DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY SABRINA SINGH: All right. All right. Good afternoon. Sorry, we're a little delayed. Just a few things at the top and then I am um happy to take your questions. Yesterday, Secretary Austin and his counterparts from the UK and Australia concluded the third AUKUS defense ministerial meeting in London. In a series of meetings, the leaders reviewed progress made under the Enhanced Security Agreement over the last year and reaffirmed their commitment to the AUKUS partnership for decades to come.
Together, the leaders reasserted that AUKUS offers a unique generational opportunity for our three nations to enhance our military capability, deepen our interoperability and strengthen deterrence toward a shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific. The AUKUS defense ministers meeting communique outlining the partnership's historic progress is available on defense.gov.
Switching gears, the department continues to monitor Tropical Storm Helene, which made landfall in the Big Bend area of Florida overnight as a category four storm, before weakening to a tropical storm. To support response efforts, Secretary Austin approved separate requests from the Florida and Georgia National Guard's For a dual status commander in each state.
A dual status commander is a National Guard Regular Army or regular air force officer who is jointly managed by the commander of US NORTHCOM and the chief of the National Guard Bureau and is allowed by law to serve in federal and state statuses simultaneously. Florida has nearly 3,900 guardsmen, 450 tactical vehicles, 13 rotary wing assets and six boats conducting emergency response missions in 21 counties around the state.
North Carolina has 358 guardsmen activated. Georgia has more than 300 guardsmen on orders. And Alabama has 43 guardsmen on orders in standing by. And on the active duty side, NORTHCOM has deployed a small team to Florida to be prepared to respond quickly to FEMA requests for assistance. As you know, this is a rapidly evolving situation.
The Department remains prepared to support response efforts as necessary. And for further questions about National Guard missions, I would direct you to contact the specific states in question. For active duty support efforts to FEMA, please contact US Northern Command and for service specific evacuation efforts, it's best to contact the services directly.
And last, I know you're seeing reports circulate about a strike in Lebanon. Secretary Austin spoke by phone earlier today to his Israeli counterpart, Minister Gallant. The United States was not involved in this operation, and we had no advanced warning. Minister Gallant spoke with Secretary Austin as the operation was already underway.
This operation happened within the last few hours. We are still assessing the event and don't have any additional information or any further specifics to provide at this time. But with that, I'd be happy to take your questions. I don't see AP in the room. I'm going to go to the phone and then happy to come back.
Lita Baldor, AP?
Q: Hi. Thanks, Sabrina. A couple questions on Iraq. Will all of the troops that are currently at Baghdad and Assad be transferred to Erbil or will some come home initially? And if so, can you give a rough estimate of the number that will actually depart the country? And then secondly, as this evolves and the US pulls troops out of those areas, do you expect there will still be 2,500 troops in Iraq at the end of this? Or what is the Pentagon's rough estimate right now as to the number that will remain in the country?
MS. SINGH: Thanks, Lita, for the question. So in terms of an announcement, I think we'll have more to share later today. As you know, the global coalition under Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, that mission is changing from the global coalition to a bilateral security partnership with the Iraqi government.
I don't have numbers to read out and locations to share with you, but I think it's fair to say that our footprint is going to be changing within the country. But for more specifics, I'm just not going to be able to go into those details at this time. I think we will have more to share later today. But from here, I don't have any more specifics to add.
I'll come in the room. Phil.
Q: Thanks. I know you don't have a lot of information about these strikes, but it's quite an event. And can you give us any sense, first of all, whether you know, if Hezbollah leader Nasrallah is alive?
MS. SINGH: I don't have any information on the strike itself. We're still gathering information, as this just happened a few hours ago. So I would refer you to others to speak to this operation. I just don't have any more.
Q: OK. And since the United States is pursuing a ceasefire, what was Secretary Austin's reaction to this news as he learned of it? And what was the discussion like with his Israeli counterpart as it was going on?
