- Good morning, everyone.
- [Reporters] Good morning.
- Happy Saturday.
I wanna start by making one point clear.
The use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world
is an inexcusable violation of international law
and the United States will not tolerate it.
The Assad regime's attack against innocent Syrians
in Douma, Syria on April 7th is horrifying and tragic
and it demanded an immediate response.
Yesterday, United States forces at the direction
of President Trump launched precision strikes
against Assad regime targets associated with the use
of chemical weapons in Syria.
We launched these strikes to cripple Syria's ability
to use chemical weapons in the future.
We were joined by the United Kingdom and France
who demonstrated solidarity in addressing these atrocities.
Americans are united in condemning Syria's inexcusable
use of chemical weapons, which no civilized nation
would tolerate.
We are encouraged by the support we received
from the senators and congressmen on
both sides of the aisle.
We are also extremely proud
of the United States service members
who carried out this operation last night.
They demonstrated unwavering courage
and commitment in their defense of the American people
and the values and ideals our nation represents.
This operation was carefully orchestrated
and methodically planned to minimize
potential collateral damage.
I can assure you, we took every measure
and precaution to strike only what we targeted
and we successfully hit every target.
This operation does not represent a change in US policy
nor an attempt to depose the Syrian regime.
The strikes were a justified, legitimate,
and proportionate response to the Syrian regime's
continued use of chemical weapons on its own people.
We do not seek conflict in Syria,
but we cannot allow such grievous violations
of international law.
Our goal in Syria remains defeating Isis
by, with and through the 70-nation coalition.
But we will not stand by passively
while Asssad, backed by Russia and Iran,
ignores international law.
The Assad regime's actions in April, 2017
and again on April 7th, 2018 show
they have abandoned their commitment
to the international community
and resorted to illegal tactics
against the innocent Syrian people.
We call upon Russia to honor its commitment
to insure the Assad regime dismantles
its chemical weapons program and never
uses chemical weapons again.
We support our diplomats who are working
to set the conditions for the United Nation's
backed Geneva Process to succeed
and we look forward to working with
the United Nation's envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura.
In an effort to maintain transparency,
General MacKenzie will now provide
a detailed overview of the actual operations.
General MacKenzie.
- Thanks, thanks Dana.
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning.
I'm gonna spend the next couple of minutes
just talking about the military details
of the strikes that we executed last night.
Can I get the first graphic up, please?
As you heard from the President of the United States
and directly in this room from Secretary Mattis,
Chairman Dunford, the United States,
the United Kingdom, France, three of the five
permanent of the UN Security Council,
conducted a proportional precision coordinated strike
in response to the Syrian regime's continued use
of chemical weapons.
This combined military strike was directed against
three distinct Syrian chemical weapons program
targets and I'm gonna show them to you in turn
on the monitor behind me and I think you have access
to that information, also.
The three facilities are, or more appropriately now,
were fundamental components of the regime's
chemical weapons warfare infrastructure.
Let's go to the first slide, please.
The Barzeh Research and Development Center.
Next slice, the, pardon me, the Him Shinshar
Chemical Weapons Storage facility and last,
and the next slide, please, the Him Shinshar
Chemical Weapons Bunker facility
which is located about seven kilometers
from the previous Him Shinshar site.
This strike aimed to deliver a clear and ambiguous
message to the Syrian regime that their use of
chemical weapons against innocent civilians
is inexcusable and to deter any future use
of chemcial weapons.
We selected these targets carefully
to minimize the risk to innocent civilians.
We're still conducting a more detailed damage
assessment but initial indications are that
we accomplished our military objectives
without material interference from Syria.
I'd use three words to describe this operation:
precise, overwhelming, and effective.
Let's go back to the first Barzeh slide, please.
I guess the first target, the Barzeh Research
and Development Center, which is located in the
greater Damascus area, we employed 76 missiles,
57 of these were Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise missiles
and 19 were Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles,
or JASSMs.
As you can see for yourself in the graphics,
initial assessments are that this target was destroyed.
