From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: DoD News 10/02/92 
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:35:56 GMT


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

  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>> Assistant Secretary Of Defense                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                    October 1992             <<>>
  <<>>    Pentagon, Washington DC       Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>        DSN  225-3886                              1   2   3       <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               4   5   6   7   8   9  10       <<>>
  <<>>  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS      11  12  13  14  15  16  17       <<>>
  <<>>                                  18  19  20  21  22  23  24       <<>>
  <<>> FRIDAY, OCT. 2, 1992             25  26  27  28  29  30  31       <<>>
  <<>>                                                                   <<>>
  <<>>               Courtesy of Air Force Reserve                       <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>

1.  MEMO - Search for Unaccounted For Americans in Cambodia
2.  FLAG OFFICER ANNOUNCEWMENT
3.  DOD Press Briefing, Oct 1, 1992


MEMORANDUM  FOR  CORRESPONDENTS                                 October 1, 1992

     On October 2, 1992, Cambodian date, technical representatives of Cambodia
and the United States are scheduled to begin joint investigations and remains
recovery operations pertaining to unaccounted for Americans in Cambodia.  This
will be the fifth joint field activity conducted by U.S. and Cambodian repre-
sentatives since October 1991.  The activity will be conducted in the Cambodian
Provinces of Kracheh and Kampong Cham and will last about 28 days. 

     The joint team plans to investigate three priority cases, hopes to
investigate as many as 13 other cases, and will be prepared to conduct excava-
tions as appropriate.  The 13 U.S. team members, supported by a 30-member
Marine Aviation Detachment, will be under the operational  control of Joint
Task Force Full Accounting and will be joined by Cambodian officials.  The team
consists of POW/MIA specialists with experience in investigation and recovery
operations, and will be led by Army Captain James R. Rice.  The Marine Aviation
Detachment, flying Marine Corps CH-46 helicopters from Futenma, Japan, will
provide Phnom Penh-based air transportation support for the operation.

     There are 2,266 Americans still listed as missing or otherwise unaccounted
for in Indochina.  Of that total, 81 are listed as unaccounted for in Cambodia,
most in areas that the Vietnamese controlled. 

     During the most recent operation in Cambodia, which was conducted from
June 10 to June 24 of this year, a joint U.S./Cambodian team conducted investi-
gation, survey and recovery operations in Kampong Cham, Svay Rieng and Prey
Veng Provinces.  The team investigated and surveyed three separate cases and
excavated one crash site.  Numerous aircraft wreckage pieces and a small amount
of remains were recovered.  Preliminary analysis of the remains indicates they
are animal bones.  To date, 13 human remains have been returned to the United
States from Cambodia and are currently undergoing analysis.  One case has been
recommended for identification and is in the review process. 

     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
officials in this upcoming field operation.

                                     -END-


IMMEDIATE RELEASE			OCTOBER 1, 1992		(703) 697-5131 - Info.

                           FLAG OFFICER ANNOUNCEMENT

	Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney announced today that the President has
nominated Vice Admiral David M. Bennett, USN, for reappointment to the grade of
vice admiral and assignment as Inspector General, Department of the Navy.  Vice
Admiral Bennett is currently serving as Commander Naval Surface Force, U.S.
Pacific Fleet at San Diego, California.  He was born October 29, 1934 in
Urbana, Illinois.

							END



DoD News Briefing
Thursday October 1, 1992 - Noon
Mr. Pete Williams, ASD (Public Affairs)

     Mr. Williams:  Good afternoon.

     First of all, I'd like to welcome a guest to the briefing room, Tatiana
Malkina who is visiting from a Russian independent newspaper to observe our
briefing today.  She's here with Bill Gertz of the Washington Times.  The
Washington Times which, of course, has had a long relationship with Russian
journalists.  So we're glad to have you here.  Welcome to our briefing.

     Let me just put it on the record in case you missed it.  We have a press
advisory announcing that Secretary Cheney will receive the Intrepid Museum's
1992 Freedom Medal at the Museum's Admiral's Ball tonight aboard the aircraft
carrier Intrepid.  If you're wanting to know where aircraft carriers are in the
New York area.  The Intrepid is moored at West 64th Street and 12th Avenue in
New York.  Secretary Cheney will make brief remarks about 9:15 p.m. Eastern
time tonight.  There's no question and answer session.  It's open to coverage.
The point of contact is Stacey Tcirkas at (212) 245-2533.

