Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby
PRESS SECRETARY JOHN F. KIRBY: OK. A couple of
things, so bear with me please. Was that a sigh? You don't want to
hear what I have to say at the top of this? You just want to get right
to the questions.
Q: We waited so long.
MR. KIRBY: Well, buckle up, because I got quite a few to get through.
Q: OK.
MR. KIRBY: I think as you saw last night, Secretary Austin approved a
request from the U.S. Capitol Police to continue the deployment of
National Guard members through May 23. Nearly 2,300 personnel will
continue to support that mission.
This represents a reduction, as I think you all know, of roughly 50
percent of the current support force. During this extended period,
Defense Department officials will work with the Capitol Police to
incrementally reduce the National Guard footprint as conditions allow.
We obviously thank the National Guard for their continued support
throughout this mission, as well as their significant efforts across the
nation, combating the COVID-19 pandemic.
This morning we also announced the secretary's first overseas trip,
departing on Saturday. He will visit U.S. Indo-Pacific command
headquarters in Hawaii. He'll get a chance to visit with U.S. troops
and senior government leaders in Japan and the Republic of Korea and
senior government leaders in India. We're looking forward to a terrific
trip.
The first part of which, as you know, will be with the Secretary of
State Tony Blinken. And so there will be two plus two events in Japan
and in South Korea.
On a different subject, yesterday the secretary established the
Department of Defense climate working group to support Executive Order
14008, which identified climate considerations as an essential element
of U.S. foreign policy and national security.
Mr. Joe Bryan, special assistant to the secretary for climate will be
the working group chair. The climate working group will be the primary
form to do a couple of things. One, to coordinate department responses
to the executive order and subsequent climate and energy related
directives. And two, track the implementation of actions and progress
against future goals. We're going to post the establishment memo of
defense.gov; if it's not up there now, it certainly will be by the time
we're done with the briefing if you want to see it.
Additionally today, the Department released our annual freedom of
navigation report for fiscal year 2020, during the period from October
1, 2019 through September 30, 2020. U.S. forces operationally
challenged 28 different excessive maritime claims made by 19 different
claimants throughout the world.
Unlawful and sweeping maritime claims or incoherent legal theories of
maritime entitlements that are inconsistent with customer international
law pose a threat to the legal foundation of the rules-based
international order.
Consequently, the United States is committed to confronting this
threat by challenging excessive maritime claims. For more information, I
encourage you to read the entire press release and the report, again,
on defense.gov, on our website.
On the COVID front, this morning Secretary Austin visited the Defense
Department team that's working on the federal COVID-19 response for
vaccines and therapeutics. For nearly a year, the team under General
Perna in his leadership has supported the mission to accelerate the
development, manufacturing, and distribution of safe and effective
COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics for the American people.
And they did it in record time. During the visit he saw the vaccine
operation center and received an operational update on vaccine
manufacturing distribution efforts. To date, the team's efforts have
led to the development of three safe and effective COVID vaccines and
they have facilitated the delivery of nearly 130 million doses of
vaccine across the country, enabling more than 93 million shots.
Finally, today is the 10-year anniversary of the devastating
earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which led to the formation of Operation
Tomodachi, which as you know, translates as friends.
It took place from March 12 to May 4, 2011. It involved 24,000 U.S.
service members, 189 aircraft, and 24 naval ships in support of the
Japanese government. Together with our Japanese partners we remember
those who lost their lives and suffered greatly from the natural
disaster and we also thank all those who supported their relief efforts.
And with that I'll take some questions. Lita first.
Q: Hi, thanks. John, two questions. One on the National Guard, how
concerned is the Defense Department that the city of D.C. and the
Capitol police are relying so heavily on continued Guard support? Were
there questions about whether or not other law enforcement agencies were
asked to help beef up the Capitol Police also? And then my second
question is, as you know, the USS Eisenhower is in the Med. Has the
Secretary made any decisions about carrier presence in the Gulf region?
And can we expect that the carrier will indeed go on into the Middle
East area?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have any operational schedules with respect to
the USS Eisenhower to speak to today, Lita. And as for your first
question, clearly we've been in close consultation with the Capitol
Police, as they've been refining their requirements. And I'll let them
speak to the process by which they refine their requirements for
assistance.
And the Secretary feels committed to making sure that, as we fill
this requirement, and he believes it's a valid requirement, that we're
also taking a look and considering and mitigating whatever risks there
might be to the National Guard in other areas, in their home states and
other functional areas.
And we believe we did that analysis, he is confident that analysis
was done, and that's why he went ahead and approved this request. As I
said yesterday, and I know we always talk about whatever the threat
requirement is, and we don't talk about that in great detail, but was
also about helping the Capitol Police in a new environment, right now,
as they begin to understand what requirements and capabilities they're
going to need to perfect and improve upon going forward.
So, we are comfortable that the analysis was done. We're comfortable
that the request was valid. We're comfortable that we're going to be
able to source this until May 23rd and then we'll see where we are in a
month or so, in terms of - whatever it looks like going forward, I
certainly wouldn't speculate one way or the other. Barb?
