FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Intel Officials Announce Community IT Enterprise Milestone
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2013 - Eighteen months after the director of national intelligence announced plans for a new information technology environment that would vastly improve information sharing across the intelligence community, a milestone has set the community on the path to its IT future.
James R. Clapper was talking about the future at that 2011 U.S. Geospatial Intelligence Foundation symposium in Texas, Al Tarasiuk told reporters during a recent briefing, and the Intelligence Community Information Technology Enterprise, or IC ITE -- which nearly everyone at the office of the director of national intelligence pronounces "i cite" -- was part of the discussion.
Tarasiuk, intelligence community chief information officer and assistant director of national intelligence, said that at the time, consolidating IT across the community was driven by budget considerations. But today, he added, it's more than an efficiency play on IT.
"We laid out the vision for IC ITE very much focused on improving intelligence integration across the community," the CIO said. "Basically, the vision statement says [it] enables intelligence integration, information sharing and safeguarding, as well as driving to a more efficient IT model for the community."
Translating those factors into goals produces effectiveness, security and efficiency, Tarasiuk added.
"In the past, these were mutually exclusive, but ... we believe that cloud technologies, the price points that we can obtain today [and] some of the developments that we have invested in ... will allow us to ... address all three at the same time," he said.
Around Aug. 16, Tarasiuk said, the ODNI declared a milestone they call the initial baseline for IC ITE. The first step in deploying IC ITE across the intel community began with giving a few thousand users at the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency a common software desktop.
"We are moving toward a single desktop for the community," Tarasiuk said, "so instead of every agency building their own software desktop, which they do today, we will build one for use by all. They will have common collaboration services, and people will be able to use common email and those kinds of things."
The desktop is being produced by NGA and DIA as partners, he said, part of a new business model for ODNI called a service-provider-based business architecture.
As part of the new IC ITE architecture, Tarasiuk explained, the big five agencies -- NGA, DIA, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and National Reconnaissance Office -- alone or as partners, "become the providers of certain ... services that we designated as part of this overall architecture."
The CIO said the IC ITE work leverages investments made by the agencies and much of the work already accomplished by the four combat-support agencies -- NSA, DIA, NGA and NRO.
"They were heading toward consolidation of various pieces of IT infrastructure already prior to us starting down the path of IC ITE," he said, so they had done legwork on a common desktop and had begun planning on network consolidation.
The CIA and NSA are partners on another part of the IC ITE, the IC cloud, which Tarasiuk says consists of the lower layers of IT -- bare-metal hosting, analytics as part of that hosting, and virtual and storage capabilities.
"The IC cloud is not something that's going to be out on the Internet," he said. "It's privately hosted inside the intelligence community according to our security standards and under our security watch."
Tarasiuk said the cloud capabilities are available to the initial DIA and NGA desktop users, but also to legacy users.
"Everyone in the community, everyone who's connected up to the TS/SCI networks within agencies across the community, can access the capabilities on IC ITE right now," he said.
Another service that came online in August, provided and managed by NSA, is an applications mall for the intelligence community, the CIO said.
"The idea here is to begin to rationalize the number of applications across the community that might be redundant or that may be needed," he said, adding that the initial architecture for the mall will be based on a customizable open-source Web application called the Ozone Widget Framework.
The NRO will provide the IC ITE network requirements and engineering service, Tarasiuk said.
"They're not going to provision networks," he added, "but they're going to look at how we connect both our local area networks and our wide area networks and try to find a more efficient model, one that actually improves our effectiveness as well."
In the coming year, Tarasiuk said, the CIO's office will work to ensure the resilience of the first several thousand uses of the common desktops and other infrastructure services "to make sure that we can move more production capabilities into it."
"Then," he added, "we will scale beyond what we have right now -- scale the number of desktops, scale the amount of data that's in the cloud."
New services also will be brought in, he said, including security monitoring, and a central service will be established to monitor end-to-end security of IC ITE.
"The beauty of what we're doing is enforcing an IC standard for all data objects that go in the cloud," Tarasiuk added. "Today, agencies comply with security standards, but they implement them in different ways. This is where we believe we can improve information sharing over time."
Based on the way data was originally implemented, an analyst in one agency may not be able to access certain data sets from another agency, the CIO explained. "What we're trying to do from an infrastructure perspective is remove roadblocks that prevent that kind of sharing," he said. "That's the big benefit of moving the data. It's not all going to be in one place, but from a virtual perspective it will be interconnected to the same standards and formats so the automated engines can determine whether a user can see the data or not."
Tarasiuk also stays in touch with the Defense Department's CIO, Theresa M. Takai, who for the defense secretary, the nation's warfighters and many others ensures the delivery of such IT-based capabilities through the Joint Information Environment to support the range of DOD missions.
The need for more effectiveness, security and efficiency isn't unique to the intelligence community, and DOD is transitioning in a first-phase implementation of the JIE -- a single, secure, reliable and agile command, control, communications, and computing enterprise information environment -- that spans fiscal years 2013 and 2014.
Tarasiuk says the relationship between IC ITE and JIE is still being defined in terms of what services the enterprises can leverage from each other.
"Teri Takai and I are pretty close partners in trying to ensure three important elements that are critical to the IC and the DOD communities -- interoperability of standards and identities, and then the cross-domain capabilities," he said.
"We chair joint committees," he added, "and we have people working on committees to ensure that we can move information back and forth and we can understand who's seeing information, so that's enabled."
The CIO said the piece that's still being defined is where services can be leveraged.
For instance, he said, "we don't plan on a wide scale to produce a secret domain infrastructure. We are very much focused on TS/SCI domain only, and that's where our ... priority is.
DOD has substantial capabilities already in that space, Tarasiuk added, and the ODNI CIO is exploring that and the unclassified level as potential places to leverage services.
"That's what we're currently working on," he said, "trying to figure out where we can point requirements to JIE or JIE point requirements to us when it comes to the TS/SCI space."
Friday, September 13, 2013
NEW FDA ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING TREATMENT OF PAIN WITH OPIOID ANALGESICS
FROM: FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
The Division of Drug Information (DDI) is CDER's focal point for public inquiries. We serve the public by providing information on human drug products and drug product regulation by FDA.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced class-wide safety labeling changes and new postmarket study requirements for all extended-release and long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics intended to treat pain.
Given the serious risks of using ER/LA opioids, the class-wide labeling changes, when final, will include important new language to help health care professionals tailor their prescribing decisions based on a patient’s individual needs.
The updated indication states that ER/LA opioids are indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate.
The updated indication further clarifies that, because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse, even at recommended doses, and because of the greater risks of overdose and death, these drugs should be reserved for use in patients for whom alternative treatment options (e.g., non-opioid analgesics or immediate-release opioids) are ineffective, not tolerated, or would be otherwise inadequate to provide sufficient management of pain; ER/LA opioid analgesics are not indicated for as-needed pain relief.
The Division of Drug Information (DDI) is CDER's focal point for public inquiries. We serve the public by providing information on human drug products and drug product regulation by FDA.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced class-wide safety labeling changes and new postmarket study requirements for all extended-release and long-acting (ER/LA) opioid analgesics intended to treat pain.
Given the serious risks of using ER/LA opioids, the class-wide labeling changes, when final, will include important new language to help health care professionals tailor their prescribing decisions based on a patient’s individual needs.
The updated indication states that ER/LA opioids are indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate.
The updated indication further clarifies that, because of the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse, even at recommended doses, and because of the greater risks of overdose and death, these drugs should be reserved for use in patients for whom alternative treatment options (e.g., non-opioid analgesics or immediate-release opioids) are ineffective, not tolerated, or would be otherwise inadequate to provide sufficient management of pain; ER/LA opioid analgesics are not indicated for as-needed pain relief.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
SECRETARY KERRY'S REMARKS WITH FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV REGARDING SYRIA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks With Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Intercontinental Hotel
Geneva, Switzerland
September 12, 2013
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) (In progress) – delegations that accompany us. Of course, we would like you to have unbiased ideas about what we are going to do. But I think that you understand well before we start to tell you what we are going to do, we should get down to a very serious work, the work which is dedicated to a principled agreement to solve once and for – till the end the Syrian problem and the adhesion of Syria to the convention, to the Chemical Weapons Convention, to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. These documents are officially tabled by Damascus to the corresponding agencies, and we will have to have a look at the corresponding documents with the participation of experts that have all the qualifications and professionalism how to work further, not to postpone this process, in strict compliance with the rules that are established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
We proceed from the fact that the solution on this problem will make unnecessary any strike on the Syrian Arab Republic, and I am convinced that our American colleagues, as President Obama stated, are firmly convinced that we should follow the peaceful way of resolution of the conflict in Syria. And I should say that we spoke with John by phone several times when we prepared for this meeting. We think that the development of the events gives us an additional opportunity for Geneva 2 in order to move this today’s situation from the stage of military confrontation and to prevent any terroristic threats which is expanding in Syria and in the region, and to convene the conference during which the Syrian parties, in accordance with the Geneva communiques, should agree on the creation of the transition body that will have all the executive functions. And this is our common objectives, and I hope that our today’s and tomorrow work and all other efforts that we are going to continue will help us to move on and to achieve this objective.
Thank you for your attention.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Foreign Minister Lavrov. My privilege to be here with our delegation, and I want to thank you and your delegation on behalf of all the people who hope that diplomacy can avoid military action, and we thank you for coming quickly to Geneva in order to have this important conversation that we will engage in.
Over one year ago, President Obama and President Putin directed high-level experts in our governments, both of our governments, to work together to prepare contingencies involving Syria’s chemical weapons. Foreign Minister Lavrov and I have been in regular contact about this issue since my visit to Moscow earlier this year. And as Foreign Minister Lavrov said to me in a phone conversation after St. Petersburg and the meetings there, President Putin and President Obama thought it would be worthwhile for us to work together to determine if there is life in this concept.
This challenge obviously took on grave urgency on August 21st when the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in a massive and indiscriminate way against its own citizens. President Obama and dozens of our partners believe that that action is unacceptable, and we have in no uncertain terms made it clear that we cannot allow that to happen again.
In light of what has happened, the world wonders and watches closely whether or not the Assad regime will live up to its public commitments that it has made to give up their chemical weapons and whether two of the world’s most powerful nations can together take a critical step forward in order to hold the regime to its stated promises.
I have seen reports that the Syrian regime has suggested that as part of the standard process they ought to have 30 days to submit data on their technical – on their chemical weapons stockpile. We believe there is nothing standard about this process at this moment because of the way the regime has behaved, because the – not only the existence of these weapons, but they have been used. And the words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough, which is why we’ve come here in order to work with the Russians and work with Sergey Lavrov and his delegation here in order to make certain that this can, in fact, be achieved.
The United States and Russia have had and continue to have our share of disagreements about the situation in Syria, including a difference as to the judgment we just offered with respect to who may have done that. But what’s important as we come here is that there’s much that we agree on. We agree that on August 21st Syrian men, women, and children died grotesque deaths due to chemical weapons. We agree that no one anywhere at any time should employ chemical weapons. And we agree that our joining together with the international community to eliminate stockpiles of these weapons in Syria would be an historic moment for the multilateral nonproliferation efforts. We agree on those things. We agree that it would help to save lives if we could accomplish this, that it would reduce the threat to the region, that it would uphold the norm that was established here in Geneva almost a century ago, and it would achieve the best of our – all of our aspirations for curbing weapons of mass destruction.
Foreign Minister Lavrov and I have come to Geneva today to begin to test these propositions, not just on behalf of each of our countries but on behalf of everybody who is interested in a peaceful resolution. So I welcome the distinguished Russian delegation and I am proud that at President Obama’s direction we have a delegation here which I lead of some of our nation’s foremost chemical weapons experts; people who’ve dedicated their lives every day to countering the proliferation of these weapons and to bringing about their eventual elimination from this Earth.
The Russian delegation has put some ideas forward, and we’re grateful for that. We respect it. And we have prepared our own principles that any plan to accomplish this needs to encompass. Expectations are high. They are high for the United States, perhaps even more so for Russia to deliver on the promise of this moment. This is not a game, and I said that to my friend Sergey when we talked about it initially. It has to be real. It has to be comprehensive. It has to be verifiable. It has to be credible. It has to be timely and implemented in a timely fashion. And finally, there ought to be consequences if it doesn’t take place.
Diplomacy is and always has been President Obama’s and this Administration’s first resort, and achieving a peaceful resolution is clearly preferable to military action. President Obama has said that again and again. Now, it’s too early to tell whether or not these efforts will succeed, but the technical challenges of trying to do this in the context of a civil war are obviously immense. But despite how difficult this is, with the collaboration of our experts and only with the compliance from the Assad regime, we do believe there is a way to get this done.
We have come here to define a potential path forward that we can share with our international partners, and together we will test the Assad regime’s commitment to follow through on its promises. We are serious – Mr. Foreign Minister, we are serious, as you are – about engaging in substantive, meaningful negotiations even as our military maintains its current posture to keep up the pressure on the Assad regime. Only the credible threat of force and the intervention of President Putin and Russia based on that has brought the Assad regime to acknowledge for the first time that it even has chemical weapons and an arsenal, and it is now prepared to relinquish it. President Obama has made clear that should diplomacy fail, force might be necessary to deter and degrade Assad’s capacity to deliver these weapons. It won’t get rid of them, but it could change his willingness to use them.
The best thing to do, we agree, is remove them altogether. Our challenge here in Geneva is to test the viability of placing Assad’s chemical weapons under international control, removing them from Syria, and destroying them forever. But the United States has also made clear that the deaths of more than 100,000 Syrians and the displacement of millions either internally or as refugees remains a stain on the world’s conscience. We all need to keep that in mind and deal with it.
And that is why Foreign Minister Lavrov and I continue to work with Joint Special Envoy Brahimi and ourselves under the auspices of the Geneva communique. The Foreign Secretary just mentioned this and his hopes. We share those hopes that could foster a political solution to a civil war that undermines the stability of the region, threatens our own national security interests, and compels us to act. That is our hope and that is what we fervently hope can come out of this meeting and these negotiations.
Thank you very much.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: With your permission, just two words.
(Via interpreter) I’m not prepared with the (inaudible) political statement to (inaudible) the Syrian problem, because our approaches are clear and they are stated in the statements of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and in his article in The New York Times. And I’m convinced that all of you read this article and I decided not to lay out here our diplomatic position. The diplomacy likes silence. And we’re intent to find compromises, and I am sure that John, in his presentation of the American position, also showed that they would like to find mutual consensus and be – if we follow this way, I hope that we will achieve all the successes.
SECRETARY KERRY: I lost the last part of the – can you give me the last part of the translation, please? Hello?
INTERPRETER: Yes, hello.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: It was okay, John. Don’t worry. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: You want me to take your word for it? (Laughter.) It’s a little early for that.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Okay. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks.
Remarks With Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Intercontinental Hotel
Geneva, Switzerland
September 12, 2013
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: (Via interpreter) (In progress) – delegations that accompany us. Of course, we would like you to have unbiased ideas about what we are going to do. But I think that you understand well before we start to tell you what we are going to do, we should get down to a very serious work, the work which is dedicated to a principled agreement to solve once and for – till the end the Syrian problem and the adhesion of Syria to the convention, to the Chemical Weapons Convention, to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. These documents are officially tabled by Damascus to the corresponding agencies, and we will have to have a look at the corresponding documents with the participation of experts that have all the qualifications and professionalism how to work further, not to postpone this process, in strict compliance with the rules that are established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
We proceed from the fact that the solution on this problem will make unnecessary any strike on the Syrian Arab Republic, and I am convinced that our American colleagues, as President Obama stated, are firmly convinced that we should follow the peaceful way of resolution of the conflict in Syria. And I should say that we spoke with John by phone several times when we prepared for this meeting. We think that the development of the events gives us an additional opportunity for Geneva 2 in order to move this today’s situation from the stage of military confrontation and to prevent any terroristic threats which is expanding in Syria and in the region, and to convene the conference during which the Syrian parties, in accordance with the Geneva communiques, should agree on the creation of the transition body that will have all the executive functions. And this is our common objectives, and I hope that our today’s and tomorrow work and all other efforts that we are going to continue will help us to move on and to achieve this objective.
