About : tv stands for flat screens at target
Title : tv stands for flat screens at target
tv stands for flat screens at target
mr. earnest: goodafternoon, everybody. happy tuesday. as advertised, i'm going tobe joined today by brett mcgurk. brett has been here acouple of times before. brett just left a nationalsecurity council meeting with the president. the president, as you know,convenes his national security council every fewweeks to review the progress
that we're makingagainst isil. brett participated in themeeting and is now here to provide an update to allof you on that progress. brett's title -- i wasasking him just before we walked in -- is specialpresidential envoy to the global coalitionagainst isil. he's got a presentation thathe'll offer up and then he'll take some questions. he'll leave and then i cantake your questions on
non-isil-relatedtopics from there. so with that, brett, doyou want to take it away? mr. mcgurk: sothanks for having me. i thought i would give anupdate on the counter-isil campaign. the last time i was here ithink was about six months ago, and i have a lot ofnew information, which i'll convey. the president just convened,as josh mentioned, his
national security counciltoday to discuss the current status of the globalcampaign against isil. the meeting provided anin-depth overview of where we are in this campaign, andi want to provide just an update overall. so as you know, we analyzeisil and focus our policy on destroying it in reallythree dimensions -- its core in iraq and syria andshrinking its physical space; its network, sothat's foreign fighters,
finance and propaganda medianetworks; and then the so-called affiliates, madeof affinities, affiliates around the world, of whichlibya has been of particular concern to us. the united states, we havean integrated campaign plan that incorporates our entiregovernment -- defense, state, treasury, justice,homeland security, and the intelligence community --around specific lines of effort. it's called the icp, andit's an effort we review and
refresh really eachquarter to help identify opportunities, reinforceareas where we're having success and address areasthat may have fallen behind. the president received adetailed update on this icp this morning. we also, of course, leada global coalition of 68 members -- this is one ofthe largest coalitions of its kind in history -- torelentlessly combat isil across all lines of effort.
so, militarily, on theground in iraq and syria, we're supporting partnerswith training, equipping, advising and airstrikes. that's 17,455 airstrikesagainst isil terrorists as of this morning. through law enforcementcooperation, where we're sharing information to findand disrupt plots around the world. through intelligence,homeland security and other
channels to help combat theflow of foreign fighters across borders. through treasury and financeto destroy isil's economic infrastructure. and through both governmentsand the private sector to combat isil's poisonousideology and their propaganda online, theirability to recruit. our global coalition hasalso provided billions of dollars to supportstabilization in areas
cleared of isil, enablingcitizens to return. and this is not only a u.s. effort; isil is an enemythat threatens the entire world, so we have leveragedresources from around the world, including more than$2 billion pledged for humanitarian, stabilizationefforts in iraq during coalition meetings in july. but u.s. leadership matters on this. and that's why i want tothank the congress for their
close coordination insupporting a counter-isil budget amendment in therecently passed continuing resolution. these funds will beessential to help us accelerate the campaign andsupport efforts such as demining that allows peopleto return to their homes. and i'll be calling oncoalition partners to make similar contributions hereover the coming days. let me update you briefly onsome of the update -- the
campaigns we have ongoingnow, particularly in sirte, libya; and raqqa and mosul. in sirte, about a yearago isil controlled approximately 150 kilometersof land on the mediterranean coastline. it was using libya as ahaven from which to plan attacks in neighboringtunisia, and isil leaders were encouraging people totravel to libya, instead of syria, to join isil.
they saw it as theirgrowing safe haven. since that time, at thepresident's direction, we've eliminated the mastermindof the tunisia attacks, noureddine chouchane; theleader of isil in libya, abu nabil, who came from syriato lead isil in libya. and now we've just completedoperations to liberate sirte and its surrounding areas. so in operation odysseylightning, u.s. military forces conductedalmost 500 airstrikes in
support of units fightingunder the authority of libya's governmentof national accord. and while we've still gotwork to be done, this strategic location in themediterranean is no longer accessible toisil terrorists. we'll, of course, continueto support the government of national accord as itpursues isil throughout the country. in raqqa -- raqqa remainsisil administrative capital
and it is under morepressure now than ever before. forces partnered with ourcoalition have now entirely severed routes between raqqaand isil locations in iraq. and the syrian democraticforces, a coalition of local arabs and kurds, aresteadily advancing on raqqa with the aim to isolate orreally strangulate the city. since this operation beganabout one month ago, the sdf has cleared 700 squarekilometers north of raqqa, and just on saturday began asecond phase of operations
along the new access justto the west, and this is proceeding quite well. the pressure in raqqa isbearing fruit as isil leaders come out of hiding,which allows us to kill them. today we confirm the deathsby precision coalition airstrikes of threeterrorist leaders in raqqa -- salah gourmat, sammydjedou, walid hamman. gourmat was a frenchalgerian, djedou a belgian. they were responsible forplanning and facilitating
the november 13th attacksin paris last year. they were also activelyplotting attacks when they were killed on december 4thin the streets of raqqa. hamman had been convictedby a belgian court for a terrorist plot in 2015, andhe was working with gourmat and djedou toplan new attacks. so these three deadterrorists in raqqa join a growing list from isil'swhat we call their external operations network thatwe have targeted and eliminated.
last month, coalition forceseliminated abd al-basit al-iraqi. he was the isil emir forattacks throughout the middle east region and a keyfacilitator for terrorist travel through turkey. coalition strikes alsokilled boubaker al-hakim, an isil leader planning attacksin france and throughout europe. and a leader of all isilexternal operations, of course, muhammad adnani, waskilled on august 30th as he
traveled from raqqa to bab. so the point is, even asoperations continue to move towards raqqa, our coalitionis relentlessly reaching into raqqa to eliminate isilleaders with a particular focus on those planningand plotting against our homeland and our partners. for the operation to seizeand hold raqqa, which will be coming, we're in closeconsultation with our partners including turkey.
i was in ankara last weekfor talks on this and other topics and these talkswere quite fruitful. and the president'sauthorization over the weekend for an additional200 special operations forces in syria will helpfurther accelerate our campaign to ejectisil from raqqa. i visited these specialoperators several times and they are doing truly heroicwork to protect our homeland and to eliminate thishaven of isil in syria.
and i'll briefly discussedthe mosul campaign. we're now in month two ofwhat is really the most complex operation to date --the liberation of mosul -- and thus far we've seen avery steady and deliberate advance along all axesagainst isil terrorists, which are using the civilianpopulation in mosul as human shields. i just visited the easternaxis, just in the outskirts of mosul, last week.
secretary carter was iniraq, and he visited the qayara airbase, south ofmosul, over the weekend. and general votel, ourcentcom commander, was in the same area just yesterdayand gave a very detailed to the president this morning. and all of us witnessed thisunprecedented cooperation between the iraqi securityforces and kurdish peshmerga, which has reallybeen essential to this campaign. our coalition since thebeginning of this campaign,
about two years ago, we'vetrained over 65,000 iraqi personnel who are nowfighting professionally and performing heroically. so isil terrorists arenow trapped in mosul. they're unable to resupplyor replenish their dwindling ranks. throughout this campaign,which began just a couple months ago now, we'vealready conducted over 500 airstrikes, destroyed about100 car bombs, 100 tunnels,
300 bunkers -- this isongoing every single day. we're often asked how longthis is going to take, and the answer is, in mosul,it will take as long as it takes. i think it's useful toremember other campaigns against isil. kobani, raqqa, baijioil refinery are very significant campaigns; eachof them took about six months. some have gone faster --fallujah went a little
faster than anticipated. and the key thing is that,what isil does in these cities is they set upconcentric rings of defenses, and once you breakthrough the crust of that defense, you don't knowwhat's going to come next. eventually they reach aculmination point; they simply cannot resupply, theyrun out of suicide bombers, and they culminate. and in mosul, we don'twhen that will come.
