COMMANDER U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND SAYS U.S.-CHINA MOVING CLOSER MILITARILY

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
U.S.-China Military Ties Growing, Pacom Commander Says
By Karen Parrish
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 11, 2013 - The military-to-military relationship between the United States and China is deepening in a "quite commendable" way that may help improve overall engagement between the two countries, Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told Pentagon reporters today.

During a news briefing, Locklear said he has spent the week here taking part in security, strategic and economic dialogues with Chinese officials, the last two gatherings hosted by the State Department.

"I think that the progress that we're making between our two militaries is quite commendable," the admiral said. "It's commendable because we are able to have very good dialogue on areas where we converge, and there are a lot of places where we converge as two nations, and we're also able to directly address in a matter-of-fact way where we diverge."

Those divergences are where the friction points occur, he said.

"And friction points are where militaries that understand each other can maybe not solve the friction," Locklear added, "but they can manage it so that diplomacy can continue to work."

Locklear said both China's military, the People's Liberation Army, and the U.S. military, starting with his own Pacific-based troops, understand that and are committed to it.

"I think that alone is significant progress," he added.

Locklear said the growing relationship is evident in events such as a large humanitarian relief exercise in which both nations' navies recently took part.

"U.S. and PLA ships and forces were working side-by-side," he noted. "That's substantial."

Locklear noted the Navy's USS Shiloh, a Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser, completed a port visit in China. Pacom, he added, will open port visits for Chinese ships in the future, though dates have not yet been confirmed.

He noted that China has agreed to participate in the Rim of the Pacific exercise in 2014. "That's a big step for the Chinese military, Chinese navy," Locklear said. "They'll be entering a multinational three-week-long exercise that's basically run by the U.S. from the 3rd Fleet headquarters."

The Chinese sailors will be near Hawaii for the exercise and thus a long way from home, the admiral noted.

"But they're excited about it," he said. "They're excited about coming and participating. And we wish them all the success."

In response to a reporter's question, Locklear said the two nations' forces "have been able to conduct operations around each other in a very professional and increasingly professional manner," especially in areas close to China. As China's maritime capabilities increase, he said, the ongoing dialogue between it and the United States about rules of the road will become more crucial.

Because relatively young and inexperienced troops from both countries will encounter each other more often as China increases its reach and "the U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific is not going anywhere," Locklear said, "... we have to manage our ability to operate around each other."

The admiral acknowledged China has a sophisticated ballistic missile program, and that it will likely acquire increasingly sophisticated military equipment as its reach continues to grow.

"We're already seeing some examples of that," he said. "We're seeing Chinese operating today in places beyond the first and second island chain that we wouldn't have seen before. We've seen them be able successfully do [anti-piracy] operations alongside of us in the Gulf of Aden. I think it's a natural thing as their global, economic power grows for them to have security interests that go beyond their backyard."

The Chinese military is not a threat, but an opportunity, Locklear said in response to a question.

"If opportunity is not realized, then, as it would be with any other ... growing military, it potentially could become a threat," he said. "But I certainly view it and approach it as an opportunity. That's really the only best path forward."

U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND WANTS COLLABORATION AND TO AVOID CONFRONTATION

FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Pacific Command Seeks Collaboration, not Confrontation
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6, 2012 - The United States would like China to be a constructive influence on the world stage, and the U.S. Pacific Command is stressing cooperation and collaboration, not confrontation, in the region, Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III said here today.

The admiral, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, said the command is moving forward on the U.S. move to rebalance forces to the Pacific.

"The rebalance draws on the strengths of the entire U.S. government, including policy, diplomacy, trade and, of course, security," Locklear said during a Pentagon news conference.

The rebalance is not aimed at any one nation or region, the admiral said. The strategy underscores that the United States is and will remain a Pacific power.

Locklear stressed that rebalancing is not so much about equipment or troops -- although they play a part -- but about relationships. Rebalancing to the Pacific came from the defense strategic guidance released in January. Pacom's mission is to strengthen relationships in the region, adjust U.S. military posture and presence, and employ new concepts, capabilities and capacities.

This will "ensure that we continue to effectively and efficiently contribute to the stability and security of the Asia-Pacific as we protect U.S. national interest," the admiral said. "The keys to success will be innovative access agreements, greatly increased exercises, rotational presence increases and efficient force posture initiatives that will maximize the dollars that we are given to spend."

China is increasingly asserting itself in the region, but the admiral said he has good relations with Chinese leaders. China has undergone a power transfer and the Peoples' Liberation Army has new commanders.

