Synopsis on President Obama’s Strategy to Degrade and Destroy ISIS

On the evening before the thirteenth anniversary of 9/11, President Barack Obama outlined his strategy “to degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS. He started his speech by noting that while terrorism can be mitigated, it cannot be totally eliminated. Transitioning to ISIS, he described the organization as not being “Islamic” and not being a state. The President then noted what makes ISIS so unique – its sheer brutality, its ability to hold territory, and its attraction for foreign fighters. Then, he described current American foreign policy actions against ISIS, including airstrikes against the terrorist group in Iraq and building coalitions with partners in the Middle East. Thus, the Commander-and-Chief described the previous actions of the U.S. against ISIS in Iraq.

The President then pushed a new initiative, “a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy,” in the Middle East. He subdivided this strategy into four parts. The first part of the plan is to “conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes” against ISIS in Iraq and now Syria. The next part is to increase military support for the Syrian opposition. He also authorized the deployment of 475 more troops to Iraq to build up their forces, raising the total number of American military personnel there to 1,600 troops. The third part of the strategy is to employ threat mitigation techniques to detect and to deter ISIS attacks on the U.S. Homeland. The final part of the plan is to provide humanitarian aid to displaced persons in Iraq and Syria. President Obama emphasized that this plan had international support as well as bipartisan support in Congress. Thus, the strategy President Obama outlined had four parts – airstrikes against ISIS, military support for the Syrian opposition, counterterrorism to protect the U.S. Homeland, and providing humanitarian aid for civilians.

President Obama concluded his speech by attempting to strengthen the U.S.’s morale for as sustained counterterrorism campaign. The Commander-and-Chief then vowed any action in Syria or Iraq would “not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.”  He then noted his multilateral approach stating, “Use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges.” He then noted the history of 9/11 and the Great Recession, but then noted America is still a leader on the global stage – including that America “rallied the World against Russian aggression,” led the struggle in containing Ebola, and removed Syrian WMDs. He concluded the speech with the motivating words, “Our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead.” President Obama sought to rally the crowd by portraying ISIS as an expanding evil while stressing America’s role in the international community.

The speech was commendable in seeks to degrade and destroy ISIS; however, several key actors and factors were ignored. President Obama did not mention the Kurds or the peshmerga at all, and they are responsible shareholders in a multiethnic Iraq’s future. Furthermore, 20,000 foreign fighters have or are currently fighting in Syria. Of these 20,000, 100 fighters are American passport holders. Of these 100, at least a dozen are fighting for ISIS. These foreign fighters can easily become terrorists, and need to be monitored and tracked. Additionally, ISIS has executed Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff, causing me to question whether the American government has reviewed its policy of hostage negotiations with terrorists. Another point of concern is over whether the U.S. – specifically the CDC – has the resources to deal with an ISIS biological attack in the form of the bubonic plague – as files were retrieved from an ISIS computer suggesting a cell was looking into using this technique. While the change of strategy in Syria and Iraq will be more proactive in countering ISIS, it is not enough to guarantee the safety of the American Homeland.

Obama’s CT Speech on ISIS

 

Thoughts on the speech:

• No mention of the Kurds / peshmerga
• 12,000 foreign fights HAVE or ARE fighting in Syria – hard to detect / deter due to porous borders (Turkey/Saudi Arabia)
• Shiite troops will not tolerate Sunni civil guard units
• Degrading and Destroying ISIS – will take years / decades

“My fellow Americans – tonight, I want to speak to you about what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.

As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people. Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.

Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today. That’s why we must remain vigilant as threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL – which calls itself the “Islamic State.”

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. In acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists – Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.

I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then, we have conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their region. That’s why I’ve insisted that additional U.S. action depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in recent days. So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat.

Our objective is clear: we will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In June, I deployed several hundred American service members to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi Security Forces. Now that those teams have completed their work – and Iraq has formed a government – we will send an additional 475 service members to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission – we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We will also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own freedom from ISIL control.

Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I again call on Congress to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its people; a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.

Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow of foreign fighters into – and out of – the Middle East. And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the UN Security Council to further mobilize the international community around this effort.

Fourth, we will continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient homelands.

This is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of partners. Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending arms and assistance to Iraqi Security Forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote unity, and in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni communities in Iraq and Syria to drive these terrorists from their lands. This is American leadership at its best: we stand with people who fight for their own freedom; and we rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity.

My Administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. I have the authority to address the threat from ISIL. But I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting this danger.

Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved – especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counter-terrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.

My fellow Americans, we live in a time of great change. Tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. Next week marks 6 years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great Depression. Yet despite these shocks; through the pain we have felt and the grueling work required to bounce back – America is better positioned today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.

Our technology companies and universities are unmatched; our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades. For all the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation in our history. Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single day – and that makes me more confident than ever about our country’s future.

Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples’ right to determine their own destiny. It is America – our scientists, our doctors, our know-how – that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons so they cannot pose a threat to the Syrian people – or the world – again. And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, tolerance, and a more hopeful future.

America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia – from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the Middle East – we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are values that have guided our nation since its founding. Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. I do so as a Commander-in-Chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform – pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the Middle East, and service-members who support our partners on the ground.

When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here’s what one of them said. “We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.”

That is the difference we make in the world. And our own safety – our own security – depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for – timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.

May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.”

Defense Department Briefing on Iraq, Somalia, Ukraine

“U.S. Department of Defense
Arlington, Virginia

September 2, 2014

Department of Defense Press Briefing by Rear Adm. Kirby in the Pentagon Briefing Room

Presenter: Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby

September 02, 2014

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY: Afternoon everybody. A couple of things to open up. First, I know we’ve all seen press reporting about the potential murder by ISIL of Mr. Sotloff. I don’t have anything to confirm it today. Obviously, we’re monitoring as best we can, and our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to the Sotloff family, who has endured incredible hardship and suffering just by virtue of his captivity and being held hostage, but I can’t confirm those press reports right now.

Number two, I know that you’ve all been tracking events in Somalia last night. So if you’ll just bear with me, I’m going to walk you through what I can right now. Yesterday, at approximately 11:20 Eastern Time, working from actionable intelligence, U.S. special operations forces using manned and unmanned aircraft destroyed an encampment and a vehicle using several Hellfire missiles and laser-guided munitions.

This operation was a direct strike against the Al-Shabaab network, specifically the group’s leader, Ahmed Abdi al-Muhammad, also known Ahmed Godane. We are still assessing the results of the operation, and we’ll provide additional information when and if appropriate. And I’m not going to be able to provide specifics about the unit or the intelligence itself, and certainly not anything regarded to tactics, techniques and procedures.

The operation occurred south of Mogadishu, located in south-central Somalia, and it did result in the destruction of that vehicle. I think it’s important to remind everybody that in September 2013, Godane publicly claimed Al-Shabaab was responsible for the Westgate Mall attack, which killed and injured dozens in Nairobi.

Under the leadership of Godane, Al-Shabaab has claimed responsibility for many bombings, including suicide attacks in Mogadishu and in central and northern Somalia, typically targeting officials and perceived allies of the federal government of Somalia, as well as the former transitional federal government of Somali.