This is going to set the Syrian chemical weapons
program for years.
We also note that we've successfully destroyed
three building in metropolitan Damascus,
one of the most heavily defended aerospace areas
in the world.
Next slide please.
Against the second target, the Him Shinshar
Chemical Weapons Storage facility,
which is located in Syria just west of Homs,
nine US tea lamps, eight storm shadow missiles,
three naval cruise missile and two SCALP
land attack missiles.
This target was attacked by all coalition forces.
Our Tomahawks, the British Storm Shadow,
and the French missiles went against it as well.
Against the third target, next slide.
The Him Shinshar chemical weapons bunker facility
we deployed seven Scout missiles.
Again, the initial assessment is that this
bunker facility was successfully hit.
Now I'd just like to talk a bit about
the specific platforms that were a part of this strike
and let's go back to the first slide, please.
The missiles that I've just described
were delivered from British, French, and US
air and naval platforms in the Red Sea,
the Northern Arabian Gulf, and the Eastern Mediterranean.
All weapons hit their targets at very close
to the designated time on target of about 4:00 a.m.
In Syria, which of course is nine o'clock
here on the East coast.
I'm going to give you a little more details now
about the platforms.
First, in the Red Sea, the Ticonderoga Class Cruiser
Monterey fired 30 Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles.
And the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, Laboon
fired seven Tomahawks.
In the North Arabian Gulf, The Burke class destroyer,
Higgins fired 23 Tomahawks.
In the Eastern Mediterranean the French Frigate Languedoc
fired three missiles of their naval version
of the SCAT missile.
Also in the Mediterranean, the Virginia class submarine,
John Warner fired six Tomahawk missiles.
In the air, two B1 Lancer bombers fired 19
joint air-to-surface standoff missiles.
In addition, our British allies flew a combination
of Tornadoes and Typhoons and launched eight
Storm Shadow missiles.
Our French allies flew a combination of Rafales
and Mirage's and launched nine SCALP missiles.
Taken together, and as you can see from the graphic
behind me, these attacks on multiple axis
were able to overwhelm the Syrian Air Defense System.
It's also important to note that we flew
a variety of defensive counter air,
tanker, and electronic warfare aircraft
in support of these operations.
None of our aircraft or missiles involved
in this operation were successfully engaged
by Syrian air defenses,
and we have no indication that Russian
air defense systems were employed.
We are confident that all our missiles reached
their targets.
At the end of the strike mission,
all our aircraft safely returned to their bases.
We assessed that over 40 service-to-air missiles
were employed by the Syrian regime.
Most of these launches occurred after the last impact
of our strike was over.
It is likely that the regime shot many of these
missiles on a ballistic trajectory.
I mean by that, without guidance.
And we assessed that the defensive efforts
of Syria were largely ineffective and clearly
increased risk to their own people based on
this indiscriminate response.
When you shoot iron into the air without guidance,
it's going to come down somewhere.
By contrast, the precise nature of our strike
and the care in which our allied team planned and executed,
significantly reduced the risk of collateral damage
to civilians.
In summary, in a powerful show of allied unity,
we deployed 105 weapons against three targets,
that will significantly impact the Syrian regimes
ability to develop, deploy, and use chemical weapons
in the future.
It's been said before but I want to emphasize again
that by comparison, this strike was double the size
of the last strike in April 2017.
And I'd also emphasize that this strike
was a multinational effort.
The precision strike was executed with France
and the UK, demonstrating our unquestionable resolve.
I'd like to close by noting that since the strike,
we have not seen any military response
from actors within Syria.
And we remain postured to protect our forces
and those of the coalition should anything occur.
Dana, back to you.
- So with that, we'll take your questions.
Bob?
- Thank you, General MacKenzie, you said
that you assessed initially that the attack
cumulatively set back the Syrian chemical weapons
program for years.
Can you elaborate on that?
Mrs. White said that it was intended to cripple it.
Can you be more--
- [General] Sure.
- And were there any civilian casualties, Sir?
- Well, as of right now we are not
aware of any, I'll answer that part first.
