PETER COOK: Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Pentagon.
I've got a couple of things to share with you here off the top, so bear with me if you don't mind before we turn to your questions.
At 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, Secretary Carter and Vice Chairman Selva will hold a -- host a remembrance ceremony at the Pentagon Memorial. They will honor the memory of those killed here in the 2001 terrorist attack. This is a private remembrance for the family members of those lost in the terrorist attack, it is not open to the general public. The remembrance will include a wreath-laying, a moment of silence. The secretary and vice chairman will also make remarks at this event.
In the afternoon, the Director of Administration and Management, Michael Rhodes, will host a remembrance ceremony at 2 p.m. in the Pentagon Center Courtyard. The secretary, vice chairman and Mr. Rhodes will provide remarks at this event. This ceremony is an opportunity for the Pentagon community to come together in observance of the 14th anniversary of September 11th. And of course, you all are welcome to join us and to cover these events here at the Pentagon.
As you may have seen yesterday as well, the White House announced that tomorrow afternoon, President Obama will travel up to Fort Meade, Maryland to have a conversation with service members from the 14th anniversary of 9/11. My understanding is the president will have some remarks at the top of the event, including his appreciation for the service and sacrifice the troops and their families have made. He will then take questions from service members present at the event and online via social media.
For service members who want to ask a question, they should to go to the Department of the Defense Facebook page at facebook.com/departmentofdefense, and leave a comment, or on Twitter using the hashtag #askPOTUS. And just last week, as you'll recall, Secretary Carter held a worldwide troop talk at Fort Meade. He very much values face time with the troops listening, asking and answering questions, and he's very appreciative that the commander in chief is taking time on the anniversary of 9/11 to engage directly with service members.
Separately just to follow up to a question from the briefing on Tuesday regarding the situation in the Sinai. We've got specifically some active measures to increase force protection to announce regarding the multinational force observers mission in the Sinai. We are sending 75 additional troops along with maneuver and medical assets to include a light infantry platoon, forward surgical teams in addition to other capabilities that will bolster and enhance the mission of the MFO and increase the safety and security of U.S. forces.
I'm not going to get into further detail here for security considerations, but I do want to reiterate this is not a response to what happened with that IED attack a few days ago, specifically.
We've been in discussions with key stakeholders regarding plans to increase force protection since early August, and we're going to continue staying in contact with the MFO, adjust force protection capabilities as conditions warrant. So I did want to provide that update.
Have a readout as well of a conversation that the secretary had earlier today. He spoke with the French minister of finance [sic] (defense), Jean-Yves Le Drian. He called the secretary to inform him of France's decision to expand its involvement in the air campaign against ISIL. France is now conducting ISR flights over Syria and is prepared to follow up with airstrikes subsequently.
Secretary Carter thanked Minister Le Drian for France's participation in the counter-ISIL campaign. France was the first nation to join the U.S.-led air campaign in Iraq a year ago.
The two leaders stated they look forward to seeing each other soon at the NATO defense ministerial in October, and again, that phone call happened earlier today.
And finally for you, some news regarding the USNS Comfort. The Navy hospital ship will hold opening ceremonies in Haiti, its 11th and final stop as part of Continuing Promise 2015. That's going to happen tomorrow.
Over the last six months, as part of this mission, a team compromised of U.S. military, medical and construction personnel, private aid organizations and partner nation officials has treated more than 100,000 patients, conducted community assistance projects across 11 Latin American and Caribbean nations.
While in Haiti, sailors from the Comfort will demonstrate the mission and capabilities of the Naval hospital ship to our Haitian host, as well as provide medical care to thousands of Haitians.
We have also invited the Cuban ambassador in Port-au-Prince and five Cuban medical workers to tour the comfort and observe its capabilities. Later during the ship's visit, medical staff from the Comfort and representatives from U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince plan to join Cuban medical professionals on a tour of other medical facilities in Haiti.
So that is the latest on the Comfort and its efforts as part of Continuing Promise.
And with that, go to your questions, and thanks for your patience.
Q: Peter, question for you about recent indications of increased Russian military activity in Syria at the airfield south of Latakia.
Has the secretary talked to his Russian counterpart about their activities and their intentions? They appear to be preparations for some sort of air operations by the Russians there.