A militant wing of the Somali Council of Islamic Courts, Al-Shabaab has occupied most of southern Somalia since 2006 and claimed responsibility for the deaths of numerous government officials, aid workers, peace activists, and journalists. Named a foreign terrorist organization by the Department of State in February 2008, Al-Shabaab has conducted terrorist activities in the region that have resulted in the loss of much innocent life.

They’ve also continued to plan plots targeting westerners, including U.S. personnel in East Africa. In recent months, Al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in Djibouti that killed a Turkish national and wounded several Western soldiers, as well as a car bomb at the Mogadishu Airport that targeted and killed members of the United Nations convoy.

So the operation that we’ve conducted, we believe, is an example of the U.S. government and our allies’ and partners’ commitment to the people and government of Somalia to detect, deter, disrupt and defeat violent extremists who threaten progress in the region, as well as to threaten — as well as threaten to conduct terrorist attacks against innocent people around the world. And we’re going to continue to use all the tools at our disposal — financial, diplomatic, intelligence, and of course, the military — to dismantle Al-Shabaab and other terrorist groups who threaten U.S. interests, as well as the interests of our allies and our partner nations.

And then one final comment I’d like to make on Iraq. As you know, over the weekend, at the request of the Iraqi government, the United States military air-dropped humanitarian aid to the town of Amerli, home to thousands of Shia Turkmen who have been cut off — or had been cut off from receiving food, water, and medical supplies for two months by ISIL.

The U.S. Air Force delivered this aid alongside aircraft from Australia, France, and the United Kingdom, who also dropped much-needed supplies. In conjunction with this air drop, U.S. aircraft conducted coordinated airstrikes against nearby ISIL terrorists in order to support this humanitarian assistance operation and thereby helped facilitate the actual delivery of the aid.

While we continue to monitor the situation in Amerli, at this time we assess that Iraqi and Kurdish forces are in control of the township and are providing for the security needs of the citizens there. So further strikes remain a possibility, of course, but we believe that the township is under the control of Iraqi and Kurdish forces.

And as we’ve said before, one of our core military objectives in Iraq is to join with international partners to address humanitarian crises. And where and when we have the ability to do that, we’re going to do it.

With that, I’ll take questions.

QUESTION: Admiral, on the Somalia issue, would you describe the target as a single target encampment and a single vehicle? Or were there two strikes or two targets? Was there just one vehicle?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: There was one vehicle and an encampment. So the way I would describe it is kind of the way I laid it out in the opening. The strike was taken at an encampment and a vehicle. That was at the encampment.

Q: So one strike? Single?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: What do you mean by strike? One missile? No. As I said, several Hellfire missiles, as well as precision-guided munitions, so there were — there was plural, in terms of munitions, dropped, but they were dropped on one target, an encampment where a vehicle was — was nearby.

Q: Sorry.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Go ahead.

Q: And was there any evidence afterwards that anyone survived?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, we’re assessing the results right now, Bob, and that’s — that’s where I’m just not going to be able to go right now. I’m not going to get into trying to assess the effectiveness. We certainly believe that we hit what we were aiming at. And based on intelligence that, as I said, we believe was actionable, in other words, strong enough, we — we took this strike, but I wouldn’t get into assessing the effectiveness right now.

Q: So you’re confident Godane was there?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I’m just not going to get into assessments right now, Bob. I think I’d like to leave it kind of where I did right now. When — you know, if and when — as I said earlier, and I said last night — if and when, you know, we have more information that we can share, we certainly will.

Yeah?

Q: You said that there were laser-guided munitions. Does that mean that there were U.S. forces on the ground to lase the targets?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: There were no U.S. forces on the ground.

Q: No U.S. forces, either before or after the strikes?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: No U.S. strikes on the ground, before or after the strikes.

Q: Was there somebody else on the ground that was lasing the targets?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, all I would tell you is that, you know, we continue to work with partners in that — in Somalia and in the region, but I won’t get any more specific than that.

Q: Admiral, did the U.S. inform the Somali government or the AMISOM mission there about the mission before — before it took place?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don’t have a tick-tock on the notification process, but this is very much in keeping with the kinds of operations that we conduct throughout the region and in partnership with the — you know, with the leadership there.

Q: And do you know the Somalia government announced last month this new mission, Operation Indian Ocean, about combatting Al-Shabaab and particularly targeting their access to ports, to seize off their sources of revenue. Was this strike in conjunction with that operation?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Not to my knowledge.

Phil?

Q: You speak of it as if Godane was killed, but I know you won’t speak to that specific question right now. But if he were to be killed, what do you think it would say about the group’s — what would it mean for the group going forward? How important would that be?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, again, without speculating about whether he was, in fact, killed or not, I mean, he is the recognized, appointed leader of the Al-Shabaab network in Somalia. So if he was killed, this is a very significant blow to their network, to their organization, and, we believe, to their ability to continue to conduct terrorist attacks.

Now, mind you, it’s a network, and we understand that. And we’re mindful that there are — there remain other leaders of the organization at large. But he’s the recognized leader. And if we killed him, a significant blow to their organization and to their abilities.

Yep, Justin?

Q: Thank you, admiral. More broadly, can you answer the critics who are saying that the administration does not have a strategy, does not have a counterterror strategy, a Mideast strategy, one that’s good enough? Is there a strategy? Can you articulate that strategy for us and answer those critics?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Absolutely there’s a strategy for our approach to the Middle East. Now, I can only speak from a military perspective and for the Pentagon, but we have been consistently going after the terrorist threat in that part of the world, and not just that part of the world, as I just — as I just read to you.

And inside Iraq, the mission is very clear. We are there to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces as they take the fight to ISIL. We are there to provide humanitarian assistance where and when we can. I just — we just talked about that over the weekend. And we are certainly there to help defend and protect U.S. personnel and facilities.

So the mission set inside Iraq is very, very clear. The strategy, with respect — the military strategy, with respect to the Middle East, also has been very clear, and it’s not just something that — you know, that we just started doing. I mean, we’ve been — we’ve been going after terrorist networks in that part of the world for more than a decade, with — with very good success. Doesn’t mean it’s been eliminated, but we certainly have been very active and very energetic, and the objectives have been very, very clear.

Q: Do you feel that you’ve gone after ISIS as soon as you possibly could? The question is, how good and how early was the intelligence that was being briefed to the White House about the ISIS threat? And could more have been done sooner, I guess?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to speak about intelligence matters, and I’m certainly not going to speak for intelligence issues that were raised to the White House. That’s a question better directed to the intelligence community and to them.

But wait a minute. But to your larger issue here, we’ve talked about ISIL for many months now. And as I’ve said before, we were very closely monitoring and tracking their progress, their growth, their development, well before they rolled in to Mosul. So this is not an organization that we haven’t been watching.

The speed with which they took control of the north in Iraq definitely got a lot of people’s attention. And I’ve said that publicly, too. Nobody expected that four divisions of the Iraqi army were just going to fold the way they did. So there was a speed there that certainly was — did not go unnoticed.