it could come very soon; itcould come a couple months from now. but our momentum will besustained and we'll provide relentless pressure on theenemy throughout mosul. every single operation iniraq that we have supported has succeeded, and all theground that has been retaken from isil in iraq has beenheld, and mosul will be no different. let me very briefly, inabout five minutes, just go
through some of theindicators that i discussed last time when i was here injune -- there's about eight of them, but i'll go themfairly quickly -- of how we track this overall campaignand how we measure how we're doing. the first is territory. and we actually have a newmap here which just came out this morning from ourintelligence community, and the map demonstrates thatisil continues to lose
significant ground. and why is this important? because what has made isilthis global phenomenon, with all of these recruits fromall around the world -- although that's rapidlydiminishing -- is this notion of thishomeland and caliphate. and all of their propagandaused to talk about this expanding homeland, thisexpanding movement, and they can no longer say thatbecause their territory is
now rapidly shrinking. so in iraq now, about 61percent of territory that had been controlled by isilhas now been reclaimed, and in syria, about 28 percent. but what is most significant-- i think the last time i was here there was still a98-kilometer strip of border with turkey in which isilterrorists were still able to come in and out, andthat is where the paris attackers, the brusselsattackers transited through
this route. so since then, over the lastsix months, we've worked very closely with the syriandemocratic forces, and also with turkey and the moderateopposition to close off that route. it's at the numberone in the map. so isil now has no access toan international border, and this is significantlyimpacted the overall campaign because they arenow a very isolated entity
within syria and iraq, and,most importantly, it is much harder for them to come inand out, which is critical for them to project theirterrorist acts outside of iraq and syria. so territory we'recontinuing to shrink as we speak, and thatwill continue. leadership. isil's leadershipranks are dwindling. i already mentioned some ofthe recent strikes against
their leaders in raqqa. but since the start of thecampaign we've eliminated nearly all of abu bakrbaghdadi deputies and his trusted advisors. that includes his likelysuccessor, haji imam; his ministers for war, finance,oil and gas, security, and external operations. and as these leaders arereplaced, we target and kill their replacements.
and we've seen a significantdegradation in their overall capabilities and ranks. baghdadi himself -- heclaims to be the caliph -- we have not seen hisface in well over a year. he issued an audiotape abouta month ago, but issuing audiotapes deep in hidingis not really a sign of a confident leader,particularly in today's media age. so eventually, we will findand eliminate him as well,
but the leadership rankscontinue to diminish. third indicator, theiroverall fighting capacity, their overall strength,overall fighters. the number of battle-readyfighters inside iraq and syria is now at its lowestpoint that it's ever been. we estimate about12,000 to 15,000. and isil is unable toreplenish its ranks. whereas we used to see abouta thousand foreign fighters in the 2014 time frameflowing into syria, coming
from all around the world --i've mentioned this before -- an unprecedented numberof these foreign fighters, these jihadi fighters comingfrom all around the world, almost 40,000 -- it's nowdown to really what is quite a negligible amount,in our estimation. and that's really thanks,again, to our efforts on the ground and our specialoperators that have done an incredible job to clear outthat area of the border just south of turkey, and now theintervention from turkey to
protect its border, makesure that these terrorists cannot get in and out. we are also making sure thatforeign fighters cannot transit across borders. so about 60 countries withinthe coalition have really strengthened their lawsagainst the transit of foreign fighters. plots have been disrupted inabout 15 countries, and this continues.
one of the unsung effortsof our coalition which has really strengthened is theinformation-sharing among different capitals. this is something that hasnow really accelerated, and it's increased our abilityto stay well ahead of this enemy. fourth indicator,briefly, is revenue. we're destroyingisil's economic base. just last week -- it's onlyone example, but last week,
our air coalition destroyedabout 168 isil oil tankers, the largest strikeof its kind. and we've continued totarget their oil and gas infrastructure, their bulkcash storage sites and their financial facilitators. they cannot paytheir fighters. the fighters come thinkingthey're going to have this lavish lifestyle --that is not happening. their fighters are notgetting paid, and we have
multipleindications of that. and we will continue tomaintain this relentless pressure. the fifth indicator is one imentioned -- this was really critical when we startedthis -- was their access to borders. again, they were flowing inand out by almost over 1,000 a month. that is no longer happening.
so quite significantdevelopment to close off their entire access tointernational borders. sixth indicator,media propaganda. isil used to have this veryslick, sophisticated media information apparatus, andit was led by two people. one was muhammad adnani,their chief spokesman and also their head of externaloperations; and, two, a very sophisticated mediaexpert named dr. waeli. he was kind of the head ofall those slick videos they
used to produce. both of them areno longer around. we also have been workingvery closely with the private sector and withinthe coalition to get their content off the internet,to make it far harder to access. their overall output isdown by about 75 percent. if you just measure -- wemeasure these things in 12-month increments -- fromaugust of 2015 to august this year, decreaseof 75 percent.
twitter -- just one example-- have taken down 400,000 pro-isil twitter handles. and the ratio of anti-isilinformation to pro-isil information has totallyflipped from where it was two years ago. and we'll keep this going. this is also aglobal effort. so isil tries to recruitwith different messages around the world.
so in the uk, we have the ukleading an effort to really target those who mightbe recruited in europe. in the gulf region, we'reworking very closely with the uae. i met them -- reallyincredible young people who are working 24/7 to counterthe toxic ideology and poisonous messages of isil. saudi arabia is helpingquite a bit with that. and even in southeastasia, malaysians and other
critical partners within ourcoalition are helping to counter the message inthat part of the world. very different messagesin different parts of the world, and we workto adapt to that. seventh indicator, briefly,is what we call global cohesion. isil had sought to be aglobal organization with direct links, financialfighters, leaders, between its core in iraq andsyria to these so-called affiliates.
so in response, we'vestrengthened a global coalition to find andsever all of those links. the result has been aweakening of their so-called affiliates across the board. i mentioned libya, but alsoboko haram in the lake chad basin, and afghanistan --all of these entities are being significantlydegraded. importantly, our coalitionalso includes multinational organizations, such asinterpol and europol, to
help develop a globaldatabase of isil-affiliated fighters to stop, again,their transit across borders. my deputy, lieutenantgeneral wolfe, was at the interpol annual meeting lastmonth to try to strengthen these relationships and makesure that we are sharing the information we need tostay ahead of this threat. so as isil's globalcohesion weakens, ours is strengthening withcooperation across the globe. i would just say inconclusion -- and i
mentioned this last time --we are having tremendous success against this enemy. it is accelerating. we are now putting pressureon its two so-called capitals of mosul and raqqa-- simultaneous, that will continue. we are killingtheir leaders. we're taking off theirability to finance and resource themselves.
but this remains anunprecedented threat. the fight is not over. this will remain amultiyear effort. but we have developed acampaign that is global, and i hope i've demonstratedthe overall breadth of the campaign. i also just want to say,since we've been doing this for a couple of years, and ivisit our guys in the field all the time, we've lostfive americans in this campaign.
five of our militarypersonnel have been killed in this campaign. and it's important to keepin mind, because i saw with my own eyes the casualtycollection points just outside mosul of theiraqis who are fighting. we are advising them tofight and retake their territory, similar toour syrian partners. and their casualtiesare very high. an operation in manbij,syria, for example, which
was really important toprotect us -- manbij is where the foreign fighterswere flowing through. it's where they wereplanning external operations. and the syrian democraticforces in that operation had over a thousand casualties. similar in mosul, the iraqisecurity forces that we are training, advising andenabling are fighting heroically. they are taking casualtiesand continuing to advance.
and i think we're all veryproud to work with them and grateful. and it's also just areminder of the different mode of operation we havehere -- enabling, advising local partners to take backthe ground that they have lost. and i think it issignificant that all the ground we have taken as acoalition, working with locals, everything we'vetaken back from isil -- that's over 60 percent iniraq, 28 percent in syria --
none of it isil hasbeen able to retake. and that is because beforewe do any of this we have a tremendous effort --sometimes months long, sometimes shorter --to prepare the ground politically, economically,to get the stabilization resources in place to helpmake sure people can return to their homes, and makesure that the defeat of isil is a lasting one. so it is significant that todate isil has not retaken
any of the ground it haslost in operations we have enabled. and we're going to makesure it continues that way. that's quite a differentapproach, i will just say in closing, than the russians. the russians have really hadone counter-isil mission -- they claim to be fightingisil -- they've had one counter-isil missionand that was palmyra. and they made a bigdeal about that.
they had a big concert andthey invited members of the media to come see it. and isil has nowretaken palmyra. in our operations, isilhas not retaken a speck of ground that we havetaken from them. and i think it is fairlysignificant that the one operation the russianstouted as a counter-isil operation isilhas now retaken. we're not pleasedabout that.