MR. COOK: Yeah. Bob, we're tracking these developments closely. We're in touch with our allies and partners.
I don't have any conversation to read out to you regarding the secretary and his Russian counterpart, and we'll make you aware if that indeed does take place.
We continue to believe that there must urgently be a political solution to the conflict in Syria, and again, we've been monitoring this situation very closely, as you would imagine we would.
Q: Has he talked to his Russian counterpart about this at any point since he became secretary?
MR. COOK: I don't have anything to read out to you specifically about that.
There's no conversation that's happened between he and his Russian counterpart since these reports first came out, and if that changes, we'll, of course, let you know.
Q: Okay, just more broadly, has he -- has he talked to his Russian counterpart at all?
MR. COOK: I know that -- let me check with you exactly. Some of this predates my arrival here as to exactly the last time they did speak.
Q: Sorry. Has he talked to Secretary Kerry about his own interaction with Russians on what they're doing?
MR. COOK: He's had a host of conversations with Secretary Kerry on a range of issues, including Russia, of course, since he became secretary. But I don't have anything to -- to -- specifically to tell you about a conversation they've had more recently.
But this is obviously on Secretary Kerry's mind. I'll refer you to the State Department. He's had two conversations with his counterpart. This is on the mind of Secretary Carter and the entire U.S. government.
We're monitoring this very closely. And again, this is something where we believe that a political solution is the ultimate solution for Syria, and further military support for the Assad regime, we think, would be counterproductive to that effort.
Q: Does the secretary have his own assessment of what the Russians are doing at this stage?
MR. COOK: I'm not going to get into that from up here at the podium, getting into intelligence assessments. I'd just reassure you that the secretary of Defense is watching this situation closely, as the entire department is monitoring this. And we would like to see a positive role for Russia to play in Syria, and further arming and escalating the military conflict in the -- and the Assad regime, we think would be counterproductive. So -- Nancy?
Q: I have two questions. One is a logistical one and then one on Egypt.
As you know, a few weeks ago, we had raised concerns about the week ahead schedule and the fact that we were not getting updates on the secretary's plans in the week ahead, even though we get similar updates from the White House and the State Department. And since that time, we're not getting week aheads at all on any of the top leaders in this department, and I'd like to know why when we've asked for more transparency we actually ended up getting less.
MR. COOK: I'm happy to discuss this with you. I'm not sure this is the best forum to do it. But I'm happy to get you as much information as I can on the secretary's schedule.
I've been talking with Captain Davis and other members of the press shop about how we can better -- serve you better, inform you on the secretary's schedule. I can tell you it's not because we don't want to share it with you, but we're trying to work out the best way to share with you not only his schedule but other senior leaders here within the Department.
And Nancy, if I could give you two weeks out, three weeks out, I would do that myself from this -- from this podium, and I can try and do it as I give you briefings to be more forthcoming about the schedule. We'd like to share with you as early as we can the public events that the secretary and the other leaders here are participating in.
Q: Right. Well, I just -- I want to ask if we can getting those again on the -- tomorrow as we have in the past because --
MR. COOK: We'll make every effort, and if -- as a former reporter myself I know how important it is for your planning, particularly with trips and things like that. I will -- rest assured that I will take this up personally and do everything in my power to give you as much guidance as I can on the secretary's schedule, with the acknowledgment that that schedule may be subject to change. So --
Q: And top leaders as well. Deputy Secretary Work, for example, is in London and we didn't know until -- (inaudible).
MR. COOK: Good for me to know. I thought there was an advisory that went out on that. So --
Q: Maybe. But we just know the week ahead. That's all.
MR. COOK: Sure. No, I understand.
Q: And then on Egypt, given that you now have Islamic State fighters or affiliates stationed just outside of that camp and the increased number of attacks there, is the secretary considering alternative plans to deploying U.S. troops there because of the increasing -- (inaudible)? Is that under discussion at any level in this department?
MR. COOK: Well obviously, we're concerned about the security risk, and we're taking these additional measures. This is something certainly on the secretary's radar. The United States believes strongly in the mission of the MFO, and we don't have any change in policy at this time. We're more concerned about the safety and security of those U.S. personnel at this particular moment.
