Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 9/15/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

12:03 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST:  Happy Monday, everybody.  Hopefully, the rest of the briefing will be characterized by more effective communication between the White House and the Press Corps than the two-minute warning was.

Julie, why don’t you go ahead and get us started today?

Q    Sounds good.  Thanks.  I had a couple questions on the administration’s response to Islamic State, starting with the conversations you’re having on the Hill on the Title 10 authority.  First of all, if you could read out any conversations the President might be having with lawmakers over the weekend.  Last week, there were a lot of briefings for the Hill.  Are there more of those?  And do you feel like you’re making progress in getting the Hill to include Title 10 in the CR?

MR. EARNEST:  I think the best way to evaluate this actually may be to review the public statements from members of Congress as it relates to this Title 10 authority.  We’ve seen public statements from Democrats and Republicans in senior positions, both in the House and the Senate, indicate that they support giving the administration the necessary authority to ramp up our assistance to the Syrian opposition by training and equipping them.  So we’re gratified by that show of bipartisan public support for this urgent priority.

There have been a number of conversations between senior administration officials, Cabinet officials, senior White House officials and members of Congress on this issue.  The President has made a number of phone calls on this over the course of the last week, and I would anticipate that he’ll be in touch with additional members of Congress in advance of the votes this week.

What I will -- I don’t know of any additional briefings that have been scheduled, but there were all-member briefings that were scheduled last week.  So every member, even if they’re not on the docket for a briefing this week, has received one in the last week.  And I’m confident that if there are members of Congress that do have questions about the kind of authority or what this program would entail, that there would be a senior administration official that would be happy to discuss with them.

As I mentioned, we believe that this is a priority -- or I should restate that we believe this is a priority because what we have seen from our partners in the region is a willingness to join with us in this effort.  And the President believes it’s important to strike while the iron is hot here and begin to ramp up this program as soon as possible, particularly now that we have willing commitments from regional governments whose cooperation is essential to this program’s success.

Q    Can you give us a sense of what the Title 10 authority would include, and some more specifics?  What type of weaponry you’re looking to give to the Syrian rebels?  How many U.S. personnel would be involved in this training mission in Saudi Arabia?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have a lot of those details in front of me.  The Department of Defense may be able to provide you some additional information.  The goal here is to ensure that we have -- or that there is a fighting force on the ground in Syria that can take the fight to ISIL in Syria.  The President has ruled out the use of American combat troops for that purpose. 

So the alternative is to enhance the capacity and capability of Syrian opposition fighters so that they can take the fight to ISIL in their own country.  And we do have willing partners.  Saudi Arabia, as you know, has already announced a willingness to host some of these training operations, at least.  And this administration wants to work closely with regional governments and other allies who have made commitments to assist in this effort.  And so we’re eager to get this program up and running, and that’s why we are hoping and pleased to see bipartisan support for giving the administration this authority before the end of the week.

Q    And if I can move on to the efforts to form a coalition.  There have been certainly statements of support from countries in Europe and in the Middle East for a broad effort, but very few details about what these countries are willing to commit.  U.S. officials talk vaguely about this, but we don’t really have any specifics.  Do you have specific commitments from countries for action, not just a broad statement, of support for what the U.S. is going to do?

MR. EARNEST:  Julie, there have been intensive diplomatic conversations between senior administration officials and our counterparts in the region but also across the globe.  The President was gratified, as he reported at the end of the NATO Summit, by the response that he got from the leaders of Allied nations signaling their willingness and support for the effort to combat ISIL.

Since then, Secretary Kerry has been traveling in the region, and was just in Paris over the weekend meeting with his counterparts from some of these regional partners and allies to discuss commitments that they’re prepared to make to this effort.

The thing that’s important to understand is that we want to try and do this in an integrated way that is as efficient as possible; that we don’t just sort of want people to announce one-off commitments without making sure that they are announcing those commitments in a coordinated way -- that we want to make sure that we have all the boxes checked in terms of what our needs are.  And part of what the United States is doing in terms of leading this coalition is assessing what contributions are necessary.  And then this will be a role for General Allen to play, is to match up those needs with the capacity and willingness of partners to fill those needs.

So this isn’t just a matter of getting people to issue a news release or make some other kind of public commitment to do something.  We want to make sure that their commitment matches what’s actually needed and that we’re not duplicating efforts, and that the country that is in the best position to fulfill a specific need is the one that actually follows through and fills that need.

So a lot of this is de-conflicting, making sure that we’re not doubling up on specific requests and letting some requests go unfilled.  So we’re trying to do this in a systematic, integrated way.  This will be the responsibility of General Allen, who’s meeting with the President tomorrow to update him on this process. 

So there are no specific public commitments for me to make from here right now, but I do anticipate that based on the favorable response that Secretary Kerry and others are receiving from our allies in these discussions, that we will at some point be able to announce important commitments from our allies and from regional governments who, as we’ve said before, in some ways have an even greater stake in the outcome of this conflict than we do.

Q    I asked you this last week, and I’m wondering if now that Secretary Kerry and others have had conversations over the last couple days, if you can say more definitively -- will the U.S. be launching airstrikes alone, or are there other countries who will be launching airstrikes alongside the U.S.?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, when we are in a position to be more specific about the commitments that we’ve received from our allies and other interested regional governments, then we will do that.

Q    But you can’t even say broadly that, yes, there are other countries who will launch airstrikes alongside the U.S.?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think the natural follow-up to that question would be, well, tell me who.  And so we want to make --

Q    -- the first one --

MR. EARNEST:  And so my point is that we’re not going to be in a position of making these kinds of commitments for people.  It will be much more -- it will carry much more weight if you have a senior official from another country saying what their country is prepared to do in support of this allied effort, as opposed to me speaking for other countries.  I’m just not going to put myself in that position.  And frankly, it will have greater credibility when it is announced by that country for you to get a sense of what kinds of contributions we’re getting from other interested parties here.

So we are pleased with the progress that’s been made so far in terms of the reaction we’ve gotten in the context of these conversations.  General Allen is somebody who will draw upon his military expertise, but in this case is fulfilling a strictly diplomatic function in terms of coordinating with governments in the region and around the world to assess how they can contribute militarily to this broader effort.  And he is hard at work on this already; he will brief the President on the status of these efforts tomorrow.  And I know others have talked about the importance of the upcoming United Nations General Assembly meeting as an appropriate venue for us to have additional discussions on these topics.  So stay tuned.

Jeff.

Q    Josh, ahead of the President’s trip tomorrow, can you tell us a little bit more about the administration’s plan to fight Ebola, and to what extent the President is concerned about that becoming a crisis in this country?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jeff, the President’s visit to the CDC tomorrow underscores just how extraordinarily serious the administration believes this issue is.  The President has identified it as a top national security priority, and he looks forward to receiving an update from the experts at the CDC about the success of their efforts so far to try to confront this problem. 

As you know, this is one of the worst, if not the worst, outbreak of Ebola that we’ve ever seen.  The CDC has responded commensurate with the seriousness of the situation.  They have already deployed a number of personnel to the region.  I think it’s -- I’m looking through my notes here -- about 100 of its workers to the region.  This is if not the largest, among the largest deployments of CDC personnel ever.

The administration has already committed more than $100 million to address the Ebola outbreak, and this has taken a variety of forms, but includes commitments from USAID, from the CDC and others to try to meet some of these needs.  We’ve also seen the Department of Defense step forward and make some commitments as it relates to the expertise they have when it comes to logistics.  And this is all part of the whole-of-government approach that the President has directed in response to this situation.

I’d point out that while this story has -- rightly so -- entered the headlines over the course of the last four or six weeks, the fact is this outbreak first started back in March, and the CDC and other government agencies were closely working with our international partners to confront that threat even back then.  So this is something that we’ve been focused on for quite some time.  The President is looking forward to the briefing that he’ll receive tomorrow, and I would anticipate the announcement of additional efforts that will be underway or that the United States can deploy to address this situation in the context of the President’s visit tomorrow.  But I don't have anything new in terms of specific announcements to offer up from here today.

Q    To what extent does he view Ebola as being a threat to the United States?

MR. EARNEST:  The President talked about this in the “Meet the Press” interview that he did 10 days or so ago.  He identified it as a top national security priority.

And his concern is that making an investment here early is critical to trying to snuff out this problem before it becomes a much more widespread problem.  And that is the strategy that we’re implementing here, is to try to invest early to prevent this from becoming much more serious.

There are some -- there’s always sort of the geopolitical concern that an outbreak of a disease could create some instability in some of these regions where the central governments of some of these countries isn’t as strong as the central government that we have here in this country.  So that's one source of some concern.

The other concern that the President articulated in the context of his interview was that the more that this virus has spread from person to person, the greater likelihood, the greater -- the more likely it is that the virus could mutate in a way that makes it even more dangerous.  So that is why -- those are just a couple of reasons why the President is directing the U.S. government to make the kind of early investment that could prevent much more serious problems down the line.

Q    And on one other topic, there’s a vote coming up in a couple days in Scotland.  The President has talked about this before.  With the vote nearing and the polls very close, how concerned is the White House, how concerned is the President about a potential breakup of one of its closest allies?

MR. EARNEST:  Jeff, you have a good memory.  The President was asked about this when he attended I believe the G7 meeting --

Q    In Brussels.

MR. EARNEST:  -- in Brussels, exactly.  He was standing alongside David Cameron at a podium not unlike this one where he was asked.

You’ll recall that what the President said was he said that from the outside, the United States has a deep interest in ensuring that one of the closest allies that we’ll ever have remains strong, robust, united, and an effective partner with the United States.  So this is a decision for the people of Scotland to make.  We certainly respect the right of individual Scots to make a decision about the -- along these lines.  But as the President himself said, we have an interest in seeing the United Kingdom remain strong, robust, united and an effective partner.

Q    And “united” means together, as in not leaving the U.K.?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is a question before the people of Scotland on Thursday, and they’ll cast a ballot in a way that they believe is in the best interests of communities in Scotland.  And I will certainly respect their right to cast their own ballot without interference from people on the outside.

Christi.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  Can you talk about the Tampa part of the President’s trip?  That looks like it’s about building public support for his strategy for fighting ISIL.  Is that the plan?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, at a very specific level, the President’s visit to Tampa will be an opportunity for him to visit the Central Command, which is located in Tampa.  While he’s there, he will spend some time getting a briefing from senior military leaders in CENTCOM about responsibility for leading the military effort against ISIL. 

And I’m confident that the President, while he’s there, will also have the opportunity to talk with some of the servicemen and women who will be responsible for carrying out some of the functions that the President orders.  But we’ll have more details on the trip probably tomorrow.

Let’s move around a little bit.  Jackie.

Q    Just to go back to Ebola -- an administration official was quoted as saying that there will be a more upscale response.  Can you give some details of what that will be?

MR. EARNEST:  The President is looking forward to his trip.  He is going to get a briefing from some of the experts at the CDC.  In terms of announcements that the President may make in the context of the trip, I’ll let him make those announcements on Tuesday.  I don't have anything new from here.  But you’re right -- there will be some additional announcements that will be announced by the administration that represents the kind of whole-of-government approach the President believes is necessary to confront the threat that's posed by -- the threat of Ebola. 

Justin.

Q    You almost said ISIL.

MR. EARNEST:  I did, I did.  (Laughter.)

Q    Well, I wanted to follow a little on Ebola.  We’ve kind of heard from public health experts, especially people in Africa, a lot of complaints actually about the administration’s response so far.  There’s a professor from Brown University in The Times this weekend who said the 25-bed hospital that the U.S. is setting up is like a drop in the bucket of what they need.  So I’m wondering if you could just respond in some way to the criticism that’s being levied by them, by Doctors Without Borders about the lack of kind of a unified response coming from the U.S. and United Nations and WHO and other places.

MR. EARNEST:  Justin, the President referenced in the remarks that he delivered to the nation on Wednesday night that the United States has unique capabilities in a wide range of areas.  And that means that the United States has a unique responsibility to step up in the midst of an international crisis.  And the President has directed the United States government to step up in the midst of this international crisis as it relates to Ebola; that our doctors and scientists are some of the best in the world, and we’re going to deploy their knowledge and resources to try to help some of the governments in Africa meet the needs of their people and confront this very difficult challenge.

The United States also has tremendous resources when it comes to our logistical capacity and when it comes to the kinds of supplies that health care workers may need to respond to this situation.  So there are a number of unique capabilities that the United States can bring to this.  And I think it is a testament to our country, where our -- where we have an interest but our interest is not as direct in this situation, but yet the President, with the strong backing of the American people, is going to respond in a robust fashion.

