U.S. forces in either of the two areas would
by definition be included in the higher threat levels.
Q: But no ships are in port, right? Isn't that --
Quigley: No ships are in port.
Q: Okay.
Quigley: Vessels in the Fifth Fleet will remain at sea for the
foreseeable future.
Now, also --- so 1,100 in Bahrain, fewer than 50 in Qatar. So that's
quite small.
Q: Craig?
Quigley: Yes.
Q: Turkey did not go to - or, Incirlik did not go to Delta, but did
they not recently heighten their security alert status?
Quigley: They have gone to Charlie. They did that, I want to say two
weekends ago. I'm not absolutely sure on the date. But it has been
recently. Since the attack on the Cole.
Q: And what was that based on?
Quigley: Again, specific information that the local commanders there
in the region of Incirlik Air Base felt was enough of a reason to have
them do the cautious course of action and go to the higher level.
Q: And when did Bahrain and Qatar go to Delta?
Quigley: Over the weekend, I believe.
Q: Saturday-Sunday.
Quigley: Yes.
Bob?
Q: Craig, was the threat specific enough to indicate a particular type
of military target? Either a ship, or --
Quigley: I'm sorry, I'm just not going to go into any of the specifics
of the information that we took to base that decision on. To
acknowledge the specifics of how much we know and from where we would
know it is counterproductive. And I'm sorry, I can't do that.
Q: Just to finish up Carl's question, the number of U.S. in Qatar?
Quigley: I'm sorry?
Q: The number of U.S. people in Qatar?
Quigley: Oh. Less than 50. Just under 50, yes.
Q: What are they there for?
Quigley: Sorry?
Q: Qatar: what are they there for?
Quigley: We have prepositioned equipment there, and this is people
that manage that and provide security for that.
Q: How much prepositioned equipment do you have?
Quigley: I don't know. It's a pretty good amount, but I'm not sure.
Q: Does that include aircraft, or what is it?
Quigley: No, aircraft come and go for exercises, but none on a
permanent basis.
Q: Craig, when's the last time you've had a D level in that region?
And can you give us any --
Quigley: Following the African embassy bombings in 1998.
Q: That's been it, then?
Quigley: Yes --
Q: That's the last Threatcon D?
Quigley: Yeah, that was the last time we went to Threatcon Delta in
that part of the world, yes.
Q: And do you know how long --
Quigley: I don't know how long it lasted.
Q: Could you clarify, please? At one point you said "specific and
credible" and then appeared to correct yourself because you said the
credibility is unknown.
Quigley: Right.
Q: Is this a specific, credible threat or a specific threat?
Quigley: This is a specific threat with a credibility unknown.
You can take a combination of factors, Mik, as you evaluate the
information you have. The information, as an example, could be very
general and non-specific, but if it would come from credible sources
that you have very high confidence in, that might put you in one
category, if you will. And in this particular case we've got fairly
specific information, but the credibility is unknown. So again, you're
not quite sure what to make of it, so you do the cautious course of
action and go up to the higher level.
Q: You mentioned a minute ago that there are family members, civilians
who are in Bahrain, in particular. Any plans to bring those folks
home? Or has any advice been given to the contractors to get out of
the area?
Quigley: All of the family members, the contractors, and what have
you, are certainly very much aware of the threat condition that exists
both throughout the region in general, and specifically in Qatar and
Bahrain. But I am not aware of any move to bring the families out or
encourage them to leave; I am not aware of that.
Q: Craig, is this more than one threat, or is this - is this from one
particular source involving both countries, or is this - would you
say this is more than one threat?
Quigley: Multiple sources.
Q: Multiple?
Quigley: Mm-hm. (Affirmative response.)
Q: Multiple sources perhaps involving the countries separately as
opposed to --
Quigley: I can't give you any more details, sorry.
Q: And multiple threats?
Quigley: And multiple threats, yes.
Q: What are the sources of the threats? And have they been linked in
any way to Osama bin Laden?
Quigley: I can't go into that either, Jim. I'm sorry.
