This is the Iraq section of Friday's State Dept press briefing. Spokesperson Marie Harf (pictured above at Thursday's briefing) fielded the questions.
1:48 p.m. EDT
MS. HARF: Hello. Welcome to a rare Friday press briefing
during August at the State Department. I have three items at the top,
and then we will open it up for your questions.
Just a travel update first. Secretary Kerry
held meetings in Kabul today with both Afghan presidential candidates
Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani. I’m sure you’ve seen his press
avail. After their meetings, both candidates signed a joint declaration
outlining the path forward, reaffirming their commitment to the July
12th political framework agreement and agreeing on a path forward for
finalizing the elections audit process, including a timeline for
conclusion of the election’s audit and inauguration of a new president.
We commend the candidates for continuing to work together in the spirit
of collegiality and statesmanship to maintain national unity during this
historic transition process.
The Secretary is currently on his way to Burma. The highlight of the
Secretary’s visit there is his participation in the ASEAN Regional
Forum. It’s an opportunity for foreign ministers from 27 countries to
gather and discuss important regional issues, including maritime safety
and security cooperation, nonproliferation, and transnational issues of
common concern such as climate change. That will happen this weekend. He
will meet with his counterparts from the 10 ASEAN member states, will
also separately meet with the five partners in the Lower Mekong
Initiative as well as with other donor countries as well. And he will
also highlight support for the East Asia Summit as the region’s premier
forum for addressing strategic and political issues, and guiding
regional cooperation.
And then finally, all of you have, of course, been
following the news on Iraq. As you know, yesterday the President
authorized two operations in Iraq, the first a humanitarian effort to
help save thousands of Iraqi civilians who are trapped on a mountain
without food or water and facing almost certain death. The second was a
series of targeted airstrikes to protect our American personnel and to
assist Iraqi forces as they fight to break ISIL’s siege of the mountain
and also to protect the civilians trapped there.
As you saw this morning, the Defense Department put out a statement
that at approximately 6:45 a.m. the U.S. military conducted a targeted
airstrike against ISIL terrorists with two F/A-18 aircraft dropping
500-pound laser-guided bombs on a mobile artillery piece near Erbil that
ISIL was using to shell Kurdish forces defending Erbil, where, of
course, U.S. personnel are located. As the President has made clear, the
U.S. military will continue to take direct action against ISIL when
they threaten our personnel or facilities.
With that, I’m sure there are lots of questions. Lara, get us started.
QUESTION: So --
MS. HARF: And presumably on Iraq.
QUESTION: Right. So thank you. I have many questions today and --
MS. HARF: Okay. Let’s just work through them all.
QUESTION: Great. Ask everybody’s indulgence on that.
MS. HARF: I’m wearing flats today, don’t worry.
QUESTION: I never worry about you, Marie.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: You said – first off, just to follow up on something
you just said, you said that this strike comes as it would have
whenever U.S. personnel are threatened. And I would just note that there
have been attacks in Baghdad that are within hearing and feeling range
of the U.S. Embassy there, and I wonder why this is happening now to
protect personnel in Erbil, when U.S. personnel in Baghdad have been
under threat for years.
MS. HARF: Well, first, what we’ve seen over the past several
days really, but also several weeks, but really in the past several days
is that there has been an ISIL fairly rapid advance towards Erbil.
They’ve had access to heavy weapons. So basically, at this point, what
we are trying to do is stop this advance, to give expedited support to
the Iraqis as they fight this – obviously there’s a political process
ongoing as well – also to provide humanitarian assistance.
And look, we’re focused on Erbil today because that’s where ISIL has
been advancing. If – look, we have a very significant diplomatic
presence in Baghdad, so, of course, the same principle would apply if we
saw ISIL advances on Baghdad that would threaten our personnel as well.
So obviously, it’s something we constantly monitor, but we’re focused
on Erbil operationally right now.
QUESTION: But as you know, there have been ISIL bombings in Baghdad for years.
MS. HARF: There have been. But obviously, we look at the
threat and look at the picture, and we saw here both a humanitarian
situation where the U.S. military had unique capabilities to bring to
bear that could be brought very quickly to bear in a very urgent crisis,
and also a situation where you had ISIL advancing on Erbil, where,
again, we have some military capabilities that we can use. I would also
note that the Iraqis have been taking strikes of their own. We’ve been
working in very close coordination with them out of our joint operation
center at Erbil and the one in Baghdad as well.
QUESTION: I’ll go back to the humanitarian situation --
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: -- in a second. But first, just a couple of quick
questions. How many American citizens are at the consulate in Erbil,
absent the military presence right now?
MS. HARF: So we don’t give exact numbers. Let me just give a
quick update. I know there are a lot of questions about the status of
our consulate there. It is operating normally. There’s been no change to
the current status of our consulate. We continue to monitor the
security situation and will take appropriate steps to mitigate the risk
to our colleagues. Obviously, we do this on a continuing basis. We don’t
comment on specific numbers, are always reviewing staffing levels in
light of the security posture. But I would note that the – one of the
reasons, obviously, not just to protect Erbil but that we want to keep
our people there is so they can keep working in this joint operation
center to help the Iraqis fight this threat. We don’t want to have to
pull them out. We’re constantly reevaluating the security.
QUESTION: I understand the reluctance to talk about specific numbers. I don’t need a specific number.
MS. HARF: It’s not a reluctance. We just never do it, as you know.
QUESTION: Well, we know there are about 5,000 people in the
U.S. mission in Iraq right now. The vast majority of them are in
Baghdad. So can you give some kind of – for example, I’ve been told
somewhere between two to three hundred are in --
MS. HARF: I’m just not going to give any number ranges for
security reasons. I understand the desire to have them. We do have a
large presence still in Baghdad as well. You are correct on that.
QUESTION: Could you talk a little bit about the capabilities
of the Peshmerga? There’s been some reporting that they have very strong
capabilities. I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest otherwise,
that they are not particularly armed very well, don’t have a lot of
uniform uniforms, for lack of a better phrase. So could you talk about
your assessment of their capabilities and to the extent that the U.S. is
going to be helping them?
MS. HARF: Well, first, we have been advising and assisting the
Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish forces, including the Peshmerga,
that are working to defend these areas broadly against ISIL. We have
continued to have, for example, extensive ISR operations over Iraq. This
is something we ramped up after we saw ISIL make some initial gains
some weeks ago, as we talked about. And as well, as I mentioned, our
joint operation centers in Erbil and Baghdad, they are sharing
information with ISF, with Kurdish Peshmerga commanders right now. So
those are very strong relationships.
