REAR ADMIRAL. JOHN KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Just a couple of
comments to open up.
I want to start with a quick preview of Secretary Hagel's
schedule next week. On Wednesday, September 3rd, the secretary will
embark on his 16th international trip, a six-day, three-country trip centered
around the NATO summit in Wales. On his way to the summit, the secretary will
first stop in Newport, Rhode Island, to deliver a keynote speech at the
Southeastern New England Defense Industry Alliance's Defense Innovation Days
Conference.
In keeping with the conference's focus, I expect the
secretary to addressing the challenges facing our military's technological
edge and how the Defense Department must meet them. He touched on these
issues before in his budget testimony and in his speech to the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs this spring, but this will be an opportunity to
talk in greater detail about the need for innovation and how we develop and
procure new capabilities. While in Newport, the secretary will also visit the
Naval War College.
In Wales, the secretary will join President Obama,
Secretary Kerry, and their counterparts from NATO and its partner nations for
this very important summit. As you know, the focus of the summit will be
Afghanistan, the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East, and how to strengthen
the alliance for the future. The secretary has participated in some four NATO
defense ministerials leading up to the summit and views it as an important
opportunity to address the ongoing crises in the world, but also set the
direction for NATO in the coming years.
An important part of that strategy will be NATO's
partnerships, and from Wales, the secretary will next travel to Georgia, one
of the United States' and NATO's most important and capable partners. This
will be his first visit to Georgia as secretary, but he's met with his
Georgian counterpart before and also met with the Georgian prime minister
earlier this year while in Munich.
The Georgian military has been a valued partner of the
United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the secretary looks forward to
thanking the Georgian people for their contributions and sacrifices over the
last decade. Obviously, Georgia shares our concerns about Russia's actions in
Ukraine, and that will, of course, be at the top of his agenda during that
visit.
From Georgia, Secretary Hagel will next travel to Turkey
for his first visit there as secretary of defense. Turkey is a key NATO ally,
and given its border with Syria and Iraq, they share our deep concerns with
the threat posed -- the regional threat posed by ISIL. Secretary Hagel has
longstanding relationships with Turkey's leaders, including the newly
inaugurated President Erdogan, and he views this visit as an important
opportunity to advance our critical relationship.
With that, I'll take questions. Bob?
Q: Admiral, on Ukraine, could you sort of sketch out the
picture on the ground there as best you could, in terms of what the latest
movements of Russian forces, tanks and other forces, into Ukraine, what
numbers, and the degree to which that represents an escalation of their
involvement, and whether you consider this an invasion?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Okay, well, there's an awful lot there,
Bob. I'm not going to try to detail in great specificity what the Russian
armed forces are doing. I mean, that's really for their defense ministry to
speak to. I mean, it's their military, and we don't have a perfect view of
everything they're doing.
That said, as I have said many times, we have continued
to see them build up their capabilities along that border. We have continued
to see them advance weapons systems, some very sophisticated, into eastern
Ukraine, in support of the separatists. And as I've said just -- just earlier
this week, that we have long believed that Russian forces, military forces
have been a part of that movement, obviously, facilitating the movement and
then helping the separatists use, if not using it themselves in support of
separatists.
So we've seen this continue to build and build and build,
and now you've seen NATO come out with some imagery recently that has shown
-- not only laid bare those facts for everybody, but talked about how in the
last couple of weeks that effort has intensified. As the Ukrainian armed
forces have gotten more capable and been able to retake territory in eastern
Ukraine -- and that is, that we believe that that has helped foster Moscow's
intention to intensify these efforts.
So it's a continuation of what we've seen all along.
Whatever verb you want to put on it, whatever you want to call it, it's just,
again, intensification of the same behavior that we've been seeing Russia do
now for several months. So our position hasn't changed. We continue to look
for ways to support the Ukrainian armed forces and the border guards. We
continue to look for ways to reassure our NATO allies and partners, and we
continue to call for Russia to pull its forces back and to stop escalating
the tension there.
Q: On that point about looking for ways to support
Ukrainian forces, do you -- are you preparing any new initiatives? Are you
considering training inside Ukraine with U.S. forces or anything of that
nature?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I'm not aware of anything that's
specifically inside Ukraine, Bob, but we have had a 20-year-plus relationship
with the military of Ukraine, and that will continue, and we believe that it
is in some measure helped with their own professionalism and organization and
command and control capabilities, simply the association with us and the
training opportunities that we've had. I don't have anything specific to
announce today in terms of a new exercise, but we are continuing -- and I
think there were press reports about yet another exercise that we're doing, I
think, in Poland coming up here.
So we're -- when we talked about the fact that we were
going to look for ways to make the training regime more aggressive and more
-- more comprehensive in Europe, we meant what we said and we continue to do
that, but, no, I don't have anything in particular to announce today.
Yeah?
