PETER COOK: Good afternoon, everybody.
I've got a few things off the top here before I turn to your questions.
First of all, our thoughts and prayers here at the Department of Defense are with the people of France and Egypt and the families of all those affected by the situation with Egypt Air Flight 804. The U.S. military has reached out to counterparts in Greece and Egypt to offer our support.
The U.S. Sixth Fleet, working with the Joint Rescue Coordination Center in Greece and the U.S. defense attaché in Athens has provided a U.S. Navy P-3 Orion aircraft in support of search operations. That aircraft launched on its search mission earlier today and is still on-station helping with the search at this time.
The department stands by to provide any other assistance that is requested. And at this point, the investigation is, of course, just beginning. If we have any information that could potentially be helpful, we will be, of course, happy to provide it in the future.
Turning now to a different topic, the budget. The secretary continues to have deep concerns regarding proposals included in the National Defense Authorization Act which passed the House yesterday. This legislation includes a budget gimmick that would underfund the Department of Defense's overseas warfighting accounts by $18 billion and spend that money on programmatic items that are not our highest priorities for national defense.
As the secretary expressed at the Navy League Sea, Air, Space Forum on Tuesday, this approach is deeply troubling for several reason. First, it's gambling with warfighting money at a time of war, proposing to cut off funding for ongoing operations in the middle of the fiscal year. Second, it's a step in the direction of unraveling the bipartisan budget agreement agreed to just seven months ago, which has provided critical stability the Department of Defense needs.
And third, this provision threatens our readiness to respond to the challenges of a complex world. Buying force structure today without the resources to sustain it tomorrow is not a path to increased readiness. It's a path to a hollow force and exacerbates the readiness challenges we currently have.
The secretary remains ready to work with Congress and looks forward to working with Congress on a path forward, but he has indicated he would recommend a veto of this legislation in its current form.
And finally, I would like to highlight some continued progress in the counter-ISIL fight. As Colonel Warren mentioned yesterday, Iraqi forces have entered the town -- the strategic town of Rutbah. And in the last day, those forces have continued to expand government control and now have cleared 80 percent of the town. Rutbah, as you know, carried outside -- outsized significance because of its position on the main land route between Jordan and central Iraq.
Before ISIL seized this town, more than $1 billion in trade passed through Rutbah each year and the eventual reopening of that route will have important benefits for the economy both in Iraq and in the region.
And in addition, this operation recaptures the final ISIL stronghold in southern Iraq south of the Euphrates. Again, the strategic significant of Rutbah is -- is significant.
And with that, I'd be happy to take your questions.
Courtney?
Q: Can you talk a little bit more about EgyptAir? What -- what efforts the U.S. military is making to identify any -- any cause? Are you looking at any kind of -- (inaudible) -- imagery or infrared imagery or anything to determine whether you see a flash? If so, have you seen that? Now that it's hours old, presumably the U.S. should be able to have analyzed something at this point.
MR. COOK: It's -- it's still early, Courtney. As I said, we'd be happy to provide any information we can that might be helpful. But at this point, I think as Josh Earnest has said, there's nothing we can rule in, nothing we can rule out. If there's information we can provide in the future, we're happy to provide it.
But this is still early in the investigation. The Egyptians and the French are taking the lead on this, and we'll be as supportive as we can be. But we have really nothing really at this point that leads us to any conclusions.
Q: Were you aware of any specific recent indications that ISIS was trying to target airliners? Anything more specific than what we've seen in the past?
MR. COOK: Yeah, I'm not aware of any specific threat here. But again, I'd refer you to my colleagues at the Department of Homeland Security specifically on that question. But we're just trying to do what we can to help with our resources in terms of the search effort with the P-3. That's our most immediate concern here at the Department of Defense.
Q: Hi, Peter.
What sort of warship presence does the U.S. have in the Mediterranean at the time? And given the importance of the various missions that the U.S. is partnering with, do we have any sort of ISR assets or radar that is being looked at right now to see if there's an image of what happened to this airplane?
MR. COOK: Yeah. As you know, we have a variety of assets and personnel in the region. And we have a host of capabilities. And we will be reviewing everything possible that could be helpful in the course of this investigation. In terms of the immediate presence there, we did not have any ships immediately in the area, but we do have a presence in the region.
