SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASH CARTER: Well, hello, everyone. That's okay. That's okay.
(CROSSTALK)
SEC. CARTER: Thank you all, as always, for being here. And -- but we're pleased to be going to this NATO summit to attend with President Obama at a time when the world's complexity has given NATO a lot to do and important contributions to make. And I think those contributions and the unity and strength, including investments in defense, of NATO are going to be important. They're going to be things that are going to be discussed. And as always, it's the unity and combined strength of the alliance that helps it make a difference in a number of different areas of the world.
Central to this is this particular summit is the furtherance of NATO's approach to Russia, which is one that is strong and balanced; strong meaning to deter aggression in Europe. And that is why one of the important themes of the summit is to move from reassurance, which was the initial NATO response to Russian behavior -- illegal behavior in Crimea two summers ago, to a phase of deterrence, which is not something the alliance has had to focus on for a quarter-century, but now it does.
I say strong and balanced because NATO also continues to work with Russia wherever that is possible and continue to be open to greater Russian cooperation with NATO, as it has been since the Cold War ended. But that's something that it takes common ground to pursue.
In that connection, I think the president will be making very clear what the contributions are that his country and our Defense Department has made to and is making to moving from reassurance to deterrence. Just let me remind everyone that the American presence in Europe, a rotational persistent presence, is greatly strengthened this year relative to many years in the past by the addition of a rotational armored brigade combat team, the equipment for an armored BCT, the agreement by the United States to serve as a framework nation among the four framework nations that will position four NATO battalions in the Baltics and Poland.
And so we are doing more than our part. I think the president will be urging others to do more than they're doing as well. And that will be -- the structure and composition of those forces will be some of the things -- one of the things that the heads of state will be discussing there.
Another important subject for NATO, of course, is the southern flank of NATO, particularly NATO's role in combating one of the principal sources of instability on NATO's flanks, and therefore the refugee crisis and other humanitarian issues which affect Europe, as well as terrorism which affects Europe in addition to the United States, also emanating from NATO's southern and southeastern flanks -- ISIL being one of the principal causes of that.
NATO's role in combating ISIL is going to be one of the things that's discussed. We believe that NATO can play a useful role and that's going to be one of the things that will be discussed there.
Finally, Afghanistan and the Resolute Support mission -- an important mission that NATO has stuck with for years now, as has the United States; made enormous amount of progress in building up the Afghan security forces; will continue to do so. And of course, the president made an important announcement yesterday in which he made an adjustment in our plans -- the plans we made last summer to draw down troop numbers in Afghanistan later this year.
The president deciding not to draw them down to 5,500, but to a larger number. That in view of changed circumstances over the last year and what we've learned over the last year in terms of what we can accomplish if we do a little more with the Afghans. It's an indication of one of the things the president has shown himself consistently willing to do, which is to adjust to changed circumstances and to take advantage of opportunities, whether that's in Afghanistan or in our counter-ISIL fight.
I'll just remind you that although troop numbers were the focus of the president's announcement yesterday, there are a number of other important ingredients to the ways in which we support the Afghan security forces and Afghanistan on the security side.
And I'll just remind everyone that a few weeks ago, the president made another decision that was important and has proven itself in the intervening weeks, which is the decision to change the authorities granted to our commander in Afghanistan to allow him to act more to anticipate situations and assist Afghan security forces in anticipation, and not wait until they get into a circumstance where a problem looms and we need to intervene for that reason -- take more advantage of preventive opportunities. We're doing that. That's really important.
And next, I'll remind you that what is essential is funding for the Afghan security forces. And that's essential because Afghanistan government at the moment is not able to foot the bill for the security force it needs. So the United States and other partners are essential for that.
And that gets me to the last thing, which is the NATO contribution and the international contribution. And I think that's something, again, the president will be discussing with the NATO nations is their contributions in future years to Afghan security forces. The president has directed me, and I think this is widely supported in Congress, to add forces to the U.S. defense budget, the one we submitted, in recognition of the fact that the Afghan security forces are going to need continuing support -- financial support.
