Feb. 17, 2021
Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby
PRESS SECRETARY JOHN F. KIRBY: OK, a couple of
things here to kick off and then we'll get right at your questions. Let
me start by highlighting two phone calls Secretary Austin had with his
counterparts in Iraq, following the rocket attacks in Irbil over the
weekend. I think you've seen our readouts from these calls, but I would
like to reiterate them.
Yesterday morning he spoke with the Iraqi Minister of Defense, Juma
Saadoun. In the afternoon, he spoke with the Iraqi Minister of Interior
Othman al-Ghanmi. During the calls they all condemned the attacked
against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and they expressed condolences
for the individual killed, for those wounded, the Iraqi people, and of
course, all the families that are involved here.
They discussed the importance of a robust and expeditious
investigation to hold the perpetrators accountable for the attack. The
leaders also reaffirmed our joint commitment to the strategic
partnership between the United States and Iraq.
Today as you know was Day One of the NATO Defense Ministerial.
Secretary Austin and the other NATO ministers participated in what they
call "interventions", two interventions, two events.
The first intervention discussed deterrents and defense,
burden-sharing and Secretary General Stoltenberg's NATO 2030 Initiative.
The second session discussed Transatlanticism, NATO/E.U. relations, the
resilience of the alliance and emerging and disruptive technologies.
The secretary reaffirmed the president's message that the United States
intends to revitalize our relationship with the alliance and that our
commitment to Article 5 remains ironclad.
Secretary Austin emphasized that NATO's most important task is
protecting our populations and territories by presenting credible
deterrents and a strong military. He also thanked allies for the seventh
consecutive year of growth and defense spending and noted the
importance of continuing to build on this progress, to achieve the
defense investment pledge that all allies made at the 2014 Wales Summit.
The Secretary expressed support for the overarching goals of the NATO
2030 Initiative, which are to ensure the alliance remains strong
militarily, becomes stronger politically, and takes a more global
approach.
Secretary Austin closed his remarks in the second session by
discussing the importance of working across the Alliance to improve
earlier adoption of emerging and disruptive technologies, as well as the
need to protect our supply chains, infrastructure, and technologies for
strategic competitors. He also emphasized the department's commitment
to working with NATO to ensure democratic nations remain global hubs for
innovation. Finally, he thanked our allies for the opportunity to
discuss these important issues and he looks forward to tomorrow's
session as well, where the allies will be discussing the missions in
Afghanistan and Iraq.
On the personnel front – we’ve onboarded now 13 new employees
yesterday, bringing our total to 71. Among those joining the team, I
think you've seen reports about this, are Bishop Garrison, the Senior
Advisor for Human Capital and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion; Joseph
Bryan, Special Assistant to the Secretary as the Senior Advisor on
Climate; Jesse Salazar, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Industrial Policy and Rebecca Zimmerman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia.
Finally, I am pleased to let you know that Secretary Austin will be
right up here with you tomorrow following his second and final day of
the NATO Defense Ministerial. He'll be up here to give you a readout of
that and to take your questions. And with that, I'll take your
questions.
Let's go to Lita on the phone.
Q: Hi, thanks, John. Today is a hearing on a couple of the generals,
Generals Friedrichs and Taliaferro, both talked a little bit about data
the Pentagon apparently has regarding the decision by service members to
take or not take the vaccines. The Pentagon has repeatedly said that
there is no data but today General Friedrichs said not only is there
data, but that they also have it by gender, race, and other categories.
I'm wondering if you are able to get us or provide any details on any
of that? They talked about the general rate is about two-thirds
acceptance but they didn't provide any details on what that involved,
what that includes or the timeline. Can you give us any further clarity
on those numbers?
MR. KIRBY: My understanding, Lita, is that they were speaking to the
same general data set that they have spoken to you before; General
Friedrichs has been at this podium himself talking about this, that we
in the military basically mirror the acceptance rates of the American
society and that's why I think they put it at a broad percentage of
about 33 percent, which is again, consistent with what we said before,
that we're basically seeing a mirroring of American society. But that
it is not, and I believe they went on to say, it is not data that we are
specifically tracking right now and as I've said before, what we are
doing is keeping track of acceptance rates, those who are agreeing to
take the vaccines, but we don't have a system in place across each of
the services to specifically track data with respect to those
individuals who for whatever reason are declining or deferring the
vaccine.
