DOD EXPLAINS EVOLUTION OF 'USE OF FORCE LAW' TO COVER MULTIPLE MILITARY OPERATIONS

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
General Counsel Charts Use of Force Law’s Evolution
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, April 13, 2015 – Though the very idea of law sounds immutable and concrete, the law evolves as circumstances change, the Defense Department’s general counsel told the American Society of International Law here April 10.

Stephen W. Preston updated the group on the latest thinking behind the legal framework for military options and on how that thinking has changed.
Preston explained the history behind the authorization for the use of military force that allowed operations against al-Qaida in 2001. The AUMF, as it is commonly abbreviated, was not a traditional declaration of war against a state, he said.

“We had been attacked, instead, by a terrorist organization,” he said. “Yes, the Taliban had allowed [Osama] bin Laden and his organization to operate with impunity within Afghanistan. But it was not Afghanistan that had launched the attack. It was bin Laden and his terrorist organization.

“The authorization for the use of military force that Congress passed aimed to give the president all the statutory authority he needed to fight back against bin Laden, his organization and those who supported him, including the Taliban,” Preston added.

Associated Forces

Congress, the executive branch and the courts agreed in 2011 that the 2001 AUMF covered associated forces, too: al-Qaida, the Taliban and certain other terrorist or insurgent groups in Afghanistan; al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen; and individuals who are part of al-Qaida in Somalia and Libya, the general counsel said.

“In addition, over the past year, we have conducted military operations under the 2001 AUMF against the Nusrah Front and, specifically, those members of al-Qaida referred to as the Khorasan Group in Syria,” he added. “We have also resumed such operations against the group we fought in Iraq when it was known as al-Qaida in Iraq, which is now known as [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant].”

Putting groups into this category is done only at the highest levels of the U.S. government, Preston said.

He stressed that American actions against ISIL are consistent with international and domestic law. ISIL grew out of al-Qaida in Iraq, and Americans and American interests have been targets of the terror group since 2004, he said.
ISIL’s recent split from al-Qaida does not change the situation in respect to law, Preston told the group. ISIL considers itself to be the true inheritor of bin Laden’s legacy and groups that have pledged loyalty to ISIL, he explained, adding that this alone covers the group under the 2001 AUMF.

Authorization for Force in Iraq

Preston stressed that the president’s authority to fight ISIL is further reinforced by the 2002 authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. “That AUMF authorized the use of force to, among other things, ‘defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,’” he said.

Though the AUMF was directed against Saddam Hussein’s regime, “the statute … has always been understood to authorize the use of force for the related purposes of helping to establish a stable, democratic Iraq and addressing terrorist threats emanating from Iraq,” he said.

For current operations in Iraq, he noted, the Iraqi government requested American help against ISIL. “In Syria, the United States is using force against ISIL in the collective self-defense of Iraq and U.S. national self-defense, and it has notified the U.N. Security Council that it is taking these actions in Syria consistent with Article 51 of the U.N. Charter,” he said. Article 51 allows for self-defense actions.

Though the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan ended in December, the 2001 AUMF remains valid, Preston said.

“Although our presence in that country has been reduced and our mission there is more limited, the fact is that active hostilities continue,” he said. “As a matter of international law, the United States remains in a state of armed conflict against the Taliban, al-Qaida and associated forces, and the 2001 AUMF continues to stand as statutory authority to use military force.”

The roughly 10,000 U.S. service members in Afghanistan have two missions, Preston told the group. The first -- a NATO mission -- is to continue training Afghan security forces. The second is a counterterrorism mission aimed at the remnants of al-Qaida and to prevent an al-Qaida resurgence or external plotting against the homeland or U.S. targets abroad, the general counsel said.

“The use of force by the U.S. military in Afghanistan is now limited to circumstances in which using force is necessary to execute those two missions or to protect our personnel,” he said.

Adapting Law to the ISIL Fight

Preston then turned to current discussions over an AUMF aimed directly at ISIL. President Barack Obama wants ultimately to repeal the 2001 AUMF and to tailor its authorities to better fit the current fight and the strategy going forward, he said. In February, the president submitted draft legislation authorizing use of “the armed forces of the United States as the president determines to be necessary and appropriate against ISIL or associated persons or forces.”

“This raises the question: If the president already has the authority needed to take action against ISIL, why is he seeking a new authorization?” the general counsel asked. “Most obviously and importantly, as the president has said, the world needs to know we are united behind the effort against ISIL, and the men and women of our military deserve our clear and unified support. Enacting the president’s proposed AUMF will show our fighting forces, the American people, our foreign partners and the enemy that the president and Congress are united in their resolve to degrade and defeat ISIL.”

NSC SPOKESPERSON MAKES STATEMENT ON YEMEN

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
March 25, 2015
Statement by NSC Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan on the Situation in Yemen

The United States strongly condemns ongoing military actions taken by the Houthis against the elected government of Yemen.  These actions have caused widespread instability and chaos that threaten the safety and well-being of all Yemeni citizens.

The United States has been in close contact with President Hadi and our regional partners.  In response to the deteriorating security situation, Saudi Arabia, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, and others will undertake military action to defend Saudi Arabia’s border and to protect Yemen’s legitimate government.  As announced by GCC members earlier tonight, they are taking this action at the request of Yemeni President Abdo Rabbo Mansour Hadi.

The United States coordinates closely with Saudi Arabia and our GCC partners on issues related to their security and our shared interests.  In support of GCC actions to defend against Houthi violence, President Obama has authorized the provision of logistical and intelligence support to GCC-led military operations.  While U.S. forces are not taking direct military action in Yemen in support of this effort, we are establishing a Joint Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia to coordinate U.S. military and intelligence support.

At the same time, the United States continues to closely monitor terrorist threats posed by al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula and will continue to take action as necessary to disrupt continuing, imminent threats to the United States and our citizens.

We strongly urge the Houthis to halt immediately their destabilizing military actions and return to negotiations as part of the political dialogue.  The international community has spoken clearly through the UN Security Council and in other fora that the violent takeover of Yemen by an armed faction is unacceptable and that a legitimate political transition – long sought by the Yemeni people – can be accomplished only through political negotiations and a consensus agreement among all of the parties.

CIA HEAD SAYS TERRORISM "MORPHING" INTO THEATS LIKE CYBERATTACKS

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
CIA Chief: Terrorism Morphing Into Different Threats
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2015 – Terrorism is morphing into different types of threats, including cyberattacks that can impact nations across the globe, the director of central intelligence said in New York last week.

John Brennan told the Council on Foreign Relations that terror attacks in Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia show the terror threat is changing. The CIA working with foreign partners is key to defeating the terror threat, he added.
“These attacks underscore a disturbing trend that we have been monitoring for some time -- the emergence of a terrorist threat that is increasingly decentralized, difficult to track and even more difficult to thwart,” Brennan said.

Though the United States and its partners have had considerable success in attacking core al-Qaida, affiliates have risen, said Brennan, pointing to al-Qaida groups in Libya, Egypt, Somalia, Nigeria “and especially Yemen where al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has demonstrated a capability to plot attacks well beyond Yemen’s borders, including in our homeland.”

ISIL a ‘Serious Danger’ Beyond Region

But the heartland of terror, the director said, now operates in Syria and Iraq where the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is waging a campaign of unspeakable brutality against the local population and anyone who does not share its ideology.

Left unchecked, ISIL poses a serious danger not only to Syria and Iraq, but to the wider region and beyond, including the threat of attacks on the U.S. homeland and the homelands of its partners, Brennan said.

