Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby briefs the media at the Pentagon, April 7, 2021.
Transcript
Maybe you look like you’re falling asleep there. You look like you were falling asleep on me yet, uh, sorry again for the delay, guys. Just a couple of things at the top today. We were, uh, delighted to have the first lady Dr Biden visit facilities of military one source the call center in Arlington. Her She announced today the return of joining forces and her visit recognized the important role of the military. One source Call center. As the department’s flagship program for a comprehensive resources in support of well being and readiness, the program provides worldwide access to 24 7 information and support to service members, their families and survivors. Dr. Biden also had an opportunity to meet and thank the call center staff and team members who answered the phones and provide virtual support every day. Military one sources the departments as I said flagship program. Earlier today, uh, the first lady also officially announced the return of joining forces, a nationwide initiative calling on all Americans to mobilize around service members, veterans and their families to support them through wellness, education and employment opportunities. Also this morning, some of you may notice the defense POW-MIA Accounting Agency conducted a commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the M I 17 tragedy here in the POW-MIA corridor at the Pentagon. The event honored 16 U. S. And Vietnamese personnel who lost their lives in an April 7th 2000 and one helicopter crash in Vietnam for those connected to the Department of Defense Mission. Uh, we’re all bonded by a solemn oath to never leave a fallen comrade, and today they commemorated the legacy of 16 extraordinary individuals who sacrificed their own lives. In keeping with this oath, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Milley attended, as well as Mr Kelly McKee, director of the Defense P. O W M I, a accounting agency, also the ambassador of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The United States attended as well and delivered remarks. Finally, Secretary Austin spoke by phone today with his Finnish counterpart, Minister of Defense, a needy K. Conan Secretary. Austin thanked the minister for the robust defense relationship with Finland and look forward to its continued growth. Secretary also reaffirmed that the U. S. Seeks to be the partner of choice for Finland’s defense modernization needs. Mr Chi Conan congratulated the secretary on his position and expressed appreciation for a long standing bilateral military cooperation and shared values. They expressed a understanding of mutual understanding of regional security aspects of climate change, which will be the most pronounced in the Arctic in the near term. Both individuals, both leaders, expressed a shared concern about the deteriorating security situation resulting from increased Russian Federation activity along the Ukraine border. Leaders agreed to me in person at the earliest opportunity. With that, we’ll go with questions. Bob John in connection with the U. S. Iraqi strategic dialogue. The joint statement that was put out afterwards included a line that said that the U. S. Mission military mission in Iraq has reached a point where it allows for quote the redeployment of any remaining combat forces in Iraq. And I’m wondering whether this is an indication that you that Secretary Austin might agree that the time has come to further reduce forces there. They seem to agree to that Well, uh, the joint statement says that what we what the two sides have agreed to is to some additional technical talks on the eventual redeployment, and I think we all realized when we were invited in by the government of Iraq, Um, that this mission was aligned against Isis, um, and that there was no expectation that that it was going to be a permanent enduring, uh, mission or footprint. So I think we’ve all been working towards the eventual, uh, redeployment when we both agree. And and the Iraqis believe that there’s a there’s a need for that mission to end and there’s no need for American support on the ground. So I think what you saw in that statement was a reaffirmation of the partnership that we have enjoyed with Iraq. Uh, and the significance of the mission that still exists against Isis, um, and that eventually we will want to talk about when it’s the appropriate time to talk about the proper redeployment. Um, and the scoping of that footprint, it doesn’t represent a decision to move beyond where you were before. In other words, towards towards withdrawing? No. There was no specific agreement of a date certain or a certain number of troops by a certain date. Um, it was again a reaffirmation of what we always believed about the mission there. That it wouldn’t be a permanent one that is aligned against Isis and that we whatever changes to that mission and to that footprint would occur in full collaboration with our Iraqi partners. And I think you saw that basically, throughout the document was was reiterated. Yep. Sure, go ahead here. Is it essential for the U. S. Military