Q: Well just a follow-up. I think I mean acceptance rates, declining
rates, whichever one you have is fine, but they did say that they were
tracking the rates by race and gender. Do you know what period of time
they were talking about in terms of these acceptance rates? Were these
recent? Were these you know a few weeks old? Do you have any sense of
that?
MR. KIRBY: No I don't and that, as I said, my understanding was that
they were again reiterating what they said before, which was that we're
mirroring American society. So I don't have that, Lita. I'm happy to
pulse the joint staff and see if there's more clarity on that.
But as for acceptance, we've administered 88.2 percent of vaccines on
hand as of today. So we've had more than a million doses delivered to
the Defense Department, 1,039,665, to be exact, and we've administered
916,575, and we expect by Friday, by the end of the week, to be over the
one-million mark. So it's not, I hear the argument that you don't get
all the data that you think we should have or want, but this is data
that we have put out before, doses delivered and doses administered and
of those I can update you, if you want. The initial dose is 644,762;
that's the number of people that have had one, and 271,813 individuals
in the department have received their second dose.
OK, Jeff Schogol?
Q: Thank you very much. With all due respect, what you just said is
extremely hard to believe. They gave, they said they have data. They
said they had it by gender. The mirroring society was on claims that
older people are more likely to get the vaccine than younger ones. So I
ask again, why is the Pentagon hiding the data?
MR. KIRBY: Jeff, nobody's hiding data. I appreciate your frustration.
I hear it every time that you ask the question. And I respect it.
Nobody's hiding data. There would be no reason for us to hide data when
we can certainly tell you exactly how many people are getting the
vaccines. If there's something more to what my understanding is of what
was testified today, I promise you I will get it to you.
But nobody's trying to hide anything here. It's in our interest to be
as open and as transparent as we can and we're trying to do that.
People, it's a voluntary vaccine, people decide for themselves if they
want it or not and we have to respect that decision-making process, and
while I understand that there's for data, I hope you'll understand that
our obligation's to make it available to as many members of the military
and their families as we can, as possible, we're going through a very
phased approach to do that, and we're up here almost every day talking
to you about how many people are getting it.
So I'm afraid I take a little issue, Jeff, with your implication that
we are somehow trying to obfuscate or to be less than transparent with
you. We're doing the best we can with the data that we have and that we
know we collect. Tom?
Q: John, to Afghanistan, do we expect the secretary to put a
statement out tomorrow on Afghanistan if he talks with the ministers?
Secretary Stoltenberg has basically said the Taliban haven't made -- met
their commitments so far, they have to do a lot more.
And on Iraq, you say there's going to be an investigation, but do you
-- do you believe it's Iranian-backed militia that shot the rockets
off, are you just trying to determine which one? Just walk us through
that if you could.
MR. KIRBY: So I won't get ahead of the secretary. He's going to
come here tomorrow and talk to you about the -- about his discussions
with the NATO ministers. Tomorrow's -- tomorrow morning's discussion
will include current operations, Afghanistan and Iraq, and I suspect
he'll be able to in his own way characterize that conversation, so I
won't get ahead of that.
On Iraq as the investigation is just starting and both Iraqi
Ministers that the secretary spoke to yesterday said they want to take
this seriously, urgently, but seriously, and they put together an
inspection regime that is akin to what you would consider an interagency
effort, and the secretary pledged our support to that effort in
whatever degree they might want.
So I think it's important that we let that investigation go through
before we -- before any follow-on decisions are made, and I won't speak
to preliminary intelligence estimates here about who might be
responsible for this. You can rest assured that we and our Iraqi
partners are taking a look at this very, very closely, and clearly we
want to have a better understanding of exactly who was responsible.
Q: But the previous attacks, haven't they all been done by Iranian-backed militias?
MR. KIRBY: I can't account for every single one over the last couple
of years, but you're right generally speaking, most of the attacks on
coalition and U.S. facilities in Iraq have come from these Shia-backed
militias, yes.
(UNKNOWN): (inaudible)
MR. KIRBY: OK.
