Marine Corps Cpl. Erika Mendoza, an administrative specialist with the Installation Personnel Administration Center, Headquarters Battalion, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, volunteers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, Feb. 17, 2021.
Feb. 23, 2021
PRESS SECRETARY JOHN F. KIRBY: Hey, everybody. I actually don't have anything to open up with this morning, so Bob, I think you're on, we'll go with you.
Q: OK, thank you -- thank you, John. A question about -- on the Afghanistan policy review that's underway. Is Secretary Austin going to, or already consulted, directly with President Ghani about the May 1 deadline? And also, is he going to consult or has already consulted directly with General Dunford regarding the Afghan Study Group analysis and recommendation on this?
MR. KIRBY: Bob, I don't believe he's had a conversation with General Dunford about the study group -- he's certainly aware of the group's findings and the -- and the tenor of the report -- but we have obviously been in constant communication with our Afghan partners about the review process and how we're working our way through that.
And as the Secretary said on Friday, we're mindful of looming deadlines here and -- and everybody shares the sense of -- of alacrity when it comes to working our way through this review but we want to do it in a thoughtful, deliberate way, to make sure that we're -- that whatever decisions are made, they're the best ones, that are in our best national security interests and the -- certainly the security interests of our allies and partners, and that includes the Afghan people.
Q: So is he going to talk to General -- I mean President Ghani about it?
MR. KIRBY: I -- I don't have a -- a -- a future conversation to announce here today but obviously we'll keep you posted as he continues to consult with our allies and partners. OK, let's see. Missy?
Q: Hi -- hi, John, thanks for doing this. I just have a quick question, and apologies if I missed this. Senator Klobuchar said this morning in the Capitol riot hearing that there was going to be another hearing next week, including people from Department of Defense -- witnesses. I'm just wondering if you could tell us who is going to be doing that and any info on that? Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: I don't have a list of names, Missy. I'll try to get that for you and we'll we'll let you know when we have some names to announce as a part of that but I don't have it today.
Q: OK, thanks.
MR. KIRBY: OK, in the room. Yeah?
Q: Two things. One ...
MR. KIRBY: There's always two things.
(Laughter.)
Q: I'm sorry, you always have (inaudible) -- tell me about this. Well yesterday, it seems like there's -- there's been some confusion. Your statements were clear, you're still waiting for the investigation into the attacks in Iraq. State Department spokesperson Ned Price seemed to be saying that there is evidence the weapons used in the Erbil attack were provided by Iran and were made by Iran. Can you clarify this issue? And then I have a broader question on ...
MR. KIRBY: I've -- I've taken a look at ...
Q: ... (inaudible), there was a follow up by a journalist when he first answered the question and it's -- it's not really clear whether he was referring to Erbil specifically but because he mentioned it in saying that weapons provided by Iran and Iranian-made weapons.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I mean, I'm looking at what he said yesterday and his final comment on it was, and I'm quoting him, "I'm saying that, broadly speaking, we have seen that many of these attacks have used Iranian-made, Iranian-supplied weaponry."
I don't want to -- I mean, it's not -- I -- I -- I would point you to Ned to -- to -- to -- for more context here but the impression I took away was he was saying the same thing I've said from this podium, which is that in the past, we have seen, in these attacks, historically by Shia-backed militias, that they do use Iranian rockets, Iranian weapons, but we aren't making -- we aren't -- you know, right now, we're not able to give you a certain attribution as to who -- who was behind these attacks, what groups, and I'm not going to get into the tactical details of every bit of weaponry used here. Let's let the investigations complete and conclude, and then when we have more to say, we will.
Q: And -- and -- and the attack on Erbil and -- and the embassy, is -- is the U.S. in possession of any of the fragments or weapons used? Were you able to collect...
MR. KIRBY: I'm not aware. I'm not aware of that. I mean, I -- I'd ask you to go to our Iraqi partners for that, or if you want to, you know, talk to Operation Inherent Resolve, they might have more detail. I don't have that kind of information.
Q: The -- the -- the broader question is, the previous administration pulled out from Iran nuclear deal, which was, you know, a deal that the U.S. had with major powers. Now, the new administration, the Biden administration's saying, "We need to review the deal with Taliban." Is the department concerned at all that this will create some kind of confidence deficit, when it comes to U.S. commitments to treat -- not treaties -- to -- to any deals or agreements with international powers or with other groups?
MR. KIRBY: You're getting me into State Department territory here. I mean, that's -- that's not the kind of thing we would talk to you from this podium, in -- in terms of international deals and agreements.
Q: Yes, I understand. (inaudible)...
MR. KIRBY: Let me finish. I'm not going to talk about the Iran deal or what the administration is saying. That's really more for my colleague, Ned, to talk to, not -- not me.
But to Afghanistan in particular, I think it's perfectly reasonable, when you have a new administration coming in, to want to take a look at the Doha Agreement, which was agreed to before this administration took office. So perfectly understandable, given the stakes in Afghanistan, for us to want to come in and take a look at that and to look at the issues of compliance, and to try to make informed decisions about what the best way ahead is. And -- and that is, honestly, where we are right now; in -- in the midst of this interagency review. And you heard the secretary himself talk about this on Friday. We're taking it very seriously.
And so, to your broader question about messaging and confidence, I think -- we would hope that people would feel a sense of confidence that we are taking this so seriously; that we want to dive into the details and better understand it, mindful of our security commitments around the world, and particularly, to our Afghan partners.
OK?
Q: Could I just go back to...
MR. KIRBY: Sure.
Q: ... the Iraq aspect of it again, in Erbil and Baghdad. It's the Iraqis that are conducting the investigation, right?
MR. KIRBY: That's correct.
Q: And have they asked for any help from the U.S. in conducting that -- that...
MR. KIRBY: I'm not aware of any specific requests for support. The secretary offered that when he spoke a couple of weeks ago with both the minister of interior and the minister of defense; not aware that they have actually asked for anything. But I would point you to OIR. They're probably the best people to ask for the specifics.
But this is -- it's an Iraqi investigation. Both gentlemen made that clear, that they wanted to do this and that they were going to do it, you know, in a -- in an expeditious way, but a careful way, and so we're going to -- we're going to see how that shakes out.
Q: OK, thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Yes, ma'am?
Q: When is the Pentagon going to release installation-based vaccine rates and the breakdown between service members and civilians who are getting vaccines at each place, and ships, and locations?
MR. KIRBY: Why are you -- why are you sighing, Meghann?
(Laughter.)
Q: I have asked so many times (inaudible)...
(CROSSTALK)
Q: There's a lawyer somewhere who says no, so...
MR. KIRBY: I -- I don't know that there's any plan to release installation-specific figures, but we have provided -- and I, you know, I can provide you what we have at our level, which is how many doses that the DOD has -- and I can get that for you now if you want it.
Q: But I mean, how do I know that any doses are going to a certain installation, or how fast they're going, or -- I mean, isn't that, like, a good progress, to see, like, how many people are getting -- how many service members, how many civilians, you know, front-line personnel are receiving vaccines? And if we don't know how it's being distributed, I think that that's kind of like an -- it's a question that needs to be kind of discussed...
MR. KIRBY: We've -- we've walked you guys through before, the -- the tiers and -- and how -- how we're prioritizing who gets the vaccine by their function. We don't do it -- wait -- hang on a second. It's not something that -- the tiers aren't determined geographically so much. They're determined by, you know, what your role is. So front-care healthcare -- front-line healthcare workers, you know, have been getting it first, and then we move through these, we call it a schema, but we move through these tiers appropriately. And it changes based on size of installations and numbers of deploying units. I mean, so not every place in the DOD is going through these exactly the same way, but roughly, you know, roughly, it corresponds. And I just don't have, you know I know you -- you don't like the answer, but I don't have it broken down by individual bases.