And the most immediate thing we could do to be helpful in support of the search was the deployment of this -- of this aircraft. And that aircraft is still right now conducting search operations.
Q: –Just a quick follow-up, are there plans to send any U.S. ship to the area to help with recovery?
MR. COOK: I'm not aware at this point. Again, we've offered assistance. Any further support that we can provide, but at this point, it's just the aircraft that's -- that's involved.
Q: EgyptAir has said that they've found some wreckage. I was wondering if the P-3 was a part of that. Have you got any initial reports from the P-3 that they've seen anything?
MR. COOK: I do not have any initial reports that the P-3 specifically has found any wreckage. I don't know that they haven't. I just know that this was a mission that was going to be able to -- they were going to be able to be up there for about six hours. They've been on-station for a while at this point. Again, three p.m. local time they took off.
And that's local time in Italy. This aircraft originated from Sigonella. And so they're continuing their work, but I can't tell you if they've played a role in identifying anything so far.
Q: When that P-3 is off-station, will there be another aircraft to be able to replace it?
MR. COOK: Again, we have significant resources in the region. And we're going to everything we can to support this effort. I'm not aware of a replacement that's teed up ready to go, but if it looks like that's something that's important, I'm sure that we'll make arrangements. But we have other resources in the region, so it may not be a direct swap like that.
Q: Do you know if the secretary has had any phone calls with his Egyptian counterpart or if he is planning to do so?
MR. COOK: I know the secretary certainly has been informed of what's been going on and our contributions to the search effort. I don't have any particular conversation to read out at this point with any foreign counterparts.
Q: No contacts with Egypt?
MR. COOK: I -- I -- to be honest, I haven't been with the secretary all day, but I'm not aware of anything. Of course, Joe, if there is a call of some sort, we'll report that out.
Yes?
Q: China is rejecting the U.S. claims that the planes flew in an unsafe manner. Where is your review right now? And do you all still believe that you guys were flying in a safe --
MR. COOK: That our folks were flying in a safe manner? We believe our folks were flying in a safe manner for sure.
Q: That they were flying in an unsafemanner. You still --
(CROSSTALK)
MR. COOK: Yes, this incident is still under review. But certainly our air crew felt that this was not conducted in the safest and most professional way. And so we'll continue to review all the facts in this case. And this is an area where we have not had really a significant number of issues like this since some of the confidence-building measures over the last -- last few months. And so, obviously this is a concern that something like this would happen. We'll go through the review process and determine what, if any, appropriate action is needed.
Q: Can you walk us through the facts of what's known about what happened in this intercept?
MR. COOK: We're still going through the review. But again, our aircraft was flying in international airspace. And again, I can't walk you through every single detail, but there were two Chinese aircraft that approached and our air crew felt that the approach was not conducted in the safest -- a safe and professional manner.
And so that's the concern that we have and that's what's being reviewed at this time.
Q: It seems like it's happening -- (inaudible). So doesn't that give credence to China's claims that the U.S. is trying to, you know, violate their airspace or, you know, violate their sovereignty or something like that?
MR. COOK: My understanding is this happened in international airspace over the South China Sea. And we have continued to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows. And -- and we feel confident that our crew was conducting this, again, in international airspace as allowed under international law.
Q: A quick question about Okinawa. An American citizen, U.S. defense contractor, is a suspect in the murder of a local Japanese woman. Any comment?
MR. COOK: Yeah, give me one second here.
This is -- a very tragic situation in Japan, and we are shocked and dismayed to learn about this incident in Okinawa.
And I want to assure you that the secretary of the Department of Defense, determined to provide complete cooperation to the government of Japan and local authorities in Okinawa regarding this investigation.
This is an appalling tragedy. Secretary Carter joins Ambassador Kennedy in expressing his sincere condolences and sympathies to the victim's family and friends. And we also extend our deepest sympathies to the people of Japan, and express our gratitude for the trust that they place in our bilateral alliance and the American people.
And we will also undertake efforts to assist the investigation in any way that we can.
Yes, Jamie?