As I mentioned to Jeff, the United States responded pretty aggressively to this back in March when this outbreak was first reported.  And since that time, our assistance has been steadily ramping up.  And when the President travels to Atlanta tomorrow in the context of his trip, I do anticipate that we’ll have some additional announcements to make about additional commitments that we’re making in terms of resources that can be used to address this problem.

Q    Just on the CR quickly -- I know this may be a long shot, but can you kind of give an update of where you guys think or how you think this vote is going to go?  Do you expect that the Title 10 authorization will be at this point separated out in the House from a vote on the CR and then brought back together?  Is that where you’re at?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, that will be a decision that’s made by the Speaker of the House.  Our interest here is seeing this Title 10 authority be given to the administration before the end of this week.  Adding it to the CR is the most logical way.  As a layman -- I’m not an expert in House procedure by any stretch of the imagination -- but as a layman, it does seem obvious that that’s the easiest way to get this done.  That will be a decision that’s made by the Speaker of the House. 

And this administration will be doing everything that we can, including being in close touch with members of Congress in both parties, to convince them that this is an important national security priority.  And if they have open questions about what this authority would grant or what these kinds of training operations would entail, we’ll do our best to answer those questions.  But this is something that we’re going to work really hard, and the President believes this is a top priority.

Q    And in terms of language, are you happy with what you’ve heard from House leadership about what will come up at some point?  Is your request going to be something that you think is going to get a vote?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I know that there has been a constructive conversation between staff in the Speaker’s office on this topic and senior officials here in the administration.  So those conversations are ongoing and I anticipate they will be ongoing probably right up until the vote.

Stephen.

Q    Back to the Scotland thing.  So are you saying that if Scotland goes it alone on Thursday, what is left will no longer be a strong and robust ally?  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  That’s a clever question.  (Laughter.)  Attempting to answer it might be interpreted by some as unnecessarily or maybe even improperly interfering with a decision that should rightly be made by the voters of Scotland.  So I don’t think I’ll elaborate any further on what the President himself said in terms of articulating what America’s interest was in the outcome of this election that, again, will be decided by no one other than the Scottish people.

Q    But is there any concern or is has there been any sort of thinking about what would happen if the U.K. was weaker in NATO, if your close ally lost some weight in the Security Council?  There must be implications for U.S. policy in that.

MR. EARNEST:  I suspect that there is somebody in the administration who has been thinking about that at some level.  I don’t know to what level it has risen -- it certainly hasn’t risen to my level.  (Laughter.)  Or maybe it hasn’t sunk to my level -- I’ll let you interpret that for yourself.  I haven’t been a part of those conversations.  We are confident that ultimately the people of Scotland will make a decision that they believe is in their best interest.  And the President himself articulated what he believed was important about our partners over there at the United Kingdom.

Kristen.

Q    Josh, thank you.  In the wake of learning about the brutal execution of British aid worker, David Haines, over the weekend, Prime Minister David Cameron came out and he had very strong language that seemed to indicate that he was at least considering stronger military action.  Can you update us on that?  Is there any indication the U.K. is going to join the U.S. when it comes to launching airstrikes in Syria?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have an update on those conversations.  We are in close touch with our allies in the U.K. on a range of issues, including this one.  But any announcements that they have to make about commitments they’re prepared to make to take the fight to ISIL will be made by them.

Q    Well, can you characterize how this -- how you see this moment?  I mean, there’s obviously increased pressure on Prime Minister Cameron in the wake of this.  So are there discussions ongoing about more coordination, since this is our closest ally?

MR. EARNEST:  The United States is in close touch with the United Kingdom.  As you know, we have a special relationship with them.  They also have very unique military capabilities that can be --

Q    But don’t you expect them to join the United States in launching airstrikes, given that?

MR. EARNEST:  We need to -- have had the kinds of constructive conversations that you would expect from a close ally like the United Kingdom, and we do anticipate that they will play an important role in this coalition.  In terms of what role they’re going to play, we’ll give them the opportunity to make an announcement about anything they might be contemplating contributing to this effort.

Let me point out one thing.  They have contributed already to some of the humanitarian military efforts that the President ordered last month in Iraq.  I believe they dropped some humanitarian supplies near Mount Sinjar that brought some relief to those individuals who were being persecuted there.  So they’ve already played an important role here.  But they obviously have the capacity to do significantly more, and we’re having close conversations with them about that. 

Q    And I want to just follow up on Julie’s line of questioning.  Over the weekend, several senior administration officials said that the U.S. had gotten some assurances from several Arab countries that they would join in an air campaign.  Is that still the case?

MR. EARNEST:  I’ve seen those reports.  I saw that many of those individuals were talking privately because they didn’t want to make any sort of announcements that should be properly made by those governments who are contemplating making a contribution to the coalition.  So I don’t want to speak publicly about those conversations either.

Q    Well, I understand you can’t name them specifically, but is it still the case that several Arab countries have said that they are going to join in an air campaign?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, in line with Julie’s question, as soon as I say yes, you’re going to ask me which countries -- and understandably so.  That is a totally legitimate line of questioning.  But I just don’t want to go down that path, because I’m not prepared to be in a position to make announcements for these countries that may be contemplating commitments.

If the shoe were on the other foot -- and somewhere there probably is the press secretary for an Arab government being asked what the United States is actually prepared to do.  And I would be --

Q    Which one?  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  And I would take umbrage if that individual were to make commitments on behalf of the United States, so I’m certainly not going to make commitments on behalf of these other countries. 

We’re pleased with the progress of the conversations we’ve been having with them, and those conversations continue.  The Secretary of State has been principally responsible for them.  I would anticipate that General Allen will continue to have those kinds of conversations as well.  But I’m not -- at this point, I’m not in a position to announce specific commitments.

Q    And just, finally, does McDonough seem to indicate that you had also gotten some assurances from some countries that they would send ground troops into the region?  And I guess my question is, how can the U.S. expect other countries to send in combat forces when the U.S. is not prepared to do that?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I don’t want this to be interpreted as me implicitly confirming a commitment from some other country.  I’m not doing that.  But suffice it to say, there are countries in the region that arguably -- at least arguably -- have as much of a stake in the outcome of this fight with ISIL as anybody else; that this violence and havoc that ISIL is wreaking in this neighborhood is having a negative impact on the broader region.  In some cases, these acts of violence are being perpetrated not far from the border of other countries.  To make matters even worse, these acts are being committed in the name of the Sunni-Muslim religion. 

It is incredibly important for moderate voices to step forward.  And the President himself made the case that many of these Muslim -- I’m sorry, these Sunni-led governments in the region have for a long time, based on sectarian divisions, considered Shia-led governments, or Shia-led interests to be the greatest threat to their country.  The President posited, I think with some -- in a way that’s entirely reasonable, that these extremist elements of the Sunni sect actually pose a greater threat to these Sunni countries than the Shia sect does because of these terrible acts of violence that are all being committed in the name of this religion, setting aside the fact that many of the victims of this terrible violence are themselves Muslim. 

So this is a very difficult situation, but the interest that many of these governments in the region [have] is even more substantial than the interest of the U.S. government.  But that is why it is so critically important for this international coalition to be built, and it’s why it’s important for people all around the world to understand that this is not a case of ISIL being dug in in a fight against the United States.  The international community is mobilizing to take the fight to ISIL because of the terrible nature of their acts and because of their nihilistic vision.

Ed.

Q    What then is holding these Sunni nations back?  Given the stakes you just laid out, why haven't they come forward?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Ed, again, I don’t think that there’s anything holding them back.  I think that what we’re seeing is --

Q    They remain anonymous.  You won’t give us their names.  That's holding back.

MR. EARNEST:  I think what we’re seeing is we’re seeing very constructive engagement from regional governments that do have a significant stake in this outcome.

We’re pleased with the level of conversations that we’re having with these governments, and their willingness to contribute in a tangible, important way to this broader effort.  We’ll have some announcements to make in terms of what sort of cooperation and involvement and commitment that we have from the international community.  And based on the tenor and tone of the kinds of private conversations that are underway right now, we expect those commitments to be substantial.

Q    But didn't the President sort of lay out a call to action last Wednesday night?  I didn't think he was saying to the world, let’s have some conversations.  I mean, five days have passed.  I understand that might not seem like a lot of time, but ISIS -- the threat is there.  The President himself laid out the stakes last Wednesday night.  So is this not a failure for Secretary Kerry to not get this coalition together?

MR. EARNEST:  Ed, based on the very strong statements that we’re seeing from public officials representing these other governments, there is a clear indication that this coalition is coming together very nicely.

Q    But you won’t even give us the names of the countries in this room as to which Arab nations are going to help with airstrikes.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Ed, because they will make those sorts of announcements when they have them.  We have seen very clear statements.  And we talked about this a little bit last week, that we saw -- we’ve seen this statement, the Jeddah communiqué, from ministers representing states of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and the United States.  And all of them promised -- “agreed to do their share in the comprehensive fight against ISIL,” including a wide range of things and “as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign against ISIL.”

So we have seen clear public commitments from a broad range of nations to joining the broader military and international effort to combat ISIL.

Now, the other thing we should point out is there are a variety of ways to participate in a military effort, aside from just carrying out airstrikes -- that there are training and equipping that can be done; that there’s logistical support that can be offered, and even things like refueling aircraft.  So there are a variety of ways that these nations can contribute to the overall effort, and I would anticipate that as we get closer to the U.N. General Assembly, we’ll have some more details about the commitments that are being made. 

Q    So that’s more of the timetable?  Later this month, then, because that’s obviously a week or so away.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, yes, I would anticipate that next week that there will be discussions about this question that you’re asking.

Q    And one other quick thing.  Secretary Kerry was talking yesterday on CBS about when it comes to U.S. airstrikes in Syria, the U.S. can “de-conflict” such attacks with the Syrian government.”  He said, “We will certainly want to de-conflict to make certain that they’re not about to do something that they might regret.”  Can you explain to the American people what he is saying there?  Because it’s obviously a very -- a much different situation from Iraq, where we have been invited in to attack ISIS.  In the case of Syria, President Assad may respond. 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, just to be real clear, Ed, the United States is not coordinating with the Assad regime regarding any contingency plans that the United States military is developing.  As we’ve made very clear, the United States will take lawful action when our people are threatened, regardless of any geographic boundaries.  We have seen that ISIL has disregarded the vanishing boundary between Iraq and Syria, and we’re not going to be -- the United States is not going to place ourselves at a strategic disadvantage by honoring a boundary that our enemies don’t.

So beyond that, I’m not in a position to telegraph in advance what our plans may be.

Q    But when Secretary Kerry says -- I want to make certain -- “they’re not about” -- he is talking about Assad -- “they’re not about to do something they might regret,” is the President prepared, if Syrian defense forces respond to U.S. war planes going and launching airstrikes in Syria, is the President prepared to take out Assad’s defense forces?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say it this way, Ed.  There are a couple of ways I think to deal with this.  The first is there are rules of engagement any time that our men and women in uniform are put into harm’s way.  And so there will be rules of engagement that are related to any military orders that the President directs -- military actions that the President directs.  So I’d refer you to the Department of Defense for a detailed assessment of that.  But it won’t surprise you to know that there are contingencies related to self-defense when it comes to these sorts of rules of engagement.

The other point that I’d make as it relates to Syria is, as you all know and as has been publicly reported earlier this summer, the President did authorize a military mission that put American boots on the ground into Syria to try to rescue American hostages that were being held by ISIL.  That mission was a high-risk mission; there were a substantial number of American servicemen and women that were involved.  That mission was executed flawlessly, but it unfortunately did not result in the safe rescue and return of American hostages. 

But I can say that while I think it is evident to anybody who is paying attention here that that is -- indicates the President’s willingness to order the kind of military action that’s required to protect the lives of military -- of American citizens, even if it means sending our military into Syria.

Q    Thank you, Josh.  Iran -- they said they rejected an offer or an invitation from the United States to join the fight against ISIL.  What did you exactly want Iran to do?  And weren’t you concerned that Iran joining this coalition would further discourage Sunni nations of joining the fight?

MR. EARNEST:  The thing that we have been really clear about is that the United States does not coordinate military action or share intelligence with Iran, and we don’t have any plans to do so.  There have been a couple of conversations that have occurred, most notably along the sidelines of the P5-plus-1 talks between U.S. officials and their Iranian counterparts.

This was an effort to communicate with them about our interests and our plans, but it did not reflect any change in our position that we’re not going to coordinate military action or share intelligence with the Iranians.  I’ll repeat a point that I’ve made here a couple of times, which is that it is not in the interest of the nation of Iran for ISIL to make continued inroads as it relates to taking over ground in Iraq; that this kind of instability is not in the interest of any government in that region and it’s certainly not in the interest of Iran. 

So it’s understandable that Iran may be talking about and maybe even taking actions to counter ISIL, but those will not be military actions that are coordinated with the United States because the United States does not coordinate our military action or share intelligence with the nation of Iran.

