From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: DoD News 01/19/93
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:54:31 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>> Assistant Secretary Of Defense                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                    January 1993             <<>>
  <<>>    Pentagon, Washington DC       Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>        DSN  225-3886                                  1   2       <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               3   4   5   6   7   8   9       <<>>
  <<>>  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS      10  11  12  13  14  15  16       <<>>
  <<>>                                  17  18  19  20  21  22  23       <<>>
  <<>>   TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1993      24  25  26  27  28  29  30       <<>>
  <<>>                                  31                               <<>>
  <<>>               Courtesy of Air Force Reserve                       <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>


* MEMORANDUM  FOR  CORRESPONDENTS  JANUARY 19, 1993 
* US  MILITARY  PRESENCE  TO  BE  REDUCED  IN  PANAMA
* NEW BOOK CELEBRATES THE PENTAGON'S FIRST FIFTY YEARS
* DOD NEWS BRIEFING

===================================================================

                                                             No. 018-M
MEMORANDUM  FOR  CORRESPONDENTS                             January 19, 1993 

         The U.S. Department of Defense delivered today to Moscow the first
shipment of accident response equipment pursuant to an agreement signed on
June 17, 1992, between DoD and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy concern-
ing the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear weapons through
the provision of emergency response equipment and related training.  

        The equipment, six sets of Jaws of Life, arrived aboard a U.S. Air
Force C-141 at 11:15 a.m. Moscow time this morning.  Each set weighs about
1,100 pounds, costs about $33,000, and includes the entire array of
equipment used to bend, lift, tear or pull apart wrecked equipment,
including hydraulic pumps, spreader mechanisms and cutting tools.  Six days
of classroom and hands-on training in Moscow by U.S. technicians will
familiarize Russian operators with the safety, operation and maintenance of
the rescue tools.

     If a nuclear weapons accident were to occur, the Jaws of Life could be
used to gain access to transportation vehicles and containers. The emergency
access equipment would not be used on the weapon itself.  The equipment and
training is being provided to the Russian Federation under the terms of Section
108 of public Law 102-229, known as the Nunn-Lugar Legislation. The legislation
authorizes the United States to provide assistance to republics of the former
Soviet Union to facilitate the destruction of nuclear and other weapons; the
safe and secure transportation, storage and safeguarding of weapons in connec-
tion with their destruction, and the establishment of verifiable measures
against weapons proliferation.  

     The U.S. Department of Defense may provide up to $15 million in emergency
response equipment and related training to the Russian Federation pursuant to
the agreement.  Additional items that have been agreed to include radiation
detection equipment, communications gear and protective clothing.  This program
is one of many underway to assist the Russian Federation.
  
                                   -END- 


                                                                     No. 015-M 
MEMORANDUM  FOR  CORRESPONDENTS                                January 19, 1993

     The remains of a U.S. media representative, previously listed as missing
in Southeast Asia, have been identified as P. Welles Hangen, an NBC news
correspondent captured in Cambodia on May 31, 1970.

     Mr. Hangen's remains were recovered during a joint Cambodian-American
field activity February 29 to March 23, 1992.  Mr. Hangen was captured along
with four other media representatives operating in a joint NBC/CBS newsgather-
ing team.  Four of the five jounalists' remains were recovered and repatriated.
With the identification of Mr. Hangen, only one individual has yet to be
accounted for.  P. Welles Hangen was born on March 22, 1930, in New York City,
N.Y.

     Mr. Hangen, a U.S. Army veteran who served in the Korean War, will depart
Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii on a date to be determined by his family, and
travel to Arlington National Cemetery, where he will be buried with full
military honors.

     The U.S. Government welcomes and appreciates the cooperation of the
Cambodian authorities that resulted in accounting for this American.  We hope
that such joint cooperation will bring increased results in the near future.
It should be noted that NBC News provided crucial assistance to the Department
of Defense in locating and repatriating Mr. Hangen's remains.

     The most important measure by which to judge the success of U.S.-Cambodian
cooperation on the POW/MIA issue is in obtaining final answers for the 2,262
families of unaccounted for Americans from the Vietnam War.

                                     -END-

                                                                     No. 014-M 
MEMORANDUM  FOR  CORRESPONDENTS                                January 19, 1993

     On January 21, 1993, Cambodian date, U.S. and Cambodian technical repre-
sentatives  will begin joint investigations and remains recovery operations
pertaining to unaccounted for Americans in Cambodia.  This will be the seventh
joint field activity conducted by U.S. and Cambodian authorities since October
1991, and will include underwater salvage operations for the first time since
the task force was established in January 1992.  Operations will be conducted
in the Cambodian provinces of Kracheh,  Kampong Cham, Kampot, Mondol Kiri and
Tang Island, and are scheduled to last 34 days.

     The joint team plans to investigate 11 priority cases, hopes to investi-
gate as many as 10 other cases, and will conduct excavations of at least two
sites.  The 51 U.S. team members, including a 23-member Army Aviation Detach-
ment and a 4-member Navy Diving Unit, will be under the operational control of
Joint Task Force Full Accounting and will be joined by Cambodian authorities.
The team consists of POW/MIA specialists with experience in investigations and
recovery operations, and will be led by Air Force Lt. Colonel Charles P.
Clayton, commander of the Joint Task Force's Detachment 4 in Phnom Penh.  The
Army Aviation Detachment will fly UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters and will provide
Phnom Penh-based air transportation support for the operations.  The Navy
Diving Unit will conduct operations from February 8 to 13 near Tang Island in
the Gulf of Thailand. 

     There are 2,262 Americans still listed as missing or otherwise unaccounted
for in Indochina.  Of that total, 80 are listed as unaccounted for in Cambodia,
most in areas that the Vietnamese controlled during the war.

     During the most recent operation in Cambodia, which was conducted from
December 4 to 18, 1992, a joint U.S.-Cambodian team conducted investigation,
survey and recovery operations in five provinces and on Tang Island.  The team
investigated and surveyed  11 cases, and conducted an excavation of one alleged
grave site.

     Accounting for Americans still missing in Southeast Asia as a result of
the Vietnam War is a matter of highest national priority for the United States.
The United States welcomes and appreciates the cooperation of Cambodian
authorities in this upcoming field operations.

                                     -END-

                                                                      No. 022-M

MEMORANDUM FOR CORRESPONDENTS                                 January 19, 1993 

     Secretary of the Navy Sean O'Keefe today announced that Mr. Alonzo A.
Swann, a former member of the Navy who served on board the aircraft carrier
Intrepid during World War II, will be awarded a Navy Cross for his courageous
action in combat during an attack on the carrier in October 1944.  Mr. Swann
heroically manned his antiaircraft gun on Intrepid in the face of a determined
Japanese Kamikaze attack.  

     In February 1945, Mr. Swann and six of his shipmates were awarded the
Bronze Star medal, the nation's fourth highest award for valor.  Mr. Swann, an
African-American, contends he was originally awarded the higher decoration of
the Navy Cross.  According to Mr. Swann, his Navy Cross was downgraded to a
Bronze Star due to his race.  He later sought to have the medal upgraded to the
higher award by first petitioning the Navy and later through legal action.  

     In December 1992, a U.S. District Court held that the Navy should award
Mr. Swann a Navy Cross.  

     While the Navy believes that civilian courts do not hold jurisdiction over
the awarding ~f combat medals, Mr. Swann's case was brought to the attention of
the current Secretary of the Navy for the first time in November 1992.  

     After personally reviewing all the facts of the case, Navy Secretary Sean
O'Keefe decided the appropriate level of award for Mr. Swann's combat action
was a Navy Cross, which will be presented to Mr. Swann later this year.  The
Department of the Navy will likewise evaluate the appropriate level of awards
presented to the other members of Mr. Swann's gun team.  

                                    - END - 
                                                                       017-M 
MEMORANDUM FOR CORRESPONDENTS                             January 19, 1993 

     The Air Force today announced several major changes to its training and
education commands--Air Training Command (ATC) and Air University (AU).  The
changes will take effect July 1, 1993.

     The principal change will be the integration of ATC at Randolph AFB,
Texas, and AU at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, into a newly formed command called Air
Education and Training Command (AETC).  The new command will be headquartered
at Randolph AFB.  Under this reorganization, two numbered air forces and Air
University will report to the new command.  One numbered air force, to be
headquartered at Keesler AFB, Miss., will be created to manage technical
training; and the other, headquartered at Randolph AFB, will be created to
manage flying training.  Air University will be headquartered at Maxwell AFB
and will manage professional military education at all levels as well as legal
and chaplain training and the First Sergeant Academy.  The numerical designa-
tions of the numbered Air Forces will be announced at a later date.  