And look, we’re in constant consultation with the Government of Iraq
and the KRG about how we can best provide this urgent assistance. We are
fully supportive and encouraged that today the Iraqis had offered to
provide air support and ammunition to the Peshmerga. So they’re working
together, really I would say in an unprecedented way – the Iraqi
Security Forces and the Peshmerga – in a way we haven’t always seen in
the past to counter this threat together. The Kurdish forces have played
a critical role in addressing this threat. We understand their need for
additional arms and equipment and are working to provide those as well
so they are reinforced.
So we are bringing a lot of firepower to bear against this threat,
mainly by helping the Iraqis, but as you saw today, with some strikes as
well.
QUESTION: Okay. And so regarding the strikes, the President
has said repeatedly these – and I think other Administration officials
have said repeatedly these will be limited airstrikes. What is it that
the Administration wants to see before it stops strikes? I know there’s
only been one so far with the threat of more. What will it need to see
before – from ISIL regarding some kind of retreat before it lays down
that threat?
MS. HARF: Well, as you saw the President say last night, he
has authorized the U.S. military to take targeted strikes in accordance
with the principles he outlined and the guidance he outlined last night.
The first priority – well, there are a couple first priorities. The
first several priorities are really to stop the advance towards Erbil.
And we’re not – we have personnel in Erbil, Erbil is a key city. That
has been one of our top priorities. Also to provide expedited support to
the Iraqis, to the Kurds, to help them do this.
I’m not going to outline tactically what we would need to see. I
don’t think we’d want to outline for the enemy that we’re fighting what
would make us take or not take airstrikes. I think we are confident that
the combination of U.S. airpower being brought to bear against these
targets and the Peshmerga really regrouping – giving them some space to
regroup with the airstrikes, but also then regrouping and fighting ISIL
will provide a check on their advance. That’s really, again, our primary
goal right now.
QUESTION: And regarding the airstrikes, are – is the U.S.
coordinating with Turkish air forces in terms of striking around this
area as well? Are you familiar where that --
MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge, no. And we talk to the Turks quite a bit, but in terms of the airstrikes, no, not to my knowledge.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge.
QUESTION: And regarding what’s happening in Mount Sinjar --
QUESTION: Sorry. Before we go to the humanitarian, do you mind
if we went back to the justification for the military action so we can
close out on that?
QUESTION: Sure, Arshad.
QUESTION: So why does the principle of protecting U.S.
personnel in Erbil justify the U.S. strikes not apply – justifying U.S.
strikes not apply to the many other countries in the world where U.S.
personnel end up being in places where they are threatened and the
typical U.S. Government response, State Department response, as in Iraq
two and a half weeks ago – as in Libya two and a half weeks ago, is to
just remove your personnel? So why does this principle apply here but
not in most cases?
MS. HARF: Well, it’s not a legal principle. It’s a policy principle.
QUESTION: Right.
MS. HARF: We can talk separately about a legal principle.
Well, first, every situation is different. Here, obviously, we
believe it’s very important to keep our consulate in Erbil and our
Embassy in Baghdad up and running and staffed, and particularly the
joint operation centers up and running so we can help with this
incredibly urgent threat. That’s the best way we can help right now. We
also saw – I mean, they’re just first very, very different situations,
but we in this case of Iraq saw a humanitarian need that we could
address with military --
QUESTION: I – no, I wonder – just stick with the protecting, the --
MS. HARF: Well, but they’re related.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: So let’s --
QUESTION: So there are Americans who are on the mountain, or --
MS. HARF: No, Arshad. They’re related that when the President
gives authorization to use military strikes (a) as we’ve seen today
against ISIL, but also to help break the blockade at the mountain, which
has --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: -- also been authorized, so they are related. But we
are saw a discrete place where the United States military could bring
specific resources to bear and would have the intended impact, we could
keep our people there, and that’s why this is different.
QUESTION: So then on legal justification, I believe it is
generally understood that under the Constitution, as part of protecting
the United States of America, that that has historically been
interpreted to include the protection of American citizens or American
interests abroad. Correct?
MS. HARF: Correct, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Does the U.S. Government believe, or does the
Obama Administration believe in this instance that it had – well,
actually I’ll ask it more simply. Is that the legal authority that you
would cite in this instance for the decision to carry out the airstrikes
to protect American citizens, the constitutional one?
MS. HARF: So, two points on that. The first is this will trigger a war powers notification --
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: -- that will come from the White House. It hasn’t
come yet, but it will be coming. Correct. So in order to protect our
people and personnel, we’ve also had extensive consultations with
Congress on this issue of Iraq specifically throughout many weeks now,
but also in the past few days and before we undertook action after the
President had made the decision. So we had consultations with Congress
before and after. They have been supportive, as we saw from bipartisan
statements last night.
On the international legal side, the Iraqi Government and Iraqi
leaders from all different parts of Iraq and different sects and
different parties have invited us and indeed asked us for this
assistance, so that is the principle that applies there.
QUESTION: Got it. And thank you for making the distinction domestic and international.
MS. HARF: Yeah. Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: On the international, who – because obviously, you could have lots of members of a parliament of some country asking you --
MS. HARF: I’m happy to name all of them for you.
QUESTION: No, no. Well, I – what I’m interested is: Who is the
key – where do you – given that there is no formally constituted
government post the election, although there is obviously an acting one,
sort of who made the formal request for the United States to conduct
airstrikes?
MS. HARF: Yep. So we have been in constant communication with
Iraqi officials. We’ve been briefing them on operational decisions
throughout our decision-making process. I will name some Iraqi leaders
who we’ve talked to who have specifically requested U.S. assistance in
action: Iraq’s president, Fuad Masum, who’s a Kurd; senior government
ministers and lawmakers such as Prime Minister Maliki – as everyone
knows, he’s a Shia – the current Foreign Minister Zebari; the acting
defense minister; and former and current parliament speakers Nujaifi and
al-Jabari, who are both Sunnis; as well as tribal leaders like Ahmed
Abu Risha, who is a Sunni, and some others as well.
So it’s been really a broad spectrum.
QUESTION: And is any one of those regarded as the sort of
controlling authority in this case? Is it the prime minister? And do you
need a piece of paper, or is like a phone call good enough?
