• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Jen Psaki
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
October 16, 2014

Share on facebookShare on twitter
Share
Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/JOINT BRIEFING
DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY TRAVEL
ISIL
EBOLA
ISIL/REGION
EBOLA
VENEZUELA/UNITED NATIONS
RUSSIA/NATO
RUSSIA/SERBIA
INDIA
CHINA
EBOLA
RUSSIA
BAHRAIN
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS

 

TRANSCRIPT:

Joint Daily Press Briefing with Spokesperson Jen Psaki and Rear Admiral John Kirby

1:16 p.m. EDT

MS. PSAKI: Hi, everyone. So, happy Thursday. First, I want to, of course, welcome Rear Admiral John Kirby to the State Department. We don't think this has been done before, although many of you have been a part of this much longer.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Oh, look, Matt, the historian. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: It's unprecedented, actually.

MS. PSAKI: And some of you have asked --

QUESTION: With these two, maybe.

MS. PSAKI: With us.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the idea.

MS. PSAKI: Yes. Before – and some of you have asked why we're doing this jointly today, so I thought I would touch on that first. We actually had a conversation about doing a joint briefing --

QUESTION: Sign of the times.

MS. PSAKI: It's a sign of the times, Said. Thank you. We had a conversation about doing a joint briefing a couple of months ago. We work together on so many issues, whether it's ISIL or Ebola, through the interagency, but we also work very closely together, and there was a great deal of overlap, so we also actually thought it would be pretty useful to you guys, and if it's helpful and if you treat him well, maybe he'll come back. We'll see.

So – and I have one other item just at the top for all of you. Secretary Kerry will travel on October 20th to Jakarta, Indonesia, to attend the inauguration of His Excellency Joko Widodo, President-elect of Indonesia. While in Jakarta, the Secretary will also hold several bilateral meetings with foreign counterparts. He will then travel to Berlin, Germany, where he will meet with German Foreign Minister Steinmeier to discuss regional and international issues, and in advance of the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

With that, I think you have one item at the top as well.

RADM KIRBY: Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Jen. Thanks for welcoming me over here. As Jen said, this is something we've been talking about for a long time. We just work together so closely every single day that we thought this was a good idea. And now I'm going to beg her to come over to the Pentagon and do it in our briefing room as well. So that'll be the next iteration of this.

I just want to update you on – quickly on two military operations that the Defense Department has been focused on in recent weeks: our efforts against ISIL, of course, and our efforts in the Ebola response in West Africa.

With regard to the counter-ISIL effort, Operation Inherent Resolve – we just officially unveiled that name yesterday – U.S. forces conducted 14 airstrikes near the town of Kobani yesterday and today. Initial reports that we're getting from Central Command indicate that those strikes successfully hit 19 ISIL buildings, two command posts, three fighting positions, three sniper positions, one staging location, and one heavy machine gun. Very precise targeting. With these airstrikes, we took advantage of the opportunity to hit ISIL as they attempt to mass their forces and combat power on the Kurdish-held positions – or portions, I'm sorry, of Kobani. While the security situation there does remain tenuous, ISIL's advances appear to have slowed and we know that we have inflicted damage upon them.

On our response to Ebola in West Africa, Operation United Assistance, our forces on the ground in Liberia continue to make progress in setting up infrastructure and facilities to support the international response. Setup has been complete on the 25-bed hospital, and we expect it to be fully operational, with U.S. public health service medical workers taking responsibility for that unit next week. Meanwhile, personnel from the U.S. Naval Medical Research Center continue to operate three mobile medical labs, which provide 24-hour turnaround results on samples. To date, they have processed more than 1,200 total samples. And lastly, construction continues on the Ebola treatment facilities with the first expected to be completed by the end of the month.

And I want to emphasize, again, that no U.S. military personnel will be providing direct patient care to the local population. As my Pentagon colleagues have heard me say many times, we're focused on four lines of effort and only four lines of effort: command and control, logistics support, training, and engineering.

With that --

MS. PSAKI: All right. Well, as we typically do, we'll stay with one topic. We talked about this, so let's try to do that if we can. I know yesterday was a little wild and wooly.

Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Thank you. I'm looking forward to this. Double the pleasure, double the information, I hope. Right?

MS. PSAKI: Double the fun.

QUESTION: Double the fun.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: I just have one logistic question about this briefing. Are you, Admiral, going to be staying for the whole thing or are you going to leave?

RADM KIRBY: That depends on how --

QUESTION: All right, because I have a question that's not related to either Ebola or ISIL for you.

RADM KIRBY: No, I'll be here.

QUESTION: Okay.

RADM KIRBY: I'll be here the whole time.

QUESTION: All right. So let's start with Kobani then. So in your comments just now in talking about the progress that the operation has made --

RADM KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- does this mean that saving Kobani from falling has now become a priority in the campaign?

RADM KIRBY: Well, we've been focused on Kobani for a long time. This isn't the first day that we've done strikes there. We've been doing them for a long time. What makes Kobani significant is the fact that ISIL wants it. And the more they want it, the more forces and resources they apply to it, the more targets that are available for us to hit there. I said it yesterday, keep saying it: Kobani could still fall. Our military participation is from the air and the air only right now, and we've all been honest about the fact that air power alone is not going to be able to save any town in particular.

QUESTION: Right. But you and other officials, including Jen, have said in the past that – or indicated, and Secretary Kerry has as well, that losing Kobani or Kobani falling to ISIL is not a huge strategic loss, and now it seems like you're really ramping up the effort to keep it – to prevent it – to prevent it from falling. And I'm just wondering, has the decision been made within the Administration that the propaganda or other symbolic – a symbolic victory in Kobani would be too much to stomach, from your – an ISIL victory in Kobani would be too much?

RADM KIRBY: I think we've been pretty consistent about the fact that we need to all be prepared for other towns and other cities to fall too. This group wants ground. They want territory, they want infrastructure. We all need to be prepared for them to continue to try to grab that, and succeed in taking it. There's been no strategic shift here as far as I know, at least from the military perspective, about Kobani or any other town. What we're trying to do in Syria – and this is an important point, Matt – in Syria we're trying to deny safe haven and sanctuary. They want safe haven and sanctuary in Kobani; we're trying to help not let that happen.

So Kobani matters from that perspective. It also matters tactically because, as I said, they're putting more resources to the fight, so there are more targets. We've killed several hundred of their fighters in just these strikes in and around Kobani. It would be irresponsible for us not to try to target them in a more aggressive way as they become more aggressive around Kobani itself.

And the last thing is, frankly, it's an issue of balancing resources. One of the reasons you've seen additional strikes in the last couple of days is because we haven't been able to strike quite as much, quite as aggressively inside Iraq. There's been terrible weather there, sandstorms this time of year. It's made it very hard for us to get intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms up over to see what we're trying to do in Iraq. So we've had resources available that we might not have otherwise had available to strike them there in Kobani. Does that answer your question?

QUESTION: Yeah, I think so.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Can I follow on that? Elise Labott with CNN. Welcome.

RADM KIRBY: Hi.

QUESTION: Yesterday, General Allen said that the increase in airstrikes in Kobani was for humanitarian purposes, and it sounds like now you're saying that there's more of a target. Rather than humanitarian aspects along the lines of what you did with the Yezidis, it sounds like this is more – you have more targets of opportunity.

RADM KIRBY: It is that. There's a humanitarian component to it, no question about it.

QUESTION: Well, there wasn't last week. I mean, it didn't seem last week that there was.

RADM KIRBY: No, there's a – there was a humanitarian component to it. But we don't estimate that – right now, we think there's hundreds, not thousands, of citizens remaining in Kobani. It fluctuates and it changed, but we believe most of the population is out of there. That doesn't mean they're out of danger, though, and so there is a humanitarian component to this. If we can help the Kurdish militia keep Kobani – keep ISIL out of Kobani, then you by default are helping protect the population that remains there. And so there is a component to it.

QUESTION: So is it more now that you feel that as long as you have targets, you'll continue to strike them, or is it now you've made the decision that come hell or high water you're going to make sure that this town doesn't fall?

RADM KIRBY: We are going to continue – I think it's a great question. We are on the offense against these guys. There's this narrative out there that they're opportunistic and they're adaptive and they're agile. Nobody is more opportunistic or agile or adaptive than the United States military, and so we're going to continue to go after them wherever they are and wherever we can.

There's going to be a limit, though. You can't just hit every place you know them to be, because we do – unlike them, we have to be discreet and discriminant about collateral damage and civilian casualties. So we're going to hit them where we can, where we can do it effectively, have an effect on their ability to sustain themselves and to operate, but without having a bad effect – a negative effect – on the surrounding population.

QUESTION: But it's – but you said it still could fall and that --

RADM KIRBY: Yeah --

QUESTION: -- wouldn't mean that your goals weren't achieved.