     Additionally, the Community College of the Air Force and the Headquarters
of the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps, both currently at Maxwell AFB,
will be aligned under Air University.  The Officer Training Squadron will also
align under AU.  These three organizations currently report to ATC.  Finally,
the technical training centers will become wings.  

     Training is one of the Air Force's largest, most important "businesses."
Creating a strong four-star Air Education and Training Command aligns training
and education bases and functions under one commander, increasing the authority
and strength of our training system.  The changes will provide a single,
consolidated education and training structure for our officer, enlisted and
civilian personnel.  

     Final decisions on these proposed actions will be made only after the
appropriate environmental analyses have been completed.  

     Direct specific questions regarding these changes to ATC/PA, Lt Col
Whitaker, (210) 652-3946.  

                                   -END- 

                                                                   No. 016-M 
MEMORANDUM FOR CORRESPONDENTS:                                January 19, 1993 

     The Air Force today announced its intent to begin the process of assigning
B-l and B-52 bombers to the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.  Existing
units will convert from their current aircraft to the heavy conventional
bombers.  This change reflects the Air Force's long-standing commitment to the
total force policy and allows citizen/airmen to contribute to the bomber's
expanding conventional role.  Specific information on the source, timing, type
of aircraft, and location will be determined and announced at a later date.  

     Final decisions on these proposed actions will be made only after the
appropriate environmental analyses have been completed.
                                    -END- 


                                                  No. 030-93
                                                  (703) 697-5131 (info)
                                                  (703) 697-3189 (copies)
IMMEDIATE  RELEASE         January 14, 1993       (703) 697-5737 (public/indus-
                                                  try)


              US  MILITARY  PRESENCE  TO  BE  REDUCED  IN  PANAMA

	The Department of Defense announced today that, in accordance with the
Panama Canal Treaty Implementation Plan, the number of U.S. military personnel
assigned in the Republic of Panama will be reduced to about 6,000 by the end of
1995.  Also named today were military facilities to be transferred to Panama in
conjunction with these force reductions.  

      Cuts to the current troop strength of about 10,000 will be achieved
through unit reductions, relocations, and inactivations.  By the end of 1994,
the Army's 193rd Infantry Brigade (Light) will be reduced to a single infantry
battalion and other Army units will also be reduced in size.   During 1995
other Army, as well as Marine Corps and Navy, units will be reduced.

	After 1995, U.S. military personnel will be consolidated onto fewer
remaining installations as other units relocate from Panama or are inactivated.
The major portion of the remaining U.S. forces will be consolidated at Howard
Air Force base, Rodman Naval Station, and Fort Kobbe at the Pacific entrance to
the canal, with a small force to be consolidated on the Atlantic side of the
isthmus of Panama, until completion of the U. S. withdrawal in 1999. 

	The Panama Canal Treaty Implementation Plan, approved last year by
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, was developed by the U.S. Southern Command in
conjunction with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff in
order to fully comply with the U.S. government's obligations under the terms of
the treaties and to do so in a rational, systematic fashion that provides for
an orderly withdrawal and defense of the canal.  Since early 1991, key Panama-
nian government officials have been consulted on the concept of the plan.

	As stipulated by the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, all U.S. military forces
will be withdrawn from the Republic of Panama and all U.S. facilities will be
transferred to the government of Panama by December 31, 1999.  That is expected
to be accomplished at a relatively even pace during the final four years of the
treaty. The U.S. Southern Command continues to work closely with Panamanian
government authorities to develop the best conditions for a successful and
smooth transfer of facilities.

                                    (more)


                                      -2-

	The following sites, used by the U.S. Army, will be turned over to the
government of Panama during 1993:

Site						Location				Status 

Chiva Chiva Range			         Panama City 		End Operations
Camp Chagres Range			Panama City			End Operations

The following sites, used by the U.S. Army, will be turned over to the govern-
ment of Panama during 1994:

Fort Amador (Army sector)		Panama City			End Operations
Curundu Housing Area			Panama City			End Operations

The following site, used by the U. S. Navy, will be turned over to the govern-
ment of Panama during 1994:

Summit Radio Site			         Panama City			End Opera-
tions

The following sites, used by the U.S. Army, will be turned over to the govern-
ment of Panama during 1995:

Quarry Heights Headquarters		Panama City 		End Operations
     Complex and Family Housing
Los Rios Elementary School		Panama City			End Operations
Diablo Elementary School		         Panama City 		End Operations
Curundu Junior High School		Panama City 		End Operations
Cristobal High School			Colon			End Operations
Fort Davis					Colon			End Operations
Fort Espinar(formerly Fort Gulick)       Colon			End Operations
Coco Solo Health Clinic			Colon			End Operations
Marguerita School Building		Colon			End Operations

The following site, used by the U.S. Navy, will be turned over to the govern-
ment of Panama during 1995:

Fort Amador (Navy sector)		Panama City 		End Operations

                                     -END-






                  PANAMA  CANAL  TREATY  IMPLEMENTATION  PLAN

                             QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

                             FOR RESPONSE TO QUERY

Q1.  How long have you been working on the Panama Canal Treaty Implementation
Plan?

A1.  Preliminary studies and planning began in 1986 and have been continually
refined since then.  The original withdrawal plans were interrupted during the
latter part of the Noriega regime and by Operation Just Cause.  After the
restoration of a democratic government in Panama, we resumed the planning and
transfer process, including consulting with key Panamanian government officials
to ensure a smooth transition.


Q2.  What U.S. agencies besides the Southern Command are involved in the
planning for the military withdrawal from Panama?

A2.  Several U.S. military agencies, as well as the U.S. State Department and
U.S. embassy in Panama, are involved in treaty implementation planning --
primarily, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the U.S.
Southern Command and its components, and the military departments.  Headquar-
ters, Department of the Army is the executive agent for treaty implementation
planning and is represented by the Treaty Implementation Planning Agency.  The
U.S. State Department in consultation with Congress approves the specific
turnover plans and they executed in cooperation with the U.S. embassy in Panama
and the Panamanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  Southern Command's Center for
Treaty Implementation coordinates military planning for continued implementa-
tion of the Panama Canal Treaty and is Southern Command's interface with the
other military agencies involved.


Q3.  You mentioned in your statement that most of Fort Amador will be trans-
ferred to Panama by the end of 1994.  What about the rest of that installation?

A3.  Fort Amador comprises a sector used by the Army and a sector used by the
Navy.  Parts of the Army sector (17 buildings which housed the Army headquar-
ters in Panama until September 1979) were transferred to the government of
Panama on October 1, 1979.  The remaining Army sector (family housing and
community support facilities) is scheduled to be transferred to the government
of Panama by the end of 1994.  The Navy sector of Fort Amador is scheduled to
be transferred to the government of Panama by the end of 1995.



Q4.  What is the magnitude of military facilities to be turned over to Panama?
How many bases are there in Panama?  
A4.  There are 10 major military installations, many dating back to World War I
or earlier, located on both sides of the isthmus of Panama, plus several other
military facilities located off those installations (such as some housing
areas, schools, hospitals, training areas, and other facilities), covering
approximately 85,000 acres and including slightly more than 4,800 buildings.
The 10 major military installations are:  
     On the Pacific side (seven): Quarry Heights (Headquarters, U.S. Southern
Command), Fort Clayton (Army), Fort Kobbe (Army), Howard Air Force base,
Albrook Air Force Station  (including Farfan and Marine barracks), and Fort
Amador (Navy headquarters and housing, plus Army Housing).  
     On the Atlantic side (three): Fort Davis (Army), Fort Sherman (Army), and
Galeta Island (Navy).  


Q5.  How many I)oD dependent schools are in Panama?  
A5. There are a total of 13 schools operated by the Panama Region of the
Department of Defense Dependent School system -- nine elementary and three
secondary schools and one junior community college.  


Q6.  Have you sped up the turnover of facilities to the Panamanians and the
withdrawal of your forces from Panama (that is, to be gone by mid-decade), as
recently reported?  
A6.  The phased, orderly withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Panama and transfer
of all facilities to the government of Panama are still planned for completion
not later than December 31, 1999, as required by the treaty.  
     The original 1986-88 withdrawal plans were interrupted during the latter
part of the Noriega regime and by Operation Just Cause.  After the restoration
of a democratic government in Panama, we resumed the transfer process.  We are
cooperating with the government of Panama in this turnover effort, and the
government of Panama has moved forward in planning for future use of trans-
ferred areas.  
     Our intent is to transfer sites and facilities that will benefit Panama as
quickly as possible, without degrading U.S. forces' mission capability.  We
continue to work with Panamanian authorities to ensure a smooth transfer of
facilities and drawdown of forces without affecting our responsibility under
the treaty for defense of the Panama Canal.  


