| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
The New Unified Command PlanGeneral Richard B. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Foreign Press Center Briefing Washington, DC April 18, 2002 4:06 P.M. (EDT)
Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045, USA. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202) 824-0520. GEN. MYERS: Well, good afternoon. On behalf of all our nation's servicemen and women, I first want to express our condolences and prayers to the families and loved ones of those killed in the -- yesterday's friendly fire accident in Afghanistan. The contribution of every single coalition military member of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, as well as in many other locations around the world, is treasured, and the loss of any coalition service member is felt by all. And even as we work to discover the facts necessary to completely understand the circumstances of this particular tragedy, we mourn the loss of our Canadian comrades. Last night I called my counterpart, General Ray Henault, in Canada to express my condolences and to discuss the situation with him. And I'm sure we'll be talking as we go forward with this investigation as well. I'm here to talk about the United States Unified Command Plan, or as we call it, the UCP. This establishes the missions and responsibilities of each combatant command within the United States armed forces. Let me emphasize, it just has to do with United States armed forces, no other country's armed forces. It says nothing about political-military relationships directly. It's just about the U.S. armed forces. As the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I'm required to by law to review the UCP at least every two years and recommend to the president, through the secretary of Defense, any changes that I feel will better serve the United States as we carry out our military efforts worldwide. The 2002 UCP basically does three main things. First, it takes our various homeland security missions being performed by various combatant commanders and puts them under a single command. Second, it will continue to advance our transformation efforts. And third, it prepares us for the future by assigning every area of the globe to a combatant commander's area of responsibility, thereby streamlining our military relationships with respect to all nations. The following changes will be effective on October 1st: We will create a new combatant command, U.S. Northern Command, and assign it the responsibilities of homeland defense and of supporting the military's responsibility to civil authorities here in the United States. The commander of Northern Command will also be the commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command. NORAD's mission to deter, detect, and defend against air and space threats to North -- the North American continent will not change. U.S. NORTHCOM's geographic area will include the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean, and the contiguous waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, out to at least, at least, 500 nautical miles from the East and West coasts of North America. Next, U.S. Joint Forces Command, located down in Norfolk, Virginia, will transfer its geographic area of responsibility to the Northern and European Command. Joint Forces Command will then change from being a combatant command with a geographic and a functional area of responsibility to a functional combatant command to carry out the critical missions of transformation, joint training, and experimentation. European Command will increase its geographic area of responsibility. EUCOM will now include the remainder of the Atlantic Ocean area from 500 miles off the U.S. East coast all the way to the shore of the European continent. Additionally, European Command will also pick up the responsibility for Russia. Previously, Russia was not assigned and most efforts with Russia were all conducted here with the Pentagon. I should also note that Pacific Command will assist European Command and work issues with Russia that deal with their Far East Military District. Central Command will not change its geographic area, nor will Southern Command, except in those areas of the Caribbean that will shift from Southern Command to Northern Command. These UCP changes, we believe, will allow us to better streamline our security assistance and military cooperation with friends and allies around the world. And with that, we'll take your questions. Yes, sir. Right here. Oh, you're waiting for the mike. MODERATOR: Please wait for the microphone and remember to identify yourself. Q My name is Jim Casin (sp). I write for a newspaper that's published in Mexico called La Jornada. I wanted to ask you if you could give us a little bit more details about your discussions. We know that the Mexican secretary of Defense was up here last week. Did you discuss these issues with him, and could you tell us a little bit more about how those discussions go and what you're planning with Mexico? And I guess the thing that gets to the root of the question that my readers have, anyway, is Mexico was never under a U.S. command, as we understood it in the past, and now is being incorporated into one. There's a little bit of apprehension about that in some parts of Mexico. And so maybe you could explain to our readers what that means, why now you're putting it into a command, and what