The intelligence chief echoed DoD leaders in saying the fight against ISIL will be a long one. “If there is one thing we have learned over the years, it is that success against terrorism requires patience and determination,” he said. “Clearly our country will be dealing with terrorism in one form or another for many years to come.”

Threats in the Cyber Realm

Modern communications technologies complicate the fight against ISIL and its ilk, Brennan said. “New technologies can help groups like ISIL coordinate operations, attract new recruits, disseminate propaganda and inspire sympathizers across the globe to act in their name,” he said. “The overall threat of terrorism is greatly amplified by today’s interconnected world where an incident in one corner of the globe can instantly spark a reaction thousands of miles away, and where a lone extremist can go online and learn how to carry out an attack without ever leaving home.”

The cyber domain brings tremendous benefits, but also brings tremendous dangers, he said.

“Threats in the cyber realm are an urgent national security priority, as America has no equivalent to the two wide oceans that have helped safeguard our country’s physical, maritime and aviation domains for centuries,” Brennan added.

Nations, terrorist organizations, criminals and hackers are trying to penetrate U.S. digital networks, he said.

“Government institutions are under constant assault, and private companies are spending enormous sums of money to defend against hacking attempts, denial of service attacks and other efforts to disrupt their networks,” Brennan said.
The North Korean attack on Sony last year highlighted the cyber threat, he said.
“CIA is working with our partners across the federal government to strengthen cyber defenses, to share expertise and to collaborate with the private sector to mitigate these threats,” Brennan said. “Together we have advanced our understanding of the threats in the cyber realm.”

DOD SAYS ISIL NO LONGER IN OPEN LEADING TO FEWER AIRSTRIKE TARGETS

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Fewer Air Targets as ISIL Terrorists Hide, Change Tactics
By Claudette Roulo
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23, 2015 – Success in the effort to degrade, defeat and destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant shouldn't be considered simply in terms of a body count or how much land has changed hands, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby said today.

"What makes these guys different than a group like al-Qaida is they do have territorial designs. They have governing ambitions," Kirby told reporters during a regular Pentagon news briefing.

"They talk about this caliphate vision of theirs. And in order to govern, you have to have territory under your control. So that matters, in that regard," the admiral explained.

Airstrikes Affecting ISIL Tactics

But the more critical measure of success is one that can't be easily quantified: how ISIL’s behavior on the battlefield has changed since the start of the bombing campaign last June, Kirby said.

"We know that they are operating and communicating in much different ways now than they were seven months ago. They're no longer out in the open," he said.

Because there are fewer targets, the air campaign has slowed down, the admiral said.

"One of the reasons why maybe there's fewer targets is because they're hiding more," Kirby said. "And if they're hiding more, if they're constrained, then they're not as able to enact the same kind of influence. So they're changing the way they operate. They are definitely much more on the defensive."

ISIL forces have also slowed their attempts to seize more territory, he said.
"What we are starting to see them do is defend, you know, so they're getting into defensive positions on territory that they do have," the admiral said. "And they are -- we're seeing them try to protect their own lines of communication."

Progress Against a Potent Force

These signs of progress -- in addition to indications that ISIL is struggling due to the inability to resupply themselves and because of the loss of oil revenue -- shouldn't be taken to mean that they are no longer a potent force inside Iraq and Syria, Kirby said.

"There's a long way to go here," he said. Establishing the conditions that will lead to good governance inside Iraq and Syria will take three to five years, the admiral said, and eradicating the ideology of ISIL will require more than just a military campaign.

"I've said it before, I'll say it again: ... The real center of gravity for this group is their ideology, not their fighters, not their trucks, and not necessarily, you know, every little camp they set up or position that they establish," Kirby said.
"It's about this ideology and that's going to take time. And it's not going to be done through military means alone."

BACKGROUND CONFERENCE CALL REGARDING PRESIDENT'S COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS AT WEST POINT

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Background Conference Call on the President's Commencement Address at West Point

11:15 A.M. EDT

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  I’ll just say a few things and then take your questions.  So in the President’s speech today he was focused on defining, as we come out of a period dominated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, what the next phase of our foreign policy is, both as it relates to our counterterrorism mission and also our broader role in the world.  You heard him speak at length about that.  I’ll only comment on a number of things.

First of all, as we laid out yesterday, we have a commitment now and a decision about how to wind down the war in Afghanistan that involves keeping a force of 9,800 U.S. servicemembers at the beginning of 2015, and then stepping down to a security presence in our embassy in Kabul, as we did in Iraq, by the end of 2016. 

Having made that decision and that announcement yesterday, today the President wanted to discuss the counterterrorism strategy that comes next, what replaces the approach that was focused on the large-scale deployments that we had in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And he made very clear that that approach needs to match our resources to the threat, which has changed as al Qaeda core has been severely degraded, but other al Qaeda affiliates and extremist groups have emerged in different parts of the region from South Asia to the Sahel. 

The President was very clear that the focus of our efforts must be capacity building.  We need to build essentially a network of partners across this region so that we can deal with the terrorist threat.  And we will support that series of partnerships in different ways.  In some instances, we will provide training and equipping.  In some instances, we will facilitate actions like we were doing in Mali for the French.  We have resources that range from intelligence to special operations to trainers.  And, of course, we will take direct action against a terrorist when it is necessary for our own security.

In order to provide funding and resources for this capacity building, the President announced that he will be working with Congress to establish a Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund of up to $5 billion.  And the purpose of this fund is to make sure that we have the resources available, and the flexibility available, to support all these different missions. 

We highlight the challenge of Syria as both a huge humanitarian crisis and a growing counterterrorism issue.  And the President indicated that this additional funding will support, for instance, Syria’s neighbors who are dealing with a terrorist threat that crosses borders.  He also made very clear that we will continue to find ways to support the Syrian opposition.  And we have, as we’ve told you, provided different types of support, including military support, to the Syrian opposition and we are doing more to increase that support.  And that’s something that we’re going to continue to do going forward.  And we will work with Congress, as he indicated, to find ways to increase that support for the Syrian opposition.

Beyond counterterrorism, he laid out his vision for U.S. leadership in the world, one that is rooted in the United States strengthening existing international institutions and norms, but also working to establish clear rules of the road for emerging challenges from cybersecurity to maritime issues to climate change.  And you heard him highlight two of our key priorities, Iran and Ukraine, where we have worked through collective action with the international community to achieve our objectives.

And, of course, you heard the President speak about our ongoing commitment to promote our values around the world, both through support for democratic transitions in countries like Burma and in the Middle East and North Africa, but also through an increased focus on broadening our relationships and networks with peoples around the world.

With that, I’m happy to move to questions about any elements of the speech or any of the policies that the President touched on. 

Q    On Syria, could you give some more details on what the President means when he says he will work with Congress to find ways to ramp up support for the opposition?  Is the administration considering an open effort by the U.S. military to train and arm in some way the opposition?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, it’s a good question.  So, first of all, we have an ongoing effort to ramp up our support for the moderate opposition, and that is an effort that we coordinate very closely with our Arab partners and our European allies.  And we believe that the trajectory of that assistance has been upward and can make a real difference in strengthening the moderate opposition.

We also, as I indicated, are going to commit additional resources to the neighbors -- Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq -- who are dealing with both refugee and counterterrorism challenges.  But as we look for additional ways to strengthen the opposition, we want to review a variety of different options.  We believe, again, that strengthening the opposition is both the best counterweight to Assad and also the best counterweight to the extremist elements within Syria.  And we do want to work to review the possibility of the United States military participating in that effort.

I would draw your attention, for instance, to a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, which indicates support for and authorities for the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition.  I think that indicates an emerging view in Congress that is supportive of providing that type of authority for the United States military to participate in support for the opposition.

