STAFF: Is it working?
(CROSSTALK)
STAFF: Testing. One, two.
(CROSSTALK)
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASH CARTER: Okay. Well, let me start on a serious note, which is with -- which is Orlando and just say that our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims, those injured, wishing for their speedy recovery, and then, of course, all the people of Orlando, the LGBT community and all of America that was shocked and angered by a despicable act.
I don't have anything to add on the law enforcement investigation side. Really need to let the law enforcement community speak for that. It certainly should further steel everyone's resolve to defeat ISIL in its parent tumor in Iraq and Syria.
And on that note, I'll make a few stage-setting comments on that subject and then go to NATO but it’s germane and then you can ask questions.
Three major operations on going, two in Iraq and one in Syria, that we're supporting of great -- all great consequence. In Iraq, the operation to position forces for the envelopment of Mosul continues according to the plan that I think first talked with you all about some five or so months ago when we first devised it.
The -- both the forces moving north and positioning themselves in two locations called Makhumr and Karia West, which are respectively southeast and southwest of Mosul, comprising the pincher from the southern direction. And then the two brigades also trained and equipped by us approaching from the KRG territory and other Kurdish-controlled territory in the north.
That continues to proceed at pace, and those forces continue to move in the way that was anticipated. I only emphasize that because there's also operations going on in Fallujah, and obviously, that's an important operation as well. That we are also assisting, but Prime Minister Abadi has -- who is -- and it's his forces, the Iraqi security forces, that are in command of both of these operations -- we're supporting them -- in command in the Fallujah operation.
And just to remind you that the prime minister has indicated that his forces are commanding that operation and that it will not take away from the forces that are scheduled to move and are moving and some of which have already into position south of Mosul, and that's good.
In that connection, while we're still in Iraq, perhaps worth mentioning that in the last 24 hours I guess it was, the commanders have used the Apache capability that we positioned there and that the president authorized them to use some months ago when they found an opportunity when that might make a difference. And that did occur and an ISIL target was destroyed as a consequence of that.
Moving over to Syria, operations to envelope the town of Manbij also continue with the Syrian-Arab coalition forces, also enabled by us and coalition partners. That's proceeding very satisfactorily. At the same time, we continue to work with the Turks on further efforts in the Manbij and Mara areas to control that critical border area. But the envelopment of the city of Manbij, which is important, proceeds apace there.
So that's a little update on the fight -- counter-ISIL war in Iraq and Syria, which is important.
Now, just turning to NATO and the ministerial, this is the last defense ministerial before the Warsaw Summit, which is the summer's big activity -- the year's big activity for -- for NATO.
Enhanced force presence and strengthening the -- the deterrence with a stronger NATO posture is one of the themes. Obviously, that'll be discussed and my presumption is finalized at the Warsaw Summit, but we will discuss it further, the structure, the mission and so forth of what I've called the new playbook for NATO.
There will also be a meeting of the -- on the nuclear posture of NATO, so that's important and that's been a feature of the NATO posture since its inception, and including over the last 25 years. But that too we're taking a look at with an eye to the new environment and particularly Russian aggression.
The question of NATO's participation as NATO in counter-ISIL operations, another topic likely to be -- certain to be discussed. And just to remind you of what NATO -- you might say, since the NATO members are already members of the counter-ISIL coalition and doing more, I'll also remind you that I'm always asking for more and will continue to ask for more -- for more from everybody, including ourselves.
The -- you might ask what does NATO add as a collective? And there are a couple of ingredients to that besides some specifics that we'll discuss and I don't want to discuss them here until I've had a chance to talk with my colleagues about them -- the secretary general.
But in general, the -- there are -- there are capabilities that belong to NATO as NATO, first of all and AWACS is an example of that. There are furthermore force generation and command and control capabilities that are possessed by the collective, but it's very hard for an individual nation to volunteer on its own but it can do it if it's -- if it's working with the others. So the whole really does make -- the whole really is greater than the sum of its parts.
