IWS - The Information Warfare Site
News Watch Make a  donation to IWS - The Information Warfare Site Use it for navigation in case java scripts are disabled

08 April 2003

Central Command Briefing Transcript

(Operation Iraqi Freedom update) (9300)

Army Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, CENTCOM deputy director of
operations, briefed the media April 8 at CENTCOM's headquarters at
Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar.

Following is the transcript of the briefing:

(begin transcript)

UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
BRIEFER: GEN. VINCE BROOKS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
LOCATION: DOHA, QATAR
TIME: 7:05 A.M. EDT
DATE: TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2003


BRIG. GEN. VINCENT BROOKS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
Nineteen days ago, coalition forces entered Iraq with a campaign plan
to remove a regime, to liberate the Iraqi people from the grip of the
regime, and to begin the process of disarming Iraq. We remain on our
plan, and the outcome is not in doubt.


We continue to remember the brave young men and women who have lost
their lives in this conflict to date, and we also remember their
families.


I'd like to now update you on some of the things that have occurred
over the last 24 hours.


First, the coalition continues to exert pressure on the regime and on
the forces that remain willing to fight for the regime. I have one
weapons systems video to show you today. This one is a recent close
air support mission inside of Baghdad. And, in this particular image,
you'll see that the regime has positioned heavy military equipment
inside the capital city and also increased the risk to the population.
But even in urban areas, the coalition forces make every possible
effort to attack targets as precisely as we can.

This image is of a tank positioned in trees along a canal. The trees
are difficult to see because of the spectrum of light that's being
used. And this is a close air support mission, unlike some of the
other weapons systems videos we have shown where they may not have
been someone on the ground focusing it. In those other cases, the
pilot identified the target. In close air support missions like these
and all other air operations now occurring in and around Baghdad, it
requires not only the pilot to be able to see the target, but someone
on the ground that can see the target and identify it as well before
any weapons are released. Our coalition's special operations forces
continue to make significant contributions to the campaign, and are
now conducting special operations in the north, the west, the east,
the south, and the center of Iraq. In the north, coalition special
operations forces, in conjunction with Kurdish forces of northern
Iraq, are maintaining pressure on the Iraqi military forces in that
area, while preventing their movement to Tikrit or Baghdad.

In one engagement yesterday near Irbill, in the north, our special
operations forces, in conjunction with close air support, were able to
destroy a force consisting of several armored personnel carriers,
tanks, and infantry.

In another engagement, a similar engagement near Kirkuk, a special
operations element defeated an armored counter-attack, destroying
several tanks, trucks and armored personnel carriers.

In the west, coalition special operations forces continued to hold the
important Hadithah Dam. We've talked about that before. There's a
smaller body of water just off to the side here that's a result of the
dam, and the Hadithah nearby, denying freedom of movement to regime
forces, and also denying use of areas that could be used for ballistic
missile launches. Unconventional warfare continues in other parts of
Iraq.

The coalition's operational maneuver remains deliberate, focused and
successful. The first area to highlight is Basra. Coalition forces,
under the leadership of the U.K. and supported by coalition special
operations, succeeded yesterday in reducing the final remaining
concentrations of Ba'ath Party officials and regime forces in Basra.
The remaining pocket was in the old part of the city and it was
cleared by forces during the night. And by the time the sun came up
this morning, there were reports of jubilation in the streets. Now,
the hard task of preserving security and getting Iraq's second city
moving forward into the future can proceed in earnest.

The capture of two more Ba'ath Party officials near the town of
As-Zubair, on the outskirts of Basra, also reflects our ongoing
efforts to rid the entire southern region of regime presence and
influence.

The next area is near As-Samawa. Coalition forces near As-Samawa
continue to work in that area and the towns around it, eliminating any
regime elements and also transitioning into humanitarian actions.
While water resupply networks are still being reestablished, there are
military units operating in that area that are providing purified
water that they're generating from water purification systems to
Samawa and Arupa (sp), located about 25 kilometers to the north.

In An-Najaf and Karbala, our operations continue increasing security
in those areas and also eliminating any remaining regime elements that
are present. There are combat operations ongoing east of Karbala.

The main focus of the operation continues to be, for the land
component, in and around Baghdad. In the east, the 1st Marine
Expeditionary Force attacked across the Biyala River into the
southeast corner of Baghdad. They encountered forces, including T-72
tanks, armored personnel carriers, other armored vehicles, surface-to-
surface missiles, artillery pieces, and numerous technical vehicles.
These forces were encountered and destroyed, and they proceeded on
their attack to seize the Rashid (sp) Airport, which you see
identified by an airplane image in the lower right-hand corner of
Baghdad.

In the west, 5th Corps remained in the center of Baghdad overnight,
and also continued attacks this morning from the north and from the
south, conducting operations inside of the heart of Baghdad. They also
encountered a mixture of forces, including T-72 tanks, armored
vehicles, technical vehicles, and artillery pieces.

While this is ongoing, our maritime component continues to take steps
to maintain the flow of humanitarian assistance supplies into Iraq.
And it's currently focused on dredging parts of the Khor- Abdullah to
make it a deeper draft for larger ships that carry increasing amounts
of humanitarian support and assistance into Umm Qasr.

