Wednesday, February 03, 2021

Austin Orders Military Stand Down to Address Challenge of Extremism in the Ranks

Feb. 3, 2021 | BY Jim Garamone , DOD News

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III has ordered a DOD-wide stand down to discuss the problem of extremism in the ranks, Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby said today.

Austin and Army Gen. Mark A, Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with service civilian leaders and service chiefs to discuss the problem of extremism. Kirby noted that some of the extremists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 were active duty service members and others were military veterans.

Oblique aerial photo of Pentagon

Kirby was quick to say that "the vast majority of men and women who serve in uniform and the military are doing so with honor, integrity and character, and do not espouse the sorts of beliefs that lead to the kind of conduct that can be so detrimental to good order and discipline and in fact is criminal."

Still, Austin said in the meeting with military leaders that while the numbers may be small, they are not as small as anyone would like. "No matter what it is, it is … not an insignificant problem and has to be addressed," Kirby said during a press gaggle in the Pentagon.

The stand down will occur over the next 60 days, Kirby said. This is so "each service, each command and each unit can take the time out to have these needed discussions with the men and women of the force," he said.

There is much that needs to be hammered out including the details of the training that will go along with the stand down and what the secretary and all in the military want to accomplish. The stand down is similar to safety stand downs that units may have, Kirby said. 

Austin called extremism in the ranks a leadership issue, and "it's got to be a leadership issue down to the lowest levels, small unit leadership all the way up to him," Kirby said. "So if you consider it a leadership issue, then maybe there will be some potential solutions there to allow us greater visibility."

This is a thorny problem, one that has raised its head in the past. There is a DOD Instruction aimed at this very problem — DODI 1325.06 "Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces."

A Pentagon seal hangs on a wall.

The DOD Instruction expressly prohibits military personnel from actively advocating for and participating in supremacist, extremist or criminal gang doctrine, ideology or causes, Kirby said.

There are questions that need to be answered, like what constitutes extremist activity? What is permissible in looking for extremists in the ranks? 

In the meeting today, Austin made it clear that he is still mulling over how  he wants to organize the effort to attack the problem from an institutional perspective, the press secretary said. 

The secretary may establish a task force to get after the problem or perhaps another way. "He hasn't ruled anything in or out," Kirby said.

Pentagon Press Secretary Updates Reporters on DOD Operations

 Feb. 2, 2021

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby

PRESS SECRETARY JOHN KIRBY: Okay, just a couple things off the top here. Just to give you a quick update, I think some of you have been tracking this. 

The USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is departing the Central Command Area of Responsibility, and they'll be now supporting the USINDOPACOM Area of Responsibility. We want to thank all the men and women aboard the ships in that strike group, and the squadrons who supported Central Command now for more than 270 days, ensuring our national security and deterring conflict in a very critical region of the world. 

Yesterday, we also announced -- I think that you saw the department has awarded two contract actions in support of the coronavirus response efforts, in coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services. The department awarded a $231.8 million contract to Ellume USA LLC for their COVID-19 home tests, as the first over-the-counter, no-prescription-required in-home test. 

It can be performed in approximately 15 minutes from nasal swab specimen -- from a naval -- naval -- naval, I got Navy on the brain here -- from a nasal swab specimen, with results reported via a smartphone app. 

This effort will directly support the National Strategy for COVID-19 Response and Pandemic Preparedness policy by including the procurement of 8.5 million tests to be distributed across the country. The contractor now is preparing a distribution plan. That's due in 15 days, and so we'll have a lot more information -- the company will have a lot more information in a couple of weeks about exactly how they're going to be distributed. 

Additionally under the Defense Production Act Title 3, the department entered a $1.1 million agreement with American Apparel, Inc. to sustain critical industrial-based production of U.S. military uniforms. As a domestic supplier of Berry Amendment Compliant Uniforms, American Apparel intends to use the funds to purchase and install equipment that will increase manufacturing automation. This new equipment will increase production capacity to meet all current contract requirements plus any surge requirements up to 25 percent. 

Now on the personnel front, we've on boarded another 14 employees yesterday; it's great to have these team members aboard, we look forward to their contributions to the department. Among the new arrivals were Mieke Eoyang, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy, and Brent Woolfork, who will be the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for House Affairs. 

Now shifting gears. Over the weekend Secretary Austin directed a zero-based review of all DOD advisory committees to include those not otherwise subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Secretary was deeply concerned with the pace and the extent of recent changes to memberships of Department Advisory Committees and this review will allow him now to quickly get his arms around the purpose of these boards and to make sure the Advisory Committees are in fact providing the best possible advice to department leadership. The review looks specifically for opportunities to find efficiencies across similar board's works and to balance committee membership, to provide again the best advice to our leadership here. 

The Interim Director of Administration and Management and the Acting General Counsel of the Department of Defense will lead this review. Each component head that sponsors a DOD committee will conduct an in depth business case supported by fact-based evidence for the continued utilization of each committee. I think you know that these boards are sort of nested inside sponsors in the building. For instance the Defense Policy Board that the sponsor of that is the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, the Defense Business Board, the sponsor for that is the Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

These sponsors will also consider each committee's mission and function as it relates to the national defense strategy and through our own strategic priorities. We'll get potential functional realignments to create a single cross-functional advisory committee when it's appropriate and they'll also look at potential legislative changes to non-discretionary advisory committees to align their missions and functions to DOD priorities.

Each board's sponsor will submit their completed reviews by April 30th, the end of that month, and in turn those will incorporate or inform final recommendations that will be made to the Secretary by or of each committee by June 1st of this year, 2021. 

So the recommendations we expect, the Secretary expects will include retention, realignment, termination, changes to mission or functions, membership balance, membership size and possible legislative changes again to the non-discretionary advisory committees.

The Secretary also directed that all members currently serving on DOD Advisory Committees and subcommittees where he or another DOD civilian employee or active duty member of the Armed Forces is the approval authority for members to conclude their service no later than February 16th, this month.

Members appointed by Congress or the president, of course, are retained during the review period. The review will apply to more than 40 committees that currently advise the department of cross-policy, personnel, business, science, education, training, healthcare and memorial activities. And I think if we haven't already we will post obviously the Secretary's Memo, the directing memo to this, as well as the associated list of committees that are being reviewed; and with that I'll take questions. I think Lita we got you on the phone, is that right?

Q: That is correct. Thank you. So two, one follow-up and another question. On the Nimitz, can you tell us what the Secretary thinks about having a carrier in this fleet, in the Gulf? Is he in favor of having one there in a persistent presence or not? Will another carrier be going to the, this fleet to replace the Nimitz?

And then second, do you have any update on the FEMA vaccine request? You don't have to go into all of it but just any update from it?