Thank you for your attention.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Foreign Minister Lavrov. My privilege to be here with our delegation, and I want to thank you and your delegation on behalf of all the people who hope that diplomacy can avoid military action, and we thank you for coming quickly to Geneva in order to have this important conversation that we will engage in.
Over one year ago, President Obama and President Putin directed high-level experts in our governments, both of our governments, to work together to prepare contingencies involving Syria’s chemical weapons. Foreign Minister Lavrov and I have been in regular contact about this issue since my visit to Moscow earlier this year. And as Foreign Minister Lavrov said to me in a phone conversation after St. Petersburg and the meetings there, President Putin and President Obama thought it would be worthwhile for us to work together to determine if there is life in this concept.
This challenge obviously took on grave urgency on August 21st when the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in a massive and indiscriminate way against its own citizens. President Obama and dozens of our partners believe that that action is unacceptable, and we have in no uncertain terms made it clear that we cannot allow that to happen again.
In light of what has happened, the world wonders and watches closely whether or not the Assad regime will live up to its public commitments that it has made to give up their chemical weapons and whether two of the world’s most powerful nations can together take a critical step forward in order to hold the regime to its stated promises.
I have seen reports that the Syrian regime has suggested that as part of the standard process they ought to have 30 days to submit data on their technical – on their chemical weapons stockpile. We believe there is nothing standard about this process at this moment because of the way the regime has behaved, because the – not only the existence of these weapons, but they have been used. And the words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough, which is why we’ve come here in order to work with the Russians and work with Sergey Lavrov and his delegation here in order to make certain that this can, in fact, be achieved.
The United States and Russia have had and continue to have our share of disagreements about the situation in Syria, including a difference as to the judgment we just offered with respect to who may have done that. But what’s important as we come here is that there’s much that we agree on. We agree that on August 21st Syrian men, women, and children died grotesque deaths due to chemical weapons. We agree that no one anywhere at any time should employ chemical weapons. And we agree that our joining together with the international community to eliminate stockpiles of these weapons in Syria would be an historic moment for the multilateral nonproliferation efforts. We agree on those things. We agree that it would help to save lives if we could accomplish this, that it would reduce the threat to the region, that it would uphold the norm that was established here in Geneva almost a century ago, and it would achieve the best of our – all of our aspirations for curbing weapons of mass destruction.
Foreign Minister Lavrov and I have come to Geneva today to begin to test these propositions, not just on behalf of each of our countries but on behalf of everybody who is interested in a peaceful resolution. So I welcome the distinguished Russian delegation and I am proud that at President Obama’s direction we have a delegation here which I lead of some of our nation’s foremost chemical weapons experts; people who’ve dedicated their lives every day to countering the proliferation of these weapons and to bringing about their eventual elimination from this Earth.
The Russian delegation has put some ideas forward, and we’re grateful for that. We respect it. And we have prepared our own principles that any plan to accomplish this needs to encompass. Expectations are high. They are high for the United States, perhaps even more so for Russia to deliver on the promise of this moment. This is not a game, and I said that to my friend Sergey when we talked about it initially. It has to be real. It has to be comprehensive. It has to be verifiable. It has to be credible. It has to be timely and implemented in a timely fashion. And finally, there ought to be consequences if it doesn’t take place.
Diplomacy is and always has been President Obama’s and this Administration’s first resort, and achieving a peaceful resolution is clearly preferable to military action. President Obama has said that again and again. Now, it’s too early to tell whether or not these efforts will succeed, but the technical challenges of trying to do this in the context of a civil war are obviously immense. But despite how difficult this is, with the collaboration of our experts and only with the compliance from the Assad regime, we do believe there is a way to get this done.
We have come here to define a potential path forward that we can share with our international partners, and together we will test the Assad regime’s commitment to follow through on its promises. We are serious – Mr. Foreign Minister, we are serious, as you are – about engaging in substantive, meaningful negotiations even as our military maintains its current posture to keep up the pressure on the Assad regime. Only the credible threat of force and the intervention of President Putin and Russia based on that has brought the Assad regime to acknowledge for the first time that it even has chemical weapons and an arsenal, and it is now prepared to relinquish it. President Obama has made clear that should diplomacy fail, force might be necessary to deter and degrade Assad’s capacity to deliver these weapons. It won’t get rid of them, but it could change his willingness to use them.
The best thing to do, we agree, is remove them altogether. Our challenge here in Geneva is to test the viability of placing Assad’s chemical weapons under international control, removing them from Syria, and destroying them forever. But the United States has also made clear that the deaths of more than 100,000 Syrians and the displacement of millions either internally or as refugees remains a stain on the world’s conscience. We all need to keep that in mind and deal with it.
And that is why Foreign Minister Lavrov and I continue to work with Joint Special Envoy Brahimi and ourselves under the auspices of the Geneva communique. The Foreign Secretary just mentioned this and his hopes. We share those hopes that could foster a political solution to a civil war that undermines the stability of the region, threatens our own national security interests, and compels us to act. That is our hope and that is what we fervently hope can come out of this meeting and these negotiations.
Thank you very much.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: With your permission, just two words.
(Via interpreter) I’m not prepared with the (inaudible) political statement to (inaudible) the Syrian problem, because our approaches are clear and they are stated in the statements of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and in his article in The New York Times. And I’m convinced that all of you read this article and I decided not to lay out here our diplomatic position. The diplomacy likes silence. And we’re intent to find compromises, and I am sure that John, in his presentation of the American position, also showed that they would like to find mutual consensus and be – if we follow this way, I hope that we will achieve all the successes.
SECRETARY KERRY: I lost the last part of the – can you give me the last part of the translation, please? Hello?
INTERPRETER: Yes, hello.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: It was okay, John. Don’t worry. (Laughter.)
SECRETARY KERRY: You want me to take your word for it? (Laughter.) It’s a little early for that.
FOREIGN MINISTER LAVROV: Okay. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Thanks.
FIRST LADY MICHELLE OBAMA, ACTOR GARY SINISE TOUR NEW USO WARRIOR AND FAMILY CENTER
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
First Lady Visits USO Center at Fort Belvoir
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
FORT BELVOIR, Va., Sept. 11, 2013 - First Lady Michelle Obama and actor Gary Sinise paused for arts and crafts with young people during their tour of the new USO Warrior and Family Center here in honor of Patriot Day and National Service Day of Remembrance.
Located adjacent to Warrior Transition Unit and the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, the Warrior and Family Center provides a hub for programs and activities that promote physical health and recreation, family strengthening, positive behavioral health, education, employment and community reintegration.
With cookies from White House pastry chefs in tow, Obama thanked children and their families, lauding them for their sacrifices and heroism.
"We're so proud of what you do because your parents, your moms and dads and grandparents and cousins and uncles and aunts, whoever is in your family [and] serving -- you guys help them help our country," Obama said to the cavorting tykes. "And we just wanted to shine a light on all of the great work that the USO is doing for military families all over this country."
Obama also thanked Sinise, whose popular "Lt. Dan Band" -- named from his character in the film "Forrest Gump" -- has become a dedicated partner to the USO and other nonprofit organizations that support the military and their families. The band later presented a concert for the post community.
Andrew Starr, 6, the son of a Marine colonel, said he and his 5-year-old sister have already secured their personal invitations to the White House Halloween party after spending quality time with the first lady.
"I cut out our hands and I got to cut out the first lady's hand – but not the real one, a paper one," Andrew assured.
Kerry Stevens, USO family and troops programs and events coordinator, said she was pleased that the distinguished visitors initiated the visit to the volunteer-run center.
"[The first lady] worked with kids and their projects and really had a fun time with them – they were just so excited," Stevens said. "And it's exciting for us to get to offer this opportunity to the families."
First Lady Visits USO Center at Fort Belvoir
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
FORT BELVOIR, Va., Sept. 11, 2013 - First Lady Michelle Obama and actor Gary Sinise paused for arts and crafts with young people during their tour of the new USO Warrior and Family Center here in honor of Patriot Day and National Service Day of Remembrance.
Located adjacent to Warrior Transition Unit and the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, the Warrior and Family Center provides a hub for programs and activities that promote physical health and recreation, family strengthening, positive behavioral health, education, employment and community reintegration.
With cookies from White House pastry chefs in tow, Obama thanked children and their families, lauding them for their sacrifices and heroism.
"We're so proud of what you do because your parents, your moms and dads and grandparents and cousins and uncles and aunts, whoever is in your family [and] serving -- you guys help them help our country," Obama said to the cavorting tykes. "And we just wanted to shine a light on all of the great work that the USO is doing for military families all over this country."
Obama also thanked Sinise, whose popular "Lt. Dan Band" -- named from his character in the film "Forrest Gump" -- has become a dedicated partner to the USO and other nonprofit organizations that support the military and their families. The band later presented a concert for the post community.
Andrew Starr, 6, the son of a Marine colonel, said he and his 5-year-old sister have already secured their personal invitations to the White House Halloween party after spending quality time with the first lady.
"I cut out our hands and I got to cut out the first lady's hand – but not the real one, a paper one," Andrew assured.
Kerry Stevens, USO family and troops programs and events coordinator, said she was pleased that the distinguished visitors initiated the visit to the volunteer-run center.
"[The first lady] worked with kids and their projects and really had a fun time with them – they were just so excited," Stevens said. "And it's exciting for us to get to offer this opportunity to the families."
FINAL TRANSFER COMPLETED BETWEEN CAMP ASHRAF AND CAMP HURRIYA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Relocation of Remaining Individuals from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya in Iraq
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 11, 2013
The United States welcomes today’s safe arrival at Camp Hurriya of the remaining 42 individuals from the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) who had been residing at Camp Ashraf. These individuals were survivors of the horrific attack that took place on September 1 at Camp Ashraf, and we appreciate their cooperation with the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in this relocation effort. We also appreciate the assistance of the Government of Iraq in facilitating this relocation.
The United States reiterates its condemnation of the September 1 attack and insists that the perpetrators of that barbarous act be brought to justice. We also continue to be deeply concerned about the seven individuals who remain missing from the attack and urge that all steps be taken to locate these individuals.
UNAMI made extraordinary efforts to implement a plan to safely and peacefully move the remaining residents at Camp Ashraf, and we appreciate and support those efforts. We urge all parties to continue to implement all remaining obligations of that plan. In particular, we call on the Government of Iraq to move expeditiously to enhance security structures within Camp Hurriya. It is the responsibility of the Government of Iraq to take all possible measures to ensure the safety and security of the residents at Camp Hurriya in accordance with the December 25, 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between UNAMI and the Government of Iraq.
We further call on the Government of Iraq to ensure the safekeeping of the property that remains at Camp Ashraf, as agreed pursuant to the UNAMI relocation plan. We also call upon the members and leaders of the MEK to actively participate in the UNHCR-led resettlement process. The United States stands firmly behind UNAMI efforts to resolve this matter and to act with urgency to find locations for the safe, secure, and permanent relocation of Camp Hurriya residents outside Iraq.
Relocation of Remaining Individuals from Camp Ashraf to Camp Hurriya in Iraq
Press Statement
Jen Psaki
Department Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 11, 2013
The United States welcomes today’s safe arrival at Camp Hurriya of the remaining 42 individuals from the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) who had been residing at Camp Ashraf. These individuals were survivors of the horrific attack that took place on September 1 at Camp Ashraf, and we appreciate their cooperation with the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in this relocation effort. We also appreciate the assistance of the Government of Iraq in facilitating this relocation.
The United States reiterates its condemnation of the September 1 attack and insists that the perpetrators of that barbarous act be brought to justice. We also continue to be deeply concerned about the seven individuals who remain missing from the attack and urge that all steps be taken to locate these individuals.
UNAMI made extraordinary efforts to implement a plan to safely and peacefully move the remaining residents at Camp Ashraf, and we appreciate and support those efforts. We urge all parties to continue to implement all remaining obligations of that plan. In particular, we call on the Government of Iraq to move expeditiously to enhance security structures within Camp Hurriya. It is the responsibility of the Government of Iraq to take all possible measures to ensure the safety and security of the residents at Camp Hurriya in accordance with the December 25, 2011 Memorandum of Understanding between UNAMI and the Government of Iraq.
We further call on the Government of Iraq to ensure the safekeeping of the property that remains at Camp Ashraf, as agreed pursuant to the UNAMI relocation plan. We also call upon the members and leaders of the MEK to actively participate in the UNHCR-led resettlement process. The United States stands firmly behind UNAMI efforts to resolve this matter and to act with urgency to find locations for the safe, secure, and permanent relocation of Camp Hurriya residents outside Iraq.
SECRETARY HAGEL EXPRESSES GRATITUDE TO USS BARRY FOR SERVICE DURING PERIOD OF "HEIGHTENED AWARENESS"
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel Calls USS Barry's Commanding Officer to Offer Thanks
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel today called the commanding officer of the USS Barry to express his gratitude to sailors serving in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
Hagel called Navy Cmdr. Thomas Dickinson to thank him and the crew of the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, Little said in a statement summarizing the call.
"Secretary Hagel thanked Commander Dickinson and his sailors for their service during this period of heightened readiness," the press secretary said. "Last month, the USS Barry was ordered to remain at sea beyond their scheduled deployment in preparation for military action against the Syrian regime.
"Secretary Hagel commended the USS Barry and the other ships in her group for maintaining their posture and ensuring that the United States military can carry out the orders of the commander in chief, if called upon," he continued. "He asked Commander Dickinson to relay to all sailors aboard that on the anniversary of Sept. 11, the secretary is proud of the men and women of the U.S. Navy who safeguard our nation far from home."
Hagel Calls USS Barry's Commanding Officer to Offer Thanks
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel today called the commanding officer of the USS Barry to express his gratitude to sailors serving in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
Hagel called Navy Cmdr. Thomas Dickinson to thank him and the crew of the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, Little said in a statement summarizing the call.
"Secretary Hagel thanked Commander Dickinson and his sailors for their service during this period of heightened readiness," the press secretary said. "Last month, the USS Barry was ordered to remain at sea beyond their scheduled deployment in preparation for military action against the Syrian regime.
"Secretary Hagel commended the USS Barry and the other ships in her group for maintaining their posture and ensuring that the United States military can carry out the orders of the commander in chief, if called upon," he continued. "He asked Commander Dickinson to relay to all sailors aboard that on the anniversary of Sept. 11, the secretary is proud of the men and women of the U.S. Navy who safeguard our nation far from home."
U.S. AIDS COUNTRIES AFFECTED BY COFFEE RUST
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
U.S. Assistance to Coffee Rust Affected Countries
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 10, 2013
Central America, southern Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean are experiencing one of the worst recorded outbreaks of coffee rust, a devastating disease for coffee plants, threatening the livelihoods and food security of smallholder coffee farmers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that coffee production in Mexico and Central America will decline by seven percent this year and may fall even further next year. The United States is working closely with affected governments, international organizations, civil society, coffee associations, and the private sector to combat coffee rust and mitigate its impacts in the following ways:
Through development diplomacy, the United States is raising the concern of coffee rust with senior government officials in affected countries and encouraging them to provide assistance to their producers.
Through the Unidad Regional de Asistencia Technica (RUTA), the United States hired a regional coordinator housed at the regional coffee association, PROMECAFÉ, in Guatemala to provide regional emergency coordination and disseminate best practices to combat rust.
The United States is providing field-based technical assistance to coffee farmers in El Salvador and Guatemala through the Food for Progress program to assist them to diversify and manage risk.
Through Feed the Future, the President’s food security initiative, the United States is working closely with the coffee industry and other stakeholders to provide training, resources and livelihoods support to affected communities and small scale farmers in Guatemala and Honduras.
The United States is working with national organizations and civil societies to support research on rust-resistant coffee varieties and address the shortage of appropriate coffee seedlings.
The United States is working through the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) in coordination with the International Financial Corporation (IFC) to provide a regional financing facility that would offer farmers medium and long term loans for plantation improvements and renovation.
