From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: DoD News & Briefings 08/27/92 (long)
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:04:07 GMT


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

 MEMORANDUM FOR CORRESPONDENTS 

      In response to allegations that US military commanders urged
 continuation of ground combat operations during Operation DESERT STORM,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin L. Powell, has
  provided the following:  


     "General Schwarzkopf and I both supported terminating DESERT STORM
 combat operations at 12 pm., 27 February 1991 (EST), as did all the
  President's advisors.  

     "There was no contrary recommendation.  There was no disagreement.
 There was no debate.  Although we were prepared to continue combat
 operations, it was clear that our objectives had been accomplished, and
 further loss of life was unnecessary.

    "As it turned out, some of the major ground action of the war
occurred after the ceasefire, as Iraqi units continued to engage Coali-
tion units.  In the 48 hours after the ceasefire, an additional 187
Iraqi armored vehicles, 50 assorted artillery pieces (including tube and
rocket artillery) and approximately 400 trucks and other miscellaneous
vehicles were destroyed.

     "Those who claim that another 12 or 24 hours of fighting without a
ceasefire would have fundamentally changed the residual capability of
the Iraqi army are mistaken. Only two-thirds of the Iraqi army was
  committed to the Kuwait theater and that two-thirds was defeated.  

     "General Schwarzkopf and I have discussed this issue many times (as
recently as today) and we both hold the same view of this decision. It
         was right then. It is right now." 


                                           -END- 


                                                 No.234-M 


MEMORANDUM FOR CORRESPONDENTS                    August 27, 1992 


       The Department of the Army announced today the availability of the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for Base Realignment at Fort
Huachuca, Ariz.

         The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (BRAG 91), Public
law 101-510, mandated that the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
recommend military installations for - realignment and closure.  The commis-
sion's recommendations were presented to the President in a report on July 1,
1991, and were approved by the President and forwarded to Congress on July 11,
1991.  Included was the recommendation to cancel the transfer of Headquarters,
U. S. Army Information Systems Command, and its supporting elements to Fort
Devens, Mass., and continue consolidation of the U. S. Army Intelligence School
at Fort Huachuca, as mandated by Public law 100-526, the Base Realignment and
Closure Act of 1988 (BRAG I).  The BRAG 91 recommendation became law on October
2, 1991.

        Public law 101-510 exempted the commission's decision making process
from recommending installations to be closed or realigned from the provisions
of the National Environmental Policy Act of - considering the need for closing,
realigning or transferring functions and from looking at alternative installa-
tions to realign or close.  The Department of the Army, however, must still
analyze and document the environmental and socioeconomic effects of construc-
tion and increased operations at Fort Huachuca.

        This Final SEIS considers those realignment actions which differ from
those analyzed in the initial BRAG I Environmental Impact Statement of April
1990.  The retention of Headquarters, U. S. Army Information Systems Command,
and its supporting elements will result in retaining approximately 2,250
military and civilian positions at Fort Huachuca.  Additional actions, unre-
lated to the BRAG 91 realignments, may affect the number of positions at Fort
Huachuca and those impacts are projected in this document.

        The Final SEIS indicates that no long-term adverse ecological or
environmental effects are expected to result from this action at Fort Huachuca.
This action will increase installation military and civilian populations and
will increase requirements for facilities, services and utilities.  A positive
economic effect is expected in the Sierra Vista area in the long term.  No
significant adverse impacts are expected.

        The Draft SEIS was distributed to the public and interested agencies on
June 5, 1992.  A public hearing was held in Sierra Vista, Ariz., on June 24,
1992.  Comments were received and incorporated into the document.  In general,
the impacts of the proposed realignment, as described in the SEIS, were
accepted by all agencies and the public had no comment.  Copies of the Final
SEIS will be mailed to all who commented and those who had received the Draft
SEIS.

        For a copy of the Final SEIS, to submit comments, or for more informa-
tion, contact Mr. Alex Watt, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles
District, ATTN:  CESPL-PD-RN, P.O. Box 2711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325, or
call (213) 894-5088-, or FAX (213) 849-5312.  

                                    -END- 




			
No. 232-M
MEMORANDUM  FOR  CORRESPONDENTS				 August 26, 1992


	On August 25, 1992, the U.S. Army Strategic Defense Command and the
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization successfully conducted the second of
a series of Kinetic Kill Vehicle Integrated Technology Experiment (KITE) tests
in the High Endoatmospheric Defense Interceptor (HEDI) project at White Sands
Missile Range, NM.

	The KITE-2 test gathered data relative to shroud separation, shock load
capability of the sapphire window, air vehicle guidance and control, seeker
acquisition and tracking of the target, and aero-optics effects. 

	The KITE tests are designed to resolve critical technology issues related
to the intercept of re-entry vehicles within the earth's atmosphere using an
infrared homing seeker and a non-nuclear warhead.  The series of KITE tests are
intended to demonstrate that the necessary technology is in hand to perform the
intercept and non-nuclear destruction of re-entry vehicles within the atmo-
sphere.  The flights directly support both the Ground Based Interceptor
Endoatmospheric block upgrade and the Theater High Altitude Area Defense
programs.

	For more information contact Army Strategic Defense Command at (703)
607-1908 or
the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization office of External Programs at
(703) 693-1778.

                                                          END


MEMORANDAM FOR CORRESPONDENTS                           August 27, 1992 


     The Department of the Army announced today the availability of the
Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) for
the realignment of Tobyhanna Army Depot, Tobyhanna, Pa.  

     This EA evaluates the Army's preferred alternative and three alternatives
to determine the environmental impact on resources at Tobyhanna Army Depot.  No
long-term adverse environmental impact is expected to result from this realign-
ment.  

     The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission was mandated by Public
Law 101-510, the Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, to recommend
military installations for realignment and closure.  The commission's recommen-
dations were presented to the President in their report on July I, 1991, and
were approved by the president and forwarded to Congress on July 11, 1991.
Those recommendations became law on October 2, 1991.  Included in the commis-
sion's report was the recommendation to realign Tobyhanna Army Depot.  

     Public Law 101-510 exempted the decision making process of the commission
in recommending installations to be closed or realigned from the provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.  The law also exempted the
Department of Defense from considering the need for closing, realigning or
transferring functions and from looking at alternative installations to realign
or close.  The Department of the Army still must prepare environmental impact
analyses to assess the environmental effects of realignment on installations
receiving functions from other installations and the environmental effects of
property disposal.  This EA meets that requirement.  

     Actions addressed in this EA include:  

    - Subject to the outcome of public-to-pubIic competition between Tobyhanna
Army Depot and Sacramento Air Logistics Center at McClellan Air Force Base,
Calif ., the transfer to Tobyhanna Army Depot from Sacramento Army Depot,
Calif., of five maintenance workloads including airborne electronics, radio,
intelligence/electronics/warfare, test measurement and diagnostic equipment/ra-
diation detection equipment, and wire/data/communication switches.  