MR. KIRBY: Right. I don't have an update on -- I’ll take your second one; I don't have an update on the requests that we have received from FEMA for administration support and by administration I mean the administration of vaccines; I don't have an update for that. That is still being analyzed. Again we're working hard on this, we understand the sense of urgency and I suspect we'll be able to tell you more in relatively short fashion but I don't have an update today.

On the Nimitz, obviously the Secretary is concerned about making sure that the Defense Department and our forces and fleet forces overseas have the capabilities they need to deter conflict and to respond if needed. It is as you all know a balancing act between requirements and the capabilities on hand. The Secretary believes that we have a robust presence in the Middle East to respond. It's a constant discussion that he has with the Central Command Commander as well as the Combatant Commanders in other parts of the world to properly meet those requirements and to balance the risk and I don't have any announcements today with respect to carrier presence in that part of the world and you know obviously if and when we do have something to announce in that regard we certainly will.

Q: Let me follow up on this.

MR. KIRBY: Go ahead.

Q: So was this decision to remove the Nimitz, was it based on any assessment of the security situation in the region, especially in the Gulf area and should Iran read this as somehow, you know, a signal from the Biden administration of their willingness to engage more in diplomacy instead of just a show of force?

MR. KIRBY: Well every decision that we make with military forces; air, ground or Naval and certainly decisions they can make with respect to a capital asset like an aircraft carrier and its associated supporting strike group is a decision driven by a frank assessment of the operational need, the threats in the area and also a frank consideration of the capabilities themselves and so absolutely the Secretary was mindful of the larger geostrategic picture when he approved the movement of the carrier strike group from the Central Command area of responsibility to the INDOPACOM area of responsibility.

Also and I'd be you know I would be irresponsible if I didn't remind you that this particular carrier and the strike group have been at sea for quite some time, a much longer deployment than is typically required and so there are those considerations to make as well.

Right now the carrier is moving to support the INDOPACOM area of responsibility and that's the focus right now. I won't get ahead of future schedules. The other thing I would remind you is, and I think you guys know this, that your Naval assets are mobile and they're agile and they're flexible and as you know the Navy likes to say, they don't need permission slips to operate in certain parts of the world so I think the Secretary understanding all that is you know remains obviously focused on the threats in the region and will continue to address it day-by-day about what the requirements actually are.

Q: John, can we get back to FEMA issue? First of all, exactly what are they requesting? Is it administering the vaccine? If that's the case are we looking more at military medical personnel as far as the support? And also are we looking at hundreds or thousands? Ballpark on the effort. I know you haven't come up with final figures yet.

MR. KIRBY: That's right, Tom. But I think I can help bound this a little bit and I'm glad for the opportunity. The request is largely for assistance with administering vaccines. So these would be people, professionals that can help actually put shots in arms. So following that you can imagine there's -- what we're looking at is a blend of clinical and nonclinical personnel to do that. And I'm reticent to get into specific numbers because we're still working our way through this.

Now as for total numbers and again I'm reluctant to put something on the wall here because the analysis is still going on, but I would you know I think it's safe to assume that we'd be talking in the thousands eventually. But how high and where I just don't know yet. And I you know I beg your forgiveness; we're working on this now and I think we'll be able to have more detail for you soon but we're just not there.

And the other thing I'd want to say if you don't mind while I (LAUGHS) filibuster here is it's important to remember that this is the DOD support to FEMA and to governors and to civil officials around the country; this is not, we are very much a supporting element here and not trying to drive the actual system itself.

Q : Presumably we're looking at active and reserve because the governors can get the Guard from their own state. Right?

MR. KIRBY: You know again I don't want to be too specific about sourcing but as I said last week, I think it's certainly as we look at capabilities we're looking across the joint force, which would include Reserves as well; whether that ends up being part of the sourcing solution I don't know yet but it would be irresponsible for us not to look at the whole joint force. Does that make sense?

Q: Yeah. 

MR. KIRBY: Jen?

Q: Thank you very much, John. I'm your (inaudible). 

MR. KIRBY: You do whatever you need to do.

Q: Thank you very much. How will the United States get involved with Burma’s military coup? Do you know (inaudible) right now? So how would you --?

(CROSSTALK) 

MR. KIRBY: Oh, in Burma. How is the military going to get involved? I don't believe we foresee right now with what's going on there, a U.S. military solution or action required; we certainly have viewed with great alarm what has happened in Burma, but I don't see any U.S. military role right now. Jen?

Q: One more quick, has there ever been any sign or movement in a military coup in the United States, over the past few months.

MR. KIRBY: Can you -- can I ask you to do that one again? 

Q: Is there any sign or movement of military coup d’état in United States over the past few months?

MR. KIRBY: Have I -- have we seen a --

Q: Yes, in the United States.

MR. KIRBY: -- the movement of a military coup in the United States? 

Q: Yes, because of the last Trump administration is --

(CROSSTALK)

MR. KIRBY: No. I -- I -- no. The United States military is one of the most trusted institutions in this country, and I think you were all here and watched Chairman Milley and the Joint Chiefs, how they performed and how they made it very clear that there wasn't going to be a political role for the U.S. military. I -- I -- no. 

Jen? 

Q: Is the secretary comfortable with the number of National Guard troops that are up at the Capitol right now? Is it overstaffed, given the threat levels? Are there any concrete threats that have been presented?

And what happened to the 12 National Guard who were sent home because they were flagged by either FBI or Secret Service prior to the inauguration? Are they being prosecuted in some way? Is it a chain of command issue? What happened with those 12 and what were there -- have the investigations found that they either committed any violation or broke any laws? 

MR. KIRBY: So on your -- let me go second first. I would refer you to the National Guard, Jen. That's not information that -- that we would necessarily have here, that the National Guard, in this case the units would be -- excuse me -- I think better served to address that. 

As for the mission itself, we have a little bit more than 7,000 right now. As you know, not all 7,000 are out at any given time, they work in shifts. The secretary had the opportunity on Friday evening to go spend some time with them. He was very impressed with -- with the work they're doing, thanked them for that, promised them his support. 

I won't get into -- and I wouldn't -- get into specific threat analysis here from the podium, but I would tell you that the department still considers this a valid requirement based on the requests for additional support, continued support, I should say, that we've gotten from federal and local authorities including the Secret Service. 

And that it's a -- that we're -- every day, we're reviewing the status of the mission. So right now we have more than 7,000. I don't want to get too predictive about what it's going to look like, forward. I think -- but to go back to what -- you know, the secretary, he -- as he told the National Guardsmen Friday, I mean, he very much wants to get them back home and back to their lives and to their jobs and to their families as soon as possible. 

But we also have what we still consider to be a valid requirement for their assistance, and we're going to have to, you know, continue to meet that. And I wouldn't get more predictive -- you know, more than that right now, more specific. 

Let's see, we'll go to David Martin. You are on the phone, is that right? 

Q: I am. I think you said in the statement on advisory committees that the secretary was concerned about the pace of change. Can you tell us that this -- this review was a specific reaction to all of the dismissals and appointments in the final days of the Trump administration? 

