PETER COOK: Good afternoon, everybody. Can I toss this to you?
Thanks. I want to begin today with an operational update in the fight against ISIL before I give you an update on the secretary's schedule. The counter-ISIL coalition continues to pressure ISIL on multiple fronts in Iraq and Syria as local forces continue to put ISIL on its heels.
In Fallujah, Iraqi Security Forces, led by the Counter Terrorism Service continue to make progress. About a third of the city has been cleared of ISIL forces, and Iraqi forces continue to advance at a rate of about five to 10 percent of the city per day, being careful to safeguard the lives of civilians and limit property damage to the extent possible.
We continue to provide coalition air support; there have now been 85 strikes over the last four weeks, four in the last 24 hours. We are flying strike missions every day in the fight for Fallujah.
In the north, the Iraqi push towards Qayyarah from multiple axes also continues to make progress. Iraqi forces moving north from Baiji advanced another six kilometers today, overcoming ISIL defenses along the way.
Meanwhile, Iraqi forces moving from the east also continue their push. We are, again, providing significant coalition air support for these efforts as well.
And in Syria, the Arab-led forces fighting to take back Manbij City are tightening the noose around this critical crossroad between Raqqa and the Turkish border.
They have faced ISIL resistance inside the city and along the southern edge, and they expect ISIL to hunker down for a tough fight in the city itself.
One important development is the SDF forces have cleared territory. They have also gained new insight into ISIL's operations in the area, including the flow of foreign fighters. We believe that this will be helpful as we work to stem the foreign fighter flow and the risk that ISIL poses outside of Syria and Iraq.
Now, turning to the secretary's schedule, this afternoon, Secretary Carter will depart for a three-day domestic trip that includes visits to military installations in New York, Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois. This trip will highlight his Force of the Future Initiative. This initiative seeks to ensure that the department continues to recruit, train and retain the very best talent America has to offer.
At five stops in four states over three days, the secretary will engage with service members at critical stages of their careers. He will see a range of installations preparing and training our war fighters of the future as well.
Now, this afternoon, the secretary will travel to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point where he will speak at the closing ceremony for the 2016 Warrior Games, the annual sporting competition bringing together wounded, ill and injured service members and veterans from across the country. It's a chance for the secretary to show support for service members who have sacrificed on behalf of the nation and highlight the importance of adaptive sports to the rehabilitation of injured service members.
On June 22, the secretary will visit nearly 10,000 Army ROTC cadets from across the country during their Advance Camp at Fort Knox, Kentucky. It is the U.S. Army's largest training exercise. He will see some of the training and personally with cadets over lunch to hear about their decision to serve as well as their career aspirations. The secretary will learn about their backgrounds and some of the choices they will soon face in their careers.
From Fort Knox, the secretary flies to Crane, Indiana. At Crane, he will tour the Naval Surface Warfare Center, meet with leadership there. Crane is an important piece of our defense mission and a key contributor to the Indiana economy. He will get to see some of the cutting-edge technology work being carried out at Crane, the same kind of innovative work the force of the future must be prepared to grow and expand.
We expect he will be joined by Senator Joe Donnelly, who personally invited the secretary to visit Crane during one of his recent trips to Capitol Hill. There may be other members of Congress in attendance at that stop.
Secretary Carter then travels to Chicago where on Thursday he will tour a military entrance processing station. As you'll recall, the latest Force of the Future Initiative includes a major modernization of the MEP system, some of which dates back to World War I. As part of the visit, the secretary will swear in some new recruits as well.
The secretary wraps up his trip at Naval Station Great Lakes, the Navy's only boot camp training center. He will interact with new recruits and interact with instructors as well. He will also witness a graduating class of Navy enlistees engaged in their capstone event, Battle Stations 21. He will have lunch with six recruiters from the area as well as training and processing personnel.
And with that, I'd be happy to take your questions. Bob?
Q: A question on an ISIL front that you didn't mention; Libya. At his confirmation hearing this morning, General Waldhauser said he agreed with Senator Graham, and it doesn't make sense that the U.S. is not currently using airstrikes against ISIL in Libya. Does the secretary agree there should be more use of airstrikes in Libya?
