DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY SABRINA SINGH: All right. OK, good afternoon. I have a few things at the top and then happy to dive into your questions. Sorry. Here we go.
Earlier this week, the Senate announced a bipartisan, critically important national security supplemental. A supplemental will provide military aid to help Ukraine defend itself against Russian aggression, which means an investment in our defense industrial base and supporting American jobs to produce weapons and equipment that the U.S. can send to Ukraine. It is important to note that the United States has not provided a presidential drawdown package for Ukraine since December 27th.
Now, I don't have to tell you what's at stake in Ukraine but it's worth restating - its very existence as a democratic nation and a free people, and Ukraine's fight for its sovereignty sends a message to authoritarian regimes around the world that violating the international rules-based order comes at a high cost.
But faltering in America's support for Ukraine would send a different message and a dangerous message. If the U.S. stops support to Ukraine, we should be clear-eyed about the repercussions. Putin is not going to stop in his quest for power and control beyond Ukraine's borders toward NATO. If Putin attacks a NATO ally, we will find ourselves in direct conflict, as we are committed to defending every inch of NATO.
So let's be clear - we can do the responsible thing and pay now to help Ukraine or we can pay much more later to counteract the gains we would hand Vladimir Putin and an emboldened Russia. And make no mistake, our adversaries and our friends are watching.
China is watching how we support Ukraine in the face of Russia's overt aggression. If we falter, the PRC will be emboldened as well to take even more provocative actions in the Indo-Pacific. Our support for Ukraine is not jeopardizing the schedule and the cost of domestic programs and our commitments to the Indo-Pacific, Israel, and other critical priorities. And while we are - welcome the introduction of this bipartisan supplemental, the department continues to urge Congress to pass our base budget. We still do not have an FY24 budget, as you all know, and the department will be getting to submit our FY25 budget.
As the Secretary has said, the one thing we cannot buy back is time, and we are losing critical time under a CR that we need to be spending modernizing our military to meet the pacing challenge. Continually living under a CR is asking us to try and fight with one hand tied behind our back. And as you know, our adversaries don't have to live under a CR.
We are already in our fifth month of this fiscal year and the DOD is still currently up - operating under our third Continuing Resolution. That puts at risk our national security and prevents the department from modernizing, as we are constrained to existing funding level. We ask that Congress immediately pass our base budget and supplemental request.
And last, the department is hopeful that the Senate Armed Services Committee will move forward in advancing six nominations for critical senior roles in our civilian leadership to the Senate floor. Right now, these jobs are being performed by very capable acting officials but we need the leaders very - for - we need the leaders we formally nominated to be approved by the Senate so that they can support the department, our capabilities, and our men and women in uniform.
As we work to support Ukraine, surge military capabilities to the Middle East, and address the pacing challenge of the PRC, it's vital that we have these senior leadership roles filled with Senate-confirmed officials.
And with that, I'd be happy to take your questions. I will go to the phone first, where we have Lita Baldor, AP.
Q: Thank you, Sabrina. Two things please. One, do you have any more updated, precise casualty estimates, and other battle damage from the Iraq and Syria strikes over the weekend? Specifically, any number of enemy killed?
And secondly, on the talks between the United States and Iraq, have they now restarted at all or do you have an estimate when that might happen? And do you, by any chance, know how many sessions did they have? Was it just sort of the one introductory and - one or more than that? Thank you.
MS. SINGH: Yeah, thanks, Lita, for your question. I'll take the last one first. So on - I think what you're referring to is the Higher Military Commission. Those talks began a few weeks ago. Those were the initial sessions. I don't have how many meetings there were but those were just the initial conversations.
We remain committed to the HMC. We're committed to what we outlined in August of 2023, last year, and working with the Iraqi government. And so I'll just leave it at that.
In terms of updated casualty numbers, I know General Ryder spoke to this a bit yesterday. When it comes to Iraq and Syria, that's something that we're continuing to assess. I don't have more specifics for you today. I know that's something of great interest to folks here in this room. When we have more definite numbers, we will read that out, but today, I just don't have more for you on that.
I'll come to the room. Jen?