MS. SINGH: Well, I think as I mentioned in the top, the secretary was—well, first, I would say that we were not given an advanced warning of this operation. The secretary spoke with Minister Gallant when the operation was already underway. Having no involvement, having no knowledge that this strike was actually going to occur, we're still pulling for more details and trying to understand the operation itself.
In terms of their conversation, I think you've heard me say it. These are pretty direct conversations that he has with Minister Gallant. He has them frequently, sometimes multiple calls during the day, sometimes almost every day.
I'm not going to get into further details of the call, but I can tell you that other than having no knowledge or no involvement of this strike, the United States, you saw announcements from the president and other world leaders, we're going to continue to urge for a diplomatic solution.
We want to see tensions quell in the region and so we're going to continue to push on that front.
Q: Did his Israeli counterpart confirm that Nasrallah was the target of the strike?
MS. SINGH: I'm not going to go into more details other than what I read out at the top of my remarks. Natasha?
Q: Thanks, Sabrina. How concerned is the secretary that this latest strike on Beirut, which appeared to target Nasrallah is going to precipitate Iran's involvement now in a broader war? And also, have any plans for a noncombatant evacuation operation now been sped up in light of these events?
MS. SINGH: So I think that remains to be seen. We're still gathering information. As you know, it just happened a few hours ago. So we're still assessing and when we have more details to share, if we can, we will. In terms of you know any type of evacuation, and I know you've heard me say it here before, but we plan for all types of contingencies.
We are a planning organization. We have assets in the region to support any type of event should we need to. At this time, I don't have any more details to provide. Will?
Q: So the Houthis claim today that they carried out an attack with about two dozen ballistic missiles and drones targeting three destroyers and that they hit them. Do you have any information about that, especially whether any US ships were damaged in that incident?
MS. SINGH: I can confirm that no US ships were damaged or hit. There was no injuries to US personnel. We did see a complex attack launch from the Houthis that range from cruise missiles and UAVs. My understanding is that those were either engaged and shot down or failed, but at no time did any hit a US ship.
Q: Is it the US assessment that US warships were the target of that attack or were they other vessels that were potentially the target?
MS. SINGH: Sometimes it's hard to tell whether they're being shot in the vicinity of a US ship or targeting another vessel. We always take measures for our self-defense. So I can't really tell you the intended target, other than to say that I'd refer you to refer you to the Houthis, but we did what we had to do to protect our forces.
And at the end of the day, no ship was hit, no damage, and no injuries to our personnel. Fadi?
Q: Thanks, Sabrina. So you clearly said that you were not given any prior notification about this. However, the phone call took place while this operation was underway. So during that phone call, did Mr. Gallant inform Secretary Austin about the operation.
MS. SINGH: Yeah. So I'm just not going to get into more details of the call, Fadi. What I can tell you is exactly what I said at the beginning, which you can take inferences from that. But Mr. Gallant spoke with Secretary Austin as this operation was already underway. Again it happened within the last few hours, so we're trying to get more details.
Q: And I believe on Wednesday you said you haven't seen any indication that there's any imminent Israeli incursion into Lebanon. However, today the Israelis announced the IDF that they're mobilizing two of their brigades in the north. Does this recent activity change your assessment of the situation on the northern border of Israel and whether they're preparing for an invasion?
MS. SINGH: Somewhat to Natasha's question, we're still assessing and that remains to be seen. We certainly don't think a ground incursion is the right path forward. That's something that the secretary has been pretty clear about in his calls. And what we don't want to see is, is a wider regional conflict.
And so that's why you've seen, from the president's level to the secretary, the continuing engagement for diplomacy and we believe diplomacy is the best path forward.
Q: And then finally, if I might.
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: I'm sure you guys were following Mr. Netanyahu's speech from the UN during the UNGA. Was that a speech that gave you hope that the diplomatic solution can succeed, and the Israelis are open to a diplomatic solution?
MS. SINGH: I think every time that we engage the Israelis, we have a good and direct conversation with them. I think diplomacy is not off the table. I think everyone wants to see this resolved and the way it is going to get resolved is through diplomatic channels, so we're going to continue to push for that.
