Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Mr. Earnest: Good afternoon everybody.
Nice to see you all.
Let's get a couple of more wins under our belt
and then maybe we'll trot that out here.
I hope you all had a nice weekend.
I don't have anything at the beginning of the briefing,
Josh, so we'll go straight to the questions.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
The President in his "60 Minutes" interview last night,
acknowledged that the United States underestimated what was
happening with the Islamic State and also the Iraqi military's
ability to deal with it.
And I know that the President is reliant on the intelligence
community and his advisors for those kinds of assessments,
but I'm wondering if he sees himself as having any
responsibility for that failure to connect the dots there
or if he has a role in what happened there.
Mr. Earnest: Josh, the President of the United States is the
Commander-in-Chief, and he often talks about how
he is the one that is ultimately responsible
for protecting the national security interests
of the United States of America all around the globe.
There is no question that he relies on important advice from
the leaders in our military, from leaders in our diplomatic
corps, and from leaders in our intelligence community.
He values the relationship and advice that he gets from leaders
among all of those important segments of our government,
and in fact, it's only because of the strong,
sound advice that he has received from members of the
intelligence community that we have had some success early
on in our efforts to combat the threat from ISIL.
One of the things that we talked about earlier this summer is the
efforts underway at the Pentagon to develop military options
for the President, either in Iraq or in Syria.
And at that time, I talked about how it was important -- or at
that time, I talked about how military planners were relying
on intelligence that was being collected and cultivated by our
intelligence community to develop a set of targets
on which the President could order military action.
The early reviews, the early assessments of those
military operations indicate that the strikes were
impactful and effective.
That's a testament, first and foremost,
to the skill and courage of our men and women in uniform,
but it would not have been possible without the tremendous
ability of members of our intelligence community.
The Press: And the President also discussed last night how
the Islamic State group has become the more immediate threat
even as the United States continues to wish
to see Assad go.
I'm wondering if there is anything that the U.S.
is actively doing at the moment to work to get Assad to go.
Mr. Earnest: Well, certainly our efforts to build up the moderate
elements of the Syrian opposition will have a very
negative effect on the Assad regime's ability to hold
on to power; that as the opposition in Syria is built up,
it will succeed in providing a legitimate counterweight to the
Assad government, with the ultimate goal of a diplomatic
resolution of that situation.
That's also something the President discussed
in the "60 Minutes" interview over the weekend.
There is not a military solution to the very grave problems that
are plaguing Syria right now; that ultimately at the core
is a political resolution as it relates
to governing that country.
And building up, fortifying and strengthening the capacity
of moderate elements of the Syrian opposition will
move us further in pursuit of that goal.
The Press: But in the past, there was the Geneva talks,
and there was an actual diplomatic effort underway very
actively with other nations.
Is there anything like that still going on?
Or is it basically just about focusing on the moderate
opposition in the hopes that one day after the Islamic State
is not as big of a threat, they'll also be able
to confront the Assad government?
Mr. Earnest: Well, what I would say, Josh,
is there are no -- at least as far as I know,
there aren't ongoing talks in Geneva on this topic right now.
But the important diplomacy that had been underway and has
been underway for some time among the United States,
elements of the Syrian opposition,
other countries in the region, other countries around
the world continues to persist.
Those kinds of conversations are part and parcel of what it means
to be a diplomat and what it means to represent America's
interests around the globe.
What the President has indicated is that the focal point of our
strategic efforts right now is on this threat that's posed
by ISIL, the destabilizing impact it's having on the region
and the potential that they could recruit foreign fighters
that could pose a threat to the West or to even
the U.S. homeland.
The Press: And on another topic, I'm wondering if you have
any thoughts about the pro-democracy protests that
we're seeing take hold in much of Hong Kong.
Mr. Earnest: I have read the news reports about this.
I can tell you that the U.S. government is closely
watching the situation in Hong Kong.
Around the world -- so this is true in Hong Kong and other
places -- the United States supports internationally
recognized fundamental freedoms, such as the freedom
of peaceful assembly and the freedom of expression.
The United States urges the Hong Kong authorities to exercise
restraint and for protestors to express their views peacefully.
The United States supports universal suffrage in Hong Kong
in accordance with the Basic Law and we support the aspirations
of the Hong Kong people.
We believe that an open society with the highest possible degree
of autonomy and governed by the rule of law is essential
for Hong Kong's stability and prosperity.
Indeed, this is what has made Hong Kong such
a successful and truly global city to this point.
We've consistently made our position known
to Beijing and we'll continue to do so.
We believe that the basic legitimacy of the Chief
Executive in Hong Kong will be greatly enhanced
if the Basic Law's ultimate aim of selection
of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is fulfilled.
We also believe that the legitimacy
of the Chief Executive will be enhanced if the election
provides the people of Hong Kong a genuine choice of candidates
that are representative of the people's and the voters' will.
The Press: Would you like to see those aspirations and
expressions of free speech extend also to the mainland,
where people have arguably even less freedoms than
they do in Hong Kong?
Mr. Earnest: The short answer to that is yes.
The longer answer is that we make a point out of every
interaction with Chinese -- senior Chinese government
officials that respect for basic universal human rights
is critically important.
There's no question it's the foundation of our democracy.
We believe it should be the foundation of any government,
and that that respect for and protection of basic universal
human rights is an important principle,
and it's a principle that is raised every time that a senior
member of this administration is dealing with a senior member
of the Chinese government.
Steve.
The Press: Josh, just to follow up,
China is saying it hopes the U.S.
will be cautious on this issue and not send the wrong signal.
Are you concerned that you might send the wrong signal
on this case?
Mr. Earnest: No, I think we've been very clear about what
our principles and what our priorities are.
They certainly apply to this situation in particular.
And we have been very consistent in voicing our support to the
People's Republic of China for universal suffrage
and for the aspirations of the Hong Kong people,
and we're going to continue to do so.
The Press: And is this something the President will bring up with
the Chinese leader when he goes to Beijing in November?
Mr. Earnest: I'm not in a position to preview the exact
conversation that the President will have with
the Chinese President.