Q: Thank you. Taliban leader -- one of the Taliban leader Mullah
(inaudible) send a letter to the United States on expect from the U.S.
regular (inaudible) authority to withdraw their soldiers in Afghanistan
soon as possible. Do you think that -- what would be U.S. Pentagon
reaction to the Taliban request, and also tomorrow’s NATO conference, do
you think that NATO make decisions to pulling out their soldiers in
Afghanistan?
MR. KIRBY: Well we certainly -- we certainly approve of freedom of
speech. I'm not going to prejudge or get ahead of decisions that
haven't been made yet with respect to force posture in Afghanistan.
I'll say what we've said all along, that we want to see a responsible
and sustainable end to this war, that that has to come through political
settlement. There's a process to try to achieve that. We are also
going through a review of our own of that process of the agreement and
associated compliance issues, and when there's more detail to read out
to you about that process, we certainly will.
But we are committed to a political settlement, and certainly
committed to the original goal for why military operations began in
Afghanistan to begin with, which was to make sure that that country can
never serve as a launching pad for terrorist attacks again in the
future.
Let me go back to the phones here. Sam Legron?
Q: Hi, the carrier presence in the Middle East has been pretty
constant but then it's kind of dropped off; now that the Nimitz left,
nobody's in the neighborhood. Are you all seeing any connections with
dialed back naval presence and then the attack in Irbil, or just general
Iran activity in the region? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Well again, without prejudging the work that's being done
to investigate this attack, I've seen nothing that indicates that the
current lack of an aircraft carrier strike group was in any way
responsible or led to the rocket attack in Irbil.
But again, there's an investigation going on and we want to support
that process. Let's see, I have glasses, I should just use them. Phil
Stewart from Reuters?
Q: Thanks. Secretary Austin in his readout of the call with the
Interior Minister said he was offering support to the investigation by
the Iraqis into the rocket attack. Secretary Blinken said as much as
well.
Have the Iraqis taken up the U.S. on that offer, or are they still
kind of weighing whether or not they want the U.S. involved in this
investigation?
MR. KIRBY: Phil, I'm not aware of any specific requests for
support. The offer was made in good faith, and certainly the secretary
meant every word of it, but I'm aware at this time here one day later
that there's been a specific ask for support with the investigation.
Jenny?
Q: Thank you very much, John, this time I will not give you a hard time. Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: It's all right, I look forward to it every time, how's the tie, it was alright today?
Q: Yes, it’s nice.
MR. KIRBY: All right, good.
Q: It was (inaudible)...
MR. KIRBY: I'll make sure I'm in good shape.
Q: (inaudible)
(LAUGHTER)
Q: On the North Korean issues, OK, on the North Korea, the cyber
hacking crime, the South Korean National Intelligence Office reported
that the North Korean cyber hacking attacked the U.S. Pfizer vaccine
laboratories. Do you have any information on this?
MR. KIRBY: Well you know, Jenny, that I am loathe to talk about
intelligence matters here from the podium, and I am certainly not going
to break that rule today. The only thing I would say -- so I can't
confirm these reports, but we're living through a once in a generation
global pandemic, and there's no country that's unaffected by it, and
what we would like to see is as has been the case almost everywhere
around the world, countries are cooperating and being collaborative and
sharing information to improve the health -- the public health of their
populations, and I think that's -- that kind of cooperation and that
kind of openness is what -- is what we would like to see from everybody.
Q: But if that happened that is very serious, then it -- for the
United States but anything attacked by DOD's Cyber Command, so what does
DOD's Cyber department doing? So why South Korean reporting but you
guys aren’t reporting it?
MR. KIRBY: Yes, I appreciate the go-around at it, again, but I'm
simply not going to get into intelligence issues and I'm -- and I'm not
going to comment on our activities in cyberspace.
Again, I think we want everybody to turn their shoulders to the work of defeating this pandemic around the world.
Yes, Lucas?
Q: Thank you, John. Anne Neuberger said at the White House that the
SolarWinds attack was launched from the United States. Is that why it
wasn't detected for so long?
MR. KIRBY: I haven't seen that report, Lucas. I couldn't give you an accurate answer on that.
Q: Could you update us on the investigation?