Q7.  Have you announced a timetable for turnover of your bases to Panama?  
A7.  We have not announced a detailed timetable for transfer of specific
installations or removal of forces other than that contained in today's public
statement.  Public announcements of specific transfers are made in coordination
with Panamanian authorities, the U.S. Congress, U.S. State Department, and U.S.
embassy in Panama.




Q8.  Have you taken any steps yet in the drawdown of military personnel in
Panama?  
A8.  Yes. Initial drawdown and consolidation actions to date have been:  
     -- Departure of about 350 permanently assigned Air Force personnel,
including the 24th Tactical Air Support Squadron and its 21 OA-37 "Dragonfly"
aircraft in April - August 1990.   	-- Transfer of most of the Army Special
Forces battalion (3rd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group) from Fort Davis to
Fort Bragg, North Carolina, in August 1990, which involved the departure of
     about 247 soldiers and 95 family members from Panama.

     -- Redesigntion of the 830th Air Division to Air Forces Panama, which were
subsequently reorganized and redesignated 24th Wing, and its transfer from
Albrook Air Force Station to Howard Air Force Base and concurrent deactivation
of the 24th Composite Wing in February 1991 (with no significant losses of
military and civilian personnel).  


Q9.  Have there been any transfer of military facilities to Panama since
Operation Just Cause?  
A9.  Facilities and buildings that have recently been and are bring turned over
to Panama include:  
     -- The buildings at Coco Solo on the Atlantic side that were licensed to
Panama in 1990 (i.e, 90 units of family housing, five buildings including a
troop barracks, and the elementary school complex at Coco Solo.  
     -- Gatun Tank Farm (fuel depot and distribution complex on the Atlantic
side) was turned over on December 1,1991.  
	--  The bachelor officers quarters (13 buildings containing 92 one-bedroom
apartments) at Curundu Heights on the Pacific side in November and December
1992.



Q1O.  Can you confirm the recent media reports that the United States will seek
to station U.S. forces in Panama after the turnover of the canal in 1999 to
guarantee its security?  
A10.  We are not discussing post-2000 stationing rights with the government of
Panama. As we have stated many times before, our intent is to fully comply with
the Panama Canal Treaties.  


Q11.  Has a decision been made yet on the relocation of the Headquarters of the
Southern Command from Quarry Heights?  
A11.  No decision has been made concerning when or where Headquarters, Southern
Command will relocate. It will relocate sometime during the life of the treaty.



Q12.  Are the candidate sites for the Headquarters, U.S. Southern Command that
were announced in 1989 still the ones under consideration?  
A12.  Not necessarily. Many dramatic changes have taken place around the world
since then (such as the base closures and realignment program and the pending
broad U.S. military force reductions worldwide, among other events) that may
affect the selection of the site for the relocation of the Headquarters, U.S.
Southern Command 




Q13.  How many military and civilian personnel are there in the Southern
Command Headquar- ters?  
A13.  There are about 400 military personnel (Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air
Force) and about 120 civilian employees assigned to the joint-service Headquar-
ters, U.S.  Southern Command.  


Q14.  How many military personnel are there now in Panama?  
A14.  There are approximately 10,000 U.S. military personnel assigned in
Panama.  


Q15.  How many Panamanians are employed by the U.S. military?  
A15.  Approximately 5,300 Panamanian civilians are directly employed by the
U.S. military.  


Q16.   Are you planning any major civilian employee layoffs in the immediate
future as stated by Panamanian labor leaders in the Panamanian press?  
A16.  We do not expect any massive dismissals of the approximately 5,300
Panamanian employees of the U.S. forces (who account for about two-thirds of
the total civilian work force of the U.S. forces) in the near term.  Later, we
would hope to phase dismissals over time as much as possible so as to lessen
the impact at any one time.  


Q17.  What is the impact of the U.S. forces in Panama on the local economy?  
A17.  A conservative estimate of the total income to Panama from the U.S.
forces (direct and indirect) for calendar year 1990 was $264 million (up from
$253.4 million in 1990), as follows:  
	-- Official expenditures (direct): $202.6 million (up from $192 million)
in the following categories:
	--  $87.9 million in salaries to the non-U.S. civilian employees of the
U.S. forces (down from $90 million in 1990).
	--  $86.9 million in the purchase of goods and services (up from $74
million in 1990)
	--  $27.8 million in contracts (including construction and repairs) (about
the same as 1991).
     --  Unofficial personal (indirect) expenditures by U.S. citizen personnel
     on the local 
economy:  estimated at $61.6 million in annual rentals of apartments or houses
on the local economy, utilities payments, payments to maids and gardeners,
expenditures for recreation and restaurants, annual vehicle registration, etc.

 


Q18.  Can you comment on statements made in the press that the United States
cannot/will not withdraw from Panama since Panama no longer has a military with
which to defend the canal?  
A18.  The U.S. Southern Command intends to carry out the treaty commitment to
the end of this century.  With respect to defense of the Panama Canal beyond
1999, the first and best guarantee of the safety and security of the canal is a
stable and democratic Panama.  Stability in Panama will preserve the canal from
threats and dangers that might arise internally. The Panamanian government's
replacement of the former Panama Defense Forces with a civilian police force
contributes to the preservation and strengthening of democracy in Panama.
  
Q19.  Who will defend the canal after 1999?  Will the United States have any
role in its defense after 1999? 
A19.  The United States and, we hope, all users of the canal's facilities,
would come to the aid of Panama in guaranteeing the canal's neutrality and
canal operations should the situation require it.  The United States has
specific treaty obligations in this respect that extend beyond the year 2000.  


Q20.  How are the facilities being prepared for transfer to Panama?  
A20.  Prior to the transfer of any installation or facility, the two govern-
ments consult concerning its condition, including taking measures to ensure
insofar as may be practicable that hazards to human life, health and safety are
removed.  


Q21.  To whom are the facilities being turned over?
A21.  All facilities are being and will continue to be turned over to the
government of Panama.  
Q22.  You mentioned in your statement that Fort Espinar (or Fort Gulick) will
be transferred to Panama.  Was that installation transferred to Panama some
time ago?  
A22.  All troop buildings and barracks at Fort Gulick on the Atlantic side,
including those buildings that housed the U.S. Army School of the Americas were
transferred to Panama on October 1,1984, and Panama renamed the installation
Fuerte Espinar. (The U.S. Army School of the Americas was relocated in late
1984 to Fort Benning, Georgia.) The remaining housing area and community
support facilities located there are scheduled to be transferred to Panama 
by the end of 1995.  



                                                  No. 029-93
                                                  (703) 695-0192 (info)
                                                  (703) 697-3189 (copies)
IMMEDIATE   RELEASE             January 14, 1993  (703) 697-5737 (public/indus-
                                                  try)

             New Book Celebrates The Pentagon's First Fifty Years

     The Department of Defense today announced the publication of a book
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the construction of the Pentagon Building,
the headquarters of the Department of Defense.  Release of "The Pentagon:  The
First Fifty Years" coincides with the actual construction completion date,
January 15, 1943.

     Written by DoD historian Alfred Goldberg, the book provides a vivid
description and pictorial history of the conception, design and construction of
the Pentagon.  Constructed in a record 16 months, between September 11, 1941
and January 15, 1943, the Pentagon is still the world's largest office building
under one roof.

     The construction process engaged the personal attention of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who made key decisions about the building's location and
design.  The cast of those involved at the highest levels of government
included Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Assistant Secretary of War John J.
McCloy, and Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall.  The driving force
behind the construction of the building was General Brehon B. Somervell.

     While recognizing the historic role the building has played as the nerve
center and symbol of the U. S. military establishment for 50 years, the book
also addresses itself to the building and its people and how they have fared
over the years.  It answers questions about the building's architecture, costs,
25,000 inhabitants, amenities, and environmental impact.  The book's narrative
is supplemented by a large selection of period photographs showing the building
at various stages of construction and many of the people involved in the
planning and construction.

     The official celebration of the Pentagon's 50th Anniversary is scheduled
for May 10-14, 1993.  During that week, festivities will include ceremonies,
exhibits, special tours, a flyover and concerts by military bands.

     Editor's Note:  "The Pentagon:  The First Fifty Years" is available in
softcover only for $17.00, and may be purchased at the Pentagon Bookstore or
from the Superintendent of Documents at the Government Printing Office.

                                     -END-


Contracts
  FOR RELEASE AT 
    5:00 P.M. EST

                                     NAVY

      ROH, Inc., San Diego, California, is being awarded a $24,008,378 cost-
plus-fixed-fee contract for ship design management support services.  Work will
be performed in Arlington, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by
September 1997.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current
fiscal year.  This contract was competitively procured under a small business
set-aside, with 161 bids solicited and two bids received.  The Naval Sea
Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-93-
C-4082).

