Pentagon Press Briefing on 8/27/24

... Israel and protect U.S. troops and assets in the region. In two calls with his Israeli counterpart, Minister Gallant, this past weekend, Secretary Austin underscored the United States' ironclad resolve to support Israel's defense against threats from Iran and its regional partners and proxies. As many of you are tracking in support of this, the secretary ordered our two carrier strike groups, the Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group, and the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to remain in the region. As we have been from the start, we remain intently focused on de-escalating tensions in the Middle East, while also remaining focused on securing a ceasefire as part of a hostage deal to bring all of the hostages home and to end the war in Gaza. Turning to the Red Sea, last week, on August 21st, the MV Delta Sounion, a Greek flag, Greek-owned oil tanker carrying approximately 1 million barrels of crude oil was attacked by Iranian-backed Houthi crude vessels. (00:58) As reported by the Greek shipping ministry, the MV Delta Sounion was sailing from Iraq to Greece with a crew of two Russian and 23 Filipino sailors. The crew has since evacuated the ship with the assistance of a partner nation vessel. The MV Delta Sounion now sits immobilized in the Red Sea, where it's currently on fire and appears to be leaking oil, presenting both a navigational hazard and a potential environmental catastrophe. Although the Houthis have claimed that they're conducting these attacks in support of the Palestinian people, their actions prove to the contrary. In fact, these are simply reckless acts of terrorism which continue to destabilize global and regional commerce, put the lives of innocent civilian mariners at risk and imperil the vibrant maritime ecosystem in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, the Houthis' own backyard. U.S. Central Command continues to actively monitor the situation and is coordinating with other maritime partners in the region to determine how best to assist the vessel and mitigate the potential environmental impact. (02:03) Shifting gears, in a display of an enduring and robust defense partnership, the United States and the Indonesian National Armed forces kicked off the 2024 Super Garuda Shield exercise yesterday, with an opening ceremony at an Indonesian military base at Juanda Naval Air Base, Surabaya. Super Garuda Shield is the largest annual U.S.-Indonesian training exercise. And this year, service members from the U.S., Indonesia, Australia, Canada, Japan, Singapore, and the United Kingdom will engage in various training opportunities including airborne operations, amphibious operations, and interoperability information exchanges, as well as academic exchanges, professional development workshops, command and control exercises, and a joint field training exercise culminating in a live fire event. Sponsored by U.S. Army Pacific, the exercise will last through September six and involves around 3000 combined armed forces, including approximately 1,800 U.S. personnel. It enhances interoperability through training and culture exchanges, solidifying the U.S.-Indonesia major defense partnership and supporting a free and open Indo-Pacific. For more information on Super Garuda Shield, I'd refer you to U.S. Army Pacific. (03:17) Finally, on behalf of all who have served here in the office of the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, I wanted to take the opportunity to congratulate our very own Mr. Taft Phoebus on his 40-year milestone of federal service in the Defense Press Operations Office. Always the early bird. In early and out late. Taft humbly and selflessly plays a foundational role here at OSDPA, supporting the Pentagon Press Corps and ensuring they have the support they need to do their jobs effectively. Anyone who has had the good fortune of working alongside Taft is familiar with the wisdom and professionalism he brings to the job every day. So once more, congratulations, Taft, and thank you for your service. Here's to 40 more. And with that, I will take your questions. I know Taft also likes all the attention, so all right. All right. With that, we'll go to Associated Press first, who I believe is on the phone today. Lita.

Thank you, Pat. And congratulations to Taft. He's a huge help as always. I have a quick follow up on the ship and then I have a Ukraine question. On the ship in the Red Sea that's on fire, can I assume that what you're saying is that at this point, neither the U.S. nor any of the other allies have been able to do anything to stop the fire or to do something actual to address the ship's condition right now? Is that accurate?