But this is an organization we’ve been long watching, and I think it’s helpful to go back and just look at the last couple of months. I mean, we’re all fixated right now on targeted air strikes, which we are conducting with very good tactical effect, but long before that started, we upped our presence in the Persian Gulf, we added more security assistance personnel in and around Baghdad. We stood up two joint operations centers, which are active and helping right now, as we speak, in terms of advising and assisting and sharing information with Iraqi and Kurdish forces. And then we have done numerous air drops in two different operations to alleviate suffering. So the military has been very active here.

The other thing that we’ve said, Justin — and is this not a small point — is there’s not going to be just a military solution here. Ultimately, the long-term answer has to be inclusive, responsible, responsive, good governance inside Iraq to alleviate, to help take away those conditions that folks like ISIL can exploit for their own purposes.

Does that answer your question?

Q: (off-mic) yeah, just a quick follow-up on Justin’s question. As you may know, the majority of the foreign fighters who are joining ISIL are going to Syria through Turkey. My question is, how do you evaluate Turkey’s role in countering ISIS?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, it’s not for me to evaluate Turkey’s role…

Q: Based on — based on your information, do you think Turkey is cooperating?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: We have a strong relationship with…

(CROSSTALK)

REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, I know that. I’m not going to — I’m not going to — you know, I’m not going to answer a question that should be asked of the Turkish government. What I’m telling you is, Turkey has a stake here. We understand that. It’s an important partner in the region, a NATO ally. The Turkish government has concerns about foreign fighters, and right they should, and we’re going there next week, and I think — I have no doubt that this will be a topic of discussion between Secretary Hagel and his counterpart.

Q: Do you think they’re doing a — a helpful…

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Do I think what?

Q: Do you think they are doing a helpful role?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: A helpful role. We believe that Turkey, because they have concerns just like other partners in the region, are — are expending their effort and their energy in trying to address this as best they can. I’m not going to go into more detail than that.

Q: Could you give us a clear picture of the situation on the ground at the Mosul dam? Why the United States

keeps launching airstrikes at that location?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Because ISIL keeps trying to take it back. As I said last week, as long as they continue to pose a threat to the facility, we’re going to continue to hit them. And we are.

Phil?

Q: Admiral, on the subject of the secretary’s trip, Secretary Kerry wrote in the New York Times over the weekend that he and Secretary Hagel will be asking NATO allies and other nations for help in this potential campaign against ISIS in Syria. How much more can you tell us about how many nations they’re going to approach, which ones, and what they’ll ask for specifically in building that coalition?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think we’re still sort of putting together an agenda here, Phil, for — on the sidelines of the NATO summit. But you’re right. Secretary Hagel and Secretary Kerry do want to get together with some of these partner nations. Many of them are NATO allies, of course. And I don’t have a list right now.

I think this is going to be more of an informal arrangement, again, on the sidelines of the already very full agenda in Wales, wherein they will try to get together and talk about the contributions that have been made by these other nations, and certainly to encourage others who haven’t contributed yet to look at contributing, as well. But, I mean, I don’t — I don’t have a date certain on the calendar or a time when they’re going to do that, but we’re looking for those opportunities.

And it could be more than one. It could be that, you know, they — that they have these discussions in more than one setting with smaller numbers of these nations at a time.

Q: Can you give us a high-level sense about what they’ll ask for? Do they want partners for airstrikes? Do they want humanitarian aid like you described earlier, somewhere in between? What will they ask for?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: We want partner nations to contribute what they are able and willing to contribute in whatever fashion they’re willing to contribute it. And understanding, of course, that they have domestic concerns, as well, and their own legislative bodies to work through on this, and populations who have, you know, different views on assisting against the ISIL threat. We respect that.

So it’s not about going there with demands or a laundry list. It’s about going there to thank them for what they’ve been doing, encourage them to continue to assist in whatever way they deem fit.

Yeah?

Q: Thank you. If I can go back to Somalia, you had mentioned that you were mindful of some of other leaders that were in the area, and I was wondering — because we have officials in Somalia saying that it was a senior Al-Shabaab meeting. Do you know of any other targets — without saying whether or not they were hit, were there any other targets that were at that encampment?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: We’re still assessing the results. What I would tell you is the principal target was Mr. Godane. And we’re still assessing the results. And, again, if we have more information about others who may have been killed in that attack, we’ll certainly share it as best we can.

Q: And you said — just a quick follow-up — you said that there was an unmanned and a manned attack. Was the actual hit, was it by a drone? Or was it by the manned aircraft?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: What I said was manned and unmanned aircraft participated in the strike. I didn’t actually say what type of aircraft launched these — these missiles and precision-guided munitions, and I won’t get into detailing the platforms here today.

Yeah, Maggie? Maggie?

Q: Okay. Do you consider the operation at Amerli to be a success? And if so, how is the Defense Department defining success when it comes to those operations which target the Islamic State? At Mount Sinjar, there was a potential rescue operation that the U.S. military was looking at and decided not to do. And the intelligence indicated there were 2,000 people on the mountain that wanted off. And then you just said the Islamic State was trying to retake Mosul dam. So I’d just like some clarity on what success looks like for this campaign.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don’t know that I would call it a campaign. But leaving that aside, we do believe that the operations in Amerli have been successful. I mean, obviously, as I said, Iraqi security forces and Kurdish forces are now in — are in control of the township. We’re watching that. We’re monitoring that. We’re not taking that for granted.

Just like to Joe’s question on the Mosul dam, if we need to continue to take strikes in and around Amerli to disrupt ISIL, we’ll do that. But so far, we believe the mission has succeeded and, by and large, because we’re able to get needed provisions to the — to the people there. And we know that it got into the right hands and that they’ve been able to sustain themselves with the food and water that’s been provided.

And I should remind you that it wasn’t just us doing this. As I said, there were other countries involved in that, and we’re grateful for that support.

The president also has been very, very clear about — from an anti-ISIL perspective — what we’re trying to do there, and it’s to disrupt their ability to continue to put U.S. personnel and facilities at risk or to further spur more humanitarian crises.

But ultimately — and we’ve also said — so this is to your question about success — that the real measure of success is that their ideology is ultimately defeated, and the only way that’s going to be done is through good governance. And we’ve said that time and again, but I think it’s worth repeating. There’s not going to be a military solution to this. We’re not the answer to ISIL inside Iraq, not the U.S. military. The answer is the ideology gets rejected because there’s good governance, responsive government, inclusive government in Iraq and, frankly, in Syria, as well.

Did that answer your question? Yes, ma’am?

Q: Is there any — before this video was released today of Steven Sotloff’s murder, was there any indication or suspicion that he was killed at the same time as James Foley?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don’t know that anybody had definitive knowledge one way or the other. And as I would say — and I’d remind you that we still can’t confirm the press reporting about this next video and this potential new murder. So I — I wouldn’t be able to characterize it one way or another that we knew. We’re trying to — just like you, we’re trying to find out ground truth here.

Q: (off-mic) on the Shabaab operation, was there any intelligence that they were plotting an imminent terrorist attack? Was that one of the reasons why this action was taken when it was?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think I laid it out in my opening. This action was taken because of the history of terrorist attacks and violence that this organization is responsible for and continues to be responsible for. But, again — and I will just tell you, actionable intelligence led us to that site where we believe he was. But I wouldn’t talk about the specifics of exactly what that intelligence was composed of.

