Daily Press Briefing
Jeff Rathke
Director, Press Office
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 11, 2015
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY
SYRIA
ISIL/MIDDLE EAST REGION
IRAQ
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
SWITZERLAND/AUSTRIA/P5+1
TURKEY/ISIL
IRAN
DEPARTMENT/BENGHAZI
EGYPT/RUSSIA
IRAQ
TRANSCRIPT:
1:09 p.m. EDT
MR RATHKE: Good afternoon, everybody. I don't have anything at the top for you, so Brad.
QUESTION: So I have a couple questions about if you have any updates. One, anything more on the Secretary's condition, when he'll be back here at work, when he might be back on the road?
MR RATHKE: So with respect to the Secretary, the Secretary remains in the hospital in Boston. He is progressing well. Doctors are happy with his recovery. His chief of staff, Jon Finer, is up in Boston and they've been working there on some department business, and the Secretary remains in frequent contact with senior officials by phone and by email. As one example, he spoke with General Allen today by phone. Of course, he's doing his physical therapy as well. So I don't have further updates beyond that on his plans, but of course, we'll share those as soon as we have more.
QUESTION: I mean, just generally, do you expect him back here at work soon, or is it still open-ended?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have an additional – any further deadlines to put on it. He's focused on his recovery and is working at that. I don't have a date to put on it for his return here.
QUESTION: Okay. I mean, yesterday you confirmed that an American was killed in Syria, but you didn't have details on the circumstances of his death. Also, you said there was some consular access that was being provided to the family. I'm wondering if, one, you've learned more about the circumstances of his death; and two, what consular access you have provided.
MR RATHKE: You mean assistance, I think, rather than --
QUESTION: Consular assistance, thank you.
MR RATHKE: Yeah. So beyond yesterday's confirmation, we have been providing – we have consular officers who are working on the issue. I don't have any further details to share about the circumstances surrounding Mr. Broomfield's death, so I don't have an update to provide you on that. You probably have seen – there have been some press reports about the return of his remains. I am not able to confirm those reports, but as I said, we have consular officers who are working on that issue. I simply don't have the details on it.
QUESTION: So that's still in process, that repatriation?
MR RATHKE: Yeah, I'm not able to confirm that that has – that it has been finally carried out.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR RATHKE: But yes, we've seen – there are reports out there and we're aware of those.
QUESTION: So these are consular officers from which – from where?
MR RATHKE: Well, we have, of course, our embassy in Ankara --
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR RATHKE: We have – yes, we have consular officers in Turkey.
Yes.
QUESTION: Could I --
MR RATHKE: And – yes, Said.
QUESTION: Just following up on Mr. Broomfield – now I understand that Kurdish activists are actually recruiting former U.S. servicemen to go and fight. Are you aware of that?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't – I'm not aware of specific – if you have specific reports.
QUESTION: Yeah, I mean, apparently that's how Mr. Broomfield was recruited (inaudible).
MR RATHKE: Well, I would say – let me say this about the general question about people going to fight. I mean, I want to be absolutely clear that the United States Government does not support U.S. citizens traveling to Iraq or Syria to fight against ISIL and, of course, not to fight with ISIL either. So any private citizens who may have traveled to Iraq or Syria to fight are neither in support of nor part of U.S. efforts in the region. We've had a Travel Warning for some time, and we've been clear that travel to Iraq and Syria remains very dangerous, and we do not support or endorse any non-essential travel to Iraq or Syria.
QUESTION: So let's say those who join the Kurdish Peshmerga or any number of the Kurdish groups and so on, if they come back after they fight, will they be prosecuted?
MR RATHKE: Well, this is a question that's come up in the briefing room before. And as we've said in the past, we would refer you to the Department of Justice for questions about U.S. law.
QUESTION: Can I – you don't support people going to fight either or against ISIL. Is that because – what if they join the Iraqi army? Is that a problem too? Is it because the Peshmerga is not a recognized government army, a national army?
MR RATHKE: No, it's because advise U.S. citizens against anything but – any non-essential travel. We advise against any non-essential travel to --
QUESTION: But you don't have --
MR RATHKE: -- Iraq or Syria by private U.S. citizens.
QUESTION: Do you have an issue with private U.S. citizens joining foreign armies, national armies?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, our recommendation to any U.S. citizen is not to – is not to travel to Iraq or Syria. If you're asking – are you asking a legal question, Matt?
QUESTION: I'm asking – well, you said the U.S. does not support private citizens going to fight for or against ISIL. I just – I mean, do you support private citizens going to fight on behalf of the separatists in eastern Ukraine or against the separatists in eastern Ukraine?