So this is a conversation that we want to have with Congress as they develop their approaches, as we develop ideas for how to increase resources that can flow to the Syrian opposition.  So this is something, again, we’ll be discussing with Congress in the coming weeks and months.  I think the basic principle is, what are the best ways for us to provide support to the Syrian opposition; what are the different means of doing so; how can we increase resources, as the President spoke about; and how do we explore areas like authorities that are within that provision that I think was an initiative of Carl Levin, but also then drew broad support in the Armed Services Committee -- I believe it passed 26 to 1 23-3.

So this will be an ongoing focus for us as we head into the summer.

Q    After listening to your answer just now it’s still not entirely clear to me whether the U.S. will train an armed Syrian opposition.  Are you able to give a yes or no answer to that?  And secondly, the President talked about giving more support to Syria’s neighbors.  Is there a monetary figure on that support?  Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  We have been very clear that we do provide military assistance to the Syrian opposition, the armed Syrian opposition.  We don’t detail the specifics of that support. 

What we’re saying today, in addition to that, is not only do we want to continue to increase the assistance that we provide to the Syrian opposition, but we do want to have this discussion with Congress about the potential for there to be a role for the U.S. military in that effort.  We would need authorities to do that, obviously, and that is what, for instance, is in the Levin provision that I mentioned.

So this is something that we have to work with Congress on going forward.  But again, we are, as we said, providing military assistance to the Syrian opposition, and it’s something that will continue to be a focus given both the need to counter Assad but also to deal with the counterterrorism challenge within Syria.

In terms of the neighbors, this would be a part of this fund, again, that is up to $5 billion to deal with different contingencies across the region.  So I don’t want to break down the specific dollar amounts for individual countries; that’s something that we’ll be reviewing within the administration and the Congress as well. 

But the fact is, we want a fund like this precisely so we have flexibility, so that if we need to surge particular resources to a particular counterterrorism partner we can do that, even as we have steady support in places like Yemen or Somalia for security forces and peacekeeping forces.

So it will be a part of that Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund that the President discussed today. 

Q    Just a little more on that counterterrorism fund.  You all are asking for that money.  What’s sort of the plan if Congress doesn’t go along and actually fund that counterterrorism fund?  Do you have a second idea how you want to approach that?  And would you call the section of the speech where the President talked about our role in the world being less effective if perception takes hold, that we are conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens, the Edward Snowden effect?  And how much did the Edward Snowden leaks play into how the speech was developed?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Sure.  So on your first question, obviously, we need the support of Congress for any type of additional funding above and beyond what’s already established.  I think that, generally, we’ve had broad bipartisan support for counterterrorism missions in Congress, so we’re optimistic that this is the type of approach that can sustain that support as we discuss our overseas contingency funding with Congress in the coming weeks. 

Again, we also I think would say that this is substantially less funding than was required for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  So for instance, recently, at the height of the Afghan war, we were spending $10 to $15 billion a month in Afghanistan.  Part of what we’re able to do, even with the type of presence that we’re going to have in Afghanistan next year, is have a substantial drawdown in resources and funding dedicated to Afghanistan.  We want to take some of those resources and apply it to this type of fund for counterterrorism partnerships. 

That’s part of reallocating our resources across the region to match the threat.  The threat is not overwhelmingly in Afghanistan and Pakistan anymore; in fact, it’s much more dispersed.  This is an effort to reallocate resources to match the threat so that we’re spending less in Afghanistan and we’re able to dedicate more resources to the partnerships that the President talked about in the Middle East and North Africa.

On your second question, this is not a focus of the speech.  Obviously, the speech that the President gave at the Justice Department earlier this year dealt broadly with not just the disclosures by Mr. Snowden, but our approach to bulk collection and other intelligence activities.

What the President was making a point of today is we must hold ourselves to high standards as a part of maintaining American leadership; that the legitimacy that the United States has to lead the world flows from the fact that we don’t act outside of the international standards that we’ve helped to establish, and that the confidence of other nations and people that work with us is rooted in their belief that the United States has a commitment, for instance, to the rule of law and to human rights.

And again, as a part of that, we do believe that we need to give greater confidence to not just the American people, but to foreign publics as well, that the United States is not engaged in bulk collection for the purpose of conducting surveillance on ordinary people; they were focused on threats.  And so we’re taking a number of steps that the President outlined earlier this year to give those additional protections to citizens in other countries to provide assurances about what our intelligence is focused on and what it’s not focused on.

So this is going to be a significant focus for us in the next two and a half years.  And it’s a part of how we lead not just through our extraordinary capabilities in areas like intelligence, but in our commitment to use those capabilities in a way that people have confidence is not violating their privacy unnecessarily. 

Q    It’s a two-parter.  On climate change, since it’s a mention in the national security context, I’m wondering whether the administration is considering or committed to both framing the rollout of coal stuff and other climate change stuff in a national security framework, and also using that as sort of executive power authorization to do climate change policy. 

And then, I’m sorry to beat the dead horse -- I’m just a little slow -- on the Syria consideration of U.S. military to do some of the rebel training, can you review real quickly what you think Hagel can do now and what you think it is that he needs congressional authority to do?  And would the training be in Syria or in neighboring countries? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  On the climate change issue, I think, broadly, climate change is a challenge that cuts across many different areas.  One of those is national security, because, as the President said, this is going to pose increasing national security dangers to the United States, and we’re going to be called upon to respond to conflicts or situations that have connections to climate change.  You can’t draw a red line, but clearly there has been an uptick in extreme weather events. 

When there’s a typhoon in Southeast Asia, when there’s a tsunami, the U.S. military is often called in for disaster response.  As the President referenced today, when there are refugees or conflicts over basic resources like food and water, that ultimately can have a bearing on national security.  So there’s a very clear intersection, we believe, between a changing climate and our national security interests. 

I think what’s important to note here is that our efforts domestically do intersect with our leadership internationally.  Next year, we are aiming to conclude a global climate framework agreement that has been a process of negotiation since Copenhagen in 2009.  Any successful international climate agreement is going to depend on many nations, including the United States, making commitments to reduce their emissions.  So in other words, actions that nations take domestically are going to have to be a part of how we build an international response, because everybody has to step up to the plate.  Of course, one of the things we said is we’re willing to take steps to reduce our emissions, but we need countries like China and India that are emerging emitters to take steps as well.

So the Climate Action Plan that we’ve developed over the course of the last year or so informed America’s commitment that we can then make as we pursue this type of global climate agreement.  These are steps that are important to take in their own right for the sake of the American people, and they’re also steps that will allow us to meet the types of commitments that we made in Copenhagen, whether you’re talking about fuel efficiency standards or coal-fired power plants. 

I won’t get into the specifics of those development elements beyond saying that they do intersect with the way in which we’re going to lead, as the President said, in pursuing this global climate framework agreement next year.  And that’s a big piece of business for us, and it’s going to demand U.S. leadership -- because, frankly, this is not the type of agreement that’s going to work if it’s only a handful of nations.  We really need the entire international community to make their commitments, to stand by those commitments in a transparent manner.  And that’s what we’ll be pursuing.

On Syria, I think if you look at the different options for providing assistance, the U.S. military would need certain additional authorities and resources to be able to step up with assistance to the Syrian opposition.  And you see in the language of the Levin provision that just moved through committee the types of authorities to the Secretary of Defense that would enable him to provide assistance to the vetted Syrian opposition. 