MR. COOK: Bob, as you know, we continue to engage not only with the government there, the Government of National Accord, but also with our partners in the region. We've been willing to take strikes in the past in Libya targeting ISIL leadership. We are prepared to do so again in the future. But this is a situation where the government is still taking shape. It is showing progress. Military forces aligned with the government are showing progress as well, particularly in the fight against ISIL in Sirte.
And so I -- at this point, we continue to assess the situation very closely and continue to have our conversation with the government that's taking shape there and with our partners, and we're proceeding along that path in close consultation.
Q: Well, it sounds like he doesn't agree that there's a need, currently, for more -- use of airstrikes in Libya.
MR. COOK: We, again, Bob, have been willing to take airstrikes. And I think the secretary has said specifically that we are willing to deal with the metastasis of ISIL wherever it pops up, including in Libya.
We've demonstrated that; we're prepared to do that in the future. But we don't have anything to report at this time. The most encouraging thing we see right now are the actual actions on the ground of the forces aligned with the government, and the progress they've been making on their own to take out ISIL. We think that's a good thing.
Q: Sir?
MR. COOK: Yes.
Q: Does that indicate that ISIL is not as strong, or large in numbers as previously estimated in Sirte, do you think?
MR. COOK: I don't know if it's a reflection of ISIL's capabilities, as it is perhaps a reflection of those forces loyal to the government. And we -- we're very encouraged by that progress.
And certainly, it's something we're watching very closely. We're watching the situation in Libya very closely. Again, Bob, as I -- as I said, we've demonstrated our willingness to strike ISIL targets in Libya previously.
We are watching it very closely. We understand the potential threat that ISIL poses in Libya and elsewhere, and we'll continue to watch it closely.
But the -- the most important thing, we believe, in the Libyan situation is the formation of this government, the strengthening of this government, support for this government, so that it can handle these security matters on their own, on its own, as they take shape.
Q: Can I follow up -- (inaudible)?
MR. COOK: Lucas.
Q: General Waldhauser also said he's not aware of any overall grand military strategy inside Libya against ISIS. Did the secretary agree to that as well?
MR. COOK: Well, I think, Lucas, it has been clear that this has been a very complicated situation in Libya.
This government has been difficult to even form this Government of National Accord, it is still in its early stages. We continue to -- along with our partners in the region, assess the situation in Libya, work to do what we can to support this government, and continue to, of course, look out for U.S. national security interests, which include targeting ISIL in Libya, as we've seen necessary up to this point.
But it's our collaboration and coordination with the government that's going to determine future -- and future policy, of course.
Q: And did the secretary say there is a -- an overall grand military strategy for Libya?
MR. COOK: Obviously, Lucas, we're working closely with the newly formed government, we're working with our partners in the region -- who have an even, arguably more significant stake in what happens in Libya, given their geographical proximity to the country.
But it's -- it's clear, it's -- as I think General Waldhauser acknowledged, it's a complicated situation right now. And the most important thing in terms of our policy, and we believe for the region's policy is for that government to take shape, take hold. And we'd like to, of course be in a position to strengthen it as -- as needed, going forward, along with our partners in the region.
(Inaudible).
Q: Peter, during last week's briefing, the issue of injured American service members came up, and you said you would take the question and look into it.
Can you confirm that four American service members were injured in Northern Syria on June 9th?
MR. COOK: (Inaudible) -- this is -- I'm glad you raised the question, because this does raise a question, a policy question for us about identifying injured service members.
And as I stated last week, and probably should have stated more clearly, our policy is not to identify wounded service members, for a variety of reasons -- including operational security, including privacy reasons.
And so, I'm not going to be able to elaborate more fully on that situation. Just as I wouldn't with other wounded service members, because of that -- because of our policy in place.
Q: I believe on May 31, the Pentagon did come out and say there were two service members, one in Iraq and one in Syria, who were injured and I think you even gave a specific location -- (inaudible), north of Raqqah. And I'm not asking for a specific location or name. You know, were there American service members injured? Because in the past, you have acknowledged when they have been injured.