So, it's all of those ingredients that go into continuing to build the Afghan security forces and give Afghanistan the -- the level of self-sufficiency and security that will stop it from being a -- ever again a source of terrorism to the United States, and will also give the United States and its partners there a useful and friendly partner in what is a difficult region of the world.
So with that, thank you all once again for coming. And now let's turn to the questions.
Q: Mr. Secretary, on Afghanistan, the president announced that he will be drawing down about 1,400 troops there. So how do you intend, by the end of the year, going from the current 9,800 to the 8,400. So how do you expect the military will fill that need, considering the role and the mission has expanded a bit to give that additional assistance to the Afghans and to fulfill your commitment to Italy and Germany and the others that you made at the meeting last month, to continue providing security and logistics to those allies, and the hub-and-spoke system?
SEC. CARTER: Well, what General Nicholson and General Votel and General Dunford and I discussed in preparing the recommendation to the president was: What is -- what U.S. force level is needed to accomplish what we think, on the basis of the -- the experience we've accumulated over the last year -- will make the Afghan security forces have the highest chance of another successful fighting season next year?
So that's the way we approached it, and that's how we got the number we got, by looking at the tasks and functions that need to be accomplished. We couldn't see all that last summer. We made the best estimate we possibly could. The president approved that estimate at the time. But circumstances change. We see additional opportunities.
I think one thing that's -- that's an important lesson we learned over the last winter is the importance of helping Afghan security forces to re-set after the what's called the fighting season and before the 2017 fighting season begins. That proved extremely important in Helmand over the last year, for example.
So that's the kind of experience we took into account in -- in making this recommendation to him. It's based on the roles that we thought we could play to give the Afghan security forces the highest chances of success there as a security force.
Q: But will you ask the allies to provide more troops? What are you going to ask them to do when you meet with them this weekend?
SEC. CARTER: Well, many of them have also indicated a recognition of the need to stick with the Resolute Support mission and to do more than they might have anticipated in past years. And so, a number of them have indicated that they would be making those contributions. And I think the president will hear from the other heads of state of NATO about what they're willing to do also in the future years. So I think that's going to be another important outcome of the summit.
Q: So, I guess, like, just in a larger picture, we -- if the U.S. mission there is not going to change and there's not going to be any actual -- they're going to continue to focus on this mission that they're doing right now. I guess what I don't understand is is there -- how will they continue that mission with 1,400 fewer troops?
And is there any concern about the degradation of force protection if they have to continue this -- and maybe even do more, as you said, with these new authorities?
SEC. CARTER: Well, the -- what we've learned in the last year is that we have additional opportunities to accomplish that mission, which we've had for a long time, which is to help Afghanistan be as self-sufficient as it can be in security terms, and prevent it from ever becoming again a source of terrorism to the United States. And what we learned in the intervening year is that we have additional things we could do pursuant to that mission.
In the period of time when last summer we thought that an appropriate number was going to be 5,500, we recommended to the president a larger number because we think there's more we can do. And that's -- that's based on the experience of the last year and the recognition that in particular that the Afghan security forces, while they're getting stronger and stronger, it's still a tough fight there.
So, we made a recommendation based upon our assessment of the circumstances as we see them now unfolding in 2017, as best as we could make that assessment. And the president changed the plans he made last summer in view of the experience we accumulated over the last year in how best to give a high probability of success on the military side to the mission that we, and by the way NATO, have been embarked on for a long time.
Q: You're not worried about force protection -- (inaudible)?
SEC. CARTER: We always worry about force protection. And that's -- and force protection is built into everything we do there, including the force levels, the way we operate the forces. And by the way, the way NATO does. And we also have indicated for quite some time that we're prepared to support the Resolute Support mission, which includes assisting in the protection of NATO forces even as we protect our own.