Our efforts to communicate with the Iraqi people on a variety of
levels range from the radio and television broadcasts that we've
spoken about before, all the way down to physically handing out
leaflets in populated areas. I'd like to show you a short video of
U.K. and American forces handing out leaflets on the streets of As-
Zubair very recently. This was taken by one of our front line camera
systems, a military system, and broadcast from there a few days ago.

You see them holding the leaflet there. There's a closer image of the
leaflet. This is what was actually produced and distributed by hand.
And the message of the leaflet is really a future without the regime,
and steps that will be taken leading up to the final comment down at
the bottom, that the coalition forces will only stay as long as it is
necessary to accomplish what we need to accomplish, and then we leave
Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people.

Daily, our coalition forces take positive steps to east the plight of
the Iraqi people. In this next image, you'll see military civil
affairs elements, again operating with free Iraqi forces, delivering
medical supplies in this case. And the supplies being delivered are
for the people of An-Nasiriyah. The initial distribution is often done
by hand, and it's aimed at alleviating immediate needs of the
communities encountered, and it also help to communicate the
coalition's intentions to assist the Iraqi people.

In the next images, I'll show you a short video of members from the
82nd Airborne Division distributing humanitarian daily rations. These
are the yellow ones. We're still eliminating those from our stocks,
but we're delivering them by hand, not doing them by air drop, as
you'll see inside of this image. Each one of these rations contains
enough rations for an adult for one day in each bag, and they're used
to augment the existing supplies.

Even as food and other rations are distributed in the field, there's
more humanitarian assistance arriving in the ports in bulk. Yesterday,
we had the arrival of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ship Sir Percival in
the port of Umm Qasr, and the following video shows you the
off-loading of those supplies, the humanitarian supplies intended for
the people of Iraq. The gentlemen in the yellow hats and the
reflective vests are Iraqi port workers who have returned to work and
are working alongside coalition forces on a daily basis.

We interact on a number of levels, certainly in the areas where combat
has ceased, those areas that we have described as liberated cities and
towns. There still are challenges that are out there. Sometimes it's
just working through the language and cultural barriers, and of course
security remains a focus for us. This video shows you some
interactions along a street near Basra. It shows that the challenges
are being overcome on a daily basis, and that coalition forces in fact
are being well received by many citizens of Iraq. And these positive
and cooperative relations are improving with every day.

With that, ladies and gentlemen, I'll take your questions. Yes,
please.

Q: David Lee Miller, Fox News. General, what can you tell us about
this air strike targeting Iraqi leadership, presumably Saddam? And if
you could go into the details, I understand that there was -- there is
no coalition presence on the ground after this air strike -- what's
being done to determine who in fact was hit, and we're going to
accomplish that?

GEN. BROOKS: As I've mentioned over a number of days throughout this
conflict, we focus our actions directly against the regime leadership,
against the regime command and control systems, against the things
that protect the regime, whether it's air defense systems or whether
it's forces, in an effort to eliminate the influence of the regime and
its abilities to continue to conduct command and control. We had
credible information that indicated that there was a regime leadership
meeting occurring yesterday. While it's not useful to get into any
speculation on who might have been present at that meeting, what we
will say is that we had an opportunity -- as we've said before, we
respond to opportunities, but we had an opportunity to attack that
particular regime leadership meeting. We believe that the attack was
effective in causing destruction of that facility. As to who was
inside and what their conditions are, it will take some time before we
can make that full determination. But our efforts remain focused on
regime leadership whenever we find it, and any remnants of command and
control that might be exerted by any remaining portions of the regime,
whether it's local-tactical or whether it's on a larger scale.

Q: I just want to follow that up.

GEN. BROOKS: Please.

Q: It's my understanding that there was no coalition presence on the
ground, so this air strike may have taken place, but members of the
regime may have access to this site, and if it were a crime scene, it
might be contaminated. How can you preserve it and make the
determination later who, if anyone, was hit?

GEN. BROOKS: It -- that's a very difficult challenge for us, and it's
been a challenge throughout -- throughout these operations. That's why
we can't on a daily basis say exactly who was inside of a building
that may have been attacked where we had credible information. What we
operate with is the information that leads us to it, and we are -- we
are able in some cases to gather additional information after the
strikes. But time will have to tell exactly how effective that
particular strike was, and others that we've done as well.

Yes, please, Adi (sp).

Q: Adi (sp) Rivale (sp), ABC News. Sir, could we get an update on the
investigation into the second Baghdad market explosion? And the second
question is, given the severity of and the intensity of the
bombardment in yesterday's building, is it possible that we may never
know just who was inside that building in terms of identification?
Thank you, sir.

GEN. BROOKS: I don't have anything new to report on the Baghdad
markets. What we've found on these market explosions is there remains
evidence that a number of things could have contributed to it. As with
so many things, until we are in exactly the location where these
incidents occurred, we can't make a full assessment and eliminated --
eliminate all possibilities.

As to the results of this particular attack that occurred yesterday,
like other places, it is possible that we may never be able to
determine exactly who was present without some detailed forensic work,
and that's just -- that's one of the circumstances we have to deal
with as we go through this campaign.

Yes sir, please.

Q: (Inaudible) -- Al Jazeera. Today, your plane hit Al Jazeera office
in Baghdad. One of our colleagues was killed during the attack. The
office of Abu Dhabi TV also hit, as well as the Palestine Hotel where
most of journalists are staying.