    - Transfer from Tobyhanna Army Depot to Letterkenny Army Depot, Pa., of the
air defense electronics maintenance workload which includes maintenance for the
AN/TSQ-73 Air Defense Command and Control System.  

     The realignment of Sacramento Army Depot maintenance workloads will result
in the transfer of approximately 550 positions from Sacramento Army Depot to
Tobyhanna Army Depot.  The move of the AN/TSQ-73 maintenance workload would
involve the movement of approximately 44 positions from Tobyhanna Army Depot to
          Letterkenny Army Depot.  

     The schedule for completing the competition process and awarding the five
Sacramento Army Depot maintenance workloads requires that all award decisions
be made by the end of 1993.  The movement of the workload will begin upon
announcement of each award.  The transfer of the five maintenance workloads
from Sacramento Army Depot to Tobyhanna Army Depot will be phased over a
two-year period.  The movement of the workload for the AN/TSQ-7 3 Air Defense
          Command and Control System from Tobyhanna Army Depot to Letterkenny
          Army Depot is scheduled to begin during 1995.  

     There will be a 30-day public comment period prior to these realignments.
For more information, to submit comments, or to obtain a copy of the EA and
FNSI, contact Mr. Larry Eastman by writing Commander, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Baltimore District, ATTN:  CENAB-PL-E, P.O. Box 1715, Baltimore, MD
          21203-1715, or calling (410) 962-4938.  


                                             -END- 

DoD News Briefing
Thursday, August 27, 1992 - Noon
Mr. Bob Hall, DASD (Public Affairs)


     MR. HALL:  Good afternoon.

     A few announcements, but why don't we do them one at a time and take
questions after each one.

     Operation Southern Watch commenced at 10:15 EDT this morning.  That's
5:15 in the afternoon, local time, in the theater.  As of this moment, or
as of about five minutes ago, there had been no activity to prevent the
monitoring regime that we've undertaken in the area of Iraq, south of 32
degrees north latitude.

     As General Brandtner said yesterday, the U.S. operations in support of
the coalition efforts are being commanded by Lieutenant General Michael A.
Nelson, under General Joseph P. Hoar, Commander in Chief, U.S. Central
Command.

     Just to update you on the situation, there have been no flights by
Iraqi aircraft today below the 32 degree line.  Only coalition aircraft are
flying below the 32 degree line.  There's been no Iraqi reaction.

     Yesterday, by comparison, there were two flights, both by helicopters,
south of the 32 degree line.  That was out of approximately 95 flights that
were conducted in all of Iraq.

     There have been something like 40 flights today by the Iraqis north of
the 32 degree line.  Half of those, approximately, have been fixed-wing and
the other half helicopter.  It appears that the Iraqis have moved all fixed-
wing aircraft above the 32 degree line, and we believe that most or all of
their helicopters have been moved, as well, above the 32 degree line, but
that's more difficult to determine.

     In terms of other activity, additional U.S. Air Force AWACS and RC-135
assets have been moved into the theater in the last 48 hours.  Other
coalition forces, the British and the French, are moving in today and over
the next few days.

     That's all I have in terms of that announcement.

          Q:   Have the Brits and the French yet joined in the actual
monitoring?  Or are they in the process of putting...
     A:   It's my understanding, and I think it's confirmed by CNN, that
the British were moving towards the theater today, so I don't think they
have started yet.  The French will be moving over the next few days. 

     Q:   The Iraqi flights that you're talking about, are they playing any
cat and mouse?  Are they punching down toward the 32 degree line and coming
back?  Anything at all...
     A:   At this point, our assessment is that there has been no reaction to
the line, except in the sense that their assets have been moved north of the
line and they have not flown south of the line.

     Q:   Can you confirm that coalition aircraft are actually flying over
that area of southern Iraq, south of the 32 degree parallel?
     A:   Yes, coalition aircraft are flying in the zone, in the no-fly
zone.

     Q:   You mentioned coalition aircraft.  Can you tell us who our allies
are in this case?  Who are flying, what countries are providing airplanes,
what countries are providing host nation support?
     A:   I think at this point I'll let each country talk about their own
participation in the coalition effort.

     Q:   Can you be any more specific about our own flights within the
zone, for instance, does it include both Navy, Marines, and Air Force?  Can you
say how many sorties have happened?
     A:   We'll try to give you a sortie count, but at the end of each
period.  As you know, we just started about an hour and 50 minutes ago.

     Q:   Sometime today?
     A:   No.  I don't anticipate one today.

     Q:   What about the three services?
     A:   My understanding is that we've had F-15's and F-18's over the
zone, but we'll check and see which services.  We may not be able to break
that out for you right away.

     Q:   Just to press you a little further on this coalition thing. 
The flying now over Iraq, is that essentially being done by U.S. aircraft
so far?
     A:   I'm only going to speak about U.S. aircraft.  We have U.S. F-15's
and F-18s over the zone.

     Q:   What is the position of the United States in pursuing Iraqi aircraft,
north of the 32nd if they come south?
     A:   I think, for the reasons that General Brandtner outlined yesterday,
I'm not going to get into rules of engagement.  It's something
that's considered to be an operationally sensitive issue.  I don't think
it's a good idea for us to be discussing it from the podium.

     Q:   You mentioned F-18s and F-15s, but are AWACS flying over the zone?
Can you give us some sense of how the reconnaissance is being carried out?
     A:   That's the kind of specific operational detail I'm not going to
get into.

     Q:   When you say that F-18s and F-15s are flying over the zone,
does that imply that there are no other aircraft types flying?
     A:   It may be true at this point, but I'm not sure it's always
going to be true.  I'm just not going to get into that kind of specific
detail.  I just wanted to confirm the one point that yes, we are flying
aircraft over the zone.  Specifically, I know that F-15s and F-18s were
over there.

     Q:   What kind of types of aircraft will be used to conduct the
reconnaissance?
     A:   I can go through what we have in the theater, but I'm not going to be
able to get into the details of specifically what kind of aircraft are flying
in a particular location.

     For the record, in the theater we have F-15Es, F-14s, F-16s, F/A-
18s, A-10s, F-4Gs, EF-111s, F-117s, U-2, EA-6Bs, AV-8Bs, E-3s or
the AWACS, and RC-135s, as well as we now have various refueling and
airlift assets.

     Q:   Are the F-18s from the Independence, or are they ground based?
     A:   On the Independence, they have them there.  I'm not sure whether
we have any ground-based F-18s there.

     Q:   There was a question asked yesterday to General Brandtner, he
said that this ban includes civilian airliners, and said we would
intercept civilian aircraft as they're flying, but we promise not to shoot
down civilian airplanes.  One of the Iraqi ambassadors this morning was
quoted on television indicating they might challenge us with civilian
aircraft flights.  How are we going to stop them flying civilian airplanes
if we're not prepared to shoot them?
     A:   No aircraft, helicopter or fixed-wing, civilian or military,
should fly below 32 degrees.  That takes care of the problem.  I'm not
going to discuss specific rules of engagement.