Q: Sir, there's interest on Capitol Hill in how the additional troops are going to be paid for. Will DOD be submitting a supplemental OCO request?
SEC. CARTER: We're looking at that right now. Chairman Thornberry recognized that point. We recognize that point as well. And so we'll be making that determination as we go through the process of estimating costs and what we already have in our supplemental -- or OCO budget. And we'll make adjustments if we need to.
And obviously, we'll need the support of Congress in that regard. So I'm actually pleased that Chairman Thornberry raised the subject. It's a very appropriate one to raise.
Q: But you do think there will be additional funds needed?
SEC. CARTER: I don't know. We have to -- we're -- let us go through that process of making those estimates, seeing everything else that we have in OCO.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
You mentioned three times the additional opportunities that you see in Afghanistan -- that you see in -- sorry -- that you see in Afghanistan. Can you give us any specific additional opportunities that -- (inaudible)?
SEC. CARTER: Well, the one I gave you is this -- is essentially an important one, which is the opportunity to help Afghan forces to re-fit, re-train, re-equip. The expression is refresh themselves in between fighting seasons. That's something that proved extremely valuable this last year with respect to the 215th Corps in Helmand. And so that's an example of the kind of experience we bring forward. So that proved very useful.
And so we'd like to do that in the course -- over the course of the next winter. And we wanted to make sure that we had the forces there that could assist the Afghans in doing it. So that's an example, an important example.
Q: Hi. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Can you just go through the breakdown of these troops that are going to be moving out? Are they going to be coming from the CTF? Or are they going be coming from the train, advise, and assist? Where are we going to be losing people?
SEC. CARTER: We haven't decided. You mean, what specific units?
Q: Right.
SEC. CARTER: Well, that will be part of the -- the decisions that we always make and are always making on which units are left. We do that. I'm going to want the input from the services in that regard in terms of what units they -- and that will go through the usual process of determining which units and which kinds rotate in and how this need is supplied by the armed services.
Q: But as a whole, what's going to be -- what's going to be suffering the most? Is it going to be -- because the U.S. has two different roles, with the train, advise, and assist and with the CT. Where are we going to see the capabilities disappear?
SEC. CARTER: These -- we're going to accomplish both missions. So the -- what we did was start with the needs and the experience over the last year, and decide what force level was required. That's where the number came from. The number that our planning was based on was determined in an analogous process last summer, but it only makes sense to take advantage of the experience you've accumulated in the course of a year. That's what we did. And that experience taught us that it would be better to have some additional forces.
And they'll be in both categories, I guess is the answer to your question. And -- but they'll be accomplishing -- the difference is those additional forces will be accomplishing a number of different functions. But remember, the functions don't stay the same all the time. The locations of people, the missions they're accomplishing, the dynamics of the battlefield, the commander has some -- should have some flexibility in that regard.
Q: Do you know how soon we're going to get that decision?
SEC. CARTER: It will be made according to need in the normal way. I mean, the same way we've done this for years and years in Afghanistan and also Iraq. It will depend upon the readiness of particular units; what other global demand. Because after all, we're servicing a global demand for U.S. forces of all kinds. And we make with the services, because they're the ones that, you know, provide the forces that are responsible for equipping and training them.
So that will be an ongoing process.
Q: Okay. Thank you.
One follow-on on Afghanistan, just so I guess we're clear. Has the decision been made on the counterterrorism side in terms of the number, kind of post-8,400 here in terms of that decision?
SEC. CARTER: The counterterrorism portion of the overall mission in Afghanistan, yes, was taken into account in this, even as it was last summer. And that's obviously a central part of our mission and the reason to stick with the job of strengthening the Afghan security forces and helping them become more self-sufficient.
Because remember, the reason we're there in the first place is because of 9/11. So the counterterrorism thing is central to that. And keeping that counterterrorism platform strong is one of the central reasons for us being there in the first place. And that -- for that to be strong, it has to be in a general environment in which the Afghan security forces are able to keep a general level of security and stability there.