U.S. Assistance to Coffee Rust Affected Countries
Fact Sheet
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 10, 2013
Central America, southern Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean are experiencing one of the worst recorded outbreaks of coffee rust, a devastating disease for coffee plants, threatening the livelihoods and food security of smallholder coffee farmers. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that coffee production in Mexico and Central America will decline by seven percent this year and may fall even further next year. The United States is working closely with affected governments, international organizations, civil society, coffee associations, and the private sector to combat coffee rust and mitigate its impacts in the following ways:
Through development diplomacy, the United States is raising the concern of coffee rust with senior government officials in affected countries and encouraging them to provide assistance to their producers.
Through the Unidad Regional de Asistencia Technica (RUTA), the United States hired a regional coordinator housed at the regional coffee association, PROMECAFÉ, in Guatemala to provide regional emergency coordination and disseminate best practices to combat rust.
The United States is providing field-based technical assistance to coffee farmers in El Salvador and Guatemala through the Food for Progress program to assist them to diversify and manage risk.
Through Feed the Future, the President’s food security initiative, the United States is working closely with the coffee industry and other stakeholders to provide training, resources and livelihoods support to affected communities and small scale farmers in Guatemala and Honduras.
The United States is working with national organizations and civil societies to support research on rust-resistant coffee varieties and address the shortage of appropriate coffee seedlings.
The United States is working through the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) in coordination with the International Financial Corporation (IFC) to provide a regional financing facility that would offer farmers medium and long term loans for plantation improvements and renovation.
UNITAS MARITIME EXERCIE
 |
| Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate USS Rentz anchors in the harbor of Cartagena, Colombia, to prepare for the start of the annual Unitas multinational naval exercise. The Colombian navy is hosting the exercise, which began Sept 8 and runs through Sept. 15. U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Cmdr. Corey Barker |
Unitas Maritime Exercise Promotes Unity, Interoperability
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2013 - Ships, aircraft and personnel from 15 nations launched the most enduring maritime exercise within U.S. Southern Command's area of responsibility yesterday, with scenarios designed to increase their ability to work together to address regional challenges and threats.
Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly, the Southcom commander, joined Colombian Defense Minister Juan Carlos Pinzon and other regional defense leaders in kicking off Unitas 2013 in Cartegena, Colombia.
Unitas, Latin for "unity," is a combined South American and U.S- sponsored exercise series focused on building cooperation, understanding and partnership among participating navies.
The Colombian navy is hosting this year's exercise, the 54th since the first in 1959.
"This is the oldest maritime security exercise in this part of the hemisphere," Kelly noted in his welcoming remarks. "For 54 years, we've been learning from one another and improving communications and interoperability between our sailors and Marines. Maritime security in this hemisphere is much stronger now, thanks to these exercises."
Operating in the Caribbean waters off Colombia through Sept. 15, the participants in Unitas 2013 will focuses on coalition building, multilateral security cooperation, tactical interoperability and mutual understanding among the participants, said Navy Rear Adm. Sinclair M. Harris, the U.S. 4th Fleet commander overseeing its execution.
The goal, 4th Fleet officials said, is to develop and test participating navies' capabilities to respond as a unified force to a wide variety of maritime missions.
"While the overarching goal of the exercise is to develop and test command and control of forces at sea, training in this exercise will address the spectrum of maritime operations," Harris said. Scenarios are expected to include electronic, anti-air, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare as well as air defense and maritime interdiction operations.
The United States, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Peru and the United Kingdom are providing sea and air assets for this year's exercise. In addition, Belize, El Salvador, Germany, Jamaica, Panama and Mexico have sent observers or other staff.
USS Rentz, a guided-missile frigate with two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters and Coast Guard Cutter Forward are among the U.S. forces taking part in the exercise. Other U.S. participants include P-3C Orion fixed-wing aircraft from the Navy's Patrol Squadron 47, BQM-74 Chukar air drones and a drone team, a command element and a public affairs team. U.S. Navy Reserve augmentees are operating the Combined Enterprise Regional Information Exchange System friendly force tracker.
DOD TOUTS UNFOLDING U.S.-CHINESE MILITARY RELATIONS
 |
| China. Credit: U.S. State Department/CIA |
Officials Map Next Steps in U.S.-Chinese Military Relations
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - U.S. and Chinese officials mapped the next steps in the military-to-military relationship between their nations at the 14th annual defense consultative talks that ended in Beijing yesterday.
James N. Miller, the undersecretary of defense for policy, met with Lt. Gen. Wang Guanzhong, deputy chief of the People's Liberation Army General Staff. The two men last met in July.
"We're engaging the Chinese in a number of channels, ... and we are working to build cooperation in areas of mutual interest," Miller told reporters following the meeting. "We're also discussing our differences and working to narrow them where we can. Where we can't narrow the differences, at least we can understand each other's perspectives better, and we're working to reduce the chances of misunderstanding and miscalculations."
The United States and China are the world's two largest economies. The consultative talks on defense "looked for ways to build strategic trust and look for opportunities to build on cooperation in areas of mutual interest," Miller said. This includes humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, peacekeeping and maritime safety, to name just a few, he added.
The talks sought to capitalize on recent cooperation. Last month, Chinese and U.S. forces completed a counterpiracy exercise in the Gulf of Aden, Miller noted, and China already has announced it will participate in the RIMPAC 2014 exercise in the Pacific Rim. The U.S. and Chinese teams also discussed the Chinese participating in other exercises, including multinational exercises such as Cobra Gold 2014, he said.
The talks covered maritime security in the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and the two sides exchanged views on cyber, space, nuclear policy and missile defense" Miller said.
"I emphasized our grave concerns reference North Korea's nuclear and missile developments," the undersecretary said. "We called on China to pressure North Korea to return to a process of credible and authentic negotiations aimed at denuclearization."
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
U.S. AG HOLDER AND MEXICAN AG MEET REGARDING RELEASE OF MAN CONVICTED OF MURDERING DEA AGENT
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Monday, September 9, 2013
Attorney General Holder Meets with Mexican Attorney General About Mexico's Release of DEA Agent's Killer
Attorney General Eric Holder met with Mexican Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam today to discuss the release by the Mexican government of Rafael Caro Quintero, who was convicted of murdering Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena in February 1985.
Caro Quintero was convicted and sentenced in Mexico for charges related to the 1985 kidnapping, torture and murder of DEA Camarena. He was sentenced to serve 40 years in a Mexican prison in December 1989 but, after serving only 28 years of his sentence, a Mexican court ruled that he had been improperly tried in a Mexican federal court rather than a state court and ordered his release on August 9, 2013. Mexican authorities are seeking reversal of that decision. Nonetheless, Caro Quintero remains at large.
Attorney General Holder expressed grave concerns and disappointment immediately after learning of Caro Quintero’s premature release. At today’s meeting with Mexican Attorney General Murillo, Attorney General Holder reiterated those concerns.
“I appreciated the chance to discuss the recent developments in the case connected to the murder of DEA special agent Kiki Camarena and other important matters with Attorney General Murillo this afternoon. I look forward to working with him to continue to advance our shared commitment to the rule of law. Nothing will weaken our resolve to hold accountable those who commit acts of violence against our brave law enforcement agents,” said Attorney General Holder. “The kidnapping and murder of Agent Camarena was a heinous crime that shocked criminal justice professionals on both sides of the border. Like many, I was surprised and deeply concerned to learn about the release of Rafael Caro Quintero last month. We will continue to work with our Mexican counterparts to ensure that Caro Quintero does not escape justice.”
In May 1987, the Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California, indicted Caro Quintero and several others, for conspiracy and racketeering charges related to the kidnapping, torture and murder in Mexico of Agent Camarena. Since then, the Department of Justice has continued to make clear to Mexican authorities the continued interest of the United States in ensuring that Caro Quintero faces justice.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Attorney General Holder Meets with Mexican Attorney General About Mexico's Release of DEA Agent's Killer
Attorney General Eric Holder met with Mexican Attorney General Jesús Murillo Karam today to discuss the release by the Mexican government of Rafael Caro Quintero, who was convicted of murdering Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena in February 1985.
Caro Quintero was convicted and sentenced in Mexico for charges related to the 1985 kidnapping, torture and murder of DEA Camarena. He was sentenced to serve 40 years in a Mexican prison in December 1989 but, after serving only 28 years of his sentence, a Mexican court ruled that he had been improperly tried in a Mexican federal court rather than a state court and ordered his release on August 9, 2013. Mexican authorities are seeking reversal of that decision. Nonetheless, Caro Quintero remains at large.
Attorney General Holder expressed grave concerns and disappointment immediately after learning of Caro Quintero’s premature release. At today’s meeting with Mexican Attorney General Murillo, Attorney General Holder reiterated those concerns.
“I appreciated the chance to discuss the recent developments in the case connected to the murder of DEA special agent Kiki Camarena and other important matters with Attorney General Murillo this afternoon. I look forward to working with him to continue to advance our shared commitment to the rule of law. Nothing will weaken our resolve to hold accountable those who commit acts of violence against our brave law enforcement agents,” said Attorney General Holder. “The kidnapping and murder of Agent Camarena was a heinous crime that shocked criminal justice professionals on both sides of the border. Like many, I was surprised and deeply concerned to learn about the release of Rafael Caro Quintero last month. We will continue to work with our Mexican counterparts to ensure that Caro Quintero does not escape justice.”
In May 1987, the Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney’s Office in the Central District of California, indicted Caro Quintero and several others, for conspiracy and racketeering charges related to the kidnapping, torture and murder in Mexico of Agent Camarena. Since then, the Department of Justice has continued to make clear to Mexican authorities the continued interest of the United States in ensuring that Caro Quintero faces justice.
STATE DEPARTMENT REACTION TO ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION CHARGES IN BANGLADESH
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Bangladesh: Corruption Allegations Against Muhammad Yunus (Taken Question)
Taken Question
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 10, 2013
Question: Any Reaction to Corruption Allegations against Muhammad Yunus?
Answer: We are concerned about recent reports that the Government of Bangladesh may pursue a tax evasion case against Dr. Yunus. The United States has long admired and supported Professor Yunus’s significant achievements in improving the lives of Bangladesh’s most vulnerable citizens, particularly women. We urge the Government of Bangladesh to treat Dr. Yunus in a fair and transparent manner, in keeping with Bangladeshi law and the principles of due process.
The United States supports the continued independence, effectiveness, and integrity of Grameen Bank as an institution that promotes the welfare and development of Bangladesh’s most vulnerable people, particularly women. We also support the continuation of the Bank’s unique governance structure. We look forward to the selection of a highly qualified and acceptable Managing Director and a new chairman who are committed to sustaining the Bank’s success.
Grameen Bank is an engine of social entrepreneurship and prosperity for millions of Bangladeshis, and has an impressive track record improving the lives of the poor, especially women and girls. An astonishing 96% percent of its 8.3 million borrowers are women. Grameen Bank has played a pioneering role not only in developing microfinance as an economic model but in empowering ordinary people to lift themselves out of poverty and into a better life.
Bangladesh: Corruption Allegations Against Muhammad Yunus (Taken Question)
Taken Question
Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 10, 2013
Question: Any Reaction to Corruption Allegations against Muhammad Yunus?
Answer: We are concerned about recent reports that the Government of Bangladesh may pursue a tax evasion case against Dr. Yunus. The United States has long admired and supported Professor Yunus’s significant achievements in improving the lives of Bangladesh’s most vulnerable citizens, particularly women. We urge the Government of Bangladesh to treat Dr. Yunus in a fair and transparent manner, in keeping with Bangladeshi law and the principles of due process.
The United States supports the continued independence, effectiveness, and integrity of Grameen Bank as an institution that promotes the welfare and development of Bangladesh’s most vulnerable people, particularly women. We also support the continuation of the Bank’s unique governance structure. We look forward to the selection of a highly qualified and acceptable Managing Director and a new chairman who are committed to sustaining the Bank’s success.
Grameen Bank is an engine of social entrepreneurship and prosperity for millions of Bangladeshis, and has an impressive track record improving the lives of the poor, especially women and girls. An astonishing 96% percent of its 8.3 million borrowers are women. Grameen Bank has played a pioneering role not only in developing microfinance as an economic model but in empowering ordinary people to lift themselves out of poverty and into a better life.
PRESIDENT OBAMA REVIEWS INTERAGENCY COUNTERTERRORISM PLANS WITH OFFICIALS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Obama Reviews Interagency Counterterrorism Plans
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and other officials tuesday to review interagency counterterrorism planning on the eve of the 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
Before that meeting, Little added, senior military planners briefed Hagel on the Defense Department's worldwide security posture.
In close coordination with the State Department, the Defense Department has undertaken a number of efforts over the past year to increase security planning at U.S. embassies and installations around the world, including augmenting the role U.S. Marine security guards play in certain situations, the press secretary said in a statement.
"The Department of Defense has also developed, trained, and sustained, innovative force options, both at sea and at U.S. bases in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East," he said. "These forces are operating at a high state of readiness and are complemented by air assets and other platforms that can help respond to a variety of contingencies."
Hagel thanked Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Joint Staff and combatant commands, for working closely with one another to support efforts across areas of responsibility, the press secretary said. The secretary also offered his appreciation to "the men and women standing watch on this day and every day around the world," he added.
A White House statement issued after the meeting said the national security team is taking measures to prevent 9/11-related attacks and to ensure the protection of Americans and U.S. facilities abroad.
Obama Reviews Interagency Counterterrorism Plans
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - President Barack Obama met with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and other officials tuesday to review interagency counterterrorism planning on the eve of the 12th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said.
Before that meeting, Little added, senior military planners briefed Hagel on the Defense Department's worldwide security posture.
In close coordination with the State Department, the Defense Department has undertaken a number of efforts over the past year to increase security planning at U.S. embassies and installations around the world, including augmenting the role U.S. Marine security guards play in certain situations, the press secretary said in a statement.
"The Department of Defense has also developed, trained, and sustained, innovative force options, both at sea and at U.S. bases in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East," he said. "These forces are operating at a high state of readiness and are complemented by air assets and other platforms that can help respond to a variety of contingencies."
Hagel thanked Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as the Joint Staff and combatant commands, for working closely with one another to support efforts across areas of responsibility, the press secretary said. The secretary also offered his appreciation to "the men and women standing watch on this day and every day around the world," he added.
A White House statement issued after the meeting said the national security team is taking measures to prevent 9/11-related attacks and to ensure the protection of Americans and U.S. facilities abroad.
COUNTERTERRORISM PLANNING FOR 9-11
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, PENTAGON
Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary George Little on Counterterrorism Planning for the Anniversary of 9/11
This afternoon, Secretary Hagel participated in a meeting with President Obama to review interagency counterterrorism planning on the eve of the 12th anniversary of September 11, 2001. Prior to that meeting, Secretary Hagel was briefed by senior military planners on the Department of Defense's worldwide security posture.
Over the past year, the Department of Defense in close coordination with the Department of State, has undertaken a number of efforts to increase security planning at U.S. Embassies and installations around the world including augmenting the role U.S. Marine Security Guards play in certain situations.
The Department of Defense has also developed, trained, and sustained, innovative force options both at sea and at U.S. bases in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. These forces are operating at a high state of readiness and are complemented by air assets and other platforms that can help respond to a variety of contingencies.
Secretary Hagel thanked General Dempsey, the Joint Staff, and Combatant Commands for working closely with one another to support efforts across areas of responsibility and offered his appreciation to the men and women standing watch on this day and every day around the world.
Statement by Pentagon Press Secretary George Little on Counterterrorism Planning for the Anniversary of 9/11
This afternoon, Secretary Hagel participated in a meeting with President Obama to review interagency counterterrorism planning on the eve of the 12th anniversary of September 11, 2001. Prior to that meeting, Secretary Hagel was briefed by senior military planners on the Department of Defense's worldwide security posture.
Over the past year, the Department of Defense in close coordination with the Department of State, has undertaken a number of efforts to increase security planning at U.S. Embassies and installations around the world including augmenting the role U.S. Marine Security Guards play in certain situations.
The Department of Defense has also developed, trained, and sustained, innovative force options both at sea and at U.S. bases in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. These forces are operating at a high state of readiness and are complemented by air assets and other platforms that can help respond to a variety of contingencies.
Secretary Hagel thanked General Dempsey, the Joint Staff, and Combatant Commands for working closely with one another to support efforts across areas of responsibility and offered his appreciation to the men and women standing watch on this day and every day around the world.
EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT BUILDINGS AND THE PROMISE OF COLD-STEEL
FROM: NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Cold-Formed Steel Rebuilds Earthquake-Resistant Architecture
A doctoral student discusses the engineering of earthquake-resistant buildings and the results of a recent shake table test.
Academia and industry are collaborating in a new effort to engineer earthquake-ready buildings. The effort based at Johns Hopkins University aims to design and test a single structure primarily built from cold-formed steel, a material that has boomed in structural engineering projects over the last 25 years.
With funding from the National Science Foundation, JHU engineering professor Benjamin Schafer helped bring together a team composed of industry professionals, professors, graduate students and the occasional high school or undergraduate student yearning for research experience to conduct experimental and computational seismic research on cold-formed steel components.
The first industry standards and codes for cold-formed steel were written in 1946 and are mostly based on empirical data, in many cases lacking underlying theory. When engineers attempt to make a building earthquake-resistant, they use specific structural components, appropriately called details, to absorb earthquake forces and help direct some of those forces back to the ground.
That works, but when an earthquake hits, the entire building reacts, not just the sections containing details. Even though academic research has lead to improvements to the original building codes over the decades, there is much to be learned about the entire system of a cold-formed steel building as it responds to an earthquake.
"When you have a big knowledge gap, you have a danger gap," says Schafer. To fill the gap, he and his collaborators are testing and analyzing individual components of a cold-formed steel structure, and taking what they learn about each piece to design a full-scale building that will undergo three stages of shake table tests. The tests will occur in 2013 at the NSF Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) site at the University of Buffalo in New York and are part of NEES's broader research efforts.
Cold-formed Steel in the Lab
Cold-formed steel is lightweight and shines like aluminum because it possesses a galvanized coating. Kara Peterman, a third-year Ph.D. student on the project, describes it as "steel that is rolled by a long string of machines into a thin sheet, then bent like origami into a desired shape."
With every shape change, each made at room temperature (hence the name cold-formed), the properties of the piece change, improving the qualities of the steel. Small tweaks have the potential to increase the steel strength, making one component more efficient than it was before. For example, when an 8-foot tall sheet of steel is converted into a u-shape with two 90-degree bends, it becomes a stud that can withstand ten thousand pounds of loading. The beam could carry five Volkswagen Beetles - each about two thousand pounds - yet it is light enough for Peterman to lift.
Peterman has been working with a second graduate student, Peng Liu, to assess how individual cold-formed steel components bear loads. She has tested components such as beam-columns and local connections in the JHU lab, and this past summer, she tested wall-to-floor connections. Liu, a visiting Northeastern University Ph.D. student from China, has been conducting experiments on shear walls, which are specifically made to resist lateral forces. He completed his testing in a facility at the University of North Texas. Liu also analyzes and interprets the raw data that his experiments have yielded.
Peterman and Liu relay very specific information to Jiazhen Leng, a Ph.D. student at JHU, who can then code a highly detailed building model, component by component, using OpenSees - open-source building analysis software. With the 3-D model in place, he has the ability to perform various analytics. In turn, his analytical data informs predictions for more experimental work, particularly the 2013 full-scale test. The work the graduate students perform comes full circle, linking them together.
The Big Blue Baby
In the bowels of Latrobe Hall, the civil engineering building on the JHU campus, dwells the Big Blue Baby, also known as the multi-axis structural testing rig. Schafer's research group, which designed the machine, is proud of the fact that there is only one other like it in the United States (at the University of Minnesota, also part of the NEES network.) The body is made of hot-rolled steel and the brain is a computer, which drives a hydraulic pump. The system sits in the center of the cramped lab, where black electrical wires snake along the ground toward other, smaller systems. Rows of walls, made in-house, lean against the back of the room, with stacks of sheathing and steel at the front.
"Compared to the NEES facilities, our room is tiny," admits Peterman. "But, we've gotten a lot out of this lab - great results, great publications, and great changes to the codes."
Experiments are large-scale tests of small components, because it's almost impossible to scale down every behavior. The Big Blue Baby can hold a standard wall in its belly and apply loads using hydraulic actuators, which look like thick, black tentacles. What makes this machine unique is its ability to perform combined loading. The punch can come straight down, twist from two different sides, or apply stress from several directions at once.
Most structures experience varying loads from multiple directions, so the Big Blue Baby simulates real-world engineering situations. The most common type of load is called the axial load, weight that comes directly down on a wall due to gravity - think furniture or snow. There are red emergency buttons around the rig, just in case the thirty thousand pound Baby decides to throw a tantrum and it must be taken offline.
The 2013 Shake Table Tests
Robert Madsen, Senior Project Engineer at Devco Engineering, Inc., is the primary link between the researchers and industry. Leading up to the 2013 large-scale tests, there is a meeting every three months between the academics and a larger industry advisory board for updates from both sides. Madsen provided the constructible design for the 2013 NEES building that the graduate students have been characterizing on a component level.
The plan is to construct a two-story building, 50 feet by 23 feet, inside the colossal NEES Buffalo lab. The building will sit upon dual shake tables that will be linked. The Buffalo building will undergo shake table tests in three major stages: the first will be as a steel skeleton; the second stage will include only walls and other structural components that engineers currently rely upon; and the third stage is a complete structure built to standard and ready to be inhabited.
Cue Narutoshi Nakata, co-principle investigator from JHU, brings his expertise in shake-table testing and performance evaluation. To attain meaningful and useful results, Nakata must determine the right number of sensors on the table, their locations, and what they will measure. He must also decide what type of ground motion the table will produce, such as fast versus slow, and the number of scenarios to enact. Based on Leng's 3-D model and analytical tests, Nakata creates the mathematical models of earthquakes that the shake table will generate, and will eventually analyze how the structure dynamically reacts. One of the scenarios is a reproduction of the 1994 Northridge earthquake - as a well-recorded, historical Los Angeles earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7, it is widely used for simulation experiments.
Immediate Impact
Schafer has involved high school and undergraduate students in the project to provide them with hands-on experience quite early in their careers. High school students often come from Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, a Baltimore City public school, which offers a research practicum course that allows those enrolled to volunteer at the JHU lab a couple hours per week. The latest volunteer was from Garrison Forest High School, a private all-girls school in Owings Mills, Md., which required the student to complete a specific research project she could present at the end of the semester. With Peterman's guidance, the student had the opportunity to explore connection testing variables.
The team also tries to get younger college students involved, because research is usually not an opportunity they have until they are juniors and seniors. After passing a trial period to prove their interest, two undergraduate students participated this past summer: one who just finished his freshman year, the other her sophomore year.
The Bigger Picture
Although the east coast is not often on the news for earthquakes, Schafer explains that, "Earthquakes are a matter of return period, not a matter of where you live. They come more quickly in California, but if you design a building and you expect it to exist for 20, 50, or 100 years, you'll go into the codes and you'll see almost anywhere you are in the U.S., you're going to need to design for earthquakes."
Schafer remains driven to impact fundamental knowledge and change U.S. practice. "If an engineer knew how the whole system responded," he adds, "instead of just one little bit, then they would be able to design the whole building to be earthquake ready."
Cold-Formed Steel Rebuilds Earthquake-Resistant Architecture
A doctoral student discusses the engineering of earthquake-resistant buildings and the results of a recent shake table test.
Academia and industry are collaborating in a new effort to engineer earthquake-ready buildings. The effort based at Johns Hopkins University aims to design and test a single structure primarily built from cold-formed steel, a material that has boomed in structural engineering projects over the last 25 years.
With funding from the National Science Foundation, JHU engineering professor Benjamin Schafer helped bring together a team composed of industry professionals, professors, graduate students and the occasional high school or undergraduate student yearning for research experience to conduct experimental and computational seismic research on cold-formed steel components.
The first industry standards and codes for cold-formed steel were written in 1946 and are mostly based on empirical data, in many cases lacking underlying theory. When engineers attempt to make a building earthquake-resistant, they use specific structural components, appropriately called details, to absorb earthquake forces and help direct some of those forces back to the ground.
That works, but when an earthquake hits, the entire building reacts, not just the sections containing details. Even though academic research has lead to improvements to the original building codes over the decades, there is much to be learned about the entire system of a cold-formed steel building as it responds to an earthquake.
"When you have a big knowledge gap, you have a danger gap," says Schafer. To fill the gap, he and his collaborators are testing and analyzing individual components of a cold-formed steel structure, and taking what they learn about each piece to design a full-scale building that will undergo three stages of shake table tests. The tests will occur in 2013 at the NSF Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) site at the University of Buffalo in New York and are part of NEES's broader research efforts.
Cold-formed Steel in the Lab
Cold-formed steel is lightweight and shines like aluminum because it possesses a galvanized coating. Kara Peterman, a third-year Ph.D. student on the project, describes it as "steel that is rolled by a long string of machines into a thin sheet, then bent like origami into a desired shape."
With every shape change, each made at room temperature (hence the name cold-formed), the properties of the piece change, improving the qualities of the steel. Small tweaks have the potential to increase the steel strength, making one component more efficient than it was before. For example, when an 8-foot tall sheet of steel is converted into a u-shape with two 90-degree bends, it becomes a stud that can withstand ten thousand pounds of loading. The beam could carry five Volkswagen Beetles - each about two thousand pounds - yet it is light enough for Peterman to lift.
Peterman has been working with a second graduate student, Peng Liu, to assess how individual cold-formed steel components bear loads. She has tested components such as beam-columns and local connections in the JHU lab, and this past summer, she tested wall-to-floor connections. Liu, a visiting Northeastern University Ph.D. student from China, has been conducting experiments on shear walls, which are specifically made to resist lateral forces. He completed his testing in a facility at the University of North Texas. Liu also analyzes and interprets the raw data that his experiments have yielded.
Peterman and Liu relay very specific information to Jiazhen Leng, a Ph.D. student at JHU, who can then code a highly detailed building model, component by component, using OpenSees - open-source building analysis software. With the 3-D model in place, he has the ability to perform various analytics. In turn, his analytical data informs predictions for more experimental work, particularly the 2013 full-scale test. The work the graduate students perform comes full circle, linking them together.
The Big Blue Baby
In the bowels of Latrobe Hall, the civil engineering building on the JHU campus, dwells the Big Blue Baby, also known as the multi-axis structural testing rig. Schafer's research group, which designed the machine, is proud of the fact that there is only one other like it in the United States (at the University of Minnesota, also part of the NEES network.) The body is made of hot-rolled steel and the brain is a computer, which drives a hydraulic pump. The system sits in the center of the cramped lab, where black electrical wires snake along the ground toward other, smaller systems. Rows of walls, made in-house, lean against the back of the room, with stacks of sheathing and steel at the front.
"Compared to the NEES facilities, our room is tiny," admits Peterman. "But, we've gotten a lot out of this lab - great results, great publications, and great changes to the codes."
Experiments are large-scale tests of small components, because it's almost impossible to scale down every behavior. The Big Blue Baby can hold a standard wall in its belly and apply loads using hydraulic actuators, which look like thick, black tentacles. What makes this machine unique is its ability to perform combined loading. The punch can come straight down, twist from two different sides, or apply stress from several directions at once.
Most structures experience varying loads from multiple directions, so the Big Blue Baby simulates real-world engineering situations. The most common type of load is called the axial load, weight that comes directly down on a wall due to gravity - think furniture or snow. There are red emergency buttons around the rig, just in case the thirty thousand pound Baby decides to throw a tantrum and it must be taken offline.
The 2013 Shake Table Tests
Robert Madsen, Senior Project Engineer at Devco Engineering, Inc., is the primary link between the researchers and industry. Leading up to the 2013 large-scale tests, there is a meeting every three months between the academics and a larger industry advisory board for updates from both sides. Madsen provided the constructible design for the 2013 NEES building that the graduate students have been characterizing on a component level.
The plan is to construct a two-story building, 50 feet by 23 feet, inside the colossal NEES Buffalo lab. The building will sit upon dual shake tables that will be linked. The Buffalo building will undergo shake table tests in three major stages: the first will be as a steel skeleton; the second stage will include only walls and other structural components that engineers currently rely upon; and the third stage is a complete structure built to standard and ready to be inhabited.
Cue Narutoshi Nakata, co-principle investigator from JHU, brings his expertise in shake-table testing and performance evaluation. To attain meaningful and useful results, Nakata must determine the right number of sensors on the table, their locations, and what they will measure. He must also decide what type of ground motion the table will produce, such as fast versus slow, and the number of scenarios to enact. Based on Leng's 3-D model and analytical tests, Nakata creates the mathematical models of earthquakes that the shake table will generate, and will eventually analyze how the structure dynamically reacts. One of the scenarios is a reproduction of the 1994 Northridge earthquake - as a well-recorded, historical Los Angeles earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7, it is widely used for simulation experiments.
Immediate Impact
Schafer has involved high school and undergraduate students in the project to provide them with hands-on experience quite early in their careers. High school students often come from Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, a Baltimore City public school, which offers a research practicum course that allows those enrolled to volunteer at the JHU lab a couple hours per week. The latest volunteer was from Garrison Forest High School, a private all-girls school in Owings Mills, Md., which required the student to complete a specific research project she could present at the end of the semester. With Peterman's guidance, the student had the opportunity to explore connection testing variables.
The team also tries to get younger college students involved, because research is usually not an opportunity they have until they are juniors and seniors. After passing a trial period to prove their interest, two undergraduate students participated this past summer: one who just finished his freshman year, the other her sophomore year.
The Bigger Picture
Although the east coast is not often on the news for earthquakes, Schafer explains that, "Earthquakes are a matter of return period, not a matter of where you live. They come more quickly in California, but if you design a building and you expect it to exist for 20, 50, or 100 years, you'll go into the codes and you'll see almost anywhere you are in the U.S., you're going to need to design for earthquakes."
Schafer remains driven to impact fundamental knowledge and change U.S. practice. "If an engineer knew how the whole system responded," he adds, "instead of just one little bit, then they would be able to design the whole building to be earthquake ready."
REMARKS BY UNDER SECRETARY GOTTEMOELLER TO PRAGUE AGENDA IN 2013
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
The Prague Agenda in 2013 - Challenges and Prospects
Remarks
Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Prague, Czech Republic
September 6, 2013
As Delivered
Thank you for the introduction, Veronika. It is lovely to be here in Prague. My thanks to the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, First Deputy Minister Jiri Schnider, the Institute of International Relations Prague, the Metropolitan University Prague and the Faculty of Social Sciences from Charles University Prague for their work in putting this conference together. My last visit to Prague was in April 2010, the day President Obama and then-President Medvedev signed the New START Treaty.
A lot of water has passed under the Charles Bridge since that time and Veronika has already mentioned that we are living in interesting times. That phrase, “May you live in interesting times,” is generally regarded as ominous – the implication being that a person in an interesting world is doomed to a tumultuous and possibly dangerous existence. There is no doubt that we live in interesting times, but I don’t accept the inevitability of uncertainty and danger. We have the power to control and shape our future. We are able to see the challenges facing us and to find ways to overcome those challenges. That is exactly what President Obama had in mind when he came to Prague four years ago to speak about America’s intent to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.
His vision – which we call the Prague Agenda –was actually a continuation of the path set forth by previous Presidents. Every U.S. President in the nuclear age, beginning with President Harry Truman in 1945, has felt the weight of responsibility inherent in these weapons of near limitless destruction. I know, from our long experience working together, that that was the case for the leaders of the former Soviet Union and remains true for the leaders of the Russian Federation. These leaders and their advisors – as well as countless others inside and outside governments around the world, have all worked to stem the nuclear threat and to find ways to turn us away from catastrophic nuclear war.
The responsibility is ours to bear, but we are facing new and different threats. While the likelihood of a large-scale nuclear exchange has fortunately diminished through decades of cooperative, but also challenging disarmament work between Moscow and Washington, nuclear dangers have not disappeared. The threat posed by the spread of nuclear materials and technologies remains. The possibility that terrorists or other non-state actors could acquire a nuclear weapon ensures that the nuclear “Sword of Damocles” still hangs over us. While our nuclear arsenals have little direct relevance in deterring these threats, concerted action by the United States and Russia – and indeed, from all nuclear states – to reduce their weapon stockpiles and fissile material will strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime. A strong nonproliferation regime makes nuclear theft, unauthorized use and proliferation harder. The ultimate solution is straightforward: take away the tools – fissile materials and nuclear weapons – and you mitigate ultimately the threat.