Carol.

Q    Sort of following on that, a year ago the President was pursuing an informal meeting or handshake on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly with President Rouhani.  Is that something that he is looking to pursue next week when the two of them are in New York again for the U.N. General Assembly?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t know of any planned communication between President Obama and President Rouhani that’s scheduled for the U.N.  If that changes, we’ll let you know.

But the nature of our conversations with Iran right now is principally focused on resolving the nuclear issue.  And there are senior level administration officials that have been directed by this President to engage with their Iranian counterparts to try to reach -- resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.  But that’s the focal point of those conversations, and I don’t know what the nature of conversations will be in New York, if any occur.

Q    Last year when you guys were asked this same question, you were very clear that it was possible that there would be some sort of meeting, indicating that you were open to it.  That doesn't seem to be what you’re saying here now.  Or is it fair to say that you’re not interested in having a similar informal kind of meeting?  Or are you saying that it is possible that this could happen next week?

MR. EARNEST:  I think what I’m trying to convey -- the reason that it was trickier then is that it was a pretty -- the conversation that occurred between President Obama and President Rouhani last year was historic because it was the first conversation between the Iranian President and the American President in 30 or 40 years.  So now that -- the historical significance of a conversation this year would be somewhat different.

Q    Well, it would still be historical. 

MR. EARNEST:  It would be interesting.

Q    Well, it would still be historical -- I mean, it would definitely be historical if they met in person or shook hands.

MR. EARNEST:  It would be interesting.   It would be interesting.

Q    I don’t think you would dispute that.

MR. EARNEST:  It would be interesting.  I think what I’m trying to convey is I don't know of a specific plan for that to occur at this time.  But if it does, if something like that is added to the President’s schedule, then we’ll, of course, let you know.

Q    Is that a possibility?

MR. EARNEST:  Right now, there are no plans to do that.  But if it changes, we’ll let you know.

J.C.

Q    To follow up a bit on Ed’s question, take it another step, U.S.-Russian relations has seen better times, needless to say.  However, would the President enlist --

MR. EARNEST:  I mean, I think you could say that Russia’s relationship with the Western world has seen better times.  They're probably at their low point since the end of the Cold War.  Russia’s actions that are destabilizing in Ukraine have isolated them from much of Europe and the world because they’ve refused to sort of contribute to the situation in a positive way.  But, yes, that includes the United States.

Q    Then my question may be even more poignant.

MR. EARNEST:  Okay.

Q    Thank you.  (Laughter.) 

Q    Pointed, poignant? 

Q    Poignant, pungent, whatever.  (Laughter.)  I’ll ask -- however, I will ask it.  Would the President consider reaching out to President Putin on behalf of his and the Western allies and regional allies to denigrate ISIL, especially considering, as Ed was saying, Syria, that issue?  Is there a strong relationship with Syria and President Assad?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’ll say a couple things about that.  The first is the President is looking forward to the meeting that he’s having with President Poroshenko here at the White House later this week, and that will be an opportunity for him to discuss the latest as it relates to their efforts to lock down the cease-fire, get both sides to agree to it.  And that will be a very important meeting, and one the President looks forward to.

As it relates to President Putin, I don't have any meetings with President Putin to announce at this point.  It could be added to the schedule, but I don't have anything like that to announce at this point.

Clearly, Russia, like much of the developed world, the civilized world is rightly concerned about ISIL.  They are concerned because of the destabilizing impact that this terrible group is having on the region.  They're rightly concerned about this issue of foreign fighters, something that we’ve talked about from here.  These are individuals with foreign passports that have traveled to the region to take up the fight alongside ISIL.  And there is the concern that these individuals, after getting some training and equipment and becoming further radicalized, could return back to the country from which they originated and carry out acts of violence.  So I think President Putin -- at least I’ve heard him publicly articulate a concern about this. 

And in the same way that we have sought to try to work constructively with the Russians where possible, where our interests align, notwithstanding our differences, I would anticipate that there may be an opportunity for us to find a constructive way to work with the Russians on this too.

It was just a year ago that the United States embarked on an effort, working closely with the Russians, to destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpile.  That was an effort that was successfully completed earlier this year.  That effort would not have been successful without the cooperation and coordination with the Russians.  That's evidence of our ability to coordinate on high-priority issues in this region of the world.  And if there’s an opportunity for us to do that as it relates to ISIL, I’m sure that we’ll take advantage of that opportunity.

Q    Thank you.

MR. EARNEST:  Mike.

Q    But that could go on for ages, Josh.

MR. EARNEST:  Mike, go ahead. 

Q    Just to get back to Ebola real quick.  You mentioned the part of the President’s interview where he talked about the fear of it mutating.  Is that a sort of a hypothetical musing on his part or is it accurate to describe the government of the United States worried about the likelihood of that mutation?  And is he reflecting a kind of sense of the medical community that this is a real danger and a real possibility?

MR. EARNEST:  I think what the President was trying to articulate is the risk associated with failing to aggressively respond to the situation.  I think it is -- I’m certainly not a scientist, and I don't have any special knowledge of Ebola.  But my understanding based on public reports is that if the disease is contained relatively soon, that the risk of a mutation like this is pretty low. 

I think what the President was illustrating is that if we didn't respond aggressively, and as the only nation in the world -- the world’s indispensable nation -- we have unique capabilities to respond to this.  That's why it’s in our interest to do so; that if we fail to respond to this and we allow the virus to spiral out of control, there is the potential that it could mutate in a way that could end up being dangerous for people back here in the U.S.

Right now, the risk of an Ebola outbreak in the United States is very low.  But that risk would only increase if there were not a robust response on the part of the United States.  And that's why the President -- among other things -- that's one of the things that's motivating the President to direct an aggressive response.

Q    But to the specific question of the mutation, of the possibility of the mutation, he’s -- by raising that, he’s not suggesting that there is some concern on the part of the medical community in the United States that that possibility is that there’s some likelihood of that mutation happening, and that there is some increased level of concern that you know of?

MR. EARNEST:  I think what the President was trying to describe is that that likelihood remains very low right now, but it only increases the further that this virus is allowed to spread, and that is what’s -- that is an important part of what’s motivating the President to direct such a robust response to the situation that right now does not pose a significant threat to the United States.

Jim.

Q    Has the President authorized the Pentagon to target individual leaders of ISIS in Syria or Iraq?  And I know in the past the White House has said that senior leaders of al Qaeda have been decimated.  Do you want to see the same thing happen with ISIS?  Do you want to take those leaders out?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, I will say that the President is still reviewing the plans and proposals that the Department of Defense has been hard at work developing.  When this situation first cropped up -- I’m specifically referring to the significant advance that ISIL made across western and northern Iraq back in June -- the President immediately directed the United States military to increase significantly the amount of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions that were conducted in that region of the world.  And that has been part and parcel of an effort to improve our knowledge about the situation on the ground.

Pentagon planners, in turn, have used that knowledge to develop some plans and target lists and other things for the President to consider as he puts together a military strategy for confronting ISIL.

This is a strategy that involves, as we’ve talked about here a little bit already, training and equipping soldiers on the ground.  In Iraq, that means Iraqi and Kurdish security forces.  In Syria, that means ramping up our assistance to the Syrian opposition fighters to take the fight to ISIL on the ground.  And they can be backed up with American military airpower.  But those plans are still being reviewed by the President, and --

Q    So in terms of authorizing airstrikes, you’re not there yet?  You’re not ready to announce that yet? 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are --

Q    I mean strikes on individual leaders.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there are airstrikes that the President has already ordered in Iraq, and some 150 or so have already been carried out.  But as it relates to the specific plans that the President is reviewing, I don't have additional insight to share with you about them right now.

Q    When you said degrade or destroy ISIS, that should mean take out their leadership -- isn’t that right?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, depriving these organizations of leaders, either on the battlefield or in command and control centers, certainly would have the effect of degrading and possibly ultimately destroying them.  But I don't want to get ahead of any decision-making at the presidential level that still needs to be done.

Q    And getting back to the coalition that the President is building and that the Secretary of State is building, I know you don't want to talk about which states are doing what, or who is going to be involved and so forth, but it is the goal of this White House to have a coalition that extends beyond the United States that will engage in these military actions, these kinetic military actions in Iraq and Syria.  It wouldn’t be a success, would it, if you had a coalition that did not have other countries participating in airstrikes, would it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jim, what we are seeking is the robust contribution of nations in the region and around the world to this allied effort.  And we would anticipate that we will have countries that have significant military capabilities contributing to this broader effort.

Now, as I mentioned -- or I guess as I sort of alluded to with Ed, there are a variety of ways in which member countries can contribute militarily to this effort.  It doesn't just mean carrying out airstrikes themselves.  It could include providing some logistical support.  It could include refueling.  There are other surveillance efforts that other nations could undertake that would contribute to broader military success.  There are a lot of different ways to contribute militarily to this coalition.  So I don't want to get ahead, again, of any specific commitments that have been made by members of this coalition.

Q    And just to go back to what Denis McDonough said yesterday, he was asked on a number of occasions about boots on the ground, and he reiterated that you’re really looking at Iraqi and Syrian boots on the ground, and potentially some other partners that may come into the mix.  But you’ve heard some critics up on Capitol Hill say that that's just too limiting.  Any second thoughts about just taking that completely off the table?  Are you saying that that will never occur, U.S. combat boots on the ground?  What if this escalates and becomes a longer, more protracted battle than you anticipated? 

MR. EARNEST:  Jim, I can say definitively that the President has ruled out sending American boots on the ground to be engaged in a combat role in Iraq and in Syria.  The strategy that the President has put forward to deal with the threat posed by ISIL in Iraq and Syria is substantially different from the strategy that was put in place in advance of the last conflict in Iraq. 

What we’re considering here is more akin to the kinds of counterterrorism operations that have been successfully implemented in some other regions of the world.  And those other countries, using some of our military capability, using our support for local fighters on the ground who could take the fight in their own country to the extremist organizations that are operating there, and building up the local government structures of some of these other nations -- that that has been a successful strategy for mitigating the threat, and even degrading the threat that is posed by --

Q    Where has that strategy been successful? 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, they’re places like --

Q    Not Somalia or Yemen.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, those are actually two of the countries that I was just going to cite.  There is no doubt that in these two places the United States has deployed --

Q    Somalia --

MR. EARNEST:  Let me finish.  That when the United States has deployed a strategy, that strategy has been specifically to work with local governments to build up the capacity of those central governments, to work with local fighters to make sure that we’re increasing their capacity so that they can take the fight on the ground to these extremist organizations, and, where necessary, American military might can be deployed in support of those fighters on the ground to degrade the capacity of those individual organizations. 

And just a couple of weeks ago, we saw an effort in Somalia, led by Somalian fighters, to take out the leader of al-Shabaab in that country.  That will have the effect of degrading and ultimately defeating al-Shabaab.  Is that mission completed?  Of course not.  They continue to serve as a threat.  But there is no doubt that this strategy has been successful.

Q    You’re holding up those countries as success stories, though.

MR. EARNEST:  What I’m holding them up as -- as a place --

Q    You’ve had some successes here and there, but you wouldn’t hold them up as success stories.

MR. EARNEST:  They are a place where the American counterterrorism strategy that has been put in place by President Obama has succeeded in degrading the threat that those organizations pay to the United States.  And we intend to implement an analogous strategy against ISIL. 

Go ahead, Sam.

Q    In light of what you just said, there were reports this weekend that ISIL has struck a non-aggression pact with some of the moderate Syrian rebels.  In light of what you just said about arming people on the ground to take the fight for the U.S., are you troubled by these reports?  What should we make of them?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not.  I’m just looking this up because there is a -- I know that there was a statement from this moderate opposition group to indicate that those reports of a cease-fire were not true.  This is the Syrian Revolutionaries Front, and that’s the group that’s mentioned in the story that you’re referencing.  They’ve issued a statement indicating that they never ceased hostilities with ISIL and will continue to fight ISIL and the regime. 

In fact, I understand that right now, as we speak, that the SRF and ISIL are currently fighting in a suburb in Syria and in the suburb that’s referenced in the article -- they actually continue to fight one another -- and that the SRF and other elements of the moderate opposition have joined forces over the last couple of months to try to push ISIL out of the region.

Now, I know that there are some claims that suggest that one local brigade of the Syrian Revolutionaries Front reached a 24-hour agreement with ISIL that quickly broke down, but it was intended to allow both sides to retrieve the bodies of their fighters who had been killed in the ongoing conflict there.  But I --

Q    You’re confident that U.S. diplomacy to these moderate Syrians will outweigh ISIS’s diplomacy plan?  That they -- sorry -- (laughter) -- that they -- my train of thought is still lost -- that they won’t end up being much more persuasive than we are?  I mean, they’re fighting right there alongside them.  Also --

MR. EARNEST:  Well, they’re not fighting alongside them.  They’re actually fighting them.  And they have been for three years.