Q: Sabrina, the Washington Post has a story out suggesting that Tower 22 - the reason that the drone was able to get into Tower 22 and evade defensive systems is that there was no air defense system on-site capable of shooting it down, that they were relying on electronic warfare that didn't work, and that the drone fired by the Iranian proxy was flying low enough that it evaded that measure. But why didn't it have - why didn't Tower 22, as a base, not have an air defense system capable of stopping this drone?
MS. SINGH: Yeah, thanks, Jen, for the question. So CENTCOM, as you know, is still doing its review. We're still assessing exactly what happened in that attack. And of course, CENTCOM and the Secretary will determine if there's any change or needs to be any change to our defensive posture at Tower 22 or any other base in the region. But I just don't have more for you on that specific attack. When I do, I'll definitely let you know.
Q: ... let me back up then ...
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: ... because - take the investigation aside, cause that's often a stalling mechanism to not get bad news out - how many bases where U.S. troops are in the Middle East do not have air defense systems that can shoot down these drones?
MS. SINGH: Well, as you can probably appreciate, I'm not going to detail from here or from the podium our air defenses, where they're located, and how many bases have what. I think that just wouldn't be good for our own operational security and our force protection - promise not stalling here, just ...
Q: ... is this Washington Post story accurate - is this Washington Post story ...
MS. SINGH: Again, I'm not going to comment or respond to an unnamed U.S. official who spoke about an ongoing review. I can commit to you that when CENTCOM is done doing its review, we will share the results of that and read out what we can from that assessment, barring the fact that there is classified information.
Yeah? Over here, yeah?
Q: Could I - do you have any updates on the - I think it was eight troops that were injured - the eight troops that were evacuated among the dozens wounded in the Jordan attack?
MS. SINGH: So I think - I believe for the - there were three that were medically evacuated. Two did go to - sorry, three went to Landstuhl, and I believe one remains there and two have come back CONUS, to the United States, and then the remaining five have returned to duty. I don't have more specifics on their condition but I believe at the time that they went to - that they arrived in Landstuhl, they were stable.
QUESITON: And then just a second one. It's coming up on almost three years that this administration - one of the first foreign policy moves was freezing offensive arms sales to long-time allies, including some that they've had long - the U.S. has had longer diplomatic ties with than Israel, and they cited human rights as one of the main reasons. We've seen tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians killed, some of them, you know, women and children, and non-Hamas fighters or militants. So why hasn't the department recommended or taken the same approach to Israel in order to try to scale back on these civilian casualties? Because verbal warnings might - may not have done, you know, what they - what the department's looking for, in terms of reducing civilian deaths.
MS. SINGH: Well, I think what you've seen is a change in how Israel's approaching its war in Gaza. They've pulled back certain brigades, they are doing a more targeted operation there. From this podium and across this administration - I mean, I'm speaking on behalf of the Secretary, but he's been very clear in his conversations with Minister Gallant and of course when he was in the region in December about the need to protect innocent civilians, the need to allow humanitarian aid to flow into the region, into Gaza, to make sure that civilians, whether they be in humanitarian areas, in hospitals, get the care that they need.
So we've been very clear, both publicly and privately, about our position and about the need for Israel to do everything possible to protect innocent civilians. Dan?
Q: Thank you. Back to the Tower 22 issue, it would appear that the United States has more bases than it has air defenses in the Middle East right now, despite there being 160, 165, 168 attacks and a growing number really by the day. Is this a failure of imagination at this point? Why would there not be I guess this sort of thing taken into account? Why would they not re-concentrate, pull back to fewer bases where you do have air defenses, some measure of actually protecting these troops seriously?
MS. SINGH: So two things on that. One, as you mentioned, 100, 150, 160, 165 attacks. For a majority, those attacks have been unsuccessful. We've seen a majority of those attacks have minor damage to infrastructure, incur minor casualties to our service members. Not saying we don't take those seriously, we absolutely do, but the impact of those on our bases have - has not been significant until what happened at Tower 22, and that was tragic, absolutely tragic that we lost three service members and over 40 were wounded. So that is exactly why CENTCOM is doing the assessment and review that it is right now, to determine what else we need to do, what happened, why this attack happened, how this drone was able to get through, how it was able to evade air defenses. But for the most part, our air defenses have been able to catch or been able to destroy any impact or any incoming from - whether it be rockets or drones, at bases.