The MFO has been there for some time, and so I think our concern right now, our top priority is the safety and security of those U.S. personnel there -- and of course, it's not just U.S. personnel -- and anything we can do to bolster that security, that's what -- that's first and foremost on our mind.
Q: I just want to clarify then, there's no discussion of any sort of adjustment or alternatives to having those troops.
MR. COOK: I don't have anything to share with you at this time about any change. Our commitment to the MFO is consistent with what it has been in the past, and if there is a change in that policy, we will certainly let you know.
Right now, what we're doing, first and foremost, is to make sure those U.S. troops have adequate force protection. That's our primary concern right now.
Q: I wanted to ask you about the anthrax -- the continuing anthrax investigation. I read a published report today suggesting that the shortcomings in some of the protocols don't just involve the handling of anthrax, but also other potential deadly agents, including bubonic plague.
Can you help us understand sort of what's going on with that, and whether there's any risk to the public from these other agents besides anthrax?
MR. COOK: Yeah. Obviously, this has been an area of concern for some time. When we first had the revelations about the anthrax and the mishandling of -- of anthrax, there's an active investigation under way right now that we've talked about from -- from up here at the podium.
And -- and we're concerned about these reports of further problems. And -- again, this is an area that's gonna continue to be a -- a focal point of -- of the investigation.
We're working collaboratively with the CDC, I know the Army is, right now, trying to determine exactly what's transpired here in this most recent instance. I know that even the CDC itself -- my understanding is their most recent statement that there is, in their words, "nothing to suggest risk to the health of workers or the general public," which, of course, we take as -- you know, significant.
And obviously our greatest concern would be the health and safety of not only those people on site, but the general public, and right now my understanding is that there isn't a concern at the CDC that something like that is taking place.
But this is an active investigation. You know secretary -- Deputy Secretary Work and Mr. Kendall have both addressed this. This Army investigation is under way, and as I mentioned to you the other day, we expect the results of that in October.
Q: Well -- acknowledging that it's an ongoing investigation that you don't have the results of all of it yet --
MR. COOK: Yep.
Q: -- and acknowledging that the CDC has said they believe there's no risk, can you help us understand based on -- what information, or what preliminary information, gives you confidence that there's no risk to either the general public or the workers who were handling any of these substances? Why is it that they're -- they -- why can -- how can they say that?
MR. COOK: Sure. I can only say that because the medical and scientific professionals, who I need to rely on as well, have -- that's what they've conveyed to me, and that's what I understand the CDC has -- has conveyed. And I would urge you to -- to reach out to the CDC for their assessment.
These are the professionals -- the scientific professionals who understand this much better than -- than I do, quite honestly, and that's been their guidance to me, at this point. And that doesn't mean we aren't taking this incredibly seriously, and I think the deputy secretary has spoken from this podium himself about his concerns going forward.
The secretary has similar concerns. We expect every stone to be unturned here, and for this program to be -- to be fixed, and I think that's the -- the message we'd like to send out as this investigation remains ongoing.
Q: Peter, I'd like to ask you about a -- a -- a statistic that's been talked about a lot over the past few weeks about the number of Iraq War deaths that could be attributed to Iran and Iranian-made IEDs.
There was talk a few weeks ago that maybe that number was -- was 500, and I also heard that that wasn't necessarily a hard figure, and then there was some reporting recently that that number was -- was much lower.
Are you aware of any hard Defense Department data that attributes specific Iraq War deaths to Iranian IEDs, and -- just as a -- what that number would be?
MR. COOK: My understanding is that the -- the numbers that have been cited, and were cited in a -- in a recent story came from CENTCOM, so I would refer you to them for statistical numbers.
And my understanding, as well, is that General Dunford testified to this -- this is where I think the story originated, so I'd let General Dunford speak for himself and the figures he cited, and -- and the numbers, as well, that CENTCOM has been using.
So I -- I think -- the number I saw from them was 196, specifically, and I think they offered some clarifying information. And again, I want you to check with CENTCOM as well. That clarifying information was that they had a larger figure for total deaths that maybe as a result of Iranian activities writ large, as opposed to specifically these particular explosive devices.
So that may be addressing some of the -- the difference in numbers here. But for more detail, I would encourage you to reach out to CENTCOM and check exactly what the stats are that they've been posting.
