[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 3 (Thursday, January 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 PATRIOT MISSILES FOR U.S. FORCES IN SOUTH KOREA: ANOTHER DISASTER BY 
                              INDECISION?

  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:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 27, 1994]

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

                   (By John Lancaster and Ann Devroy)

       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.''

                          ____________________