Q: Two questions. Do you have a cost of the Iraq
operation so far that you could share with us? And, secondly, regarding the
options that President Obama said yesterday he had asked Secretary Hagel to
develop, can you just clarify for us how those options are different than the
options that were under development or were developed before following the
arrival of the advisers or the assessors in Iraq?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Okay, let me get the cost one, and then
I'll do the best I can with the second one. But if I don't get the nuance
right, just stop me. What I can tell about the cost of ongoing activities in
Iraq is that it has varied since the beginning in mid-June. But on average,
it's costing about $7.5 million per day. And that's based on a snapshot of
the operations that have occurred as of the 26th of this month.
So, as you might imagine, I mean, it has -- it didn't
start out at $7.5 million per day. It's been -- as our OPTEMPO and as our
activities have intensified, so, too, has -- so, too, has the cost. But
roughly right now, it's about $7.5 million per day. That's being funded out
of the overseas contingency operations fund for 2014. We're well within our
limits in that regard.
And as the secretary said to you last week, we think
we've got it covered in terms of '14 funding. On your other --
Q: (off-mic) -- since mid-June?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Right, since -- since the operations
began. Or since our activities in Iraq have begun in mid-June, that was the
first War Powers Resolution finding when we put in some security assistance
personnel, so since the beginning. Now, again, it didn't -- you know, when we
first added some security personnel in and around Baghdad, that wasn't
costing us $7.5 million. But this is the average since the very beginning. I
don't have a daily figure for you, like, every day. And it changes every day.
Q: (off-mic)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We can add it up for you. But I mean,
you know, since June 16th, been roughly $7.5 million per day. And I didn't
bring my calculator up here with you, but we can figure that out for you.
Q: (off-mic) -- accurate way of -- (off-mic)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don't know that it -- I mean, if
you're looking for a total, that's probably a good way to thumbnail it, from
about June 16th to today, roughly $7.5 million per day. But, again, Julian,
it's not like it's been $7.5 million every single day. You know, I mean, it
didn't start out that much. It's on average that's about the cost. So you've
got to be careful here with the -- you know, with how you characterize the
total dollar figure.
And, again, it's being supported through our overseas
contingency funding. We're well within the limits that we need for 2014.
Now, you had a second question on options. I mean, you
guys know this, that this is a planning organization, and the discussion of
plans is an iterative process. It's not something that -- that we haven't
been thinking about for quite some time.
And I would also tell you that and to remind you that the
situation on the ground there continues to change. And as -- it's very fluid.
And as it continues to change, so, too, do the kinds of plans that -- that
Central Command planners are working on. There have been and will continue to
be discussions, both here in the Pentagon, in the interagency, and across the
river with the State Department and the White House, about -- about what
options look like, what they could look like, but it's iterative. And when --
when we get to a point where, you know, we're ready to have a more fulsome
discussion about that, the Pentagon will be ready to have that discussion.
Q: But just to clarify, so the options that he's been
asked to develop are trying to combat ISIL in Iraq and Syria? Is that right?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: The president yesterday was speaking
specifically about options for potential military action in Syria. That's
what the president was referring to yesterday, and that's -- those are the
plans and the options that -- that he's looking for from us and that we're
working on, specifically with respect to Syria.
And it's important to remember, Missy, I mean, we've been
-- we've been operating inside Iraq from a humanitarian perspective and
obviously from a perspective of conducting air strikes. Nothing's changed
about those missions. We continue to conduct them. CENTCOM continues to send
press releases every day. We're up almost to 110 air strikes total since they
-- since they began. So the discussion of operations in Iraq continues
because the operations in Iraq continue.
Q: (off-mic) -- sorry, just to clarify, so -- so you guys
say you always have options on the table. This was a new request from the
president for something.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: What the president was referring to
yesterday was planning options inside Syria. Now, I'd be less than truthful
if I said to you that we -- that we hadn't been thinking about that before
yesterday. Of course we have been. And we've talked about that.
But two points. One, we're not at the point, you know,
where we're prepared to have a more fulsome discussion about what those
options are with the commander-in-chief. That's number one. And number two --
and this is not a small point -- that the commander-in-chief, Secretary
Hagel, Chairman Dempsey have all said that whatever the options are for
Syria, it's not just going to be military. It can't just be military.
There's
not going to be a military solution here to the threat that ISIL
poses. It's just not going to happen.
It's got to be a more comprehensive and regional -- and
it's got to factor in other elements of national power than just military.
And so while we certainly, for our part, have to work on what those options
could look like, there are other parts of our government that are working, as
well, on options that they might need to pursue in the future going forward.
Q: (off-mic) -- how contingent are your options on
overflights of Syria, for gathering intelligence -- ISR?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Any military operation requires
knowledge of the situation on the ground as the best you can get it. I mean,
we always want to have as much information and as accurate information as you
can possibly have. And so I think you can expect, Tony, without getting into
talking about specific hypothetical or future operations, that whatever
options we prepare and what -- and are prepared to conduct will be reliant
upon getting and obtaining and analyzing the best information as you can on
the ground.
