[Navy] Digest (11/01/2001 16:33) Special Issue (#2001-53)

[Veterans News & Information Service]

---------------------------------------------------------
You may Subscribe/Unsubscribe to any of the VNIS email
newsletters at the following address:
http://www.vnis.com/html/newsletters.html
=========================================================
Special Issue (#2001-53) - Topics This Issue:

1) Navy News

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 16:31:30 -0800

Subject: Navy News

NAVAL MEDIA CENTER NavNews by e-mail:
NavNews (NNS) is the official newsletter of the U.S.
Navy, and is a product of the Naval Media Center, 2713
Mitscher Rd. SW, Anacostia Annex, D.C., 20373-5819. Reprints
should be credited to NNS.
Submit news content to mailto:pu...@mediacen.navy.mil.
Contact the NavNews editor, Mr. Jerome Mapp, at
mailto:ma...@mediacen.navy.mil or Lt. Brook DeWalt at DSN 288-
4380, (202) 433-4380 or mailto:dew...@mediacen.navy.mil for
further NavNews information.
For all other Navy information-related questions, call
the Navy News Desk at (703) 692-6704/5/6/7.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
Table of contents for NavNews 73/01 74/01
NNS7301. SECNAV Greets the 3rd Fleet
NNS7302. Lockheed-Martin Team Wins Joint Strike Fighter competition
NNS7303. Essex Medical Team Trains for Rapid Response
NNS7304. A Short History of Homeland Defense
NNS7305. NAS Brunswick Support Unit is Recalled
NNS7401. Rumsfeld Says Progress in War is Measurable
NNS7402. SECDEF Rumsfeld Interview on ABC-TV's "This Week with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts"
NNS7403. Air Strikes Target Caves, Tunnels, Troops
NNS7404. Relief in Sight: Humanitarian Assistance Efforts Start in East Timor
NNS7405. "Ike" Chiefs Raise Big Bucks for CPO Scholarship Fund
NNS7406. This Week on Navy/Marine Corps News
NNS7407. This Week in Naval History

-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7301. SECNAV Greets the 3rd Fleet
By 3rd Fleet Public Affairs
SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The Honorable Gordon R. England,
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV), visited a number of naval
installations recently, and included a stop aboard the 3rd
Fleet command ship, USS Coronado (AGF 11). During his visit
he talked briefly with crewmembers about the importance of
serving in the Navy.
"Sailors are critical to the country at this time," said
England. "They provide the stability and also provide the
response from this nation."
England stressed that what is important in the Navy is
not just its technology. "The enduring strength of our Navy
is our people and our leadership. It's been this way for 226
years and it will continue that way in to the future," he
said. England also answered questions from Coronado Sailors
about current issues.
England was greeted at the brow by Vice Adm. Mike Bucchi,
commander, U.S. 3rd Fleet, and Capt. Ted Branch, commanding
officer of Coronado.
Sworn in as the 72nd SECNAV on May 24, England has
highlighted four areas of emphasis, including combat
capability, people, advanced technology and business
practices.
"A ship pier-side has no asset value to this nation
without a well-trained and highly motivated crew," stated
England in a recent press release. "We need to continue to
invest in the human capital that makes our Navy and Marine
Corps the world's finest."
According to England, it is imperative for Sailors to use
their talents, innovation and experience to meet current and
future commitments.
"I know that the Navy and Marine Corps team has a
strong sense of our core values of honor, courage and
commitment. In that vein we should, at all times, conduct
our business in a forthright, open, honest and direct
matter both with each other and the public," England said.
He closed his comments by thanking everyone who attended
for their service in the Navy and for their commitment to our
nation.
England most recently served as executive vice president
of General Dynamics Corporation before being nominated for
the position of SECNAV by President George W. Bush.
For more information on SECNAV, go to
http://www.navy.mil, select the "site index," then select "S"
for Secretary of the Navy, followed by "The Honorable Gordon
R. England."
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7302. Lockheed-Martin Team Wins Joint Strike Fighter
Competition
By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Lockheed-Martin has won the largest
military contract ever, a possible $200 billion competition
to build the Joint Strike Fighter.
Air Force Secretary Jim Roche said on the basis of
strengths, weaknesses and degrees of risk of the program that
the Lockheed-Martin team was the winner on a "best-value"
basis. He said Lockheed-Martin was a clear winner over the
team led by Boeing.
Total cost of the contract to enter the systems
development and demonstration phase is $19 billion. Pratt and
Whitney has a $4 billion contract to design and build
propulsion systems for the craft. The British will contribute
$2 billion to the program.
Lockheed-Martin teamed with Northrop Grumman and British
Aerospace on the project. Pete Aldridge, undersecretary of
defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said that
both teams "met or exceeded the performance objectives
established for the aircraft and have met the established
criteria and technical maturity for entering the next phase
of the program."
The first operational Joint Strike Fighter, now
enumerated as the F-35, is scheduled for delivery in fiscal
2008.
The F-35 is actually a family of three aircraft designed
to replace aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and
the British military. Other nations interested in
participating in the program include the Netherlands, Belgium
and Norway.