Q: There are two questions on -- change the subject.
The first one, Congressman Trey Gowdy at the Benghazi Committee has complained that the Pentagon has not been responsive in requests to provide the names of drone pilots that might have been in a position to respond to the Benghazi attack.
Do you -- can you comment at all on that, or do you have a response to that?
MR. COOK: Well, we continue, Jamie, as you know, to work with all congressional inquiries into this matter. We have been cooperating for some time with this committee on a range -- in a range of ways.
This particular request, my understanding it, that we have now provided the names of four drone pilots and four sensor operators who operated on that date or the date in question to the committee.
That was actually provided in April. And yesterday, we offered to make four pilots available for interviews with the committee as soon as next week. And we're continuing to work to identify additional pilots and operators, again, requested by the committee. And they're going to provide those names to the committee as well.
Q: So, you, I take it, dispute the idea that you haven't been fully responsive to the committee's request?
MR. COOK: Again, we've continued to work with this committee, responded for this particular request for these individuals.
My understanding is some of these people are not still in the service at this point, and one may even be deceased.
So, we continue to work closely in trying to provide the information to the committee that they've requested. And we'll continue to do so.
Q: And I'm -- just on a different subject. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates was interviewed this morning, and he made some sharply critical remarks about the way the Pentagon and the administration has characterized the role of U.S. troops, specifically from shying away from describing it as combat.
I think he used the phrase, "Semantic backflips were being employed to avoid describing this in a clear way." Could you just respond to that?
MR. COOK: I didn't see the former secretary's interview. Certainly, I have great respect for Secretary Gates.
So, I'd want to see exactly what it is he said. But I think if -- and Jamie, I think you know, when addressed with questions here, and the secretary as well through the course of his travels recently, we've made very clear what American troops are now engaged in overseas.
And in many cases, they are in harm's way. And there have been instances when they've been engaged in combat situations.
The secretary has been clear about that. I'd like to think I've been clear about that as well.
These folks are in harm's way. We've seen, painfully, through recent experience that evidence itself.
And so, we're not engaging in semantic backflips when we're talking about Americans at risk. We do think it's important to characterize and show that American forces right now, in Iraq, for example, and in Afghanistan are providing some -- in support roles to those local forces as they carry out the very important work of trying to secure their own countries.
And it is a different role than those forces were in several years ago in both those countries, for example. So there is a distinction there. But to be sure, American forces have found themselves, as we saw most recently with Charles Keating, in combat situations in which they are in harm's way. And so I think we've made that clear. I think the secretary has been quite clear about that as well.
Q: But you know, I think what the critics are saying that they're pointing exactly to that kind of phraseology, when you say that the troops are in harm's way or that they're in a combat situation, as opposed to just flatly saying "they're in combat." I think that's the thing that people are focusing in on, where they see that as semantics.
Are you willing to say that U.S. troops are in combat in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan?
MR. COOK: They have been in certain situations, absolutely. They have found themselves under fire. That is combat. Again, we're not -- I don't think we're disagreeing with you, Jamie, but it is fair, as well, to say that the role of U.S. forces in places like Iraq and Afghanistan is different than previously when they were in the lead in terms of -- of combat operations.
They are not in the lead in combat operations now, but they certainly have found themselves in combat. Yes, that's a fair statement.
Yes, Lucas?
Q: Going to the war against ISIS in Iraq particularly. In December, top officials said that 40 percent of ISIS-held territory had been recaptured from ISIS. And now that number has gone to -- has moved to 45 percent. Is --
MR. COOK: In Iraq.
Q: In Iraq. Is Secretary Carter satisfied with the pace of operations? It's only a five percent difference from five months ago.
MR. COOK: Lucas, I think the secretary has made clear that he wants to accelerate the defeat of ISIL. And until that happens and their claims to a caliphate are eliminated, that they -- that he won't be satisfied. He'd like this to move faster. And I think he's made that clear from the start.
Q: Does he think -- does the secretary think that the recent bombings in Baghdad that have killed over 200 people in the last week will slow down that effort? That efforts to take Mosul and other parts of the caliphate are now -- the timing is going to be pushed to the right?