And also, for the smaller NATO nations, their NATO membership gives them a way to plug into a collective effort which makes it easier for our coalition and easier for them to actually make a meaningful contribution to ISIL.
So that's the answer to your question why does it even matter whether NATO does something in the counter-ISIL fight or not, given that all of its members are -- (inaudible) -- question that may have occurred to you, that is the answer.
Afghanistan. You know, the announcement we made last week about the president's decision affecting how we use the forces that are in country this year -- and I'll have an opportunity to talk about that with my colleagues. I'll assume you know -- you all know about that, but I'm happy to answer questions about that.
And then with respect to troop levels, I think that that is something that will -- it's possible also will be discussed in Warsaw. And I think the White House has made it very clear the last few days what our understanding is and what the president's position has been on the FML, which is that that'll be something that he'll continue to talk to us, me and General Dunford and also Joe Votel and Mick Nicholson about. We do that all the time and have continued to do that.
And the president will make decides when and as he finds it appropriate and they're needed. That's the story on FML and on the authority. That's -- that's (first ?) looking ahead, but the authorities issue is here and now this year. So it's -- it was a timely decision and I think it can be very helpful.
Peter, have I left anything out? I think that's all I had. But that kind of sets the table. Anything else in there? Jim, any other topics you want me to say anything about at the top?
STAFF: (off mic.)
SEC. CARTER: Okay. So, with that.
STAFF: (off mic.)
Q: The secretary general today talked about the four battalions that will be going into the Baltics and the U.S. has already said that it would be one of sort of the core nations. Can you talk a little bit about how many U.S. troops do you see contributing to that? And it sounds like it's going to be sort of heel to toe. Can you just talk about how that's going to work?
And also, will you be asking your NATO colleagues for greater authorities for their troops in Afghanistan? And how is that going to work with the U.S.?
SEC. CARTER: The -- first, let me just go to the last part real quickly. We're not asking for that at this time, simply because that isn't part of what we've talked about with General Nicholson and we think he can have the effect that he wants to have with the U.S. forces there. So that's the answer to the last part of the question.
With respect to the four battalions, yes they are persistently present, meaning continually rotationally present. That's the concept. Yes, there will be four of them of battalion size, and yes, the United States has agreed to service the framework nation, as it's so-called, for one of them.
So one of the things we'll be talking about now and I presume running up to Warsaw is -- well, since Germany and the U.K. have also indicated that they would be -- I think the fourth framework nation remains to be identified, so that's a piece of work for the next couple of days or going up into the -- into the summit.
And then the configuration of each of those battalions, that is what -- what makes them up and what nationalities make them up. We have committed to being a framework nation for one and we're still conferring among ourselves and will with the allies how to source that.
But in that connection, let me just remind you, we've got a whole lot else going on in there, a lot of other forces going in there, and so that's the context in which we're considering sourcing this battalion.
And just to remind you kind of what's new in Europe in terms of the U.S. presence, is in addition to the striker BCT and the airborne BCT present, there will be a continually, that is persistently present, armored brigade combat team which will bring in its own equipment with each rotation and a pre-positioned set of equipment for yet an additional armored brigade combat team which troops could fall in upon in a crisis. And then another CAV also in Germany.
So there's quite a bit of more stuff going in, U.S. stuff, persistently present in Europe and that's part of our contribution. So for sure, we're doing all that. And -- but the sourcing of the battalion, we'll serve as the framework for, Lita, and the sourcing of the other ones is something we'll talk about I'm sure in this meeting. But I don't know if that will be finalized before Warsaw. That'll depend upon what the countries that are -- the other countries that are doing things --
Q: (off mic.)
SEC. CARTER: That is in addition.
Q: Is it in addition?
SEC. CARTER: Well, I can't say. It just means you're responsible for lassoing, for putting it -- you don't have to account entirely for it, although that may well end up the U.S. approach. I'm certain that won't be the approach of everybody else.
Q: (off mic.)
