From: bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil (CMSgt Mike Bergman)
Newsgroups: soc.veterans
Subject: DoD News 01/07/93
Date: 8 Jan 1993 13:06:47 -0600
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

* NAVY TO COMMISSION NUCLEAR-POWERED ATTACK SUBMARINE SPRINGFIELD
* GENERAL OFFICER ANNOUNCEMENTS
* DoD News Briefing
* CONTRACTS

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

          NAVY TO COMMISSION NUCLEAR-POWERED ATTACK SUBMARINE SPRINGFIELD
                                     (SSN-761)

          The Department of the Navy will commission the nuclear-powered
      attack submarine USS Springfield (SSN-761) at 11:15 am. Saturday,
      January 9, 1993, at the Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton,
      Connecticut.

          The Honorable Lynn Martin, U.S. Secretary of Labor, is the ship's
      sponsor and will be the ceremony's principal speaker.

          Springfield (SSN-761) honors the capital city of the state of 
      Illinois.  It also honors the city in Massachusetts which was the 
      site of the Springfield Arsenal, where small arms were manufactured
      for the services from the 1790s through the Korean War.  Three 
      previous U.S. Navy ships have borne this name:  a stern wheel gunboat
      (1863-1865), a steamer (1918-1919), and a light cruiser (CL 66)
      (1944-1978).  The last-named ship earned two battle stars in World
      War II and, following her conversion to a guided missile cruiser 
      (CLG-7), served as Sixth Fleet flagship, earning a Meritorious Unit
      Commendation in 1970.

          Springfield is the fiftieth of sixty-two Los Angeles class
      nuclear-powered submarines authorized to be built and is one of an
      improved version of the Los Angeles calss.  The improved submarines
      have a hardened sail for surfacing during Arctic missions as well as
      retractable bow planes.  Springfield's mission will be to track and
      destroy enemy ships, primarily submarines, in-order to prohibit-the
      employment of such forces against U.S. or allied ships.  In addition,
      she is equipped with the Tomahawk cruise missile system, giving her a
      significant land attack/strike capability.  Springfield is 360 feet
      in length, has a beam of 33 feet and displaces approximately 6,900
      tons submerged.

           Springfield will have a crew of 16 officers and 130 enlisted
      personnel.  Commander R. Kent Ford, U.S. Navy, will be the ship's
      commanding officer.

                                       -END-



IMMEDIATE RELEASE		JANUARY 7, 1992			703 697-5131

                                GENERAL OFFICER ANNOUNCEMENTS

     Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney announced today that the President has
nominated Lieutenant General Charles J. Searock, Jr., United States Air Force,
for advancement on the retired list in the grade of lieutenant general.
Lieutenant General Searock is currently serving as Vice Commander, Air Force
Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

     Lieutenant General Searock was born July 17, 1936, in Easton, Pennsylva-
nia.

      Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney announced today that the President has
nominated Major General Albert J. Edmonds, United States Air Force, for
appointment to the grade of lieutenant general with assignment as Director for
Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems, J-6, Joint Staff,
Pentagon, Washington DC.  Major General Edmonds is currently assigned as Deputy
Director, Defense-Wide Command, Control, and Communications Systems, J-6, Joint
Staff, Pentagon, Washington DC.

    Major General Edmonds was born January 17, 1942, in Comumbus, Georgia.

     Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney announced today that the President has
nominated Major General Carl G. O'Berry, United States Air Force, for appoint-
ment to the grade of lieutenant general.  Major General O'Berry is assigned as
Deputy Chief of Staff, Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (C4),
Headquarters United States Air Force, Washington, DC 20330-5190.

      Major General O'Berry was born April 11, 1936, in Lansing, Michigan.


                                    -END-



DoD News Briefing
Thursday, January 7, 1993 - Noon
Mr. Bob Hall, DASD (Public Affairs)

     Mr. Hall:  Good afternoon.

     Joining us today are four students from Kansas State University School of
Journalism and Mass Communications, who have been touring media organizations
and public relations firms in the Washington area as part of their studies,
possibly to get jobs, as well some day.  Welcome.  They're visiting the
Pentagon today as guests of the Department of the Army.