MS. HARF: Well, Nouri al-Maliki is still the prime minister of
Iraq. As we know, they’ve named a new president. I don’t have more
specifics for you on what the decision making looks like internally
there.
QUESTION: And does the U.S. Government believe that it has
authority under either the 2001 AUMF or the 2002 AUMF that was the legal
– the domestic legal authority for --
MS. HARF: For counterterrorism operations.
QUESTION: -- for – well, for 2002, I think, was for Iraq. Correct? 2001 was – anyway --
MS. HARF: It was – yeah.
QUESTION: -- do you believe that you have authority under either of those for this operation in Iraq?
MS. HARF: I’ll need – the – I believe the answer to be no. Let
me check with our lawyers on this. I don’t believe that’s what we’re
operating under, but I should check with my lawyers on this. As we’ve
always said, counterterrorism operations that would fall under the AUMF –
or generally speaking we maintain the right to undertake them. That’s
not what we’re talking about here. Those operations would be separate
from the discrete things the President authorized yesterday, which is my
understanding is a completely separate authorization.
QUESTION: Marie --
MS. HARF: But we should check with the attorneys and see what we --
QUESTION: Marie, a quick follow-up.
MS. HARF: Wait, let --
QUESTION: Can I follow up on his last point?
MS. HARF: Sure.
QUESTION: On this request, how broad was the Iraqi request?
And I think this is going to get into some of the political concerns
that are already rising about whether this could be an open-ended
mission. We just heard your colleague over at the White House say that
there’s no date for ending potential airstrikes, but in terms of the
brief, how – of all the potential situations, is there something that
spells out exactly what the Iraqis want the U.S. to do, and if so, did
the President’s decision basically pick and choose from those options?
MS. HARF: Well, there – it’s not as easy as going down a
checklist. We’ve had conversations with them over many weeks now about
what assistance they’d like with ISIL. Over the past few days, obviously
we’ve been very focused on this mountain and the humanitarian situation
there and also the advance on Erbil. So there are broad conversations
about what they might want and long-term assistance there also, and so
the JOCs, the joint operations centers, are a good example of that. But
there are also specific conversations about what we can do right now.
I’m not probably going to go into more detail than that for you.
I think the President was very clear last night what our – that this
is a discrete mission here, and I think that you’ve seen bipartisan
support on the Hill and in the commentary world for the fact that we –
that the President has authorized such action, then we started taking
it.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: So as you know, the government in Baghdad and
probably even Erbil have been asking for months, if not years, for U.S.
military help to combat ISIL. This isn’t --
MS. HARF: And we’ve been giving it to them.
QUESTION: Well, they’ve been asking for more lethal
assistance. I think that is fair, and until today that hasn’t happened
since the withdrawal.
MS. HARF: We provided them with a lot of military hardware, including Hellfire missiles --
QUESTION: Okay. Let’s – fine. Then I’ll say active military involvement, all right?
MS. HARF: -- which are fairly lethal, I think.
QUESTION: They’ve been asking for airstrikes; they’ve been
asking for a lot more than Washington has been willing to give. Fair
enough, right? So I’m wondering, given that there is this humanitarian
crisis happening on Mount Sinjar, one might also argue that there’s been
humanitarian crises happening throughout Iraq, that tens of thousands
of Sunni – Shia have been killed by ISIS bombings, assassinations, other
attacks for a very long time. So why is it now that strikes are going
in to help Yezidis, and I don’t think there are any Christians up on
Mount Sinjar, but I know the President --
MS. HARF: There are a lot of people who live in Erbil though.
Let’s be clear, we’re also talking about protecting Erbil, not just the
mountain --
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. HARF: -- including the strikes today that were on an artillery piece near Erbil --
QUESTION: And the consulate --
MS. HARF: -- that ISIL was using to shell Kurdish forces.
QUESTION: Fair enough. But the point here is that they’ve been
asking for help for some time to combat ISIL – many, many Sunni and
Shia have been killed. Why is it now that we’re worried about Yezidis
and Christians and not the two major sects that make up Iraq?
MS. HARF: Well, let me make a few points. First, we have
consistently been increasing our support to Iraq. If you’ve seen over
the past months, over the past years really – but really over the past
months we’ve increased – we’ve expedited military equipment, hardware –
look, some of this was held up by Congress, some of this was held up
because the Iraqis hadn’t taken the steps that they needed to take to
take ownership of it, just training of pilots and things like that. So
there’s a lot of reasons why it took a long time. We have been
increasing our support. You saw at the very beginning of this crisis we
immediately increased our ISR coverage, so we had eyes on, so we could
get more intelligence if we did take the decision to strike, because you
need intelligence before you just start dropping bombs. So we needed
that as well.
So I would disagree with the notion that we haven’t been supporting
them and we haven’t been helping. There’s no military solution here from
the U.S. side, certainly. We’ve also always said that. But you have
seen in this case there is a discrete, dire humanitarian situation where
we could bring resources to bear.
What actually happened first was the Iraqis tried to do an airdrop.
We – they weren’t able to do it to the full satisfaction of them, I
think, or us, certainly. And we had unique resources we could bring to
bear on that, so then we decided to help. So they’re trying to combat
this themselves, which is what eventually needs to happen here.
QUESTION: And they don’t have an air force, so – I mean, they have I think one jet and a couple of helicopters.
MS. HARF: And they’ve been taking some strikes recently, and
we’ve been helping them with intelligence sharing at the joint
operations centers from this ISR that we’re getting. Again, you need
targets to strike and they’ve been improving and we’re working with them
to do so.
QUESTION: I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Fine. But wouldn’t you agree --
MS. HARF: Let’s not interrupt each other.
QUESTION: -- that hardware is different from airstrikes? I
mean, I understand what you’re saying about hardware, increased
assistance, all of that, but wouldn’t you agree that is different from
airstrikes? That’s different from a no-fly zone?
MS. HARF: It is different, but also, look, we have provided
assistance as we felt it was appropriate to help them fight the threat.
This threat we’ve seen, quite frankly, on Erbil has happened very
rapidly over the past several – really since Saturday, I think. We’ve
provided assistance in response to the threat as it’s changed and as
it’s grown more dire. But at the end of the day, one of the things
that’s actually a key component of all this is training and helping
equip the Iraqis to eventually be able to take on this fight on their
own. And we will continue having conversations with them about what best
to do, but I also think you heard the President say very clearly last
night that it is not our – we cannot and should not fix every problem
everywhere around the world or get involved every situation or do
airstrikes or do a no-fly zone. We have to look at each situation
individually, and nobody wants to get bogged down in some sort of long
situation in Iraq.