MR. KIRBY: I don't -- I don't have an update on the investigation either. I'm sorry. Yes.
Q: Yes. John, as you know Turkey's currently trying to conduct
operations in mountainous areas in North Iraq, and SDF had issued
several statements against Turkey's operations on the PKK controlled
mountains. And of course extract comparatively with them. Isn't there
at least some kind of concern within the department that a group who get
U.S. taxpayers' money he has sometimes links and expressed solidarity
with a designated terrorist organization?
MR. KIRBY: I think you know that our operations in Iraq and Syria
are solely focused on countering the still-lingering threat that ISIS
poses to the Iraqi people and the Syrian people, and that as we have
long said, one of the best ways to ensure a sustainable defeat of ISIS
is to do so through local indigenous forces.
And we are working in Syria with the SDF, and we have -- and we're
working with Iraqis in Iraq. And the goal is as it has been to go after
ISIS. That's the focus.
Q: But is it justified? Does it justify them to express their solidarity with a terrorist group?
MR. KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to get into individual groups here.
We're working with local Syrian democratic forces in Syria to go after
ISIS, and that hasn't changed. And if you're asking me if I think the
taxpayer's well-served by the coalition efforts to defeat ISIS, I would
-- I would say absolutely they are. This is a group that is greatly
diminished from what it was the last time I was standing up here at this
podium in 2014 and 2015. And while they are still a threat, they are a
shadow of what they once were.
And you know why? Because it's been an international coalition with
local partners on the ground that have proven capable and competent in
going after them. So if you're -- again, if you're asking me if the
money and the resources have been well-spent, and the cost in blood as
well, which is certainly a high cost as well, you know, when you look at
what ISIS has become today, it's hard to make the case that this wasn't
worth the effort.
Joe?
Q: Thank you. I would like to get your reaction about what happened
yesterday over Saudi Arabia. As you may know, the Houthis as are
escalating their attacks against Saudi Arabia. Yesterday Riyadh
intercepted and destroyed the northern drone with explosives. I was
wondering what are the Pentagon's efforts here given your commitments
with Riyadh? What are the Pentagon's efforts to counter the distress
coming from the Houthis?
MR. KIRBY: Well we've long said that we condemn attacks against
Saudi Arabia, and as the president himself has made clear we remain
committed to helping Saudi Arabia defend itself. These kinds of attacks
violate international law and the undermine efforts to promote peace
and stability in the region, and as I've said before we're going to
continue to work together and to look for better ways to defend the
kingdom from these external threats while revitalizing diplomacy to try
to end the Yemen conflict.
Let me get to somebody here. I'm going to use my glasses this time.
It's easier even though they've written in really big text.
Tony from Bloomberg.
Q: Hi there, John. Maybe it's time to get cataract surgery, huh? I have a question on the budget and I have a question on...
MR. KIRBY: Getting all kinds of useful advice.
(LAUGHTER)
Q: On the budget, what's your latest guesstimate for when the skinny
budget will be out, and will it be solely the '22 budget or a five-year
plan? And then I had a follow up on the JEDI cloud project.
MR. KIRBY: Yes. So, Tony, we're working with OMB right now, but I
don't have anything to share specifically with respect to timing until
the budget's going to be delivered to Congress, and what was your second
question?
Q: OK. The second question is on the JEDI cloud, the very
contentious JEDI cloud project. Is DOD considering canceling the JEDI
cloud project if the judge presiding over the U.S. Court of Appeals --
federal claims case as soon as this week allows Amazon's latest conflict
of interest allegations to stand and proceed to a deposition phase?
Would DOD -- is DOD considering just canceling the contract and starting
from scratch?
MR. KIRBY: What the department has consistently stated in all our
court filings and public communications as well is that the allegation
of improper influence is not supported. As we stated before, if the
court denies the government's motion we will most likely be facing an
even longer litigation process, and the DOD Chief Information Officer
will reassess the strategy going forward.
There is no predetermined outcome right now, Tony, on where the department may land if that reassessment becomes necessary.
Q: Can you give me a sense of like how many options are being mulled? I mean, is it three or four or just a couple right now?