Q: I want to follow up on that. The question is, I think, what made
the request for National Guard, specifically, valid in the Secretary's
mind when we are always told that the National Guard is not the first
response force, civilian law enforcement, civilian capabilities.
If the Capitol Police don't have the capacity to deal right now -
enough man power to deal right now with what they're facing, why did the
Secretary specifically feel that the National Guard was the correct
solution? And is it correct that you are -- the Department is talking
to a number of governors to get them to make commitments to stay - to
contribute forces to this extended period of time, that you currently
don't have the full commitment projection through the anticipated end at
this point.
MR. KIRBY: It is certainly true that National Guard leaders are in
touch with the states across the country and they're talking about
specific sourcing solutions with them. I'm not going to get ahead of
that process but, yes, that's happening. As you might expect, he just
signed the order last night and nobody wanted to get ahead of the
Secretary's decision, so, here we are the day after, and of course
they're talking to the governors of various states about how to best
source this.
And again, when we have better answers on the back end of that, we'll
certainly let you know. And as to your other question, Barb, I think
it's really an issue of capacity. I mean -
Q: Let me stop you. I'm sorry, yes but why did the Secretary feel
the National Guard was the correct answer? Did he ask? Did anybody
bring information to him about the availability of civilian law
enforcement? Or was the National Guard the only option on the table?
Why did he feel it was the right one?
MR. KIRBY: The National Guard was the specific request made by the
Capitol Police. I think I would point you to the Capital Police in
terms of how they better defined the requirement. And it is about
capacity, which has a lot to do with numbers. And augmenting the
Capitol Police right now in this new environment that we're all living
in post-January 6th.
Plus as you know, Barb, the National Guard, it's not unusual for them
to support local law enforcement under Title 32; they have that
capability, that mandate. It is not the kind of mission that you would
typically look at for Title 10 active forces to do. So, the National
Guard is the right place. If you're looking at the -- the Department of
Defense, it does make the most sense. And many Guardsman, as well you
know, do come from civilian law enforcement agencies, that's...
Q: So civilian law enforcement was not an option?
MR. KIRBY: I'm going to let the Capitol Police talk about what
options they looked at. I can tell you that we did the analysis here,
and determined that it was a valid request, a valid requirement, and
suitably -- the number was suitable to the need, and that's why the
secretary approved it in full; 2280, I think, is the exact number until
May 23rd.
The secretary's comfortable that this request was done in good faith
and -- and that again, the analysis here at the Pentagon was done well
in terms of getting to the numbers and for that duration of time and
using those assets. OK.
Q: John, what is the real threat? We have not heard what the real
threat is that requires them to stay two extra months. And isn't this
just free labor for the Capitol Police because it comes from the Defense
Department’s budget and it's cheaper for you to have National Guard
there than for them to ask for...
MR. KIRBY: I don't think I'd describe it that way. I mean, yes, the
Department of Defense will be funding this as we funded the previous
mission, which ended the end of the week. But that's not how anybody's
looking at this or, you know, foisting this on the Capitol Police- that
they're looking at this as -- as free labor.
They have a need, they have a legitimate need for some capacity
assistance in a time which is fairly uncertain right now. I'm not going
to speak to specific threat, and as I've been trying to say over the
last few days, it's not just about the threat environment in a highly
polarized, hyper-charged environment that we're in right now.
It is very much about a capacity assistance to the Capitol Police as
they begin to flesh out and develop what they're going to need long-term
to deal with a new reality on Capitol Hill.
Q: And, John, did they give you a reason why May 23rd? I mean, is
there something magic about that date? And did you get any sense from
them, I know you said call the Capitol Hill Police, but they're not
exactly as, you know...
MR. KIRBY: Well, I can't speak for an agency that's...
Q: Did they give you a reason why well into the end of May and did
you get any sense from Capitol Hill Police or others -- ‘Listen, we may
come back early May and say we need you through the fourth of July’ or
something?
MR. KIRBY: I don't know of any speculation on their part that
they're going to have to come back again and ask for more, we just
aren't there right now. I don't have a specific answer to why May 23rd,
but again, we looked at this from soup to nuts, and again, we believe
that this extra two months, basically is going to be about two months
extension, is a valid requirement and we're going to fill it.
Let me go back to the phones here. Luis Martinez.
Q: Hi, John. A question about the border- can you give us an update
on how many troops you still have there, active duty troops, and
whether there's any discussion about broadening the mission in the wake
of what's going on there now with increasing migrant flow?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have an update on the number of troops that are
still down there supporting. I don't think there's been any changes,
but let me get back to you on that, Luis. And what was your second
question?
Q: It's kind of related to that, just has there been any discussion
about sending more troops there? We've seen now that the governor of
Texas has sent in, I think it's another 500 of his own Guardsmen. But
is there any discussion of more active duty troops being there? We know
that the mission in a way is only going to last for now through the FY
funding, but any chance that could be extended or augmented?