     Secretary Cheney will speak at the Rapid City, South Dakota, Chamber of
Commerce 1992 annual dinner meeting tomorrow night at 7:30 p.m., Mountain time,
in the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center, 444 Mount Rushmore Road, in Rapid City,
South Dakota.  The speech will be followed by a question and answer period.
The point of contact is John Schmitt at (605) 343-1744.

     In conjunction with that visit, the Secretary is also going to visit
Ellsworth Air Force Base and see the demobilizing of some of the Minuteman
missiles.  He will arrive at Ellsworth at 10:30 a.m. on October 2nd.  That
visit is open to coverage.  There will be photo opportunities that morning, and
there will be a short question and answer period after the photo op.  The point
of contact is Major Kevin Krejcarek at (605) 385-5056.  

     Then on Saturday, Secretary Cheney will address the Sheridan County,
Wyoming, Chamber of Commerce at 8:00 p.m. in the Sheridan Holiday Inn and
Convention Center.  Before the event at 6:30, the Secretary will have a brief
news conference at the same place.  The point of contact is Carol Perkins,
(307) 672-2485.

     You'll recall that when Mr. O'Keefe briefed last week on the Navy's
response to the Tailhook report he said that what he wanted to get in the
position of Inspector General was a second-term three star admiral, a vice
admiral, to serve as the Navy's Inspector General.  It would be someone whose
last tour in the Navy would be as Inspector General.

     Secretary Cheney announces that the President has nominated Vice Admiral
David M. Bennett of the U.S. Navy for reappointment to the grade of vice
admiral, and assignment as Inspector General for the Navy.  Vice Admiral
Bennett is now serving as Commander of the Naval Surface Force in the U.S.
Pacific Fleet at San Diego.  Obviously, there is no effective date for Admiral
Bennett's assumption of office because this has just been sent up to the
Senate.  The hope is that the Senate will be able to act on Admiral Bennett's
nomination before they go out.  I guess the date the Congress is going to
adjourn, you probably know this better than I, but I think they'll be in
session at least through next Monday.  That's the last that I heard.  In any
case, this would be Admiral Bennett's final Navy tour, in line with the plan
that Secretary O'Keefe announced last week.  Admiral Bennett is very well
respected as a senior officer in the Navy.

     Rear Admiral Davis has not been nominated for a new assignment, and I
don't know anything further about the Navy's plans for Admiral Davis.

     Any questions about that?

     Q:  Was he at the Tailhook Convention?
     A:  I don't know.  The Navy could tell you that.  I just have no idea.

     Also, I want to make you aware of the fact that the Navy has been, along
with the other military departments, assessing how it will be planning for its
future, given all the changes that are going on in the world.  The Secretary of
the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps
have signed a new Navy/Marine Corps strategy.  It's called "From the Sea" and
it's developed in response to the challenges of today's world.  It shifts the
focus from a global threat to one of regional challenges and opportunities, and
concentrates on warfare near land and maneuver from the sea.  The new strategy
will provide the nation with naval expeditionary forces operating forward from
the sea, shaped for joint operations, and tailored for national needs.

     The new direction is a fundamental shift from open ocean warfighting on
the sea toward joint operations from the sea -- you can see where the title
comes from.  Recognizing naval forces as an enabling force, the strategy
emphasizes the utility of the Navy and Marine Corps in responding to global
crises and providing an initial capability for joint operations in conflict.
The naval service will continue to emphasize nuclear deterrence through the use
of nuclear ballistic submarines, as well as the enduring naval mission of
sealift.  The Navy and Marine Corps will focus increased attention on command,
control, and surveillance; battle space dominance; power projection; and force
sustainment in executing this new strategy.  Flexibility is also a key factor.
Naval forces will be tailored continuously to anticipate and support national
needs.  

     To ensure the successful implementation of the new Navy/Marine Corps
strategy, a Naval Doctrine Command will be established to develop doctrine for
expeditionary warfare.  The Navy's Office of Information, I believe are
releasing the report today.  They have experts there who can answer your
questions about "From the Sea."  It's available here, as a matter of fact, at
the end of the briefing.

     On October 2nd, Cambodian date, technical representatives of Cambodia and
the United States are scheduled to begin joint investigations and remains
recovery operations pertaining to unaccounted for Americans in Cambodia.  This
will be the fifth joint field activity conducted by United States and Cambodian
representatives since they started in October of 1991.  This will be conducted
in the Cambodian provinces of Kracheh and Kampong Cham and will last about 28
days.  This team plans to investigate three priority cases, hopes to
investigate as many as 13 other cases, and will be prepared to conduct
excavations as appropriate.  The 13 member U.S. team supported by a 30-member
Marine Aviation Detachment will be under the operational control of Joint Task
Force Full Accounting and will be joined by Cambodian officials.  The team
consists of POW/MIA specialists with experience in investigation and recovery
operations, and will be led by Army Captain James R. Rice.  The Marine Aviation
Detachment, which is flying Marine Corps CH-46 helicopters from Japan, will
provide Phnom Penh based air transportation support for the operations.