I do feel confident, however, in saying that the President will
certainly raise that the protection of basic universal
human rights is critically important.
That's something that the President has done in every
interaction that he's had with the Chinese leadership,
and I'm confident that that will be part of the conversation
that he is looking forward to having in November.
The Press: And lastly, on the CBS interview,
did the President intend to blame
the intelligence community for not warning him about ISIL?
Because that's the interpretation some are taking.
Mr. Earnest: He did not.
That is not what the President's intent what.
What the President was trying to make clear -- and this is
something I'd point out that the President has said on previous
occasions in response to questions from probably somebody
who's sitting in this room right now about how difficult
it is to predict the will of security forces that are based
in another country to fight.
And that's difficult business, and ultimately, at the end,
becomes a prediction.
And as I mentioned in response to Josh's question, ultimately,
the President is the Commander-in-Chief,
and he's the one who takes responsibility for ensuring that
we have the kinds of policies in place that are required
to protect our interests around the globe.
And the President relies heavily on the professionals in the
intelligence community to offer him the advice that's necessary
to fulfill that function, and the President continues to have
the highest degree of confidence in our intelligence community
to continue to provide that advice.
Nadia.
The Press: According to NBC-Wall Street Journal,
72 percent of the Americans disagree with the President.
They actually believe that, ultimately,
you're going to send ground troops.
So where are you going wrong here?
Is this the messaging?
How come that despite all the assurances that no ground troops
will be sent to Syria or Iraq, the majority of Americans
believe that they will be sent?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Nadia, this country has learned some very
painful lessons over the last decade and the skepticism
of the American public about these kinds of -- about military
involvement in some of these areas is understandable.
But the fact is the President has laid out a strategy for
dealing with this situation that stands in stark contrast to the
strategy that was pursued by the previous administration in Iraq.
We believe, the President believes,
and his national security team believes that we can be
successful in strengthening the capacity of local ground forces
to take the fight on the ground to ISIL in their own country,
and that adding U.S.
ground troops in a combat role in this situation would not be
in the best strategic interest of the United States of America
simply because sending ground troops into a combat
role sends a mixed signal to the Iraqi government
in particular about what our expectations are.
We've been very clear that this is a problem.
The security situation in Iraq is something that can only be
solved by the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military
and the Iraqi people.
This is not something that the United States or the
international community can do for them;
this is something they must do for themselves.
What the President has committed to do and what the United States
is prepared to do is -- I guess I should say what
the United States is already doing -- is strongly
supporting the Iraqi central government
and the Iraqi security forces as they engage in this effort.
And we're going to continue to do that.
The Press: This situation is very fluid.
I mean, obviously you admit that things change on the ground
almost on a daily basis.
So if General Dempsey and John Boehner both say leave that
possibility for sending troops, why not even acknowledge
that actually there is that possibility,
instead of just completely ruling out this option?
Mr. Earnest: Well, there is one piece of your question that
I want to clarify, which is it should be no surprise that
Speaker Boehner has a different position than the President.
He criticizes the President on a variety of topics
and so it's not particularly surprising to me,
and it wasn't surprising to me when I watched it on television
last night, that Speaker Boehner does think that the President
should consider sending ground troops
into a combat role in Iraq.
That's something that senior members of the Republican Party
advocated in the previous administration.
It's something that senior members of the Republican Party
advocate in this administration.
It's something that they advocated prior to ISIL's
significant advance across the desert in Iraq,
to advocate that position.
But that is a different position than the position that was
so it's not surprising to me that they continue
advocated by the President -- by this President and different
than the position that was advocated by Chairman Dempsey.
Chairman Dempsey, in his testimony,
did not advocate and did not contemplate sending
American ground troops into a combat role in Iraq.
The Press: A different role.
He acknowledged there is a possibility.
Mr. Earnest: No, no, no.
No, no, no.
It's important, this is really important.
I'd encourage you to go back and look at his testimony.
What he was very clear about is he did contemplate a possible
situation in the future where American ground troops could be
deployed into a forward position with the Iraqi security forces,
but they would not be deployed into that position
in a combat role.
They would not be engaging personally or directly with
the enemy in combat.
They certainly are in harm's way and would be in harm's way.
But that is very different than the kind of ground combat
operation that people like Speaker Boehner have advocated
in the past.
So what Chairman Dempsey has indicated a willingness to leave
the door open on is something that the President has said
he would be willing to consider on a case-by-case basis,
which is you could imagine a scenario where it might
be necessary in the future for some American ground forces --
or personnel, I should say -- could be forward deployed
to provide some tactical advice to Iraqi security forces,
to maybe even call on airstrikes,
but not to engage in combat directly with the enemy.
And that's very different than the strategy that
was pursued by the previous administration.
Go ahead, Jim.
The Press: Just to follow, are you saying that
the Republicans have a little bit of war fever?
Mr. Earnest: That sounds like your colorful description
of their position, not mine.
The Press: I mean, you were just saying that that's something
that members of the Republican Party advocated in a previous
administration and they seem to be advocating it now.
Mr. Earnest: They do all the time.
The Press: So they have ground-boot fever?
I mean, what is it that you're trying to say here?
(laughter)
Mr. Earnest: I think Jim thinks it's
my first day here.
(laughter)
Look, I think Speaker Boehner characterized
his own views.
The Press: Eager-beaver --
Mr. Earnest: I think Speaker Boehner
characterized his own views on this topic.
They are different than the view and the strategy
that's been laid out by the Commander-in-Chief.
I should say that the President was certainly appreciative of
the support that Speaker Boehner and other Republicans
articulated for the President's strategy as it relates to
ramping up our assistance to Syrian opposition fighters.
In the view of this President -- and maybe there is one aspect
of this that the Speaker and the President agree on,
which is that degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL
will require some ground troops in a combat role.
The question that is open and I think where the divergence
occurs is whether those ground troops are going to be American.
The President has ruled that out.
There will not be American ground combat troops
in Iraq or in Syria.
Speaker Boehner wants to leave open that possibility.