Q    But related to that, the German ambassador was quoted in the New York Times saying that the reason Germany won’t provide weapons to the moderate Syrian rebels is that they have no confidence where those weapons will end up.  Why are we so much more confident about the final destination of the weapons than the Germans are?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let me say that we do have more confidence in the kinds of relationships that the international community has with the opposition fighters because the opposition fighters are not fighting the international community -- they’re fighting ISIL.  So I’m skeptical that ISIL is going to have a whole lot of success approaching them and achieving a diplomatic breakthrough.

Secondly, as it relates to our efforts to build relationships with these opposition fighters, over the course of the last three years, the administration has been seeking to build relationships and get greater understanding into who these individuals are and what cause they represent.  And that does give us greater confidence in our ability to provide support and training and equipment to those individuals who will use that support, training and equipment in a way that’s consistent with U.S. interests. 

Major.

Q    So what’s more likely:  A meeting with President Rouhani or meeting with President Putin at UNGA?  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  I welcome your interest in the President’s schedule at the United Nations General Assembly.  It will be --

Q    Which would be more beneficial?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I don’t know that either of those individuals will appear on the President’s dance card next week.  So when we have the President’s schedule laid out, we can discuss it.

Q    When you said that Russia is rightly concerned about ISIL, it sounded to me as if you were indicating that there might be something that we’re discussing with them that is indicating to this administration Russia might be willing to play a role.  Are you trying to do that?

MR. EARNEST:  I did not mean to leave you with that impression.  There may be conversations that are going on.  I don’t happen to know of them if there are.  I was merely trying to highlight something that I think even President Putin himself has acknowledged, which is that he has a similar concern to the one that has been expressed by leaders of countries throughout Europe, which is that there are individuals who have traveled to the region and taken up arms alongside ISIL who pose a threat to their home countries.

Q    Would we welcome their help?  And are we soliciting it?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I don’t know of any conversations between U.S. officials and Russian officials on this specific topic.  I will just merely observe that there have been areas where the United States has been able to work in a coordinated fashion and a mutually beneficial fashion to advance our interests and advance the interests of Russians as well. 

So I certainly wouldn’t rule out those kinds of conversations, and I certainly wouldn’t rule out that kind of coordination.  I just don’t know if those conversations have taken place at this point.

Q    It also seems to me that today you’re kind of suggesting a sequencing we should familiarize ourselves with.  At UNGA next week, that’s really where the President is going to try to lay down these commitments or advise the Arab nations to make public what they’ve privately committed, and that in the context of a Security Council and General Assembly resolution, this will all sort of carry with it a greater degree of international legitimacy, and that’s when the expansion of this military campaign will follow.  Is that a sequence that you’re trying to suggest we get used to?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I wouldn’t say it quite that specifically.  Let’s take one step back from this, which is that the President has appointed -- or the Secretary of State has appointed General John Allen to take the lead in coordinating the contributions of countries who are going to be part of this broader coalition.  General Allen is already hard at work on that task, and he’ll be meeting with the President tomorrow to give him an update in terms of the status of those commitments. 

What the United States is seeking to do, however -- prior to announcing public commitments from countries or members of the coalition -- is to put together a list of essentially the needs of the coalition.  We want to walk through a checklist of all the needed commitments, and then we’ll go back to individual countries and ask them to fulfill these individual -- these specific needs.  So there is some coordination and integration that needs to go on here.

Frankly, it is not -- it would not be most effective for countries around the world to be issuing news releases about what sort of commitments they’re willing to make in a haphazard fashion.  Rather, what we’re seeking to do is to integrate and coordinate those commitments in a way so as to make sure that we have an organized coalition to support those who are on the ground who are taking the fight to ISIL. 

Q    Logically, that work would culminate at the General Assembly meeting so you would have maximized, A, visibility, and B, a sort of echo effect in that assembly of the world’s greatest leaders.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I would anticipate that conversations with members of the coalition will occur throughout this week.  And I would anticipate that some face-to-face conversations will also occur at the U.N. General Assembly next week.  So I’m not here to set up a specific deadline, but I can give you some insight into the plan that we’re pursuing right now.

Q    Quickly, on Ebola -- you said, as what we all know, that the United States has unique logistical capacity.  Is the United States doing everything it can with its logistical capacity to address Ebola?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President will have more to say about this tomorrow, and I would anticipate that you’ll see an announcement related to ramping up the kind of assistance the United States can provide to try to meet this need.

Q    But there are, besides beds and mobile hospitals, there are two enormous Navy ships that many have argued would be perfect for doing the kind of medicine that’s required to isolate and treat victims of this disease in Africa, and they’re not, so far as I understand, even being considered.  And that’s why I ask -- is the United States, with its unique logistical capacity and unique capabilities, doing everything it can to address this epidemic?

MR. EARNEST:  I will reserve further comment on this until the President’s announcements tomorrow.

Jon.

Q    Josh, I just want to follow up on -- Jim asked you about whether or not the Pentagon has been given the authority to go after specific leaders of ISIL.  You said the President is still reviewing options that have been presented to him.  So are you saying that the military right now does not have the authority to conduct airstrikes specifically targeting leaders of ISIL?  That they can’t specifically target Baghdadi, the leader of the group, or they couldn’t specifically target the executioner we’ve seen in those videos, if we had intelligence on where they were?  Will the military now have the authority to do that kind of an airstrike?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, let’s separate a couple of things here.  The first is, the President has given orders to the Department of Defense as it relates to airstrikes that they’re already carrying out in Iraq against ISIL.  As I think I’ve been asked before, the President is not required to sign off on each of those strikes, that they have a -- they have broad guidance that the President has given them.  And they have carried out --

Q    But the guidance hasn’t --

MR. EARNEST:  -- a large number of missions under that guidance.

Q    But the guidance still has not included individual leaders, which is I think why Jim asked you that question.  Are they now -- do they now have a green light to go after individual leaders?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, there has been very specific guidance that's been provided to the Department of Defense about what their -- what sort of orders they’ve been given by the Commander-in-Chief.  I’m not in a position to get into the details of what those communications are.

But, however, when it comes to the individual that you referenced, the person that we know is culpable for the killing of Mr. Foley and Mr. Sotloff, that individual is someone who, as the President himself has said, will face justice for what he has done.  And we will -- and the President has already articulated that we will expend significant resources to bring that individual to justice.

Q    Have you identified who that person is yet?

MR. EARNEST:  As we’ve said for a couple of weeks now, the United States is working closely with our special partners -- or our allies at the -- in the United Kingdom and other nations that have intelligence and knowledge of this specific region of the world to try to determine the identity of that individual.  I don't have an update on that process at this point.

Q    And if I can ask for a clarification on what you said  about Iran. 

MR. EARNEST:  Sure.

Q    You made it clear that the United States will not coordinate militarily or in terms of intelligence with the Iranians.  So I’m just wondering, what -- the Supreme Leader of Iran said that the Iranian government has turned down a request from the United States for support in the battle against ISIL.  So was there any request that was made through back-channels to the Iranians?  You’ve ruled out military or intelligence.  Was there any other kind of a request that was made by the Iranians for cooperation in this fight that he’s now announcing that they're turning down?

MR. EARNEST:  Certainly none that I’m aware of.  Like I said, the United States does not coordinate military action or share intelligence with the Iranians.  And there have been a couple of back-channel conversations that have occurred, principally through -- in the context of the P5-plus-1 talks.  I know --

Q    Back-channel conversations about Iraq and about ISIL?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, those conversations, yes, were about this topic because there is a shared interest between our two countries.  There’s so much that the U.S. and Iran disagrees on, but there is a shared interest that we have here.  It is not in the interest of Iran for this extremist group to be wreaking havoc across their -- the open territory of their neighbor.

So we will -- I would anticipate that there will continue to be back-channel -- the occasional back-channel conversation on this topic between the United States and other members of the international community and the Iranians.  But our posture, as it relates to not coordinating military actions or sharing intelligence with the Iranians, hasn’t changed and we don't have a plan to change that posture right now.

Q    Okay, but I’m asking -- just to clarify, I’m asking a little more broadly, because the Supreme Leader has come out and he said that the Iranian government is rejecting a request from the United States for cooperation.  And what you’re saying is there has been no -- there’s been meetings, there have been discussions, but there has been no request from the United States for cooperation of any kind with the Iranians in this battle against ISIL?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, our posture here is that we are not going to coordinate our military actions or our intelligence-sharing activities with the Iranians.  And I did not see the direct quote from the Supreme Leader so I’m not exactly sure which aspect of -- what his eventual point was, or what he was alluding to.  But outside of a couple of back-channel conversations in which we talked about our shared interests in confronting this problem, our plans to not coordinate our military actions with Iran haven’t changed.

Q    Thanks, Josh.

MR. EARNEST:  Alexis.

Q    Josh, I have two quick questions.  Just to follow up -- when you were talking about Iran earlier, you said those back-channel conversations talked about shared interests and plans.  So can you describe what you mean when you say there’s been no coordination?  What’s the definition of coordination if we’ve discussed plans?

MR. EARNEST:  A lot of questions about definitions the last couple of briefings.

Q    Well, there’s good reason.

MR. EARNEST:  For good reason, that’s right.  I think what I’m trying to convey to you is that there is a reason for us to have conversations with Iran on this topic because we do have a shared interest in degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL. 

It is not in the interest of Iran for this extremist group to be wreaking havoc within the boundaries of its neighboring country.  So we do have a shared interest, and that shared interest has been discussed.

The President has already ordered military action in pursuit of protecting American citizens in Iraq.  And the President has indicated that he’s ready to order additional military action to accomplish our goal of degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL.  I think the reasonable question that people have is, given Iran’s significant military capability and given their significant interest in the outcome here, is the United States going to coordinate with Iran as we move forward on this military strategy.  The answer to that is, no, we are not.

Q    So a separate question -- because the President dealt with Congress last year slightly differently than the way he’s dealing with them now -- this is the texture of my question.  And because of the language for the training and arming, the expansiveness of the language presented to Congress, I wanted to clarify, does the President believe it’s responsible to ask Congress to vote on this without knowing about the broader coalition?  The sequencing is, approve it now and we’ll tell you about the coalition later.  Is that responsible?

MR. EARNEST:  Yes, it is.  The reason is simply that the President believes it is a priority for the administration to be given the authority it needs to begin training and equipping, ramping up our assistance to Syrian opposition fighters.  We’re doing that principally because the President believes we need boots on the ground to take the fight to ISIL in Syria.  The President is determined that those boots will not be American boots that are on the ground.

So we need to make sure that we are improving the ability and expanding the capacity of Syrian fighters to take the fight to ISIL in their own country.  We have already secured commitments from regional governments.  Some of those commitments have been discussed publicly; the Saudis, for instance, have acknowledged their willingness to host some of those training activities.

But as I mentioned earlier, if there are specific members of Congress that have questions about what this Title 10 authority would entail or what this program would include, we’re happy to have conversations with them about that because the President believes this is really a top priority. 

Yes, I’ll give you the last one, ma’am.

Q    Thank you very much, Josh.

MR. EARNEST:  You’re welcome.

Q    I have two questions, quick questions.  One, first, did the United States ask South Korea for any financial support to use against IS?  The second question is, National Security Advisor Susan Rice have a meeting with South Korean National Security Advisor Kim Kwan-jin.  Do you have any readout of the meeting?

MR. EARNEST:  I don’t have any readout of that meeting.  I know that it’s occurring today.  I’d encourage you to consult with my National Security Council colleagues who may be able to provide you some more information about that meeting. 

As it relates to South Korea and their contribution to the effort against ISIL, I’m not aware of any conversations that are occurring, but you should ask my National Security Council colleagues about whether or not that came up in the context of the meeting that the National Security Advisor is having today with her South Korean counterpart. 

Thanks very much, everybody.  Have a good one.

END
1:08 P.M. EDT

Presidential Nominations and Withdrawal Sent to the Senate

NOMINATIONS SENT TO THE SENATE:

Charlotte A. Burrows, of the District of Columbia, to be a Member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for a term expiring July 1, 2019, vice Jacqueline A. Berrien, resigned.

Benjamin L. Cardin, of Maryland, to be a Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-ninth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Isobel Coleman, of New York, to be Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform, with the rank of Ambassador.

Isobel Coleman, of New York, to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, during her tenure of service as Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations for U.N. Management and Reform.

Carol Leslie Hamilton, of California, to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-ninth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Ronald H. Johnson, of Wisconsin, to be a Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-ninth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Leslie Berger Kiernan, of Maryland, to be an Alternate Representative of the United States of America to the Sixty-ninth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Robert M. Scher, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense, vice Madelyn R. Creedon, resigned.