we want to wipe isilentirely off this map. the point of the map -- asi have explained before, everything that's in coloron this map used to be controlled by isil. so the summer of 2014,everything there was part of the caliphate. everything in green has beenretaken, and everything in dark green is just what hasbeen retaken in the last month. the dark red splotches inthe southwest are areas that
actually isil has gainedover the last two years -- very small areas and areasthat we primarily do not operate. and i'll just say finally onthe situation, of course, in aleppo -- this was discussedbriefly in the meeting this morning, and there is a veryactive effort going on to try to resolve this. the security council, ofcourse, will be convening later today.
but of course, we've said alot what we think about the tactics the russians, theregime are using -- tactics that are totally differentthan anything we do against isil in mosul. we are cognizant of everysingle innocent life in mosul. we're fighting an enemy thatis using human shields, and we're acting withtremendous precision. and if you see what therussians are doing with the regime in aleppo, it couldnot be any different.
so the contrasts ithink are quite stark. with that, i willleave it there. and i think overall, thecampaign here against isil has momentum. we're always looking forways to accelerate it and we're always talking aboutthat, and we will not stop until we destroy this enemy. mr. earnest: thanks, brett. mark, do you want to start?
the press: sure. can you say how you handover an operation as complex as this to a newadministration? and have you yet briefed anytrump transition personnel? mr. mcgurk: it'sa great question. we were justtalking about this. so just in my ownexperience, i was here in -- i was senior director foriraq and afghanistan in the bush administration.
it was the first transitionin wartime in 40 years. and we worked very hardwith president bush and the incoming president-elect,president obama, to have a very seamless transition,given the importance of a transition in wartime. so this is similar -- atransition in wartime. it's complex. and the direction veryclearly from president obama is to make sure were doingall we can to ensure it can
be a seamless transition. there, of course, will bea lot of continuity on the military side, and so we'redoing all we possibly can to support that effort. i'll leave it there. the press: have youconferred with trump officials? mr. mcgurk: i think there'sconstant transition meetings going on, particularlyin the state department. i think those meetingsare ongoing now.
the press: have you yet? mr. mcgurk: i won't talkabout the individual meetings were having. those meetings areongoing constantly. mr. earnest: justin. the press: on a few things. first was libya, and iknow you outlined a lot of progress. the estimates have been thatthere were between 5,000 and
8,000 isil fighters there. obviously they weren't allkilled, and so there's i think a kind of outstandingquestion about if those estimates were high, or ifnot, if they've escaped in a way that they could regroupand pose a problem later. and the other questionwas about oil revenues. you talked about that a lotthe last time we saw you. and i'm wondering if therise in oil prices globally could help isil in a waythat sort of counteract some
of the gains that yououtlined here, or if you feel like they're cut off atthis point from the global oil. mr. mcgurk: thanks. two very good questions. so in libya, it's hard toget a precise estimate of how many. we think most of them wereprobably killed in libya -- or in sirte inthat campaign. but they really holed up --i mentioned this is what
they do -- this istheir defense strategy. they have these kind ofrings of defense and then they have a little citadelin the middle where they try to hole up. and in sirte, they did thatfor some months in a little final area of the city. our ambassador, peter bodde,our ambassador to libya, is in discussions with primeminister sarraj about the next steps in this campaignand what support the libyans
might want. and of course, we'll bediscussing that with him. we want to make sure, inour view, that isil and extremist groups cannot havesafe haven and sanctuary anywhere in libya. on the oil trade, we havesignificantly reduced their ability to generate anyserious revenue from oil. of course, though, it doescontinue, but it's all self-generated.
i mean, they cannot get anyoil out of their little self-contained entity. there is definitely tradegoing on between different groups -- this is avery chaotic situation, particularly in syria -- buttheir ability to replenish their resources is justsignificantly degraded. and whenever we find wherethey are extracting oil we make sure that weeliminate that. the press: the concern seemsto be, though, that fighters
were able to escape. and you're discounting that? you think sort of the -- ourallies were able to sort of fully encapsulate the city? mr. mcgurk: we don'tget into numbers. we think we eliminated quite-- the vast majority there in sirte. but if they try to regroup,i'm certain we'll find a way to deal with that.
mr. earnest: mark. the press: theinformation-sharing with the turks, it's been reallystrained on the diplomatic level -- obviously the wholequestion of cooperation with the coup and the allegationsand the request for the return of the fellow thatthey think was involved in the coup. has that been reflectedat all in the cooperation you've seen in thecounter-isil campaign?
mr. mcgurk: obviously it'sa complex relationship. i was in ankara about fouror five days ago, had very good, very detailed meetingsin ankara about the overall situation. and the turks have done anawful lot here over the last year, very close cooperationwith us in the counter-isil fight, and i felt very goodcoming out of those meetings about the way forward. general dunford isin regular contact.
the day before i was inankara he was in incirlik meeting his counterpart,general akar. so our communications withturkey is extremely close. they are doing an operationnow -- just south of that green splotch here, nearal-bab -- and obviously we're looking for ways totry to help them defeat isil in that particularlysensitive area. it's also a sensitive areaof the country because you have a number of differentforces converging.
so a lot of what we do everysingle day is try to make sure that we deescalate anytension between non-isil affiliated forces that wehave relationships with so everybody is focusedon the same enemy. this is extremely hard. and that's why i mentionedthere's another model for doing this -- we can send inthe 82nd airborne to go in and do all thiskind of stuff. we do not think thatthat would be a lasting,
sustainable way to do it. we think what issustainable, particularly in something as complexas syria, is advising, assisting, enabling. and i think the record ofwhat we've been able to clear out proves that. but it makes it complex,because we're trying to encourage our partners thatwere working with on the ground, you guys need to gothat way, when sometimes
they want to goa different way. so this is what the dailycommunication and constant discussions are with theturks and different actors on the ground. but i was very encouraged bymy meetings in ankara last week that we have a sharedway forward, and it's going to continue. the press: they're fightingthe isil forces as much as they want tofight the kurds?
mr. mcgurk: well, rightnow they are engaged in a hostile fight against isil,and turkey soldiers have taken casualties. and i think we have toextend our condolences to them. i did that when i was there. they are engaged in a fightagainst isil on the ground, definitely. mr. earnest: michelle. the press: about a week ago,there were reports in syria
the isis leadership orwhat's left of it was meeting to try to pick aal-baghdadi successor. what do you know about that? do you think al-baghdadi iswounded or incapacitated in some way? and even if he were takenout of the picture, how much of an effect would thathave on their strength? mr. mcgurk: so it'sa great question. i saw those reports,which we can't confirm.
i would say any isilleaders have a pretty good succession plan becausewe're removing them at a pretty fast clip. baghdadi is unique becausehe's the guy that rose in the grand mosque in mosuland declared a caliphate, which i think i mentionedthis the last time i was here -- but i travel nowall around the world to countries in which theiryoung men, and in many cases, young women, havebeen attracted to
this movement. and when you say what isit that has attracted your young people to thismovement, there's a number of different answers, butthere's a common denominator -- this notion of ahomeland and a caliphate. and baghdadi claims to havea unique -- this phony unique claim tobeing a caliph. this is all a total fraud,but he claims to have this unique lineage thatmakes him a caliph.
so i definitely thinkthat when we do eliminate baghdadi it will make asignificant difference. i also think it issignificant that he tried to be a kind of new type ofterrorist leader -- giving public speeches, going tothe grand mosque and giving this sermon in the summerof 2014 -- and he is now in deep, deep hiding. and we have not heard fromhim until he issued this audiotape a couple monthsago, and it was a very
defensive message. it basically said, for allof the fighters in mosul, stay and fight to the death. but all the indicationswe're getting is that many did not take that messagewell because where is baghdadi? he is somewhere in hiding. and we also know he hideswith slaves and all sorts of terrible things. this guy is one of the mostdespicable we've ever seen.
so we're doing all we canto find and eliminate him. as i mentioned, all of hisdeputies -- nearly all of his deputies havebeen eliminated. and it's a matter oftime before we find him. i do think it will make asignificant difference on isil as an organization,as a movement, once he's eliminated, but it willnot eliminate this kind of global jihadi terroristthreat, obviously. mr. earnest: ron.
the press: given all theprogress, does isis still have the ability to plot andorchestrate attacks against the united states and ourallies from the territory that they have remaining? and will president obamaleave office with that ability apparentlystill intact? and on aleppo, you saidit was discussed briefly. there are reports that thereare scores of civilians being massacred by theadvancing syrian army.