Plans call for the F-35 to be the world's premier strike
aircraft through 2040, Aldridge said. "It will provide air-
to-air capability second only to the F-22 air superiority
fighter," he said.
The plane will allow the Air Force forces to field an
almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025. The Navy and
Marine variants will be the first deployment of an "all-
aspect" stealth airplane.
The Air Force's F-35A version of the craft is a
conventional takeoff and landing airplane to replace the F-
16 Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II. It will partner with the
F-22 Raptor. The Air Force plans to buy 1,763 of the
aircraft.
The Navy's F-35B version of the plane is a carrier-based
strike fighter to complement the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. It
will replace earlier versions of the F/A-18 as well as the A-
6 Intruder, which already has left the inventory. The Navy
plans to purchase 480 JSF aircraft.
The Marine Corps, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force need and
want a short takeoff and vertical-landing aircraft, dubbed
the F-35C. The Marines want 609 of the new aircraft to
replace their AV-8B Harriers and F/A-18 Hornets. The British
want 150 to replace Sea Harriers and GR.7 Tornado fighters.
Roche said that if the military could buy the planes
today the Air Force version would cost $40 million per copy.
Navy and Marine Corps versions would be "under $50 million."
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7303. Essex Medical Team Trains for Rapid Response
By Chief Journalist Roger Dutcher, USS Essex Public Affairs
USS ESSEX, At Sea (NNS) -- With mass casualties inbound
from the battlefield, the medical team sprang into action to
save lives Oct. 18, during a drill aboard USS Essex (LHD 2).
The drill was comprised of 20 simulated casualties, with
scenarios ranging from a firefight to a vehicle rollover and
explosion.
"We simulated helicopters coming in to drop off
casualties. A big part of our role as a casualty receiving
ship is taking in casualties from the battlefield," said Lt.
Lawrence Ryan, Medical Corps, medical division officer.
Essex serves as a second echelon medical facility,
meaning it receives casualties from either the battalion aid
station, which is first echelon, or directly from the front
lines.
"We stabilize them the best we can," Ryan added, "but
ideally we want to get them to the third echelon medical care
-- a fleet hospital or hospital ship, where they have more
resources, more medical personnel and more surgical care than
we can provide."
Ryan said the more critical casualties are processed even
further to fourth echelon care -- hospitals located within
the theater of operation -- or fifth echelon, which are
stateside hospitals.
There are times when not all patients survive a casualty
situation, which requires medical professionals to make the
difficult decision of who gets treated first.
"You never want to be put in a position to make that
call," Ryan said. "You want to treat everybody, but after
you flail around for a little while and realize you've
still got other people you've got to care for, you learn
how to make the call. You just have to keep it in
perspective that you're going to do the most good for the
most people."
For more information on USS Essex, go to
http://www.essex.navy.mil/index2.html.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7304. A Short History of Homeland Defense
By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Since the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes
in New York and Washington, many Americans have been calling
for the military to do more for "homeland defense."
The recent Quadrennial Defense Review also said the
Department of Defense must make homeland defense its first
priority.
Ironically, the U.S. military doesn't need that kind of
reminder -- homeland defense has been its first priority
since the founding of the Republic. Many Americans may not
see things that way, but it's because the nature of defense
and the agencies involved that have changed over the years.
Providing for the common defense was so crucial and basic
a government obligation that the framers explicitly said so
in the Preamble of the Constitution. When George Washington
became President in 1789, "common defense" primarily meant
two things: defeating a foreign invasion and defending
against Indians.
Military forces -- and this included the various state
militias -- were raised to defend the country against
England, France and Spain. With the Revolution fresh in
their minds, American leaders considered Britain the main
enemy and a second war and possible invasion their greatest
threats.
France, though a Revolution ally, claimed ownership of a
huge tract to the west that posed a potential threat to
American interests. Spain held Florida and virtually all the
lands to the west not claimed by the French. French and
British naval ships both preyed on American merchantmen.
In the interior of the United States, settlers confronted
American Indians as the boundaries of the country pushed
west.
The Army and the Navy were the homeland defense. Congress
authorized the Army to build or strengthen fixed harbor
defenses, and the Navy to build blue-water ships to defend
America's right to the sea lanes.
The USS Constitution, berthed in Boston, is a material
example today of this building program. Fort Monroe, Va.,
Fort Washington, Md., and Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., are
also remnants of these homeland defense efforts.
This does not mean the defenses were successful. During
the War of 1812, neither Fort Washington nor the one that is
now McNair stopped the British from capturing Washington and
burning it. The forts were in place, but not the manpower to
adequately garrison them.
A bit later in the war, the British wanted to burn
Baltimore as they had Washington. Fort McHenry in Baltimore
Harbor withstood a British naval onslaught that inspired
eyewitness Francis Scott Key to pen "The Star-Spangled
Banner."
After the war, Congress appropriated more money to harbor
defense. The best and brightest graduates of the U.S.