So that is something where there needs to be coordination and a dialogue between the administration and Congress.  That’s a discussion that’s ongoing that we’ll continue to have.  And again, that is one option available for looking at ways to increase support to the Syrian opposition.  We’re working across many lines of effort.  We provide many types of assistance, from humanitarian to nonlethal, to the types of military support we’ve indicated, to the Syrian opposition.  That’s one area where we want to explore whether we can come to some understanding with Congress about the best way to maximize our resources and to get additional support to the Syrian people.

Q    To continue on this same subject of the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund, first, do you envision that as being both a Title 10 and Title 50 available fund -- in other words, able to do both types of CT missions? 

Second, you’ve talked a lot about the role that the military might play in Syria, and you seem to be focusing on a training role.  But can you envision emerging from these discussions with Congress something broader in which the military would assist in some ways in providing greater security in the zones that the opposition now holds in the north and south? 

And finally, you’ve said again and again we’re going to have discussions with Congress, we have to talk about this with Congress.  Has the administration itself made up its mind what it wants to propose yet?  It sounds to me as if you haven’t. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  So on your first question, this is military funding title, so this would not get at the intelligence community; this would be for security support for a range of different purposes.  The President said a couple of examples today where we’ve dedicated some resources.  We dedicate resources to Mali to facilitate French actions with intelligence, with logistical support that is essential for their operations.  We train Yemeni security services.  We provide support to AMISOM in Somalia.  We equip Iraqi security forces. 

So these are all different missions that have a common thread of building capacity for partners, and the assistance would take place in that context.  The intelligence community has a separate budgeting process.

On Syria -- and your question overlaps with part of Margaret’s -- look, no, this is not -- we’re talking specifically about assistance to the opposition; we’re not talking about activities within Syria by the United States military.  That is not something that we’re contemplating. 

So I think the way to characterize the last part of your question is that we have decided that we need to continue to find ways to increase support to the opposition.  We have different ways to do that, both through our own actions, to the manner in which we collaborate with allies and partners in Europe and the Gulf, and we also want to consider whether an approach that involves the U.S. military could add to that capability.

So I think we’re looking across many different means that we have to provide this assistance.  And this is an additional option that we want to pursue with Congress and make a determination then about whether it’s the best way to increase that support.

But I think irrespective of that, clearly our trajectory is more support to the neighbors, more support to the opposition, more coordination with, for instance, the countries in the London 11, and then consideration of this additional alternative means of providing support to the opposition. 

Q    Yes, let me try this one more time, because I don’t think we’re getting a straight answer here.  Is it safe to say the White House has not decided whether to endorse the Senate language here?  Because that’s really the only thing on the table in Congress, and they’re quite clear that they have the Pentagon train and support and provide assistance to the rebels.  Have you not decided that yet?  Is that where we are? 

And if that’s the case, what do you say to critics who say, listen, you should have trained and armed the rebels two years ago when the entire national security establishment said, do so.  So what do you say to them that this whole notion of coordinating and dialogue is just delaying?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Well, first of all, we have been providing assistance to the opposition for some time now.  So we’re not at a standing start here when it comes to support for the armed opposition in Syria. 

With respect to the Levin provision, clearly we think that it puts forward a good concept, which is why we made a point today of indicating the fact that we want to pursue these discussions with Congress.  The fact of the matter is this is not something we can do alone as an administration; this is something that we have to do in partnership with Congress.  So I think that’s why we want to see this discussion move forward between the executive branch and the legislative branch. 

And we also want to make sure that wherever we land in terms of those discussions, that it fits appropriately into our broader strategy as it relates to how we’re working with the partners in the Arab World, how we’re working with our allies.  All these pieces need to fit together.

So this would be an additional piece, and we’re looking carefully at it.  We do think that language in the Levin provision is positive and puts forward a good concept, but we want to take the time necessary to ensure that we get this right and that we fold this into a broader strategy that supports our objectives inside of Syria. 

Q    On Syria, again -- what’s the White House’s sense of timing on this, with increasing evidence that the opposition is losing militarily after the fall of Aleppo?  What’s the timeframe for making a decision and actually beefing up military assistance if that’s indeed what the White House wants to do?  Is there a sense of urgency here? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  There are two questions here.  We are beefing up our assistance.  That is an ongoing process.  So resources are reaching the opposition, resources are reaching the armed opposition.  Coordination has improved with our partners in the Arab World, particularly in the Gulf. 

So there is that upward trajectory already.  That’s not in question at all.  And additional funding that can support that effort and support the neighbors is a focal point of how we look at building partnerships across the region, which is what the President said today. 

Then there’s the separate question of simply what additional authorities might be necessary for the U.S. military to participate in our efforts.  And that’s the question that we’ll be pursuing in the coming weeks.  But again, that doesn’t foreclose the fact that we are working this already, we are increasing our support already, we are coordinating better with partners already.  That’s going to continue to be the case no matter what. 

Q    I wanted to just turn to China and ask you, what is the message to China here?  I mean, we heard the President talk about the use of military action to defend the security of U.S. allies, which of course includes Japan and the Philippines.  But he also called out the U.S. Senate for not ratifying UNCLOS.  So what’s the message to China?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  The message is that the United States is going to support basic international rules of the road that should apply to everyone.  And we’ve said many times our Asia rebalance strategy is not aimed at China.  It’s focused on strengthening U.S. engagement in the region, but also strengthening the rules of the road across the region -- whether it’s on trade through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whether it’s on maritime security where we would like to see disputes resolved consistent with international law.

So the bottom line is that the United States would like to see China act consistent with those rules of the road.  And we believe that they have an opportunity to do so, for instance, through negotiation of a code of conduct with the ASEAN countries or through taking the different claims that are at stake in the South China Sea to international law and dispute resolution.  At the same time, though, we are going to be very clear that we object to bigger nations bullying smaller ones; that the United States is going to support those nations that abide by rules of the road and work to isolate those nations that don’t. 

So for China we would like to see them as a part of an Asia Pacific community that is adhering to high standards of trade, that is resolving disputes peacefully, consistent with international law, that is respecting basic rules and norms.  But if China acts outside of those norms, as they’ve done, for instance, on cyber issues, we’re going to call them out.

With respect to the Law of the Sea, the President made very clear that part of how the United States shows our own commitment to those rules and norms is by upholding them ourselves.  And we act consistent with the Convention on the Law of the Sea, but it would send an important message for the Senate to ratify it, because that is the means by which we want to see disputes resolved. 

So, again, we lead on behalf of an international order that can uphold peace and security both by what we do in regions like the Asia Pacific and on issues like trade and cyber and maritime, but we also have to lead on behalf of that international order through our own example.  And that’s why we believe the Senate has long passed the time when they should have ratified the Law of the Sea.

Q    Just one subject that the President didn’t bring up and I was hoping you might be able to lend some clarity to would be the status of -- about a year ago, the President called for a review and even repeal of the AUMF.  I’m wondering whether the administration is planning to send Congress specific language in terms of fixing it, any timetable in terms of when they want to work with Congress in terms of getting that repealed.  And if you could provide a little bit of maybe a window into the administration’s thinking in terms of how to approach this subject.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL:  Yes, I’d say a couple of things.  The point the President made at NDU is that we shouldn’t just have open-ended authorities for the use of military force that continue indefinitely; that we shouldn’t be in a permanent war here; that the AUMF in 2001 was written for a specific purpose and time.  And I think in terms of the timeframe, we look at the end of 2014 as a very important milestone as our combat mission comes to a close in Afghanistan and as our mission shifts there.  And so we look at a whole host of issues as intersecting with the end of 2014. 

The AUMF, which was written in the context of us going to Afghanistan -- we’ll want to talk to Congress about the AUMF as we approach the end of the year.  That’s a good time to have that discussion because we will be pivoting from where our combat mission is today and the type of role we’ll be playing in Afghanistan after 2014.  