MR. COOK: And what -- and of course one of the things that we're concerned about here is not just operational security -- (inaudible), but also, we do not want to provide additional information to the enemy that might enhance their own assessment of the battlefield situation and their own impact.
Q: (inaudible) -- because on May 31, you did give out two numbers of Americans injured.
MR. COOK: I'm just spelling out right now our policy consistent with what it's been in the past with regard to wounded service members. We provide information with regard, of course, to casualties. But for a variety of reasons, we do not provide information on wounded service members and we're going to continue to stick to that, again, because we don't want to provide information to the enemy that might be helpful, we have privacy concerns that we want to address.
And again, we don't routinely release that information. There have been some exceptions in the past, but that is our -- our basic policy and I'm going to stick to that policy.
Yes, Carla?
Q: Hey, Peter. A couple of Africa questions. Speaking in the hearing -- going back to that hearing, we were told that the ISR was one of the shortcomings of AFRICOM -- General Waldhauser said. And he was also saying that Boko Haram -- the splintering into the two groups, one more pro-ISIS than the other, that group is more inclined than the original Boko Haram to attack Western targets.
So my question is do -- does the United States have appropriate ISR to monitor this new group? And are you concerned that this group could start attacking Western targets?
MR. COOK: I didn't see that portion of the testimony today, so just bear that in mind. I didn't get to watch all of the hearing today.
What I would say is ISR is obviously something that is critically important to the department, to the combatant commands. Every combatant command would like additional ISR, I am sure, if you were to ask a combatant commander. If I was combatant commander, I certainly would like more ISR than I have today.
But there are finite resources and we have to pick and choose and assess where the best use of those ISR resources are at any given point in time. It's a careful, careful decision-making process that we go through and we feel that there is, of course, ISR in the region that there -- those resources have been made available to AFRICOM, will continue to be made available.
But that's something that the combatant commander conversation that we'll continue to have within -- obviously, with the joint staff, with the secretary and his staff going forward. And those are decisions that we have to make.
As you know, there has been an effort to try and expand our ISR resources and that's something that the secretary's very supportive of - trying to address any possibility of a shortfall in any combatant command in any situation.
Q: And then a follow. He mentioned a statistic, saying that in -- by 2050, one in four people on the planet will be in Africa. Do you see the Pentagon making a sort of shift to grow Africa -- Africa Command -- and to increase its activities in Africa?
MR. COOK: Well, obviously, the -- the creating of AFRICOM itself gives you an indication of where we see the future and the importance of that part of the world to our operations. So that is an indication in and of itself about the kind of -- again the importance we attach to it, the significance of what's happening in Africa, the development of Africa, the population growth, as you mentioned, the economic growth of some of these countries.
So, I certainly think that the secretary and others here in the building would look very carefully at the growth of the African continent, and the nations there, the population, and have to adjust -- look at U.S. national security needs against that environment.
But of course, we can't -- don't have the luxury of looking at any one particular area of the world. We have the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific. You know about what's going on in Europe these days, and the need for us to refocus, along with NATO, in terms of our European Reassurance Initiative.
So, it's a complicated world out there; we have to adjust to the various challenges and threats that are posed out there. So, certainly Africa and AFRICOM will be a critical part of that going forward. But I don't want to predict the future, other than to say it's obviously the growth we're seeing in Africa.
Q: Should there be more of a focus in Africa, with the threats of Islamic State and Boko Haram?
MR. COOK: I think there is a focus on Africa, and continues to be a focus on Africa.
And I think General Waldhauser addressed that very, very well in his testimony today.
He's -- if he's to be confirmed, obviously, he'll be in charge of a critically important combatant command, one that the secretary places a tremendous amount of -- of interest on right now. And it feels like he's -- that the president has made an excellent choice in picking General Waldhauser for that position.
Barbara?
Q: Can I ask you one follow-up on Libya, and then North Korea, if I might.
On Libya and striking ISIS, you mentioned a couple of times, you know, you're monitoring the progress of the new government -- the -- developing new government there, and you're striking, as you see necessary, you mentioned.