There are territorial disputes between China and other nations in the South China Sea and the East China Sea. Locklear reiterated the U.S. position on these disputes. He said America does not take sides but does want to see issues resolved peacefully.

"We call on all the parties there, including the Chinese, to ensure that, as they approach these problems, that they do so in a way that avoids conflict, that avoids miscalculation, that uses the vehicles available today through diplomacy and through those legal forums that allow them to get to reasonable solutions on these without resorting to coercion or conflict," the admiral said.

In addition to asserting what it believes is its role in the region, China has also embarked on an effort to modernize its military. The latest indicator was the landing of a naval variant of the J-15 jet on Beijing's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning.

"If I were China and I was in the economic position that China is in and I was in a position of where I have to look after my global security interests, I would consider building an aircraft carrier, and I might consider building several aircraft carriers," Locklear said.

It's not so much having such a military capability, but what China does with it that concerns the admiral.

Aircraft carriers have a role in maintaining the peace. "If the issue is that [the Chinese] are not part of that global security environment, then I think we have to be concerned about [Chinese aircraft carriers]," Locklear said.

India is another rising world power and Pacom is working closely with the government there to cement the military relationship between the world's two largest democracies.

"We very much support India taking a leadership in the security issues in and around the Indian Ocean," the admiral said. "We are looking for opportunities to participate and interoperate with them where we can."