MR. KIRBY: There's no question, David, that the -- the frenetic activity that occurred to the composition of so many boards in just the -- in just the period of November to January, deeply concerned the secretary and certainly helped drive him to this decision, yes.

Let's see, maybe we can do another one on the phone, I have to keep remembering to do this. Tony, Tony Capaccio? 

(CROSSTALK)

Q: Hi -- hi, John. I have a quick question closer to home.  On recusals, the issue came up today, the deputy secretary Hicks' nomination hearing by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Has the secretary laid out programs he will definitely recuse himself from that are Raytheon related? 

F-35, Ground Based Strategic Deterrents, and the Long Range Stand Off Weapon. Those last two came up today in the written questions from the Senate to Ms. Hicks. 

MR. KIRBY: So thank you, Tony. As I think you saw, the -- the secretary commit to, that he will recuse himself from Raytheon-related decisions, not unlike, in fact, the -- the same way that the previous secretary, Secretary Esper, did. And as a matter of fact, he intends to use the same sort of decision-making, vetting process for Raytheon decisions that Secretary Esper had in place. 

Q: That was that screening process he set up so staff would be able to winnow through programs that may or may not be Raytheon-related? 

MR. KIRBY: That's correct, Tony, same screening process. He's committed to doing that, he's made that direction to the staff so that he can be absolutely, 100 percent committed to abiding by his agreement to recuse. 

Yeah. 

Q: May I ask you, is the F-35, though, the Pentagon's largest program, Raytheon makes the engines for it. Will he specifically recuse himself from decisions on that program? 

MR. KIRBY: You know, Tony, let me take the question and get back on the -- the aegis here. I -- but before I do that, just re-enforce that he takes very seriously his recusal responsibilities from Raytheon-related programs and systems. And so I can assure you that he'll do that. What you're asking is a broader question, and I owe you a better answer on that. 

Go ahead. 

Q: Thank you. 

Q: I have actually one follow-up on Nimitz, and two on Syria. 

So on Nimitz, does the -- does it have anything to do with the rising tension between China and India that you deployed -- deployed the ship to INDOPACOM? 

MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to get into specific rationale for why a ship is moved, you know, from one area of responsibility to another. We certainly have legitimate requirements for naval power in both areas of responsibility. And there is a finite number of aircraft carriers available at any given time. So this is a constant balancing act that the leadership here, the secretary has to perform in terms of meeting requirements with capabilities. 

I would be -- it -- I would not characterize this as a response to a specific issue or event or public comment by a leader here or there, it is very typical for us to move naval assets from one area of responsibility to another to meet a plethora of different missions. Sometimes it's just training, sometimes it's transit from one place to another.

In this place, the Nimitz is at the end of a very, very long deployment. So I wouldn't read too much into that. But -- but that's the justification. 

And you had another question? 

Q: Yeah, on Syria, that there have been several terrorist attacks in northwest Syria, on civilians. And State Department yesterday, of course, condemned those attacks. But Turkey has been accusing YPG for those attacks. And YPG's the leading force of SDF, which is supported by the United States. 

So, would you rule out that YPG is somehow behind those attacks?

MR. KIRBY: I am not familiar with the -- I'm not familiar with the operational assessments on this and I'd refer you to the State Department, that is -- that's not really something that would be in our privy at the U.S. Military to talk about.

We'll go back here and then -- and then I'll go to another one on the phone, go ahead.

Q: Okay. Thank you very much. I wanted to ask you about the negotiations for a new coastal sharing agreement for hosting the U.S. Troops in Japan and South Korea. The previous administration said the coastal sharing agreement was not fair to the U.S. and they said that the ASEAN allies should assume greater share of the burden. What do you figure a function on this issue? Do you think that ASEAN allies should spend more for U.S. troops? Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: I -- I don't -- right now we're I think looking at, as I said last week, sort of a global posture review. We're in the midst of taking a look at our force posture around the world and the contributions that we're making.

So, I'm not prepared to give you a specific answer to that right now. The secretary certainly looks forward to discussing with our partners in the Pacific, ASEAN members as well, you know that it's -- that that's an important part of the world for us. But I'm not -- I don't have anything to read out specifically today in terms of you know dollar figures in terms of cost sharing.

The only thing I would say writ large is that the secretary remains committed to re-invigorating our alliances and our partnerships around the world and our friendships because he -- as he said on day one, nobody can do this alone, we all need partners and friends, and you know five of our seven treaty alliances are in the Pacific, I'm not assuming -- I'm not suggesting ASEAN is one of those, it's not -- but my point I'm trying to make is that is that we have many partners and allies in that region, it's a critical part of the world.

You heard the secretary talk about the focus that we need to the stronger focus we need to apply to the Asia Pacific region and I think you'll see him over time continue to bear that out with decisions and policies that we're putting in place.

Q: Thank you.

MR. KIRBY: Let me go -- let me go to the phone -- let me go to the phone. Carol Rosenberg?

Q: Thank you, Admiral. Can you see whether all the 15,000 troops at JTF-GTMO who wanted the vaccine got a vaccine? All the prison staff who wanted to be protected, already protected? It looks like they're now offering them to schoolteachers, bartenders, and commissary workers down there.

MR. KIRBY: I can't answer the first question, Carol, I don't know and I certainly refer you down to either to the Navy or to Southern Command just to speak specific numbers. I do know that they had begun the vaccination of men and women who work down at Guantanamo Bay on the base and with the JTF and they were moving along the previous departmental vaccination schema in terms of priorities.

So, they -- there are certainly members of the military that have been vaccinated and again I'd remind you that it's a voluntary vaccine, you -- we cannot compel it. But I know that there were -- there were members of the military that had been vaccinated down there.

The exact numbers, Carol, I'm just not -- I don't have in front of me right now but I'll tell you what, we'll take that question but we'll also make sure that it gets properly staffed through the Navy and through Southern Command.

Yes, Dan.

Q: Can we just go back to the Nimitz just to be clear, was there a reduction in the threat level and that was part of the rationale for that decision or is that not the case?

MR. KIRBY: The Nimitz?

Q: Yes.

MR. KIRBY: Again, Dan, I'm really reluctant to get into specific discussions of threats and intelligence. We don't make decisions like this lightly and there's a lot of factors, particularly when you're dealing with a strike group that has been at sea and deployed for as long as -- as it has been.

I mean, ten months or it's about to be ten months, and so you have to consider the wear and tear on the ship itself, as well as the effect on sailors who are incredibly resilient.

So, there's a lot of factors that go into this and again I would -- I think it would be imprudent for us to look at this and think, well this is based on a specific piece of intel, on a specific part of the world, it's about balancing capabilities against the requirements and there are requirements for Naval assets in many places of the world.

And then there's a limited number of aircraft carriers. What -- but I want to pull back, again, to make a larger point that we haven't a lot of military capacity in the Central command AOR, that area of responsibility.