And as you mentioned - I think your question was why don't you move troops into different areas where there are more robust air defenses, let's say. Across Iraq and Syria and Jordan, the mission of these service members is the Defeat ISIS mission. So moving our troops and our service members into different areas takes away from their mission. That's what they're there for, that's what they're there to do. They're there to execute on and ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS and work with the partners, whether it's the SDF or the Iraqi Security Forces, to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS, and that's exactly what they continue to do despite the fact that these attacks happened, you know, when they did.
Q: ... ask a follow-up question?
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: You're - you - at the top, you read out a raised some alarm about the supplemental and the situation with Ukraine and the PDAs and all of that. Can we expect in coming days the Pentagon, particularly the administration side, the political side, to ramp up pressure on Congress as this seems to remain very much caught in limbo, caught in neutral, no real resolution here?
MS. SINGH: Well, I mean, I don't think we ever stopped ramping up our pressure. I don't - I think we've had a pretty consistent drumbeat. I can't at this moment, go back to every single time we've talked about the budget or the supplemental, but we've certainly been very public here from this podium about the need to pass a supplemental, to pass an on-time budget. We are way past that deadline at this point. I think back in December, when we passed our - when we sent out our last Ukraine package, we spoke, like, around that time about we have no more money, we have no more authority to continue to give PDAs to Ukraine because we can't backfill our own stocks. So I wouldn't say that there is a renewed urgency. That urgency has been consistent. We've been saying it from the beginning. We've been sounding the alarm bells. All we can ask and continue to implore is that Congress pass a budget, pass a supplemental so we can continue to provide aid to Ukraine. Dave?
Q: Forgive me if you said this at the top but is any U.S. aid still going to Ukraine? The PDAs have run out but what about USAI?
MS. SINGH: There are certain contracts from USAI that are ongoing, that have long-term contracts. I don't have that full list in front of me but some of the contracts are years out. So yes, there are still some capabilities that will flow to Ukraine as those contracts close.
Q: Can you give us a list?
MS. SINGH: We can work to get you something, or at least provide you some update of maybe some items that are still pending.
Yeah, Fadi?
Q: ... stuff that's going?
MS. SINGH: Yeah, we can - we'll work with you to - or provide what we can to update you on aid that continues to flow from USAI contracts.
Fadi?
Q: Thank you, Sabrina. So the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report confirming - report that confirmed the Houthis' use of Iranian missiles and UAVs. Are you able to talk a little bit about the key findings in the report, address the report from the podium?
MS. SINGH: Thanks, Fadi. I honestly have not seen the report or read the report yet, so I can't discuss the findings, but of course we've been very clear that Iran does supply the Houthis, other IRGC-backed militias with weapons and different capabilities, including UAVs. So that's something we've been pretty consistent about, but in terms of the - more specifics on the report itself, I'd unfortunately have to direct you to the report.
Q: OK. And since the strikes in Syria and Iraq on Friday, I believe there's been only two attacks on U.S. forces ...
MS. SINGH: That's right.
Q: ... and both happened in Syria. Do you - even though it's - it's a short period of time, do you attribute this decrease in number of attacks to the effectiveness of the strikes and the message that the Pentagon and the administration sent to the region, specifically to the groups aligned with Iran?
MS. SINGH: Well I can't speak for the groups that continue to launch these attacks. All I can say is that I think we sent a very clear message, a very loud message in both Iraq and in Syria, that these attacks must stop. But you know, I can't predict the future. I can't predict that you know, there won't be an attack tomorrow. But all I can tell you is that we've laid out that this will be a multitiered response and we will continue to respond if we need to. Yes. Carla then Lara?
Q: Thanks Sabrina. Can you just provide some more details on the latest Houthi attacks today? I think I'm tracking six missiles at this point today, fired?
MS. SINGH: There were additional attacks I believe launched in the Red Sea. I don't have all the specifics. I know that the -- we are working to get you some of those details. And when we have more we'll provide them.