GTMO is another issue that is relevant here.  GTMO was opened, after all, when we went into Afghanistan.  And the initial detainee population was heavily weighted with people who were taken off the battlefield in Afghanistan.  So we believe, again, as we bring our combat mission to an end in Afghanistan, that this is an appropriate year to make a redoubled effort to close GTMO.  So this is the context for how we’re approaching the AUMF as well.  I think this is a discussion we’ll have as we get closer to the end of the year.

I think in terms of what we’re looking for, we’re not looking for simply layering on more and more and more authorities within the existing AUMF.  The point here is to not just keep expanding some universal AUMF that applies to every challenge.  As the President said at NDU, what we want to do is narrow and refine authorities so that they’re focused on specific groups that do pose a direct threat to the United States.  And so that’s the approach that we would take into this discussion, which is how do we make sure that we have authorities that are focused on those groups who pose a direct threat to the United States and not simply stacking on additional authorities in the existing AUMFs. 

So this will be a part of how we wind down the war in Afghanistan and pivot to a more sustainable and focused counterterrorism effort across the region. 

Thanks, everybody, for getting on the call.  We can stay in touch on these issues.  And the only thing I’d say in closing is we said to you, I think, in the run-up to this that we weren’t solely focused on one speech here.  The President will obviously be going to Europe next year -- or next week.  In Poland, he’ll be able to talk about our commitment to European security, our commitment to NATO and our NATO allies.  He’ll have a G7.  He’ll speak at Normandy.  Other members of the administration will talk about different elements of our foreign policy priorities.  The President laid out I think a pretty clear roadmap of the types of issues he wants to get done in the next two and a half years. 

And I think you’ll hear different administration figures speak to different pieces of that agenda in the coming weeks as well.  So we’ll look forward to staying in touch.

MS. HAYDEN:  Thanks, everyone, for joining us.  Again, a reminder this call is on background to senior administration official.  And, as he noted, feel free to be in touch with us with other questions you have.  But everyone have a great day.  Thanks.

END
11:55 A.M. EDT

CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF SAYS U.S. "NOT POLITICALLY EXHAUSTED"

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Dempsey Rejects Notion of Exhausted United States

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, May 28, 2014 – The United States is not politically exhausted, “and it would be a mistake to come to that conclusion,” Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said during an interview here today.

“In fact, it would be a mistake to decide that we are politically exhausted or weary militarily,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Sky News.

Many in the Persian Gulf region believe that the United States is exhausted from 13 years of war. They point to the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the coming drawdown in Afghanistan as proof of this weariness, and they extrapolate a U.S. withdrawal from the region at large.

But this is not the case, Dempsey said, citing what has happened to al-Qaida as an example. Al-Qaida was a centralized organization based out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The United States and its allies -- including the United Arab Emirates -- put pressure on the terror organization. Central al-Qaida is a shadow of its former self, but the group has adapted, the chairman said.

“They have taken advantage of unsettled and ungoverned spaces elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa,” the general said. “The terror group is a long-term problem and not one the United States is giving up on.”

Rather than being weary or wary, Dempsey said, the United States is “rebalancing our efforts to build partners, to enable others and to do certain things ourselves -- but that should be our last resort.”

“For the most part,” he added, “we ought to address these challenges collaterally and collaboratively with partners.”

U.S. forces do face fiscal challenges, the chairman said, but he doesn’t see that affecting the Persian Gulf region. “We are going through a period of retraction in our budget, but it’s a matter of history,” he explained. “We go through this about every 20 years, and the United States still has the military capability to do many more than one thing at a time.”

The United States doesn’t face a choice to be either in the Atlantic or the Pacific, in Europe or the Middle East, or in Asia or Africa, Dempsey said.

“We have global responsibilities. We have global partnerships,” the chairman said. “One of the greatest strengths of the United States is its alliances, its partnerships, unlike some others who aspire to be great powers, but they don’t have friends, they don’t have partners. They try to go it alone. We, on the other hand, see our strength through our partners.”

.LEADERS OF U.S. AND DJIBOUTI ISSUE JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING RELATIONSHIP

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 

Joint Statement by the Leaders of the United States and the Republic of Djibouti

Today at the White House, President Obama and Djiboutian President Ismail Omar Guelleh pledged to work closely together to advance their shared vision for a secure, stable, and prosperous Horn of Africa and to strengthen and deepen the strategic partnership between our two countries.

Economic, Trade, and Energy Cooperation
President Obama and President Guelleh discussed their shared vision for addressing human capital and economic development challenges in Djibouti.  President Obama noted his strong support for the Djiboutian government’s efforts to achieve its ambitious reform goals and to respond to the needs of Djiboutian citizens.  President Guelleh highlighted the positive impact of U.S. investments in Djiboutian communities, particularly in the areas of health and education, and President Obama commended President Guelleh for his commitment to lowering unemployment, reducing poverty, and improving reliable access to energy, potable water, and health care.

To help grow Djibouti’s economy and assist Djibouti in achieving these goals, the United States pledged to increase technical and financial assistance to the Djiboutian people and to invest in Djibouti’s development priorities.  President Obama pledged to expand U.S.-sponsored workforce education and training to help strengthen Djibouti’s workforce and set a foundation for expanded employment and private sector investment.

President Obama also reaffirmed his strong commitment to expanding reliable access to electricity in Africa.  Given Djibouti’s electricity needs and to enhance its role as a regional commercial hub, the United States plans to provide technical assistance to support Djibouti’s energy sector.  The leaders identified areas for future cooperation on energy, including through the East African Geothermal Partnership.  The United States plans to help build the Government of Djibouti's technical and institutional capacity to leverage greater private sector investment across the energy sector, including working together to catalyze private financing to develop renewable energy in Djibouti.

Regional Integration, Youth Empowerment, and Development
President Obama congratulated President Guelleh on Djibouti’s committed participation and leadership in regional bodies, including as host to and co-founder of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).  President Obama noted his strong support for President Guelleh’s leadership in the Horn of Africa and welcomed his plans for infrastructure development and economic integration across an increasingly vital region.  The two leaders shared their assessments of the pivotal role economic development and democratic governance can play in Djibouti’s future, including in advancing economic and development goals.

President Obama recognized President Guelleh for his commitment to empowering women and girls and promoting increased access to education and health services.  President Obama congratulated President Guelleh on the Djiboutian youth who have been selected to represent Djibouti as participants in the Young African Leaders Initiative.  The leaders emphasized the importance of supporting young entrepreneurs, encouraging youth to engage in public service and invest in the next generation of African leaders.

The Presidents also discussed ways that the U.S. presence at Camp Lemonnier can help further expand economic opportunity for the Djiboutian people, including through the Administration’s work with the U.S. Congress on proposed “Djibouti First” legislation that would that would give preference to Djiboutian products and services in Department of Defense procurements in support of U.S. requirements in Djibouti.  In doing so, the United States seeks to promote stability and economic development beneficial to both countries and to demonstrate our long term commitment to Djibouti’s long term economic growth. 

Defense, Security and Regional Counterterrorism Cooperation
The two leaders discussed their shared commitment to increase security and stability in the Horn of Africa and to prevent al-Qa’ida and al-Shabaab from gaining new footholds.  President Obama and President Guelleh discussed ongoing civilian and military cooperation in the areas of countering terrorism and violent extremism, countering piracy, enhancing maritime security, and securing Djibouti’s borders.  They recognized the important role that U.S.-Djibouti cooperation plays in achieving these goals, and reaffirmed that our shared security priorities remain a central component of our relationship.

