Sept. 20, 2021
Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby
PRESS SECRETARY JOHN F. KIRBY: Good afternoon,
everybody. Just a couple things at the top here. Today, I think you saw
the Secretary issued a statement recognizing the 10 year anniversary of
the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The repeal eliminated a significant
barrier to equal treatment, in an effort to pursue a more equitable,
diverse, inclusive and accessible Department of Defense -- I might also
add "a more effective military."
As the Secretary said, by insisting on standards of merit, allowing
all of those who are qualified to serve in uniform, we avail ourselves
of more talent, better leaders and innovative solutions to the security
challenges that we face around the world.
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell improved the diversity and equity
and inclusion across our force and it makes us more representative not
only of the nation we defend but wiser and stronger, and without
question, better able to defend this nation.
On a personnel note, excited to welcome our newest member of the
Public Affairs team here at OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense).
Melanie Fonder Kaye joins us as the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary
for Strategic Engagement. She -- her first day was today. She comes to
the team after founding and leading the strategic communications firm
MFK Strategies.
She previously served as Director of Communications to Dr. Jill
Biden, where she developed the then-Second Lady's communications
strategy, which included joining forces, encouraging all Americans to
support service members, veterans, military families and caregivers,
among many other initiatives.
Melanie will have a robust schedule of office calls here as she
settles in and we'll circulate her contact information as soon as she's
up online. As I -- as far as I know, she doesn't even have a e-mail
account yet but we'll get that fixed soon.
With that, we'll take questions. Bob?
Q: Thank you, John. A couple of quick questions on -- do you have anything on a -- on an airstrike in northwest Syria today?
MR. KIRBY: I have seen a short statement by Central Command. I think
they've put that out, that -- and I can just read for you what I've got
-- I don't have more details than this, though -- a strike near Idlib,
Syria on a senior Al-Qaeda leader. Their initial indications are that
they struck the individual that they were targeting and that they don't
have any indications at this time of civilian casualties but they
continue to look into that, of course. I don't have more detail than
that.
Q: OK. The other question I had for you was whether you could discuss
any further the question of accountability for the Kabul strikes that
General McKenzie describes on Friday. He -- he mentioned very briefly
that there would -- that there was accountability aspect to the
investigation. Could -- is Secretary Austin involved in some way? Can
you elaborate?
MR. KIRBY: Sure. The -- the Secretary has asked the Secretary of the
Air Force to task a senior flag -- or general officer at the rank of
three star or above to conduct a review of the Central Command
investigation, the same investigation that General McKenzie read out to
you guys on -- on Friday.
Part of that review will be to examine the investigation itself, the
thoroughness of the investigation, to study the degree to which any
policies, procedures or targeting mechanisms may need to be altered
going forward, if any, and of course to then take a look at what levels
of accountability might be appropriate, and if so, at what -- at what
level.
So that'll be part of this review and the Secretary's asked for the
Secretary of the Air Force to -- to nominate somebody for that and then
to have that review done within 45 days of the tasking of the individual
reviewer.
Q: So is that -- on the question of accountability, does that three
star or above officer have the authority to initiate action, or only to
recommend?
MR. KIRBY: It -- it would be -- it would be to review the
investigation and to make recommendations based on that review, not
necessarily to take action. This would be a senior Air Force officer. So
if there's accountability to be held, you know, the -- the decisions
about who and -- and -- and what would -- would be done would be a
separate consideration.
Q: OK, thank you.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah. Jen?
Q: John, I'm still trying to understand how the U.S. military
followed a car for eight hours and took a -- fired a Hellfire missile
when a car was pulling into a driveway, not even pulling out of the
driveway, en route to the airport. Why was the decision taken? As we've
now learned, there was another surveillance drone showing that there
were kids or individuals on the ground. But I'm still confused, with
that car pulling into the driveway, why was that the moment that you
would strike?
MR. KIRBY: Well, Jen, I think you can understand now that we're going
to review this investigation. I really am not in a position today to
re-litigate the tick tock of -- of what happened and in what order.
General McKenzie, I thought, did a -- a very fair contextual job on
Friday walking you through almost minute-by-minute what they were seeing
and -- and -- and the decisions that they made in the moment.
And so I think I'm just going to leave it the way General McKenzie
left it on Friday and then let the reviewer of this investigation come
to their own conclusions about this.