Yeah, thanks, Lita. As I highlighted, CENTCOM continues to monitor and assess the situation. We are aware of a third party that attempted to send two tugs to the vessel to help salvage, but they were warned away by the Houthis and threatened with being attacked, which again demonstrates their blatant disregard for not only human life but also for the potential environmental catastrophe that this presents. So again, CENTCOM continues to monitor and look at and assess the situation and we'll keep you updated on that front. And then you said you had a question on Ukraine?

Yes. Does Secretary Austin expect to meet with Mr. Umarov this week? And can you provide any update on whether the U.S. has seen much movement by Russians out of other parts of Ukraine to go to Kursk? Thank you.

In terms of the secretary meeting with Minister Umarov, I don't have anything to announce. As you know, he regularly speaks, Secretary Austin regularly speaks with Minister Umarov, and so I would foresee them speaking again in the near future. But again, I don't have anything to provide from the podium today. In terms of Kursk, again, we continue to keep an eye on this. As we've said previously, we have seen the Russians divert some forces to the Kursk region. Largely, they have used forces that are already there and as they put together a defense, a hasty defense, but nothing large scale that I've seen at this point. But again, I'd refer you to the Russians to talk more about their operations and I'll just leave it there. Jennifer.

General Ryder, the U.S. doesn't have any naval warships in the Red Sea right now. Do you think that if there had been USS Cole or other destroyers or an aircraft carrier in the Red Sea that they could have prevented this Houthi attack on this vessel that's now on fire?

Well, at this point, the fact is is that there is a vessel that's on fire. And as you know, we've been patrolling those waterways for a while and have been able to intercept and mitigate the vast majority of Houthi attacks. And so we'll continue to stay focused on that. But the reality is right now, we have this situation. And so again, CENTCOM will continue to assess. We'll keep you updated on any potential involvement there.

How long do you expect that there won't be an aircraft carrier strike group in the Indo-Pacific? Isn't it risky right now not having an aircraft carrier strike group there?

Well, look, as we look at global force management and as we look at requirements around the world in support of our national security interests, we're always taking great care to make sure that we can cover those commitments to include in our priority [inaudible 00:08:02], which is the Indo-Pacific region. And so we have a significant amount of capability there to include a large naval presence. And so in the case of the Middle East, as I highlighted, the secretary wanted those two carrier groups, carrier strike groups to remain in the region for now to be able to provide us with additional capability and capacity to protect our forces, support the defense of Israel, and also be ready for a variety of contingencies.

How long do you expect to have this carrier gap?

Look, I'm not going to get into deployment timelines for operation security reasons, but the bottom line is we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Carla.

Thank you, Pat. Ukrainian President Zelensky said yesterday that there should be no restrictions on the range of weapons for Ukraine. He said this before, but he added that the terrorists, referencing Russia, have no such restrictions. Does the Pentagon agree with that statement?

Well, look, I won't speak for President Zelensky. Clearly, he's made his views and perspective well known both publicly and privately. From a U.S. perspective, we're going to continue to consult closely with our Ukrainian partners, as well as our allies and partners around the world, and how best to support Ukraine towards the ultimate end state of ensuring a free and sovereign Ukraine that can deter future aggression from Russia.

And so are there still restrictions on Ukrainian weapons provided by the United States?

So our policies haven't changed. You've heard us say that the Ukrainians can use U.S. security assistance to defend themselves from cross-border attacks. In other words, counter-fire. But as it relates to long-range strike, deep strikes into Russia, our policy has not changed. Let me go back out to the phone here, J.J. Green, WTOP.

Thanks, General. Question regarding Israel and Hamas. The Pentagon has said for quite a while now that one of its stated goals was to prevent this conflict from spreading. So based on what happened over the weekend between Israel and Hezbollah, how does the Pentagon view that? Does this seem to be an expansion? Because they've done attacks against each other, but these attacks, these were much bigger and seemingly had much more impact. How does that impact the Pentagon's view of whether this is expanding or not?