The Presidents noted Camp Lemonnier’s critical role as an operational headquarters for regional security and the importance the base plays in protecting Americans and Djiboutians alike from violent extremist individuals and organizations.  President Obama thanked President Guelleh for helping ensure the safety and security of U.S. personnel in Djibouti.

President Obama announced the United States’ intention to provide enhanced security assistance and equipment to Djiboutian security forces to advance these shared regional security and counterterrorism goals, including by providing materiel and assistance to Djiboutian forces deploying to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).  The leaders also plan to expand liaison relationships as a critical way to deepen our partnership.

Shared Efforts in Somalia
The Presidents noted that transnational challenges in the Horn of Africa cannot be met by any one country alone.  President Obama commended Djibouti’s important contributions to peace and security in Somalia,  including through its participation in AMISOM operations aimed at defeating al-Shabaab and by organizing a number of reconciliation conferences in support of peacemaking efforts.  Djibouti has also strongly and consistently supported multinational efforts to counter piracy off the coast of Somalia.

President Guelleh noted that Djibouti’s efforts as part of AMISOM have helped provide Somalis with their best chance to achieve security, stability and peace in more than two decades.  The two leaders discussed Djibouti’s experience as a troop-contributing country to AMISOM.  The Presidents highlighted the need to support renewed efforts by AMISOM and the Somali National Army to defeat al-Shabaab and to help bring security and stability to Somalia.  This commitment has not been without burden and cost.  President Obama praised the brave service of Djiboutian soldiers in Somalia and recognized the sacrifices members of the Djiboutian Armed Forces and their families have made to help bring peace to Somalia. 

A Long-Term Strategic Partnership
President Obama and President Guelleh concluded their meeting by reaffirming their shared commitment to the special and longstanding relationship between the United States and the Republic of Djibouti.  The leaders pledged to continue to work to strengthen our strategic partnership and contribute to a more secure world.  To carry this important dialogue forward, they intend to establish a U.S.-Djibouti Binational Forum and to designate senior officials to lead the implementation of the commitments made today in the spirit of building a vibrant 21^stCentury Strategic Partnership grounded in friendship, mutual trust, and common security.

SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS AT EMBASSY IN ALGIERS, ALGERIA

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 

Remarks at Embassy Algiers Meet and Greet

Remarks

John Kerry
Secretary of State

Algiers, Algeria

April 3, 2014

---

AMBASSADOR ENSHER: Ladies and gentlemen – (applause) – thank you. I’ll just introduce the Secretary of State and let him say as he wishes, so – sir, you’ve been introduced. You may – do you want to speak from here there?

SECRETARY KERRY: Oh, thank you very much. Look what I got. I love it. (Laughter.) What’s her name, what’s her name? Who?

PARTICIPANT: Anna-Lisa (ph).


SECRETARY KERRY: Anna-Lisa (ph), thank you. Anna-Lisa (ph). Thank you very much.

PARTICIPANT: You’re welcome.

SECRETARY KERRY: Thank you. Can I give you that to hold?

Well, Wishrakum. I’m happy to be here with all of you. (In French.) I am really sorry that we got delayed. I had a phone call, and it was one of those calls where you can’t get the other person to realize the call’s over. Anyway, I am really happy to see you all. Thank you very, very much for this. I’m very grateful to our ambassador, Henry Ensher, and what a terrific job he does. Twenty-seven years in the service, and he’s still going at it and he brings enormous expertise to this challenge. Mr. Ambassador, we’re very grateful to you. Thank you for all that you do.

AMBASSADOR ENSHER: Team projects, sir.

SECRETARY KERRY: Team what?

AMBASSADOR ENSHER: Team projects, sir.

SECRETARY KERRY: Team projects. All right, well we believe in that.
Listen, let me just – I’m very late and I do apologize for that to all of you, and thank you for waiting patiently so I could have a chance to not just say hello, but most importantly have a chance to be able to say thank you to every single one of you.

We are deeply grateful. How many of you are local employees? Raise your hands. Well, look at that. Wow. I think we have – thank you – (applause). We – there is no way for us to be able to do our job unless you are here to help us, every single one of you. (In French). How many of you are speaking French still? No? Nobody? A couple? (Laughter.) I know it’s going out of vogue.
But I really thank you because you take on a very difficult task of helping another country to represent itself in your country, so sometimes the things that people think about us fall on you. And we appreciate very much your willingness to be part of our efforts.

Also, I obviously want to thank all of the Foreign Service officers, Civil Service, various agencies who are working here in a team effort within the Department, within the Embassy. And I thank the TDY-ers and political appointees and everybody who make up this incredible team that helps us to represent our interests in another country, but also importantly helps us connect to the interests of that country so we’re doing also what is important to the nation that we’re in.

In Algeria, you all are representing really one of the most fascinating and important countries in all of Africa – not just North Africa, but a country that has resources, a civil society, intelligent, experienced people, people who fought for their freedom, people who understand what independence means, people who are deeply committed to counterterrorism and to stability. This is a very important place.

And we are trying in this visit to help build a number of different things. First, try to build our security relationship so that we can do more with Algeria in the field of stability, counterterrorism. We have Mali, Niger, Chad, the issues, obviously, out west in Sahara, the challenge of al-Qaida. There’s an enormous amount on the table, and of course Libya, Tunisia, all of this is critical to us – the Sahel, the Maghreb, moving on into the Levant – there’s just an enormous amount of turmoil and change, transition. And we want that to turn out in a way that provides for the stability of the region and for the ability of people here to live the lives the way they’d like to live them.

Part of doing that is the second part of what we’re talking about here, and that’s the economic and development side. We got to create jobs for unbelievable numbers of young people. And those young people need to find a future in education, in jobs, in opportunity, or it’s hard to build stability.

And the final piece of it is the people-to-people programs that are part of all of that. You have the Let’s Chat program here, and you’re trying to help people be able to learn how – you’re in the Let’s Chat program. There she is, all right. But the point is, as people gain language skills, they gain employability, they gain an ability to enlarge their income and their lives.
And speaking of income, I am proud to come here and tell you today that the pay freeze has ended. You’re going to get your pay raise as of now. That’s starting, all right? (Applause.) There you go. Most important news I could have delivered. (Laughter.) Anyway, I’m really happy to be able to share that with you.

Bottom line is this – you’ve all been standing around a long time, I don’t want to give a long speech – there are about, I think, 100 and some of you here who – or 95 or so or who’ve come – 65, I guess, it is – who’ve come from other – from America and they’re over here. And then a large Embassy, 400 and some people when you add everybody who’s working locally. But you’re all a team. Every single one of you is an ambassador. Everything you do, whether it’s a telephone call or an interview in the consular division or outreach when we got to an event, you’re the face of America. And you’re helping us to reach people and to try to make sure we address the very values that brought you to this kind of service in the first place.

So I really thank you. President Obama is proud of our diplomatic corps. He mentioned it in his last State of the Union. All the people who don’t wear uniforms but are on the front lines, a lot of you make sacrifices to be here, and I just want you to know that as long as I’m Secretary of State I will have your back, and I know I can count on you to cover our back, too.
Thank you all, and God bless. Thank you. (Applause.)

JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN GEN. DEMPSEY SUGGESTS CHANGES COMING IN MIDDLE EAST ALLIANCES

U.S. Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meets with senior members of the Institute for National Security Studies in Jerusalem, March 31, 2014. DOD photo by D. Myles Cullen  

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Dempsey Sees Possibility of New Alliances in Mideast
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

JERUSALEM , March 31, 2014 – The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says he sees the possibility of new alliances emerging in the Middle East, springing from the on-going instability across much of the region.