I'm going to go to the phones and then I'll come back in the room. I saw you, Charlie. Carla Babb, VOA?
Q: Hey, Sabrina. Thanks for doing this. Just to follow up with what you told Lita on Iraq, you said the footprint was changing. Is the US withdrawing from Iraq? If your answer is that the US is not withdrawing from Iraq, can you at least tell us how the footprint is changing, whether it's increasing or decreasing troop numbers?
And then finally, just how important is the Iraqi partnership with US military right now?
MS. SINGH: Thanks, Carla. So no, the US is not withdrawing from Iraq. Nope, I cannot get into more details on what that footprint is going to look like. Again, as I mentioned when Lita asked her a question as well, I think we'll have more details to share later today, but I'm just not going to get into details from the podium right now.
In terms of our relationship with the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government, it's a crucial one and it's one that we certainly value. We are in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and our partnership has led to the success of diminishing ISIS from what it was 10 years ago to where it is today.
The strongholds that they had in Iraq, they don't have those anymore, or not what they used to. So we certainly value the partnership that we had and continue to have with the Iraqi government. And this is a step in our relationship and a progress towards a bilateral security agreement and we'll have more details to share when we're ready.
I'm going to go to the next question, Jeff Schogol, Task and Purpose.
Q: Thank you. Whether or not Hassan Nasrallah is alive or dead, the situation in the Middle East has escalated. Is the Defense Department sending any more troops, aircraft or other assets to the region? And before, you had announced that a small number—excuse me, the Pentagon announced a small number of troops had deployed to the region. Is there any information about how many, what units and what type? For example, are these air defense batteries or are these troops preparing for a possible Neo of Lebanon? Thank you.
MS. SINGH: Thanks, Jeff, for the question. So no force posture changes to announce at this time.
In terms of that small contingency that we've, you know, sent forward, I just don't have more details to provide at this time. Again, we are planning organization. We plan for a wider range of different events that could occur. But I just don't have — I'm just not going to be able to get into more specifics from here. Charlie?
Q: Ah, Sabrina, thank you. I just want to drill down on the timing of the Austin Gallant phone call. You said a couple of times already, while the operation was underway, this wasn't done before the operation had begun. So as it was underway is when they spoke?
MS. SINGH: That's correct.
Q: But they didn't discuss — that — that in itself doesn't suggest advanced warning, so as it was happening, he may have informed the advisor.
MS. SINGH: I believe I said we did not receive any advance warning, so that is correct. We did not receive any advance warning.
Q: [inaudible]. But it stands to reason if they're in the middle of a phone conversation, they might say this is happening now. That may not be in advance, but it is underway.
MS. SINGH: Yeah, as you can appreciate, I'm just not going to get into further details of the call. What I can tell you is the operation that you are seeing, you know, being reported was underway when the secretary and Minister Gallant spoke. We were not involved in this operation. And again, we had no advance warning of the operation.
Q: Gallant called Austin.
MS. SINGH: They — I mean, the calls were connected. I'm not going to go into the details on how we connect those calls, Charlie. But yes, they had agreed to speak. And those calls were connected. And as you know, the secretary is traveling back from London right now, so he took that call in route.
Q: Sabrina, forgive me, it seems like we're splitting hairs here, but if he — if one person initiated the call and said this is underway, that — that in itself is inherently an advance warning even if it's already happening. It's not a two minute warning, it's a ten second warning.
MS. SINGH: I think we are splitting hairs. Because I would not consider that an advance warning when something is already underway. I'll go back to the phone and then happy to come back in the room. Chris Gordon, Air and Space?
Q: Thanks, Sabrina. The US announced this week that the US will help train 18 Ukrainian F-16 pilots next year. Can you provide a little more fidelity on that announcement? Will these 18 pilots all be trained in Arizona? And relatedly, the DOD previously said it planned to train 12 Ukrainian F-16 pilots in fiscal 2024. We're now just a couple days out from the end of that, so has the US met that previously announced goal of training 12 F-16 pilots in the US this fiscal year? Thank you.