     The most recent operation was done in Cambodia.  That one was conducted
from June 10th to June 24th of this year.  During that, a joint U.S.-Cambodian
team conducted investigations, survey, and recovery operations in Kampong Cham,
Svay Rieng and Prey Veng provinces.  The team investigated and surveyed three
separate cases and excavated one crash site.  Several aircraft wreckages pieces
and a small amount of remains were recovered.  The preliminary analysis of the
remains indicates that they are animal bones.  To date, 13 human remains have
been returned to the United States from Cambodia.  They are still undergoing
analysis.  One case has been recommended for identification and is in the
review process.

     The United States welcomes and appreciates the cooperation of Cambodian
officials in this forthcoming field operation.  Any questions about that?
There's a Memorandum for Correspondents available for you on that.

     The latest installment for you on our continuing efforts to control costs
through the civilian hiring freeze and by carefully reviewing military
construction projects, Deputy Defense Secretary Don Atwood has extended the
freeze on hiring civilian personnel.  The civilian hiring freeze was originally
imposed in January of 1990, and it was intended to last for the rest of fiscal
'90.  It was extended twice more through the end of FY91, and again through the
end of FY92.  Now Mr. Atwood has extended it again, through the end of FY93.
The terms of the original freeze still apply, allowing limited exceptions when
they are deemed essential.  As Mr. Atwood said in his earlier directives on
this, the Defense Department continues to reduce the size of the armed forces
and the civilian work force in light of changes in the world and the reduced
resources devoted to national defense.

     The size of the civilian work force -- both full time and part time -- has
gone from 1,156,000 in FY89 to 1,015,000 last month.  That's a decline of
141,000. 

     Mr. Atwood has also extended the Department's restrictions on new military
construction projects.  In January of 1990, the Department imposed a freeze on
the awarding of any new military construction projects to provide for careful
stewardship over military construction funds in light of pending force changes
and potential military base closings.  You'll remember at the time there was a
lot of discussion about the fact that we would probably be nominating bases for
closure both here in the United States and overseas.  We did so, and while we
were reviewing that we put a freeze on new military construction projects.

     In April of '91, Deputy Secretary Atwood lifted the freeze, and in its
place imposed a mechanism to ensure that new construction conforms to long-term
force reduction plans.  Mr. Atwood has now extended that screening process
which allows projects to go forward only after a high-level Pentagon
determination that they are appropriate in light of changes to the force.  He's
extended that system through the end of FY93, and that applies to funds that
are appropriated or continued for FY93.

     So under these rules, these are the rules that were imposed in '91 and are
to be extended now, the approval of the Deputy Secretary is needed for military
construction projects in Europe, Japan, and Korea, or at military bases which
the Department has recommended be closed, or which forces are being realigned,
or at bases in the Washington, D.C. area.  Those are the three areas where you
need the Deputy Secretary's approval for a construction project.  Military
construction projects everywhere else can go ahead only with the approval of
the Secretary of the military department responsible for the project, or the
head of the responsible defense agency.

     As you may recall, when the freeze was originally imposed, the Department
said we were going to review something like 200 bases, 200 construction
projects.  We finally, as a result of that process, recommended that Congress
cancel 68 projects, and Congress approved canceling 65 of them.  That allowed
us to withdraw $286 million in funds.

     That was originally done for military construction projects that had
already been sent forward before we enacted this freeze and this new screening
process.  All the military construction projects that subsequently went
forward, including those in the current FY93 budget, have been through this
screening process, so we don't envision asking Congress to cancel any projects
that are pending on the Hill as a result of Mr. Atwood's actions.  Any
questions on that?

     Q:  How does this affect the Homestead Air Force Base rebuilding?
     A:  It does not.

     Q:  Because they're in the 1992-1993 budgets or what?
     A:  I don't know exactly how much of it's in MilCon.  I'm not sure I know
the long answer to why, but the short answer is it doesn't affect Homestead.