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS BRIEFING FOR MAY 31,2012

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Presenter: Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations Capt. John Kirby May 31, 2012
DOD News Briefing with Capt. Kirby from the Pentagon
             CAPTAIN JOHN KIRBY:  Good afternoon, everybody.  I don't have any major things to announce.
             I just wanted to remind everybody that the secretary is on travel ... started yesterday.  He's in Hawaii this morning.  He'll meet with the Pacific Command commander, Admiral Locklear, get some briefings and updates, and then he'll also be doing an all-hands call, a troop call with the staffers there at the Pacific Command before moving on to Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue.  And then we'll be, of course, posting transcripts of all the public things that he's saying throughout the trip.
             So with that, Bob.
             Q:  (Inaudible) -- Courtney, then.
             Q:  Oh.
             Q:  Oh, hard question?
             Q:  I actually don't have a hard question, but I can ask one.  (Laughter.)   What's -- how many U.S. military trainers are now in Pakistan?  And has that number increased recently?
             CAPT. KIRBY:  There are no U.S. trainers in Pakistan.  What has happened in just the last week or so has been the return of a couple liaison officers from Regional Command East; they're at Bagram in Eastern Afghanistan.  They -- a couple of liaison officers have returned to the area around Peshawar to coordinate and continue to liaise with the 11th Corps headquarters there at the Pakistani military.
            Q:  They were there or they're no longer there anymore?
             CAPT. KIRBY:  They were -- they were -- they -- those two liaison officers were removed from their posting there in Peshawar right after the November incident -- the cross-border incident, and then they have now returned.
            Q:  What's the purpose of that or the significance of that?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I mean, it's significant in that, as we've been talking about all along, that the tactical and operational coordination between the ISAF and the Pakistani military is getting better, in fits and starts to be sure, but it is getting better, and this is another example of how that coordination is going to continue to improve.  It's the same number of liaison officers we had before; it's just that now they're back.  And that -- the whole purpose is to increase and improve communication between the two militaries along that border.
            Q:  So it's two?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  It's two.
            Q:  Are there any liaison officers anywhere else in Pakistan?  You have --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not that I'm aware of, not that I'm aware of.
            Q:  Is this something done in isolation then?  It's not part of a series of actions?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I wouldn't say that it was a part of some sort of quid pro quo or negotiation process.  It's been -- it's been something that obviously we were interested in renewing, and this is being done -- and I might add -- at the Pakistanis' request.  I mean, they requested that these two liaison officers come back.
            Q:  No trainers?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  No trainers.
            Q:  And do you have any kind of agreement with the Pakistanis about sending trainers back in?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not right now.  Again, even the training mission -- as you know, back before they left Pakistan, it was a train-the-trainers mission for their Frontier Corps.  And the small number of trainers that were there were at the Pakistanis' request and invitation for a requirement they believed they needed to fill.  They have not determined that that requirement exists anymore, so there are no trainers.
            Q: (Inaudible) -- movement on it?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  There's been no movement on the ground lines of communication and the gates, no.  They still remain closed.
            Q:  Different subject?
            Q:  Go ahead.
            Q:  When we asked George the day before yesterday about the North Korea story, he was very dismissive of it, to say the least, and was critical of the reporter who wrote it.  And now we find out that the general involved said in fact he did say all of those things, although he did not -- the general himself takes responsibility and says he didn't mean it to come out the way it did.
            So why did the Pentagon not tell us the day before yesterday that the general was acknowledging that he had said any of this?  Why were we not offered the complete information?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I think timing here is an issue.  I don't think the general's statement had come out by the time that George did his briefing the other day.
            But I think what George said was, and I agree with it, is that the general's comments were taken out of context.  And when something's taken out of context, that's not just -- that's not always just the fault of the journalist or the reporter, sometimes it's the fault of the speaker.  And the general acknowledged that he could have been a little bit more concise and a little bit more clear about what he was speaking to.
            As I understand it, he was answering a hypothetical question about future potential outcomes, and it was just literally the words he used to answer the question which led to some confusion.  But look, I mean, the bottom line is that there are no U.S. troops on the ground in North Korea.  We do take our alliance with our South Korean partners very, very seriously, as we do the security of the Korean Peninsula.  And we continue to try to make that alliance stronger and better and more robust all the time.
            Q:  My question -- I understand what you're saying.  However, he is -- when you -- the -- when George spoke from the podium and -- did you have the full information at that time to make the statements that you did, that the reporter was distorting the facts?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  We had -- we had enough information to know that the general's comments had been taken out of context, that they -- that as -- that he did -- he did not mean it to come across the way it was reported.  We did know that then.  We didn't have the general's statement at that point, but we did know that they had been taken out of context.
            Q:  And let me just then, for the record, ask:  You said there were no U.S. troops on the ground in North Korea.  The question is of course 'have U.S. special forces ever parachuted into North Korea on a mission?'
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not to my knowledge, Barbara.
            Q:  Continuing on North Korea, are we still seeing preparations for a nuclear test, as they had indicated that they were going to be doing?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, as you know, Louie, we're not going to talk about intelligence matters.  So I'm not going to be able to speak with any specificity to that.  I will just say that we continue to call on North Korea to meet their obligations to the international community and to the United Nations and to -- and to stop any and all provocative acts such as trying to pursue a nuclear weapons capability.
            Yes, sir.