MR. KIRBY: I don't know of any plans to extend or augment the
current force posture, but we'll get you an answer on how many are down
there in the current mission.
Meghann.
Q: So there is a medical squadron commander at Prince Sultan Air
Base in Saudi who says that they're having sort of an alarming increase
in COVID cases both on and off base there. I was wondering if you could
confirm that, and if there are any trends in troops deployed getting
cases more often now than troops at home where cases seem to be
declining across the board?
MR. KIRBY: So - I mean, I'm aware of this video which I understand
was part of the normal sort of command information videos that were done
at Prince Sultan Air Base back in the middle of the month. And as I
understand it, since that video has been made, additional vaccines have
been sent to Central Command to help them flesh out their vaccine
distribution program. And we're certainly mindful of the need to meet
those overseas demands, particularly for deployed forces.
As you know, we talked about the scheme being changed just recently
to put deployed forces back up in to tier one which they hadn't been
originally. I mean, one of the original when this whole thing started
was sort of concern by operational commanders not to have the vaccine
because they didn't want deployed troops to fall ill as a result of the
second shot, if you will.
But now that the vaccines have proven themselves very safe and
effective so there's an increasing demand and we're meeting that demand -
we're trying to meet that demand. But we're certainly mindful of the
need to continue to get them to forward-deployed forces and you'll see
that change.
Q: In terms of the trends in cases that you're seeing of people
still being infected abroad, are you seeing more cases in troops
downrange versus here at home?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not aware of the specific data on positive cases
overseas. I don't think the numbers in central command are higher, in
fact, anecdotally what I've been told is they're lower than what we're
seeing in the rest of the population back here at home, so we're not
seeing particularly a spike overseas right now.
Tara.
Q: Thanks. Earlier today, the Reagan Foundation released a poll
that found that public trust in the military and public support for the
military had dropped 14 percent since the first year they did the poll
in 2018. One of the many reasons - and there were many were some of the
events of last year.
Is the secretary concerned that extending the presence around the
Capitol was adding to the risk of this loss of trust in the military or
loss of perception - seeing it as an occupying force at the Capitol?
And then I have a follow-up.
MR. KIRBY: I haven't talked to the secretary about the report, it
just got posted online, so we're still working our way through it here.
So I couldn't tell you that he believes there's a linkage between what
happened on January 6 and those numbers - the drop in public
confidence.
And I'd be surprised, Tara, if that was the case that a single event
like that - as dramatic as it was would be responsible for numbers
coming out the way they are. The military is still the most trusted
institution in America, and we take that trust and confidence very, very
seriously and want to make sure that we're always earning it, always
deserve it.
Q: Just a quick follow-up on that, and I have a second one. It
wasn't just the January 6, it was a year's worth of when they were there
in June in front of some of the D.C. monuments, and just the role of
the military over time, but no specific cause. And just the concern of
the military basically guarding D.C., whether that came up at all in the
considerations of letting the Guard extend its stay here?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not sure I follow your question… Was the previous
mission that the military had in D.C., did that affect the secretary's
decision to approve this?
Q: Did he think about it overall as a big picture -- having guards
still be there, still protecting and sealing access to the Capitol and
to the entire Capitol complex much like in June when there were rows of
Guard members in front of some of the national monuments? Just that
perception, do you think - did that weigh in?
MR. KIRBY: I think what weighed most heavily on the secretary was a
solid analysis of the request and the capacity that the Capitol Police
believed they still needed in the wake of what happened January 6. I
think -- look, everybody wants to make sure that our lawmakers have a
safe and secure environment to work in, and we rely on the Capitol
Police's judgment – because that's their job up there -- to tell us what
that need is.
And the secretary looked at this just like he would for any other
request for forces, or request for assistance -- let's validate the
requirement and then if we agree that it is a valid requirement let's go
after the sourcing that makes the most sense. And so we're working on
that.
I don't think the secretary was driven by imagery from the past
year. I think in general all Americans - and the poll, even though the
numbers in this survey seem to show a drop in this particular survey,
it's clear that the American people still support and trust the men and
women of the military. And I don't think it's anybody's ideal situation
to see them have to be on patrol here in the nation's capitol, but here
we are.
And so the answer is, do you continue to meet what you consider a
valid requirement for their services and their support, or do you just
walk away from it because you don't like the idea of it? And that's
just not the way the secretary analyzes these kinds of requests.
Q: OK. And then last, you know March 12 is right around the corner,
it's a lot easier to ask forces that are already here to stay rather
than source up new forces to get there in time for March 12 to be an
extension. So in these calls out are you asking the states who are
already here to extend some of their forces instead of bringing in new?
MR. KIRBY: Yes, there's going to be some number of that will be
asked to extend past March 12, past Friday, to allow for the transition
in of the new Guard units that are coming in. I think there'll be -- a
transition period. It won't be quite so binary as Friday all these
5,100 are gone and then the 2,280 show up. It just won't work like
that. So we are talking to some states about some of the current troops
that are involved on Capitol Hill to stay for a short period of time.