RADM KIRBY: That's – our goals have not changed with respect to going after ISIL in Syria or in and around Kobani. And I said it yesterday, I'll say it again: That town could still fall. We all need to be prepared for that possibility.

QUESTION: So how much have you actually stepped up airstrikes over the last week?

RADM KIRBY: Around Kobani?

QUESTION: Yeah.

RADM KIRBY: Well, I mean, it's been – there has been an increase. And I couldn't give you a percentage right – number right now, but there has been an increase, again, because they have massed their sources – their resources around Kobani. They have presented more targets. I mean, just look at some of the targets I read off: a machine gun position, a sniper position. They – that tells you a couple of things. One, they're getting very tactical themselves in terms of the resources they're applying to trying to take that town, which know they want and we think it's – a lot of it has to do with propaganda value.

But it also tells you how precise we can be with these airstrikes and how effective that we can be. So there has been – the math bears out: There has definitely been an increase over the last couple of days, but it has been more a function of the targets that they have presented and our ability to go get them.

QUESTION: Does any of this --

MS. PSAKI: Can I – let's just do one at a time --

QUESTION: No, I just want to finish this questioning.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: How much of this has got to do in that you're filling in for Turkey, for example, that hasn't stepped up to help on this? Number two, you've got a group in Turkey at the moment working on trying to bring the Turks into this. How far have you got on that process?

RADM KIRBY: Let me answer the second one first, and that may actually help me with the – with your first one. The team is wrapping up now. It was a joint team from U.S.-European Command and Central Command. Today was the last day in their – I think they've left already. I haven't got a complete readout, but from what I understand before I came over here that the discussions went very, very well, and it did – they did center around looking for other ways and other contributions that Turkey can commit to this.

There's no question that Turkey – first of all, it's an ally. There's no question that they are going to be a partner in this effort. But as we've done with every other country – and there's more than 60 of them involved – they have to determine what those contributions are going to be. They have to announce them, they have to decide them, and we're going to respect that. But the discussions were positive, we think, and our team's coming away with, I think, a general good report here. But I wouldn't get ahead of anything Turkey may or may not do.

To your first question, this isn't about substituting for Turkey. We've been – again, we've been flying airstrikes now in Syria for over a month, and they have been, again, designed to get at this group's ability to sustain itself, to get at the sanctuary. With or without Turkey flying airstrikes, I think you can expect the U.S. military to continue to do that.

MS. PSAKI: Let's just go one at a time. Jim, go ahead.

QUESTION: Admiral Kirby, I just wanted help with the math, because we've done the math, and Kobani's now had 122 total strikes since the start of the air campaign, and that's more than any other target in Iraq or in Syria. Second most for some time had been the Mosul Dam, which was a key strategic target and a key victory, in your words and the words of other U.S. officials. But you and other U.S. officials have said Kobani is not strategic – a humanitarian target, as described by General Allen yesterday. What are the strategic targets, then, in Iraq and Syria? And why isn't the U.S.-led coalition striking them more, if – particularly as you're focusing so much air power now on what has been repeatedly described as not essential to victory?

RADM KIRBY: Well, I don't think we've ever said it was not essential to victory, and I don't think I ever said it didn't have any value.

QUESTION: You have said it's not strategic.

RADM KIRBY: It is not --

QUESTION: I said "other U.S. officials."

RADM KIRBY: It is – it matters to us for two reasons, and I've said this before: One, because it matters to them and they want it, and there is a humanitarian component to that. There's still a population that lives there, small though it may be. And number two, it matters because that's where they are. And so I think it's important, Jim, to remind everybody about sort of how this strategy has taken form. It is, as Chairman Dempsey described, an Iraq-first strategy – not Iraq only, but Iraq first. And so most of the strikes you've seen – and there's been nearly 300 of them – of the 500-plus that we've conducted have been inside Iraq, not in Syria.

They have been largely getting at their ability to operate, because Iraq is where they're operating. Iraq is – that's the ground they want to hold. And so when you see us strike targets there, it's largely in support of the Iraqi Security Forces who are going after them inside Iraq – more tactical strikes. In Syria, if you take a look – and you're right, there's been a lot of strikes in Kobani, dynamic tactical strikes – but there's also been almost an equal number of total strikes against fixed facilities, command and control, finance centers, oil refineries, fixed sites. I mean, just these – the ones I just announced where 19 buildings got hit. So it's not just about going after sniper positions. It's a combination of what we would call dynamic targeting and more strategic targeting inside Syria, because the goal inside Syria is to get at their ability to sustain themselves.

So the strategy – you have to take a look at this writ large. I know the implication of the question: "You got a hundred-plus strikes in Kobani and yet you're saying it doesn't matter." We never said Kobani didn't matter. What – again, what makes Kobani matter for us from an airstrike perspective is that they are there and that they want it.

QUESTION: The question is not just about the focus on Kobani, because it's also about the quality of targets elsewhere. Because if Kobani – strategic or not because I have had Administration officials tell me it's not a strategic priority – but let's separate that for – just for a moment, because it's not just about "Why Kobani?" It's "Why not more elsewhere," where – particularly if it's Iraq first.

And there are strategic targets. Why all the air power there and – because it gets too – are you – you're running out of targets. Is target quality declining? Is it hard to find the right targets? Have they changed their behavior?

RADM KIRBY: Well, it's not declining around Kobani. I mean, the – your question gets at what we would consider or we'd call strategic patience. That's what needs to happen here. Everybody needs to have a sense of strategic patience. Airstrikes are dynamic, they're exciting, you can count them, you can get great video of them. I understand the drama around airstrikes, but we've said (a) airstrikes alone are not going to do this, military power alone is not going to do this, and it's going to take some time.

So I think there's this heavy demand for "Why aren't you doing it elsewhere?" Well, give us time and I think you'll see we're going to continue to put pressure on these guys. I'm not going to – I can't, from the podium, sort of preview future operations, but I can assure you that Kobani's not the end here. There will be more strikes in more places against more targets.

Now, to your other question, I just want to address this issue of numbers of targets. They change. Targeting is – every day it changes, and it's – there are days when there – it is a more target-rich environment. The last couple of days in particular around Kobani have been. There are days when it's not so much a target-rich environment. In Iraq, they have definitely changed the way they operate in the ground. They're dispersing more, they're hiding more inside the population, they're making it harder for us to find them, they're also changing their communications.

That's not altogether a bad thing, though, Jim, because if they're not operating as freely, then they're not as free to achieve the goals they're trying to get at. So this isn't – I hate to use this phrase, but it's not whack-a-mole. We're not going after this – the idea isn't to just put a warhead on a forehead every single day. The idea is to try to get at their ability to sustain themselves and to disrupt their strategy.

QUESTION: Admiral?

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Let's go one more time. Said, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Admiral, you cited very specific targets. Now, are you reliant to – in determining these targets, are you reliant on air intelligence, or do you have assets on the ground in terms of determining where these facilities or targets are?

RADM KIRBY: One of the --

QUESTION: How do you go about determining?

RADM KIRBY: One of the things I never do is talk about intelligence matters from --

QUESTION: I guess that leads me to my next question.

RADM KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: Is there – do you foresee any time in the future in Syria – not in Iraq – where U.S. personnel, advisor personnel, are actually on the ground, they can call in these airstrikes and perhaps have better, more precise targets in Syria?

RADM KIRBY: We don't foresee that need right now.

QUESTION: Okay. So you don't see any kind of ground interference in Syria, at least on the part of the United States of America --

RADM KIRBY: The President --

QUESTION: -- whether in coordination with the Syrian forces or not?

RADM KIRBY: All right. The commander-in-chief's been pretty clear there's not going to be a return to U.S. ground forces in a combat role in this effort. That said, we do have 12 advisor teams that are working with the Iraqi Security Forces at a very high level, brigade or division level, inside Iraq. They are not going out into the field. They are not accompanying Iraqi troops. They are simply offering advice and assistance at a headquarters level – seven in Baghdad and the other five are up near Erbil. I do not foresee any instance in which we would put ground troops inside Syria.

MS. PSAKI: Ali.

QUESTION: Can we ask about – going back to the joint military group that just left, what is the state of the discussions about the uses the United States can employ for the bases in Turkey that the U.S. has control over such as Incirlik? Where do those discussions stand? Have they decided to allow the United States to launch military strikes? Can you explain where that stands?

RADM KIRBY: I really can't go much further than I did before. The team just wrapped up. We expect we'll get a readout here today on how it went. I'm just told that the discussions were positive, but I don't have anything to announce from today – or here today. And again, we would defer to the Turkish Government to make whatever announcements they would make on decisions they might make.

MS. PSAKI: And I will just add there are other uses than airstrikes for some of these facilities as well, so I would just keep that in mind.