QUESTION: Okay, but – fine, but why is the situation in Sinjar more dire than the situation in Mosul?
MS. HARF: I’m not saying it’s more dire. I’m saying the
situation is operationally different for us to be able to provide
airdrops to that mountain specifically.
QUESTION: What about strikes?
MS. HARF: Again, we make decisions based on the picture on the
ground and what we think would be most effective and most helpful. In
this case, we have a large U.S. consulate in Erbil, which is a key
component driving all of our policy is protecting our people. That’s a
huge part of what’s driving this decision now.
QUESTION: I’m not asking about the Yezidis specifically. I
mean, they’re in Sinjar. That’s a far piece away from Erbil. Even Mosul
is closer to Erbil than Sinjar is.
MS. HARF: Right, but the decision the President made yesterday
was not just about the humanitarian situation in Sinjar. But let’s be
clear: You heard him use the phrase referring to this potentially being
genocide. We have a situation where tens of thousands of people could
starve to death and we have the ability to do something. We’re going to
do it.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Yeah, but you’re not doing it in other places.
MS. HARF: Let’s – wait, guys. Let’s do one question at – I’m not going to answer if we’re talking over each other.
QUESTION: But --
QUESTION: Marie, can we do Darfur for a second?
MS. HARF: We can do Laura, and then we can go around the room --
QUESTION: It’s exactly on Laura’s point, though.
MS. HARF: -- actually.
QUESTION: There are scores of places where the U.S. Government
could have acted to prevent genocide; to mention just two, Rwanda and
Darfur. And in Darfur, the Secretary of State explicitly before a
Congressional panel asserted that he believed that genocide was taking
place, and the U.S. Government did not act to prevent genocide. So the
question is – and I think your narrow tactical explanation of, “Oh,
well, we had unique capabilities in this particular place” – the U.S.
military has unique capabilities to strike anything anywhere in the
world it wants to. So the question, fundamentally, is – it’s Laura’s
question, and it’s a good one: Why is it that you chose to stop a
potential act of genocide in this one place, when you have signally
chosen not to prevent things that you actively have described as
genocide in other places?
QUESTION: And may I add to that that ISIL has --
MS. HARF: I can just leave if you guys want to do this yourselves.
QUESTION: No, no, no, but just – but it’s an important
follow-up, because ISIL has declared war, genocide, the eradication of
all groups they consider infidels --
MS. HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- which would include Shia, which would include Christian --
MS. HARF: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- which would include Sunni that don’t follow sharia law to the extent that they want it.
MS. HARF: And we hit an ISIL location today that had nothing
to do with the Yezidis. So don’t make this all about the Yezidis.
Obviously, that’s incredibly important.
QUESTION: Well, you guys are making it all about the Yezidis.
MS. HARF: I’m actually not. I’m standing up here talking about
everything we’re doing to fight ISIL. You are the ones who are so
focused on it.
QUESTION: Why here and not elsewhere?
MS. HARF: Well, my job, Arshad, is to defend and talk about
why we make decisions now today. I understand there are questions about
why decades ago we didn’t take action. Those are historical
conversations that I think are not inappropriate, but that aren’t
appropriate for me to discuss or opine on from up here.
QUESTION: So --
MS. HARF: I can tell you why in this situation, we – the
President, the Secretary, the U.S. military – believed there was a
crisis that had the potential to get much worse. We were asked by the
Iraqi Government to come in and help when they could not handle it
themselves. We had the capability to do so and we did so. That’s what
I’m up here to talk about today.
QUESTION: What is the endgame? What is the ultimate goal in this particular mission?
MS. HARF: Well, as I said --
QUESTION: How do you see it?
MS. HARF: As I said, it’s really to stop the advance of ISIL
towards Erbil, (a) because, obviously, it’s a very strategically
important city, and also because we have a large number of Americans
there. It’s to give the Kurdish forces particularly, but the Iraqi
forces writ large, the space to regroup; to give them expedited
assistance so we can get them more things like weapons they can use to
fight ISIL; and to help them really build up so they can push back what
we’ve seen is a really quite rapid advance towards Erbil.
QUESTION: Okay. So if their advancement stops in a stalemate --
MS. HARF: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: If their advancement stops in a stalemate. They stay
where they are, you push them back, the Yezidis go back to Sinjar and
so on – do we pack up and leave?
MS. HARF: Well, I’m happy to talk about that if that actually
happens. But I’m not going to get into hypotheticals about tactically
what we might do in any number of circumstances.
QUESTION: Because you said you want to stop their advance.
Suppose you stop their advance, okay? And then everybody stays in their
own positions and so on. So the strike will be over?
MS. HARF: I didn’t say that. I think the Department of Defense
has the ability to undertake strikes at the time and place of their
choosing. They have been authorized by the President to do so in this
case.
And look, we’re not going to outline when they may or may not take
strikes. He’s outlined the criteria under which we will be doing so, and
they will make those decisions tactically. I’m not going to address or –
hypotheticals about what may or may not happen.
QUESTION: Is this an acknowledgment --
MS. HARF: And I will – one – I will – one point I will make on
the humanitarian side, though, is you will likely see more humanitarian
drops, more humanitarian assistance. We are – that is very likely
something that will continue to happen as well.
QUESTION: Is this an acknowledgment that 11 years-plus of U.S.
training of the regular Iraqi armed forces was all for naught, and what
you have in Iraq today is a number of militias with the strongest
militia being ISIL?
MS. HARF: Well, I wouldn’t describe ISIL as a militia.
QUESTION: Whatever it is. A group?
MS. HARF: I would describe ISIL as something much, much worse.
QUESTION: Okay. I mean, armed groups – that Iraq has really
turned into a bunch of armed groups with the strongest one being ISIL. I
mean, seeing how the Peshmerga just collapsed.
MS. HARF: Well, I wouldn’t – I would not use that term. This is a tough fight.
QUESTION: Retreated.
MS. HARF: That’s an ongoing fight, and obviously they are a
very good fighting force and we are working with them to help them get
better to be able to fight ISIL here.