I would certainly point you to the services. Each of the services probably have a better sense of how they are working their way through these tiers. But I don't have that at the DOD level.
Q: Have there been, like, individual stories? Like, certain commanders will say, "Oh, we're at 80 percent", or...
MR. KIRBY: Right.
Q: ... "We just did a drive."
MR. KIRBY: Right.
Q: It doesn't kind of say -- you know, for a local community to know what the vaccine rollout among the DOD within that...
MR. KIRBY: Right.
Q: ... installation. They -- they're totally in the dark, too.
MR. KIRBY: Each -- so we've had this discussion before when we were -- and hopefully you saw my email about what we are tracking, and what we aren't tracking. But it's certainly understandable that a local commander, the commanding officer of a squadron, of, you know, aircraft squadron or the commanding officer of a smaller base somewhere would have a pretty good understanding of how his or her troops are getting the vaccine. And that's perfectly reasonable for them to have that data, and there's no restriction by DOD for them to talk to that data.
What I'm saying, and I've said before, is that I can give you a broad overall acceptance rates from DOD, but I would point you to an individual base commander or an individual unit commander, as well as the services, for more specifics from what they're doing. But we don't -- it's not -- that's not something that I can give you here from...
Q: It's just weird, because, like, the VA, you can go online and see at each hospital how many people have been vaccinated, but the DOD can't say...
MR. KIRBY: I can tell you right now. We've administered, as of today, 1,022,407 doses; 684,497 of those are first doses, 337,910 are second doses. I can't be more precise than that. I mean, if you want to find out what it's looking like at Naval Air Station Pensacola, then, Imean, certainly, they -- they might have a better sense of how they're doing there in Pensacola. But that's not the kind of data that would -- would -- would bubble up to -- to my level right now.
Ma'am?
Q: OK, here's the rub: We have that -- you can go on CDC website. There's a good tracker for that, as well. The problem is I, probably other reporters have been asking not necessarily by base, but service members, contractors, civilians -- that sort of breakdown.
MR. KIRBY: Right.
Q: We've heard from OSD, I've heard from OSDPA, I've heard from a defense official. The Office of the General Counsel says, "We don't want to release that information, we're not tracking it."
However, when a bunch of Pentagon officials went to the Hill last week, they were very easily able to trot out a statistic about how many troops, uniformed service members have been vaccinated. So the question is, they were able to say that in public; where's the disconnect between these broad DOD numbers and someone in this office somewhere who has the number of troops -- I mean, one would assume also the number of civilians and contractors as well?
MR. KIRBY: So get out your pen.
Q: I'm ready.
MR. KIRBY: OK.
Q: I'm recording this, too.
MR. KIRBY: I figured.
STAFF: All right, those are the cases. Numbers here. Total administered, yeah. These are all for each service.
MR. KIRBY: Right, but that's just troops, right?
STAFF: Yes, sir. This is uniformed members.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, that's right.
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: So I can give you military component numbers. Actually, we have civilians down here too, it looks like.
Q: This would be a good thing to send out in the follow-up e-mail to everybody, instead of you having to read every one of these numbers and...
STAFF: Sir, we can take that for action…
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q: Yeah, that would be great, thank you.
MR. KIRBY: See if you can do that…
Q: Do you have it broken down by dependents?
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: But Meghann , what you were beating up on me last week about was the comment that, 30 -- you know, or somehow an extrapolation of 33 percent are saying no. And hopefully my e-mail cleared that up, that's not being tracked.
Q: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: So what you're asking me today is completely different than what you were beating me up last week about.
Q: I wasn't asking about that last week, personally. The reason people were asking is that, again, that group of senior defense officials went to the Hill and said, "We have 30 percent." And you say we're not tracking that. So my question is not whether you are lying to us...
MR. KIRBY: Question...
(CROSSTALK)
Q: ... it is where they're getting that from.
MR. KIRBY: I think they clarified themselves in the hearing, saying that they were -- they were extrapolating based on -- saying -- based on an estimate that in general, we were matching the civilian society, in general.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: Is that not a terrible idea to tell the Congress?
MR. KIRBY: That's not for me to say.
Q: That's the thing, that turns into the story. And, like, is that even true? Apparently maybe it isn't even true because that's something that they just pulled out. They're like, "Oh well," you know...
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: All I can tell you -- all I can tell you, Meghann, is what I got.
Q: Yeah.
MR. KIRBY: And the raw numbers that we've got.
Q: And that's what we're trying to get down to the nitty-gritty of, is like where'd that number come from, why do they have it, you don't have it. Now we understand that's something they fudged? I don't...
MR. KIRBY: I can only speak for what I can give you, and that's what I'm giving you, the overall numbers. I mean, you know, we passed a million today. And as I think I articulated last week, on Friday in my e-mail to you, is to help you understand why we don't have numbers of people that...
(CROSSTALK)
Q: I understand it's a legal issue...
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: ... aren't getting the vaccine.
Q: Yes.
MR. KIRBY: It's not just a legal issue, it's a health issue. Some people just aren't allowed to get it by their own doctors, it's not just that they don't -- you know, I think that the assumption is, well, it's just people that just don't want it. That's true in some cases, but not in every case.
All right. Have we exhausted this one? OK.
Let me go back to the phones. Tony?
Q: Hi, John. I have a non-vaccine question. What's the status of the '22 budget in terms of a skinny budget release? And has the Pentagon received from OMB the ‘pass-back’ document that lays out what its budget allocation will be for 2022?
MR. KIRBY: We're working with OMB, Tony, but I don't have anything to share right now about the possibility of a skinny budget. Nothing to share, really, until the budget is delivered. I'm sorry, what was your second question?
Q: The second question is, has OMB sent to the Pentagon the document known as the ‘pass-back’ document that lays out what your topline is going to be for FY '22? That's normally the -- kind of the starting point of the back-and-forth.
MR. KIRBY: I'm not aware that that has gotten to the Pentagon, Tony, but I'll -- I'm happy to ask that question.
Q: Can I ask one other, one -- do you expect anything from the National Security Council by way of a toned-down National Security Strategy that will guide Secretary Austin's budget recommendations?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not aware of that -- a document like that, such as you described it, is forthcoming, Tony. I would point you to the White House and the National Security Council for an answer to that question.
But as the secretary has said himself, I mean, he's -- we're just beginning the budget process. Certainly it will be informed by the existing National Defense Strategy and as he had testified in the Congress, we would expect the new administration to develop a new National Security Strategy, which will drive a new National Defense Strategy. But we're just not there yet.
Q: OK, for -- for the next session, could you at least have a sense of when a realistic expectation for when the budget will be dropped? You know, is it going to be in April or May in general, for the next session that you do?
MR. KIRBY: I will do my best, Tony, but no promises.
Q: Understood, thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah. OK. Lara Seligman?
Q: Hey, John. I wanted to ask you actually about Turkey. I'm wondering if anything came up last week specifically at the -- the NATO meeting about the relationship with Turkey, and are they sort of renewing pressure on a couple of the different things that have been issues in the past? For instance to get back into the F-35 program, to ease sanctions over the S-400 or -- or to stop -- the U.S. stopping supporting the SDF?
MR. KIRBY: I would point you to NATO to speak to specifics about other agenda items. I thought the secretary did a good job reading out to you what -- what he was focused on.
And then there's been no change to the administration's policy with respect to the F-35 and the S-400. Again, we urge Turkey not to move ahead with the delivery of the S-400. We believe it's incompatible with the F-35, and Turkey remains suspended from that program. Again, we urge them not to retain it.
I would remind that they had multiple opportunities over the last decade to purchase the Patriot defense system from the United States, and instead chose this S-400, which provides Russia revenue, access, and influence.
Here in the room. Yeah?
Q: Abraham Mahshie, Washington Examiner. So the Green Zone rocket attack, the Erbil attack, is the approach of having the Iraqi government do those investigations different from the last administration, where it seems as though the Department of Defense was quicker to lay blame on Iran for backing these militias?