to stay in Iraq for the time being? This is a mutual decision by the Iraqi government and the United States government. And again, here we are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. And the mission is singly focused on going after Isis. And particularly you saw this in the communique. Our role is is advise and assist were there to help Iraqi security forces forces improve their capability and their competence against Isis. Um, and I think again, if you look at that communicate, you’ll see that both sides agree that that mission is still important. Um, and that that we’re going to continue, as we always will in any operational environment, continue to review and look again about our for our footprint and our force posture and determine whether it’s appropriately sized and scoped to the mission. The mission still valid. The invitation by the Iraqi government is still in place, and we’re continuing, as we have been even before today’s talks, to talk with the Iraqi government about what? That what that mission and that footprint is supposed to look like. So the statement refers specifically to remaining combat forces. Our combat forces included in that 2500 number that we use because we recently found out that in Afghanistan, 2500 does not include all the troops that are really there is 2500. The real number 2500 is the number of US forces in Iraq. The mission largely has been and for a long time has largely been one of advise and assist. 250,500 is the footprint of US forces in Iraq, David. The mission is largely advise and assist, and that is the goal and the purpose of the 2500. Uh, U. S personnel that are in Iraq are to help assist the Iraqi security forces in their efforts to go after Isis, including the 2500 U. S. Personnel in Iraq are there to advise and assist Iraqi security forces that and I don’t. So there they’re in the communique. It reflects that communicate reflects, uh, the environment. As as it has been for quite some time in Iraq, in terms of us posture, I’m gonna take a nine years ago. Um, can I ask you a second question? He referred to the deteriorating security situation along the Ukrainian border. What? What What do you mean by deteriorating? How is it deteriorating? I mean, that’s well, just as recently as a couple of weeks ago, uh, back in late march, Uh, there were a couple of Ukrainian soldiers killed in in skirmishes and the rapid and building. Uh um, presence of Russian forces along that border and in Crimea certainly are not conducive to creating a an air of stability, you know, in Ukraine. As I said yesterday, it’s not completely clear what the Russians are doing their We’d like to understand that more. And that uncertainty is obviously not contributing to a more stable, more secure situation. No sense to be an exercise. I’ve seen that the Russians have assessed it to be an exercise. I’m not going to get into intelligence assessments here from the podium, David, as I said. The full intentions are not 100% clear, and we’d like to understand more about what it is the Russians are doing there and what they intend to do there. But it is not conducive this this build up and a fairly rapid build up, it’s not conducive to, uh, to greater stability. Let me go here to the phones. Nick Schifrin, PBS Thanks, John, um, couple on extremism. Just making sure that there’s no update on the readouts from the services to the secretary and trying to ask a question that you haven’t been asked repeatedly last week. Can you take on a couple of specifics that the advocates say, um, you know, why can’t you reveal how many people have been separated because of extremist actions? Can you have this ability into those who have conducted extremist actions below the threshold of a crime and therefore earned some kind of administrative rebuke? Uh, and the overall criticism that the military has talked about this in the past but not actually confronted this in a serious way? Thanks. I don’t have any updates for you in terms of, uh, secretaries, uh, getting a readout from the services that hasn’t happened yet. It will happen later this week, and certainly when we can we’ll, uh, we’ll be able to provide you more context about that. Your other question gets it. It’s something that I think the secretary wants to get his hands around to, which is a better sense of the data. And, uh, I can’t You know, we don’t have all that data right now, but we are working more closely now with law enforcement to try to get a better sense of the sorts of investigations they’re doing of people affiliated with the military, Uh, and being investigated for criminal behavior associated with extremist ideology. And I say that very clearly military affiliate doesn’t mean necessarily somebody on active duty and reserve capacity. Most of them happen to be veterans. Uh, and obviously we don’t have purview over veterans. Um, and as for your other question about, uh, data surrounding separations, Um, uh, that is certainly something that the secretary is interested in trying to pursue in terms of a better data collection. But as you pointed out in your question, Nick, sometimes individuals are administratively punished below the level of a court martial for activity that violates the uniform Code of military justice. And, um, and there’s there’s there’s never been a central database of that here at the department. That is something that is done at local level local command levels, Um, and and usually on a regional basis, not something that that would be looked at here. The other thing and I’ve said this before is that, um, even for criminal behavior, Um, that does rise to the level of of court martial. It’s It’s not like it’s always evident what motivated that behavior. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s not. So. It’s very hard for us to be able to spit out data for you. That’s that’s that’s very specific, with respect to disciplinary actions over behavior that is inspired by extremist ideology. But again, that’s part of this exercise is to figure out what we don’t know, figure out what we can know and and how do we go about knowing it? And that’s again, I think, all gonna be wrapped up into the discussions with the secretary, and I’m sure we’ll help inform whatever decisions and policies he wants to pursue going forward. And on that overall criticism that the military has talked about this in the past. Uh, said it was going to tackle the problem, but never actually did speak for what was done in the past. Nick, all I can do is speak for Secretary Austin and what we’re trying to do right now. Um, and the, uh, stand down, uh, now has ended. He does expect to get a readout from the services here before the end of the week, and then we’ll move forward, and we’ll keep you as informed as we can as we move forward. What I can tell you now is he’s taking it very seriously. Megan, Another stand down question. Now that it is complete, there are some reports, some tweets out there that particularly National Guard units haven’t completed their stand downs. I will ask the National Guard Bureau about this, but is there any accountability mechanism from up here to make sure that all of those units are president accounted for in terms of the standard? I haven’t seen those tweets. Megan. The secretary’s expectation is that all the services, including the National Guard, will have completed there stand downs over the course of two months. That’s why he gave them 60 days to do that. Well, we’ll learn more and no more when he gets a chance to speak to the Chiefs later on this week, is there? I mean, do the services even have a way to make sure from their level from their headquarters levels, that all of those standards have been done so that they can go to the secretary and say with absolute certainty, Yes. Every single one of our people has had this briefing. That’s a question for the services to answer. They would have to do that on individually in accordance with their own reporting. Ah, processes. Um, see, uh, Tony Capezio. Hey, John, can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay, Have a personal question on light on late Friday. The White House nominated Michael Brown is the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer. I’ve had a couple of questions. I understand that Secretary Austin really pushed the White House for his nomination. Uh, do they have a previous relate business relationship? I’d be curious to hear that. And secondly, if you look at his bio, it’s tapped heavy and commercial software experience. And, of course, his Silicon Valley work with the Defense Innovation Unit. But he’s got no real defense, industry background or apparent expertise in assessing technical risk of major weapons systems like the F 35 or the Columbia Submarine program. So what expertise that would he bring to the job? Have confirmed. Well, Tony, I’m not gonna speak about the secretaries advice and recommendations to the president. These were nominations made by President Biden, and obviously we were glad to see them as you saw in the secretary statement. And we look forward to these talented individuals getting a speedy confirmation in the Senate. Um, but Michael Brown has deep experience in national security that we believe will prove essential in helping guide our efforts to defend the nation and to secure our interests around the world. Uh, as you noted yourself, he recently served as the director of the Defense Innovation Unit here at the Pentagon. He also co authored a Pentagon study on China’s participation in the U. S. Venture ecosystem. The secretary is confident that he has the skills, the talent, the experience, um, and the acumen to take on this role. And again, he looks forward to working with the Senate towards the confirmation of Mr Brown as well as the other nominees. So don’t you? But his technical expertise and major weapons programs, it seems to be lacking working die with small silicone valley contracts is a little different than managing risk on the F 35. Would you not agree to that, Tony? The secretary is 100% confident, um, in this nominee and and his ability and his talent and experience to do the job. Yes, in the back there. Thank you. I want to ask you about the latest U. S. Navy’s freedom of navigation operations in the Strait of Taiwan. The seventh freeze announced