Q: Just a point here. Back in June, when the Congress and
a lot of the public was asking what the United States can do to blunt the
momentum of ISIL in Iraq, Chairman Dempsey was pretty clear at the time
saying we don't have a complete air picture yet, this is going to take a
while. Is it fair to say your gathering of a complete air picture, a ground
picture of ISIL in Syria may take several weeks before you're comfortable
enough to having this fulsome discussion that you talked about?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don't think that I'd be prepared to
put a specific timeline on it, Tony, in terms of weeks or days. I just don't
think I'd be prepared to do that. And it wouldn't be prudent for me to do it.
As I said, any time you're going to conceive of or
prepare for military options, anywhere in the world for any number of
missions, you're going to want to get as much information as you can. And you
can expect -- in fact, the taxpayers I think would expect us to want to do
this thing with -- if we get asked to do anything in Syria, to do with it as
much information as possible. But, again, I won't -- I wouldn't speculate
about how or
when or how long.
Q: A lot of the public's going to be worried about U.S.
flyers going over there and possibly getting shot down. Can this a lot of
this be done from the Iraq border or the southern Turkish border, kind of
peering into Syria and standoff capabilities?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, again, without talking about
potential future operations or speculating, so what I'm about to say is not
validating the premise of the question, which is that we definitely will
conduct strikes inside Syria or that we are -- are or will conduct
surveillance one way or the other, there are many ways in which we gain
situational awareness. And some of that requires the use of air assets, and
some of it doesn't. And I think I'll leave it at that.
Yeah, Joe?
Q: (off-mic) -- just to follow up on having accurate
an information about ISIS capabilities, could you confirm if ISIS militants
have now drone capabilities? We are seeing reports mentioning this issue this
morning.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: If ISIL has drones of their own?
Q: Yeah.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I've seen a press report here, a
spurious report, but I have nothing to -- that would back that up at all.
Q: Just quick follow-up. Yesterday, President Obama said
that some states in the region are ambivalent about dealing with ISIL. Some
of them are financing ISIL. Could you elaborate on that? Do you have more
information? Can we say now some gulf states are from one hand -- in one hand
facing ISIL and the other hand are financing them?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, I'm not going to elaborate on that,
not at all.
Tom?
Q: The president said yesterday there's no strategy yet
for ISIL. Talk about, going ahead, the Pentagon's role here in developing
that strategy. Presumably, the secretary's going to talk about this in Turkey
and NATO with the partners. So get into -- talk a little bit about the way
ahead. What are the plans you're looking at? What do you hope to achieve?
Talk about, you know, training moderate rebels. There's talk about having the
Pentagon have a greater role in that effort. And train and assist mission in
Iraq eventually presumably would be part of that kind of a strategy.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: If I tried to answer that question in
every aspect that you asked it, I'd be basically -- you know, you've asked me
to kind of lay it all out right here in a press conference. And I'm -- and
I'm sure you guys would greatly appreciate that and would make your jobs a lot
easier and mine pretty much nonexistent. (Laughter.)
I'm -- I think the way I would think about this, Tom, is
that -- and the president said this pretty well yesterday, that this is
really about degrading ISIL's capability to operate and to continue to conduct
the sort of brutal violence that they have been doing inside Iraq and the
threat that they pose to the region. So if you take it from that perspective,
that that's kind of where you're going, there are many ways to do that. Not
all of them are military. I can't speak for those, so let's just talk about
the military ways you can do that.
Some of the military ways you can do that is the way
we're doing it inside Iraq right now, which is through the use of air
strikes. You can certainly hit them, and we have been. And I would, you know,
at -- I would tell you we're hitting what we're aiming at inside Iraq. And we
know that inside Iraq, on a tactical level, we're having an effect on their
ability to operate. We're being disruptive to their own operations, to their
command and control, to their ability to move around.
So you can have an effect in that way. In the Pentagon,
it's called -- you know, we call it kinetics, which I know is a fancy word,
but it basically means that you're having a very targeted, precise effect.
And we can do that.
There are also other ways that you can -- that you can,
from a military perspective, try to disrupt and degrade their ability to
operate through humanitarian assistance, through advice and assist. And one
of the things -- and you mentioned it -- and the secretary's committed to
this is a -- is trying to move forward on a train and equip program for a
moderate Syrian opposition. We've asked for $500 million in Congress. We hope
to get that authorized and appropriated for fiscal year '15, which is coming
up here pretty soon, so that we can move out on this.
There's a lot of hurdles that remain to be leaped, in
terms of getting us there. You've got to have a moderate opposition that you
can rely on. There's got to be a vetting process. You got to have at least
one willing partner in the region to help sponsor some of the, you know,
sites for training. I mean, there's a lot of work that we've got to do, and
we're working our way through that.