And we are constantly working with Combatant Commanders and in this case, General McKenzie, to do the best we can to meet their requirements for additional forces for as long as possible, you know, against the requirement.

And I just don't want to get ahead of the secretary's decision space with respect to future Naval assets that may or may not operate in that part of the world. We're constantly watching the threat; we're constantly trying to meet that threat with proper capabilities.

The secretary's very comfortable that that process of evaluation is ongoing and he is connected to the Combatant Commanders, these two in particular, and this decision was made in consultation with them and with the -- the Navy. So, I --

Q: (inaudible) --

(CROSSTALK)

MR. KIRBY: Let me -- let me, sir --sir, hang on a second, let me get Dan and I've already gotten you so just give me --

Q: I was wondering --

MR. KIRBY: Hang on just a second, sir.

Q: In the CENTCOM AOR in Afghanistan you've talked about troops levels and the considerations last week, what -- is the secretary ruling out the possibility of any minor additional forces because of the situation there either for force protection reasons or other requests from the Afghan government?

MR. KIRBY: The secretary's not ruling anything in or out, Dan, I mean he's mindful of the need and he's mindful of the threat and we're constantly evaluating that, almost on a daily basis. There are a lot of resources in the region, there are other resources that can be mobilized if needed. But I just don't think we're you know -- I wouldn't want to get into the specifics of how that's -- of how that's being done.

Again, I want to go back to he's -- he's made this -- this decision to allow this transfer into a -- into a different area of responsibility in consultation with both Combatant Commanders and with the Navy and frankly with the chairman of the joint chiefs as well, and his belief is that this move is in the national interest and he's always going to fall back on that as he makes these decisions. And again, I just wouldn't want to close down his decision space in the -- in the future.

Q: And on Afghanistan, he would not rule out the idea of considering at least the idea of enlarging the U.S. footprint there to some degree?

MR. KIRBY: Again -- again I don't want to get into hypotheticals as I said last week, any future -- there's no -- I don't have any future force posture decisions to read out or to announce. Future decisions about force posture in Afghanistan are going to be conditions-based. 

Q: Abraham Mahshie, Washington Examiner. I wonder if I could go back to the Guard force posture in the Capitol --

MR. KIRBY: Sure.

Q: -- and your cooperation with FBI in support.

MR. KIRBY: Sure. 

Q: Can you say whether or not the FBI has sent you more alerts which come when there is an arrest of service-members or there is information about service-members, active duty or veterans related to the Capitol riots January 6th? And also the acting army secretary spoke to us recently and did give us -- characterize a little bit of what the threat assessment is in the Capitol. I wonder if you could provide us an answer: Is there even a threat anymore? When you say you're going to review it on a daily basis, could you downgrade the Guard presence in the Capitol, is that possible? 

MR. KIRBY: Again, reticent to get into hypotheticals. So let me just try to parse this out here. I would refer you to the services for any notifications that might come from civilian law enforcement to include the FBI, because that wouldn't come in to the office of the secretary, that would go to the services. And I'm not aware of any additional notifications by the FBI for additional investigative work on other members. I'm just simply not aware of that and I would point you to the services for that. 

As I said in my answer earlier, we're constantly reviewing the force posture here, the presence of the Guard in the Capitol Region. We understand that they left jobs and homes and families, and they want to get back to them. But from the secretary's visit, it was pretty clear to him that they also -- they believe in what they're doing. And they believe it's a valuable mission. 

For as long as it is a valuable mission, for as long as it is required, this request from civil and law enforcement authorities, the Department of Defense will continue to source it and to meet it. And when that ends, I don't know. How and at what pace it tapers off, I don't know, because we're constantly looking at this. 

But to go back to what I told you earlier, the secretary made it clear to those soldiers that he doesn't want to keep them out there any longer than they need to be, because he knows, you know, they're making an enormous sacrifice, and so are their families. And it's cold outside. And that is not fun work. And he recognizes that as a former soldier himself. So we're going to just keep -- every day, you know, we'll keep looking at this. 

And on the threat assessment, I'm just reticent to get into that. That's just not -- that's not a healthy thing for me to do at the podium, is to talk about specific threats and intelligence. 

Let me go back to the phone for a second. Let's see. Paul McLeary, Breaking Defense? 

Q: Hi, John, thanks. I wanted to ask a kind of in-house question about the executive order from President Biden last week about the climate crisis. Who is leading the charge at DoD to kind of marshal all the -- you know, get everyone together and submit that report to the White House? And what kind of effect do you think this new order is going to have on acquisition and operations, things like that, going forward? 

MR. KIRBY: I missed the question. It was -- I missed the first part of your question, Paul. It was a directive about what? 

Q: Climate crisis. 

Q: Yes, climate change, executive order. 

MR. KIRBY: Oh, climate change. Okay. I'm sorry. 

(CROSSTALK)

MR. KIRBY: Yes, I know. I didn't get that. 

So, taking a couple of steps back, I mean, the secretary has made it clear, you saw his statement. He believes climate change is a national security issue. It affects our facilities and our infrastructure. It affects things like, you know, Navy ship piers and our bases around the world as a result of the extreme weather that climate change contributes to. 

It also is a driver of people. It's a driver of refugees, which also contributes to instability and insecurity in places where oftentimes the military -- U.S. military then has to deploy to support allies and partners around the world. And, of course, it requires many times the use of the military for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, you know, driven by severe weather, which is, of course, scientists have shown is -- lately has been driven by the changing climate. 

I don't have specifics, Paul, for you in terms of how that breaks out into, you know, dollar figures right now. I mean, previous estimates have been in the many millions of dollars in terms of the effect it has on the U.S. military. As you saw in the president's executive order, he wants and tasks the secretary to factor in climate change into not only resourcing allocations, but operational concepts, even war-gaming. 

And so the secretary has made that very clear to the department that he takes that tasking very seriously and will do the spade work to do that by the deadline, which I think was 60 days, what the E.O. said. 

So we'll have, I think, more specifics to put on that, Paul, once we get further down fleshing out what we've been tasked to do. But, you know, again, it's a national security issue. He takes it that seriously. He knows it has a dramatic and specific effect on the U.S. military and our capabilities around the world.  

Yes, Meghann.

Q: Another Fifth Fleet question. So Nimitz has made its way out. Eisenhower is basically next in line for deployment. And it would be also less than a year, it would only be a few months, since they came back from their last deployment. Has the secretary, in considering these requests from CENTCOM to have a persistent carrier presence in (inaudible), has he considered the wear and tear on the ships, the wear and tear on the crews doing so many back-to-back deployments or these extremely long deployments the way Nimitz has? 

Is it possible that you could let some time lapse in Fifth Fleet without a carrier to shore up the readiness and the morale of some of these crews? 

