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: The American briefing team's in Europe, on missile defense. A
pretty hostile, critical reaction in Paris and Berlin, in Moscow. I
saw it range from "this stuff won't work" or doesn't make sense. Has
Wolfowitz briefed Rumsfeld on this reaction, and how will this affect
the decision on the missile defense policy?

Quigley: There have been some calls, some discussions between
secretary and deputy secretary. A lot of that we kind of read, and
there were phone calls done, as it was a work in progress, as the team
moved its way through Europe last week as well. And I believe there
will be congressional hearings in the House and Senate, tentatively
scheduled for later this week, and for the same thing, feedback from
the trip and visits to the capitals.

I guess I would say that the reaction amongst the allies that were
briefed was mixed. It was appreciative. They were almost uniformly
appreciative of the consultations in the first place, being asked; not
being presented a done deal, "Here it is, take it or leave it." It was
kind of, "Here's our thinking and we'd like to hear your thoughts as
well."

So there was appreciation of that. But as I'm sure you're all aware,
there was also an expression of skepticism from some of the capitals
as well for a variety of reasons, concerns on - of cost, technical
feasibility, treaty issues, and a variety of things.

So it was a good opportunity to exchange views on that. We'll factor
their comments and reactions into our thinking and see where we go
from there.

Q: Was there any support for what the Bush administration is
considering?

Quigley: I don't have a blow-by-blow from country to country. But
there was some positive reaction and a sense of, yeah, this is doable.

The principal purpose, I think, of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz in
Europe and Deputy Secretary Armitage going to Asia was to try to
convince the allies and our friends around the world that there's a
need to take a look at deterrence in a new way. And this is not the
Cold War. This is not the time of the early 1970s when the ABM Treaty
was negotiated, through the '80s when you had a very robust Soviet
Union and you basically had the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact and
NATO and the West. And on Secretary Rumsfeld, I said basically 30
minutes' notice - capability to destroy each other many times. That's
not the world that faces us today. Despite the existence over all
these years of America's very capable deterrent force, it has not been
capable of deterring all conflict in the world during the time that
it's been in existence. So if you say that the world of the '70s and
the '80s is gone, then you need to think about what deterrence means
in the first part of the 21st century in a different way. And that was
really at the heart of the discussions with our friends and allies
around the world.

Q: Can you give us an example of a country other than India where
you've been picking up this positive support for this?

Quigley: I believe well received in Australia, Poland - and again,
I'm less sure of some of the reactions from Secretary Armitage as he
went to Asia, John. But a lot of good questions, a lot of very clear
exchanges of views. And that was the whole purpose of the trip.

Q: A lot of criticism.

Quigley: A lot of skepticism, I would say, with some very legitimate
questions that we're going to do our best to answer and try to
resolve.

Q: Housekeeping. If the president were to decide to send up an '01
supplement, could we anticipate that there will be some sort of
briefing here rather than from the White House?

Quigley: I'm not sure where that would be from. Ultimately, of course,
we would have a description of if it's X amount of dollars this is how
it would be applied, and - absolutely yes.

Pam?

Q: Could you explain what you mean by "skepticism"? What are they
skeptical of? The technology? The idea of scrapping the ABM Treaty?

Quigley: I think you've seen a variety of questions from different
countries. We think we have good responses to all the questions and
concerns that have been raised. But they're saying "Okay, we
appreciate you being here to discuss with us your vision of the need
for missile defense. But on the other hand, we're not sure about" --
and then those concerns vary. And that is the heart of the discussions
that we have held with them.

Q: And on that -

Quigley: And we'll continue to.

Q: The use of the word "consultation" has been interesting, I think,
because it seems to imply that any action that the United States takes
will differ at the end based on a consultation, that they would
actually have some input. How much wiggle room, or how much
negotiating room is there in Bush's position on this? It seems like --
it seems really set, is that there will be a missile defense system
and we will be breaching the ABM Treaty at this time. So what is up
for negotiation?

Quigley: I can't give you a perfectly clear answer to your question.
The goal of the consultation teams going both east and west was to
glean the comments and inputs from our friends and allies. You now
bring them back here, and you factor those into your thinking. And I
can't predict for you where the direction might change. We just need
to incorporate some of their views and try to resolve some of those
issues and see where that takes us.

Tony?

Q: Craig, is that on the end of the consultation in - at this stage
of the game in terms of the administration coming up with a specific
plan, or will there be additional rounds of this?

Quigley: Well, the key point, I think, is "at this stage," Bob, you
just said. For now, yes, I think so. Now the next step would be to, as
I indicated to Pam, to take the inputs from the allies, factor them
into our thinking, how does that change anything, in what way. But
ultimately this is going to be an iterative process over months, and
probably years as we continue to develop the systems that we're
talking about.

Q: When do we get a look at some of these systems? All of us are
familiar with the - what you have out there in development. When will
we get a look at the re-work or architecture that may about in '04 or
'05?

Quigley: Well, I think it's - the short answer to your question is
when the president is satisfied that he has a complete understanding
of the options available to him and has made his decisions, at least
in the near term, on which systems to be tested and additional
development to be done.

He's not made those -

Q: Do you have a sense of -

Quigley: Again, we did not go to the allies with a set piece. We went
with some of our thinking, and I mentioned the thinking on deterrence,
the new meaning of deterrence is one of those things; taking a look at
threat and capabilities in different parts of the world; proliferation
of ballistic missile technology and capability; who is in possession
of this capability to launch a ballistic missile around the world and,
if not today, then when, and to just take a recognition that it is not
a monolithic sort of a threat any more. It's a very diverse
capability, spread in small numbers, in many places around the world
-- that sort of a process.

But the short answer to your question, honestly, is when the president
has fully formed his thinking on this and has made his decision on the
way ahead.

Q: Can I get the Pentagon's reaction to another missile
defense-related issue? The FBI recently closed its investigation into
fraud allegations brought by MIT professor Theodore Postol last year
that TRW and the Pentagon rigged testing. They came down and said it's
a matter of scientific disagreement, no federal laws were violated. To
what extent does the FBI's decision kind of raise - blow away a cloud
that's been hanging over this program over the last year, irrespective
of the technology, cost and political issues?

Quigley: I think that our position has been consistent with the
findings of the FBI. We have thought for a long time that this was not
about the substance of the allegations, and that there was - you
know, from the get-go we said that the allegations about the selection
and testing of a particular kinetic kill vehicle was not the one that
we eventually chose and chose to develop, and it's the one that we've
been testing today.

So it's been an unusual allegation and a lengthy process, and I think
we in the Defense Department are glad to have it behind us.

Q: Craig, there was a report that BMDO, the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization, is going to be reorganized and essentially the way it's
reportedly going to be set up is that it's to be divided up into
boost-phase, mid-course and terminal range systems, with a two-star
general over each one of those categories. Is there any truth to that?

Quigley: I don't know if that's an accurate description. I know it's
not something, at the very least, that I can confirm for you today. If
it's a proposal, it's still being discussed and certainly nothing
finalized on that.

Q: Are there discussions, at least, to reorganize the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization?

Quigley: I don't know. I don't know.

Q: Is there a consideration of giving it a less stupid sounding name?
(Laughter.)

Quigley: (Chuckles.) That's always in the eye of the beholder, I
think. (Laughter.)