Do these attacks mean that you will intensify your military campaign
against Baghdad and that you don't need the journalists to cover the
bloodshed which will be (taken in?) Baghdad? Thank you.

GEN. BROOKS: Well, Hassan (sp), if I may, let me begin by saying first
that we regret the loss of life from correspondents and we extend our
condolences to the family of your journalist and to the families of
other journalists who have lost their lives throughout this conflict.
It's most unfortunate indeed.

We certainly know that we don't target journalists. That's just not
something we do. We also know that the locations where the regime does
its work in many cases will put civilians at risk. We've talked about
that day after day.

The regime does not seem to want to change its methods of providing a
higher degree of protection to journalists that in many cases we don't
know where all journalists are on the battlefield. We certainly know
where the embedded journalists are at any given time that are
operating with our formations. And that was a conscious decision to
take in embedded journalists.

There were some combat actions that also occurred at the Palestine
Hotel. Initial reports indicate that the coalition force operating
near the hotel took fire from the lobby of the hotel and returned
fire. And any loss of life, civilian loss of life or unintended
consequences, again, we find most unfortunate and also undesirable.

This is not something we seek to do. But at the same time, we know
that we're conducting combat operations inside of an urban area, an
area where the regime has chosen to deliberately defend and not stand
down. And we can only be reminded that the risk increases for the
population as we do these operations. But we have to remain focused on
our objective of removing this regime before there's a greater loss of
life.

Please.

Q: Jeff Reed (sp) from Sky News. If I can continue on the point you
made there, if you're claiming fire was coming from the lobby of the
Palestine Hotel, why was this tank round directed at an upper floor?
And what does that kind of marksmanship, or lack of it, suggest about
the risks to civilians as your forces penetrate further into Baghdad?

GEN. BROOKS: The response of fire is something that we always have to
give details as time goes on for specifically where the fire was
returned and what was hit, where the fire came from. So I may have
misspoken on exactly where the fire came from.

What I can tell you is, (to?) the marksmanship, there have been plenty
of examples of very accurate marksmanship not only from air but also
from our systems on the ground as we've conducted operations over
time.

We remain very confident in the capability of our crews and our folks
that are doing the work on the ground, and we believe that where it is
possible to avoid losses of civilian life, every effort will be taken.
We've seen examples of trying to protect mosques where fire came, and
we did not have to return fire at that point in time to protect
ourselves, and therefore we did not.

Circumstances change in different places, and the tactical decisions
that are made can only be made by people on the ground. So I don't
have anything else that I can give you in real detail on that. And I
appreciate the question. But we'll remain focused on trying to do the
job as well as we can without threatening the civilian population.

Yes, please.

Q: (Inaudible) -- Reuters. Follow-up on the Palestine; one comment.
First of all, journalists inside the hotel say that there was no
firing coming from the hotel. And the second question is, did U.S.
forces know that that was a media hotel?

GEN. BROOKS: What we know is that there are a number of places in
downtown Baghdad where there are civilian populations who are at risk.
And we know that there are practices by this regime to increase that
risk deliberately, whether it's by positioning or whether it's by
taking certain actions.

And we know that as we conduct operations inside of Baghdad, we should
anticipate attacks from unexpected locations, that some of the
military actions might be unconventional in nature, whether it's the
use of car bombs or whether it's ambushes, the use of snipers, or
certainly the consistent pattern we've seen elsewhere of using
civilians as shields.

It's too early to be able to say exactly what happened at that site,
and so I don't want to get into a who says what happened. We don't
know enough to be able to say that definitely. And frankly, I don't
know that anyone does to have the whole picture.

That's why we have to investigate these types of things and find out
what the bottom line is. And when we find out, I think there will be
more information for us to pass.

Second row, please.

Q: (Inaudible.) Can you detail what you're doing to try and find out
who was in that building and also say whether you actually have
coalition forces on the spot going through the rubble?

GEN. BROOKS: We have coalition forces that are operating in a variety
of places inside of Baghdad and in a variety of different ways. In
places where we can confirm on the ground the results of a strike, as
in places where we've passed through and liberated, then there's more
fidelity that we can gain on the precision of the strike and the
actual results of the strike.

Until that can occur in every location, we certainly can't make full
determinations of what has happened. At this point in time I'm not
aware of anyone from coalition forces that have walked the site. When
that's possible, we'll have more information about what exactly
happened there.

Until then, we can only go with things that we can gain information
on. And we believe the strike was effective in hitting the target,
creating the desired effect, but we don't know all the circumstances
of what happened to those who were contained inside.

Yes, please.

Q: Thank you. Jonathan Marcus. Two points. One, we know pretty well
who the leading figures are in the Iraqi regime. Who do you think is
actually in charge, if anybody, at the moment?

And secondly, as you take control of more areas of Baghdad, clearly
with the continuing fighting there are going to be civilian
casualties, whatever the precision of the weaponry. There are all
sorts of reports of hospitals being overloaded and so on.

Are you taking any steps to provide large-scale medical facilities to
deal with some of the casualties, particularly now that you hold some
of the ground in the Iraqi capital?

GEN. BROOKS: We have not been certain for a very long time of who's in
charge in this regime. What we've seen is that the regime leadership
structure has been fragmented. We've seen that the ability for the
regime to communicate instructions has been disrupted. We've seen that
the application of authority has been interfered with on a number of
occasions by coalition action. And we're not certain exactly who's in
charge at this point in time.