     General Colin L. Powell, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will
address the Brigade of Midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy on Monday,
January 11, 1993.  The event, which is part of the Forrestal lecture series,
commences at 6:00 p.m. and will be held at Alumni Hall at the Naval Academy,
Annapolis, Maryland.  Media desiring to cover the event should contact Joan
Asboth or Carolyn Piper at the Chairman's Public Affairs Office here in the
building, (703) 697-4272, or Maria Thorn, at the Naval Academy's Public Affairs
Office, (410) 267-2291,

     I have some general officer announcements for you.  Secretary of Defense
Dick Cheney announced today that the President has nominated Lieutenant General
Charles J. Searock, Jr., United States Air Force, for advancement on the
retired list in the grade of lieutenant general.  Lieutenant General Searock is
currently serving as Vice Commander, Air Force Materiel Command, at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio.

     Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney announced today that the President has
nominated Major General Albert J. Edmonds, United States Air Force, for
appointment to the grade of lieutenant general, with assignment as Director for
Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems, also known as the J-6,
at the Joint Staff in the Pentagon.  Major General Edmonds is currently
assigned as Deputy Director of Defense-Wide Command, Control, and Communication
Systems, with the Joint Staff.

     Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney announced today that the President has
nominated Major General Carl G. O'Berry, United States Air Force, for
appointment to the grade of lieutenant general.  Major General O'Berry is
assigned as Deputy Chief of Staff, Command, Control, Communications, and
Computers, C4, at the Headquarters, United States Air Force, Washington, D.C.

     Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney announced today that the President has
nominated Major General Eugene E. Habiger, United States Air Force, for
appointment to the grade of lieutenant general with assignment as Vice
Commander, Air Training Command.  Major General Habiger is currently serving as
Vice Commander, Air Training Command, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas.

     Major General Habiger was born June 11, 1939, in Oakland, California.

     I've got a Blue Top for you today.  The Department of the Navy will
commission the nuclear-powered attack submarine USS Springfield, at 11:15 a.m.
Saturday, January 9th, at Naval Submarine Base New London, in Groton,
Connecticut.  The Honorable Lynn Martin, who is the U.S. Secretary of Labor, is
the ship's sponsor and will be the ceremony's principal speaker.

     The Springfield is the 50th of 62 Los Angeles class nuclear-powered
submarines that are authorized to be built.  It's an improved version of the
Los Angeles class.  The ship will have a crew of 16 officers and 130 enlisted
personnel.  Commander R. Kent Ford will be the ship's commanding officer.  If
you're interested in coverage, contact CHINFO at 697-5342.

     Today, we're releasing 274 photographs associated with the POW/MIA issue.
These photographs come from the 4,875 photos that we initially obtained from
the Vietnamese archives.  If you remember, once we sorted out the duplicates,
there were only 1750 different photographs.  Analysis has been completed on
approximately 600 of those photos, and the ones released today include pictures
of press clippings, aircraft wreckage, and crash sites.  Many of these
photographs are very similar in nature and characteristics.  We've printed up,
in multiple copies, what we think is a representative sample for you.  If you'd
like to see this sample or see the entire set, you can contact Captain
Strednansky in DDI, the Directorate for Defense Information.  These are the
kind of photos that we've had printed up in sets for you.  Those are available.
If there's interest to look at the others, you need to contact Captain
Strednansky.

     Q:  Is there an explanation of what they are with each photo?
     A:  No.  Well, they're basically, in some cases its self-explanatory.  In
some cases, we just have no particular explanation.  I think most of them you
can pretty much tell what they are.  They're a photograph of a news clipping, a
news story, or pieces of equipment.

     Q:  Well, you say they've been analyzed, so your folks would have some
sense of what year they're from or...
     A:  That's something we can follow up on for you, if you have questions
about each particular one.  We'll try to get what we can on them.  I think you
can just take a look at them, first, and then see what you're interested in.
Obviously, there are 600 photographs.  I'm not sure we're in a position to
provide multiple copies of all of them, or to give an analysis of each and
every one.

     Q:  None of these are people.  They're all...
     A:  Let me go on here, Charlie, and it kind of explains.  

     We also have analysis that's complete on 250 more pictures of military ID
cards and identified former POW's who have either returned home alive or are
known to have died in captivity and whose remains have been returned.  As a
matter of courtesy and propriety, we are notifying the families involved prior
to releasing those additional photographs.

     Photos of human remains and other photographs which depict personal
letters or personal effects which can be attributed to a specific individual
will not be released to protect the privacy of the individual involved or their
family.  That's something that's up to the family, to make that kind of
determination.