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey is in Israel to discuss issues of mutual strategic interest with Israeli defense officials.

Dempsey told reporters that current instability across the Middle East provides opportunities, to include “an outreach to other nations who may not have been willing to be partners in the past.”

Dempsey arrived in Israel yesterday and immediately went into meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon. Israeli Army Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, the chief of the Israeli General Staff, is hosting Dempsey.

In his meetings with Israeli officials, Dempsey said he’s trying to step away from reacting to the daily headlines in order to look at the region strategically.
The Middle East is experiencing a period of instability affecting Egypt, Syria, Iran and other areas, which is having an impact on the strategic landscape.

This, Dempsey said, is causing countries that may not have agreed on much in the past to realize they have a common cause toward regional instability.
Dempsey pointed to the Persian Gulf states as an example. They “may not have been as open-minded about the potential for cooperation with Israel in any way,” he said.

“What we discussed,” he added, “was the possibility that there were opportunities that would present themselves because of the instability around them that could create a different web of alliances than existed before.

“What I’m suggesting,” Dempsey continued, “[is] the possibility of new and different alliances in the region in response to this instability.”

The chairman said he’s neither optimistic nor pessimistic about the Mideast situation.

“I think there are enough issues across the region in common that it should provide an opportunity for greater cooperation,” Dempsey said. “So our allies become allies with each other.”

For example, many nations have discussed strategy to counter al-Qaida. “Al-Qaida is adapting regionally because we’ve succeeded in putting pressure where they used to operate with impunity,” Dempsey said. “What you see now is al-Qaida core is much less capable, but there are other organizations that have branded themselves with the al-Qaida ideology.”

The al-Qaida network crosses the region, and this has caused the United States to come together militarily with like-minded and interested parties to discuss everything from intelligence sharing to capacity building to foreign military sales. All of these things put pressure on the group.

The chairman called this just one example of an opportunity that didn’t exist before.

Combating Iranian moves in the region could provide other opportunities, he said. Iran is involved with arms trafficking, building surrogate networks and launching cyber attacks.

“It seems to me that as threats evolve so, too, do our systems of alliances to deal with them,” Dempsey said.

Military officials from many countries and at many levels are having these conversations “so we can be a network to confront networks,” he said.
“Sometimes we’ve been accused of not leading enough,” he said. “I have found both a great appetite and a great acceptance for our military leadership, especially in things like building partner capacity, which ultimately is the greatest strategic hedge against risk in the future -- far more so than any direct action.”

DOD SAYS SPECIAL OPS FORCES ARE IN TRANSITION

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Special Ops Forces in Transition, Pentagon Official Says
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2014 – Like the rest of the Defense Department, the special operations community is in transition, and officials are working on how best to shape the force for the future, a senior Pentagon official said here yesterday.

Michael D. Lumpkin spoke at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 25th annual Special Operations/Low-intensity Conflict Symposium. He is the assistant secretary of defense for special operation and low-intensity conflict, performing the duties of the undersecretary of defense for policy.

The end of the war in Iraq and the scaling down of the conflict in Afghanistan has opened a new chapter for the Defense Department, Lumpkin said. “We must adapt to a changing world in which global security threats are taking new forms and arising more swiftly and unpredictably than ever before,” he added.
Defense officials and industry partners must rethink the roles, missions and purpose of the entire military. “But this time of transition is especially important for the special operations community,” the retired Navy SEAL said.
Lumpkin said special operators will have an appreciably different and more active role for the future, noting that while the wars concentrated efforts in the U.S. Central Command area, the mission going forward will be more global. “The business of [special operations forces] will not be business as usual,” he said.
The period of post-9/11 combat operations is coming to an end, Lumpkin said. “Nearly every al-Qaida member involved in [the 9/11] attacks is either dead or in jail,” he told the conference audience. “The core al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan or Pakistan has been decimated.”

But the terror group has metastasized to areas with security vacuums, he acknowledged. “The threat of terrorism and attacks is one we take very seriously,” he said. “Al-Qaida’s most capable affiliate – al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula – poses a major threat to the U.S. and its allies. We work closely with our Yemeni partners to disrupt and defeat their plots.”

Other affiliates – such as the al-Nusra Front in Syria, al-Qaida in the Islamic Mahgreb and Al-Shabaab in Somalia – are currently regional or local threats, but their violent attacks have great potential to harm or kill Americans, Lumpkin said. He pointed to the attack on an oil refinery in Algeria last year as an example of this threat.

“With regard to these and other terror attacks across the Middle East and North Africa, let me say this: We will never make the mistake of letting up in pursuit of terrorist groups that threaten our nation, wherever they may be,” the assistant secretary said.

The winding down of two long wars gives the United States the chance to act in its interests as a truly global power. “It is time to widen our scope and to deploy our forces and our energy in a manner more consistent with the deeper economic and geopolitical realities of our age,” he said.

This is the logic underlying the military’s rebalance toward the Pacific. The Asia-Pacific-Indian Ocean area is a rising region. The United States does about $1.4 trillion worth of two-way trade with Asia every year, and half of the world’s shipping by tonnage passes through the South China Sea. The region is home to more than half the world’s population. Seven of the 10 largest standing militaries in the world are in the region as is five of the world’s declared nuclear nations.
“It is in our clear economic and strategic interest to move our focus to the Pacific,” Lumpkin said. “This geographic shift hints at something even more fundamental: a fundamental shift in how we use and think of special operations forces in a post-9/11 era.”

The United States has been the bulwark of security in the region and is working to perpetuate the relative peace and stability, Lumpkin said. The United States accomplished this by building and maintaining a series of bilateral relationships and addressing potential sources of conflict before they create larger problems, he added.

This work centers on security cooperation, building partner capacity and building awareness of local conditions, he explained, and leans heavily on special operations capabilities. “The ability of [special operations forces] to operate in a low-visibility way will only become more important in the future of a globally dispersed and irregular threats,” he said.

He cited the Philippines as a good example. “With a task force of about 500 operators and general-purpose force enablers, we helped that nation degrade what was once considered a grave internal threat,” he said. “Just think what the cost would have been in dollars, and perhaps lives as well, if violent extremists had succeeded in establishing a sanctuary in a place like the Philippines, so centrally located along the shipping routes of the South China Sea.”

The timely and effective deployment of special operations forces and their supporting personnel made this possible, he said.

The Philippine example can be used as a model for the rest of the world, Lumpkin said, a model that would rely less on direct action and more on indirect efforts.
Colombia is another nation where this has been successful, the assistant secretary said. “We provided significant military aid, counterinsurgency training and humanitarian assistance in a broad-based initiative to prevent narcotics traffickers from establishing sanctuaries in that country,” he said. “‘Plan Colombia’ was a sustained commitment to building the capacity of a vitally important nation.
“This was no third-grade soccer team where everybody ran to the ball,” he continued. “It was patient, it was painstaking, and it worked on several problems at once.”
Special operators were just one part of the overall plan, Lumpkin said. They helped Colombia build a professional and capable military giving the nation the ability to solve its own security challenges, and to take ownership of the long process of eliminating terrorist and insurgent sanctuaries within its borders.
“But Plan Colombia also involved an interagency effort to assist the Colombians in eradicating narcotics and building stronger financial institutions,” he added. “The work paid off. Colombia is not only a far more secure and prosperous nation now, it has emerged as an exporter of regional security.”

The United States is moving from perpetual war to perpetual engagement, Lumpkin said, and the special operations forces community is going to be busy because of unpredictable threats and uncertain budgets.

“We in the SOF world have long known that when it comes to national security and global stability, an ounce of prevention is not worth a pound of cure, but a ton of cure,” he said.