Wednesday that the guided missile destroyer USS John McCain tour and they did the Taiwan Strait. Is it the response to China’s announcement earlier this week that the Chinese aircraft career conducted military exercises near Taiwan? We don’t conduct freedom of navigation operations around the world, uh, to send, uh, to respond to some specific event or the specific action of another country. We conduct freedom of navigation operations around the world to send a message about how strongly we believe, um, in international law, um, and then the freedom that all nations have to sail, operate and fly in accordance with that international law. Freedom of the seas doesn’t just exist for fish and icebergs. And that’s the purpose of conducting these operations to to reinforce that notion. Okay. Yeah. John Ukraine, Ukraine Emergency asked for membership to NATO. Would the United States support Ukraine’s? I think you saw our statement yesterday that this is an issue for NATO to bring up. And I think you saw my counterpart at the White House make clear that the President is is certainly willing to have conversations. But this is an issue for NATO also. Does the United States have any naval capabilities currently in the Black Sea? I don’t have an operational lay down for you. We have been routinely operating inside the Black Sea. I can’t tell you at this point where I know we have ships there or not, but you guys have been tracking this and following it. It’s routine for us to to operate again. Freedom navigation inside the Black Sea. But I don’t know what’s there now. Okay. Let me go back to the phones, guys. I’ll get to everybody. Paul Shenkman, US news. Yeah. Hi, John, Can you hear me? Okay, sir. Just a clarification on your comments just now about Iraq. So there’s some local news reporting about the statement today and in the meetings that have been taking place, that implies that there is some sort of new agreement that takes place a new intention to plan for US withdrawal and a change to the U. S. Mission in Iraq that now it’s limited to train, advise and support. So I guess my questions are it sounds like from what you said, that this is a reaffirmation of things that were already in place. Is there anything new today? That was not the case yesterday. And does the U. S still have the ability to conduct unilateral strikes in Iraq or Syria? Talk about operational authorities specifically in Iraq. Paul, Um, there’s a lot in that communique. Not all of it had to do with the security sector and the fight against Isis and I would encourage you to read the whole thing because I think there was a lot of, uh, interesting developments in there beyond just the security component. Um, clearly one of the things that they agreed to and this was to continue to have technical talks going forward about the potential redeployment. So that that is that is a new thing in the document. Um, but the idea that there would eventually be a redeployment of U. S forces in Iraq is not new. I mean, we didn’t go into Iraq again. We went in at the invitation of the Iraqi government. We didn’t go in there with the idea of being a permanent presence. The idea was to defeat Isis. Uh, and that’s still the goal. Uh, and that’s still the objective. That’s still the mission. But, uh, we have always known that eventually, and I think that word is in there. Eventually, there’s going to be a redeployment of forces from Iraq. Of course there would be. Yeah. Go ahead, Joe, what’s the department assessment of the attack against the Iranian service ship yesterday in the Red Sea? As you may know, many Iranian reports have indicated that the attack happened below the water line. Based on your experience, is there something that you could we could you could read something out of it? I obviously were aware of the reporting of this incident. What I can confirm for you is that no U. S forces were involved in the incident, and I can’t speak beyond that. Quick follow up. The New York Times has quoted US officers that Israel informed the United States that it’s going to attack the the ship that is being used by the IRGC for intelligence purposes. Could you confirm The New York Times? Uhh! Very important. No, I cannot. I cannot back to the phone. Jeff Showgirl. Thank you, the Taliban and of Attack Kandahar Airfield and Bob Chapman. What is the military doing to stop Taliban attacks on US and NATO troops? We condemn today’s attack on Kandahar field, home to several 100 U. S. And coalition personnel. While the attack resulted in no casualties or damage, the Taliban’s decision to provoke even more violence in Afghanistan remains disruptive to the opportunity for peace presented by ongoing negotiations. Thank you. I didn’t quite hear an answer to my question as to what the military is doing about the continuing attacks. We always have the right of self defense for our troops. But our focus right now is on supporting a diplomatic process here, uh, to try to bring this war to a negotiated end with an indoor during and sustainable peace. A political settlement. And that’s our goal right now as well. As of course, the current mission is in effect, uh, which is to