WITHDRAWAL SENT TO THE SENATE:

Debo P. Adegbile, of New York, to be an Assistant Attorney General, vice Thomas E. Perez, resigned, which was sent to the Senate on January 6, 2014.

Statement by the President on the Death of David Haines

The United States strongly condemns the barbaric murder of UK citizen David Haines by the terrorist group ISIL. Our hearts go out to the family of Mr. Haines and to the people of the United Kingdom. The United States stands shoulder to shoulder tonight with our close friend and ally in grief and resolve. We will work with the United Kingdom and a broad coalition of nations from the region and around the world to bring the perpetrators of this outrageous act to justice, and to degrade and destroy this threat to the people of our countries, the region and the world.

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 9/12/2014

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

**Please see below for a correction to the transcript, marked with an asterisk.

1:21 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST:  Good afternoon, everybody.  Happy Friday.  Let me just do a quick announcement at the top, Jim, and then we’ll go to your questions.

On Tuesday, September 16th -- that’s next Tuesday -- the President will travel to Atlanta, Georgia, where he will visit the Center for Disease Control and Prevention to receive a breaking -- I’m sorry, let’s start over again. 

The President will travel to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to receive a briefing on the outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa, discuss the U.S. response to that outbreak, and thank the scientists, doctors and health care workers who are helping those affected by the disease at home and around the world.  The President will also receive an update on the respiratory illness that’s been reported in several states across the Midwest.

That evening, the President will travel to Tampa, Florida, where he will remain overnight.

On Wednesday, the President will visit U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida.  As many of you know, Central Command’s area of responsibility includes 20 countries in the Middle East and Central and South Asia, including Iraq and Syria.  As we implement the President’s strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, it’s the men and women of CENTCOM who will partner with others in the region to carry out our limited military mission in those countries.  While at CENTCOM, the President will receive a briefing from his top commanders there, and thank the servicemembers for their continued hard work on these efforts.

We’ll have some additional logistical details about the President’s trip over the weekend and then again on Monday.  So should be an interesting trip of the President at the beginning of the next week.

Jim, let’s go to your questions.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  I wanted to ask you about Islamic State.  Yesterday, Turkey didn’t sign on to the communiqué in Saudi Arabia expressing support for confronting Islamic State.  There have been concerns also about whether Kuwait and Qatar are doing enough to prevent fundraising for extremist groups.  I’m wondering, is the White House satisfied with the level of commitment that it’s getting from certain allies in the Middle East in dealing with and confronting Islamic State?

MR. EARNEST:  Jim, I’m pleased that you mentioned the communiqué, because I do think that there are a couple of important things about it.  The first is, it’s important for people to understand that the communiqué was signed by ministers representing states of the Gulf Coast Cooperation Council -- or the Gulf Cooperation Council -- Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and, of course, the United States.  And in the context of this communiqué, each of those organizations and countries declares “their shared commitment to stand united against the threat posed by all terrorism, including the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, to the region and the world.”

Over the course of the communiqué, they lay out their commitment to “do their share in the comprehensive fight against ISIL, including” -- and then they list several things, and it ends with “as appropriate, joining in the many aspects of the coordinated military campaign against ISIL.”  That is an early indication of the interest that the United States is seeing from our partners in the region in presenting a united front to the terrorists in ISIL.  There is a strong commitment from these countries in the region to working with the international community to deny ISIL the kind of safe haven that would pose a significant threat to countries in the region, but also countries around the world.

This will continue to be an ongoing effort to build support to identify needs and to identify the specific capabilities of countries where they could meet the needs of the broader coalition.

So this is difficult work, but the President, as he indicated in his news conference at the NATO Summit at the end of last week, has been pleased with the reception that we have gotten from our partners and allies around the world as it relates to their willingness to engage in the efforts of this international coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.

Q    But any disappointment that particularly Turkey, a NATO member, would not sign on to something like this?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, as you mentioned, each country has their own specific set of interests that are related to this specific situation.  There is no doubt -- and we have seen this both in private comments from Turkish officials, but also in public comments from Turkish officials -- that they are concerned, and rightly so, about the instability and violence that has been created by ISIL.  This is obviously all occurring right on the doorstep of Turkey, and they are rightly concerned.

I understand that the Secretary of State is actually there today, I believe, to meet with Turkish officials and his counterparts.  The President had the opportunity to visit with President Erdogan at the NATO Summit last week.  The Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, was in Turkey at the beginning of this week.  So that’s an indication of the thorough consultation that is underway between the United States and Turkey to discuss with them what role they can play and how they can contribute to this broader international coalition.  We certainly welcome the partnership and alliance that we have with Turkey, and look forward to their efforts to join with the international community to meet this threat.

Q    Yesterday you mentioned that one way that Congress could support the President’s strategy in Iraq and Syria, and while you said it wasn’t necessary, it could be by providing authority on a revised use-of-force agreement.  Does the President intend to send Congress a revised authorization for use of force that Congress could act on to provide that kind of support, even though you feel it’s not necessary?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, at this point, we have not.  And I don’t know of any plan to do so at this point.  As you pointed out, it is the view of this administration, and the President’s national security team specifically, that additional authorization from Congress is not required; that he has the authority that he needs to order the military actions that he has to degrade and ultimate destroy ISIL.  That will be done in coordination with a broader international coalition.  It will not include U.S. troops being placed into ground combat in Iraq or Syria. 

That all said, the President would welcome support from Congress for this strategy.  There are a variety of ways that Congress could indicate this support and the President believes that this support -- or this indication of support -- would be beneficial because it would demonstrate to our allies and to our enemies that the United States stands united in pursuit of the strategy to degrade and destroy ISIL.

Q    Finally, on immigration.  The Associated Press is reporting that there has been a marked decline in deportations and the pace is fewer than it has been since 2007.  I’m wondering if that’s a deliberate effort by the White House or the administration to cut back on deportations, given the criticism that the President has received from the immigration community.

MR. EARNEST:  Deportations are an enforcement action, and those enforcement actions are made by law enforcement officials at the Department of Homeland Security.  So this is not something that is mandated by the White House.  These are enforcement decisions that are carried out by law enforcement officials at the Department of Homeland Security. 

However, I do think that these numbers do reflect something that the President has talked about a little bit, which is that as we confronted a situation at the border earlier this summer -- a situation that has abated -- but at one point earlier this summer, there was concern about having the needed resources to deal with a surge that we had seen along the southwest border as it relates to children who are attempting to enter the country who were not traveling with an adult.  And the President did indicate that we, as an administration, would shift resources from the interior of the country to the border to supplement our efforts to secure the border and to process the cases of those who had been apprehended at the border attempting to gain entry into the country. 

The shifting of those resources may have something to do with those numbers, but that is not -- but, again, those numbers reflect the enforcement activities of law enforcement officials at the Department of Homeland Security.

Roberta.

Q    On Ex-Im Bank.  It seems that lawmakers are expected to extend the charter for nine more months, and I’m wondering whether the White House has concerns about the brevity of that extension.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Roberta, the thing that we have indicated is that it was incredibly important for Congress to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank.  The Bank plays a key role in creating jobs and stimulating economic growth.  There are many businesses large and small all across the country that benefit from the activities of the Ex-Im Bank.  And this is -- support for the Ex-Im Bank has traditionally been a bipartisan proposition.  In the past, I’ve read quotes from people like President Reagan himself who signed legislation to reauthorize the bank.  At the time, President Reagan articulated the variety of reasons why the Ex-Im Bank was beneficial for the American economy and important to American job creation.  That is also why organizations like the Chamber of Commerce that don’t often agree with the President’s policies do in this case support the President’s view that the Ex-Im Bank should be reauthorized.

Q    But are you concerned about the brevity that Congress has -- are you concerned, though, about the brevity of the proposed extension?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, this is -- reauthorizing the bank is the responsibility of the United States Congress.  And I know that there have been efforts underway to pass legislation to reauthorize it.

It is the view of the administration that the bank should be reauthorized because of the important role it plays in stimulating economic growth and creating jobs.  But as it relates to the length of time over which -- for which the bank is reauthorized, we have not taken a position on that.  Our view is just that the Export-Import Bank does work that’s important for the American economy and for American job creation, and it should continue to do that work.

Q    And on the Russian sanctions announced today, how concerned is the White House about the financial impact these sanctions will have on U.S. energy companies?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Roberta, when it comes to sanctions, what the United States is focused on is acting in coordination with our allies, particularly our allies in Europe.  The impact of these sanctions is always implemented in a way to maximize the impact on the Russian economy, to minimize the impact on the American economy, and ensure -- or at least do our best to make sure -- that American businesses are not put at a significant disadvantage vis-à-vis their competitors in other countries that are not working closely with the United States on a sanctions regime.

So there is an element of coordination here that does play a role in the decisions that are made about sanctions regimes that are put in place.  We believe that the sanctions regime that has been put in place, again, in concert with our European allies, will focus the impact on the Russian economy, will reduce the exposure that American businesses have to businesses that may try to game the system in a way that would give them an unfair advantage. 

But we are certain at -- or we are confident that this new round of sanctions will have economic costs for Russia.  And they are indicative of the international community’s resolve to standing up for the territorial integrity of the people of Ukraine, and ensuring that all countries -- including Russia -- abide by generally accepted international norms that relate to the sovereignty of independent nations.

Let’s move around a little bit.  Justin.

Q    I wanted to ask about the CR.  I know we’ve talked a lot about adding to the CR, but it strikes me that since Republicans rolled it out earlier this week, we haven’t heard from you guys whether you would sign the CR as presented by the Republicans -- the House Republicans.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Justin, the administration has been consulting with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill about the continuing resolution.  There are certain aspects of the continuing resolution that are important.  We have indicated that we believe that the best way for Congress to act on the Title 10 authority to train Syrian opposition fighters is for Congress to add that authority to the continuing resolution.

So we’re working closely with Congress.  I don’t believe that we’ve issued a statement of the administration position on the continuing resolution at this point, but it is part of the ongoing consultation that we are having with members of Congress in both parties.

Q    Would the President sign something that overfunds his defense ask?  It’s like a tactic that House Republicans seem to be using so that they would have more leverage in the December round of budget negotiations.  So if a CR is sent to the White House that overfunds the defense ask, is that something that you guys would consider signing?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not in a position at this point, Justin, to confirm which aspects of the CR are aspects that we support, and which are deal-breakers or which aspects --

Q    Are there any deal-breakers when it comes to --

MR. EARNEST:  -- of their proposals that they can live with. 

So again, I’m not here at this point to issue a veto threat of any kind.  I can confirm for you that there are some things that we care about being included in the CR -- Title 10 authority is one of them.  And we’re continuing to work with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill to ensure that whatever continuing resolution is passed by the Congress is something that the President can sign.

Of course, the reason that we’re having this conversation is because the President does believe that we should risk the traction that our economy has gained by shutting down the government.  So we’re confident that we can work through any differences of opinion and hopefully end up in a place where Congress can quickly pass a continuing resolution that includes Title 10 authority so that the President can pursue the national security priority that he discussed in his speech on Wednesday night.

Q    And then just finally on the CR.  I know that you had expressed some skepticism, and certainly some Democrats raising some money had expressed some skepticism that Republicans would pass a CR and prevent a government shutdown.  So I’m wondering -- I know you guys have been talking to the Hill -- if you right now believe that Congress will pass a CR before the end of the month.

MR. EARNEST:  I would hesitate to make predictions about the future, particularly when it relates to issues like this.  But I would say that the kinds of conversations that we’ve been having with members of Congress over the course of this week about the continuing resolution have been constructive.  And that is encouraging.  I think both sides acknowledge that a government shutdown would have a very negative impact on our economy.  And based on the constructive conversations we’ve had so far, we believe that we should be able to get this done in a timely fashion.  It certainly would fall in line with the national security priority that the President has laid out.

Victoria.

Q    Yes, a couple things.  One is on the Arab states.  They said that they would be prepared to do their share, and they talk about “as appropriate, joining in many aspects.”  But this language is a little amorphous.  It’s hard to get your hands around it.  What are they actually saying that they would do, besides Saudi Arabia hosting the Syrian rebels for training?  Will they provide troops, for example?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Victoria, each of these individual nations has their own calculation about what they’re in a position to provide.  And when they’re ready to make announcements about what they’re going to provide, I’m certainly not going to announce it from here; we’ll allow these other countries to make their own announcements about their contribution to this international effort.

We are pleased by the initial reaction we’ve received from governments in the region and from our allies around the world as it relates to their willingness to participate in a robust fashion in this broad international coalition that the United States is leading. 

So this will be an ongoing effort by the United States to cultivate this broader international coalition.  But I can tell you that the first round of conversations that we’ve had have been positive, and we’re going to continue to engage deeply with these nations as we determine what sort of contributions make the most sense for the success of the international coalition. 