But you haven't struck any targets in Libya that we're aware of publicly in some time. Have -- has the U.S. military -- is the U.S. military forgoing any ISIS targets in -- while this new government is trying to make progress?
It's -- it's hard to understand why there hasn't been a single ISIS target in Libya worth striking in so long.
MR. COOK: Well, again, Barbara, we -- we don't make a decision to carry out a military strike lightly, as you know. And so, we have to look at the situation carefully, look at the -- the threat that might be posed, and what those targets might be.
We also have to look at the larger situation going on in Libya, and I think we have been encouraged by what we've seen from the government by the forces loyal to the government and the progress they've made.
I think it's fair to say that their progress has been more substantial against ISIL than some people had thought. And so, then, we're obviously closely watching that situation. And it is -- this is also a situation, Barbara, where, if the Government of National Accord -- strengthened and bolstered by those local forces -- can secure the country on its own without the help of the United States military, or other foreign militaries, that would a -- that would be a good thing.
And we obviously want to support this government as it takes shapes in any form we can. But if it means that they're being able to strengthen themselves, and these forces are -- are strong enough that they can secure the country on their own, that would be encouraging.
Q: So, are you forgoing -- is the U.S. forgoing striking ISIS targets in Libya?
MR. COOK: We are -- we are prepared to strike targets, ISIL, wherever we see it as a potential threat, taking into account the situation in whatever country that ISIL may rear its head.
And Libya, as we've demonstrated -- we've demonstrated the willingness to do in Libya. And I would not -- you should not see the fact that we have not struck recently as any indication that we see -- or any less concerned about the threat of ISIL in Libya. We are watching the situation carefully on the ground. We make decisions about the use of military force very carefully, as you know. And we have to -- we're looking at the situation with regard to the government there and -- and the strength and the progress that it's made on its own.
Q: So the progress of the government -- I'm sorry. I just to make sure I really do understand.
MR. COOK: Sure.
Q: (inaudible) -- North Korea. The progress of the government in Libya is a factor in deciding whether to do airstrikes or any kind of U.S. military strike against an ISIS target in Libya that --
MR. COOK: I would -- I think it's fair to say that the progress of the government -- the formation of the government and the progress of the forces on the ground loyal to that government certainly are a factor in terms of our assessment of -- of ISIL and whether or not it's necessary for U.S. military action.
If they're able to deal with this issue on their own, that would certainly be a good thing and would be a factor going forward for us as to whether or not we need to carry out military action.
Q: May I ask a quick North Korea question?
MR. COOK: Sure.
Q: The Japanese have made it very public that they have deployed Patriot missiles. They anticipate another North Korean Musudan launch. What is the U.S. military's assessment of that situation right now? Do you believe North Korea is going to launch a missile? And do you have concerns about it?
MR. COOK: We of course would have concerns if the North Koreans were to conduct another missile test. It would be another violation of U.N. resolutions. It would be another provocative action. So we certainly would urge North Korea to refrain from doing that sort of thing.
We continue to closely coordinate with our allies in the -- in the region about the situation and we're watching it very, very closely.
Q: But can I -- (inaudible) -- a quick third question, if I might.
MR. COOK: Yes.
Q: I lied. I have a third question. On the wounded that you were answering on policy, you mentioned that you don't want to discuss anything about service members that are wounded in action because it can give ISIS an advantage. I guess what puzzles me is sadly, for over a decade in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military was willing and anxious to let the American people see the wounded, let people talk to the wounded, have the wounded talk about what had happened to them.
I mean, sadly we're talking about hundreds if not thousands of American service members wounded being permitted to speak publicly with your department's backing, although you were not here at the time, about their wounded experience. And no concern was expressed at that time that that would give a battlefield advantage to Al Qaida, the Taliban or insurgent forces in Iraq.
MR. COOK: I think you're -- first of all, you're highlighting --
Q: (off-mic.)