Q: And can you explain to us how these drone strikes, when they take
place in a place like Afghanistan, at what level is the targeter -- what
-- was the targeting team at the airport? Was it sitting in -- at
CENTCOM in Tampa? Was it at Fort Bragg? Was it out in Las Vegas? Where
-- at what level was the decision being made?
MR. KIRBY: The decision was made in Kabul, by the strike cell commander in Kabul.
Q: And lastly, is there any plan to evacuate the remaining members of
the family? They are doing interviews saying that nobody's reached out
to them for payments and they want to be moved to the U.S. cause they
feel their lives are in danger now that they've been outed as having had
family members who worked for the U.S. government.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah, I've certainly seen those comments. I don't have
anything to confirm or speak to today in terms of the physical movement
of the family members but we know that Central Command is working
through how best to reach out to them for the -- for the issue of
payments but also to determine the validity of this interest in -- in
moving out.
And I don't want to get ahead of -- I -- I certainly don't want to
speak for the family and I don't want to get ahead of where CENTCOM is
in that process.
Q: But the Defense Secretary would support removing that family, if they want to come ...
MR. KIRBY: I believe the Secretary of Defense would absolutely
support -- if the family wanted to leave Afghanistan and come to the
United States, I believe he would support that, assuming that, you know,
all of the proper legal hoops were -- were worked through. I mean, I
don't want to get ahead of a process or a decision that hasn't been made
yet, but I think he would absolutely consider that.
Yeah, Janne?
Q: Thank you, John. Was it South Korea issues? As do you already know
that South Korea successfully test-fired SLBMs, submarine launched
ballistic missiles.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q: As an ally, the United States, how do you view South Korea's successful test fire of SLBMs?
MR. KIRBY: I would simply say that we continue to work closely with
our allies in the Republic of Korea on making sure that we have
complimentary military capabilities and that we keep those capabilities
ready and prepared and -- and capable in a way commensurate with the
continued threats that we see on the peninsula.
Q: Do you think that this will help deter North Korean provocation?
MR. KIRBY: I would like to think that the alliance itself and the
strength and the unity of the alliance itself would be an appropriate
deterrent capability. That's certainly one reason why we work at this
alliance so hard and why it matters so much to us and -- and to the
region. But you've heard the Secretary talk about something called
integrated deterrence. He mentioned that the other day, in context of --
of the meeting with the Australians at the State Department. Integrated
deterrence is not just something that he's looking at from a United
States perspective.
It certainly does cut across the Joint Force, and it does cross many
domains of warfighting. From space and cyber, maritime, and air, and, of
course, ground. But in the Secretary's mind, integrated deterrence is
really about netting-in and integrating the capabilities of our allies
and partners, particularly in that part of the world. And, of course,
there's no stronger ally than the Republic of Korea.
Q: Thank you very much.
MR. KIRBY: You're welcome. Terace?
Q: Yes, hi, John. I have two questions. First one, did Secretary
Austin give the Secretary of the Air Force a deadline for choosing the
person that's going to do the review of the investigation?
MR. KIRBY: No.
Q: OK.
MR. KIRBY: But I don't think this is going to be a task that's going to take an exorbitant amount of time.
Q: Well, once they're selected, it will be 45 days.
MR. KIRBY: Well, once the individual has been named by the Secretary
of the Air Force, the Secretary has asked that the review be completed
in 45 days.
Q: Gotcha. And then my second question is, what is the military going
to try to mend relationships with allies in the Middle East following
the drone strike?
MR. KIRBY: I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of mending
relationships. So, we have very strong relationships in the region as it
is. And I would point to the Secretary's travel just the week before
last to visit some of our Gulf allies in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar.
That was very much part and parcel of thanking those strong allies and
partners in the region for the support that they -- that they continue
to give us with respect to this at this -- these evacuees.
Yeah, Travis?
Q: Thanks, John. I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan as well. And I
know that the Secretary has talked a little bit about this. He had
mentioned a possible resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. But I'm
wondering if he is concerned that we could have a similar situation to
what we saw in Iraq and Syria in 2011 to 2014 with the Islamic State.
Could we see something similar to that in Afghanistan? And how are we
better prepared to deal with that kind of threat today than we were, say
eight years ago?