SEC. CARTER: We could, we could. But framework doesn't imply that. I mean, it's one of those NATO terms -- (inaudible) -- telling you.
Q: (off mic.)
SEC. CARTER: No. I mean, there's -- battalion is attached to framework. But no, not the contribution of the -- the -- I think the framework person is the sort of responsible person for wrangling the -- a battalion together. It doesn't have to all be theirs.
STAFF: Kristina and then Kevin.
Q: Hi, Secretary. Thank you. So NATO has come under a lot of national scrutiny after one of the presidential candidates has called it obsolete, characterizing members as not paying their share. Do think that has -- is lending urgency to reforms --
SEC. CARTER: (off mic.)
Q: Well --
SEC. CARTER: I'm sorry about that, but I've got to be very strict in this regard. You frame a question in terms of the presidential campaign and I'm just not going to answer a question that's framed in that way.
STAFF: Want to try again?
Q: Okay. Well, okay. Let me try again. I mean, there was the recent announcement of the counterterrorism (post ?) -- pending, you know, possible creation of the counterterrorism post for NATO and that's one reform that NATO may take. Do you think that national criticism or scrutiny of NATO is making such reform or talk of reform more urgent? How -- you know, how does this scrutiny affect this upcoming defense ministerial and possibly leading up to the July summit?
SEC. CARTER: Well, NATO --
STAFF: Are you talking about the -- (inaudible).
SEC. CARTER: I think she -- I think you're -- I interpreted it assistant secretary general for intelligence is something that's been discussed at NATO for a long time and the United States inclines to it positively simply because an effective military alliance, which everybody wants NATO to be, requires good intelligence, and it's been one of the places where the alliance has in its decades of existence not been particularly active, and it's time to do that.
So they -- that will be considered here. I think the United States supports. And there's a logic there simply because, you know, any security issue in today's world, from counterterrorism to, you know, deterrence of armed conflict, requires good intelligence. It stand to reason that NATO would have that kind of capability, and yet, it just turns out it doesn't.
Q: Will there be any more emphasis on having members pay, you know -- increase their percentage of GDP to defense?
SEC. CARTER: Yes. Yes. You can bet that a continuing theme here and in Warsaw will be for the need for all countries to meet their pledged two percent, and of course, ideally more. And in some cases, it is more. But at a minimum, two percent of GDP to defense. And absolutely sure I will be emphasizing that.
Q: Two parts, shorter one on -- off Orlando. Can you give any -- any description of -- in this era now with a home-grown attack connected to terrorism or ISIS or suspected to be abroad, how does the -- the military get involved with, you know, FBI, local -- local forces? So when yesterday happens, was CENTCOM, you know, put in action or intel?
And then the second question will be on the counter-ISIL participation of NATO.
SEC. CARTER: It is -- it is NORTHCOM that is the combatant commander that stands ready to respond to requests from state and local authorities for assistance in any -- of a range of domestic emergencies, from wildfires and earthquakes, right up through mass casualty events like yesterday. So NORTHCOM is the -- and NORTHCOM stood ready to do that. To my knowledge, received no requests from state and local.
But we stand -- we stand -- I mean, that -- that is a mission of NORTHCOM among -- among others, is support to civil authorities for a range of things. But it's always in response to a request by state or local authorities. By the way, you know, that's the capacity in which the Guard is mobilized for a hurricane and that sort of thing. Those are -- that's in response -- in response to a request by state and local authorities.
Q: (off mic.)
SEC. CARTER: Well, our intelligence agencies are -- are -- of the Department of Defense are -- along with the director of national intelligence, the FBI's intelligence, the -- obviously contribute to the pool of intelligence used to assess -- I just can't -- this kind of thing. I just can't speak to this particular one. I really want to let the law enforcement folks speak to that.
STAFF: Tom?
Q: Thank you, sir. Can you talk a little bit more about the Apache being involved in Iraq? You mentioned it, so I assume it's significant to you. Was it -- can you talk about what it hit, what it was fired on, whether this represents a deepening of our involvement, that sort of thing?