     Q:   You're not concerned about another Vincennes incident where we're
going to shoot down...  These people are quite likely to challenge us with
a civilian airliner...
     A:   No aircraft should fly below the 32 degrees north latitude
parallel line.  I'm not going to get into the specific way we'll operate,
the specific rules of engagement.

     Q:   Are special precautions being taken to protect...
     A:   We will take the appropriate measures that are necessary.

     Q:   Can you tell us whether our surveillance planes report whether
they're being tracked by Iraqi air defense units on the ground in the
south, or are they simply ignoring us at this point?
     A:   That kind of level of detail I don't have at this time.  We'll see if
we can get information like that.  I'm not aware, at least from initial
reports, of any painting or illumination or anything of that nature. Whether
they're using general radar to track what we're doing, that's a different
story.
     Q:   If that happens, how do we consider it?  Do we see it as
threatening or do we simply ignore it?
     A:   Painting or illumination with fire control radar would be
considered a provocative act and they've been told not to do it.

     Q:   We've told them to simply don't...
     A:   General Brandtner mentioned that yesterday.

     Q:   Comparatively speaking, is it easier to monitor the flight of
aircraft in southern Iraq as opposed to say northern Iraq?  Is there any
difference in the geography that would make it easier to do this?
     A:   By the Iraqis?

     Q:   Iraqi aircraft.  And what has been your experience so far in
terms of the Iraqis violating the similar rules in northern Iraq?  Have you
gotten any problems that may help you out in this operation?
     A:   I would say almost completely they have not violated the no-fly
zone above 36 degrees.  There may have been one day where we had one flight, I
can't remember now.  So in terms of our ability to monitor, I'd say it's equal.

     Q:   Yesterday, you all were going to check to see if we had forced
down any planes over the 36th parallel after that was declared a no-fly
zone.  Do we have an answer to that yet?
     A:   The incident that we were discussing yesterday, the two
incidents, were March 20th and March 22nd, both 1991.  There were two shoot-
downs.  One was in the area of Tikrit and the other was in the area of Kirkuk.
I don't believe they were above the 36 degree line.  This was back right after
the end of the war.  We were in a different kind of regime at that point.  That
was when there were no flights anywhere in Iraq.

     To completely answer your question, there have been no challenges
above the 36 degree line where we've had to react to and shoot down
aircraft.

     Q:   I'm curious whether there have been any changes in Iraqi military
activity in the marsh areas over the last 24 hours?  Has it subsided,
increased?  Have new forces been brought into the region?
     A:   I'm not aware of any significant new forces in the region.  I'd
say there has still been some small scale activity.  I'm not aware of any
drop-off in the activity of ground forces.  But I think it's too early to
make a judgment on it.

     Q:   The last time I recall there were weekly meetings of American and
Iraqi generals in the north to head off potential misunderstandings of the
rules of the security zone in the north.  Do these meetings continue?  Is
this channel being used to discuss this particular operation?
     A:   My understanding is those meetings do continue and they would be
available if the Iraqis had any questions.  I'm not sure what questions
they could have.  The instructions to the Iraqis were rather explicit.

     Q:   Is this how we notified them of the no-fly zone?
     A:   No, I think it was at the UN.  But that process still goes on and
it would be available.  And we haven't set up anything similar in the
south.  But primarily, that's for use in the situation in the north where
we have the security zone as well as the no-fly zone and the efforts to
provide relief to the Kurdish population is more complicated and requires
more discussion.

     Q:   What orders do our pilots have should Iraqi artillery units or
other units fire on Shiite villagers?
     A:   At this point, we are enforcing a no-fly zone for the purpose of
allowing our reconnaissance missions to be undertaken without any
interference.  So we're not dealing at this point in time with activities
on the ground.

     Q:   If they see it, what do they do?  Are they reporting it in?
     A:   That's one reason why we have the reconnaissance operation
underway, so that we can see what is going on on the ground, get a better feel
for it.  That would be a separate question we would address with our
coalition partners.   It's not part of this particular operation.

     Q:   Is that point being addressed now?  Is it something that will
happen down the road?  Critics say you really aren't helping the refugees
that much by just establishing a no-fly zone.
     A:   I think, as the military briefers yesterday were discussing,
clearly there is an impact from not being able to...  If the Iraqis are
conducting ground operations, not being able to do the aerial observation
or aerial attacks as part of those operations diminishes your
capability.  So that is a side impact of what we are doing.  A side impact
of that's an impact of the no-fly zone.  That is the sense...could you get back
to your question?  If you would, repeat it?

     Q:   My question is, critics say that by just having a no-fly zone,
you are not doing enough to really help the Shiite Muslims who are in that
area.
     A:   In the first place, it's not a question of just the Shiite
Muslims.  Our concern is for the repression of the people of all southern
Iraq, whatever their ethnic background or religious background.  The
majority are Shiite.

     What we're trying to do is get the Iraqis to live up to the UN resolu-
tions, particularly Resolution 688, to stop repressing the people in southern
Iraq.  Of course 688 applies also to northern Iraq as well as central Iraq, and
we'd like to get the repression stopped all over.  But we had a specific
problem we were dealing with in terms of southern Iraq -- of their using air
assets to engage in ground attacks on that population. The no-fly zone will
have an impact on their ability to conduct those kind of operations.  If they
continue ground activity, that will be a situation we'll address down the road.

     Q:   Then back to my original question, are there meetings going on
now?  Is there something that's in an active stage of discussion with
our allies?
     A:   At this point, we're setting up the monitoring regime.  We'll be
able to get a better fix on their compliance with 688.  That is the effort,
to get them to comply.
     Q:   General Brandtner yesterday when asked how long this will go on
sort of gave a loose answer, until we're satisfied that Saddam Hussein is
behaving.  Do you have a better handle on how long it's going to continue?
     A:   It will go on until the coalition decides that Iraq is in
compliance with 688.

     Q:   Iraq suggested earlier that, if this zone went into effect, that
they would expel UN guards from Iraq and those guards, I think, provide
protection for UN relief workers.  Is there any indication that that is
being done or will be done?
     A:   That is something that the coalition would address with the UN if
it happened.  They have been not renewing visas for UN guards over the last
few weeks, although I did see some press reports this morning that they had
just renewed a bunch of visas.  They may have reversed that policy this
morning; I'm not sure.

     Q:   But you have no knowledge about that?
     A:   No, I just saw some press reports this morning.

     Q:   For planning purposes, if there is a challenge or an intercept or
an actual shoot-down, will that information be released here?  And what
will you do with gun camera footage?  Will that be released in-theater or
will that have to come back here for security review and release?
     A:   Obviously, the information would be released back here.  If we had
gun camera footage, that's something we're trying to work out right now, about
where we would do the release.  Obviously, the idea would be to get the
information out as quickly as possible and we'd figure out the best way to do
that.

