Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Pentagon Briefing

Aired August 26, 2014 - 14:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Another two-hour edition of "THE SITUATION ROOM." NEWSROOM with Ana Cabrera starts right now.

ANA CABRERA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello. Thanks for joining me. I'm Ana Cabrera, in for Brooke Baldwin today. Glad to have you with us.

Any moment the Pentagon will hold a briefing as the world watches two huge developing situations. The first is Israel agreeing to a ceasefire deal with Hamas militants that started just a short time ago and this one could be long term and it comes amid a flurry of last- minute violence on both sides.

The other fast-moving story today, the threat of a growing terrorist group that has many experts calling them more dangerous than al Qaeda. That group, of course, is ISIS, radical, brutal, highly organized and on the move. ISIS has secured now a wide range of territory in Syria and has launched a major blitz into Iraq. Now the group is threatening Baghdad and some say the entire region.

In the last 24 hours we learned from a U.S. official that President Obama has authorized reconnaissance flights, or spy flights, over Syrian territory. This is likely a first step to identify potential ISIS targets for U.S. air strikes in that country. In a speech to the American Legion, some 90 minutes ago, the president repeated his pledge to pursue a broad strategy and to keep U.S. combat troops out of Iraq.

Let's break away right now and listen in to Rear Admiral John Kirby at the Pentagon.

(BEGIN LIVE PRESSER COVERAGE)

REAR ADM. JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: A couple of weeks ago Secretary Hagel commissioned a U.S. led working group, a task force, to accelerate resupply efforts. In addition to support from the United States and the central government of Iraq and Baghdad, Secretary Hagel will announce today that seven additional nations, Albania, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom have committed to helping provide Kurdish forces urgently needed arms and equipment. Operations have already begun and will accelerate in the coming days with more nations also expected to contribute.

The secretary is grateful to each of these allies for working alongside the United States military. This multinational effort, which is being coordinated with the government of Iraq and Baghdad, will greatly assist Kurdish forces in repelling the brutal terrorist threat that they face from ISIL.

And as Secretary Hagel has made clear, the determination of the Iraq people and the international community to counter this threat is only going to grow and the United States looks forward to working with our friends from around the world to assist in that effort.

With that, I'll take some questions.

Bob (ph).

QUESTION: Well, could you be a little more specific about - I think you used the word munitions. What type of munitions you're talking about?

KIRBY: Well, I - and this is an important point. I mean what's great about this effort is so many of these partner nations have in their stocks more than we do the kinds of equipment that Kurdish forces use, which isn't necessarily just American-made material. So it's -- it covers the full range. Small arms ammunition and other personnel served weaponry. But I don't have a complete inventory for you.

QUESTION: Can I change the subject very briefly.

KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Could you confirm the reports of Egypt and UAE carried about the air strikes in Libya and that the U.S. tried to warn them against it?

KIRBY: Well, we do believe there were air strikes undertaken in recent days by the UAE and Egypt inside Libya. And I would refer you to those governments for any further details. And as for our knowledge of it, I won't get into discussing the specifics of our diplomatic discussions.

Yes, Craig.

QUESTION: Has the secretary had any conversations with -- or any his deputies, had any conversations with people in those countries in UAE or Egypt in recent days?

KIRBY: Not that I'm aware of.

Yes, Jen.

QUESTION: Admiral Kirby, if the U.S. sends surveillance drones into a country that it is not currently at war with, for instance Syria, is that an act of war and, if not, why not?

KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to talk about hypotheticals, Jen.

QUESTION: I'm talking about the law, the law.

KIRBY: I'm not an expert on international law either, Jen. I would - what I would tell you is that - and the president's been clear about this, Secretary Hagel's been clear about this, this is a serious threat from a serious group of terrorists and we need to stay mindful of doing what we need to do to protect American citizens at home and abroad. And as has been stated before, we're not going to hold ourselves to geographic boundaries in order to accomplish that job. So without getting into international law, for which I would be ill- educated to speak to, I can tell you we'll do what we need to do to protect Americans.

QUESTION: For instance, there's an operation that you have talked about, which is the special operations rescue mission that failed in July. Is that considered an act of war when we send special operations into a country you're not at war with?

