STAFF: All right, well we're going to go ahead and kick it off. I will be sending around a full on-the-record statement to your colleagues on the ground so they can file. But we'll go ahead and have the secretary give a brief update, and then we'll take a handful of questions on-the-record.
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE MARK T. ESPER: So first of all, I want to express my condolences, and the department's condolences to those who lost their life in the shooting incident today at Pensacola Naval Air Station, and as well as those in Pearl Harbor, the shooting the other day as well. We also are deeply concerned about those injured in the incident.
As you know, an investigation is underway. I've had the chance to talk to the governor of Florida. I've also talked to the acting secretary of the Navy, and the deputy secretary of Defense. With some follow-up actions that we are taking on this matter to make sure that our garrison, base, and facility commanders are taking necessary precautions to deal with shooting situations like these.
But also to remind our service members whether they're Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or civilians that we have a full range of services and resources out there to help them as they deal with the grief of these tragedies, or as they face life's day-to-day challenges, that often, you know, puts people in the situation where they act out. So, we continue to monitor the situation as well, and I'll be updating this and you guys as events unfold in the coming days or so.
Second, I'd like to say, we're obviously heading out to the Reagan Defense Forum. I've been there every year since it began seven years ago. It's a great event because of the content and the people. We get all the key players from – who participate in national security – the media, industry, Congress, and executive branch and others. We'll have folks there from other countries.
So it's a great chance. I look forward to talking about how we are moving forward on the National Defense Strategy and any number of issues as I meet with different players from this group. So I look forward to the event once again. I'm sure it will go well.
And we'll stop there, and we can open up for questions.
Q: (inaudible)
SEC. ESPER: I'm sorry?
Q: (Inaudible) a question following up on your statement of this morning about the – business about how many additional troops going to the Gulf area.
So, yesterday when John Rood spoke before the Senate Armed Services Committee, some of what he said, shall we say, fell short of clarifying the situation. But one thing he said was very clear, which was that he said you told him you intended to plus-up. That's all he said. He didn't say how much or anything like that.
So my question is, do you still intend to plus-up forces? And what kind of capabilities do you feel are needed that aren't already there?
SEC. ESPER: Well, let me answer a few ways. First of all, the report that we're sending, or considering sending 14,000 additional troops is completely false. I don't know where it came from. It's completely false.
Secondly, as I said when we first deployed the tranche of troops was in October or so, and General Dunford and I stood up in front of you all. Maybe it was September. I said that we would continue to adjust our force strength, up or down, depending on what we see out there in the world.
And by the way, not just for the Middle East, might even be North Korea, Syria, you name it. We do that on a week-by-week basis.
I think I said to you all, you know, we see some tensions increasing in the Middle East, vis-a-vis Iran. You all know what's happening with the turmoil in Iran. So we look at the situation on a case-by-case basis. If I see the need to deploy additional forces, I will deploy additional forces, but right now, we are not considering deploying or even deploying 14,000 additional troops.
Q: Are you considering deploying forces of any number?
SEC. ESPER: I'm always considering the deployment, but it comes – it first comes from a demand signal from the theater, right? What do they think they need? Or I may ask you, do you feel comfortable with what you have, OK. So that happens on a routine basis. I mean, I've had those conversations with, you know, commanders in Korea, with our commanders in the Middle East. And I say Middle East, because it could be Syria as well, you name it. We have these conversations all the time. This is our business.
Q: That's why I thought maybe something had happened to change the circumstance.
SEC. ESPER: No, we're obviously watching the situation very closely, because there's a lot of turmoil right now. What's happening in Iraq. We talked about that when we went on the trip, right, when we – in the Middle East. That government is under a lot of stress, and same thing in Lebanon. And again you read what's happening with regard to Iran, the turmoil in the country. So we're watching very carefully and making sure we understand. General Milley just came back from the region, so he has a good pulse for things. So this is what we do day in and day out.
And I don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. We could wake up and learn that something happened and I may deploy forces. But right now I don't see anything right…and there's no consideration for deploying 14,000 troops. Fake report.
Q: Can I just follow on that? So I guess the only thing that's kind of left unclear that is, is whether or not – you haven't decided to increase at this point any number of troops? Is that correct?
SEC. ESPER: Yes. We move troops in and out of that region all the time. I think you and I had this discussion. In fact, we did on my … a few days ago. I told you every day, there's folks moving in and out. There's substitute forces. There may be some minor augmentations, but nothing in terms of the numbers to this 14,000. It's just completely false reporting.
Q: That's why I asked you about capabilities; maybe there was some capabilities that needed to be added.
SEC. ESPER: Well you know, every commander wants more and more capabilities wherever they are. But right now, we – we believe we have sufficient capability in the theater to deter what we've needed to deter. And on a day-by-day basis, I will look on it, I will respond to what the commanders requests may be, and I will react to those, and we may or may not fill them.
Like I said, right now, there is no 14,000 person request to deploy forces.
Q: Sir, you've been clear during your tenure that your – you seem very interested in shifting more towards –
SEC. ESPER: Yes. Yes.