MR RATHKE: Well, no, we haven't been supporting U.S. citizens going to fight in those locations either. But I'm not --
QUESTION: Okay. So it's a blanket thing. It doesn't --
MR RATHKE: Well --
QUESTION: And is it an opposition to joining a foreign army or joining a rebel group?
MR RATHKE: Well, the question that arose in this particular case is about Iraq and Syria, and there we have a very specific Travel Warning and we advise against all travel there. And that would also include the circumstances that you described.
QUESTION: Right. But people who are going --
MR RATHKE: If you're asking a question about American citizens --
QUESTION: But people have been – people who are going to Iraq or Syria to fight clearly are not going to be taking your advice not to go there because it's dangerous. They're going there because it's dangerous.
MR RATHKE: Well, yeah. That's --
QUESTION: Right?
MR RATHKE: I understand the point, but our warning remains the same.
QUESTION: I think that his question also touched on there are Iraqi-Americans who previously fought for the Iraqi army or had done military service in Iraq. Would you tell them, if they wanted to go to Iraq and help their country defeat the Islamic State, that they shouldn't join – rejoin the national army? Or is this specific to non-state actors?
MR RATHKE: This is about travel to Iraq and Syria. It's not a question of whether – of which organization you would be – that people might be affiliated with.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR RATHKE: So our recommendation to American citizens is not to travel to Iraq and Syria. Now, Said's question was more about the legal aspects of that, and I think that may also – part of what you were asking also, Matt, about foreign armies and so forth. There could be a legal aspect to that as well in which the Department of Justice would have --
QUESTION: Can we move on to --
QUESTION: Very quickly, if I may. Last year --
MR RATHKE: Quickly, and then we're going to move on.
QUESTION: Yeah, yeah. Last year during the Gaza war, we raised the issue of like 2,200 Americans fighting in the Israeli defense forces – I mean, but you are fine with that. So what is the difference? Why can't --
MR RATHKE: Well, again, I think I answered this in response to Brad's question, which is our recommendation about Iraq and Syria is about the security situation in Iraq and Syria. For questions about service in foreign armies and so forth, there – I'd ask you to --
QUESTION: But you raise --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: You opened a little bit of a can of worms there by saying that this is about a Travel Warning, because this Travel Warning, as Said mentioned – and I'm not trying to draw any equivalence between – but there's a Travel Warning for Gaza as well. There's Travel Warnings for a lot of places, and it doesn't necessarily follow that the U.S. discourages or doesn't support people going to be mercenaries or whatever, or part of an army, simply because of a Travel Warning. So – anyway, it would be – if the question is better addressed by the Justice Department, then fine.
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: But it would be nice to find out from the State Department's point of view whether this is strictly tied to where you have Travel Warnings, or if it's more broad than that.
MR RATHKE: Well – yeah. I've answered the question – yeah – with specific response to Iraq and Syria.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR RATHKE: Go ahead, Arshad.
QUESTION: So you're, I'm sure, aware that the Swiss authorities today said that they – or the Attorney General said that they searched a house in Geneva and seized computer material in connection with a possible cyber attack on the Iran nuclear negotiations. Are you assisting them in their investigations? Have the Swiss authorities sought any information from the United States about this? And are you playing any role in trying to help them get to the bottom of what may or may not have happened here?
MR RATHKE: Well, with regard to those reports that you referred to, we are aware of those. I don't have any comment on those reports. And with regard to if there's a question of legal assistance or those sorts of things, again, we would refer to the Department of Justice for those --
QUESTION: When you say you're aware of the reports, though – I mean, it's the – it was the Attorney General's office in Bern that just – that announced this. I mean, so it's not like it's just a media report. They've actually formally and explicitly said on the record --
MR RATHKE: Right. And – yes, and we're aware of that.
QUESTION: And why – I mean, I can understand why you might want to punt to the Justice Department, but on the other hand, ensuring or maintaining the integrity of your – and confidentiality of your negotiations with the Iranians or others is presumably a high value in this building. Why wouldn't you help out on this?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, as is frequently the case, we don't comment on any – on every diplomatic exchange we have. I'm not in a position to confirm or to refute that there's been a request, but I'm simply indicating that in a case such as this I'm not going to have much to say. And if there is any question of judicial cooperation, those are things that we refer to the Department of Justice.