I'll come back in a second. Let me stay here in the front here.
Q: Thanks, Peter.
To follow up on Jamie's question, are you saying that live samples of bubonic plague were detected at one of the four DOD labs, and were any of those samples inadvertently shipped, like the anthrax was?
MR. COOK: So my understanding of the situation and bubonic plague, I'm not even sure medically speaking or scientifically speaking is the exact substance we're talking about here.
My understanding is that there was a sample at a DOD facility that was -- as part of this program, was a form of plague and that it was in -- not in a containment area, but in a freezer outside of containment area, but within a controlled setting.
And the question was raised by the CDC whether or not this was an infectious agent, infectious form of plague, or a noninfectious, and that the testing done by the Army has determined that was noninfectious and that a additional testing is being conducted to try and verify once and for all whether or not it was labeled correctly and placed in the right location or whether or not it did have some infectious threat.
And I think that's the scientific work that's being done at this particular time determining exactly what happened there and whether or not, again, there was mislabeling, if it was catalog issues there.
The CDC's raised some concerns all throughout this process. I think they've done so again here, and we're continuing to work collaboratively with the CDC.
Q: (inaudible) -- was found in one of the Maryland labs.
MR. COOK: It was the -- and let me make sure I've got the location correct for you -- the -- the Edgewood facility.
Q: Any indication that that sample was shipped anywhere else?
MR. COOK: I -- at this point, I think the investigation -- I think our folks, the Army in particular is trying to determine whether or not any other forms of that, any other samples went to any other location. I don't have a definitive answer for you there. That's something we hope that this investigation will determine once and for all.
Q: When and how did this come to life? Did the Army or DOD or whomever find -- figure out that -- (inaudible)?
And also, I think there's -- the report also said there was two strains of encephalitis that were also -- so how -- how did -- how did the Army determine this?
MR. COOK: My understanding is that the way this first came to light was a CDC spot inspection of this facility and that the CDC looked at the freezer area where this sample was being held and then checked against the inventory logbook and raised questions about whether or not what was listed in the inventory as noninfectious was, in fact, noninfectious, and that started this testing process.
Q: And when did that occur?
MR. COOK: That happened, as I understand it, on the 17th of August.
Q: And then the -- the encephalitis, are you aware of the -- the circumstances around that? Was -- was any of that shipped specifically overseas or to non-DOD facilities?
MR. COOK: Yeah. This -- this is, again, something still under investigation right now. This goes to CDC's own assessment of inventory logs being held by the Army.
I might have to refer you to the Army on all of the details here in terms of those logs, where they're being kept, but the questions about the other substances has to do with inventory, whether or not things were labeled properly as infectious or non-infectious and that the scrutiny being exposed -- the scrutiny to these other samples deals with sort of the same issue, whether or not they were labeled properly in the first place.
Q: So this whole new -- these new allegations that have come to light about plague and encephalitis are solely about storage and not about any shipping, like the anthrax one, right?
MR. COOK: I can't tell you with 100 percent certainty. I think one of the things they're doing right now is trying to assess whether any of these substances, first of all, pose any sort of threat; second of all, whether these substances were shipped to any other laboratories. And I think that's consistent with the -- sort of what happened with the anthrax situation.
They found this problem, or potential problem, they're now trying to determine where -- if anywhere, where else it may have gone. And so we're waiting for the -- in particular, that CDC test, working with the Army to determine definitively whether or not those -- that substance was indeed labeled correctly, whether it did indeed pose any sort of threat whatsoever. Tom?
Q: I wanted to follow up on that.
MR. COOK: Yeah.
Q: Last week when the moratorium was announced --
MR. COOK: Yes.
Q: -- activities at these labs, the Pentagon specifically referred to anthrax, but it didn't mention Ebola or encephalitis, despite the fact that you knew about that on August the 17th and the fact that the Army now says that was directly responsible for the moratorium. Why wasn't it mentioned last week?
MR. COOK: Tom, I think the statement that came out last week did reference questions about inventory and mislabeling. And at that time, and I think still at this point, there's been no indication, no testing done definitively that shows that this, in fact, was mislabeled as a threat versus something that non-infectious.