      Kaman Aerospace Corp., Bloomfield, Connecticut, is being awarded a letter
contract at a not-to-exceed amount of $13,109,502 for a MAGIC LANTERN adapta-
tion technology demonstrator system.  Def- initization shall result in the
establishment of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract.  Work will be performed in
Bloomfield, Connecticut (66.2%) and Tucson, Arizona (33.8%), and is expected to
be completed by November 1994.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of
the current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively procured.  The
Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity
(N00024-93-C- 6338).  

       G. E. Aerospace Corp., Government Electronic Systems Division, Moore-
stown, New Jersey, is being awarded a $215,500,000 fixed-price-incentive
contract for four AEGIS weapon systems for DDG 51 class ships.  Work will be
performed in Moorestown, New Jersey, and is expected to be completed by
September 1996.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current
fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively procured.  The Naval Sea
Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-93-
C-5108).  

       Bath Iron Works Corp., Bath, Maine, is being awarded a $723,798,921
fixed-price-incentive contract for three DDG 51 class AEGIS destroyers.  Work
will be performed in Bath, Maine, and is expected to be completed by September
30, 1999.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal
year.  This contract was competitively procured.  The Naval Sea Systems
Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N00024-93-C-2800).  

      Grumman Aerospace Corp., Space & Electronics Div., Bethpage, New York, is
being awarded a $5,847,250 order against a firm-fixed-price contract for
engineering design change kits for the radar communication test bench display
analyzer simulator.  Work will be performed in Great River, New York (73%),
Bethpage, New York (7%) and Denton Park, Pennsylvania (20%), and is expected to
be completed by March 1996.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the
current fiscal year.  This contract was not competitively procured.  The Naval
Air Systems Command is the contracting activity (N00019-90-G-0123).

                                     ARMY

      GE0-Centers, Incorporated, Newton Centre, Massachusetts, was awarded on
January 15, 1993, a $654,384 increment as part of a $5,435,230 cost plus fixed
fee contract for scientific and technical support services to be provided to
the Health Effects Research Division (HERD), United States Army Biological
Research and Development laboratory (USABRDL).  Work will be performed at Fort
Detrick, Maryland, and is expected to be completed by January 14, 1998.
Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  There
were 120 bids solicited on February 26, 1992, and 2 bids received.  The
contracting activity is the U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition activity,
Fort Detrick, Maryland (DAMDl7-93-C-3006).

    Geotronics of North America, Itasca, Illinois, is being awarded a
$6,095,780 firm fixed price contract for 204 automated integrated survey
instruments, technical manuals and training.  Work will be performed in Itasca,
Illinois, and is expected to be completed by December 14, 1994.  Contract funds
will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  There were 51 bids
solicited on January 30, 1992, and 3 bids received.  The contracting activity
is the U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command, St. louis, Missouri (DAAK0l-93-
C-0032).  

    Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, is being awarded a
$5,623,949 modification to a firm fixed price/fixed price level-of-effort
contract for early evaluation and experimental use of the Connection Machine
Model 5 Scalable High Performance Computing Systems.  Work will be performed in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is expected to be completed by September 30,
1994.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
There was a broad agency announcement solicited on January 27, 1992, and 152
bids were received.  The contracting activity is the Defense Supply Service-
Washington, WashingtonD.C. (MDA972-93-C-0004).  

                           DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

    Mckesson Drug Company, San Francisco, California was awarded a $20,120,000,
fixed price contract for pharmaceutical products the National Capital Region
(Washington, D.C.).  431 proposals were solicited and seven were received.
Work will he performed in Landover, Maryland, and is expected to be completed 
by 15 January 1994.  Funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year.  The
Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the cantract-
ing activity (DLA120-93-D-7000). 




DoD News Briefing
Tuesday, January 19, 1993 - Noon
Mr. Pete Williams, ASD (Public Affairs)

     Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney:  Now I'm going to tell you what I really
think!  (Laughter)

     No, I don't have any formal announcements.  Pete's going to do his regular
brief this morning.  I simply wanted to come down on what, I think, will be my
last day.  I don't plan to come in tomorrow unless something unusual happens.
I want to express my satisfaction with the relationships that we had with the
Pentagon press corps.

     I've spent a lot of time in Washington, and I must say, I think probably
the most professional operation that I've witnessed consistently have been all
of you.  We didn't always agree.  There were times when we had pretty
fundamental differences over how we ought to do our business, but it has been a
pleasure to work with you for the last four years.  I simply wanted to come by
this morning and thank you for all of that, and say goodbye, and wish you the
very best, then turn it over to Pete.  No questions.

     Q:  While you're here...
     A:  Thank you very much.

     Mr. Williams:  I've been given orders to go ahead, and I will then.

     Good afternoon.

     Let me go through some routine announcements.  Then I have a little bit to
say about Iraq, although not very much.  Then I'll be pleased to answer your
questions.

     First of all, Secretary Cheney announces the President has nominated Rear
Admiral David B. Robinson of the Navy for appointment to the grade of vice
admiral, and assignment as commander of the Naval Surface Force at the U.S.
Pacific Fleet.  He's currently serving as Deputy and Chief of Staff at
CINCPACFLT at Pearl Harbor.

     A couple of announcements about continuing operations to account for
Americans, and in one case, a civilian, missing from the Vietnam War.  We have
a Memorandum for Correspondents on this for you.  On January 21, 1993, that's
Cambodian date, U.S. and Cambodian technical representatives will begin joint
investigations and remains recovery operations pertaining to unaccounted for
Americans in Cambodia.  This will be the seventh joint field activity conducted
by U.S. and Cambodian authorities since they started up under this new
framework of relationships in October of 1991.

     It will include some underwater salvage operations -- that's the first
time we've done an operation like that, the first time since the task force was
established that we've done that.  In January of 1992, the task force was set
up.  

     The team plans to investigate 11 priority cases, hopes to investigate as
many as ten other cases, and will conduct excavations at at least two sites.
The 51-member U.S. team will include a 23-member Army aviation detachment and
four-member Navy diving unit, and it will be under the operation and control of
Joint Task Force Full Accounting.

     The remains of a U.S. reporter, previously listed as missing in Southeast
Asia, have now been identified formally as Wells Hangen, an NBC news
correspondent who was captured in Cambodia on May 31, 1970.  Mr. Hangen's
remains were recovered during the joint Cambodian/American field activities
that went last year, almost a year ago, from February 29th to March 23rd of
1992.  Mr. Hangen was captured along with four other news media representatives
operating in a joint NBC/CBS news-gathering team.  Four of the five
journalists' remains were recovered and repatriated, and now with the
identification of Mr. Hangen, only one individual has yet to be accounted for.
Mr. Hangen was an Army veteran who served in the Korean War.  His remains will
depart Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii on a date yet to be determined -- that
will be decided by his family -- then travel to Arlington National Cemetery
where he will be buried with full military honors.

     One other announcement for you.  As the Secretary indicated, he does not
plan to be here tomorrow.  In terms of the transition, obviously, we still have
folks from the Clinton defense transition team who have been here in the
Pentagon now for well over a month.  In response to the questions from some of
you, they have asked that five people who are appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate, five of the 44 presidentially appointed, Senate
confirmed people, stay on on an interim basis to assist them with the
transition.  They are John W. Shannon, who is Under Secretary of the Army;
Martin C. Faga, who is Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space; Michael
B. Donley, who is Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management
and Comptroller; James R. Locher, III, who is Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict; and Victor H. Reis, who is
Director of Defense Research and Engineering.

     It's my understanding that Jim Locher will function as someone assisting
them with the transition in the policy operation, in the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy operation; and Vic Reis will help them out in the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition area.  I don't believe they've yet
identified someone at this level from the Navy to assist them with the
transition.

     Any other questions about that?

     Q:  How many people are leaving?
     A:  Total politicals?  I'll get that number for you.  I know for sure, and
I think I can only say for sure right now, that the 44 minus five, so 39
politicals will leave.  That ranges from the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary,
the Under Secretaries, Paul Wolfowitz and Don Yockey, on down through the rest
of the people who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

     Based on a memorandum from the Clinton transition people to political
appointees in the Department that was put out last week, it's a little
different, then, for the rest of the political appointees.  Basically, there
are two other classes of political appointees to look at -- two other types.
One is those who are in the senior executive service -- for example, the
deputies in my office; other deputy assistant secretaries, people at that
level.  They have been told by the Clinton transition team, if memory serves me
correctly -- and correct  me if I'm wrong on this -- that they will all be
given at least two weeks notice.  So none of them leave immediately.  The first
to leave would leave at least two weeks after they receive that notice. 

