Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

White House Press Briefing; Pentagon Press Briefing

Aired August 29, 2014 - 12:00   ET

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

JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, at this point, Steve, I don't have an update in terms of timing. You did hear from the president yesterday where he reiterated his strong commitment to take action within the scope of his authority to solve or at least address so many of the problems that are created by our broken immigration system.

This -- there is legislation that has passed through the Senate, as we know, that would have addressed so many of these problems in a way that would have had substantial benefits for our economy. Unfortunately, we've seen Republicans in the House engage in a political strategy to block that piece of legislation from even coming up for a vote.

The president is disappointed that House Republicans have pursued that political strategy and that's why the president has resolved to use as much authority as he can muster within the confines of the law to try to solve this problem on his own. He does that hoping that House Republicans will come to their senses at some point and pass a piece of legislation that would be even more impactful in terms of solving those problems and would supersede any sort of executive action that he might take.

But the president is as determined as ever to take that kind of action on his own simply because House Republicans have blocked the ability of Congress to try to solve this problem.

OK? Jim?

QUESTION: Josh, getting back to that comment "We don't have a strategy yet." We know that the president was talking about a strategy for ISIS in Syria. But having said that, would he like to have that one back?

EARNEST: Well, Jim, I -- I want to clarify one thing, what you described. The president was talking specifically about military options for countering ISIS in Syria. There are a number of things that we've already done to -- as it relates to the broader situation in Syria to confront some of the challenges there.

The United States, as we've discussed many times in this room, is the largest single donor of humanitarian aid to Syria in terms of dealing with the terrible humanitarian situation that has been caused by the violence in Syria. We've seen significant numbers, millions of people who've been displaced by the violence there.

The United States has been engaged in an effort to support the moderate Syrian opposition. There are a range of ways in which that support is provided. There's also some diplomatic support that's been provided to them.

So there already has been some work underway in Syria to try to address some of the challenges there. But the president was candid about the fact that the Pentagon is still reviewing options that may be available to him -- military options that may be available to him -- to counter ISIL militarily in Syria.

QUESTION: But when you're the president, words matter. And just getting back to that first question, does he -- does he wish he had articulated that -- that sentiment differently?

EARNEST: Well, Jim, I -- he was asked a very specific question. And he was asked a question about...

(CROSSTALK)

EARNEST: Well, let me finish this. This is important.

He was asked a very specific question about whether or not the president would seek congressional authorization before ordering any sort of military -- military action in Syria. And the point the president made was that that's putting the cart before the horse. The president hasn't yet laid out a specific plan for military action in Syria.

And the reason for that is simply that the Pentagon is still developing that plan. And he's still reviewing them. And it would be putting the cart before the horse to talk about what sort of congressional authorization would be required for a plan that hasn't even been put in place yet.

QUESTION: I don't mean to belabor it, but the fact that you came out so quickly and -- and tried to explain what the president had to say suggests that -- that what he said was -- was not what he intended to say. Or are you saying that just the rest of us took it the wrong way?

EARNEST: Well, I think -- I think what I would say...

QUESTION: Do you know what I mean?

EARNEST: Yeah, I do know what you mean. The reaction that we had at the White House yesterday was not in response to the president's comments. It's in response to the way it was being reported. And I don't mean that to sound as a criticism of you all doing your jobs. You all have an important job to do.

EARNEST: But we do believe that it's important for people, both you and your readers and viewers, to understand what message the president was trying to communicate and what strategy he has already laid out for confronting ISIL and what decisions remain to be made as it relates to military options that are available to him in Syria. So again, that is not a critique of the media; it is just an observation that we didn't listen to the president's news conference and go formulate a strategy for responding.

We listened to the president's news conference, watched your reporting and recognized that if we wanted people to have a very clear understanding of what the president's trying to communicate, that we needed to engage you directly to do that. And that's what we tried to do.

QUESTION: And getting back to Prime Minister Cameron's comments, he said that this is not some foreign conflict thousands of miles from home. He -- he seemed to take a tougher tone with respect to ISIS than the president did yesterday.

And a lot of people observed that the president's comments yesterday were not really in line or in sync with the urgency expressed by Secretary Hagel, Joint Chiefs Chairman Dempsey who described it as, you know, beyond anything we've ever seen, talking about ISIS in Syria, that you can't really take care of the ISIS problem without dealing with Syria.

What do you make of that? Is the president on the same page as his -- as his cabinet when it comes to dealing with ISIS?

EARNEST: I think the more important observation, Jim, is that the cabinet is on the same page as the commander in chief and I am fully confident that's the case.

QUESTION: There's no debate inside the situation room when it comes to striking ISIS immediately in Syria?

EARNEST: I don't think debate is the way that I would describe it.

I mean, I'm not going to be in a position of providing a detailed readout of a -- of a private meeting between the president and his national security counsel.

But you've -- you've had the opportunity now to observe the president's leadership style and you recognize that the president is interested in hearing the unvarnished assessment of his senior advisers. That's true when he's talking to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the secretary of defense about our military strategy.

It's also true when he's talking to his press secretary about our political strategy or our communication strategy.

So the president's interested in eliciting the unvarnished opinion of everybody that's sitting around the table. And it wouldn't be particularly helpful to the president of the United States if everybody sitting around the table had exactly the same opinion or exactly the same perspective on this challenge.

So the president... (CROSSTALK)

EARNEST: Again, I'm not reading out the meeting but I am in a position to convey to you that the president is -- is determined to get the unvarnished assessment of the -- of the professionals who sit around the table meeting with him as he makes important decisions.

But I have no doubt -- and if you -- if you do then you should go ask each one of them about whether or not they're on the same page as the commander in chief. I am confident that they are.

OK. Let's move around a little bit.

Justin.

QUESTION: I want to look back to your answer on immigration. You said that there was no update on timing.

And so I just wanted to read back to you that -- back earlier this month, you said that you expected the review (inaudible) end of summer, that you anticipated that the president would act on those recommendations shortly after receiving them.

The president also said that he intended to adopt the recommendations without further delay, both of which would indicate that you're going to get these recommendations before the end of the summer and act on them before the midterm election.

And so my question to you is, is that still what we should be operating on there?

EARNEST: Well, I don't -- the president got asked a specific question about immigration yesterday...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) about timing?

EARNEST: Well, I think what he did answer was -- if you'll allow me to offer up my own view on this -- he answered important part of that question, which is does the -- is the president still committed to taking action where House Republicans won't? And the president is as determined as ever to make sure that he's going to use all of the elements of his authority within the confines of the law to try to address some of the problems that've been created by our broken immigration system.

There's an easy solution sitting on Capitol Hill that's already passed the Senate with bipartisan support. It has strong bipartisan support all across the country but House Republicans are blocking it right now.

EARNEST: The president is disappointed that Republicans have chosen to pursue that strategy that may, in the minds of some Republican political strategists, be in their best partisan political interests, but it's certainly not in the best interests of the country. And that's why the president's determined to take the kinds of steps that are -- that are available to him to try to address this challenge. Now, a secondary legitimate question is, what's the timeframe for that? And I just don't have any additional information to share with you about what the time frame is.

QUESTION: Well, so -- I mean, the reason that I ask, "The Los Angeles Times" reported today, quoting a senior administration official, that you guys are considering splitting up the recommendations, that you'd implement things that are more palatable to both Republicans and -- and Democrats running in (inaudible) races, to roll out before mid-term elections, and then push off some of the broader sweeping things that we've certainly heard. (inaudible)

So I'm wondering if you could talk at all about whether that is something that you're considering, or whether you expect, you know, when the president comes out and talks about immigration that we're going to hear him fully lay out everything that he plans to do?

EARNEST: Well, I -- I guess I'd say it this way. To borrow a phrase that was used in a different context yesterday, that's putting the cart before the horse.

The president hasn't actually received the final recommendations from his attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security for what -- what options are available to him for acting unilaterally to address some of the problems of our broken immigration system. So those who are speculating about how those recommendations might be implemented are -- are a little ahead of themselves at this point.