Of course, that is much easier said than done. President Obama made it clear in the Prague Speech that the road to a world without nuclear weapons would be long and the goal may not be reached in his lifetime. To achieve success, we will need to follow a step by step process in which we maintain nuclear stability at the same time that we pursue responsible reductions in our nuclear capabilities through a number of measures, some of them quiet, and some of them front and center on the world stage.
The New START Treaty, signed here in Prague in April of 2010, was one of those front and center accomplishments, both in its negotiation and its entry into force. Now I am happy to tell you that its quiet, deliberate implementation is going smoothly behind the scenes, providing for mutual predictability and stability on the nuclear front. This is important in any day and age, but especially important in these days when we and the Russians must ensure that we are wisely spending our scarce defense resources.
Another accomplishment on the quiet front is the work that Russia and the United States have done to eliminate fissile material from warheads. Over the past twenty years, we have together eliminated the highly enriched uranium from approximately 20,000 warheads. The HEU has been transformed into low-enriched fuel and sold to power plants in the United States. Did you know that today 10 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is from former Soviet nuclear weapons? That’s a lot of warheads turned to peaceful purposes.
But it is not enough: the United States and Russian Federation still possess over ninety percent of the nuclear weapons in the world. This past June, President Obama spoke in Berlin about the next steps in the Prague Agenda. I will focus today on what he said about nuclear reductions. The President announced in Berlin that “we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.”
He also said that we would seek bold steps to reduce non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe. How we go about these further reductions is not a matter only for Washington and Moscow, but also must involve close consultations with our allies. This work has already begun in Brussels at NATO and in other allied capitals in Europe and Asia.
Another essential element to the step-by-step process is reducing the role that nuclear weapons play in national security strategies. That is why the President’s new nuclear employment guidance directs the U.S. Department of Defense to align its planning with the U.S. policy that the use of nuclear weapons will be considered only in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States and its allies and partners. In addition, the new guidance directs strengthening non-nuclear capabilities and reducing the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. All of this derives from the underlying principle articulated in our 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, that it is in the interest of the United States and all other countries that nuclear weapons never be used again.
No secret: our efforts to move forward on the next steps are proceeding slowly; many issues of strategic stability and beyond are taking up the metaphorical “dialogue space.” This does not mean we stop trying to move ahead. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, the United States and Russia found it in our mutual interest to work together on reducing the nuclear threat. Through creativity, patience and persistence, we have had many successes and together have contributed to a safer world.
When New START is fully implemented in 2018, we will be at the lowest levels of deployed strategic nuclear warheads since the 1950s – pre-Cuban Missile Crisis. That is quite a feat, but we have more to do. There is one simple reason to move to the next step – it is in our mutual interest, in political, security and budgetary terms.
To end, I want to read you something by President Reagan’s Secretary of State George Shultz that I came across recently. Speaking to the UN early in his tenure – now about 30 years ago – he outlined principles for action in foreign policy. His comments focused on how and why the United States should conduct negotiations, but I think the ideas ring true for all nations.
We manage our problems more intelligently, and with greater mutual understanding, when we can bring ourselves to recognize them as expressions of mankind’s basic dilemma. We are seldom confronted with simple issues of right and wrong, between good and evil. Only those who do not bear the direct burden of responsibility for decision and action can indulge themselves in the denial of that reality. The task of statesmanship is to mediate between two—or several—causes, each of which often has a legitimate claim…It is on this foundation that the United States stands ready to try to solve the problems of our time—to overcome chaos, deprivation, and the heightened dangers of an era in which ideas and cultures too often tend to clash and technologies threaten to outpace our institutions of control.
Secretary Shultz was right and his words can guide us today. I will end there, but I look forward to hearing from the other panelists and am happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
The Prague Agenda in 2013 - Challenges and Prospects
Remarks
Rose Gottemoeller
Acting Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Prague, Czech Republic
September 6, 2013
As Delivered
Thank you for the introduction, Veronika. It is lovely to be here in Prague. My thanks to the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs, First Deputy Minister Jiri Schnider, the Institute of International Relations Prague, the Metropolitan University Prague and the Faculty of Social Sciences from Charles University Prague for their work in putting this conference together. My last visit to Prague was in April 2010, the day President Obama and then-President Medvedev signed the New START Treaty.
A lot of water has passed under the Charles Bridge since that time and Veronika has already mentioned that we are living in interesting times. That phrase, “May you live in interesting times,” is generally regarded as ominous – the implication being that a person in an interesting world is doomed to a tumultuous and possibly dangerous existence. There is no doubt that we live in interesting times, but I don’t accept the inevitability of uncertainty and danger. We have the power to control and shape our future. We are able to see the challenges facing us and to find ways to overcome those challenges. That is exactly what President Obama had in mind when he came to Prague four years ago to speak about America’s intent to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.
His vision – which we call the Prague Agenda –was actually a continuation of the path set forth by previous Presidents. Every U.S. President in the nuclear age, beginning with President Harry Truman in 1945, has felt the weight of responsibility inherent in these weapons of near limitless destruction. I know, from our long experience working together, that that was the case for the leaders of the former Soviet Union and remains true for the leaders of the Russian Federation. These leaders and their advisors – as well as countless others inside and outside governments around the world, have all worked to stem the nuclear threat and to find ways to turn us away from catastrophic nuclear war.
The responsibility is ours to bear, but we are facing new and different threats. While the likelihood of a large-scale nuclear exchange has fortunately diminished through decades of cooperative, but also challenging disarmament work between Moscow and Washington, nuclear dangers have not disappeared. The threat posed by the spread of nuclear materials and technologies remains. The possibility that terrorists or other non-state actors could acquire a nuclear weapon ensures that the nuclear “Sword of Damocles” still hangs over us. While our nuclear arsenals have little direct relevance in deterring these threats, concerted action by the United States and Russia – and indeed, from all nuclear states – to reduce their weapon stockpiles and fissile material will strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime. A strong nonproliferation regime makes nuclear theft, unauthorized use and proliferation harder. The ultimate solution is straightforward: take away the tools – fissile materials and nuclear weapons – and you mitigate ultimately the threat.
Of course, that is much easier said than done. President Obama made it clear in the Prague Speech that the road to a world without nuclear weapons would be long and the goal may not be reached in his lifetime. To achieve success, we will need to follow a step by step process in which we maintain nuclear stability at the same time that we pursue responsible reductions in our nuclear capabilities through a number of measures, some of them quiet, and some of them front and center on the world stage.
The New START Treaty, signed here in Prague in April of 2010, was one of those front and center accomplishments, both in its negotiation and its entry into force. Now I am happy to tell you that its quiet, deliberate implementation is going smoothly behind the scenes, providing for mutual predictability and stability on the nuclear front. This is important in any day and age, but especially important in these days when we and the Russians must ensure that we are wisely spending our scarce defense resources.
Another accomplishment on the quiet front is the work that Russia and the United States have done to eliminate fissile material from warheads. Over the past twenty years, we have together eliminated the highly enriched uranium from approximately 20,000 warheads. The HEU has been transformed into low-enriched fuel and sold to power plants in the United States. Did you know that today 10 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is from former Soviet nuclear weapons? That’s a lot of warheads turned to peaceful purposes.
But it is not enough: the United States and Russian Federation still possess over ninety percent of the nuclear weapons in the world. This past June, President Obama spoke in Berlin about the next steps in the Prague Agenda. I will focus today on what he said about nuclear reductions. The President announced in Berlin that “we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.”
He also said that we would seek bold steps to reduce non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe. How we go about these further reductions is not a matter only for Washington and Moscow, but also must involve close consultations with our allies. This work has already begun in Brussels at NATO and in other allied capitals in Europe and Asia.
Another essential element to the step-by-step process is reducing the role that nuclear weapons play in national security strategies. That is why the President’s new nuclear employment guidance directs the U.S. Department of Defense to align its planning with the U.S. policy that the use of nuclear weapons will be considered only in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States and its allies and partners. In addition, the new guidance directs strengthening non-nuclear capabilities and reducing the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks. All of this derives from the underlying principle articulated in our 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, that it is in the interest of the United States and all other countries that nuclear weapons never be used again.
No secret: our efforts to move forward on the next steps are proceeding slowly; many issues of strategic stability and beyond are taking up the metaphorical “dialogue space.” This does not mean we stop trying to move ahead. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, the United States and Russia found it in our mutual interest to work together on reducing the nuclear threat. Through creativity, patience and persistence, we have had many successes and together have contributed to a safer world.
When New START is fully implemented in 2018, we will be at the lowest levels of deployed strategic nuclear warheads since the 1950s – pre-Cuban Missile Crisis. That is quite a feat, but we have more to do. There is one simple reason to move to the next step – it is in our mutual interest, in political, security and budgetary terms.
To end, I want to read you something by President Reagan’s Secretary of State George Shultz that I came across recently. Speaking to the UN early in his tenure – now about 30 years ago – he outlined principles for action in foreign policy. His comments focused on how and why the United States should conduct negotiations, but I think the ideas ring true for all nations.
We manage our problems more intelligently, and with greater mutual understanding, when we can bring ourselves to recognize them as expressions of mankind’s basic dilemma. We are seldom confronted with simple issues of right and wrong, between good and evil. Only those who do not bear the direct burden of responsibility for decision and action can indulge themselves in the denial of that reality. The task of statesmanship is to mediate between two—or several—causes, each of which often has a legitimate claim…It is on this foundation that the United States stands ready to try to solve the problems of our time—to overcome chaos, deprivation, and the heightened dangers of an era in which ideas and cultures too often tend to clash and technologies threaten to outpace our institutions of control.
Secretary Shultz was right and his words can guide us today. I will end there, but I look forward to hearing from the other panelists and am happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
RECENT U.S MISSILE DEFENSE TEST
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Successful Missile Defense Test Against Multiple Targets
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Operational Test Agency, Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, and U.S. Pacific Command, in conjunction with U.S. Army soldiers from the Alpha Battery, 2nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, U.S. Navy sailors aboard the guided missile destroyer USS Decatur (DDG-73), and U.S. Air Force airmen from the 613th Air and Operations Center successfully conducted a complex missile defense flight test, resulting in the intercept of two medium-range ballistic missile targets. The flight test was planned more than a year ago, and is not in any way connected to events in the Middle East.
The test was conducted in the vicinity of the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site and surrounding areas in the western Pacific. The test stressed the ability of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) weapon systems to function in a layered defense architecture and defeat a raid of two nearly simultaneously launched ballistic missile targets.
The two medium-range ballistic missile targets were launched on operationally realistic trajectories towards a defended area near Kwajalein. Along with overhead space assets providing launch alerts, an Army-Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control (AN/TPY-2) radar in Forward Based Mode detected the targets and relayed track information to the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) system for further transmission to defending BMDS assets.
The USS Decatur with its Aegis Weapon System detected and tracked the first target with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar. The Aegis BMD weapon system developed a fire control solution, launched a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA missile, and successfully intercepted the target.
In a demonstration of BMDS layered defense capabilities, a second AN/TPY-2 radar in Terminal Mode, located with the THAAD weapon system, acquired and tracked the target missiles. THAAD developed a fire control solution, launched a THAAD interceptor missile, and successfully intercepted the second medium-range ballistic missile target. THAAD was operated by soldiers from the Alpha Battery, 2nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment. As a planned demonstration of THAAD's layered defense capabilities, a second THAAD interceptor was launched at the target destroyed by Aegis as a contingency in the event the SM-3 did not achieve an intercept.
Initial indications are that all components performed as designed. MDA officials will extensively assess and evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.
The event, a designated Flight Test Operational-01 (FTO-01), demonstrated integrated, layered, regional missile defense capabilities to defeat a raid of two threat-representative medium-range ballistic missiles in a combined live-fire operational test. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen from multiple combatant commands operated the systems, and were provided a unique opportunity to refine operational doctrine and tactics while increasing confidence in the execution of integrated air and missile defense plans.
U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System programs have completed 62 successful hit-to-kill intercepts in 78 flight test attempts since 2001.
Successful Missile Defense Test Against Multiple Targets
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Operational Test Agency, Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, and U.S. Pacific Command, in conjunction with U.S. Army soldiers from the Alpha Battery, 2nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment, U.S. Navy sailors aboard the guided missile destroyer USS Decatur (DDG-73), and U.S. Air Force airmen from the 613th Air and Operations Center successfully conducted a complex missile defense flight test, resulting in the intercept of two medium-range ballistic missile targets. The flight test was planned more than a year ago, and is not in any way connected to events in the Middle East.
The test was conducted in the vicinity of the U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll/Reagan Test Site and surrounding areas in the western Pacific. The test stressed the ability of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) weapon systems to function in a layered defense architecture and defeat a raid of two nearly simultaneously launched ballistic missile targets.
The two medium-range ballistic missile targets were launched on operationally realistic trajectories towards a defended area near Kwajalein. Along with overhead space assets providing launch alerts, an Army-Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance and Control (AN/TPY-2) radar in Forward Based Mode detected the targets and relayed track information to the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communications (C2BMC) system for further transmission to defending BMDS assets.
The USS Decatur with its Aegis Weapon System detected and tracked the first target with its onboard AN/SPY-1 radar. The Aegis BMD weapon system developed a fire control solution, launched a Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) Block IA missile, and successfully intercepted the target.
In a demonstration of BMDS layered defense capabilities, a second AN/TPY-2 radar in Terminal Mode, located with the THAAD weapon system, acquired and tracked the target missiles. THAAD developed a fire control solution, launched a THAAD interceptor missile, and successfully intercepted the second medium-range ballistic missile target. THAAD was operated by soldiers from the Alpha Battery, 2nd Air Defense Artillery Regiment. As a planned demonstration of THAAD's layered defense capabilities, a second THAAD interceptor was launched at the target destroyed by Aegis as a contingency in the event the SM-3 did not achieve an intercept.
Initial indications are that all components performed as designed. MDA officials will extensively assess and evaluate system performance based upon telemetry and other data obtained during the test.
The event, a designated Flight Test Operational-01 (FTO-01), demonstrated integrated, layered, regional missile defense capabilities to defeat a raid of two threat-representative medium-range ballistic missiles in a combined live-fire operational test. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen from multiple combatant commands operated the systems, and were provided a unique opportunity to refine operational doctrine and tactics while increasing confidence in the execution of integrated air and missile defense plans.
U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense System programs have completed 62 successful hit-to-kill intercepts in 78 flight test attempts since 2001.
SECRETARY KERRY'S TESTIMONY ABOUT SYRIA BEFORE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Proposed Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria
Testimony
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Opening Remarks Before the House Armed Services Committee
Washington, DC
September 10, 2013
Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, I’m privileged to be here this morning with Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, and we are all of us – all three of us – very much looking forward to a conversation with you about this complicated, challenging, but critical issue that our country faces.
And we don’t come to you lightly. I think Secretary Hagel and I particularly come here with an enormous amount of respect for this process, for what each of you go through at home, and the challenges you face with constituents, and the complexity of this particular issue. So this is good. It’s good that we’re here, and we look forward to the conversation.
And as we convene at this hearing, it is no exaggeration at all to say to you that the world is watching. And they’re watching not just to see what we decide; they’re watching to see how we decide it, and whether or not we have the ability at this critical time when so much is on the line in so many parts of the world. As challenges to governance, writ large, it’s important that we show the world that we actually do have the ability to, hopefully, speak with one voice. And we believe that that can make a difference.
Needless to say, this is one of the most important decisions that any member of Congress makes during the course of their service. And we all want to make sure we leave plenty of time here for discussion. Obviously, this is a very large committee, and so we’ll try to summarize in these comments and give the opportunity for the Q&A.
But I just want to open with a few comments about questions I’m hearing from many of your colleagues, and obviously, from the American people and what we read in the news.