are the consequences. GEN. MYERS: When General Vega visited, I guess it was last week, that was not the primary topic that we discussed. We discussed many areas; that was not the primary topic, we did discuss that. The characterization of putting Mexico under a command I think is the wrong way to look at it. We have unified commanders that have specific geographic areas of responsibility. And it's to delineate who has the responsibility for military to military and security relationships with these various countries. So it's -- forces aren't under other forces, and they're not countries under these commands. It's to facilitate the security relationship. And that's exactly what we hope to do in the case of Mexico. The relationship that General Vega has and his successors will have with the secretary of Defense here in Washington D.C. and with my office will not change. We'll still have that dialogue at the senior level. What it will permit is a dialogue and some help with some other issues in terms of any security assistance or the other parts of our military to military relationship to be worked at a level below the Pentagon and get the benefits of both worlds: have somebody to go to without coming to Washington D.C., but in the end, if you need -- and as will happen periodically, I would assume -- come to Washington D.C. and discuss issues that are of strategic importance. Q But why was it not under a command before and now it is? GEN. MYERS: Well, for the reasons I said in my opening statement, is that we think this will facilitate our military to military relationship. And we just think it's going to make it better. The same thing with Russia; I think Russia for maybe a slightly different reason. But clearly, as you think about Northern Command and the responsibilities for the security of the United States, our security and our economic well-being are clearly linked to those -- our greatest trading partners, which are Canada and Mexico. We have security issues we've worked as well. So it made sense from that standpoint, if we're going to create a new command with those responsibilities, to have then the one that is responsible for the security and military-to-military relationship with both Canada and Mexico. Canada was unassigned as well, okay? So both those countries were unassigned. Now, as everybody knows, I think -- well, not everybody knows, but we've had a very close relationship with Canada because we have a -- NORAD is a binational command. It's U.S. and Canada. Yes, sir? Q General, what can you tell us about the circumstances -- MODERATOR: (Off mike.) Q Pardon me? MODERATOR: (Off mike.) Q Alan Fryer from Canadian Television. What can you tell us about the circumstances surrounding the friendly fire incident? And specifically, are you able to explain why an F-16 would even be operating in an area designated as a training area and, as I understand it, a no-fly zone? GEN. MYERS: You know, I have some information, but it's first reports. What has been established is an investigation board, which we'll do -- we do for any major mishap -- this one will include a general officer leading the board, probably from the United States Air Force; there will be a Canadian general officer; there will be senior officers from other services on this board -- to determine exactly the question you ask -- and then others as well -- exactly what went wrong in this case. And I don't know what wrong -- went wrong. I mean, I can't explain it, and I think we need to let the investigative process go forward. Everybody that has interest will be represented in that case. Yes, ma'am? Q Dolia Estevez with El Financiero from Mexico City. Following up on Jim's question, what kind of security cooperation and military coordination do you expect to get from Mexico? And specifically, are you seeing sometime in the near future joint military operations within the context of the Northern Command? GEN. MYERS: We have started to work the implementation planning for the responsibility of Northern Command back in February. And those deliberations are not complete. They'll be complete sometime maybe next month or the month after. The relationship that this command will have with Mexico on those issues you raised will have to be determined by the Mexican government, not by the United States government. That will be an issue for Mexico to raise. And so I would be the last one to ask. And the same goes for Canada, by the way. We know that with Canada, we already have a relationship for the air defense and the space warning piece of security, and that's well established under NORAD. But as far as Canadian participation in other aspects of security, it will up to the Canadian government as well. Q So you welcome that kind of participation by the Mexicans? MODERATOR: Microphone. GEN. MYERS: It's up to the -- obviously, it's up to the Mexican government, and it would be something we'd have to discuss. And anything, I think, that would enhance the mutual security of our two nations would probably be something we'd want to look at. But again, it's a Mexican government decision. MODERATOR: (Off mike.) Q A follow-up on Mexico? GEN. MYERS: Yeah, follow up. Sure. We like follow-ups. Q My name is Maria Gonzalez. I'm with Reforma, Mexican newspaper, also. I would like to ask you a very basic question, because our readers in Mexico are kind of confused. Many wire services, instead of talking about the "area of