I'm getting less than two weeks as we begin to transition the new group in, yes. Let me go back to the phones here.
Sylvie?
Q: Hello? I have a question about the trip of the secretary to
China – sorry, to Asia. I wanted to know first what is the message that
the Secretary wants to convey to China when he will be travelling? And
also, the Secretary of State is going to meet with representative of
the Chinese Communist Party next week. I wanted to know if the
Secretary of Defense has any plans to meet anyone from the PLA?
MR. KIRBY: I'm sorry, from where?
Q: The PLA.
MR. KIRBY: The PLA? Oh, oh. So, on the second question the answer
is no. On your first question this trip is about working to revitalize
our alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region, in particular
with Japan and South Korea. As you know, the majority of our treaty
alliances are in that part of the world, and the secretary - and I don't
want to speak for the Secretary of State but I believe he feels the
same way that we want to re-energize our commitment to those treaty
alliances, and that's really the message here going forward is that we
know we need strong allies and partners and friends in that part of the
world, and there's a lot going on, and China is certainly a key piece of
what's going on there in terms of the coercion and the aggressive
activities they're taking in the South China Sea.
But this is really about, you know, in terms of message sending, it's
about sending a strong message of our commitment to these alliances and
partnerships.
Abraham?
Q: I want to return to the National Guard requests. On the
statement and then what you've described today there's no mention of
actual threat intelligence. Was that part of the request from the
Capitol Police? Did Secretary Austin review threat assessments when he
made his decisions? And also why did he grant the full amount when he
could have granted a lesser number of troops? Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: He granted the amount that he believed was warranted and
he believed that the request was valid for the full 2,280. That's why
he made that decision. And I'm not going to get into threat assessments
or intelligence. You know I won't do that, but clearly that's always a
factor when you agree to put forces into a mission somewhere even if
it's here at home.
Q: So it was part of the request?
MR. KIRBY: He considered all the factors that are required before
deciding to commit additional forces for an additional amount of time.
Terace?
Q: Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I was trying to find the unmute button.
Thank you so much for taking my question. It's in regards to the Guard
being here as well. I've spoken to various Guardsmen and they're
getting burned out. And so, what is the Pentagon -- what's their
message to them for those who are getting burned out being here for so
long, and also is there any concerns, what's going to be done to keep
others from experiencing that same burnout?
MR. KIRBY: Well thanks for the question. And I think we've talked
about this quite a bit. I mean, the leadership here at the Pentagon,
including the secretary are mindful of the demands that are being placed
on these men and women and their families quite frankly. I mean, many
of them, particularly the ones that are here now, I mean, they had to
leave jobs and homes and to do it on short notice. And they're still
out there in what has been a pretty wet, nasty, cold winter.
And so, we're mindful of the privations that they've had to endure
and we're going to be mindful of that going forward with the next group
coming in here through May. And part of it is staying in constant touch
with them as leaders here at the Pentagon have done, making sure that,
as General Hokanson has, having meals with them multiple times a week,
walking in line with them, making sure that we're listening to their
concerns and we're answering them as much as possible.
I'm not surprised to hear you say that you've talked to some that are
tired. It's been a long winter and we all recognize that, but we also
all recognize the requirement to have them up there and to meet a valid
need by the Capitol Police for additional security here at the Capitol
complex.
Jen?
Q: Any change to the Fort Lee situation or decision making? Have you received a request from HHS?
MR. KIRBY: No requests specifically from HHS for installation support at Fort Lee, no.
Q: Any other military bases?
MR. KIRBY: None that I'm aware of, but we have reached out to the
services to look at and to ask for their input about what installations
might be, if asked, might be suitable for this. As you know, we've done
this before, but there's been, outside of Fort Lee, no other site
surveys that I'm aware of and no requests from HHS for any military
support at this time.
Q: And we're coming up on the one year anniversary tomorrow of the
COVID shutdown. Does the secretary feel that he has a clear
understanding about the origin of the virus and how important it is for
him and the military to understand the origin of this pandemic?
MR. KIRBY: Well the secretary's going to leave that to the
scientists that are studying the origin of the virus. His concern, Jen,
quite honestly is much more on making sure we're supporting FEMA
vaccination sites in the country, and I think we're up to 17 now that we
actually are in the process of supporting, and, to Meghann's question,
making sure that the men and women of the Defense Department in the
appropriate scheme at the appropriate time are being offered the vaccine
to take it to protect the force and to protect their teammates. That's
where his focus is right now.
Phil?
Q: Hey. Real quick just a quick follow up on Sylvie's question and I
had a separate question on China. Just - so what should we read into
the fact that Secretary Austin isn't going to be at this first top level
meeting on national security issues and other issues with the Chinese
delegation in Alaska, and does this suggest that he's waiting for
something else to happen before he starts his military engagements? Is
the PLA is just not interested in talking to him yet? And then again I
have a separate question on China. Thanks.