     Q:   Can we get a copy of the instructions that have been delivered to
the Iraqis?
     A:   You'd have to go to the State Department for that.

     Q:   Has there been a formal Notice to Airmen issued for that region
south of 32 degrees -- civilian Notice to Airmen?
     A:   I'm not aware that there are any civilian aircraft routes through
there.  As a matter of fact, there haven't even been any Iraqi civilian
flights in the last month or so, or couple of months, in the region.  
There's probably a formal Notice to Airmen that's still in effect from the
wartime, but I'll check on that.

     Q:   Bob, some Air Force pilots I spoke with who recently returned
from Saudi Arabia said their tour of duty in the region, which typically
lasted about three months, may be doubled.  Has there been any decision on
how long our personnel will be there before they swap out?
     A:   I'm not aware of any decision on how long the tours of duty will
be in the future.  This is, obviously, a stepping up of operations, but how
long, at what level, what tempo will be required, I think we're still
waiting to see.

     Q:   So personnel out there can expect to stay there indefinitely?
     A:   I wouldn't want to say that, no.  I think we'll have a regular
rotation, but whether we'll change the rotation we've been using, I just
don't know at this time.  I'm not sure we've made that decision.

     Q:   Where is General Michael Nelson's headquarters?
     A:   He's operating out of the theater, but we're not going to get
into specifics.

     Q:   You mentioned additional AWACS and RC-135s were deployed in the
last 48 hours.  Were there any tankers deployed as well -- additional
tankers, air refuelers?
     A:   We've had tankers moved out there, but I think they may have gone
out before the last 48 hours.

     Q:   There were additional tankers deployed, but before 48 hours?
     A:   Yes.

     Q:   And were there any combat aircraft?  Have any combat aircraft
been deployed?
     A:   I believe General Brandtner talked about that yesterday.  We sent
out a limited number of new combat aircraft, or additional combat aircraft.

     Q:   Is it possible to get the bases they came from, the units?
     A:   We can try to check on that.

     Q:   Can we get the new numbers, then, on people in theater, at least
the Air Force?
     A:   Sure. These numbers are the latest ones we have, but obviously,
this is a changing situation with new aircraft going out.

     Q:   ...in the last 48 hours?
     A:   Since the last briefing I can give you this, the pluses and
minuses.

     A total of about 24,000 in theater.  That breaks down to Army, 1,702,
and I'm going to caveat that in a second.  That's minus 48.  Air Force,
4,302, that's plus 43.  Navy, 13,476, that's minus 613.  Marines, 2,136,
that's minus three.  That comes to a total of 21,804.  In addition, and
this is the caveat I was talking about, there are 2,092 people involved in
exercise Intrinsic Action in Kuwait, but they will leave when that
exercise is finished.  We kept them as a separate number.  But these
figures come in from CENTCOM and we update them whenever we can.  But I
can't say that they reflect the latest flights out.

     Q:   Have there been any test firings of Patriot missiles in Saudi
Arabia or in any other countries besides Israel?
     A:   We'll have to ask the question.  I don't know if they've done any
test firings.  I'm not sure that the story you saw about the firing in Israel
has anything to do with what's going on now.  My understanding is that's an
exercise where engineers were working with engineers, and it was more talking
about new developments.

     Q:   Can you take the question about Patriot test firings in other
countries?
     A:   Sure.  My understanding is that this is part of a series of tests
they're having with Israel.  It has nothing to do with developments in the
region.  It has to do with Israeli engineers talking to American engineers.

          Q:   Can you run down the total again on the ships one more time?  I
know you do it ad nauseam.  Also, while you've been reluctant to do this,
can you give us some kind of ballpark figure on planes in the area, while
maybe not giving us a breakdown on the aircraft?
     A:   I will ask the question about aircraft, but that is something
that the operators have been reluctant to get into.

     Q:   See if you can get us a ballpark?
     A:   In terms of ships.  In the Red Sea, there are five ships.  They
include two destroyers, one frigate, and two auxiliary ships.  In the
Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Northern Arabian Sea region, there are 18
ships.  They include the USS Independence, which is specifically in the
Persian Gulf; the command ship LaSalle; three cruisers; two destroyers;
three frigates; four amphibious ships; and four auxiliary ships.

     Do you want the ships in the Mediterranean as well?

     Q:   No, that's all right.

     Q:   Bob, can you refresh my memory on how long the exercise was
supposed to last with the Kuwaiti military?
     A:   We haven't set an end date on exercise Intrinsic Action.  The
other two Marine exercises both have already ended and the Marines have
redeployed.

     Q:   Do your 18 ships in the Gulf include the amphibious?
     A:   Four amphibious ships, yes.  Oh, in the Gulf?  They are in the
Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea region.  I'm not sure if they're specifically
in the Persian Gulf.

     Let me move on to the hurricane assistance.  The Army Operations Center
and U.S. Forces Command continue to monitor the situation and are proceeding to
be prepared to respond to requests for assistance to local authorities.  To
date, we have met all of those requests as well as the requests from the FEMA
office.  We're continuing to work closely with FEMA and state officials through
our defense coordinating officers in order to identify further requirements.
We had an MFC yesterday that gave you kind of a roll-up of assistance up
through yesterday or up into yesterday, and what I'm going to give you now is
the sort of new things since about noon yesterday.
     Five Air Force Reserve C-5 flights moved FEMA communications equipment and
other emergency gear, plastic sheeting, Air Force airlift controllers, and
general relief supplies from a variety of locations -- including Panama. I
think Fort Howard had a supply of sheeting, among other things -- to Florida. 

     Three Air Guard C-130 flights moved emergency equipment and supplies
from Savannah, Baltimore, and Mansfield, Ohio, to Homestead.  There were
also C-130 Air Force reserve flights, four of them, that moved relief
supplies, vehicles, fuel, and maintenance equipment from various locations
to Florida.

     The Army Corps of Engineers military and civilian personnel are
operating in Florida and Louisiana to survey damage and identify specific
needs.  Power reconnaissance teams have arrived in Miami and Camp
Beauregard, Louisiana.  A power generator team of four 750-kilowatt and
one 500-kilowatt generators are setting up in Shreveport, Louisiana.  We
also have damage survey teams at Homestead Air Force Base and in Miami.

     An aerial survey of Florida flood control structures, such as dams
and locks, was conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers, and only minor
damage was reported.  The Corps of Engineers contracting specialists in
Jacksonville, Florida, are coordinating FEMA contracts for debris removal --
it's a $3 million set of contracts -- installation of plastic roofing, power
generators, and potable water.

     The Army's 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg will provide 14 tents and
a fuel truck to the Miami Federal Prison, in addition to the 20 portable
light sets previously provided to illuminate the perimeter.  The tents are
to house guards and their families, and the tanker truck is to fuel the
generators already in use.  They've also moved an additional 14 tents and a
tanker from Fort Bragg to support Department of Transportation
operations in Florida.