Yeah, thanks, Chris, for the question. In terms of the announcement on where they'll be trained, you know, I just don't have that for you right now. We continue to train Ukrainian pilots that either come to the United States or through the Air Mobility Coalition with our partners in different parts of the world.
As you know, these pilots have to meet certain metrics which include, you know, being proficient in English language, so. We're continuing to work with the Ukrainians. This is something that we know is a priority for them. It's a priority for us.
And we're continuing to work with them to make sure that their pilots get the training that they need so that when they return to Ukraine, they can be as effective as needed on the battlefield. I'll take two more from the phone and then happy to come into the room. Jared Szuba, I'll Monitor.
Q: Hi, Sabrina, I think — I think Charlie might have asked this, but just to be clear, do you know who initiated the call? Was it the prescheduled? Was it the secretary reaching out to Defense Minister Gallant? How did that work?
MS. SINGH: Yeah, so Jared and Charlie, as I — as much as I appreciate the questions, the secretary and Minister Gallant speak pretty regularly. It's initiated on both sides to have these types of conversations. I'm just not going to go into like who initiated what, when. I can tell you from what I already said, previously, which I know, you know, led to the bit of splitting of hairs here.
But again, when the secretary spoke with Minister Gallant, this operation was already underway. We had a — had no advance warning of this. Of course, we were not involved in this operation. All right, taking one more from the phone and then happy to come back in the room. Mike Glenn, Washington Times?
Q: Hi, Sabrina, thanks a lot. I agree with you that the — that a phone call at the time should not be considered an advance warning and it goes into my question. If the fact that the Pentagon once again had no advance warning of this Israeli strike and only learned about it, you know, at the time does that indicate that the Israeli government simply doesn't trust this administration and thinks it will try to try to, to interfere with their operation?
MS. SINGH: Yeah, Mike, I would push back on that. I don't think that is the case. I think that's an unfair characterization. You know, trust is certainly built. But look at just the engagements that the secretary and Minister Galant have had over the last two weeks, speaking regularly. I think if there was any type of, you know, fracture in trust, you wouldn't see those type of levels of calls and engagements occurring frequently.
And not just at the secretary's level, but you know, there's other components across the administration regularly engaging with their Israeli counterparts. So I'd push back on that characterization. And you know, I think you can expect the secretary to continue to engage Minister Galant, in the future. All right coming back in the room. I'm going to go over here and then yes?
Q: The secretary just called on both sides to not escalate the situation. Is this an escalation?
MS. SINGH: Yeah, again, we — that remains to be seen. We're still assessing.
Q: Six apartment buildings in the southern — or the suburbs of Beirut have been leveled. That's not — you have to assess whether that's an escalation?
MS. SINGH:
You're telling me that. I do not know that to be true. So again, we are still assessing the situation. We are going to continue to have our calls with our — you know, the Israelis to get more details. I appreciate the question. I hope you would also appreciate that this just happened a few hours ago, so yes, we are still doing an assessment. Ryo?
Q: Thank you. Japan's ruling party LDP selected former Defense Minister Ishiba as the next prime minister. But first, what would be the DOD's reaction to the election? And secondly, Ishiba has proposed ideas such as reviewing the US-Japan agreement on the Status of Forces. So what would be the US reactions to such proposal?
MS. SINGH: Look, we have a great relationship with Japan. The secretary was, you know, just recently there over the summer. We look forward to working with the new government to further deepening our cooperation and building upon some of the deliverables that, in fact, you were on that trip, so you would know very well some of the things that were announced that the secretary announced in Tokyo.
So, you know, we certainly welcome this new administration. Looking forward to working with the new Japanese government. And I'll just leave it at that. Yes, sir?
Q: Thank you. I have two questions, please. One, as far as after 2+2 in New Delhi and now at the leadership — with the leadership of President Biden and Delaware quad US, India, Japan and Australia, they met there. So as far as US India relations are concerned, military relations, where do we go from here now? And also, at the same time, if the escalation, the threatening from China or others have gone down or what is the future there, those nations who are a little bit threatened by China including Taiwan and all that?