     We have about 1,150 photographs still under analysis.  If they are
eventually correlated to a person who's missing in action, the next of kin will
be notified by DoD officials.  As we complete the analysis on the other
photographs that don't involve people, we'll have additional crash site or
wreckage photographs or that sort of thing available to you at later dates.
But we wanted to release these 274 today.

     Q:  After analyzing all the photographs, did you learn anything new that
you didn't know before?
     A:  In this first set of information, if you remember, out of those
photographs, we estimated we had 272 different people identified.  Sorry, let
me go back up again.  We had 272 live POW/MIA photos.  Within that category, we
had 180 different people identified, that we were able to identify.  178 of
those were identified as returnees, and two were identified as people whose
remains were returned, so all those 180 were put aside.

     We had 73 photos of bodies, from which we identified 39 different bodies.
Some of these were duplicates.  Some we could tell were a picture of the same
site.  We've identified, tentatively, 33 of those.  Eight were listed as
missing, five were listed as killed in action, body not recovered, and 20 are
remains that we've had returned.  That makes 33.  So we have six bodies still
unidentified.  We currently believe that two are not going to be identifiable
from the photograph alone.  We have four still under analysis.  So there has
been information learned from these.

     I would also note that all of these photographs were in the first batch of
material we got.  Since then, we have had the team out there in Vietnam since
the end of October.  We've received more material.  Let me just run down some
of that material:  1,845 photographs; 322 envelopes; 973 accession records; two
museum accession reports; and I believe this is a total of 2,541 artifacts. 

     Captain Strednansky would be happy to go over this in more detail with you
if you want to talk to her.  

     Q:  Do you have a number on the captain?
     A:  It's 697-5131.

     Q:  Area code 703?
     A:  And she's available down the hall after the briefing.

     Q:  If I've got this right, in all these numbers, there are only eight who
are missing in action who you didn't know whether they were dead or alive that
know from this study, you know were killed and can be taken off the missing in
action books.  Is that basically right?
     A:  Eight missing, yes.  Is that right?
     Capt. Strednandky: Yes, they're still missing.

     Q:  Oh, these were live photos.
     Capt. Strednansky: Why don't you come see me afterwards, and I'll...
     Mr. Hall:  No.  There are two categories of photos.  Photos of people that
are obviously alive in the picture.  We've identified all of those.  There were
180 people identified -- 178 were returnees who came back after the war; the
other two are people whose remains have been returned.  So those are all
accounted for.

     The 39, were pictures of people who were not alive.

     As you know, again, we're going through another cycle of the base closure
process.  The President submitted eight nominations yesterday for the next Base
Closure Commission.  These are: James Courter, Peter Bowman, Beverly Byron,
Rebecca Cox, Hansford Johnson, Arthur Levitt, Harry McPherson, and Robert
Stuart.  Three of these -- Courter, Stuart and Levitt -- all served on the 1991
Commission, and they'll fill the same role again this year, except that Mr.
Courter will be the chairman of the commission.

     Because the President has until January 25th to provide the Senate with
the nominees for this commission, and it's one reason why we submitted it now,
but President-elect Clinton will have the option in those five days after he
becomes President, to withdraw any nomination if he wishes to, and submit new
ones.  We submitted names because of the time pressure involved.  But because
of the timing, he does have the option to withdraw some names and submit new
ones if he wishes to.

     Q:  Can he withdraw Courter's name as chairman?
     A:  I believe he can withdraw any of the names, but we'll double check
that.  Why don't we take that question.  Is there anything special about the
chairman? (FYI:  President-Elect Clinton may withdraw any of the nominations
and renominate new members, including a new member to be Chairman, if he so
chooses once he takes office.

     That's it.  I'd be happy to take questions.

     Q:  He's a former Republican congressman.
     A:  Any other questions about the Base Closure Commission?

     Q:  Can we get to Iraq?
     A:  Sure.

     Q:  Bob, there are reports that you all have detected "movement," some
movement in the missiles.  Can you analyze, or tell us what the movement is,
and whether or not there's any indication they might be breaking down these
sites and moving them back north again?
     A:  I'm not going to be in a position to get into intelligence questions,
to do an analysis on the location of the SAMs for you.  It's something,
obviously, that we're monitoring very closely.  As I think we talked about the
other day, there were a handful of missile sites that were deployed in an
operational manner, in what we have to consider a potentially hostile
deployment pattern.  We're monitoring that situation, but I'm not going to be
able to give you an intelligence readout at any particular time.