Military Academy (West Point) became engineers, and many were
assigned to work on these fortifications. Robert E. Lee
worked all along the East Coast building brick forts to
defend the United States from foreign enemies. Fort Pulaski
on the Savannah River in Georgia, Fort Totten in New York and
Fort Jackson on the Mississippi were just some of the forts
strengthened or built during this time.
In 1861, the Civil War broke out at Fort Sumter in the
harbor of Charleston, S.C. The masonry fort withstood
Confederate pounding, but the Union garrison surrendered
because food was running out. But technology was already
passing these forts by.
Conventional wisdom was that forts could withstand
anything a ship could shoot. That wasn't true with the Union
Navy's new rifled cannons. The weapons fired projectiles at
higher speeds and with greater penetrating power than smooth-
bore guns. Union ships pulverized Fort Pulaski in 1862 and
ran past the forts on the Mississippi to take New Orleans.
The forts built at such expense and with such effort were
obsolete.
On the frontier, the U.S. Army patrolled. Soldiers
protected settlers and trade routes. In many cases, the Army
acted as "frontier cops." This mission would continue through
the 1890s.
After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Era saw changes
in homeland defense. The Army occupied and policed the South.
It propped up courts and protected former slaves, and
soldiers had arrest powers. Reconstruction ended in 1876. The
passage of the Posse Comitatus law in 1878 ended the
military's having civilian law-enforcement powers.
In the latter part of the 19th century came another era
of ship building. While Americans still considered the
Atlantic and Pacific oceans enough of a defense against
foreign enemies, a strong Navy upon those waters was
important. The U.S. Navy built larger all-metal steam ships
that sported larger and larger guns.
The theories of Alfred Thayer Mahan became current.
Americans viewed the Navy as America's first line of defense.
Mahan, who wrote "The Influence of Sea Power upon History"
and retired as a rear admiral, was instrumental in persuading
Americans that the United States needed a large "battleship
Navy."
By the time the Wild West was tamed, the Army was reduced
to maintaining small garrisons in the West and now-obsolete
forts in the East.
In 1898, the Spanish-American War broke out. During the
six-month war, the Navy handily defeated Spanish fleets off
Cuba and in Manila Bay, the Philippines. But Americans were
shocked at what they perceived as thousands of miles of
undefended coasts.
In the years following the war, money poured into
building new defenses around U.S. ports. Retractable guns and
electric mines were the primary defenses. The coastal
artillery branch of the Army manned these posts. They were
never tested.
Another result of the Spanish-American War was the United
States obtained the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico. A Navy
able to keep the sea lanes open became a necessity.
In World War I (1917-18), the British bottled up the
German fleet. America girded for war untouched by a threat to
U.S. soil.
The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was the first
foreign strike against U.S. territory since the war of 1812.
While coast artillery units continued manning their forts
early in the war, none ever fired a shot in anger.
When it soon became apparent that aircraft and ships
would be the main line of homeland defense, the Army
transferred coast artillery officers and non-commissioned
officers into field artillery.
During the war, the Army Air Forces and the Navy defended
the homeland. Aircraft patrolled the approaches to ports
looking for German and Japanese submarines. Navy destroyers
and corvettes patrolled the sea lanes and pursued enemy
craft that aircraft could not engage. The Navy even launched
anti-submarine blimps to patrol the East Coast. At least one
blimp attacked a German U-boat and was shot down for its
effort.
Air power entered the homeland defense equation during
World War II. The Nazi bombing campaign against Britain and
the U.S.-British campaign against Germany made real the
threat from the air. The safety America felt by being
separated from the rest of the world by the Atlantic and
Pacific oceans evaporated.
The United States was first in developing
intercontinental bombing platforms with the B-29
Stratofortress. If the United States could develop long-range
bombers, so could other countries. Nazi war plans in fact
called for an "Amerika Bomber."
Conventional bombs were scary enough for defense
planners, but the atomic bomb totally changed homeland
defense.
The United States developed the atomic bomb and used two
against Japan. The devastation and radiation dangers posed by
the bomb caused the military to think of new means of
defense. After the Soviet Union developed the bomb, the
threat to America came from the skies.
The United States responded with the North American Air
Defense Command, or NORAD. NORAD was a U.S.-Canadian
organization charged with the missions of air warning and air
control for North America. The command searched the skies for
Soviet planes and would direct interceptors to shoot them
down.
Later, with the development of intercontinental nuclear
ballistic missiles, NORAD became the early warning system. To
this day, there is no defense against these missiles. The
NORAD warning would give people a chance to take cover in the
event of a nuclear strike.
In the minds of the average American, "homeland defense"
became "civil defense." And civil defense programs consisted
of urging families to take cover and build fallout shelters
and directing the development of community air raid shelters.
Air raid drills became as common at schools as fire drills --
children practiced hiding under their desks or sitting
together in the hallways.
In the traditional military sense, "homeland defense"
meant forward deployment. U.S. forces stationed everywhere
from Europe to Korea were America's line in the sand against
the Soviet Union. Engaging the Soviets and their allies
overseas precluded having to fight them in the United States.