there are also reportsof a ceasefire. did those issues come up,and was there any response to that from the president? mr. mcgurk: so in terms ofplotting, this is what they want to do. isil wants to attack us,and they want to attack our partners. and they're verysophisticated -- the paris attacks, the brusselsattacks, those were planned
in raqqa. they ran through someof these other towns i mentioned and they woulddeploy their operatives to carry out attacks. we think we significantlydegraded their ability to do that. but they do have operativesin a number of places in which they are planningexternal attacks. this is something that isthe primary focus of ours,
to eliminate what i callthat external operations network. so the head of itwas mohammad adnani. that's why targetinghim was so significant. most of this is also beingdone in raqqa, but i think we have demonstrated thesethree i mentioned today that were eliminated just a fewdays ago were part of this very sophisticatedterrorist plotting network. so every single opportunitywe get we are degrading this
network, but itstill exists. this is still a threat. they are trying torecruit -- not planned, sophisticated attacks --they're trying to do that, but they're also trying torecruit deranged individuals from all over the worldto act in their name. and that is something thatis very hard to stop, which is why theinformation-sharing and everything we're doing kindof behind the scenes as a
coalition is so critical. i can't speak to what'shappening in aleppo right now. i will just say, as i thinki mentioned at the outset, this is a horrificsituation. i think it demonstrates onceagain the tactics that the russians are using insupport of the regime are something that is trulybeyond the pale, could not be any different than thetypes of tactics that we utilize.
and i've also seen thesereports of the ceasefire and a potential agreement, buti can't confirm any of that because this is allfairly late-breaking. but i understand thesecurity council will be convening latertoday to discuss it. mr. earnest: andrew. the press: i wanted tofollow up on your trip to ankar. what did you hear from theturks that made you so
confidant, vis-ã -vis whatthey planned in al-bab and with regards towhat you just said? mr. mcgurk: well,i'd just say this. turkey is at waragainst isil. there's no questionabout that. they are fighting on theground, they are taking casualties. and isil is a significantthreat to turkey, and that is something that they seevery clearly, and so we're
working through various waysin which we can help them. we do have disagreements,of course, in terms of some things going on in syria,which we also have very candid discussions about. when it comes to raqqa, wewant to get isil out of raqqa as soon as possible,but this will be a sequence campaign. that's the onlyway to do it. so we're in the isolation,kind of the strangulation
phase now. and then we have to identifythe force to actually move in and seize andhold the city. there are a fewoptions for that. one of the options, ofcourse, is working very closely with turkey, andwe are having a detailed discussion withthem about this. but the most significantthing when i was in turkey was just their threatperception of isil as a
significant threat toturkey, which it is. turkey has suffered morecasualties in isil attacks than almost any of ourother coalition partners. and so while we've had somedisagreements over the years, i thought we hada pretty good shared way forward. not to say there isn'tsome tension, obviously. the press: i alsowanted to ask, are u.s. forces embedding with thepopular mobilization forces?
mr. mcgurk: embedding withpopular -- i think you're talking about a report inwhich there was a photograph of some training of -- sopopular mobilization forces are known as being primarilyshia militia forces, many of which operate outside thecommand and control of the iraqi government, which isa significant problem, not only to us but also tothe iraqi government. but under the umbrella ofthe popular mobilization forces, there are localforces from these areas to
hold the ground afteroperations conclude. many of these are localsfrom nineveh province -- so sunnis, christians, allsorts of -- it's a very diverse province. i'll give you an example. in anbar province, underthe umbrella of the popular mobilization forces, about15,000 local anbari tribal fighters mobilizedto fight daesh. that is one reason why, fromthe four to the five, all of
that is green. we cannot do that only withthe iraqi security forces. we needed the tribesto be mobilized. so those are allsunnis from anbar. they're being paid by thegovernment to fight isil, and we're, of course,supporting them. mr. earnest: richard. the press: could you tellus a little more about the coalition partners?
are they just asresolute as the u.s. in continuing further? and can you tell us -- theoperation themselves, how -- what's the percentage of theoperation being done by the u.s., and the coalition-- the percentage by the besides turkey? mr. mcgurk: so avery good question. i've been at this from thebeginning, the inception of the coalition, when we hadabout 15 countries, and
there was always a questionof what will this grow into. in the last three weeks, wehad all 68 -- ambassadors from all 68 members at thestate department, and we also held what's calledkind of the small group of coalition countries, over 20countries, in berlin, just a couple weeks ago. and what is fairlyextraordinary about this is the sense of internationalconsensus about the need to basically destroy thisenemy, and the sense of
burden-sharing. as i mentioned, the unitedstates will not do this -- we cannot succeedin this alone. and the coalition remainsextremely strong. so secretary carter will beseeing his counterparts in london here in a few days. and the overall cohesion ofthe coalition across all these multiple lines ofeffort -- the military gets a lot of the focus, butit is counter-finance,
counter-propaganda,counter-foreign fighters, and everything kind ofworking together -- that we have coordinating mechanismsthroughout the coalition. it is workingextraordinarily well. and the internationalconsensus behind this effort is something i think we haveto continue to build upon, because it is somethingthat's quite extraordinary. in terms of overall effort,i mentioned there's been about -- over 17,000airstrikes now.
i think if you add them up,about 4,500 or so have been coalition airstrikes. so, definitely u.s. military forces are doingthe bulk of the airstrikes. there's a reason for that --we have the best military in but the number of coalitionpartners operating to support that effortis quite significant. and, of course, we couldn'tdo this without flying out of incirlik airbase, flyingout of some other areas
within the region. and we're obviouslyvery grateful for that. without the coalition, wewould not be able to defeat this enemy. mr. earnest: we probablyhave time for two more and then we're goingto let brett go. kevin. the press: thanks, josh. i just want to sort offollow up, especially as it
relates to thecoalition and strikes. there's been some reporting,brett, that the u.s. needed to use theaustralians to conduct strikes against some ofthe paris attackers, and i wonder if you can sortof help me unpack the complications as it relatesto the chain of command that the united states might havein conducting airstrikes and having to utilize coalitionpartners like australia and others?
and second, i wanted to askyou about saudi arabia. that story has come outtoday and i wondered if you could sort of help unpackthis idea that the u.s. is limiting military supportfor the saudis because of what's been happeningvis-ã -vis civilian casualties in yemen. mr. earnest: i can takethe yemen one, brett. mr. mcgurk: so let me --i'll just say about the -- and i defer to my dodcolleagues who work this
every single day -- this hasbeen the most precise air campaign in history. i mean, i think it will bestudied in the future and people will -- the mostprecise air campaign in history. and all of our airstrikes gothrough a common structure in terms of validatingthe targets. and it is really movingat an incredible clip. i can't get into the detailsof sometimes who does a strike and everything.
what i will say is, when imentioned today -- and this was mentioned also bysecretary carter earlier today -- eliminating theseexternal plotters in the streets of raqqa,painstaking, tireless work by coalition actors, ourmilitary forces, our folks on the ground, ourintelligence apparatus -- all working as one team. and it doesn't always workthat well, but it is working quite, quite well.
but i just can't get intoin terms of who does what. but it is the most preciseair campaign in history. we're very proud of it,and that will continue. i'll just say about saudiarabia -- i was in saudi arabia a couple weeks agoto meet with deputy crown prince mohammad bin salman. i've seen him a number oftimes, including also with muhammad bin nayef. and saudi arabia alsois in this fight.
i mean, isil is afundamental threat to saudi arabia. if you read isil'spropaganda, if you read what baghdadi writes, he'sobsessed with saudi arabia and striking insaudi arabia. so we are working veryclosely with the saudis in a whole range of areas inorder to help degrade isil, particularly on a lot of thecounter-ideological fights. so they're very muchin this as well.
and i'll let josh addressthe yemen question. mr. earnest: gardiner, i'llgive you the last one. the press: john brennan hassuggested that the campaign on the ground and thecampaign against isil globally are going intwo opposite directions. he said this summer, westill have a ways to go before we're able to saythat we've made some significant progress. and he warned that thetrajectories for this isis
religious state or caliphateand global violence point in opposite directions. "as the pressure mounts onisil," he said, "we judge that it will intensify itsglobal terror campaign to maintain its dominationof the global terrorism agenda." you're sort of sayingthe opposite thing. you're saying that thesetwo campaigns are going in exactly the same directionsinstead of opposite directions, and you'repointing to the three deaths
recently of these externalplotters as evidence of that. tell me why there's sucha difference between what you're saying and what someother intelligence people in the administrationare saying. why are you so convincedthese two things are going together while other sayit's sort of like squeezing a balloon -- if you squeezeit here, they're going to show up someplace else? mr. mcgurk: i don'tthink it's so much of
a disagreement. in fact, all of ourintelligence assessments inform the way we obviouslydiscuss this and prosecute the campaign. i said this will bea multiyear effort. be very clear about that. the number of foreignfighters, the number of people indoctrinated intothis ideology is something that will not be overcomefor a number of years.