MR. KIRBY: Well look, in addition to the JEDI cloud effort, there
are 13 significant cloud acquisition efforts that are underway right now
to address our department's current cloud requirements. Technology
will continue to develop, and we're learning lessons every day from all
these initiatives, but right now there's 13 other ongoing initiatives.
Q: OK, fair enough. Thank you, John.
MR. KIRBY: You bet. Nancy Youssef?
Q: Thank you. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I just want to
come back to the COVID vaccination numbers. You mentioned that there
isn't tracking of those who've declined, but in the USNI story on
Friday, the admiral in charge of personnel not only said that they were
tracking but that they were using those and surveying people who
declined to figure out why they wouldn't get more people to take the
vaccine.
And so, I just wanted to ask if there was a way for us to get a
number -- the numbers of those who've declined by services? It appears
that they're keeping them. And just a request of any information put
out that vaccines that statistic go to their entire press corps. Thank
you.
MR. KIRBY: On your second point, Nancy, and I'm up here every day
giving you the number of doses delivered and administered. If -- and
certainly that's knowable information, and if it's something that we
need to push to you every day we can do that. That's not -- that's not
difficult. That is knowable.
Back on the -- on the numbers of those who decide not to get it, as I
said it's possible that some commands and maybe even some services have
a better sense, but at the Department of Defense, at the OSD level, and
the level that we're operating here, we don't have a central tracking
data mechanism to do that.
So we can certainly refer you to the individual services to speak to
this, but it's not something, as I've said before, that we -- that we
have some sort of central tracking mechanism for.
Yes, sir?
Q: So on the -- just on the...
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: (inaudible) Wait, hang on. Sorry, go ahead?
Q: I was just going to say when -- on the stats, the reason I'm
asking is sometimes when questions are taken it only goes to the
reporter, and so on that specific one I'd just like any clarity if
possible provided to all of us as well?
MR. KIRBY: OK, noted, thank you.
Q: (OFF MIKE) I understand that the U.S. and Iraqis I guess also
are saying that people who are responsible for the attack on Irbil will
be held accountable? Is it different than the previous equation that
whoever is going to attack us we are going to retaliate? Is retaliation
off the table?
MR. KIRBY: Again, I -- there's an investigation going on, I'm not
going to get ahead of that and the results of that. As we've said
before, our forces and our commanders always have the right of self
defense. I'm not going to prejudge specific results or outcomes as a
result of what we learn from this investigation. I just won't do that.
Lara?
Q: Thanks, John. So I just wanted to follow up on Iraq. I -- in
the previous -- the previous times that this kind of thing has happened,
CENTCOM has attributed the attacks to specific groups and linked them
to Iran very quickly. So I'm just wondering what's making the
difference this time? Is just the evidence just not there yet, and --
or is there some kind of policy change that they need more evidence to
attribute that -- an attack so specifically?
MR. KIRBY: Each case is different. I can't speak for the speed with
which previous rocket attacks were attributable. I can only speak to
the one we're talking about this weekend, and I think there's a process
ongoing to try to get better information about who is accountable for
this.
There is, as I said, an investigation going on that we've pledged
support to if they -- if they would want that support, and then as my
colleague at the State Department said yesterday, if and when there's a
response it'll be at a time and place of our choosing in cooperation and
consultation with our Iraqi partners.
But I can't speak to speed. Obviously -- and I think I mentioned
this at the top, that I think everybody is angered by this, everybody
feels a sense of urgency about it, you know, an individual was killed
and there's a grieving family right now and there are other families
worried about their loved ones who were hurt. Sadly this isn't the
first time that we've seen this. And so we -- while we certainly --
there is a sense of urgency, there's also a real strong interest in
being sure that we're deliberative in the process here, and the
decision-making process, and that we are in lockstep with our Iraqi
partners as we work through that process.
Q: Is that a change from previously? Because CENTCOM meet with --
immediately would post photos of evidence that they found and my
understanding is that the investigators have already found the launching
trucks. So I'm wondering why that isn't out there in the public sphere
yet and if that's a change in policy?
MR. KIRBY: I can't speak to -- again, previous policy, so you're
asking if it's a change; I can only speak to how we're treating this
particular attack. I would not read into the manner in which that we're
going about this as some sort of policy derivative. It is -- it is --
it just happened over the weekend, we've reached out both at the State
Department and at the Defense Department to our Iraqi counterparts, and
they're working their way through this.