We know the security challenge is an incredibly dire one. What we’ve
seen from ISIL – there is no political solution here. There is only a
military solution where the Iraqis – not an American military solution,
but a military solution where the Iraqis are able to take the fight to
ISIL. We are trying to help them do that. There are a variety of other
factors at work in other places in Iraq. There are a variety of groups.
We understand there’s a lot of factors at play here, but I want to make
ISIL a very distinct problem from the rest of what’s happening in Iraq.
QUESTION: And my last question on this: Is this in a way –
sort of divides Iraq into different, basically, power bases and so on
into squares of here are the Peshmergas, here are this or is that?
MS. HARF: Well, one thing, as we’ve seen particularly over the
last 24 hours, but recently is actually the Iraqi security forces
working at an unprecedented level with the Kurdish forces to a level we
hadn’t seen before, because they understand the shared threat and they
know they need to bring as many resources to bear on this as possible,
including providing air support and ammo to them today.
Yes, Roz.
QUESTION: I want to come back to this question of Islamic
State’s military capability. A senior Administration official said in
last night’s conference call that a, quote, sophisticated response was
needed to deal with them because they basically have shown that they
are, for all intents and purposes, a fighting army. They’re not just a
bunch of ragtag militants. Has the U.S. promised the Iraqi Government
that while it tries to reconstitute chunks of its military, which
basically melted away once IS moved from Syria into Iraq, that it’s not
going to bring in U.S. forces and take their place, because soldiers
just are not made overnight?
MS. HARF: That’s true.
QUESTION: But has the U.S. promised Iraq that it’s not going to do its fighting for the Iraqi people?
MS. HARF: I mean, the President, I think, said that very
clearly last night. We’re not talking about putting troops back in Iraq.
We’re not talking about fighting this fight for them. The Iraqi
security forces have made quite a bit of gains. There’s a lot more work
that needs to be done. The Peshmerga have traditionally been a very
courageous and strong fighting force. We think with some time to regroup
they will be up to the task of defending Erbil as well. So --
QUESTION: So that’s --
MS. HARF: This is not an American fight.
QUESTION: No, but the official also noted that this is not a
problem that could be resolved in a number of weeks or even in a matter
of months. So it goes back to the earlier question of, one, is there a
deadline for the U.S.’ ability to carry out airstrikes of an offensive
nature to protect its interests but as well to assist the Iraqi military
and the Kurdish Peshmerga?
MS. HARF: Well, there’s certainly not a deadline on assisting
the Iraqis and the Kurds writ large. That’s going to be a very ongoing,
long-term process, and we’re committed to that. In terms of this
specific authorization the President authorized yesterday, I can check
with the White House – not to my knowledge that there’s a, quote,
“deadline.” But as we’ve all made very clear, this is not open ended,
this is not America’s fight to fight. We’re going to help. We’re going
to stand with you and try and help you, the Iraqis yourselves, fight
this threat.
QUESTION: We know that the President spoke this morning with King Abdullah of Jordan.
MS. HARF: He did, yes.
QUESTION: Has the Administration been reaching out to other
Arab countries in the region? Has it reached out to the Arab League? Has
it talked with NATO, trying to find as many alternate sources of
support, not just for the humanitarian mission to help the ethnic
minorities who are being targeted, but more specifically to help the
Iraqi military deal with what it has – is obviously a major problem in
defending its country from outside attack? It’s apparent that after more
than two months now having the JOCs on the ground, the U.S. military
believes that the Iraqi military isn’t up to the job, and that’s why the
U.S. has been called in to start carrying out airstrikes.
MS. HARF: That’s not at all – I would not use the words you’ve
just used. I think we’ve seen gains made by the Iraqis. This is a
really tough challenge though, so we’re working together. But I wouldn’t
use that term.
In terms of outreach, I don’t want to get ahead of any conversations,
but we are working closely with our partners in the region and in
Europe to figure out what the best path forward is here – who else can
support, who else can provide assistance. The Secretary yesterday spoke
with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu, French Foreign Minister Fabius,
Jordanian Foreign Minister Judeh, Emirati foreign minister as well –
also the Israelis, but that was unrelated to this. That was related to
Gaza. So we’re in constant communication with our counterparts. The
President, as you said, spoke to King Abdullah today. So this is a
challenge not just for Iraq but for the whole region, and we are looking
to see who else can bring resources to bear.
QUESTION: But of course, do you consider that – and we’re
getting back to the legality question of the U.S. even carrying out
these airstrikes in the first place. Yes, it’s one thing to cite Article
2 of the U.S. Constitution that the President has the duty to protect
American interests, but there’s also this question of the U.S., going
back to the Iraq war, going it alone. And --
MS. HARF: I’m not sure how those are related.
QUESTION: Well, it’s the question of not having a robust
multinational effort to try to deal with a problem Islamic state that
pretty much people in the region and in Western Europe and, of course,
here in Washington agree is a fundamental threat.
MS. HARF: Right. And I would agree that there --
QUESTION: So --
MS. HARF: -- is an effort underway to multilateralize this
effort broadly speaking. I’m not talking about airstrikes; I’m talking
broadly speaking to help fight ISIL. Sam Power, our ambassador at the
UN, has been incredibly engaged on this. We’re having conversations up
there. The Secretary’s had conversations. But just fundamentally, it is
completely different from what happened before in Iraq. The Iraqis have –
the Iraqi Government has invited us in to help them. So that is the
reason that we are there.
QUESTION: But even with --
MS. HARF: It has nothing at all to do with what happened before.
QUESTION: Yeah. But even with that, there are law of war
experts who are already arguing that perhaps it would have been better
had the Security Council not started today on the expert level to look
at coming up with some sort of resolution to help codify everything on
this.
MS. HARF: The Security Council members are certainly talking about this. They’ve having conversations about it.
QUESTION: Well, no, but there’s an actual draft now being considered --
MS. HARF: But when a country invites – when a country invites you in, Roz --
QUESTION: And there probably won’t be a vote for a week.
MS. HARF: When a country invites you in and asks for
assistance, you are absolutely within your international legal rights to
assist them. Now look, we want to multilateralize this and
multinationalize it. We are talking to countries in the region about how
else they can help. But let’s be clear: The Government of Iraq invited
us to assist them. There’s no question there about that, so there’s not a
legal question. And of course, when we’re talking about the duty to
protect our people and humanitarian assistance, there was an urgency
here. We’ve talked to members of Congress about it. They understand the
urgency, so that’s underpinning that as well.