With the exception of NORAD, a direct military connection
to homeland defense eroded.
Many Americans came to perceive the Army, Navy, Air Force
and Marine Corps as assets to defend U.S. interests in
distant lands, but not actively defending U.S. shores. Wars
in Korea and Vietnam reinforced this attitude, as did
operations in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Lebanon in 1958
and the Berlin Wall crisis in 1961.
Historians view the 1970s as the age of detente.
President Nixon recognized the People's Republic of China. He
and President Gerald Ford met with Soviet leader Leonid
Brezhnev. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 resulted,
and the two superpowers moved to relax tensions. Through this
period, homeland defense was seen mainly as a function of
civil defense.
In the late 1960s, terrorism in the form of plane
hijackings and assaults on innocent civilians grabbed public
attention.
U.S. aircraft were hijacked and diverted to Cuba or
Mexico City or Rome. The U.S. response was not military, but
centered on law enforcement. Sky marshals appeared. FBI
agents investigated hijacking crimes and threats. Justice
Department counterterrorism programs appeared.
So, the U.S. version of homeland defense meant the FBI
was the lead federal agency for investigating or preventing
terrorist incidents and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency was the lead for remediation. The military stood by
to help if called.
The events of Sept. 11 seem to be bringing homeland
defense full circle. From the halls of Congress to New York
street corners, Americans are calling for more military
involvement in homeland defense.
Sept. 11 changed the world just surely as the nuclear
attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. Defense Secretary
Donald H. Rumsfeld has said that the people of the United
States need to debate this issue long and hard.
President Bush appointed former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom
Ridge as his director of homeland security. Ridge must see
how the Defense Department fits in with all the other federal
agencies and coordinate responses to threats to homeland
security.
While the threats to America have evolved and changed,
one aspect is clear: Whatever happens, the Defense Department
will play a major role in defending America.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7305. NAS Brunswick Support Unit is Recalled
By Journalist 1st Class Jeremy Allen, Naval Air Reserve
Brunswick Public Affairs
BRUNSWICK, Maine (NNS) -- A recent weekend was not just
another normal one for 15 drilling Reservists stationed in
Brunswick, Maine. While most Sailors were enjoying a
beautiful autumn weekend, members of Naval Air Reserve Base
Support Unit 0197 were hurrying to gather their military
belongings and prepare for their civilian absence, all in
under 48 hours.
They had each just received a life-changing phone call
that forced them to drop everything and join the thousands of
Naval Reservists who are currently being recalled to active
duty in response to a presidential recall in support of
homeland defense.
On Oct. 19, Aviation Boatswains Mate (Fuels) 1st Class
Juan Varela, a U.S. postal worker from Westbrook, Maine, was
fast asleep when he got the call.
"My commanding officer called my home Friday night," said
Varela. "I was expecting this, but I didn't think it was
coming this fast."
Cmdr. Richard Wheatley, a commercial airline pilot from
Scarborough, Maine, was the man responsible for making those
phone calls.
"Since Sept. 11, it's become painfully obvious that we
have a threat here and a need to respond. Our unit was
actually scheduled to be decommissioned in September, so we
are on a waiver until the nation stands down," Wheatley said.
Once these people are done with their processing at the
Naval Air Reserve Brunswick facility, they go to Groton,
Conn., to finish the final administration system from Reserve
to active duty.
"The majority of my people are in an in-assignment
process status, which means they don't have a specific billet
they are filling," explained Wheatley. "Because of their
status, the majority of the people recalled are being called
to security billets."
Yeoman 1st Class Karen Smith, a mother and history major
at University of Southern Maine got the call Oct. 20, and was
told to be ready in 24 hours.
"The first thing that went though my mind was there is
not enough time," explained Wheatley, who has two small
kids but still felt it was her duty to go. "I think it's
important to go because I am the one who signed on the
bottom line just like all my shipmates. I feel that this is
my duty, it's what my training is all about."
For more information on NAR Brunswick, go to
http://www.narbrunswick.navy.mil.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7401. Rumsfeld Says Progress in War is Measurable
By Jim Garamone, American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- After three weeks of action in
Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the
war on terrorism is going well and there has been measurable
progress.
Rumsfeld, speaking to Cokie Roberts on "ABC's This Week"
program, said aircraft now have much better intelligence and
that means better targets. The air campaign has also put
pressure on al Qaeda and Taliban troops forcing them to move,
and that has given U.S. aircraft additional targets, he
added.
Rumsfeld said he has every reason to believe that
coalition forces will find al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden,
but warned that finding him will not end the threat of
terrorism. "This is not about a single person, it is about
the problem of terrorism," he said. "He is one element of al
Qaeda, there are a lot of leaders.
"If he were to disappear today, there would still be
the al Qaeda network, there would still be other terrorist
networks and there still would be worldwide terrorism that
would need to be dealt with."
Rumsfeld said the President has declared war on
international terrorism, and U.S. forces are taking the war
to these networks.
"There is no way to defend everywhere in the world
against terrorists, you simply must go find them and root
them out," Rumsfeld said. "That is what is under way. To
think only of one man is a mistake. Will we get him? I think
we will."
