...................
Q: I just wanted to ask you about the remarks that General Zinni made yesterday. Apparently he didn't think too much of the plan to spend $97 million to support opposition forces in an effort to topple Saddam Hussein. Do his comments reflect the Pentagon's views on the efficacy of spending that money?A: This was not money that the Administration requested. It does not -- we are not required to spend that money, as I understand it. We are authorized to spend the money if certain conditions are met. Over the next few months the Administration will be looking at opposition groups in Iraq and deciding if any of them meet the standards that are specified in the law.
Q: The point of the question was that General Zinni expressed strong opinions that the opposition is so fragmented that to provide them with this sort of stuff would not be in America's best interests.
A: That's one of the issues that the Administration will have to look at.
Q: Does the Pentagon at the current time, in Zinni's words, see any "viable, united, coherent opposition", democratic opposition to Saddam Hussein?
A: Look, we're going to have to be looking at this whole thing in light of the legislation. And the standards that we have to look at, we have to find groups that are committed to democracy, that are broad based, have broad based support, that are opposed to Saddam, and we'll be looking to see if groups meet those standards.
Look, I think we all agree that Iraq would be better off with a different leader. We are in favor of a unified Iraq. We would like to see an Iraq that does not threaten its neighbors. We would like to see an Iraq that is devoted to peace and stability in the Middle East rather than disruption and conflict. We would like to see an Iraq that over time moves towards democracy.
I think right now we don't see broad based opposition groups that meet the standards that are laid out in this law, but that's one of the things we'll be reviewing over the next couple of months, to see exactly what's there.
Q: The legislation calls for $97 million. Apparently most of it would be the value of stocks taken out of your war reserves or your surplus reserves. Do you know how that breaks down?
A: I think you're leaping to a conclusion here. You're leaping to a conclusion that this money will be spent. That decision hasn't been made yet. We have to look at the facts and decide whether we find groups that meet the standards in the law. And that is something that will have to happen over the next weeks and months.
The legislation, as I understand it, does not require the United States to take actions. It authorizes the President to take actions if certain conditions are met. So now the question is are the conditions met, and that's what the Administration will be looking at.
Q: But to understand the legislation, whether I'm leaping to conclusions or not, it is there in black and white. I'm trying to understand what it means. Does it mean that you would take surplus stocks of tanks and other weapons and ship them somewhere to some foreign country where...
A: This is precisely what the legislation says. It says "The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations." It says the President is authorized. It doesn't say that he's required to do that.
So the issue will have to be, is yet to be determined. That is do we find any groups that meet the standards in the law. That will be the task to determine over the next couple of months.
Q: Don't you have 90 days to do this under the law?
A: That's what I said, a couple of months. Ninety days.
Q: Are you going to enter active discussions... (Laughter)
A: Charlie, the law was just passed when, this week or last week? We've got some time. The Administration will be paying attention to this. Right now the President has been quite busy on another issue involving stability in the Middle East. His staff has been involved in that issue.
Q: Isn't the Pentagon going to be at the very heart of this? After all, you are the ones who control the equipment.
A: Most decisions in government are made by several departments at once, and I'm sure this one will be made by several departments at once.
Q: Doesn't this undercut the statement you've made from the podium many times, the dispute between Saddam Hussein and the United Nations, when the United States now is talking about funding a program that would arm Saddam's opponents and try to topple him from power. Doesn't that make it a fight between, a dispute between the United States and Saddam?
A: I think the people who are trying to make this a dispute are you. I've tried to point out that this law does not require the President to take any action. It requires him to decide whether there are opposition groups that meet the standards of the law.
In terms of the conflict between the UN Security Council and Iraq, I think the terms of that conflict are absolutely clear and they do not relate specifically to this law. The terms of that are, is Iraq meeting its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program so it won't be a threat today or in the future to its neighbors. That's the issue between the UN and Iraq.
Q: We're just trying to find out whether the Administration supports the approach outlined in this new legislation.