MS. SINGH: So the quad is a group of like-minded nations coming together because they believe in a free and open Indo-Pacific. That is the whole — you know, that is one of the many purposes of the quad. So in terms of, you know, where does the relationship go from here? I mean, look at the extensive amount of details that, you know, the president and the White House announced just last weekend from those high level meetings that happened in Wilmington.
I — you know, I'm just not going to go through the litany of every deliverable that was announced. But I think the partnership between India and the United States is certainly strong. The engagement that you saw from the president with Prime Minister Modi and others within the quad builds upon the foundation and principles that the quad was founded on, which is, you know, one of them being to ensure the free and open Indo-Pacific.
But I'd direct you to the White House for — you know, for more details of the quad meetings. And yeah, I'm just not going to go through that from here.
Q: And a second, thank you. As far as a peace is going on around the globe or not, two wars are going on, one of course, in the Middle East and second, in Russia and Ukraine. And everybody is trying to bring peace in those — between those nations and those regions including the Prime Minister of India tried and now President Zelenskyy met was in the White House yesterday.
And today, he is meeting with the president or former President Trump in New York at his — so where do we stand — who are behind these nations that wars are still going on? Let's say in the Middle East, who's behind, is it Iran or I mean, of course, Hamas and Abdullah, but Iran or any other nations they are involved. And as far as us, I mean Russia and Ukraine is concerned who is behind those wars there?
MS. SINGH: What an interesting question. I think it's pretty clear that when the war in Ukraine started, it was you know, directed by Russia's head of state. And we know Vladimir Putin certainly has his agenda set on Ukraine. You know, I don't have to go into detail the work that this administration has done to ensure Ukraine gets what it needs in order to continue to fight every single day to take back its sovereign territory. And I'm not going to go through a historical look back over the last two and a half years or the last year. But on October 7th, a terrorist organization, brutally attacked Israel, and I think you know what happened and unfolded since then.
Q: Thank you.
MS. SINGH: Yeah.
Q: Thank you, Sabrina. I have two questions. First one, there are some reports claiming that the US cut off intelligence sharing with the Israeli regarding to the current operation in Lebanon. Do you confirm that or are you still sharing the intelligence with them?
MS. SINGH: We still regularly coordinate with the Israeli government and share intelligence. I haven't seen this specific report, but if you're talking about this operation, again, the United States was not involved in any way, and we had no advance warning. I'm just not going to get into more details on our intelligence sharing, other than that we do share Intel and generally speaking, Israel faces threats from all sides and so of course we share information around that.
Q: And my second question, regarding Secretary Austin said today that he hopes that don't see a ground incursion in Lebanon and if that's happen, it's going to be a chance that conflict could be a regional conflict. So did you give this message directly to the Israelis and what's their response about what your concerns about any ground operation in Lebanon?
MS. SINGH: Look, we don't want to see a wider regional war. We've been very clear about that from the beginning. The secretary continues, and I think this administration broadly continues to urge for diplomacy. We know that is the best path forward. And diplomacy cannot succeed amid continued tit for tats back and forth.
So that's what the secretary's conversations are like with Mr. Gallant. That's what he continues to urge for, and I'll leave it at that. Did you have a follow up?
Q: I did (inaudible).
MS. SINGH: Yeah. And then I'll — yeah.
Q: Has anything changed? Has the department been asked to prepare for an evacuation of Americans from Lebanon? And secondly, after the call, putting aside what was said on the call, after the call between the secretary and Gallant, did the secretary do anything? Did he make any call?
Did he brief the president? Did he change alert or ask for a briefing with General Kurilla at CENTCOM? What did the secretary do after this call?
MS. SINGH: Thanks, Phil, for the question. So I'm just not going to get into his schedule and exactly what he did, but I think it's fair to say that you should reach out to the White House. And I know that the president has been briefed on the events that have unfolded, but I'm just not going to speak for more actions that the secretary took, other than that we're continuing to monitor what's happening in the region.