But what we do know is that there are still pockets of regime
leadership, whether they be local-level Ba'ath Party officials or
whether they are unit commanders of military formations that still
exist, or whether they are the higher-level leadership figures that
were part of the regime and remain part of the regime.

As we identify them, we have opportunities to try to reduce their
capability to still command and control, whether that's by direct
attack, by any other sort of action affecting their communications,
whatever it might be, to prevent them from maintaining any degree of
control.

We do know indeed that as we are conducting military operations in an
urban area, that the potential for casualties increases. Our approach
to that, however, with regard to encountering casualties that occur on
the battlefield, has not changed.

We've established temporary hospitals, field hospitals, or used our
own tactical aid stations throughout this combat operation whenever we
encounter civilians or wounded Iraqi soldiers and provide medical
treatment to them on the spot, sometimes for a longer-term basis.

In some cases we've had some Iraqi soldiers that have been taken into
our custody that ultimately become prisoners of war. They may be
evacuated to a hospital ship and receive medical care where it is
available.

So that will continue as we have more forces operating in and around
Baghdad. Those forces have a medical capability. And if we encounter
civilians that are wounded in our actions, regardless of what caused
them, we'll provide as much relief as we can. And that will continue.

Please, George.

Q: George Curry (sp), editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper
Publishers Association News Service, the Black Press of the United
States. I want to return to the subject of the attack on the
leadership meeting. There are reports today that the CIA passed along
this information, and 45 minutes later there was the actual bombing.
Was that information phoned through the headquarters here? And can you
tell us, in general terms, the source of that information?

GEN. BROOKS: George, I can't help you very much on that at all. We
have a number of methods that we use to gain information, a wide
array. And it's just not useful to describe what a particular source
is.

Generally speaking, for anything that we conduct operations against, a
single source is never adequate. So there are always multiple sources
that tell us, "We may have something here that is worthy of conducting
a military action against."

When we're satisfied that that is true, when we believe we can make
positive identification of that target area, we make specific
decisions: What weapons should be used? How should we deliver it? What
is the potential consequence to areas in and around it?

Even while we have what we call a time-sensitive opportunity, where it
may be fleeting in time and has to be addressed, if it's going to be
addressed at all, rather quickly, we still take the same deliberate
process of deciding what happens to the area around it.

How can we mitigate the effects? Should we choose a different weapon?
Should we have it detonate a different way? Should we aim at a
specific spot? Should we approach the target in a different way with
the delivery system?

All these types of things are considerations that go into every attack
like that. It's done in a way that is -- frankly it's unparalleled.
There is no one else that does it like this, with this degree of
precision and deliberateness.

So that's how it works. We take whatever information we have. We make
sure that it's corroborated, that we're satisfied with the quality of
the target. Then we make other decisions on how to attack it. And we
try to do that in a way that achieves the desired effect.

Yes, sir, please.

Q: Today is the journalists' day -- three attacks against three
journalists killed in a few hours. Why you don't order your forces to
avoid the buildings where there are journalists doing their job?

GEN. BROOKS: First, we don't know every place a journalist is
operating on the battlefield. We know only those journalists that are
operating with us. And we have always said that the area for combat
operations is a very dangerous place indeed. And certainly there
should be no surprise in anyone's mind that eventually operations were
going to close on Baghdad. And that's ongoing as we speak.

We always regret the loss of any civilian lives -- journalists,
non-combatants, people who are used as shields. And we do everything
we can to avoid that when we have knowledge of it. There is
intermingling that happens, though, on the battlefield. And I don't
have enough information to say how the dynamics of the battlefield
came together today.

What we can be certain of, though, is this coalition does not target
journalists. And so anything that has happened as a result of our fire
or other fires would always be considered as an accident. And we will
look into the circumstances that contributed to it. Where we have
responsibility, we'll accept that responsibility.

Yes, sir, please.

Q: (Inaudible.) At the weekend, your forces broke slightly with the
policy of not giving figures for casualties. And indeed, I think first
General Perkins (sp) said there had been a thousand casualties in the
incursion on Saturday, and then that figure was revised upwards to
between 2,000 and 3,000.

Can you tell us how many casualties you estimate there have been since
then? How many of those were Iraqi forces and how many were civilians?
And just for the record, my colleague from Reuters, I think, asked you
whether you knew that the Palestine Hotel was a center for
journalists. Could you just confirm that you did?

GEN. BROOKS: First, the number of casualties is a figure that can
never be completely well-determined. And so, as I have stated on
previous days, I'm not going to speculate on exactly how many have
been killed on either side and I'm not going to try to characterize
the full dimension of that.

We know that there have been losses of life. We know that many
families have been affected by this on both sides. We know that we've
seen people forced into situations by the regime that caused a loss of
life, civilian non-combatants in some cases.

We know that many have been wounded as a result of combat action,
intended or unintended. And certainly, from the regime's perspective,
we can't guess whether it was intended or unintended. From the
coalition's perspective, we always know that it is unintended.

We had some awareness of how the Palestine Hotel might be used and
that there are a variety of activities that occur there. There are
many places throughout Baghdad, and all who are not part of the regime
should be aware that the regime uses places like the Palestine Hotel
for other regime purposes. And in doing so, they try to achieve a
degree of protection from the other activities that are ongoing there.

