By Gordon I. Peterson
Senior U.S.
defense officials and military commanders praised the performance of U.S. and British
forces participating in December's four-day aerial attack on Iraq, claiming the air
strikes were highly successful in achieving the operation's limited military goals. At a
19 December Pentagon press briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen emphasized that
Iraq's ability to deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons had been degraded. He
also said that Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors had been
reduced.
Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Gen. Henry H. Shelton echoed Cohen's assessment. "I am confident that
the carefully planned and superbly executed combat operations of the past four days have
degraded Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction [WMD] programs, his ability to
deliver weapons, and his ability to militarily threaten the security of this strategically
important Persian Gulf region," Shelton told reporters. The JCS chairman said the
U.S. combatant commander responsible for the planning and execution of the aerial assault,
Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, was of the same
opinion.
There were no U.S. or
British combat casualties or aircraft losses--an exceptional achievement, in Zinni's view.
"Even in peacetime, exercises of this scale can be dangerous and can be very, very
trying; to do this without any casualties in the environment our forces faced was truly
remarkable," Zinni said at a 21 December Pentagon press briefing.
More than 300 U.S. and
British war-planes, spearheaded by U.S. Navy and Marine Corps squadrons operating at night
from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise during initial missions on
16 December, flew over 650 strike and strike-support sorties against approximately 100
Iraqi military and military-related targets. Ten ships of the U.S. Fifth Fleet launched
more than 325 Tomahawk cruise missiles, bolstered with an additional punch from more than
90 cruise missiles launched from U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers. Thousands of U.S. ground
troops, augmented by hundreds of special operations forces, also were deployed to protect
Kuwait or to carry out other unspecified missions.
"The forces
participating in Operation Desert Fox clearly demonstrated their skill, their
professionalism, and their dedication," Shelton said. "It was one team and one
fight," he added.
Iraqi Military
Targeted
Throughout the combined
joint operation, Clinton administration officials emphasized that the air strikes were a
continuation of the U.S. policy toward Iraq: to contain Saddam Hussein's WMD program and
to keep Iraq from attacking its neighbors. Cohen emphasized that the U.S. military went to
great lengths to minimize civilian casualties.
"Our quarrel is not
with the Iraqi people," Cohen said. "I find no joy in watching a people in a
land so long and rich in history endure deprivation from sanctions or suffering from
attacks. To the extent that there are civilian casualties, only Saddam and his brutally
destructive regime are to blame."
At the conclusion of the
first day of air strikes on 17 December, Cohen and Shelton said the initial U.S./British
objectives included Iraqi WMD sites and security forces, Iraq's integrated air defenses
and its military command and control system, barracks associated with Iraqi Republican
Guard units, and military intelligence headquarters. Subsequent strikes targeted
additional military and military-related facilities.
At his Pentagon press
briefing, Zinni reported that an estimated 85 percent of the U.S. strikes had hit their
targets. President Clinton's national security affairs advisor, Samuel R. Berger, expanded
on the preliminary bomb-damage assessment two days later in a speech at the National Press
Club, saying that Desert Fox had inflicted substantial damage on Iraq's WMD program and
military forces. "We damaged or destroyed much of the machinery that Iraq uses to
develop, test, and produce the delivery systems for its WMDs," he said, claiming that
Iraq's missile program had suffered a serious setback.
Berger also said that the
headquarters of the Special Republican Guard had been destroyed, as well as other
Republican Guard headquarters, barracks, and training facilities throughout Iraq.
In testimony before the
Senate Armed Services Committee on 5 January 1999, Shelton elaborated on the U.S.
assessment of the operation, telling the committee that Iraq appeared to be surprised by
the timing, size, and intensity of the attack. He said that intelligence estimates
indicated that approximately 1,400 elite Iraqi troops had been killed--including 600
members of Iraq's Special Republican Guard and 800 Republican Guard personnel.
Use of
U.S. Ground Forces Ruled Out
Berger emphasized that
Desert Fox was not aimed at dislodging Saddam from power, saying that that is not a
military objective that could plausibly be achieved through the use of air power. "He
[Saddam] is weaker, deterrence is stronger, and the Middle East is safer than before the
operation," Berger said. Answering critics of the administration's policy on Iraq who
have suggested that it is time for the United States to downgrade the threat posed by
Baghdad, Berger said that the reality is that Saddam's external aggression and internal
repression still pose a genuine threat not only to his neighbors but to global stability
in general.