Yeah?

Q: Admiral, I was wondering if you might be able to bring us up to speed on your latest understanding of the size and scope of Russian troop levels, both on the border with Ukraine and inside Ukraine? And separately, has the secretary had any chance to talk to his Russian counterpart in the last couple days about the escalating situation there?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Sure. He’s not spoken to Minister Shoygu since the last team I read it out to you, which was, I think, more than a week ago. We continue to assess that Russian forces aggregate along the border with Ukraine. I’m loathe, as I typically am, to get into a hard number, but it’s certainly north of 10,000, remains north of 10,000.

More important than the numbers are, as I said, the capability. These are battalion tactical groups that are highly capable, very ready, very close to the border, closer than we saw in the spring, and could move literally on a moment’s notice.

In addition to that, we continue to see support for separatists and we continue to see Russian forces, conventional and special forces, inside Ukraine, in the — again, without getting into a specific number, I’d say in the thousands is safe. And nothing has changed about our position, that that activity needs to stop, those troops need to leave, the support for the separatists needs to stop, and we want those troops pulled away from the border with Ukraine.

So we — again, we continue to see action by Moscow that does nothing but increase tensions inside Ukraine and spur additional violence.

Q: Can I follow on that?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Sure.

Q: NATO Secretary General Rasmussen yesterday said he plans to build a NATO rapid response force of some 14,000 troops to put along the eastern borders of the NATO nations in response to Russia’s aggression. How would the U.S. participate in that? Would they provide troops, equipment, support, weapons, air cover? What is the U.S. thinking about that force? And would it engage in that operation?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think we would certainly participate in any discussion about the development of this rapid reaction force. As you know, we already do field a rapid reaction force — in fact, they just deployed an army unit.

But to your other question, I think we certainly would participate in discussions about that. I have no doubt but that it will be discussed in Wales this week. And Secretary Hagel looks forward to having those discussions. But it’d be preliminary right now, way ahead of ourselves to try to speculate exactly how we would assist in resourcing that force.

The bigger point, Mick, is that we’re continuing to look for ways to work with allies and partners in the region to bolster the security commitments that we already have in Europe and to reiterate our absolute ironclad commitment to Article 5 of the treaty.

And there’s lots of ways to do that. We’ve contributed to the Baltic air policing mission. We’ve done ground

exercises in the Baltics. We’ve exercised more aggressively in the Black Sea. That continues. So we’re constantly looking for new ways. We welcome the secretary general’s suggestion. And I know we’ll look forward to having deeper discussions about it when we get there.

Q: Does — does the U.S. think that those eastern NATO borders are threatened in the least bit by Russia’s apparent incursion into Ukraine?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: It’s not that there’s a direct threat against the eastern borders of those nations. It’s about making sure that there’s a strong message sent, to friend and foe alike, that we’re going to stand by our Article 5 treaty commitments, and we’re going to — and we have done that, and we will continue to look for ways to stress that again.

Julian?

Q: Did — so the Ukrainian forces have suffered a little bit more setbacks in recent days in actions against separatists. By some reports, the language from Moscow is increasingly strong. Has that — are you changing your approach to the summit in terms of the urgency of the situation or discussions of what — what the U.S. response might need to be, given — given the changing conditions on the ground, where Russian support for separatists seem to be having more of an effect now?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: From a defense perspective only — and I’m not qualified to speak to everything — it’s not just a defense summit that — or ministerial that we’re going to in Wales — but from a defense perspective, no, nothing essentially changes about the manner in which we continue to monitor the situation, Julian.

So I know of no specific agenda item that’s going to — that has changed because of the last week or so. But, of course, what’s been going on in Ukraine will be a major topic of discussion by all of NATO’s leaders this week.

And it has — as Secretary Hagel has said many times, what Russia has done in many ways has galvanized the alliance and shown into — and brought into sharp relief the need for all NATO partners and allies to continue sufficient and adequate defense spending for their own defense and for the defense of their allies and to look for new ways to combat threats on the continent. But I’m not aware of a specific item.

I think — but if I could just pull back from the summit a little bit, I don’t want to leave you with the impression that we aren’t mindful of the intensity of operations in and around Ukraine right now.

I mean, as Secretary Hagel gets ready to leave for Wales, he’s certainly mindful of what’s going on there and how the alliance has got to be able to prove strong enough to send the right message to Moscow going forward.

I mean, I already got you. Let me look around. Yeah?

Q: Admiral, to follow up on NATO and Ukraine, General Secretary Rasmussen spoke at length and in some detail about this rapid strike force. He said that it would be able to strike in a very, very few days. He spoke about numbers. He said there would have to be prepositioned supplies and facilities in place already, so it could strike fast. He also spoke about it as if it was a done deal.

So my question — and that — you know, the details need to be worked out, but that the concept of it, the foundation of it is a done deal. So my question is, did he get ahead of where the United States is, number one? And, number two, has Secretary Hagel and the Pentagon had input to Mr. Rasmussen and other NATO leaders about the formation of this rapid strike force? Or will they be hearing about it for the first time in Wales?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don’t think anybody from at least the United States side will be hearing about it for the first time when we get to Wales. As I said, we look forward to having these discussions. It is — it’s another idea that is worth exploring when it comes to, again, standing by our Article 5 commitments. But this is — this will be no doubt part of the discussions when we get to Wales.

Q: And Russia — just a quick follow — Russia today responded — the Russian government responded today, in so many words, saying that this — this would be a provocative move and they would have to reassess their own stance, if NATO was to do this. Do you have concerns about Russia perceiving the creation of such a quick strike force as a provocation?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Our concerns are, again, meeting our commitments to NATO allies and partners. And you want to talk provocative? Let’s talk about a few thousand Russian troops inside eastern Ukraine, continuing to support separatists, with heavy weapon systems, and more than 10,000 troops arrayed along the southeast border with Ukraine. Let’s talk about that; that’s pretty provocative.

And I think that it’s entirely reasonable and prudent and responsible for NATO leaders to look for ways to continue to bolster the security alliance and the commitments that we have on the continent of Europe.

Let’s go back here.

Q: Admiral, I’d like to ask about the Mosul dam situation again. You said a few minutes ago that the reason the airstrikes have continued in that area is because ISIL continues to try to take the dam. I mean, is that — they’re taking offensive maneuvers towards the dam, and the purpose of the airstrikes is to deflect that? Or is the current military policy and strategy some sort of broader denigration of ISIL capability in the area? I guess, in effect, I’m asking, if ISIL was to stand down and not take any offensive measures against the dam, would the U.S. military operations against them in that broader region of northern Iraq stop?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: The best way to answer your question is that we have specific authorities under which we are conducting airstrikes, to protect U.S. personnel and facilities, contribute to ISF and Kurdish efforts to fight ISIL, and, of course, the humanitarian side. So those are the authorities under which we’re conducting airstrikes. Nothing has changed about that.