Q: Then just a follow on, Iraq and Syria, any new -- no new attacks. Just to follow up on Fadi, no new attacks today on U.S. Forces in Iraq?
MS. SINGH: I'm not tracking any new attacks.
Yes. Lara?
Q: First of all, I really like your shoes.
MS. SINGH: Oh.
Q: I need it to be said. Sorry. I am excited that this will be in the transcript as well.
MS. SINGH: Yes. Thank you.
Q: And on a totally different topic.
MS. SINGH: OK. Go ahead?
Q: There were reports today that the U.S. is providing military aid to Guyana and I'm wondering if you can elaborate on that. What are we providing, how much money, and are we actually sending weapons or is it just aid?
MS. SINGH: That's a great question. I don't have more for you on that so I'm happy to take it.
Q: Yes. Great.
MS. SINGH: Meghan?
Q: Can we get an update on the attacks, the total number in Iraq and Syria and the Red Sea and injuries?
MS. SINGH: So total number of attacks in Iraq and Syria, I'm tracking as of today, 168, 67 in Iraq, 100 Syria, and of course the one in Jordan. And I'm sorry in the Red Sea, let me just see here. As of February 2nd, so a few days ago but as of February 2nd, I have that the Houthis have attacked or threatened commercial vessels 41 times since November 19th. I don't have the latest updates from of course the weekend and earlier today but as I mentioned we're -- we'll work on getting those numbers out to you.
Q: And injuries from Iraq, Syria, and Jordan?
MS. SINGH: Injuries I believe I said at the top that we're still tracking that. There were 40 injured in the Jordan -- are you asking more about TBIs?
Q: Overall. There are like roughly 80 last week. Has that number gone up since?
MS. SINGH: I'm happy to take that question. I don't have those numbers in front of me.
Q: And I want to follow up on the question about -- if you don't want to necessarily move troops around to bases that have better air defenses, is there any discussion about beefing up air defenses in the region before CENTCOM finishes its review?
MS. SINGH: Yes. I think the Commander and the Secretary and the Chairman have of course discussed what else is needed to protect our forces in the region.
I'm not going to go into those conversations or what, you know, changing our posture looks like. But that's absolutely something that is being discussed. And again in terms of moving our troops around the priority of the Secretary is of course making sure that our forces are safe but also is the mission. And the mission there is the enduring defeat of ISIS, and making sure that our troops can do the job that they're there to do without these attacks happening and being protected. So again CENTCOM is doing their review. They're going to continue to assess how this drone evaded our air defenses. And when we have more to share, we'll certainly share it with you. Tom? And then Tom?
Q: Two questions, one on Ukraine, one on the Middle East. So on Ukraine you sounded the alarm at the top. about the...
MS. SINGH: Just to be clear we've been sounding the alarm.
Q: ... You have been?
MS. SINGH: Yes. OK.
Q: And I heard it again today.
MS. SINGH: Great. Great.
Q: Tucker Carlson is about to interview Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
MS. SINGH: Great.
Q: The pro-Putin narrative is gaining traction in the U.S. and Republicans see continuing to block Ukraine aid as a winning political strategy. Is the Pentagon planning for the eventuality that Ukraine will never get any more money from the U.S.?
MS. SINGH: I don't think we're planning for the eventuality that the U.S. will never be able to provide or get money from Congress. I mean you saw a bipartisan agreement or a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced in the Senate.
Q: (Inaudible)
MS. SINGH: ... well I mean look, the Senate and the House are going to work through this. There are -- there is a handful of folks in both Chambers that do not want to see aid to go to Ukraine. But on the flip side of that, we know that there are many in Congress that support and understand the urgent need to get Ukraine what it needs to defend itself. So we do have support. I know that the -- I know that Congress will work through this and work through finding a way to not only pass a budget but finding a way to pass a supplemental so that we can continue to support Ukraine; also keep our eye on the Indo-Pacific; continue to support our efforts in the Middle East as well.
Q: So you're optimistic then?
MS. SINGH: I'm going to be optimistic. Yes.
Q: And then on the second one, obviously the strikes on Friday in Iraq and Syria, and then Saturday in Yemen. Was there any reason why we didn't see you know, we're expecting the second wave of retaliatory strikes in Iraq and Syria. Does the Pentagon have the capability to you know, operate in those three countries simultaneously or was it -- was there a decision to hit Yemen you know, in distinction from Iraq and Syria?