In his remarks at the
National Press Club, Berger also ruled out the use of U.S. ground forces to dislodge
Saddam from power, saying it would require the commitment of hundreds of thousands of U.S.
troops. "I do not believe that the costs of such a campaign would be sustainable at
home or abroad," he said. Moreover, he added, "... the reward of success would
be an American military occupation of Iraq that could last years."
Clinton's national
security advisor said that the strategy the United States will continue to pursue is to
contain Saddam in the short and medium term--by force if necessary--and to work toward a
new government over the long term.
Iraq Challenges
"No-Fly"; Tracking Sites Destroyed
During the month
following Operation Desert Fox, Iraq repeatedly and aggressively challenged U.S. and
coalition enforcement of "no-fly" zones in Northern and Southern Iraq both by
tracking U.S. planes with its integrated air-defense systems and by periodic incursions by
jet aircraft. In response, U.S. aircraft fired precision-guided missiles to destroy the
Iraqi radar and missile sites that were tracking and targeting U.S. warplanes.
According to the Washington
Post, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein told his cabinet in early January that the no-fly
zones imposed on Iraq at the conclusion of the Gulf War are illegal and vowed that Iraq
will fight violations of its airspace "with all its courage and bravery."
Navy Capt. Michael
Doubleday, a Department of Defense (DOD) spokesman, said at a Pentagon briefing in January
that Iraq's integrated air-defense system is composed of more than 100 ground radars
located throughout the country. "It is clear from all the actions that have been
reported for the past several weeks that the Iraqi approach to the no-fly zones has
changed," he said.
Doubleday said that
Iraq's goal is to end the constraints imposed by the United Nations since Operation Desert
Storm in 1991, including the no-fly zones, economic sanctions, and weapons inspections. He
said that the United States remains firm in its determination to continue to enforce the
no-fly zones despite increasing Iraqi defiance. "We have flown over 140,000 sorties
in support of the no-fly zones since they were first started," he said.
"We are going to
continue doing that," Doubleday said.
U.S. defense officials
did not rule out additional air strikes in response to Iraqi challenges to the no-fly
enforcement operations, but they declined to discuss specifics. "We are going to
protect our forces and take whatever measures are necessary," Cohen said on 12
January. "Beyond that I would not want to say anything," he added.
Clinton Announces
Plans To Boost Defense Spending
In his weekly radio
address to the nation on 2 January, President Clinton unveiled plans to increase the
fiscal year 2000 defense budget by more than $12 billion for defense readiness and
modernization. The increase would be achieved, he said, through a combination of new
spending and budgetary savings. Clinton said that the planned increase--which has been
championed by Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, all members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and many members of Congress--represents the start of a sustained effort to
increase defense spending.
"We want our armed
forces to remain ready to deploy rapidly in any crisis, and that is what this effort will
assure, by funding joint exercises, flight training, badly needed spare parts, and
recruiting for critical positions," Clinton said. "We want our forces to remain
the best-equipped in the world into the next century, and that is what this effort will
assure, by paying for the next generation of ships, planes, and weapons systems. It will
also enable our military to play its part in meeting emerging threats to our security such
as terrorism and proliferation," he added.
The planned spending
increase includes funding for a major military pay and compensation package that had been
announced at a Pentagon press conference in December.
Independent defense
analysts, and several members of Congress, were quick to point out that the president's
planned increase will be only approximately $2 billion above the FY 1999 defense budget
eventually approved by the 105th Congress.
Despite a growing
consensus on the need for long-term and short-term increases in defense spending, the
outlook on Capitol Hill is uncertain. The 1997 balanced budget agreement provides for a
reduction in the federal discretionary spending cap next year.
According to Sen. Ted
Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, speaking at a 13
January press conference, defense spending is not a top priority for most members of
Congress. Stevens and others on Capitol Hill advocate increases in the defense budget--but
Stevens predicts there will be a "real fight" during the months ahead to win
support for more defense dollars.