responsibility," as you said here, were talking about "jurisdiction." And in some way, that sounds like, okay, you are taking something. GEN. MYERS: Right. Yeah. Q So can you please tell us if this is just you divide the words just for organizational purposes -- what's the change? I mean, what can you tell the Mexican people to understand this better? GEN. MYERS: Yes. I'll try this one more time, because I think I've tried to cover this, but this is not putting Mexico under any U.S. command. It's not an issue of jurisdiction. I don't know how that's -- my son is the one who speaks Spanish; I apologize. (Laughter.) I do not speak -- I need him here to help me translate this properly. But it -- I would characterize it as -- exactly as I said it. It's an attempt to know who is responsible for working the military-to-military relationships and the security relationships that we have with Mexico on a day-to-day basis. It has nothing to do about territory. It has nothing to do about jurisdiction. If anything, it's more administrative than it is those other terms that we have used. And how far this goes, in terms of security cooperation and those sorts of issues that I think we all worry about today -- but that is a sovereign issue for the nation of Mexico to decide on its own. And obviously, we'd be open to any discussions along those lines, but that is not a United States government decision. Okay. Yes, sir. Q Thank you. My name is Paul Coring (sp). I'm with the Globe and Mail of Canada. I have a UCP question and a friendly-fire question. The UCP question is that -- I realize this has yet to be decided where antimissile defenses would fit in the command structure. But it's hard for me to imagine them being part of anything other than NORTHCOM. Can you suggest where else a deployed antimissile defense system will go? GEN. MYERS: It's a timely question, because it's being discussed and the staff work is being done as we speak. And so I would expect, in the next several months, we have to take recommendations to our secretary of Defense on where that responsibility might lie. And that decision has not been made yet, but obviously, it's one that has to be made here fairly quickly. Q Thank you. And I was going to ask, are you concerned that there would be a live-fire-training-exercise area used at night, where it's extremely difficult to determine the direction and location of muzzle flashes, within a few kilometers of the perimeter fence of a major base in a hostile area? GEN. MYERS: Well, you know, again, I'd let it -- I think we need to look at all those aspects of this case and determine, you know what was being done, was it prudent, why did certain things happen. I mean, we've all heard some of the first reports, and it sounds, you know, just almost inconceivable that certain things could happen this way. But we really have to wait for the investigative process because right now we're just guessing. And so -- I mean, I can't -- it's -- it's right up there with the worst news I've heard in my career when I got that phone call last night. We'll go in the back here. Q Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask, in theory -- oh, it's Bill Walker from the Toronto Star, by the way. In theory, when you have a designated training area for a live-training exercise like this, and there are F-16s flying routine patrols, if a pilot were to call in that they felt they might under be (sic) fire and would give their location, would the officer at the Command Central station, whatever you call it -- I apologize -- that was giving him the permission to mark the target, would that person have the location of the designated live-training area, in a perfect world? GEN. MYERS: These are all wonderful questions, and I don't -- don't know if I can answer that. I mean, the last thing I need to do is prejudice this investigation. It needs to work -- one of the problems that I have in speculation or anything like that is that at some point I could be asked for my advice on this as it moves up the chain, and so I've got to -- I need to stay -- I just need to let the investigation work and I need to address it when it comes my way. Q A follow-up. Is it your -- are you satisfied that the National Air Guard pilots are as well trained as the regular pilots? GEN. MYERS: Without knowing -- in a very general sense, absolutely, in a very general sense. I don't know what we'll find in this case. But yes, the pilots in the Air National Guard are trained to the same standards as the pilots in the active force, and the Reserve -- not just the Air National Guard, but the Reserve component as well. Okay, right here in the middle. Q I'm Arthur Lunde (sp) with German Public Radio. Today the Strategic Command in Norfolk is dual-hatted. It's also the head of the -- what's it -- Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic? GEN. MYERS: Correct. Q And if I'm oriented rightly, this will be separated now. What impact does that have for the relationship of the United States to the rest of the NATO allies, or what is it -- the Supreme Allied Command is the only NATO post on the soil of the United States so far. Will there be another one? Will they move? That would be the question. GEN. MYERS: The way ahead on that is to conduct consultations, which we have begun at the more senior levels in NATO, because in the end, that will be a NATO decision of which we're only one of 19 -- currently 19 -- 19 voices. But