QUESTION: (inaudible) sort of spoken about by Senate Democrats who are running in the fall races going to play into your guys' decision when you make that choice about when or if or how to implement the immigration?

EARNEST: Well, Justin, what we have seen, as I mentioned earlier, is a -- is a conclusion has been reached by House Republicans that is in their political interest to do something that's not in the nation's interest. And that is to pass comprehensive, common-sense, bipartisan immigration reform legislation. That's unfortunate.

It's House Republicans who are making politically motivated decisions right now. The president is focused on trying to solve problems and what the president would like to do is to have a legitimate, fact-based debate about this current condition of our immigration system.

There are problems in our immigration system. That may be the one thing that is widely agreed upon among both Democrats and Republicans, that our immigration system is broken.

There's -- right now, there's only one side that seems determined to try to fix it and the president, in the context of using his own authority to try to fix that problem, wants to have a debate about the status of our immigration system, what the consequences are for allowing that broken immigration system to persist and what Republicans have done or in this case, not done to try to confront that problem.

So all -- that broader debate is an important part of the context in which the president wants to act and...

QUESTION: Yeah. Sorry to belabor the...

EARNEST: It's OK.

QUESTION: It's my last one on this.

But if the president is genuinely only concerned about solving or addressing the issue and then we're hearing reports that the president might, for political reasons, delay implementing some of these recommendations that are going to come to his -- to his desk, don't those seem contradictory in some way? Wouldn't the president want to immediately implement all steps that he thinks or is told that help resolve this issue?

EARNEST: Well, I -- I think there may be some people who are speculating that the president is -- is making a political decision that relates to immigration.

I would put forward probably a non-controversial suggestion that those are probably people who are regular critics of the president. So I take that -- that declaration with a grain of salt.

What the president wants to do is he wants to solve problems. He also wants to do that in the context of a debate that's well- understood by the American public and the context of that debate is -- is an unvarnished assessment of the current state of our immigration system. He wants to make sure that the American public understands what the consequences are for our broken immigration system to persist without solving it.

And the president wants to make sure that the context of that debate is understood. And -- in that there is a reasonable, common sense proposal that's already been passed in bipartisan fashion through the Senate and would pass the House if House Republicans weren't blocking it.

OK. Yshom (ph).

QUESTION: Thank you, Josh.

What message could Secretary Kerry convey to the Gulf countries that he hasn't conveyed before, and what makes the president now confident that the Sunni neighbors of Iraq and Syria would behave differently, knowing that they contributed to the creation of extremists like ISIS and others through funneling money and arms to Syria for a long time?

EARNEST: Yshom (ph), I think the president alluded to this a little bit yesterday when he was talking about this subject.

It is -- it is very clearly in the interests of Iraq's and Syria's neighbors, even those Sunni countries, to not have a violent, extremist organization wreaking havoc in their neighborhood. It's destabilizing, and it poses a pretty direct threat to those countries.

So, it is in their interest as never before for them to work in partnership with other countries in the region, and even other interested countries around the world like the United States, to counter that threat and to mitigate the destabilizing impact of those violent activities that we've seen perpetrated by ISIL.

That will be part of the -- of the message, and that will be the topic of discussion that the secretary of state will carry with him when he goes to the region.

You know, I'm sure that they'll, at least, one way or another, the State Department officials who are traveling with the secretary will read out those meetings. So, I wouldn't want to get ahead of what those discussions look like, but it is clear that the backdrop for those conversations is that the clear interest of these governments has in the last several weeks been crystallized.

QUESTION: I don't (OFF-MIKE) something you answered earlier on. Does the president agree with the Prime Minister Cameron, and is he willing to go as far as Prime Minister Cameron is saying, that the establishment of an Islamic state in Iraq constitutes a direct national threat to the United States? EARNEST: Well, I didn't see all of Prime Minister Cameron's remarks. The aspect of his remarks that I did see was the explanation put forward by his government about why they decided to change their -- their terror threat level. And that specifically was related to the threat that is posed by individuals with Western passports that have been fighting alongside ISIL that could, using their passports, travel back to the West and carry out acts of violence in the West.

And so I know that there are a number of security changes -- or changes in their nation's security posture that they have put in place. The United States is regularly monitoring our security posture. We're also working very closely with our allies at a law enforcement level as well as a national security level to try to mitigate this threat. It's something that we've been engaged in for quite some time, and those efforts continue to this day: even this hour.

OK. Mike?

QUESTION: A question on the Ukraine. The British government, who, I guess, is being the hawks today, is pressing European allies to block Russia from the SWIFT bank network, which is an important financial network that would be a significant escalation in the financial sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. Does the U.S. government share the British government's view on this? Are you also trying to do something like that to block them from the SWIFT network and damage their financial relations?

EARNEST: I -- I haven't seen those reports, Mike. I'd refer you to the Treasury Department, who can talk about what sort of financial tools are available to the United States and our allies as we consider efforts to impose additional economic costs on Russia for their actions in Ukraine.

QUESTION: Broadly speaking, though, are you looking to step up the financial sanctions at the moment, take them to another level when it concerns the financial sector?

EARNEST: Well, speaking as a general matter, based on Russia's continued conduct in Ukraine, based on their continued effort to escalate that situation militarily, we have seen, you know, the continued movement of equipment and materiel across the border from Russia into Ukraine.

We've even seen pretty definitive reports that Russian troops have moved across the border and are now firing on Ukrainian military positions.

So we have seen Russia interfere in Ukraine in ways that the international community is completely unwilling to tolerate. And, as a result of that, it does put Russia at risk of facing additional economic costs that can be imposed by the United States in concert with our allies.

QUESTION: But putting aside the specific tactic I mentioned, would you expect to see further steps from the United States to isolate Russia in the financial sector?

EARNEST: Well, Mike, as you know, the president is traveling to Europe next week. He'll have the opportunity to meet with a number of our NATO allies. And the situation in Ukraine is a prominent item on the agenda. And I'm confident that there will be serious discussions about imposing additional economic costs on Russia, OK?

Major?

QUESTION: Josh, in Ukraine, is it an invasion? And did the Russians commit an act of war?

EARNEST: Well, what we have seen from the Russians is consistent with the kind of behavior that we've seen with -- from them for many months now. We have seen -- there is -- there's ample intelligence, social media reporting, to indicate that they're actively...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... and the secretary-general now calling Russian regulars in Ukraine with military equipment. Is that an invasion? Is it an act of war?

EARNEST: Well, the evidence that has been presented by NATO is compelling. And it does indicate that Russia is continuing to do the kinds of things using their military might to further destabilize the situation in Ukraine.

What we have asked -- called on the Russians to do is to actually use their influence in Ukraine to try to deescalate the situation there. And it's clear that they're -- they're not doing that right now.

QUESTION: But doesn't language matter in this case? Is there something that is -- you are reluctant to use those words to describe what appears to be happening in front of everyone's eyes in Ukraine?

EARNEST: I think we've been very clear about describing what exactly has happened there. The president did when he was asked this question yesterday. And we have been for many months.

As the Russian military has allowed weapons and materiel to be transferred across the border, as the Russian military has fired on Ukrainian military positions, as the Russian military has even put boots on the ground in Ukraine, we have regularly marshaled evidence to indicate what exactly is happening, despite the protestations of the Russian government that for some reason would have us all believe otherwise.

The fact is, those denials are completely without any credibility, and, you know, we've been pretty candid about that, I think.

QUESTION: You mentioned earlier that the United States government is monitoring the movements of these individuals, meaning Americans, who have gone into Syria to fight on behalf of ISIS or ISIL.

Does the decision so far not to increase the threat level here indicate that there is a higher degree of confidence within the United States intelligence community to monitor these people in a way that the British do not currently share?

EARNEST: Well, I -- I don't want to be in a position of assessing sort of the competence or success of an ongoing intelligence operation.

QUESTION: I'm not -- just trying to describe competence. I'm trying to get a question (inaudible) two separate things, the ability to monitor and have visibility of, do we feel confident of our ability to monitor and have high levels of confidence about our ability to track these terrorists (ph) (inaudible)?