     Q:  Can this be used by DoD to cancel any of the museums or monuments or
other non-defense related projects that are approved under military
construction?
     A:  Much as we'd like to, the Defense Department can't cancel something
that Congress sticks in there after we send the MilCon bill up. That would
require presidential line item veto which, as you know, something the
Administration favors.  But this applies to military construction projects that
we recommend and send up to the Congress.

     Q:  Through the approval process that you all require?
     A:  Exactly.  The museums and those other projects get stuck on the MilCon
bill after we send it up.

     Q:  Are you going to seek a rescission on any of those?
     A:  I think we did on some of them.

     Let me just bring you up to date on where we stand with resumption of
humanitarian flights into Sarajevo.  The United States has informed the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and our allies that we are prepared to
resume the humanitarian airlift to Sarajevo.  We are waiting for confirmation
that the cargo is in place and ready to be carried by the allies, and that the
airfield in Sarajevo is open.  Both of those things have to be formally
declared to us.  Presumably that would come through UN Protection Force and the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

     We are consulting with our allies on precisely when we would resume the
flights.  I'm sure that we will resume them in a few days.  We're ready to go.
I'm sure that militarily our allies are set to go, but there is still some
discussion that has to take place, so there are a few more formalities to go
through.  But I would think we'd be ready to start them within a number of
days.

     Just for your background, the airlift mission to Sarajevo was started on
July 3rd.  Before it was suspended at the direction of the UN after the Italian
plane was shot down, the United States had flown 163 sorties during 113
separate missions, delivering 2,280 tons of relief supplies into Sarajevo.  The
coalition, including the United States and the other nations that took part,
had flown a total, including the numbers I just gave you, of 1,008 sorties and
delivered over 11,500 tons.

     So to review here, we've informed the United Nations and our allies that
we're prepared to go.  We're waiting to hear about the airport.  We're waiting
to get a rundown on UNHCR cargo that we would move.  

     The Air Force personnel that were in Zagreb, we originally had, I think,
12 of them.  There are still three Air Force support personnel in Zagreb who
are maintaining the loading equipment, and they will stay there.  When the
airlift resumes, we will send 12 more personnel from Rhein Main to Zagreb to be
ready to help with the offloading of relief supplies and to load things on.
But no American military personnel will be deployed to Sarajevo, just as there
were none when the humanitarian flights were going on.

     Q:  What actions have been taken that lead the United States to believe
that the safety of these missions can be guaranteed in the future?
     A:  I don't believe we've ever felt, since the operation stated in July,
that the safety of these missions could be guaranteed.  The United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, has gone to the parties in the Bosnian
conflict and asked for a number of conditions before the flights can be
resumed, and she's gotten a variety of responses on those requests.  We have
sent a separate diplomatic note to the parties asking that our humanitarian
flights not be shadowed.  We did that in September.  We've made several other
requests and had many other communications with the parties involved,
emphasizing the importance of getting these humanitarian flights through.  I
think that no matter what kind of assurances you get, though, those assurances
have a limited amount of currency.  This has always been an operation that has
some risk inherent in it.  The need now is clearly very great to get the
humanitarian flights restarted into Sarajevo, but there is no such thing as a
risk-free flight in this operation, just as the humanitarian flights that we're
making into Somalia and Kenya are not without risk.  If they were, they
probably wouldn't be giving the assignment to the U.S. military.

     Q:  Are we taking any actions on our own, or is the Defense Department
taking action on its own to make the missions more safe?
     A:  Let me emphasize again, that when the flights start up again, this
will be a coalition operation just as it was earlier this year when it started
in July.  This is not a United States only mission.  Indeed, as I pointed out,
the United States delivered about 2,280 tons out of a total of 11,500 tons, so
it's clearly a joint coalition operation with our allies, and it will be when
it starts up again.

     I can't speak for the kind of defensive steps that other nations will
take, but the United States will, obviously, take appropriate defensive steps,
as many as we can.  We want to make sure that the flights get in safely.
That's the whole goal here.  We want to make sure that our crews are as safe as
they can be.  We can fly a little higher.  We can use defensive measures on our
aircraft.  But I'm not going to be specific about them, for obvious reasons.

     Q:  When did we notify the UN agency that we were ready to resume the
flights?
     A:  State Department can tell you that.  I don't know the answer to that
one.

     Q:  The airport was reopened in Sarajevo within days of the Italian plane
getting shot down.  Whenever it was that we notified the UN, there's no doubt
from all accounts that there's a horrendous need for the material aid to be
brought in.  Do you mean that all this is being held up because the cargo's not
in place?  Does that make any sense at all?
     A:  No, I think the way you described it doesn't make any sense, but I
don't think that's accurate.  I guess the thrust of your question is, then, why
didn't you start this earlier, am I right?