That’s the other piece of this that’s important for people to understand -- that we want to make sure that people aren’t just making commitments in a way that isn’t carefully integrated with the commitments that are made by other members of the coalition; that as we can sort of draw up a list of needs, as we’ve identified them, and then go out and seek commitments from specific countries based on their expertise or their capability to fill those needs, that will be a way for us to coordinate and integrate this international coalition in a way that will make it efficient and successful.

Q    And the CIA is reporting that they’ve seen a surge in recruitment for ISIS, up to maybe 31,000 fighters now.  Do you think you have sufficient Syrian rebel fighters to train to take them on?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Victoria, the intelligence community has assessed that ISIL can muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria.  And that’s based on a new review of all-source intelligence reports.

They have indicated that the increase in ISIL fighters is an indication that the group has had some recruitment success after the battlefield successes that they demonstrated back in June.  And it reflects some better insight that the intelligence community has been able to gain into the activities of ISIL.

We are confident that the strategy that the President has put forward and discussed in his primetime address on Wednesday night is sufficient to meet the threat that is posed by ISIL, even given the assessment that they may be able to muster a slightly larger force than was previously believed.

Q    So you think you can get enough Syrian rebels who are trainable to take them on?

MR. EARNEST:  Again, Victoria, there are a large number of components of this strategy, and we are confident that this comprehensive strategy that includes diplomatic intelligence and, yes, military components, is the right one to succeed in degrading and ultimately destroying ISIL.

Let’s move around. Zeke.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  Just going back to a conversation we had earlier this week about immigration.  I know that it’s dropped a little bit off the front burner this week, but the President was supposed to announce his decision on the executive actions at the end of the summer, which is about eight or nine days away from now.  But now he has delayed the announcement.  But has the President made the decision about what he wants to do after the election?  Has he made a decision and is just not telling people because of the politically charged climate?  Or has he -- or for some reason -- you’ve offered a reason why he is not announcing it now, but why hasn’t he made a decision yet?

MR. EARNEST:  Zeke, the President was asked this question in the interview that he did over the weekend with Chuck on “Meet the Press.”  And what he indicated is that he was still waiting to cross some t’s as it relates to the implementation of that strategy.  So I think you can conclude from that comment that the President is determined to take executive action within the confines of the law before the end of the year to address and reform as many aspects of the broken immigration system as he can using his own executive authority.

But there is still a little work to be done as it relates to implementing that strategy.  So I wouldn’t say that all of the needed decisions have been made, but there have been a number of consultations between the President and members of his team, principally the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, who has been responsible for leading this review alongside the Attorney General of the United States.  So there have been many conversations.  A lot of the decisions have been made.  There are still some additional decisions that need to be finalized, but what that indicates is that while there is a little bit more work to be done, most of the work has been completed and we are positioned to make an announcement about these decisions before the end of the year.

Q    All that work was supposed to have been done within 10 days from now.  So is that still on pace?  Will the President have all -- with those t’s be crossed and the i’s dotted by the end of summer?  And then the President will just hold it on his desk or in a shelf somewhere, waiting until after the election to announce it?

MR. EARNEST:  I am not under the impression that this will all be finalized next week.  I am under the impression that it will take some time to finalize some of these decisions but, again, we’re in a position where the vast majority of the work has been done.  This is something that Secretary Johnson and Attorney General Holder have been at work on for a couple of months now.  They’ve had their teams working hard at this.  There have been a number of conversations between senior White House officials and those teams.  The President has had a number of conversations about these recommendations. 

So a lot of the work here, the bulk of the work, you could even say, has been done.  There does remain a little bit more to do but that work will be completed in sufficient time for the President to make a decision and announce it before the end of the year.

Q    And one quick add.  I know Denis McDonough was on the Hill yesterday.  He had a rough reception at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. 

MR. EARNEST:  That’s not how the meeting was described to me, but go ahead.

Q    So how would you characterize the response to the President’s delay after saying at the end of summer, now after the election, from immigration reform activists?  They’ve put out statements that have been fairly critical.  What’s your assessment of that community’s response? 

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think they can speak for themselves.  I can speak for the President.  In terms of our -- why don’t I try to assess our relationship with them if maybe that’s an easier way for me to answer your question.

As reflected by the decision of the White House Chief of Staff to travel to Capitol Hill to sit down with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, there continues to be a strong commitment by the White House to working closely with members of Congress who have, like the President, made immigration reform a top priority.

We’re going to continue to work closely with them.  We’re going to continue to work closely and consult closely with members of Congress who share this objective, and we’ll continue to have those conversations.  Yes, there are members of Congressional Hispanic Caucus, as they have made known publicly, who don’t agree with the strategy that the President has laid out. 

But that is not going to prevent the administration from continuing to work with them to accomplish the goal that we share.  It also -- again, I’ll let them speak for themselves.  The readout that I got from that meeting is that many of them were heartened by the fact that the Chief of Staff was able to reiterate to them in person that the President would make a decision, the President had decided to act, that his determination to act using his executive authority had not changed, and that he would make an announcement about those decisions before end of the year.

So it was a constructive meeting.  I’m not suggesting that everybody in there agreed with the President’s decision -- of course they don’t.  But it was a constructive meeting, and the fact that the meeting occurred is an indication of the strong relationship that endures between members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, other top advocates for immigration reform, and senior White House staff.

Jared.

Q    Josh, you said earlier that there are no plans at this time to send a revised AUMF to Congress.  In the 16 months between the National Defense University speech and now, what, if any, progress has been made on revising, refining or repealing the 2001 AUMF?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jared, I can tell you that there are obviously a number of members of Congress who have strong views on this topic, and I know that there have been some conversations that have occurred, particularly on Capitol Hill.  There have also been some conversations between senior White House staffers and members of Congress. 

Over the last 13 months, there have been a variety of other priorities that have cropped up, but this is an issue that the President has spoken about rather eloquently, and it does reflect a view that the President strongly holds.

Q    So there have been meetings at the White House?

MR. EARNEST:  I’m not going to detail all of the interactions on this topic.  But it is something that remains on the radar screen of the White House, and you’ve, I’m sure, heard from many members of Congress who continue to keep this issue on their radar screen as well.

Q    So the Iraq government is the lynchpin -- the new Iraq government, the inclusive Iraq government -- is the lynchpin in many ways of the President’s strategy.  That government is days old and potentially vulnerable.  Is there a contingency plan to defend that government if the members of that leadership are threatened by ISIS?  Is there any military contingency or other contingency if they are threatened?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Jared, the President has already ordered military action in support of efforts by the Iraqi security forces and the Kurdish security forces.  And in the speech that the President delivered on Wednesday night, he indicated a willingness to ramp up the assistance and support that we’re providing to the Iraqi and Kurdish security forces -- this includes both strengthening and enhancing the training and equipment that is being provided to them.  It also means ramping up the kind of air support that the American military has already provided to Iraqi security forces and Kurdish security forces as they take the fight on the ground to ISIL in their country.

Q    What about contingencies for if the government is internally not solvent?  What if there’s some kind of -- again, this is something -- Abadi became Prime Minister-designate about a month ago; the government officially a couple days ago.  If this becomes something that’s not the future government of Iraq, what is our contingency plan?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, like you said, Jared, the government is just a few days old at this point.  So we’re going to continue to work closely with the Iraqi government.  It’s in the interest of the Iraqi government to work closely with this broader international coalition that’s being led by the United States to help them defend their country.

And ultimately, there is a key principle here, which is that the United States cannot take responsibility for the security situation in Iraq.  The Iraqi government, the Iraqi security forces, and, ultimately, the Iraqi people need to step up and take that responsibility.  They’ll do so with the support of the international community and the United States.  Those are very powerful friends to have, but ultimately, this is a task that they must take on themselves.

Peter.

Q    Josh, going back to the sanctions issue.  We’ve seen this in a series of increasingly tough sanctions that the U.S. and the Europeans have enacted.  But at the same time, today, we heard senior officials describing continuing, in their words, “illegal and destabilizing Russian actions in Ukraine.”  So can you point to any single impact on the military side -- not the Russian economy, which you talk about all the time -- but on the military side, that these sanctions have had to stop the Russians from illegal and destabilizing actions?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’ll say two things about that, but I’m going to start with the economic impact, because it’s important that people not overlook that -- that there has been a significant toll taken on the Russian economy.  It can be measured in a variety of ways -- everything from the significant sums of money that the Russian Central Bank has expended to try to prop up the Russian currency, to the tabulations of significant capital flight that we’ve seen from Russia.  Russia relies on and values the kind of international investments that’s been important to their economy.  We’ve actually seen that private capital flowing in the other direction because Russia has become increasingly isolated.

The Russian financial markets are not performing at the same level as comparable economies.  And we have seen international organizations roll back their projections for Russian economic growth in the future because of the sanctions that have been put in place.  So there has been a tangible economic effect.  The question you’re asking, though, is a legitimate one, which is --

Q    Does that translate into anything that has impacted at all on the military side?

MR. EARNEST:  I would say that in two ways, that there has been an impact.  The first is that, as Ukraine was engaged in an effort to elect a new President, Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, was vowing to not acknowledge the results of that election, but yet, just a couple of weeks ago, Vladimir Putin traveled to Minsk to sit down across the negotiating table from that newly -- relatively newly elected President of Ukraine.  That has been a pretty dramatic reversal, as it relates to the position of Russia and the elected leader of Ukraine.

The second thing is -- and in some ways this might be more important -- we have seen early indications that Russia is living up to the cease-fire agreement that was reached just last week, and that involves some troop movements and some other things.  We have also seen those kinds of encouraging signs be quickly reversed.  So I don’t want to be irrationally exuberant about those early indications, but yet, they are an indication that -- at least preliminarily, that Russia is living up to aspects of that cease-fire agreement.

But I think the other -- this is the last thing I’ll say about your question -- there are other things that we want Russia to do, and we believe that they should do, to demonstrate their respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity, and to demonstrate their respect for basic international norms about the sovereignty of other countries.

So I think everybody who has participated in the effort to impose sanctions on Russia would acknowledge that there is more that needs to be done by Russia.  And that, by definition almost, means that Russia hasn’t -- that the sanctions haven’t yet had the desired effect.

But the United States, in coordination with our allies, has spoken pretty clearly with a united voice about the need for Russia to live up to these basic international commitments and international norms.  And the international community -- the United States included -- is prepared to start to roll back these sanctions if we see Russia start to live up to the kinds of agreements that they have made.

Q    You mentioned Putin.  Does the President trust him on any level?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the President himself has described the kinds of conversations and the relationship that he has with President Putin I believe as “businesslike.”  And I do think that is the kind of give-and-take that they have with one another; that the President is able to speak pretty bluntly with President Putin, and I believe that President Putin feels like he can speak pretty bluntly in return.  That is a useful and constructive channel of dialogue between those two world leaders. 

There are, despite our differences -- our strong differences -- with Russia about their behavior in Ukraine, there are other areas where we have been able to advance both of our nations’ interests on some other topics.  The P5-plus-1 negotiations in Iran is probably the best example of that -- actually, the best example of that is probably the removal of Syria’s declared chemical weapons stockpile.  That was something --

Q    I don’t think you answered the question, though.  Does he trust Putin?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think what I’m trying to say, Peter, is that they do have a very businesslike exchange of ideas when they talk.  And their relationship -- or the relationship between the two countries has yielded results that are positive for the United States and positive for Russia.  That is an indication of at least a functioning relationship between our two countries.  And that’s an indication that you have two world leaders who are able to interact in a constructive way.

Let’s see.  Josh.  How are you?

Q    I’m good.  How are you?

MR. EARNEST:  Good.  Thank you.

Q    Can I follow up on Jim’s question about the comparison to a year ago and the resolution?  At that time, not only did the President say in his public remarks that he wanted Congress to have a vote -- I don’t know if he said up or down, but some kind of a direct vote -- on the use of military force in that context, the White House actually sent a draft resolution to Capitol Hill, which I think Senator Mendendez or Senator Reid introduced to be considered.  Events moved on, that didn’t happen.  Why is the stance different now?  Isn’t this in fact a more significant undertaking than a couple of -- what was reported to be a couple of nights of bombing of Syria versus what aids are indicating could be a two-year campaign, a three-year campaign against ISIL?

MR. EARNEST:  I’ll say a couple things about that.  I don’t, frankly, recall the provision of the working draft of a resolution, but I take your word for it.  I don’t recall that.  I do have the President’s language in front of me:  “I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine and ultimately repeal the AUMF’s mandate, and I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further.  Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue.”

Q    Yes, I’m not talking about that speech.  I’m talking about the Syria chemical weapons situation from just a year ago --

MR. EARNEST:  I see.