EARNEST: Well, again, that is an assessment of our -- of our intelligence capabilities that I don't want to venture from here. But let me -- let me say this.

The United States, on our own right now, is dedicating significant resources and time and attention to mitigating this threat. We are also, in addition to that, working very closely with other interested parties, including the British to try to counter this threat, to monitor these individuals and mitigate the -- the threat of violence that they may pose to western interests. And that is something that continues. We're working very closely with the -- with the British on this. I mean, one thing that has been observed publicly, that I would

observe publicly from here, I think, is that the -- you know, part of the British concern is that there is, according to published reports, a relatively large number of individuals with British passports who have gone to the region British passports who have gone to the region to fight alongside ISIL. The published reports, as they relate to the number of Americans who are there, is somewhat lower.

QUESTION: OK, the president, in addition to saying that there is no strategy in Syria, said we can rout ISIL militarily. He said -- that was a (ph) direct quote from the president at the end of the press conference yesterday.

First of all, how does he know that? And is that the goal ultimately of U.S. policy? I mean, if we don't have a strategy to get them in Syria, which is their base of operations, might be there aspirational capital of their caliphate, how does he know we can route the military?

EARNEST: Well, I'll -- I'll say a couple things about that. One of the things that the president said in the now famous statement is the word "yet" (ph) was at the end. So the Department of Defense is hard at work on developing some military options for the president in Syria.

Now, whether the president chooses to take advantage of one of those options, whether the president orders one of those options remains to be seen. But these are plans that are being developed. The president does have a lot of confidence in his -- in the military apparatus to the develop some solid plans for him.

But any sort of strike or military action that he orders will be a -- if ordered, will be a component of a broader strategy for defeating ISIL and mitigating the threat they pose to the United States and to western interests.

And that will all be done, you know, with -- with our partners, both in the Iraqi government and the governments in the region, and with countries around the world. This will be a joint effort.

Now, let me say one other thing about what you said because it's important. The question in the mind of the president is more complicated and in some ways even bigger than does the United States in conjunction with our allies have the capability to rout, as he described it, ISIL?

The real question is, how do we sustainably secure the situation in Iraq, so that even if ISIL is routed, that they can't sprout back up and -- and make significant gains in Iraq or anywhere else, for that matter?

EARNEST: And that is why the strategy that the president's put forward has at the top of that list a unified, successful, sophisticated, integrated Iraqi government that can unite that country to face the threat that's posed by ISIL and to ensure that the Iraqi people can take their -- take responsibility themselves for the security situation in their country. That ultimately is how we will be in a position to deny ISIL the ability to create a safe haven where they could, you know, where they could threaten other countries in the region or eventually even other countries around the world.

QUESTION: I understand that, and I appreciate you saying that. Is there any risk, Josh, for this president to see complexity and it becomes an excuse for paralysis? Because people who look at this region say if you solve this militarily, then a lot of these other issues can be addressed. But you can't address these other issues if ISIS presents an ongoing, expanding terroristic and military threat to ever-larger pockets of space in Iraq and Syria.

I mean, just this week, they took four runs at an airbase, each and every one of them more tactically and operationally sophisticated than the one before it. And the fourth one was successful. They have shown a penchant to adapt on the battlefield, use ever more sophisticated techniques, and gain space they believe are important to their overall territorial objectives.

I mean, there would be those who would say, "Yes, there are all these other complex issues, but the military issue is before you now and you better deal with it or else you can't get to the rest of these things."

EARNEST: Well, that's why the president has been pretty clear about the idea that these things need to move together, right? And that's why the president, as the Iraqis have made progress in forming the kind of inclusive government that we've called on them to adopt for any number of months now, has moved side by side with the president's plan to authorize military action in Iraq.

I mentioned earlier that there are a number of things that have been accomplished by the Iraqi security forces with the important support of the U.S. military. So...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: But even (inaudible) yesterday, those bombings raids will be limited and pose little risk of exposure to U.S. forces. I mean, it's still a minor league effort. EARNEST: But they've been -- I don't think I would describe it that way. They've been -- they've been successful in supporting Iraqi and Kurdish security forces as they re-took the Mosul dam. They've been supportive and successful in blunting the offensive that was underway against Erbil. Again, that would not have been possible without the American military intervention there.

But the president is also determined, and the president said this not in yesterday's appearance in the briefing room, but in his previous appearance in the briefing room, that he's the commander in chief of the United States military and he will use that in support of Iraq security forces to accomplish some of these goals. But the president is not going to become the commander in chief of the Iraqi air force; that ultimately we need to have a situation where the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government and Iraq security forces can take responsibility for their own security.

And the United States and this president is willing to devote significant resources to assist and support Iraq's government and Iraq's people as they take that responsibility, but we can't do it for them. And the president's not going to try it.

QUESTION: Last question on this subject. Absent that coalition and complex array of other issues, ISIL can stay?

EARNEST: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean.

QUESTION: If it takes the Iraqis to do this, if we're not going to be the Iraqi air force, and the other partners in the region don't come in in ways that they're currently not coming in, ISIL gets to stay. I mean, what is the lead dynamic here? Is defeating them the lead dynamic or dealing with all these other things that make the complex over time more (inaudible)?

EARNEST: Well, making -- the overriding dynamic here is making sure that the national security interests of the United States of America are protected. That is always at the top of the president's agenda.

Now...

QUESTION: Is that consistent with ISIL existing or not?

EARNEST: What it's consistent with, that strategy requires the Iraqi government to do the right kinds of things that will unite that country to face down this threat. The good news is they're making those kinds of steps. When I was speaking before you three weeks ago, Prime Minister Maliki was still Prime Minister Maliki. He isn't anymore. He has stepped aside. And Iraq does seem to be -- Iraq's political leaders does seem -- do seem to be pursuing the kind of inclusive governing agenda that we'd like to see them pursue.

EARNEST: Now, they've got more work to do. They still have to form a cabinet. But that work is -- is under way. We saw that Iraq's security forces and the Kurdish security forces were being overrun by ISIL forces.

But thanks to the intervention of the United States military and the bravery and courage and service of American servicemen and women, they've been able to turn the tide in support of Iraq security forces. Never before, and I mentioned this earlier, never before has it been so clearly in the interests of regional governments to combat this violent extremist organization that's wreaking havoc in their neighborhood. That's not in their interest. So, we're optimistic about the success that we may have in rallying them to this cause as well. So, you know, these -- we have made important progress on this over the last few weeks. But make no mistake, the president does not believe that just pursuing a military strategy is a substitute for the more comprehensive strategy that will be required to arrive at an enduring solution to this problem.

Jim?

QUESTION: In light of the -- the British raising the terror threat there, and this being the Labor Day weekend with a lot of Americans traveling, a simple question, we're monitoring these Americans and Westerners with passports. Is there any evidence from the TSA, from the FBI, CIA, NSA, any of our resources, that any of those people with the Western passports have been on planes, are on the way back to the United States, or already in the United States?

EARNEST: Jim, the most detailed intelligence assessment that I can offer from here is that there is no evidence or indication right now that ISIL is actively plotting to attack the United States homeland.

That's true right now. That said, it is important that we take the steps that are necessary as a part of the president's comprehensive strategy to deny them a safe-haven that would give them the kind of comfort that they would need to consider plotting those kinds of attacks.

We also need to be very vigilant about the threat that is posed by foreign fighters, individuals with Western passports that have been fighting alongside ISIL, that may be considering returning to the West to carry out some acts of violence here, too.

So, we're vigilant about those things. And that is -- that is work that often takes place behind the scenes. As we calibrate our security posture and have the kinds of discussions about intelligence and national security measures that are important to the safety of the United States of America, those things aren't often to the American people. But people can have some confidence that the administration and our national security professionals and our law enforcement professionals are very vigilant about the threat that we face in this regard.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) do we -- are we confident that we know all of the Americans that have gone to Syria to fight next to ISIL, and are we confident that we know that they're still there and not here -- back here?

