Space

[Page: S282]

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to an article entitled `U.S. Weighs Deployment Of Patriots to S. Korea,' by John Lancaster and Ann Devroy, that was published in this morning's Washington Post on page A17. This article tells a story that is eerily familiar.

It's deja vu--but fortunately not yet, in Yogi Berra's immortal words, `all over again.' Once again, a commander of U.S. Armed Forces in the field has asked for a weapons system for force protection. Once again, he has not received it. However, this time we know about the request before enemy action can injure or kill U.S. personnel.

My colleagues surely remember the request for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to protect United States Armed Forces deployed in Mogadishu, Somalia. They also remember that Secretary Aspin decided against providing those needed armored vehicles, a decision that I and many others think contributed directly to the loss of 19 U.S. soldiers' lives when their attempt to capture Mohammed Farah Aideed became a firefight with his militia.

Now, Gen. Gary E. Luck, Commander of the United Nations Command and U.S. Forces, Korea, has reportedly `* * * requested `about three dozen' of the box-like Patriot missile launchers, each of which contains four missiles.' He wants `* * * to deploy the Patriots * * * as a partial defense around South Korean ports and airfields that would be used by arriving United States reinforcements in a crisis.'

These surface-to-air missiles also have a limited antitactical ballistic missile capability, one that they displayed so memorably during the gulf war. The Patriots are needed in Korea because `North Korea manufactures a variant of the Scud as well as a more sophisticated version, the Rodong, with a range of up to 635 miles.' The Post's article calls the longer range missile the Rodong, but its correct name is the Nodong. `This--the Patriot SAM system--is our first line of defense in the event of short-range missile attacks,' said Frank Wisner, undersecretary of defense for policy, in a breakfast meeting with reporters,' the story reported.

Mr. President, here we once again face the situation of a field commander asking for a weapons system to protect his troops, while the White House and the Pentagon stall. The story reports that `an officer on the military's Joint Staff, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described Luck's request as `still deep in the pipeline,' pending resolution of South Korean concerns. `Really the South Koreans are driving the train,' the officer said. `Since any mistakes would be borne by them, we want to make absolutely clear that we're going to defer' to Seoul on the decision.'

Mr. President, the protection of United States forces in South Korea is the responsibility of the United States commander on the scene, and of his superiors--in this case, the Secretary of Defense and the President. This responsibility cannot be deferred to South Korean sensibilities.

If our troops in South Korea--approximately 40,000 men and women--and United States citizens--perhaps as many as 100,000, including about 6,000 dependents of United States military personnel--are threatened by North Korean ballistic missile attack, there are only two honest choices--either do what is necessary to defend them from attack, or get them out.

While the story says that `the Clinton administration is `looking favorably' on a plan to send Patriot air defense batteries to South Korea to guard against possible missile attack by communist North Korea,' they haven't yet made a decision.

The last time this administration faced such a decision, Les Aspin reportedly `decided not to decide' on General Montgomery's request for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to protect his forces in Mogadishu, because Aspin was worried about how dispatch of these armored forces would be viewed on the Hill and in foreign capitals, in light of our declared policy of drawing down our forces in Somalia.

Is Secretary Aspin once again going to decide not to decide, this time because of concern about how the South Koreans--and the North Koreans--would view an action to protect our troops from attack?

We may be witnessing an instant replay of the Somalia disaster by indecision caused by President Clinton's foreign policy team waffling when it should have acted.

Far more lives are at stake here--and far larger national interests--than were at stake when Les Aspin waffled on the tanks for Mogadishu. We should tell the South Koreans we are sending the missiles now, because we are responsible for the safety of our troops and our civilians.

If there is a North Korean attack--and the deadline of February 22 for North Korean compliance with IAEA inspection requirements could bring the current crisis to a head--we must be concerned about possible North Korean ballistic missile attack. We can all remember the concern the Israelis felt at the possibility of Iraqi chemical or biological warheads on the Scuds the Iraqis fired at Israel. Well, the same fears are justified concerning possible North Korean attacks on South Korea.

In fact, the United States Government has stated that it believes that North Korea may have enough nuclear material to have made one or two nuclear devices. While there is doubt about whether these devices exist, and whether, if they do exist, they could be delivered by Scud or Nodong missiles, prudence demands that we assume that they do exist and that they can be delivered.

One of the lessons of the gulf war is that Iraq was more advanced in its weapons of mass destruction development programs, and particularly in its nuclear program, than we thought before the war. Suppose that North Korea, an obsessively secretive state, is also more advanced that the cautious judgments we hear would lead us to believe it is. Suppose Les Aspin dithers and delays again. Then, suppose North Korea strikes with devastating surprise against United States forces, forces who have been denied any defense against ballistic missile attack.

Who will stand before the American people and take the blame for the dead and wounded? Will it be the President of South Korea? Or will it be the President of the United States?

Whether or not President Clinton knows it, this crisis may be the key to his Presidency. Moreover, it measures his performance in office against a very high standard--Harry Truman's courageous decision a very high standard--Harry Truman's courageous decision to come to South Korea's aid after North Korea invaded in June 1950. Indeed, just as Truman said, the buck does stop here, on the President's desk. And it will not matter if he would rather be doing health care reform instead.