MR. KIRBY: Well, without getting into the specific decisions based on force presence in Central Command, the short answer to your question, Meghann, is, yes, the secretary obviously factors in the wear and tear on the fleet and on the ships and the sailors just as he would the resilience and the wear and tear on military units of all different stripes. It's absolutely part of his calculus. 

And that's why before he makes a decision like the one that he just made, he consults with the service, in this case, the Navy, and with the combatant commanders that are affected by this decision. And it is -- in many cases, it's a balancing act. You have X number of requirements. You have Y number of capabilities. And you want to try to meet those requirements as best you can. 

And you're no stranger to the building. You're no stranger to this issue. There are some times where you can't meet all requirements every day, and you've got to balance what you can apply to those requirements. And that is the -- that's the business of national security decision-making that the secretary is in. And I -- you know, we saw that process play out here with this particular decision. 

I'll take Lucas, and then I'll go to the phone. Go ahead.  

Q: Question on nuclear weapons. The head of U.S. Strategic Command recently said in an issue of Proceedings, quote, "There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons." Admiral Charles Richard went on to say, the U.S. military must shift its principal assumption from nuclear employment is not possible to nuclear employment is a very real possibility.

Does the secretary agree with that statement?

MR. KIRBY: The secretary, as I think you've heard him say, certainly considers our nuclear capabilities and their modernization a key priority. He's also said that the -- we don't want things to escalate to conflicts, certainly not of that scale. And so his job, he believes, is to protect and defend the American people. And that means having a broad mix of capabilities that -- that are ready to do that. And that includes nuclear strategic capabilities.

And he's committed to, as I think you've heard him say, conducting a Nuclear Posture Review, to better understand the state of modernization and the need for innovation and research and development of -- you know, of improving those capabilities over time. So I think he certainly shares the admiral's concern that -- that these capabilities are important. 

And that -- and you've heard him talk about both Russia and China. China being the pacing challenge of this Department and Russia clearly posing a threat on many fronts, and he takes those -- he takes those seriously.

And as he -- as he works through the posture review of nuclear capabilities and as he works through the Global Posture Review, I think you'll see those things sort of integrate and come -- and come into focus about what kinds of long-term posture and capabilities we're going to try to put in the field to make sure, again, that we can defend the American people.

Q: Are tensions among nuclear-armed nations the highest they've ever been since the Cuban Missile Crisis?

MR. KIRBY: You know, I try to stay away from superlatives, Lucas. I mean, again, he views China as the biggest pacing challenge for this Department. Nobody wants to see things end up in conflict, certainly not on that scale. But it's his job and it's the Department's job to help deter -- to prevent that kind of conflict, particularly on that scale. And I would just say that -- you know, that's where his head is, rather than getting into, you know, the specifics of most this or most dangerous that.

Clearly there is much work to do and you've heard Secretary of State Blinken mention this just the other day, there's much work to do with our bilateral relations with China and with Russia. But our job here at the Defense Department is to make sure that we can protect the American people from threats.

I'm going to -- let me go to the phone. Let me go to the phone. Lara Seligman?

Q: Hi, I have a question actually about Guantanamo Bay. Can you tell me please, who made the decision to begin vaccinating the prisoners? Was that something that was in the works in the previous administration or was that something that the Biden administration initiated? And can you tell me why?

MR. KIRBY: Why what, Lara?

Q: Why was that decision initially made? What was the reasoning?

MR. KIRBY: So I think as I referred to earlier, the -- there -- and you guys know this better than me because you've been here longer than me -- that the Department had a vaccination plan, a schema if you will, for phasing in the vaccination of American men and women who support the military, their workforce -- different phases. The goal being, of course, to vaccinate those that needed it the earliest and the fastest -- you know, health care workers and the supporting staff to them, for instance, were -- you know right at the top of the list.

And because it's a vast bureaucracy, you know, millions of people -- literally hundreds of commands around the world, they -- some areas -- some commands moved through those phases at a faster clip than others. But these phases were put into place and developed in the previous administration. Again, the focus was clearly on trying to get the vaccines to the people that needed it the most.

And so, the -- to your specific question, the vaccination plan underway was underway before President Biden took office, before Secretary Austin took office. That's not an -- that's not to impugn that decision-making process at all but just to answer your question that that was -- that scheme was already underway and being executed.

Q: (OFF-MIKE) Just a follow-up on Guantanamo --

MR. KIRBY: Yes, Dan.

Q: -- Wouldn't it be for the sake of the health of the U.S. personnel there, wouldn't it make sense to vaccinate the inmates -- the detainees?

MR. KIRBY: The health protection of our forces remains a top priority, Dan. 

And I think one of the things -- the main reason why we've got a temporary pause here -- down there is to just better understand how they move through their scheme, how they move through their phases, and just to take a look to make sure that -- that we better understand that process. Again, as I mentioned over the weekend in keeping with our desire to make sure that -- that the -- the health and well-being of our troops and their families really are foremost in mind.

I think I've got time for one -- one more. Sir, I'll get you -- you in the back. Go ahead.

Q: (inaudible) Tanabe from Nippon Television, very nice to meet you. And --

MR. KIRBY: Nice to meet you.

Q: -- I'd like to ask you about the Free and Open Indo-Pacific initiative. And President Biden and Prime Minister Suga the other day agreed on the importance of the -- this initiative in the last phone call.

MR. KIRBY: Yes.

Q: So I'd like to ask you, how does the DOD recognize the importance of this and how do you plan to develop this, especially in order to counter China?

MR. KIRBY: Well, we don't have time for me to answer that. There's a lot there. Except, let me just again reiterate the secretary's focus on the Asia-Pacific region and the many opportunities that are there, not just challenges. Again, we have the bulk of our treaty alliances are there. We've got serious security commitments in the Indo-Pacific region that we intend to meet and to take seriously.

And I think you'll see, as the secretary gets situated and begins to flesh out what will be the first budget that he under this presidential administration submits here in the coming months, and as he begins to evaluate the National Defense Strategy and, as he said in testimony, begin to flesh out what changes there might be, I think you'll see this theme come back again and again, this -- this understanding by the department that that area of the world is vital and we'll -- and must remain vital. We're a Pacific power, and we have responsibilities there. 

I think you also heard him say, though, just so there's no question, that in the -- in the main muscle movements of the existing National Defense Strategy, with respect to great power competition and in particular the challenge that China poses, that he agrees with that, okay? 

I'll take -- take a couple more here. Ellie Kaufman, CNN? No, you don't have a question? Or do you? I have to remember to look over here where it says, "Question, yes or no?" And that one was a no. 

Tara Copp? 

Okay, we lost Tara. I'll take one more from in the room. Ma'am, you haven't had a question. 

Q: Yes, I have two questions on Iraq actually. 

MR. KIRBY: On what? 

Q: Iraq. 

MR. KIRBY: Iraq, okay.