MR. KIRBY: I wouldn't read anything into the fact that he's not
joining Secretary Blinken in Alaska. We're diverging after the Korea
stop, and the secretary's moving on to go visit our Indian counterparts
in New Delhi, and Secretary Blinken has his schedule to execute, so I
wouldn't read anything more into it than that.
And you know, when there's an appropriate time for him to engage
directly with his Chinese counterpart, he'll do that, but it's not
scheduled to be part of this trip. Go ahead.
Q: OK. And then Jeffrey Lewis who's an arms controls expert who's
very knowledgeable about North Korea made a comment yesterday where he
said that he thought that Admiral Davidson might be exaggerating,
perhaps inadvertently, about the size of China's nuclear arsenal. And I
was wondering whether the secretary shares Admiral Davidson's views
about the size of China's nuclear arsenal?
MR. KIRBY: I haven't had a chance to speak to the secretary
specifically about Admiral Davidson’s estimates. But as I said the
other day, I mean, we all share concern about the degree to which they
are improving their delivery vehicles and their inventory, which clearly
is commensurate with pretty aggressive regional ambition. So, we all
share that concern.
Tom?
Q: Staying on China and that meeting with Secretary Blinken, you
said Secretary Austin won't take part but will anyone from the Pentagon
take part in that meeting, do you know?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not aware. As you know there is an assistant
chairman of the joint chiefs who often travels with the Secretary of
State, I'll have to check and see if that individual's part of agenda
but if so then I would assume he'd be part of that discussion. But
again, I don't want to speak for the State Department either. Yes.
Q: On India, will the Secretary raise the issue of S-400- India's purchase of S-400 from Russia?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to get into the secretary's conversation
with his counterparts in India, and I'm sure you know we'll read those
out at the appropriate time and do so publicly. But I'm not going to
get ahead of discussions that he hasn't had yet with them.
Q: And also on climate change -- climate program, so just I read in
2019, a report suggests that the U.S. Air Force caused more emissions
than the entire African Continent. So, what are the tools in the hands
of the Defense Department to contribute to the efforts of climate?
MR. KIRBY: Well, one of the things that the climate working groups
going to be looking at is our own energy efficiency programs here. And
there have been, and the Pentagon has made strides across multiple
administrations to get better energy efficiency programs, systems, and
capabilities in the force and I think you can expect that Secretary
Austin will continue to look at those programs and see if they can be
improved and/or accelerated.
Let's see, Sam, from USNI.
Q: Hi, John, following up on the HASC INDOPACOM hearing today, Sea
Power and Projection Forces Ranking Member Rob Wittman asked Admiral
Davidson whether or not he would support retiring an aircraft carrier
ahead of a refueling overhaul, and this was a live issue back in 2019
when the previous administration had proposed retiring USS Truman.
It kind of seemed to come out of nowhere, so what does he know that
we don't, given some of the reporting out here that budgets are at a
topline or budgets are probably going to be the topline from last year,
not the big increase that we saw proposed with the Trump
administration. Are aircraft carrier reductions on the table in terms
of the FY22 thing because Representative Wittman seems to think so,
thanks.
MR. KIRBY: Well, I'll let Representative Wittman speak for what he
knows, that wouldn't certainly be my place and it's also not my place to
get ahead of the FY22 budget process. I mean, we're still, obviously,
working through that and we'll respect the process that's led by OMB.
So, I'm not going to get ahead of that at all.
Jenny?
Q: Thank you, John. On Diplomacy Committee over several years,
Congressman and the experts have said that the love letter diplomacy
between former President Trump and the North Korean Kim Jung Un did not
succeed in giving up the North Korea nuclearweapons.
In particular, the diplomatic (inaudible) is important to dealing
with in North Korea but strong defense power is also required to deter
North Korea. What are your comments on that? (inaudible).
MR. KIRBY: Well, he is the Secretary of Defense so I think you can
safely assume from that in the discussion he's going to having it's
going to be focused on making sure that we're meeting our security
commitments under and through our alliance with the Republic of Korea,
and he'll be going there with the Secretary of State who can certainly
speak to the broader foreign policy objectives of the United States
thatwe wouldn't certainly comment on that. But clearly, the secretary
looks forward to this chance to go and to meet with his counterpart and
with Secretary Blinken's counterpart to talk about the broader direction
that we want the alliance to go in.
Q: But in fact, for three years there has been no theatre training,
no other training, so how are you going to keep the security on the
peninsula?
MR. KIRBY: I've already talked about this quite a bit. I mean, we
recognize that training and readiness of military forces -- our military
forces on the peninsula is important. And we're confident that our
commander there, General Abrams is managing that quite well.
And so, certainly, while some training in the past had been modified
to provide space for the diplomatic efforts you talked about, it's not
like there was no training that was ever done. And I won't speak to
specifics of training on the peninsula but we all know that military
readiness remains important.
Q: But diplomatic efforts did not work. (inaudible) Love letter
diplomacy- it doesn't work. So, how are you going to do that? I mean,
the Biden administration?