Cohen, Shelton
Roll Out New Military Pay Package
Nearly two weeks before
the president pledged to raise future defense spending, Secretary of Defense Cohen and JCS
Chairman Shelton rolled out a military pay and retirement package designed to more
adequately compensate the nation's men and women in uniform. The Pentagon's package of
significant pay raises and retirement improvements, a key element of President Clinton's
proposed FY 2000 budget, was developed to address JCS concerns about growing shortfalls in
personnel readiness, recruiting, and retention that had been spotlighted during
congressional hearings in late September and early October. The DOD pay and retirement
package has three main parts:
- Across-the-board pay
increases for all service members. Beginning in FY 2000, pay will be increased across
the board by 4.4 percent, and by 3.9 percent annually in fiscal years 2001 through 2005.
- Targeted pay raises and
greater rewards for performance. Targeted raises also are proposed for noncommissioned
officers and for mid-grade commissioned officers to reward top performance and to
encourage people serving in critical military specialties to remain in the military. Pay
tables also will be revised to make raises for promotions larger than for those for
longevity. The maximum targeted pay increases will range from one-half of one percent to
5.5 percent. The targeted increases, coming on top of the 4.4 percent pay raise, would be
effective 1 July 2000.
- Improvements to the
retirement system. To address the dissatisfaction expressed by service members who
entered the armed forces after 1986, the Redux (reduced) retirement system will be revised
to restore the 20-year retirement--to 50 percent of basic pay.
Cohen maintained that the
pay and compensation increases address the real concerns that men and women in uniform
have raised with him and members of the Joint Chiefs during their visits to ships and
bases in the last year. "These significant changes come into a broader context of a
continuing effort to achieve adequate military compensation and benefits. That effort
includes improved housing allowances, food allowances, and cost of living [increases] as
well as targeted bonuses and special incentive pay to recruit and retain skilled men and
women who protect our country," he said.
Cohen Raps North
Korea, Lauds Asia Security Ties
The American Forces Press
Service (AFIS) reported from Tokyo in mid-January that Defense Secretary Cohen had reacted
sharply to North Korea's demand for payment in order to open a suspected nuclear site to
U.S. inspection. "The North Koreans have said they want $300 million for just the
right to look," Cohen said during a 12 January speech to hundreds of service men and
women at Yokota Air Base. "That is a pretty expensive peek. What we are saying is we
are not in the business of giving you permission. What we need to have is some
verification."
AFIS said that North
Korea's demand for payment follows U.S., Japanese, and South Korean demands to inspect an
underground construction site in North Korea that could house nuclear facilities--which
would be a clear violation of North Korea's agreement to discontinue production of
weapons-grade plutonium in exchange for oil and other assistance. If such a plant is under
construction, Cohen said, it could threaten the viability of the agreement and would
heighten tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
The defense secretary was
in Japan to meet U.S. troops and Japanese political and military leaders. The visit
coincided with a national debate in Japan on how much support Japan should give to the
roughly 45,000 U.S. service personnel now based in Japan and what, if any, expansion is
appropriate to permit Japanese Self-Defense Forces to participate in U.N. and regional
peacekeeping operations. The leaders of the two nations also planned to discuss ways to
deal with the increasing threat posed by North Korea's missile program, AFIS reported.
Veterans'
Benefits Extended To WWII Merchant Mariners
By combining several
pieces of veterans-related legislation into one bill at the end of the last legislative
session, the 105th Congress cleared H.R. 4110, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of
1998. The measure, which was strongly supported by the Navy League, extends veterans'
benefits to individuals who served as members of the U.S. merchant marine during World War
II. President Clinton signed the measure on 11 November 1998 as Public Law 105-368.
To be eligible for
veteran's status, a merchant mariner must have served between 16 August 1945 and 31
December 1946 and must have been a crewmember of a vessel that was:
- Operated by the War
Shipping Administration;
- Operated in waters other
than the U.S. inland waters, the Great Lakes, and/or other lakes, bays, and harbors of the
United States;
- Under contract or charter
to, or the property of, the U.S. government, and was serving the armed forces.
The bill also established
an application process--requiring a certificate of honorable discharge for all individuals
who performed qualified service--for former U.S. merchant mariners who want to receive
benefits. |