And as we talked about when the Mosul dam operations started, that we believed that that was not only for the humanitarian purpose, but also it contributed to the protection of U.S. personnel and facilities. And so as long as ISIL continues to threaten the facility, we’ll continue to strike them. And I think you’ve seen that continue. You guys get the press releases every day. We’re very open and transparent about what we’re hitting, when, and with what. And that will continue, as long as they continue to threaten that facility, because that facility is that important.

Did that answer your question? Did that answer your question?

Q: (off-mic)

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I mean, the — I think what you’re getting at is, like, is there some sort of broader mechanism or are we playing loose and fast with rules here? And we’re not. There are very specific authorities under which we are conducting strikes.

Q: (off-mic) talk about Al-Shabaab, you used the phrase, you know, deter, disrupt and defeat. And you don’t really use that language when you talk about ISIL. I guess I’m wondering if — right now, the…

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I think the president was pretty clear about what the — what the goals are inside Iraq with respect to ISIL, and he did say to disrupt their capability. And we continue to do that. But, look, ultimately, Andrew, it — we’re doing that at a tactical level through these airstrikes. And we’re doing it, quite frankly, I think, you could argue that we’re helping disrupt their capabilities through these humanitarian missions, because we’re denying them what they sought, both with the Yazidis and now these Shia Turkmen living in Amerli.

But strategically, long term, the real answer is good governance. And I know you guys don’t like to hear that. And I know that that doesn’t make for good copy in the Pentagon press room, but that is, in fact, what has to happen. We’re not going to solve this militarily, and we’re not going to solve the threat that ISIL poses just through airstrikes.

Richard?

Q: Admiral, a clarification, please. I believe you mentioned that an Army unit is moving in Eastern Europe. Is that part of the planned rotation? Is that — is that unit on the first…

REAR ADM. KIRBY: What’s moving — say that again?

Q: You mentioned that an Army unit…

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yeah, I’m afraid I just don’t have the details. We have — we have a NATO response force that’s staffed by the Army, and I can get you more details on this, but it’s a normal rotational deployment.

Q: Because that separate from the 1st Cav, which is replacing…

REAR ADM. KIRBY: No, it’s the 1st Cav. It’s the same — it’s the same unit that we’ve been talking about.

Q: Because the movement of that unit, as best you know, has that been sped up? I believe they were not supposed to start moving until next month.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I’ll have to get back to you, Richard. I don’t know if they’ve actually accelerated that deployment or not.

Yes? Yes?

Q: (off-mic)

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I was — Bob wants me to choose Phil, but I’m going to go with you because Bob wants me to choose Phil. (Laughter.)

Q: Thank you. Let me briefly change the topic. My question is about Korea. There has been a recent press report that the U.S. military has completed a site survey for the THAAD missile defense system.

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Yeah.

Q: And, you know, China and Russia have expressed strong opposition to this plan. And my question is, is the U.S. military going to go ahead with this deployment, despite these objections?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I don’t have anything for you on that today. We’re in constant consultation with our allies on the peninsula about the requirements to defend the peninsula appropriately, and I just don’t have anything for you today on that.

Phil?

Q: I just wanted to nail you down a little bit. On the…

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Sure.

Q: You said before that the principal target of the Somalia operation was Godane. And you said earlier that you think you got what you were aiming at. I just want to make sure you — if you’re — I wanted to know if you…

REAR ADM. KIRBY: I meant the facility. I meant the — the encampment and the vehicle. That’s what — that’s what we — that’s what we were targeting. I’m not prepared — no, thank you for making me clarify. I’m not —

that wasn’t a subtle hint that we think we know we got Godane.

Again, guys, we’re assessing this. And when we have information that we can share with you, we certainly

will.

I got time for one more. Yeah, Jon?

Q: Admiral Kirby, are there any specific deliverables that Secretary Hagel is hoping to come out of this NATO summit, either in terms of a NATO response to Russian activities in Ukraine or against ISIL?

REAR ADM. KIRBY: Well, remember, John, this isn’t a defense ministerial. This is a NATO summit of heads of state. So it’s not for Secretary Hagel to — you know, to have specific, you know, deliverables coming in and out of it. I mean, he’s looking forward to participating in the discussions with Secretary Kerry and with the president.

One of the things we do want to accomplish — and this gets to Phil’s question — is we do want to talk to some of our allies and partners about additional things that can be done inside Iraq. That’s clear. He looks forward to meeting with many of his counterparts to talk about not just what’s going on in Russia and Ukraine, but also Afghanistan. And should Afghanistan send a representative — right now, it appears as if they might — he’ll look forward to having those discussions, as well.

But ultimately, writ large, this is a — this is a — as he’s said, this is a defining moment for the alliance. And this’ll — this summit provides the alliance a great opportunity to look not only at what’s been happening in the last few months in Russia and Ukraine, but the future of the alliance itself, from defense spending to operations to exercises to interoperability and capabilities across the spectrum of military operations.

Thanks, everybody.”

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/09/20140903307444.html?CP.rss=true#ixzz3CHIlwEom

Iraqis Must Rise Above Their Differences to Rout Terrorists

The following op-ed by Vice President Biden was posted to the Washington Post website August 22. There are no republication restrictions.

Iraqis Must Rise Above Their Differences to Rout Terrorists
By Vice President Joe Biden

“In recent months, the terrorist group known within the U.S. government as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has seized significant territory inside Iraq, exploiting sectarian divisions and political mistrust that sapped the strength of Iraqi forces. ISIL seeks to rip Iraq apart in its quest to establish a caliphate. But Iraq’s communities have started to unite in pushing back.

Since more than 13 million Iraqis cast their ballots in April despite threats from ISIL to kill anyone who voted, Iraqis have convened a new parliament, selected a speaker and president and designated a new prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, to form a new government.

These steps are meaningful because they show that Iraqis have begun to understand that they must rise above their differences. And that, when they do, they can succeed — not only in uniting the country but in defeating ISIL.

There is no negotiating with ISIL. We have seen its appalling murders of U.S. journalist James Foley and countless other innocent people, its cruelty and its fanaticism.

But even if there were no ISIL, Iraq’s survival would still depend on the ability of Iraqis to set aside their differences and unite in a common effort. Iraq’s security would still depend on addressing the alienation that fuels extremist movements and convincing Iraqis that their needs can be met through the political process rather than through violence.

In the past few weeks, President Obama has spoken with Abadi and I have spoken to each of Iraq’s incoming and outgoing leaders. We have come away encouraged that they recognize that years of political deadlock and discord must end. As Abadi wrote the other day, the “challenges we face are immense but we will overcome them by uniting. Raging storms may be ahead but we will face them together as one nation.”

For Iraq, success will require genuine compromise from all sides and a new government in Baghdad capable of responding to the needs of all of Iraq’s communities. We cannot want that more than Iraqis do. Unless Iraq can do this, no amount of outside intervention will matter — nor will it continue indefinitely.

That’s why government formation is so critical. As prime minister-designate, Abadi is working to put forward a new lineup of cabinet ministers and a road map that will set the agenda for Iraq’s new government. We are encouraging Iraqi leaders to complete this process as soon as possible. We are hopeful that the road map Iraq’s parliament endorses will sketch a vision for harnessing the resources of the state to benefit all communities and take the fight to ISIL.