     Q:  There has been, according to senior officials around here, some
movement detected in these missiles.  I'm simply asking has there been any
movement detected in the missiles?
     A:  I am just not prepared to give you a blow-by-blow account that gets
into intelligence questions about movement.  You're quoting senior officials,
you'll have to go back to those senior officials.

     Q:  You all have issued an ultimatum to Iraq to remove these missiles, and
everybody's waiting to see whether or not they remove them.
     A:  We hope that the Iraqis will response to the demarche that was given
them at the UN last night, and, I guess, also to the Iraqi representative at
their liaison office here in town.  We hope they will respond.  But I'm not
going to speculate.

     Q:  Is there any indication whether they're responding?
     A:  I am just not going to get into...to give you an intelligence
assessment of where the missiles are at any particular time.

     Q:  Just to clarify.  You didn't seem alarmed at all on Tuesday that these
missiles were in place.  You didn't sound alarmed, that the Pentagon was
alarmed by this.  Were missiles...have missiles, in fact, been moved south of
the 32nd parallel recently?  You said that missiles have been there all along.
Have the missiles been moved down there?  And why are the missiles more
threatening now than they were say two weeks ago or two months ago?
     A:  Let me go back to what I said on Tuesday.  I made several points.
That Iraq has SAM missiles, surface-to-air missiles.  They've always had them.
There are sites all over the country.  Sometimes the sites are occupied,
sometimes they're not.  There are unoccupied sites.  They have had
surface-to-air missiles down south of the 32nd parallel at various locations.
A missile, by its very existence, is not necessarily something that is
militarily threatening.

     The issue is, if you put it into a pattern of behavior that goes back to
how they have dealt with the enforcement of the UN resolutions, how they've
dealt with the inspection  teams that have come in to inspect their destruction
of weapons, how they have dealt with their own people down in the south, how
they have dealt with the Kurds in the north, how they have dealt with the
efforts to provide humanitarian assistance to the Kurds in the north, how they
have dealt with the UN, how they've dealt with the convoys in the north, and
how they have dealt with, recently, with the no-fly zone in the south.  If you
put together the deployment of these missiles into new locations, and they're
in a potentially hostile deployment pattern that could affect our enforcement
of the no-fly zone, this is, obviously, something that is a new development.

     Q:  Have additional missiles been moved south recently?  You said, I
believe, on Tuesday, there's been movement within the zone.
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  Additional missiles have been moved...
     A:  Missiles were moved to new locations in a potentially hostile
deployment pattern near the 32nd parallel, south of it, if you will.  And
frankly, in an area where they have been violating the zone.  That's the
pattern that you look at.

     Q:  We understand the ultimatum, the threat implied is vague.  When the
ultimatum expires, I understand it's 5:30 our time tomorrow evening, if the
missiles are not removed, will we then one, take out the missiles; two, will we
escalate and take out airfields?  What can you tell us about our intentions
specifically?
     A:  As you all know, because of the statements at the UN, we have given a
warning to the Iraqis.   From this podium, I'm not going to go into diplomatic
representations that we make, the demarches that we make.  That's not my job.
That's the State Department's business.  Nor will I speculate, for obvious
reasons, on potential options that are available to us if we don't receive the
response that we want from the Iraqis.  That would not be good sense.  It's not
something that you expect me to do, I believe.

     Q:  Can you tell us, or have you told us in the past, how many Iraqi
aircraft are there capable of flying, and/or hostile activity, and what kinds?
     A:  How many Iraqi aircraft, how many aircraft does Iraq have in its
inventory in the country?

     Q:  Yes.
     A:  We've got that from after the war.  We can get that for you.

     Q:  Have any of the radars, the acquisition or search radars associated
with the SA-2 or SA-3 missiles been activated?
     A:  I'm not sure that it's a good idea for me to get very specific on this
kind of thing.

     Q:  Well, generally, tell us, have any been activated?
     A:  I would say I'm not in a position to confirm anything of the nature I
think you're interested in -- illumination or painting, anything of that
nature.