But there are -- inside the military component element of
national, there's lots of things we can do that don't all include air
strikes. And if we've learned nothing -- and you guys have been covering this
longer than I've been here in the Pentagon, 13 years of war -- if we've
learned nothing over 13 years of war is you can't completely eliminate
extremism anywhere through simply kinetics, through air strikes alone. And so
while we must be ready for that option, and we will be, and we'll be prepared
at the appropriate time to discuss those kinds of options with the
commander-in-chief, that alone is not going to be the answer.
Q: (off-mic) -- train and assist mission, if there is to
be one in Iraq, you've been assessing them for quite some time now. You know,
most people have --
(CROSSTALK)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: One of the options --
Q: -- have a good sense of how degraded the Iraqi army
is, so --
(CROSSTALK)
Q: -- some sort of a train and assist down the road? Or
is that uncertain yet?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: It's entirely possible that the
assessment teams could move to more of an advisory mission. That hasn't
happened yet. But that's certainly a possibility going forward. We just
haven't, you know, reached that level yet. And that decision hasn't been made
yet. But that's certainly an option.
I would also tell you that, you know, we still have those
two joint operation centers, one in Baghdad, one in Erbil, and they continue
to support, advise and assist. So there is some advising going on through the
joint operations centers. We just haven't placed teams out with units at a
brigade level or higher, which was the thought. That's still very much under
active consideration.
And you're right. I mean, that could be part of a
stitched-together, more regional approach here. If you're doing that --
potentially doing that in Iraq, and we want to build a moderate opposition,
which would require sort of a train and equip, advise and assist sort of
thing to a moderate opposition, all those things are certainly military
options available, and all those things are certainly being considered. But,
again, I wouldn't get ahead of what actually where it's going to get necked
down to.
Q: You mentioned disrupt and degrade ISIL, but not
destroy? Is that the plan, is disrupt and degrade?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Those were my words. I wouldn't -- I'm
not -- I don't make policy here. The president said yesterday that -- he used
the word degrade ISIL's capabilities. And I think that's where I'll leave it.
I'm not going to -- I'm not going to elaborate on the president's comments.
Barbara?
Q: You said a minute ago that the Pentagon, the Joint
Chiefs not ready to go back to the president with options yet, still working
on them. And he said yesterday he hadn't heard back and he was waiting.
But just last week, Secretary Hagel, right there, said
ISIS was a threat like nothing we've ever seen, we have to be ready for it.
This building has talked about it being imminent. So clear up the confusion
for the American people: Is this urgent or isn't it? And fundamentally, what
is taking the Pentagon so long? Because you're always ready. If you had to
strike today, would you be ready? What is taking so long?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: The question presupposes that we're not
doing anything as it is, Barb, and -
Q: I'm asking why -- well, why are you not ready to go to
the president? Why is he saying that he is still waiting for you?
ADM. KIRBY: Well, let me try to answer that. Again, the
question presumes that we're not doing anything, that there's no sense of
urgency in the Pentagon. And you and I both know that's not true. We have
upped our military presence in the Persian Gulf. We've intensified
surveillance flights over Iraq. We have conducted nearly 110 and -- and maybe
110, but by the time I'm talking to you -- air strikes inside Iraq.
So, believe me, this building and the United States
military shares the same sense of urgency over the situation in Iraq and the
threat that ISIL poses. There's no -- there's no doubt or debate about that.
And when the secretary talked about them being like nothing we've ever seen,
some people have taken that to mean in terms of size and scale of a homeland
attack. What he was referring to is that this is a group that doesn't behave
like any other terrorist group we've had to deal with before.
They're not -- they're not simply killing, murdering and
maiming. They're grabbing ground and infrastructure and trying to develop
streams of revenue.
Q: (off-mic)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Now, wait, I'm getting there. I've just
got to get warmed up here. The -- (Laughter.)
But -- but we all share the same sense of urgency. When
the president spoke about exploring further planning options, he was
referring to the potential for military options inside Syria, which we
haven't done, and we are working on those kinds of options for him. We have
-- we have been. So that's a --
Q: (off-mic) -- my specific question, right there, why
are you not yet ready with military options for Syria? Why is the president
still waiting? Why are you not ready, given everything that Secretary Hagel --
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Planning is an iterative process, Barb.
It's not like -- you know, the question is -- assumes this is some sort of
binary thing, where, you know, we get ordered to do it and here's the binder
and, boom, there you go, and it's on your -- you know, we got it turned into
you on your due date.
It's an iterative process, because the situation on the
ground constantly changes. It's very fluid. And we're -- you know, you do
military planning in real time, especially in a situation like what's going
on in Iraq and in that region, because ISIL changes over time. The threat
changes other time. It's not -- it's not like we haven't worked on this. We have
worked on this. We continue to work on it.
And planners down in Tampa and planners here in the
Pentagon continually refine and change and update planning options for
potential military activity. It is an ongoing effort. And when we are -- when
we as a government -- wait -- when we as a government are ready to have that
discussion, we'll have that discussion.