So we're still waiting for those results back, and I think we're trying to, out of an abundance of caution, first of all, put that moratorium in place. Secretary McHugh, the Army, doing that out of an abundance of caution. We don't know yet exactly whether or not this substance did pose a threat, and I think that was reflected in that statement. And that's why at this -- the moratorium was put in place at that time.
What's really important here is, again, based on the Army's assessment, the CDC's assessment, there's been no public health threat and no threat that we're aware of to the workers themselves, and that's what we're trying to get to the bottom of as well through the Army's investigation as well as the CDC's.
Q: For the sake of transparency and openness, what -- shouldn't you have mentioned the fact that those agents were possibly in the wrong places and that that led to the moratorium?
MR. COOK: I think -- Tom, I think what we're trying to do here is verify -- wait for these test results to come back to determine once and for all whether or not these were indeed mislabeled or whether they hadn't. And so I think we're trying to be as forthcoming as we can be right now without alarming the public.
And again, this investigation is ongoing, and this remains a concern. We want to be as transparent as possible going forward.
Q: And one final question.
MR. COOK: Sure.
Q: Is Ebola another concern, another agent that you're tracking?
MR. COOK: I have -- I personally have not been told that it is on the list of substances in question here. And if that's not the case, then I'll -- certainly, we'll let you know. But my information at this point is that Ebola is not on the list.
Q: Are there any other agents other than the ones that we now know about?
MR. COOK: What I'm aware of are, of course, the original anthrax revelations. Now there's concern about plague and equine encephalitis as well.
Q: Peter, have any DOD personnel been reprimanded or lost their jobs as a result of these various incidents?
MR. COOK: As you know, there's an accountability review that is still ongoing. We expect the results of that in October, and so I can't point to anyone at this point who has faced any sort of repercussions, if you will, as a result of what's happened, but that's an ongoing review, and so my suggestion would be let's -- let's see what happens in October.
Q: It seems as though that you know an awful lot -- enough to talk at the podium -- about what's going on, and, as you said, the secretary has pointed out that this is an issue, as well.
It seems kind of strange that no one has been reprimanded for doing things that are obviously wrong, and -- and I wonder why that -- that -- that we have to we have to wait for this accountability.
MR. COOK: We want to do this right. This is complicated -- complicated material. This is difficult for the scientific and medical community to determine everything that's happened here, and I think, we want to get this right. We want to have a thorough investigation.
We want to get this program in the right place. Remember, the purpose of this program, in large measure, is to make sure that we are able to address these bio-threats, these hazards, for our servicemen and women, for the general public as well. This is an important program, needs to be done right, and that's the goal of this investigation.
Q: Peter, could you confirm that 50 analysts at Central Command have complained about the accuracy of intelligence reports related to the war on ISIL?
MR. COOK: I -- I can't confirm that for you. I did see that report, and I know it referred to an ongoing I.G. investigation -- inspector general investigation. Obviously, we count on the I.G. to operate independently, separate, apart from the Department of Defense, so I can't confirm that.
I can refer you to the I.G.'s office, but it's not something I can confirm from this podium.
Q: On the same subject, the chairman, Chairman Dempsey, has said -- yesterday, I think, that the war on ISIL is in a stalemate, effectively. Do you know if Secretary Carter shares the same assessment in regards to that war?
MR. COOK: I don't know if he would use the exact words as Chairman Dempsey, but I think the secretary's been candid about the difficulties, how hard this fight's gonna be, but that he does believe, ultimately, we're gonna -- we're gonna prevail, for a variety of reasons.
He believes the strategy right now that is being employed is the right strategy, but he's been candid, from here at this podium and elsewhere, that this is not gonna be easy. This is gonna require effort on the part of the United States and our coalition partners.
Q: So does he not -- does he agree if -- if -- if it is a stalemate, or not?
MR. COOK: I -- I -- again, I don't want to -- I don't -- not sure that's a word the secretary has used, so I'm not gonna tell you that that's exactly how he feels about it.
I know that he's -- feels strongly about the strategy in place right now being the right strategy to pursue, and -- again, also being candid that he has looked at this in a very diligent, deliberate way, and feels strongly that -- that we are moving forward.