So we're certainly aware of those types of places, and we've tried to
mitigate the risk wherever we can. In some cases the risk cannot be
driven to zero.

Yes, ma'am, please.

Q: Good morning, General. Kelly O'Donnell from NBC. There are reports
that some American troops are recommending that journalists or
civilians in places like the Palestine Hotel hang white sheets. Given
the fact that you believe the regime uses that hotel, would you concur
with that recommendation? And secondly, can you tell us more about the
Rashid Airport circumstances, its operational value, things like that?

GEN. BROOKS: First, on the images of surrender and protection,
unfortunately we've found ourselves in a situation where, as those
appear on the battlefield, often they are used by regime death squads,
Ba'ath Party members, or other regime-related forces to masquerade
combat activity.

Anything that would help to highlight, I think, would be useful, but
we'd still have to take it with a degree of caution and skepticism,
given the fact that we're now operating in the heart of the regime.
And the regime practices to protect itself in its last days. We expect
them to be more extreme than ever. And so while that might be useful
and helpful, I can't say that it would completely solve the problem at
this point in time in terms of who's at risk.

Frankly, the best method is to identify themselves and move out of
harm's way. And that's a very difficult circumstance now that the
battle has been joined inside of Baghdad.

As to the Rashid Airport, that's an area also that provides some
military advantage and also deprives the regime from being able to use
it to depart. It's on the southeast side of the city, between the
Diala (ph) River and the Tigris River. That corner is militarily
significant, and that is just one of the many operating areas that we
will conduct our tactical operations through.

Since operations are continuing, I don't want to characterize much
more than that, but the forces did enter the airport location this
morning and are still doing work to increase the degree of security
and control over top of that facility.

Q: (Off mike.)

GEN. BROOKS: There was resistance, most of it leading to it. And
there's also resistance beyond it. Since reports are still coming in
from ongoing action, we don't have the full scope of it.

But the force I described earlier of T-72 tanks, some artillery
systems, some armored personnel carriers, were associated with
preventing a crossing of the river. That was defeated. Our First
Marine Expeditionary Force succeeded in crossing the Diala (ph) River
and proceeded on its attack from there.

Yes, please.

Q: General, Paul Adams, BBC. Let me be the one with the responsibility
for asking the daily question about weapons of mass destruction;
reports again this morning suggesting that the suspicious site near
Karbala has now been discounted. Is that true? And have any other
sites yielded anything of interest so far in that regard?

And, just going back to the question of the Palestine Hotel, Pentagon
officials warned news agencies weeks before this conflict began that
they shouldn't be there. Are we now seeing your forces, if you like,
compelled to open fire on buildings that they know are occupied by
journalists? And unlike the mosques, the sacred sites in other cities,
does the presence of a large number of western journalists not
represent something that would cause your commanders to (pause?)?

GEN. BROOKS: Well, first, on the -- and forgive me; I called your name
wrong, Paul. First, on the weapons-of-mass-destruction sites, the one
particular one that you're referring to was found east of Karbala. It
did have some preliminary testing done that indicated potentially the
presence of some agents.

We have a number of mechanisms that we use to try to be certain before
we say, "Yes, we found some weapons of mass destruction." Initial
indications were it could potentially be. And these were done by
things like I described yesterday, the Fox chemical reconnaissance
system that has some onboard capability to do testing and analysis.

More detailed testing and analysis is required. That's ongoing. Some
samples have been moved. And we don't know enough at this point to say
that it should be discounted or that indeed we found some weapons of
mass destruction available for use. So at this point we're simply
remaining in waiting until we have additional information.

Yes, warnings had been issued before and they continue to be issued.
Even now, as we speak, there's certainly a warning that Baghdad is a
dangerous location for anyone that is present in there and that the
regime continues to put them at deliberate risk. And our combat
actions also increase the risk.

When we have a known location that is used for multiple purposes,
including regime purposes, command and control and otherwise, and
certainly when we potentially take fire from those locations,
decisions have to be made at a very low tactical level.

I think, in all cases, mosques, other buildings, hotels, things that
are obviously at least or are apparently not military facilities,
there's a decision that has to be made always on a tactical level.
And, where appropriate, there should be as proportional a response as
necessary to eliminate that threat.

That, again, also is a decision made by a tactical leader on the
ground. And we have to look into the circumstances to find out more
about those decisions that were made, but the action occurs when the
action occurs, and everything thereafter is speculative or
investigative.

That's where we stand at this point on that issue. We certainly pay
attention to it. We don't target journalists. We certainly believe in
having open access to journalism here, at other locations, and inside
of our formations. And any loss of life that came as a result of
combat action is regrettable.

Yes, sir, please.

Q: (Inaudible) -- Knight-Ridder. I know that it's difficult for you to
quantify the loss of life on the Iraqi side, but CENTCOM has been
helpful in the past in describing the number of tanks destroyed and
armored vehicles. Can you talk about the destruction of those tanks
during the last 48 hours of operations in Baghdad? And also, can you
elaborate, too, a little bit on the fighting east of Karbala?

GEN. BROOKS: What I will tell you is that -- again, it's always
difficult to get an accurate accounting of exactly what happened as a
result of that combat action or what may have preceded it with air
attacks in advance of an operation.