MR. KIRBY: The -- the Secretary has -- has said that -- that given
the rapid collapse of the Ghani government, and the rapid ascendancy now
to the power of the Taliban, that he believes it would be prudent to
reassess his previous assessment of medium risk in terms of the -- the
-- the return of Al-Qaeda or Al-Qaeda affiliates in Afghanistan to a
level commensurate with, you know, an ability to threaten the homeland.
The way they did in 2001. That doesn't mean that -- that he -- we don't
already recognize. And we have recognized that they -- they do exist in
Afghanistan. And then they -- they do continue to pose a threat but a
threat rising to the level of a -- of a possible attack on the homeland.
So, he believes that given recent events, we need to reassess what our
view is in terms of how and to what degree they could reemerge at that
level.
And then to your second question. And we've talked about this quite a
bit. I mean, we are not the same country that we were on 9/11 in terms
of our ability to defend ourselves from these kinds of attacks. The
intelligence communities are much more networked now and coordinated. We
have far more capability in -- in space and in cyber, and -- and
certainly in the aviation realm than we did in 2001 to try to keep eyes
on and to -- and to be able to gather and analyze intelligence. We also
have just better kinetic capabilities than we had. We didn't have in
2001 anywhere near the unmanned aerial capability that we have now. So,
we have advanced a lot. It doesn't make you perfect. It doesn't mean
that you don't still have to work hard to make sure that you get it
right. But we have definitely advanced our CT capabilities around the
world.
Q: I guess I was asking about the lessons learned by the growth of
the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria in the in-between period. U.S.
troops largely left around 2011, and there was a period...
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.
Q: ... the Islamic State grew, metastasized, and then they took over a
huge swath of territory, including Mosul. So, I'm wondering, are there
any lessons learned in that fight that we could apply to Afghanistan so
we don't end up with a similar situation?
MR. KIRBY: Well, we're certainly going to stay vigilant watching the
threat in Afghanistan. There's no question about that. And as I said,
the Secretary believes it's prudent to reassess what we think we know
about Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Afghanistan and where they might go. I would
tell you that as we speak today when you talked about the
metastasization of a -- of a threat, we have seen it metastasize outside
of Afghanistan to other places. You mentioned Iraq and Syria, but also
Yemen, Somalia, the Levant.
There are -- we do not hold there to be an existential threat of
terrorism from Afghanistan right now. But again, we're going to stay
vigilant, we're going to watch it, and we're certainly going to be
willing to -- to reassess what we -- what we know today. We do have --
and we do have the capability to -- to keep eyes on.
Q: If I could, just one quick follow-up. Any future military action
inside Afghanistan would be done under the authority of the existing
2001 AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force), correct? That's the
authority that you would be using?
MR. KIRBY: I -- you know, I -- the -- the 2001 AUMF exists. We would
like to see a new AUMF written to address the kinds of threats that we
face now. I'm not going to talk about specific authorities for any
specific military action that might or might not occur there or anywhere
else. But again, the Secretary is supportive of -- of -- of the
administration's approach to seek a new and more accurate, more clearly
defined AUMF.
Dave?
Q: Is this reassessment of the threat from Afghanistan? Is this a formal reassessment or just people we think..
MR. KIRBY: He has not tasked a -- a formal reassessment. He believes it's warranted.
Q: So, does that mean there's going to be one?
MR. KIRBY: Yes.
Tom?
Q: Thanks John. You often said up there that, you know, you want to
be as transparent as possible. Bearing that mantra in mind, yesterday at
Lackland Air Force Base, a reporter on the public roadway was taking
photographs of the entrance side to Lackland. The reporter was covering
the larger Haitian deporting issue. Base security came out, escorted the
reporter onto the base, took the reporter's driver's license, and
called the local sheriff. They would not release the reporter until she
turned over her photographs and tape recording. I'm wondering if you
know about this incident? If not, how do you feel about it?
MR. KIRBY: I don't know about it. I'm gonna have my staff look into
it as soon as the briefing is over. I think that's the best I can do
right now. And I'll find out what -- what actually happened.
Q: Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: And I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
Let me go back to the phones here because I haven't gotten to the phones at all yet.
Sylvie?
Q: Hello, John. I would like to go back to Bob's question about the
strike in Syria. You don't have any more details; where was it exactly?
And who was the Al-Qaeda operative that was -- was targeted?
MR. KIRBY: Sylvie, right now, I can just tell you, it was near Idlib,
in Syria. And as Central Command said in their brief statement, it was a
senior Al-Qaeda leader. I don't have more detail than that right now.