And -- and, again, but it's gonna be a difficult fight. It has been a difficult fight, and it will be going forward.
Q: Last question. Could you confirm if a strategy is being reviewed now?
MR. COOK: Which strategy would that be? The overall ISIL strategy?
Q: Yeah.
MR. COOK: I think it's fair to say that the ISIL strategy is under review constantly. We've been making adjustments. We've talked about the training of moderate Syrian forces, the review that's going on there, but the core effort to try and take the fight to ISIL with the help of a -- a coalition of additional countries, and with local forces on the ground taking the fight, the secretary still believes that that is the right approach here.
Q: This morning, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell said based on this Daily Beast report about pretty serious charges that intelligence analysts had their -- their work skewed or wanted to present a picture to higher command that the war against ISIS was going well -- he says that if this is -- the I.G. says that this was the case, that the people should lose their jobs over this.
Do you agree with Mr. Morell?
MR. COOK: I think it's -- the best thing for us to do is wait to see what the I.G. investigation, which, again, is separate and apart from -- from the secretary's office -- see what it comes back with.
But the secretary has -- has addressed this previously, and I think he's made clear that he expects candid intelligence analysis to come his direction, for folks to call it like they see, and that's his expectation.
He does get intelligence from a -- from a variety of different sources. There are disagreements sometimes within the intelligence community. That's a good thing. We want that tension as part of this process.
But the secretary expects candid assessments, and -- and I can tell you that the secretary has directed the acting undersecretary for intelligence to -- to consult with his leadership, with the combatant commands, to reinforce that message. Unvarnished, transparent intelligence is what this secretary expects on a daily basis.
Q: Does this secretary think that if this intelligence was changed, that the people behind that should be punished?
MR. COOK: I think we're going to wait to see where the I.G.'s investigation goes. I don't want to prejudge the outcome of -- of their investigation and whether or not they find anything like that has -- has happened. So --
Q: When did he give that directive?
MR. COOK: The secretary has -- let me check on the exact date. But I know he's had this conversation recently with -- with the undersecretary and also that the undersecretary himself has already been doing -- having some of those conversations on his own with his leadership and with the combatant commands.
Q: Since the I.G. report was first reported?
MR. COOK: Correct.
Q: Is he alarmed about the story?
MR. COOK: I'm going to come over here to Barbara. I'll come back over.
Q: Okay. So first of all, you have now said several times, I.G. investigation. So you are confirming publicly there is an I.G. You said there -- you want to wait for the I.G. investigation --
MR. COOK: We've seen -- we've seen the -- the reports like you have, Barbara. You know that we can't talk about --
Q: But you just said you're waiting for the I.G. investigation. I take that to me the Pentagon is confirming now there is one.
MR. COOK: I'm not confirming that an I.G. investigation is ongoing. I can tell you that we've seen the reports that there's an I.G. investigation. I'd refer you to the inspector general's office.
Q: What led the secretary to ask his top intelligence official to conduct these meetings, and what are these meetings all about? What -- what led him to do that? What led the secretary to take that step?
MR. COOK: We've seen the reports that there's -- there's ongoing investigation, published reports, and this is simply an effort to reinforce down the line what the secretary expects, and that's candid assessments of intelligence. And I think that's a message that he's communicated publicly.
He's been asked about this himself, and now he's spoken to his acting undersecretary, directed his acting undersecretary to have these same consultations with leadership, and that's something that I know the acting undersecretary has already begun.
Q: So let me just follow up very quickly.
MR. COOK: Sure.
Q: Is Secretary Carter -- what concerns does Secretary Carter have that he's not getting unvarnished, straight-up intelligence? He must be concerned about it.
MR. COOK: He expects that he gets unvarnished, clear-eyed intelligence, and that is his expectation, and he's reinforced that to -- to his undersecretary. And it's to be expected.
He's said publicly when asked about this, and he's also been very candid himself in his own picture of what's happening on the ground with regard to ISIL. And I think he just wants to reinforce that message to everyone down the line if there's any doubt whatsoever, which there really shouldn't be.
Q: And can I follow up quickly --
MR. COOK: Sure.
