Source: United States Department of Defense
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: All right, well good morning, everyone. This is Major General Pat Ryder, Pentagon press secretary. Thanks very much for joining us today for today’s backgrounder on and update on Operation Inherent Resolve and the US-Iraq bilateral security relationship. As a reminder, today’s call is on background, attributable to a senior defense official and a senior administration official.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hi, everybody. Thanks for joining here on a Friday. What we thought we’d do today, we don’t have any real news to make, but we want to kind of just put some context into some issues that have been out there related to the global coalition against ISIS. And particularly the mission in Iraq. So — and heading into the UNGA next week, and then a Counter-ISIS — the Counter-ISIS ministerial of the Global Coalition a week from Monday.
So, this month marks the 10th anniversary of the formation of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. And after a decade of that coalition, and particularly the defeat of the territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria, there have been discussions going on really over the last year about the evolution of the coalition and the mission.
There is broad consensus with every member of the coalition that the coalition will continue. We do extraordinary work in terms of counter terrorist financing, counter foreign fighter flow and everything else, sharing information, sharing intelligence — with 10 years on so there will be evolutions in the overall mission.
It’s a way to deepen and enhance the coalition and the cooperation and also kind of deepen and enhance our relationship with Iraq. I think it’s fair to say we’ve had great success in territorially defeating ISIS in the core regions of Iraq and Syria. However, we are all very mindful that ISIS, you can say is down, but they’re never quite out.
We have done a number of very effective operations against ISIS just over the last few weeks in Iraq and Syria. We remain fully committed to the defeat of ISIS. The core threat, that is what we’re working on in Iraq and northeast Syria, something that is ongoing every day and that will very much continue into the future. And we have a good consensus with the Iraqis and our partners in Syria as well on that.
So, what we’ve been talking about, and this really came out of the — when Prime Minister Sudani was here and visited the president in April. If you go back to the joint statement that we released there, we talked about the ultimate end of the coalition military mission in Iraq. And again, 10 years on, and a number of coalition partners who are interacting — who’ve been there for a decade, some of which are looking to move on from that mission. But of course, the United States is the core and we very much intend to continue to prosecute this mission against ISIS over the coming years.
And so — but we will be transitioning away from the coalition military mission in Iraq more to enduring bilateral security partnerships. Again, that’s what the president and the prime minister discussed back in April. And since then, we’ve kind of been working with the Iraqis and importantly with all of our coalition partners to kind of determine when and how — what that might look like.
And so, we haven’t reached any final conclusions. I think this will kind of unfold over the course of next week. We look forward to having very constructive discussions with Prime Minister Sudani and other prominent leaders, including those who have been central to this coalition. And then of course, the ministerial a week from Monday.
I think it’s important though to emphasize that what we’re talking about is an evolution of the coalition mission, ultimately the ending of the coalition military mission in Iraq. This is not about any specific posture decisions or anything like that. So, I think those issues kind of tend to get conflated. And we just wanted to make clear really what this is.
This is kind of coming out of the success after a decade of extraordinary international cooperation, of extraordinary cooperation between coalition partners, the Iraqi security forces, the US military in particular, just an unbelievable job they’ve done and kind of an evolution of this after a decade. It’s kind of the appropriate mark to do that and we’ll have more to discuss about it next week. And with that, I’ll turn it over to my colleague.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Thanks. Good morning. This is the Senior Defense Official. So, just to underscore a couple of the comments that have been made — we’ve had all this year, really — starting in April really, outstanding discussions with our Iraqi colleagues in what we call the Higher Military Commission. This is a military-to-military dialog, obviously coordinated and informed by policymakers as well, to help determine exactly how this transition should take place, timing and then how it should transition into the bilateral security partnership.
And we’ve had some agreed criteria that we’ve spoken about, looking at what is the threat of ISIS. As was mentioned, ISIS has definitely been severely defeated, certainly territorially defeated, and we want to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS, but the threat does remain, so we have to assess exactly the nature of that threat.