Q: The first one, if you can give us some details on that operation that killed Abu Yasser al-Issawi last week. Was it like a joint operation between the international coalition and the Iraqi Forces? 

MR. KIRBY: So as I understand it, from Operation Inherent Resolve, it was a partnered mission. I am -- I'm not going to get into the specific tactics of what that looks like, I'd refer you to them, that really wouldn't be appropriate for me to speak to from the podium, but it was a partnered mission. 

Q: And the second question is, is the review, the strategy review that the Pentagon is conducting in Iraq, would consider the troops' level there? Are we going to see a significant change of the number of troops that you have had in Iraq now? 

MR. KIRBY: I think the current level in Iraq is around 2,500. I have no changes to that to report out to you today, no decisions about force posture there have been made one way or the other. 

The secretary wants to get a chance to examine the mission and the strategy there and make sure that -- that we are executing the right strategy, a good strategy, and that we are properly resourcing that strategy. But he is not in a position now where he can make any specific decisions one way or another, so I don't have any changes to force posture to read out to you. 

Q: Afghanistan, one question? 

MR. KIRBY: One more. 

Q: Thank you very much. So in response to your statements last week here, Taliban basically vow to fight U.S. troops if they remain in Afghanistan beyond next May. So the first question, do you think the U.S. has enough troops in Afghanistan to deal with such a situation? 

And are you willing -- I mean, are you taking that risk assessment into your consideration in this review of Afghanistan, regardless of whether Taliban is basically living up to their commitments or not? 

MR. KIRBY: Look, I mean, the -- we are committed to a political settlement in Afghanistan, one that includes the Afghan government. As we've said many times, an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process. And we -- we're going to continue to support the achievement of a political settlement. No force posture decisions have been made, and I wouldn't speculate beyond that. 

We have long believed that political resolution is the best way forward, and the secretary and the department are committed to that. 

MR. KIRBY: Okay, thanks, everybody, appreciate it, thank you very much.

Sanitizing Seats

 

Army Spc. Mary Jones, a motor transport operator, assigned to the 719th Composite Truck Company, 369th Sustainment Brigade, 53rd Troop Command, sanitizes chairs during a mass COVID-19 vaccination event administered by the New York state health department at the Javits Convention Center in New York City, Jan. 31, 2021. The National Guard deployed more than 350 Guardsmen to help staff the vaccination site.

Defense Official Discusses Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Human Decision-Making, AI

 Feb. 3, 2021 | BY C. Todd Lopez , DOD News

Defeating a swarm of small unmanned aircraft systems may one day require faster decision making than what a single human being can provide, and may mean the use of artificial intelligence to make those decisions. Right now, though, rules of engagement still require a human in the loop.

A service member points a large gun-like device into the air.

"Right now we don't have the authority to have a human out of the loop," Col. Marc E. Pelini, the division chief for capabilities and requirements within the Joint Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office, said during a teleconference. "Based on the existing Department of Defense policy, you have to have a human within the decision cycle at some point to authorize the engagement."

But given the threat of UAS swarms, Pelini said he knows there is talk about developing artificial intelligence capabilities to enable "in-the-loop" or "out-of-the-loop" human decision-making.

"When you're starting to see swarming activities of hundreds or potentially thousands [of UAS] in the future, obviously you want your system to operate as fast [as possible] to provide those weaponeering solutions to the operator, or operate within a set of parameters," Pelini said. "But that's really kind of defined right now in the policy realm."

In January, the Defense Department published the Counter-Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Strategy to provide a framework for addressing small UAS hazards and threats in the U.S., host nations and contingency locations.

Several drones sitting on the ground light up at night.

One aspect of the department's strategy will be the development of a Joint Counter UAS Center of Excellence, which Army Maj. Gen. Sean A. Gainey, the director of the Joint Counter-Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office, said is being developed now under the guidance of the Fires Center of Excellence. A Joint Counter UAS academy is also expected to be developed to train service members and leaders on how to fight the threat posed by UAS.

"The intent of the academy is to ... not only provide the opportunity for training but to start training leaders on counter-UAS and have the basic understandings and ... go from basic to advanced understanding of the threat and then how to employ these capabilities," Gainey said.

The concept of the schoolhouse is likely to involve both resident and non-resident training opportunities for a variety of students, Pelini said.

"Your non-resident personnel would really kind of be the operators that are operating a specific piece of equipment ... that would be taught utilizing a joint common core," Pelini said.

With in-resident students, he said, the school would strive to accomplish two things.

A service member holds a large gun-like device.

"The first one is training experts — so kind of building those, for lack of a better term, master gunners on the Army side, that would help the commanders develop and evaluate and implement the counter-UAS training plan for the particular unit," Pelini said. "The other piece of the puzzle of the resident course is developing the joint architecture and joint systems experts ... understanding how systems interact with each other, getting more to the technical granularity, and understanding electronic warfare fratricide, radar fratricide, etc."

Pelini said in-resident students would be developed into subject matter experts to serve at battalion, brigade or higher commands to allow leadership to make optimal use of counter-UAS systems.

Shake It Off

 

Marine Corps Sgt. Suzette Scott, a chief trainer with the military working dog section of the Marine Corps Base Camp Butler Provost Marshal’s Office, grooms Shiva at Camp Hansen in Okinawa, Japan, Feb. 3, 2020.

Senior Department of Defense Officials Hold Background Briefing on DOD Advisory Boards

 Feb. 2, 2021

Senior Defense Department Officials

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Hello, everybody, thanks for jumping on. 

So just a couple of housekeeping items here.  This is a backgrounder, "senior defense official" -- that's me -- and we'll lift the embargo on this at 2 o'clock.  And I know we owe you some source documents, which we will get to you – in process here -- before the embargo lifts.

The reason I wanted to -- I also have with me "senior defense official two," who -- not to be named, obviously, in the course of this -- this is (Senior Defense Official Two credentials), who I think many of you know.

If you could mute your lines so that -- so that we can get started.

So I'll just kick it off, and then we'll let you guys get right at your questions.

The Secretary has directed a zero-based review of all DOD advisory committees that are not otherwise subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.  This review will be led by the interim director of Administration and Management, as well as the acting General Counsel of DOD.

And that will lead -- they'll lead it, and they will make recommendations to the secretary of defense on each committee by the first of June.  Those recommendations will include items such as retention, realignment, termination, changes to mission or functions, membership balance, membership size, and even possible legislative changes to non-discretionary advisory committees.

We can give you a key list of milestones if you want it, that kind of get us from now until June, but I won't dive into those details right now.

Each component head that sponsors a DOD committee, also what we call the DOD sponsor -- for instance, the Defense Policy Board, the sponsor for that is the under secretary of Defense for Policy.  The under secretary of defense for Personnel and Readiness, they sponsor a lot of boards, including the Defense Health Board.

So these DOD sponsors will each conduct an in-depth business case, supported by fact-based evidence for the continued utilization of each committee and consider each committee's mission and function as it relates to the National Defense Strategy and our strategic priorities.