     The second category of people are the ones that are called the Schedule C
folks.  They're executive assistants, secretaries and so forth.  They've been
told that they will all be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, so that some will
stay.  So for sure, I think the answer is 39.  That's the 44 minus the five who
have been asked to stay.  There may have been some vacancies.  I don't know if
all 44 of those were held.  Let me check on that for you.  (FYI: There are 45
President-Appointed-Senate confirmed positions.)

     Q:  Are there plans for a briefing on Thursday?
     A:  That isn't up to me.  That's up to the new folks, and I can't answer
that question.  I know that they've looked at that issue.

     Q:  Are you planning to be in tomorrow?
     A:  I'll be in tomorrow.  I'm still packing boxes, yes, sir.

     Q:  Tomorrow, in the event that something happens in Iraq or elsewhere in
the world, who, among the people that would normally be here to deal with
something like that, will be here?
     A:  From midnight to noon, yours so truly.  After noon, I don't know.  But
it's not like the place comes to a screeching halt here.  The two commands that
are responsible for that part of the world, nothing changes.  The pilots who
are responsible will go to bed tonight and get up tomorrow morning and do their
jobs normally.  The commander-in-chief of Central Command, General Hoar,
remains on the job.  Commander-in-chief of the European Command, General
Shalikashvili, remains.  And their information operations, Gordy Peterson in
EUCOM and Bob Prucha at CENTCOM are still on the job.  There's an enormous
amount of continuity here from a military perspective.

     Q:  From your knowledge of this building, is it going to be difficult to
get things done with 39 of the top-level people out tomorrow?
     A:  Naturally, political appointees are essential to the proper
functioning of the Pentagon, and to our nation's defense.  (Laughter)  It's
always tough at the beginning.  Dick Cheney didn't walk in the door with all 44
political appointees sort of revving at full RPMs.  So it's always a little
bumpy at the beginning of a new administration.

     Q:  Will CENTCOM be authorized to answer questions tomorrow?  Today,
they're referring up here to DDI.
     A:  We'll work that out.  I'll be here until noon, and afterwards, the
Clinton folks will be moving in here pretty quickly.

     Moving on to Iraq.  The only real events to bring you up to date on that
we haven't discussed here in one way or the other, are the incidents over the
past 24 hours in the northern no-fly zone.  There are three of them.  All of
these are in the northern no-fly zone above 36 degrees north latitude.

     At about 2:30 a.m. Eastern time, an Iraqi surface-to-air missile radar
illuminated a U.S. F-4G aircraft that was on routine patrol.  In response, the
F-4G fired one HARM missile at the radar.  This is a site about 14 miles east
of Mosul.  We are not certain of the results.  The pilot believes he hit it,
but we have no way to confirm that.

     At about 3:32 Eastern time, a U.S. F-16 was fired at by an Iraqi AAA site
near Saddam hydroelectric dam.  The aircraft was not hit, it was not damaged.
No fire was returned.

     Then in a third incident, which was about 5:30 Eastern Time this morning,
two U.S. F-16's on routine patrol were fired on by an Iraqi antiaircraft
artillery site.  In response, both F-16's dropped cluster bombs on the site,
which is about 12 miles north of Mosul.  The crew members reported seeing
explosions from their bombs, but we do not know the results of that attack.
None of the planes were damaged.

     The only other thing that I would note in the northern no-fly zone is that
Iraqi incursions do continue.  They still are flying this pattern that we
discussed with you yesterday during the background briefing where they fly
across the border, fly some incursions into the no-fly zone, and then come back
out.  But there are no engagements between Iraqi and U.S. or coalition
aircraft.

     Q:  On the question of the Russians, apparently...
     A:  Let's stay with incidents in the northern no-fly zone.

     Q:  It is.  I know you don't discuss rules of engagement, but can you tell
us as of this hour, is the situation the same -- if attacked and/or threatened,
will we retaliate?
     A:  Sure.  Absolutely.  That's been the situation there for quite some
time.

     Q:  Go back over at least the second and third instances for me -- 3:32,
an F-16 fired at by AAA near the Saddam hydroelectric dam, and what did the
F-16 do?
     A:  Nothing.

     Let me review these one more time, all of them.

     The first incident, in chronological order, about 2:30 a.m. Eastern, Iraqi
surface-to-air missile radar illuminated a U.S. F-4G aircraft.  The F-4G fired
a HARM missile at the radar.  The radar was located about 14 miles east of
Mosul.

     The second incident, 3:32 Eastern.  U.S. F-16 fired at by Iraqi AAA.  Not
damaged, no fire returned.

     Third incident, about 5:30 Eastern, this is two U.S. F-16's fired on by
Iraqi AAA.  The F-16's dropped cluster bombs on the site.  It's about 12 miles
north of Mosel.  The cluster bombs blew up.  We don't know what the damage was.

     Q:  How many cluster bombs?
     A:  Four.

     Q:  Just for clarification.  The AAA site in the second and third incident
are not the same site?
     A:  That's correct.

     Q:  When you say miles, there was some confusion about this before, but
we're talking nautical miles?
     A:  No, these are ground miles.

     Q:  On the incursions in the no-fly zone in the north that are continuing,
why are these continuing?  Are you not vigorously enforcing the northern no-fly
zone?  Do you not have a cap up at all times?  Are you deciding that you'll
live with a little bit of incursion, or you don't have enough aircraft to
enforce it?
     A:  It's probably some variety of all those things.  I think the best way
to say it is, in most of these cases, this is aircraft penetrating just a few
nautical miles.  In most of these cases, Michael, there are a few exceptions,
this is sticking a toe over the line.  I think that one of our background
briefers explained to you yesterday a possible reason the Iraqis are doing
this, and that is to say they set up a concentration of surface-to-air missiles
in that little area that he referred to as a SAM trap, SAM for surface-to-air
missile.  Then the aircraft fly incursions over the surface-to-air missile
sites hoping to lure coalition aircraft down there.  I think our pilots are
wisely not being drawn into that trap.

     Q:  Were all these incursions occurring right over that concentration?
     A:  Most of them are, yes.  There are a few exceptions, but in general,
that's the pattern.

     Q:  The trap is south of the 36th parallel, isn't it?
     A:  No. 

     Q:  That's how he described it yesterday.
     A:  Well, there's a SAM trap up north, too.  The same kind of term.

     Q:  How far north of the 36th?
     A:  How far do they go in, do you mean?  

     Q:  No, how far north of the 36th is the SAM trap?
     A:  It's right on the border, really.

     Q:  I thought he said there was one SA-3 or 2 just south of the border
yesterday, not a concentration.
     A:  We're talking in the northern no-fly zone right now.

     Q:  Where he said there were several.  Those are just north of the line?
     A:  Correct.

     Q:  How many SA-3's do they have set up in this SAM trap?
     A:  They're not all SA-3's.  There are some SA-6's, and I don't want to
get into numbers at this point because that's an intelligence thing.

     Q:  Could you please explain what you mean by "illuminated"?  Was this the
tracking radar of a surface-to-air missile?  Was it search radar from one of
those...
     A:  That's a good question and I don't know the answer.  We're still
trying to get the answer to that question.  I'll take that one.  When we say
illuminated, is it target acquisition radar or general search radar?

     Q:  Were there any other planes that might have been involved this
morning, such as any other coalition planes, that might have either been locked
on by radar or perhaps fired on?
     A:  Not that I'm aware of.

     Q:  The briefer yesterday said there were no SA-3's north of 36.  Has that
changed?  Are there now SA-3's...
     A:  Not that I'm aware of.

     Q:  So it's still the three SA-6's and the one SA-2?
     A:  Right.

     Q:  There has been no movement of those?
     A:  As far as I know, that's right.

     Q:  In the case where a SAM trap was established in the south, the
response of the Bush Administration was to issue a demarche that, if they
didn't move the SAM trap, it would be essentially destroyed.  In the north,
you're tolerating the SAM trap.  You're not going after it, you're not bombing
it, you've issued no demarche, you're not trying to take it out.  Why the
difference?
     A:  First of all, I understand your use of the word tolerating.  We are
bombing SAMs, so it's something less than toleration.  If they illuminate our
aircraft, we will strike back.  This applies to not only surface-to-air missile
radar, but also acquisition radar for antiaircraft artillery, and of course,
for the antiaircraft artillery firings themselves.

     I think that the demarche in the southern part of Iraq followed a
well-noted pattern of moving surface-to-air missile radars into an area that
previously really didn't have them operational.  Surface-to-air missile radars
have been in northern Iraq for a long time really, I suppose, assigned to
protect the ground forces they have up there.  Over the past several months
they have put them into operational configuration and taken them back out.  So
it's not been a whole new kind of behavior in the north, whereas it was in the
south.