The second criteria, the capability of the Iraqi security forces, which has significantly increased. We still do things in partnership with them, but we’ve seen that evolution of their capability. And then the broader operating environment, what includes the challenge of ISIS in Syria, which is a related threat in a neighboring country, and how we have to scope our transition to make sure we can still get after that threat as well.
But those conversations have been very successful. They really flowed out of that meeting when Prime Minister Sudani was in Washington. As was mentioned all through this period and certainly even in recent weeks, we’ve continued to conduct very effective counter ISIS operations in Iraq and in Syria, with our Iraqi and with our Syrian Democratic Forces partners.
ISIS is under real pressure as a result of those operations. And so, now as we get ready to make the announcement on the transition of the global coalition’s military mission in Iraq, we’ll be deepening the conversation with our Iraqi colleagues on the nature of that bilateral security partnership.
We believe it will be quite deep and quite intense because that’s what both sides want. The Iraqi partners have made very clear to us that they are committed to continuing to work together to shape the future US Iraq bilateral security relationship to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS. We already have gotten fairly advanced into those discussions about what that looks like in terms of the kinds of training, the kinds of presence, the kinds of support for their capabilities.
But this is an iterative conversation that will continue through and beyond the announcement that we hope we’ll be in a position to make at the end of next week. I think with that, I’ll take — I’ll pause.
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: Thank you, gentlemen. The first question will go to Associated Press Tara Copp. Tara, are you there? Okay, we’ll come back to Tara. Let’s go to Nancy Youssef, Wall Street Journal.
Q: Hi, I’m having a hard time understanding because the Iraqis said last month that this deal had been finalized, they outlined the timeline in which US forces would withdraw from Baghdad and then from the north. And you’re saying you can’t announce it yet, maybe next week. Can you help me understand why there’s not an agreement on how to announce it? And does this suggest there are disagreements about the specifics of the deal?
And in light of the news out of Lebanon, can you speak at all about these potential strikes in Southern Beirut that have killed Ibrahim Akil, the number two in Hezbollah, what your assessment is? And what your you’re read is of Israel’s understanding and intelligence on Hezbollah operations given the sophistication of the strikes we’ve seen this week? Thank you.
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: Why don’t we start with our Senior Administration Official and then Senior Defense Official.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, so I’ll keep the topic to the topic of the call. So, look, there’s a lot of discussions here because it shows it’s bilateral with us and Iraq. Those have been very constructive and successful, I think as Senior Defense Official mentioned, but also the number of coalition partners. So, we’re working to get this — we want to get this right and before we roll anything out formally.
So, I would not say that everything is fully concluded. I think we made an awful lot of progress. I think heading into next week we’re in very good shape. But we’re not going to do anything that is not known to all of our coalition partners and that this is a broad — kind of a broad area of diplomatic engagement which is ongoing in multiple capitals.
And so, it takes time to put everything together, dot every I, cross the T. But again, it’s a kind of a broad evolution of the mission and it does not speak to kind of more of the specifics of future posture which are discussions that will continue even beyond next week and the Counter-ISIS Ministerial on Monday.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Just to add, the announcement we anticipate will be about the transition of the coalition, but many of those details of the mechanics of the transition and the next phases of the future US bilateral security partnership will take shape in discussions that will go beyond that announcement. Again, we made a lot of progress in the HMC discussions, also in the Joint Security Cooperation dialog we hosted when the Iraqi defense minister came here in July, but many of those conversations are going to continue beyond the announcement next week.
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: Thank you both. Let’s go to Washington Post, Missy Ryan.