And I ask you this question because right now, the administration is interested in renewing nuclear negotiations with Iran, and so may not want to upset Iran by blaming them for attacks on bases where U.S. troops are housed in Iraq?
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I dealt with this yesterday, so I'd point you back to what -- how -- how we -- we talked about it yesterday, but I think you can see from the comments that my State Department colleague made yesterday, nobody's -- nobody's backing away from the significant security challenges that Iran still poses in the region, and we've not been bashful about that at all.
And nobody, also, is in a rush to judgment here on these particular attacks. As Ned said, you know, historically we have seen these attacks from Shia-backed militias on our facilities, our people and those of the Iraqis, as well, being conducted with weaponry, rockets, that have Iranian origin. I mean, that's not -- that's not new. We've seen that in the past.
But we had a very good discussion with our Iraqi partners a couple of weeks ago, in the wake of the Erbil attacks. They made it very clear to the Secretary that they're taking this seriously and they want the chance to investigate it for themselves so that, you know, proper accountability can be held and we're going to let them do that.
I understand the interest in trying to point to some larger policy process here but this has nothing to do with any diplomatic efforts that may or may not be happening, it has to do with trying to make sure we judge accountability the right way, and – and that's what the Secretary wants to give our Iraqi partners the time and space to do.
Q: And does that represent a change, having Iraq lead ...
MR. KIRBY: I don't know. You were here before me, I don't know. I -- I can't speak to what the previous administration and how they handled these things and ...
Q: ... Department of Defense.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah but I wasn't in the Department of Defense before the 20th of January, so I can't speak to Department of Defense equities or decisions or policies before this administration took office. I can only speak for what we've been doing and that's what I just did.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: OK. Yeah?
Q: Prime Minister of Israel gave a speech today, talked obviously about Iran and their proxies. In one part, which is following up on the issue of Shia militias, said that they have the policy of not allowing the entrenchment of militias north of their borders and Iran north of Israel borders.
One, is the U.S. on the same page with Israel on this policy? Are we helping them on this one? Do you want to help them in not allowing the Iranians and Iranian proxies to be entrenched on the northern border of Israel?
MR. KIRBY: I -- you're giving me comments there for the first time. I'm not going to react to policy pronouncements by -- you know, by another country here without -- without having more context about it. So I'm going to have to defer comment on that until we can get a chance to look at these comments. OK? Yeah?
Q: Just to follow up on what Pierre just asked, so does the Pentagon have concerns that Iran will be using its proxies, such as Hezbollah, to exercise some political pressure, especially that ...
MR. KIRBY: Political pressure where?
Q: You know, that -- that the administration's trying to renew the deal -- Iranian deal ...
MR. KIRBY: Again, I -- you know, as much as I'd love to be able to speak for another country's motivations, it's just not my place.
Q: No, but do you have concerns that Iran will be using its proxies in a way that… ...
MR. KIRBY: We have concerns that they are using their proxies in the region to sow insecurity and instability and terrorism. I mean, their malign activities in the region are a matter of record and nothing has changed about our desire to be able to address those malign activities in the appropriate way.
As for their motivations, if -- you know, in terms of affecting political or diplomatic discussions, that's something -- that's a question you should put to Tehran. OK, let's see who else we've got here. Tara?
Q: Hi, John, thanks -- thanks for doing this. Just a follow up on the extremism -- you know, their -- and Missy’s question with the role of the National Guard potentially on January 6th. What's the status of any sort of deep dive on the National Guard's role and will the Secretary be briefed or be briefing Congress on the issue? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: The -- what's -- what's -- a -- a deeper dive on the National Guard's role, is that what you asked?
Q: Yes. You know, as -- the briefing this morning raised the issue again, the -- the Capitol Police Chief mentioned that it surprised him that the National Guard troops could not get there earlier. I realize that this happened before the Biden administration came in but has there been a look within the Defense Department really at what caused that delay and any further explanation you might be providing Congress? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: So as I understand it, that's -- you know, the DOD IG is looking at this and that work continues. I certainly wouldn’t -- couldn't and wouldn't speak for them or what they're learning. I know they'll do a thorough job and -- and to the degree that they can, they'll make public their findings.
We look forward to seeing what they learn. Our focus right now, having come into office, is, you know, inheriting a mission on Capitol Hill that the National Guard still is conducting to make sure that we are -- that we are meeting the requirement for those forces, that it's properly tailored and scoped to the mission itself, and to the need for them to be there.
And you heard the Secretary talk about this Friday. I mean, our plans are still to conclude this mission on the 12th of March. We're not in receipt of a request for an extension right now and the last thing I'd say is what he said to those soldiers, that he doesn't want them to be up there one day longer than they're needed.
Luis?
Q: Hey, John. A question about the 60 day stand down. It's been three weeks now since the Secretary directed that the stand downs take place across the military but in checking with the services, it sounds like they're all still prepping the program or the -- the instructions that are going to be used individually at the unit level.
And I know that the memo states that service secretaries can be given discretion of extending this by another 60 days. Has that entered the equation? Do you have any information about how many -- across the board, about how many units have already conducted this type of stand down and what has been learned?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have data on how many commands have actually conducted the stand down. I -- we have, you know, obviously anecdotal evidence that some commands have already done it. As I said yesterday, we have produced some training materials to assist commands who would like to have it and I'll check again today about the timing for that distribution. It's imminent, as far as I know, it might have already happened. I can check on that.
And as for a possible extension for another 60 days, I have not heard any conversations about that or r any requests to try to move it beyond the original two months. I think we'd like to see how the next few weeks bears out and, I mean, I'm certainly the -- you know, if there was a need to do that, I'm sure the Secretary would be, you know, open to listening to arguments but right now, there's no plan to do that.
Q: Is there any possibility that the Secretary himself might participate in one of these sessions?
MR. KIRBY: The Secretary has recorded a video, which I think we talked about yesterday, that he's encouraging units to use in their stand down, and that -- you know, I -- but I'm not -- I don't have anything on his schedule to -- to announce with respect to his physical participation in one.
Dan DeLuce?
Q: Thank you. I have two questions. One, I'll start in Asia. There were Chinese Coast Guard vessels were in Japanese territorial waters over the weekend. And according to Japan, that Japan -- protests or what happened, they said they approached a Japanese fishing vessel. They're suggesting this is an escalation of the situation around the Senkaku Islands. How concerned are you about this and what kind of discussions have you had with the Japanese on this?
MR. KIRBY: Well I don't have any conversations with the Japanese to read out with respect to that specific incident. I would just say that we believe all nations, large and small, should be secure in their sovereignty, free from coercion and able to pursue economic growth consistent with accepted rules and norms.
The department is committed to defending the free and open rules-based international order an order from which the U.S., our allies and partners and even the People's Republic of China has enjoyed great benefit, but which Beijing, through its actions, is undermining for its own interests.
Again, we'll continue to take steps to address the strategic challenges posed by the People's Republic of China as we implement the National Defense Strategy, which includes modernizing our forces, strengthening our alliances and partnerships, and promoting interconnected security partnerships to advance our interests.
Q: Does the Defense Department regard the actions of the Chinese vessels as provocative?
MR. KIRBY: The Chinese have, again, continued to flout international rules and we've made it very clear our concerns about this activity and we're going to, again, continue to work with our allies and partners to reinforce the rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific and to make it clear that international waters are international waters.
Q: And then, just going back to Iraq one more time, on those three rocket attacks, and especially the one in Erbil, do you see -- does the department see similarities or some kind of a resemblance and parallels to previous attacks that were carried out by Iranian-backed Shia militias?
MR. KIRBY: I'm sorry, say that one again, Dan.
Q: Does the department see some similarities or parallel to previous attacks by the Iranian-backed militias? Does the attack in Erbil or Balad or the embassy yesterday bear some resemblance to previous attacks?