MR. KIRBY: Why don't we wait until the trip is over, and then we can
talk about it on the other side? I mean, but I think there's going to
be a consorted effort here to make sure we're revitalizing that
alliance. That's the purpose of the trip. I won't get ahead of
outcomes as a result of that, and I certainly won't speak about
diplomacy and foreign policy here from this podium. My days of doing
that are over.
Q: (Inaudible) I mentioned about the defense policy?
MR. KIRBY: Yes, I answered your question about defense policy.
Q: Thank you very much.
MR. KIRBY: You're welcome very much.
Peter Lilley
Q: Hi, thanks very much. I wanted to ask about the Climate Task
Force. Admiral Davidson had said both in the Senate and in the House
when asked about climate he talks about their disaster management
center and how they worked to mitigate the effects of climate disasters
but mitigating the effects is quite a bit different than mitigating the
events themselves and so I'm wondering how this task force will go
beyond simply mitigating damages and instead mitigating risk? Thanks
MR. KIRBY: So I think -- I mean, it's got to be both, it's got to be
both. It's got to be about making sure that our installations, our
facilities, are more resilient, given the effects of extreme weather
that is driven largely by climate change, and we're seeing this, our
Navy bases are seeing this already. Not just Navy, of course, but I mean
that's clearly one obvious example.
So it's got to be about improving resilience to the kinds of things
that the climate now is driving in terms of extreme weather, but it is
also got to be about what we can do at the Defense Department to
contribute to energy efficiency, to contribute to reduced emissions here
by the United States, and of course we operate all around the world.
So we feel that extra sense of responsibility to drive at outcomes,
but it's not one or the other, it's got to be both. Let's see, here in
the room, Mike?
Q: Yes, thanks John. A couple of questions, not artillery related. Just wanted to -- circle back to the...
MR. KIRBY: Thank you.
Q: ... I want to circle back to the National Guard story. Is there a
concern with this starting some sort of precedent that other police
departments may suddenly start tapping into their guard units like a
temp agency looking for free labor anytime there's some kind of
shortage?
MR. KIRBY: No, I don't think there's any deeper concern about that.
And again, I mean, the question that you and Jen posed, you seem to
presume that that's how the Capitol Police is looking at this or that's
how civilian law enforcement look at it, and I just don't -- we have
seen no indication that they look at the guard as free labor.
I think this is what it is, and then the Secretary did this analysis
-- or looked at the analysis that this was a valid request for some --
for support to fill out capacity gaps that they have in the near future.
Q: Okay, so second question. There's some people up in the Hill
that started calling the area Fort Pelosi in light of all the presence
there, any comment on that?
MR. KIRBY: No, I'm not going to comment on the partisan nature that
unfortunately this mission has taken on. That's not our role. Our role
was to treat this request for assistance as we would any other, and the
secretary is comfortable that we did that.
Yes, back there.
Q: Thank you. I have two questions about the Secretary’s trip to the
Indo-Pacific region. The first question is, why does the secretary need
to meet his counterpart in person instead of meeting (inaudible) or
speaking by phone?
MR. KIRBY: Well they already have spoken by phone, and actually both
ministers in those conversations said they looked forward to being able
to meet the Secretary in person. And we're obviously mindful of the
COVID environment. Nobody decided to undertake this trip without special
care to the pandemic and the impact it's having, and I think you'll see
that.
We'll be able to provide you more detail about the trip later on in
the week, and I think you'll see that due caution has been paid to
making sure we're observing safety protocols and CDC guidelines even
when we're overseas.
And it's not a trip of long-duration, as I think you know, I mean all
of that was factored into the need to do this, but such importance is
placed on the Indo-Pacific region, as it should be, that both Secretary
Austin and Secretary Blinken felt that this was a trip worth making at
this particular time.
Q: My second question, you mentioned the importance of the alliance
and the partnership in the Indo-Pacific region, but the bi-lateral
relationship between Japan and the South Korea have not been stable
because of the political disagreement and historical dispute.
And the strained relationship has a negative impact on the
Secretary's cooperation as we saw when South Korea was about to
terminate the intelligence-sharing framework with Japan in 2019.
Do you think those historical disputes and political disagreements
should be kept separate from the fight out of security and military
cooperation?
MR. KIRBY: I think I'll just say that recognizing that there are
tensions between those two countries, we still encourage them to work
together. And we look forward to exploring trilateral ways where we can
all work together to address security challenges in the region. I think
I'd leave it at that.
Q: Is the Secretary of Defense scheduled to visit the DMZ this time?
MR. KIRBY: I think we'll have more details about the trip later on, but to answer your question, no.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Thank you, I think I just -- let me put a fork in that one right now. No. Yes, go ahead.
Q: Thank you. So this ahead of Secretary Austin's trip, there will
be a QUAD -- the first QUAD summit ahead of the trip, so I would like to
ask about QUAD. Does Secretary Austin have any plan to talk about QUAD
Plus, it's like extending and expanding shape of QUAD, and asking South
Korea to join our place of roles in QUAD Plus?