MR. COOK: I don't think the secretary feels that way. Obviously, we're watching the situation in Baghdad closely. Certainly, the violence that's been brought forward by ISIL is just -- once again raises the question, or not the question, but makes the point that the need to defeat ISIL is -- we need to accelerate that to eliminate the kind of threat that it poses in Baghdad and in other parts of Iraq.
And by, again, taking the fight to ISIL, perhaps we can reduce the chances for those kinds of attacks going forward.
Yes?
Q: Going back to the South China Sea. Last year, China and the United States came to an agreement on the rules for air-to-air military encounters. The most recent intercept, how is that not a violation of that agreement?
MR. COOK: I don't know that it is or it isn't. We're again reviewing the information from this, as I indicated earlier. Those -- that agreement, as you said, has -- has reduced these instances, which we think is a good thing. We think those confidence building measures have been productive and so we'll review this incident to determine whether or not there needs to be an appropriate response.
Q: Have you brought this up with the Chinese yet, specifically how this might go against the agreement?
MR. COOK: I think we're reviewing it and we'll, of course, use all the appropriate diplomatic channels to register our concerns as appropriate once we've concluded ourselves what happened here and the circumstances.
Q: So, this happened on Tuesday. When do you think the review is going to be completed?
MR. COOK: Well, we'll let you know. I don't have an exact deadline for you.
But again, there are diplomatic channels for us to pursue in these instances, and we'll do so.
Yes, -- (inaudible).
Q: Can you tell us what distance of -- (inaudible) -- the American plane was when it was intercepted by the two Chinese aircraft?
MR. COOK: I do not know from here. We can try to take that question, if you'd like.
Yes, (inaudible)?
Q: Two NDAA questions. With the House and Senate NDAA seek reduce the size of the National Security Council staff, does the secretary agree with his three predecessors that that's something that needs to be done?
MR. COOK: Listen, I'm not going to get into every detail of the bill at this point. The secretary has expressed his views about one particular component that has direct bearing on us, and that of course is the funding.
And so, again, I'm not going to get into every single aspect of the -- of the bill itself, other than particularly on the area of greatest concern for the secretary is the question about funds, going forward.
Q: The House NDAA passed yesterday would cut funding both for DIUx and the Strategic Capabilities Office. Those are two of the secretary's biggest priorities.
Any thoughts on that?
MR. COOK: Again, I'm not going to go into every single detail about the bill right now. He has expressed his reservations about the funding part of it.
I will say on two things, those are two priority items for the secretary, and feels they are important. And I'm sure he will look forward to engaging with Congress on why funds for those operations, those particular units are important at this moment in time.
Yes, Paul.
Q: Peter, going back to Iraq for a second. Can you talk about -- so the defense officials here have talked about how this represents a shift in ISIS' strategy from conventional fight to one of more of going back to their terrorist roots, I think is the phrase that has been used.
As the secretary is looking for ways to accelerate this fight, can you talk about how he's planning to shift the U.S. strategy accordingly, away from perhaps preparing for conventional battles and more toward preventing terrorist attacks like this one?
MR. COOK: Well, I think this is something that we'll continue to work in conjunction with the Iraqi government in support of their forces, and whether or not adjustments need to be made with regard to protection in Baghdad.
This is something that we'll continue to have a conversation with the Iraqis about the threats they face, the threats our forces face in the region as well. Of course, force protection is critically important to us.
And -- but in terms of the fight and the campaign plan for defeating ISIL, I don't know if we're going to see significant changes on that front, because again, that's moving forward, seeing progress on the ground, the effort to isolate Mosul, the effort in Syria to isolate Raqqa.
That will continue, but of course there will be adjustments regarding the threats within Iraq itself as ISIL does continue to adapt. I think you've heard General MacFarland, General Votel talk about the need for us to adapt to the threats that ISIL poses. And we'll continue to do so.
Q: Do these attacks raise any new concerns about the extent to which Shia militia provide security in Baghdad?
MR. COOK: I think the -- again, the -- with regard to security in Baghdad itself, these are questions that the Iraqis have to deal with.
We'll provide as much support as we can in terms of advice and assistance on adjustments that could be made.