KIRBY: That was a rescue attempt and we only divulged it because we were force to because of leaks. It was never an intention to talk about it. No, it was not an act of war. It was a rescue attempt of Americans that were being held hostage by terrorists. And I also would like to just push back on this idea that it failed. OK, it wasn't successful in terms of we didn't get them, but it was executed very, very well, very professionally.

QUESTION: One last question. Can you characterize the relationship between the U.S. and Qatar right now, because obviously Qatar was very instrumental in securing the release of this hostage yesterday, American hostage, but at the same time there's so many reports that Qatar is supporting Nusra Front, as well as other Islamist groups in Libya and elsewhere. How would you characterize the relationship between the U.S. and Qatar?

KIRBY: We continue to have a solid military-to-military relationship with Qatar. As you know, Secretary Hagel has spent a lot of time with the GCC nations. We were just there a couple of months ago. And we want to continue to broaden that military to military relationship. And that's our focus is on the military relationship. Putting that aside, obviously, we don't encourage any support by any nation for terrorist groups and extremists, particularly in that part of the world.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that Qatar has supported terrorist groups?

KIRBY: I've seen those reports. And if the reports are true, absolutely it's concerning.

Tony.

QUESTION: Cut to the chase, did the president authorize the White House or did the Pentagon -- authorize the Pentagon to conduct surveillance missions over Syria? And what comes next?

KIRBY: Don't talk about intelligent matters, Tony. I'm not going to start doing that today. We're a planning organization here. We have to be prepared for all kinds of options. And with respect to providing military options, we're going to be ready to do that, but I'm not going to get into the details.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE). Intelligence normally is sources and methods, you know, the James Bond world. This is -- we're talking about airplanes now. You can't confirm that you were authorized to fly aircraft over Syria?

KIRBY: I am not going to talk about intelligence matters.

QUESTION: Final thing.

KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Last year this very week the world was concerned with potentially bombing Syria with tomahawk missiles to get them to give up their chemical weapons and there was discussion of Syria's air defense capabilities. Last year they were -- it was characterized as dense and sophisticated and integrated. One year later, is that still the case with Syria's air defenses?

KIRBY: There's been no change in our assessment of Syrian air defense capabilities.

QUESTION: Fair enough.

KIRBY: Courtney (ph).

QUESTION: On the - back on the surveillance missions in Syria, is the U.S. flying any surveillance missions in Syria? And before you say that you can't talk about it, I just want to point out that -- how many times we've been told how many missions are flying every day over Iraq right next door.

KIRBY: Sure. Sure. I'm not going to talk about it, Courtney, but I appreciate the warning as you asked it. But let me - but - there's -- the difference here is that in Iraq we were specifically asked by the government of Iraq to come in and assist them with an ISR effort. It was an overt ask and so we a accommodated that request and we continue to accommodate it today. That's a - you know, that's a different situation than the one you're hypothesizing about now.

Phil.

QUESTION: Admiral, there's been a couple members of Congress yesterday and today who have said they believe the president should go to Congress and ask for an authorization if he decides to order military action in Syria. What is Secretary Hagel's view of that question and, more generally, does he feel the Pentagon can operate under the existing authorization of military force or would Congress have to change it some way if the president gave that order?

KIRBY: Well, I'm not going to speak to a question that's better poised to the White House, Phil. What I can tell you is, we are operating inside Iraq, given the authorities that we've been given by the commander in chief and we, not just the Defense Department, but the U.S. government, has kept Congress informed of what we're doing. The president's filed I think four war power resolution letters in response to -- or -- because of what we're doing inside Iraq. So there's been a concerted effort to keep Congress informed.

Joe. QUESTION: Admiral Kirby, does the - do you know if the Pentagon have - has enough information, a clear picture about ISIS size - ISIS capabilities inside Syria?

KIRBY: The way I would put it to you, Joe, is, we've been watching ISIL for many months now and we recognize that their development, their growth, the increase in their capabilities, it hasn't happened overnight and it has happened regionally, that they - that they operate pretty much freely between Iraq and Syria.