     Q:  General Shalikashvili said that this is the first time since April
that they've had SAMs in that kind of operational configuration in the north,
so it is a new threat.  But the difference is in the nature of the response.
You're not trying to force them to move these missile batteries.
     A:  Correct, but the only thing I would note is that I would take it back
to before April.  This is a thing we've been going back and forth with the
Iraqis on really since the beginning of the Provide Comfort regime after the
ceasefire and the war, whereas the movement of missiles into the southern
no-fly zone was a departure.  Will the Administration issue a similar demarche
in the north?  I don't know.

     Q:  There's been movement of Navy assets in connection with Iraq into the
eastern Mediterranean.  Can you explain the rationale behind this move, what
the purpose of it is?  We're talking about the Kennedy and a partial battle
group.
     A:  The Kennedy is in the eastern Med, but the only way we would ever
describe that officially is to say it's an operational exercise, or it's an
exercise deployment, or something like that.  But we don't get into specifics
about ship movements.

     Q:  To follow up that, is she planning to traverse the Suez Canal?
     A:  We don't discuss future ship movements.

     Back to Iraq for a second, just to wrap up a couple of things, and then we
can open it up to questions in all areas.

     I think the background briefing you all received yesterday went through
detail.  Let me just come back to a couple of points.  First of all, yesterday
we talked to you about the fact that there was an encounter between a coalition
aircraft and an Iraqi MIG in the southern no-fly zone.  It was noted that this
was in conjunction with the attacks on Iraq's air defenses yesterday in the
southern no-fly zone, and that one of the F-15C's that was involved in the
strike on the An Najaf facility, had an engagement with a MIG-25 after the
bombing.  We told you about that.  The briefers told you that the F-15 pilot
launched one AMRAAM missile 27 miles out, and then an AIM-7 Sparrow 17 miles
out.  We said we didn't know what happened to the MIG.  I think we can say now,
with pretty high confidence, that the MIG landed.  We don't know whether or not
it was damaged, but it was not shot down.

     On the targets that were struck yesterday that are part of the Iraqi air
defense network in southern Iraq, again, the briefers went through that in
considerable detail with you.  The only thing I would add now is that
subsequent analysis of the bomb damage overnight leads the intelligence people
to conclude that the Iraqi air defense system has been functionally
neutralized, that's the phrase they're using.  Functionally neutralized.  They
say what that means is that no one part of the system can communicate with any
other part.  Many parts have been destroyed.  There are a few radars still
left.  But the system doesn't function any more as a radar or as an air defense
network.  There's no one part of it that can communicate with any other part.

     Q:  In the south.
     A:  That's right.

     Q:  It has nothing to do with the rest of the country.
     A:  Right.  Southern Iraq.

     I don't really have anything new to add on the cruise missile attack on
the Zaafaraniyah facility, other than to say that in response to your question,
can we account for every single cruise missile, that's going to be a hard thing
to do.  You get this phenomenon where if a building is to be hit with a cruise
missile and one goes in, knocks a whole in the building, knocks a hole through
the roof, and then another one goes in that same hole, you get the sort of
Robin Hood splitting the arrow problem here.  There's really no way to account
for every single missile.  It's just going to be a very difficult thing to do.

     But let me come at it from another way.  Let me say that we have accounted
for the missiles that didn't hit the building in the Zaafaraniyah facility.
You know about the fact that, to go through this again, there were 45 total
that were launched.  One was launched after one failed, so 44 actually flew to
the target.  Three landed short of the facility, in the orchard; three landed
inside the fence of the compound, but didn't actually hit a building -- they
hit the ground near a building; then, of course, there was the one that was
shot down that landed right in front of the Al Rasheed hotel.  I think it's
safe to say that the subsequent investigation or subsequent looking at the
pictures leads them to confirm what they told you yesterday, which is to say
that the warhead on that cruise missile that hit in front of the hotel did not
explode.  That was a crater caused by the kinetic impact of just all the
weight.  A cruise missile weighs about 2,000 pounds, nearly a ton.  Then, of
course, there's some unspent fuel, and that's what caused the fireball.  But it
doesn't look like the warhead blew up.

     Q:  Can you say for a fact that the cruise missile was shot down and not
misprogrammed or had any other sort of malfunction, and for a fact that the
warhead did not explode?
     A:  What you get here is photo interpreters who look at the imagery, who
are experts on the kind of damage you would expect, and you compare that also
with the craters that you can see where the other cruise missiles hit the
ground inside the compound and the warheads did go off.  Based on their
experience and those comparisons, they conclude that the warhead did not
detonate in the cruise missile that hit in front of the Al Rasheed hotel.  Can
I say for absolute certain that it was shot down?  No, but that's the most
likely conclusion.

     Q:  How much bigger were the craters where the warheads exploded?  Can you
give us any idea...
     A:  I don't know.  But it's obvious from the photos that they're bigger.
They just look different.

     Q:  Is this military coalition holding together?
     A:  Militarily?  Absolutely, yes.  We're still flying flights together in
northern Iraq, in Operation Provide Comfort; we're still flying flights
together in southern Iraq, in Operation Southern Watch.  So yes, absolutely.

     Q:  What about the political stress on the coalition at this point?  It
seems fairly obvious that you're starting to get some creaking and squeaking by
some of the coalition members.  There has been some delay in some of these
strikes, supposedly because one or other coalition member was not interested in
doing it quite as rapidly as the U.S.
     A:  I think squeaks is probably a good term to use.  The coalition engine
or machine, if we want to stay on that analogy, isn't perfect, and from time to
time it needs oiling here and there.  But some of the coalition partners --
you've heard from them yourselves, and they'll speak for themselves -- have
questions they want to discuss.  That's the appropriate thing to do, to talk
about them.

     Q:  Why are the French not taking part in the strikes, but only flying
CAP?
     A:  I don't speak for the French government.

     Q:  Do you sense any difference in the military posture in Iraq?  The
point being, are the Iraqis getting the message or are things essentially the
same in terms of their challenging the no-fly zone?
     A:  I haven't seen any challenge of the no-fly zone in southern Iraq.
Northern Iraq, the behavior is fairly consistent with where it's been.  In
terms of the situation, and the State Department can probably give you more on
this and they'd be the proper place to answer questions, but in terms of the
situation on the border between Iraq and Kuwait, I would say that that has
improved substantially over the last, say, two weeks.  The Iraqis are in the
process of withdrawing their police posts from the demilitarized zone.   Some
Kuwaiti oil well heads that were in the disputed area, that are now on the
Kuwaiti side of the border, are now in Kuwaiti hands.  The Iraqis are no longer
there and the Kuwaitis say there's no damage to those oil well facilities.  We
haven't seen any more of the raids at Umm Qasr.  So the situation on the border
there is considerably improved.

     Q:  Are you seeing any more deployments of mobile SAMs in the south, the
ones that they've been setting up?
     A:  They haven't brought any new in.  They just continue to move them
around.  The fact is, they are fearful, apparently, it would appear, of leaving
them up for fear they'll be struck by coalition aircraft.  So they're on the
move.  As long as they're having to fold them up and move them repeatedly,
they're not very effective.

     Q:  A followup on the Kuwaiti border with Iraq.  You mentioned things had
improved over the last two weeks, yet this morning the United Nations is
calling for the deployment of several thousand blue helmets to patrol that
area.  Is the situation calling for that at this point?
     A:  The UN has to make the decision.  It's still their responsibility.
They're responsible for the administration of the demilitarized zone, so I'll
let them reach that conclusion.

     Q:  That was going to be my question, what's the need?  Isn't this a
little bit like closing the barn door...
     A:  You'll have to ask them.  It may be that as the situation clarifies
and the border is moved -- we're passed now the January 15th date originally
called for in the ceasefire by which the new borders had to be delineated -- it
may well be that they just want to keep an eye on it.  But they're going to
have to be the ones to discuss that.

     Q:  Following up on the allies holding together, you were basically
talking about those flying the planes.  What about going beyond that to the
Arab allies?  For instance, Saudi Arabia was suggesting that yes, it's good to
enforce these UN resolutions, but there are also UN resolutions affecting
Moslems in Bosnia and UN resolutions affecting Israel, as well, and they point
to the deportation of Palestinians that is not only against resolutions but
against the Geneva Convention.

     Are you not hearing any rumblings among Arab allies?  And is this going to
be a problem to hold that coalition together in the future for any incoming...
     A:  That's an excellent question.  It is, by my analysis, 100 percent
military free.  I would urge you to direct that one to the State Department.

