On the scene with Carl Rochelle at the Pentagon

Carl Rochelle

CNN.com talked with Correspondent Carl Rochelle, who is reporting on what the Pentagon says are threats against U.S. forces in Qatar and Bahrain, forcing those troops to be placed on the highest state of alert.

Q: What are U.S. officials saying about these threats?

ROCHELLE: These reports are from intelligence sources and, of course, they're not talking a great deal about sources and methods. It is our understanding that they picked up this information in some communications intercepts. Pentagon officials say the threats are specific and credible and they are against U.S. citizens, troops and facilities in Bahrain and Qatar, both on the Persian Gulf.

In response, what they have done is put the forces in that area on the highest state of alert: that is, Threatened Condition Delta. What that is equal to is a war-footing. Officials say that is something normally reserved for situations when an attack is believed imminent.

Q: What are the rules of engagement for troops in regions where there are "credible" threats like this?

ROCHELLE: The rules of engagement are almost always: That if attacked, the U.S. forces can defend itself. It takes another step forward to go out actually take offensive action. But you can generally assume the rules of engagement always allow -- and this is the case here -- the forces to defend themselves if they are attacked or if they believe they are about to be attacked.

Q: Were there contingency plans already in place for U.S. troops considering all that's happened in the Mideast over the last few weeks?

ROCHELLE: In wake of the bombing of the USS Cole, all U.S. forces had been put under Threat Condition Charlie, which is the second highest state of alert. That was moved up just recently in the last day or so (in Bahrain and Qatar), because of the specific and credible threats.

One thing officials do tell us, and these officials want to remain anonymous, Pentagon planners are looking at the option of a preemptive strike against Osama bin Laden's organization, and that would include his camps in Afghanistation. But what they are saying is (that will happen) ONLY if a firm link can be established and ONLY if it can be determined if such a strike could be effective in disrupting bin Laden's ability to hit U.S. interests. A caution from one official is that option has been looked at by Pentagon planners since the attack on the USS Cole. They're not saying it is going to happen; what they're doing is they are looking at that as a potential option.

Q: Could a retaliatory strike exacerbate the already tense Mideast climate?

ROCHELLE: That certainly is a consideration. Things are very tense throughout the area, especially between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The United States hasn't been involved directly in that fight, but it has been involved in the negotiations to try to calm things down. And there has been a great deal of anti-U.S. sentiment expressed in the Middle East region.

Q: What are the tough decisions being made in closed-door discussions at the highest levels among U.S. officials? Is there a sense of urgency among Pentagon officials and military personnel?

ROCHELLE: I think the Pentagon and U.S. government would like to strike back if they could find out who targeted the USS Cole. That is one of the things on the front-burner right now, finding out exactly who did that. They are looking at several other organizations besides bin Laden's group. If they think an attack is imminent, then that is a pretty good reason to take a preemptive strike. That's the reasons officials maintain they made attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan back in 1998. There had been two embassy bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, and U.S. officials believed that the forces of bin Laden were going to take some other steps against U.S. interests.

U.S. forces in Bahrain, Qatar on highest alert
October 24, 2000
Afghanistan fearful of U.S. military strike after warship attack
October 23, 2000