     A team of Army engineers from the 101st Airborne Division in Fort
Campbell are on their way to Barksdale, Louisiana, to stand by with power
generators to be used as needed.

     Other capabilities that we have are ready to be used, are ready to be
called upon, including tents, cots, blankets, water purification units, and
they're all ready to be called upon.

     I think when I talked yesterday, we announced the name of the defense
coordinating officer for Florida.  The counterpart in Louisiana is Colonel
Gerry Dillon.  He's the commander of the Devil Brigade, the 5th Infantry
Division, Mechanized, at Fort Polk, Louisiana.  They're now collocated with
FEMA at Camp Beauregard, Louisiana.

     The other counterpart, the defense coordinating officer for Texas is
Colonel Robert Young.  He's the Chief of Current Operations for the III
Corps at Fort Hood, Texas.  He's still at Fort Hood, because the state
emergency operation center was not activated.

     Approximately 4,284 Florida National Guardsmen have been activated and
are under state control, and 1,083 Louisiana Guardsmen have been activated
and are under state control.

     In terms of the damage to Homestead Air Force Base, all military
members assigned to Homestead were placed on temporary duty status and
began drawing allowances, per diem, for the particular location to which
they were evacuated.  Family support centers at Eglin Air Force Base,
MacDill Air Force Base, Patrick Air Force Base, all of them in Florida, and
Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, and Moody Air Force Base, Georgia,
continue to work around the clock to assist evacuated military members and
their families with lodging and assistance.

     The Air Force is setting up a procedure through the Judge Advocate's
office to expedite military claims for the disaster area, and a toll free
information line has been established for evacuated personnel to use in
order to report their locations and obtain instructions and information.
That number is 1-800-232-9916.

     Homestead Air Force Base currently has no electricity, water,
telephone, or any other services available.  A team of civil engineers is
conducting a damage assessment and determining what is necessary to
reconstitute the base.  It's going to be some time before we have any
dollar estimates on damage.

     The base commander has asked that no one return to the Homestead area
until Monday, August 31st.  However, beginning tomorrow, the base will be
open between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for personnel who happen to be in the
area still to visit their homes and survey personal property.

     Q:   Are they using the runway now, Bob?  You said the Air National
Guard C-130's had been going to Homestead.
     A:   My understanding is the runway is usable now.

     Q:   Discuss the flow of aid from military sources into the hurricane-
damaged area.  If it moving at appropriate speed?  Are they getting it
fast enough?  Has there been any criticism of it not moving in fast enough?
     A:   We've heard no criticism from the state or FEMA authorities.  As
I say, we've been able to meet every one of their requests so far.  You
have to remember that FEMA has the lead in this.  We get requests through
FEMA or sometimes from the state authorities directly.  When we get those,
we've got the ability to try to meet them.  But we have to respond to their
requests.

     Q:   We were told yesterday that meals ready to eat were going to be
put into the area.  It seems that one of the things that people need
desperately is food.  Where are we on the process of getting them these
meals?
     A:   My understanding is that at least 200,000 were supplied.  Some of
them, I believe, have been used.  I don't have the exact number.  But
again, whether that's what the state authorities are looking for...
They requested meals ready to eat; we positioned 200,000 in the region.  I
think the National Guard troops are certainly using them.  Of that 200,000,
I think 120,000 were supplied to the Red Cross.  In terms of what the Red
Cross, whether they've found that's something people want, you'd have to
ask them.

     Q:   There was a woman from Dade County last evening quoted as saying
that food was not coming in fast enough.  It was kind of critical of the
way things are being appropriated.  It seems like fingers are being
pointed -- the military saying we haven't been asked; the Red Cross saying
we've asked, but we're not hearing anything.  It seems strange that it's
taking so long to get relief to these people in southern Florida.  If we
were doing something for an overseas country, the criticism is, it would be
much smoother and much faster.
     A:   It takes a number of days to get an operation going, whether it's
overseas or in the United States.  However, FEMA is the lead organization in
terms of dealing with disasters, organizing disaster assistance.  Each of the
cabinet agencies has certain responsibilities under FEMA.  As I mentioned the
other day, the Department of Agriculture has the lead responsibility for food
supplies.  If they can't meet it, people go to the other agencies, including
DoD.  We often get involved, particularly in terms of transportation of
materials for other agencies.

     We were asked to provide 200,000 meals ready to eat.  We provided
those.  I think the Department of Agriculture is also moving in certain
kinds of food stocks into the area.  The specific question you have about
why a particular location has not received the kind of assistance it needs
is something you have to address to FEMA.  We're basically moving the stuff
that we've been requested to, standing by with other assets if we're
requested.  We need them to direct us to the specific location.

     Q:   Along those same lines, I wonder whether there are any legal or
budgetary restrictions that are keeping you from doing more, say clearing
streets or rebuilding houses.
     A:   There are, as you know, any time we operate domestically in the
United States -- well, any time we operate anywhere, but particularly domesti-
cally in the United States -- there are certain legal requirements that must be
filled.  I'm not an expert on them.  We can certainly get information for you,
if you'd like.  But basically, we need a request from a state government or
from another federal agency to provide something.  There are certain legal
requirements in terms of what the United States military can do domestically in
the United States.  We have to meet certain legal requirements.  Certain
determinations have to be made that yes, we want the military to come in and do
this versus a private contractor or some other government agency.

     One of the things we do do, is the Army Corps of Engineers acts as the
contract agency for FEMA, but they're contracting out to private
organizations to do certain kinds of things.  We mentioned them earlier --
debris removal, installation of plastic roofing, power generation, water
purification.  One thing we can do is to serve as a contracting agency.
That's certainly within our legal parameters.

     If certain legal hurdles are met, U.S. troops could be involved in
other kinds of activities, but that's not normally the case domestically in
the United States.

     Q:   Can you further address the question over here, if you can go and
help the Kurds right off the bat, and if you can rebuild Kuwait immediately
after the war very fast and efficiently, why can't you go in and completely
take over the job of doing south Florida and do it with the same
efficiency?
     A:   There are legal restrictions.  We can go and try to research the
actual requirements, but there are legal restrictions on use of the U.S.
military to perform functions within the boundaries of the United States,
in terms of whether it's performing police functions, or putting out fires,
or clearing streets, or providing civilian airlift, or whatever.  There are
certain legal requirements that must be met.

     Q:   Besides Homestead, did any military facilities in either Florida
or Louisiana sustain any significant damage from the hurricane?
     A:   We went over it a little bit yesterday.  Mostly very light
damage.  I think they had a power outage at the naval facility in the Keys.
But otherwise, we were able to move all the aircraft out of the way
and we had no damage.