Q: OK. Thank you.
MR. KIRBY: You're welcome.
Phil?
Q: Hey, John, two quick follow-ups. One, and then I'll -- but I guess
I'll fall back for that. One, when you said it was a three-star or
who's going to be potentially reviewing this whole review, what does
that say about accountability? Does that say that the accountability
here, if there were to be any, would be for people that three-star below
but not higher? What does that say to you?
And then -- and then I guess the -- the other follow up I had was on
-- on the -- the strike itself, I realized that you don't want to
re-litigate details the strike, but I mean, aren't -- aren't certain
elements of -- of what happened still within, you know, the public's
right to know? I mean, I realized that you know, that the review of the
review has to conclude, but it could be. We have no timeline on that.
MR. KIRBY: Well, Phil, as I said, the only thing holding up the
review -- it's not even holding it up, is just the selection of -- of a
reviewing officer. And then, once that officer has been chosen, the
Secretary expects the review to be done in 45 days. I don't think that's
an exorbitant amount of time to -- to treat with seriousness and with
some sense of gravity this particular investigation. As for the
tick-tock of the events, I thought General McKenzie did an excellent job
Friday, walking you through the thought process and as much of the
targeting process as he could. He is far -- he and his staff are far
more able to do that than I am from the podium.
And so, if there's an additional set of details that you think you
need, I would encourage you to reach out to Central Command. As to your
other question about the -- the accountability and whether a three-star,
you know, sends some sort of negative message, I will remind you of two
things. One, the tasking memo to the Air Force says it -- it -- it just
needs to be an officer at O9 or above. So, that's either a three or a
four-star. And we don't know who the Air Force is going to choose.
And it also says in the memo, and I failed to mention this earlier,
that if the invest -- if the reviewing officer believes that there
should be a level of accountability at someone at a higher rank than he
or she, the reviewing officer needs to make a note of that to the
Secretary of the Air Force and to the Secretary of Defense so that
that's made -- so that that's made clear.
Yes, Kristina?
Q: Well, I have a big picture -- kind of a big picture policy
question about freedom of navigation in the Asia Pacific, and the impact
of AUKUS (trilateral security pact between Australia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States) on that short term. And then over the
longer term, how DOD is maybe thinking about that as an -- as it might
impact things like budding democratic ambitions in Taiwan, as -- as they
look to move closer to the global community of democracies.
MR. KIRBY: So, what's the question?
Q: How's the DOD thinking about that? That's why I said it was a big policy question.
MR. KIRBY: Yeah.. I mean, there's an awful lot there. First of all,
there's no change to our One-China Policy. So, we'll just lay that flat
right now. We continue to maintain a strong belief in international
norms that exist in that region and around the world.
And in abeyance to those norms and orders to include the right of
navigation in international waters, and international airspace. Freedom
of the seas doesn't just apply to whales and icebergs. It applies the
navies and ships of all nations. And we're going to continue to exercise
that right, lawfully and appropriately as we can.
Q: And do you think that AUKUS will assist in that? Over the longer term?
MR. KIRBY: I think it's important to remember that AUKUS is not some
sort of new alliance. It is a new defense security partnership that has
been put in place. And the first element of it. The first initiative of
it, is to help Australia acquire nuclear powered submarines.
Which as the Secretary said, last week, we believe will be an
additive component to something akin to integrated deterrence in the
Indo-Pacific region. It'll improve the Australian Navy's reach and their
warfighting capability, their defensive capability. And that's all to
be welcomed in that particular part of the world. Given the dynamic,
intense security environment that exists.
Jen.
Q: John, can I ask you about the flights from Ramstein and when
they're going to resume? It's my understanding that there have been
about 9,000, MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccines that have been
administered. And so, the reason for stopping those flights you still
have about 10,000 people at Ramstein. When are they going to start up
again? And why is the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) still halting
them? I guess.
MR. KIRBY: I don't have an update. They are still halted, and your
question is much better put to the CDC about when they can be resumed.
We are - just like we do here at home with respect to COVID. We comply
with CDC guidelines. And I would refer you to CDC for more detail on
that. OK, I get a couple more and then I'll let you all go. Jared.
Q: Hi, Mr. Kirby. My question has been answered.
MR. KIRBY: OK. Kim Dozier.