Q    -- where he said we should have an up-or-down vote, and -- why isn’t he using that language in connection with this new effort that seems broader?

MR. EARNEST:  I see.  Because they’re two different situations.  The President, in this case, believes that he does have the authority that he needs under the statutory authority, under the 2001 AUMF to carry out the military actions that he has ordered thus far.  Those actions, again, would not include the deployment of ground combat troops into Iraq or Syria, and all of this would take place under the rubric of a broader international coalition.

The situation last year was different.  The goal here is to deny a safe haven to ISIL, and to degrade and ultimately destroy them.  The situation that we were talking about a little over a year ago was related to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons.  And those are just two different circumstances.

Q    But he did say in his speech a year ago that he thought he had the authority there, too, to do what he needed to do, but nevertheless he wanted a resolution from Congress.  And if there are differences between this situation and that, don’t they lean in favor of getting Congress more clearly on the record in this case?  Because you’re talking about a much more massive undertaking.  It’s not really a question of whether the law requires him to do it; he said it’s healthy when Congress is explicit about these things and supporting him.  Isn’t it even more important in this case?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I think this is exactly why the administration would welcome a show of support from Congress for the strategy that the President has put in place here.  There is, in the view of the President, a very clear national security interest about why the President has ordered the military action that he has, and we would certainly welcome a show of support from Congress.

At the same time, the President and his national security team have determined that it’s -- that he has very clearly the authority that he needs under the previous AUMF to order that military action.

Jon.

Q    So, Josh -- just to follow up on -- isn’t it true that the President would like a vote from Congress on this, just as Josh was just asking about -- just like he wanted a year ago?  And the reason why he is not explicitly asking for a vote -- although he’s certainly implying it with that sentence you just read -- is that congressional leaders, Democratic congressional leaders, have said they don’t want a vote right now -- isn’t that what’s really going on here?

MR. EARNEST:  Jon, what’s going on is that the President believes he has the authorization that he needs.

Q    As he did a year ago.

MR. EARNEST:  And in this case, he has -- for the reasons that I described earlier to your colleague’s question, about why he has the authority that he needs under the 2001 AUMF.  And I think the President has taken the reasonable position that’s consistent with the policy that he laid out in his speech at the National Defense University a little over a year ago -- has said that he would welcome a show of support from Congress for the strategy that the President has put forward. 

And I think that is the reasonable position that the President has pursued.  And this is a position that the President and his national security team have discussed at length with members of Congress in both parties who are interested in this issue.

Q    So let’s put that in language that Congress -- describes what Congress actually does, shows of support and not a technical term of a congressional action here.  The President would welcome a vote from Congress explicitly authorizing this, is that correct?  Would he welcome such a vote?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it is true, Jon, that there are a range of ways that Congress could indicate their support.  That would include a vote, and that would include the range of things that the President would welcome.

The President does not, however, believe that that’s what he needs.  What he needs right now is the specific Title 10 authority related to the training-and-equipping mission of the -- that he would like the Department of Defense to carry out to expand the capacity and strengthen the capacity of the Syrian opposition.

Q    And Bill Clinton was here today, I believe I saw on the South Lawn. 

MR. EARNEST:  I noticed.  Always nice to have him back, isn’t it?

Q    Sure thing.  Did the President have some time to sit down with the former President?

MR. EARNEST:  I do understand that they were going to visit a little bit before the event.  I don’t know that they were going to have a formal meeting of any kind, but I was not -- I did not -- unfortunately, I didn’t have the opportunity to see the former President while he was here.  But I would anticipate that they had a chance to visit a little bit before the event.

Q    Because I know the President reached out to former National Security Advisors for some counsel and their views on the situation with the Islamic State.  So has the President similarly reached out to former President Clinton or former Secretary of State Clinton for their views on how to handle this threat?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, like I said, Jon, I’m not sure of the nature of the conversation that they had today.  Even if I were aware of it --

Q    Even other days.  I mean, has there been any --

MR. EARNEST:  -- I’m not in a position to read out any sort of -- any conversations between the President and his predecessors.

Michelle.

Q    The administration hasn’t wanted to call this a war on ISIS, but is it not a war?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, that’s a good question, Michelle.  There are a couple things that I would say about that.  I mean, the first thing that’s important for people to understand is the President has made clear how the strategy that he is pursuing in Iraq and Syria to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL is different than the strategy that was pursued in the previous Iraq war. 

The President has been clear that American ground combat troops would not be deployed into Iraq and Syria.  The President has indicated how serious he is about building a true international coalition, where you will have governments in the region and our allies around the world contributing to this broader effort to deny ISIL a safe haven in Iraq and Syria.

Q    But that happens in wars as well.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, but this is -- the reason that I say this again is, as the President and Secretary Kerry have described, this is consistent with the counterterrorism strategy that this administration has successfully implemented in a variety of other places around the globe.  The question that you’re asking, though, goes to sort of the central question that is important for people to understand. 

This is not a situation where it’s the United States against ISIL.  The fact is, ISIL has indicated that they’re ready to go to war against the world.  And this President, as is expected of American Presidents, is stepping up to lead an international coalition to confront that threat and to deny ISIL a safe haven.  And ultimately this international coalition will be responsible for degrading and destroying ISIL.  So I think what you could conclude from this is the United States is at war with ISIL in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe.

Q    Got it.  And in Syria, we know now that it was sort of strange the way it came up but the Assad regime is saying that it would help in the effort to defeat ISIS in Syria but any unilateral action by the United States would be seen as aggression.  So now U.S.-trained fighters -- I mean, there’s a big risk that Assad’s forces will just double down and be fighting them while they’re trying to fight ISIS, right?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we’ve seen that they’ve been doing that already.  And that is why the United States is looking to ramp up the assistance that we provide to Syrian opposition fighters to give them greater capacity to take on ISIL.  And they will have, and what will impact the equation if not change it completely, is they will have the backing of the United States military in the form of military airstrikes working alongside them and coordinating with them as they attempt to take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their own country.

Q    But indirectly, these U.S. forces are going to be training them to not only fight ISIS but they’re also going to be having to simultaneously fight Assad forces.  I mean, it’s not as if that’s unexpected, but that’s what they’re going to be trained to do, yes?

MR. EARNEST:  As many of you have noted, we have a longstanding policy as relates to the Assad regime.  We believe that President Assad has lost legitimacy to lead that country.  But what we’re focused on and what this international coalition is focused on is confronting the threat that’s posed by ISIL and making sure that the international community can act and support the Syrian fighters on the ground to deny ISIL a safe haven in Syria.

It’s important for people to understand that the failed leadership of President Assad is the reason that we’re in this situation.  The reason that ISIL has a safe haven in Syria today is because of the failure of President Assad to lead that country in a way that would unite that country to meet the threat that’s posed by ISIL. 

So the international community is being forced to step in here.  We’re going to support the opposition fighters, we’re going to build this broader international coalition.  These Syrian opposition fighters will be backed up with military support and air support from the United States, and potentially other members of the coalition.  And that will certainly enhance their capacity and their ability to take the fight to ISIL on the ground in their own country.

Q    Okay, and very quickly, just because we heard late last night from Jim Foley’s mother saying a lot of things.  But one of the things that sort of stuck out was saying that the U.S. government told the family that they shouldn’t raise a ransom.  And we know the U.S. stance on paying ransoms in general, but she said that she was told that the family would be prosecuted if they tried to do that on their own.  Did the government tell them that?  And if so, why?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Michelle, let me start out by saying something that I’ve said before but it continues to be true today, which is the thoughts and prayers of everyone here at the White House are with the Foley family.  The grief that they’re experiencing right now is unthinkable and the sadness that they must be feeling is devastating.  And our thoughts and prayers are with them in this very difficult time. 

The President is very concerned about Americans who are in a situation where they have been taken hostage by violent extremists and there are a number of examples of the President using every tool at our disposal to try to secure the release and safe return of those individuals.  That was true in the case of Mr. Foley as well. 

The United States was in contact with more than two dozen countries to try to gather information or intelligence that could lead to the rescue of Mr. Foley.  Representatives from across the government, including the FBI, the intelligence community, the State Department, and even officials here at the White House were in regular touch with the Foley family to provide them updates about the situation and to communicate to them that his return and his rescue continued to be a priority of this administration.

The other thing that I will say is that the President was so convinced that this was a priority that he ordered a high-risk mission that was successfully executed to try to secure the release and rescue of Mr. Foley.  Unfortunately, and despite the way in which that mission was executed -- that is to say, successfully -- it did not end in the release of Mr. Foley.  But it is an indication that elements of the U.S. government were willing to take a significant risk and expend significant resources to secure his release.

Q    Did the U.S. tell them that they would be prosecuted if they tried to raise a ransom?

MR. EARNEST:  Michelle, I’m not going to be in a position to detail the kinds of conversations that took place so often between members of the administration and the Foley family.  It is the longstanding policy of this administration, it was the policy of previous administrations that ransoms should not be paid to terrorist organizations.  We have found that terrorist organizations use hostage-taking and ransoms as a critical source of financing for their organization, and that paying ransoms only puts other Americans in a position where they’re at even greater risk.  So it is the policy of this administration, and it’s consistent with the policy that was in place in other administrations as well.

Q    But theoretically, if someone did pay a ransom to ISIS to get their loved one back, would the U.S. government try to prosecute that person?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Michelle, I’d refer you to the Department of Justice about how that law is implemented.  But it is -- we’ve been very clear about what our policy is and we’ve been clear that that policy is in place both to try to prevent extremist organizations from having access to regular sources of funding but also to try to enhance the safety of American citizens around the globe.

Wendell.

Q    In the effort to defeat ISIS, would the U.S. conduct an attack that had the indirect effect of aiding Bashar al-Assad?

MR. EARNEST:  Wendell, that is a -- our actions in Syria are taking place, or would take place, in the midst of a rather difficult situation in Syria.  There are a lot of different factions that are on the ground there. 

But the policy that this administration has put in place has very clear guidelines.  Our priority is to deny ISIL a safe haven from which they could plot and execute a significant terrorist attack against the West, including the U.S. homeland.  That is a -- Osama bin Laden exposed how dangerous it is for a terrorist organization to have a safe haven, and this President has indicated that it is a clear principle of his presidency that he will take action to deny a safe haven to those organizations that seek to do harm to the United States.

Q    Is part of the policy also, don’t help Assad?

MR. EARNEST:  Part of our policy is also that we believe that President Assad has the legitimacy to lead his country.  And as I mentioned to Michelle, it is our view -- and I think this is pretty clear -- that the consequence, the clear consequence of President Assad’s failed leadership and failed governance is the kind of vacuum that ISIL has stepped into and filled with their brand of violent, despicable extremism.

And it is only because of that failed leadership on the part of President Assad that ISIL is in a position to try to capitalize on a virtual safe haven in Syria that would allow them to expand their scope and potentially do the necessary planning and plotting to strike the U.S. homeland.  The President is determined to use every element of American power to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

Q    And is the idea that we’re not in a war with ISIS or ISIL aimed at American voters, or potential Middle East allies, or congressional representatives who say the President needs to go to them for authorization?  Is it aimed at any of those people?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Wendell, I think what our aim here is, is to be as clear as possible about our strategy.  And the strategy that this administration has put in place is a counterterrorism strategy that has been successful in other areas where there are extremist groups seeking a safe haven to do harm to the United States of America.

So the United States -- this counterterrorism strategy includes building up the capacity of local forces to take the fight to these extremist groups on the ground in their country.  This strategy includes the deployment of American military assets, principally airstrikes that could be used in support of those ground forces to aid their effort to take the fight to these extremist organizations.  And it includes building the kind of international coalition that can powerfully support local governments and national governments as they take the fight to these extremist organizations.  This is a strategy --

Q    But it’s not a war.

MR. EARNEST:  This is a strategy that’s worked in other places, and it’s a strategy that we anticipate will be successful in Iraq and in Syria.  Let me just be clear about this:  what the President has said is that this is not a situation of ISIL against the United States. 

ISIL is waging a war against the broader international community.  And the President is determined to build and lead an international coalition to take the fight to them.  So in the same way that the United States is at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates around the globe, the United States is at war with ISIL.

Mike.

Q    Yes, sir.  Two questions.  First, in a very general sense, does the President as a constitutional scholar believe that the War Powers Act is constitutional?

MR. EARNEST:  The President is a constitutional scholar; I am not.  And so I would be hesitant to sort of opine on the legal merits and strengths and weaknesses of a particular --

Q    I’m not asking you to.  I’m asking if the President believes that it is.

MR. EARNEST:  I haven’t had that conversation with him so it would be hard for me to talk about that from here. 

I will say that the administration has repeatedly demonstrated our willingness to comply with the requirements of the war powers report -- or the War Powers Act.  We have filed numerous war power reports with Congress related to the movement of troops and military activities.