Q: Why should ISIS think anything other than you're just
not ready? Why should ISIS take any message away from everything that's been
said in Washington for the last two days from the White House to here?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Why don't you ask some of the ones that
are getting hit from the sky --
Q: In Syria --
REAR ADM. KIRBY: -- about how seriously we're taking the
threat?
Q: (off-mic) -- in Syria, why should ISIS think you're
anything but not ready to deal with them?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think that anybody who has had any
knowledge of the United States military knows that we're ready, we're ready
all the time. That doesn't necessarily mean that the planning process is
complete or that decisions to do anything have been made, but that -- that we
are ready shouldn't be in doubt by nobody, nobody, our friends, our enemies,
our potential adversaries.
Q: (off-mic) -- follow -- (off-mic)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q: Is the Pentagon on the same page as the White House in
terms of the threat posed by ISIS?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yes. Next question?
Q: (off-mic) -- this one a little bit more. You -- so if
the Pentagon has been constantly planning for this, then presumably if the
president or the White House or national security staff said that they wanted
plans presented today or last night at the meeting yesterday afternoon, the
Pentagon would have had something ready to go. And then you said that once
you're ready for this meeting or ready for this long discussion, once, you
know, the administration is ready for the discussion, I mean, is there
someone in the administration who's not quite ready for this discussion to
happen yet about the potential plans? Who is that?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: This has got to be an interagency
discussion, Court. It's not -- you know, you're asking me an impossible
question to answer. We continue to plan and prepare. And I would tell you
that the Syria component here is a relatively new one. I mean, this -- this
-- the thought process of potentially going into -- you know, doing military
air strikes into Syria is a relatively new one. So it's not like we've been
doing that for months.
We've been watching ISIL for months. We certainly have
done a bit of planning and execution inside Iraq, but the Syria component is
relatively new. We continue to refine and work on options. That's our job.
But that doesn't mean that, you know, that while you have planners doing it
at a low level, that you're ready at a high level to sit down and examine
them in great detail. And we just aren't there yet as an interagency team.
I wouldn't -- you know, I wouldn't begin to, you
know, try to peg it down to an individual here. The way it works is, the
commander-in-chief gets to make the decisions. He's the one who sets the
policy. He's the one who determines how and when, you know, a military option
is going to be pursued. Our job is to be ready to provide him options. That's
what we do. We give him options and choices, because those are his decisions
to make and they can be very, very difficult. We have to think it through,
make sure that the pros and the cons are all there for him to make a
decision, and so that when a decision is made, we're ready to execute.
Q: Can I ask about another iterative process that we
haven't asked about today?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Absolutely.
Q: The assessment. Would -- did the assessments ever
make it to the White House about Iraq? I think Secretary Hagel got them on
July 15th, if I'm not mistaken.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yes, they did.
Q: When was that?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I'd have to go back and -- I mean, I
don't know if I have a date certain there, Court. But, I mean, yes, there was
-- they were certainly shared with White House officials, absolutely.
Q: So what's been the outcome of that? Is that why we
started to see air strikes in Iraq?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Without getting into too much detail
about the assessments -- they remain classified -- I can tell you they
certainly have helped inform the activities that we've been conducting inside
Iraq. There's no question about that. They've helped inform and helped us
make better decisions about the kinds of things that we're doing in Iraq,
yes.
Q: (off-mic)
(CROSSTALK)
ADM. KIRBY: Julian?
Q: Could you tell us what the current situation of the
humanitarian situation in Amerli is with the Turkmen? And in a related way,
have we seen an uptick in operations in Iraq over the last 24 or 48 hours, in
terms of the pace of bombs? Or is it steady...
(CROSSTALK)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: An uptick in our operations?
Q: Yeah, your operations.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, on -- and I think this is how you
pronounce it, "Amerli" -- I'm not an expert -- but we continue to
monitor the situation there, as we do throughout Iraq. I mean, one of -- as
you know, one of the missions we've been assigned inside Iraq from a military
perspective is to contribute to humanitarian support as needed and at the
request of the Iraqi government. We continue to monitor the whole country in
that regard. And this township of Amerli, I don't have anything to announce
today, in terms of any decisions made about that. Whatever we do from a
humanitarian perspective in Iraq will be done in partnership with Iraqi
security forces and Kurdish forces as necessary.
So I have no updates there. I'm not quite certain I have
anything for you on the intensification. There's been a consistent level of
military activity inside Iraq, not just from us, but from our Iraqi partners.
As I said, I think we're up to nearly, if not at 110 air strikes total since
they started. And I don't know that -- I mean, I haven't watched the pace of
those, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's, you know,
seriously upticked in recent days.