continue to advise and assist Afghan national security forces, uh, as they improve their capabilities to defend their own citizens. Um, okay, let’s get back in here in the room. Dan. So going back to Iraq, you described how the threat from Isis has diminished and that would shape the discussion going forward. Whatever in Syria is what is the justification to keep U. S troops in Syria? The scene. It’s a counter isis mission. The very small number less than 1000 that we have in Syria are working with Syrian democratic forces to again advise and assist and help enable their ability to go after Isis. Presumably, that’s also under review. And you don’t see that as an open ended president? Of course not. And we constantly, as I said before, where we have troops engaged in operations. It’s a constant review process. It’s something we’re always looking at. Another factor that you also have to devote a certain amount of resources to protecting those troops that are on in Iraq and Syria and that as you look at the global forces that you want to deployed, that in Asia you need more, perhaps resources. And by withdrawing troops from Iraq and Syria, you also free up other resources. Two things there. One we always, uh, consider force protection where we have troops, particularly in harm’s way. But all around the world, I mean, you always factor in the kinds of functions and capabilities and resources you need to provide proper force protection that’s always baked into the process. Um, but your larger question gets to exactly why the secretary is conducting a force posture review around the world to take a look at the footprint and the resources and making sure that they are properly aligned to whatever our strategies are and the mission’s inherent to those strategies are around the world. Jenny done I education on the independent exercise of USFK. I think you hear there already as part of the North Korea denuclearization, the U. S forces in South Korea has recently conducted the single exercise to lead to leave North Korea’s WMD weapons of mass destruction. What was the reason for the training that excluded South Korean military that excluded. Is that your question? I I point you to U. S forces Korea to speak to the specifics of their training events. Jenny, I don’t have a great depth of knowledge in this particular training event that you’re talking about. I can’t really confirm it. Uh, and I’m certainly in no position to confirm the specific details we’ve talked about this many times before. Training is important on the peninsula. We have to make sure that the alliance’s sound and solid and ready to obviously defend our interests and the interests of our career allies on any given day focus on the review of the North Korean policy at the level of the Ministry of Defense. I mean us depends. What is the level of what the Ministry of Defense for the the review of the There’s Korea policy is the focus. I said, Focus, focus. Yeah, um, the view of the North Korea policy at the level of the Ministry of Defense. Well, as you know, this administration is conducting a review of North Korean policy that’s ongoing not going to get ahead of that, uh, as we talked about before. The goal here is the denuclearization of North Korea. That’s that’s where the threat comes from. But how exactly we’re going to achieve that goal is all again being discussed and analyzed right now. And as I think you heard the secretary say, when we were out there in Seoul that we’re gonna that we’re gonna whatever we as an administration decide. Is that a proper course? It’s going to be done in close consultation and coordination with our Korean allies. You’re welcome. them off Washington Post. Good afternoon, John. Thanks for your time. When we follow up on Jeff Shovels. Question particularly whether or not the Pentagon has an assessment of the Taliban’s attack today. Do you think that’s an effort to end the the ongoing dialogue? Um, why would they do that at this time? And I guess why not respond? Is there an effort here to sort of have strategic patients and not can not respond? I think look, whether or not so first of all, uh, it’s hard for me to get, uh, it’s hard for us to get inside the head of the Taliban and exactly what their goal and intent was here. Um uh, and this just happened today, so I can’t deliver a a comprehensive analysis of, uh, what we believe they were trying to achieve. Uh, what message? Well, they were trying to send clearly, As I said, we condemn the attack. Um, and we believe that this decision to provoke provoke even more violence remains disruptive to what we believe is an opportunity for peace that’s presented by these ongoing negotiations. And I’m not prepared to again today offer an assessment here of exactly what this means to the agreement or to the peace process going forward. And then your question about, um, why not respond? I mean, this just happened today. I think we need to do a fuller assessment of, uh, of ourselves ourselves of of what happened and, uh, and why, before any potential operational decision is made one way or the other. As I said, our commanders always have the right of self defense. I would