     Q:  Do you have any information on an Iraqi incursion into Kuwait or a
problem at a border post in Kuwait in the last day or two?
     A:  I've seen the reports.  I don't have a lot of new information, but
I've seen the reports about a fire-fight at a police station right on the
border.  But I can't give you a whole lot of detail about it.

     Q:  By reports, you've seen official reports as opposed to press reports?
     A:  I believe these basically come from UN people.

     Q:  Bob, when you were talking about the missiles being moved south of the
32nd parallel, were you talking about before the ultimatum was issued
yesterday, or after?
     A:  What I'm talking about is the same thing I'm talking about on Tuesday.
If you go back to December 27th, they had the first incursion into the no-fly
zone by aircraft and they started this pattern of teasing the zone.  Sometime
around the 1st of the year, I don't have the exact date, we saw the development
of what I'd have to call it a deployment pattern that's potentially
hostile...right in that general area, along the no-fly zone.

     Q:  Is there any indication that Iraq has, for want of a better word, just
blinked on this one; just moved something ten yards, 50 yards, 100 yards, a
mile, whatever, shifting the shells, so to speak, on these missiles?
     A:  I can't characterize their reactions or their responses.  Right now
we're monitoring what they're doing.  We hope they will respond to the demarche
by the four permanent members of the Security Council.  But I'm not going to
speculate on what the...

     Q:  Is bad weather in the Gulf hampering U.S. efforts to monitor what's
going on with those missiles?
     A:  There is bad weather out there.  We are conducting our operations as
usual, though, and I'm not sure there's any affect on our operation.

     Q:  In terms of determining whether or not Saddam Hussein is complying in
any way with...
     A:  I wouldn't speculate on...  That gets into intelligence questions that
I can't talk about.

     Q:  You have defined that this is a potentially hostile deployment.  I'm
not quite sure whether I heard you correctly when you said you wouldn't
comment.  Do you mean you will not be able to comment if you are able, at some
point, to ascertain that the missiles are no longer potentially hostile, or are
you leaving that to the Iraqis?
     A:  At some point, I'm sure we will be in a position to tell you the
resolution of this issue.  But until that point is reached, I'm not going to
give you, a sort of, "here's where it stands" this minute or this hour.  I just
can't do that.

     Q:  Can you give us a sense of how many flights, if there have been any,
by allied aircraft over the zones?  What the patrolling pace is?
     A:  Since the briefing on Tuesday, we had 45 U.S. sorties on Tuesday and
57 on Wednesday.  That brings the total sorties to date, as of January 6th, to
be 9,118 since the beginning of the operation.

     Q:  Since your last briefing, of course, the UN took the action, and now
this morning, Tariq Aziz in Iraq, says that Iraq has the right to do this.
Could you make the U.S.' position any clearer to Iraq, in case they have any
question about the resolve?  What warnings would the U.S. have to Iraq?
     A:  I'm not sure I completely understand the question.  Do we think
there's a doubt that Iraq understands our position?  I don't believe there's a
doubt that they understand our position.  Certainly we've made every effort to
make it perfectly clear.  The UN resolutions are very clear.  Our statements
and our notification to Iraq back on August 26th was very clear when we put the
no-fly zone in the south into effect.  We made it very clear that we would
tolerate no interference with our enforcement of the no-fly zone which, as you
know, related to our ability to monitor their activities against the Shia in
southern Iraq.  So I don't believe there should be any question in their minds
about what we expect in terms of behavior.

     Q:  Just to follow that up, because on Tuesday you said, in direct
response to a question, "was moving missiles a violation of the no-fly zone?"
You said, "no."  The no-fly zone applies to aircraft.  Can you clear that up?
     A:  I'm saying moving a missile, per se, the fact that a missile exists,
or that a missile is moved or whatever, does not necessarily, in itself,
violate anything.  However, we've made it very clear that we will not tolerate
any interference with our ability to enforce the no-fly zone.  What you have is
a pattern of behavior, and in this case, particularly a pattern of deployment
of assets that cause a potential for interference with our ability to enforce
the no-fly zone.  We are not going to put our pilots at risk.  We've made that
very clear to the Iraqis.

     Q:  A couple of days ago, you said this building viewed this missile
deployment with interest.  Now you're saying it's potentially hostile.  Do you
still view this with interest, or are you finally concerned about it?
     A:  I believe we view it with interest, and we view it as
potentially...fitted into a pattern of behavior... it becomes a potentially
hostile deployment.