Yeah, thanks J.J. So again, just to put this into context, when Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, you heard us say that we deployed a significant amount of additional capability into the Middle East region and the [inaudible 00:10:50] region in order to send a very clear message of deterrence, and to prevent this from becoming a wider regional conflict. Right now, we still assess that the conflict between Israel and Hamas is contained to Gaza. You have seen the cross-border strikes between Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah since October 8. What you saw over the weekend, of course, was a much larger scale than what we've seen previously, but it is, in our view, not a wider regional conflict at this stage. And so we're going to continue to stay very focused on de-escalation of tensions in the region as I highlighted, and preventing it from becoming a wider regional war. Thank you. Tony.

Afghanistan, you were pillory this week about the third anniversary of not only the Abbey Gate tragedy, but also Friday is going to mark the third anniversary of our withdrawal. You've been criticized quite a bit by conservatives, Republicans, and Trump yesterday. You saw that. What is the perspective of Pentagon leadership at this point, three years later, to the criticisms? The word chaotic is the most widely used adjective to describe it. Three years later, what's the perspective here in terms of how you guys view what happened then?

Yeah, thanks, Tony. Well, I'm sure you can appreciate, I'm not going to be able to comment on any remarks from any political candidates. But separately, Secretary Austin has spoken many times about the withdrawal from Afghanistan and his pride in the tremendous work of the men and women of the U.S. military. So I would point you to some of his previous statements to include in April of 2023, which reads in part, and if you just allow me here, quote, "Over the course of 20 years of war in Afghanistan, our service members and their families serve bravely, selflessly, and with compassion. As the Secretary of Defense and as a veteran of the Afghanistan war, I'm proud of and deeply grateful for the men and women who stood up to serve after Al-Qaeda attacked us on September 11, 2001. We remember the 2,461 American service members and personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice in this war. Even on the hardest days, including August 26th, 2021, when we tragically lost 13 of our finest, our force performed admirably under incredibly challenging conditions.", end quote. (13:21) And in regards to the withdrawal, he's also underscored that no other military in the world could have accomplished what we and our allies and partners did in such a short time span. And that this is a testament not only to our forces' capabilities and courage, but also to our relationships and the capabilities of our allies and partners.

[inaudible 00:13:38]. Hunting down the perpetrators, the enablers of the Abbey Gate attack, Chris Maier, your commando chief, talk to reporters on Friday. He talked a little bit about the network was degraded. But from the podium, can you give a feel for that? President Biden said at the time, "We will hunt you down." So what's the status of the hunt today?

Yeah. Well, as Assistant Secretary Defense Maier highlighted, we are laser-focused on defending our citizens from terrorist threats that could emanate from Central Asia or anywhere else around the globe. We know that we can't turn a blind eye to the threats from organizations such as ISIS-K, and that we must keep a relentless focus on counterterrorism, and we're doing that. We have and continue to invest in and deploy modern capabilities to keep Americans safe. We're working closely with the intelligence community, as well as to deepen our cooperation with allies and partners to address evolving threats. I know that Mr. Maier addressed this as well in terms of how we've been able to foil plots and disrupt terrorist networks to include ISIS-K by sharing information and intelligence and enabling allied and partner nations to be the ones conducting arrests or taking actions. And you've seen that demonstrated here recently with some high-profile news coverage of a foiled terrorist plot in Europe, for example. (14:59) But we've also demonstrated our ability to reach anywhere in the world when there is a threat, including in Central Asia or in the Middle East. We've shown that we will not hesitate to take action to keep America safe, as evidenced by CENTCOM's recent strike in Syria, which killed the senior leader of an Al-Qaeda-associated group. Thank you very much. Janie.

Thank you, General. Two questions. North Korean Kim Jong-un announced that it would fully deploy suicide drones for the world. What concerns does the United States have about this and what is the U.S.'s response to North Korea's asymmetric power?

I'm sorry, Janie, to its what?