A: The Administration will look at this and will take whatever actions are appropriate given our policy. And our policy is to contain Iraq and over time we believe that Iraq should have, the Iraqi people would be better off with a different government.
We have worked closely with the Iraqi opposition in the past, and I assume that if appropriate we will work closely with them in the future. But in terms of specific response to what we're going to do, I can't give you that because it has to be based on what we find out to be in compliance with this law.
Q: Are you disowning General Zinni's comments on this? He seems to have a much more pointed perspective on this than...
A: This is the advantage of being a general. He can have an extremely pointed perspective, and he apparently was perfectly willing to give his perspective to you or your colleagues.
Q: But you see no problem in the views that he expressed, right?
A: Far be it from me to contradict General Zinni who is an expert in this area of the world.
Q: Do you agree then with what he said that if the United States backs the long horse there...
A: I agree it's time to move to a different topic. Do you have a different topic? (Laughter)
Q: You agree that if the United States backed the wrong faction here, that Iraq could fractionalize and end up a lot worse off than it is now.
A: I see this topic has unified the normally fractious and factionalized press corps.
Q: Are there other requirements than just that this be a broad based opposition group? Before they see any military equipment, for instance, do they have to come up with a viable military plan? If so, who passes judgment on that military plan? Do they have to have a base of operations? If so, who will provide that base?
A: My understanding, and I have not read or memorized this law, but my understanding is that the legislation requires the Administration to review opposition groups and decide if any of the groups meet certain eligibility requirements, and those requirements are that they include a broad spectrum of Iraqi people or groups opposed to Saddam, and that they are committed to democratic values.
So one of the things we'll have to do is look at the Iraqi groups.
I think anybody who's looked at Iraq understands that these groups represent different parts of the Iraqi population. There are some groups that are comprised primarily of Shiites. There are other groups that represent Kurdish interests. Then there is a broader, overarching group called the Iraqi National Congress. We will look at all these groups and decide what their viability is and whether they meet the standards that are laid out in the law. This is something that hasn't been done yet. It will have to be done in the future.
Q: But the standards don't require having a viable military plan or having a base of operations.
A: My understanding is they don't, but I have not read the law, as I said.
Q:...think of the (inaudible) perhaps setting up safe zones in Iraq?
A: We have a safe zone in Iraq already. We have a no-fly zone in the north and in the south.
Q: Where these groups might be based, armed, and then protecting them with possibly U.S. air attacks?
A: That is a proposal that has been made by some of the Iraqi opposition groups, and I think it would impose very dangerous obligations on the United States right now.
Q: Since Turkey disagrees with this U.S. plan to reach an agreement with Baghdad as far as the plan. How do you comment?
A: I don't comment.
Q: It's an agreement between Baghdad and (unintelligible), they explain this agreement about this plan.
A: Well Turkey has its own interests to pursue with Baghdad and they turn primarily, I believe, on two issues. One issue is the Kurdish problem, and another issue is economic interests that the two countries share.
We believe that all countries should honor the UN embargo against dealing with Iraq. That embargo was set up by the UN Security Council Resolution. Until Iraq is in compliance with the UN Security Council Resolutions, we think that economic embargoes should stand.
Q: One last question about Iraq. It seems doubtful that there's any broad based opposition group, and the real issue seems to be the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's willingness to use them and seeming determination to develop them.
Now that UNSCOM has been essentially kicked out of the country, what is the Administration going to do in order to keep him from developing these weapons of mass destruction and perhaps using them?
A: This is an issue between the UN Security Council and Iraq, and the UN is working diligently to try to resolve this issue.
Q: You're telling me the Defense Department doesn't have any plans to...
A: I'm telling you this is a dispute... The issue here is the credibility of the UN and the UN Security Council. There's an agreement between the Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, and Iraq, and the issue now is whether that agreement is going to be followed or not. That is what recent meetings between Iraqi officials and the UN have been designed to sort out. That's clearly an issue for the UN Security Council to address, and it's in the process of trying to address that.
.............Press: Thank you.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct1998/t10221998_t1022asd.html