Q: – the threat from China, but given, even if we're not sending more troops to the Middle East right now, that is not – that situation there, as you say, is really chaotic, and it's not going away.
SEC. ESPER: Yes, that's right.
Q: And given that you're dealing with a finite resource when it comes to American military strength, are there other areas that you can see being able to shift people from –
SEC. ESPER: Absolutely.
Q: – to make up for this?
SEC. ESPER: Absolutely. We've begun a review process where I'm looking at every theater, understanding what the requirements are that we set out for, making sure we're as efficient as possible with our forces. And my ambition is, remains, to look at how do we – how do we pull resources out of – resources being troops and equipment and you name it – and either do one of two things – either return it to the United States and make sure that they have enough time to refit, to maintain their – get their readiness up, et cetera, or shift them to the Indo-Pacific. That remains my ambition. But I've got to deal with the world I have, and so I've got to make sure at the same time I deter conflict, in this case, in the Middle East. I want to have sufficient forces there to make sure we don't get into a fight, that we allow the strategy, the maximum-pressure campaign to work, continue to message to the Iranians: This is – there is not a military option here for you; let's sit down and let's talk.
And so, again – and I'll talk about this by the way at the Reagan Forum – is the importance of China in this era of great power competition being our top priority, and my eagerness to shift forces; and I'll be looking in every single theater to do so, to include CENTCOM by the way.
Q: Can I go back to Pensacola? There were reports that the shooter was a Saudi national with the Saudi Air Force.
SEC. ESPER: Yes.
Q: Are you concerned about any of the other foreign nationals, partners and allies who do their training at Pensacola and other bases? Is the vetting strong enough down there, do you think?
SEC. ESPER: Yes, we've got to look at all that and make sure we understand. First we need to find out, it's going to take the investigators to do that, to find out what happened, why did this – what was the motivation? Right?
But at the same time, I want to make sure we're doing our due diligence to understand, what are our procedures? Is it sufficient? Et cetera, et cetera. And it may not be – it may be that the vetting is, are we also screening persons coming to make sure that they have, you know, their life in order, or you know, their mental health is adequate, et cetera. So, we need to look at all that.
STAFF: I'll take one more if you guys have one.
Q: If I could just add on the Saudis issue. What can you tell us, what do you know about the history of this individual at this point?
SEC. ESPER: Nothing more at this point than what you've seen, in terms of being a Saudi national here for flight training and a second lieutenant, I guess. That's all I have at this point in time.
Q: Can you tell us what meetings you're taking at Reagan?
SEC. ESPER: I'll be meeting with members, different groups of members of Congress. I'll be having an industry breakfast, I think. I'll meet with some of you all out there, and I'm meeting with former Secretary Panetta. I think there's more. There are a couple one-offs like that as well.
Q: Are you going to meet with Secretary Mattis?
SEC. ESPER: Yeah, I think we're going to be seeing him.
STAFF: We can get you all the full list of his events.
SEC. ESPER: What else?
Q: I guess, let me piggyback on the last one – just to piggyback off what Helene was asking, is there any specific threat stream on Iran that is particularly driving this discussion right now? I mean, we've seen reports about them moving missiles around.
SEC. ESPER: Yeah, I mean, I don't want to – I can't – I don't want to get into intelligence; I can't get in intelligence. But you know, obviously we're paying very close attention and watching Iran very carefully. That's all I'll say.
Q: But then on the bigger issue of Iran, is there any departures that will deter them when they're picking targets like Saudi Aramco, or civilian targets. I mean is it a – is it a question of the U.S. military force to deter Iran, or is it a question of the kind of targets Iran is picking?
SEC. ESPER: It's a combination of things. It's – you know, it's our ability to reassure our allies, our partners, by reinforcing them. And I've also had a number of conversations, I've told you all in the past with many of our allies from Europe, for example, to help provide the Saudis and others with additional air defense assets.
That's – we've had sourcing conferences, if you will, to do just that. So I think it's – you know, in all these cases, what you want is a multilateral front, a show of solidarity to the Iranians to say, we are not going to tolerate this bad behavior, we're going to defend ourselves, we're going to defend freedom of navigation, and freedom of commerce, and if you – if you want to get back to a better position you need to sit down at the negotiating table and come up with a new comprehensive agreement to address our concerns.
Q: Are you surprised that there hasn't been another attack from Iran in the last couple months? Because everybody was sort of expecting one after the Aramco thing. What do you think –
SEC. ESPER: I think – you know, we –
Q: What do you think is –
SEC. ESPER: We had that conversation a little bit on my trip to Asia. I can't explain why there hasn't been, I'm glad there has not been. Maybe it's because we deployed additional forces, and we came prepared with – not only deter – but if provoked, to respond, and maybe that's the signal – that was the signal we were trying to send, and hopefully that's a signal they received.
STAFF: You guys, we've got to wrap up, but thank you.
Q: Thank you. Thanks very much.
Q: Thank you.