and while the notion of thecaliphate is what kind of led to this explosive growthof isil -- that is why shrinking the caliphate isso important -- but their desire to inspire attacksaround the world as they lose their territory issomething that we expect will probably increase. how do they wantto stay relevant? they're trying to spark andinspire attacks around that's why they used to say-- muhammad adnani's last
statement wasvery interesting. if you read of muhammadadnani, the spokesman, all of his propaganda, again, itused to be about, come to the homeland, or retainand expand the caliphate. most of their propagandawere these sundrenched scenes of children andfamilies and a very optimisticmessage, actually. his last message before hisdeath was very different. it actually said, we mightlose all of our territory,
but we'll still be around,and, in fact, if you can't come -- because you can'tbecause it's hard to get in here now -- stay home, pickup a knife, and attack someone down the street. it was a verydifferent message. it's a message that does notappeal to a broad segment of the population. it's a message thatappeals to really deranged individuals.
but they are trying toremain relevant as they lose their homeland -- what theycall their homeland -- by trying to inspirethese attacks. and that is somethingthat will continue. and that is why one thingwe've done in the coalition, we talk about even as wedegrade their ability to have territory in iraq andsyria, we need to adapt as a coalition to increaseour ability to share information, our hubs ofsharing information, to be
able to stay aheadof the threat. so that's something as acoalition i think will continue for some time. so the military-focusedcoalition of taking back these cities, which we willdo, will evolve into a coalition focused on theinformation-sharing, the patterns of interactionamong capitals, among intelligence communities,among law enforcement communities.
it's something we have tocontinue to expand upon and grow. the press: but, brett,that's a much less optimistic, even frighteningmessage for those of us in this part of the world,because it's suggesting that your success there onlyincreases the dangers here, no? mr. mcgurk: no, because whatthey can do inside of iraq and syria are these bigspectacular attacks. make no mistake,these are terrorists.
it's an internationalterrorist organization that has the same ideology asosama bin laden and al qaeda. the only difference betweenisil and al qaeda is that isil said, let's do acaliphate now, whereas al qaeda said, well, we'll doa caliphate down the road. that's the key difference. but they aspire to domassive spectacular attacks around the world, and inorder to do that, they need territory to plan andplot and resource.
and so we're making surethat they are on their heels every single day, but iwould never get up here and say this threat is somethingthat is going to go away or something that we cannotremain absolutely vigilant on. and which is why, as imentioned, it's not just dod and state; it's our entiregovernment working as part of this integrated campaignplan to stay ahead of it because it'sdifferent tools. it's military, lawenforcement, intel, and
counter messaging. so we need to stay at itevery single day and remain vigilant for along time to come. mr. earnest:thank you, brett. i appreciate it. mr. mcgurk: okay, thank you. mr. earnest: okay, we cango back to our regularly scheduled programming now. (laughter)
kevin, do you want to start? josh, i did want to askabout laying the blame for palmyra to russia, but nowthat it has been retaken, or partially been retaken,what is the strategy going forward? is the u.s. going to be involvedin that operation? it would seem to be a ripetarget now that you have these forces therethat we know about. or are we going to leavethat to the russians
to deal with? mr. earnest: well, as brettmentioned, this obviously is something that we'reconcerned about. i do think that it exposesthe failed strategy, or at least calls into questionthe integrity of those who are describingtheir strategy. their strategy, as theystated, is to be focused on isil and to be focused onextremists and terrorists. but the truth is the realconsequence of their
strategy, which appearsto be an intense focus on bombing innocent civiliansinto submission so that the assad regime can enjoy sometactical gains, actually results in fueling the kindof extremism that we know extremists relyon to thrive. it also is exhibit a whenyou consider this is an example of russia takingtheir eye off the ball when it comes to terrorists. that they did have this onelimited successful operation
against palmyra -- one thatthe united states was not involved in but one that wewere obviously pleased, and we said so at the time, thatthis was territory that had been taken away from isil --but the strategy that russia has employed has caused themto take their eye off the ball, allow isil to makesome gains, but it also continues to fuel the kindof extremism that only makes syria a haven for terroristorganizations that plot violence not just in theregion but around the world.
the press: you've left thatparticular battle to russia, and i guess the questionnow going forward, is that strategy going to change? will the u.s. get involved in the fight for this? mr. earnest: well, i don'thave any operational updates at this point, so i can'ttell you sort of where this will fall in terms of anyplanned military operations on the part ofour coalition. but it's obviously asituation that we're
watching closely. ayesha. the press: iran todayordered its scientists to start developingnuclear-powered marine vessels for what it saidas a response to a u.s. violation ofthe atomic deal. so i was wondering, how muchof a concern is this, this kind of maybe tit for tat,the idea that iran is now saying that it's respondingto actions taken by congress
by building thesenuclear-powered vessels? is there a concern that thisis going to be an ongoing thing and that there's goingto be kind of back and forth now? mr. earnest: well, i wouldagree with your assessment that the timing of thisannouncement to coincide with the president's signingof the iran sanctions act is not likely a coincidence,but we've been clear even through much of thecongressional debate in
congress about the iransanctions act that the president would not signinto law a piece of legislation that underminedthe international agreement to prevent iran fromobtaining a nuclear weapon. the extension of the iransanctions act does not undermine the internationalagreement to prevent iran from obtaining anuclear weapon. and we've -- that's been ourposition from the beginning. we've explained that quiteclearly in public and we've
explained that inprivate to the iranians. at the same time, theannouncement from the iranians today does not runcounter to the international agreement to prevent iranfrom obtaining a nuclear weapon. we continue to be able towatch closely iran's nuclear program, starting in theuranium mills and throughout the nuclear supply chain. that is an unprecedentedinsight into any country's
nuclear program, and allowsus to verify their ongoing compliance withthat program. and our expectation is thatas they undertake these kinds ofresearch-and-development efforts, that they will doso consistent with their international obligations. and we have the ability,because of the cooperation with the iranians under theagreement, to verify their ongoing compliancewith the agreement.
the press: but does thiskind of -- going forward, should this be something ofa warning to congress or to the next administration thatthere could be repercussions for pursuing more sanctions,or anything like that? mr. earnest: no, i wouldn'tbe particularly concerned about that. there are a range of iranianactivities that are a source of concern to theinternational community and to president obamaoutside the scope of the
international agreement toprevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the reason that we pursuedthat international agreement is because iran's abilityto get access to and potentially use a nuclearweapon was the number-one concern of the united statesand the international community withregard to iran. so we've taken that topconcern off the table without firinga single shot.
and this is something thateven the harshest critics of the deal acknowledgehas been accomplished. it didn't eliminate all ofour concerns with iran, but it did eliminate ournumber-one concern about iran, and that'sultimately the point. there are other concernsthat we have about iran's behavior that include theirsupport for terrorist organizations and otherdestabilizing elements in the middle east,like hezbollah.
we are concerned about theway that iran continues to menace israel, and wecontinue to be concerned about the iranian regime'slack of respect for basic universal human rights. and we have a variety ofways of countering all of that activity -- some ofthat involves additional financial sanctions. some of that involvesclose cooperation with our partners in the region.
but the number-one objectiveof the international agreement to prevent iranfrom obtaining nuclear weapons was to prevent iranfrom obtaining a nuclear weapon. and that objectivehas been achieved. and because of our abilityto monitor iran's nuclear program, we can verify theongoing success of that effort. and it certainly issomething that makes the world a safer place. it enhances the nationalsecurity of our closest ally
in the middle east, israel. it enhances the nationalsecurity of our nato partners in -- natoallies in europe. and it enhances the nationalsecurity of the american people, and it will be animportant part of president obama's foreignpolicy legacy. justin. the press: the energydepartment said today that it wasn't going to beturning over names of
individual employeesinvolved in the president's climate change efforts tothe transition team, the trump transition team, andsaid that the request left employees unsettled. i'm wondering if you canexplain if that was the only reason that that was made,and why this doesn't sort of -- if it was informationthat the trump transition team wanted -- violate thepresident's sort of edict for helping them as much asthey can to smooth over
the transition. mr. earnest: well, we docontinue to work closely with the transition teamto ensure a smooth and effective transition. and that is work that isgoing on across a variety of federal agencies, includingat the department of energy. but there were reports aboutwhat certainly could have been an attempt to targetcivil servants, career, federal governmentemployees.