Potential functional realignments to create a single cross-functionary advisory committee, there is -- there is, if you look at the list of committees, which we will make sure you have, you'll see that there is potential overlap in some responsibilities and tasks.

And of course, as I said, they'll look at potential legislative changes to non-discretionary advisory committees to properly align their missions and functions to DOD priorities.

The SecDef also directed -- secretary of defense, excuse me -- also directed that all members currently serving on DOD advisory committees and subcommittees where the secretary or another DOD civilian officer, employee, or active duty member of the armed forces, is the approval authority -- please mute your lines -- is the approval authority for members --

(UNKNOWN): (inaudible).

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Please mute your lines, it would make this a lot easier.

In a case where the secretary or another DOD civilian officer, employee, or active duty member of the armed forces is the approval authority for members, he's directed that they conclude their service on the boards no later than February 16th this year.  So this month.

Members that are appointed by Congress or by the president are retained during this review period, when appropriate following -- when appropriate, following an advisory committee's review and the secretary's decision as to its mission and membership, DOD sponsors will consult with the special assistant to the secretary of Defense for White House Liaison to develop potential member candidates who conform to statuary requirements or the committee's Membership Balance Plan, to ensure future advisory committee and subcommittee appointments comply with all applicable federal statutes and regulations, including our own policies and procedures.

Last thing, and then I'll let you ask questions.  This review will apply to at least 42 committees that currently advise the department across policy, personnel, business, scientific, education, training, health care, and memorial activities.  It is possible that that number of subcommittees and committees could grow, but right now it applies to at least 42.

This review will also direct the component heads to notify (inaudible) -- notify the administration -- the director of Administration and Management of any other committees by March 15th that may be applicable to this, and they'll be subject to the review.  And again, we'll provide you a full list of the 42, we're working on getting you the secretary's memo as well.

So with that, I'll open it up for questions.

Q:  Hey, it's Lita.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Hi, Lita.

Q:  Quick question -- hi.  Quick question, do you have a sense of the number of committee members who would be affected by the February 16th deadline to -- I guess do they resign, or what does that conclude their service, what is that?  Do you know about how many are affected by that, and then how many are affected by the presidential appointments?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  I'll let Defense Official Two talk to that.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL TWO:  Yeah, hi.  In terms of the numbers, we'll get to the exact numbers.  It's in the several hundreds of advisory committee members.  They'll be asked to resign or be dismissed from their service by the sponsor of the board. 

So they'll receive a note or a phone call or a memo from the sponsor of the board, and they'll be asked that -- they'll be told, they'll be thanked, obviously, for their service to the nation, their service to the department.  They'll be asked to depart the board's membership no later than the 16th of February, in line with the secretary's guidance. 

That allows us time to do our zero-based review of the boards.  We're suspending all board activities until that review is completed, and then we'll be renominating, as defense official number one mentioned.  We'll be renominating folks for positions on those boards as they stand back up, as the secretary approves their -- their statutory compliance with balance and other requirements that may be in the statute for nondiscretionary and for discretionary, once again, that serve the purposes of the department and the National Defense Strategy.

So it's in the hundreds, and unfortunately I don't have an exact number, I'll have to get back with you.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Next question?

Q:  This is Phil from Reuters.  Just how much do all these boards cost the taxpayer?  Is there an estimate of that?  And is it -- does the suspension include the boards at like the academies, like the Naval Academy, or other academies?  I know Sean Spicer went to the Navy Academy, and.  Anyway, does it include those as well?  Thanks.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL TWO:  Let me tackle your second question first, about the academies.  The academies are presidentially appointed, so it does not impact presidentially appointed members on the academy's Board of Visitors.  So those are not secretary of defense appointments to those boards, so it does not affect those particular boards, and there are others that it does not affect those particular boards.  And there are others that it does not affect that are statutorily appointed by the president or Congress.  So it doesn't affect congressional appointees or presidential appointees but those appointed by the secretary.

In terms of costs, we believe that the zero-based review will allow us to examine the detailed cost structures associated with maintenance of these boards.  Many of the boards come with congressional appropriation, some do not.  We think that's part of the requirement that we owe the secretary in terms of our review of the zero-based review that looks at the costs.  But I'll have to get back with you on the total cost of the 42 boards that we're talking about.  I'm sure -- I'm sure we can get some historical data on that for you.

Q:  Is -- is it safe to say, in the millions of dollars, or?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  I -- that's kind of a hard guess.  I would say probably between the administrative costs of the boards themselves, the cost -- obviously the members are mostly volunteers or a few appointed staff that support each of the boards, or certainly the larger boards.  So there are costs associated with those boards.  There are travel payments made for board members when they attend meetings, et cetera.

I would say it's in the several millions of dollars.  But once again, I'd have to get back with you in terms of the exact costs.

Q:  Hi, this is Tony Capaccio --

(CROSSTALK)

Q:  -- Quick question from Tony Capaccio.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Yes, Tony.

Q:  Okay.  (inaudible), in terms of the history of the Department, has this ever been done before where there's been a zero-based review of the entire breadth of advisory boards?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL TWO:  To the best of my knowledge, no.

Q:  And are any of these -- we're talking, like, Defense Science Board, the Defense Policy Board and Defense Business Board?  Those are the most well known names.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL TWO:  You're correct.  Yes, sir.  Those are -- those are certainly three of our best well-known boards.

Q:  And one final -- are any of the member -- would you say 99 percent of the members are (inaudible) unpaid volunteers?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL TWO:  That's correct.  There are some --

Q:  Okay.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  -- There are some supported staff that support each of these boards, essentially run board meetings themselves in terms of Robert’s Rules of Order and the administrative costs of managing the boards.  Each of these boards additionally has a designated federal officer provided in support of those boards.  And many of those have contractual discussions in terms of, you know, support for admin notes for setting up meetings, for arranging schedules, et cetera.

Q:  Okay, thank you.

Q:  Hey, it's Luis.  Can I ask, what is the driver for this for you?  Because I think the inference is going to be made by many people that this is driven by the last-minute appointments of -- by individuals from within the Trump administration.  What exactly is the driver for this and how do you respond to that possibility?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Yes, thanks, Luis.  Look, I mean, no question that the secretary was deeply concerned with the pace and the extent of recent changes to memberships of Department advisory committees done with a bit of frenetic activity in the final two months of the previous administration. 

And I think it caused him to -- it gave him pause to consider the broad scope and purpose of these boards and -- and to think about how they can best be aligned and organized and composed to provide competent, technical, professional and -- you know, policy advice to the Department.  And I think -- well, he believes that this review is going to allow him to take a better, deeper look at that and to make sure that the advisory committees are in fact providing the best possible advice, as is their purpose.