Q: Could you give us a thumbnail sketch of what Threatcon Delta means?
Quigley: Yes.
Q: What happens when you go to Threatcon Delta?
Quigley: Let me read a quick definition - and it is quick, so please
bear with me - as to what that entails. These are the conditions in
which you would consider going to a Threat Condition Delta: "A
terrorist attack has occurred or intelligence indicates likely
terrorist action against a specific location."
Number two, "It is normally declared as a localized warning." Number
three, "It requires the implementation of mandatory security measures
tailored, again, to the local scenario," and fourth, "Commanders are
authorized and encouraged to supplement these mandatory security
measures as they see fit, based on their knowledge of their local
area." That is Delta. Now, you have --
Q: And what happens when the forces go to - what do they do to take
themselves to this Threatcon Delta?
Quigley: Each local command has a very specific set of actions that it
would take when you're in Alpha or Bravo or Charlie or Delta. You move
from one to the other; typically, you include all of the lesser
implementation items as you go to the higher level. So quite
literally, local commanders would go to this list of actions that they
are required to take and then those that they have chosen to take to
supplement those, and implement those on the local level.
Q: Craig, the troops that are based there, do they ever - are they
ever at a normal level, or is there always - are they always on some
level of security alert, given the environment in which they are
deployed?
Quigley: You have a threat condition called "normal," okay? And it is
Threatcon Normal, and that's pretty much just what it sounds like,
honestly. In that part of the world, it's very common that you are at
an elevated Threatcon level, but it's not mandatory. You always assess
the threats, the information, the intelligence that you have, weigh
the credibility and come to a decision based on that combination of
factors.
Pam?
Q: Given the definition of Threatcon Delta, why, after the explosion
that maimed the Cole, didn't the military there go immediately to
Threatcon Delta, because it's a terrorist attack?
Quigley: Well, you did have the terrorist attack, but again, it tends
to be a very localized sort of an action taken. It's not the norm that
you would put Delta, for instance, in an entire region, like the
entire Central Command area of responsibility.
Q: Didn't the Cole - (off mike)?
Quigley: They did go to Charlie throughout the CENTCOM AOR right after
the attack, but you see Delta more of a localized application.
Q: And could you also give us an update on where the Cole stands,
physically?
Quigley: Sure. Yes. She is still in Aden, at the same position you all
have seen her for the past couple weeks since the attack. She is
stable. She is providing her own ship's power. There are a total of
seven other ships either in the port of Aden or standing off the coast
very close by.
Q: (Off mike) - far out?
Quigley: I'm sorry?
Q: Blue Marlin anywhere?
Quigley: Blue Martin got underway yesterday from Dubai, and she is
scheduled to arrive there this weekend, Saturday, I believe. She is
being escorted by a U.S. Navy destroyer, the Hamilton, Paul Hamilton.
She is expected to get there this Saturday and will need to move
ultimately - will start immediately in preparing to load the Cole.
Because of the water depth - I think you all have seen sketches or
videotape of how the Blue Marlin operates. You literally sink the
vessel, flood her down to a seawater or a sea level depth, and then
the Cole is then placed on top, pump out the tanks, and the vessel
rises with the Cole in support skids to support the transit.
To do that, you need something in the neighborhood of about 25 meters
of water, so you're going to have to come out of the harbor of Aden to
get that water depth so that you can have the Blue Marlin be lowered
into the water to do that. And then as soon as she is secure on board
and everything has checked, she'll start the transit back to the
United States. I'm told by the Navy that still no final decisions have
been made as to her destination, whether it would be Norfolk or one of
the yards that actually build that class of ship.
Q: Is there any patching up of the hull that has to go on before she
gets on --
Quigley: I don't believe so.
Chris?
Q: Will the Cole be able to get out of the harbor under her own power,
or will the tug have to --
Quigley: No, she'll be towed. We have a fleet tug, the Catawba, there
that has been on station now for several days, will assist in the
movement to do that.