Roberts asked Rumsfeld if Iraq supplied the anthrax that
has infected so many places in the United States. Rumsfeld
said Iraq is listed as a state that sponsors terrorism.
"There's no question but that Iraq is a state that has
committed terrorist acts and sponsored terrorist acts," he
said. But he refused to speculate on news reports on the
source of the anthrax or possible U.S. response.
For more information about the Department of Defense
today, go to http://www.defenselink.mil/today.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7402. SECDEF Rumsfeld Interview on ABC-TV's "This Week
with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts"
By Department of Defense Public Affairs
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The following are excerpts of an Oct.
28 interview by ABC's Cokie Roberts with Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld:
ROBERTS: There have been stories over the weekend that
give the perception that this war, after three weeks, is not
going very well. That the Taliban is getting stronger, that
Osama bin Laden is still at large, that one of the chief
opposition leaders has been assassinated, and that the Red
Cross warehouse has been hit by U.S. bombs. Is the war just
not going as well as you had hoped it would at this point?
RUMSFELD: Oh, no, quite the contrary. It's going very
much the way we expected when it began. Three weeks is not a
very long time, if one thinks about it. And the progress has
been measurable. We feel that the air campaign has been
effective. The fact that for a period we did not have good
targets has now shifted, because we are getting much better
information from the ground in terms of targets. Also, the
pressure that has been put on fairly continuously these past
weeks has forced people to move and to change locations in a
way that gives additional targeting opportunities.
ROBERTS: Did the military help Abdul Haq, the opposition
leader who was assassinated Friday?
RUMSFELD: My understanding of that situation was that he
had decided to come back in the country in a form and manner
of his own choosing. And that he did request assistance, and
that he received some assistance. The assistance,
unfortunately, was from the air and he was on the ground. And
regrettably, he was killed.
ROBERTS: But he did receive assistance from the U.S.
military?
RUMSFELD: I said he requested assistance and received it.
ROBERTS: But not from the U.S. military?
RUMSFELD: No. It was from another agency.
ROBERTS: From an intelligence agency, I would take it.
RUMSFELD: It was from another element of the government.
ROBERTS: The question of victory is one that is -- a
question of definition. And I think that our polling
generally shows that getting Osama bin Laden is considered an
important part of this campaign and I want to show you some
things that you've said over the last week about this
question. You said, "The military role will be over there
when the Taliban and the al-Qaeda are gone, gone. And that is
what this is all about." Then you said of Osama, "He's got a
lot of money, he's got a lot of people who support him, and I
just don't know whether we'll be successful." And finally,
"Until you have him, you do not have him. So what is the
progress? Until he's no longer functioning as a terrorist, he
is functioning as a terrorist." That sounds like you think
that he is still the problem and until we get him, we've not
won, but we might not get him.
RUMSFELD: Well, those are a few of the things I've said
on the subject. I've said a great many things on the subject.
I've also said I have every reason to believe we will find
him. I've also said that I don't think he's the whole
problem. This is not about a single person. It is about the
problem of terrorism. He is one element of al-Qaeda. There
are a lot of leaders. If he disappeared today off the face of
the Earth, there would still be the al-Qaeda network, there
would still be other terrorist networks, and there still
would be worldwide terrorism that would need to be dealt
with. So I think that...it's a mistake to too great an extent
to try to personalize what's going on in this world. We lost
thousands of people here in the United States. The President
has declared war on international terrorism. He is hard at
taking the war to them, because there's no way to defend
everywhere in the world against terrorists. You simply must
go find them and root out those networks. That is what is
underway. To think only about one man, I think, is a mistake.
Will we get him? I think we will. And I certainly hope so.
ROBERTS: Why not put in massive ground troops now to go
in and find the elements of al-Qaeda and hopefully, also,
Osama?
RUMSFELD: Well, we've not ruled out the use of ground
troops.
ROBERTS: And is it a possibility that they will go in and
go in soon?
RUMSFELD: ...I didn't say "soon," but I think if someone
has not ruled out the use of ground troops, there certainly
is that possibility.
ROBERTS: But you're not saying they're going to go in
anytime soon. And in great numbers?
RUMSFELD: Well, that wouldn't be very wise of me, would
it, to say that we think something's going to happen in the
period immediately ahead. I'm not going to do that. I'm not
going to talk about what we might or might not do.
ROBERTS: ...You've also said, it's important not to have
a timetable, that it has to go according to how the war goes.
But you've heard over the weekend President Musharraf of
Pakistan use the echo word from Vietnam "quagmire," and then
he said there does need to be a timetable. Here's what he
said: "Military action must be brought to an end as soon as
possible and if it is unable to achieve its military goals in
a certain time, we need to switch to a political strategy."
Problems with the coalition falling apart?
RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, there's nothing in that
statement that anyone could disagree with. No one would want
a military campaign to go on longer than necessary. And he
said it should be brought to an end as soon as possible.