     Q:  Now that we've obviously, we being the United States, made it very
clear that we are considering some kind of action, you produced Admiral Cramer
during the earlier days of Somalia.  Is it possible to produce him or one of
his staff to give us an intel briefing on where the missiles sites are, how
many, and just more detailed information about what's going on in the no-fly
zone?
     A:  We'll look at it at the appropriate time, but I don't think that time
is now.

     Q:  Is your reluctance to say much this morning due to the fact that maybe
they have moved the missiles, but they might move them back, and you feel like
you need to watch this over a longer period of time to make any real judgment?
Is that what's going on?
     A:  I think we have a situation where the U.S., French, British, Russians,
have made a demarche, made a diplomatic representation to the Iraqis, and we
need to let that process go forward.  I don't think it's useful for us to be
trying to give blow-by-blow accounts during that process while that's going
forward.

     Q:  Wouldn't that reduce some of the tension if, in fact, they have moved
their missiles back?  There's a lot of tension about whether we're going to get
involved in further fighting, etcetera.
     A:  We've made it very clear what we expect from them.  I don't think
there's any confusion in our statements to them about what we expect from them.
Beyond that, I don't think I can characterize the situation for you.  I,
personally, don't feel particularly tense.

     Q:  Are U.S. forces on any higher state of alert than they were, say,
several weeks ago?
     A:  I think we are conducting active operations to enforce the no-fly
zone.  We don't get into alert status, but I wouldn't characterize it as any
higher state of alert, no.

     Q:  If the deadline is 5:30 tomorrow night, do you plan any briefings
after that time, or a Saturday briefing?
     A:  First, in terms of the content of the demarche, that is something you
need to take over to the State Department and address with them, in terms of
the timing of when it was delivered, what it said, whatever, I'm not sure what
they'll tell you, but it's not something I'm going to discuss from here.

     In terms of your question, in terms of do we have any future briefings
planned?  I have no current plans for briefings.

     Q:  Is that deadline, the 5:30 that he discussed...
     A:  I'm not going to discuss the content of the demarche.

     Q:  Actually, you said it as a throw-away line, but it's sort of worth
following.  You say you're not particularly tense.
     A:  The State Department tells me it was delivered at 5:15, just for the
record.

     Q:  You sort of said it as a throw-away line that you're not particularly
tense.  Is the U.S. not assuming, but the U.S. might hope that Iraq might
follow previous patterns of realizing the resolve and then back down at the
last minute?
     A:  We certainly hope that they will respond to the contents of the
demarche that we made to them.  We are certainly ready and capable of doing
what is necessary to enforce the no-fly zone.  We have the assets in the region
capable of doing so.  We can do whatever we're actually asked to do.

     Q:  The attack on the border post, I just want to make clear that you have
reports other than Kuwaiti radio reports?
     A:  I believe we've seen some UN reports, but I'll double-check on that
and see what we can get for you.

     Q:  So the question is, is there independent confirmation?
     A:  My problem is, I'm not sure whether...You could have an original
report, and then the UN reporting that original report.  We need to double
check that for you.

     Q:  Obviously, you're not going to tell us now whether there's any sign of
movement on this.  Could we press you for some kind of briefing, some kind of
announcement as soon as you feel that you can announce?  You said, I believe,
to quote you loosely, that "At some point I'm sure we'd be in a position to
tell you the resolution of the issue."  Can we find out, as soon as you feel
that the issue is resolved...
     A:  I'm sure we'll find some vehicle to...

     Q:  Later today or something like that?
     A:  No, I really don't want to make any promises about the time frame or
anything like that.

     Q:  ...as soon as that.
     A:  I just don't want to make any promises about time frames.

     Q:  You're saying not to expect any kind of announcement on movements
until after the deadline on the demarche?
     A:  I really don't want to get into time frames.