     Q:   I'm having trouble understanding this.  This whole area has been
declared a federal disaster area by the President.  Why is it that the
military, that has all the capability in the world to move into an area and
help these people who are desperate, we've not seen anything like this ever
in the United States, and we watch these people on television, hear them,
read about their stories.  It's just incomprehensible that it's taking so
long to do anything.
     A:   Yes, it's a federal disaster area, but it's not a martial law area.
It's not something...

     Q:   I'm not saying martial law.
     A:   But when you're talking about when the U.S. military comes in and
takes over completely, basically we take complete control.  That would be a
different legal situation.  Right now the state authorities are in charge.
You're getting into an area that I'm not comfortable with, in the sense of
my level of knowledge.  But I do know that a federal disaster area makes
certain federal things apply in terms of loans and insurance and that kind
of thing.  It doesn't mean that the military is taking over and imposing
martial law or taking over all services.  The state authorities are still
in charge.  They work with the FEMA, which is a civilian branch of the U.S.
government, part of the executive branch.  It's a civilian organization,
and civilian leadership is still in charge.  The military stands ready to
meet requests that come to us, but we are a support organization here.

     Q:   Going back to Iraq, do you have any cost data or incremental cost
data, or have we asked any coalition partners who you will not name to help
share the cost of this Operation Southern Watch?
     A:   No, I don't have any cost data.  Obviously, it would be incremental
above and beyond the normal cost of operations in the theater.

     Q:   Is that something you can check maybe?
     A:   It will take awhile before we have that kind of data.

     Q:   Anything else in your book?
     A:   Yes, Somalia.

     Since the last briefing on Tuesday, we've had 35 more flights to Wajir,
Kenya, with a total of 598 metric tons of food.  That breaks down to: on
Tuesday, 11 flights moved 201.5 metric tons of food; Wednesday, six flights
carried 87.75 metric tons of food; and Thursday, today, 18 flights delivered
309 metric tons.  That's a total up through today of 70 food flights with 1,051
metric tons of food to Wajir.

     Tomorrow, the first four flights to Somalia are planned, as well as
we'll also have flights to Wajir.  We plan to fly to several places in
Somalia, the first being Belet Uen.  That set of flights will also carry
media who are interested in covering it.

     We've got 567 military personnel on the ground in Mombasa as part of
Joint Task Force Provide Relief.  It includes airlift controller,
maintenance, security, and other support personnel.  It breaks down to 82
Army, 470 Air Force, seven Navy, and eight Marines.

     That's all I have.

     Press:  Thank you.

                                   (END)


Major General John C. Heldstab, USA
Thursday, August 27, 1992 - 8:00 P.M.


     Mr. Bob Hall, DASD/PA:  Thank you all for coming in.  Tonight's briefing
is on the support that the Department of Defense is going to be giving, or is
continuing to give, the additional support to the disaster situation in Florida
and Louisiana.

     We've brought up from the Army Ops Center, to give you a quick outline of
where we are going tonight, Major General John C. Heldstab, who is the Director
of Military Support for the Department of the Army.

     General Heldstab:  I'm glad to be back talking with you again.  In
response to the recent announcement by the President, DoD is moving out and
taking the following additional steps.

     We have two of our Army commanders, one each in Louisiana and one in
Florida.  Lieutenant General Sam (Samuel E.) Ebbesen, our Second Army com-
mander, is in Florida working with state authorities and in support of FEMA.
Lieutenant General Tom (Neal T.) Jaco is the commander of our Fifth Army, and
he's located with the Louisiana state authorities in Baton Rouge.  He, too, is
in support of FEMA activities.

     As we speak, we've deployed a logistics assessment team from the First
Corps Support Command at Fort Bragg, NC, into the Florida disaster area.
Colonel (Woodrow O.) Wilson, the Chief of Staff of the Corps Support Command,
is the commander of this effort.  They are on the ground as we speak now.  They
are being followed by a logistics advanced party consisting of 30 to 40
personnel and vehicles, who deployed by C-130 aircraft from Fort Bragg at 8
p.m. this evening.

     During the evening will flow additional units.  These units include
medical troops, an engineer unit, communications forces, transportation
elements, helicopters, a services unit, a combat arms unit for security, and a
maintenance unit.  The specific flow of units into the area will be determined
based   based on the assessment made by Colonel Wilson, which is driven by the
needs in the in the immediate area.  Our goal is to have forces on the ground
and operating by the morning of the 28th -- tomorrow morning.

     In addition to the support DoD has previously provided, here are some of
the things we're providing now:  a supply barge from Guantanamo Naval Base in
Cuba, containing $645,000 worth of supplies, such as food and beverage items,
pillows, eating utensils and other sundry items.  We're also providing three
aero-medical evacuation helicopters to support the Health and Human Services
Disaster Medical Assistance Teams in the area.  We're providing life support to
the doctors, nurses, and medical personnel of those disaster medical assistance
teams.  We're transporting four additional disaster medical assistance teams
into Florida.  We're sending five search and rescue specialists and two
structural engineering specialists to work with Dade County officials.  We're
sending four 750 kilowatt generators and support personnel into the Miami area.
We're sending 20 mobile kitchen trailers with personnel and equipment to
provide prepared food in the disaster area.

     For Louisiana, we are providing four 750 kilowatt generators, 30,000
meals-ready-to-eat, 2,500 cots, and are ready to provide other support as soon
as requested.

     We'll continue to assess the requirements as they develop and send more
assets as needed.  We anticipate the task force I talked about -- the forces
from Fort Bragg will consist of between 2,000 and 5,000 personnel -- and we'll
send more folks if necessary.

     That concludes my statement.  What are your questions?

     Q:  Will all the forces come from Fort Bragg?
     A:  Currently all of the forces I enumerated in the task force are from
Fort Bragg.  Obviously other personnel, for example generator personnel, are
coming from other posts.  But they'll come from any place they need to, the
bulk of them right now from the Fort Bragg area.

     Q:  These troops have been ordered in by the President; he announced it on
the plane today.  Why weren't these troops and mobile field kitchens sent in
earlier?  Why tonight?  Why not yesterday or earlier today?
     A:  Well, based on Mr. (Andrew) Card's  (Secretary of Transportation)
assessment, and response back to the President, he gave us the impetus to get
in there and get with it.

     Q:  What you're saying is that it is not that the Army or the military is
not at fault here, if there is fault, that you are all responding to an order
that was given now and now earlier?
     A:  Yes, I don't know that there's fault.  There's tremendous need in the
area, and we're responding to that tremendous need in the area.

     Q:  When did you actually get your rudder orders from the White House to
begin doing this?
     A:  I don't have the exact time.  It hasn't been a matter of many hours.
This has been a fairly recent announcement.

     Q:  How many people can 20 mobile kitchens serve?
     A:  They can serve 300 people every two hours.  And, of course, they can
cook as long as the mess personnel that are there continue to function and
continue to stay awake and provide the food.

     Q:  Each kitchen?
     A:  Each kitchen.

     Q:  Three hundred people?
     A:  Three hundred people every two hours.