General Davidson yesterday at the hearing highlighted importance of
QUAD, saying that the QUAD, as the diamond of the democracies in the
region, and he said that he expected it to build into something bigger,
so I would like to know if he had any plan to urge Korea to like more
join or do some more roles together with Japan, Australia, and India?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have any changes or future plans for the QUAD to
speak to today. I mean, the Secretary looks forward to participating in
the discussion that will take place on Friday. And we recognize the
importance of those countries, to regional security, but I have nothing
more beyond that. Okay. Jared?
Q: Hey John, thanks for taking my question. If I could just bring it
back to the Persian Gulf real quick, I just had a quick question and
then a follow-up. Is there any update on this past weekend's strike on
Ras Tanura and other locations in Saudi Arabia, any further assessments
that have come through?
MR. KIRBY: Sure. Oh, is that right? Hey guys, you can get him back in a second, if you want, I think he had a second question.
Q: Hey, can you hear me?
MR. KIRBY: I'll get right back to you, go ahead, Jared.
Q: Great, I just wanted to follow-up on that, and then I think it
was Prince Faisal bin Farhan said today that the kingdom is going to be
taking, you know, deterrent measures to protect their oil
infrastructure. Have there been any requests or any consultations with
the department about additional air defenses or further integrating
Saudi's air defenses?
MR. KIRBY: I -- I don't have any updates on that. As we've said in
the past, we take very seriously our commitments to helping Saudi Arabia
defend itself against these attacks, attacks which are still happening
and still having an effect on the citizens of Saudi Arabia. But I don't
have anything specific to speak to in terms of additional request for
assistance. Go ahead.
Q: Thank you. As you know, the First Lady is on the west coast, visiting bases yesterday and today.
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Q: And while she was at Joint Base Lewis-McChord yesterday, a DoD
official told -- cited this statistic of 15 percent of military families
on the base had a child in -- on the autism spectrum. So I'm wondering
if there's any wider force analysis about this kind of situation within
the families.
MR. KIRBY: Ma'am, that's the first I've heard of that anecdote. So
let me look into that and we'll see if we can get you something. I
don't know - I've never heard that statistic before, not challenging it,
just not heard it. And I don't know if we have, so don't let me
overpromise here, I don't know if we have data that gives you a
force-wide look at the prevalence of autism in military children. But
I'm happy to take a look at that.
Q: And just a follow up, there's a program called the Exceptional Family Member Program.
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Q: Is that DOD wide? And if so, how is that working out? Because
it seems like that fills in a lot of the spaces that need to be filled
in when you have an exceptional child.
MR. KIRBY: It is force-wide, and it's long standing, the EFM
program. I'm not an expert in the details of it, but it goes a long
way, or historically, it has gone a long way, to easing the burdens on
families that have, particularly special needs children or other members
of the family that are special needs. But largely it's really about
children and it's a long-standing program that has had good effect on
making it easier for men and women to serve in uniform, making it easier
for them to have their families with them as they serve.
It effects certain things like your next assignment, making sure that
if you are going to move, that you're going to move to an area where
there's the proper care in place, military health care, for your
exceptional family member. It's a terrific program. Yes, in the back
there.
Mosh?
Q: Thanks for doing this, just one quick one on China. Yesterday
Admiral Davidson said that the U.S.'s military edge over China is
eroding and that China could potentially take action to seize Taiwan
within the next six years. Does the Secretary share that view? Is that
a huge concern of the Department?
MR. KIRBY: The Secretary believes it's in no one's interest for the
issue over Taiwan to come to blows or to conflict, there's no reason for
that to happen. We take our responsibilities to Taiwan seriously, as
has administrations, bipartisan, and legislators, bipartisan, for many,
many years. What he also believes, and he's told you this himself, that
we have to make sure that here in the department, that we're treating
China as the pacing challenge he believes it to be. And that means
having the right operational concepts in place, making sure that we are
properly resourced in the Indo-Pacific and that we are developing the
proper capabilities to make sure that we can meet that challenge from a
military perspective.
Clearly, China is behaving in ways that are not in keeping with an
international rules-based order. And as the Secretary of State has
said, that they seek to not only challenge that order but to supplant
it. We are mindful of that here at the Defense Department and that is
where his focus is.
OK. Yes, in the back here.
Q: Thank you very much for the opportunity. I've got a question
about QUAD. So there's a lot of discussion going on the diplomatic side
about the vaccine coordination, on the vaccine, and COVID. What should
we expect on the defense side? Is there going to be a defense
ministerial meeting also or is it -- should we...
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: I don't have a defense ministerial meeting about the QUAD
to announce today. But I -- you know, these are nations that the
secretary maintains communications with but I don't have a specific --
like, a defense ministerial meeting to announce or to speak to. And
it's not going to be part of this particular trip.
OK, yes.
Q: You can go...
(CROSSTALK)
MR. KIRBY: Yes, yes, yes.
Q: Relating to your...
MR. KIRBY: I can get to Barb later. That's all right.
Q: Related to your comments on the 10th anniversary from the disaster in Japan...