What the President has said is let's actually use the ability
of the American military and our coalition partners around
the globe to ramp up our assistance and training
of local forces so that they themselves can be the boots
on the ground to take the fight to ISIL.
And that is wholly a different strategy than the one that
was pursued by the Bush administration,
and sounds different than the strategy that Speaker Boehner
is advocating at this point.
The Press: Can I go back to the Jim Clapper question?
Mr. Earnest: Sure.
The Press: Does the President have confidence in the
intelligence he is receiving now from the intelligence community
with respect to ISIS?
Mr. Earnest: Absolutely.
The Press: But he is just saying that previously what he got
in terms of intelligence on the rise of ISIS was flawed.
Mr. Earnest: Again, I don't think that's -- I don't think
those were the words that the President used.
I think the President was pretty clear,
both then and as he was back in August,
that nobody predicted the speed and pace with which ISIL would
advance across the Syrian border with Iraq and make dramatic
gains across the countryside in a way that allowed them to hold
large chunks of territory.
The Press: But there were members of the intelligence
community who were sounding the alarm.
Back in February, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency
testified at a hearing that this was possible,
that you could see ISIS rise and take territory and continue
to take more territory.
So there were people sounding the alarm within the
intelligence community publicly as far back as February.
Mr. Earnest: Well, Jim, there have been people for quite some
time who have been talking about how difficult it is to assess
the will of foreign organizations to actually
fight for their country.
And there is no doubt that there was a question about how
determined Iraqi security forces would be to defend their own
country, largely due to the sectarian way in which that
country was being governed, and that would, understandably,
raise some doubt about the fighting will of the Iraqi
security forces.
And I think that proved to be true in the end that ISIL was
able to make significant gains because the Iraqi security
forces weren't able to withstand their advance.
Now, what we have seen is we've seen several things change.
The most important thing that we've seen change
is the central government in Baghdad.
We do now see an inclusive government in Baghdad that is
governing that country in a way that can unify the country
to meet the ISIL threat.
That will have a corresponding effect on the capability and
will of the Iraqi security forces to fight for and defend
their own country.
You've seen a commitment from the United States and our
coalition partners to ramp up our training and assistance even
to the Iraqi security forces.
And you've seen a willingness by the United States and our
coalition partners to back up the efforts of Iraqi security
forces on the ground with military strikes from the air.
All of those things combined will significantly enhance both
the will and the capability of Iraq's security forces.
And we are optimistic that they will build on the progress that
they've already made to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.
The Press: And can I ask you very quickly about
The Washington Post story that came out over the weekend about
the shooting incident here at the White House back in 2011?
It was reported in that story that the President
and the First Lady were irate with the Secret Service
over their handling of that incident.
Does that accurately reflect how the President and the First Lady
felt after they learned that there were shots fired
at the White House and that they were fired by somebody who
was intending to fire shots at the White House?
Mr. Earnest: Jim, as I think as you would expect,
the President and First Lady, like all parents,
are concerned about the safety of their children.
But the President and First Lady also have confidence in the men
and women of the Secret Service to do a very important job,
which is to protect the First Family,
to protect the White House, but also protect the ability of
tourists and members of the public to conduct their business
or even tour the White House.
So this requires balancing a wide range of equities,
which makes for a very difficult task.
But it is a task that the Secret Service is dedicated to.
What they are also dedicated to is where shortcomings occur,
implementing the changes that are necessary to improve.
And Director Pierson and other senior leaders at the United
States Secret Service are currently engaged in a review
in light of the incident from 10 days or so ago to further
upgrade and enhance the security posture of the White House.
And what will be -- what's required in an environment like
this is a security organization that is adept, that is nimble,
and that can be constantly both reviewing and upgrading their
posture as necessary.
That's difficult work.
But the President and First Lady have confidence
in the ability of the Secret Service to do it.
April.
The Press: I want to follow up on Jim's questions.
Has the White House been kept abreast of this most recent
issue, the incident, as to how things are changing?
And also, on the issue in 2011 -- because The Washington Post
article was scathing of the Secret Service,
and the Secret Service is refuting a lot of what has been
said in there -- in the article -- has the Secret Service been
in communication with the changes and upgrading of
security to the White House since all of these things have
been happening, particularly this latest article?
Mr. Earnest: Well, April, as I mentioned at the end of last
week, the President did have the opportunity to sit down in the
Oval Office with Director Pierson to discuss the ongoing
review in light of the incident from 10 days or so ago.
The President is interested in the review that they are
conducting, and I would anticipate that he'll review
whatever it is they -- whatever reforms and recommendations
they settle upon.
But ultimately, the President does retain confidence in the
leadership of the Secret Service and in the men and women of the
Secret Service who, on a daily basis,
wake up in the morning prepared to put their life on the line
to protect the First Family.
The Press: All right.
And I want to go to another question about something else.
The President, at the Congressional Black Caucus
dinner, talked about My Brother's Keeper,
an announcement at the beginning of -- when it involves mayors
and tribal leaders.
Could you give us a little bit of information on that?
And why now reach out to mayors and tribal leaders
and not before?
Mr. Earnest: Well, April, there has been an effort to reach out
pretty broadly as it relates to My Brother's Keeper to engage
people in what the President views as a top priority,
to work in communities of color in particular,
with young men in particular, to provide them some
mentorship and support that is so sorely needed.
And there are many others who have demonstrated a commitment
to this issue in a way that gives the President a lot
of confidence that some progress can be made.
And that means working with the business community,
working with the academic community,
working with political and community leaders to try
to make progress and advance some of these goals that
they've laid out.
If you need some more details in terms of what the current state
of our outreach, I can pull those for you.
The Press: Last question, as it relates to My Brother's Keeper
and linking it somewhat to Ferguson.
I understand the White House has been watching the events
of late of Ferguson.
I want to ask you about what you just said about the
demonstrations in Hong Kong, peaceful demonstrations,
and then when the demonstrations are happening here
in the United States, particularly in Ferguson,
that are having many issues.
It seems like they cannot come together on how to marry
the police force and the demonstrators together
in that town.
And you're promoting democracy there and we're still
having a conflict here.
Can you talk about that?
Mr. Earnest: Yes.