EARNEST: Well, I can't offer an assessment about the depth of our intelligence as it relates to this specific question. I can tell you that this is a -- this is a challenge that our national security apparatus and our intelligence apparatus is very focused on. And it's why we're working so closely with our partners now, as around the globe, to mitigate this threat.

QUESTION: On the other subject of immigration, if I could for a moment. In June, there were 354 unaccompanied minors coming across daily, across the border of the United States, Central America.

In -- in the latest figures that are for August, that come out of town to -- down to 104 a day. Is the -- is the crisis among unaccompanied minors over on the border right now?

EARNEST: For now, but what we have seen Jim is that these numbers are very volatile. And there are important steps that this administration is taking to try to prevent those numbers from going back up. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten the kind of support in the form of resources that are necessary, from the United States Congress.

The president put forward a very detailed proposal for the kinds of resources that he would like to see that could be used to try to prevent those numbers from increasing again.

So, you know, there is -- there -- this is a problem that while the numbers have improved and we're certainly pleased about that, this is a problem that we still remain very focused on, because we have -- this has been a very volatile situation. Those numbers have without a lot of warning on some occasions spiked.

And so we -- we're gonna continue our diplomatic efforts to work with the home countries of these individuals, where we're seeing this population moving toward the southwest border, to make sure they understand that they shouldn't try to make this dangerous journey.

We're still gonna be focused on shifting resources from the interior to the border to make sure that we can continue our efforts to secure the border.

The president is still using his own (ph) executive authority to devote additional resources to the immigration courts so we can make sure we can both respect the due process to which these individuals are entitled, while at the same time we're making the wheels of justice turn efficiently.

QUESTION: Josh, on those measures that you're talking about, that you think have been successful, to a point...

(CROSSTALK)

EARNEST: Right.

QUESTION: I was just...

EARNEST: Let me say one other thing about that, which is, I mean, the other factor here is the weather, that, traditionally, we have seen a decline in the numbers when the weather gets hotter.

So I don't want to leave with the impression that it's only because of what the administration has done that we've seen these numbers go down. There are a variety of factors.

But there's no doubt that the administration has made a substantial contribution to the reduction in those numbers.

QUESTION: And, as far as the measures...

(CROSSTALK)

EARNEST: I apologize (inaudible).

QUESTION: The -- I was just in Guatemala. And as recently as last week, the Guatemalans continue to allow rafts to go across the Mexican border with unaccompanied minors, uninhibited by police.

You say they have cooperation. Why aren't not stopping them?

And I just finished talking to the immigration judges, to the president of their union, who says the money that has been promised by the administration has not yet shown up, and they still have huge delays -- huge delays in the court systems.

What if -- if that's not happening, those two things aren't happening, what is working? What have you done that is actually stopping or at least reducing the numbers?

EARNEST: Well, I do think the first place to start here is that the numbers speak for themselves, that we've seen these numbers dramatically lower for a variety of reasons.

But it is clear that some of the steps that the -- that the administration has put in place have had an effect.

As it relates to the government of Guatemala, there clearly is more work that needs to be done to ensure that they're playing as constructive a role as possible in stemming the flow of children or adults who are traveling with children to the southwest border.

Now, what I would say is we have seen some important announcements over the last couple of months from the Mexican government and that they have been playing an important role in preventing, in tightening -- in tightening their borders, in a way that is, frankly, clearly in the interests of the Mexican government and the Mexican people and their own national security, but it has am attendant benefit for the United States, and that's why we closely coordinate with them on these issues.

As it relates to resources for our immigration court system, there's no doubt that we'd like to see additional resources being deployed to reduce that backlog. That's why the president specifically asked for money from Congress to ensure that our courts could have the resources that they need to administer justice.

And, you know, House Republicans have really (ph) engaged in a pretty coordinated effort to prevent those resources from being provided. So, you know, that's why the administration has had to resort to reprogram some funds to try to dedicate to this effort.

EARNEST: But there certainly is more that can be done, and more that would be done if Congress and Republicans in Congress weren't blocking it, OK?

Steven (ph)?

QUESTION: What was the calculation that went into the president's comments yesterday on Russia? They seemed -- although you say they were explicit, they were much less impassioned than what Samantha Power had to say at the U.N. Is there some attempt to try and stop -- a clash over Ukraine was having a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation? Or are there things that a U.N. ambassador can say to that the president can't (ph) without sort of elevating direct tensions with Putin?

EARNEST: Well, I mean, Steven (ph), I think the president's answer made clear a couple of things. The first is the president did draw a distinction between the United States relationship with our NATO allies and the Article Five commitments that we have to those allies, and how that is different than the kind of commitment that the United States has to a nation like Ukraine that, while as a friend of the United States, is not a NATO ally of the United States.

However, because the United States does have an important relationship with Ukraine, the United States will, as the president said, stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government as they counter these destabilizing activities from the Russians.

But, you know, the president felt it was important as a matter of policy and as a matter of giving the American people some insight into his thinking to -- to clarify that we're not trending toward a military conflict between the United States and Russia in this region over this issue.

There's a lot that we can do to support the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian people. There's a lot that we can do in acting in concert with our allies to impose costs on Russia for the -- for the tactics that they're employing right now.

But people should also have a pretty clear understanding where the president's head is on this, and I think that that's what he was trying to lay out last night.

QUESTION: Does the -- does the administration think that Russia appreciates that distinction between U.S. attitudes towards Ukraine then -- U.S. -- you know, intentions towards a NATO ally like somewhere in the Baltics (ph). I mean...

EARNEST: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, clearly if that message isn't wholly understood, that's a dangerous situation.

EARNEST: I mean, you're talking about an administration that when presented with photographic evidence that Russian boots were on the ground in Ukraine stood there and denied that Russia had U.S. -- had military in Ukraine.

I saw, according to one news report I saw that the foreign minister suggested that maybe it was -- these were video game graphics that had been trumped up to try to frame the Russians. That sort of irrational exclamation makes it hard to tell exactly what they're thinking.

All right? Ed?

QUESTION: Josh, as you were speaking, we heard (inaudible) so the president can go raise campaign money in Rhode Island and New York. And I wonder, what you think about the optics of the president from that podium yesterday saying he still does not have a strategy to deal with ISIS in Syria militarily, and then next day, without that strategy, goes out and raises campaign money?

EARNEST: Well, the president did convene a meeting with his National Security Council immediately after leaving this podium yesterday to talk through with his top national security advisers, including top officials from the Pentagon, about our more -- more broad comprehensive strategy against ISIL. That included a discussion about the military options that are available to the president for dealing with ISIL in Syria. That's the responsibility of the Pentagon. There are dedicated professionals there who are responsible and take seriously their responsibility.

QUESTION: (inaudible) go out and raise campaign money. Cause I asked because last week when you made the statement right after James Foley's beheading, and within minutes was on the golf course. Is he detached? Does he feel like the critics coming after him, it just doesn't matter anymore? Why is he still raising campaign money, playing golf, when he's acknowledging he doesn't have a strategy to deal with this?

EARNEST: Well, Ed, the -- the job of any U.S. president is to be able to handle a lot of different responsibilities at the same time. That's why the president has a national security team in whom he has a lot of confidence.

It is also why he, you know, works closely with -- with his advisers on a range of issues to make sure that he is leading them in the right -- right direction, that he is heading a vision for the future of this country. That's what allows him to handle a lot of responsibilities at the same time.

One of his responsibilities as the head -- as the head of the party is to support Democratic candidates who are on the ballot and that's why the president is -- is also spending a little bit of time supporting their efforts.

But the president -- there's no doubt -- anybody who's looked at the president's schedule understands that he's devoting significant more time and energy to the more important responsibility that he has to ensure the safety and security of the American people.

QUESTION: OK, on the substance of his comments yesterday, so you today and the president yesterday are trying to make this broader argument that it was sort of the media, pundits and others who sort of suggested we were inching closer to airstrikes against Syria.