     Q:  Your explanation for the flights not starting, they're not totally
satisfying.  I'm not questioning their accuracy, it's just that the airport's
been open, basically, for the past month, or the better part of the past month.
     A:  Let's stop right there and talk about the "airport is open."  

     Q:  It's been open and closed, but it's been open more than closed.
     A:  Let's stop right there and talk about that one first.  Yes, it's open,
but the way this works -- remember, this is not a U.S. operation, this is a
UN-directed operation.  The way it works is, procedurally, the UN declares to
the countries that are taking in equipment that the airport is open for these
humanitarian flights.  The airport could be open for a whole bunch of different
things.  But technically speaking, the UN must declare to us that the airport
is open for these humanitarian flights.  They have not yet so done, and I
suspect that they will do so shortly, but that is a procedural step that we
have to go through.

     Q:  The other part, is cargo not being ready to be hauled in?  It seems to
me that in the face of this terrible human urgency that we're dealing with kind
of nit-picky procedural type issues here.
     A:  On the other hand, though, the question earlier was how can you assure
that these things are risk free.  One guy's nit-pick is another guy's safety
assurance.

     I guess the answer to the question is, we are here at the direction of the
UN, this is not a U.S. operation.  This is a coalition operation, working in
coordination with the UN.  The flights were stopped by the UN.  We've notified
them that we're prepared to restart the flights, and we're waiting for the
final go-ahead from them.  But technically, I can't answer some of these
questions about why the UN hasn't taken certain steps.  I can't answer that one
for you.

     Q:  Can you give us a rundown of what assets are in the region to help
monitor these flights when they start up again?
     A:  The amphibious group that we've had in the Adriatic is not there right
now.  I think we told you earlier that it had left its station after the
flights were suspended to take part in a NATO exercise, and those ships are
still there.  So the search and rescue assets were deployed to Aviano Air Base
in Italy.  The aircraft deployed are three Pave Low MH-53 helicopters and two
combat Shadow HC-130 aerial refueling aircraft.  The crew and aircraft are from
the 39th Special Operations Wing at RAF Alconbury in the UK.  That wing has the
land-based search and rescue capabilities required for the mission.  With the
air-to-air refueling capability that's inherent in the unit, the helicopters
would have the same range and capability as the helicopters based at sea would
have.  Obviously, the Italian government was consulted and approved of the
deployment.

     After the Iwo Jima is finished in the exercise, either it or another
amphibious ship will go into the Adriatic and we'll resume the operation out of
the Adriatic.

     Q:  So there are no U.S. troops in the Adriatic now?
     A:  No, the USS Hall, I think is in the Adriatic, taking part in the
Standing Naval Force Mediterranean.  Let me double check that.  It's a frigate.
The USS Hall is attached to the Standing Naval Force Mediterranean.  No, it's
not there.  It's conducting a port visit to Corfu in Greece.  It will return to
monitoring operations in the southern Adriatic early next week.  Standing Naval
Force Mediterranean units relieved Standing Naval Force Atlantic units of
monitoring duties in the Adriatic this past weekend.  So they will go back, but
I guess there is no U.S. ship in the Adriatic right now.

     Q:  If the U.S. airlift starts in the next few days, over the weekend or
whatever, the closest search and rescue or air traffic component would be in
Italy?
     A:  Correct.

     Q:  Is that close enough?
     A:  Sure, plenty close.  They'll have the same range, as I said, as the
aircraft would based in the Adriatic.

     Q:  A few weeks ago or days ago you said there were some U.S. Air Force
personnel deployed to Split as well, from Zagreb.
     A:  They moved from Zagreb to Split.  They left Split and went back to
Germany.  So I don't think there are any at Split right now.  We've got three
in Zagreb right now.  When we get ready to go again we'll send 12 more for a
total of 15.

     Q:  What about the so-called no-fly zone over Bosnia?  Has the U.S. backed
away completely from that notion?
     A:  No, it is still actively being discussed by the allies and within the
U.S. government, too.  That hasn't changed over the last couple of weeks.

     Q:  Can we get you on record with a little greater specificity on the
no-fly zone?  We're told that at least two of our major allies -- the British
and the French -- support a no-fly zone which would be monitored but not
enforced by either UN or European community personnel.  In other words, it
would be individuals on the ground at various air facilities in
Bosnia-Herzegovena, the no-fly zone would state that any flight wishing to
overfly Bosnia-Herzegovena would need UN permission.  Presumably it would deny
permission to military flights.