For the most part, the encounters that we're seeing are formations
that have somewhere between 20 and 60 vehicles, generally speaking.
That's what the numbers tend to come out to be. And often all of those
vehicles are destroyed, any vehicles that are encountered. Sometimes
there are also technical vehicles that are added to that, in the 10s,
20s or 30s in some cases.

Those that encounter our forces, especially ones that are firing or
have weapons on them or are trying to flee, are engaged by direct fire
systems. And so the degree of destruction varies on a daily basis. I
really don't want to characterize it. I think it doesn't help the
action that's happening out there.

When threats appear, they're dealt with in a military fashion. There's
discriminating fire that's provided. And unfortunately, lives are lost
as a result of that on both sides. And that's probably where I'd want
to stay on it.

Q: (Off mike.)

GEN. BROOKS: The fighting east of Karbala is to eliminate some pockets
that remained in place as we penetrated the defensive lines of the
Republican Guard forces command. We have awareness that there still
are some elements there that appear to remain loyal to the regime, and
we'll conduct operations to reduce those pockets, as we are in other
places where we find any regime forces that remain. Since it's an
ongoing operation, I don't want to characterize it much more than
that.

Yes, ma'am, please.

Q: (Inaudible.) We see (a lot on the picture?) of Iraqi civilians
died. And everybody knows the majority of Iraqi official buildings
exist between civilian areas. So did you intend to continue your
strategy while a lot of people died? And what's your priority here,
the building or the people and their right to be safe?

GEN. BROOKS: We certainly want -- thank you for the question. We
certainly want the Iraqi population to be as safe as they possibly
can. And we have demonstrated that throughout all parts of the country
we've conducted operations, trying to take very deliberate efforts
everywhere we can to minimize the loss of life, and certainly being
aware of and trying to protect, as much as we can, sacred sites,
religious sites, archaeological sites, places that are significant to
the rich culture and heritage of the people of Iraq. And we've done
that on a consistent basis.

I've also shown you images over the last several days of the regime
positioning combat systems, communication systems, artillery systems,
directly beside buildings in populated areas. And so there will be
some circumstances, as we've stated, where it becomes virtually
unavoidable to prevent some degree of disruption.

The priority clearly remains focusing on the military target that may
be associated with that and trying, wherever possible, to minimize any
secondary damages that occur. That will not change. It has not
changed. And we believe we're doing the best we can to try to get that
job done.

We would ask that the Iraqi population try to understand. And in due
time we can try to seek to pass on condolences to those whose lives
were lost. We don't know what the number is. We don't know what the
cause is. But we know that there are some that have lost their life in
this, and we regret that.

Yes, sir, please -- third row.

Q: Paul Hunter from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Nineteen days
into the war and five or so, six days into Baghdad, can you give us an
assessment of what you think is left of the conventional Iraqi
resistance? Sort of chemical threats aside, do you think you've seen
the worst of what they can throw at the coalition in terms of
organization, weaponry and will?

GEN. BROOKS: Well, Paul, I think that there are still some options
available to whatever portion of the regime remains. We've seen a lot
of forces that we've encountered on the outskirts of town. We think
that was a significant defensive line, if you will, from Karbala
across to Al Kut, where the Republican Guard forces command was
arrayed. Most of those have been destroyed. And we have not seen a
movement of those forces into Baghdad.

We've encountered some forces along the closer parts of Baghdad, from
about where Baghdad International Airport is located, around to the
corners where we're conducting operations on the east. There are
indications that these are special Republican Guard, but there are
also some indications there might be regular army equipment mixed in,
and certainly some paramilitaries are mixed in.

So the closer we get, the fewer conventional forces remain to be seen.
There are still some. There are still artillery systems, for example,
that are positioned in different places inside the town that can be
brought to bear. There are still rockets in parts of the surrounding
area that we have not moved through yet that pose a continuing threat.
And there are any number of unconventional options available to this
regime. And certainly according to its practice thus far, we expect to
encounter those inside of Baghdad as we get closer to removing the
remaining vestiges of the regime. We remain focused on it. We remain
deliberate in our actions. And as we continue our work in and around
Baghdad, we are seeking those types of things to remove them from the
hands of the regime, taking away the military options.

Sir? I haven't gone to you before, so we'll take you. Please?

Q: Steve -- (inaudible) -- from the Associated Press. Could you
comment on this A-10 Warthog plane that went down today? Was it shot
down?

GEN. BROOKS: We had one A-10 aircraft conducting a close air support
mission at low altitude, in support of ground troops in contact, and
we believe that it was hit by surface-to-air missile fire. The pilot
was immediately recovered and is safely back in coalition control.

Yes. Please, Donna?

Q: Donna Leinwand from USA Today. We haven't talked a lot about
Tikrit. I was wondering if you could tell us what indications you have
that some of the forces might be, some of the Iraqi forces might be
massing up there trying to reconstitute, or that regime leaders have
fled there?

GEN. BROOKS: Well, Donna, Tikrit is one of the areas we know is a
stronghold for the regime leadership, and we know that there are any
number of command and control related facilities in Tikrit. We know
that there had been forces that originally were defending in and
around Tikrit, although those moved to south and had been involved in
combat actions before this time. Tikrit has not escaped our interest;
nor has it escaped our targeting. There are ongoing actions against
command and control facilities in Tikrit to make it not something
that's available to the regime. And I'll leave it at that since
operations are ongoing.