I think the President confronted this issue pretty directly in
the speech that he gave at the U.N.
General Assembly on Wednesday.
He said it more eloquently than I did,
but I think what he was highlighting -- or more
eloquently than I will -- what he was highlighting is that
every country has challenges.
No country is perfect.
Our country is not perfect.
But what we are seeking to do is to form a more perfect union.
And when we strive to address those differences,
we do so in the open light of day,
in the open light of our democracy.
And what you have seen is a response from the government
that, while not perfect, has promoted greater understanding
between local law enforcement and local citizens
who are aggrieved.
And the effort to try to resolve those differences in a way that
acknowledges the shortcomings is what makes our country different
than so many others and certainly what makes our
country different than a place like China,
where the response from the federal government has been
to try to shut down reporting of the incident.
I read reports today that Instagram is being blocked and
that there are efforts to try to censor some websites
who are trying to report on this situation.
And that underscores I think the difference in approach that
we have to try to confront this challenge that
other countries have.
The Press: They tried to shut down some reporters
at the beginning of the Ferguson of the protests here now.
So, I mean, some of the policing units were trying to shut down
some of the reporters during that protest, as you well know.
Mr. Earnest: But, April, what we're talking about here is
we're talking about the response of the central government,
the response of the democracy.
And I think that, again, while there -- the question here is
what is going to be the reaction of the government to dealing
with these kinds of situations, and every country has them.
The question is what are you going to do to try to resolve
those differences in a way that reflects the values
and the universal rights of the citizens.
Jon.
The Press: Josh, back to this question of ISIS or ISIL.
Did the intelligence community underestimate ISIL
or did the President underestimate ISIL?
Mr. Earnest: I think the way that I would describe it is that
everybody did; that everybody was surprised to see the rapid
advance that ISIL was able to make from Syria across the Iraqi
border and to be able to take over such large swaths
of territory in Iraq did come as a surprise.
And that's something that the President has said many times
and it's something that even senior members of the
intelligence community have acknowledged as well.
A lot of that was predicated on the underestimation of the will
of the Iraqi security forces to fight for their country.
The Press: But, Josh, I mean, on that question,
just to go back -- I mean, you don't even have to go back
to February, you can go back to November of last year.
Brett McGurk, who is Assistant Secretary of State and one
of the key point people for the administration on Iraq,
he described almost exactly what the threat was,
both on the side of the Iraqis not being able to confront it,
the fact that they were able to have benefitting from
a sanctuary across porous border in Syria.
I mean, his description back in November was,
"We have seen upwards of 40 suicide bombers per month
targeting playgrounds, mosques, markets...in addition to
government sites from Basra, to Baghdad, to Erbil."
ISIS "has benefited from a permissive operating environment
due to the inherent weakness of the Iraqi security forces."
This is one of your key people on Iraq who was raising
this alarm in November of last year.
Did this message get to the President?
Did he believe it?
Did he not hear it?
What happened?
Mr. Earnest: Jon, this is something that the President
has discussed on a number of occasions -- that principally
what we're talking about here is the rapid advance that ISIL was
able to make across the Iraqi desert and the success
that they have had after that advance to holding
large swaths of territory.
And that is not to say that there wasn't an acknowledgement
of the risk that this organization posed.
The Press: But if I could just stop you for a second -- because
two months after Brett McGurk says this,
the President calls ISIL the JV team in an interview
with The New Yorker.
Mr. Earnest: We've been through this and that's not who the
President was referring to.
The Press: He was clearly talking about ISIL because
the question was about --
Mr. Earnest: That's not true.
The Press: The question was specifically about what happened
after ISIL took over Fallujah.
Mr. Earnest: That's not what the question was about.
The Press: The question was directly about --
Mr. Earnest: We can look at the transcript
after the briefing.
That's not what the -- the President also discussed
this on "60 Minutes" yesterday, too.
So we've sort of -- we've been through this argument.
The Press: But what I'm saying is here you have a top person
and he's not alone.
I mean, if you go -- you mentioned coming across
and taking over vast areas of Iraq.
Well, in February of this year, the head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, Michael Flynn, General Flynn,
warned of exactly this.
He said ISIL "probably will attempt to take territory in
Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014,
as it demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah."
And the group's "ability to concurrently maintain multiple
safe havens in Syria."
He is warning of exactly what happened.
This is back in February.
How can the President say this was an intelligence failure?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Jon, I'll read you some comments
from Director Clapper himself, who said,
what we didn't do --
The Press: There are 16 intelligence agencies --
this is the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Are you saying that the President didn't hear this?
This was testimony to Congress.
Mr. Earnest: What I'm talking about is the person who
is responsible for being in charge of the broader
intelligence community, and what he said was he said,
"What we didn't do was predict the will to fight.
That's always a problem."
And what that goes to is the challenge of figuring out how
exactly willing foreign fighters are to defend their own country
-- wow capable are they, how well equipped are they,
and how willing are they to put their life on the line
to defend their own country.
And we did know that there was some weakness among the Iraqi
security forces because we had been publicly expressing concern
for quite some time that Prime Minister Maliki was governing
that country in a sectarian way that was starting to pull
that country apart.
And that would make it vulnerable to outside forces,
and it certainly would reduce the ability of the Iraqi
security forces to respond to a specific threat.
What was not predicted was how quickly and how successfully
ISIL would be able to make this significant advance across Iraq
in a way that has allowed them to hold so much territory.
What's important is that the United States, as we always
do, has led the international community
in responding to this situation.
And that response requires the continued skill and
professionalism and service of our intelligence community.
That's why -- that's an important part of why our
initial response here has been successful,
and they will be critical to our success moving forward.
The Press: Let me just button it up with this.
So these warnings that came -- and I've mentioned two --
the U.S. ambassador to Baghdad, to Iraq, made
similar warnings in an interview on ABC News.
We had heard similar warnings from Department of Homeland
Security officials.
Did the President hear this?
Did he know what -- he mentioned Clapper.
So we know he heard what Clapper said, the head of the DNI.
Did he know what these other top officials in his own
administration were saying about the threat from ISIL?