MR. COOK: Well, you're -- you're highlighting a privacy concern in those instances. Those service members were willing to discuss that situation. We're talking back one of our concerns is HIPAA restrictions with regard to the status of individuals. So I think you're talking about a different situation there altogether. So --
Q: But -- but why does it give a battlefield advantage -- separate from HIPAA concerns, why is it a battlefield advantage to ISIS when it wasn't a battlefield advantage for so many years in Iraq and Afghanistan? Just on that point, I'm not understanding the difference.
MR. COOK: It's been consistent that we do not want to give them any better picture of the battle space -- the enemy, whether it's ISIL or anybody else. And I think that's consistent with where we were previously before my time here as well. This is information that we think the enemy could use to its advantage.
And again, it's -- this is our basic policy. There have been exceptions in the past and we're going to stick to that policy.
Q: Can I follow up on that?
MR. COOK: Yes, Courtney.
Q: Consistently for the last 15 years, the Department of Defense has put out, every single day, an update on casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, Freedom Sentinel that have --
MR. COOK: A total of the aggregate number.
Q: Correct. And that's --
MR. COOK: And that will continue.
Q: That is increased -- that increases every single day.
MR. COOK: (inaudible).
Q: So, while they have put out specifics, they have acknowledged every single presumably wounded --
MR. COOK: No, no, and that's -- that's -- and I'm sorry, that's the point I'm --
Q: Just take from your comments earlier, from you refusal to acknowledge -- (inaudible) -- wound that he was talking about.
MR. COOK: The aggregate numbers will continue. I'm not going to talk about a particular --
(CROSSTALK)
Q: -- numbers that you put out don't include nay wounded in Syria, and they're only in Iraq?
MR. COOK: I just am not going to refer to that specific instance that you asked about. We're going to continue to provide the aggregate numbers, Courtney.
And so --
Q: (inaudible) who were wounded in the incident that he talked about are included in this.
MR. COOK: The numbers for OIR will be consistent with the -- will include both countries.
Q: Because -- so just so you know, and I know that you weren't around here for the, you know, first OIF and OEF.
MR. COOK: Sure.
Q: But when it was -- it was generally, if there was a response to query, there was an acknowledgement of wounded. It wasn't always the number, but there was an acknowledgement of -- that there were wounded in an incident.
I can't recall a time that HIPAA was ever invoked, that it was ever invoked in -- with concerns to an American wounded in a combat situation.
MR. COOK: I'm describing --
Q: And correct me if I'm wrong, or may have -- (inaudible) -- someone, but I can't ever recall a time when HIPAA was (invoked ?).
(CROSSTALK)
Q: What's the policy here? You're not going to acknowledge Americans wounded? Even if you don't -- even if you won't say. --
MR. COOK: I don't -- I -- I just said the basic policy. We don't routinely release it.
There are instances, as you all have cited when we have in the past --
Q: Every single one is -- (inaudible). I mean --
MR. COOK: Those aggregate numbers are absolutely -- (inaudible).
Q: You acknowledge 20 -- more than 20,000 were killed in -- I'm sorry, were wounded in OEF. Thirty -- almost 32,000 in OIR.
MR. COOK: And that -- and that's why -- Courtney, we will continue to provide those numbers in aggregate, in total. I'm not going to talk about individual instances were people were wounded.
There -- that is the basic question here, is just about we have those, we will provide you those aggregate numbers exactly as we have in the past.
Our policy is not changing is what I'm telling you.
Q: So, the numbers include, that you put out on this OIR, do include wounded in Syria? It's not just Iraq.
MR. COOK: Yes. Yes.
Okay.
Q: And I have another question, unless you have any more on that, Barbara?
Q: No.
Q: On transgender policy. It has been almost a year since Secretary Carter put out a statement -- it was July of last year that he said that, the current transgender policy harms service members in uniform right now, that it's hurtful to them.
There have -- there have not been any changes to that policy up to -- (inaudible), correct? Is that correct?
MR. COOK: That is correct.
Q: Does he still believe that the current policy is harmful, that it actually hurts transgenders and --
MR. COOK: As you know -- as you know, Courtney, we continue to -- to work very carefully on a plan to move forward with exactly what the secretary spelled out a year ago, about trying to, again, consider the service of transgender service members, and how best to handle this situation.