And most of the strikes -- by the way, I mean, if you
just do the math -- and, actually, I think I have it here. You know, of the
nearly 110, the majority of them have been done in and around the Mosul dam
facility, because, again, back to my point about these guys, they want
infrastructure. They want streams of revenue. They want ground, and they
still are going after that Mosul dam facility, so we still have to keep -- we
still have to keep the pressure on them.
Jon?
(CROSSTALK)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Hang on just a second. Jon?
Q: Admiral Kirby, is this -- was this request for Syria
options from the White House something that was given to you just in the past
couple days? Is it something that is just newly being considered? And also...
REAR ADM. KIRBY: No. Not at all, Jon. No. I mean, this is
-- the exploration of options inside Syria is -- as I told Courtney -- is a
relatively new facet of this. But the discussion is not just in the last 24
hours or couple of days, no.
Q: And can you elaborate a little bit on the advise and
assist activities that the guys in the JOCs are doing? Are they developing
operational plans for the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga to take on
ISIL on the ground?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don't believe they're writing
operational plans for the Iraqi military, John, but your question is better
posed to Central Command. They have a much more -- higher degree of fidelity
about what these guys are actually doing. I do know that in the joint
operations centers, there is an advise and assist capacity to that. There's a
component to that. But they are providing some advice and assistance to Iraqi
and Kurdish forces through their presence in the joint operations center.
Q: Major General Dana Pittard was appointed more than two
months ago to head this Iraq effort. We haven't heard from him. Any chance
that he can brief us on how things look in Iraq?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: You're not satisfied with my briefing
style?
Q: You're doing a great job, but...
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yeah, nice try.
Q: Since he is the point man on Iraq, any chance we can
hear from him or get briefed by him?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I'll have to take that. I don't know,
Tom.
Q: He's not kept under wraps, is he?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don't want to share the podium with
anybody. It's all about me. (Laughter.)
I mean, I'm trying to preserve my own job here, so -- no,
I -- I'll take it. I'll take it, Tom. I don't know. Yeah. Yes, sir?
Q: Admiral Kirby, on the Mosul dam, just to go back to
that, why are there so many strikes still there after we were told that the
dam was retaken by Kurdish forces?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Because ISIL keeps wanting to take it
back. They keep threatening the dam and the facility. And as long as they
pose a threat to that facility, we are going to continue to help Iraqi
security forces preserve their ownership of it.
Q: But are Kurdish forces or Iraqi forces struggling to
keep hold of it, to maintain control of it?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: They're still under attack almost every
day there at the facility. There's a reason that -- and that's reason enough.
I think that shows you just how important it was for us to help them get it
back, that ISIL continues to pose a threat around that facility.
And you guys know this. It's -- you know, we talk about
the Mosul dam, everybody thinks about the dam itself. It's a huge facility
covering a wide, wide area, because it's not just about the river itself and
the actual dam. And so they're -- they continue to threaten it. As long as
they continue to threaten it, we're going to continue to hit them.
Q: Has there been a request from Baghdad on the Amerli
situation for a humanitarian mission or U.S. action?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I'm not aware of a specific request from
the Iraqi government for that particular mission. That said, you know, we're
watching it constantly. And nobody's taken our eye off of that -- off of that
township and the struggles in that township, and, you know, if we get to that
point, we'll certainly share as much with you as we can on it.
Q: My name is -- (inaudible) -- I'm with -- (inaudible)
-- Kurdistan 24-hour news channel. Thank you. It's my first time here.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Welcome.
Q: Thank you.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Picked a great time to come.
Q: Thank you very much. I have a few questions -- a
couple questions about Kurdish people in Iraq and in Syria, as well, as
you're considering to expanding your attacks to Syria. First of all, about
the weapons that you and at least seven of your allies have provided to the
Peshmerga forces, are they military aid or you sell them?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: The military aid and assistance going to
Kurdish forces?
Q: Do they buy it from you? Or are they just free
military aid?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think we're -- right now, the
assistance -- the direct military assistance that's going to Kurdish forces
is coming from the Iraqi government.
Q: But you -- (off-mic)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We are helping the Iraqi government
transport it, but it's not coming directly from the United States. It's
coming from the Iraqi government. And as I said earlier this week, there are
other nations, some seven now, that have signed up to provide materiel
assistance to the Kurdish forces. And I'll let those countries speak for how
they're doing it and under what rubric.
Right now, for the United States, our role is principally
in helping transport, logistically get the stuff to the Kurdish forces.
There's been no decision to directly arm the Kurds from American stockpiles.
Q: On Syrian Kurds, we know there's a group there, the
most powerful militant group called PYD, and it's widely regarded as an
offshoot of the PKK, which you designate as a terrorist group. Does that
inhibit you from cooperating with the PYD, as the strongest -- single most
strongest force in northern Syria to fight ISIS? Because they are really
determined and they're willing to fight.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don't honestly have anything for
you on that. I really -- I don't have...