QUESTION: Could I change topics to --
QUESTION: No, no.
QUESTION: A follow-up on this --
MS. HARF: Anything else on Iraq?
QUESTION: -- Marie?
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: You’re emphasizing that the U.S. is protecting or
working on protecting the Americans personnel in Erbil. What about the
civilians, the Christians and the Yezidis, who are fleeing Mosul and
other parts of Iraq and got killed by ISIL? Who’s responsible for their
protection when the Iraqi Government is not capable to protect them?
MS. HARF: Yeah. Well, a few points I would make on that. We,
of course, are also focused on stopping ISIL’s advance towards Erbil,
which is not just about our people – that’s part of it – but also
because it’s a key city. And that has to do with protecting innocent
Iraqis as well. The same principle would apply to Baghdad, of course,
too. If you look at what we’re doing humanitarianly around the mountain
with the airdrops, which I expect there may be more of them, likely will
be more of them, that is to help in a discrete situation where we have
the ability to do so.
We’ve also provided a large number of assistance to nongovernmental
and international organizations that are working on the very severe
humanitarian crisis inside Iraq. The UN is doing quite a bit of work,
particularly with internally displaced people. So we are providing a
large amount of assistance to that effort as well. But the best way,
right, we can help people return to some normalcy is to get the Iraqi
Security Forces, the Kurdish forces able to fight this threat on their
own to push back the advance of ISIL and see if we can bring calm back
to some areas here. That’s obviously a longer-term strategy.
QUESTION: And what are you considering to do to help Christians and the Yezidis to go back to their hometowns?
MS. HARF: Well, just a statistic too. We’ve provided over $83
million in assistance for minority communities since 2008. This has gone
to a number of things, including conflict mitigation, cultural
preservation, community stabilization, and other efforts as well. We are
the largest donor to the UN agencies who are working on assistance to
displaced persons right now. So those efforts are ongoing. But it’s,
again, a very serious challenge.
QUESTION: We’re talking about the latest events, not since 2008.
MS. HARF: Well, some of that has happened recently, so I would
point you to the UN for some of the action they’ve taken. But also, all
you had to do is see that last night the United States military did a
fairly large air drop that could provide food and water for thousands of
people that are stranded on a mountain. So that’s, I think, the biggest
example of --
QUESTION: I have two more questions.
MS. HARF: Okay.
QUESTION: To what extent do you think that Erbil and U.S. personnel and facilities are still threatened by ISIL in Erbil?
MS. HARF: Well, obviously, we haven’t changed out status at
our consulate there. That’s – this is exactly why we want to prevent
ISIL’s advance towards Erbil because we don’t want them to be and we
don’t want ISIL to advance any further.
QUESTION: And the Shiite leader Sami al-Askari, who is close
to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, has said today that Mr. Obama’s call for
airstrikes have come too late, and he accused the Obama Administration
for being interested only in protecting the Kurdish Regional Government
and Christians, not the rest of Iraq. What’s your reaction to that?
MS. HARF: Well, I think the huge amount of military assistance
we’ve provided to Iraq should make very clear that we are interested in
helping the Iraqis fight ISIL wherever they threaten Iraqis inside
Iraq, and we will continue that effort. Again, this was a discrete
situation where particularly with our people in Erbil we felt we had to
take immediate action.
QUESTION: And Askari has said too that Iraqis must rely on
themselves and their genuine friends like Iran and Russia. What do you
think about that?
MS. HARF: Well, we’re the one who are taking airstrikes
against ISIL right now and helping the Iraqis. I think that should speak
for our friendship, as should the long history we’ve had over the past
days, months, and – weeks and months in helping them fight ISIL.
QUESTION: Would you encourage Iranian airstrikes? I mean, with
– you said that you are the ones that are taking – like this is a big
responsibility.
MS. HARF: Well, the Iraqi Government --
QUESTION: So you’re not encouraging Iranian airstrikes?
MS. HARF: The Iraqi Government asked us to provide this kind of assistance.
QUESTION: Yes, please.
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: The moderate rebels in Syria are facing a similar
threat with ISIS that is currently being – that we are now engaged in
airstrikes against in Iraq. So can you lay out what the differences are?
Obviously, I know that this is on a case-by-case basis. What are the
differences that make this situation so much different than the fight
that the moderate opposition in Syria is undergoing?
MS. HARF: Well, I’d start with three points. The first is,
again, there’s a central government in Iraq and a number of leaders
throughout Iraq, in the Kurdish Regional Government as well, who have
asked us to assist here. Obviously, that’s very different than in Syria.
Second, there was – we have a number of Americans in Erbil, which is
driving a lot of our decision making. Again, that’s very different than
the situation in Syria.
And thirdly, we have continued to provide increased assistance to the
moderate opposition in Syria. Operationally it’s very different. What
we see here is a city of Erbil and convoys of ISIL fighters advancing
towards them. Operationally that’s very different than the full-scale
civil war we see in Syria, where it’s just a very different operational
picture.
QUESTION: But aside from the question of Americans being in
danger, is – does – I guess what I want to ask is: Does the
Administration see it as situations have to meet that trifecta of
circumstances to warrant such a --
MS. HARF: Well, there’s a number of principles that could lead
the President to decide to authorize military action. There’s not a
checklist he goes through, but there’s a number of principles at work,
some of which are at work here.
Yes.
QUESTION: Yes, please. You mentioned more than one time this
is not American fight to fight. So in that – with that concept, do you
think the presence of ISIL in this area cross-border between Syria and
the rapid movement doesn’t any way threaten, make – represent a threat
to the American national security?
MS. HARF: Well, right. So my point in saying the first comment
you referenced was that this is not – there’s not an American military
solution that can solve this problem, but when America’s core interests
are at play here, when there are certain core interests, the United
States is going to protect. One of those is obviously the protection of
our personnel and our facilities. Another is our humanitarian principle
that if you see a potential act of genocide, as we’ve seen on Mount
Sinjar, and we have the ability to act, when we can, we aim to do so. So
there are some core principles that underline why we are involved here.
But again, it’s not – we can’t impose an American military solution on
this problem.
QUESTION: I’m not asking --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: I’m not asking what you can or you want to do. I’m
asking, do you consider the presence of ISIL in that area, cross-border
from Syria to Iraq, and the possibility of going to Jordan and the rapid
movement without even going to Erbil is a threat to the region and to
United States national interests?