And I wonder if the president himself didn't help set that expectation on August 20th when he commented on James Foley's beheading and said, quote, "This shocks the conscience of the entire world but when people harm Americans anywhere, we do what's necessary to see that justice is done and we act," he said, "we act against ISIS standing alongside others."

Was that just an empty threat?

EARNEST: No, Ed. As we've discussed the president ordered military action in Iraq in pursuit of... QUESTION: But we'd already been doing that before that statement, before the beheading. (inaudible) already acting military in Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: We have to go into Syria if we're really going to take ISIS out.

So my question is, is there a way to get justice, as he told the American people and the world he was going to do, without military action in Syria?

EARNEST: Ed, the president will get justice. The president promised that he will do that...

QUESTION: How do you get -- is there a way to get justice without military action, I'm trying to get at? Is it working with partners...

EARNEST: Ed, we just talked about the fact that the president has already ordered military action in Syria...

QUESTION: In Iraq.

EARNEST: ... carried out...

QUESTION: Not in Syria...

EARNEST: In Syria.

QUESTION: In Iraq.

EARNEST: The president has ordered military action in Iraq to go after ISIL elements that are threatening Americans and we've talked about how substantial and important those military actions have been in support of protecting American citizens in Iraq.

So the president is not shying away at all. He's already demonstrated that he's not going to shy away at all from using all of the elements of American power, whether it's military might or diplomatic influence, to represent American interest and to protect the lives of Americans in that region of the world.

QUESTION: Two other quick ones to get beyond the language of what he said, what -- what he meant.

Simple question: Why does he not have a strategy yet?

EARNEST: Because the Pentagon is still developing military options for the president, for the commander in chief to use against ISIL in Syria.

There are some who probably would make the case that it's OK to not have a formulated, comprehensive strategy but just as one pundit I know recently suggested, that we could just go drop some bombs and see what happens. That is not what the president believes is a smart approach.

The president believes it's important for us to pursue a comprehensive strategy where military action is one component of that strategy.

QUESTION: How does the Pentagon still not a strategy?

You're saying the Pentagon -- it's the Pentagon's issue? They haven't put this strategy together yet?

Is the commander in chief not saying, "I want this plan on my desk tomorrow"?

EARNEST: What the president is saying is that he wants -- he's going to deliberate about which components of our strategy can best be employed to protect the national security interests of the United States of America.

He wants the Pentagon to be deliberate as they develop the kinds of options that may or may not be available to him and the president will consider them and he will act in a timely fashion as he assesses the best interest of the United States of America.

QUESTION: In terms of a timely fashion -- last one -- August 2013, a year ago this month, the president had a news conference here and John Karl of ABC asked a question about whether the president still believes Al Qaida has been decimated. And the president said, "core Al Qaida," as he said many times, "has been decimated, but we're seeing these other groups metastasizing into regional groups that can still be dangerous." And the president went on to say -- he didn't name ISIS, but groups like ISIS, and he said, quote, "so that requires us then to make sure that we have a strategy that is strengthening those partners so that they've got their own capacity to deal with what are potentially manageable, regional threats."

August 2013, he's talking about how we need to be putting together a strategy. One year later, how can he not have that strategy?

EARNEST: Ed, as we've talked about quite a bit, the president has been very explicit about what the comprehensive strategy is. That comprehensive strategy...

QUESTION: I understand that, but he said "I don't have that strategy," specifically for Syria.

EARNEST: But Ed, what I'm trying to -- if you'll let me answer the question here, the point of that statement, and this is a -- this is a sentiment, a strategy that the president has reiterated on a number of occasions. He reiterated this at West Point when he spoke there on May 28th of this year. He says, "I believe that we must shift our counter-terrorism strategy, drawing on the success and shortcomings of our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold."

He reiterated that strategy when he spoke to the nation over in the State Dining Room earlier this month, where he talked about how the core component of our strategy needs to be building up regional partners so the United States isn't responsible for, in this situation, providing security for the people of Iraq. We need to build up our partners and make sure that we have a cooperative government so that the Iraqi people can provide for their own security.

That is the way that we will find an enduring way to deal with the threat that's posed by ISIL. If we rely only on America's military might, there's no question that because of the bravery and skill of our American servicemen and women, that they can have a substantial impact on the battlefield: that they could, as the president said yesterday, rout ISIL on the battlefield. There's no question about that.

But if we want to make sure that ISIL doesn't come back, we need to make sure that we have effective partners who can provide for the security of their country and prevent ISIL from making a return. Now, there's a role for the United States to play, both diplomatically and even militarily to support those efforts, but we're not going to be able to solve this problem for them, and I recognize that some of the president's critics don't agree.

Some of the president's critics believe that the United States should act militarily, that we can go out and solve this problem for them. But that's going to require a substantial commitment of American military forces, an occupation of another country, and that's just not a strategy that the president believes succeeds.

It certainly didn't succeed in Iraq last time around. And the president doesn't believe that it's a recipe for success this time either.

OK. Kristen?

QUESTION: Josh, following up on the military options. You said that during the meeting yesterday, the president discussed possible options with his national security team. So, just to be clear on this point, the Pentagon presented him any military options at this point?

EARNEST: Well, I'm not in a position to, as we've discussed a couple of times this week, I'm not going to get into a detailed play by play of the back and forth between the president and his senior military advisers. But I will tell you as a general matter that the president has been discussing, with his national security team and with his senior team at the Pentagon, the range of options that are or may be available to him for countering ISIL militarily, both in Iraq and in Syria. I will say that the president has discussed with his national security team some of the options that they're developing. I'm not going to, again, get into a play by play about whether or not they've finalized their plans, whether or not the president has received them, whether or not he's reviewed them, whether he's gotten back to them about those finalized plans. I just -- I'm not going to provide that much insight into this understandably private process.

But I will tell you that the president is -- has had a number of discussions with his national security team about military options that may or may not be available to him.

QUESTION: And going back to the discrepancy between the president's comments yesterday and Secretary Hagel, Chairman Dempsey last week, I know you're saying that they're on the same page right now, but does the president feel as though they got out ahead of him on this issue because they seem to be laying the groundwork for the strong possibility that there would be some type of military intervention in Syria?

EARNEST: I continue to be confident, as I was earlier, that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense and all the other senior members of the president's national security team are on the same page as the commander in chief. And if you have any doubt about that, you should ask them. But I'm confident they'll tell you the same thing.

QUESTION: Why the public discrepancy, Josh? Why do you have Secretary Hagel saying that this is a threat beyond anything that we've seen? Why are we seeing this discrepancy in the public comments?

EARNEST: Well, I think it's important to differentiate, though, between a discrepancy about the policy and strategy that the president is pursuing and the different words that secretary -- that the secretary of defense has chosen to describe this situation. He is offering up his honest assessment of what he perceives based on his knowledge of what's happening on the ground.

And I don't think it's particularly -- I don't think -- the words that he used -- he used, you know, were different than what the president has said about this. But the policy implications of that for securing the United States of America and our interests are completely consistent.

QUESTION: But if they're on the same page, does the president share that assessment that ISIS is beyond anything we've ever seen?

EARNEST: The president was asked a couple of times yesterday about his assessment of ISIL and the threat that they pose to the United States, so he's talked to this quite a bit, so I'd just refer you to his comments.

QUESTION: And does he, in terms of this urgency that he feels to come up with a strategy -- I mean, obviously, he's dispatched Secretary Kerry to try to create an international coalition. Does he have a timeline? Is this something that he's going to have a strategy in a matter of days? Is it a matter of weeks? EARNEST: Well, again Kristen (ph), he has laid out a

comprehensive strategy for dealing with ISIL. It starts with the formation of an effective, inclusive Iraqi government. It includes stronger support and a stronger relationship and more effective Iraqi and Kurdish security forces. It includes greater engagement from regional governments who have a clear stake in this outcome. It involves the participation of countries around the world who are concerned about the threat that's posed by ISIL.