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Q: ... I wanted to ask you how you think the bilateral relations of
the United States and Japan has developed since then or if the roles of
the two countries have changed in these 10 years?
MR. KIRBY: That's a lot of history to speak to there. Why don't I
just keep it to what we've been doing for the last, you know, six weeks
that we've been here. I mean, obviously this is a key alliance and a
great friendship and we value that. As I talked to yesterday in terms
of speaking to this particular, very tough anniversary that we're facing
here today.
Our focus in the administration moving forward is to make sure that
that alliance, which is such a key to regional security and stability,
stays strong and gets stronger. And really, that's what the secretary
wants. That's the message he wants to send when we head to Japan here
next week.
I'm just not an expert enough to give you the last 10 years of
history here. We're looking ahead. We're focused on making sure that
alliance is as strong and as vibrant as it can be going forward.
OK. Barb, did you have one?
Q: I do. I want to come back to this. I'm sorry, but...
MR. KIRBY: I don't think you are.
(Laughter.)
Q: Just to quote you, you said, the National Guard was the specific
request made by the Capitol Police. And then you approved it. The
National Guard was the specific request made by the Capitol Police.
The Pentagon has always said -- to my knowledge, at least -- that
users don't get to request specific forces. They request a capability
and then you evaluate it. And then, you decide whether you want to fill
it with something you have that works.
So it's fine that it was the request by the Capitol Police. But did
you ever consider any other option such as civilian law enforcement?
Why did you fill it? If not, why did you fill it without looking at
other things, which...
MR. KIRBY: It's not...
Q: ... I think you always do?
MR. KIRBY: It's not our place to consider civilian law enforcement
for a request that we received for National Guard troops. Our
requirement -- no, Barb, wait now. Our -- our -- our job was to
evaluate that requirement, and we did that.
And the reason why it was for National Guard is because they already
had the National Guard there. It's a mission the National Guard's
already doing. And as I said before, from a legal perspective it's an
-- you know, it's an appropriate use of National Guard in support of
local law enforcement under Title 32. That is -- that's normal. That's
expected. That's -- that's part of the -- of the rubric there.
And so, they asked for National Guard support. We evaluated that. We validated the requirement and the secretary approved it.
It's -- I know what you're -- I know what you're after. But again,
you've got to understand what our requirements here are: to look at the
request and evaluate it. And we did that.
I would let the -- and I wouldn't speak for the Capitol Police, but
I'd let them speak to the degree to which -- when they looked at their
needs, what other sourcing did they look at?
Our job was to take the request as it came to us, evaluate its validity and then decide whether or not to source it. OK?
Q: Did -- just straight up, did the controversy over how soon the
National Guard was able to be on Capitol Hill January 6th -- just the
controversy itself, did that -- did you feel -- did this department feel
political pressure to respond with -- this National Guard extension
because of the weeks of controversy now about all of this? Did it play a
role?
MR. KIRBY: Political pressure play a role in this decision, is that what you're...
Q: Did you feel political pressure to approve this extension to the
Capitol Police because of the criticism that the department came in for
-- from -- over the last several weeks over how fast it responded on
January 6th?
MR. KIRBY: The secretary was not driven by political pressure and he
was not driven by the specific events of January 6th, which is
currently under investigation anyway. He looked at this analytically,
had his staff look at this analytically about what the need was, the
capacity gap that we could fill and then how best to do that.
Q: Did the Capitol Police ever specifically tell either the
secretary or the department about a specific threat that they feared or
did they -- or were they speaking in general terms? I mean, because --
since they're the ones who allegedly know about these threats, have they
ever conveyed it specifically to the Defense Department?
MR. KIRBY: The Department of Defense has had visibility into the
threat environment that has governed the presence of some of the troops
on the Capitol Complex.
Ellie from CBS?
Q: Hi, thank you. Sorry, double mute. You said you were asking --
the department's asking the services for suitable places if HHS were to
make a request. When are you guys expecting those to come in from the
services?
MR. KIRBY: I don't have a date certain on that, but there was a --
we did ask the services to go take a look at t what installations they
might think might be appropriate. But I don't have a suspense date on
that -- a deadline on that.
And again, I would stress that this is not uncommon. I mean, we've
done this twice before, where we want to get ahead if there is going to
be a request. There hasn't been one. But we want to make sure that, if
there is one, we're ready for it.
Q: If I could follow-up on a Mosheh’s question, is the invasion of Taiwan a red line for U.S. military?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not going to speculate about that. I think I've answered the question on Taiwan quite well today.
There's one last thing I do -- Meghann to your question on the video,
I did find some additional notes here. The cases in Air Forces Central
Command have been well below comparable to U.S. average, especially at
Prince Sultan Air Base, and they continue to drop.
Right now, there are currently below five cases in the theater and
their average is less than one new case per 100,000 a day. At the time
of the video, which as I said was a few weeks ago, there were some
slight spikes in the host nations, but we haven't seen an increasing
trend since the large transition of personnel in January, and even then,
as I said, they are still below U.S. averages.
OK, thank you very much. Appreciate it.
Posts