MS. HARF: Absolutely, yes. Absolutely.
QUESTION: You consider that?
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: Okay. My second question: Do you still believe that
with the political solution that you are talking about it for the last
two months, assuming that it’s going to be a political solution in Iraq?
MS. HARF: Well, there needs to be a political and a security solution.
QUESTION: Whatever.
MS. HARF: Yeah.
QUESTION: This political solution is going to be able to handle the ISIL problem?
MS. HARF: Well, it needs to be matched with a security
solution. So we’ve seen progress towards formation of a new government,
and hopefully we’ll have a new prime minister for a new government very
soon, hopefully. But it needs to be matched with a security strategy,
and part of that is the assistance we can provide, part of that is
governing in an inclusive manner and helping the security forces work
together, like we’ve seen them already start to do. So they really need
to go hand in hand.
QUESTION: So my third question regarding ISIL: Do you still believe that ISIL has to be confronted?
MS. HARF: Yes.
QUESTION: It’s not a matter of just to find channel of communication with ISIL?
MS. HARF: No. As I said, there’s not a political solution to
the ISIL problem by working with them. This is a terrorist group, a
barbaric group that, as Lara said, will kill anyone they encounter –
moderate Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Yezidis. They have said they want to
wipe some of these groups out of Iraq altogether. So this is a brutal
group that needs to be confronted militarily, and that’s what the Iraqis
are trying to do, and we’re helping them.
QUESTION: So when you say you have contacts with neighboring
countries – or probably, let’s say, Sunni countries – those people are
trying to help you or you are trying to coordinate with them how to
confront ISIL? It’s not a matter of just find channel of communication?
MS. HARF: No, it’s working together to confront ISIL.
Yes, Lara.
QUESTION: Marie, to follow up on something you just said a
second ago – I’m not going to put words in your mouth, but you said
something to the effect of that the U.S. believes has it a
responsibility to respond in terms of a humanitarian disaster in Sinjar.
MS. HARF: If we – if the situation presents itself where we are able to do so, based on a whole number circumstances, yes.
QUESTION: Okay. Let me --
MS. HARF: That is a core principle that underpins this policy.
QUESTION: So in July 2007, candidate Obama said in an AP
interview that the United States cannot use its military to solve
humanitarian problems, and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq
isn’t a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there.
MS. HARF: Very different situation. He was talking about keeping tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq --
QUESTION: He --
MS. HARF: -- and he still very much believes in that principle
and made very clear last night that we were not going to return to what
things looked like in 2007.
QUESTION: I don’t see ground force as part of this. He was talking about --
MS. HARF: The U.S. presence is ground troops in 2007, tens of thousands of them.
QUESTION: Well, he’s talking specifically about humanitarian problems and potential genocide in Iraq, which is what we’re facing now.
MS. HARF: But go to the second part of that quote, which is
maintain a U.S. presence there to combat it. That U.S. presence he was
referring to in 2007 was a large-scale ground troop presence, which is
not what we’re doing today.
Yes.
QUESTION: As we all know, there are 49 Turkish diplomats held
captive by ISIL for about two months now. Are you taking into this the
presence of Turkish diplomats when you are taking your strikes?
MS. HARF: I don’t have any update for you on that issue.
QUESTION: No, my question is, are you taking these Turkish
diplomats into considerations when you decide to launch any strike on
this ISIL? Otherwise, you’ll hit Turkish diplomats as well.
MS. HARF: Well, obviously, we would not want that to be the
case. We’ve outlined what the targets would look like, broadly speaking,
if ISIL is moving towards Erbil. So that’s what we’re focused on.
QUESTION: So you are saying that you have been talking to Turkish Government on this --
MS. HARF: In general, yeah.
QUESTION: -- in general. How about these diplomats within this conversation?
MS. HARF: I don’t have any more details for you on that.
QUESTION: Are you partnering with Iran, or do you have any objection with Iran fighting with the ISIL forces on the ground?
MS. HARF: We are not partnering with Iran on this.
QUESTION: Two things. Why is there no American military solution here?
MS. HARF: To the general ISIL problem writ large? Because, at
the end of the day, the Iraqis need to be able to fight it themselves.
We can make progress and we can make gains, but we – at
the end of the
day, the Iraqis will need to take this challenge on themselves.
QUESTION: But – in other words, what you’re saying is that there’s no --
MS. HARF: But we want to help them be able to. That’s the point of this assistance.
QUESTION: Well, but – I mean, you’ve asserted there is no
American solution, military solution to this. You mean there’s – it’s
just inconceivable that the U.S. military could destroy ISIL if it chose
to do so and was ordered by the President to do so?
MS. HARF: Look, Arshad --
QUESTION: Or is it that you just don’t want to do that?
MS. HARF: No.
QUESTION: Which is a perfectly understandable thing, given the last 10 years of history in Iraq. But --
MS. HARF: No, what I’m saying is, look, we can certainly make
gains against terrorist groups in Iraq. I mean, you saw that when we
were there and we had, again, tens of thousands of combat troops and a
huge presence on the ground. But if the Iraqis at the end of the day
aren’t able to step up and take care of this themselves, that’s the
long-term solution. We cannot be doing this forever. There is no
long-term American military solution to this problem.
QUESTION: Okay. And then second thing --
MS. HARF: That is a fact. Yes.
QUESTION: Second thing. You several times have said that it is
– that your goal is for the Iraqis to be able to deal with this
themselves and you’ve talked about U.S. assistance to them in that
regard. What makes you think that the Iraqis will ever be capable of
doing this themselves and of fielding a – an army capable of maintaining
order throughout their country when they were unable to do so even
after a decade of significant U.S. troops presence, training, financial
assistance, political/diplomatic assistance – a decade, a lot of money,
they couldn’t do it then, what makes you think they can do it now?
MS. HARF: Well, they actually did it for a number of years. We
left in December of 2011 and for many of those months actually they
did. But when they were – that’s a fact, too – when they were confronted
with the overwhelmingly rapidly advance of ISIL that was a challenge
they were not at the time prepared to face. But we believe working with
us in a long-term, sustained way we can get them back.
QUESTION: But why do you think you can get them back there
when – I mean, I grant that they were able to maintain security for a
certain amount of time, but the point is three years is not a real long
time in terms of the span of a country’s existence. I mean, what makes
you think that they can actually durably do this with your help when
they didn’t last even three years after you left?