Q: (off-mic) -- Peshmerga yesterday. ISIS has held
15 Peshmergas, and they showed a video, just like James Foley's video. They
said that there was a message to the Kurdish government to end its alliance
with the United States. Do you see that as a warning to America, as well, to
end its air strikes?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think ISIL poses a threat to --
as we said, to not just the people of Iraq, but to the region. And we all
take -- we're all taking that threat very seriously. But if they think that
by further violence they're going to somehow weaken our resolve or the
resolve of our Iraqi and Kurdish partners, I think they're sadly mistaken.
And you can see that every day, every single day.
Gordon?
Q: Admiral -- (off-mic) -- ISIS is a threat to the
region. You don't think ISIS is a threat to the United States?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We've long talked about the threat that
they pose to the region and the potential threat -- the very real potential
threat that they could pose to Western governments and to the homeland. Right
now, they've got global aspirations, and they certainly have aspirations to
strike Western targets. And I've said this before, and say again today. We
don't believe they have the capacity right now, the capability to conduct a
major attack on the homeland.
But one of the things -- and when we talk about the
immediacy of the threat, one of the things that we're talking about is this
threat of foreign fighters, this idea that people will go over there from --
you pick the country, they'll get radicalized, they'll get trained, and
there's a potential for them to come right on back home and conduct terrorist
attacks, maybe small-scale, on the homeland.
So that threat's very real. And we take that very
seriously. And I think you're seeing that from other governments, as well.
Q: And just to clear up, have you given the White House
an initial strategy on dealing with the threat of ISIS in Syria?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, this gets to the whole
conversation that we've had. I mean, the -- we continue to plan and prepare
for the potential of military action inside Syria. A more fulsome discussion
of those plans has not occurred.
Q: Okay. And one final one. You said that you're looking
at a comprehensive approach, strategy to deal with ISIS in Syria. How many
nations have pledged support to help the United States conduct air strikes
against ISIS in Syria?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We're the only nation, in addition to
the Iraqis, you know, that are working on -- from an air strike perspective
inside Iraq that are conducting air strikes. I won't talk about deliberations
or diplomatic discussions with other countries. The other thing that we've
said, in terms of air strikes, the other thing that -- and I've talked about
this -- is that many nations have come forward to offer to assist and have
assisted with humanitarian missions, like the Brits.
Q: And what about Syria?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We're not having discussions with the
Assad regime about our operations in Iraq.
Q: And have other nations pledged their help and support
with -- to the United States to conduct air strikes inside Syria?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such pledge. And I
would remind you that we haven't made a decision to conduct air strikes inside
Syria.
Q: (off-mic) Any pledges to get a coalition together?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We haven't -- we haven't made pledges.
What we've said is, as a government -- and certainly the Pentagon supports
this effort -- that we -- that we want a coalition of the willing, we want --
we want to seek partners in this effort. We have partners in this effort. And
when you work on a coalition of the willing like that, everybody is
encouraged to bring what they can and what they're willing to.
They all have domestic -- you know, domestic legislative
issues they have to deal with. They all -- every country has to decide for
themselves in accordance with the wishes of their people what they're willing
to do. But it's not about us mandating it or pledging it. It's about us
pledging to continue that effort of building a coalition.
Q: Can you name some of those countries that have pledged
their support?
(CROSSTALK)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think you're getting -- I think you're
getting stifled. Gordon.
Q: Just -- (off-mic) -- stuff, can you kind of square the
task force the secretary kind of loosely assembled and what they're doing,
what maybe timeframe they have, what the hurdles may be to providing
assistance directly to the Kurdish forces, and how all this is tied to the
strategy question, the broader strategy question? Does -- are those two
separate things? Or does that assistance issue generally...
REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, no, it's tied in. I mean, the -- one
of the things that we've said we're trying to do inside Iraq is to assists
the Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government, and the Kurdish forces in
combating this threat inside their country, because -- and I've said it time
and again -- this is ultimately a fight they have to -- they have to win.
And we're willing to help them. That's all part of the
mission set inside Iraq. So as part of that, as they expend arms and ammunition
and they expend their military capacity, you want to help boost that.
What we've done so far as a country, as a military, is to
help the Iraqi government support and supply the Kurds. There are other
nations that have come on -- and Secretary Hagel did stand up a task force, a
U.S.-led effort, to try to encourage and solicit support from other nations
to do the same, to supply -- help resupply Kurdish forces in particular,
because that's where the bulk of the fighting is right now. Most of the active
expenditure of rounds is happening in the north.
And we have had now seven nations that have signed up. I
read this out last week, the seven nations that have signed up to do this,
the most recent being Albania. And some of that's even more effective anyway,
because some of those countries actually possess the kinds of arms and
ammunition and materiel that the Kurds need, which we don't necessarily have
in American stockpiles. So it's mutually beneficial.