Do we have perfect information about them and their capabilities, whether it's on the Syrian side of the border or the Iraqi side? No, we don't. Now, we're gaining better knowledge in Iraq because we have been flying more surveillance flights over the country since we were asked by the Iraqi government to do so and because we're in better and more frequent contact now with Iraqi and Kurdish forces. So there's a growing sense of knowledge there on the Iraqi side. But it's - but it's mixed.

QUESTION: Question, how many flights have you conducted over Iraq since the beginning of the occupation (ph)?

KIRBY: I don't have a -- I'd have to get -- point you to CENTCOM.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).

KIRBY: I'd have to point you to CENTCOM, Joe. I haven't been tallying each and every flight. As Chairman Dempsey said to you last week, we're up over about 60 IRS flights per day in Iraq. But it varies. Some days it's more, some days it's less and I don't have a total for you.

Yes, sir.

QUESTION: So the head of air combat command recently said that he wouldn't fly (INAUDIBLE) over Syria and this would obviously extended to some other platforms like say the Predator. You know, how are you possibly conducting these operations without some sort of coordination with the Syrian government?

KIRBY: Well, the question presumes, and I'm going to talk about the, you know, operations being conducted and I'm not going to do that. I have said, I'm not going to talk about intelligent matters here. And I haven't seen the comments from the ACC (ph) commander about the a-tem (ph), so I wouldn't have any comment on that.

John.

QUESTION: Admiral Kirby, back in June, when things were really heating up in Iraq, you all announced that you would move the George H.W. Bush carrier group into the Persian Gulf. Have any additional forces along those lines been added, either to the Persian Gulf or to the Med in recent weeks? And, also, did you ever get a response from the Chinese about that barrel roll incident?

KIRBY: I'm not aware of any additional naval assets. That said, John, you know this, naval forces come and go, routinely swapping out on deployment. So I'd point you to the Navy for any update on what the naval laydown looks like in the Med and the Persian Gulf. I'm not aware of any major muscle movement changes, such as a carrier battle (ph), if that's what you mean. The Bush is still the only carrier that we have available in that part of the world.

I -- all I saw from -- in terms of a Chinese reaction, was public comments they made through their media that they did acknowledge, at least publicly acknowledge, that there was an intercept, but stressed that, in their view, that it was done at a completely safe distance and with professional demeanor and we obviously take deep issue with that characterization of the incident.

QUESTION: Is there going to be a meeting with Chinese officials in the building later this week and do you know if that topic will be discussed?

KIRBY: I understand that the Navy is having some discussion this week with some of their Chinese counterparts. I'd point you to the Navy for details on that. I would also, from what I gather this morning, John, this was something that was long-planned, long-scheduled, sort of routine staff talks kind of thing and the degree to which this incident will come up, again, I'd point you to Navy.

I already got you, Phil.

Nancy.

QUESTION: I want to follow up on the UAE flights over Libya. Last week out of this building from the Joint Staff and from OSB, you said repeatedly that the U.S. didn't know who was responsible for those flights. What is it that you were able to learn in the last few days to then say that those flights were being flown by the UAE and why couldn't you say so last week?

KIRBY: I couldn't say so last week because I didn't know. And now we know. And so now I'm able to acknowledge it. I - I mean I don't think it's worthwhile going through all the mechanisms through which we learn information. There were more than -- last week there was - I think was the first such strike, and it was unclear as to who conducted it. All I can tell you for sure is that we didn't. We have since gained more information. And in light of the - in light of this second strike over the weekend, we've now ascertained that we know it was conducted by UAE and by Egypt in some fashion. But, again, I'd point you to those countries to talk about that.

QUESTION: I guess I'm having a hard time understanding is if the U.S. had discouraged them for conducting such flights, how would you then not know that they had done them?

KIRBY: I did not say that we discouraged them from conducting these strikes. What I said was, we don't talk about our diplomatic discussions.

QUESTION: And is it the position of this building that you welcome that the UAE and Egypt are trying to tackle their terrorism independently and without U.S. help?

KIRBY: Our position is the same as the United States government's position, which is that we want the issue solved in Libya to be done peacefully and through good governance and politics and not violence. And that we discourage their nations from taking a part in Libya's issues through violence. That's our position.