     Q:  So the capacity of all of them put together is how many?
     A:  I'd have to some quick math.  Three hundred every two hours time 24
hours times 20 mobile kitchen teams.

     Q:  That's 6,000 in two hours, for 20.
     A:  That's a lot of folks.

     Q:  When will these kitchens go down, from where, and where will they
arrive, and at what time?
     A:  They are leaving from Fort Bragg this evening.  We expect by tomorrow
morning they'll be preparing food in Florida.

     Q:  Where will they be going into?
     A:  That's partially the problem of the assessment team.  I would suspect
Florida City would be one location where I can think of, and Homestead City,
only because of the damage in the area.

     Q:  So the C-5 will actually fly into Homestead Airport?
     A:  As I understand, the C-5 is flying into Homestead.

     Q:  Is all of this stuff being airlifted in, or is some of it being...
     A:  It depends on what makes sense.  Clearly, the larger items may be able
to get there just about as fast driving as you can flying.  In fact, as we
start to flow a lot of forces, obviously aircraft become the constraining
element, although they haven't been, and I don't anticipate they'd be now.  But
given your position in the queue, it may be faster to drive some things.  For
example, the 750 kilowatt generators were driven down because that was the
fastest way to get down there.

     Q:  Can you talk about an operational level?  For instance, amplifying on
Mark's question, will you build, for instance, tent cities to house some of the
people who are homeless down there?  Do you anticipate creating a little
village of some sort with military personnel?  And what will these individuals
be doing?  You'll have engineers.  You'll have support.  Will they be building
places?  Will they be tearing things down?  Will they be cleaning out...
     A:  Clearly, I think when you go into a disaster situation, there are a
series of things you need to do initially.  The first is to provide food,
water, shelter.  You need to clean the place up so folks can move around;
that's debris removal and I think we'll be doing some of all of that.  Each of
these commanders, as they get in the area, have got to take a look at the area.
Some places may be pretty well set structurally and not have problems.  Some of
the roads may be cleared already.  In other cases, you may have to go in and
remove debris from roads.

     Q:  Are you sending in bulldozers?
     A:  We'll send in an engineering unit.  It may, in fact have dozers with
it.  The engineering unit that is normally sent has dozers and bucketloaders
and the sorts of things that can clear debris from roads.

     Q:  How big is this engineering unit, though?
     A:  Currently it's anticipated it will be a battalion size unit.

     Q:  But, I mean, how much space can they take up?  Most of that area south
of Miami is pretty hard hit.  What kind of impact will that one battalion have?
     A:  If it's employed as we typically employ those sorts of units in
support of military formations, it's broken into company size elements and then
moved out to various areas.  So it can do quite a bit in terms of clearing
debris in particular.  If the mission is to clear debris from road nets, they
can do a pretty good job; very capable.

     Q:  If I'm a hungry person south of Miami tomorrow morning, where should I
go...
     A:  I would look for one of those mobile kitchen teams.

     Q:  But how can they find out where they are?
     A:  We'll have to set up and get -- and obviously we've got the problem of
getting the information out as to where those mobile kitchens are going to be.
I would look first in the Florida City and Homestead areas.

     Mr. Hall:  We'll be taking advantage of local communications down there.
As soon as we find out where they're setting up, we'll be putting that kind of
word out.

     Q:  Was Secretary Cheney consulted in all of this?  Did he give the order?
Or how'd the order come out to do this?
     A:  The order came through the normal system, as I understand it.  Mr.
Hall may be able to shed some light on that.  Since I was down at my Ops Center
grinding away trying to get guys moving, he was working some of that.

     Mr. Hall:  The request came over from the White House to (Deputy) Secre-
tary (Donald) Atwood.  It was passed to the Under Secretary of the Army, Mr.
(John) Shannon, who then gave the instructions to the Army.

     Q:  Approximately what time?
     Mr. Hall:  This afternoon.  Let me make a point here, that we have been
providing significant assistance to the region for some days, and we've been
talking about that here from the podium.  What we're talking about tonight is a
response to the assessment made by Mr. Card.  And after his conversation with
the President -- Andy Card, who's the Secretary of Transportation -- after his
conversation with the President and the assessment that the damage was far more
severe than we had first thought, that they needed additional help and that
this was the kind of thing that the military could step in.  And, of course,
we're providing help that's above and beyond what is already being done by the
local authorities, the state authorities, the other federal authorities.  So
it's something that we're adding in on top of all the other stuff that's being
done.  But the assessment was made by Mr. Card today that they just needed
more.  And they were going to need more from us as well.  

	Q:  General, this battalion-size unit, that would be 800 to 1,000?
	A:  And engineering battalions tend to be a little bit smaller; about 500.
And don't hold me to that.  Obviously units vary in size depending upon
their...

	Q:  ... would be among the 2,000 to 5,000 --
	A:  Oh, yes.  Oh, yes.

	Q:  -- and not above that.  Would they come from, say, Memphis, or will
they come from Fort Bragg also?
	A:  All of the forces I talked to were coming from Fort Bragg, North
Carolina.

	Q:  Unit designations?
	A:  I'll get those later this evening.  The question I responded to
earlier said, "When did we get the word?"  They are working that right now.
Those forces are mustering.  I should have that in an hour, but I don't have it
at my fingertips right now.

	Q:  A couple of questions.  Number one, is this totally an Army operation?
	A:  No.

	Q:  Can you tell us what other services are --
	A:  Sure.  First of all, let me talk about my staff.  While I come from
the Army Ops Center, I, in fact have a joint staff.  I'm a Department of
Defense asset in times of disaster, as I was during the Los Angeles riots, and
I have a joint staff with Air Force and Navy deputies.  The Air Force has done
yeoman's work.  The classic example -- the Air Force has done yeoman's work
providing airlift.  They have dedicated aircraft to this effort, to DoD and to
other agencies that need airlift into the area.  The Navy and Marines are
standing by if we need assets from them, and have given me lists of things to
provide.  The real key is, I have those sorts of fellows on my staff and can
ask them for things.

	Q:  Excuse me, General.  I take it since this is Fort Bragg, these'll be
the 82nd.
	A:  These are people from the 1st Corps Support Command, as part of 18th
Airborne Corps.

	Q:  Have you contributed any Navy assets, you said available if needed?
	A:  The Navy is working the supply barge with the $645,000 worth of stuff,
yes.  And that's Navy stuff coming out of Guantanamo.

	Q:  General, the estimates are that a million people are without power in
South Florida.  How many of those people can these four generators serve?
	A:  Four generators are designed to power small power grids or facilities
like hospitals.  And so they can help a small power grid.  They can help
generators.  They can help a hospital.  And we can provide additional genera-
tors.  That is not the extent of our capacity.  In fact, back to the question
on what other services provide, the Navy came in with a long listing of power
generation equipment -- not of that size; those are pretty big generators --
not of that size, but clearly of size that could be used in the area.