QUESTION: Sure, and there seems to – there is some reporting that says that the discrepancy may be between airstrikes and unmanned aircraft. Anything you can say to whether that's under discussion as well and whether that's something that the United States and Turkey came to an agreement on?

RADM KIRBY: I just wouldn't go beyond what I've gone – what I've said so far.

MS. PSAKI: Margaret, and then we'll go to Ellen in the back.

QUESTION: A quick follow-on on that and then a different question. When you say "very, very well" in terms of these meetings, does that mean there's a timeline now since Turkey has already committed to train and equip? When you say "positive," does that mean there actually has been progress there – using perhaps some of these facilities?

RADM KIRBY: Well, again, I don't want to get ahead of this group in what they're going to say when they finish or the Turks. I just – I wouldn't get ahead of that right now.

QUESTION: The other question is about the security of Baghdad. There were four suicide bombings today. There was also a mortar strike in a Shiite neighborhood. I mean, suicide bombings are signature ISIS moves. Do we have any U.S. assessment as to whether these attacks were carried out by ISIS and what, generally speaking, the U.S. view is in terms of the security and stability of Baghdad right now?

RADM KIRBY: I don't have any claims of responsibility for those attacks. We're certainly aware of those. It's not the first time in recent weeks or even months that there's been IED attacks inside Baghdad. That said, and I said this yesterday, we do not assess that the capital city is under imminent threat right now. There are not masses of formations of ISIL forces outside the – Baghdad about to come in. The other thing that we've been very clear about is the Iraqi Security Forces continue to stiffen their defensive positions in and around the capital in a very competent, capable way. And so right now we believe that Baghdad is safe from imminent threat. That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be acts of violence every now and then. I mean, that happens in any major city. But we don't believe that Baghdad is under imminent threat.

QUESTION: Suicide bombings are a step beyond acts of violence.

RADM KIRBY: I understand that. I wasn't trying to minimize it. I'm just saying that we don't anticipate that – we don't believe – we don't assess that Baghdad's under imminent threat.

QUESTION: Can I just do a quick – a very quick follow-up?

MS. PSAKI: Yeah, but I'd like to finish Turkey, too. So do you have one on this or --

QUESTION: Yeah. No, specifically on what – Margaret's question: Are you concerned that these increased suicide attacks are an effort to sow the kind of sectarian tensions that al-Qaida in Iraq, or whatever you wanted to call it at the time, which was the seeds of ISIS, were doing in 2006, 2007? Because that's exactly what you're trying to prevent with this new Iraqi Government and you're trying to improve sectarian tensions.

RADM KIRBY: Do you want to take it?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. I'll start. I mean, I think what we've seen over the course of the last several months is that ISIL has certainly tried to sow sectarian tensions by doing things like attacks and threatening certain areas and communities, and trying to, of course, garner the support from Sunnis and others. And obviously, what the prime minister is focused on now and has been for the past several months is trying to reach out, and he's actually done a number of things to reach out to not only Sunni tribes but leaders in different areas to kind of push back and offer a different alternative to the sort of sectarian tension that ISIL is trying to create. But certainly, that's been one of their strategic objectives from the beginning.

QUESTION: Yeah, but I mean, if they continue these attacks against Shiite targets, it's – I wonder how long the Shia militias are going to be patient and hold back?

RADM KIRBY: Well, there's no question that they – that sectarianism is a part of their strategy here, and sowing those tensions is certainly something they're after. There's no question about that. But we're working closely with the Iraqi Security Forces; they understand that threat. They said they are stiffening their defenses of the capital city, and I might add – Jim and I have talked I don't know how many times this week about Anbar – they are operating, they are fighting hard inside Anbar, in what is a very contested environment. But they understand the sectarian element of this. It doesn't mean that it's going to get easier, but they understand it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: Let's just – okay, let's finish Turkey, Said. Said. Let's finish Turkey.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Jen. Good to see you here, Admiral. The Prime Minister Davutoglu clarified today about the proposal of Turkish Government on the safe zones in – within Syria, and he gave seven major areas: Latakia, Idlib, Aleppo, Jarabulus, Kobani, Tel Abyad, and al-Hasakah. I know that I don't – you don't have any readout yet on the joint team on the ground, but do you have anything to share with us on the Prime Minister Davutoglu's proposal, specifically on the safe zones?

RADM KIRBY: No, I don't. Now, I don't with respect to those areas you just talked about. But if you're talking a buffer zone – is that what you're referring to? We've long said that we continue to be willing to discuss the issue of a buffer zone with the Turks and we mean that. That said, there are no active military plans right now – U.S. military plans to enact one. Doesn't mean it's – doesn't mean that we're not still willing and open to talking about it.

QUESTION: Just on the terminology: Turks are using the term of safe zones, but the U.S. side is always using the buffer zone. Is there any difference between the two?

RADM KIRBY: I can't – all I can tell you – all I can do is speak for what we say. In the Pentagon, we say buffer zone. I --

QUESTION: And --

RADM KIRBY: I don't know that there's a big difference.

QUESTION: And you gave two reasons on the increased – at the airstrikes in Kobani. First one is presented targets and the second one the ability to get in of U.S. forces. On the first one, do you have any estimate about the ISIL forces on Kobani right now?

RADM KIRBY: How many that are there?

QUESTION: Yeah.

RADM KIRBY: No, we don't have a good estimate.

QUESTION: And on the second one, what change at the ability of U.S. forces to conduct these airstrikes in Kobani? Do you have, for example, more cooperation with the ground forces there?

RADM KIRBY: I'm not going to get into the – as I got asked before, I'm not going to talk about intelligence matters or any specifics with respect to the information that leads us to do good targeting. But they have presented more targets, and we have had, due to other conditions, including the weather, we've had more resources that we can apply. But again, they are presenting more targets. They are there in more – with more force and in more numbers, and therefore they are more vulnerable and we're taking advantage of that.

QUESTION: General Allen said yesterday there is no informal relations with SS – FSA. Is that the case with the PYD, too?

MS. PSAKI: I think, one, on the FSA, I would – that's not exactly what he said. What he said yesterday is that our effort is focused on improving and increasing the military capabilities of the opposition in Syria, and certainly, there's the train and equip program, we've provided them a range of assistance; that's a priority. Obviously, there's a lot of work that needs to be done in that regard, and ultimately they're going to be the troops on the ground and the forces on the ground. But if we do that and if we're successful at that, ultimately we share an objective with Turkey and many other countries, which is a political solution. So increasing that will help them have a seat at the table and be able to negotiate through a political process.

So actually he met with many Syrian opposition officials when he was just there, so certainly we have an ongoing dialogue with them.

QUESTION: Okay. I asked this question because it's sensitive in terms of the Turkish Government's policy, because the PYD and YPG is in difficult position in terms of the relations with Turkey, and you guys – you were a little reluctant to establish this kind of direct --

MS. PSAKI: Well, that's a separate question. I'm happy to address that as well.

QUESTION: Yes, please.

MS. PSAKI: So as you know, we have for some time had conversations through intermediaries with the PYD. We have engaged over the course of just last weekend directly with the PYD.

QUESTION: First time?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So on this question, they are – they would be eligible, the PYD, for the train and equip program? Or is that --

MS. PSAKI: That was not at all what I was conveying.

QUESTION: No – well, will they --

MS. PSAKI: We have just communicated --

QUESTION: I mean, they're begging for weapons right now.

QUESTION: Well, and they're the ones that are really in the lead fighting ISIS.

QUESTION: And I want to know if – is that something that you're willing to entertain, or is that just out because the Turks would oppose it?

MS. PSAKI: I don't think that we're at that point yet, Matt. This has just been a brief conversation with them over the course of this weekend. Obviously, any entity would be vetted. There could be entities that could be vetted through. But beyond that, that process has not --

QUESTION: General Allen --

QUESTION: Hold on, hold. So on the direct contact with the PYD, when and where was it, with whom?

MS. PSAKI: I'm not going to get into details of with whom. It was over the weekend and outside of the region.

QUESTION: But General Allen had said and others have said that this train and equip program could start relatively soon because you know – you have a general idea of who you're vetting and who you want to give these weapons to. So I mean, you said any group could be vetted. Are you specifically looking at these Kurds that are really right now, specifically in Kobani where you seem to be very interested in, are the ones leading the fight against ISIS? Would they be considered – are they currently being considered?

MS. PSAKI: I should have said members of groups can be vetted. But I don't know if there's any more you want to say on the vetting.

RADM KIRBY: No. We're just at the very beginning of this. It would be --

QUESTION: All these years and you've been considering, like, arming the Syrian opposition, and President Obama when he spoke at – was it at West Point or something? I don't remember what speech specifically it was several months ago that he talked about training and equipping, and right now you're at the beginning of considering who you would want to arm?