And so what we're doing -- what we do there contributes both to that platform and to the general environment of security, which is important and essential for maintaining that platform, but also important for other reasons, because a successful, secure Afghanistan is a good thing for that region and for the United States to have a friend in that part of the world.
Q: Sure. A couple of my colleagues at the Washington Post reported yesterday that there was a defeat -- some U.S.-backed rebels were defeated at Abu Kamal, in part after their air support was withdrawn. And that was confirmed by the Inherent Resolve folks.
In light of that, I guess really there's two questions. One, do you have enough aircraft, air support in general? Are you looking at that? And two, that doesn't necessarily send a great message to those rebels and to others that we're trying to attract and recruit. What's the message for them at this point?
SEC. CARTER: Well, the allocation of forces is a daily tactical decisions that commanders make. In this case, and -- and in this case, some aircraft that had been scheduled to have the mission of supporting Abu Kamal, where by the way, those forces that were affected have regrouped and are back in the fight.
But we missed an opportunity to support them because we were taking advantage of another important opportunity, and you can't foresee these things completely. But that other opportunity was the faster than expected Iraqi success in Fallujah.
So I -- our -- we're looking back on that. Our people are looking back, seeing if there are any lessons learned from that. But we have a lot of air assets and we have a lot of partners who have air assets, but on any given day they have to go to a certain place at a certain time. Those decisions are made as prudently as the commanders know how, but circumstances change and in this case they were adjusting to another very successful set of airstrikes in Fallujah.
Q: Well, then, did you consider freezing the U.S. troops at 9,800? Or possibly adding all -- adding more at all? Was that ever considered?
SEC. CARTER: Well, we didn't start with any number. We started with a mission. What did we need to accomplish? And how did -- how we accomplish that -- how did our estimation of what would give the greatest chance of success to the Afghan security forces, how has our estimation of that changed since last year?
And so that's what we did. We asked: What do we think would be the best to have going into 2017? And we made that adjustment accordingly. And I'm very pleased that the president agreed to make that adjustment. But that's how it was -- that's how it was derived.
Q: Have you got any response from the Afghan government yet? Have you heard directly from them?
SEC. CARTER: Well, I think I'm going to leave that to the president. He'll have the opportunity to speak to both President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah in Warsaw.
Q: Mr. Secretary, you talked about how these new authorities granted to the U.S. forces in Afghanistan have already proven themselves on the battlefield. Can you tell us how they have proven themselves? And specifically, what has the breakdown been between responding to Taliban attacks against Afghan forces versus going on the offense against the Taliban?
SEC. CARTER: Well, the -- the additional authorities permit General Nicholson to anticipate circumstances where the application of U.S. support can help the Afghans take advantage of a strategic circumstance and avoid any strategic setbacks.
Previously, his authorities were very reactive. And so, the president thought, and this was a recommendation that General Dunford and I, General Nicholson and General Votel made, that an adjustment in those was appropriate. And so we made that adjustment. And that has allowed General Nicholson to make some anticipatory moves to support -- now again, this is supporting Afghan forces so that they could be successful in a circumstance where it was a lot -- their chances of success were a lot better having us support them than not.
That's a reasonable kind of battlefield judgment for General Nicholson to be able to make. And he -- he does that within these new authorities. And again, that has a very positive effect because it doesn't oblige him -- it hasn't obliged him to wait until there's a strategic issue there in Afghanistan, but to act proactively. That's the distinction.
Q: (inaudible) -- employed -- (inaudible)?
SEC. CARTER: It's happened a number of times since the president has -- but it's hard to count because this is a matter that flows into his overall battlefield dynamic. So these are not things that are easily labeled one way of the other. It's giving him flexibility, which is really important, and which it is useful, and I think it stands to reason that being able to anticipate issues is better than having to react to issues, particularly on a battlefield.
STAFF: Thanks, everybody. We're going to wrap it up.