	Q:  This list that you've given us tonight of 2,000 to 5,000 troops --
does that fully satisfy the request that had been made by the White House, or
is this an open-ended request and we'll be hearing more requests tomorrow?
	A:  Yes, I said we'd provide whatever we need down there.  This task force
I define is between 2,000 and 5,000.  If there are more folks -- we're going to
do the job.

	Q:  You have the authority --
	A:  Yes.

	Q:  What extent is your authority, to completely clean up all of the South
Florida?
	A:  Well, we work in support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
obviously, they're the lead federal agency.  We're just putting some troops on
the ground to help in certain areas, and we can do that.  And we will send more
troops if we need.

	Q:  General, when you outlined what you were doing, it appeared that you
were outlining a great deal more for South Florida than you were for Louisiana
in that area.  Is that because the disaster is worse there, or is it because
you don't have a full read on the other area?
	A:  I think it may be the latter.  Mr. Card's assessment is completed down
there, and I think we are probably still in the assessment phase in Louisiana,
although indications today that I received was that there's some pretty severe
damage in Louisiana as well.

	Q:  Would you anticipate, then, that you would send more troops into
Louisiana at some point in the future?  And are you going to short yourself
some where else if you do that?
	A:  I mentioned General Tom Jago who's with state authorities in Louisi-
ana.  He's kind of our conduit for information in terms of what they're going
to need when they need it.  So we're ready to send  forces into Louisiana was
well.

	Q:  And you've got people that are free to do that?
	A:  Yes.

	Q:  If you can, characterize for us -- if 2,000 to 5,000 troops go down,
with what you've outlined right now, is that some help, a great help, a
tremendous help to what the overall extent of the damage is?  Put it in
perspective for us.
	A:  In terms of the damage, sending 5,000 guys and gals that can go down
and do a pretty good job, I think, is significant.  Does it meet the total
requirement?  I can't address that.  This is going to be -- the fellows that
are down there on the ground to take a look and say, "What else do we need?"
That's why we said it isn't limited to 5,000.  If you go down and you see you
need more, we're willing to send more.

	Q:  How much farther is your planning realistically taking you on this?
	A:  I talked to the press, I guess, two days ago now about some of the
anticipatory work we were doing at that point in time.  We continue to antici-
pate requests that may be made and look at where things are so that we can
position them.  The question came to me of Naval and Marine and Air Force
contributions.  As we look at the hurricane coming into Louisiana, as an
example, I began looking at power generation equipment and water purification
equipment.  We had those both at Gulfport, Mississippi, with the Navy and Fort
Hood, Texas, with the Army.  That's the anticipation we were getting, to try
and anticipate where things would be needed and how we could quickly get them
from one place into the disaster area once the hurricane had passed.

	Q:  Was the fault, then, that they weren't requested soon enough to be put
into place?
	A:  I think one's got to go through an assessment like Mr. Card did to
determine what the requirement is.  And the question earlier was, "Where are we
in the process in Louisiana?"  I have indications that some of the damage is
pretty severe, but the assessment coming in from the field has not yet matured
to the point where someone can come in and say, "I need power generation
equipment," although we did pre-position power generation equipment there.  "I
need water purification," et cetera.
	Mr. Hall:  General, excuse me.  I think it's worth remembering that what
we're doing is supplementing the work done by state authorities, by local
authorities, by local communities' organizations, by the other federal govern-
ment bodies that are also working this issue and providing various relief and
various services.  What we've got is an assessment that those were not going to
be sufficient, that they needed additional support and that's what we're
providing.

	Q:  Bob, those people don't have the C-5s and C-130s either.  I mean --
(inaudible) --
	A:  But of course, we've been moving material for those other agencies for
some time now.
	
	Q:  Let me ask Bob a question on that same line.  What assurance do you
have that these people that you have sent down there aren't going to sit
somewhere until some state official decides they want to use them?  Is there a
good line of communications between the state authorities, the disaster
authorities, FEMA, the troops who are on the scene, to assure that when they
get there, they're going to be off the plane and working?
	A:  These people that we're sending down now have a mission.  They know
what they're going to be doing when they get there and people are identifying
the specific places where they're going to go overnight.  So by the time they
arrive, they'll hit the ground running.

	Q:  They have a mission and authority?
	A:  Yes.

	Q:  Excuse me, General, you went by us pretty fast on these mobile kitchen
trailers.  Did you say 20 were going to Florida and --
	General Heldstab:  Twenty are going to Florida.

	Q:  And how many to Louisiana?
	A:  We have not yet had a request for a requirement for Louisiana.

	Q:  The 20 to Florida will go on one C-5.  Could one C-5 take -- (inaudi-
ble) --
	A:  No, one C-5 can't hold them.  It'll go on multiple aircraft.

	Q:  Multiple aircraft.  And many of these troops, these medical things
also go on C-130s and C-5s?
	A:  Well many of them will fly down, yes.  The bulk of that force should
fly.

	Q:  Do you have any idea how many flights you would have tonight?
	A:  You asked for unit designations and air flow schedule and I don't have
that.  As I said,  I expect that within an hour.
	Mr. Hall:  We need to get him back to the operations center so he can work
these kind of questions.  So whey don't we take one or two more questions?

	Q:  Can we determine where the stuff that's going to fly into Florida will
land?  Is it Homestead, is it Opa-Locka, is it Miami International or --
	A:  It will depend upon the staging area that Colonel Wilson decides is
most optimum for getting into the disaster area.  Clearly, Homestead is not
open after the hours of darkness.  That place was destroyed.  While they runway
is usable, there are no navigational aids, there are no runway lights, there's
nothing there.

	Q:  Can I then take you to -- this is a reason for housekeeping as much as
anything else.  We'd like to see them land.  We'd like to see the stuff
off-loaded.  Can you arrange that your people in Miami will talk to the media
down there?
	A:  Bill McClain can work that with you.  Yes.

	Q:  And when will that barge arrive from Gitmo?
	A:  I don't have the date.  It's within 24 hours as I recall.

	Q:  Where is it going?
	A:  Jacksonville.

	Q:  I assume it's being towed?
	A:  Either tow or push barges.  (Laughs) -- I guess it's one or the other
-- (laughter) --

	Q:  Did you say Jacksonville?
	A:  Yes.  It's the only place you could get it into.  It has the capabil-
ity to handle the containers that are on it.  It was the only port that could
lift the stuff off of the barge that's on it.

	Q:  What about law enforcement people?  Are you sending some MPs?
	A:  They'll probably be -- I suspect there will be and MP contingent, only
because when we send a force of this size we tend to send about an MP platoon
or more.  But clearly, we're not in the law enforcement business.

	Q:  You're not going to be stopping looting?
	A:  We are not in that business.  There are some specific prohibitions
against doing that for  federal troops.
	Mr.  Hall:  That is still the responsibility of the local law enforcement
authorities and the National Guard that's under state control.

	Okay, thank you very much.

                                 END




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



Newsgroups: sci.military