And it includes the military actions that the president has already ordered take place in Iraq in support of all those goals. So there are a range of components to the president's strategy. He's laid out that -- laid that out very clearly. And that's the strategy that we're going to pursue because the president believes it's in the best national security interests of the United States of America.

It's also the only way we're going to get an enduring solution to this problem.

QUESTION: And Josh, let me finally just get you to respond to something that the New York Times editorial board wrote yesterday. They wrote, quote, "One problem is the administration's incomplete knowledge about ISIS or ISIL, its numbers and organization. This is alarming given the billions of dollars spent since September 11, 2001 in developing technologies and strategies for detecting and assessing terrorist threats." Is that a fair assessment? Does the administration not have a complete sense of ISIL at this point in time? Why isn't there a better understanding (inaudible) so many years after (inaudible)?

EARNEST: Well, for our assessment of ISIL's capabilities, I'd refer you to the intelligence community. But I can tell you that at the direction of the president, every element of the president's national security team is focused on making sure that we are putting in place the kind of strategy and implementing and executing on the strategy the president has laid out for protecting the national security interests of the United States.

Peter?

QUESTION: Josh, the Ukrainian people hear you saying we're not trending toward military action in Ukraine. And, of course, the comment that the president made, "We're quietly (ph) ruling that out." And when they see constant threats of increased notching up of sanctions, which again we're hearing about, that have only seen Russia take more robust action in their incursions, if that's what you want to describe it as.

Why shouldn't they think they're just -- their country's being written off?

EARNEST: The people of Ukraine?

QUESTION: Yeah.

EARNEST: Because the president also in his news conference said that the United States stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of Ukraine. I believe that was the phrase that he used. That's a pretty strong signal of support from the United States, the one indispensable nation in the world, in support of their cause.

You've also seen the United States, acting in concert with our allies, impose significant costs on Russia for Russia's strategy in Ukraine. And those economic costs have taken a toll on the Russian economy. We've seen significant capital flight from Russia. There's a pretty clear indication that Russia is not a really -- that -- that the global investing public doesn't think that Russia's a pretty good place to park your money right now. In fact...

QUESTION: (inaudible) artillery units rolling all through Ukraine now, too.

EARNEST: They do.

QUESTION: It has no effect.

EARNEST: They also -- well, again, the sanctions have had an effect. They have taken a toll on their economy. Capital flight, we've seen the Russian currency weaken so much that the Central Bank has expended significant sums of money to try to prop up the value of that currency.

We have seen economic projections as it relates to economic growth in Russia significantly curtailed. We've seen Russia's credit rating downgraded by independent credit rating organizations.

So there has been a toll that's been taken on the Russian economy, and ultimately, it'll be up to President Putin to determine exactly how he wants to respond to this situation. But the fact is, and the president said this yesterday, too, that for all of Russia's continued agitation in Ukraine, Russia's becoming only more isolated and more weakened.

QUESTION: Do you see (ph) having any effect on its military yet -- actions in Ukraine? No.

EARNEST: Well, what we have seen is, we've seen the Russians continue their efforts to transfer weapons and materiel and even personnel across the border from Russia into Ukraine. But ultimately, those -- those sorts of decisions are made by President Putin.

EARNEST: But there's a significant cost associated with those -- with those decisions. We've seen the -- the -- the impact it's taken on the Russian economy. We've seen Russia become more isolated. In -- in the president's view, Russia is weaker as a result.

And so, President Putin needs to make a decision about whether or not he wants -- he's willing to significantly weaken his country just to destabilize a country that's on their border. QUESTION: What do you think Putin's up to today, with comments like reminding a young audience of Russia's nuclear capability?

EARNEST: Well, as I mentioned, I think in answer to Steven's (ph) question, that when they're denying photographic evidence of Russia's military actions in Ukraine, it's pretty hard to tell what exactly they're thinking over there. OK?

Zeke, I'll give you the last one, then we'll do the week ahead.

QUESTION: One, on Russia.

(CROSSTALK)

EARNEST: Go ahead, Zeke.

QUESTION: So, is it your assessment that -- the administration's assessment that the threat level based in the United States from ISIS/ISIL, is lower than that in Britain, and that's the reason why the threat level hasn't been elevated?

EARNEST: Well, I wouldn't draw that clear of a line. I think what I would do is I would say, you know, the president's been clear about the threat that ISIL does pose in the form of these foreign fighters to the United States and our interests. That's something that we're concerned about, focused on, and actively working to mitigate.

And we don't, at this point, however, see a reason to change the threat level in this country. Again, for an official assessment of that, though, I'd refer you to the Department of Homeland Security that's responsible for making those decisions.

QUESTION: And also on that, I mean, in terms of the -- you said before you didn't anticipate a change in the threat level (inaudible) repeat that now. What would change that assessment? What is the trigger that the president and his administration would look for? EARNEST: Well, it would be the responsibility of the secretary of homeland security to make that determination. And so, what factors would play into that, I'd refer you to the secretary of homeland security. OK?

(CROSSTALK)

EARNEST: With that, why don't we do a quick week ahead, and then we'll call it a day.

The president, as we all know, will be departing here tomorrow evening, with his family to go to New York to participate in a private event, to attend a private event in New York.

EARNEST: On Monday, the president is looking forward to celebrating Labor Day in Milwaukee. He'll be traveling there for an event where he'll deliver remarks.

On Tuesday morning, the president will depart the White House for his trip to Europe. He will travel to Estonia. He will spend the night -- Tuesday night, in Estonia. He'll do a range of meetings with the leaders of the Baltic nations in -- in Estonia before leaving Estonia on Wednesday night to travel to Wales for the NATO summit. The NATO summit will take place Thursday and Friday. The president will return on Friday evening back here to the White House.

Over the course of that trip, I do anticipate you'll have a couple opportunities to hear directly from the president and even ask him a question or two.

All right?

Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Presser in Tallinn and Wales?

EARNEST: I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Presser in Tallinn and Wales?

EARNEST: That's the current plan, yes. OK.

Have a good Labor Day weekend, everybody.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: You've been watching a White House press briefing. The press secretary, Josh Earnest, addressing reporters on a number of different topics. One in particular, a massive headline that came out after the president addressed the nation live yesterday, and that was, we don't have a strategy. Josh Earnest has been trying to mitigate that somewhat by suggesting that was not necessarily when dealing with ISIS in total. His answer, instead, that this was about putting the cart before the horse in terms of the president seeking congressional approval and authority for any kind of action in Syria. So he's trying to tamp down and do some damage control. Our Jim Acosta valiantly trying to get the answer, was he trying to get a do-over on that expression because words matter, but that was how Josh Earnest put it.

And I want to take you immediately over to the Pentagon. There's a lot of live briefings going on right now. And the Pentagon press secretary, Rear Admiral John Kirby, is answering reporter's questions live. Let's dip in live and hear where he is with his press briefing.

REAR ADMIRAL JOHN KIRBY, PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY: Hey, everybody. Just a couple of comments to open up.

I want to start with a quick preview of Secretary Hagel's schedule next week. On Wednesday, September 3rd, the secretary will embark on his 16th international trip, a six-day, three-country trip centered around the NATO summit in Wales. On his way to the summit, the secretary will first stop in Newport, Rhode Island, to deliver a keynote speech at the Southeastern New England Defense Industry Alliance's Defense Innovation Days Conference.

In keeping with the conference's focus, I expect the secretary to addressing the challenges facing our military's technological edge and how the Defense Department must meet them. He touched on these issues before in his budget testimony and in his speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs this spring, but this will be an opportunity to talk in greater detail about the need for innovation and how we develop and procure new capabilities.

KIRBY: While in Newport, the secretary will also visit the Naval War College.

In Wales, the secretary will join President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their counterparts from NATO and its partner nations for this very important summit. As you know, the focus of the summit will be Afghanistan, the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East, and how to strengthen the alliance for the future. The secretary has participated in some four NATO defense ministerials leading up to the summit and views it as an important opportunity to address the ongoing crises in the world, but also set the direction for NATO in the coming years.