RADM KIRBY: We're at the beginning of a recruiting and vetting process, and we've been very honest about the fact that that's going to take months. And --

QUESTION: But why is it only starting now, Admiral? I mean --

RADM KIRBY: We didn't have the authorities from Congress until about a month or so ago to begin a train and equip program, so we just didn't have the authorities to do it from a Title 10 perspective. So we now have those authorities. We've got a team that's working with the Saudis to try to get a facility up and running, and determine for our own – from our own perspective what resources we need to apply to it in terms of numbers of trainers and that kind of thing. So we're just at the beginning of this, and it's going to take some time. Chairman Dempsey said three to --

QUESTION: Well, do you think the Kurds would be eligible?

RADM KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to get ahead of decisions that we haven't --

QUESTION: Well, I mean, if they're the ones on the ground with the guns and fighting, do you think that if they're the ones that are helping going to beat back ISIS, that when the day comes, that they're – if they're not part of this train and equip program, that they're going to just fall into line if you don't --

MS. PSAKI: Well, Elise, you're talking about one part of Syria, as we know. We just --

QUESTION: Well, it seems to be a part of Syria that you're very interested in.

MS. PSAKI: Let me finish. We just began our – we just began our conversations with the PYD. I'm not – we have – they have not gone that far, and our policy hasn't changed in this regard. We certainly are aware it's a question.

QUESTION: Who – was it State or Pentagon? Who met with the PYD?

MS. PSAKI: A State official, yes.

QUESTION: Just – so there was no military component of this meeting. And can you be more specific when you say "this weekend"?

MS. PSAKI: I can check for you which day --

QUESTION: Saturday or Sunday or Monday, since Monday was a holiday.

QUESTION: Do you know who it was?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And also --

MS. PSAKI: I'm – we're not getting into who it was, but I can check which day of the weekend it was.

QUESTION: Right. Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And can I also say that I look forward --

MS. PSAKI: Let's just go one at a time.

QUESTION: -- look forward to a briefing with you alone, Jen, where you use the phrase, "Put a warhead on the forehead." (Laughter.)

MS. PSAKI: I'm now taking that down as a point that we're just going to start using.

QUESTION: It's very diplomatic. We're not used to hearing that kind of thing.

MS. PSAKI: Okay, let's just finish Turkey. Go ahead. Go ahead in the --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: No, there's no reason to scream. Let's just go right over here, and then we'll go to you. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Just to clarify, Prime Minister Davutoglu stated very clearly that in order to let the Incirlik base be used, a no-fly zone and a safe zone needs to be established. This is the understanding. Is this what's your understanding?

RADM KIRBY: I have not seen the prime minister's comments, so it'd be premature for me to try to talk to them. Again, we've got a team. They just finished up. We're going to get a readout from them, and we'll go forward from there. I'm not going to get ahead of that process.

MS. PSAKI: Can I just add one more thing? I think that some – one point that people are missing is the fact that this isn't just a military conversation with Turkey. They have taken steps. They have let over 170,000 refugees in. They've provided access for humanitarian assistance. That's something General Allen talked about yesterday. That's significant. Obviously, they've agreed to host the train and equip program. So this is an ongoing conversation, but I would just remind you that they're taking a number of steps that are very useful and productive to the coalition.

QUESTION: One more. Have you asked from Turkey any kind of ground troops for your coalition efforts going forward?

RADM KIRBY: I won't --

QUESTION: Is this a part of the --

RADM KIRBY: I'm just not going to talk about the details of the discussions that we just had and just wrapped up with. I just – I won't do that.

QUESTION: And finally, do you expect any kind of military help or aid in terms of Kobani from Turkey? You expect from Turkey any kind of help, military help, regarding that?

RADM KIRBY: We've long said that Turkey can be helpful in many ways against ISIL, and it's up to the Turks to determine what they're willing to do and what they're willing to say about what they're doing. We don't go into these discussions with our coalition partners with a laundry list of specific asks or demands. That's not what a coalition of the willing is all about. We – Turkey has indicated, long before this – these discussions about exactly what they'll do and the use of what base, they long ago said they understood they were going to contribute to this. It's on their border. As Jen said very clearly, they not only have a stake, they've been playing a role and have been forced to play a role simply by dint of their geography and their borders. And so we know they're going to participate. It's really up to them to determine and characterize what that participation looks like.

MS. PSAKI: They're – let me just add two quick things. There are reports – and you'd have to check this with Turkey – that they shot back at ISIL targets in Kobani. You should check with them on that and the accuracy of that.

The other thing I would just highlight for you – and you can do your own analysis – is that it may – it's the case that everybody may not want Turkish troops in that area. So you're well of that – well aware of that issue.

QUESTION: Just to clarify this direct contact, it is a major policy change, actually. Have you coordinated this direct contact with the Turks?

MS. PSAKI: We have regular conversations with Turkey. I'm not going to get into the specifics of those. I would remind you that we've been talking to them through intermediaries for some time now.

QUESTION: But the direct contact was in Syria or in Iraq?

MS. PSAKI: It was outside of the region.

QUESTION: And also, the result that you gave regarding these airstrikes, it's very precise. Should we assume that the result – this precise results, like, for example, even two sniper locations, is a result of this direct contact?

RADM KIRBY: Again, I'm not going to talk about the way in which we do targeting and the information streams that we use to do that. I'm not – I won't going to talk about that.

QUESTION: And this is for Jen.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Turkey is planning to expel a group of Syrian Kurds who are detained in Turkey right now and who fled the Kobani region and who don't want to return. Do you have any reaction to this reports?

MS. PSAKI: I actually haven't seen that report. I'm happy to check into it and see what we have to say about it for you.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. On Turkey? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Because General Allen, from this podium --

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: -- said no formal coordination with Syrian Kurds, but seemed to open the door to informal coordination of some sort. What are we talking about here? Is there some target data getting from the Kurds on the ground there to the Pentagon?

RADM KIRBY: Well, Jim, I'm just not going to go into that. I'm just not.

MS. PSAKI: And beyond the targeting piece, which I understand why that's your area of interest, but this was just one conversation over the weekend. So it doesn't represent coordination; it represents one conversation.

QUESTION: What would you call it? The opening of a dialogue? Or would you just call it one isolated conversation?

MS. PSAKI: I think that we'll continue to engage. I don't have any prediction on the frequency of that at this point in time.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) not YPG. Just to --

MS. PSAKI: PYD, yeah.

QUESTION: Not YPG.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: I wanted to go to Anbar. Admiral, you --

QUESTION: I have a question --

QUESTION: One more --

MS. PSAKI: On Turkey? On Turkey?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead, Matt. We'll go to Matt.

QUESTION: This is a diplomatic question. Are you concerned that Turkey not making it to the UN Security Council is going to have any effect on their willingness to help?

MS. PSAKI: I would say, Matt, that Turkey, obviously, is a member of NATO. They have taken a number of --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Let me finish. They've taken a number of steps over the course of just the last week to advance their --

QUESTION: So you're not concerned that --

MS. PSAKI: -- cooperation in the coalition.

QUESTION: You're not concerned that their defeat and their – because they really wanted to be on the Security Council --

MS. PSAKI: I would --

QUESTION: -- and now they're not on it, having lost to fellow --

MS. PSAKI: I have not --

QUESTION: -- NATO member Spain.

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen Turkey make any comments to confirm your question or to confirm the belief that they're going to --

QUESTION: Well, there was a vote at the UN.

MS. PSAKI: I understand what you're asking. I'm saying I have not seen Turkey convey this has – will have an impact on the coalition. I could have been more clear.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Given that U.S. warplanes are dropping bombs on ISIS in Kobani in support of Syrian Kurds, isn't it time to de-list the PKK as a terrorist organization, since in essence we are fighting with them and their Syrian allies in Kobani?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we're certainly aware of the connection – some of the connections between some PYD members and the PKK. We have the same concerns we've had for a long time about the PKK. There's no change to our position on listing them as a terrorist organization.

QUESTION: Just one quick – quick one on this.

MS. PSAKI: On Turkey?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: And nice to see you, Admiral, here.

RADM KIRBY: Good to see you again. You guys are tough. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I have been waiting for you to say something about the role the European Union is playing in this whole setup. And is it true – can you confirm or deny – that the wish list of the Turks, one of them is membership of the European Union?

MS. PSAKI: Well, in – as it relates to the coalition or in general?

QUESTION: Yeah. Where is the role the EU is playing, first of all?

MS. PSAKI: In the coalition?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Do you want to talk --

RADM KIRBY: The EU? I don't know of a specific EU role, but there are many, many European nations that are joining us in this effort. In fact, some of the earliest partners were European partners, the French in particular, both in terms of conducting airstrikes but also in helping resupply the Kurdish forces up in the north and helping us with humanitarian drops. So I can't speak to the EU, but I can tell you that so, so many of our partners in this effort from very early on have been European.