     Q:  This incident in Somalia where the Marines went in and cleaned out
this compound, the reporters there are wondering if this signifies some change
in policy.  Certainly it's more aggressive than the Marines have been in the
past.  Is there a new sort of search-and-destroy policy, or whatever you want
to...
     A:  I think General Johnston described it pretty well this morning on one
of the television shows.  The first phase of the operation was to get into
Mogadishu, to get up to Baidoa.  The next phase, to get out to some of the
major centers.  We're now in the third phase, to increase efforts at
stabilization.  Get out, spread ourselves out further, get a better control of
the situation.  As that goes forward, I think what he said is that we're going
to have instances where we come up against people who don't want to play the
game.  They're going to respond.  So you're going to have these cases where
people are sniping at us.  We went into that area, it's my understanding from
the briefings this morning out there -- because people had been sniping at us.
There were arms caches in the area, but we were also being sniped at, and we
weren't going to tolerate that.  We're just not going to have anybody interfere
with our efforts.

     But you will find, I think more as they go out further, there are going to
be more of these kinds of encounters, and we're going to be more aggressive
about trying to get the heavy weapons under control, as well as get as many of
the other weapons as we can under some kind of control.  That's what part of
stabilization is all about.

     Q:  Being more aggressive, does that equate to a change in mission or...
     A:  No.  We've achieved certain objectives to get the food flowing.  But
we said one of our objectives was that we'll try to get a stable environment so
that, one, the food could go; and two that we could turn it over to UN forces
who will be able to maintain that environment.  That means we need to reach out
and get to other parts of the country that we haven't gotten to, in terms of
north Mogadishu, for example, which is where this took place, or nearby where
it took place.  We need to be more aggressive about it.  There are going to be
responses to that, and we're going to have these kinds of incidents.  We're
basically saying, if that happens, we're going to act very decisively.

     Q:  So there was a time earlier in this operation when if you had this
little enclave that was causing trouble, you would have by-passed it in favor
of getting food to Baidoa or...
     A:  You have to set certain priorities.  You have to evaluate what's
necessary at a particular time.  Our first priority was to try to get the food
flowing, to staunch the starvation problem -- basically, to deal with the
starvation problem.  So that would be the highest priority.  You might well, as
you say, by-pass a particular incident.  I think, as your reporters out there
reported sometimes, we have gone right past roadblocks, gone past, in order to
keep a convoy moving.  You can't stop a convoy when you're trying to take it up
to Baidoa, and stop and deal with every little situation along the way.
Otherwise the convoy won't get there.  It gets very awkward trying to stop a
long line of trucks.  So they did that as a priority first.

     Now we're trying to get into a stabilization regime, and have more of an
impact, and you're going to see more pure patrolling for stabilization
purposes.

     Q:  Are you actively searching and destroying caches, or searching and
confiscating caches?
     A:  As we encounter them, and if they appear to be a threat to us, there
are various ways that people are dealing with the situation.  They're talking
with the warlords -- Ambassador Oakley and the UN people are talking with the
warlords, trying to get them to put their own weapons into cantonments, into
confinement areas as a means of getting them out of the streets and out of
action.  But a lot of the weapons, unfortunately, are in the hands of people
that are not under the control of anybody -- just a very small group of
individuals, and they're basically doing whatever they want.  That's the kind
of people we're going to be encountering a lot of, I think.

     Q:  Before the Marines landed there, a lot of the heavy stuff was moved up
country.  We saw it up as far as Baidoa, Bardera, other places.  This was a
large cache, including tanks and field artillery pieces.  Is that to say that
some of this stuff has filtered back into Mogadishu, or was it just hidden from
sight originally?
     A:  I really couldn't tell you.  I just don't know the answer to the
question.  I think we're trying to get a better intelligence grip on the issue,
but I don't know the answer to the question.

     Q:  There's a report quoting an administration official saying that March
1st is the date to get most of the U.S. troops out of there.  Your comment on
that?
     A:  I don't have a time table.

     Q:  Is there a date like that?
     A:  No.  We still expect to see some small number of troops start leaving
at the end of this month, but we're just in the first phase of discussions with
the UN about the UNOSOM force that will be taking over.  Some of those people
have already been earmarked, some of them are already there.  But we've got to
get a lot of those people in before we can really deal with the question of
when will all our troops be out, or what percentage of our troops will be out
at a particular time.

     Q:  Just to clarify that one more time, so any idea of saying yeah, March
1st, is totally wrong?
     A:  Totally speculative.  It might end up being right, but it's pure
speculation right now.

     Press:  Thank you.