MR. KIRBY: Well I don't want to get into the forensics of these specific attacks, Dan, but again, historically we've seen these kinds of attacks before, these rocket attacks, in particular, and historically they have been perpetrated by Shia-backed militia using similar weapons and similar tactics, but again, I don't want to do the forensics on these particular.
I feel like I didn't do a great job with your previous question so let me just reassert that -- I mean, obviously we hold with the international community about the Senkakus and the sovereignty of the Senkakus and we support Japan obviously in that sovereignty and we would urge the Chinese to avoid actions, using their Coast Guard vessels, that could lead to miscalculation and potential physical, if not – and material harm. I don't think I did a good job with the first time around on that. Here in the room?
Yeah, Mike?
Q: I know you said that the Secretary has offered the help of America to Iraq for their investigation. So does that mean, and they want to do it on their own, does that mean the U.S. is confident that Iraq has the capability at this point to conduct a forensic investigation like that?
MR. KIRBY: The Secretary doesn't have reservations about their ability to conduct a proper investigation of accountability for the attack in Erbil but, you know, he did offer help, and as I mentioned to Jim, I'm not aware of any requests for help, but again, he has full confidence in their ability to do this the right way. Yeah.
OK, looks like we've exhausted it. Thank you.
Army 1st Lt. Michelle Torres, with the Madigan Army Medical Center, thanks William Sanchez for his service after giving him a COVID-19 vaccination at the California State University Los Angeles vaccination site in Los Angeles, Feb. 17, 2021.
Family members pin Army Brig. Gen. Isabel Rivera Smith during a promotion ceremony at the New York National Guard headquarters in Latham, N.Y., Feb. 18, 2021.
Soldiers participate in a combat mobility yoga session at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash., Feb. 23, 2021, to improve overall mental wellness and increase core strength and mobility.
The Coast Guard cutter Kimball conducts exercises with the Japanese coast guard vessel Akitsushima near the Ogasawara Islands of Japan, Feb. 21, 2021.
A Marine participates in Hagatna Fury in Ukibaru, Japan, Feb. 18, 2021. The exercise allows Marines to hone abilities to seize, defend and provide expeditionary sustainment for key maritime terrain.
Airmen prepare to offload a pallet of bottled water in Galveston, Texas, Feb. 19, 2021. A team of 30 airmen traveled from California to Texas to support the Federal Emergency Management Agency's request to airlift 64 tons of bottled water to storm-ravaged areas.
Marines embark a combat rubber-raiding craft during reconnaissance scout swimmer training at Marine Corps Training Area Bellows, Hawaii, Feb. 8, 2021.
Feb. 23, 2021 | , DOD News
Robert G. Salesses, performing the duties of assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and global security, today addressed DOD's work during the pandemic at a virtual meeting of the National Defense Transportation Association's GovTravels, its new symposium for government travel and passenger service.
DOD is actively implementing President Joe Biden's new national strategy on COVID-19, he said. And DOD's priorities going forward are aimed at education, reinforcing mitigation efforts, expanding testing capability, getting the vaccine and continuing to support the nation.
"You can imagine the Department of Defense with 2.2 million people in uniform and 700,000 civilians in the contract workforce," he said, adding that communication was — and is — vital when putting in place restrictions of movement, social distancing, mask wearing and other mitigation measures. The 15,000 COVID-19 tests that are administered every day are also critical in controlling the spread of the virus.
"That kind of work, collectively, has been significant for the nation and for the Defense Department," he said, noting that nearly 990,000 doses of vaccine have been administered across DOD, so far.
"We have to adapt and evolve as we see the situation," Salesses said. It became clear that the medical professionals were needed around the country, so DOD adapted by providing medical professionals to help out in public and private hospitals.
Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers designed and built 38 alternate-care facilities to house patients in multiple states. The National Guard has been on the frontlines of the COVID-19 mission. At the height of the pandemic crisis, there were more than 47,000 National Guard members deployed, he said. "They were supporting testing and emergency medical care and public health efforts in different states and territories, communications, transportation [and] logistics. And, even today, we have over 28,000 National Guard deployed around the states and territories, assisting the state and local officials."
The Defense Department was instrumental in supporting federal, state and local partners, he noted. For example, a public-private partnership among DOD, the federal Department of Health and Human Services and vaccine manufacturers has now led to the distribution of about 78 million vaccine doses, while about 59 million vaccinations have been administered, he said.
"There's been tremendous work done over the last year, and, in particular, over the last couple of months with the Biden administration to make sure the vaccine is going to be available and implemented," Salesses said. "And one of the initiatives [Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III] made clear on his first day [was] that DOD must move further and faster to counter this pandemic. To that end, DOD is partnering right now with [HHS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Centers for Disease Control] and state and local authorities to stand up mega and large vaccine centers."
DOD has also been focused on COVID-19 internationally. "A lot of great work was being done with our allies and partners, he said, adding that the department has helped more than 143 countries with testing, diagnostics, medical supplies and equipment.
As the United States continues to operate in a COVID-19 environment
and go forward, it's vital to have strategic communications with
coherent and consistent messaging so people know what's expected of
them. It's also important to put aggressive mitigation measures in place
to get the vaccine out to be more effective as a nation.
Feb. 23, 2021
The chief of staff of the Army announces the following officer assignments:
Maj. Gen. Peter B. Andrysiak Jr., commanding general, U.S. Army Alaska; and deputy commander, U.S. Alaskan Command, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska, to deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Europe-Africa, Germany.
Maj. Gen. Xavier T. Brunson, commanding general, 7th Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, to deputy commanding general, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Maj. Gen. Miguel A. Correa, senior director for Gulf affairs, Middle Eastern Affairs Directorate, National Security Council, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C., to deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Maj. Gen. Scott L. Efflandt, special assistant to the commanding general, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, Texas to deputy commanding general, U.S. Army North, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
Maj. Gen. Rodney D. Fogg, commanding general, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command/Sustainment Center of Excellence and Fort Lee, Fort Lee, Virginia, to deputy chief of staff for logistics and operations, U.S. Army Materiel Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
Maj. Gen. Charles R. Hamilton, deputy chief of staff for logistics and operations, U.S. Army Materiel Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, to assistant deputy chief of staff, G-4, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Maj. Gen. Neil S. Hersey, commanding general, Cyber Center of Excellence and Fort Gordon, Fort Gordon, Georgia, to deputy commanding general (operations), U.S. Army Cyber Command, Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Maj. Gen. Matthew W. McFarlane, commanding general, 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Fort Carson, Colorado, to deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Pacific Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii.
Maj. Gen. Brian J. Mennes, commanding general, 10th Mountain Division (Light) and Fort Drum, Fort Drum, New York, to deputy commanding general, I Corps, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.
Maj. Gen. Christopher O. Mohan, commanding general, 21st Theater Sustainment Command, U.S. Army Europe-Africa, Germany, to commanding general, U.S. Army Sustainment Command, Rock Island, Illinois.
Maj. Gen. Michel M. Russell Sr., assistant deputy chief of staff, G-4, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to commanding general, 1st Sustainment Command (Theater), U.S. Army Central, Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Maj. Gen. Stephen G. Smith, deputy commanding general, I Corps, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, to commanding general, 7th Infantry Division, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.
Maj. Gen. John P. Sullivan, commanding general, 1st Sustainment Command (Theater), U.S. Army Central, Fort Knox, Kentucky, to director, strategy, capabilities, policy, programs, and logistics, U.S. Transportation Command, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
Brig. Gen. Kevin D. Admiral, commandant, U.S. Army Armor School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, Georgia, to director, force management, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Gregory K. Anderson, deputy director, strategy, plans and policy, J-5, U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, to director, J-3 Operations/Cyber, U.S. Africa Command, Germany.