MS. PSAKI: And I'll just echo – just not – again, not just the military piece, but on many --

RADM KIRBY: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: -- components. They have put in place new laws as it relates to foreign fighters. They've given a range of humanitarian assistance. We're working with European leaders and our counterparts on de-legitimizing ISIL, so they are playing a role in all five lines of effort.

Do we have any more on Turkey? Iraq? Any more on Iraq?

QUESTION: Iraq, yes. Yes.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS. PSAKI: Let's finish Iraq. Said, do you mind if we give a few others, and then we'll come back to you?

QUESTION: Sure, yeah. Absolutely.

MS. PSAKI: You're always very chivalrous. Go ahead, right there. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: On discovery of old abandoned chemical weapons, yesterday Pentagon acknowledged some information. Can you tell us why U.S. Government kept it secret?

RADM KIRBY: Yeah. I appreciate the question, and I can't state this emphatically enough: There was no effort by the Pentagon or the Defense Department leadership at any time to deliberately suppress or withhold information about these chemical munitions. As far back as 2006, we very openly in Congressional testimony acknowledged the finds of hundreds of rounds of these chemical munitions inside Iraq. And then subsequent to that, 2007 and on, we continued to disclose additional finds as needed.

Now, there were some initial delays between '6 and '7 – 2006 and 2007 – just in terms of process problems that we had. But there was no intent not to disclose or no intent to suppress information. I think – and I don't think if you – reading that New York Times story, I don't think that that was the intent of the reporter who wrote the piece. It was – I think it was more about the issue of the care that these soldiers experienced and the degree to which they might have been told by unit commanders not to talk about it. But there was no effort by the Pentagon, no intent – and in practice, no deed to try to suppress information from the public.

QUESTION: But how do you respond to those who said this finding could prove – serve as a proof to justify the – to invade Iraq? Why did they keep it secret? Maybe they --

RADM KIRBY: But you miss my point altogether. It was never kept secret. As far back as 2006, we acknowledged to the Congress of the United States that we had found chemical munitions. And we also in that same testimony in 2006 made it clear that we believed there would be more, and sure enough, there were more. There were thousands more that were found. And each time they were found and catalogued and collected, we made those disclosures.

Now, since 2009 it's up to the Government of Iraq to do that, and they have. But thousands and thousands of these munitions were found and destroyed or removed, so there was no – never any nondisclosure of what we were finding with respect to that.

MS. PSAKI: Are these on Iraq?

QUESTION: Yes, please.

MS. PSAKI: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: It's regarding ISIL. Admiral, it's good to see you here. ISIL – about ISIL capabilities and numbers. Are the numbers increasing or decreasing after all this operation of last few weeks? Because I can see that they are expanding their territory and you are saying they are moving and dynamic. Can you tell us about their – because a few weeks ago, it was a few thousands, and then now is it increasing? And if it's increasing, how they are crossing borders and from where? This is my first question.

The second question: Finally, you named the operation name yesterday. But it seems that already there are two or three versions of Arabic, as in translation of – what – if you have a official translation of the term that you use for the operation or not.

RADM KIRBY: An official version in Arabic?

MS. PSAKI: This is your opportunity to use your Arabic, so – (laughter).

RADM KIRBY: I have trouble with English. (Laughter.) I don't know if there's a – one – I didn't know there were more than one versions of that.

QUESTION: I mean, I'm just asking. Because already with – you put, of course, the English version.

RADM KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: But when they translate it in different Arabic media --

RADM KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- they already have, like, at least two – I read it – different expressions, which is, of course --

RADM KIRBY: What are the differences?

QUESTION: The meaning are different.

QUESTION: The meaning difference. I mean, the --

RADM KIRBY: Do one of --

QUESTION: I mean, one of them is "Ala'zm al Salb" –

RADM KIRBY: Which means?

QUESTION: Which is "complete determination".

QUESTION: -- and the other, "Ala'zm al Ta'am" which is "complete determination," whatever, whatever –

RADM KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: "Determined resolve" versus "complete resolve." (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I mean, I'm just asking because --

RADM KIRBY: I learn something every single day in this job. (Laughter.) This is an amazing experience. I don't know. I don't know --

QUESTION: The reason I'm asking, by the way, because it was one of the last 10 years problems that face – I was in this town and I know that it was mistranslated or mis-presented or mis --

RADM KIRBY: Yeah. I think – I don't know the answer to your question, because I just don't know Arabic.

QUESTION: The second one, I mean.

RADM KIRBY: But right. Actually, I don't think I know the answer to your first one either, but we'll get back to you. (Laughter.)

But I can tell you that General Austin and his staff coordinated that name with the coalition partners. I mean, he didn't need to do that, but he did let them know that this was the name he was thinking about. And they specifically did consider Arabic translation when they developed the name, so this is news to me and I'll take that back to the Pentagon and we'll see if we can get you a better answer from Tampa on that.

On your first question, this is not an army in the classic sense, so it is very difficult for us – and we've been saying this since the beginning – for us to give precise numbers of their resources in terms of manpower. It fluctuates. They don't – there's no conscription. They don't have service records for these guys, so people come and go from the fight at will. We know that we have had an impact on their ability to man and resource themselves in that respect. We've hit training camps inside Syria. I just talked about killing several hundred that we know of in and around Kobani, and that's just Kobani. So I can tell you that ISIL members – that the career path for an ISIL member is fairly short, and that we're going to continue to try to make it shorter. But that doesn't mean that they won't reconstitute. This radical ideology that they profess is attractive to many, many young men throughout that region – in fact, many young men elsewhere around the world, the whole foreign fighter threat. And we suspect that they will continue to be able to attract recruits. But I couldn't give you – beyond saying thousands, I couldn't give you a specific number about how many they're putting into the field.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up. It's – I'm not looking for numbers more than if still the flow of the people, especially foreign fighters --

RADM KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- are still on or --

RADM KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: -- it is blocked by Turkey or other countries?

RADM KIRBY: We believe that the foreign fighter threat is very real, very pervasive, and still exists. And I want to just pivot to another larger point here is that that's one of the reasons why we believe this is going to be a long effort. Over at the Pentagon we're preparing to be at this for years. This isn't going to get solved through 18 airstrikes around a particular town and a particular place of Syria. It's going to take a long time.

MS. PSAKI: But we've seen – one thing we have seen is that over the course of the last several months as this threat has increased to the region, a number of countries in the region that maybe perhaps weren't previously taking steps have put in place laws, have done more to crack down on foreign fighters. That's a positive. It doesn't mean that the flow isn't continuing.

So we don't have unlimited time, so I'm wondering if we should move on to a new topic.

QUESTION: Ebola?

MS. PSAKI: Ebola?

QUESTION: Ebola.

MS. PSAKI: Majority rules. Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) increasing calls for a travel ban from countries affected by Ebola. Is the State Department even considering or talking about this?

MS. PSAKI: We are not. I would – I would remind everybody that all of the medical authorities and experts – WHO, IATA, the CDC – have strongly recommended against bans on international travel and trade because the risk of infection spreading through travel is low and because when balanced with the needs of the world community and the needs to – the need of allowing people to come in and be trained, to get resources overseas, it's important that we keep a steady level of travel through the process that we have going to date.

QUESTION: Can I follow up there?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: The statements that have been made on the Ebola, right, over the last week or so have all proven to be false. There's been a tendency to try and play things down; there won't be anybody here who gets it; there won't be any of the nurses who get it. And we're seeing that this thing is kind of getting a little bit out of control. Now, there was a conference at Johns Hopkins just a few days ago and there was a lot of different opinions on that. One person, Dr. Osterholm, who's a well-known expert in the area, said that when you've got a concentration – people say that Ebola, you can't get it through the aerosols; that's what we know, to the extent that we know anything.

MS. PSAKI: I don't mean to cut you off, but do you have a specific question?

QUESTION: Yeah. But he --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: He said that when it's concentrated in that way in Africa, perhaps it will become aerosol transmitted. Now, we're – it looks like we're facing a situation that possibly can become something like the Black Death in the 14th century. Why is that not on the top of the agenda for the U.S. State Department, something that's threatening all of mankind, to bring the countries of the world together, many of whom are not capable of dealing with this thing, in order to have a Manhattan-style project of dealing with that?

MS. PSAKI: I'd appreciate the opportunity to respond, but I'm not entirely sure what your specific question is.

QUESTION: I'm asking about why is this not on the top agenda of the State Department. Why isn't this going to be the top agenda of the APEC meeting coming up? And why is it not an issue in all our relations with Russia and other countries?