We are also encouraging Iraq’s neighbors to refrain from fueling sectarian divisions, which only plays into ISIL’s hands, and instead to treat this shared challenge as an opportunity to begin a new chapter in their relations with Iraq and with each other.

Iraq’s security efforts, like its politics, must harness the energy and cooperation of all communities. This new spirit of cooperation was evident this week in northern Iraq, where Iraqi and Kurdish forces worked together to retake the Mosul dam from ISIL. Notwithstanding U.S. support, this operation could not have succeeded without cooperation between the Kurdish pesh merga and Iraqi security forces. This was the first joint operation of its kind, and we believe it is a model to build upon.

Another approach that is emerging is a “functioning federalism” under the Iraqi constitution, which would ensure equitable revenue-sharing for all provinces and establish locally rooted security structures, such as a national guard, to protect the population in cities and towns and deny space for ISIL while protecting Iraq’s territorial integrity. The United States would be prepared to offer training and other forms of assistance under our Strategic Framework Agreement to help such a model succeed.

It will ultimately be up to the Iraqis to define their future under their own constitution, but we are encouraged that a serious debate about that future has begun. As Iraqis continue to make progress, we are prepared to further enhance our support for Iraq’s fight against ISIL — and will call on the international community to join Canada, Australia and our European allies in doing the same.

ISIL is far from invincible. Its ideology is rejected by most Iraqis. It establishes order not through consent but through fear. It has destroyed ancient religious sites, enslaved women and girls and brutally executed many of the very Sunnis it claims to speak for. ISIL has no legitimate cause or grievance to espouse. And as we saw at the Mosul dam, when its fighting strength is eroded, it can be routed by local forces without U.S. boots on the ground.

This is a fight that Iraq, with help from America and the world, can and must win. We all have a stake in empowering moderates in Iraq to prevent a terrorist state from taking root in the heart of the Middle East. The threat, of course, is not confined to Iraq. Addressing it will also require continued support for our partners in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian opposition and others to counter ISIL and address the flow of foreign fighters to and from the battlefield.

As Iraqis begin to unite in their resolve against ISIL, we must be prepared to do the same. We will continue to consult closely with Congress about our strategy in Iraq and the region when it comes to ISIL and the security of our people. This will be a long-term challenge. It is one that our partners around the world, with our support, have no choice but to take on and win — starting in Iraq.”

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2014/08/20140823307078.html?CP.rss=true#ixzz3BFAYSgNE

Response to the Ebola Virus

Ebola Victims’ Graves, courtesy of CNN

Fact Sheet

Bureau of African Affairs

August 14, 2014

---

“The United States is working with the World Health Organization and other international partners to help West African governments respond to and contain the outbreak of the Ebola virus as quickly as possible.

The full range of relevant U.S. Government agencies — including the Department of State, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of Defense (DOD) — are increasing every possible form of assistance to the affected countries, their citizens and international organizations responding to the outbreak. U.S. assistance includes equipment and other essential supplies, public health messaging efforts, and technical and medical expertise.

• The U.S. Department of State issued Travel Warnings against non-essential travel to Liberia and Sierra Leone.
• Due to a lack of options for routine health care services, the Department of State ordered the departure of family members residing with Embassy staff in Monrovia and Freetown.
  • U.S. Government employees in both countries will remain on active duty at the Embassies, and additional staff members are being deployed to assist the Governments of Liberia and Sierra Leone in addressing the Ebola Virus Disease outbreak.
• At this time, no Ebola-related travel restrictions have been issued by the State Department for Guinea, Nigeria, or Sierra Leone. However, CDC has issued alerts for the four countries. More information can be found at:
  • Guinea (Warning – Level 3)
  • Liberia (Warning – Level 3)
  • Sierra Leone (Warning – Level 3)
  • Nigeria (Alert – Level 2)
• Our Embassies remain open and will continue business as usual in Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. We remain deeply committed to supporting regional and international efforts to deliver health care as well as contain and control the transmission of the Ebola virus.
• The U.S. Government is monitoring the situation very closely and will update its response and travel recommendations as needed. You can find the latest information at http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings.html.
• The U.S. Government has a range of steps in place to prevent the introduction, transmission and spread of suspected communicable diseases across the U.S. border.
  • We’re working closely across federal agencies and with African partners to make sure appropriate procedures are in place for screening both in the region and here in the United States.
  • As the CDC has stated repeatedly, there is no significant risk to the United States from Ebola.

Basic Ebola Facts From the CDC

• Ebola is not transmitted through the air.
• Individuals who are not showing signs of illness, even if infected, cannot spread the virus to others.
• Health care workers who meticulously follow standard procedures to protect themselves from infection will be safe and able to provide medical care while protecting the entire community.

The most up-to-date information regarding the Ebola virus and its associated risks can be found on the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”

See the entire fact sheet at; http://www.state.gov/p/af/rls/fs/2014/230552.htm

 

Videographic: India, Pakistan and Kashmir

The Economist explains the history of conflict in the Kashmir between China, India, and Pakistan:

Afghan Commander Orders a Policy of Taking No Prisoners

Commander Aminullah Amarkhail of Baghlan Province spoke with RFE/RL that he, acting on his “own, personal” choice ordered his troops to kill enemy troops captured in battle. He made this decision because, “many of the freed insurgents returned to militancy.”

For the full RFE/RL article see:

RFE/RL’s Radio Free Afghanistan. “Afghan Commander Orders Execution Of Prisoners Taken In Battle.” August 14, 2014. http://www.rferl.org/content/afghan-commander-orders-execution-of-prisoners-taken-in-battle/26530582.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*AfPak%20Daily%20Briefutm_campaign=2014_The%20South%20Asia%20Daily

 

Copyright (c) 2014. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave NW, Ste 400, Washington DC 20036.

 

Doing The Math: Saving A-10s By Cutting F-35s

Great article by Lt. Col. Dan Ward  in Breaking Defense on August 12, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Read the full article at: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/doing-the-math-saving-a-10s-by-cutting-f-35s-2/

A-10, courtesy of Breaking Defense

“In this article, one of the Air Force’s own, longtime Breaking Defense contributor Lt. Col. Dan Ward, runs the numbers on his service’s plan to scrap the beloved A-10 Warthog and – now that Congress has thoroughly rejected the idea – suggests an alternative: a modest trim to the massive F-35 program might just save the entire A-10 fleet. – the editors.

In February 2014, Secretary of Defense Hagel briefed that retiring the A-10 fleet would save $3.5 billion over five years. That equals a savings of $700 million per year, not exactly chump change. A few months later, in April, the Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Mark Welsh, actually bumped the estimate up by exactly $700 million, to $4.2 billion. This means either the A-10’s annual operating expenses went up by 20% to $840 million per year, or the new savings is calculated over six years instead of five. Either way, the intended message was unambiguous: Air Force leadership did some math and made a logical decision. Retiring the A-10 fleet will save a lot of money, and these days saving money is a necessity, not an option.