On the general question, though, which came up yesterday as well, we've – in the same way that we – that we don't negotiate in public, we also take steps to make sure that the classified and sensitive negotiating details stay behind closed doors. I'm not going to get further into the details of those steps that we take.
QUESTION: Can you say whether you have – without getting into the details – whether you've increased your security or tightened your efforts to ensure the confidentiality of the negotiations since the reports of this came out?
MR RATHKE: Well, again, we've always been aware of the need to take steps to ensure the confidentiality of our discussions. So I don't have any new steps to announce in that regard.
Nicolas, you had a question?
QUESTION: Yes, just to follow up, Austria has also opened an investigation. Since your government is deeply involved in the negotiations, are you ready to give advice or to help your European counterparts?
MR RATHKE: Well, it's similar to my answer to Arshad's question. I don't have anything further to offer on that.
QUESTION: It is kind of interesting, though. When you're talking about cooperation with the Swiss, you're only willing to talk about cooperation as it relates to bank secrecy/tax evasion, FIFA, and Roman Polanski; and when something actually affects a nuclear deal --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: -- exactly – a broader national interest or the world's interest, you're not willing to talk about that. Does that – is that correct? Those are the four areas that you are willing to talk about? I'll go through them again: tax evasion/bank secrecy, FIFA, Roman Polanski.
MR RATHKE: Well, again, the – I'm not going to offer more on this topic than I already have. Yeah, those are topics in which – that we have --
QUESTION: But bugging of – bugging or hacking of hotels where super-secretive, sensitive negotiations --
MR RATHKE: Well, no. But as I said yesterday, we're not going to comment on the contents of a third-party report. The things that – to which you're drawing connections I would suggest are different – in the case of FIFA, where arrests were carried out in response to a public indictment. So I don't see the – I think these are different types of cases.
Go ahead, Roz.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. trust that the Swiss or the Austrians can provide secure facilities in order for these international talks to be conducted, or is the U.S. now looking at trying to find a venue, perhaps in one of the P5+1 countries, where, ostensibly, there's a little more of a vested interest in trying to protect the sanctity of these negotiations?
MR RATHKE: As we've said throughout the negotiations and – we've taken steps throughout the negotiations to ensure that confidential details and discussions remain behind closed doors. We have close working relationships with Switzerland, with Austria, and indeed with other European partners. So I don't have anything beyond that to add.
QUESTION: Has anyone from the U.S. Government reached out to the Israelis to discuss these reports?
MR RATHKE: I don't have any diplomatic contacts to read out on that front.
New topic? Yeah.
QUESTION: That doesn't mean there haven't been any. You just don't have any to discuss.
MR RATHKE: I'm simply not aware. I don't have any information to share about that.
QUESTION: Turkey?
MR RATHKE: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Have you seen the Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu's comments in response to President Obama's criticism against Turkey on foreign fighter issue?
MR RATHKE: I don't believe I have.
QUESTION: He compared Turkish-Syria border with U.S.-Mexico border and said that apprehension rates of illegal immigrants also low on that front. And what is your comment on that?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have a reaction to his comment. The President spoke to this on June 8th. And I think if you look at what the President said, I think it's quite clear that he said that we have to make more progress on stemming the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria. We've made some progress, including in our cooperation with Turkey, but we clearly feel that more needs to be done on the foreign fighter issue. That's why – that's one of the key lines of effort of the international coalition fighting ISIL.
Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Real quick.
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: I've just got – are you aware – I mean, just the criticism is, as he said, that the Mexico – the comparison to the Mexican border. But are you aware of radicalized jihadi – to make – do you think that this is a valid comparison? Are there a lot of radicalized jihadis crossing into Mexico from the United States that you're aware of?
MR RATHKE: Not that I'm aware of.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Exactly. So you don't – you reject the comparison because we don't see either going the other way --
MR RATHKE: I haven't seen – I haven't seen the specific report, so I'm reluctant to react to a report that's being quoted to me that I haven't seen myself.
QUESTION: Okay. But --
MR RATHKE: My response to Matt stands.
QUESTION: Okay, that's fine. Let me just --
QUESTION: Wouldn't you – you would agree that at this point the U.S. Government doesn't think Turkey has reached the point where they have solved this problem and that everything that they could --
MR RATHKE: We continue to work with Turkey --
QUESTION: -- possibly do is done?
QUESTION: -- on this, and I think the President spoke to that just a couple days ago.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you know – Jeff, you are aware – you guys are aware that foreign fighters have been crossing from Turkey laden with arms and sometimes facilitated by the Turkish Government – on Turkish Government trucks and so on. You're aware of that, aren't you?