Please, Tom.

Q: Let me take you back again to the Palestine Hotel and the other two
incidents from this morning. You said you may have misspoke about fire
coming from the lobby. I believe that the local commander on the
ground was saying that he was taking RPGs from the roof, also on the
other two buildings that were struck this morning, nearly nine hours
ago. Were you taking fire from those ground targets? We seem to get
information on the Warthog three hours ago, that it was taken down by
surface-to-air, but no real information about the two targets this
morning, nine hours ago.

GEN. BROOKS: I should always be careful about trying to characterize
actions that happened on the ground in a fire fight when those reports
have not come up. The report of a pilot is different than a report of
something that happens on the ground in a fire fight. In many cases we
engage actions to try to go and get the pilot right away, and that
becomes a significant event that's visible even at this level of the
command.

Things that happen in a fire fight are much more confused, and are
also much slower in coming in details, because every fire fight that
happens out there, obviously with the amount of combat action that
occurs, we are not going to get a report on every fire fight that
happens. This one is obviously an item of interest, and there's
interest that's flowing in right now, so I can't characterize exactly
where we've seen fire from. Any comment I made earlier was premature.
And so at this point it's best for me to wait for additional
information to come in.

Okay, off the right, please?

Q: Frederic Gastelle (ph), BBC French Service. General, considering
the increase of military pressure on the regime, do you see any
defection of Iraqi officials? And do you also see some fighting in
between the paramilitary units? They had a very long history of bloody
fights in between units created by Saddam Hussein.

GEN. BROOKS: We're not seeing defections of people who are loyal to
the regime, who are members of the Ba'ath Party. We have captured a
number, but we have not seen defections as you describe. But we have
seen military commanders depart their post, or express a willingness
to cease fighting. That's happened in a number of cases -- but not the
ones who are the most loyal to the regime, the party officials,
leaders of regime death squads -- not in those cases.

The second half of your question?

Q: Any units -- the Iraqi paramilitary units, do they fight? Do you
see any fighting between units?

GEN. BROOKS: We are not seeing fighting between paramilitary units,
and it's too early to determine exactly what may happen amongst other
military units that are out there. There are some indications that
there are some problems inside of some of the unit formations, and
that has yet to develop, and I probably should not discuss it any
further at this point since we don't know.

Let me go in the back over here, please.

Q: Darren Curtis (ph), 7 Network, Australia. Does the coalition
actually possess any DNA for Saddam Hussein and his family? Will that
be the only means that you justify whether you have in fact got him or
not? And, secondly, there's a team of Australian commanders out here
at the moment that are tenacious urban fighters. Will you bring them
into the battle in Baghdad?

GEN. BROOKS: Well, I don't want to characterize what information that
we have that might identify any remains that we encounter anywhere on
the battlefield. That simply would not be appropriate to discuss. And
any questions about Australian forces in detail, about specific units,
you probably should talk to the Australians on. Okay?

Yes, ma'am?

Q: Danelle Balfour from CBC News, Canada. Thank you. Would you
characterize an on-the-ground assessment of the strike in An Mansur as
a priority? And what if any resistance do you expect in preventing or
in challenging you to get to that site, to conduct an investigation?

GEN. BROOKS: Well, the focus of our operations is not to conduct
investigations at particular places where a strike occurred. We are
operating inside Baghdad, and may well move to that site. That's a
tactical commanders decision, and something I'm not aware of at this
point in time.

What we can characterize is that we -- when we see something that
would provide us a fleeting moment of opportunity related to regime
leadership or regime command and control, we'll try to attack that as
quickly as we possibly can, given all the other parameters that I've
described -- that we have a good confirmation that we think the target
is what we say it is, we have eyes that can observe the operation
either from or ground, depending on what the delivery system is going
to be, and that we can do so in such a way that mitigates potential
damage that's unintended. That will continue to be the case.

As to seeing what it is on the ground, I'm not sure when that's going
to happen, whether we'd have some resistance on that or not. We've
already fought inside of Baghdad. We have been successful moving at a
variety of places inside of Baghdad, and we believe we still have
reasonable freedom of action. That doesn't mean it won't be
uncontested, but we are able to move in places of our time and
choosing inside of Baghdad, and I think that will continue. Let me go
all the way in the back row, please.

Q: You talked about the coming few days. How can you guarantee the
safety of the journalists? What's the procedures you can tell the
journalists in the Palestine Hotel? Tell them to just stay in the
hotel, don't move out? And how can you -- what's the procedures which
you can do in the future to guarantee the safety of them?

GEN. BROOKS: The procedures remain as they are right now. First, we
don't target journalists deliberately -- not now, not ever. So I can
talk about the future in that particular case.

We certainly know that the journalists that are with us have
responsibility for their own safety, but they are inherently safe when
they stay with a unit, or there is a higher degree of safety, I should
say -- they are not inherently safe, because it's a dangerous
business, and they are moving with forces that are in danger.

Journalists that are moving on the battlefield, we don't know about.
We don't know where they are in some cases. They're out -- some of
them are operating independently, in a very, very dangerous and often
contested area. And so we would certainly again express our concern
for those who are choosing to do so that they are putting themselves
at risk. Where we have knowledge of that, I think we can do what we
can to try to prevent injuring journalists and any other
noncombatants. And that remains consistent as well. But we can only
deal with what we know in this case. That's how I'd address that.