First, people ask me – and they ask you, I know – why we are choosing to have a debate on Syria at a time when there’s so much that we need to be doing here at home. And we all know what that agenda is. Let me assure you, the President of the United States didn’t wake up one day and just kind of flippantly say, “Let’s go take military action in Syria.” He didn’t choose this. We didn’t choose this. We’re here today because Bashar al-Assad, a dictator who has chosen to meet the requests for reform in his country with bullets and bombs and napalm and gas, because he made a decision to use the world’s most heinous weapons to murder more than – in one instance – more than 1,400 innocent people, including more than 400 children. He and his regime made a choice, and President Obama believes – and all of us at this table believe – that we have no choice but to respond.
Now, to those who doubt whether Assad’s actions have to have consequences, remember that our inaction absolutely is guaranteed to bring worse consequences. You, every one of you here – we, all of us – America will face this. If not today, somewhere down the line when the permissiveness of not acting now gives Assad license to go do what he wants – and threaten Israel, threaten Jordan, threaten Lebanon, create greater instability in a region already wracked by instability, where stability is one of the greatest priorities of our foreign policy and of our national security interest.
And that brings me to the second question that I’ve heard lately, which is sort of: What’s really at stake here? Does this really affect us? I met earlier today with Steve Chabot and had a good conversation. I asked him, “What are you hearing?” I know what you’re all hearing. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans anywhere in our country is, “Woah, we don’t want to go to war again. We don’t want to Iraq. We don’t want to go to Afghanistan. We’ve seen how those turned out.” I get it, and I’ll speak to that in a minute.
But I want to make it clear at the outset, as each of us at this table want to make it clear, that what Assad has done directly affects America’s security – America’s security. We have a huge national interest in containing all weapons of mass destruction. And the use of gas is a weapon of mass destruction. Allowing those weapons to be used with impunity would be an enormous chink in our armor that we have built up over years against proliferation. Think about it. Our own troops benefit from that prohibition against chemical weapons.
I mentioned yesterday in the briefing – many of you were there, and some of you I notice from decorations, otherwise I know many of you have served in the military, some of you still in the reserves. And you know the training we used to go through when you’re learning. And I went to Chemical, Nuclear, Biological Warfare school, and I remember going into a room and a gas mask, and they make you take it off, and you see how long you can do it. It ain’t for long.
Those weapons have been outlawed, and our troops, in all of the wars we fought since World War I, have never been subjected to it because we stand up for that prohibition. There’s a reason for that. If we don’t answer Assad today, we will irreparably damage a century-old standard that has protected American troops in war. So to every one of your constituents, if they were to say to you, “Why did you vote for this even though we said we don’t want to go to war?” Because you want to protect American troops, because you want to protect America’s prohibition and the world’s prohibition against these weapons.
The stability of this region is also in our direct security interest. Our allies, our friends in Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, are, all of them, just a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially from a purposeful attack. Failure to act now will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible, and it will almost certainly pave the way for a more serious challenge in the future. And you can just ask our friends in Israel or elsewhere. In Israel, they can’t get enough gas masks. And there’s a reason that the Prime Minister has said this matters, this decision matters. It’s called Iran. Iran looms out there with its potential – with its nuclear program and the challenge we have been facing. And that moment is coming closer in terms of a decision. They’re watching what we do here. They’re watching what you do and whether or not this means something.
If we choose not to act, we will be sending a message to Iran of American ambivalence, American weakness. It will raise the question – I’ve heard this question. As Secretary of State as I meet with people and they ask us about sort of our long-term interests and the future with respect to Iran, they’ve asked me many times, “Do you really mean what you say? Are you really going to do something?” They ask whether or not the United States is committed, and they ask us also if the President cuts a deal will the Congress back it up? Can he deliver? This is all integrated. I have no doubt – I’ve talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday – Israel does not want to be in the middle of this. But we know that their security is at risk and the region is at risk.
I also want to remind you, you have already spoken to this. Your word is on the line, too. You passed the Syria Accountability Act. And that act clearly states that Syria’s chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East. That’s in plain writing. It’s in the act. You voted for it. We’ve already decided these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation. I quote, “The national security interests of the United States are – the national security interests of the United States are at risk with the weapons of mass – the chemical weapons of Syria.”
The fourth question I’ve been asked a lot of times is why diplomacy isn’t changing this dynamic. Isn’t there some alternative that could avoid this? And I want to emphasize on behalf of President Obama, President Obama’s first priority throughout this process has been and is diplomacy. Diplomacy is our first resort, and we have brought this issue to the United Nations Security Council on many occasions. We have sent direct messages to Syria, and we’ve had Syria’s allies bring them direct messages: Don’t do this. Don’t use these weapons. All to date, to no avail.
In the last three years, Russia and China have vetoed three Security Council resolutions condemning the regime for inciting violence or resolutions that simply promote a political solution to the dialogue – to the conflict. Russia has even blocked press releases – press releases that do nothing more than express humanitarian concern for what is happening in Syria, or merely condemn the generic use of chemical weapons, not even assigning blame. They have blocked them. We’ve brought these concerns to the United Nations, making the case to the members of the Security Council that protecting civilians, prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, and promoting peace and security are in our shared interests, and those general statements have been blocked.
That is why the President directed me to work with the Russians and the region’s players to get a Geneva 2 peace negotiation underway. And the end to the conflict in Syria, we all emphasize today – is a political solution. None of us are coming to you today asking for a long-term military – I mean, some people think we ought to be, but we don’t believe there is any military solution to what is happening in Syria. But make no mistake: No political solution will ever be achievable as long as Assad believes he can just gas his way out of this predicament. And we are without question building a coalition of support for this now. Thirty-one countries have signed on to the G-20 statement, which is a powerful one, endorsing the United States’ efforts to hold Assad accountable for what he is doing. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France and many others are committed to joining with us in any action. We’re now in the double digits with respect to countries that are prepared to actually take action should they be needed were they capable of it. More than 25 – I mentioned 31 nations signing on to the G-12 statement.
But our diplomatic hand, my former colleagues, our diplomatic hand only becomes stronger if other countries know that America is speaking with a strong voice here, with one voice, and if we’re stronger as a united nation around this purpose. In order to speak with that voice, we need you, the Congress. That’s what the President did. Many of you said please bring this to Congress. The President has done that, and he’s bringing it to Congress with confidence that the Congress will want to join in an effort in order to uphold the word of the United States of America – not just a president, but the United States of America – with respect to these weapons of mass destruction.
Now, I want to be crystal clear about something else. Some people want to do more in Syria; some people are leery about doing anything at all. But one goal we ought to all be able to agree on is that chemical weapons cannot be under the control of a man so craven that he has repeatedly used those chemical weapons against his fellow Syrians with the horrific results that all of us have been able to see.
Yesterday, we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that they could be destroyed. And that, of course, would be the ultimate way to degrade and deter Assad’s arsenal, and it is the ideal weapon – ideal way to take this weapon away from him.
Assad’s chief benefactor, the Russians, have responded by saying that they would come up with a proposal to do exactly that. And we have made it clear to them – I have in several conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov – that this cannot be a process of delay, this cannot be a process of avoidance. It has to be real, has to be measurable, tangible. And it is exceedingly difficult – I want everybody here to know – to fulfill those conditions. But we’re waiting for that proposal, but we’re not waiting for long.
President Obama will take a hard look at it. But it has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable. It cannot be a delaying tactic. And if the United Nations Security Council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, that cannot be allowed to simply become a debating society. There are many countries – and many of you in the Congress, from those who wanted military action to those who were skeptical of military action – want to see if this idea could become reality.
But make no mistake – make no mistake – about why this idea has any potential legs at all and why it is that the Russians have reached out to the Syrians and why the Syrians have initially suggested they might be interested. A lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. Well, it’s the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has, for the first time, brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal. And it is the threat of this force and our determination to hold Assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact.
So how do you maintain that pressure? We have to continue to show Syria, Russia, and the world that we are not going to fall for stalling tactics. If the challenge we laid down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because of the threat of force that we are discussing today. And that threat is more compelling if Congress stands with the Commander-in-Chief.
Finally, let me just correct a common misconception. In my conversation with Steve Chabot earlier today, he mentioned this. I’ve heard it. I’ve talked with many of you. You’ve told you me you hear it. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans – and I am completely sympathetic to it, I understand it, I know where it comes from, I only stopped sitting where you sit a few months ago – I know exactly what the feelings are. People don’t want another Iraq. None of us do. We don’t want Afghanistan.
But Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we can’t make this decision based solely on the budget. We can’t make this decision based solely on our wishes, on our feeling that we know we’ve been through the ringer for a while. We’re the United States of America, and people look to us. They look to us for the meaning of our word, and they look to us for our values in fact being followed up by the imprint of action where that is necessary.
We are not talking about America going to war. President Obama is not asking for a declaration of war. We are not going to war. There will be no American boots on the ground. Let me repeat: No American boots will be on the ground.
What we’re talking about is a targeted, limited, but consequential action that will reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons. And General Dempsey and Secretary Hagel will tell you how we can achieve that and their confidence in our ability to achieve that. We’re talking about an action that will degrade Assad’s capacity to use these weapons and to ensure that they do not proliferate. And with this authorization, the President is asking for the power to make sure that the United States of America means what we say.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of this committee, I can say to you with absolute confidence, the risk of not acting is much greater than the risk of acting. If we fail to act, Assad will believe that he has license to gas his own people again. And that license will turn prohibited weapons into tactical weapons. And General Dempsey can tell you about this. It would make – it would take an exception, a purposeful exception that has been in force since 1925, and make it the rule today. It would undermine our standing, degrade America’s security and our credibility, and erode our strength in the world.
In a world of terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our peril. We cannot afford to have chemical weapons transformed into the new convenient weapon, the IED, the car bomb, the weapon of everyday use in this world. Neither our country nor our conscience can bear the costs of inaction, and that’s why we’ve come before you, at the instruction of the President, to ask you to join us in this effort.
Proposed Authorization to Use Military Force in Syria
Testimony
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Opening Remarks Before the House Armed Services Committee
Washington, DC
September 10, 2013
Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, I’m privileged to be here this morning with Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, and we are all of us – all three of us – very much looking forward to a conversation with you about this complicated, challenging, but critical issue that our country faces.
And we don’t come to you lightly. I think Secretary Hagel and I particularly come here with an enormous amount of respect for this process, for what each of you go through at home, and the challenges you face with constituents, and the complexity of this particular issue. So this is good. It’s good that we’re here, and we look forward to the conversation.
And as we convene at this hearing, it is no exaggeration at all to say to you that the world is watching. And they’re watching not just to see what we decide; they’re watching to see how we decide it, and whether or not we have the ability at this critical time when so much is on the line in so many parts of the world. As challenges to governance, writ large, it’s important that we show the world that we actually do have the ability to, hopefully, speak with one voice. And we believe that that can make a difference.
Needless to say, this is one of the most important decisions that any member of Congress makes during the course of their service. And we all want to make sure we leave plenty of time here for discussion. Obviously, this is a very large committee, and so we’ll try to summarize in these comments and give the opportunity for the Q&A.
But I just want to open with a few comments about questions I’m hearing from many of your colleagues, and obviously, from the American people and what we read in the news.
First, people ask me – and they ask you, I know – why we are choosing to have a debate on Syria at a time when there’s so much that we need to be doing here at home. And we all know what that agenda is. Let me assure you, the President of the United States didn’t wake up one day and just kind of flippantly say, “Let’s go take military action in Syria.” He didn’t choose this. We didn’t choose this. We’re here today because Bashar al-Assad, a dictator who has chosen to meet the requests for reform in his country with bullets and bombs and napalm and gas, because he made a decision to use the world’s most heinous weapons to murder more than – in one instance – more than 1,400 innocent people, including more than 400 children. He and his regime made a choice, and President Obama believes – and all of us at this table believe – that we have no choice but to respond.
Now, to those who doubt whether Assad’s actions have to have consequences, remember that our inaction absolutely is guaranteed to bring worse consequences. You, every one of you here – we, all of us – America will face this. If not today, somewhere down the line when the permissiveness of not acting now gives Assad license to go do what he wants – and threaten Israel, threaten Jordan, threaten Lebanon, create greater instability in a region already wracked by instability, where stability is one of the greatest priorities of our foreign policy and of our national security interest.
And that brings me to the second question that I’ve heard lately, which is sort of: What’s really at stake here? Does this really affect us? I met earlier today with Steve Chabot and had a good conversation. I asked him, “What are you hearing?” I know what you’re all hearing. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans anywhere in our country is, “Woah, we don’t want to go to war again. We don’t want to Iraq. We don’t want to go to Afghanistan. We’ve seen how those turned out.” I get it, and I’ll speak to that in a minute.
But I want to make it clear at the outset, as each of us at this table want to make it clear, that what Assad has done directly affects America’s security – America’s security. We have a huge national interest in containing all weapons of mass destruction. And the use of gas is a weapon of mass destruction. Allowing those weapons to be used with impunity would be an enormous chink in our armor that we have built up over years against proliferation. Think about it. Our own troops benefit from that prohibition against chemical weapons.
I mentioned yesterday in the briefing – many of you were there, and some of you I notice from decorations, otherwise I know many of you have served in the military, some of you still in the reserves. And you know the training we used to go through when you’re learning. And I went to Chemical, Nuclear, Biological Warfare school, and I remember going into a room and a gas mask, and they make you take it off, and you see how long you can do it. It ain’t for long.
Those weapons have been outlawed, and our troops, in all of the wars we fought since World War I, have never been subjected to it because we stand up for that prohibition. There’s a reason for that. If we don’t answer Assad today, we will irreparably damage a century-old standard that has protected American troops in war. So to every one of your constituents, if they were to say to you, “Why did you vote for this even though we said we don’t want to go to war?” Because you want to protect American troops, because you want to protect America’s prohibition and the world’s prohibition against these weapons.
The stability of this region is also in our direct security interest. Our allies, our friends in Israel, Jordan, and Turkey, are, all of them, just a strong wind away from being injured themselves or potentially from a purposeful attack. Failure to act now will make this already volatile neighborhood even more combustible, and it will almost certainly pave the way for a more serious challenge in the future. And you can just ask our friends in Israel or elsewhere. In Israel, they can’t get enough gas masks. And there’s a reason that the Prime Minister has said this matters, this decision matters. It’s called Iran. Iran looms out there with its potential – with its nuclear program and the challenge we have been facing. And that moment is coming closer in terms of a decision. They’re watching what we do here. They’re watching what you do and whether or not this means something.
If we choose not to act, we will be sending a message to Iran of American ambivalence, American weakness. It will raise the question – I’ve heard this question. As Secretary of State as I meet with people and they ask us about sort of our long-term interests and the future with respect to Iran, they’ve asked me many times, “Do you really mean what you say? Are you really going to do something?” They ask whether or not the United States is committed, and they ask us also if the President cuts a deal will the Congress back it up? Can he deliver? This is all integrated. I have no doubt – I’ve talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday – Israel does not want to be in the middle of this. But we know that their security is at risk and the region is at risk.
I also want to remind you, you have already spoken to this. Your word is on the line, too. You passed the Syria Accountability Act. And that act clearly states that Syria’s chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East. That’s in plain writing. It’s in the act. You voted for it. We’ve already decided these chemical weapons are important to the security of our nation. I quote, “The national security interests of the United States are – the national security interests of the United States are at risk with the weapons of mass – the chemical weapons of Syria.”
The fourth question I’ve been asked a lot of times is why diplomacy isn’t changing this dynamic. Isn’t there some alternative that could avoid this? And I want to emphasize on behalf of President Obama, President Obama’s first priority throughout this process has been and is diplomacy. Diplomacy is our first resort, and we have brought this issue to the United Nations Security Council on many occasions. We have sent direct messages to Syria, and we’ve had Syria’s allies bring them direct messages: Don’t do this. Don’t use these weapons. All to date, to no avail.
In the last three years, Russia and China have vetoed three Security Council resolutions condemning the regime for inciting violence or resolutions that simply promote a political solution to the dialogue – to the conflict. Russia has even blocked press releases – press releases that do nothing more than express humanitarian concern for what is happening in Syria, or merely condemn the generic use of chemical weapons, not even assigning blame. They have blocked them. We’ve brought these concerns to the United Nations, making the case to the members of the Security Council that protecting civilians, prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, and promoting peace and security are in our shared interests, and those general statements have been blocked.