MR RATHKE: Well, Said, we've talk about --
QUESTION: I mean, all throughout this whole conflict --
MR RATHKE: -- the need to do more to fight the flow of – or to stop the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. And so it --
QUESTION: Do you think that Turkey is being somewhat duplicitous by actually saying --
MR RATHKE: No, I'm not going to put a label like that on it.
QUESTION: Okay. Is it not being straightforward in the fight against ISIS – speaking against ISIS on the one hand then allowing foreign fighters to cut – to go through its border to Syria?
MR RATHKE: Look, we have a strong partnership with Turkey across all the lines of effort in the fight against ISIL. We have been working closely with Turkey; we're going to continue working closely with Turkey. They play a key role, and we're going to continue our partnership with them.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Turkey says it can't prevent all the foreign fighters from going into Syria. Do you – the fact that the Administration has criticized Turkey, including President Obama's latest statements, does that mean you believe Turkey doesn't have the will – the willingness to prevent that? Or no one should listen to the Turks, who say we can't do it – we want to do it, but we can't?
MR RATHKE: Well, Turkey has already taken additional steps. We've worked closely with them, and again, we think there is more that can be done by all members of the coalition to stop the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. That's a discussion that's ongoing with our Turkish allies and that will continue.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: But do you think the shortcomings of Turkey's efforts thus far are an issue of will or capability – or both?
MR RATHKE: Well, Turkey has been one of the countries most affected by the fighting in Syria.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR RATHKE: If you look at the refugees and displaced persons, if you look at the humanitarian consequences as well as the problems that ensue from the fighting happening right next door across the border. So we've been working closely with Turkey; Turkey does have the will to join with us in the fight against ISIL. And I'm not going to --
QUESTION: So it's a question of helping it reach the capability to do more. If it has the will to do everything it can, it's a question of capability in getting it to do more?
MR RATHKE: Well, look, I'm not going to give a scorecard on everything --
QUESTION: It's not a scorecard. It's just --
MR RATHKE: -- everything that Turkey has done. As I said, there have been a number of steps that Turkey has taken to address the flow of foreign fighters, and we've been supportive and we've been working together with Turkey. I think the President was clear in saying that we think that more needs to be done because there is still a foreign fighter problem, and we're committed to continuing to work with Turkey about that.
QUESTION: Does the --
MR RATHKE: Go ahead, Roz.
QUESTION: Yes. Does the Administration believe that Turkey is more interested in trying to defeat ISIL or in trying to topple Bashar al-Assad?
MR RATHKE: Look, we've got an international coalition to fight ISIL. Turkey is a key member of it, and we continue to work with them to that end.
I'll let --
QUESTION: So you would – so, yeah.
QUESTION: But you also have an international coalition to replace Bashar al-Assad with a transition government. Turkey's a key player in that. So which one is the priority?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'll let you speak to the Turks about their priorities. I think we've been clear about ours. I think we've --
QUESTION: Oh yeah? What's your priority?
MR RATHKE: We've – as we've said, we're focused on the fight against ISIL.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR RATHKE: I think you can't have overlooked that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR RATHKE: All right. New topic?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Could I ask you about the – what is the status of the negotiations with Iran, and is the Secretary of State – is he engaged directly? Does he talk on the phone daily? How does he follow up on what's going on?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think I mentioned just a day or two ago that he had had a conversation by phone with his Iran team. Our Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman is back in Vienna; she arrived there this morning. And so she is meeting with her political director colleagues in the P5+1. So the experts have been meeting all along. They've been in Vienna for quite some time. They've been meeting constantly. So but now Under Secretary Sherman is there, will – and will be engaging with her counterparts.
Now with respect to the question of Secretary Kerry, the timing of when he will engage in person in the talks will be driven by when it makes sense in the negotiations for him to do so. And we're confident that when he needs to be in the room for the negotiations he will be, and that's the way we see it.
QUESTION: So as far as the calendar stands now, nothing has changed. The – June the 30th stands as the deadline, right?
MR RATHKE: Right. Yeah, we've talked about that over the last couple of days. I don't have anything to add to that. That's – we're focused on June 30th as the deadline.
All right.
QUESTION: No.
MR RATHKE: Yeah, Matt?
QUESTION: (Inaudible) about the --
MR RATHKE: Or Brad?
QUESTION: Do you have any response to the failure to strip out the State Department defunding language from a House appropriations bill connected to the furnishing of documents in the Benghazi investigation?