SEC. CARTER: Well, it is a capability that has been prepared and on offer to the Iraqi security forces for some time, going back to Ramadi. And -- and Prime Minister Abadi, of course, has the final say on that end and other things.
But the reason, Tom, that I think its use was timely this time, or said differently, why the Iraqi and U.S. commanders decided to use it was because it -- it could be effective in helping those forces that are positioning themselves for the two-forked envelopment of Mosul. That's what it was used for, to help them along their way.
I'm going to be careful about how far I go, maybe they'll -- they'll -- Sean MacFarland will want to say more. But they were employed against ISIL target, an ISIL target was struck and the operation, Tom, that it was part of was that envelopment of Mosul.
And we had actually long anticipated that that might be a time when that would be effective. Of course, we're doing other kinds of indirect fires there from the air, artillery, HIMARS and so forth, but it has some unique capabilities and the commanders decided that now's the time to use it.
But it's -- that authority has been available from the president now for some time. This is the first time that it's been called into action, and effectively. But the importance of it is -- the operational importance is the envelopment of Mosul from the south, that's what it was assisting or enabling.
Q: Was the U.S. directly involved in offensive -- offensive combat?
SEC. CARTER: We're -- we're -- we're dropping bombs every day, we're firing missiles, we have people who are advising -- (inaudible).
Q: (Inaudible) -- exposure, to what extent does it increase the exposure of U.S. troops?
SEC. CARTER: Well, I mean, the helicopters behind the -- you know how they operate, I think, behind the – FLOT. But you know, all of these operations involve risk. I mean, they're air -- there are pilots right now in the air over Syria and Iraq, and they're at risk, so.
STAFF: We've got time for maybe two more.
Q: So on Afghanistan, you said that the president might discuss the force levels at the Warsaw Summit and that it may actually -- I think you suggested it might come up this --
SEC. CARTER: For next year.
Q: For next year, yes. Can you -- can you elaborate a little bit on that? You know, is there a sense that once the White House gets General Nicholson's recommendations, that could be again on the table and that that might happen before Warsaw? And what kind of thinking do you have on timing?
SEC. CARTER: Well, it's a fact, and I think the White House said that, that the president was open to considering that. He's shown that consistently. But I don't know the answer to your question when and I don't think the president's made a decision in that regard, Warsaw -- that's a decision that of course wouldn't come into effect until next year and the implementation of which wouldn't begin until later in the year.
And so I don't know and he hasn't indicated when he might make such a decision. And we're still working that through with General Nicholson, so I can't address the when part. But the whether, the White House is quite clear about.
STAFF: All right, last one -- (inaudible).
Q: Just playing devil's advocate over here, sir. (inaudible) -- from The National Interest. Why would the -- NATO, I mean, why is it important for us to deter Russia? And just also with regard to NATO, if the European allies aren't going to pony up, is it really worth continuing to pay for this investment?
And just generally speaking, what is involvement in NATO in deterring Russia bring generally to the American people as a whole, as to why we're still involved in all this? Again, just playing devil's advocate over here.
SEC. CARTER: Well, what is it that's concerning to us about Russia? It's aggressive behavior of a sort that you haven't seen in quite a while. I mean, that's what Crimea represents. And so that stands as a violation of principle that's pretty serious, and that -- so there's that.
There's the fact that Russia still has, and to some extent brandishes it in an unseemly way, the capability to do unspeakable damage to the United States. Now, Moscow has had that for decades now, but it's now accompanied by a level of -- I've caused it saber rattling in the past, that the leaders of the Soviet Union generally refrain from. So those are at least two worrying things.
And as far as the NATO allies are concerned, we wish they would invest more in their capability. At the same time, they by and large stand for a lot of the same things around the world that the United States does, including confronting terrorism, which is why the counter-ISIL -- their role in the counter-ISIL campaign is one of the subjects that we're going to be discussing.
STAFF: All right. Thanks, everyone.
SEC. CARTER: All right -- (inaudible).