An important part of that strategy will be NATO's partnerships, and from Wales, the secretary will next travel to Georgia, one of the United States' and NATO's most important and capable partners. This will be his first visit to Georgia as secretary, but he's met with his Georgian counterpart before and also met with the Georgian prime minister earlier this year while in Munich.

The Georgian military has been a valued partner of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the secretary looks forward to thanking the Georgian people for their contributions and sacrifices over the last decade. Obviously, Georgia shares our concerns about Russia's actions in Ukraine, and that will, of course, be at the top of his agenda during that visit.

From Georgia, Secretary Hagel will next travel to Turkey for his first visit there as secretary of defense. Turkey is a key NATO ally, and given its border with Syria and Iraq, they share our deep concerns with the threat posed -- the regional threat posed by ISIL. Secretary Hagel has longstanding relationships with Turkey's leaders, including the newly inaugurated President Erdogan, and he views this visit as an important opportunity to advance our critical relationship.

With that, I'll take questions. Bob?

QUESTION: Admiral, on Ukraine, could you sort of sketch out the picture on the ground there as best you could, in terms of what the latest movements of Russian forces, tanks and other forces, into Ukraine, what numbers, and the degree to which that represents an escalation of their involvement, and whether you consider this an invasion?

KIRBY: OK, well, there's an awful lot there, Bob. I'm not going to try to detail in great specificity what the Russian armed forces are doing. I mean, that's really for their defense ministry to speak to. I mean, it's their military, and we don't have a perfect view of everything they're doing. That said, as I have said many times, we have continued to see them build up their capabilities along that border. We have continued to see them advance weapons systems, some very sophisticated, into eastern Ukraine, in support of the separatists. And as I've said just -- just earlier this week, that we have long believed that Russian forces, military forces have been a part of that movement, obviously, facilitating the movement and then helping the separatists use, if not using it themselves in support of separatists.

So we've seen this continue to build and build and build, and now you've seen NATO come out with some imagery recently that has shown -- not only laid bare those facts for everybody, but talked about how in the last couple of weeks that effort has intensified. As the Ukrainian armed forces have gotten more capable and been able to retake territory in eastern Ukraine -- and that is, that we believe that that has helped foster Moscow's intention to intensify these efforts.

So it's a continuation of what we've seen all along. Whatever verb you want to put on it, whatever you want to call it, it's just, again, intensification of the same behavior that we've been seeing Russia do now for several months. So our position hasn't changed. We continue to look for ways to support the Ukrainian armed forces and the border guards. We continue to look for ways to reassure our NATO allies and partners, and we continue to call for Russia to pull its forces back and to stop escalating the tension there.

QUESTION: On that point about looking for ways to support Ukrainian forces, do you -- are you preparing any new initiatives? Are you considering training inside Ukraine with U.S. forces or anything of that nature?

KIRBY: I'm not aware of anything that's specifically inside Ukraine, Bob, but we have had a 20-year-plus relationship with the military of Ukraine, and that will continue, and we believe that it is in some measure helped with their own professionalism and organization and command and control capabilities, simply the association with us and the training opportunities that we've had. I don't have anything specific to announce today in terms of a new exercise, but we are continuing -- and I think there were press reports about yet another exercise that we're doing, I think, in Poland coming up here.

So we're -- when we talked about the fact that we were going to look for ways to make the training regime more aggressive and more -- more comprehensive in Europe, we meant what we said and we continue to do that, but, no, I don't have anything in particular to announce today.

Yeah?

QUESTION: Two questions. Do you have a cost of the Iraq operation so far that you could share with us? And, secondly, regarding the options that President Obama said yesterday he had asked Secretary Hagel to develop, can you just clarify for us how those options are different than the options that were under development or were developed before following the arrival of the advisers or the assessors in Iraq?

KIRBY: OK, let me get the cost one, and then I'll do the best I can with the second one. But if I don't get the nuance right, just stop me. What I can tell about the cost of ongoing activities in Iraq is that it has varied since the beginning in mid-June. But on average, it's costing about $7.5 million per day. And that's based on a snapshot of the operations that have occurred as of the 26th of this month.

So, as you might imagine, I mean, it has -- it didn't start out at $7.5 million per day. It's been -- as our OPTEMPO and as our activities have intensified, so, too, has -- so, too, has the cost. But roughly right now, it's about $7.5 million per day. That's being funded out of the overseas contingency operations fund for 2014. We're well within our limits in that regard.

And as the secretary said to you last week, we think we've got it covered in terms of '14 funding. On your other...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) since mid-June?

KIRBY: Right, since -- since the operations began. Or since our activities in Iraq have begun in mid-June, that was the first War Powers Resolution finding when we put in some security assistance personnel, so since the beginning. Now, again, it didn't -- you know, when we first added some security personnel in and around Baghdad, that wasn't costing us $7.5 million. But this is the average since the very beginning. I don't have a daily figure for you, like, every day. And it changes every day.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: We can add it up for you. But I mean, you know, since June 16th, been roughly $7.5 million per day. And I didn't bring my calculator up here with you, but we can figure that out for you.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) accurate way of (OFF-MIKE)

KIRBY: I don't know that it -- I mean, if you're looking for a total, that's probably a good way to thumbnail it, from about June 16th to today, roughly $7.5 million per day. But, again, Julian, it's not like it's been $7.5 million every single day. You know, I mean, it didn't start out that much. It's on average that's about the cost. So you've got to be careful here with the -- you know, with how you characterize the total dollar figure.

And, again, it's being supported through our overseas contingency funding. We're well within the limits that we need for 2014.

Now, you had a second question on options. I mean, you guys know this, that this is a planning organization, and the discussion of plans is an iterative process. It's not something that -- that we haven't been thinking about for quite some time. And I would also tell you that and to remind you that the

situation on the ground there continues to change. And as -- it's very fluid. And as it continues to change, so, too, do the kinds of plans that -- that Central Command planners are working on. There have been and will continue to be discussions, both here in the Pentagon, in the interagency, and across the river with the State Department and the White House, about -- about what options look like, what they could look like, but it's iterative. And when -- when we get to a point where, you know, we're ready to have a more fulsome discussion about that, the Pentagon will be ready to have that discussion.

QUESTION: But just to clarify, so the options that he's been asked to develop are trying to combat ISIL in Iraq and Syria? Is that right?

KIRBY: The president yesterday was speaking specifically about options for potential military action in Syria. That's what the president was referring to yesterday, and that's -- those are the plans and the options that -- that he's looking for from us and that we're working on, specifically with respect to Syria.

And it's important to remember, Missy, I mean, we've been -- we've been operating inside Iraq from a humanitarian perspective and obviously from a perspective of conducting air strikes. Nothing's changed about those missions. We continue to conduct them. CENTCOM continues to send press releases every day. We're up almost to 110 air strikes total since they -- since they began. So the discussion of operations in Iraq continues because the operations in Iraq continue.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) sorry, just to clarify, so -- so you guys say you always have options on the table. This was a new request from the president for something.

KIRBY: What the president was referring to yesterday was planning options inside Syria. Now, I'd be less than truthful if I said to you that we -- that we hadn't been thinking about that before yesterday. Of course we have been. And we've talked about that.

But two points. One, we're not at the point, you know, where we're prepared to have a more fulsome discussion about what those options are with the commander-in-chief. That's number one. And number two -- and this is not a small point -- that the commander-in- chief, Secretary Hagel, Chairman Dempsey have all said that whatever the options are for Syria, it's not just going to be military. It can't just be military. There's not going to be a military solution here to the threat that ISIL poses. It's just not going to happen.

It's got to be a more comprehensive and regional -- and it's got to factor in other elements of national power than just military. And so while we certainly, for our part, have to work on what those options could look like, there are other parts of our government that are working, as well, on options that they might need to pursue in the future going forward.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) how contingent are your options on overflights of Syria, for gathering intelligence -- ISR? KIRBY: Any military operation requires knowledge of the situation on the ground as the best you can get it. I mean, we always want to have as much information and as accurate information as you can possibly have. And so I think you can expect, Tony, without getting into talking about specific hypothetical or future operations, that whatever options we prepare and what -- and are prepared to conduct will be reliant upon getting and obtaining and analyzing the best information as you can on the ground.