But in June, the House of Representatives voted to prevent the Air Force from retiring the Warthog, leading Air Force Secretary Deborah James to ask where they want to find the money instead.

It’s a great question and one worth answering. Are there other, perhaps better ways to come up with $4.2 billion in savings? Where else could the Air Force look? One alternative is the Joint Strike Fighter, often described as the most expensive weapons system in history. Let’s do a little math here – but don’t worry, I’ll keep it as painless as possible.

Suppose one were to trim $4.2 billion from the JSF program. What sort of impact would that have? According to the Government Accountability Office, acquisition funding for the Joint Strike Fighter averages “$12.6 billion annually through 2037,” and “total U.S. investment is nearing $400 billion to develop and procure 2,457 aircraft through 2037.” It turns out $4.2 billion is approximately one percent of the total $400 billion JSF investment, which seems like a tolerable reduction.

Since we need the savings fairly soon, we can’t actually spread them evenly over the entire life of the F-35 program. If we want to save the same $4.2 billion over the next five years, to match the foregone A-10 savings, then, in terms of annual spending, reducing JSF’s annual $12.6 billion by $840 million is close to 6% per year, That is obviously more painful than a single percentage cut but hardly unheard of and unlikely to be a program killer. (It may be interesting to note that according to the Brewer’s Association, the US spends approximately $96 billion each year on beer.)

Of course, the issue at hand is national defense, not just budgeting, so we need to consider the security loss as well as the financial benefit: How many fewer F-35s would we end up with if we reduced spending by $4.2 billion? This is a harder question to answer than it may seem, partly because the JSF comes in three variants, each of which has its own price tag, and partly because it is so difficult to nail down a precise cost for any of the models.

The Pentagon’s official target was to reduce “flyaway” cost – which does not count research, development, or some important components – to a mere $83.4 to $108.1 million , depending on the variant. According to the more comprehensive figure in the latest Selected Acquisition Reports, the “program acquisition unit cost” of the average F-35 – counting R&D and the engine – is $134.5 million. However, in a piece for Time magazine, JSF arch-critic Winslow Wheeler calculated the true cost for the cheapest model, the Air Force F-35A, as closer to $188.5 million each, while the B and C models will set the military back approximately $277.9 million apiece, on average. A subsequent update by Wheeler calculated a price tag of $337 million for the Navy’s F-35C. It’s not clear that any of these numbers are absolutely correct, but together they can help us scope out the options.

Using the smallest of these price tags, the $83.4 million, then, in order to save a total of $4.2 billion, the Pentagon would have to forego fifty aircraft, which is approximately two percent of the total fleet. That seems like a tolerable margin. Using Wheeler’s figures of $188.5 million per aircraft, we could save the same amount by purchasing just 22.3 fewer JSF’s. This is less than a one percent reduction in the fleet. If you just cut the carrier version – which the Navy is ambivalent about anyway – the larger $277.9 million price for an F-35C translates to just 15 fewer fighters, roughly half a percent of the fleet. Or, we could use the average estimated cost of $200 million apiece, which means a decrease of 21 jets, still considerably less than one percent. Finally, at $337 million per air craft means we could save $4.2 billion by foregoing 12.4 Navy aircraft. The table below summarizes the specific calculations.

 

Price per JSF Aircraft ($M)	# Aircraft for $4.2B	Percentage of Total JSF Fleet
$  83.40	50.4	2.05%
$188.50	22.3	0.91%
$200.00	21.0	0.85%
$277.90	15.1	0.62%
$337.00	12.4	0.5%

 

As a point of comparison, there are 326 aircraft in the A-10 fleet, and the Air Force would have to get rid of all of them to save $4.2 billion. One might be forgiven for asking which alternative leads to a better security posture: getting rid of hundreds of A-10s now or forgoing tens of F-35s in the future?

To be sure, there is more math to be done and more factors to include. Decisions about which aircraft to keep and which to get rid of are not purely military in nature. They are also economic, political, and geo-political. But since the primary justification for scrapping the A-10 was to save $4.2 billion, and since we are looking for other ways to save an equivalent amount, it is worth considering the other options on the table. The good news is that these alternatives not only exist, they also could take a smaller bite out of the overall defense structure.

Dan Ward is a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Air Force, currently stationed at Hanscom Air Force Base. He is the author of FIRE: How Fast, Inexpensive, Restrained, and Elegant Methods Ignite Innovation, published by HarperBusiness. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Air Force or Department of Defense.”

 

Obama on Authorization for Actions in Iraq

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Washington, D.C.
August 7, 2014

President Obama, courtesy of NBC News

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

State Dining Room
9:30 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Today I authorized two operations in Iraq — targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel, and a humanitarian effort to help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain without food and water and facing almost certain death. Let me explain the actions we’re taking and why.

First, I said in June — as the terrorist group ISIL began an advance across Iraq — that the United States would be prepared to take targeted military action in Iraq if and when we determined that the situation required it. In recent days, these terrorists have continued to move across Iraq, and have neared the city of Erbil, where American diplomats and civilians serve at our consulate and American military personnel advise Iraqi forces.

To stop the advance on Erbil, I’ve directed our military to take targeted strikes against ISIL terrorist convoys should they move toward the city. We intend to stay vigilant, and take action if these terrorist forces threaten our personnel or facilities anywhere in Iraq, including our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad. We’re also providing urgent assistance to Iraqi government and Kurdish forces so they can more effectively wage the fight against ISIL.

Second, at the request of the Iraqi government — we’ve begun operations to help save Iraqi civilians stranded on the mountain. As ISIL has marched across Iraq, it has waged a ruthless campaign against innocent Iraqis. And these terrorists have been especially barbaric towards religious minorities, including Christian and Yezidis, a small and ancient religious sect. Countless Iraqis have been displaced. And chilling reports describe ISIL militants rounding up families, conducting mass executions, and enslaving Yezidi women.

In recent days, Yezidi women, men and children from the area of Sinjar have fled for their lives. And thousands — perhaps tens of thousands — are now hiding high up on the mountain, with little but the clothes on their backs. They’re without food, they’re without water. People are starving. And children are dying of thirst. Meanwhile, ISIL forces below have called for the systematic destruction of the entire Yezidi people, which would constitute genocide. So these innocent families are faced with a horrible choice: descend the mountain and be slaughtered, or stay and slowly die of thirst and hunger.

I’ve said before, the United States cannot and should not intervene every time there’s a crisis in the world. So let me be clear about why we must act, and act now. When we face a situation like we do on that mountain — with innocent people facing the prospect of violence on a horrific scale, when we have a mandate to help — in this case, a request from the Iraqi government — and when we have the unique capabilities to help avert a massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a potential act of genocide. That’s what we’re doing on that mountain.

I’ve, therefore, authorized targeted airstrikes, if necessary, to help forces in Iraq as they fight to break the siege of Mount Sinjar and protect the civilians trapped there. Already, American aircraft have begun conducting humanitarian airdrops of food and water to help these desperate men, women and children survive. Earlier this week, one Iraqi in the area cried to the world, “There is no one coming to help.” Well today, America is coming to help. We’re also consulting with other countries — and the United Nations — who have called for action to address this humanitarian crisis.