Brig. Gen. Milford H. Beagle Jr., commanding general, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to commanding general, 10th Mountain Division (Light) and Fort Drum, Fort Drum, New York.
Brig. Gen. Guillaume N. Beaurpere, commander, Special Operations Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation Inherent Resolve, Kuwait, to deputy commanding general (operations), U.S. Army Space and Missile Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado.
Brig. Gen. Christine A. Beeler, commanding general, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, to commanding general, Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
Brig. Gen. Peter N. Benchoff, director, force management, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to chief of staff, U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, Hawaii.
Brig. Gen. Mark S. Bennett, commanding general, U.S. Army Financial Management Command, Indianapolis, Indiana, to director for Army budget, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Michele H. Bredenkamp, director of intelligence, U.S. Forces Korea; and deputy director of intelligence, Combined Forces Command, Republic of Korea, to commanding general, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
Brig. Gen. Trevor J. Bredenkamp, deputy commanding general (operations), Eighth Army, Republic of Korea, to chief, legislative liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Larry Q. Burris Jr., director, CJ3, Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation Inherent Resolve, Iraq, to commandant, U.S. Army Infantry School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence; and director, Soldier Lethality Cross Functional Team, Army Futures Command, Fort Benning, Georgia.
Brig. Gen. Charles D. Costanza, deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to commanding general, 3d Infantry Division and Fort Stewart, Fort Stewart, Georgia.
Brig. Gen. Thomas R. Drew, military deputy, Talent Management Task Force, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to commanding general, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky.
Brig. Gen. Brian S. Eifler, chief, legislative liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, Washington, D.C., to commanding general, U.S. Army Alaska; and deputy commander, U.S. Alaskan Command, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.
Brig. Gen. Brett T. Funck, deputy commanding general (operations), 10th Mountain Division (Light); and acting senior commander-Fort Drum, Fort Drum, New York, to director, Talent Management Task Force, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Patrick L. Gaydon, deputy commanding general (support), 25th Infantry Division, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, to deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and experiments, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army Futures Command, Austin, Texas.
Brig. Gen. Garrick M. Harmon, special assistant to the deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to commanding general, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.
Brig. Gen. David M. Hodne, commandant, U.S. Army Infantry School, U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence; and director, Soldier Lethality Cross Functional Team, Army Futures Command, Fort Benning, Georgia, to commanding general, 4th Infantry Division and Fort Carson, Fort Carson, Colorado.
Brig. Gen. Daryl O. Hood, commandant, U.S. Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School, U.S. Army Maneuver Support Center of Excellence, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, to deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Brig. Gen. Jonathan E. Howerton, deputy assistant to the President; and director, White House Military Office, Washington, D.C., to military deputy director, program analysis and evaluation, G-8, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Christopher C. LaNeve, director, operations, readiness and mobilization, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C., to deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Brig. Gen. Gavin A. Lawrence, commander, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Defense Logistics Agency, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to deputy chief of staff, G-4, U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Brig. Gen. David A. Lesperance, commanding general, National Training Center and Fort Irwin, Fort Irwin, California, to commanding general, 2d Infantry Division (Combined), Eighth Army, Republic of Korea.
Brig. Gen. Douglas S. Lowrey, commanding general, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, to commanding general, Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
Brig. Gen. Steven M. Marks, Deputy commanding general, 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to director, joint and integration, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Anthony L. McQueen, deputy chief of staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army Medical Command, Falls Church, Virginia, commanding general, U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command and Fort Detrick, Fort Detrick, Maryland.
Brig. Gen. Patrick R. Michaelis, deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, Fort Knox, Kentucky, commanding general, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Jackson, Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
Brig. Gen. Duane R. Miller, deputy provost marshal general, Office of the Provost Marshal General; commanding general, Army Corrections Command; and deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Washington, D.C., to provost marshal general/commanding general, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Christopher R. Norrie, commanding general, 7th Army Training Command, U.S. Army Europe-Africa, Germany, to director, People First Task Force, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Thomas W. O’Connor Jr., deputy commanding general (support), 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kansas, deputy commanding general (operations), Eighth Army, Republic of Korea.
Brig. Gen. Charles R. Parker to deputy director for command, control, communications, and computers/cyber systems, J-6, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C. He most recently served as special assistant to the deputy chief of staff, G-8, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Isaac J. Peltier, deputy commanding general (support), 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado, to commander, Special Operations Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, Operation Inherent Resolve, Kuwait.
Brig. Gen. Allan Pepin, deputy commanding general, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to commanding general, Military District of Washington; and commander, Joint Force Headquarters-National Capital Region, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Keith C. Phillips, senior defense official and defense attaché, U.S. Defense Attaché Office, United Arab Emirates, to senior defense official and defense attaché, U.S. Defense Attaché Office, Iraq.
Brig. Gen. Andrew D. Preston, chief of staff, U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, Hawaii, to commandant, U.S. Army Field Artillery School, U.S. Army Fires Center of Excellence, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
Brig. Gen. Joseph A. Ryan to deputy chief of staff, operations, Resolute Support Mission, NATO; deputy commanding general (operations), U.S. Forces-Afghanistan; and commander, U.S. National Support Element Command-Afghanistan, Operation Freedom's Sentinel, Afghanistan. He most recently served as chief of staff, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Brig. Gen. Mark T. Simerly, director, J-4, U.S. Forces Korea; deputy director, C/J-4, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command, Republic of Korea, to commanding general, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command/Sustainment Center of Excellence and Fort Lee, Fort Lee, Virginia.
Brig. Gen. James M. Smith, chief of transportation; and commandant, U.S. Army Transportation School, U.S. Army Sustainment Center of Excellence, Fort Lee, Virginia, to commanding general, 21st Theater Sustainment Command, U.S. Army Europe-Africa, Germany.
Brig. Gen. Paul T. Stanton, deputy commanding general (Operations), U.S. Army Cyber Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, to commanding general, Cyber Center of Excellence and Fort Gordon, Fort Gordon, Georgia.
Brig. Gen. William L. Thigpen, deputy director for operations, National Joint Operations Intelligence Center, Operations Team Four, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C., to commanding general, U.S. Army South, Joint Base San Antonio, Texas.
Brig. Gen. David C. Trybula, commanding general, White Sands Missile Range; and deputy commanding general for developmental testing, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, White Sands, New Mexico, to deputy commanding general, Combat Capabilities Development Directorate; and senior commander, Natick Soldier Systems Center, U.S. Army Futures Command, Natick, Massachusetts.
Brig. Gen. Colin P. Tuley, deputy chief of staff, operations, Resolute Support Mission, NATO; and deputy commander, U.S. National Support Element Command-Afghanistan, Operation Freedom's Sentinel, Afghanistan, to deputy director, strategy, plans and policy, J-5, U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida.
Brig. Gen. Matthew J. Van Wagenen, deputy chief of staff for operations, Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, NATO, United Kingdom, to deputy commanding general, V Corps, Poland.
Brig. Gen. Timothy P. White, commanding general, 593d Expeditionary Sustainment Command, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington, to director, J-4, U.S. Forces Korea; and deputy director, C/J-4, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command, Republic of Korea.
Brig. Gen. James P. Work, deputy commanding general (support), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to director, operations, readiness and mobilization, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3/5/7, U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.
Brig. Gen. Richard L. Zellmann to deputy director, J-3, U.S. Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. He most recently served as deputy director, J-5, U.S. Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado.
Air Force Staff Sgt. Angel Torres releases a simulated airdrop from the back of an MC-130H Combat Talon II at Hurlburt Field, Fla., Feb. 20, 2021, during Emerald Warrior, the largest joint special operations exercise.
Army Sgt. Seth Rutter guides a vehicle aboard a logistic support vessel in Waipio, Hawaii, Feb. 22, 2021.
A soldier secures equipment after an airborne operation from an Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft during exercise Eagle Ace II at Rivolto Italian Air Force Base, Italy, Feb. 18, 2021.