MS. SINGH: I think we've proven the fact that we can operate in multiple countries all at once, whether it be in the Indo-Pacific, EUCOM AOR, or in Central Command. We made the decision that we did because we felt it was the right time to conduct strikes in Iraq and Syria. And then the following day in Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen. We always reserved the right at a time and place of our choosing to conduct these strikes. And when we decide to do them I'm not going to telegraph when we are going to continue follow on efforts. But as you've heard the President say, the Secretary say, this is a multitiered effort and I'll just leave it at that. Tom?
Q: Thank you, Sabrina.
MS. SINGH: Yes.
Q: Follow up question on funding. Yesterday Doug Bush was speaking at CSIS and he was talking about how we've ramped up production of 155 millimeter shells at the new plant in Texas. He was projecting if things go according to plan, we could be up to 100,00 shells, you know, the goal by the end of this year. Is that being funded by something separately other than the money that we don't have, like referred to Dave, or how is that being funded or is that going to be impacted? I have two questions but that's my first one.
MS. SINGH: I mean these are probably existing contracts that we had with the Defense industry. I mean we were very clear at the beginning of -- I want to say it was early summer, that we have -- we are trying to invigorate the Defense Industrial Base to continue to provide 155 millimeter rounds. That's something that Ukraine continues to need on the battlefield. So I would direct you to the Army to speak more to those contracts.
Q: The second one is, are you tracking or is the Pentagon -- by you I mean the Pentagon, tracking reports coming out of Konigsberg about GPS -- affecting GPS and maneuverings of aircraft and ships of NATO nations on the eastern flank. If you're tracking it what updates can you provide please?
MS. SINGH: I don't have any updates for you on that. I'm happy to take that question.
Q: (inaudible)
MS. SINGH: Yes. Happy to take it.
Yes. You and then Ryo.
Q: Seven days ago Kataib Hezbollah put out a statement and they say that we are suspending attacks on the U.S. Forces.
MS. SINGH: Yes.
Q: Have they stopped the attacks on the U.S. forces since then?
MS. SINGH: Well you've seen attacks on U.S. Forces in Syria. I -- you know, there were...
Q: (inaudible) these attacks?
MS. SINGH: ... we know that groups like KH and HAN are behind some of these attacks on our forces. I'm not going to get into more details on each specific one, but again, we know that groups like this, particularly when it came to the attack on Jordan, had the fingerprints of KH behind them and we are going to hold those responsible. Okay, Ryo?
Q: Thank you, Sabrina. Please let me ask you two questions...
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: ... about the Indo-Pacific. The first, last week, Papua New Guinea said it is in talks with China over new security deal, so is that a concern for the Pentagon? Would you reconsider the existing US-Papua New Guinea Defense Cooperation Agreemnt if Papua New Guinea establishes similar arrangement with China?
MS. SINGH: Well, we don't ask countries to choose between the US and the PRC. Every country has to make its own sovereign decision with respect to its security, but our defense cooperation agreement reflect our partnership and our shared values with Pacific countries and of course the importance of ensuring the security and prosperity of the region to our shared commitment to the Indo-Pacific.
Q: Separately the US Congress has not approved a new funding program for Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia, who are a member of the Compact Free Association. So how concerned is the Pentagon that the delay in funding could create an opening that China could take advantage of?
MS. SINGH: Yes, I think you heard what I said at the top, we're very concerned that we don't have a budget, we don't have supplemental, which means - you know, key areas of focus like the Indo-Pacific, like meeting our pacing challenge with the PRC. We are concerned that a continued delay could lead these partners vulnerable to influence and coercion, so yes, we are absolutely concerned. Great. Jared.
Q: Hi, Sabrina. The IDF is investigating potential violations of law of war, the (inaudible) is reporting dozens of incidents that are being looked at by the IDF, does the US support this investigation, that the IDF investigate itself?
MS. SINGH: I'm not aware of the investigation, but certainly any reports - if there's something that the IDF feels the need to look into, whether it's - I can't remember exactly what - how you phrased it, but we would support the IDF looking into any deaths of innocent civilians.