Q: Hi there. I’m hoping — I know you don’t want to address the details of the plan, but it’s sort of already out there and the Iraqis have outlined it in pretty clear detail. But presuming that that all is correct, what they have said, could you talk about — either of you, [SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL or SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL] — could you talk about how you see this evolution in Iraq fitting into what’s going on in the rest of the region in terms of the conflict in Gaza, the episodic escalation that we’re seeing between Israel and Hezbollah, the sort of broader instability in the region, and the efforts that the administration has been making to bring about some sort of larger diplomatic resolution there? Thanks.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I would say, I mean, our presence and relationship and partnership with Iraq is important for overall regional stability. We think our — what we’ve done in Eastern Syria is important for stability in that part of Syria, given the vacuum that can easily open up where we would simply withdraw without a plan for what that might look like. So, I think we’ve been very deliberate, very careful about this.
I think throughout the crisis that began on October 7 with Hamas’s attack into Israel, we have used diplomacy, we’ve used backchannel diplomacy, and we’ve used the direct and targeted application of military force and deterrence and maneuvers and deployments to deter and signal. And when necessary, the president, as I mentioned, has ordered the application of military force.
I think we’ve done that not only to protect our people but also to deter and contain this overall conflict to the theater primarily in Gaza. We know that Iran and many of its proxy networks, including those who are in Iraq, had designs early in this crisis to significantly broaden the conflict into a regional conflict. They have not succeeded in doing that and we intend very much to continue.
And I’ll turn it over to my Senior Defense Official colleague to speak more to this, but we very much will maintain that deterrent posture, because we are still in the crisis. There’s a lot of diplomacy going on behind the scenes and above board. But we — and of course obviously our relationship with Iraq, our presence in Iraq is fundamental to that. So, I would not — the Counter-ISIS mission has been ongoing throughout this crisis, I think doesn’t get as much attention. But we’ve done extremely effective Counter-ISIS operations and strikes even in the last two months.
And that’s something that is going to continue even while this crisis is ongoing. And hopefully we will find diplomatic solutions to some of the issues obviously in Gaza and Lebanon. The question that was just asked we’re working at extremely hard, but there is a military dimension to this and we’re mindful of that. And I think we used that tool of national power effectively, deliberately. And we work with the president every day on this and Secretary of Defense and others. So, I’ll turn it over to [SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL].
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yeah, look, I would just say that during this crisis, our partners across the region have looked to the United States to be present, to indicate that we are remaining present and active, to use our force posture and our other capabilities to defend our friends, to defend our own forces and to deter our adversaries. And in the case of the Counter-ISIS mission, to continue to prosecute that mission to ensure the enduring defeat of ISIS.
And what our friends have seen during this crisis is part of what we’re discussing here today. That presence is going to continue. Our partnerships are going to deepen — they may take different forms. They may evolve based on evolving conditions, based on evolving threats. But we will continue to remain present and to use our presence and our capabilities and our partnerships to address those common threats. So, this discussion is very much in keeping with that theme.
Q: Just to clarify, you’re not worried that this will give Iran some sort of greater positioning in the region at a moment of intense tension with Iran sort of like running through everything that you’re doing?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: We are not.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, not at all.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: We are remaining present and active in partnership with our allies and partners. Again, sometimes these things take different forms, but we’re not concerned about that. But [SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL] should speak to it as well.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, not at all. If anything, I think deepening our cooperation with Iraq in multiple areas, which we’re doing, is something that the Iranians clearly don’t want. The Iraqis have been enhancing their relations with Saudi Arabia in the Gulf and the broader Arab world. Obviously remains a very dynamic situation.
But that’s something that’s also quite important. You look at the energy infrastructure buildouts from Southern Iraq into the Gulf, stuff that had just been talked about for a decade. Iraq actually capturing its flared gas working with Total and Western energy companies to do that, which ultimately weans themself off dependency of Iranian gas. This is all kind of part of a broader picture.
So no, I would not draw an evolution of a coalition military mission after 10 years. Again, it’s important to — there’s a 10-year mark, very natural point. You have an inflection point and kind of an evolution of a mission into anything that would give any benefit to the Iranians. I think if anything, it’s quite the opposite.