MS. PSAKI: Let me address your question. It is on the top of the agenda for the State Department and for the Secretary of State, for the President of the United States, I would suggest for Secretary Hagel as well. Obviously, there are a range of health officials that we rely on for their recommendations and for their data and for their views on what we should do to update and change things as needed.

And as you've seen over the past several weeks, we have put in place additional screening measures. We've obviously put in place a range of steps at our embassies. We've put travel warnings out to specific countries to American citizens. We've provided a range of assistance to countries across Africa. And obviously – I don't know if you want to talk about some of the things DOD has been doing as well, but --

RADM KIRBY: We've been very active. As I said, more than 500 troops down in Liberia right now. We've set up an air bridge in Senegal to help logistics flow. We now have Ospreys that are helping speed the delivery of resources, supplies, and troops to some of these very remote areas where these labs are being set up. I mean, there's places there where there's not even roads, and where there are roads, it's mud. So the military has – and we're going to – we've got 540 on the ground now. We could potentially get up to 4,000, and more keep coming every week. So there's been a lot of effort at the Pentagon on this.

MS. PSAKI: And let me – let us finish. Also, I think – I don't know if you were here last week, but Secretary Kerry did an entire presentation about how the world community needs to do more. The United States is playing a leading role, providing a great deal of assistance and taking steps to address this as an international community. And we're leading that effort. So I would refute, basically, the notion of your questioning.

But we also need to provide accurate information and make sure people know how to prevent it, how it is actually passed on. And we have a responsibility to do that as the U.S. Government and not provide a – to start a fear campaign.

I think we have to move on --

QUESTION: Admiral Kirby mentioned --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- the very good deployments in Africa. But apparently, you're working on the basis that this is a level three contagion, and some people are saying – including Dr. Osterholm – this might be level four. So maybe some of the things that you're doing is not enough, and also would endanger the people because of an underestimate of the seriousness of the situation.

And I'd just like to add, Jen, on this: What if the experts happen to be proven wrong? They've said a number of things now over the last few weeks, and those have been contradicted by reality. Are we going to take that as the basis as this thing moves forward? Because I think this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and somehow more action, and not just nice words and not just addressing the situation, but a lot more action on the ground and coordination, I think, is going to be needed on this.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I would just say I would hardly call the efforts of the United States "just words." We have been leading the actions as well, and you've also seen that we've adjusted and changed policies and procedures. The health care community has done that, we've done that, the Department of Defense has done that when needed, and certainly, we will continue to do that.

RADM KIRBY: I would just like to add one thing, and that – we know and we are being very careful in the support that we're providing not to overburden already-burdened infrastructure in Liberia. So when we – and I've gotten this question before: "Why aren't you there in greater numbers and faster?" One of the reasons why is there's a – there's only so much impact that Liberia and the infrastructure can take from the United States military. We just can't go in there lock, stock, and barrel without thinking about the impact on their own infrastructure. So we have to do this carefully, in a measured, deliberate way. But we believe that the kinds of capabilities that we're contributing in terms of engineering, logistics, and training are exactly the kinds of things we're really good at doing in an expeditionary environment.

QUESTION: Jen, I just want to --

MS. PSAKI: I just want to make – go ahead.

QUESTION: I just want to make sure that I understood your answer to Lesley right.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Did you say that not only are you not considering and opposed to a travel ban, but the call on the visas – on stopping visa issuance, you're also opposed to that and you're not going to change? Is that what – is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: Correct. And --

QUESTION: Same answer that you gave yesterday when I asked? Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Yes. Nothing has changed.

Can I just provide one more little element of data on the visa issuance question? There have been reports out there that we are – we issue thousands and thousands of visas in some of these countries in the part of – the West African countries. That's not correct. Less than 20 people come to each of the consular sections of the embassies in Freetown, Conakry, and less than 50 to Monrovia. These small numbers, combined with the pre-screening in place at each post --

QUESTION: How often? Twenty people how often?

MS. PSAKI: I think that's in about – let's see – a day, I think. But people are reporting – there are reports out there that there are thousands and thousands of visas. That's inaccurate. I'm not suggesting anyone in here has, but it's important information to get out there.

QUESTION: 20 people a day is not nothing.

MS. PSAKI: Well, Matt, but I think it's – that combined --

QUESTION: I mean, if you – but if it's 20 a day in Freetown and 50 a day in the other two places and you multiply that by every workday, that is thousands of people. Not all of them get a visa, of course, but – I mean --

MS. PSAKI: Matt, the numbers that have been out there have suggested – I will make sure and check it's by day – but have been far larger than that, and so I wanted to just provide a more accurate accounting of it.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject to Venezuela?

QUESTION: Can we just do one more on Ebola?

MS. PSAKI: Can we just do one more on Ebola?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask why this situation and the discussion of a travel ban is so different from the travel ban that was issued by the FAA a few months ago, when there were bombs raining down on the Tel Aviv airport and there were concerns about the safety of Americans. I – understanding that one was a war zone, one is a medical crisis, but there were similar questions raised at that time about the economic consequences to Israel that a ban on travel could have. So I'm just wondering if you can explain why the situation is so different that a travel ban would not be considered.

MS. PSAKI: They could not be more different, the two situations. I'm not even sure where to start. I mean, the FAA ban, which obviously was decided by the FAA and was in place for a short period of time, related to safety and security issues, is separate from – the view of the health care community or the medical community, which we certainly abide by and lean on, is that it would be counterproductive to put a visa ban in place and that our effort needs to be about allowing for and ensuring the ability for people to fly back and forth to places, with the necessary precautions in place, with the necessary screenings in place, of which we've put many new precautions in place over the course of time. I'm not sure we're talking about an economic impact here. We're talking about what would be counterproductive to this – what the President has called a national security issue because the health issue is so significant.

QUESTION: But just to put a fine point on it --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- what I meant by economic is just the idea that these countries would be isolated so much if we cut down travel. So kind of --

MS. PSAKI: Well, that certainly would be an impact, but the isolation piece is also about being able to provide supplies, being able to train people, being able to track and ensure that we're going – we're allowing for a global response to this effort.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you --

QUESTION: Last one on Ebola.

QUESTION: -- if the numbers are so small of visa applicants, how is it going to have such a profound impact if you stop issuing them?

MS. PSAKI: Well, we think there's not – it would be counterproductive even to allow those individuals not to be able to apply. We don't see a medical benefit to it, so that's why we haven't made the decision.

QUESTION: I don't think it's on applications. It's on processing them and giving them.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: I mean, anyone can apply for a visa at any time, but --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, you're right.

QUESTION: -- but if the numbers are so small, as you say, and it's not the thousands that have been reported, if the – why – I mean, one of these people, if they're infected, could – has the potential to infect a lot of other people either en route or in the United – en route to or in the United States. So if you have an area of these three countries where there isn't going to be an economic impact that you just talked about, why not stop the issuance of visas, at least until the situation has gotten better?

MS. PSAKI: Because we think it would be counterproductive to do that. I would pose the question a different way.

QUESTION: Well, you --

MS. PSAKI: If it's a lower number, why focus on that particular issue as the way to solve the crisis?

QUESTION: Because that's where it's coming from. That's where it came from, right? I mean, I --

QUESTION: It just takes one.

QUESTION: -- I mean, I don't get it. If it's not an economic issue, if it's not going to stop American health workers, American military guys from going there, but it could prevent even a single Ebola-infected person from coming into the – from getting into the United States, why not do it?

MS. PSAKI: Because we rely on the advice and the views of the medical community and we don't think that that is a productive step to take at this point in time.

QUESTION: Well, you think it's punitive?

MS. PSAKI: I said "productive."

QUESTION: I know. You think it's counterproductive, but I don't understand how it is that preventing someone with Ebola from coming to the United States is counterproductive.

MS. PSAKI: We're not talking about preventing individuals with Ebola. We're talking about if individuals are asymptomatic, they go through a range of screening measures regardless, in addition to the visa process. So it's not just you get a visa and then you're allowed into the United States, as you well know. There are screening processes that were announced just a couple of weeks ago that were also put in place as another layer.

QUESTION: It just seems to me that it couldn't hurt to do this, whereas the – and it might help. Is that wrong?

MS. PSAKI: I think the view of the experts is that it would not be helpful, it would be counterproductive.

QUESTION: Well, Jen --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- one of the reasons that Ebola has worsened was because they shut down that air travel and workers couldn't get in. Would these --

MS. PSAKI: You're right. That's why I touched on that in the beginning.

QUESTION: But that doesn't – but that – there's no impact from a visa issue – a ban on issuing visas does not affect flights in and out.