Q: -- on two other points you made? Going back to the plague and equine encephalitis, I'm confused by the answer here. If the Pentagon knew that there was an issue, even any kind of issue, with encephalitis and plague, with respect, Peter, how can you say you're being as transparent as possible when you did not disclose that that is even an issue? No one's expected a final answer, but how can you say that the Pentagon is being transparent when you knew that these two very serious substances were at issue? How can you say it's transparent?
MR. COOK: Well I think, as I mentioned, Barbara, it was reflected in the Army's statement that there were issues involving inventory and labeling. That's a -- that's what's happened here. They're trying to determine whether or not something was labeled appropriately.
The CDC raised this flag with the Army after this visit on the 17th, and now they're in the process of trying to determine if those substances were, in fact, labeled properly.
Q: (inaudible) detail on the 17th, but you're now able to tell us the Department knew on the 17th, but it's only today that you're able to tell us this level of detail.
MR. COOK: I personally didn't know on the 17th, and we are able to provide this level of detail after, again, the Army has had these conversations with the CDC, these tests have been conducted. And again, the concern here, the overall concern would be about public health and the -- any threat posed to employees there.
Now, our understanding is there isn't, at this point, reason to believe that their health was put at risk. That doesn't mean we're not trying to get to the bottom of this, not trying to look under every stone here and fix this program. That is the ultimate goal here for an important program, a program that clearly has had some problems.
Q: If I could also very quickly follow up on Sinai. If the -- if the secretary knew before the attack that there was a security problem for U.S. troops and he's having these discussions about what to do about it, but -- and you know there's a security problem but you're not able to fix it, why not take some emergency measures? Why not move more quickly?
I mean, not to be hypothetical, and thank goodness people were not injured more severely, but you knew there was a security risk and you don't move to fix it. I don't understand.
MR. COOK: I don't think that's what's happened here at all. We were moving to address the security concerns that were out there.
Q: But why -- I guess why couldn't --
MR. COOK: Some of these things were moving into place literally about the same time that this IED incident occurred. We didn't want to disclose all of that at the time and we still don't want to disclose all the security precautions that are being taken for understandable reasons. We had security concerns, we're moving to respond to them. And again, we feel in a better position now, given some of the steps that have been taken --
Q: Do you think you moved fast enough?
MR. COOK: I think we -- yes. The Department was moving already to address these concerns, and we feel we're in a better position now, and we're going to continue to evaluate what the threats are and whether or not additional steps need to be taken.
The safety and security of our personnel, Barbara, as you know, our top priority.
Q: Just to close the loop on the -- on the biological agents, so has the moratorium now been extended to include the plague and -- and encephalitis? And -- so does that mean that no DOD employees are handling it? There's no movement of it from one facility to another? It -- it's -- has the exact same status as anthrax under the moratorium?
MR. COOK: That's my understanding of the moratorium that Secretary McHugh put in place, that there's no handling of anthrax and these other materials, and -- so that's my understanding of the -- moratorium goes beyond simply anthrax at this point. And that was done out of an abundance of caution.
Q: And just a quick follow-up, given that there's now three potentially deadly biological agents that may have been mishandled, mislabeled -- mistakes were made.
Is -- does the moratorium -- you know, three is a pattern to reporters. It's a trend. Does the moratorium extend beyond these three agents? Is the -- is DOD or the Army saying, "there appears to be widespread potential problems here. We're not working with any of these biological agents for now. We're not gonna move any of these agents for now."
MR. COOK: Well, I -- I think the moratorium, James, addresses your question. I think that freeze is in place, now, for exactly those concerns while this investigation is ongoing --
Q: (inaudible) biological agents are being worked with or moved?
MR. COOK: I know that -- I think I can say with certainty that nothing's being moved. I believe the vast majority are not being worked with. There may be some exceptions regarding some research that it is being allowed to happen right now.
I would refer you to the Army, because I know that the moratorium was spelled out explicitly by the Army, and I don't have it right here in front of me, so they may be -- be able to provide you what exceptions there may be. But, by and large, whether it's anthrax or other bio-agents, that that work is basically effectively on hold.
Q: (inaudible) I was a little bit late. I am wondering, according to reports, that Russia is seeking ways into the Russia -- into Syria via Caspian Sea, Iraq, and northern Iran. I'm wondering if you've ever talked about -- if -- to the Iraqi government (off mic) let Russia use their airspace?