with the geographic area of responsibility going away from Joint Forces Command so it can focus more on experimentation and transformation and training, it's -- that hat will probably -- what we call the SACLANT or Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic hat will -- will have to move somewhere else. Where it moves, whether it stays on U.S. soil, whether it moves to Europe will probably be part of a larger look at NATO command and control and headquarters that will be proposed here in the near future to be looked at. So it'll probably play out over the next year or so. Q Is there any reaction so far from the allies? GEN. MYERS: The one reaction from the allies is that most of our NATO partners want to make sure that we have some link into the United States in terms of our transformation programs and so forth, so that's been their -- they want to maintain the trans-Atlantic link. And that has been a concern and one that will be addressed as we go into our NATO consultations. Yes, ma'am, in the back. Q (Off mike) -- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I was just wondering whether there have been any immediate changes to operations in Afghanistan because of what happened last night on the part of either of the forces, and also, how long you might expect the investigation to take and whether the results will be made public. GEN. MYERS: On the latter one, yes. On most of our aircraft mishaps, we make the results of the investigation public. How long it might take, we generally try to do these fairly quickly, but they've got to be thorough as well. And I don't want to speculate, but I would say in 30 to 60 days, we ought to have that completed. And that's -- but there is a process. Once it's complete, then it winds its way through a little bit of a process to get a couple of reviews, which could add to that time. I'm talking the time for the board to actually sit and meet. And I'm -- and the reason I say that is because, you know, we've got the -- the air crews are available and we have folks on the ground available, we have the folks that were controlling in the air that night available. So we should be able to put this together, it's be my guess, fairly expeditiously. Q (Off mike) -- being made? GEN. MYERS: I do know know of any, but I would be -- I'm sure that General Franks and the folks under him have looked very closely at this incident, and they can -- you know, they can just do changes immediately. And if they were needed, they'd probably do so. I just don't know specifically if they have. Yes, sir. Q (Inaudible) -- Turkish daily Hurriyet. Sir, what sort of signals or messages are you getting from your Turkish counterparts in terms of a possible operation against Iraq? And do you think Turkey will support such an operation which would aim a regime change in Baghdad? MODERATOR: Sir, if you want that, but we did want to kind of limit this to the UCP because we've got a lot of people here that are interested in that. So, we heard your question, but we need to move on. GEN. MYERS: I will just -- I will give you a quick answer, in that I know of no discussions with the Turkish government on any such operation up to this point. Yes, sir? Q (Name inaudible), the Russian News Agency, TASS. Sir, can I ask you to elaborate a little bit about your decision to downgrade Russia from its negative, but nevertheless very important, Cold War status? (Laughter.) GEN. MYERS: (Laughs.) Interesting way you phrased that question. I think it recognizes the new realities that -- and by the way, the relationship between Secretary Rumsfeld and the current minister of defense, Sergei Ivanov, and myself and General Kvashnin, we know each other quite well. Those relationships will stay as solid as ever. But for the day-to-day management of the ever-increasing military-to-military relationship and security relationship, with a lot of issues that we're dealing with right now, it makes a lot of sense to have one of our unified commanders worry about that as well, and that's our commander in Europe, headquartered at Stuttgart. That's the commander that's, you know, closely affiliated with NATO, with Western Europe, which I think benefits Russia as it looks to enhance relationships here in the future. So I think it makes perfect sense. It gives Russia the best of both worlds. They can deal with the day-to-day issues there, with the more strategic issues with Washington. I think it's a good match. Q (Off mike) -- political. GEN. MYERS: Right. No, the responsibility of unified commanders are clearly in the military chain, they're not the political chain. That's the responsibility of the Department of State. So these would be the military-to-military relationships and some security issues that have to be dealt with with the uniformed people. Q Thank you. GEN. MYERS: Yes, sir? Is this going to be about the UCP? Q Thank you. Yes. (Laughs.) Absolutely. GEN. MYERS: (Laughs.) Q We had -- (inaudible) -- the Pentagon. Thank you, General. As I said the other day, that under your leadership, ever since you came, that the U.S. military are doing a great job. Can I ask you when are you visiting to India -- (laughs) -- any time soon in connection with the unified command? (Laughter.) GEN. MYERS: (Laughs.) Q And as far as this new unified command is concerned, of course this is in connection with the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, the Pentagon here at our offices. And