     If that ban was violated, the observers would report back to the Security
Council which would then consider what additional steps to take.  That was the
mechanics of it, how it was explained to me.  Is that kind of no-fly zone
acceptable to the Administration and the Pentagon?
     A:  I can't answer the question because there isn't an Administration
position on that answer yet, so I can't ad lib one here standing at the podium.
I guess the best way to say it is we're aware of that proposal, obviously.
That's certainly one way it could be done.  It's still a matter of it being
discussed, and there's no Administration position on it yet, but I suspect
there will be one shortly.

     Q:  When you say shortly, is there some sort of deadline?
     A:  No.

     Q:  Is there a sense that once the U.S. starts flying C-130's back into
Sarajevo it would be advantageous for the security of the U.S. Air Force
personnel in the planes that there be a no-fly zone?
     A:  I don't know how much that comes into the calculus, frankly.  Remember
that once we started this operation in July, there was no no-fly zone until the
London Declaration came out with it just here within the last month or so.  The
force that shot down the Italian plane wasn't one that was in the air, it was
somebody with, apparently, a shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile on the
ground.  So I don't think we feel that a no-fly zone has to be in place before
we can resume the humanitarian flights.

     Q:  Can you give us an idea of how much the Serbians are actually flying?
Some sort of sortie rate or a bread box description of the number and types of
aircraft that are flying around?
     A:  I don't have that information.  I can't answer it for you.

     Q:  Could you try to get that maybe?
     A:  Sure.  We'll take the question.

     Q:  You say you don't have an Administration position on the monitoring of
flights and how it would be done and so forth, but...
     A:  Remember, the question was a no-fly zone.  We've had monitoring of the
shipping in the Adriatic.  That's one of the things that the Standing Naval
Force Mediterranean is doing, so we have been doing some monitoring.  Flights,
I think there have been surveillance flights from time to time, but the
specific question here was about a no-fly zone.

     Q:  On the no-fly zone idea, is one of the sticky points that you're
talking about something that might have to go through the Security Council, or
that the UN would have a greater say in because it's a UN deal over there, and
militarily that's somewhat more awkward or unwieldy than simply the U.S.
declaring a no-fly zone somewhere in the world and carrying it out?
     A:  No, absolutely not.  Not at all.  I don't think we ever felt that
there would be a U.S.-declared no-fly zone.  This has always been in the
context of a UN operation.  So no, we've always expected that if there were to
be some sort of a no-fly zone it would come from the UN.  That's not the issue.

     Q:  Do you have any sense that the same kind of shoulder-fired heat
seeking missile that apparently shot down the Italian plane would not, there
are supposedly hundreds of those kinds of missiles in that area around
Sarajevo, that one of those couldn't be used against one of the U.S. C-130's?
     A:  That's always been the case.  We've always been aware that there were
surface-to-air missiles, that there was a surface-to-air missile threat since
the flights were started in July.  They're still there.  Clearly, there are
diplomatic efforts being made to try to encourage the parties not to use them,
to try to round up these potential anti-aircraft weapons and get them out from
around the airport.  The UN has been working on that.  The UN protection force,
that's one of its missions to keep an eye on them around the airport, but the
best you can do, once we resume the flights, is to try to take measures, fly a
little higher and take other defensive measures in reaction to that threat.
But we've always been aware that that's there.

     Q:  Do you know of any of these surface-to-air missiles that have been
collected by the UN or assembled or dismantled since the Italian plane was shot
down?
     A:  There's been discussion of trying to round up heavy weapons around
Sarajevo.  The State Department might have a better read for you on exactly how
that's going.  I'm unaware of any effort, or any successful rounding up of
surface-to-air missiles, but again, the State Department has kind of the lead
on those monitoring operations.

     Q:  Can you give us kind of a status report on the deployment to the state
of Florida, and how much longer...
     A:  Anything else on Sarajevo before we move on?

     I don't have it here with me.  We've got the numbers down at the
Directorate for Defense Information.  My recollection is that on Tuesday we
were prepared to send back home, I hadn't better ad lib the numbers.