Also, though, Luis, and we talked about this a little earlier -- I mean, it does provide an opportunity to look for efficiencies across the work that similar boards do and to balance committee membership in a way that, again, provides him and Department leadership the best possible advice.

Q:  It's Barbara.  Can I ask --

Q:  Does that mean --

Q:  -- Oh, sorry, Luis.

Q:  -- Just one quick one, does that mean that potential Trump appointees may be reappointed and, if so, under what criteria?  Or is that a no-go?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  So I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about -- about reappointments or what -- what the composition of the board -- each board is going to look like.  That's the whole purpose of the zero-based review, so that he can get good recommendations and advice about board compositions.  I just don't want to get ahead of his decision space on that.

Q:  It's Barbara.  Can I ask, does -- I don't know if it's named a board or a commission actually -- the group of people set up by Acting Secretary Miller to work on renaming Confederate bases -- is that included in this?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Yes, Barb.  It is.  And I would just remind everybody that that is -- that is not the same thing as a federal advisory board.  That was a commission set up by Congress in the most recent Defense Authorization Act.  So Congress established that commission -- it's not an advisory board -- four members of which were to be nominated by the secretary of Defense.  The four -- but the intent of this directive by the secretary does, in fact, cover his -- our four names to that commission.  So the --

Q:  So the four people -- the four people named by Miller have to step down?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  The four people named by Acting Secretary Miller will no longer be on this commission.  Secretary Austin will work appropriately with -- with the staff here to rename four -- four members.

Q:  And how -- do you have an estimate on how far behind that would put the work of trying to move ahead with the law to rename these military bases?

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL TWO:  Barbara, this is (inaudible).  The answer is it won't.  By statute, the members would have been named by the 15th of February.  So that's still into the future.  Once again, Congress nominates four; the secretary of Defense nominates four.  The first board meeting is to be held, by statute, by 60 days after the statute -- by 2nd of March.  So right now, the board has not been statutorily named and not had its first meeting.  So it doesn't put it behind schedule at all.

Q:  Thank you.

Q:  Hi, this is Missy Ryan.  Thanks for doing this.  I just have a quick question.  So is the -- the purpose, as I understand it, is to make sure that the boards are, sort of, effectively laid out and that there's not too much overlap and that they serve the right purpose.  But why is it necessary to ask the people to resign while that review is being conducted?  It seems like you -- you know, hypothetically could allow them to continue serving and continuing to provide advice during the review period.

And just -- you addressed this somewhat, but could you just say anything about the criticism that might come from -- you know, people are going to say that this is a purge of Trump.  Just -- if you could, just sort of address that a little bit more directly.  Thanks.

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Well, again, this was driven by -- certainly driven by the secretary's concern at seeing the frenetic activity in the last couple of months of removing people who had been on some of these boards and then replacing them, or just simply adding to them in a quite unprecedented fashion.  And I think that concerned him about the way these boards are composed and the work that they are doing. 

And I think doing it this way, to your question, Missy, the secretary believes is frankly the most equitable, fair, and uniformly consistent way to do it across the department.  It does, as Senior Defense Official Two mentioned, also provide him an opportunity to get a better handle on where there are efficiencies to be had with respect to these board's activities. 

As for what -- as for what that some critics might say about it, I mean, I won't get into addressing, you know, specific criticisms.  He is mindful that that there will be people who may look at this, you know, in a different way than he does.  He certainly respects their right to have that criticism, but he believed that given the frenetic activity, given the rapid changes that were made in just the last few months that this was the most fair, the most equitable, the most uniform way to get a better handle on the board -- these boards' and advisory committees' activities. 

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL TWO:  And this to Defense Official Two, quickly, as to your question about why not the members remain until such time as the deep dive is completed.  The secretary has asked us to suspend operations of all adviser committee boards until such time as the deep dive -- the zero-based budget is completed, with noted exceptions coming the secretary and deputies. 

So therefore retaining the current members doesn't really add value to the department or the taxpayer because we're suspending board operations until completion of the zero-based budget review. 

Q:  OK.  Thanks. 

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Anything else?  OK.  Going once, going twice, embargo lifts at -- in 10 minutes, 14:00. 

Q:  Actually, can I ask one follow-up question?  If you guys -- you guys are going to provide us -- this is Missy again.  If you guys are going to provide us a list of the 42, I think you said, boards which may -- that this applies to, do you have a list of the ones that it doesn't apply to?  Just to make sure that -- I mean, like you said, the service academies and all of that.  Or should we just follow-up with you guys?   

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  We're going to send you the list of what it applies to and we're going to provide you the actual memo that the secretary signed.  That's coming to you just in a heartbeat here.  But I think we're going to focus on what it does apply to. 

And, you know, on the board of visitors, remember, those are those are non-discretionary.  So the members appointed by the president to some of those, like the board of visitors for, say, a service academy, they will still be appointed members of board.  It's just that the board's work will be suspended while the zero-based review is conducted. 

Q:  OK, thanks. 

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Yes. 

Q:  And, hey, (inaudible), it's Lita again.  Is it possible to get an answer on the number of people that this is going to affect?  I know something in the hundreds.  But is it possible to get some of those numbers nailed down? 

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  We will try to drive to that. 

(CROSSTALK)

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  We'll try to drive to that, Lita, yes.  We'll make that -- we'll take that question and we'll get you an answer by COB. 

Q:  OK, thank you. 

SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL:  Yes. 

OK, anybody else?  OK.  Thank you. 

COVID-19 Vaccine

 

Members of a Maryland National Guard mobile vaccination support team provide logistical and medical support to the Cecil County Health Department at a COVID-19 vaccination site in Elkton, Md., Jan. 26, 2021. The Maryland National Guard has been activated to support Maryland's COVID-19 vaccination initiative. The team provides direct support to county health departments to accelerate vaccination efforts.

Sea Ops

 

Sailors aboard the USS Ashland oversee a replenishment with the USNS Alan Shepard in the Philippine Sea, Jan. 27, 2021.

Assisting Residents

Army Pfc. Agajan Bayramov, a heavy truck operator assigned to the 719th Composite Truck Company, 369th Sustainment Brigade, 53rd Troop Command, assists New York residents with safe and orderly registration to support the state's efforts to provide mass COVID-19 vaccinations administered by the New York State Department of Health at the Javits Convention Center in New York City, Jan. 31, 2021. The National Guard has deployed more than 350 guardsmen to help staff the vaccination site.

 

Welcome Home

 

Illinois Air National Guard Senior Master Sgt. Bryan Schoenecke greets his wife and children at Lambert International Airport in St. Louis, Mo., Jan. 23, 2021, upon returning from a a deployment to Africa.

Parallel Paratroopers

 

Soldiers participate in a skijoring exercise at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, Jan. 27, 2021.

Equipment Effort

 

Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Sarianna Murphy, left, and Seaman Parker Kidd conduct maintenance on an emergency breathing air compressor aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the Atlantic Ocean, Feb. 2, 202