add that, um that there were no casualties, no damage, and in fact, preliminary indications are that these rounds didn’t even uh huh fall inside the perimeter of the airfield. Um, let’s go back. Alright. Just did the phone. So I go back here to the room. Abraham, follow up on that. The Taliban attacked Kandahar airfield, Airfield and U S forces are there. Is that a violation of the agreement? I think I think I just actually kind of dealt with that question. Uh, talking to Dan. I’m not prepared to give you an assessment right now one way or the other as to how the suits with the agreement. Clearly, the violence is too high. Clearly this attack, uh, certainly indicates, um that that’s going to be disruptive to the opportunity to achieve a peaceful negotiation. But I’m not prepared today to give an assessment of of this attack has balanced against the Doha agreement. Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question about US Africa Command specifically in Asia, West Africa. A delegation of U. S Africa Command attended the inauguration of newly elected President of Nigeria President Mohamed Hossam last week. The delegation included African Ambassador Andrew Young, the U. S. Ambassador to Tunisia, Two questions. Do you have an update on the approximate number of US troops in? And secondly, what is the U. S. Military’s going with Under Secretary Austin? Because in the past, administration the U. S. Goal to help militarily in appeared to be a big day and undefined. Given the this, I was an extremely dangerous part of the world. And in 2000 and 18, 4 US soldiers were killed by Islamic state in. Thank you. I’m gonna have to get back to you on the number. I don’t have that, uh, with me here today. Um, and, uh, we’ll get you a more specific answer on on the bilateral relationship with Nigeria, but in general, Okay, in general, uh, in the saddle and Africa African works very hard on the relationships the partner relationships with with many countries there on the continent, uh, designed largely to help them, uh, improve their capability in counterterrorism. That’s the general thrust of the of the security relationships that we have, uh, in Africa. But we’ll get you something more specific to better answer. Your question on Nigeria wasn’t prepared for that one today or back to Ukraine for a moment. Have there been followed conversations with Ukrainian counterparts? And is there any sense of whether Ukraine believes the Russian president’s there is an exercise or otherwise? I have no more updates no more conversations or our consultations with Ukrainian officials to read out. And I would point you to Ukraine to speak to what they believe The the Russian presence is all about there. Um, yeah, boy. Jennifer from New York Times. Hi. Thanks. Um, so at what point? There was a request for, like, 10,000 troops to support FEMA vaccine sites. Um, we see operation warp speed. Kind of. It’s not a thing anymore. Would you describe the role of the military in the vaccine effort as, uh, kind of reduce reducing at this point, still ramping up? What is the role at present actively involved in supporting FEMA vaccination centers Right now, As of today, there’s 4242 active duty troops deployed in support of this mission. That does not count. Uh, I think more than 20,000 National Guardsmen that have been supporting local and state efforts to help vaccine American vaccinate Americans apologize. Um, there are total of 31 vaccination teams deployed of various sizes. I we can get you a breakdown by state. I have it here, but I’m not gonna read it. Uh, it would take a long time to get through all of it. But there’s 31 teams deployed. Um, and I don’t have any additional announcements to make with respect to more teams, but, um, but we’re very much still engaged in this mission. Yes, sir. Thank you. I have a question about US military base in Okinawa, Japan, particularly the relocation project of, uh, Marine Corps Air station. So, um, April 12 marks 25 years since the U. S. And Japan has announced they have reached agreement on return of, uh, Gemma 25 years later in the no. The returning still not accomplished. And construction of the educational facility is facing a technical difficulties and returns now expected to delay into 2000 thirties. So my question is, how do you assess this delay of construction of the facility? And the second question is, does that impact have any impact on the ongoing global posture review? Um, so on, Lieutenant, I think you heard, uh, Secretary Austin when we were in Tokyo just a couple of weeks ago, Uh, thank the government of Japan for their, uh, continued, uh, coordination on this. Um, uh, we still support the relocation. I don’t have an update for you on the construction delays. I think we’re gonna have to take that and get back to you. I just don’t have that information with me. But, uh, obviously, uh, we appreciate the government’s role here, um, and and support, um, And again, as you saw, uh, say when we were in Tokyo not long ago. I mean, this is a, uh, an alliance that’s ironclad. And we take our security commitments very, very seriously to the government and the people of Japan. Yeah. I