Feb. 22, 2021
PRESS SECRETARY JOHN F. KIRBY: Good afternoon, everybody. Okay, a couple of things at the top here and we'll get right after it.
The Department of Defense through the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering has launched the DOD Aerospace Education Research and Innovation Center, otherwise known as AERIC, and we pronounce is "eric" here, at Tuskegee University in Alabama. AERIC will support two-year research projects in the areas of fatigue damage tolerance, experimental aerodynamics and the performance of materials and components under extreme environmental conditions. Tuskegee University is the number one producer of black aerospace engineers in the nation and we are very excited to partner with them as they host AERIC.
Today Secretary Austin participated in a virtual meeting of NATO colleagues from Canada, Lithuania, Poland, the United Kingdom and Ukraine. The meeting was hosted by the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace. All these allies are actively providing training and support in Ukraine alongside the United States and the meeting came on the heels of Secretary Austin's February 19th discussion with Ukraine Minister of Defense Andriy Taran, which focused on Ukraine's defense priorities, reform objectives, and of course, how the five allies can support Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic goals.
Now as you have been tracking, Secretary directed the force to conduct a one-day stand-down to deal with extremism in the ranks. To support this effort, we issued a video to the force with a message directly from Secretary Austin. It will be used alongside other training materials to facilitate a good exchange of ideas as commands work through their stand-downs and you can find that on defense.gov. It's on our website.
On the personnel front, we on-boarded another seven personnel today, bringing the total to 78. Today's additions include Spencer Boyer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy; Milancy Harris, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations in Combatting Terrorism; Farooq Mitha, Director of Small Business Programs; and someone that you're undoubtedly going to get to spend some time with here, Jamal Brown, our Deputy Press Secretary, who is right there. Wave your hand there, Jamal. He just checked in today.
Finally, Secretary Austin will be making his first trip as Secretary of Defense this week; he'll travel to Colorado on Wednesday to visit with the U.S. Northern Command and then to California to see the first active duty team supporting one of FEMA's mega vaccination sites, this one of course, in Los Angeles. He'll also head to San Diego on Thursday and while there he'll link up with the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mike Gilday, as they visit U.S.S. Nimitz, as she begins to make her final preparations to return home after a 10-month deployment. He'll also have the opportunity to visit with two Navy vaccination sites on the base at North Island and see what the Navy's doing to make more vaccines available to sailors there and in San Diego.
Okay. With that, I think Bob you're on the phone, right?
Q: Yes I am, thanks, John. I have a question for you about Iraq. In light of today's rocket attack on the Green Zone and, of course, the recent attack in Erbil, wonder what you make of this resumption of attacks and whether this appears to you to be the work of the militias that have been a problem previously?
MR. KIRBY: Well, certainly we have seen attacks in the past from Shia-backed militias operating inside Iraq. I don't know of any attribution for the one in Erbil from last weekend; I don't think that's been finally determined and as for the recent attack, again I don't have any attribution on that either. It's difficult to say with certainty, Bob, whether there's a strategic calculation driving this uptick, this recent uptick in attacks or whether this is just a continuation of the sorts of attacks we've seen in the past. But obviously we're going to be working closely with our Iraqi partners as we have been on the attack last weekend in Erbil. We'll be working with them to get more context about this and try to place it in proper perspective but clearly, look, I mean, these are dangerous attacks, and as we saw in the one in Erbil, an individual lost his life and now a family is grieving. I would say again, that we're there to counter ISIS at the invitation of the Iraqi government and our commanders, just like the Iraqi commanders, have the right of self-defense.
Let's see, go back to the phone again here. Dan Sagalyn.
Q: Thanks for calling on me. I have a question about the Presidential Commission on Sexual Assault that the DOD is putting together. Is DOD consulting with members of Congress on who will be in the commission, on the commission, or is DOD just picking whoever it wants without regard to input from members of Congress?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we're certainly going to consult with Congress as the plans for this commission come together, Dan. I can tell you that the Secretary met with the senior OSD leaders, senior leaders, here at the Pentagon, which included the Service Chiefs, to talk to them this morning about his feedback on their inputs to him. As you know, it was his first directive on his second day in office to ask the Services to provide him input on what they felt they were doing right, what they needed to improve, maybe ideas they have going forward and he had the opportunity to review that work and talk to them about that today. It was a good, productive discussion.
He explained to them that he expects before the end of the week to formally announce the 90-day commission with more granularity and more detail; I'm not going to get ahead of that announcement here today. But to your other question, as I said at the top, he -- he certainly understands, respects and appreciates the interest that members of Congress has -- have shown on this issue, and will keep them fully apprised as -- as we move forward.
OK, in the room. David?
Q: John, when Secretary Austin talks about extremism in the ranks, he says, "It's probably more than we would like, and less than the media depicts it as." Is he expecting some sort of number out of the Services; somebody to tell him exactly how many extremists there are in the ranks?
MR. KIRBY: I think what the Secretary would like to do, David, is to see if there's a way to get a better sense of the numbers, if there's -- if there is a way to try to collect data on the extent of this problem. He is also mindful that that's a difficult task to undertake because it's -- it's largely, we get a sense of the problem largely driven by conduct and behavior, and it -- it's, you know, difficult to know, sometimes, even in conduct and behavior that is prejudicial to good order and discipline or a violation of the UCMJ. Often it's not -- it's not always possible to know what drives that, not to mention that some extremist behavior happens off base, off duty, and is -- is captured rather by civilian law enforcement -- not even federal, but maybe even local civilian law enforcement, and we may not have perfect insight into that database.
So would he -- well, I don't want to ask the rhetorical question. He, of course, would like to know with more granularity how big the problem is, and that would include, but not -- not -- not solely, but it would include getting a sense of the -- the numbers of people who are in the ranks who espouse these beliefs and are acting, or willing to act on them. But he's mindful that it's a difficult dataset to get to.
Q: I haven't asked today, but last week, when you asked the Services, "When are -- when are your stand-downs taking place?" the answer was "We're waiting for guidance from OSD." Are you supposed to deliver some guidance before it -- each unit has its -- its stand-down? And if so, when is that guidance coming?
MR. KIRBY: As I understand it anecdotally, some Services, some commands have already conducted their stand-downs, and we are in the process of -- of putting out -- and we expect to do it very shortly here -- some training materials for them to be able to use when they conduct -- to -- to conduct their stand-downs. And the video I referenced today which, again, is on our website, was a -- a -- a part of that training package. You'll see, when you watch the video, he was clearly addressing it to the force.
Q: And we can expect these training materials when?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have a -- a date certain for you. The team's working hard on that, and I think it'll be very soon that that stuff will be delivered.
Q: So go back to the numbers for -- for a second. The -- the Marines have said that in the past three years they had 16 incidents of extremist behavior, mostly online postings; no sense of how those cases were resolved. And last year, the FBI said of half the cases -- investigations they're looking at involving mostly former military members, some active, roughly half of those have to do with -- domestic extremism. So if you get those two, you know, data points, I mean, why can't -- why can't you guys get more? I mean, it's just kind of frustrating when we have this little information.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, Tom, look, I -- I -- back to David's question, I think the Secretary very much would like to have a better sense of -- of the data. And if there are lessons to be learned in one of the Services, that -- that other Services could learn from or we could apply centrally here, I think he's open to that.
And I -- I -- I understand the frustration, I -- I do, and he shares it. I mean, we need to have a better understanding of -- of how deep and how broad the -- the -- the problem is. There are, as you know and we've talked about it -- I mean, there's First Amendment rights here too that also -- also have to be respected.
This isn't about, you know, trying to, you know, get into the, you know, brains of an individual member of -- of -- of the military but rather to make sure that we have a better sense of who we're bringing in and that those who are in are ascribing and acting on our core values, the core values of the institution, and not some other group's core values that are inimical to what we're supposed to do for defense of the -- of the nation.