I know that many of you are rightly concerned about any American military action in Iraq, even limited strikes like these. I understand that. I ran for this office in part to end our war in Iraq and welcome our troops home, and that’s what we’ve done. As Commander-in-Chief, I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq. And so even as we support Iraqis as they take the fight to these terrorists, American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq. The only lasting solution is reconciliation among Iraqi communities and stronger Iraqi security forces.

However, we can and should support moderate forces who can bring stability to Iraq. So even as we carry out these two missions, we will continue to pursue a broader strategy that empowers Iraqis to confront this crisis. Iraqi leaders need to come together and forge a new government that represents the legitimate interests of all Iraqis, and that can fight back against the threats like ISIL. Iraqis have named a new President, a new Speaker of Parliament, and are seeking consensus on a new Prime Minister. This is the progress that needs to continue in order to reverse the momentum of the terrorists who prey on Iraq’s divisions.

Once Iraq has a new government, the United States will work with it and other countries in the region to provide increased support to deal with this humanitarian crisis and counterterrorism challenge. None of Iraq’s neighbors have an interest in this terrible suffering or instability.

And so we’ll continue to work with our friends and allies to help refugees get the shelter and food and water they so desperately need, and to help Iraqis push back against ISIL. The several hundred American advisors that I ordered to Iraq will continue to assess what more we can do to help train, advise and support Iraqi forces going forward. And just as I consulted Congress on the decisions I made today, we will continue to do so going forward.

My fellow Americans, the world is confronted by many challenges. And while America has never been able to right every wrong, America has made the world a more secure and prosperous place. And our leadership is necessary to underwrite the global security and prosperity that our children and our grandchildren will depend upon. We do so by adhering to a set of core principles. We do whatever is necessary to protect our people. We support our allies when they’re in danger. We lead coalitions of countries to uphold international norms. And we strive to stay true to the fundamental values — the desire to live with basic freedom and dignity — that is common to human beings wherever they are. That’s why people all over the world look to the United States of America to lead. And that’s why we do it.

So let me close by assuring you that there is no decision that I take more seriously than the use of military force. Over the last several years, we have brought the vast majority of our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. And I’ve been careful to resist calls to turn time and again to our military, because America has other tools in our arsenal than our military. We can also lead with the power of our diplomacy, our economy, and our ideals.

But when the lives of American citizens are at risk, we will take action. That’s my responsibility as Commander-in-Chief. And when many thousands of innocent civilians are faced with the danger of being wiped out, and we have the capacity to do something about it, we will take action. That is our responsibility as Americans. That’s a hallmark of American leadership. That’s who we are.

So tonight, we give thanks to our men and women in uniform -— especially our brave pilots and crews over Iraq who are protecting our fellow Americans and saving the lives of so many men, women and children that they will never meet. They represent American leadership at its best. As a nation, we should be proud of them, and of our country’s enduring commitment to uphold our own security and the dignity of our fellow human beings.

God bless our Armed Forces, and God bless the United States of America.

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/08/20140808305293.html?CP.rss=true#ixzz39xC5AmAM

FACT SHEET: Security Governance Initiative

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
Washington, D.C.
August 6, 2014

FACT SHEET: Security Governance Initiative

Today the President announced the Security Governance Initiative (SGI), a new joint endeavor between the United States and six African partners that offers a comprehensive approach to improving security sector governance and capacity to address threats.

Africa is a dynamic and diverse region that is experiencing significant gains in economic growth and development, and African states are increasingly stepping up to confront security challenges. But transnational and domestic security threats hinder progress, and gaps in security capacity to address both internal and external challenges persist. These threats include terrorist groups, such as Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and others, which remain active on the continent; illicit activities – such as trafficking (drugs, humans, weapons, and wildlife) and piracy – which tear at the security fabric and help fund criminal, and in some cases extremist, activities; and domestic and regional conflict.

A New Presidential Initiative

Against this backdrop, the United States remains committed to working with our African partners and providing assistance to strengthen their security sectors. The SGI is a new Presidential Initiative that offers an enhanced approach to security sector assistance beginning with six countries: Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Tunisia.

• Each of the six countries has demonstrated partnership with the United States, expressed a desire to strengthen its security sector, and committed to the core elements of the initiative.

• In the initial year, $65 million would be dedicated to the initiative. In subsequent years, the United States will provide additional funding commensurate with maturing program needs and expansion to additional countries.

• Together, the United States and participating African countries will work to improve security sector institution capacity to protect civilians and confront challenges and threats, with integrity and accountability. To support a longer term focus, SGI will involve multi-year funding commitments of increased U.S. support and will require sustained, high-level leadership and commitment by partner countries to pursue policies in support of the agreed upon goals.

Key Features

Partnership and results are at the core of SGI. Together with our SGI partner countries, the United States will assist in developing joint strategies based on assessments and the determination of priorities and objectives. Regular evaluations of programs will guide adjustments to assistance based on achieved results. To execute the initiative and ensure maximum effectiveness of U.S. assistance, the United States will form a dedicated SGI team to be housed at the Department of State with support from the Department of Defense, the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security.

SGI is a distinctive approach that:

• Focuses on the systems, processes, and institutions that reinforce democratic security sector governance;

• Uses rigorous analysis, shared data, and agreed upon goals, and is supported by regular measurement and evaluation;

• Matches targeted investments with willing partners to strengthen specific military and civilian institutions; and

• Relies on commitment and accountability for results on the part of the United States and our partners.

The key goals and objectives of SGI are to:

• Increase partner nation capacity to meet citizen security needs, such as accessing justice, countering transnational threats, and contributing to regional and international security and stability;

• Prevent or mitigate instability and conflict and counter terrorist activities and their enabling environments;

• Advance U.S. interests and strategic goals, including promoting democratic governance, rule of law, respect for human rights, and long-term economic development while improving the effectiveness and sustainability of other U.S. security sector assistance investments and activities; and

• Deepen the impact of U.S. investments in countries that show leadership and political will to make reforms and policy decisions necessary to improve security sector governance.

SGI will focus on civilian and military security institutions and the ministerial functions that provide state oversight of the security sector. SGI programs will differ in each country, reflecting specific partner country challenges, goals, and objectives. For example, a country emerging from conflict may focus on strengthening law enforcement sector institutions – such as the national police, gendarmerie, and national guard – to provide effective, sustainable, and consistent law enforcement, community policing, and response to critical incidents in urban areas. Additionally, SGI could focus on the justice sector – for example, strengthening a Ministry of Justice’s and Director of Public Prosecution’s ability to lead a government-wide effort against terrorism and other transnational crimes, provide oversight and accountability, and ensure effective and accountable corrections management. In a more developed country that is a security exporter, for example, SGI could focus on enhancing capacity across security and rule of law institutions (e.g., defense, interior, and justice ministries). In all partner countries, SGI will build security sector capacity – in both military and civilian institutions – through a comprehensive approach with targeted assistance that entails sustained leadership commitment from both the United States and partner countries.

Read more: http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2014/08/20140806305231.html?CP.rss=true#ixzz39x908roA