want to follow up on Iraq on this line in the joint statement, since this is the mission now advising and yeah, and the training. So what’s the difference between the mission of the coalition and the mission of the NATO in Iraq? Mission of NATO in Iraq? NATO has a training mission there as well They do. I’m not gonna speak for NATO. They do have a training mission in Iraq. There’s, uh that is also aimed at improving the capability and competency of Iraqi security forces. We also have an American mission in Iraq that is largely advising and assisting, uh, the Iraqi security forces as they prosecute the fight against Isis. Okay. Salmon. Okay. Thank you, John. Um, last month, on March 25th, North Korea launched two short range ballistic missile. I know you’ve been doing analysis of dismissal. So what is it you set someone on dismissal? Is this upgrade? One and second question is, do you think that North Korea has a platform capable of delivering submarine launched ballistic missile? I won’t get into intelligence assessments of what the DPRK is pursuing, and we have not finished our analysis and assessment of the March 25th launches. Mhm, Jared. Hi, John. Thank you. Two quick questions. First, are you able to confirm access? Report that sector Austin? Uh, Secretary Defense. Austin will be traveling to Israel in the near future. And then second question, um, about the joint statement, Uh, today with the Iraq Strategic dialogue, strategic dialogue with Iraq. Um, is it possible that the U. S. Coalition combat Excuse me? US coalition forces may remain in Iraq after combat forces are pulled out in order to further support or facilitate NATO’s expanded mission. Um, I don’t have, uh so there’s a lot there on the trip. I don’t have any travel to speak to an announced to today announced today on your Iraq question. I don’t have any announcement or expectation to speak to you today about what the presence of American forces will be in support of the NATO mission. The Iraq security dialogue today was really about the bilateral relationship between our two countries and the the US Iraqi mission inside Iraq to prosecute the fight against Isis. Um, and I wouldn’t speculate one way or another right now about, uh either the future footprint and posture of that mission or the future footprint and posture of the NATO mission going forward. I just follow up on that real quick. Yeah. Has has NATO officials requested additional U. S support for the expansion of the of NATO’s mission in Iraq. Not aware of any such request, Nancy, I fell upon. All right, Please. I have two questions, and the communicate says that, um, there will be talks about upcoming technical talks about the future of U. S forces deployed in Iraq. Can you offer any details on what those technical talks would be? Who would be a part of them? Um, and what sort of timeline you’re you’re thinking of? I don’t actually, uh, Nancy? Um uh, no technical talk Sounds like an interesting bit of jargon, but it does refer to bilateral discussions going forward. I suspect that both sides will be equally represented. Um, and my understanding is that these talks would not necessarily be at the same level of participants that we saw today in the Iraqi security dialogue today. The strategic dialogue. Excuse me. So we’ll probably done by, uh, more staff level individuals to get it to each is of what that posture should look like over what period of time Have a sense of who, if anyone, would represent. I don’t right now, but certainly when we get to the next talk, whenever that is, we’ll be able to speak to it from the podium and let you know right now, as I understand it, a follow on discussion hasn’t been scheduled yet, so we’re a little bit of ways from that right now. Bumped to cook. Did you say that these technical talks are new thing A new step? Well, I mean that they that they have announced that we’re going to conduct a round of talks going forward to re to re examine the footprint. I mean, I think that that was an outcome that was a result of today’s dialogue Is that a reference to a continuation of the process was just the start of a technical talks were just that new is that we’ve been in consultation with our Iraqi partners throughout the mission there. My understanding is that the decision to continue the decision to conduct technical talks going forward is an outcome is a result of today’s dialogue. That’s my understanding. But have we? I don’t want to leave you with the notion that we haven’t today ever had discussions with our Iraqi partners at staff levels about what we’re doing there and what the footprint looks like and what the capabilities are we have. But I think in today’s communicated they made a point of noting that we will conduct now a series of technical talks going forward. So I as I said, I my understanding is that that is a bit of a new development as a result of the dialogue today, Yeah, in the back down on Iraq, just a little bit more the last time U. S forces kind of left Iraq and that’s the Iraqi military to stand on its own. They didn’t do so well when Isis came calling and came knocking on the door, and it kind of melted away faster than