     Q:  Logistically speaking, Pete, and along the same lines but more
militarily speaking, what is the point of continuing these limited attacks on
strategic targets when, on the one hand you have a fractionalized or what
appears to be a fractionalized coalition by some members in the Security
Council as well as in the same coalition voicing their dissatisfaction.  And on
the other one, that Saddam continues to challenge some of these resolutions.
     A:  Number one, I wouldn't agree with your escalation of the problems.
First, it was squeaking and now it's fractionalized.  I wouldn't agree with
your characterization of the coalition.  They remain united on the most
important issue here.  There may be disagreements continuing, as there have
been in the past, over precisely how to achieve the objective.  But the
coalition remains united on two issues.  One, and the most important one is,
that Saddam Hussein must comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.
There's absolutely no daylight between any member of the coalition on that
issue.  Secondly, they remain united that Iraq must not interfere with flights
of coalition aircraft in the southern and northern no-fly zones.  On that,
there is no disagreement.

     Why are we continuing these  attacks?  Because there continue to be
threats against coalition aircraft in the south and in the north; and because
Saddam Hussein hasn't fully complied with the resolutions.

     Q:  The question is then how to accomplish those objectives if not
everybody seems to agree with the method of doing it.
     A:  I think there's general agreement among the coalition partners about
what's been done so far.  They will discuss in the UN in a couple of days, how
to proceed from here.

     Q:  General Colin Powell met with President-elect Clinton the other night
at Blair House.  Presumably, the subject was Iraq.  What other subjects came
out?  How long was the meeting?  And can you get a readout on that meeting for
us?
     A:  Number two, I don't know how long it was.  Number one and number
three, what was the subject and can I get a readout?  I can't discuss the
subject, and no, I can't give you a readout.  It falls under the same kind of
heading of advice that one gives to the President.  It's advice that one gives
to the President-elect.  If they want to say something about it, that's up to
them, but I can't give a readout.

     Q:  Is there gun-camera footage from the last strike?
     A:  There is, and I'm told that -- I don't know if it's gotten in the
building yet -- but they're trying to work on it right now.

     Q:  Are we going to see that today?
     A:  If we can, yes sir.

     Q:  Whether it's done by force of arms or voluntarily by the Iraqis, does
the U.S. now basically consider Iraq to be in compliance with that original
demarche in the south?
     A:  Well, they're still moving surface-to-air missile sites around, and
from time to time, putting them into an operational configuration.  But I'm
going to have to get somebody from the State Department to rule on whether
they've now complied with the demarche.  But let me take the question.  Does
the United States consider Iraq to be in compliance with the demarche that was
issued a week or so ago, in the south.

     Q:  Following up on Mark's question, actually.  There's a report out that
Clinton has been advised by Powell and others to heighten the military strikes
and to basically go full bore against Iraq.
     A:  I've seen those reports.  Frankly, I don't know.  But I couldn't
comment on them if I did.

     Q:  About northern Iraq, I'm trying to get a sense as to what has changed
in northern Iraq that prompted the incidents.  Did they...
     A:  What's changed is that they've started aggressively to fire on and
paint with radar, coalition aircraft.  That's something that they...

     Q:  These painting with radar is new, if I might interrupt?
     A:  It's new within the last couple of months.  They started doing it a
little when we first went into the Provide Comfort regime, and then they
stopped.  Now they're doing it again.  Certainly firing with AAA is a new
development.

     Q:  They fired for several days with AAA.  We didn't respond.  We're well
above their reach, apparently.  And then even in the incident you described,
they fired at an F-16, it left...
     A:  But one F-16, it didn't leave...it fired, two F-16's dropped cluster
bombs.

     Q:  There were two incidents involving AAA.
     A:  Two involving AAA today, yes.  And there were similar incidents the
night before and the night before that.

     Q:  I'm just wondering what we can infer from here in terms of our
response.  Sometimes we drop the cluster bombs, sometimes we don't.  Why the
difference?
     A:  It depends on where the plane is in relationship to the attack, how
much fuel it has left.  Those are sort of tactical considerations.  I wouldn't
draw any conclusions from them.

     Q:  Back during the time of Provide Comfort when they turned on their
radar, which apparently illuminated our planes, going back two months, did we
complain to them at that time?
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  And they turned it off in response?
     A:  Yes.  Remember, that unlike the situation in southern Iraq, in
northern Iraq, we have regular military-to-military contacts in the northern
no-fly zone, in the security zone.  These have been going on since Provide
Comfort began.  If we have any problems with Iraq's performance in terms of
complying with the Provide Comfort regime, we raise those issues with them
then, and we also have the ability to raise them through diplomatic means as
well.

     Q:  Just to clarify on what you just said.  My understanding, and correct
me if this is wrong, is that in April there was an episode where they turned
their radars on in the north, there was a demarche, they stopped doing that.
That challenge, or that type of activity, was not renewed until after...
     A:  I think September we had an engagement with an Iraqi aircraft in the
northern no-fly zone.

     Q:  But the ground radar, moving SAM batteries into the north and making
them operational, that has not occurred since April, until after the episode in
the south.  So it really is a new challenge.
     A:  Let me go back and check that, because we were looking at the
encounters between aircraft and also coalition provocations in the north.  I'm
not sure that April was the last one.  So let me hold that one in judgment, but
go ahead.

     Q:  Another point, maybe you can just expand on it.  Yesterday, we were
left with the impression by the briefers, I think they said that 37 of the
cruise missiles hit the target.  Everything, other than the ones that hit the
orchard or near the hotel hit the target.  Today, you're basically saying you
don't know how many hit the target.  You just know how many didn't hit the
target, and you're still looking.  Are you uncertain about how many hit the
target?
     A:  Let me put it this way.  Our assumption is that 37 hit the targets,
but if you ask me now to go back and account for every single cruise missile, I
don't think that can ever be done.  I suppose if we had a team of experts on
the site recovering parts of missiles, they might be able to finally account
for them.  But using the means that we have now...of pictures, basically, when
you're looking at holes in the top of buildings.  Or, for example, if you have
four missiles, arguably four missiles on a single building and there's nothing
left of the building, there's no way to know, there's no gun-camera tape
involved with a cruise missile, unlike, say, with a bombing from a plane.  So
to really go back and account for every single missile is going to be
impossible.  

     So I tried to come at it from the other direction, to say well, those that
didn't, obviously didn't hit buildings.  So I've tried to come at it from two
directions, but I don't think we'll ever know for certain.

     Q:  But you're allowing for the possibility that there may be others that
were shot down or wandered off course...
     A:  Or that never made it and landed out in the desert somewhere.

     Q:  ...detected, and therefore...
     A:  It certainly can't be ruled out.  But I think one other thing needs to
be said, to come back to the mission itself.  The mission, from any
perspective, in terms of the damage that was done on the target, was fully
successful.  The mission planners had an amount of damage that they wanted to
inflict on that facility, and the cruise missiles did just that.

     Q:  A summary type question that would follow up on that, since the
strikes began on Wednesday, summarize without getting into the details,
overall, what has been the damage to Iraq's military forces in the strikes
since Wednesday?
     A:  Since the coalition attacks began, in northern Iraq, we are now in a
posture where we're hitting back at their air defense and anti-aircraft
artillery sites that are shooting at coalition aircraft.  In southern Iraq, we
have functionally disabled, functionally neutralized their air defense system,
and we have their surface-to-air missiles on the run.  In the attack on
Baghdad, we have destroyed key parts of the facilities that the Iraqis use to
develop nuclear weapons.

     Q:  Is the Pentagon reluctant to use some military force now in the waning
hours of the Bush Administration because of that shortness, and also because of
the coalition squeaking?
     A:  I would say there's been absolutely no change in the Administration's
posture on its willingness to continue to be willing to use force to force
Saddam Hussein to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions.  So there's
been no change in our position.  And, of course, Governor Clinton's folks have
said that they fully support the Administration's approach.

     Q:  Aside from the aircraft that are on the Kennedy in the eastern Med,
have there been any other additional U.S. aircraft sent to the region in the
last week or so?
     A:  You say the Kennedy aircraft are in support of that operation.  I'm
not saying that.  I'm not saying anything at all about what they're for.  But
the answer is no.  No new aircraft have been sent to the region.

     In answer to the question before about why doesn't every single aircraft
bomb if they're shot at, somebody points out a good point to me, that not every
single F-16 or every aircraft carries bombs.  Some aircraft, for example, are
reconnaissance.  The first F-16 fired on last night, for example was on a
reconnaissance mission.  So therefore, it didn't carry the capability of
attacking the AAA site with bombs.

     Q:  Since these attacks have begun, have Saudi aircraft been used in any
way in command and control... support?
     A:  You'll have to ask the Saudi government what their aircraft have done.