MR. COOK: I'm gonna refer you to the State Department for any diplomatic negotiations. I think that's the best place to go for that question.
Q: Just to follow?
MR. COOK: Luis?
Q: He came -- he can --
MR. COOK: Lucas? Very kind of Luis.
Q: Is -- that's very kind of Luis. All right, is the Pentagon asking Russia to stop these flights to Syria?
MR. COOK: Secretary Kerry is taking the lead in his conversations with his counterpart. So I think it best to -- to leave it to the State Department in those negotiations.
We have told you, we are watching this carefully. We're monitoring the situation. We have concerns about it, and -- again, this is a situation that we don't think is productive, both in the fight against ISIL and -- and also productive in terms of resolving the situation in Syria peacefully, which is, we think, still the ultimate solution here.
Q: Does the secretary have concerns that these Russian flights are now reportedly going over Iran as well as Iraq?
MR. COOK: Again, I'm just gonna say we're monitoring this situation closely with regard to how they're -- the Russians may or may not be getting their materiel there. That's -- that's a diplomatic situation with regard to individual countries best handled by the State Department.
Q: -- why not just tell the Russians to stop these flights? Would you like them to stop?
MR. COOK: Listen, I'm just gonna leave it where it is. We've made our concerns known to Secretary Kerry, and I think I'll -- I'll leave it at that. That's -- he's our lead negotiator at the State Department for -- for that kind of -- for the Russian relationship, and I think he's made it pretty clear what -- what our views are on this.
Now we'll go to Luis.
Q: Earlier when you asked about the Syrian train and equip program, you used the term "review" of the program. Is there an -- a review that has been ordered by the secretary of the program? Has it been formalized? Who's looking at it? What -- what kind of things are under review?
MR. COOK: Luis, as I've said -- that this program has been under review from -- from the start. It's -- it's a constant analysis of what’s happening here with the program. The problems that we saw from the beginning, ways to improve it, lessons learned going forward.
The secretary still believes in the program. He was asked about this yesterday when we were in St. Louis. He still believes that the basic idea of having local forces take the fight to ISIL is the right approach, and the effort to support those moderate forces will continue.
We believe that it can be done, can be an important component in the larger fight against ISIL.
Q: (inaudible) -- was talking about that, as you go along, that it's part of the process, it's not a formalized review of the program?
MR. COOK: I think it's safe to say that every aspect of this program has been and continues to be evaluated as to whether or not there are ways to change it, ways to make it more effective, and so -- I'd leave it at that.
This is a program that is evolving. We're already learning lessons from it, and I would not be surprised to see things change going forward, but the basic principle -- basic underlying goal here remains the same.
I've got time for one more.
Q: Peter, since the New York Times report over the weekend that put the New Syrian Force kind of back on the front pages here in town has caused a lot of discussion, including by members of Congress, who have, in so many words, called it a fiasco so far. Senator Durbin, Senator McCain, others.
Is the secretary, and are the leaders of this department, concerned that it no longer enjoys the support of Congress, even members who supported it a year ago when they authorized this $500 million to get it going?
MR. COOK: I -- I think the secretary has testified on this program, and informed members of Congress his views on it, acknowledged some of the problems, and I think he also would like to work with Congress going forward, share with them how this program can move forward in a successful way, if there need to be changes to it, that sort of thing.
So I think the secretary would look to Congress for support for this program, and -- again, I expect that this secretary will keep them informed of exactly how it -- how it's progressing, as he has from the start.
Q: So is he willing to involve them as he and other leaders determine, as you've described, different ways to take it and changes to make?
MR. COOK: Well, I think members of Congress are obviously -- I'm not gonna speak for members of Congress. They can -- free to offer their guidance and suggestions.
This is a program that is funded by Congress. Congress is a key player in this, and I think you'll see this secretary and -- and this department continue to work with as many members of Congress as possible in -- in shaping the -- the fight against ISIL and -- and this is just one part of that program.
Q: Peter, can you account for all 54 of the Syrian fighters?
MR. COOK: Lucas, as I've said here before, we're not gonna share with you the disposition of every single one of those trainees, and for understandable reasons, and -- and so -- nothing more for you on that.
OK. Thanks, everyone.