Everyone would want it to end as soon as possible. Second,
there is no coalition. There are multiple coalitions. And we
have said that from the very beginning. We are getting all
kinds of different assistance from different countries all
across the globe. And about a week or two ago, I said, you
know, some day in the next period, someone's going to say,
"oh, the coalition's falling apart!" The implication being if
one country decides they don't want to participate in one
element of what it is we're doing, that therefore, quote,
"the" coalition is falling apart. We have said from day one
there is no single coalition. There are multiple coalitions.
Countries are going to help us in the way they feel best. And
we are getting enormous support from all across the world.
ROBERTS: So are you saying if Pakistan pulls out, that
that's OK?
RUMSFELD: Pakistan's not going to pull out. The President
of Pakistan has a very difficult situation. One has to
appreciate how difficult that is. He is doing a terrific job,
in my personal view, in managing that very difficult
situation and he is being exceedingly cooperative with us.
ROBERTS: Now, there is a perception, certainly here in
Washington, that part of the reason that this war has not
widened to go -- you talked about going after terrorism all
over the world -- to go into Iraq, and you've heard Brian
Ross's report, the confirmation that Mohammed Atta met with
an Iraqi intelligence official, and the suspicion about
anthrax in Iraq. And that this administration doesn't want to
say the word "Iraq" for fear of having to go in and that then
the Arab world could blow apart.
RUMSFELD: This administration is not afraid of saying the
word "Iraq." Iraq has been on the terrorist list for years.
There is no question but that Iraq is a state that has
committed terrorist acts and has sponsored terrorist acts.
ROBERTS: Do you think it was -- the meeting with Mohammed
Atta -- was significant, in terms of September 11?
RUMSFELD: We will know that only after the proper law
enforcement people investigate that. Clearly, the meeting is
not nothing. It is something notable.
ROBERTS: And the reports that the anthrax could have been
tampered with by this Betonite that is Iraqi-based?
RUMSFELD: ...I am really not into "could haves" and
"might haves." I think that in a position of responsibility
in the government, I've got an obligation to talk about what
I know about and to not speculate about those things. And I
know that serious people are looking at both of those matters
seriously.
ROBERTS: In the military?
RUMSFELD: In the United States government.
ROBERTS: And if, in fact, it turns out that it was Iraq
that infiltrated the anthrax, what do we do?
RUMSFELD: Well, there's a hypothetical question that is
the kind of thing that ends up on the President of the United
States' desk frequently. And those are tough decisions and
we'll just have to see.
ROBERTS: There's a sense, of course, that the coalition
that was there for the Gulf War kept the United States from
going after Saddam at the time. As you know better than I,
there are a lot of people in this administration and in your
Defense Department who think that that was a mistake and that
we should do it now.
RUMSFELD: There's no question but that there's been a
debate in the world as to how that conflict might have ended
differently. And there's also no question but that Saddam is
still a threat to his neighbors. He is a threat to the Kurds
in the north of his country. He is a threat to the Shi'ia in
the south. He's a threat to his neighbors in Iran. He's a
threat to Jordan.
ROBERTS: Is he a threat to us?
RUMSFELD: And he clearly, as a terrorist state, is a
threat to other countries in the world, including the United
States. He has been contained to some extent because of
Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch, where the United
States and coalition aircraft fly missions to prevent him
from getting a head start to try to impose his will on his
neighbors again. It is true there are people around in and
out of government who wish he weren't there. And certainly
I'm one of them.
ROBERTS: But no plans to go after him at the moment?
RUMSFELD: We're doing what we're doing and I will say
this, the President has said this is a war against terrorist
networks across the globe. There are many more than just al-
Qaeda. They are in many more countries beyond Afghanistan.
And it is something that we as a country and the many
countries assisting us are currently doing.
We have to remember that what we see is only part of
what's happening. The number of people who have been
arrested, the number of bank accounts that have been frozen,
the amount of intelligence that's been gathered, the law
enforcement work that's going on, is in addition every bit as
important as the military part that's taking place.
ROBERTS: ...What we see is just part of what's happening.
There's some sense that we're losing the propaganda war. And
those pictures we saw of those children at the beginning of
the program have taken the place in our minds of the pictures
of the World Trade Center being blown up. Why not allow more
press access so that the United States' press can show
pictures that fight the Arab press?
RUMSFELD: ...I'm not an expert on this subject, but my
understanding is that the United States government, during
this period with respect to the military element, has been
enormously forthcoming and the press has been involved in as
many aspects as I believe has ever been the case of things
where it's humanly possible. The press has not been
parachuting in on special operations activities into a
hostile environment in Afghanistan, to be sure. But I don't
think they want to, nor do I think it would be safe for the
troops trying to protect them, once they got in there. There
are press people all over Afghanistan and the ones that are
following the Taliban are, of course, allowed to go where the
Taliban wants and they're being told what the Taliban wants
and the Al Jazeera television network has a pattern of
putting out al-Qaeda propaganda. That's just a fact. Now,
you're right, it makes it very difficult if one side lies,
and they have lied repeatedly. They're using mosques, for
example, for command and control, for ammunition storage.