Yes, David.

QUESTION: Will these weapons deliveries that you talked about from that coalition begin -

KIRBY: They've actually already started to begin. And, I mean, I can get you a better sense of that later.

QUESTION: Who's delivering it?

KIRBY: I know - I know Albania and the U.K. have already started to deliver. But, again, I'd have to get you some more fidelity on that. It's just -- this is an effort that's really just sort of starting. And I'd also point to, and we've said it - said it before but it's worth reminding, we, too, have taken part in some of the delivery of equipment and personnel -- I'm sorry -- equipment and material to Kurdish forces, helping the Iraqi government conduct that resupply using some of our aircraft.

QUESTION: Here's another question on Iraq. What is that request from the State Department for additional security personal stand at?

KIRBY: Still reviewing it. Still looking at it. I would also remind you that we get many request for forces here at the Pentagon. Some come from the State Department. Some come from combatant commanders. There are many options in how you address those kinds of force requirements. We're working through those options right now.

Yes, Phil?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On UAE and Egypt, on the strikes in Libya, why wouldn't that be seen as something that would be helpful, that the United States wants allies to step up and support against militant threats? Why wouldn't (INAUDIBLE) helpful? Why wouldn't the United States be applauding that?

KIRBY: We -- what we don't want is more violence on top of violence that's already existing inside Libya. It's already a tenuous enough security environment as it is. And we do want to see that resolved. We do want to see a peaceful, stable future for Libya and for the Libyan people. It's not just good for them, it's good for that part of the world, which has already got issues of security as it does. So -- but adding more violence on to it we don't believe is the answer.

Yes.

QUESTION: I have to ask because peril (ph) seems so obvious to Iraq where we are conducting air strikes. That's violence on violence, as you described. Could you describe maybe what differentiates the two situations?

KIRBY: Sure. Sure. Yes, absolutely. First of all it's -- we're there at the request of the Iraqi government. This wasn't some unilateral decision by the United States to strike targets inside Iraq. Number two, we are -- there -- we are -- the construct under which we're conducting air strikes is being done very -- in a very limited, target, discrete manner to protect U.S. personnel and facilities, to assist the Iraqi security forces as they go after this threat inside their country, on behalf of their people. And then, two, to help contribute to any humanitarian missions that might evolve like we saw happen in Mt. Sinjar a couple of weeks ago. There's a big difference there. But the biggest differences is, we're there at the request of the Iraqi government.

Yes.

QUESTION: Along those lines, would the DOD consider any role as part of an international force in Libya?

KIRBY: I'm not aware of any such consideration.

Yes.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) as far as these - this terrorist organization, ISIL is concerned, where do they get financing, training, and military equipment or weapons?

KIRBY: We've talked about this for a long time. They - they're well- resourced. They get -- they get money from donation. They get money from ransoms. Frankly, they get money from - I mean they -- this is a group that tries to develop their own revenue streams. It's why they take over facilities. It's why they wanted to control the dam. I mean they actually grab ground and try to keep it. They're selling oil on the black market. So they have many revenue streams and they're well- funded. They get a lot of their sourcing and their training and the sustenance from across that border in Syria, which is one of the reasons why we've got to take a regional approach here. But we've talked about this before.

QUESTION: And, second, if I may -

KIRBY: OK, but this is it. This is your last follow up.

QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday there was talk about (INAUDIBLE) Osama bin Laden (INAUDIBLE) Pakistan. What I'm asking you, one, are you watching the situation right now, what's happening in Pakistan and, second, do you still believe they have still training centers or -- for the terrorists (INAUDIBLE).

KIRBY: Who has training centers? That Pakistan has training centers for extremists -

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE).

KIRBY: Look, we've talked about this again too before. It's a complicated relationship, right, and we - we want to continue to work with Pakistan to deal with what we believe is a common challenge and a common threat faced by both our countries and by Afghanistan as well and that's extremists in the safe-haven, in the sanctuary that they continue to enjoy in Pakistan, but the Pakistani military has taken action against some of those extremist threats inside their own country and they've conducted operations not - not too long. Just this summer. And it's important to remind everybody that they too have taken casualties in that fight. So it's a common threat. We don't always see eye-to-eye on how to address it. That's -- that remains to be the case today. But what's different today is that we have better vehicles for dialogue and cooperation with the Pakistani military that we continue to enjoy and want to and continue to improve. OK?