the kinds of people thatwe're talking about at the department of energy arescientists and lawyers and other experts who arecritical to the success of the federal government'sability to make policy. and their work transcendsthe term of any one president. that's by design. that's to ensure thecontinuity of the federal government and toensure that effective decision-making and policyplanning is undertaken
regardless of whichpolitical party is in charge of the oval office. if we had to replace theentire department of energy every time a new presidentwas elected, that is certainly going to underminethe ability of those at the most senior levels toimplement a coherent and effective energy policy. our principle -- and this isa principle that presidents in both parties have longabided by -- is that we
should observe theprotections that are in place that ensure thatcareer civil servants are evaluated based on meritand not on politics. and i'm sure that thepresident-elect used the same kind of criteria whenchoosing his new department of energy secretary as well. don't you think? the press: well, i'll letyou interpret that one. mr. earnest: okay.
the press: but the presidentmentioned in his "daily show" interview last nightthat he planned to do some speeches after leavingoffice, and seemed to purposefully delineate thosefrom political speeches that he might give if donaldtrump and his administration did something politicallythat he disagreed with. so assuming that these arepaid speeches -- i mean, this is something that maybeis on your mind, as well -- i'm wondering if thepresident is going to be
putting any sort ofself-imposed restrictions on who -- you know, this was abig campaign issue in wall street. education, foreigngovernments, that sort of thing -- if those sort ofthings are being set out already. mr. earnest: i wouldanticipate that there will be significant interestin hearing from former president obama oncehe's left office.
so he'll have an opportunityto be choosy about which invitations he accepts. and i don't have anycriteria to lay out for you at this point about howhe will choose which invitations to accept, buti'm confident that there will be a high standardthat he'll observe. the press: thanks. can i circle back on yemen? mr. earnest: yes.
the press: the unitedstates' support for the saudis, at least bringingit back, i'm understanding, because in part of thecivilian casualties in yemen. can you give me sort of anupdate on why that decision was made and what thatmeans moving forward? mr. earnest: kevin, we havelong expressed some pretty significant concerns aboutthe high rate of civilian and many of those casualtieshave been as a result of operations carried out bythe saudi-led coalition in
the region. not all of them -- therehave also been civilian casualties as a result ofoperations carried out by their adversaries, as well. but of course, the unitedstates is playing a role in supporting thesaudi-led coalition. and in light of the highrate of civilian casualties, there was -- the presidentordered a review of the kind of assistance that theunited states provides to
the saudis as theyundertake this effort. that review is ongoing, butthere are a couple of steps that the united states isprepared to take to change some of the assistancethat we provide. that includes refocusingour efforts to support the saudis when it comes toenhancing their border security and theirterritorial integrity. the concerns that the saudishave expressed, which is entirely legitimate, is thatyou have an organization
that has overthrown thegovernment of yemen and has menaced saudi arabia, on anumber of occasions even breaching their borders. so saudi arabia's concernsabout this i think are entirely legitimate. and so we are going to focusour efforts on helping the saudis protect their border. we also are going toundertake steps to refocus our information-sharing andthe responsibilities of our
personnel in saudi arabia tobe focused on this effort. in addition, we've alsodecided to -- well, i think that covers it. and i think this isreflective of the fact that we have theselongstanding concerns. this review hasbeen ordered. and these are some changesthat we've made, but this review is ongoing. and as this process movesforward, i wouldn't rule out
additional steps that we maytake to address the concerns that have been raised. the press: just a couplemore, really quickly. a number of electors, youwere told yesterday, were requesting an intelligencebriefing, and you said you hadn't had a chance to sortof look over that letter. have you had a chanceto look that over? and what's yourreaction to that? mr. earnest: i've seensome more of the
published reports. look, when it comes to theelectoral college, we're talking about some of themore esoteric aspects of the functioning ofour democracy. the press: yeah, we are. mr. earnest: but itcertainly is important that individuals who areentrusted with that responsibility do so witha seriousness of purpose. so at this point, i don'thave a formal response to
the letter to put forward. the press: but would yousupport that idea of having the report sent to electorsprior to them casting their votes? mr. earnest: well, look,i know that some of the request was for classifiedinformation, and it's not clear that all of theelectors -- and i'm sure most of them don't --they don't have security clearances.
so this is an unusualrequest, maybe even unprecedented. i'm not a historian, butit's hard to imagine a scenario where asimilar question arose. so we'll let you know if wehave more of a response. the press: last one. is the white house aware ofpost-election intelligence that actually shows anythingto do with the hackers' intent? we've talked a bit aboutthat, because there have
been widely differingassessments. i'm just wondering ifthe white house remains confident that theintelligence has not in fact been politicized. mr. earnest: the presidentis certainly confident. and he insists that theintelligence that he is provided as thecommander-in-chief by our intelligence agencies isnot clouded by political politics orpartisan politics.
he insists that thatmaterial, that that intelligence that he isprovided is not clouded by the pursuit of an agenda,a political agenda or otherwise. the president can onlymake good decisions -- the commander-in-chief, anycommander-in-chief can only make good decisions whenthey have information that is accurate, that is timely,and that is reliable. and that's what thepresident insists on. and that also means that thepresident wants to hear the
unvarnished truth. he doesn't wantanything shaded. he doesn't want anyintelligence professional to fear retribution forpresenting bad news to the president of theunited states. in some ways, that'sactually the basic job description of anintelligence professional who's briefing a principal,and that is to be able to give an unvarnishedassessment, even if it's bad
news, without fearof any retribution. and the president hasconfidence that that's the kind of guidance andinformation that he's been provided by theintelligence community. the press: any intelligenceas to the intent of the hackers? mr. earnest: i don't haveany updated assessment to share at this point, butthere certainly seem to be a not insignificant number ofintelligence professionals who appear to be sharingtheir opinion with all of
you on an anonymous basis. i obviously don't have theluxury of doing that, but when there is a formalassessment to share from the intelligence community, andif that's something that can be shared publicly, that'ssomething that we'll try to do. the president doesbelieve that we should -- particularly when it relatesto something as central to our democracy as the conductof a national election, the president does believe thatwe should share as much
information as possiblewith the public. and that is why theintelligence community, on october 7th -- more than amonth before the election -- issued a statement thatrepresented the unanimous assessment and conclusionof all 17 national security agencies that havean intelligence arm. and they concluded thatrussia was engaged in malicious activity incyberspace that was aimed at destabilizing our elections.
and we made -- the presidentmade clear, we made clear that a proportional responseto that was appropriate. but the president's firstconcern and the first steps that were undertakenby the u.s. government were to ensurethat the equipment and systems that were used toregister voters, allow voters to cast ballots andto ensure that those ballots were counted were protected. and the intelligencecommunity has assessed --
and this is something thatthey've also said publicly -- that they did not observean increase in malicious cyber activity from therussians on election day that could have disruptedthe casting and accurate counting of ballots. but for a more detailedassessment about what russia's motives are, orwhat else russia may have been engaged in in thecontext of the election, are a series of questions thatwill be considered in this
review that presidentobama has ordered. our expectation is thatthis is a review from the intelligence community thatwill be completed in advance of january 20th. and we're going to makepublic as much of that review as possible. michelle. the press: will thepresident talk a little bit about the hacks, since heannounced the review last night?
and he said that it wasnothing fancy; that we saw -- it's been happening,coming from russia, seeming to put it into abigger perspective. and he also talked about howhe felt that the emails were the things that became theobsession, not the fact that this was coming from russia,even though he just said that was really nothingnew in the same breath. but it seems like what weshould be identifying there is the poor state ofcybersecurity in this country.