They are clearly not telling the truth about these
casualties. We know that of certain knowledge. Now, are
people going to be killed in a war? You bet. And there are
plenty of people throwing ordnance around in Afghanistan
besides the United States. It's coming down -- we're bombing
from the air, but the opposition forces are, in fact,
fighting against the Taliban. The Taliban is fighting against
us and the opposition forces. So when someone dies, it could
have come from any one of those four locations.
ROBERTS: Mr. Secretary, have you been vaccinated
against anthrax?
RUMSFELD: No.
ROBERTS: OK. Thank you...Thank you for being here.
For more information about the Department of Defense
today, go to http://www.defenselink.mil/today.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7403. Air Strikes Target Caves, Tunnels, Troops
By Rudi Williams, American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Department of Defense spokeswoman
Victoria "Torie" Clarke held an impromptu Pentagon press
briefing Oct. 29, to give reporters "the top line" of what
happened in Afghanistan Oct. 28, what's being focused on
today and to run down responses to rumors and speculations.
Noting that the United States continues to support the
Northern Alliance and other opposition groups, Clarke said 79
air sorties flown in the areas of Mazar-e Sharif, Kabul,
Jalalabad, Konduz and Bamian struck at targets including al
Qaeda and Taliban caves and the Taliban military.
Commando Solo radio broadcasts and leaflet and
humanitarian ration drops continued around Mazar-e Sharif,
Clarke said. The objectives include the continued hammering
of emerging targets, the caves and tunnels, and Taliban armor
and troop formations, she noted. Commando Solo, and leaflet
and ration air drops are also continuing.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in Oct. 28
television interviews that the United States is focused on
the caves and that there are a lot of them. "`It's a complex
system and we're trying to work through them
systematically,'" Clarke quoted Rumsfeld as saying.
Clarke parried reporters' requests for specific details
on Enduring Freedom operations. "We can tell you what we plan
to do, give a general sense of how we plan to go about doing
it, but I'll leave the adjectives up to others," she said of
military operations. "We've been consistent about what our
objectives are and pretty clear about what we've been doing
lately, which is going after troop concentrations, command
and control and emerging targets where we find them.
Asked about the second attack on Red Cross warehouses in
Kabul over the weekend, Clarke said the strike was purely
accidental -- a "different kind of mistake" from the first
incident earlier this month. The military's information was
incomplete -- attack planners knew the facilities were
warehouses, but not that they belonged to the Red Cross.
For more information about the Department of Defense
today, go to http://www.defenselink.mil/today.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7404. Relief in Sight: Humanitarian Assistance Efforts
Start in East Timor
By USS Essex Public Affairs
USS ESSEX, At Sea (NNS) -- Sailors and Marines from the
USS Essex (LHD 2) Amphibious Ready Group and the 31st Marine
Expeditionary Unit (MEU) arrived off the coast of Dili, East
Timor, recently to assist the U.S. Support Group East Timor
with humanitarian and civic assistance projects.
"Because of our versatility, we can support a wide range
of missions," said Rear Adm. Paul Schultz, commander of Task
Force (CTF) 76. "Aside from being able to conduct combat
operations, we have the capability to support a wide range of
humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts." As CTF
76, Schultz commands all the amphibious operations in the 7th
Fleet area of operations.
Approximately 1,000 Sailors and Marines from Essex, USS
Fort McHenry (LSD 43) and USS Germantown (LSD 42) will
support community relations projects, including medical and
dental assistance, general engineering and construction, and
transport and delivery of sports equipment and infrastructure
materials in Dili, Suai and Oecussi in the Southeast Asian
country.
The visit, part of the United States' ongoing commitment
to East Timor, will focus on efforts to improve basic health
and social conditions and the quality of life for the people
of East Timor.
"Our Marines and Sailors are well-trained to assist with
humanitarian and civic assistance efforts, from medical to
construction projects," Schultz said. "In the past two years,
more than 22 U.S. Navy ships have visited Dili to help the
people of East Timor. The visit by the Essex ARG/31st MEU is
a continuation of this effort."
The forces were scheduled to remain on station for
approximately three days before continuing their current
underway training period. The ships are forward-deployed to
Sasebo, Japan, and the embarked Marines are forward-deployed
to Okinawa.
For more information on USS Essex, go to
http://www.essex.navy.mil/index2.html.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7405. "Ike" Chiefs Raise Big Bucks for CPO Scholarship
Fund
By Journalist 1st Class Chris Avant, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower
Public Affairs
NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- After several weeks of selling hot
dogs, washing cars and volunteering off-duty time to raise
money, the FY02 chief petty officers of USS Dwight D.
Eisenhower (CVN 69) were finally able to foot the bill. That
bill was the challenge issued to the CPO selectees from
Command Master Chief (SW/AW) Jim Meier to raise $3,000
dollars to benefit the CPO Scholarship Fund.
The payoff came Oct. 24, when the carrier's newest chief
petty officers presented a $3,000 check to retired master
chief petty officers of the Navy (MCPON) Robert J. Walker and
Duane R. Bushey during a ceremony on the fantail of USS
Wisconsin (BB 64) at the Norfolk waterfront.