MS. PSAKI: No, but it impacts individuals being able to get back and forth.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: So, I mean, if you have to impose even a temporary ban, would that affect health workers – not the military, because the military has its own planes – but other health workers and aid groups getting in and out?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there's no authority. I mean, it's an interesting question you raise. There's actually no authority to temporarily invalidate a visa. So there hasn't been a decision made, as I mentioned, for the reasons you've outlined, to change our policies. Obviously, in any scenario, we take steps to protect American citizens, to ensure we're addressing global – national security crises like this, but for all the reasons I've outlined we haven't changed our policy.

QUESTION: Jen, can you – since you told us the number of people applying per day, can you tell us anything on the number of visas actually issued?

MS. PSAKI: I can check and see if there's more specifics on that, Margaret. I'm happy to.

QUESTION: Different topic?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. And we have not – a limited amount of time, so go ahead. Venezuela?

QUESTION: Venezuela, as you know, was just voted for a seat on the UN Security Council. It wasn't moments later that the jousting began. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power gave a very tough and critical statement of Venezuela, doesn't really seem to be encouraging cooperation. So can you say what is your reaction to the vote? And I mean, don't you think as they're coming on to the council that it might be wise to encourage their cooperation, as opposed to antagonizing them on the first day?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think it's important to note that Venezuela ran unopposed, so I don't know that it was a --

QUESTION: I don't think it makes a difference. They're on the council now.

MS. PSAKI: -- anyone was bracing for the results. But we believe, broadly speaking, that all Security Council members and countries aspiring to be members should support the principles of the UN Charter, contribute to the Security Council's role in maintaining international peace and security, and uphold and advance human rights. Our concerns with regards to Venezuela's record on human rights and democratic governance are well known. They've been communicated directly to them. That doesn't change because they are now a member of the Security Council.

QUESTION: But I mean, don't you think maybe it's – you should work in the spirit of cooperation? You are going to need them for two years on the Council to support your objectives. Or do you just think it's like a waste of time and you can just already count on not getting their vote for the next two years?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think, look, there are a range of – to your point, there are a range of initiatives and policies that the council will take on, and certainly, we may work with them as we work with a range of countries. But I don't think it changes our concerns about their record, and I don't think they expect us to change our views either on them.

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Russia?

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Admiral Kirby, I want to ask you about some remarks that the Russian defense minister said today. I guess he was responding to a speech that Secretary Hagel gave and he said – I'll read you the quote – "Chuck Hagel's thesis on the necessity for the American Army to deal with modern and capable Russian armed forces on NATO's doorstep is of grave concern," and he said, "It's proof that the Pentagon is working on scenarios for operations at the borders of our country."

He thinks the U.S. military is planning some sort of aggressive action there. Do you want to respond or give some context there? I mean, were those comments made as any kind of threat?

RADM KIRBY: I had – I have not had a chance to see the minister's comments. But what I – rather than say what it isn't, let me tell you what the Secretary's point was yesterday when he gave his speech at the AUSA conference. And that is that the Army, just like the rest of the military, have to deal with two really important environments right now. One is fiscal, the other is security. The fiscal environment is very perilous now. Sequestration is still being held over our heads. And if it remains the law of the land, we don't believe – and the Secretary said this yesterday – that we're going to be able to meet the needs of the defense strategy, the President's defense strategy. It's that severe, particularly to our readiness accounts.

The other environment is the strategic environment, and that is also extremely dynamic and uncertain right now. And that uncertainty is fed by what President Putin is doing inside and outside Ukraine, and it would be imprudent for us not to be thinking about the kinds of readiness capabilities we need to have throughout Europe, because we have significant treaty commitments through NATO to our allies there. So what the Secretary was referring to was not about – it was not about any – there was no threatening comments in that speech aimed at any one country, but he was speaking very candidly about the threats that we're facing around the world from a fiscal perspective and from a security perspective, and our need to be ready for it.

And all the services – not just the Army – have got to adapt to this environment. And that's going to – it takes a little bit of belt-tightening for sure, actually more than a little bit, but it's also going to take a lot of innovative thinking – and this is what the Secretary was referring to – about how we posture the military going forward. That's what he was calling for in that speech.

QUESTION: Can I ask you what he meant by calling it "revisionist Russia"?

RADM KIRBY: "Revisionist Russia"?

QUESTION: Yeah. What does that mean?

RADM KIRBY: Well – the Secretary?

QUESTION: Yeah, Secretary Hagel.

RADM KIRBY: I think what he's referring to there is that there appears to be in their intentions and their motives a calling back to the glory days of the Soviet Union.

QUESTION: All right. He also used the phrase "its army," meaning Russia's army, "on NATO's doorstep." Why is that? Is it not logical to look at this and say the reason that the Russian army is on NATO – the Russian army is at NATO's doorstep is because NATO has expanded rather than the Russians expanding? That in other words, NATO has moved closer to Russia rather than Russia moving closer to NATO? Is that not an accurate way to look at this?

RADM KIRBY: I think that's the way President Putin probably looks at it. It's certainly not the way that we look at it.

QUESTION: But you don't think that NATO has expanded eastward toward Russia?

RADM KIRBY: NATO has expanded --

QUESTION: Okay.

RADM KIRBY: -- and the expansion has been a good thing for --

QUESTION: So the reason that the Russian army is at NATO's doorstep is not the fault of the Russian – or not the – it's not the Russian army that's done it. It's – NATO has moved closer to – moved east.

RADM KIRBY: I'm pretty sure it wasn't NATO who was ordering upwards of 15 battalion tactical groups to within 10 kilometers of the border with Ukraine, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't NATO who put little green men inside Ukraine to destabilize eastern cities.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, I'm pretty sure that Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so unless that's changed --

RADM KIRBY: It's not changed --

QUESTION: Okay. So --

RADM KIRBY: -- but I'm pretty sure the movement by Russia is Russia's decision.

QUESTION: Has NATO – if NATO has moved east, the reason that the Russian army is closer or on NATO's doorstep is because NATO moved, not because --

RADM KIRBY: NATO is not an anti-Russia alliance. NATO is a security alliance.

QUESTION: For 50 years, it was an anti-Soviet alliance. So do you not understand that --

RADM KIRBY: Where's the Soviet Union now?

QUESTION: So – well, do you not understand how, or can you not even see how the Russians would perceive it as a threat, and the fact that it keeps getting closer to their border while their troops – I mean, the places where their troops are – you say their troops are, and they may have been in Ukraine and Georgia – are not NATO members?

RADM KIRBY: I don't have – I'm not going to pretend to know what goes in President Putin's mind or Russian military commanders.

QUESTION: Okay.

RADM KIRBY: I mean, I barely got a history degree at the University of South Florida.

QUESTION: All right. (Laughter.)

RADM KIRBY: What I can tell you is that NATO is a defensive alliance. It remains a defensive alliance.

QUESTION: Fair enough, but it has moved east, correct? I mean, that's just a fact.

RADM KIRBY: It has expanded, absolutely.

QUESTION: Right, exactly, and so the reason --

RADM KIRBY: But there's no reason for anybody to think the expansion is a hostile or threatening move, and we've been saying that throughout the last 15 years, Matt.

QUESTION: But no – this is like getting – you're moving closer to Russia, yet you're blaming the Russians for being close to NATO.

RADM KIRBY: No, no, no, no.

QUESTION: That's exactly what Hagel said.

RADM KIRBY: What we're blaming the Russians for are violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine --

QUESTION: Of Ukraine --

RADM KIRBY: -- and destabilizing the security situation inside Europe.

QUESTION: Okay, which is not a NATO member – which is not a NATO member.

RADM KIRBY: I cede to you on that point.

MS. PSAKI: Other countries feel threatened --

QUESTION: India.

MS. PSAKI: -- that are NATO members. But we can just do a couple more.

Go ahead, Pam.

QUESTION: Russian leader Putin today, of course, was in Serbia where he attended a military parade that was recognizing Belgrade's liberation. In some circles, this is – was deemed as a controversial visit because of Serbia's EU integration plans. What's your reaction to that?

MS. PSAKI: I hate to disappoint you. I don't have much of a reaction. We're aware that he was there. Obviously, there are a range of countries that played a prominent role during World War II. We're well aware of that. You're aware, certainly, that Putin – President Putin participated in the D-Day celebration in Normandy earlier this summer as well. It doesn't mean we don't have disagreements on issues, but on this one, I don't have much more to add.

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: On Palestine --

QUESTION: On India?

MS. PSAKI: India, go ahead.

QUESTION: You must have seen the interview by the Indian diplomat Khobragade on an Indian television channel, in which she nearly accused the U.S. Administration during her arrest and all that. Have you received anything from the Indian Government about it? Because it seems the ministry of external affairs is looking at some disciplinary action because she was not given the permission to – et cetera. Anything that has – is going on between the two countries?