the fact that we're evensitting here talking about this being a possibility,and the strong possibility that the election could havebeen influenced by this, doesn't that really point tothe fact that our defenses -- whether they'regovernment systems or campaign systems -- thestrength of them pales in comparison to the ability ofa state actor like russia to affect things here? mr. earnest: well, let mestart by acknowledging at
least one aspect of yourpremise that i think we can agree on, which is thatcybersecurity should be, and is, a critical nationalsecurity priority of the united states. and president obama hasspent a significant portion of his presidency trying tostrengthen the defenses of the united states. and we've made importantprogress in doing so. some of his proposals fordoing so -- increasing our
investments in cybersecurity-- have unfortunately fallen on deaf ears in congress. and you'll recall that therewas a substantial increase that was included in thepresident's budget for cybersecurity thatrepublicans in congress refused to even consider. they wouldn't evenhold a hearing. this was the first time in40 years that republicans in the congress wouldn't evenhold a hearing on the
president's budget. and there wasn't the kindof robust consideration in congress, let alone a vote,on the substantial increase in cybersecurity resourcesthat president obama had identified. so when it comes toensuring that the u.s. government is focused oncybersecurity, that is a message that apparentlyhas not been received by republicans in congress,and, yes, that makes the
united states of americamore vulnerable to a wide range of threats. and that is something thatthe president continues to be deeply concerned about. the other thing that thepresident has done is ordered this review by abipartisan blue ribbon panel to help the incomingadministration formulate and take additional steps toimplement an enhanced cybersecurity strategy.
and that's a report that thepresident received just last week. and that's one that we'llbe passing on to the next administration, and shouldposition them for success. but it's going to requirethe republican white house being more persuasive withrepublicans in congress to actually pay attentionto this issue. because there's been atendency on the part of republicans in congressto ignore or reject every
proposal that we've putforward, even when it comes to something as apoliticaland central to our national security as cybersecurity. so that all being said,i don't think anybody envisions a scenario inwhich the federal government of the united states stepsin to assume responsibility for the cybersecurity of anational political party or of an individualpolitical operative. i don't think there'sanybody that thinks that
that would be appropriateor even effective. is this a lesson for allof us to try to be more conscientious aboutour cyber hygiene? yes. but state actors havesubstantial capabilities. russia has substantialcapabilities. they're not as significantas the capabilities that are wielded by the united states, but they are substantial. and establishing rules forthe road -- rules of the
road for effective andacceptable conduct in cyberspace is an importantchallenge, and one that we've made some progress on. for example, the presidentlast fall, a little over a year ago now, worked withthe chinese to reach an agreement about at leastone norm that should be observed, which is thatstate actors should not be engaged in cyber-enabledtheft for commercial purposes or forcommercial benefit.
that had been a previousactivity on the part of the chinese government thathad attracted significant concerns, notjust by the u.s. government but also by u.s. businesses, i thinkfor obvious reasons. and that is one norm that wehave made a lot of progress in establishingin cyberspace. but we clearly havemore work to do. but i don't think there'sanybody who thinks that the
answer to this situation isfor the federal government of the united states tobe responsible for the cybersecurity of thedemocratic and republican parties. the press: but by the sametoken, it seems like we're seeing that the weakness ofindividuals' email systems collectively, in the sensethat a foreign state could come in and try or succeedin affecting an election, is almost a threat to nationalsecurity, or at least a
threat to the functioning ofdemocracy in this country. so has the weakest link kindof become an individual's email account? mr. earnest: no, i don'tthink so, because i don't think that's what thepresident has identified. this is going to be achallenge for our democracy as the american peopleconsume information in the modern age. the fact that thisinformation that was leaked
from a variety of places,including john podesta's gmail account, that was thesource of intense media interest, primarily becauseof the gossip that may or may not be contained inthose emails -- not because of the fact that russia wasreleasing that information as a transparent effortto, at a minimum, erode confidence in our democracy. and i think that there areobvious questions about cybersecurity that i coveredin response to your
first question. i think what the presidentis raising is the need for careful evaluation about ourpublic debate, about the way that these views arecommunicated -- or the way this news is communicatedand the way that it is consumed by people allacross the country. and if we lose theability as a democracy to acknowledge generallyaccepted facts, basic facts, or if we lose the ability-- or at least norms are
eroded, such that you haverepublicans cheering for russians to hack theirpolitical opponents. and what's troubling aboutthis situation is it wasn't just any old republican whowas doing that, it was the republican nominee forpresident who was doing that. that's problematic. that doesn't have anythingto do with cybersecurity. it has something to do verybasically, though, with the kind of political debateand political discourse and
democracy thatwe want to have. the press: and we're hearingsome pushback, strong pushback today fromsome democrats on the president-elect's picksfor secretary of state and deputy secretary of state --ties to russia, deals with russia, views on sanctions,among other things. do you have anything to add,even in a general sense, on those choices? mr. earnest: i think what iwould say generally is that
throughout his campaign, thepresident-elect indicated his intent, if electedpresident, to pursue warmer relations with russia. so what better way to dothat than to choose somebody who has been awarded theorder of friendship by vladimir putin to beyour secretary of state? so this is not aparticularly surprising or even unexpected development. i suspect that there will bemany members of congress in
both parties that havesome questions about that. i've previously stated theprinciple that president obama believes that anypresident should have some latitude in assembling histeam, but there is a process for members of the senate toconsider the nomination of people who willserve in the cabinet. and, look, mr. tillersonis a seasoned business executive and he's got someskills in answering tough questions in public, and isuspect he'll have to put
them to use in the spring. chris, go ahead. it was only until presidentobama signed an executive order in 2014 barringfederal contractors from discriminating againstfederal workers that exxonmobil adopted a policyto prohibit discrimination against their employees whoare gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. and the shareholders ofthat company, prior to that
annual meetings had rejectedsuch a policy 17 consecutive times. given the practices of thatcompany, does that raise concerns about, first ofall, whether the president's adaption of lgbt humanrights as part of foreign policy will be in jeopardyin the next administration, as well as thenon-discrimination policy that he's put in placefor federal contractors? mr. earnest: well, letme start by making an
observation, chris, which isthat we have often talked about how disappointed we'vebeen that at various stages congress has not madeprogress on a range of issues that the presidenthas prioritized, including ensuring that we treat lgbtamericans fairly and not discriminate against them. and we haven't seen asmuch legislation passed by congress as we would like tosee that would ensure that those protectionsare in place.
so the president has turnedto using the executive powers at his disposalto try to advance those policies. and we have acknowledgedat every turn that those executive actions are not asubstitute for legislative action. and there's been askepticism expressed by some, most of themdemocrats, who say that, well, an executive actionisn't as forceful or as
broad as legislation. they're right aboutthat of course. but you have highlighted,actually, a good example where the president takingexecutive action hasn't just had an impact in thegovernment, but it's also had an impact in theprivate sector as well. so i think this is justone example of how the president's judicious use ofexecutive authority has been effective in changing mindsand practices not just
inside the federalgovernment, but in the private sector as well. more broadly, i think it'shard to tell exactly what this particular personnelannouncement says about the kinds of policies thatpresident trump will pursue once he is in office withregard to ensuring that americans are notdiscriminated against because of their sexuality. and i think, to put itgenerously, we've gotten
some mixed signalspublicly about what the president-elect's intent is. so as with so many otherissues that are important, we'll have to wait and seewhat policy he intends to pursue. ellen. the press: my questionis, how is the president planning on integratingthe fact that -- into this security report -- the factthat julian assange from
wikileaks and the formerbritish ambassador to uzbekistan says it wasn'trussia at all, that they met with the person that leakedthis, it was an inside job, et cetera? mr. earnest: well, i havenot seen reports citing the british ambassador touzbekistan, so i compliment you on the breadthof your reading. what i will just say isthe view that russia was actively involved in cyberactivity that was aimed at
eroding public confidence inour political system is the unanimous, high-confidenceconclusion of all 17 intelligence agenciesin the united states. that is not arecently known fact. that is not a recentlydisclosed conclusion. that is a conclusion and afinding and an assessment that was released a monthbefore the election. so i know that thepresident-elect himself has raised doubts aboutthat assessment.
apparently, the britishambassador to uzbekistan has made common cause with thepresident-elect to raise those doubts. but the american people willhave to judge for themselves whether they have moreconfidence in the ability of the united statesintelligence community to unanimously reach the sameconclusion on this matter, or if they trust theconclusion of the british ambassador to uzbekistan.
maggie. the press: circling back,back to the department of energy, is this the firsttime that the administration has flat-out denied arequest made by the trump transition team? mr. earnest: look, i thinkit's an entirely legitimate question. i don't think i can get intoall of the conversations that are taking place atfederal agencies all across
this town and all across thecountry to ensure a smooth and effective transition. i can tell you that, ingeneral, the administration has worked hard todiligently provide as much information as possibleto the incoming team. and that is not the kind ofwork that you can do just at a moment's notice. this is a lot of work thatrequires months and months of planning, and thisadministration has planning
since the beginning of theyear to compile and prepare materials for the review ofthe incoming administration. and obviously we envisioneda different kind of process and a different kind oftransition, but we remain no less committed to ensuringthat the incoming administration can hitthe ground running. and that means providingextensive information to the incoming administration, andthat effort will continue through inauguration day.