Did he hear what I just read to you?
Mr. Earnest: I assume that what you just read
to me is congressional testimony.
So there are a lot of public statements about this.
I'm not going to get into what sort of private conversations
the President had with the intelligence community about --
The Press: I'm just trying to get at -- these warnings
got to the level of the President.
Maybe they didn't; maybe there is a problem at DNI that
needs to be looked at.
Mr. Earnest: And what I'm saying is that the President has
complete confidence in the intelligence community to deal
with these very dynamic but significant threats to our
broader national interest.
And he has complete confidence in their ability to gather
the information that will be required to help us meet
and mitigate that threat.
As it relates to the private conversations that the President
has had with his intelligence advisors, I won't get into that.
But both the Director of National Intelligence and the
President have been pretty candid about their insight into
this specific situation, which is to say everybody knew
that there was a threat that was posed by ISIL,
but what nobody could predict, as the director said,
is the willingness of the Iraqi security forces to stand
up and fight for their own country.
The Press: Well, that's exactly what McGurk said.
Mr. Earnest: Okay.
Justin.
The Press: I wanted to kind of ask about
the political aspect of this.
Republicans have obviously seized on the President's
comments, but more generally we've seen a lot of campaign ads
coming out today in North Carolina kind of accusing the
President and Democrats of being slow to respond to ISIS.
I know that administration officials before said that
the President, as he starts campaigning -- he's going
to Chicago this week -- won't be using foreign policy
as part of his campaign message.
But is that tenable?
Or are we going to start hearing the President defend
or explain or promote his strategy on ISIS as part
of his campaign activities?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think we have been pretty clear about
the fact that the President does believe there is a very clear
choice in this midterm election between the policies that
Democrats have advocated that benefit middle-class families
and the policy that Republicans advocate that benefit
those at the top.
There is a different strategy and there is a different agenda
that's being promoted by the two sides.
The President will make that case.
The voters will have the opportunity
to make their choice.
When it comes to these specific national security issues,
the President believes that our national security
trumps local politics.
That's been true since the President entered the race for
the presidency back in 2007, and it continues to be true
to do this day.
In fact, I over the last couple of weeks have even gone
out of my way to praise Republicans in Congress,
both in the House and the Senate,
who voted to give the administration the authority
necessary to ramp up our assistance
to Syrian opposition fighters.
This was a proposal that the President asked for,
and Democrats and Republicans in both the House and the Senate
put aside their own partisan affiliation and voted
in a way that would allow that legislation to pass,
and gave the President the authority that he needs
to fulfill that mission.
So I think, if anything, based on the limited sample size here,
we've been pretty willing to give credit where it's due to
Republicans who are supportive of the President's strategy.
The Press: And then on the Secret Service --
Director Pierson is supposed to go in front of Congress
to the Oversight Committee tomorrow.
And I know that she is leading the review here,
but some congressional leaders have suggested that this will
be kind of a make-or-break testimony for her in their eyes,
in terms of what kind of confidence they have in her
ability to lead the department, both because of the recent
incidents and I think a string of incidents leading up to them.
And so what I'm wondering is, are you guys undertaking any
review of her leadership and her ability to lead
the department -- or the agency?
Mr. Earnest: As I mentioned I think last week, Justin,
the President does have full confidence in Director Pierson
and other members of the Secret Service to do their
very important work.
So we are interested in the review that is underway
by the Secret Service.
That is a review that the White House will take a look at,
and we'll certainly consider the reforms that they recommend.
But the President continues to have confidence
in the men and women of the Secret Service.
The Press: What would have to happen to shake that confidence
in Director Pierson?
I mean, we've had drunken agents in hotel rooms,
we've had somebody make his way into the White House.
Short of an incredibly tragic circumstance,
what would get the President to do a review of how she is doing
as leader of the agency?
Mr. Earnest: That's a difficult hypothetical question to answer.
What I'll tell you is that this is an issue that the President
is obviously concerned about.
That's something that he will review once they've had a chance
to conduct their investigation of what exactly happened
10 days ago.
That will be part of a broader review of the security posture
here at the White House, and we're looking forward
to the results.
Peter.
The Press: Josh, has the President been briefed on the
air traffic control shutdown in the Chicago area?
Mr. Earnest: He has been, yes.
The Press: And what's the thinking here about the fact
that one single individual could wreak so much havoc in such
a huge chunk of the country when it comes to air travel?
Mr. Earnest: Well, the FAA is obviously hard at work on this.
They've made tremendous progress in getting the system back
up and running here.
What the FAA has decided to do is to completely replace the
central communications network, which will restore the system
as quickly as possible.
The FAA is assembling the new components at a remote site
and they should begin arriving to the center soon.
There is an investigation underway by the FBI and the ATF
into what exactly occurred, so I wouldn't want
to get ahead of that specific investigation.
But obviously a large chunk of our economy and the American
traveling public relies on this piece of critical
infrastructure, and it's something that is important
to safeguard and I'm confident that this will be part of what
the FAA and the ATF and the FBI all take a look at.
The Press: What's the President's level of concern,
again, about the fact that one guy bent on doing something like
this could cause such heavy damage to the air travel?
Mr. Earnest: Well, it's important to remember that,
apparently -- and, again, I don't want to get ahead
of the investigation -- but apparently the one guy that
you're referring to is somebody who actually
worked at the center.
So we're not talking about somebody who was just walking
down the street and caused this significant problem.
But I don't want to get ahead of the investigation that's
currently underway by the ATF and the FBI.
Ed.
The Press: Josh, when you said -- I just want
to go to something basic on the "60 Minutes" interview.
When you said it was not the President's intent to blame
James Clapper, the question from Steve Kroft was,
was that a complete surprise to you, Mr. President.
And he said, James Clapper says they underestimated it.
How is that not blaming the intelligence community?
Mr. Earnest: Because, Ed, on questions like this that
the President has answered in the past,
he has been very clear that as the Commander-in-Chief,
he is the one who is personally responsible.
The Press: He never said that in the "60 Minutes" interview.