MS. HARF: Well, I would turn it around and say why are you focused on these few months and not the three years?
QUESTION: Well, because --
MS. HARF: Which is an even shorter time in a country’s existence, these few months, when they haven’t been able to.
QUESTION: Yeah. But the point is they haven’t been able to, right?
MS. HARF: But they have been in the past.
QUESTION: Not in Diyala.
MS. HARF: And --
QUESTION: Not in 2000, November 13th.
MS. HARF: Not – look, there have been challenges, I grant you
that. But we believe that working together we can. We can help give them
the tools. This is not going to be easy. Nobody’s saying that, but we
believe that we can.
Yes.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: But why – no, but I keep trying to get to why you think you can. And that’s what I don’t understand is why you think they can.
MS. HARF: From a specific military, tactical, strategic --
QUESTION: From any point of view, why do you think that
they’ll be capable of doing this, given all of the ethnic divisions,
given the manifest incapacity of the military – of the Iraqi military in
the face of ISIL, given the political divisions, what makes you think
this country and its government is capable of fielding an army to
actually control its territory?
MS. HARF: Well, on the military side of it, I think we are
very good at training people at doing this. It’s a challenge, but the
United States military has a lot of resources they can bear in terms on
the military side of equipping and training and arming. But there is a
political part of this that we cannot force the Iraqis to make these
decisions. It needs to be matched with tough political decisions on the
Iraqi side as well. So we can’t force them to, but we believe they can
get there if they make the decisions to do so. And we keep working with
them.
QUESTION: Can we go to Gaza?
QUESTION: Just one more, quick, on Iraq?
QUESTION: Oh, one more.
QUESTION: Sorry, Said.
MS. HARF: Let’s do a few more on Iraq and then we are moving on.
QUESTION: Just real quick, do you have an update on the dam, the Mosul Dam?
MS. HARF: No, same as I said yesterday, ISIL has taken it. The
situation’s very fluid though, so this is obviously changing. It’s a
hugely strategically important location, so that is the update.
Yes. Just a few more on Iraq, and then we’re moving on.
QUESTION: Yeah. When you say ISIL and this – all these rapid
movement is going on and nobody is confronting them, at least up to this
moment, do you have an estimate or what is the latest estimate of their
number?
MS. HARF: Of ISIL’s numbers?
QUESTION: Yes.
MS. HARF: I don’t. Let me check with our team and see if I can get that.
QUESTION: Marie?
MS. HARF: Uh-huh. And then I’m going to you in the back. Sorry.
QUESTION: Two more. Do you consider that Erbil is a redline that ISIL should not cross?
MS. HARF: Well, we’ve said that we don’t – we want to stop
their advance towards Erbil. That is very important strategically to us
both for our personnel there but also strategically for the Iraqis. So
we’ve made clear.
QUESTION: That means you are drawing a redline --
MS. HARF: I am not going to use that term. You can feel free to use it yourself, but I’m not going to. So --
QUESTION: Mm-hmm. Second, what changes can we expect from the U.S. after the formation of the new government in Iraq?
MS. HARF: What changes?
QUESTION: Yeah, in the political position or military --
MS. HARF: Well, I don’t think – I mean, I don’t you’ll see any
changes. We will continue to increase our assistance, as we’ve said.
And as the government takes steps and fully forms its new form, I think
we’ll continue working with them and look at other ways we can help.
QUESTION: But you expect it to be more inclusive, correct?
MS. HARF: We have said that it needs to govern more inclusively.
I’m going to you in the back, I promise.
QUESTION: Thank you. I was just wondering, you said that this
comes at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. What sort of leverage
does that give you over Maliki? And then the second question is: Does it
present a risk that the Iraqi Government will take this as a form of
support, which will back off the pressure for political change in
Baghdad?
MS. HARF: Well, we certainly have said we are broadly very
supportive of the Iraqi Government, but that they need to move forward
with government formation very, very quickly. We’ve made that clear
publicly and privately in the many, many conversations we’ve had. So
they have a new council speaker, they have a new president, and
hopefully very, very soon we’ll have a new prime minister. I don’t think
there is any doubt that the United States believes that they should
form a new government as soon as possible. It’s not up to us to say who
that is, but that’s what we need to see happen very soon.
QUESTION: And then the only other question I had for you is:
What sort of support are you guys getting from the U.K. or France or any
other European allies, and what do those consultations look like?
MS. HARF: Yep. So as I mentioned, the Secretary spoke with
French Foreign Minister Fabius yesterday. I can see if there are updated
calls from today. He may be making some on the plane right now. We’ve
been consulting very closely with them, particularly at the UN, on next
steps, what that might look like, trying to get humanitarian assistance
in. So we’ve been working together very, very closely. No specific
update beyond that.
QUESTION: Do you see them engaging in any sort of military action themselves?
MS. HARF: You’d have to ask them.
QUESTION: When you say new prime minister, do you mean someone
other than Nouri al-Maliki, or do you mean a prime minister for a new
government?
MS. HARF: A prime minister for a new government. I am not
taking a position on who that should be. Thank you for allowing me to
clarify that.
QUESTION: I’m just asking.
QUESTION: And final – one more question.
MS. HARF: Uh-huh.
QUESTION: Do you know more about who is financing ISIL? There
are reports Saudis or Qatar. If you find out that they’ve been
supporting these forces, would you consider putting some kind of
sanctions on them?
MS. HARF: Well, a few points. First, much of ISIL’s funding
comes from criminal activity like ransoms, like taking hostages, like
robbing banks. We’ve seen them do this a number of times over the past
several months. So much of their funding comes from that kind of
criminal activity. We don’t have any indication that governments are –
that you mentioned are funding it. Look, there are always a chance that
private citizens in some of these countries might be doing so.
Obviously, that would be hugely concerning. Obviously, they are also a
designated terrorist organization in the United States, so we have
imposed to the extent that we can some limits on how people could fund
them.
QUESTION: And also would you consider taking any kind of rescue operation if you were to know where the Turkish diplomats are?
MS. HARF: I don’t think I would even venture to answer that hypothetical.
QUESTION: Treasury acted against a Kuwaiti citizen earlier this week whom I believe was funding ISIL.
MS. HARF: Great. I would refer you to my colleagues at Treasury.
iraq