That is why the President directed me to work with the Russians and the region’s players to get a Geneva 2 peace negotiation underway. And the end to the conflict in Syria, we all emphasize today – is a political solution. None of us are coming to you today asking for a long-term military – I mean, some people think we ought to be, but we don’t believe there is any military solution to what is happening in Syria. But make no mistake: No political solution will ever be achievable as long as Assad believes he can just gas his way out of this predicament. And we are without question building a coalition of support for this now. Thirty-one countries have signed on to the G-20 statement, which is a powerful one, endorsing the United States’ efforts to hold Assad accountable for what he is doing. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, France and many others are committed to joining with us in any action. We’re now in the double digits with respect to countries that are prepared to actually take action should they be needed were they capable of it. More than 25 – I mentioned 31 nations signing on to the G-12 statement.
But our diplomatic hand, my former colleagues, our diplomatic hand only becomes stronger if other countries know that America is speaking with a strong voice here, with one voice, and if we’re stronger as a united nation around this purpose. In order to speak with that voice, we need you, the Congress. That’s what the President did. Many of you said please bring this to Congress. The President has done that, and he’s bringing it to Congress with confidence that the Congress will want to join in an effort in order to uphold the word of the United States of America – not just a president, but the United States of America – with respect to these weapons of mass destruction.
Now, I want to be crystal clear about something else. Some people want to do more in Syria; some people are leery about doing anything at all. But one goal we ought to all be able to agree on is that chemical weapons cannot be under the control of a man so craven that he has repeatedly used those chemical weapons against his fellow Syrians with the horrific results that all of us have been able to see.
Yesterday, we challenged the regime to turn them over to the secure control of the international community so that they could be destroyed. And that, of course, would be the ultimate way to degrade and deter Assad’s arsenal, and it is the ideal weapon – ideal way to take this weapon away from him.
Assad’s chief benefactor, the Russians, have responded by saying that they would come up with a proposal to do exactly that. And we have made it clear to them – I have in several conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov – that this cannot be a process of delay, this cannot be a process of avoidance. It has to be real, has to be measurable, tangible. And it is exceedingly difficult – I want everybody here to know – to fulfill those conditions. But we’re waiting for that proposal, but we’re not waiting for long.
President Obama will take a hard look at it. But it has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable. It cannot be a delaying tactic. And if the United Nations Security Council seeks to be the vehicle to make it happen, that cannot be allowed to simply become a debating society. There are many countries – and many of you in the Congress, from those who wanted military action to those who were skeptical of military action – want to see if this idea could become reality.
But make no mistake – make no mistake – about why this idea has any potential legs at all and why it is that the Russians have reached out to the Syrians and why the Syrians have initially suggested they might be interested. A lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. Well, it’s the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has, for the first time, brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal. And it is the threat of this force and our determination to hold Assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact.
So how do you maintain that pressure? We have to continue to show Syria, Russia, and the world that we are not going to fall for stalling tactics. If the challenge we laid down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because of the threat of force that we are discussing today. And that threat is more compelling if Congress stands with the Commander-in-Chief.
Finally, let me just correct a common misconception. In my conversation with Steve Chabot earlier today, he mentioned this. I’ve heard it. I’ve talked with many of you. You’ve told you me you hear it. The instant reaction of a lot of Americans – and I am completely sympathetic to it, I understand it, I know where it comes from, I only stopped sitting where you sit a few months ago – I know exactly what the feelings are. People don’t want another Iraq. None of us do. We don’t want Afghanistan.
But Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, we can’t make this decision based solely on the budget. We can’t make this decision based solely on our wishes, on our feeling that we know we’ve been through the ringer for a while. We’re the United States of America, and people look to us. They look to us for the meaning of our word, and they look to us for our values in fact being followed up by the imprint of action where that is necessary.
We are not talking about America going to war. President Obama is not asking for a declaration of war. We are not going to war. There will be no American boots on the ground. Let me repeat: No American boots will be on the ground.
What we’re talking about is a targeted, limited, but consequential action that will reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons. And General Dempsey and Secretary Hagel will tell you how we can achieve that and their confidence in our ability to achieve that. We’re talking about an action that will degrade Assad’s capacity to use these weapons and to ensure that they do not proliferate. And with this authorization, the President is asking for the power to make sure that the United States of America means what we say.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of this committee, I can say to you with absolute confidence, the risk of not acting is much greater than the risk of acting. If we fail to act, Assad will believe that he has license to gas his own people again. And that license will turn prohibited weapons into tactical weapons. And General Dempsey can tell you about this. It would make – it would take an exception, a purposeful exception that has been in force since 1925, and make it the rule today. It would undermine our standing, degrade America’s security and our credibility, and erode our strength in the world.
In a world of terrorists and extremists, we would choose to ignore those risks at our peril. We cannot afford to have chemical weapons transformed into the new convenient weapon, the IED, the car bomb, the weapon of everyday use in this world. Neither our country nor our conscience can bear the costs of inaction, and that’s why we’ve come before you, at the instruction of the President, to ask you to join us in this effort.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
PRESIDENT OBAMA SAYS STRIKES ON SYRIA ARE JUSTIFIED
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Obama: Syria Strikes Justified, But Diplomacy May Work
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - The credible threat of U.S. military force in Syria is critical to showing the world that chemical weapons use is unacceptable, President Barack Obama said in a speech to the nation tonight, but he added that he has asked Congress to postpone a vote authorizing such action.
The commander in chief noted he has asked U.S. military forces to stay ready to conduct the limited strikes he has proposed, which would aim to reduce Assad's chemical weapons stocks and means of delivering them without putting U.S. boots on the ground.
U.S. officials and others in the international community are now pursuing a last-ditch effort to disarm Bashar Assad's regime of the prohibited weapons, Obama said, including the sarin gas his forces used against Syrian civilians Aug. 21, killing 400 or more children among the more than 1,400 total dead.
"We know the Assad regime was responsible," the president said. "In the days leading up to Aug. 21, we know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack. ... They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded."
Over the past two years, Obama said, "what began as a series of peaceful protests ... has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country."
He has thus far resisted calls for military action, the president said, "because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The Aug. 21 attack changed that calculus, the president said.
"The images from this massacre are sickening: men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath," he said. "A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk."
The world saw proof "in gruesome detail" of the terrible nature of chemical weapons, Obama said, "and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war."
Chemical weapons were used in both world wars, the president said. "Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them," he added, noting that 189 governments, representing 98 percent of humanity, now prohibit the use of chemical weapons.
Obama said he's cautiously hopeful about current international efforts involving Syria's closest ally, Russia, to remove and ultimately destroy Syria's chemical arsenal. He said he is sending Secretary of State John F. Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart Sept. 12, and that he will continue his own discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The president said he also has spoken to leaders of France and the United Kingdom, "and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control."
The United States will give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened Aug. 21, "and we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East, who agree on the need for action," the president said.
If military strikes are ultimately required, Obama said, they will be decisive.
"The United States military doesn't do pinpricks," he said. "Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver."
The president also expressed his gratitude to U.S. service members and their families. "Tonight I give thanks, again, to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices," he said.
Obama said he doesn't believe the United States should remove another dictator with force, as it did in Iraq. "But a targeted strike can makes Assad -- or any other dictator -- think twice before using chemical weapons," he added.
U.S. ideals and principles, as well as national security, are at stake in Syria, the president said.
"Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong, but when with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act," he said.
"That's what makes America different," the president concluded. "That's what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth."
Obama: Syria Strikes Justified, But Diplomacy May Work
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - The credible threat of U.S. military force in Syria is critical to showing the world that chemical weapons use is unacceptable, President Barack Obama said in a speech to the nation tonight, but he added that he has asked Congress to postpone a vote authorizing such action.
The commander in chief noted he has asked U.S. military forces to stay ready to conduct the limited strikes he has proposed, which would aim to reduce Assad's chemical weapons stocks and means of delivering them without putting U.S. boots on the ground.
U.S. officials and others in the international community are now pursuing a last-ditch effort to disarm Bashar Assad's regime of the prohibited weapons, Obama said, including the sarin gas his forces used against Syrian civilians Aug. 21, killing 400 or more children among the more than 1,400 total dead.
"We know the Assad regime was responsible," the president said. "In the days leading up to Aug. 21, we know that Assad's chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack. ... They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded."
Over the past two years, Obama said, "what began as a series of peaceful protests ... has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country."
He has thus far resisted calls for military action, the president said, "because we cannot resolve someone else's civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan."
The Aug. 21 attack changed that calculus, the president said.
"The images from this massacre are sickening: men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath," he said. "A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk."
The world saw proof "in gruesome detail" of the terrible nature of chemical weapons, Obama said, "and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits, a crime against humanity and a violation of the laws of war."
Chemical weapons were used in both world wars, the president said. "Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them," he added, noting that 189 governments, representing 98 percent of humanity, now prohibit the use of chemical weapons.
Obama said he's cautiously hopeful about current international efforts involving Syria's closest ally, Russia, to remove and ultimately destroy Syria's chemical arsenal. He said he is sending Secretary of State John F. Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart Sept. 12, and that he will continue his own discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The president said he also has spoken to leaders of France and the United Kingdom, "and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control."
The United States will give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened Aug. 21, "and we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas, from Asia to the Middle East, who agree on the need for action," the president said.
If military strikes are ultimately required, Obama said, they will be decisive.
"The United States military doesn't do pinpricks," he said. "Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver."
The president also expressed his gratitude to U.S. service members and their families. "Tonight I give thanks, again, to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices," he said.
Obama said he doesn't believe the United States should remove another dictator with force, as it did in Iraq. "But a targeted strike can makes Assad -- or any other dictator -- think twice before using chemical weapons," he added.
U.S. ideals and principles, as well as national security, are at stake in Syria, the president said.
"Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong, but when with modest effort and risk we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act," he said.
"That's what makes America different," the president concluded. "That's what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth."
NSA MAKES CASE FOR ATTACKING SYRIA
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
National Security Advisor Makes Case for Action in Syria
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2013 - National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice today explained the objectives of punitive military strikes under consideration in response to the use of chemical weapons by the Bashar Assad regime against Syrian civilians.
In a speech at the New America Foundation, Rice said President Barack Obama's administration has collaborated with the United Nations, Congress and other allies to isolate the Assad regime, deny its resources, bolster civilian and military opposition and secure diplomatic agreement with other key countries.
"We can and we will stand up for certain principals in this pivotal region," Rice said. "We seek a Middle East where citizens can enjoy their universal rights, live in dignity, freedom and prosperity, choose their own leaders and determine their own future, free from fear, violence and intimidation."
The military action, Rice said, is by no means the sum total of the U.S. policy toward Syria. "Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated political transition in which Assad leaves power," she added.
But to this end, the national security advisor said, all parties must be willing to negotiate to avoid more direct action in the region.
"Only after pursuing a wide range of nonmilitary measures to prevent and halt chemical weapons use did President Obama conclude that a limited military strike is the right way to deter Assad from continuing to employ chemical weapons like any conventional weapon of war," she said.
Rice said the lack of a response to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons would present several risks.
"Failing to respond means more and more Syrians will die from Assad's poisonous stockpiles," she said. "Failing to respond makes our allies and partners in the region tempting targets of Assad's future attacks."
Risks also include opening the door to other weapons of mass destruction and emboldening those would use them, she said.
"We cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction, or a nuclear North Korea, or an aspiring nuclear Iran to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our long-standing warnings," Rice said. "Failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the United States is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure."
Rice also said inaction could undermine the United States' ability to rally coalitions and lead internationally. "Any president, Republican or Democrat, must have recourse to all elements of American power to design and implement our national security policy, whether diplomatic, economic or military," she said.
The sarin gas used in the Syrian regime's Aug. 21 chemical attack is an odorless and colorless poison undetectable to its victims until it's too late, Rice said, and which targets the body's central nervous system, making every breath a struggle and causing nausea and uncontrollable convulsions.
"The death of any innocent in Syria or around the world is a tragedy, whether by bullet or landmine or poisonous gas," the national security advisor said. "But chemical weapons are different -- they are wholly indiscriminate. Gas plumes shift and spread without warning."
Chemical weapons kill on a scope and scale that is entirely different from conventional weapons, Rice said, adding that their effect is immense and the torturous death they bring is unconscionable.
The Syrian regime has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and Assad, Rice said, has been struggling to clear neighborhoods in Damascus and drive out the opposition amid an ever-waning conventional arsenal.
"Assad is lowering his threshold for use while increasing exponentially the lethality of his attacks," Rice said.
Unaddressed, she said, the unrest creates even greater refugee flows and raises the risk that deadly chemicals would spill across borders into neighboring Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, as well as the closest U.S. ally, Israel.
"Every time chemicals weapons are moved, unloaded and used on the battlefield, it raises the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists active in Syria, including Assad's ally Hezbollah and al-Qaida affiliates," Rice said. "That prospect puts Americans at risk of chemical attacks, targeted at our Soldiers and diplomats in the region and even potentially our citizens at home."
Every attack also serves to unravel the long-established commitment of nations to renounce chemical weapons use, Rice said, specifically 189 countries representing 98 percent of the world's population, which now prohibit development, acquisition or use of these weapons.
National Security Advisor Makes Case for Action in Syria
By Amaani Lyle
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2013 - National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice today explained the objectives of punitive military strikes under consideration in response to the use of chemical weapons by the Bashar Assad regime against Syrian civilians.
In a speech at the New America Foundation, Rice said President Barack Obama's administration has collaborated with the United Nations, Congress and other allies to isolate the Assad regime, deny its resources, bolster civilian and military opposition and secure diplomatic agreement with other key countries.
"We can and we will stand up for certain principals in this pivotal region," Rice said. "We seek a Middle East where citizens can enjoy their universal rights, live in dignity, freedom and prosperity, choose their own leaders and determine their own future, free from fear, violence and intimidation."
The military action, Rice said, is by no means the sum total of the U.S. policy toward Syria. "Our overarching goal is to end the underlying conflict through a negotiated political transition in which Assad leaves power," she added.
But to this end, the national security advisor said, all parties must be willing to negotiate to avoid more direct action in the region.
"Only after pursuing a wide range of nonmilitary measures to prevent and halt chemical weapons use did President Obama conclude that a limited military strike is the right way to deter Assad from continuing to employ chemical weapons like any conventional weapon of war," she said.
Rice said the lack of a response to the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons would present several risks.
"Failing to respond means more and more Syrians will die from Assad's poisonous stockpiles," she said. "Failing to respond makes our allies and partners in the region tempting targets of Assad's future attacks."
Risks also include opening the door to other weapons of mass destruction and emboldening those would use them, she said.
"We cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction, or a nuclear North Korea, or an aspiring nuclear Iran to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our long-standing warnings," Rice said. "Failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the United States is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure."
Rice also said inaction could undermine the United States' ability to rally coalitions and lead internationally. "Any president, Republican or Democrat, must have recourse to all elements of American power to design and implement our national security policy, whether diplomatic, economic or military," she said.
The sarin gas used in the Syrian regime's Aug. 21 chemical attack is an odorless and colorless poison undetectable to its victims until it's too late, Rice said, and which targets the body's central nervous system, making every breath a struggle and causing nausea and uncontrollable convulsions.
"The death of any innocent in Syria or around the world is a tragedy, whether by bullet or landmine or poisonous gas," the national security advisor said. "But chemical weapons are different -- they are wholly indiscriminate. Gas plumes shift and spread without warning."
Chemical weapons kill on a scope and scale that is entirely different from conventional weapons, Rice said, adding that their effect is immense and the torturous death they bring is unconscionable.
The Syrian regime has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and Assad, Rice said, has been struggling to clear neighborhoods in Damascus and drive out the opposition amid an ever-waning conventional arsenal.
"Assad is lowering his threshold for use while increasing exponentially the lethality of his attacks," Rice said.
Unaddressed, she said, the unrest creates even greater refugee flows and raises the risk that deadly chemicals would spill across borders into neighboring Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, as well as the closest U.S. ally, Israel.
"Every time chemicals weapons are moved, unloaded and used on the battlefield, it raises the likelihood that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists active in Syria, including Assad's ally Hezbollah and al-Qaida affiliates," Rice said. "That prospect puts Americans at risk of chemical attacks, targeted at our Soldiers and diplomats in the region and even potentially our citizens at home."