He was asked, was it a surprise to you, and he
didn't say yes, no, maybe -- he said Jim Clapper.
Mr. Earnest: Well, I'll tell you this -- that the President
is the Commander-in-Chief and he is somebody who takes
personal responsibility for the national security
of the United States of America.
The Press: So if he takes that responsibility,
why did he use the word "they" -- they underestimated?
Why didn't he say "we"?
Isn't Jim Clapper a part of the President's team?
Mr. Earnest: Of course he is.
The President has confidence in Director Clapper and the
President has confidence in the intelligence professionals who
are responsible for providing him advice and intelligence
about what's happening on the ground there.
And that advice and intelligence has been critical to the success
that we've had so far in combating the ISIL threat.
The Press: So Jim Clapper is not going to be fired?
Because you would probably acknowledge this is a pretty big
intelligence failure then if this is the way the President
is going to characterize it, that they underestimated --
Mr. Earnest: I would not acknowledge that this --
I would not describe it that way.
The Press: Would not?
Mr. Earnest: I would not.
The Press: So the President didn't know for months that
this was getting worse?
And that's not a failure somewhere?
Mr. Earnest: No.
What the President has been clear about is that what
everybody has been surprised by was the rapid advance earlier
this summer that ISIL was able to make across the Syria-Iraq
border in the face of Iraqi security forces and in a way
that allowed them to occupy significant swaths
of territory in Iraq.
The Press: Right, but you're saying everybody was surprised.
So if everybody in the U.S. government was surprised
at that, nobody failed?
Nobody is going to be held accountable?
Mr. Earnest: Well, Ed, predicting the will of foreign
security forces to fight for their country is difficult.
This is something that Director Clapper himself
has acknowledged.
What we're focused on is making sure that the President has the
intelligence that he needs to build and lead an international
coalition to take the fight to ISIL and employ the
counterterrorism strategy that the President has laid out.
The President has full confidence in the ability of the
intelligence community to provide that intelligence that's
necessary to do that job.
And their performance so far has been critical to our
early success here.
The Press: A couple other topics.
Prime Minister Netanyahu coming here Wednesday, I believe,
to meet with the President; he gave a speech at the U.N.
a few moments ago.
The President at the U.N. last week said that when
it comes to the Mideast peace
process the status quo is unacceptable.
So my question being, what does he think is holding
things up right now?
There's a cease-fire that's taken hold,
so that was a positive development.
What's holding it up now?
And will he press the Prime Minister to get this process
back on track?
Mr. Earnest: What we have said about this situation, Ed,
is that it is clearly in the interest of both Israeli leaders
and Palestinian leaders to advance beyond
the current status quo.
It is not in the interest of either side for
the status quo to persist.
And what's difficult about this situation is it will require
these individual political leaders on either side
to make very difficult political decisions.
These are decisions that the international community -- that
neither the international community nor the United States
can make for them.
These are decisions that they will be forced to make.
The good news is that it is in the interest of both sides
to make these difficult decisions.
And that is what continues to motivate the President,
certainly Secretary Kerry, but other leaders in the
international community, to press both sides to make
the kinds of decisions that, while difficult,
are ultimately in the best interest of both sides.
The Press: One other question on Yemen.
On Friday, you said that this was sort of a model of the
President's counterterror policy working -- Somalia as well,
but Yemen in particular.
Over the weekend, a series of headlines: A bombing in Yemen
kills seven near hospital; a car bombing kills at least 15.
And a splinter group of al Qaeda -- about 24 hours after you told
us on Friday that this was a good model -- a splinter group
of al Qaeda fires a rocket in the direction
of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen.
Do you stand behind what you said Friday?
Mr. Earnest: Absolutely.
The Press: And is this really a model for the world to see?
Mr. Earnest: What's a model, Ed, is the counterterrorism strategy
that this administration has put in place to mitigate and deter
-- to degrade, if you will -- the threat that is posed
by extremists to the U.S. homeland.
There is no doubt that there are local forces on the ground
in Yemen that are not American, that are taking
the fight to extremists in that country.
Does there continue to be a threat emanating from Yemen?
Absolutely, there does.
But right now, that threat has been mitigated through the use
of this counterterrorism strategy that the President has
laid out, which is building up the capacity of local forces
to take the fight to these extremist groups,
to build up the capacity of the central government with broad,
international support to try to strengthen
and stabilize the country.
And where necessary --
The Press: -- you put in place
a counterterror strategy to deny them a safe haven,
as well as what you just said -- mitigate the threat.
It sounds like they have a safe haven.
Mr. Earnest: Ed, these are individuals who -- these
are extremists groups who are hiding in Yemen,
who are under continual pressure from local forces
on the ground who are taking the fight to them.
These are individuals who live in fear 24 hours a day of being
the next victim in an airstrike, either by the Yemeni government
or by international forces to take them out.
And what that has done is it has applied continual pressure
to them to make it much more difficult for them to strengthen
the United States.
They continue to be a threat, make no mistake.
This is something that we need to be vigilant about.
This is something that is the focal point of the efforts
of our intelligence community and our military,
and this is something that we work very hard to mitigate.
And that is -- but it does provide a useful model for
demonstrating how an extremist organization will not just be
able to freely operate even in a country that doesn't have a --
or at least didn't have a strong central government.
And because we have seen in very real tragic terms what
can happen if an extremist organization is granted a safe
haven if continual pressure is not applied to them,
that is what allowed the al Qaeda network under
Osama bin Laden to successfully execute a large-scale,
catastrophic terrorist attack here in the U.S.
And because of the implementation of this strategy,
we've made that much, much harder for
these extremist organizations.
But you can't take a day off.
This is something that people are focused on 24 hours
a day, seven days a week.
Cheryl.
The Press: Thanks.
Moving to India.
India has been opposed to the Trade Facilitation Agreement at
the WTO, and I'm wondering if the President plans on talking
specifically about that agreement with Prime Minister
Modi tonight, or tomorrow.
Mr. Earnest: To be honest with you, Cheryl,
I don't know if that's on the agenda but we can take a look
at that, and after the meetings tomorrow we can
give you a sense of whether or not that came up.