But with regard in particular to individual forces, again, the security situation in Baghdad is something that the people of Iraq need to confront, the government of Iraq needs to confront. We'll do everything we can to support them.
Q: But in terms of the American presence there, you have no concerns about that?
MR. COOK: In terms of the American presence in Baghdad itself? We feel confident that we've taken the appropriate force protection measures to protect our people.
Q: And a very last quick question on the Egypt airline. Can you confirm that this is still a search and rescue mission? And hasn't transitioned to a search -- (inaudible)?
MR. COOK: I'm going to leave that to the investigators, to the authorities in Egypt and France to characterize it. I've been able to share with you what we're doing at this moment to try and assist.
Yes?
Q: (inaudible) -- on South Korea. Can you confirm whether the U.S. forces conducted any -- (inaudible) -- tests in South Korea recently?
MR. COOK: Yes. I'll take that question. I'm not aware of any Zika virus tests. I think this question came up even last week. I'll take that question to double-check, but I'm not aware of any Zika virus testing that's taken place in South Korea.
Yes?
Q: Peter, is U.S. -- is DOD perhaps helping the Egyptian government in order to check the list of passengers of the Egyptian plane to see if they find any links with jihadist groups?
MR. COOK: Again, just on behalf of the Department of Defense, we're going to provide whatever support we can to this investigation. I'll leave it to Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies that may be in more direct communication with the Egyptians about some of these issues.
But I think you've heard even from Josh Earnest already, the U.S. government stands ready to assist in whatever way we can with this investigation.
Q: In regards to Mexico, last week Secretary Ashton Carter had mentioned in the change of command ceremony in NORTHCOM that Mexico has become a -- (inaudible) -- exporter of security both in the continent and beyond. What he was referring to? And what Mexico can do with the U.S. in Latin America about -- (inaudible)?
MR. COOK: Yeah, I mean I think what the secretary was talking about is Mexico's role -- important role as a regional defense leader; its activities in the Inter-American Defense Board, the Conference of Defense Ministers of the Americas; its role as a regional player; its assistance, for example, in responding to humanitarian and other disaster situations in the region and the prominent role it has played in that regard.
And I think the secretary was again highlighting those positive contributions and the role that Mexico plays in the region.
Q: I was referring to -- (inaudible) -- security also beyond the borders -- (inaudible) -- the continent -- (inaudible) -- maybe to the possible decision of the president to send military forces for peacekeeping operations -- (inaudible)?
MR. COOK: Yeah, certainly I think that was undoubtedly another factor in what the secretary and his characterization there. And the secretary views that as a positive sign, a positive role for Mexico potentially to play in peacekeeping operations. And that was a significant decision last year from the president. And one the secretary certainly welcomes.
And I know the secretary was pleased to have a chance to speak to, of course, the Mexican officials during that change of command ceremony; a good moment for him to catch up on issues in the region.
Yes?
Q: Thank you, Peter.
I wanted to -- on the arrest in Okinawa, I wanted to clarify just a couple of points. You mentioned an offer to assist with the investigation. Is that an outstanding offer? Or has there been some cooperation or assistance already between military investigators and the local authorities?
MR. COOK: Yes, I know that the U.S. officials have been in contact with the Japanese government over this. I don't want to characterize every aspect of it, because I don't know in full. But obviously, we'd like to assist in any way we can. I think the ambassador expressed that, and certainly the secretary feels the same way.
Q: Okay. And then about the person who was arrested. Just, do you know if they were a civilian employee at -- (inaudible) -- or are they -- were a contractor?
MR. COOK: My understanding is the individual in question is a contractor. It is not a civilian employee.
Yes, (inaudible).
Q: Peter, just two different questions. One on the incident in the South China Sea.
Understanding that it's still under investigation, when you talk about possible responses, ramifications, are you talking -- what's on the table, I guess? Is it -- are you considering possible increased FONOPs in the region, is it increased ISR operations?
I mean, it just runs the gamut, or?
MR. COOK: Just there are diplomatic channels in which to have the appropriate conversation about these kinds of incidents.
We're going to complete our review and determine what's the most appropriate next step. But I'm not going to get into hypotheticals at this point.