Mr. President, we are waiting for the decision on General Luck's request for Patriot missiles. I hope, for the sake of our forces and citizens in Korea, that the decision comes quickly and that it is a positive decision--to send the Patriots to Korea as soon as possible. Otherwise, Les Aspin may have a second, larger disaster to account for due to his, and the administration's, indecision.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent that an article entitled `U.S. Weighs Deployment Of Patriots to S. Korea,' by John Lancaster and Ann Devroy, that was published in this morning's Washington Post on page A17, be printed in the Congressional Record at the end of my remarks.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[Page: S283]

From the Washington Post, Jan. 27, 1994

U.S. Weighs Deployment of Patriots to S. Korea

The Clinton administration is `looking favorably' on a plan to send Patriot air defense batteries to South Korea to guard against possible missile attack by communist North Korea, but no final decision has been made, senior officials said yesterday.

The top U.S. military commander in South Korea, Army Gen. Gary E. Luck, requested the Patriots earlier this month, officials said. The Patriots, the same variety used against Iraqi Scud missiles in the Persian Gulf War, would be deployed around major ports and airfields and possibly the South Korean capital of Seoul.

Luck made his request amid rising tensions on the Korean peninsula stemming from North Korea's refusal to permit international inspections of its nuclear facilities. U.S. officials have said repeatedly that if diplomacy fails to persuade North Korea to permit the inspections, they will ask the United Nations to impose economic sanctions, a step that North Korea has said could lead to war.

Although U.S. officials have warned for months that `time is running out' for a diplomatic solution, a senior administration official hinted strongly this week that the United States and its allies have set a virtual deadline of Feb. 22 for North Korean compliance. That is the date of the next meeting of the board of governors of the Internal Atomic Energy Agency, which carries out inspections under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea has signed the treaty, but suspended adherence last year.

`We're talking of a very short time before there's another board of governors meeting,' the official said.

U.S. officials believe North Korea bellicosity is more of a negotiating tactic than a genuine threat to peace on the peninsula. But given the unpredictability of the isolated Pyongyang regime, they said it is best to be prepared. North Korea manufactures a variant of the Scud as well as a more sophisticated version, the Rodong, with a range of up to 635 miles.

Senior officials confirmed a report in yesterday's New York Times that Luck had requested `about three dozen' of the box-like Patriot launchers, each of which contains four missiles. They emphasized, however, that while the administration is inclined to grant Luck's request, it is waiting for a green light from South Korean officials, who remain concerned that even the deployment of defensive missiles would be read by the North as a provocation.

An officer on the military's Joint Staff, who spoke on condition of anonymity, described Luck's request as `still deep in the pipeline' pending resolution of South Korean concerns. `Really the South Koreans are driving the train,' the officer said. `Since any mistakes would be borne by [them], we want to make absolutely clear that we're going to defer' to Seoul on the decision.

Patriots are hardly a foolproof solution to the North Korean missile threat. The missiles achieved a mixed record against Iraqi Scuds and would likely have an even harder time against the more sophisticated Rodongs. That is because the newer missiles approach targets at higher speeds and steeper angles, according to retired Air Force Col. Robert Gaskin, who wrote a classified assessment of North Korean military capabilities while a Pentagon strategist in 1991.

But senior defense officials asserted yesterday that it makes sense to deploy the Patriots if only as a partial defense around South Korean ports and airfields that would be used by arriving U.S. reinforcements in a crisis.

`This is our first line of defense in the event of short-range missile attacks,' said Frank Wisner, undersecretary of defense for policy, in a breakfast meeting with reporters. Wisner said once the decision has been made, the Patriots would likely be sent to South Korea from Army air defense units in Europe, where the need has diminished.

White House press secretary Dee Dee Myers said the administration is `looking favorably' on Luck's request. She said no final decision has been made, but that members of relevant committees in Congress had been briefed on the potential move.

Senior officials emphasized that plans were underway to deploy the Patriots in South Korea--or preferably to sell them to the South Korean government--even before the recent flare-up over the North Korean nuclear program.

`I got the impression from Luck that even if tensions had not recently risen, their force improvement plans always included the eventual deployment of Patriots to South Korea. But because tensions had been higher, they asked that' the transfer be expedited, said an individual who recently spoke with Luck. The United States also is going ahead with plans to deploy two battalions of Apache helicopters to replace units equipped with older Cobra helicopters.

A senior military officer involved in planning for South Korea's defense said the Patriots could `complicate the terror equation' on the peninsula by helping defend major population centers. `It's a pretty wise step, something we maybe should have done six months ago,' the officer said. `If you think it's a good idea to bring those rascals in there, then probably they ought to be in there before circumstances deteriorate.'

Officials would give no timetable for final approval or installation of the Patriot batteries but said no serious objections had been raised in the administration or among members of Congress briefed on the issue Monday.

Officials said the White House remains concerned that installing the Patriots would `create new tensions' with North Korea that would make it resist further steps toward allowing inspections. President Clinton has vowed to prevent North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons, but some intelligence sources believe it already has one such weapon. In his State of the Union Address Tuesday night, Clinton repeated his broader commitment to `achieving a Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons.'

END