When Walker had called Meier about raising some money for
the CPO Scholarship Fund, he originally asked the ship to
raise $2,000. "I thought we could raise at least $3,000 and
what better way than through the initiation process," said
Meier.
The gratitude was obvious, as Senior Chief Hospital
Corpsman (AW/SW) Barry S. Moore, initiation committee
chairman, presented the check to Walker and Bushey.
"This is the first carrier to come up with this kind of
money," said Bushey, who served as MCPON from Sept. 9, 1988,
to Aug. 28, 1992. "I'm teaching high school now, so I know
how important education is. So this check presentation to the
scholarship fund is greatly appreciated."
Walker, who served as MCPON from Sept. 25, 1975, to Sept.
28, 1979, added that Dwight D. Eisenhower's 2002 CPOs have
donated more money than any ship, command, unit or
organization in the Navy than ever before.
"I can't tell how much it means to us to receive this
check. It really helps out more than you can believe."
"Our fiscal year 2002 CPOs raised the money during their
initiation process with various fundraising projects," said
Senior Chief Electrician's Mate (SW/AW) Robert Rook, reactor
department career counselor and coordinator of the ceremony.
"By far, our most productive fundraiser was the lunchtime
hot dog sales we did for the crew," said Chief Machinist's
Mate (SW) Kenneth S. Michael, 2002 CPO fundraising chairman.
"We also did some car washes and we volunteered our time at
Ocean Breeze Water Park (in Norfolk). For every hour we
worked, they (Ocean Breeze Water Park officials) donated the
minimum wage to our chief's fund."
When first told the then-CPO selectees would have to
raise that much money in the course of all of their other
fund-raising efforts, Michael was skeptical.
"I thought he was crazy asking us to raise that much
money. But with everyone pitching in and volunteering...it
all started to add up. And near the end there, I sat back and
thought `We can do this. We're going to make our goal,'"
Michael said.
And just like all hard work, the task reaps its own
rewards.
"Seeing the hard work going into raising all that money
and knowing it's going to benefit someone in the CPO
community who needs it, really makes it worthwhile. It's a
proud feeling of accomplishment," Michael said.
The CPO Scholarship Fund offers annual educational awards
for spouses and children of active, Reserve, retired and
deceased Navy chief petty officers. The children can be
natural-born, adopted or the stepchildren of the CPOs.
For information on USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, go to
http://www.navy.mil/homepages/cvn69. For information on how
to apply for the CPO scholarship fund, go to
http://www.seaaa.org/scholarship.htm.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7406. This Week on Navy/Marine Corps News
By Naval Media Center Staff
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Look for the following stories and
more on next week's Navy/Marine Corps News show:
- The Defense Department names the contractor who will build
the next generation strike fighter;
- Sailors and Marines train hard off the coast of
California;
- Get the results of the 26th annual Marine Corps Marathon;
- A helicopter squadron in Italy continues to deliver first
class service to the fleet.
Compiled on tape #2001-45, the show is on its way to the
fleet now.
-USN-
-USN-
-USN-
NNS7407. This Week in Naval History:
- Nov. 5, 1945: Jake C. West, assigned to Fighter Squadron
41, makes the first jet landing on board a carrier, USS
Wake Island (CVE 65), in a Ryan FR-1 "Fireball" aircraft.
- Nov. 6. 1851: Lt. William Lewis Herndon leads a Navy
expedition on a mission to explore the valley of the Amazon
and its tributaries. The expedition reaches Iquitos in the
jungle region of the upper Amazon after their departure from
Lima, Peru. They were ordered there to determine the
feasibility of steam navigation, which could advance trade
along the inland rivers of the Amazon.
- Nov. 7, 1881: The Naval Advisory Board submits a report
recommending that all new ships in the Navy fleet be
constructed of steel instead of iron.
- Nov. 8, 1861: Capt. Charles Wilkes seizes two Confederate
diplomats from the British steamer Trent, causing an
international controversy with Great Britain that became
known as the "Trent Affair."
- Nov. 9, 1950: During the Korean War, Lt. Cmdr. William T.
Amen, from Fighter Squadron 111, becomes the first Navy pilot
to shoot down a jet aircraft. While attacking the Yalu
bridges as part of Task Force 77, Amen, flying an F9F jet,
shot down a Soviet MiG-15 during aerial action.
- Nov. 10, 1775: The Marine Corps is born when the
Continental Congress votes to establish two battalions of
Marines. The senior officer was Capt. Samuel Nicholas, now
considered the first Commandant of the Marine Corps.
- Nov. 11, 1920: Lenah S. Higbee becomes the first woman to
receive the Navy Cross while still living. Higbee,
superintendent of the Navy Nurse Corps, was awarded the medal
for her exemplary service during World War I. Three years
after her death in 1941, USS Higbee (DD 806) was commissioned
in her honor -- the first warship named for a woman.
Visit http://www.history.navy.mil for more information
about the Naval Historical Center and naval history.
-USN-

------------------------------