The secretary continues to work very closely on this. This is a topic of regular discussion here right now. I can tell you that we have made progress. He has indicated that he expects to make a final decision soon, and that's exactly where we are.
Q: Does he still believe that the -- what he said in July of last year, that the current policy is -- is harmful to service members in uniform, or --
MR. COOK: (Inaudible) -- the secretary has not changed his views since he articulated that a year ago.
Yes, Carlo.
Q: Peter, let me go back to Libya again. And forgive me if I'm oversimplifying the situation. I just want to make sure I have it clear.
So, in the March-April timeframe, then General Dunford had mentioned that there was ongoing talks with GNA, and that direct quote paraphrase, that they were within weeks, a certain timeframe of coming to an agreement to allow U.S. -- either train, advise and assist, airstrike, some sort of military operation in Libya, waiting on the fact that the Libyan government, GNA, needed to sort of prove themselves, clear a bar, hit a certain threshold.
Now, you're saying with the progress that's going on in Sirte and what they're -- and the progress they have been showing, you're saying now because of that progress, the Defense Department can sort of let them handle things on their on? So --
MR. COOK: Carl, what I'm -- I'm saying is that they -- the government -- we've said all along that the most important thing for Libya and the security situation in Libya is for the Government of National Accord to be able to -- to progress, to take shape, to consolidate authority over the -- over the country as appropriate, to work with the local forces on the ground that are aligned with the Government of Nation Accord, and they're doing that.
That is a good thing. We're supportive of that. I believe our partners in the region are also supportive of that. And as they've done that and as these forces have -- these forces aligned with the GNA have made progress against ISIL, that is a -- that is a good thing and is -- is -- is from our assessment, the ISIL threat, though certainly not removed, ISIL is on its -- is on it heels in Libya because of the actions of those forces. That is a -- that is a good thing.
ISIL is still a threat, a threat we're watching very, very carefully and we'll continue to have active consultations with the Government of National Accord, with our partners in the region as to what the -- the appropriate next steps will be. What can we do to help support this Government of National Accord?
That's the same position today that we were in several weeks ago. It is a complicated situation. The hurdles for the government are certainly not -- haven't been cleared in full. So we'll continue to -- to watch carefully, to offer support as -- as needed and -- and again, assess the U.S. national security interests with regard ISIL very, very carefully.
Q: So the success of the GNA and associated military forces opened the door to U.S. operations in Libya or closed it so they could handle it on their own?
MR. COOK: If the Government of National Accord is able to secure the country on its own without additional help from the U.S. military or other militaries, we think that would be a good thing. That would be an ideal situation for the U.S. military not to have to get -- be involved.
We understand that that's not necessarily how this is going to play out, that there are challenges in Libya. It is a complicated situation. It is a dangerous situation in some respects. And we'll continue to -- to stand by and assess the situation and continue to consult with the government as needed.
So we are -- that's the -- that's the situation. We -- we don't believe that -- we think only in consultation with the Government of National Accord and the partners in the region will we have a better sense of what those security needs are going forward and what role, if any, we would need to play.
Q: One quick question on Yemen, the decision to leave the special operations force there after UAE -- (inaudible) -- declared combat operations for their particular mission over. Can you shed some light on that? I'm sorry if you had kind of gone over this last week, but.
MR. COOK: I mean, you know that there's been a small force on the ground, small contingent. My understanding is they will remain there. They've had -- they've had a successful stay and it's been a productive stay, and I think the decision, again, without getting into -- to too many details, the decision to extend that reflects just the successful cooperation we've had on the ground there.
Q: (inaudible) -- transition to counterterrorism, the U.S. sort of (inaudible) counterterrorism mission.
MR. COOK: I'm just going to leave it there. They've had a successful operation so far, and I don't see that mission changing. But I'm not going to get into more details there.
Yes?
Q: Thank you, Peter. On the issue of the IS in South Korea, recently, a South Korean security services has announced that IS -- their attention of the U.S. military station in South Korea as a terrorist target.