And then, the last piece is that they're not acting out on beliefs -- extremist beliefs that put good order and discipline in jeopardy, or worse, put their shipmates, their teammates, their colleagues in -- in jeopardy, as well, OK?
Let me go back to the phones here. Sam LaGrone, USNI?
Q: Hi. To follow up on the pier side visit of CNO and SecDef Austin, one of the things that we're seeing with carrier deployments writ large is they're getting longer and longer and longer, in part with this commitment to having assets in -- in CENTCOM, and you're seeing double-pump deployment just start last week with Eisenhower leaving Norfolk. TR is out. It's a double pump deployment, or a -- a -- a deployment back-to-back without a significant maintenance period.
You know, given that Nimitz has been out for 303 days with those sailors and -- and Marines away from their families, what -- what is the Department doing moving forward to -- to see if you can balance the kind of demand signal for these assets? That, you know, we're talking about, like, in the last year, there's more carriers underway than since the Arab Spring. So, thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, Sam, thanks. I mean, it's a good question and it's a fair one. I mean, I -- I think it's something that -- it's -- it's been a long -- a longstanding issue, this, balancing capabilities versus requirements, and there's a lot of requirements out there in the world for, in this case you're talking about, naval capabilities.
And the Secretary's certain mindful of the demand that's placing on the Service itself and, of course, on his -- on the sailors, and that's one of the reasons why he -- he wanted to go out to see Nimitz, as she gets ready to come home, to thank the sailors for -- for that extraordinary service and sacrifice.
He has also had, and I suspect he will continue to have, through the budget season and even beyond, discussions with the Chairman and the Chiefs about the resiliency of the force, the kinds of capabilities we're putting in the field, in the fleet, and the degree to which the requirements process is -- is being handled in the most effective and the most efficient way.
I mean, it -- there -- there -- there's always tension between what's needed out there and what's available, and he's mindful of that, having been a combatant commander himself and a -- a -- a -- the Vice Chief of the Army, he's been on both sides of that equation and I think he's uniquely qualified and -- and situated to -- to try to get the -- the balance better going forward.
Idrees. Reuters?
Q: Thanks, John. So last week, NATO announced that it would up its presence in Iraq to about 4,000. I know you tweeted out last week, saying it won't include U.S. military personnel. If the number of troops -- NATO troops in Iraq does go up to 4,000, does the Pentagon believe that that allows the U.S. military presence to be reduced?
MR. KIRBY: So, what I said was that while we certainly support NATO's expanded mission -- the training mission in -- in Iraq and we recognize that there's a force generation process that goes along with that, there are no plans to put additional U.S. forces in Iraq to contribute to that expanded mission.
There are, as you know, many ways we can contribute to -- to mission sets without having to necessarily put more, to use the phrase, boots on the ground, that there are ways to contribute that -- that don't necessarily mean an increase in -- in footprint.
Q: Can I go back to Iraq?
MR. KIRBY: Sure.
Q: I have a question on Yemen, as well, but on Iraq, it's -- I mean, the attack today is one week since the attack on Erbil, and a group claimed responsibility for that attack, (inaudible) in reference to General Qasem Soleimani and (inaudible) -- and (inaudible).
Seen some analysis in the region claiming that U.S. is trying to play down these attacks to maintain a diplomatic opening with -- with Iran. We've seen the previous administration willing to use military action against such attacks when they happened.
Is this Administration trying to play down the -- these attacks or it's actually looking into military action to respond to -- you know, if they continue?
MR. KIRBY: We take these attacks very seriously, as I just said earlier, and that the President himself noted. When it -- if and when it's appropriate to respond, we'll do so at a time and a place and in a manner of our choosing and certainly in consultation with our Iraqi partners. Barb?
Q: ... on Yemen -- may I ask a question on Yemen? Thank you. So we're seeing that the Houthis are trying to advance on -- on Marib, a resumption of what's been described as the worst fighting since 2018, and this came at the heels of the decisions by the Administration to halt support to the Saudi coalition offensive operations in Yemen and revoking the global terrorist designation of -- of Houthis.
Do you think the Houthis are trying to kind of take advantage of these steps? Are they misreading the Administration's intentions in Yemen?
MR. KIRBY: I can't speak for the Houthis or what tactical decisions they're making and why. We've been clear that, in the decision to halt support for Saudi -- Saudi -- the Saudi-led coalition's offensive operations, that this was really about trying to get some space for humanitarian relief to get in there and to reflect our concerns over the precision, or the lack of precision, with which the coalition was executing their -- their offensive operations.
And -- but as for what's motivating the Houthis right now, you know, I -- I wouldn't begin to speculate. We want to see -- back to the bigger point -- we -- we support and we want to see a political settlement and an end to this war so that the people of Yemen can live in a safe, secure environment and -- and this humanitarian catastrophe can be ended.
Barb?
Q: Two quick questions, different subjects. First, I was curious whether, following the United Airlines Pratt & Whitney -- Whitney engine failure, you're -- the Department, the military is taking any kind of -- although -- although they have different Pratt & Whitney engines ...
MR. KIRBY: Right.
Q: Are they looking at or considering whether they need to have a look at the engines they do have, including Air Force One, to see if there's any commonality.
And my other question. On the sexual assault commission, while that's going to be a 90-day process, if the Secretary's already beginning to hear what's working but also what's not working, can you give us any more on what his thinking is? Are there things that might be done before the 90 days are up?
MR. KIRBY: So on the first one, I'm going to have to take the question, Barb. I don't have a good answer to a very fair question, so we will take that and we'll get back to you on that.
On sexual assault, you've already seen him take some actions and I think you're going to -- you know, he didn't want to wait for the 90 days before he issued that first directive, and he did learn some things from the -- from Service input.
Without getting ahead of him, I would expect that you will see him likewise take some immediate actions before the 90-day commission completes its work, somethings that I think he believes are warranted by what he's learned, and that he doesn't believe he has to wait for the 90-day commission to come back.
But clearly, you know, the locus of the long-term strategic effort will be based on what they learn, and again, without getting ahead of the Secretary, I will tell you that it's his intent that this commission do a fair job of looking outside the lifelines, as we say, outside the Defense Department and consulting experts in the civilian community on -- on this particular issue.
Let me go back.
Lara Seligman from Politico?
Q: Hey, John, thanks for doing this. I wanted to follow up on the question about Iraq actually. So there have now been three rocket attacks that endangered Americans in Iraq over the past week that are likely linked to Iran. So does the Pentagon -- have you -- or do you plan to communicate to Iran that killing an American is a red line, as the previous administration did?
MR. KIRBY: We have made it perfectly clear our views about the malign activities that Iran continues to perpetrate throughout the region. As for these particular attacks, again, we haven't gotten into specific attribution, so I don't want to get ahead of the investigative process.
Nick Schifrin?
OK, thought he had a question. Jen, you had one?
Q: John, have you received or has the Pentagon received General Honore's report on Capitol Hill security that was commissioned by Speaker Pelosi? And have there been any new requests since Friday to extend the National Guard past the March 12th deadline?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not aware that we have General Honore's report, so I will take that question and get back to you. I don't know if that's here or not.
And there's been no updates and no additional requests that have come into the building about either extending or changing the -- the number, the scope of the National Guard presence on Capitol Hill. It still continues; I think, today, we're down around 5,300. In fact, I can give you the exact number here, 5,279 as of today.
Q: And how many states they're coming from?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have that broken down for you. I'll see if we can get that, I don't know if that's -- if I have that.
Yeah, Jenny?
Q: Thank you, John.
MR. KIRBY: You're welcome.
Q: You look nice today.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you.
Q: I have a question about US-South Korea, joint military exercises-- you need to comment on the president (inaudible) remark, about the South Korean president (inaudible) that listened to press conference, that he would make a decision on the joint military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea, that he, after consulting with North Korea.