MR RATHKE: You're referring to the vote, I believe, that just happened --
QUESTION: That's correct, yeah.
MR RATHKE: -- in the last hour or two. Let me start by saying that the State Department is committed to openness and transparency. I think we've talked over the last few weeks about some of the challenges that we face with a number of requests for documents, and we're working to meet those head-on. Over the last year, we've been able to reduce our appeals backlog by about 14 percent. But this is all against the backdrop of a growing caseload in the Freedom of Information Act requests. Since 2008, an increase of about 300 percent in our FOIA case load. Just to compare, in 2008 we had six – fewer than 6,000 new FOIA requests. Last year we had nearly 20,000; that's a number that continues to rise. We also have an additional – a number of additional congressional oversight requests, and these have many similarities to FOIA cases – although, of course, they're different.
So a 15 percent reduction in the State Department operations budget would be counterproductive and would only further constrain the resources that we need to meet the – these growing increases in requests over recent years. So we remain in touch with the appropriations committee and continue dialogue, but we certainly think that we need the resources in order to meet these growing requests.
QUESTION: You say the State Department is committed to openness and transparency. Is that a relatively new thing, or is this something that's been a commitment for a long time?
MR RATHKE: I'll ask you to make your question a little more precise. Do you have something in specific in mind?
QUESTION: Well, I mean, don't you think – find it interesting that there has been a 300 percent increase in the number of FOIA requests you've gotten? Does that not suggest that, regardless of your commitment to being open and transparent, that people aren't exactly convinced that this building has been open and transparent? Or do you not see it – do you see it as --
MR RATHKE: I haven't done an analysis of the reason for a growing number of FOIA requests. It's simply a fact, and it's a fact we have to deal with. And so --
QUESTION: Right. But the fact that you got 6,000 FOIA requests in 2008 --
MR RATHKE: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- okay – and you had 20,000 FOIA requests in 2014.
MR RATHKE: Look, I'm not going to draw – I'm not going to draw a conclusion from that.
QUESTION: What happened between 2008 and 2014, do you think, that caused this increase?
MR RATHKE: Well, look, Matt, I'm not going to draw a conclusion from what the reason is behind the numbers. It's – it --
QUESTION: Well, let me put it this way.
MR RATHKE: And – well, but let me finish.
QUESTION: Do you think that if --
MR RATHKE: Let me finish. Because you can also ask other federal agencies whether they've experienced similar increases. I don't know if they've had the same increases, but I think across the government there have been increases in numbers of FOIA requests. It may be --
QUESTION: Since --
MR RATHKE: -- that people know more about FOIA than they did in 2008, and people make use of it.
QUESTION: Since 2008 – what happened in 2008?
MR RATHKE: There are a number of things that happened in 2008, Matt. If you're trying to draw a specific connection --
QUESTION: Between now and 2008 --
MR RATHKE: -- please go ahead.
QUESTION: -- I just want to figure out – I mean, it suggests that for some reason, since 2008 people aren't, at least in terms of the State Department, people haven't been too confident in the State Department's commitment to openness and transparency, at least as it relates to being open and transparent without a FOIA --
MR RATHKE: But I don't accept the premise – I don't accept the premise of the question, that people make FOIA requests because they don't believe in openness and transparency. We live in a changing information environment where people's --
QUESTION: Well, no. They make it because they do believe in openness and – the people making their requests believe in openness and transparency, right?
MR RATHKE: Presumably.
QUESTION: Right. And presumably it means that they're not too confident in what you say is this building's commitment to – no? Is that --
MR RATHKE: No, I wouldn't draw that conclusion.
QUESTION: All right.
MR RATHKE: FOIA exists; people make use of it. And --
QUESTION: But it isn't – you would say that going from 6,000 to 20,000 is a pretty significant increase; it's a 300 percent increase in the --
MR RATHKE: Well, it certainly – yeah, and I said it is. It is a significant increase. But I'm just not drawing the same conclusion from it that you're trying to draw.
QUESTION: Okay. But getting back to – okay. Getting back to the actual vote, though, you are saying that taking away money – this 15 percent is what – taking away money is not going to get them their documents or get the FOIA requests done any sooner. Is that basically the line?
MR RATHKE: Well, we're just saying it would be counterproductive. That's --
QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask you about another congressional act that happened today? This was the whole House. They voted to repeal the country of origin labeling for certain meat products. I'm just wondering – I know this is probably a Commerce and FDA thing mainly, but does the State Department have a position on this?