QUESTION: Just a point here. Back in June, when the Congress and a lot of the public was asking what the United States can do to blunt the momentum of ISIL in Iraq, Chairman Dempsey was pretty clear at the time saying we don't have a complete air picture yet, this is going to take a while. Is it fair to say your gathering of a complete air picture, a ground picture of ISIL in Syria may take several weeks before you're comfortable enough to having this fulsome discussion that you talked about?

KIRBY: I don't think that I'd be prepared to put a specific timeline on it, Tony, in terms of weeks or days. I just don't think I'd be prepared to do that. And it wouldn't be prudent for me to do it.

As I said, any time you're going to conceive of or prepare for military options, anywhere in the world for any number of missions, you're going to want to get as much information as you can. And you can expect -- in fact, the taxpayers I think would expect us to want to do this thing with -- if we get asked to do anything in Syria, to do with it as much information as possible. But, again, I won't -- I wouldn't speculate about how or when or how long.

QUESTION: A lot of the public's going to be worried about U.S. flyers going over there and possibly getting shot down. Can this a lot of this be done from the Iraq border or the southern Turkish border, kind of peering into Syria and standoff capabilities?

KIRBY: Well, again, without talking about potential future operations or speculating, so what I'm about to say is not validating the premise of the question, which is that we definitely will conduct strikes inside Syria or that we are -- are or will conduct surveillance one way or the other, there are many ways in which we gain situational awareness. And some of that requires the use of air assets, and some of it doesn't. And I think I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, Joe?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) just to follow up on having accurate an information about ISIS capabilities, could you confirm if ISIS militants have now drone capabilities? We are seeing reports mentioning this issue this morning.

KIRBY: If ISIL has drones of their own?

QUESTION: Yeah.

KIRBY: I've seen a press report here, a spurious report, but I have nothing to -- that would back that up at all.

QUESTION: Just quick follow-up. Yesterday, President Obama said that some states in the region are ambivalent about dealing with ISIL. Some of them are financing ISIL. Could you elaborate on that? Do you have more information? Can we say now some gulf states are from one hand -- in one hand facing ISIL and the other hand are financing them?

KIRBY: No, I'm not going to elaborate on that, not at all.

Tom?

QUESTION: The president said yesterday there's no strategy yet for ISIL. Talk about, going ahead, the Pentagon's role here in developing that strategy. Presumably, the secretary's going to talk about this in Turkey and NATO with the partners. So get into -- talk a little bit about the way ahead. What are the plans you're looking at? What do you hope to achieve? Talk about, you know, training moderate rebels. There's talk about having the Pentagon have a greater role in that effort. And train and assist mission in Iraq eventually presumably would be part of that kind of a strategy.

KIRBY: If I tried to answer that question in every aspect that you asked it, I'd be basically -- you know, you've asked me to kind of lay it all out right here in a press conference. And I'm -- and I'm sure you guys would greatly appreciate that and would make your jobs a lot easier and mine pretty much nonexistent.

(LAUGHTER)

I'm -- I think the way I would think about this, Tom, is that -- and the president said this pretty well yesterday, that this is really about degrading ISIL's capability to operate and to continue to conduct the sort of brutal violence that they have been doing inside Iraq and the threat that they pose to the region. So if you take it from that perspective, that that's kind of where you're going, there are many ways to do that. Not all of them are military. I can't speak for those, so let's just talk about the military ways you can do that.

Some of the military ways you can do that is the way we're doing it inside Iraq right now, which is through the use of air strikes. You can certainly hit them, and we have been. And I would, you know, at -- I would tell you we're hitting what we're aiming at inside Iraq. And we know that inside Iraq, on a tactical level, we're having an effect on their ability to operate. We're being disruptive to their own operations, to their command and control, to their ability to move around.

So you can have an effect in that way. In the Pentagon, it's called -- you know, we call it kinetics, which I know is a fancy word, but it basically means that you're having a very targeted, precise effect. And we can do that.

There are also other ways that you can -- that you can, from a military perspective, try to disrupt and degrade their ability to operate through humanitarian assistance, through advice and assist. And one of the things -- and you mentioned it -- and the secretary's committed to this is a -- is trying to move forward on a train and equip program for a moderate Syrian opposition. We've asked for $500 million in Congress. We hope to get that authorized and appropriated for fiscal year '15, which is coming up here pretty soon, so that we can move out on this.

There's a lot of hurdles that remain to be leaped, in terms of getting us there. You've got to have a moderate opposition that you can rely on. There's got to be a vetting process. You got to have at least one willing partner in the region to help sponsor some of the, you know, sites for training. I mean, there's a lot of work that we've got to do, and we're working our way through that.

But there are -- inside the military component element of national, there's lots of things we can do that don't all include air strikes. And if we've learned nothing -- and you guys have been covering this longer than I've been here in the Pentagon, 13 years of war -- if we've learned nothing over 13 years of war is you can't completely eliminate extremism anywhere through simply kinetics, through air strikes alone. And so while we must be ready for that option, and we will be, and we'll be prepared at the appropriate time to discuss those kinds of options with the commander-in-chief, that alone is not going to be the answer.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) train and assist mission, if there is to be one in Iraq, you've been assessing them for quite some time now. You know, most people have...

(CROSSTALK)

KIRBY: One of the options...

QUESTION: ... have a good sense of how degraded the Iraqi army is, so...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... some sort of a train and assist down the road? Or is that uncertain yet?

KIRBY: It's entirely possible that the assessment teams could move to more of an advisory mission. That hasn't happened yet. But that's certainly a possibility going forward. We just haven't, you know, reached that level yet. And that decision hasn't been made yet. But that's certainly an option.

I would also tell you that, you know, we still have those two joint operation centers, one in Baghdad, one in Erbil, and they continue to support, advise and assist. So there is some advising going on through the joint operations centers. We just haven't placed teams out with units at a brigade level or higher, which was the thought. That's still very much under active consideration.

And you're right. I mean, that could be part of a stitched- together, more regional approach here. If you're doing that -- potentially doing that in Iraq, and we want to build a moderate opposition, which would require sort of a train and equip, advise and assist sort of thing to a moderate opposition, all those things are certainly military options available, and all those things are certainly being considered. But, again, I wouldn't get ahead of what actually where it's going to get (inaudible) down to.

QUESTION: You mentioned disrupt and degrade ISIL, but not destroy? Is that the plan, is disrupt and degrade?

KIRBY: Those were my words. I wouldn't -- I'm not -- I don't make policy here. The president said yesterday that -- he used the word degrade ISIL's capabilities. And I think that's where I'll leave it. I'm not going to -- I'm not going to elaborate on the president's comments.

Barbara?

QUESTION: You said a minute ago that the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs not ready to go back to the president with options yet, still working on them. And he said yesterday he hadn't heard back and he was waiting.

But just last week, Secretary Hagel, right there, said ISIS was a threat like nothing we've ever seen, we have to be ready for it. This building has talked about it being imminent. So clear up the confusion for the American people: Is this urgent or isn't it? And fundamentally, what is taking the Pentagon so long? Because you're always ready. If you had to strike today, would you be ready? What is taking so long?

KIRBY: The question presupposes that we're not doing anything as it is, Barb, and...

QUESTION: I'm asking why -- well, why are you not ready to go to the president? Why is he saying that he is still waiting for you?

KIRBY: Well, let me try to answer that. Again, the question presumes that we're not doing anything, that there's no sense of urgency in the Pentagon. And you and I both know that's not true. We have upped our military presence in the Persian Gulf. We've intensified surveillance flights over Iraq. We have conducted nearly 110 and -- and maybe 110, but by the time I'm talking to you -- air strikes inside Iraq.

So, believe me, this building and the United States military shares the same sense of urgency over the situation in Iraq and the threat that ISIL poses.