     Q:  We're nearing within hours of inauguration day, and on Somalia, the
President had said that troops would begin moving by that time.  A small unit
is being designated to do that.  Secretary Eagleberger, however, has said, if
I'm correct, that a good number of the forces will remain mid-year.  Can you
give us some outlook to the future about the types of troops that might be
remaining and why, in Somalia?
     A:  I don't think anybody knows the answer to that, frankly.  Not that
everything that I haven't said up to this point hasn't been frankly, as well.

     I think that the most difficult problem in turning over the operation in
Somalia to our coalition partners and to those people who have joined in, is
that it is in the interest of the operation, in the interest of Somalia,
certainly, and those nations taking part, that there be a smooth, solid
transition to the force that's going to be under UN command and control.  That
arrangement is still being worked out.

     I think the United States is committed to staying until it is satisfied
that the operation can be prudently turned over to the United Nations.  I don't
know when that's going to be.  Military and State Department people are in
discussion with the United Nations now about how to work that out.  We're
making some progress, but I don't have a date for you on it.

     Since you raised the question, let me just run through quickly where we
stand on Somalia.  About 24,700 U.S. forces are there, involved in one way or
the other in Operation Restore Hope.  That's about 20,700 that are ashore, and
about 3,200 afloat, and there are about 800 people supporting Operation Provide
Relief, which is the airlift of food into Somalia, working out of Kenya.

     Twenty nations besides the United States have forces on the ground in
Somalia as part of the coalition.  That's about 11,800 personnel from other
nations.  Some countries have significant forces, others have liaison teams,
waiting for the main body of their forces.  We have a full rundown on the
nations for you down at the Directorate for Defense Information, who's got what
from where.

     The Marines that are redeploying are Marines from the 3rd Battalion, 9th
Marine Regiment.  They've begun their redeployment.  Two flights scheduled to
depart Mogadishu today, two scheduled to depart tomorrow.  The first two will
arrive not at the home base at Camp Pendleton, but instead, at March Air Force
Base, California.  They will arrive at noon local California time tomorrow.
The final two flights are scheduled to arrive at March Air Force Base at 1:00
p.m. Thursday.  That's about 850 Marines in all, and they were relieved in
place at Baidoa by Australian forces.

     Talking a little bit about Camp Pendleton.  The reason they can't land at
Pendleton, and instead have to go to March Air Force Base, is because of the
problems that Camp Pendleton is having with flooding.  The Marine Corps base at
Camp Pendleton is the only installation to report significant damage as a
result of the heavy rains of the past several days.  Camp Pendleton is about 30
miles north of San Diego, and is the home base of the 1st Marine Expeditionary
Force, of which the unit I just said is a part.

     Camp Pendleton has been closed since yesterday because of the rain, and
only essential personnel and base residents are allowed in.  Efforts to assess
the damage and restore service throughout the base continue.  So far the damage
reported includes flooding of Marine Corps Air Station at Camp Pendleton, this
is water from the Santa Marguerita River which runs through the base.  Waters
have partially submerged anchored helicopters, although it appears that water
did not enter any of the cockpits.  Many bridges have been washed out, and the
water submerged the main road through the base.  Mud slides have forced the
evacuation of nearly 200 residents from the San Onefre housing area.  They've
been relocated to a nearby school.

     The Ranch House Chapel, which is an historic building built in 1810 and
listed in the National Register of Historic Sites, suffered structural damage
from flood waters.

     The water mains have broken, resulting in a loss of water and possible
contamination in many base locations, including housing areas.  Residents are
being urged to drink bottled water, and boil any tap water for at least five
minutes.  Water trucks will be bringing drinkable water.

     Telephone and electrical service has been disrupted throughout the base
due to downed power lines.  Electricity has been fully restored, but no areas
of the base have full telephone service.

     No fatalities reported.  Several minor injuries.  One Marine apparently
was swept into a storm drain and was rescued.

          Q:  Could you read that again?  (Laughter)
     A:  I have to be out of here by noon tomorrow.  (Laughter)

     Q:  Were any of those Marines asked to stay in Somalia?
     A:  Say again?

     Q:  Were any of those Camp Pendleton Marines asked to stay in Somalia?
(Laughter)
     A:  They've been ordered to redeploy.

     Q:  Another wrap-up question on Haiti.  Any kind of preparations being
made at Guantanamo, or...
     A:  Not at Guantanamo.  The status of Guantanamo hasn't changed.  The
Department of Defense has no instructions from the President to do anything
different at Guantanamo.  However, a task force consisting of five Navy ships
has been deployed to assist the Coast Guard -- the USS Comte De Grasse, DD-974,
a destroyer, it's the flag ship of the group and homeported at Norfolk; then
there is the USS Tortuga, LSD-46, it's a dock landing ship, homeported at Naval
Amphibious Base, Little Creek, Virginia; then there's the USS Whidbey Island,
LSD-41, it's a dock landing ship, homeported at Naval Amphibious Base, Little
Creek, Virginia; the USS John L. Hall, FFG-32, a guided missile frigate,
homeported at Mayport, Florida; and the USS Doyle, FFG-39, a guided missile
frigate, homeported at Mayport.

     This task group will support the Coast Guard in conducting interdiction
operations and search and rescue at sea.  The ships and crews are prepared to
provide temporary emergency assistance at sea including medical care, shelter,
sanitary facilities, food, and other support as required by the Coast Guard.

     One interesting note, this Navy task force, upon arrival in the area, will
be under the tactical command of the Coast Guard operational commander, who is
Rear Admiral William Leahy, Commander of the 7th Coast Guard District.  But no
change at Guantanamo Bay.

     Q:  A follow up to that, what is the military's latest assessment of the
situation that will confront Clinton in terms of estimations on how many boats
are being prepared, or any latest word on intelligence of people still
preparing to get on boats?
     A:  I don't have anything new to say about that.  I haven't seen anything
new on that in the last couple of days.

     Q:  You mentioned we might get the gun-camera video today.  Can we also
get the heads up display from the other shoot-down that took place?
     A:  The Air Force is working on that.  I'm not sure, this is which
shoot-down?

     Q:  The second one.  
     A:  You mean the encounter with the MIG?

     Q:  Yes.
     A:  Oh, the 29.  My impression was that the videotape on that aircraft had
already run out at the time the encounter took place.  So that isn't on tape.  

     Q:  They apparently have audio.
     A:  The Air Force says they have some audio, but they're working to try to
declassify it.  It's going to be lots of blank places or beeps or something.
They're still working on it.  I'm certain if they can release it to you, they
will.

     Q:  One thing I missed about the folks that are being asked to stay over,
in addition to the 44 political appointees, you said there are two other
classes. How many people does that encompass?
     A:  I don't know.  DDI has the numbers.  About 260.  (FYI:  There are 241
political appointed positions within DoD -- 45 President-Appointed-Senate
confirmed positions;  70 Senior Executive Service Positions; and 126 Schedule
"C" slots (GS-5 -- GM-15). 

     Q:  Can you tell us anything about this C-17 IG report?
     A:  No, I can't, because we just got the report.   The Air Force has a
statement from the Secretary which I'll read to you.  But we've just gotten
this Inspector General's report.  I think they're working to release it.  It's
not classified, as such.  It contains no material formally classified, but it
has information determined by the Inspector General to be proprietary to the
companies involved, so they're going through it and trying to figure out a way
to release it.

     It goes to the Air Force, and the Air Force will look at the report.  And
let me read to you a statement from the Air Force.  "Secretary of the Air
Force, Donald D. Rice, received today," and I assume that means today, Tuesday,
"the report of the DoD IG inquiry concerning the C-17 program.  The Air Force
was not given an opportunity to review or comment no the report before its
release.  'This inquiry readdresses matters with which we've taken issue
before, but in this case, recommend disciplinary action against several
individuals in addition to the more typical management recommendations,'"  Dr.
Rice said.  

     Requoting, "While we are not prepared at this time to comment on the
report's validity, I," that means Secretary Rice, "I will direct an independent
review to provide a factual basis for secretarial action.  I intend to request
the full support of and access to all records of the DoD Inspector General," he
added.

     Q:  How can he ask for a report when he's leaving office?
     A:  I'm sure he's asking that the Air Force get it so that whoever his
successor is can look into it.

     Q:  So we can't have even a summary of what this IG report says?
     A:  First of all, my office doesn't determine the releasability of DoD IG
reports.  That's done by the Inspector General.  What he's told us is he's not
ready to give anything out yet until he goes through and takes the proprietary
stuff out.

     Q:  Since your face and voice became known in the Persian Gulf War, and
now this is your last briefing, I wondered if you would be leaving wishing your
successor good luck, and any thoughts you might have.
     A:  Let me make one other announcement before I do that.

     Available for you today in the Directorate for Defense Information is this
document called "Defense Strategy for the 1990's," the regional defense
strategy.  This is, in adging bullets, and I'm


-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 



Newsgroups: sci.military