Every attack also serves to unravel the long-established commitment of nations to renounce chemical weapons use, Rice said, specifically 189 countries representing 98 percent of the world's population, which now prohibit development, acquisition or use of these weapons.
CHAIRMAN OF JOINT CHIEFS TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS ABOUT U.S. RESPONSE TO SYRIAN GAS ATTACKS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Forces Ready for Syria Contingencies, Dempsey Says
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - U.S. forces are positioned and plans are in place for a range of military options against Bashar Assad's regime in Syria, America's top general testified today before the House Armed Services Committee.
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke before the committee along with Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on authorization to use military force in Syria, which President Barack Obama has asked Congress to grant.
The general noted that Obama has determined that a limited military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons -- in one instance killing 1,400 Syrians, including some 400 children -- is in America's national security interest. Chemical weapons have long been outlawed under international agreements, one dating back to 1925, that prohibit their assembly, stockpiling or use.
"We've reached the point at which Assad views chemical weapons as just another military tool in his arsenal, a tool he's willing to use indiscriminately," Dempsey said. "And that's what makes this so dangerous -- dangerous for Syria, dangerous for the region, and dangerous for the world."
Dempsey said he has prepared at the president's request a list of target packages to meet the objectives of deterring the Assad regime's further use of chemical weapons and degrading its military capability to deliver chemical weapons.
"We have both an initial target set and subsequent target sets, should they become necessary," the chairman said. "The planned strikes will disrupt those parts of Assad's forces directly related to the chemical attack of 21 August, degrade his means of chemical weapons delivery, and finally, degrade the assets that Assad uses to threaten his neighbors and to defend his regime."
Dempsey added the strikes will send Assad a deterrent message that the United States can "hold at risk the capabilities he values most."
U.S. forces are ready to carry out the orders of the commander in chief, he said. Dempsey acknowledged that because of sequestration-mandated spending cuts, "the force that sits behind the forward-deployed force" faces readiness issues. But a limited operation in Syria to defend the nation's security interests is feasible, he said.
"I am concerned not about [funding] this operation, but in general that unforeseen contingencies will be impacted in the future if sequestration continues," he said.
Dempsey noted the limited nature of the planned strikes should decrease the potential for miscalculation and escalation, as well as minimize collateral damage. "However, we are postured to address a range of contingencies and we're prepared to support our friends in the region should Assad choose to retaliate," he added.
U.S. troops are exceptionally well trained and prepared, the general told the panel. "I'm honored to represent them," he said. "If called to execute, your military will respond."
Forces Ready for Syria Contingencies, Dempsey Says
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - U.S. forces are positioned and plans are in place for a range of military options against Bashar Assad's regime in Syria, America's top general testified today before the House Armed Services Committee.
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke before the committee along with Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on authorization to use military force in Syria, which President Barack Obama has asked Congress to grant.
The general noted that Obama has determined that a limited military response to Assad's use of chemical weapons -- in one instance killing 1,400 Syrians, including some 400 children -- is in America's national security interest. Chemical weapons have long been outlawed under international agreements, one dating back to 1925, that prohibit their assembly, stockpiling or use.
"We've reached the point at which Assad views chemical weapons as just another military tool in his arsenal, a tool he's willing to use indiscriminately," Dempsey said. "And that's what makes this so dangerous -- dangerous for Syria, dangerous for the region, and dangerous for the world."
Dempsey said he has prepared at the president's request a list of target packages to meet the objectives of deterring the Assad regime's further use of chemical weapons and degrading its military capability to deliver chemical weapons.
"We have both an initial target set and subsequent target sets, should they become necessary," the chairman said. "The planned strikes will disrupt those parts of Assad's forces directly related to the chemical attack of 21 August, degrade his means of chemical weapons delivery, and finally, degrade the assets that Assad uses to threaten his neighbors and to defend his regime."
Dempsey added the strikes will send Assad a deterrent message that the United States can "hold at risk the capabilities he values most."
U.S. forces are ready to carry out the orders of the commander in chief, he said. Dempsey acknowledged that because of sequestration-mandated spending cuts, "the force that sits behind the forward-deployed force" faces readiness issues. But a limited operation in Syria to defend the nation's security interests is feasible, he said.
"I am concerned not about [funding] this operation, but in general that unforeseen contingencies will be impacted in the future if sequestration continues," he said.
Dempsey noted the limited nature of the planned strikes should decrease the potential for miscalculation and escalation, as well as minimize collateral damage. "However, we are postured to address a range of contingencies and we're prepared to support our friends in the region should Assad choose to retaliate," he added.
U.S. troops are exceptionally well trained and prepared, the general told the panel. "I'm honored to represent them," he said. "If called to execute, your military will respond."
U.S.-CHINA RELATIONS IN CONSULTATIVE TALKS
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
U.S., Chinese Reps Stress Progress in Consultative Talks
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - Defense officials from the United States and China met in Beijing yesterday and discussed how to continue the progress that has taken place in the military relationship between their countries, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today.
In a statement summarizing the 14th annual defense consultative talks, Little said James N. Miller, undersecretary of defense for policy, and Lt. Gen. Wang Guanzhong, deputy chief of the People's Liberation Army General Staff, led their respective country's delegations. The U.S. delegation included representatives from the Joint Staff, U.S. Pacific Command, the national security staff and the State Department, he added.
"Miller and Wang underscored the accomplishments that the U.S.-China military-to-military relationship has achieved thus far this year," the press secretary said. "They discussed how to sustain the positive momentum in building a constructive military relationship and advance a new model of military-to-military relations into the future."
In this regard, he added, the two agreed to further the exploration of the two proposals on military confidence building offered in June by Chinese President Xi Jinping during a two-day working meeting in California with President Barack Obama.
"The two leaders discussed how to enhance strategic trust and build upon opportunities to expand cooperation in areas of mutual interest, including humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, peacekeeping and maritime safety," Little said. "They also discussed ways to enhance communications to improve understanding and avoid misperception."
Both agreed to continue discussions between maritime legal experts, the press secretary said, and to sustain dialogue in key strategic areas including nuclear, missile defense, space and cyber. The two sides also exchanged views on the East and South China Sea, Little said.
Miller emphasized the significant U.S. concerns regarding North Korea's nuclear and missile developments, Little said, and called on China to maintain and increase pressure on North Korea "to bring the regime back to credible and authentic negotiations aimed at denuclearization
U.S., Chinese Reps Stress Progress in Consultative Talks
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2013 - Defense officials from the United States and China met in Beijing yesterday and discussed how to continue the progress that has taken place in the military relationship between their countries, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said today.
In a statement summarizing the 14th annual defense consultative talks, Little said James N. Miller, undersecretary of defense for policy, and Lt. Gen. Wang Guanzhong, deputy chief of the People's Liberation Army General Staff, led their respective country's delegations. The U.S. delegation included representatives from the Joint Staff, U.S. Pacific Command, the national security staff and the State Department, he added.
"Miller and Wang underscored the accomplishments that the U.S.-China military-to-military relationship has achieved thus far this year," the press secretary said. "They discussed how to sustain the positive momentum in building a constructive military relationship and advance a new model of military-to-military relations into the future."
In this regard, he added, the two agreed to further the exploration of the two proposals on military confidence building offered in June by Chinese President Xi Jinping during a two-day working meeting in California with President Barack Obama.
"The two leaders discussed how to enhance strategic trust and build upon opportunities to expand cooperation in areas of mutual interest, including humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, peacekeeping and maritime safety," Little said. "They also discussed ways to enhance communications to improve understanding and avoid misperception."
Both agreed to continue discussions between maritime legal experts, the press secretary said, and to sustain dialogue in key strategic areas including nuclear, missile defense, space and cyber. The two sides also exchanged views on the East and South China Sea, Little said.
Miller emphasized the significant U.S. concerns regarding North Korea's nuclear and missile developments, Little said, and called on China to maintain and increase pressure on North Korea "to bring the regime back to credible and authentic negotiations aimed at denuclearization
THE RESPONDERS ON THE CRISIS LINE
FROM: U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Responder Demystifies Calling Military Crisis Line for Help
By Terri Moon Cronk
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2013 - When someone is in crisis and feeling despondent, reaching out for help is a stronger step to take than doing nothing, which can lead to a worsening state, a Military Crisis Line responder told American Forces Press Service today.
Tricia Lucchesi of Canandaigua, N.Y., said she encourages service members, families, veterans and friends to feel comfortable calling the crisis line.
She said people contact the crisis line to discuss a variety of issues, from feeling suicidal, depressed or anxious to feeling pressure from finances or relationships, among a wealth of other concerns.
"I want to encourage people to reach out, day or night, any day of the year," Lucchesi said. "Our veterans and service members that do the best are the ones who make those calls."
To reach skilled responders who are knowledgeable of military culture, dial 1-800-273-8255 and press No. 1. The crisis line also is available by cell-phone text by dialing 838255, or through online chat at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net/ActiveDuty.aspx.
Lucchesi said callers can expect a live person and not an electronic menu to answer their calls.
People can call the crisis line to speak with trained professionals about their problem safely, anonymously and confidentially, "which is really important," Lucchesi said.
"We stay on the phone for as long as it takes," she added. "We'll do whatever we need to do to get that person the help that he needs," she added.
Callers receive a follow-up call from a suicide prevention coordinator the next day, or another professional who's linked into the crisis line team. A "compassionate callback," follows about 10 days afterward, Lucchesi said, to make sure the callers connected with the services they needed, and so responders can make sure callers are feeling better.
While some service members hesitate to seek help because they fear it will have a negative impact their military career, Lucchesi advises them to make the call to the crisis line before matters worsen.
"Military people do worry about [career impact], but if they're getting to the point where they're so much in crisis, they need to call us," she said. "It becomes imperative for us to get them help, [and] if they don't call, their military career could be at risk."
The Military Crisis Line, also known as the Veterans Crisis Line at the same phone and text numbers, is a joint effort between the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments. It provides worldwide services for active duty troops, veterans, family members and concerned friends of those in crisis, Lucchesi said.
"Suicide has become such a prominent issue, the [departments] are working closely together to create a system to assist our members without them having to worry about their careers or confidentiality," she said.
As the nation observes Suicide Prevention and Awareness Month, Lucchesi said, she wants people to know they will find a welcoming environment of helpful responders who will stay on the phone with a caller until a "safety plan" is in place. A safety plan varies by individual, she explained, but can typically involve callers committing to seeking suggested help and various resources, and taking other actions such as securing weapons and pills that could be used to take one's life.
"Just agreeing with somebody that they can do that, and knowing they're going to get some help takes away some of the hopeless feelings they have," she said. "Isolation is an issue for many of our veterans, service members and their families. We're here 24/7, and we never want anyone to feel alone. They don't have to sit in emotional turmoil all by themselves."
Responders don't want veterans or military personnel to become suicidal, Lucchesi said. "We much prefer that they call us when they're in crisis so we can point them to services. We don't want to risk losing any of them," she added. "Any person who calls the crisis line has the choice about how much information they want to share".
The only time an anonymous call could require more identifying information is when the need for help delves further, but only when the caller gives permission to link to such resources, Lucchesi noted.
DOD leadership has for several years worked to remove the perceived stigma attached to seeking mental health help. Lucchesi said she hopes a reduced stigma is why the crisis line has produced an increase in calls, chats and texts. Yet, there are other reasons why contacting the crisis line has increased, she said.
"People who have used the line learned we're not just going to send rescue out to them. They can call here for all kinds of reasons, and if they can [set up a] safety plan, they don't have to worry about a policeman or emergency services showing up at their door," Lucchesi said.
"We're very aware that [such actions] can cause a financial burden, increase stigma, and be a problem for some people," she added, but noted that it crisis line responders are concerned someone is about to take his or her life, emergency services might be necessary.
Lucchesi emphasized the importance of contacting the crisis line – by calling, texting or chatting, whichever is more comfortable for a person in crisis.
"Someone could call here totally hopeless and have no reason at all to live," she said. "And if we're doing our job well, by the time that call ends, they're feeling differently."
Responder Demystifies Calling Military Crisis Line for Help
By Terri Moon Cronk
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Sept. 9, 2013 - When someone is in crisis and feeling despondent, reaching out for help is a stronger step to take than doing nothing, which can lead to a worsening state, a Military Crisis Line responder told American Forces Press Service today.
Tricia Lucchesi of Canandaigua, N.Y., said she encourages service members, families, veterans and friends to feel comfortable calling the crisis line.
She said people contact the crisis line to discuss a variety of issues, from feeling suicidal, depressed or anxious to feeling pressure from finances or relationships, among a wealth of other concerns.
"I want to encourage people to reach out, day or night, any day of the year," Lucchesi said. "Our veterans and service members that do the best are the ones who make those calls."
To reach skilled responders who are knowledgeable of military culture, dial 1-800-273-8255 and press No. 1. The crisis line also is available by cell-phone text by dialing 838255, or through online chat at http://www.veteranscrisisline.net/ActiveDuty.aspx.
Lucchesi said callers can expect a live person and not an electronic menu to answer their calls.
People can call the crisis line to speak with trained professionals about their problem safely, anonymously and confidentially, "which is really important," Lucchesi said.
"We stay on the phone for as long as it takes," she added. "We'll do whatever we need to do to get that person the help that he needs," she added.
Callers receive a follow-up call from a suicide prevention coordinator the next day, or another professional who's linked into the crisis line team. A "compassionate callback," follows about 10 days afterward, Lucchesi said, to make sure the callers connected with the services they needed, and so responders can make sure callers are feeling better.
While some service members hesitate to seek help because they fear it will have a negative impact their military career, Lucchesi advises them to make the call to the crisis line before matters worsen.
"Military people do worry about [career impact], but if they're getting to the point where they're so much in crisis, they need to call us," she said. "It becomes imperative for us to get them help, [and] if they don't call, their military career could be at risk."
The Military Crisis Line, also known as the Veterans Crisis Line at the same phone and text numbers, is a joint effort between the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments. It provides worldwide services for active duty troops, veterans, family members and concerned friends of those in crisis, Lucchesi said.
"Suicide has become such a prominent issue, the [departments] are working closely together to create a system to assist our members without them having to worry about their careers or confidentiality," she said.
As the nation observes Suicide Prevention and Awareness Month, Lucchesi said, she wants people to know they will find a welcoming environment of helpful responders who will stay on the phone with a caller until a "safety plan" is in place. A safety plan varies by individual, she explained, but can typically involve callers committing to seeking suggested help and various resources, and taking other actions such as securing weapons and pills that could be used to take one's life.
"Just agreeing with somebody that they can do that, and knowing they're going to get some help takes away some of the hopeless feelings they have," she said. "Isolation is an issue for many of our veterans, service members and their families. We're here 24/7, and we never want anyone to feel alone. They don't have to sit in emotional turmoil all by themselves."
Responders don't want veterans or military personnel to become suicidal, Lucchesi said. "We much prefer that they call us when they're in crisis so we can point them to services. We don't want to risk losing any of them," she added. "Any person who calls the crisis line has the choice about how much information they want to share".
The only time an anonymous call could require more identifying information is when the need for help delves further, but only when the caller gives permission to link to such resources, Lucchesi noted.
DOD leadership has for several years worked to remove the perceived stigma attached to seeking mental health help. Lucchesi said she hopes a reduced stigma is why the crisis line has produced an increase in calls, chats and texts. Yet, there are other reasons why contacting the crisis line has increased, she said.
"People who have used the line learned we're not just going to send rescue out to them. They can call here for all kinds of reasons, and if they can [set up a] safety plan, they don't have to worry about a policeman or emergency services showing up at their door," Lucchesi said.
"We're very aware that [such actions] can cause a financial burden, increase stigma, and be a problem for some people," she added, but noted that it crisis line responders are concerned someone is about to take his or her life, emergency services might be necessary.
Lucchesi emphasized the importance of contacting the crisis line – by calling, texting or chatting, whichever is more comfortable for a person in crisis.
"Someone could call here totally hopeless and have no reason at all to live," she said. "And if we're doing our job well, by the time that call ends, they're feeling differently."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)