Q: Hey, there thanks. Two questions. Can you give us an update on the
Afghan casualties who were taken to Landstuhl or other U.S. medical
facilities from Abbey Gate bombing? And also, what guidance Are you
giving U.S. military personnel who are trying to shepherd along their
Afghan interpreter or other threatened Afghan cases? Mainly in the P-2
category.
As I've heard from people who are worried that they hear state
talking about American citizens and legal permanent residents. And it
feels like the P-2 category is just dropped off the map. And they want
to know if the Biden administration is still trying to get threatened
Afghans out?
MR. KIRBY: I can't help you on your first question, Kim, but I will
take it and we'll see. I can't promise I don't know how much we're going
to be allowed to speak to the wounded of another nation. But I will -
we will certainly look into this and see if we have something for you. I
just wasn't prepared today to have any detail on that.
On your second question. Again, the questions about visas and how
they're being processed is better put to my state department colleagues.
What I can tell you is that we have been already talking to veterans'
groups quite frequently. About their concerns over specific individuals
and or specific families.
Many of us here in the building also have, you know, friends and
coworkers and teammates that we know of. And so, we, you might have seen
General Milley tried to help put together a process by which these
veterans' groups. Whether they're formal or informally developed. A
process by which they can communicate directly with the department,
about individuals and family members that they want to make sure are on
our radar screen.
And so, we're going to continue to try to improve that process and
improve that communication. So that we can continue to help as many
people as possible. Another flight left, yesterday. With, I think, more
than 20 American citizens on it. So, as we said earlier, though, the
military component of this effort has ended.
It doesn't mean that the DOD or the interagency or the administration
is going to turn a blind eye. To the effort to continue to try to get
American citizens out of Afghanistan. And continue to help those Afghan
allies who helped us so much over the last 20 years.
Q: Has it been formalized at all that process?
Q: Any detail, you can offer about DOD and Transcom (U.S.
Transportation Command) assistance to DHS (Department of Homeland
Security) and CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) at the border at
Del Rio? And a different subject entirely, a clarification question.
Servicemembers who were discharged, dishonorably discharged under sexual
orientation or gender identity.
Have they always had access to full VA (U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs) benefits? Or is there a change in policy or process? That now
makes it easier for them to get full access.
MR. KIRBY: I'd refer you to VA on that one. I don't I'm not an expert
on their processes. But I did. You saw - I hope you saw on the
Secretary's' statement that he encourages those individuals who were
discharged under other than honorable circumstances. Because of this,
because of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy.
To reach out to their Boards of Corrections for their individual
services and to try to get their services amended, appropriately. But as
for the VA benefits, I'm just not an expert on that. On your other
question, I can confirm that the department has received a request for
transportation support. From the Department of Homeland Security and the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Service.
Under this request, the department would provide contracted air
transportation for Customs and Border Patrol on a reimbursable basis. To
temporarily supplement CBP efforts to move non-U.S. citizen migrants
from Del Rio Texas to other domestic CBP Processing Facilities.
And this support will conclude on or before October 20 of this year.
And it can be provided with minimal risks to current DOD missions. I
would just again, highlight contracted air. We're not talking about
military aircraft right now. And on a reimbursable basis.
And to be provided at minimal risk to current DOD missions. I don't
have more detail than that the request really has just come in. So,
we're doing the same thing we would do with any RFA Request for
Assistance. We're examining, reviewing, and determining the best way
forward.
Yes, Ryo?
Q: I have a quick question. I'm wondering how important Australia is
for the DOD processing to maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan
Strait? Are you going to discard the COVID operation planning or
contingency in the Taiwan Strait with Australia in the future?
MR. KIRBY: I wouldn't get so specifically to talk about Taiwan here.
Again, nothing's changed about our One-China Policy. And what I would
tell you though, is that Australia is a key ally. Been an ally for 70
years. And a country that is all by itself vital to Indo-Pacific,
prosperity and security.
And obviously a good friend and a partner. So, we were delighted to
be able to enter this new defense relationship with them and with the
United Kingdom. And we look forward to, as the Secretary said last week.
Just looking at ways we can broaden that with additional capabilities.
With additional rotational deployment opportunities.
And with additional potential access to Australia, and to Australia's
training ranges as well. So, there's a lot here to grow. And Secretary,
looks forward to doing that. OK. Thanks, everybody.
Posts