We've had these -- this has happened in the past, and there are appropriate protocols to follow subsequently to try and again, explain -- or to engage in those diplomatic conversations.
Q: And General Nicholson briefed General Dunford and NATO counterparts in Brussels today on his sort of -- from their recommendations for the next steps in Afghanistan.
The readout was pretty sparse in terms of what those what those recommendations are finding are working. Can you elaborate a little bit on what the general sort of conveyed to General Dunford and others in Brussels?
MR. COOK: Yeah. My understanding is what General Nicholson conveyed at that meeting in Brussels was a situational update on what's happening on the ground in Afghanistan at this moment in time. You spoke not just to U.S. colleagues, but also to other NATO colleagues from other countries who may be involved in the mission in Afghanistan.
And it was more an operational update. It was not a set of recommendations for the future; it was, this is what's happening today.
Q: And are those recommendations -- (inaudible) -- the -- over to the White House? Is the end of -- for mid-June, I think was sort of tentative timeline for that?
MR. COOK: My understanding is General Nicholson is still set to meet that 90 window, if you will, and fully intends to meet that, following the chain of command in terms of reporting his recommendations up through the chain of command.
Yes.
Q: Getting back to the EgyptAir Flight. My understanding is, as has been explained to me is that the plane went down, was in the -- (inaudible) -- area, that is considered not a -- it's not considered to be many threats to civilian aviation.
But given the growing concern about the Mediterranean region as a whole and the migrant crisis and other factors, has there been any discussion at this point at shifting some resources between the U.S., NATO, some of its other allies to get a better view both at -- on the Mediterranean Sea level and also perhaps in airspace in the area?
MR. COOK: Well, this is -- obviously, there's a NATO mission there dealing with the migrant issue. And there are NATO assets in the region for -- for that region.
There's -- obviously, the U.S. has a presence there, our other NATO allies have a presence. But I'm not aware of anything specific, particularly to an aviation threat that has required the shifting of NATO resources.
I'd refer you to NATO for that specifically. But we have a fairly significant presence in the region as you know, and we were able to deploy an aircraft in this particular instance. But there's -- I'm not aware of any discussion of shifting U.S. assets to specifically deal with this kind of situation.
Q: I want to follow up on Jamie's question, please.
If I understood you correctly, you were saying that there are situations in which U.S. troops in Iraq find themselves in combat. Is that correct?
MR. COOK: Yes.
Q: When they're not in those combat situations, how does this department see their deployment? How does it define their deployment? Is it -- (inaudible) -- combat deployment no matter whether they're in those combat situations or not? And if not, how is it defined when they're not in those combat situations?
MR. COOK: Well, Nancy, I think you've heard us describe in detail the training and advising and assisting mission that we've -- that our troops are engaged in in Iraq; the support we're providing to Iraqi forces. And I think we'll -- that's how we would describe that mission. They are still in harm's way, each and every one of those forces.
And they may not find themselves in combat every single day. And -- and -- but there have been instances in which they have. And that's how we would describe it.
Q: So you're saying there's a distinction between being in harm's way and in combat, if I'm hearing you correctly.
MR. COOK: There's --
Q: I'm just trying to understand the terminology to make sure I'm getting an accurate --
MR. COOK: There are circumstances in which U.S. forces have found themselves in combat, and certainly there are circumstances in which they are not directly in combat, engaged in combat, in which they find themselves in harm's way. That's true every single day in Iraq. And we're pretty clear about that. And we're going to continue to be, that there are situations in which U.S. soldiers are at risk every single day.
I think the secretary's been quite clear about that.
Q: (inaudible) -- what I'm trying to understand is how you define what situation is harm's way and what situation is combat. That's what I'm having trouble with.
MR. COOK: You know, I think we've explained it multiple times about the support role our folks -- our folks are playing; the training that they're providing; the capacity building that we're conducting with Iraqi security forces trying to enable them to secure their country. And in the course of doing that, given the situation with ISIL and the threat they pose, those U.S. forces find themselves in harm's way and there have been instances in which they've found themselves in combat.
And they -- every member of the U.S. military there has a right to defend themselves if they find themselves in that situation as well.