MS. PSAKI: I'm not aware of anything recently or anything through official channels. Obviously, this is a topic that had been discussed, as you know, late last year and early this year. Our focus has been on moving our relationship forward, and Secretary Kerry was there this summer. I think Secretary Kerry was also – I mean Secretary Hagel, I'm sorry, was also in India this summer. We hosted Prime Minister Modi here. So our focus here, through diplomatic channels, is on moving the relationship forward.

QUESTION: Jen?

MS. PSAKI: Let's just do a couple more here. Said, we'll definitely get to you. Go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. North Korea and Syria. It is reported that North Korea has been supported and export chemical weapons to Syria. Can you confirm on that, sir?

MS. PSAKI: I have not seen those reports and I don't have any confirmation of those reports.

RADM KIRBY: Nor do I.

QUESTION: Yeah. Can I ask on China, please?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Thank you, John, for being here for this. Hopefully, it won't be the last time, but --

MS. PSAKI: Why doesn't anyone ever thank me for being here? (Laughter.) As if I'm --

QUESTION: But you're here every day, so --

QUESTION: I'm sitting here --

MS. PSAKI: I am just joking, I'm just joking. I'm glad he's here, too. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, my question is on the report that the FBI issued a warning to tech companies regarding this new Chinese Government cyber hacking group. I was wondering if either of you have anything you can share on that, to what extent you assess this to be a new threat.

RADM KIRBY: I don't on that particular case, but as you know, cyber is something that we take very, very seriously over there. We're constantly looking at that environment and trying to improve our capabilities inside it. It is a significant threat. We have an entire combatant command dedicated just to cyber issues, so it's not something we ever take our mind off. But I don't have anything.

MS. PSAKI: And Elliot, I think – and I know you follow this closely, just for others – we, of course, the United States Government has a responsibility to notify victims and potential victims of threats to their networks to enable them to take appropriate defensive actions. That's something we do on a regular basis. In this case, the United States Government was able to determine that the attackers using the identified malware were affiliated with the Government of China. And so we put out a release yesterday – or I should say not the State Department; the Administration put out a release yesterday that specifically highlighted those issues to make sure that individuals who could have been impacted were aware of the issue.

As you know, on cyber issues broadly we raised – that's one of the prominent topics of discussion every time we have the opportunity to meet with the Chinese.

QUESTION: Has the – has this new group – the concerns – you mention that it – you know that they're affiliated with the government, but has concerns been relayed directly to the government about this particular group?

MS. PSAKI: Has this concern been relayed directly to the government?

QUESTION: Of China, yeah.

MS. PSAKI: We have a regular dialogue with them. I can check if this specific report was relayed to them.

QUESTION: Jen, is there any indication that – because the FBI release is only for the U.S. companies, business, is there any indication that State Department or DOD or any U.S. Government is compromised?

MS. PSAKI: Not that I'm aware of, no. They – obviously, the FBI has the lead on this.

Okay, let's just do --

QUESTION: Do you know, would that be a topic for the APEC, President Obama's meeting with the Chinese president?

MS. PSAKI: I would certainly point you to the White House on that. But cybersecurity in general is an issue that we discuss with the Chinese, and I would be surprised if it wasn't a topic of discussion.

QUESTION: President Obama said he's going to deal with Ebola with a more aggressive way. So how do you put "aggressive"? And does it mean Pentagon's going to send in more troops or building more laboratory in Africa?

MS. PSAKI: I think what he means is not just with military assets, but also with doing more to recruit more international support and assistance. You saw Secretary Kerry talk about this last week. It means providing other kinds of assistance from here as well. It means recruiting more doctors. So there's a range of meanings of that, and certainly, as you know, and I know the White House has or will speak to this, I know the President canceled his trip so that he could be briefed by his necessary officials on this as well.

QUESTION: So at the moment, we know there are two nurses get Ebola – I mean, disease – and we still don't know why they got that from the patient. And from New York Times, they say infection control experts say many American hospitals have improperly trained their staff to deal with Ebola patients because of – I mean, federal guidelines that were too lax. So how confident or how does the United States, from Pentagon to State Department, really prepare to deal with this situation right now?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think your question is most appropriately directed toward the CDC. I know Dr. Frieden is testifying today and is probably speaking directly to this. So I would point you to that, unless you have anything to add.

RADM KIRBY: No. The only thing I'd say is – as I said, we've got authority to send right now up to 4,000, and we've been very honest that that number could grow. It's possible. We're committed to supporting the effort from a military perspective with our unique capabilities as much as we can, and that's a dynamic, fluid situation. And I could not rule out that there could be additional military resources applied or additional capabilities sent forth.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Jen, I just have two really --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS. PSAKI: I think we have to move on, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: I have two – just two really brief ones.

MS. PSAKI: Let's just finish this off quickly here. Said, you can do the last one. Go ahead.

QUESTION: One is a non-NATO Russia question, which is about – are you aware of these two American journalists who apparently have been detained in Russia?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about that?

MS. PSAKI: I actually have something on that, one moment.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Let me just get their names in here.

QUESTION: And then I have a Bahrain question, but also brief.

MS. PSAKI: Of course you do.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: No.

MS. PSAKI: I told him you might ask about that.

Two American professors of journalism, Joe Bergantino and Randy Covington, were detained for several hours in St. Petersburg today and brought before a judge to answer questions about potential violations of their visas. Both were released with warnings and have returned to their hotel. The two are in Russia for a weeklong series of U.S. embassy-sponsored media training workshops which were scheduled to end tomorrow, and officials from the consulate in St. Petersburg were present at the courtroom and have been assisting the professors.

QUESTION: Was there – does this raise any concerns with you? Are you disturbed by the fact that they were detained, or --

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: -- was there anything – other than – I mean, well, is it problematic for the government, for the U.S. Government?

MS. PSAKI: Certainly, I think, Matt, obviously they were there to do a training that we sponsored, so I think our preference would have been for them not to be detained, I think it's fair to say. But they've been released. I think we're ready to move forward.

QUESTION: Are they allowed to leave the country?

MS. PSAKI: Yes, that's my understanding.

QUESTION: You think it's – that it's case closed? So --

MS. PSAKI: We're ready to move forward.

QUESTION: And then – okay. And then in Bahrain, there are two activists now, human rights activists, including this woman who today ripped up a picture of the king in court, Zainab --

MS. PSAKI: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about her or the other guy, the guy --

MS. PSAKI: Yes. We've seen reports of Ms. Khawaja's arrest and detention. We're following the case closely, and as in any countries, we call on – any country, we call on Bahrain to ensure equal treatment under the law and to advance justice in a fair way. We again urge the Government of Bahrain to take steps to build confidence across Bahraini society and to create an environment conducive to dialogue. I think – were you referring to Nabeel Rajab?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm.

MS. PSAKI: So we understand that his trial will begin on October 19th, so on Sunday. An embassy official plans to attend. As we consistently say around the world, we do not agree with prosecution of individuals for crimes of peaceful political expression. We continue to call on the government of Bahrain to abide by its commitment to be fair – to have fair and transparent judicial proceedings, and we urge the government to drop the charges and resolve the case as expeditiously as possible.

QUESTION: Can I ask a quick one on the Huangs?

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: But we have to wrap this up.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: And I promised Said the last one, so two – one, two.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. The Huangs' case is – they have – appeal hearing on Monday.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: What are – are you hoping that they'll be released at that time?

MS. PSAKI: Well --

QUESTION: What are you expecting out of that, out of that hearing?

MS. PSAKI: I, unfortunately, don't have any predictions to make. Obviously, we're following this case closely. We expect an embassy official to attend. We've been in touch with the government about this particular issue. We certainly encourage and continue to call on fair treatment and abiding by judicial processes, but I don't have an update.

QUESTION: And you've raised some questions about the case, so do you expect --

MS. PSAKI: Yes, we have.

QUESTION: -- that they should be released because of lack of evidence or --

MS. PSAKI: I can't make a prediction.

QUESTION: -- lack of fairness in the trial?

MS. PSAKI: I can't make a prediction of that, Elise. I'm happy to check with our team and see if we have any new updates. Those same concerns, of course, remain.

Said, last one.

QUESTION: Very quickly, the Israelis issued an order prohibiting all Palestinian men under 50 from praying at the al-Aqsa Mosque, which exacerbated tensions and violence and so on. I wondered if you have any comments. I have many questions on the Palestinian issue, but I'll keep them till tomorrow. So --

MS. PSAKI: I know you do. We can do this again tomorrow.

QUESTION: Yeah, we will do this again tomorrow. But on this issue, do you have a statement or a comment or anything?

MS. PSAKI: I will check with our team and I'm happy to get you a comment after the briefing.

Thanks, everyone.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. PSAKI: Thank you, Admiral Kirby, for joining us.

RADM KIRBY: Thanks for having me.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)

DPB # 175