     Q:  My basic question is are they going to be home by election day, are
they going to have to vote absentee?
     A:  I don't know if they'll all be out of there by election day.  As of
Tuesday afternoon, about 10,600 federal forces had been redeployed from Florida
down from a peak of 24,468 which was reached on September 11th.  There is no
specific time-table for the complete withdrawal of all military support from
Florida.  On Tuesday, about 3600 federal forces actually left, mostly support
troops from the 18th Airborne Corps, and an infantry brigade from the 82nd
Airborne Division at Fort Bragg.  They were set to redeploy another 1200
forces.  Our Directorate for Defense Information could bring you up to date on
the precise numbers.  But as I said, there is no time-table for the complete
withdrawal.  They've basically gone through the debris removal.  The other
thing is, I think the state of Florida and the federal government working
through FEMA under the guidelines set by Congress, are trying to contract out
as much of that work as possible.  I think the remaining debris removal work
that's to be done will be done by private contractors.  So our federal forces
who were there doing that job are redeploying.  There's still some construction
work to be done.  We're still running some of these kitchens, we're still
running some of these tent cities.  That's the kind of thing that they haven't
been able to completely contract out.  They've just exceeded the capacity to
contract out.  So as they are able to complete that, though, they'll be turning
more and more of this over to the private sector.

     Q:   What's your comment on the news article today in which Congresswoman
Pat Schroeder is calling on Cheney to establish a new agency within the
Pentagon to investigate charges that the military has covered up rapes and
sexual assaults for years?  She particularly calls on Cheney to extend to the
entire military a plan offered by new Navy Secretary O'Keefe, who says he will
establish a new Navy office to deal with sexual assault complaints.  Her point
is if the Navy has it, what about the rest of DoD.
     A:  I don't think the Secretary's answered her letter yet, so I don't
think we've responded to it.

     Q:  What about the general proposition?
     A:  The general proposition is that the military somehow covers up
allegations of rape, and I think that's not the case.  We report and
investigate thoroughly every rape complaint, but if an individual feels that in
her case the military somehow didn't completely investigate her case, unlike
the civilian system where if a grand jury is impaneled to decide whether or not
to bring charges in a rape complete and the grand jury decides not to, you have
no further recourse.  In my home state, for example, if the county attorney or
the district attorney's office investigates your case and decides not to
prosecute, that's it.  You can't do anything.  In the military you can appeal.
You can appeal to the commanding officer, you can even under the law, appeal
directly to the Service Secretary and they have to take up the case again.  I
think the general feeling is that Inspectors Generals offices are set up to
handle those complaints.   

     You raise an interesting question, which is, should the other military
departments undertake to make the same kind of changes that the Navy has made?
The General Counsel of the Defense Department is looking into that possibility,
and decided to do that after Mr. O'Keefe made his decisions on how to reassign
the job in the Navy.  He's changing the jurisdiction of the Navy IG; putting a
civilian in charge of the NIS.  You're familiar with his changes.  The
Secretary directed the General Counsel to look at whether we ought to do that
for the whole department.  But that was before we got Congresswoman Schroeder's
letter, so I don't know exactly how we're going to respond to it.

     Q:  Can I give you the opportunity to sort of temper your comments here,
given the fact that there's been a multiplicity of testimony on the Hill that
women who have gone through some type of sexual harassment, if not sexual
molestation, feel that they have had no recourse to make complaints, and that
when they have made complaints what has happened is that they have been, in
turn, investigated for lesbianism, craziness...
     A:  Given lie detector tests or something like that.

     Q:  Exactly.  So the idea that an IG's office has been set up in the past
to handle these complaints is bogus, because the Navy proved that its IG's
office botched the Navy investigation.
     A:  That's a good point.  I don't dispute any of what you said.  The point
I'm making, however, is, I'm trying to draw a distinction between the military
system and the civilian system in terms of the recourse available to an
individual.

     Now question:  does an individual, does every woman who is raped know of
her rights to appeal?  Clearly not.  One of the things that Chris Jehn and his
office is working on is trying to get better information out to the whole force
on the appeal rights that are available to individuals, so that they know they
can take this up, that they have a right under the law to go right to the
service secretary, and the service secretary must reopen the case.  I don't
believe that every woman in the military knows that.  That's one thing that the
Force Management and Personnel Office is working on.  

     It's not something that can be fixed overnight, and I don't know if
setting up an office to look into past cases is the answer either.  What you
have to have is better counseling for victims so that they get the right kind
of services they need after the trauma.  Secondly, better training for
investigators so that they're able to competently, professionally, thoroughly
investigate rape cases.  And better information to the troops so that people
know what their rights are.

     All that having been said, I concur in the points that you made in your
question.  Having said all that, new question.  Is the best way to do all that
by creating another office to investigate past complaints?  I'm not so sure.
But as I said, we haven't answered her letter yet.