Q: So what you're saying is there's not -- it's not continually combat, if I'm hearing you correctly.
MR. COOK: There are some U.S. forces that right now are not in combat in Iraq. That's right.
Q: One more on EgyptAir. Given the previous security concerns about Charles de Gaulle Airport, is DOD considering issuing an advisory to servicemembers in Europe not to travel through that airport?
MR. COOK: I'm not aware of any change in our current notifications to service members or civilians, for that matter.
Yes, I'll go Bill and then Lucas.
Q: The State Department had a release today that designated ISIS branches in Libya, Yemen and Saudi Arabia as terrorist organizations. I was wondering if that had any impact on the way that the U.S. military pursues them or targets -- targets leaders?
MR. COOK: Certainly, we support the actions taken by our State and Treasury colleagues. And as you know, targeting the finances of ISIL leaders is one of the -- of ISIL overall has been an important component of our fight against ISIL. And we've had success working with our colleagues in terms of targeting their financial network.
And as you've seen from our direct airstrikes on their cash centers, we've been able to have an impact on ISIL's finances. So we think this is a step that, again, could also prove productive in terms of targeting and further damaging their financial network, but there's no specific change for us as a result.
Lucas?
Q: Back to the China incident. Does the secretary think the unsafe intercept by the Chinese fighter jets was an isolated incident? Or does he think this is following a pattern?
MR. COOK: Lucas, as we've talked about in recent months, we've had confidence-building measures in which these kinds of incidents have been rare, and that's been a good thing. So I'm not sure we're prepared to conclude at this point whether this was an isolated incident.
But it certainly is not something we've seen a lot of recently, and that's been a good thing. And for all the reasons you would understand, this is about safe and professional conduct in the air and particularly when our aircraft is in international airspace.
Q: What was the secretary's first reaction when he heard about the incident?
MR. COOK: Lucas, I don't know what his first reaction was. I wasn't there when he learned about it. I'll be happy to ask him, but again, the secretary would have concerns for the safety of our air crews anywhere in the world in which they run into a situation which they deem a counterpart to be conducting themselves in an unsafe manner. It's dangerous.
Q: And just one question on the budget. You said earlier that taking the funding out of the House plan to take funding out of the wartime budget is not in our highest priorities. Given the crash of the B-52 in Guam, is there some concern -- does the secretary have some concern that not enough money is going to funding pilots' hours training and getting new aircraft, given that so many of them are, frankly, just can't fly right now -- bombers, fighter jets and what not?
MR. COOK: There's significant investment in the budget plan we've submitted in new aircraft; F-35, for example. Several -- there are several categories of aircraft in which there are new investments. There are new investments in this budget reflecting training and readiness for the Air Force, for the Marines, for the Navy.
So the secretary believes that this budget represents an opportunity to both invest in the future in terms of innovation, technology, aircraft; also invest in our people and provide them the kind of training, readiness skills that they need to be able to conduct their missions. And that follows a period of time in which, because of the threat of sequester and budget cuts, it's been much harder to do those sorts of things.
And to some extent, some of those issues we're facing right now reflect decisions from the past and the budget uncertainty that we've seen from the past few years effectively coming home to roost. And this represents, thanks to the budget agreement, some certainty in terms of our planning, some certainty in our ability to try and address some of these readiness problems from the past in a careful, planned, appropriate way.
And to inject new uncertainty into the process now puts that at risk. We have a plan moving forward to improve readiness in terms of these investments, and to put that in jeopardy, the secretary believes is not the right step to take.
So, all right. I'll go one more in the back, and then I've got to run.
Q: Thank you.
I want to -- (inaudible) -- Okinawa issue.
MR. COOK: Yes?
Q: So how do you think the impact by this case to U.S. presence in Okinawa?
MR. COOK: Yes. This is a tragic event. And again, something that we're very concerned about. And this -- this is something we will obviously work closely with the Japanese government to the extent we can. But this is a shocking and dismaying incident, and we certainly have great concerns about it.
But at the same time, we look forward to continuing to work with the people of Japan, the government of Japan and continue to move forward.
Thanks very much. Appreciate it.