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: Thank you. Let’s go to Al Hurra, Wafaa, Wafaa, are you there? Okay, we’ll come back. Next al-Arabiya, Joseph Haboush.
Q: Thanks. Can you guys hear me?
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: You’re very faint. If you can speak up a bit?
Q: How about now?
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: Still kind of quiet, but a little bit better.
Q: All right. Thanks for doing this. I just wanted to ask, on the heels of the CENTCOM announcements earlier this summer about ISIS on track to doubling the number of attacks this year as opposed to last year. And then these massive — or these pretty significant raids that we’ve seen, joint raids — joint raids between the Iraqis and us, and then the SDF and the US earlier this week.
I mean how — can you just kind of clarify how this makes — the timing of it at least makes sense when we’re seeing these large-scale operations that have taken place previously but we haven’t always publicized in detail. So, is there any split between the policymakers and CENTCOM, SOCOM or the folks in the military. In terms of timing, can you just explain how that, at least publicly, would make sense to people here? Thank you.
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, I think the timing mainly is — it’s just — it’s a 10-year mark of a coalition and an evolution. But it’s also very consistent with the intelligence we’re seeing and what we’re doing and will continue to do, I want to emphasize that, against ISIS. So, I think it’s pretty much aligned to both of those things. But I’ll turn it over to my colleague.
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: Yeah, it is the 10-year mark, but it’s also a significantly different operating environment than when the coalition first undertook its mission. As I mentioned, ISIS has been territorially defeated. It doesn’t control those swaths of territory in Syria and Iraq that it once did. Millions of people who used to live under its genocidal rule, do not any longer. So, they’re kind of isolated in their desert encampments.
And we have been able to, under the current coalition arrangement in the way you describe, continue to conduct operations that further weaken them, further prevent them — prevent them from conducting external operations and disrupt their command and control and their leadership, cadres.
That ability is going to continue. It will continue during the course of this transition, which, by the way, even when it’s announced next week, takes some time to actually be implemented. So, many of these capabilities, even as we are doing them now in partnership with our Iraqi and our Syrian democratic Forces colleagues, will be able to continue.
And then as the bilateral security relationship becomes the basis for our cooperation with Iraq in the course of the transition, again, which isn’t instantaneous, we will find that we’ll still be able to cooperate as we need to ensure that that mission can continue to be carried out — may be carried out differently, again, we talked about the evaluation of the threat, the evaluation of the Iraqi security force’s capability and the evaluation of the operating environment.
All of that is scoped to ensure that there will be no lessening of pressure on ISIS as the transition from coalition to bilateral security partnership takes place.
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: Thank you. Let me try Associated Press again. Tara, are you on the line?
Q: Yes, I am. Thanks for doing this. I’m sorry if this has been asked before. I had to drop off at the very beginning. But have you seen any indication that ISIS has tried to exploit the October 7 instability? And especially right now with increased tensions being — have you seen them try to launch any additional operations?
SENIOR DEFENSE OFFICIAL: We do see that there are continued attacks and attack planning by ISIS. I’m not sure I would attribute it specifically to October 7 or the crisis that’s followed October 7. They have their ideology; they have their ambitions. So, we definitely have seen a continued ISIS capability to try to conduct attacks, certainly to do some planning for attacks.
But we’ve also during the same period, and without any distraction from our mission of the coalition and of our partners during the period of this crisis, we’ve been able to prosecute the defeat ISIS mission very, very successfully.
MAJ GEN PAT RYDER: And for our last question, we’ll try Al Hurra one more time. Wafaa, are you on the line? All right, she may have had to drop. All right, well, thank you very much for joining us again today. As a reminder, this discussion was on background attributable to a Senior Defense Official and a Senior Administration Official. Thanks very much for joining us. This concludes the backgrounder.
MIL OSI USA News –