            Q:  General Kehler yesterday said the -- his command was working on, in conjunction with the Pentagon, a, quote-unquote, "hedge strategy" for missile defense.  And that included the possibility of standing up the East Coast missile defense shield.  Now, what I want to ask you is, how seriously is the Pentagon -- how seriously is the Pentagon looking at setting up something like that on the East Coast?  Is this just sort of an exercise to appease Congress or is DOD really looking at serious options for standing up a missile shield on the East Coast?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, we always look very seriously at the broad scope of our missile defense capabilities and how to make them more robust and to improve them.  And as -- and the general said yesterday that there was a broad swath of things that they were looking at.  That was just one of them.  So certainly it's something that's in consideration.
            But the general also said -- and General Dempsey himself said it just a couple weeks ago -- that we don't believe we need that kind of a capability right now.  It's not programmed for in the budget we just submitted back in February.  We don't believe we need it right now.
            But just as a matter of course, we constantly look at ways to improve our capabilities, particularly in a field as dynamic and technologically challenging as missile defense.
            Q:  To follow up, then, if the marks that the House side put in on the defense spending bill, that does make it into the final version of the legislation and the money is there, would that accelerate or change DOD's sort of assessment about whether or not a missile shield will be needed?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, look, without speaking to pending legislation, it -- once the NDAA is signed into law, it becomes law.  So we will follow the law and all the components of it.
            Yes, sir.
            Q:  On the report this morning that some of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have been subjected to hearing songs from "Sesame Street," first of all, can you comment on that?  And second, if it's true, what would you say about the characterization of some who call this torture?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, look, there's been several investigations done about the use of interrogation techniques down there at Guantanamo Bay, and particularly the use of music as incentives or disincentives between 2004, 2008, that time frame.  And universally, the -- these investigations have shown and leadership has revealed that music can be used as both an incentive and a disincentive.  It depends on how you use it.
            I don't know.  I can't say with any specificity what type of music has been used in the past or is even being used now.  But we -- I will reiterate that we don't mistreat detainees.  That's the policy.  We rigorously follow that policy.  We do not torture, and we do not abuse our detainees at all.  We subscribe to the law and to humane treatment.  So it -- but yes, music is used, again, both in a -- in a positive way and as a disincentive.  But I wouldn't get into characterizing exactly what type of music is being used.
Q:  But are you --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  But we do not -- we do not torture.
            Q:  Music from the Barney show, if not Sesame Street?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't know what the playlist is.
            Q:  Can you tell me how to get -- how to get tapes of this?  (Laughter.)
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Next question, please.
            Q:  Also on Yemen, there is a -- (laughter) -- after the -- (inaudible) -- report this week, you know, one of the -- one of the, I think, implications of the report that came out were the Yemeni fighters, Yemeni security forces were being somehow outgunned by al-Qaida, at least the groups that were featured in that report.  And I -- you provided some information about, you know, the U.S. arming Yemen security forces.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Right.
            Q:  What's the latest, you know, interaction between U.S. and Yemen on their request for arms from the U.S. or the U.S. offering arms?  Is this -- is this a concern for the Pentagon that security forces are, you know, Yemen security forces are outgunned by al-Qaida or is --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I -- well, first of all, it's an ongoing dialogue and discussion that we have with the Yemeni military about the kind of support and the assistance that we give them, and it's not just military.  I mean, the relationship with Yemen is not just about security, although that's a major component of it.  So it's an ongoing discussion that we're having, to try to meet their needs as best we can.  It's a comprehensive CT strategy that we have in Yemen.
            I don't believe that we believe that the Yemeni military is, quote-unquote, "outgunned."  Al-Qaida, AQAP specifically, in Yemen remains a threat not just to our interests and to our allies and to the American people, but to the Yemeni people and to the Yemeni government.  And we are constantly -- as I said the other day, constantly looking at ways to try to help to improve our ability to help the Yemenis improve their capacity and capability.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- there's been a number of news reports on -- one on a ship carrying arms headed for Syria; another one today of Iranian commercial airliners, again, being used to carry arms into Syria.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah.
            Q:  What can you tell us about the level of arms smuggling you're seeing going on and your concerns that both Iran and Russia specifically may be using some of these techniques to get arms into Syria?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, we remain deeply troubled and concerned by the ongoing violence in Syria and by the horrific acts of the Assad regime against its own people.  And we certainly have seen reports and have reason to believe that Iran continues to assist the Assad regime in committing these acts of atrocities against the Syrian people.
            So it remains -- it remains a matter of deep concern.  And we also know that other nations share that concern, and some of those nations are providing lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition as well.  For our sake, what we're doing remains nonlethal assistance.
            Q:  Do you have anything on this -- on this report at all about the Iranians using commercial airliners, which has been a technique in the past?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah, we've seen the reports; can't confirm them.  But again, the larger issue here is that the Iranian regime -- Tehran continues to support, in tangible and intangible ways, the Assad regime.  And that needs to stop.
            Q:  On Syria, talking about the al-Qaida threats in the region, could you confirm if -- do you have any information if recently al-Qaida has had any significant presence inside Syria?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I don't know that anybody has an accurate number on al-Qaida's presence in Syria.
            We do believe that al-Qaida has some presence inside Syria and interest in fomenting violence in Syria.  They are not -- we do not believe that they share the goals of the Syrian opposition or that they are even embraced by the opposition at all.  But we -- I think we'd be hard-pressed to give you an exact number of how many are there.  The sense that we get is that it is primarily members of AQI that are migrating into Syria.
            Q:  Al-Qaida in Iraq, you mean?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yeah, correct.  Yeah, sorry, al-Qaida in Iraq.
            Q:  Take it back, John, to what you were saying earlier about the two liaison officers returning to Pakistan.  Could you -- just for my clarification, you're saying their liasing with who and what --