And they've made it very clear to Secretary Austin that they're
taking this investigation seriously, that they didn't -- they didn't
waste any time getting after it. And we want to give them - them the
time and space that they need to investigate it, OK?
MR. KIRBY: Let me go back on the phones here. Jeff Seldin from VOA?
Q: Thank you very much for doing this. A two-part Afghanistan
question. First part, in the new -- since the Department of Inspector
General report on Afghanistan that was out today, it cites DIA
intelligence as saying that members of Al-Qaeda have been integrated
into the Taliban's command and control structure in Afghanistan. So is
that compatible with the terms of the U.S. deal with the Taliban?
And part two, just the other week, CENTCOM Commander General McKenzie
was saying that ISIS in Afghanistan, ISIS Khorasan, has been able to
stabilize; wondering is that stabilization an indication that the
Taliban had kind of eased up on the pressure they had been applying on
ISIS, something that CENTCOM had said they had been doing effectively
about a little over a year ago when they were losing ground in
Afghanistan?
MR. KIRBY: So both those questions really get to the issue of
compliance with the deal, because as you know, in the deal that the
Taliban committed to renouncing ties to Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda affiliated
groups, and I'm just not going to, today, get into an assessment of
compliance with the deal.
As I said, that agreement is under review by this administration. We
want to do that again in a deliberative fashion, and I'm simply not
going to prejudge whatever outcomes we -- whatever findings we come to
as we work through that review.
Yes, Meghann?
Q: Are there any numbers available on the number of vaccine doses
that have been distributed down range and are deployed troops part of
the same prioritization scheme as they would be if they were back home
in terms of essential personnel, critical national security
capabilities, that sort of thing?
MR. KIRBY: They are factored into the schema, I don't have that -- I
don't think I have that in front of me, let me just check to make sure
if I do. I thought I did. I don't have the schema, but they are -- I
mean, deploying and deployed personnel are prioritized. I can -- I need
to get you a better, more specific answer, I just don't have it in
front of me in terms of where they are in that scheme.
But obviously from the very beginning I mean we knew that troops that
we're getting ready to deploy were going to have to be prioritized.
And now that more vaccines have become available, there has been
additional capacity to provide them to troops that are downrange as it
-- as it is, but let me get back to you on where they actually are in
the -- in the tiers and whether we can nail down by a combatant
commander. I don't have that data with me right now.
Q: And if there's anything about how many -- roughly how many have gone out to the people who are deployed?
MR. KIRBY: To deployed personnel?
Q: Yes.
MR. KIRBY: OK, I'll see if we -- I'll see if we have that, Meghann.
I don't -- I don't know if I've got that here and I don't want to take
up more time.
Yes, sir?
Q: Thank you. Yesterday there was a video posted on Twitter about
Indian and American soldiers dancing on the Hindu festival, Basant
Panchami, that's a Hindu goddess of learning (inaudible). Did that
backdrop -- I would like to ask you about the India-U.S. defense
relationship in the next four years. Has the secretary -- do you know
how this defense relationship is and how does he want to take it
forward?
MR. KIRBY: It's a very important bilateral relationship that we have
and particularly military-to-military relations. India is a critical
partner, especially when you consider all of the challenges in the
Indo-Pacific region and what I can tell you plainly is that the
Secretary is prioritizing this relationship, wants to see it continue to
grow and develop and to get stronger and he's very much looking forward
to working on initiatives to do just that.
Q: I have a follow-up on what you mentioned on Indo-Pacific. There's a
report in the Japanese press about a Quad leadership summit in the
works. Does the Secretary support the leadership summit from the Quad
countries?
MR. KIRBY: I haven't seen the press report so I can't speak to this
specific report but if you're asking if we would be supportive of
gatherings of as you call it "the Quad countries" absolutely he would,
sure.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Yes, sir.