And that's exactly what he's doing and he's back in route from his trip and can do that from the plane and will continue to do so throughout the weekend. In terms of evacuation planning, I think that was your — is that your second question? Again, we plan for all types of contingencies, all types of events anywhere in the world.
Should we need to perform any type of evacuation, we are postured to do so. We have assets in the region, but that's — we're not (Audio Gap) and we certainly plan for a wide range of contingencies at all time. Again, as you know, we've sent a small number of additional forces into the region.
We continue to be a planning organization and from the very beginning, from October 8th on, we moved assets to the region, should we need to plan for any type of event, whether it be an evacuation or something else. So far that hasn't happened.
Q: And you're not there yet.
MS. SINGH: We're not there yet. Right. Yes.
Q: Thanks, Sabrina. A Chinese think tank published a report today about the South China Sea, saying there's more than 10 air and maritime encounters every day between the US and China, and it says the majority of these encounters are safe and professional. I'm wondering whether you agree with that assessment.
And it also alleges that FONOPS from the US poses a threat to maritime freedom in the South China Sea. And do you have any comment on that?
MS. SINGH: I haven't seen the report, so I candidly can't comment on that. I can tell you with strong confidence that we stand for the freedom of navigation, and we will continue to sail, fly and operate anywhere in the world in international waters. I'll leave it at that. Yeah.
Q: I had a follow up about the AUKUS defense ministerial meetings from yesterday. The secretary mentioned in his remarks that the AUKUS innovation leads are developing a robust two-year agenda to work with industry. What would the secretary be looking for from that agenda? And any advice that he would have for industry that want to participate in pillar two activities? Thanks.
MS. SINGH: I would refer you to the communique that's online. I think that has more details that would probably address some of your questions. Will?
Q: Israelis said that they secured $8.7 billion in new aid from the United States military aid, including for their current operations in Lebanon. Can you confirm that and provide any details on that, if so?
MS. SINGH: Yeah. I think there's a bit of confusion here, Will, so I'm actually glad you asked that. So the assistance referenced, what you were just referencing, is from the supplemental appropriation for emergency assistance to Israel that congress passed, and that the president signed into law earlier this year. A significant portion of that aid will go to strengthen Israel's air defenses as Israel continues to face attacks and threats from Iran and its proxies.
So again, this is previously announced assistance and for more I direct you to the State Department.
Q: Not specifically linked to Lebanon, which is what they had said it was?
MS. SINGH: Right. This was previously announced when the supplemental passed which was back in April, I think. Yeah. Fadi? Yeah. And then I'll go to Louis and then I'll wrap.
Q: And so in addition to the support air defenses in Israel, this package includes, according to the Israelis section that has to do with supporting what they call war effort. Can you explain to me the logic of this administration? Trying to understand here, on the one hand you want diplomacy to succeed.
You don't think escalation is the solution. Netanyahu from the UN UNGA says clearly, he's going to continue the war. At the same time, you provide him with the weapons to continue the war. Can you explain that to me, please?
MS. SINGH: Fadi, as you know, Israel faces threats from Iran and its proxy groups and was brutally attacked on October 7th. So this administration has been clear that in the face of those attacks and consistent threats, almost every single day. And again, October 7th, I direct you to the fact that an Iran backed group brutally attacked Israel that day.
This administration, this president has been committed to providing Israel the support for its self-defense. This FMS supplemental package, as you know, these are sales and assistance that can take a very, very long time. So I just want to be clear that, yes, we are still providing Israel assistance that it needs in its self-defense.
But some of what congress appropriated out in the supplemental is going to take some time, just like for Ukraine, the supplemental that was allocated for Ukraine. Some of that is PDA coming directly off our shelves. Some of that is USAI, that can take a year or two years longer to reach the front lines.
Does that help?