defense officials were expecting. What is different about the process this time? And how much confidence does the Pentagon have that the Iraqi military will be able to withstand? Whether it’s another surge of Iraq of an isis two point oh, or challenges from Iran that the military, the Iraqi military, will maintain cohesion and will not disappear in the face of the challenge? Well, I mean, I think if you go back to 2014 and we and you look at how the Iraqi security forces performed, I mean and we said it at the time that that when when the United States left Iraq, it did leave Iraqi security forces much more capable and competent. Um, but But after our departure, um, management leadership, um uh was, uh, was was not sufficient to keeping their combat capability in place. Um, and, uh, and that, you know, And that resulted in a, um, uh, more sectarian force that that lacked the ability to effectively fight Isis in the early in the early months of Isis is, uh, a rise there. Um, but we’ve been there now for several years again at the invitation of the Iraqi government and in full support and coordination with Iraqi security forces. And they are better, and they are more competent. And Isis is while still a threat, no question is nowhere near what it was back in 2014, both in terms of size capability, resourcing, recruitment, um, and and their own competence. And certainly from a territorial perspective, uh, they virtually have almost no ground anymore. So and that’s a testament not just to what the United States has been able to contribute to the effort, but to the whole coalition. Because it’s not just about the U. S. Uh, in Iraq, there is a There is a coalition still aligned against Isis, and it’s also a testament to the Iraqi security forces, uh, and the manner in which they have they have improved their capability, um, and, uh, and responded to the training and the assistance that they’ve been getting from, uh, the coalition. So they are much better force now than they were before and again. You know, it’s not as if you know we’re turning off the lights today as a result of the strategic dialogue, What we agreed to today was that the partnership is still really important, that the threat is still really there and that eventually we’re going to have to continue to monitor that threat and that presence, uh, you know, going forward and that eventually, as we always assumed, eventually the United States would not be needed to be there to help the Iraqi forces continue to prosecute this fight. They are a They are a vastly better force than they were before. Okay, I got time for one more. Therese. Yes, I have two questions this month is sexual Assault Awareness Month. And so I wanted to ask, What is the Pentagon doing to recognize that? Also, what would be the military leaders? Words of encouragement for survivors who may be, you know, stuck between whether they should report an assault or whether, you know, face backlash. If they do report assaults. I know the military cracking down on people reporting sexual assault. So is there anything that cracking down on people reporting sexual assault? Your Excuse me? No. You want people to afford No, you’re investigating reports more thoroughly than before, like they’re being steps that are being taken to encourage service members to feel more comfortable with reporting and kind of how the process works. Look April, maybe Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Month, but for Secretary Austin is something he focuses on every day and his second day. The day after he reported aboard the Pentagon, he issued his first directive was on trying to get our arms around sexual assault and sexual harassment. Here in the ranks, it is something he has repeatedly continually talked about and stressed. So it’s every day here at the Pentagon and you saw I think you are. You participated in the last press conference we did with Lynn Rosenthal, the chair of the Independent Review Commission. Just today, she conducted the second of what will be three engagements virtual engagements with sexual assault advisors I’m sorry, sexual assault survivors and advisory groups associated with victims and survivors as well as military service organizations, and that dialogue will continue. She wanted to introduce them to the highly qualified experts that she has enlisted to join the commission and the field and and solicit field questions and solicit their ideas. So it is something we’re pressing on every single day, and you’re right. We do want people to feel more free, more comfortable to to report incidents of the chain of command. And that’s that’s again going to be a continual focus. It is still a problem in the ranks. It’s still a serious threat to the men and women who serve in the United States military. And I think you’ll see Secretary Austin continue to keep the pressure on the entire time he’s in office. Okay, thanks, everybody appreciate it. Sorry again for being late, and that’s becoming a habit. And I promise I will try to fix that going forward. That’s not that’s not what I want to do, and it’s it’s not good for you or me. So for the building, Yeah, Captain, do all