     Q:  I'm not vouching for the full accuracy of the story, but it says in
here that the Navy is going to establish a new office to investigate sexual
complaints.  I don't remember them saying that. Maybe I fell down in listening
to him this last briefing, but if there is a Navy office, this would suggest
that you believe that there is a bigger problem in the Navy with sexual
harassment than there is, say, in the Air Force.
     A:  I'm not sure whether the Navy has set up that office either.

     Q:  That was new to me.  I didn't remember this new Navy office to look
into this.
     A:  My recollection is that during Mr. O'Keefe's briefing last week, he
said he wasn't sure exactly how he was going to revamp all this in the Navy
investigative agencies and the NIS and the Navy IG.  So I don't know if that
is, in fact, the case or not, Joe.  Let me take the question, though.

     Q:  When did Cheney recommend to the Army and the Air Force that they
consider appointing a civilian to be in charge of their investigative service?
     A:  That's not what I said.  What I said was, based on the changes that
Mr. O'Keefe said he was going to make in the Navy, the Secretary asked the
General Counsel of the Defense Department to look into whether similar changes
should be made in the other departments.  The other departments aren't looking
at it, the General Counsel is looking at it.

     Q:  Other Inspector Generals offices?
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  And investigative, CIS, for example?
     A:  What he asked the General Counsel to do is look what Secretary O'Keefe
is doing in the Navy.  See whether we need to do those things in the other
military departments.

     Q:  Do you know if Admiral Bennett is here at the Pentagon, or is he still
out in the Pacific, or can he be reached for comment or what?
     A:  I don't know.  The Navy could tell you that.  I don't know the answer.

     Q:  On Iraq, can you give us an update on the situation, and have there
been any violations of the...
     A:  There have been no violations of the no-fly zone in southern Iraq.  As
long as you asked, since the last briefing on Tuesday, the 29th of September,
the United States has flown 159 sorties.  Total sorties to date, as of last
night, 3,699.  That's U.S. only.  Obviously, other nations are flying as well.

     Q:  Can you tell us if U.S. forces have detected any equipment, weapons,
or stocks that are banned under the UN resolutions during the course of
monitoring the southern no-fly zone?
     A:  You mean whether the no-fly zone flights have detected...

     Q:  Banned equipment or weapons?
     A:  Not that I know of.

     Q:  In northern Iraq, do you have any indication of increased activity by
the Kurds along the Iraq/Turkish border?
     A:  No, I'd say the Kurds continue to conduct small scale harassing
action, but I haven't heard of anything new there.  No real change in the tempo
of that.

     Q:  You made it a point to say there were no violations over the southern
part of Iraq.  Have there been any violations over the northern part?
     A:  No, neither one.

     Q:  Just tying up one loose end on the Yugoslavia/Bosnia situation.  Once
the UN informs the United States that the airport is open and the cargo is
ready to be shipped, how long will it take for the first U.S. flights to start
getting back into Sarajevo?
     A:  Once we get the go, we can be ready to go within 24 hours.

     Q:  Are Operation Intrinsic Action troops still there?
     A:  Yes they are, in Kuwait.  There's roughly still 2400 troops directly
taking part in the exercise.  The total number of U.S. Army in Kuwait is 3,482.
The exercise will end in late October.  Intrinsic Action 1-93 is scheduled for
November 15th to December 20th.

     Q:  Any reaction to former UN Inspector David Kay's comments that we're in
a dangerous period of time concerning Iraq.  Inspections due to start up again
the middle of this month, and Saddam Hussein is trying to provoke the United
States.
     A:  I have not seen David Kay's comments.  Every time there's a UN
inspection in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is well aware of the obligation he has under
the United Nations Security Council resolutions and what he needs to do, and
he's the guy who's in control.

     Q:  Is there a specific subject for this afternoon's Cheney speech?
     A:  This is the Business Week speech?  I think he's going to talk about
what we've done to change our defense strategy in light of a changing world.
Some of the same themes that you're familiar with.  He'll probably put a
special emphasis on the argument that the economy is in such a state that we
have to greatly reduce defense spending so we can do other things, and he will
say that he thinks that is not the case.

     Q:  Q&A?
     A:  Yes, I think there is Q&A afterwards, and we are going to pipe it in.

     Q:  The visit with the Ukrainian, did anything come of that?
     A:  I haven't had a read-out.  With the Foreign Minister's visit this
morning?

     Q:  Yes. 
     A:  I'll have to check for you and see.

     Press:  Thank you.
     Mr. Williams:  Thank you.

                                     (END)


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



Newsgroups: sci.military