             CAPT. KIRBY:  With the 11th Corps headquarters there.  The 11th Corps is the -- is the chief command of the Pakistani military that -- that's their area of responsibility is that border region.  That marries up with RC East on the Afghan side.  And so these are liaison officers that every -- work every day there or will now work every day there in Peshawar with their counterparts in the 11th Corps headquarters staff, again, just to improve the communication between the two sides.
            Q:  Regarding -- (inaudible) -- border -- (inaudible) --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Regarding -- yes, regarding operations along the border.
             Q:  They've been out of there since November?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Correct.
            Q:  Or do they --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Correct.
            Q:  John, this was raised the other day, but since then there's been further developments.  The sort of language and rhetoric on Syria, military intervention or otherwise, has really been steadily creeping up over the last couple of days.  Hillary Clinton is the latest, perhaps, to give her views on it, although she was pretty anti-intervention, but she did say it can't be ruled out.  I wonder whether the exercise now completed has provided any valuable lessons or any potential future --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Which exercise?
            Q:  Eager Lion.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Oh, the exercises in Jordan.
            Q:  (Off mic) -- not connected to Syria, blah, blah, blah, but --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  (Laughs.)
            Q:  -- whether that has actually provided some pretty good lessons.  A lot of people are talking now about, you know, using proxy forces to carry out the wishes of the alliance or America or whoever it may be.  And you know, there were a lot of so-called proxy partners involved in that exercise.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, let me start small and then try to get to a bigger point.
            The -- it was an important exercise, and we were grateful for the opportunity to participate in it.  It was a -- it was an exercise designed to deal with regional challenges, not a specific threat or a specific country, as you said yourself, Mike, and we are still processing the lessons learned from the exercise.  So I have not seen a lessons-learned document from it; so I couldn't sit here and give you any specifics.  I think all that work is being done.
            It was a big exercise; it's going to take a little while, I think, to digest all the information and the results.  But it -- but the intent was really about regional partnerships in those and regional challenges there.
            But, to your other point about options, I mean, look, this building, the military, the Pentagon exists to provide the president options.  That's what we do, and we would be irresponsible if we weren't thinking about options whether or not they're called for.  And so, of course, we're certainly looking at a broad range of potential options here.
            But that's not the track we're on.  The president has been very clear that he wants to continue a diplomatic and economic regimen of pressure on the Assad regime to step down and to stop killing their people.  And that's the track this government's on, and that's the track that the Pentagon supports.
            Q:  Military options?  Military options to do what?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, again, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals or specific planning scenarios.  But again, we would -- it would be irresponsible for us if we weren't looking at a broad range of potential options.  And you know very well, covering this beat for so long, that the military is -- can be valuable in any number of different scenarios, not all of which involve combat.
            The point is we're doing the prudent thing that we're supposed to do, which is to think through options.  But we've not been called to present any.  And these are decisions that only the policymakers can make.  And again, we're supporting the commander in chief's intent, which is to keep the pressure on them diplomatically and economically.
             Q:  Say to what extent you've discussed these military options that are being planned -- not yet asked for -- with U.S. military allies in the region?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  What I'll tell you is that we remain in communication with our allies and partners routinely.  And we continue to be in communication with them as the situation develops in Syria.  But I won't go beyond that.
            Q:  And if you were asked by the White House, the president, to exercise one of these military options, whatever they might be, how ready would the U.S. military be to do that?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  We get paid to be ready, Barbara.
            Q:  Going back to the North Korea story, the quote that George had was that it was contorted, distorted and misreported.  Do you still think that's a fair characterization?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Yes, I do.
            Q:  What exactly is misreported, though, if it was a --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I think -- again, it was -- the reporting was that there were U.S. boots on the ground in North Korea.  There aren't.  There aren't.  And the general didn't say that there were.  He was talking hypothetically about a future scenario that he was asked about.
            But look, I mean, this isn't about bashing the journalist who wrote this blog, and it's not about bashing the general, who admitted that he used some unfortunate rhetoric.  These things happen.  It's unfortunate, but it happens.  He didn't choose his words as precisely as he would have liked, and he admitted that, and what resulted was a story that didn't get it right in terms of what the situation really is in North Korea.  And that's really the larger -- think we got to keep our mind on here, which is there aren't troops in North Korea and that we remain committed to our alliance there.  That's really the important thing.
            Yes, sir.
            Q:  Just following up on the point regarding al-Qaida's sort of influence in the Syrian -- amongst the Syrian rebel forces, there was a story, I think last week --
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Well, I didn't say they were part of rebel forces --
            Q:  OK.
            CAPT. KIRBY:  -- or that they're even operating with the opposition.  We don't believe that they are, and they -- certainly we don't believe they share the same goals as the Syrian opposition.  So I'm sorry.
            Q:  But there was -- I think it was a report last week saying the administration was considering a plan to start vetting certain units or parts of the Free Syrian Army, whether or not to evaluate if there was any sort of influence of al-Qaida in those units and whether or not they can receive weapons, wherever they may come from.  Is the Pentagon -- has the White House approached the Pentagon about that plan?  Has the Pentagon been briefed on that plan?  And if so, what's DOD's -- is -- what is DOD's role in that?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  Not to my knowledge.  But I'm happy to take the question and look at it, but not to my knowledge.
            Louie.
            Q:  The U.S. and Israel back earlier this year had postponed a large missile defense exercise.  And I think it's supposed to start around this time frame.  Is it going to start soon?  And what can we expect from it?
            CAPT. KIRBY:  I'll have to get back to you on that.  I'll check on that.  You're right that that was supposed to -- that that exercise was postponed for later in the year.  And I'll check and see where we are on that.
            Thanks, everybody