Q    But that doesn’t start any sort of clock for congressional action.  I believe a notification would start a 60-day clock.

*MR. EARNEST:  And there are a number of notifications that have been filed in the context of the current conflict in [Iraq]Syria.  Again, that was related to some ground troops that have been deployed specifically to strengthen protections of the embassy, to serve in the joint operation centers with Iraqi security forces, and some forces that are related to an advise-and-assist mission.

But let me get to this other part of it, which is that -- so we have demonstrated a willingness to comply with the requirements of the War Powers Act.  That said, as we enter this next phase of the conflict, this more offensive phase of the conflict, as the President described it, the President believes he has the statutory authority that he needs to order military operations to deny ISIL a safe haven, and ultimately destroy that organization.

Q    One more piece of statutory authority that he needs is Title 10 authority.

MR. EARNEST:  That’s correct, and that’s a priority.

Q    Is that a precondition for expanding the air campaign into Syria?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, no.  It is a core component that compliments this element of our strategy.

We’ve indicated -- or at least -- we haven’t indicated -- Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have indicated that they support giving the administration this authority.  I believe somebody asked me yesterday if the completion of the training mission of Syrian fighters would be required before the President would authorize airstrikes in Syria, or begin to carry out airstrikes in Syria.  And what the President has said is that he’s still reviewing the materials that have been prepared for him by the Department of Defense, but that he is ready and prepared to act but will do so at a time and place of our choosing.  And it’s unlikely that’s something that we would announce too far in advance.

Q    But that brings us back to -- the central question is, assuming that the campaign is successful in pushing them back from the Syrian strongholds, if that moderate vetted opposition, as the administration terms it, is not trained to move into that space, who moves into that space?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, it certainly won’t be U.S. ground combat troops.  That’s for sure.  There are elements of the Syrian opposition that have already been receiving both military and non-military assistance from the United States for more than a year now.

It’s been widely reported that there are other regional governments that have been seeking to assist the -- or offer assistance to the Syrian opposition.  But ultimately, the responsibility for taking the fight to ISIL on the ground in Syria can and should be Syrian fighters.  And the question is, what kind of support can we offer them?  And in the President’s view, the international community can provide support to them in two ways.

One is ramping up our training and equipping mission.  And two is the deployment of American and allied airstrikes in support of their efforts on the ground; that that will have an impact, and alter the equation on the ground as they take the fight to ISIL in their country.

Chris.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  I just want to clarify what you said about the distinction between counterterrorism and war because earlier today, Rear Admiral John Kirby at the Pentagon briefing said something almost identical to what you said -- I’m going to quote him -- “This is not the Iraq war of 2002, but make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL in the same way we are at war and continue to be at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.”  Can you speak to, since it seems to be almost direct wording, is this a message from the administration that we are at war with ISIL or ISIS?  Semantics do seem to matter here.

MR. EARNEST:  Semantics matter in our line of work, both yours and mine, Chris.  And I think what -- Admiral Kirby’s comments are an indication that the administration at the Department of Defense, here at the White House, and I expect that my colleagues at other agencies will be asked as well, it is important for people here in the United States and around the world to understand that the strategy that the United States is pursuing at the direct order of the President of the United States is different than the strategy that was previously pursued in Iraq. 

We are not contemplating a significant commitment of ground troops to Iraq.  We’re certainly not contemplating the deployment of ground troops into combat in Iraq or in Syria.  But the strategy that we’ve laid out is consistent with the counterterrorism strategy that we’ve pursued in places all around the globe.

And our intention and our determination to build an international coalition to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL is a top national security priority of the United States.  That’s because it’s in line with a core principle the President has laid out to deny ISIL and other terrorist organizations that seek to do harm to the United States a safe haven anywhere in the world.

And so in the same way that we are at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates around the globe, we are at war with ISIL.  But make no mistake, when I say “we,” I’m not talking just about the United States.  I’m talking about this broader international coalition that includes Sunni-led governments in the region and our allies around the world who are united in confronting this threat.

Q    So the definition of war does not need to include ground troops?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, I’ll let other people determine what the precise legal or academic definition of war may be.  What it’s important for people to understand -- setting aside the specific definition -- is, A, how this strategy is significantly different than the strategy that was pursued in the previous Iraq war; B, they need to understand that we’re talking about a broad international coalition; C, they need to understand that this is consistent with the counterterrorism strategy that the President has employed in other places in a way that has made the American people safer; and, D, they need to understand that this strategy is one that is being pursued not just by the United States alone, but by a broad international coalition that's being led by the United States of America.

Q    And in believing that and in deciding that the AUMF covered this latest round, did the Justice Department provide a written analysis for the President, a legal analysis?

MR. EARNEST:  I’ll be honest with you, Chris, I don't know the answer to that question.  You should check with the Department of Justice.  I mean, I will say that even if they have, I don't know if they’d be in a position to provide private legal advice to the President, to the public.  But you should check with them and find out.

Q    And if I can ask another question to follow up on what Michelle was asking about the Foley family because -- and this concern that they had that they said that they were told by the government that they would be prosecuted if they tried to raise a ransom.  You stated, as you’ve stated many times before, that it is the policy of the U.S. government not to pay ransom.  But you referred us and said, “how that law is implemented, you should check with Justice.”  Obviously there is a difference between policy and law.  Is there a law that suggests that someone could be prosecuted if they paid ransom to what the United States might deem a terrorist organization?

MR. EARNEST:  I think what I was trying to clarify is I can speak to our policy, and our policy for a good reason, and for a reason that involves the safety and well-being of Americans across the globe, is that we do not pay ransom to terrorist organizations that take hostages.

But as it relates to the law, I’d refer you to my colleagues the Department of Justice.  It’s their responsibility to understand what the laws are and how they're enforced.  I can't speak to that from here.

Q    Well, would it have been the Justice Department folks who spoke with the Foley family about this issue?

MR. EARNEST:  I do believe that there were some Justice Department officials who were in touch with the Foley family.  But I can't speak to the nature of their conversations.

Q    The Foleys said -- the Foley family says the military officials told them of this.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, again, I’m not going to get into who said what in the context of these individual conversations.  As I described earlier, there were a range of officials in the administration who were in touch with the Foley family.  It was the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and even some officials here at the White House.  But I’m not going to detail the nature of those conversations.

Q    They said specifically military officials warned them of prosecution if they paid ransom money.

MR. EARNEST:  Again, Wendell, I’m not going to detail the specific conversations that they may have had.  I will observe, however, that the large number of conversations that were -- that occurred between a variety of officials here in this administration is indicative of the resources that were dedicated to trying to secure the safe return of Mr. Foley.

Q    Thanks, Josh.

MR. EARNEST:  Lalit.

Q    Thanks, Josh.  In Afghanistan, the auditing of ballots is over.  And in Kabul today, supporters of Abdullah Abdullah, one of the presidential candidates, had a large demonstration in which they alleged that the U.N. and the U.S. helped in rigging of votes in the presidential election.  My question is, to what extent are you hopeful that there will be a stable, unity government in Afghanistan, given the two candidates are still fighting among each other?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, Lalit, as you know, the President spoke with Afghan presidential candidates Dr. Abdullah Abdullah and Dr. Ashraf Ghani on Saturday.  He emphasized the importance of concluding a deal on the national unity government as soon as possible, in the interest of shoring up international support for Afghanistan and for preserving Afghan stability.  The President reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to support Afghanistan, its people, and efforts to form a new unity government. 

In addition to the President’s conversations, the United States is continuing to engage with the candidates at the highest levels, including Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Cunningham, both of whom have been intensively involved in the situation.

Everyone across the United States government that's been speaking to both candidates has encouraged them to abide by their commitments to the political process and to the formation of a unity government that helps secure the prosperity and stability of Afghanistan.  That's been our policy for some time.  That's been the policy that's been communicated by the President to them.  The President has had a number of telephone conversations with them throughout this process. 

And our policy hasn’t changed.  They’ve made specific commitments to a political process and to the formation of a national unity government.  And despite the challenging situation that they're operating in right now, we expect them to uphold the commitments that they’ve made because it’s in the best interests of their country and their people.

Q    And if there is no unity government, what impact would it have in terms of U.S. financial and military assistance to Afghanistan?

MR. EARNEST:  Well, the key thing here, as everybody knows, is the signing of a bilateral security agreement.  Both of these candidates have indicated a willingness to sign that agreement, but we’ll need the President of Afghanistan and the senior members of the government to sign on and officially agree to that bilateral security agreement.  So that's what we’re watching.

I think there are a host of other organizations that are watching to see what sort of security agreement Afghanistan has with the United States.  And I do think that that will have an impact on the decisions that international organizations in other countries make about the presence they’ll have in Afghanistan.  And that's why it’s so important for these candidates to keep the commitments that they’ve made to the political process -- because it is important to shoring up international support for Afghanistan and preserving Afghan stability.

Cheryl, I’ll give you the last one, then we’ll do the week ahead.

Q    Thanks.  Real quick, I just wanted to know about the status of funding for the southwest border.  I don't believe there’s any new funding in the CR.  So I’m wondering if that's something you’re going to look for later?  Or if that need has been -- I don't know -- abated.

MR. EARNEST:  Well, we have seen that the situation at the southwest border has significantly improved since the President announced some steps earlier this summer to deal with that challenge.  Those steps included shifting additional resources from the interior of the country to the border.  There are a number of intensive diplomatic efforts underway with Mexico and with countries in Central America where these -- many of those seeking to travel to this country originated. 

So there was also a strategy that was put in place to open up detention centers, to hire additional judges and prosecutors and asylum specialists to preside over and participate in the proceedings that were related to processing these cases.

So there was a lot of work that went into trying to deal with this flow.  And the situation is much better.  It’s ironic that you asked me about this -- the last couple of days I’ve actually brought slides in to illustrate this situation.  And of course, today I said, no, don't worry about the slides anymore, no one has asked about those in two days.  So maybe on Monday somebody can ask me about it and I can -- wouldn’t you like to see?  Look, I’m not even exaggerating it.  There’s even a little PowerPoint thing that they gave.  But no one had ever -- no one had asked.  So we’ll do that on Monday.  That's something to look forward to on Monday.

Q    Week ahead, Josh. 

MR. EARNEST:  But the point is that there are additional resources that the government would like to deal with --

Q    Thank you.  (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST:  There are additional resources that we would like.  Congress has thus far failed to provide them.  But we certainly would like to see additional resources to deal with this challenge.

Q    Josh, one more, please?

Q    Week ahead.

MR. EARNEST:  I think we’re just going to go to the week ahead, Goyal. 

On Monday the President will award the Medal of Honor to Army Command Sergeant Major Bennie G. Adkins and to Army Specialist Four Donald P. Sloat for conspicuous gallantry. 

In the evening, the President will attend a DSCC event in Washington, D.C.

As I mentioned at the beginning of the briefing, the President will travel to Atlanta, Georgia to visit the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where he’ll receive a briefing on the outbreak of the Ebola virus in West Africa, discuss the U.S. response, and thank the scientists, doctors and health care workers helping those affected by the disease at home and around the world.

The President will also receive a briefing while he’s there on the respiratory illness reported in several states in the Midwest.  That evening, the President will travel to Tampa, Florida where he’ll remain overnight. 

On Wednesday, the President will visit U.S. Central Command at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.  And we talked through the things that he’ll do there.

On Wednesday evening, the President will return to the White House where he’ll host a picnic for members of Congress.  That should be interesting.  (Laughter.)

On Thursday, the President will --

Q    Is that the annual one?

MR. EARNEST:  That is the annual.  That is the annual one.  So -- this is something that we’ve traditionally done in the summertime.  We moved it to the fall to make it -- there were a couple of times, you’ll recall, earlier in the administration where we canceled the picnic because it was so hot outside.  So we decided we’d move it to a time when the weather might cooperate a little better.

On Thursday morning, the President will participate in an ambassador credentialing ceremony in the Oval Office.  At this event, the President will receive the credentials from foreign ambassadors recently posted in Washington.  The presentation of credentials is a traditional ceremony that marks the formal beginning of an ambassador’s service in Washington.

In the afternoon, the President will host President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine at the White House.  The visit will highlight the United States’ firm commitment to stand with the Ukraine as it pursues democracy, independence and stability.  President Obama looks forward to discussing with President Poroshenko efforts to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the crisis in eastern Ukraine, as well as our continued support for Ukraine’s struggle to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

That evening, Thursday evening, the President will attend a DNC event in Washington, D.C.

And then on Friday, the President will wrap up a very busy week by participating in an event with the DNC’s Women’s Leadership Forum here in Washington, D.C.

With that, I wish you all a good weekend.

END
2:34 P.M. EDT