Q: As part of the measures taken, have restrictions been put on the
movements of military personnel in Bahrain? For instance, are they
restricted to their bases or their homes, that kind of thing?
Quigley: There's not quite that level of restriction, Jim, in the
local area there in Bahrain, but there is additional measures taken to
make sure that you're simply more aware. A lot of it is simple
awareness of your surroundings. I mean, you and I here would walk down
the street on any given day and you might not be all that cognizant of
the surroundings. We encourage military members, family members,
contractors, what have you, to just be more aware of the surroundings
that you have.
There are - if there are any specific, I mean really localized
threats, that would be communicated as well to the forces there and
the family members. If there are areas that are specifically off-
limits, I'm not aware of them from here. They might have that at the
local level. But it's all about awareness and making sure that
facilities and individuals are just as safe as we can make them, given
the threats that we have received.
Chris?
Q: The Navy has had a large presence in Bahrain for a long time. Has
there ever been a significant attack in either Bahrain or Qatar
against U.S. military forces or civilians, for that matter?
Quigley: None that comes to my memory right off-hand, Chris. I'd have
to do a lot more historical research to give you a comprehensive
answer; but nothing that comes immediately to mind, no.
Tom?
Q: Since the Cole situation, has the Pentagon, has the Navy, given
thought to better security for its warships in the United States, well
outside of the Persian Gulf? Do you regard that ships that are
anchored in Norfolk and, you know, wherever - San Diego - are
vulnerable?
Quigley: I would say that there isn't anybody that's going to tell you
that they're invulnerable, John. And I think if you take a look at
actions taken over the past - let me expand it a little bit - 15, 20
years, you've seen a great deal of additional emphasis placed on
security, even in homeports. Now - and I could expand that beyond the
Navy as well to Air Force bases, Army installations and the like.
You have a local threat condition at U.S. homeport facilities as you
do in overseas areas, as well. And the procedures are very similar in
that it's a constant process of evaluating new information, taking the
appropriate action, given the specificity of the threats that are
received and the confidence you have in the credibility of the
sources.
You will see U.S. installations go to a higher or a lower threat
condition based on the receipt of that information over time.
Q: The standard procedure in dealing with home port security, to the
best of your knowledge, is not changing from what it is today?
Quigley: You have seen everybody in this country, particularly the
military, be acutely aware of the attack on the Cole. I would suggest
that probably every installation's security manager, commanding
officer, their security force, is taking a good, hard look at the
procedures they have in place, and saying, "Are we still okay? Is this
something that we should take a good, hard look at and something that
we should perhaps change?" And I think you're probably seeing that
throughout the armed forces, both here and abroad.
Yes?
Q: Craig, is there indication that, given what happened with the Cole
and now this series of threats, that in fact we are seeing a more --
or, the United States is seeing a more concerted attempt by extremists
of one kind or another to keep the military off balance, to keep the
United States off balance, given what's going on in the Middle East,
as well as what's going on here politically at home?
Quigley: I think that you can point to an increase in threats,
certainly, and, unfortunately, some actions in the past 10 or 15 or 20
years against U.S. interests overseas. We are not universally welcomed
in a lot of places overseas, and the forces there have shown their
objections to U.S. military presence in a variety of ways;
unfortunately, some of them very violent.
So I think that you can't peg it to a particular event or even a
series of events, but I think it's more a commentary on the methods
chosen to make the statements of opposition to the presence of U.S.
military forces overseas over a period of several years.
Tom?
Q: The JAG Man investigation into the Cole, do you know when that will
be completed, and will the results be released?
Quigley: I don't know. Let me have you ask the Navy that one. There
are a total of three efforts that are now either just started or about
to, and that's the Cole Commission with General Crouch and Admiral
Gehman, the FBI, and the JAG Manual investigation.
I know only the barest minimum of details, I'm sorry. We can get that
for you, but you can probably get it a lot quicker by going straight
to the Navy.
Roberto?