MR RATHKE: I don't know. I hadn't seen the information of --
QUESTION: It has been a big WTO issue with the Canadians --
MR RATHKE: -- about that vote.
QUESTION: -- and the Mexicans. And then I don't think it – it's just the House that's passed --
MR RATHKE: I think you're right. It would probably be Commerce and other agencies that would – but I'm happy to see if there's anything more we have to say about that issue.
QUESTION: And then I have one more very brief.
MR RATHKE: Yes.
QUESTION: I understand that there was a meeting in Paris today with Germanwings – the families of the Germanwings victims, and that someone from the embassy was present. Do you know anything about this?
MR RATHKE: I don't. I hadn't heard about that.
QUESTION: Could you just ask? I'm just curious as to who – not necessarily the name of the person, but who it was, like what position they have and what their role was in this meeting. That's my question.
MR RATHKE: Yeah. I'm not familiar with the meeting, so if --
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR RATHKE: -- we have any more detail.
Yeah. Go ahead, Samir.
QUESTION: Egypt and Russia began yesterday a military exercise in the Mediterranean for the first time since the Camp David agreements. Do you have any reaction to this?
MR RATHKE: Well, I don't have a specific reaction. Of course, as we've said with respect to military exercises by a variety of countries in the past, our point of view is that we understand that military exercises take place, and the important thing is that they take place in accordance with international law. But I don't have a further comment on that specific --
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR RATHKE: -- exercise. Yes.
QUESTION: Yesterday, Speaker of Iraqi Parliament al-Jibouri met with Deputy Secretary Blinken. Do you have anything to share with us about that meeting?
MR RATHKE: Yes. We put out a fairly detailed readout last night, but maybe if I can hit a couple of highlights, and I think the – it's important that this meeting took place on the same day that the White House and the Department of Defense announced additional steps in our train, advise, and assist mission with Iraqi authorities.
The meeting with the Parliamentary Speaker al-Jibouri was an opportunity for our side to stress that our support for the campaign to degrade and defeat ISIL, as well as to discuss ongoing political initiatives that address the needs of the Iraqi people, and at the same time the deputy secretary highlighted the U.S. deployment of additional personnel to al-Taqaddum base. And this is in support of the Iraqi Council of Ministers' five-point plan, which was approved back on May 19th, and that includes as a central element accelerating the training and equipping of Sunni volunteers and other steps to assist people in Anbar to retake their province from ISIL.
QUESTION: On Monday, Mr. al-Jibouri at the U.S. Institute of Peace said without arming the tribal forces, it's impossible – that's what he said – to recapture Ramadi or those areas. Do you share his view on that issue?
MR RATHKE: Well, we have – as we have said, that we are working with, we will be working with Sunni forces in Anbar, including through this train, advise, and assist mission, to expedite the delivery of weapons. As we have consistently said, this is done in coordination with the Iraqi central government, and it will continue to be done in coordination with the Iraqi central government, because that's a central element of our policy. And indeed, our additional steps and the deployment of additional advisors that was announced yesterday is focused precisely on supporting the Iraqi Council of Ministers' plan. Prime Minister Abadi and his government want to accelerate the training of Sunni volunteers, and so we're going to be taking these steps to support that
QUESTION: He also raised another concern that the Sunnis have at the USIP. He said last time in 2007, when the United States armed the Sunni groups, after the United States left, most of those people who were armed were chased and tried by the Iraqi Government, quote/unquote. That's what he said. But now the Sunnis need a – some sort of guarantor that the same thing is not going to happen again after ISIS is gone. Are you willing to provide that guarantor for the Sunnis and encouraging them to be part of the fight and they won't be in trouble by the law?
MR RATHKE: Well, I'm not sure specifically what you mean by guarantee, but again, it is the Iraqi Government's policy and it is the prime minister's policy supported across ethnic and sectarian lines by the council of ministers to accelerate the training and equipping of Sunni tribal fighters. So I'm not going to draw a connection between the policy now that the prime minister stands behind and whatever might have happened in the past.
QUESTION: But in all fairness, right after the awakening, councils were formed and they were paid because they were overseen by the Americans, by Petraeus at the time. Right after you – the Americans left, they stopped paying them, then they started putting them in prison. So I mean, there is a legitimate grievance there. I mean, I don't know if you agree.
MR RATHKE: Well, again, as I said in my answer to Namo's question, we're – if you look at the situation now, what is important is that there is an Iraqi Government policy which supports the training and equipping of more Sunni tribal fighters. And that's what we're supporting.
All right.
(The briefing was concluded at 1:44 p.m.)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