Q: Will there be more -- I mean, could we anticipate
that, you know, the U.S. would begin to provide much more visibly -- because
we don't see it necessarily a lot of what exactly is being provided -- once
this strategy is decided upon, in other words -- or do you really have to
wait for the strategy question to be answered before the -- (off-mic)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: The strategy question you're talking
about is regarding the potential for military action inside Syria. That is a
separate question from what I think you're getting at, which is helping Kurdish
forces with the very real, daily threat that they face, and that effort's
ongoing now, and we continue to look for willing partners to do that. I don't
know if that got you or not.
Maggie? Okay.
Q: I almost called you general. Admiral, okay...
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Really, you guys are trying to run me
out on a rail here.
Q: Sorry about that. So you mentioned just like a couple
of minutes ago that it was going to be about $7.5 million per day for the
Iraqi operation.
REAR ADM. KIRBY: What I said was the average since the
beginning is roughly $7.5 million per day.
Q: That's the average. This morning, general, General
Jean Paul Paloméros, he said that he expected the Baltic policing exercises
to continue at the tempo that they're continuing in because of some of the
threat that Russia poses. Now, some of the military aircraft, U.S. military
aircraft are using these exercises. I'm wondering what the budget concern is
for the Pentagon, given that you've got a pricey Iraq operation, a continuing
exercising operation in Eastern Europe, and last year, it was at the point
where you guys were canceling training exercises and putting folks on
furlough. So what's the -- what's the concern and what's the plan?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, we're always concerned about having,
you know, enough funds and resources to accomplish the mission around the
world. As I said, we're able to fund and resource the operations in Iraq out
of existing overseas contingency operations funds. We're well within our
limit there, and we're not concerned about it for '14. As the secretary said
himself, once you get into '15, if we're still involved at this level or a
higher level, then we've got to have another discussion about what the
funding levels might be.
Your question seems to make it sound like, you know, we
were worried before and we're not worried now. We're still worried. I mean,
sequestration remains the law of the land. We've got a funding request up on
the Hill that meets the BBA, the Budget Control Act, limits, but -- and, you
know, we've got sort of a stay of execution for '14 and '15. But beyond that,
sequestration come '16 will revert and, you know, become again the law of the
land, and that's a very real concern going forward. But right now, in Iraq
and elsewhere around the world, we've got resources sufficient to the
military tasks that we're accomplishing.
I've got time for just one more. I've been up here a
while. Yes, sir?
Q: Regarding the operations in Iraq, do you have a
breakdown of the cost of between air strikes, ISR, and humanitarian aid?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Nope. Phil?
Q: Admiral, you said in answer to Tom's question earlier
that you're hitting what you're aiming at in Iraq. You're having an effect on
ISIL there and hitting headquarters and other targets that appear to be
beyond what you said before. When you characterized this as kind of a
defensive mission to protect Americans, protect the dam, protect the Kurds,
has the mission in Iraq changed to one of more of an offensive nature, where
you're actively going after ISIL support structures, commanders? Or does that
depend on the new strategy the president's...
(CROSSTALK)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Look, I don't -- I don't see any change
in the types of targets we're hitting. There's been no -- there's been -- and
there certainly has been no change in the mission. It remains exactly the
same.
Q: So today, it's still the limited mission that you
talked about before?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: Absolutely it is. And the targets that
we're hitting are all in keeping with the authorizations that we have to use
force inside Iraq. There's been no change at all.
Last one.
Q: Congress, the president yesterday seemed to be saying
that -- to assuaging fears of the members of Congress that something was
going to move ahead without them when they were in recess. Can you
characterize (off-mic) specific, what kind of -- or what level of concern
that the secretary has heard from members of Congress? And has he been
engaged with them (off-mic) does he feel...
REAR ADM. KIRBY: We continue to have -- we've continued
to have consultations with members of Congress throughout this. Just because
they're out doesn't mean we're not talking to them and trying to keep them
informed. We're doing that, and that will continue. And I think the president
was very clear yesterday about the -- the need to engage the Congress in any
major future decisions, as well, by default, of the American people, and that
will continue.
There's -- and the secretary has personally -- you know,
and I won't detail every phone call and meeting he's had, but he certainly
has -- has personally taken on that job of keeping members of Congress as
informed as he possibly can. And as a former senator, he well understands
their oversight responsibilities and their role in that regard, and he fully
respects it.
Q: (off-mic) those fears or is there -- you know, is the
real concern, like we heard earlier in the week?
REAR ADM. KIRBY: The fears of members of Congress...
Q: (off-mic) change, is it okay, you know (off-mic)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I would -- I'm not going to...
Q: (off-mic) battle with the Hill (off-mic)
REAR ADM. KIRBY: I can't speak for Congress or their
concerns. It often depends on each member sometimes. What I can tell you is,
the secretary remains committed to keeping them informed. He has kept them
informed. He'll continue to do that. He certainly understands the need to
make sure that the Congress is fully engaged, and he takes those
responsibilities very seriously.
Thanks, everybody. Have a great Labor Day.
Q: You, too.
|