How will the United States secure the U.S. station in South Korea?
MR. COOK: Well, of course, force protection around the world is of critical importance to us. And we will continue to do everything we need to protect our forces, whether it be in South Korea or other parts of the world from -- not only the threat from ISIL, but from other threats.
So, this is something that we would work very closely, of course, with the South Korean government to address any concerns that are there.
But -- but force protection is job one for us, and was even before this report came from the South Korean government.
Q: (inaudible) -- more protections U.S. troops --
MR. COOK: We will do what we need to do to protect our forces anywhere in the world.
Q: And their families?
MR. COOK: And their families, of course.
Q: Thank you.
MR. COOK: Yeah. Back to Lucas.
Q: I just know he's going to ask other questions, I'll get my money's worth.
Thank you, Peter. There are some reports that he Navy is concerned about post-Ramadan attacks on recruiting stations potentially. Do you have anything on that?
MR. COOK: I'm -- I'm not aware of that report, in particular. But I'll go back to what I just said that force protection is -- obviously, a clear priority for us.
And we're going to continue to protect our forces around the world.
Q: So, shifting to GTMO, is Secretary Carter concerned about this report of a missing Guantanamo Bay -- a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner who was transferred to South America, to Uruguay, and is now missing and believed to be in Brazil, presumably not for the Olympics?
Does the secretary have anything on that, is he concerned?
MR. COOK: Obviously, he'd be concerned about any report like that. It's something that we're -- we're tracking here.
You know the due diligence the secretary has put into his own decisions about the transfer of detainees, and the very high test he has for making those decisions. And nothing has changed about that.
This is -- obviously, the national security of the United States is the most important thing to the secretary when it comes to these decisions.
Q: Can you confirm that this prisoner is, indeed, missing right now?
MR. COOK: I can't confirm that, Lucas. Again, we've seen the reports, and this is something, obviously, we take very seriously. And nothing is more important to the secretary than the national security of the United States, and that's what he applies -- that's the test he applies in making his own decisions about the transfer of detainees.
Q: Today, there's reports that the Justice Department, the A.G. Loretta Lynch is pushing back on some of the processes for Guantanamo Bay detainees to plead guilty via teleconference.
Is -- Secretary Carter, does he disagree with the A.G. on that?
MR. COOK: I'll refer you to the Justice Department in terms of those prosecutions. It's a legal matter, and I think best handled by the Justice Department.
Q: But is the -- the secretary, is he confident that Guantanamo will be closed by the end of the president's term?
MR. COOK: The secretary is confident that there's a plan up in Congress right now that certainly could -- could achieve that, if there was an effort on the part of Congress to engage and to try and resolve the issues, the substantial issues that are out there regarding the plan moving forward.
This -- the secretary believes that there is a pathway to responsibly closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and moving those detainees -- who cannot be, are not eligible for transfer, who pose such a risk to the country -- to housing those detainees here in a facility in the United States safely and -- and effectively.
But of course, this is a decision that Congress has to make, and Congress needs to engage on this and there are some members of Congress who are very supportive of the secretary's action, the department's proposal and there are obviously some who have concerns about. There's a question in Congress about trying to reconcile that.
Q: In light of this missing prisoner, is there any review at the Pentagon underway about possibly slowing down the number of transfers? I know there's dozens that are getting ready to be transferred to other countries. In light of this missing prisoner, is there any concern that this transfer policy is not working?
MR. COOK: The secretary knows his responsibilities with regard to transfers, the very specific responsibilities of the secretary of defense, the test, again, that he needs to apply to each and every one of these cases. He looks at each and every one individually and makes a determination based on the facts and -- and the information provided to him.
This is an interagency process, as you know, Lucas, and for someone to be deemed eligible for transfer means that others need to have weighed in on that situation. There are other responsibilities from other agencies with regard to the actual transfer to a foreign country. And so the secretary will continue to review each and every one of these cases with the same diligence and scrutiny that he has with every transfer so far.
Okay.
Q: Thanks.
MR. COOK: All right. Got to catch a plan to New York. Thanks, everyone.
-END-