Michelle.
The Press: Josh, also on Modi.
What is the single-most important narrative discussion
that we should be focused on as a sign that this administration
wants to take ties further than previous administrations?
Mr. Earnest: Michelle, I think the thing that I would highlight
for you is the robust nature of the relationship between the
United States and India, such that it can't be reduced
to one specific issue.
There are so many ways in which the U.S.
government interacts with the India government in pursuit
of our mutual interests that it's hard to identify just one.
Whether it's security cooperation or economic
cooperation, even agreements related to reducing the causes
of climate change, that we're confident that we can advance
the ball down the field by working closely with our
counterparts in India.
The Press: Is there no specific top goal, though?
What is your top ask out of this visit?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I think, again,
what I would underscore here is that we have the kind
of strategic partnership that is focused on a wide
variety of areas.
And whether it's security and counterterrorism,
or strengthening the economy, or a host of other regional issues,
that there is a broad framework where India and the U.S.
work closely together to advance our shared interests.
And that underscores the significance of the relationship
between the United States and India,
which is the world's largest democracy.
Yes, Tamara.
The Press: Coming out of those two meetings,
are you expecting any announcements of any kind,
or is this more of just like a get-to-know-you kind of meeting?
(laughter)
Mr. Earnest: Well, I don't know if President Obama
and the newly elected Prime Minister of India
have met before.
I suspect they have not, but don't fact-check me on that.
If they have, it has not been recently,
and they certainly haven't met since
the Prime Minister took office.
So this will be an important opportunity for them to spend
some time talking about the relationship between
our two countries.
We certainly value the strong relationship that we have
with India, and this was a relationship that
was strengthened under the leadership
of the previous Prime Minister.
And the President wants to make sure that we continue
that strong relationship between our two countries.
The Press: And regarding the Secret Service stuff,
I have sort of an aesthetic question,
which is that it's kind of unpleasant looking out there
right now on Pennsylvania Avenue.
There are at the moment two layers of gates that look
like bike racks in front of the big fences.
And I'm assuming one of those layers might be for Prime
Minister Modi, but is this a permanent situation?
Should people get used to little fences and big fences?
How long can we anticipate the aesthetics to be such
as they are?
Mr. Earnest: Tamara, I'd refer you to the Secret Service
for the details about the deployment
of specific security precautions.
What you're highlighting, though,
is the very difficult challenge of balancing the need to protect
the President, the First Family, and the White House with the
need to ensure that all of those of us who work here
at the White House have access to this building.
There's also a need to ensure that tourists have access
to one of the more popular tourist destinations
in our nation's capital.
There are thousands of people that visit the White House
just about every day to tour the White House.
They are essentially touring the seat of government
of the United States.
They're touring the house of the President of the United States.
But they're also touring a museum that contains artifacts
and paintings and art that are a testament to the strength
of our democracy.
So there's a very unique position that the White House
holds, and it presents a significant challenge for the
Secret Service as they try to balance all of those equities.
But it's something that they are continually refining and they
are continually looking for ways to improve on it.
And the President continues to have confidence in their ability
to perform their very difficult function.
Chris.
The Press: Thanks, Josh.
I want to go back to the "60" interview and your comment that
predicting the will of fighters is difficult.
But isn't analysis at the heart of what intelligence does?
It sounds as if you're interpreting this
as a misinterpretation of data rather than
a massive intelligence failure.
Mr. Earnest: Well, that's certainly not how I would
describe the situation.
I think Director Clapper himself was pretty candid about how
difficult this work is.
And ultimately what you are trying to assess is the ability
or the willingness of individual fighters in another
country to fight for their own country.
The Press: But isn't part of that the other side of it,
the fact that Islamic radicals had been expanding in Syria
and Iraq for two years; the journalists frequently pointed
out that foreign fighters were streaming into Syria?
We know the Agency had people there for years;
they were embeds.
So is it part of the other side of the analysis that people
who are on this side?
So the growth of the foreign fighters,
the growth of the Islamic radicals who are expanding,
wouldn't that have been an indication of how difficult
it was for the other side?
Mr. Earnest: Well, I would defer to the intelligence community
to provide greater insight to you about what kinds
of things fed into this broader assessment.
But clearly, there are multiple factors in this one equation.
One of the factors is the capacity -- and in this case,
even the growing capacity -- of the radical extremists in Syria.
Another factor was the will of Iraq security forces and their
willingness to try to fight for their own country.
The other factor that went into this is what sort of impact did
the divisive way in which Prime Minister Maliki was leading the
country affected the willingness of Iraqi security forces
to fight.
The other factor here is trying to determine what exactly
were the ambitions of the extremists in Syria.
The other factor is what sort of environment would those
extremist fighters find themselves in once they crossed
the border.
Would they be warmly accepted by the local population?
Would the local population resist?
Would there be something in the middle?
There are a lot of factors that went into sort of drawing --
making this assessment.
And that's why it's so difficult to do.
But what we are focused on now is trying to put together
an assessment, as the intelligence community has
so far successfully done, to make sure the President has
the information that he needs to build and lead
this broader international coalition to counter,
degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.
That's the focal point of the efforts over at the wide array
of intelligence agencies that exist in the federal government.
And that is advice the President will continue to rely on.
To their credit, because of their professionalism and
performance so far, they have contributed in a very
important way to the early success that we've had.
The Press: And if I can ask you quickly about
the Secret Service.
The most recent incident had a lot of people asking how
is it possible for somebody just to get into
the White House -- a very common-sense question.
And now you have this additional report over the weekend about
2011 and the shooting, and how long it took them to assess
what really happened.
Should the American people have confidence that the President
and his family are safe?
Mr. Earnest: The President does.
The President does.
Jeff.
The Press: Given the risk before,
what gives you confidence now that the Iraqi forces will
be an effective -- effectively be able to counter ISIL?
Mr. Earnest: That's a good question and an important
one because it is an important part
of this counterterrorism strategy.
There are three things that I would point to, Jeff,
just to answer your question very directly.
The first is, there has been a commitment by the United States
and our coalition partners to ramp up our training and
equipping and assistance to the security forces.