Q: I mean, I understand you keep referring to October 7th, what about October 8th? What about October 9th? What about 41,000 Palestinian dead later? What about what's happening in Lebanon? Is this still within Israel's right to defend itself?
MS. SINGH: I think we've been pretty clear, Fadi, and we've had conversations about this. We don't support innocent civilian dies. We believe that the casualty count is too high, and you've seen the secretary emphasize that in his calls from very early on. That's why we continue to urge for diplomatic means to resolve what's happening in the Middle East.
And I have to direct you back to the point that it's not just the United States pushing for this. There are Arab nations pushing for this. There are European countries pushing for the need for a diplomatic resolve. And so we're going to keep trying. We're going to keep working hard every single day to make sure that happens, and we're going to keep having frank and honest conversations with our Israeli counterparts. Louis, did you have a question? Yeah.
Q: Yeah, clarifications, please. When you've been saying we were not informed with regards to this operation, are you saying we the Pentagon or we the United States?
MS. SINGH: We the United States — I mean, let me clarify. I speak on behalf of the Department of Defense. So I will say that on behalf of the Department of Defense, we were not notified about this operation.
Q: Is it possible that other parts of the United States government may have been informed and not specifically the leadership in this building, but maybe somewhere else?
MS. SINGH: Again, not going to speak — I'm not at another podium here, but I think that's highly unlikely.
Q: And then the clarification. You were asked earlier whether you were seeing signs of any imminent ground incursion, which you know, you spoke to last week. Can you say that whether you're now seeing signs of an imminent ground incursion? Because your answer last time earlier today was we don't think a ground incursion is the right path forward.
Is that what you're saying? Are you inferring that there will be something happening in short order? Or again, I mean, can you just clarify what you're?
MS. SINGH: I'm not inferring anything. I'm saying that we do not believe a ground incursion is the right path forward. We are continuing to engage our, you know, the secretary engaged Minister Gallant today. We certainly want to see a path towards diplomacy. And just to clarify, because I don't want to split hairs here.
And I — you know, while I'm not speaking at, you know the White House podium, I think I just want to be very clear that when — I think definitively when I say we, I think I can proudly say the United States was not and had no knowledge of this operation and was not given advance warning. You know, again the call happened as it was underway, so I think I just want to be super clear that, you know, words are not parsed that there's any indication that another, you know, building or you know, agency had a heads up, I think we are all on the same sheet here that the United States had no knowledge of this, OK?
Q: And again, on this imminent. Because —
MS. SINGH: Sure.
Q: You've just given the same answer that, you know, we don't think the ground incursion is the right path.
MS. SINGH: Yeah.
Q: Since you've previously said we do not see any sign of an imminent ground incursion. Are you still not seeing any imminent sign of a ground incursion?
MS. SINGH: As of right now, I mean, one, I don't want to speak for the Israelis. I — as of today, you know, we're not seeing that, but I would refer you to them to speak to their own operations. Charlie, did you have one more and then we can wrap up?
Q: Yeah, one more question. You have repeatedly said that the US military has the capacity for a mass evacuation if necessary. You have the capability. As of a few hours ago, the specter of that mass evacuation might have edged closer. If you're talking about the, you know, the USS WASP and the Marines on board the all practiced and ready to do that, you may be talking as many as 80,000 Americans who are in Lebanon.
The US military has the capacity to mass evacuate tens of thousands of Americans as they did in 2006.
MS. SINGH: The United States military has incredible capabilities. And we are an incredible force. And because of that, I'm just not going to go into speculating on a scenario that hasn't happened. What I can tell you is we plan for a wide range of different contingencies. And that's what makes us so great at what we are able to do is because we have plans on the shelves that we can easily dust off.
We practice. We do exercises. We do drills constantly that make us ready and prepared should we need to be called up for whether it be any type of event we would be ready for. Again, I'm just not going to go down the path of speculating. I can tell you that we are going to do everything that we can of course to defend our forces in the region to protect US citizens.
But again, we're just not going to go down a hypothetical path right now. OK. All right. Thanks, everyone.