What is the U.S.'s response to North Korea's asymmetric power?

On your first question, I've seen the press reporting. Certainly, it's something that we're keeping an eye on. I do find it interesting that everywhere else, it's known as one-way attack drone, but for some reason, when North Korea says its suicide drone, interesting. But we clearly want to take that threat seriously and it's something that we'll keep an eye on. I know that our South Korean allies are also keeping an eye on it and monitoring that. And I'll just conclude by saying that we will continue to consult closely with the ROK and Japan and other partners and allies in the region to ensure that our collective defense remains strong. In terms of North Korea and its capabilities, look, they have a long history here of destabilizing rhetoric and activities. Again, our focus in the region is defensive in nature and I'm working with allies and partners to promote regional security and stability and to be prepared for any threats that North Korea poses or presents. Obviously don't want conflict with North Korea. And we continue to call for diplomatic communication, but so far, they've not been willing to take that olive branch.

Can you predict the possibility that suicide drones mass-produced with the tactical support from Russia and Iran will be used on the battlefield of Ukraine and the Middle East?

Yeah, I don't have anything on that nor do I want to predict, so thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, sir. Nazira Karimi, Afghan journalist. As he said something about Afghanistan, Afghan people are also concerned about Daesh activity based off your opinion, Daesh increase in Afghanistan and Taliban concerned about their activity too. And what is the difference between Taliban and Daesh?

How much time do you have? I mean, look, first of all, as you well know, the Taliban currently is the government in Afghanistan, and I'll use that term loosely. And so as the so-called ruling entity in there, clearly, there is a difference between that ISIS-K, but there are many other terror groups that are resident right now in Afghanistan. So we're continuing to keep an eye on that region writ large. Ultimately, at the end of the day, our focus continues to be broadly speaking on working with allies and partners throughout the world and to include Central Asia, as I highlighted, on promoting regional security and stability and safeguarding U.S. national security interests to include the counterterrorism efforts and nonproliferation. So just leave it there. Thank you very much. Fadi.

Thank you, General. The U.S. provided intelligence and ISR support to Israel in order to deal with the attack from Hezbollah. What is your assessment of that attack and do you think it was a [inaudible 00:19:10] failed or succeed achieving some of the goals that were declared by Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah?

Yeah, thanks for the question. I'm going to refrain from putting a label on it and just... It was. It was a large-scale attack. Lebanese Hezbollah had essentially previewed that they intended to retaliate, and by all accounts, they did. And so Israel was well-prepared to respond and defend themselves. But I'll let the leaders from each of those, from Israel and Lebanese Hezbollah, speak to the nature of that. From a U.S. standpoint, we were very focused again on supporting the defense of Israel, as well as ensuring that this did not escalate into a wider regional conflict, and that continues to be our focus.

And on the threats from Iran to retaliate against Israel, do you see Iran still poised to attack Israel or in light of the weekend events between Hezbollah and Israel, there's been some changes in what you observe vis-à-vis Iran?

I'm not going to go into intelligence, but again, as I've said previously, Iran has made those threats and has said that they intend to retaliate. And so we have to take that very seriously. And so we will continue to remain postured and we are well postured to be able to support the defenses of Israel as well as protect our own forces. Thank you. Noah.

Admiral Paparo said recently that the U.S. could escort Filipino vessels during resupply missions, that this would be within the bounds of the Mutual Defense Treaty. I wanted to know if that's consistent with the secretary's thinking?

Yeah, thanks, Noah. What I would say is the Philippines remains the lead for its own operations in the South China Sea, and we continue to provide significant advisory support in addition to our efforts to help modernize the Philippine military. And so as allies, we continue to stand with the Philippines given especially the PRC has consistently prevented them from executing lawful maritime operations in the South China Sea. And so our commitment to that alliance is ironclad. As you know, our governments have close continual consultation, so any military support would be at the request of the government of the Philippines. And in that light, Admiral Paparo simply called it an option within the context of consultations.