Q: How confident is the Department in the IDF's ability to investigate itself for its conduct in Gaza?
MS. SINGH: Well we hold our partners to a high standard, we have investigations of ourselves, we do reviews of different events, so we would hold the IDF to the same standards that we hold ourselves to.
I'm just going to go to the phones really quickly, because - before I forget, and then I'm happy to come back in the room. Idrees, Reuters?
Q: Hi, Sabrina. Two quick questions, firstly, I know you can't get into details about casualties from the Friday strikes, but the Iraqi government said civilians were amongst those killed. Can you say whether or not you believe at this point whether civilians were killed or not?
And secondly, you guys were flying ISR missions over Gaza in assistance of hostage rescue efforts, are those still flying? And will you continue flying them until all the hostages are back? Or is there a timeline for that?
MS. SINGH: Thanks, Idrees. So, in terms of ISR over Gaza, I mean we are assisting in trying to recover hostages and rescue hostages. I don't have more to share on ISR, only that we do continue to assist the Israeli government in bringing home Americans who are still held captive and others from different nations.
In terms of reports on civilian casualties, I've seen those reports. We take any report of civilian casualties very seriously. As I mentioned, I don't have a battle damage assessment for you right now. It's something that CENTCOM is reviewing. And should we - you know, when I have more information, I'd be happy to provide it, but of course, when it comes to any civilian casualty, we would take that very seriously.
One or two more out on the phones, Heather, USNI?
Q: Thank you so much. I was wondering if the DOD's seen the reporting from the Guardian suggesting the Houthis may target internet cables in the Red Sea and if there's any concern by the DOD that the Houthis might try to disrupt these submarine cables?
MS. SINGH: Thanks, Heather. I haven't seen the Guardian report, but of course, any disruption to ships being able to transit, our own forces in the Red Sea, anything that could disrupt that, of course, we take very seriously, but I haven't seen the report, so I just can't really comment beyond that. And last question on the phone, Jeff, Task and Purpose?
Q: Thank you. I know you said you're hopeful that Congress will pass a budget, but I remember March 2013 and sequestration very well. So, would it be possible for DOD to provide a list of what it would not be able to do if Congress passed a yearlong continuing resolution? I understand if it needs to be taken, but just an outline of - you know, how many planes can't be bought, ships can't be built, missiles can't be purchased et cetera?
MS. SINGH: Jeff, I too remember March 2013 as I was in the House when sequestration happened, so very familiar with that. Look, Jeff, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals just yet. This legislation was just introduced, we still have a pending budget that the House and the Senate are going to work through. Again, we've been very clear on the fact that we are operating under a continuing resolution, which is a significant risk to our national security, as our adversaries are able to continue to modernize, while we are handicapped at being able to invest in new technologies, start new programs. But I'm just not going to go on a hypotheticals just yet, but appreciate the question.
Time for - yes, one more over here. Go ahead.
Q: Okay. Thank you, Sabrina. What do you have for Russia Iran as they said yesterday at the United Nation Security Council that Washington is not looking for a solution in the Middle East and its strikes in Iraq and Syria is just escalating the conflict?
MS. SINGH: I would say that attacks on US forces over 160 times is escalating the tensions in the region. We don't seek conflict with Iran. We don't seek a wider regional conflict, whether it be - well, in the region. We have been very clear on our intentions in Iraq and Syria and at Tower 22 that they are there - our service members are there in support of the D-ISIS mission.
So, we don't seek a larger war. These attacks started on October 17th, when IRGC-backed groups started lobbing missiles at our service members, who are there, again and have been there for over 10 years. as part of the Defeat Isis mission. So, I think it's important that we give that comment some context.
Q: So, one more question separately...
MS. SINGH: Yes.
Q: ... bombarding the Iraqi Kurdistan region borders by Turkey is a daily routine, have you tried to engage with either Turkey and Iraq in order to Turkey stop (inaudible) strikes on Iraq?
MS. SINGH: We are always engaging with Turkey. Turkey's a critical partner and NATO ally, and I just don't have more for you on that.
Thanks. All right, thanks, everyone.