The response to rising threats will grow shorter, Lumpkin said. “In the past, the traditional Iron Triangle of Congress, the Defense Department and industry were always able to assemble the resources in time to meet various challenges to our national security,” he said. This was because the threats of the past usually arose from nation states with their own political and industrial bureaucracies, he explained.

A major factor in this change is the rise of the Internet in general and social media in particular, “which has transformed the local into the global and the tactical into the strategic,” he said. “As a result, the traditional players don’t have the same power to shape events that they have had in the past.”

The increasing connectivity of people around the world can challenge traditional hierarchal struggles, Lumpkin noted. “When an idiosyncratic pastor in Florida issues statements that set off riots in Pakistan, you know something has changed,” he said.

“On a more significant scale, we saw in the Arab Spring how populations can rally in only minutes because of social media, with little warning from traditional analysis,” Lumpkin said.

Over the long run, Lumpkin said, flattening of communications works to benefit the United States and favors the spread of democratic values worldwide. “But the process will not be linear, and it will not be smooth, as we have seen increased connectivity present security threats as well as opportunities,” he added.
Network threats present new challenges and require new ways of planning, the assistant secretary told the audience, and cyber operations come to mind first. “As we continue to work our doctrine for response in the cyber realm,” he said, “it is entirely possible that SOF units, or even individuals, would be called upon to act online or offline to address these threats.”

Beyond cyber, Lumpkin said, the special operations community is concentrating on understanding the human domain – the totality of physical, cultural, political and social environments within a conflicted region.

U.S. CONDEMNS ATTACKS IN IRAQ

FROM:  U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT 
U.S. Condemns Attacks and Pledges to Support Iraq in the Fight Against ISIL
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson
Washington, DC
December 22, 2013

The United States condemns the recent attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) against Iraqi soldiers, elected officials, civilians, and military commanders. ISIL, a branch of al-Qa'ida, is a common enemy of the United States and the Republic of Iraq, and a threat to the greater Middle East region.

The Strategic Framework Agreement between our two countries provides the basis for long-term security cooperation, and we remain committed to helping strengthen Iraqi forces in their ongoing fight against ISIL. We also note the unanimous condemnation of the attacks yesterday by Iraqi officials, including the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the Council of Representatives, as well as the detention in recent days of al-Qa'ida affiliated militants in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.

We will continue to work with all Iraqi leaders to promote political progress and isolate violent extremist networks. We further call on regional leaders to take active measures to police the funding and recruitment for these groups, including ISIL and the al-Nusrah front, and deter the flow of foreign fighters into Syria, many of whom later conduct suicide bombings against innocent civilians in Iraq.

The United States mourns the loss of life in recent days, and we wish a speedy recovery to the wounded. We also stand with the Iraqi Security Forces, civilian leaders, tribes, and local councils, in their fight against terrorists who are seeking to gain control of territory inside the borders of Iraq. By working together, we will ensure these terrorists cannot succeed.

READOUT: WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL'S CALL WITH PRESIDENT HADI OF YEMEN

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE
Readout of Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco's Call with President Hadi of Yemen

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Lisa Monaco called President Abdo Rabu Mansour Hadi of Yemen today to reaffirm the U.S. government’s strong support for Yemen’s political transition.  Ms. Monaco commended the National Dialogue for its efforts to develop a shared vision for a more just and democratic Yemen, and expressed U.S. support for President Hadi’s efforts to bring the National Dialogue to conclusion and move forward with implementation of the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative.  She praised the contributions that Yemeni women, youth, and civil society have made to the National Dialogue, and expressed the hope that they will continue their engagement in subsequent stages of the transition.   Ms. Monaco also reaffirmed the U.S. government’s commitment to stand with the Yemeni government and people as they implement the National Dialogue’s outcomes, foster economic development, and combat the security threat from al-Qa’ida in the Arabian Peninsula.

PENTAGON SAYS U.S. CONTINUES TO CONFRONT TERRORISM

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Press Secretary: U.S. Will Continue Confronting Terrorist Threat
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 7, 2013 - The U.S. military can put pressure on the al-Shabaab terrorist organization's leadership whenever it so chooses, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today.

In a statement, Little said U.S. military personnel conducted a targeted operation the night of Oct. 4 against Abdikadir Mohamed Abdikadir, known as "Ikrima," a Kenyan of Somali origin.

Ikrima is a top commander in the terrorist group al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida affiliate, the press secretary said. He is closely associated with now-deceased al-Qaida operatives Harun Fazul and Saleh Nabhan, who played roles in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, he added, and in the 2002 attacks on a hotel and airline in Mombassa, Kenya, that resulted in the deaths of Kenyan and Israeli citizens, including children.

The goal of the operation was to capture Ikrima under legal authorities granted to the Defense Department by the 2001 authorization to use military force against al-Qaida and its associated forces, Little said.

"While the operation did not result in Ikrima's capture," he added, "U.S. military personnel conducted the operation with unparalleled precision and demonstrated that the United States can put direct pressure on al-Shabaab leadership at any time of our choosing."

Working in partnership with Somalia's government, the press secretary said, the U.S. military will continue to confront the threat posed by al-Shabaab.

"The United States military has unmatched capabilities and could rely on any of them to disrupt terrorist networks and plots," he added.

U.S. SAYS IT WILL CONTINUE WORK IN SOMALI

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Pentagon Official: U.S. Must Continue to Work with Somalia
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8, 2013 - Progress in Somalia has been "significant," a senior Defense Department official told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, and the United States will continue to work with the Somali government to defeat terrorism there.

Amanda J. Dory, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, told the committee that al-Shabaab -- an al-Qaida affiliated terrorist group -- once controlled large swaths of Somalia, including most Somali cities.

"Today, Somali, [African Union Mission in Somalia] and Ethiopian forces have weakened al-Shabaab as a conventional fighting force in Somalia," she said in prepared remarks.

Still, al-Shabaab remains dangerous, she said. The terror group is capable of launching sophisticated unconventional attacks aimed at the African Union mission and the fledgling Somali government, Dory told the senators.

"For the foreseeable future," she added, "we must maintain focus on Somalia to sustain security progress made to date, as al-Shabaab is likely to remain the primary threat to Somalian and East African stability for some time to come."

The African Union mission -- supported by the United States -- has provided critical space for the Somali government to stand up and establish its legitimacy. The United States recognizes the new government and wants to normalize military-to-military contacts. U.S. Africa Command will work with State Department personnel to assist with the development of a unified Somali security force, Dory said.

Piracy that originated from Somalia has been virtually eliminated, Dory said.

"As recently as 2011, Somali pirates held nearly 600 mariners hostage aboard 28 captured ships, and roamed an area the size of the continental United States looking for their next opportunity," she said. "Today, thanks to changes in business practices by the commercial maritime industry, and the presence of international naval forces, piracy is almost nonexistent off the coast of Somalia. The last successful hijacking of a major commercial ship was in 2012."

Dory said she is encouraged by the way the African Union mission in the country has provided stability. The troops come from Uganda, Burundi, Kenya, Djibouti and Sierra Leone. They work with Ethiopian forces and the Somali National Army.

The United States and international partners have provided important training and equipment to the Somalis. The proposal for training in fiscal 2014 will stress logistics, personnel management, finance and budgeting and maintenance, Dory said. All this is done in close cooperation with the Somali government.

The antipiracy mission must continue, as the progress made is perishable, she said, adding that Somalia will continue to present problems and opportunities.

"With sustained assistance from the United States and other international partners, Somalia's national security apparatus will be better positioned to fend off the al-Shabaab insurgency, and gradually transform the fragile state into a success story," she said.