                                     (END)

CONTRACTS
(NOT FOR USE BEFORE 5:00 P.M. EST JANUARY 7, 1993)

                                     NAVY

	Bender Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., Inc., Mobile, Alabama, is being
awarded a $5,135,595 firm-fixed-price contract for the Drydocking Selected
Restricted Availability (DSRA) of USS Stephen W. Groves (FFG-29).  Work will be
performed in Mobile, Alabama, and is expected to be completed by June 1993.
Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This
contract was competitively procured with three bids solicited and three bids
received.  The Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, Pascagoula,
Mississippi, is the contracting activity (N00024-92-H-8021).

	The Vought Aircraft Company, Dallas, Texas, is being awarded $9,900,000
cost-no-fee contract to perform capital-type rehabilitation to buildings,
grounds, utility systems, and nonseverable plant equipment at the Naval Weapons
Industrial Reserve Plant, Dallas, Texas.  Work will be performed in Dallas,
Texas, and is expected to be completed by January 1995.  Contract funds will
not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not
competitively procured.  The Naval Air Systems Command, Washington, D.C. is the
contracting activity (N00019-92-E-9008).

	Analysis & Technology, North Stonington, Connecticut, is being awarded a
$13,643,403 cost-plus-fixed-fee indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity
contract for analytical, experimental, engineering, and technical services in
support of several U.S. Navy Arctic Submarine and Special Operations Programs.
Work will be performed in North Stonington, Connecticut, and is expected to be
completed by December 1997.  This contract was competitively procured under
full and open competition procedures and two bids were recdived.  The Naval
Undersea Warfare Center Detachment, New London, Connecticut, is the contracting
activity (N66604-93-D-0462).

                                   AIR FORCE

	United Technologies Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Engine Business, West
Palm Beach, Florida, is being awarded a $49,656,837 face value increase to a
fixed-price contract for nine spare F117-PW-100 engines applicable to the C-17
aircraft.  The work will be perfomred at Middletown, Connecticut.  Contract is
expected to be completed December 1997.  Contract funds will not expire at the
end of the current fiscal year.  The Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio is the contracting activity (F33657-89-C-0032,
P00018).

                           DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

	Ashland Chemical Incorporated, Dublin, Ohio, was awarded a $7,256,048 firm
fixed price contract for 1,978,000 gallons of fuel system icing inhibitor and
delivery to 36 Defense Fuel Support Points in CONUS.  Two hundred thirty-five
proposals were solicited and four received.  Work is expected to be completed
by December 6, 1996.  Funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year.  The
Defense Fuel Supply Center, Alexandria, Virginia, is the contracting activity
(DLA600-93-D-0750).

                                     ARMY

	Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, Virginia, was
awarded on January 4, 1993, a $5,896,107 cost plus fixed fee (completion)
contract for electron scrubbing of coal to remove unwanted by-products to
reduce pollution from coal burning in utility plants.  Work will be performed
in Alexandria, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by October 4, 1994.
Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  Thisis a
sole source contract initiated on August 26, 1991.  The contracting activity is
the Defense Nuclear Agency, Alexandria, Virginia (DNA001-93-C-0018).

	Thiokol Corporation, Ogden, Utah, is being awarded a $7,400,000 modifica-
tion to a cost plus fixed fee contract for the operation and maintenance of the
Louisiana Army Ammuniction Plant, a government-owned, contractor-operated
facility.   Work will be performed in Shreveport, Louisiana, and is expected to
be completed by June 30, 1993.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of
the current fiscal year.  There were 17 bids solicited on April 30, 1974, and 7
bids received.  The contracting activity is the U.S. Army Armament, Munitions
and Chemical Command, Rock Island, Illinois (DAAA09-87-Z-0010).

	Eaton Kenway, Incorporated, Salt Lake City, Utah, is being awarded a
$7,880,000 firm fixed price contract for the complete system design, slab test
and alalysis, installation, training, data and system warranty of an Automated
Storage Retrieval System (ASRS-PLUS) in the maintenance area of Red River Army
Depot.  The System includes storage retrieval stackers, automated guided
vehicles, conveyor system, racks, pallet elevators, doors, canopy, and opera-
tions and process controls.  Work will be performe din Salt Lake City, Utah
(70%) and Texarkana, Texas (30%), and is expected to be completed by September
30, 1994.  Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
There were 49 bids solicited on August 9, 1990, and 1 bid received.  The
contracting activity is the U.S. Army Depot Systems Command, Texarkana, Texas
(DAAC79-93-C-0011).

                                     -END-


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