QUESTION: Thank you.

KIRBY: You got it.

Yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. Regarding the interception that the -- your counterpart spokesperson for the minister of defense did respond and well (ph) the U.S. stressed that the (INAUDIBLE) was in international air space -

KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: That the Chinese government, the defense ministry, mentioned that the mission of that flight was to - was to tracking Chinese submarines and other military activities. So in order to view (ph) a better military to military relations that the U.S. needs to reduce those kind of - those number of flights and -- or stop even. And also from the Pentagon's perspective, I mean the two leaders of the two countries are calling for a better military to military relationship. So from the Pentagon's perspective, how realistic it is to view (ph) such relationship with all this going on in South China Sea and East China Sea?

KIRBY: It's important that we continue to work at this relationship. Absolutely. That is not made easier by incidents like we saw with the intercept of our P-8 patrol aircraft, which was on a routine mission in international air space. And under no circumstances and under no rubric of military relations is it acceptable to fly a jet fighter around a reconnaissance airplane the way that was done.

That said, that doesn't mean that the relationship isn't still worth pursing and we continue to look for avenues to try to increase the dialogue and the cooperation and the understanding and the transparency between our two countries. But, again, that incident did nothing to help that along.

I feel like - I feel like you got a follow-up. Go ahead.

QUESTION: So - so - and the U.S. was still - will continue to conduct those reconnaissance flights in that space -

KIRBY: We're going to continue to fly in international air space the way we've been, just like we're going to continue to sail our ships in international water the way we've been. The United States is a Pacific power. We have responsibilities. Five of seven treaty alliances in the Pacific region. We're going to meet those security commitments. We want to do this in an open and transparent way. We want to share as much information with our allies and partners and with China as we can. And we want to do that. But none of that cooperation is aided along by that kind of reckless behavior, by that particular pilot.

Yes, Joe.

QUESTION: In the strategy that you sort of outlined for Iraq in response to Kate's question, was there -- the strategy against ISIS was very Iraq-focused but you and others always called this a regional problem. How do you square that? How do you address a regional problem with a very country specific response so far?

KIRBY: Well, kinetically you're right, it -- most of the action has been inside Iraq. But even before we started conducting air strikes inside Iraq, we had a regional approach. We took -- we were studying and trying to monitor and gain information about ISIL from a regional approach. I mean it's no different than, you know, the way we tried to - and we continued to try to get at the extremist threat on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan to my previous answer. There's a regional threat there, too. But you can't -- you know, you -- where we are authorized to act from

a military perspective, it's inside Iraq and that's what we are doing. But it doesn't mean we're turning a blind eye to the regional threat that they pose. And quite frankly, we're not turning a blind eye to their global aspirations as well. You know, much has been made about, you know, the threat they pose and how imminent it is and you don't need to look any further than the recruitment of foreign fighters and the degree to which not just the United States government but many western governments are concerned about these foreign fighters leaving their shores, going over there, getting radicalize trained and the coming back and executing attacks, which is not out of the realm of the possible. So we are taking not just a regional approach but a - but even a, you know, a global approach to how we're trying to look at what they're trying to do. So, I don't know if that answered the question or not but -

QUESTION: You mentioned the foreign fighters. NBC reported that the - one of the American fighting with ISIS has been killed. Do you know anything about that?

KIRBY: I don't. I mean I've seen the press reporting just recently but I don't have anything to add to that right now.

Barbara.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: What can you tell us about an encounter with U.S. maritime forces and the Iranians in the Persian Gulf?

KIRBY: I don't have a whole lot on that, Barbara. As I understand -- and I can point you to fifth fleet on that. As I understand it, the -- a Coast Guard - a Coast Guard cutter, the small boat crew off a Coast Guard cutter, in a routine maritime security operation, approached an Iranian dowel (ph). The Iranian dowel pointed a machine gun at the -- or a small arms weapon at the boat crew. They fired a shot back. I don't know whether the shot was just a warning shot or it hit the dowel. In any event, the dowel pulled away and nobody was hurt and the Coast Guard cutter retrieved the boat crew. That's all I know. I'd point you to fifth fleet for anything more on that.