So you're saying that if they requested such military support, that that could be on the table for consultation? That that wouldn't be an immediate closed door?

Well, again, without getting into hypotheticals, I think as allies, it would require consultation between our two nations. Thank you. Courtney. You're sitting way in the back there today.

Yeah.

All right.

The several Russian officials have spoken out recently about the U.S. being involved in the Kursk incursion. The Deputy Foreign Minister said consequences for the United States could be much harsher than those they are already experiencing. They know where and in what areas we are reacting, in practical terms. I guess, what are the areas that they're reacting that the U.S. knows about? Do you have any comment to their... Lavrov also spoke out saying that the U.S. is complicit in this Kursk incursion.

So truth in advertising, I'm not a Kremlinologist, so I'm not going to pretend to be able to translate for Russian Bureaucraties. What I will say is that, as we've said previously, we did not have advanced notification of Ukraine's intent and operations to go into Kursk. Certainly again, you've heard President Zelensky say that their efforts there are to create a buffer zone, and so we continue to have conversations with them about what that means. But more broadly speaking, how the U.S. can support Ukraine's efforts to preserve its sovereignty and deter future Russian aggression.

But specifically on this allegation that the U.S. knows that the consequences are going to be harsher than previously, have you seen any indications of consequences against the United States?

I don't know what that means. Again, we're not at war with Russia. We're not seeking conflict with Russia. We are simply supporting a democratic nation who was invaded two and a half years ago and enabling them to protect themselves. Thank you. Last question. Yes, sir.

The Iranian [inaudible 00:23:52] says Iran with Islamic resistance in Iraq and elsewhere will take retaliation. But how does the Pentagon see the involvement of proxies in Iraq in the existing war between Israel and Hamas?

Well, taking a step back, there have definitely been actions by Iranian-backed groups in Iraq and Syria as it relates to attempting to conduct rocket attacks against Israel. Largely unsuccessful. But we've seen that. We've also seen those groups attack U.S. forces that are in Iraq and Syria in support of the enduring defeat of ISIS mission. So what they may do in the future, I can't predict, but we take that threat seriously and we'll continue, just like we're going to continue to support the defense of Israel, we will stay very focused on ensuring that our forces are protected as well, and we won't tolerate any attacks against our forces. And to purposely belabor the point, if we are threatened or attacked, we will always respond in a time and manner of our choosing. Thank you. Thank you very much everybody. Oh, last one.

[inaudible 00:25:14] domestic question related to a Justice Department plea that came down last night against one of the Navy's top shipbuilders, Austal Limited. They pleaded guilty to product substitution and accounting fraud. What steps is the DOD General Consul taking with the Navy to review whether they are a responsible contractor to keep getting federal contracts or face debarment?

Yeah, thanks, Tony. We've seen the press reporting on it. However, I'm going to have to refer you to the Department of Justice for details and then to the Navy for any action that they're undertaking as a result. I just don't have any more to prove.

You don't have any... Can you also check on the status of the Boeing review you were asked about a month and a half ago in terms of their plea? I know you guys said at the time there's a review of what steps Boeing is taking to be a responsible contractor. Can you take that as a question in terms of the status of the-

Yeah, I'll take the question. I don't know that we'll have much more to provide, but I'll take that question.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks. Oh, Louie, seriously. You walk in like last minute. All right. Only because it's ABC. Louie Martinez.

Thank you. And congratulations to Taft.

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

Taft was on time, but just saying.

Going back to the JLOTS, it was announced last week, I think, that that last cargo shipment have left Cyprus. Is there an update? Has it been offloaded? What's happened since?

So what I'm tracking, Louie, is that essentially, the ship is in the queue, waiting for its turn to dock in Ashdod and unload its contents. But as of right now, still at sea. But that's the latest update I have. Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much, everybody. Appreciate it.

Thank you.