As you know, it's a joint military exercise between U.S. and South Korea. Is there a work between our alliance and is there – I mean defensive against North Korea, you know that.
And they -- it doesn't make sense, in consulting with North Korea (inaudible), North Korea is our potential enemy. I would appreciate your comments on this.
MR. KIRBY: Well, I haven't seen the president's comments, so I'm not having seen them, I'm loathe to comment on that specifically. The only thing I would add -- and we've talked about this before -- is you're right, we do have a security alliance with Republican of Korea. It's a linchpin, we believe, for the region, that alliance, and we take it very, very seriously, our commitments to that alliance, we take very seriously.
And as General Abrams had said many times, I mean, we do have to maintain a significant level of readiness on the peninsula, and the Secretary's confident that he, General Abrams, is doing all the right things to work with our South Korean allies to make sure that that readiness is preserved to the maximum degree possible.
And there's lots of ways -- excuse me -- to preserve readiness and training, as we -- as we've seen. Even through COVID, there had to be adjustments made of course because of the pandemic.
But again, we're confident that General Abrams understands those responsibilities and is working in lockstep with his counterparts in South Korea to make sure that that readiness is preserved and training is conducted and that the alliance is -- is as strong as ever, OK?
Q: Thank you so much.
MR. KIRBY: Sure, go ahead.
Q: Thank you, John. As you know, Afghanistan situation gets worse day by day. This last Sunday, so many people, including civilian children, were murdered, have been killed. And nobody took the responsibility, Taliban and the government, they accused each other.
And also Afghan people want to know how long it's going to take to review the Doha agreement between U.S. and Taliban. And from that, every day, people suffering a lot, a lot of people (inaudible).
And also, Russia wants to invite Taliban to continue the peace talk process. What is Pentagon's reaction on that?
MR. KIRBY: We believe that -- well, let me back up. To your first point, I mean, we're certainly mindful of the suffering that continues to be experienced by the Afghan people. And as the Secretary said himself, when he was here -- up here Friday, the violence is too high and it needs to stop.
The Administration is still conducting its review of the Doha agreement and the compliance mechanisms in that, so I won't get ahead of that. But again, as the Secretary said to you all on Friday, we are mindful of looming deadlines here. And we are certainly mindful of the suffering that's going on inside Afghanistan.
We're also mindful of our obligations to -- to our Afghan partners, and to the Afghan government. It's important, we believe -- continue to believe -- that there's not going to be a military solution to this, it has to be done politically. And that means it needs to -- you know, negotiations in good faith have to bear fruit and have to be borne on the backs of a permanent comprehensive cease-fire.
So, again, I won't get ahead of the decision-making process, but I can assure you that the Secretary and everybody here at the Pentagon are 100 percent committed to doing this review in a thoughtful, deliberate, but timely fashion. We understand that there's looming deadlines, OK?
Let me go back to the phones…
Q: And my second question (INAUDIBLE) Taliban to talk about peace process?
MR. KIRBY: I don't -- I would refer you to our State Department colleagues on that. We, specifically, with the Russia piece, but as I said in my longish answer to you before, I mean, there is a peace process that has been undertaken already, an Afghan-led peace process. And that's what we continue to support, OK?
All right. I think I got almost you all in the room here. Ellie Watson, CBS?
Q: No question, thank you.
MR. KIRBY: OK. Christina Anderson?
OK. Abraham from Washington Examiner.
Q: Can you hear me, Christina Anderson?
MR. KIRBY: Sure, go ahead.
Q: OK. Yes, I'm interested in knowing whether there has been any review of the need for -- as expressed by the National Guard and Reserve, for military training and equipment that is much more up-to-date, and training also with their colleagues who are active duty?
They feel -- some have expressed -- elements have expressed that they are concerned about training -- falling behind on the training. Thank you very much.
MR. KIRBY: Well, let me follow up with you later about that, ma'am. I'm not familiar with those complaints, so I don't want to get into specifically addressing them when I'm not that familiar with that particular issue. So we'll follow up with you after the briefing to get more context from you.
Again, just in general, back to what I was saying before when we were talking about the Navy, the Secretary understands as a former soldier himself the importance of making sure that our troops have the training and the resources, the equipment, the systems they need to get the job done. And he is always going to be interested in trying to close that gap to the maximum extent possible.
Yes, over here.
Q: Hey, John.
MR. KIRBY: Hey.
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: I didn't recognize you.
Q: I know. I haven't been here for a while, so thanks.
I wanted to follow on David's question. In a TV interview, the former chief of staff, Kash Patel took another view on extremism in the military and said the problem doesn't exist. And I was wondering if we could have the Pentagon's views on that.
And then secondly, in these stand-downs and listening sessions that will happening across units across the Services, will there be any attempt to maybe summarize the conversations that are had or gather data from those individual sessions to at least start to get a bigger picture of, you know, how big a problem this might be?
MR. KIRBY: That's one of the reasons, in fact, I would argue it's the chief reason the Secretary ordered the stand-down was to do exactly that, to listen to the men and women of the force about what they are feeling and experiencing out there, to get a better sense about the scope and the breadth of the problem. Will it lead to specific data, as David asked? I doubt that. I mean, it's not about counting heads in the process of the stand-down but clearly it's about trying to get a better grasp of the degree to which the problem exists.
And as for Mr. Patel's comments, I -- I would only point you to the fact that -- that the Department, under the previous Administration, in October completed a -- a report, asked -- asked by Congress, and you've seen some reporting about that but, you know, clearly it found that extremism is an issue in the United States military. So I find that a very interesting comment to make when they themselves studied this and -- and -- and came to the conclusion that -- you know, that it is an issue.
And look, you don't -- I don't -- I don't think the -- I -- I don't think it's debatable that it is or it isn't an issue. What we don't know is the extent of it and what we don't know is exactly and how best to -- to go about eradicating that and the behavior that -- that it inspires. That's -- that's the problem.
It's -- so it's a -- it is a -- it is a -- a dataset issue -- I think we do want to know more about, you know -- like -- as the Secretary said, it's -- it's probably more than we'd like it to be and less than the headlines would suggest but more importantly, how do we get our arms around that? And -- and that -- that's where the focus is.
Nobody's -- I -- nobody's debating whether it is or it isn't an issue, it's really just about to what degree. I've got time for just a couple more. Go ahead.
Q: I want to go back to Iraq. It is my understanding -- the U.S. military is conducting its own investigation regarding Erbil's attacks. So do you have any explanation how, after we -- still no indication at all about who might be behind the attack -- I'm not talking politics, just facts on the ground -- an investigation?
MR. KIRBY: You're asking me why we don't know now?
Q: Yeah, so now -- no indications at all. In previous attacks, we, like, heard from the CENTCOM just ...
MR. KIRBY: I -- I -- I -- look, I -- I would -- I think it's safe to assume that investigators are still working on this and it could be that they have a -- a better sense. I'm not privy to the investigation, nor would it be appropriate for me to be. It's an investigation that is being conducted by our Iraqi partners. The -- the Secretary offered to -- to help them with that and -- and it was a sincere offer.
As far as I know, they are still conducting this and when there's something to report out, we'll do that -- we'll do that. OK, one more -- last -- go ahead.
Q: On Yemen, Houthis are moving towards Marib. It may be a very serious humanitarian disaster. Is there any commitment from the U.S. military that they will not allow this to happen? Any commitment to help the government of Yemen to defend Marib or to change policy and go back and help?
MR. KIRBY: Our military operations in Yemen are -- are designed to -- to go after ISIS. It's a counter-ISIS mission. We believe that there needs to be a political settlement to this war, so that humanitarian assistance can get to the people that need it but -- but our mission -- it's important for people to remember our -- our mission in -- in Yemen is one based on counter-terrorism.
Thanks, everybody, appreciate it.
Posts
All Comments
Posts
All Comments