the press: since you broughtit up earlier, care to elaborate on your thoughtson president-elect's pick for energy secretary? mr. earnest: i think i'vesaid enough about that. andrew. i wanted to ask what thepresident's thoughts are today regarding aleppo andwhat the fall of the city means for his legacy? mr. earnest: listen, andrew,as brett alluded to, the
situation in aleppo remainsdeeply troubling, and the innocent loss of life therethat has persisted for years at the hands of the assadregime, enabled by the russians and iranians,is deplorable. and the united states hasplayed a leading role in the international communityto try to facilitate a diplomatic resolution to thesituation there, at least to just try to reduce theviolence and increase the consistent flow ofhumanitarian relief.
and i understand that atsome point later today, and maybe even right now, theunited nations security council is meeting toconsider such a proposal. obviously, if this ends upbeing a proposal that will result in a reduction in theviolence and an increase in the provision ofhumanitarian assistance, then it's something that theunited states will not just enthusiastically support butwe're going to be actively encouraging all parties tosupport it, and actively
encouraging all sides toimplement it effectively so that the people in aleppowho have been suffering in unthinkable circumstancescan finally get some measure of relief. the press: you talk aboutthe syrians, and the russians, and the iraniansand what they've done, but a lot of the anger over what'shappened in aleppo is directed at this whitehouse and this presidency. do you think that's fair?
why do you think that is? mr. earnest: well, first ofall, i think i'm going to refrain from criticizingpeople who are having an emotional reaction to theterrible violence that they have faced. and their feelings of angerand frustration i think are entirely understandablegiven what they've been through. and i think it would beinappropriate and maybe even immoral for me to standhere and criticize them.
what i will say is somethingthat you've heard me say before, which is thatpresident obama has -- and secretary kerry -- have beenat the leading edge of a tireless effort to try tobring that violence to an end, or at least reduce itenough that humanitarian assistance can get to thosepeople that need it the most. and this administration andthis president certainly makes no apologies for thattenacious pursuit of the kind of solution thatwould bring relief to the
suffering people of aleppo. and it's not particularlysurprising to me, given this long-running, bloodyconflict, that the people of aleppo are angry that thishasn't been solved more quickly. the press: related to therest of the world -- i mean, i guess the question is,why do you think that u.s. military action in iraq canbring out millions of people onto the streets aroundthe world, but russian and iranian actions in aleppodon't have the same response?
mr. earnest: well, look, ithink it's hard to paint with a broad brush about howthe international community is responding tothis situation. i think that you have seenmany moral consciences aroused by the violence inthis part of the world, and it shows itself ina variety of ways. sometimes it is thephotograph of a small boy in the back of an ambulance whohas barely escaped a syrian government bomb.
there was a pronouncedpublic reaction to that photograph. these kinds of images do tugat the conscience of people it certainly tugs at theconscience of everybody in the obama administration,and that's why the obama administration has pursuedso tirelessly the kind of diplomatic solution thatwould bring that violence to an end. and that's what we'reseeking, and hopefully we'll
be able to make some moreprogress on that at the u.n. security council today. yes, ma'am, i'll giveyou the last one. the press: hi, rosslynjordan with al jazeera, following up on hispoint on aleppo. mr. earnest: niceto see you, rosslyn. the press: hi,nice to see you. the civil war in syria hasbeen going on for almost six years.
mr. earnest: it has. the press: the estimatesbetween the u.n. and various human rightsgroups is that at least 400,000 to 470,000syrians have been killed. at least 32,000 of thosepeople have been killed in aleppo. some of those people havebeen on social media. they've been ableto go on tv today. they fear they are livingthe last days or hours of
their lives. and they are asking:where is the world? in particular, whereis the united states? and the question is --and i understand that the president did not want tolaunch a regional war -- but if ever there were anargument -- say, human rights advocates -- to acton the responsibility to protect, syria isthat situation. why did not theadministration intervene
militarily in thesyrian civil war? mr. earnest: rosslyn, theanswer is simple, and it's one that we've said on anumber of occasions: there's no military solution tothe civil war in syria. the press: but how can(inaudible) the job? mr. earnest: but, rosslyn,what is the military proposal that has beentabled that would effectively preventthose deaths? is the suggestion thatsomehow the united states
should just occupythe nation of syria? do we really think that'sgoing to reduce the violence in syria? i don't think there's anyevidence to substantiate that claim, even if that'sone that is being made. i haven't heard any othersort of suggestion. the only solution is adiplomatic one, and no country in the world hasexpended more of an effort to pursue that diplomaticsolution than the united
states of america. the united states has aspecial responsibility because we have the mostinfluential, strongest country in the world. and we readily accept theresponsibility, certainly under president obama'sleadership -- we've readily accepted responsibilityfor working through the international community andusing that influence to try to bring thatviolence to an end.
the united states is thelargest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance. we've provided substantialresources to try to meet the basic humanitarian needsof syrians who are fleeing violence, and there has beena substantial u.s.-military commitment to organizing theinternational community to try to address some of theconsequences of the chaos in syria, and that is theextremism that has fueled so much terrorism in thatregion of the world.
but when it comes toaddressing and solving the underlying violence andchaos, that is ultimately a political question and apolitical that's needed. it's the failed politicalleadership of bashar al-assad that hasbrought us to this point. and it's resolving thatpolitical problem that will be necessary to definitivelyend the violence and ensure that the people of aleppo,who have been under siege for years, canget some relief.
the press: but the questionhas to be raised: given how often secretary kerry haspersonally lobbied the russian government, haspersonally lobbied the foreign minister, mr.lavrov, as recently as this weekend, and yet, oh,this isn't the right time to have a ceasefire, the unitedstates is simply protecting the rebels who are holed upin aleppo -- at some point, shouldn't thisadministration be calling moscow's bluff and actuallyforcing them to do what they
have promised to do, whichis to call back the syrian military and prevent themfrom committing what some are now alleging arehuman rights violations? mr. earnest: well, as we'veindicated before, the united states strongly supports andwould support an effort to ensure that the assadregime, and those who are culpable for the assadregime's actions, accountable for the tacticsthat have been used inside of syria.
far too many innocent liveshave been lost, women and children included,and we believe in some accountability. and hopefully that issomething that the next administrationwill continue. but when it comes to russia,they've spent significant amounts of credibility intrying to describe to the international communitytheir response to this situation.
and as we discussed earlier,as brett referenced, the russians regularly like tosay that they are focused on taking isil fighters off thebattlefield in syria, but the truth is they've takentheir eye off that ball, and the one measurable gain thatthey've previously been able to point to against isilhas now been rolled back. so i think it is verydifficult not just to justify, but even to explainwhat sort of strategy russia is trying to pursueinside of syria.
well, maybe i should sayit this way: it's hard to reconcile their explanationsabout what they're doing inside of syriawith the truth. the truth of the matter is,they're focused on propping up the assad regime, and theassad regime is trying to bomb civilians intosubmission so that he can try to get controlover his country again. he's lost control overhis country, he's lost legitimacy to lead.
and the concern from theunited states isn't just about the humanitariansituation there, it's about how that chaos has fueledextremism and given life to terrorist organizations thatthreaten the united states and our interestsaround the world. so this is a complicatedproblem, but we're attacking it from every angle. and you heard from brettthe efforts that we're undertaking and that aremaking significant progress
but the role for diplomacyand the leading role that the united states has playedin pursuing that diplomacy to address the politicalsituation in syria is something that we've beenpursuing for years and continues to this day. the press: is thisadministration considering in its final weeks anypunitive actions against vladimir putin's governmentbecause of its ongoing support -- militarily,financial, diplomatic -- for
bashar al-assad'sgovernment? mr. earnest: well, there area range of steps that we have been considering. and the truth is, because ofsome of russia's actions in ukraine, violating theterritorial integrity of that country, they'realready facing significant isolation that has erodedtheir status diplomatically and has hurt their economy. so russia is alreadysuffering the consequences
of the kind of internationalbehavior that has been repudiated by theinternational community, but i wouldn't rule outpotentially applying additional steps becauseof the way that they have behaved in syria, as well. thanks, everybody. we'll see you tomorrow.