So we would anticipate that these forces will
be better trained, they'll be better equipped,
and that they will have more of what they need to successfully
defend their country.
The second thing -- and in some ways this might be the most
important thing -- is the formation of a new central
government in Baghdad that reflects the diversity
of that country.
By having a government that unites the diverse nation of
Iraq to confront the ISIL threat, you can count on,
or you would expect that that would lead to a more integrated,
diverse Iraqi security force that's more willing to put
their lives on the line to protect their country.
And we would anticipate that there would be a benefit
to the Iraqi security forces from a more inclusive,
more effective central government on Baghdad.
The third thing -- and this is also important -- is we're now
seeing that those Iraqi security forces are being backed
up American military airpower and by the military airpower
of our coalition partners.
That will certainly enhance the performance of Iraqi security
forces on the battlefield.
But the reason the question that you're asking is so important
goes to something that somebody mentioned earlier,
which is ground forces of some kind will be required
to take the fight to ISIL on the ground.
And the open question has been, in the minds of some,
is who will make up those ground forces.
The President is determined that American ground forces will
not be participating in a combat role in Iraq;
that it will be the responsibility of Iraqi security
forces to take the fight to ISIL.
That's why it's so important for us to ramp up our assistance
and training for those Iraqi security forces.
It's why it's so important that the central government in
Baghdad govern that country in an inclusive way to unite the
country and unite the security forces to meet that threat.
And it's why it's so important that the United States is
working closely with our coalition partners provide
some military airpower to back up the efforts
of Iraqi security forces on the ground.
The Press: Do you see any evidence on the first two points
here, aside from -- I mean, we know that U.S.
forces and allied forces are helping the bombing campaign.
But on the first two points you made,
do you see evidence that that's actually happened?
Mr. Earnest: Well, the President discussed in his "60 Minutes"
interview that we have started to hear the right things from
Prime Minister Abadi and other leaders of the Iraqi government
that they're committed to governing that country
in an inclusive way.
One data point I could point you to is, last week,
when the President traveled to the United Nation General
Assembly, he convened a meeting of the Sunni-led nations who
are part of our military operations in Syria
at beginning of last week.
Prime Minister Abadi, the Shia leader of Iraq,
joined that meeting.
The previous Prime Minister, his predecessor Prime Minister
Maliki, had a very tenuous relationship with the Sunni-led
governments in the region.
But here you had, with the leadership of the American
President, the Shia Prime Minister of Iraq being willing
to sit down with the Sunni leaders of those other
countries in the region.
And that is an indication that he is committed to the kind
of inclusive governing agenda that we think
is so important to our success here.
As it relates to improve training and equipping,
those are the kinds of things that you would see over time.
There had been some isolated data points to indicate that
the performance of Iraqi security forces has improved.
For example, Iraqi security forces were successful
in retaking the Mosul Dam.
This is a critical piece of infrastructure in Iraq.
They did so with the backing of military power,
but previously -- military airpower I should say.
Previously, their forces had been overrun by ISIL forces.
And so that is evidence that their performance
on the battlefield is improving.
There was also a pretty contentious fight around Haditha
Dam -- another piece of critical infrastructure in western Iraq
-- and what we did see was that Iraqi security forces were able
to repel ISIL forces that did have designs on trying
to take over that piece of infrastructure.
So there are a couple of pieces of evidence to indicate
that their performance is improving.
Anita.
The Press: Just following on the Prime Minister visit today --
you mentioned a couple things on the agenda.
Several human rights groups today have come out and urged
the President to take up the human rights issues with
the Prime Minister today.
I wondered if you knew if that was on the agenda.
It's a variety of things they're talking about,
including the violence against women.
Do you have any idea if that's going to come up?
Mr. Earnest: The issue of basic universal human rights
is something that is frequently discussed in the President's
meetings with world leaders around the globe.
So I don't have anything specific to say about this
particular meeting, but I wouldn't be surprised if this
issue that we considered to be a priority in our relations with
countries all around the world is raised in the context
of the meetings over the next couple of days.
The Press: And yesterday, he was in -- the Prime Minister was
in -- or I guess he's been in New York for a few days.
Did you notice the reception he received
at Madison Square Garden -- 20,000 people sort of screaming,
chanting his name?
I think some painted his face on their body.
I just wondered -- it just was like kind of a rock star
reception, and I was wondering if you were surprised by that,
just how popular he is.
Mr. Earnest: I read news reports.
I was not aware of the body paint that may have been
involved in the event.
I think the thing that I would say is that the strong turnout
at that event and the enthusiastic reaction I do think
highlights the deep cultural ties that exist between the
United States and India; that there are so many immigrants
from India to the United States that are now interwoven
into communities all across the countries.
And I think that just highlights one other way in which in the
relationship between our two countries is so important.
So, yes, interesting.
The Press: And then, finally, I saw that it's a working dinner
tonight and it's closed.
Do you expect a readout after?
Mr. Earnest: We probably won't have a readout today,
Just so we know.
but there will be more formal aspects of the visit tomorrow
with the formal arrival ceremony, a bilateral meeting,
and then an opportunity for you to hear from both leaders
after the meeting as well.
The Press: A quick follow-up?
Mr. Earnest: Go ahead, Goyal.
The Press: My question is, Josh, that India has been demanding
the most-wanted terrorist based now in Pakistan,
including Brahamdagh.
And also, Zawahiri has threatened that next his mission
will be to attack India.
And also, these comments were repeated by Prime Minister Modi
at the United Nations, and that's what he said -- the
relations between India and Pakistan and the U.S., based
on the mutual interests.
What I'm asking you -- all these issues you think
will be discussed?
Because Prime Minister Modi is asking the United States,
and may ask President Obama to help India in this,
because India wants peace in the region and around the world.
Thank you.
Mr. Earnest: The United States wants peace
in the region as well.
And we value the strong security cooperation that we already have
with the Indian government.
We value that strategic partnership,
and the President believes that strengthening that partnership
even further will be a critical part of this specific meeting.
Thanks very much, everybody.
We'll see you tomorrow.