Q: Thank you. I have two questions. First, since the Japanese
government announced yesterday that Japan and the United States agreed
to keep Japan's cost of stationing of U.S. forces in the country at
around the current rate until 2021. Do you have any comments on the cost
sharing agreement? And secondly, do you think Japan should pay more for
things the U.S. forces after 2022?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to get into hypothetical future issues in
that regard. Japan, our alliance with Japan has really never been more
resolute or essential in the region and the secretary believes that
firmly and deepening that defense relationship is a top priority for
both nations. We continue to train and exercise together to improve our
interoperability and strengthen our capabilities.
As to the details of this agreement, I would refer you to my
colleagues at the State Department. But obviously separate from that,
we're very grateful for the support that we get from the Japanese
government and again, very much look forward to deepening and
strengthening that bilateral relationship and our security commitments
underneath the alliance.
I have time for just a couple more. Back there.
Q: Hey John. Nick Schiffrin from PBS News Hour. One on Afghanistan
about conditions. I know you don't want to prejudge but there's a
difference between the public and private aspects of the February 29th
deal and as you know the February 29th deal does talk about Al Qaeda,
talks about negotiations with the Afghan government, but it doesn't use
the word "violent", it doesn't use the word "attacking the city". So
what are these conditions that you're going to be basing whether the
Taliban are adhering to, and if I could just quickly ask about that
sexual assault; Senator Gillibrand, Representative Spier sent a letter
asking for the Sexual Assault Commission to be outside DOD. Candidate
Biden said that he wanted outside experts. Are either of those options
being considered? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: On your first question, I think that's what we're hoping
the Center Agency Review will help drive us to is first of all we want
to assess the agreement itself. We weren't in the seat when that
agreement was signed. We want to take a look at the compliance
mechanisms of it, so again, I'm not going to get into an assessment of
that right now. And I think all of that will help inform to your point
what the conditions ought to be; when we say where any withdrawal will
be conditions-based, we're still doing the homework on that.
And then on your other question, the secretary did receive initial
reports from the services as he asked for by the 5th of February. He's
working himself through those reports and I suspect you'll hear
something more from us soon about the makeup of the commission and how
it will be actualized and implemented going forward. I just don't have
anything to announce today.
Q: But you're saying there's no decision made on whether there could be outside experts or where it will live exactly?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have anything to announce today in terms of the
makeup of the commission and how it's going to perform its necessary
functions. So rather than get ahead of decisions that the secretary
hasn't put his pen to yet, I think I'm just going to defer for now. But I
will tell you that again he was informed by the work he asked the
Services to do and I do think you'll hear from us relatively soon on
sort of what that's going to look like and how it's going to take shape.
Okay? Lucas?
Q: On the coronavirus vaccine, when are you going to make it mandatory?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we've talked about this, Lucas. I mean it's not –
it's under emergency use authorization right now. It doesn't – achieved
final FDA approval and so there's a real limit legally that we have to
make it mandatory for our troops and their families; that's why it's a
voluntary basis right now. I don't have a timeline on that.
Q: And are you disappointed that more service members aren't rolling up their sleeves?
MR. KIRBY: We want to – obviously the secretary's concern is
primarily for the health and safety of the force and he's taken the
vaccine and he did that after talking to his doctor and determining that
it was the right choice for him, both for his own personal health and
the health of his family as well as what he believed was to improve his
ability to do the job, to make him a ready round, if you will.
But he recognizes that these are individual decisions and that
individuals need to have these conversations with their doctors to
determine if it's the right thing for them. He would encourage and he
has encouraged the men and women of the department to get on the CDC
website, read the studies about these vaccines, look at the safety
monitoring that they've gone through and again, to talk to their person
physicians. Everybody is different and we want, what the secretary wants
is for the men and women of the department to make the best and most
informed decision for them and for their health and the health of their
families.
Okay. Thanks, everybody. Appreciate it.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you.
Q: Have you been vaccinated yet?
MR. KIRBY: Have I?
Q: Yes.
MR. KIRBY: I have received one dose.
Q: Oh.
MR. KIRBY: I’m supposed to receive my second one soon.
Q: Great. When did the secretary receive the vaccine?
MR. KIRBY: He received his first one, I don't know the exact date but
it was before he took office and his second one shortly after becoming
secretary; I think it was in the first week or so of his tenure.
Q: Will it be offered to the press corps as well?
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: (inaudible) -- for you on that right now.
Posts