Q: Craig, a couple things. Are there any other changes in force
protection levels anywhere else in CENTCOM or the Eastern Med? And
secondly, have any either security forces, FAST teams, other anti-
terrorism assets been moved into either of those two regions anytime
this month?
Quigley: You've got the entire CENTCOM area of responsibility is at
Charlie. That happened right after the attack on the Cole. And then
the only exceptions to that in the rest of the area, in the AOR are
Qatar and Bahrain. So that's the first part.
Q: And Aden, right?
Quigley: And Aden, yes. I'm sorry, I - and Aden. Certainly.
Q: They're at Delta --
Quigley: At Delta also. That's right. I mean, that went to --
Q: (Off mike.)
Quigley: Yes. Yemen went to Delta right - immediately after the
attack on the Cole. But Qatar and Bahrain were over the weekend, as I
indicated.
You still have about a hundred military members on the two FAST
platoons that were sent there very shortly after the attack. They are
still present. I think the total head count is 101, I believe, in
Yemen - correct - in Aden, specifically. And you have, I think 132
is the count, total count, of uniformed personnel that are still
ashore, with the balance of those having moved onto the Tarawa and
other ships. The Joint Task Force commander, for instance, and his
staff have moved onto the Tarawa. And there they will stay.
Now, the other elements of the federal government - the FBI and
whatnot - have remained ashore. They would come and go from the ships
for meetings and coordination efforts and the like. But they do not --
they have not moved to the ships as the uniformed military have.
Q: Any other movements of security forces to either Bahrain or Qatar?
Quigley: No, sir. Not that I'm aware of
Yes, sir.
Q: Did the Pentagon always publicize an elevation in threatcon?
Quigley: Not always.
Q: Okay.
Quigley: But in this particular case - we discussed that quite a bit
this morning, as a matter of fact. But in this particular case, with
it being very clearly communicated to the families, the contractors,
the military members in both Qatar and Bahrain - if you were on the
ground in Bahrain, for instance, and had any purpose at all going on
board any of the facilities there, you would see signs that would tell
you that they were in Threatcon Delta.
So for this particular circumstance, it just didn't seem to have a
purpose to try to not acknowledge that.
We don't do that in all cases and we don't do it in all locations,
certainly, as you see threat conditions go up and down around the
world over time, but in this particular case, we just thought that
this was a course of action that made the most sense.
Q: What was the threatcon a couple of hours before the Cole was
bombed?
Quigley: Where?
Q: For the Cole, in Yemen harbor, in Aden harbor.
Quigley: It was Bravo.
Q: Bravo.
Quigley: Mm-hm. And that was the one that the ship had set in place.
Dale?
Q: General Zinni reminded us last week that sooner or later every ship
has to pull into port for various services. Can you tell us how long
the ships that are in the Gulf now will be able to stay before
somebody has to pull in? And in the meantime, are any steps being
taken to harden any of these ports so that when somebody has to pull
in, the port will be secure?
Quigley: I don't think we've put a timetable on it yet, Dale, other
than to say that for the foreseeable future, they'll remain at sea.
Q: Is there any connection between the threats in Qatar and Bahrain
and the Cole bombing other than the obvious thing that they both
involve terrorism?
Quigley: Again, I'm sorry, I'm not going to get into a characterizing
the threat other than to say that we felt it was specific but the
credibility of the sources was not clear.
Q: Craig, has the --
Quigley: Charlie.
Q: - Pentagon got its act together enough on this - on the whole
Cole situation for Pentagon officials to show up at hearings tomorrow
on the Cole, like they --
Quigley: Oh, yes, indeed.
Q: Well, they didn't last week.
Quigley: For --
Q: There was no explanation immediately offered.
Quigley: Yeah. For those of you who may not know, there's a hearing
scheduled tomorrow on the Hill. At 9:00 in the morning, the Senate
Armed Services Committee has its hearing; at 2:00 in the afternoon,
the House Armed Services Committee. And both bodies are looking into
-- looking for testimony and asking questions on the Cole attack. I am
told --
Q: Are those open?