it going to change in any way as far as the war in Afghanistan is concerned, or that part of the area that command is going to make any difference? GEN. MYERS: No. Because the Central Command -- oop! I forgot we had a stage there. The Central Command area of operation has not changed. They're still responsible for the operations currently going on in Afghanistan and our other efforts in the region, and that will not change. And I hope to get back to India sometime -- I just got back from India about, what, three months ago, something like that; two or three months ago. Q A lot has changed since you -- GEN. MYERS: A lot has changed. And so we'll -- our dialogue with India will be very robust. MODERATOR: We have time for one or two more. GEN. MYERS: Let me take somebody I haven't gotten yet. Two more. Q Jose Lopez (sp) of the Mexican News Agency. On NORTHCOM, up to now have you received any kind of official or informal response or reaction, comments from either Mexico or Canada about your restructuring plans? And secondly, it looks from here that Cuba falls under NORTHCOM. Have you had any kind of discussions with the Cubans on these issues, and what kind of -- what expectations do you have for any kind of either security cooperation or military coordination with them in these issues? GEN. MYERS: We've had -- let me take the latter part first. We've had no discussion with Cuba on the map with Cuba. The reason that Cuba is included is just to have the -- if you're responsible for the defense of the United States, you need to have enough depth in that defense. And it was thought that you ought -- you can't draw the line here. Right above Cuba doesn't give you that -- the miles you need or the nautical miles you need to defend in some sort of depth. So that's the reason it was included. To the first part of your question, we have not had -- since we announced this we have not had -- as far as I know, at least at my level we have not had any communications with either the Canadian or the Mexican government. Q Did you give the Mexican government previous knowledge that you were going to announce this yesterday? GEN. MYERS: There was -- there had been informal discussions, I think, at various levels about this before we announced it, of course. Of course. I mean, that's -- you must -- you have to do that. And I think the last question, right back here. I'm sorry. (Laughs.) You had -- you had one chance! (Chuckles.) MODERATOR: (You can have one, too ?). GEN. MYERS: We'll see how long this is, and then we'll -- Q This is short. Nyla Bodie (sp) with Reuters. I apologize, sir, if you've already answered this question. I'm afraid I came in a bit late. Do we have -- do you have any information on the pilot, if he actually had received permission to drop the bomb or if he had received permission to mark the target? GEN. MYERS: Again, I have some information, but I'm afraid it's still -- what I got was probably some of the first reports, which we know are generally not always accurate. And what I said earlier is we need to leave this for the investigative body to look at. And I just -- I just -- I don't know the answers to one of -- at least half of that question, so I just think we'll just let that lie. And on the last absolute question, somebody I haven't -- is that okay, one more? Q Parasuram with the Press Trust of India. As I understand it, Northern Command is mainly for terrorism. What are the limits that go into it? Will there be special anti-terrorism training? And also, what are the consequence of homeland defense? What items are included in that? GEN. MYERS: Okay, that's a good question. And this is for -- Northern Command has the potential to have three basic elements. The one is the North American Aerospace Defense Command -- that's the air defense, if you will, air sovereignty, and the missile warning mission as it is now in NORAD. That is one component. The other component is what we call a Joint Task Force, but a group that is organized to respond to chemical, biological, nuclear, radiological, or a major explosion, a conventional explosion. And I have to add here that in this response, the military is always under a lead civil agency, be it federal, perhaps state, maybe even local. But we are never in the lead; we are always in support because we bring special skills and capabilities and manpower to problems that could possibly overwhelm the other agencies. And the third piece that is being looked at, with no decision yet, is military support to natural disasters -- floods, fires and hurricanes. We provide that sort of support, again, to lead civil agencies. As you know, in the United States, we have a -- we have a prohibition from the military acting in a law enforcement role. It takes a presidential waiver to do that. It's been done a couple of times. But it is not the routine, and not something we want to do. So we are always in support of civil authorities. And that's -- Q (Off mike.) GEN. MYERS: Well, that'd be something that we'd have to work out, and that would be one of the advantages of a relationship in that regard. So that would be something we could work out, of course, under this. It'll be easier to work that out under this sort of arrangement than it would have been before. I would just say that -- easier to work it out, if that's the desire of the Mexican government. Thank you very much. MODERATOR: General, thank you very much for coming.
|
 | |||
|