STARR: Let me just ask you, was it that they were planning to board the dowel or seeing to board the dowel?

KIRBY: I don't have more details than that, Barb. I know there was one shot fired. Nobody hurt. Both the cutter and the dowel parted ways and there wasn't more to it than that. I'd really point you to the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain for more details on that . I just don't have it.

(INAUDIBLE)

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE). On North Korea. Recently a North Korean (INAUDIBLE) to United Nation has mentioned at the news conference in the United Nation North Korea urged it to stop ongoing U.S. and South Korea joint military exercises and North Korea (INAUDIBLE) a warning pre-emptive strike through U.S. and South Korea. How (INAUDIBLE)?

KIRBY: I haven't seen those comments. Our security to - our commitments to the security of the peninsula and to our treaty allies in South Korea remains steadfast, as they always will. Our exercises will continue and we continue to call on the North to meet its international obligations.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) mention about the pre-emptive strike to the Korea peninsula --

KIRBY: I would just say that our commitment to the security on the peninsula and to our alliance with South Korea is iron clad.

Yes, Phil?

QUESTION: I know you said a couple times today that American airplanes are operating over Iraq at the invitation of the government there. Is there anything about that agreement that restricts their ability to, for example, surveil (ph) over the border into Syria?

KIRBY: I'm not going to talk about - I'm just not going to go beyond the mission that we're conducting inside Iraq. I mean that's -- we're there at the invitation of the Iraqi government to do a couple of things, to help - to help and mainly to help Iraqi security forces combat this threat by ISIL. We do that through surveillance flights but also through air strikes from combat aircraft and that's really the limit that I can talk about today.

QUESTION: Were there any restrictions?

KIRBY: I'm not going to get into ROE from the podium here, Phil. We're authorized to conduct air operations over Iraq for two main purposes, and I've talked about that, and that's as far as I'm going to go. QUESTION: The U.S. doesn't recognize Assad as the legitimate leader in

Syria. So by that logic, the U.S. could never fly surveillance missions because you're never going to be - the government of Syria that the U.S. does not recognize would never invite them to fly surveillance, right, so can you rule out working with the Assad regime?

KIRBY: We are not coordinating with the Assad regime on the operations that we are conducting in Iraq or the operations or any efforts to combat ISIL.

QUESTION: Does the border between Iraq and Syria still effectively exist from your perspective at the Defense Department? General Dempsey said last week there basically is no border. So is there --

KIRBY: Well, I mean, there's a border. If you look on a map, there's a border. What we're saying is that it's porous to the degree where, in all practical purposes, doesn't exist for ISIL because they flow freely back and forth.

Yes.

QUESTION: But it still does exist for the Defense Department?

KIRBY: Of course it still exists for the Defense Department. I mean we recognize there's an international border between Syria and Iraq. What we're saying is, ISIL treats that part of the world as if there is no border for them.

I've got time for one more.

Yes.

QUESTION: CENTCOM said that it's OSE's responsibility to calculate the cost of the Iraqi air strikes. Do you have a cost yet and will we have to wait for a comptroller's request before we hear any numbers?

KIRBY: Who said it's our responsibility?

QUESTION: CENTCOM.

KIRBY: Look, right now what I'll tell you is that funding for the operations we're conducting in Iraq are being absorbed through current year allocations that Central Command has. The chairman and the secretary both said that we're OK in 14 (ph) and if operations continue we might have to take a look at 15 (ph) to see if there's a need to request more. I don't have an estimate for you specifically day-by-day, but it's being absorbed through current allocations that Central Command has at their disposal and the services have at their disposal because I mean the services are really the force providers.

OK. Thanks, everybody.

(END LIVE PRESSER COVERAGE)

CABRERA: So we were just listening in to Rear Admiral John Kirby there at the Pentagon. The headline right at the top of that press conference is that several partner nations have now committed to providing weapons