Quigley: I am told that both hearings will start open and then move to
a closed posture.
Q: Who will appear?
Quigley: Testifiers will include General Franks, Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy Walt Slocombe, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral
Vern Clark, and - and one more.
Staff: Wilson.
Quigley: Ah, and Vice Admiral Tom Wilson, the director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency.
Q: Where in the Senate? Is that Hart 215?
Quigley: I don't have the room, I'm sorry.
Q: Craig, in Qatar, besides the prepositioned sets of - I guess it's
a brigade set of equipment, Army equipment, what other U.S.
installations are there?
Quigley: No installations. Again, I think a question was asked before
on airfields and what not. There are no airfields at which we have
U.S. aircraft permanently stationed. They may come there for a short
time during an exercise or some other purpose, but nothing of a
permanent nature.
Q: Is it fair to say these threats at Qatar were directed at possible
attacks on the prepositioned sets of equipment there?
Quigley: I'm sorry, Tony, I just can't provide that level of detail.
Q: New subject?
Quigley: New subject.
Q: Could you give us an update, please, on the movement of Iraqi
troops that was of some concern to U.S. officials?
Quigley: You will still see, west of Baghdad, a sizeable collection of
Iraqi units. We have continued to watch these over the past - gosh,
two, three weeks, I guess, Mik, something in that ballpark. This is --
as we've said before, this is their annual training cycle for the
Iraqi armed forces. We continue to pay very close attention to what
they're doing.
Our best assessment is that it is indeed training activity, and that
they have not postured themselves to be in a threatening posture from
which they would do some threatening act towards any of their
neighbors. There's still a lot of Iraq to the west of where the forces
are located. The movements seem to be local and, again, training and
administrative in nature. So we'll continue to watch, but we still
don't see anything threatening.
Q: In the Middle East it's being interpreted as a massing of Iraqi
troops on their western border in support of Palestinians. That's the
way it's being interpreted in Israel.
Quigley: I can't speak to the motivation of placing them west of
Baghdad, as they have. But I would not agree with that
characterization. Like I say, there's a lot of Iraq to the west of
where these forces are located, and they don't have with them the
essential elements of logistic support that you would require in order
to use them in an offensive or a threatening manner.
Q: So --
Quigley: So we very much think that it is training-related, as part of
their annual training cycle.
Q: And you wouldn't characterize it as massing on the border of Syria,
for example?
Quigley: I would not characterize it that way.
Q: This is the Hammurabi --
Q: Can you give us a ballpark estimate of how many? What size the
force is?
Quigley: I don't have that with me. I'll see if I can get it.
Q: That is the Hammurabi Division, though, right?
Quigley: Yes.
Q: Is there any sign that they've moved aircraft south of the no-fly
line?
Quigley: No. We have no indications of that yet, either. I mean,
that's another one of the elements, David, that you don't see. I
mentioned logistics, but there's other elements that you would need to
have relatively co-located if your intent was threatening and to put
in an offensive posture, and that's another item that we don't see
present in that vicinity with the forces west of Baghdad.
Bob?
Q: Another subject?
Q: A quick one for --
Q: Go ahead.
Quigley: Go ahead.
Q: So you're not - the forces aren't south of 36, are they?
Quigley: No. No. No. They're west of Baghdad and a little northwest.
Q: What do you hear from the U.S. officials in Pyongyang regarding
what commitments the North Koreans may have made on curtailing or
eliminating their ballistic missile program?
Quigley: Yeah. We don't have a readout yet here in the building, Bob.
I think the goal is probably to let the secretary of State come back
to the United States and brief the president first before there is any
readout of the activities there. I can't characterize it for you quite
yet, in any way. I'm sorry. We don't have any - we did have a couple
of people with the secretary's party, but we don't have any feedback
yet.
Q: Has there been any troop movement or anything unusual or different
that you've noticed in the North Koreans?
Quigley: No. No, not at all.
Q: Nothing has changed?
Quigley: Mm-mm. (Negative.)
Thank you.