Yes, please? Q Nicole Enfield from Associated Press. You mentioned
earlier elements of the Fifth Corps came down from the north -- I'd
like some more details of that -- into Baghdad itself. What kind of
resistance did you face? And do you get the sense that the Iraqis had
drawn some of their lines to the south to prevent you from coming up?
And did you have a time of it getting in from the north?

And second question. Reports of pretty -- some looting in Basra from
-- in these first few days of British control. I'm wondering if you
are anticipating that will be repeated in Baghdad, perhaps even on a
larger scale, just because it's Baghdad; what you're going to do
differently to prevent this looting from occurring. Or is it, at least
so far in Basra, a kind of reasonable amount of, you know, release of
this pent-up frustration, as the British commander said yesterday,
that that was -- in time they will be able to restore law and order,
but now it's just frustration, people acting out? Thanks.

GEN. BROOKS: The first question talks about the approach to Baghdad
from the north. There were some forces that were encountered. We have
the ability to operate and conduct actions at times and places of our
choosing. We had awareness of forces that were positioned in the
north. Those forces were attacked. That opened up an opportunity there
for us to continue operations on a different line toward the center of
Baghdad from a different direction.

I am not going to characterize where we are going to go at any given
time. These are again tactical decisions that are made. They're
focused at the same objective, and they are opportunistic in their
nature. So tactical action in the north against the force that may
have been defending in the north may open a hole in the north. That
opportunity may be taken; maybe it's not. There are things that happen
on the battlefield like that that our commanders are very skillful of
creating and then taking advantage of. So that will bethe case as we
continue.

The second half of your question was --

Q: A follow-up --

GEN. BROOKS: Let's go to the second half of your first question.

Q: Basra looting, what are you going to do in Baghdad --

GEN. BROOKS: Looting. Thank you. There have been some reports of
looting in cities that have been initially liberated. I wouldn't want
to speculate as to why the population in some cases is making that
choice. We know that there is often in liberated areas a vacuum in
terms of control -- especially when you've had as tight a grip as this
regime has had on its people for so long. When that's pulled out of
the way, humans make decisions about what they are going to do next
and what opportunities may be presented to them. I think as time goes
on more law and order will be established. Ideally, that goes by way
of Iraqi populations taking care of themselves. That's how we see this
-- not something that's a military control over top of all people. And
this will settle down as time goes on -- not unexpected. We might see
it anywhere where there is a temporary vacuum that forms and law and
order is pulled away.

Q: So you are expecting this in Baghdad just as well?

GEN. BROOKS: I think anywhere that we have circumstances like this,
and there's a removal of structures of control, there will be
decisions that are made by members of the population. We will
certainly discourage that, but I can't be certain that it won't happen
in this case.

Let me go up on this first row, please.

Q: Good afternoon, general, Neil Tweedie, from the Daily Telegraph in
London. What efforts has Central Command made to ascertain the number
of civilian casualties to date in Iraq? If you have got some
preliminary figures, why aren't you releasing them? And, if not, why
haven't you made a concerted effort to ascertain how many civilians
have died in this war, which is after all one of its most important
aspects, and something we have heard very, very little about?

GEN. BROOKS: Our approach to civilians on the battlefield is one of
concern first, and secondly, effort to try to prevent impact of any
sort. We can never guarantee that there would be civilians that are
completely free from the hazards of battle in and around their area.
All we can be certain of is our approach. We can't be certain even
after action how many may have died, how many may have been wounded,
other than those we encounter. And of course, there will be reports
that come in from members of the population that we encounter that
tell us things. Those can't always be confirmed. There may be reports
of dead that can't be accounted for. And so it's very imprecise.
Suffice it to say where we have knowledge then that we can know.
Causes we can't know whether something occurred by way of coalition
action, unintended, or regime action by way of murder. We've certainly
seen that type of thing happen. It's just something we cannot get our
arms around at this point. It will take time. And I don't think in any
case of recorded history of warfare that the full knowledge of all
casualties and all secondary effects has ever been gained, and I don't
anticipate that will happen here. That's the nature of the approach.

Right now our focus is on removing the regime, doing the best we can
to protect the Iraqi people, and deliver liberation to them in areas
where the regime has been removed. And we'll continue on that thrust
to try to get that job done.

I think we have time for one more question. Let me go to the second
row, please.

Q: General, Chas Henry from WTOP Radio. The armored raid into Baghdad
yesterday, rather than being a hit and run seemed to be a hitand stay.
As the coalition makes its presence felt in Baghdad, are we likely to
see more instances in which troops move to an area and then end up
staying there, and piecemeal establish a presence around the city?

GEN. BROOKS: I think you can anticipate that there will be a
combination of actions. There will be some actions that go into a
location, and we stage operations from there. There will be some
operations perhaps that go into a location and then leave. There will
be some operations that go into a location we reinforce. In some cases
we will clear enemy resistance. In other cases we'll seize a site. The
full combination of that is what creates the tactical operations in
that objective areas -- and those are tactical decisions that are
made. Again, they're very opportunistic. What can we get from this?
What happens if we hit that location? What should we do about it?
These decisions will be made by our commanders out there on the
ground, and you'll see a variety of combinations to try to get it
done.

Okay, thanks very much, ladies and gentlemen, have a good day.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)