As of now we're not aware of any civilian casualties.
Now, I will also note, and as I said in my prepared remarks,
the Syrians shot 40 large missiles into the air
last night, those missiles came down somewhere.
And so we should just recognize that's
a part of this equation, too.
But we don't, right now we don't have any reporting
of any civilian casualties against any of the targets
that we struck and we'll continue to look at this
closely as we go ahead.
So very briefly, the first part of your question,
particularly the Barzeh facility is a core site
for them and as you can see from the graphic,
it does not exist anymore.
And we believe they've lost a lot of equipment.
They've lost a lot of material, and it's going to
have a significant effect on them.
So I think the words cripple and degrade
are good, accurate words.
- [Dana] Tom?
- [Tom] Secretary Mattis said last night,
he was pretty convinced that Chlorine was used.
He's still waiting on sarin.
He also said he's confident that the Syrian regime
mounted these chemical acts, what evidence
do you have of both, of Chlorine and of the Syrian attack.
And also the OPCW is on the ground now.
They're collecting information on that.
- We are still assessing, but as the Secretary said
last night, he is confident of the evidence
that we already had, which is why he recommended
the strikes last night.
But we are still assessing and getting details
and we will provide more details once we have them.
- [Tom] Can you give us a sense of what evidence
you do have?
- Various, there's various intel and I won't speak
to that but when we have more evidence
and details, I will come back to you, Tom.
Barbara?
- For both of you, first General MacKenzie
could you speak about in Barzeh and these other
facilities, were there actually, are you convinced
there were chemical agents inside at the time
of the strike?
How did you mitigate not having the disbursal
of a chemical agent cloud?
And Dana, you know, yesterday the President
talked about the possibility of a sustained response.
And the Secretary last night spoke about
this being a single strike at this time.
Could you help people understand?
Is there a difference there?
What are they both talking about?
For both of you, please.
- Sure, I'll start, Barbara.
So as we look at each of these targets.
We have a variety of sophisticated models,
plume analysis, other things to calculate
the possible effects of chemical or nerve agent
being in there.
In relation to the Barzeh target, yes, we assessed
that there were probably some chemical and nerve agents
in that target, however we believe that by the way
that we attacked it, the attack profile
that we used, the way our weaponeers looked at it,
we were able to minimize that.
And so, I'd just leave it at that.
You'll be able to judge over the next few hours
the results of that.
We believe that we successfully mitigated,
against the fact that there are illegal
and unauthorized weapons at these sites.
- [Barbara] Very briefly, are you doing any post attack
air sampling to see if there was any disbursal?
- We look at the target through a variety of means.
- [Barbara] Okay, Ms. Dana.
- [Dana] With respect to his comment, I think
the operative word is, the words were,
at this time.
What happens going forward has everything to do
with the Assad regime.
We sent a very clear message last night
and we hope that he heard it.
- Joe, in the back.
- General MacKenzie, have you had any contacts
with the Russians through the deconfliction lines
in the aftermath of these operations, or are you planning
to have such contacts in the next few hours?
- As you know, the deconfliction channel
which we use between we and the Russians has operated
frequently over the past few months.
It continued to operate frequently leading up to
this strike and a routine basis after the strike.
- [Dana] Hans?
- [Hans] General McKenzie, the three targets
that you struck, were those manufacturing
or researching chlorine or sarin?
- A little of both.
And particularly in the Barzeh target,
but there's a little of both.
- And do any of these facilities have any
other nonmilitary application?
- No, they're essentially...
This is what they do principally.
There may be other activities that are carried on there,
but this is the core activity associated with these sites.
- [Dana] Phil?
- [Phil] You said that none of the Russian air defenses
were not turned on.
How do you explain that?
Was there an agreement--
- I'm sorry, I didn't say the Russian air defenses
were not turned on.
I said they weren't employed.
- [Phil] Weren't employed, I'm sorry.
Was there an agreement with Russia they would not
employ their air defenses?
And then also you said the Syrian air defenses
did not have any significant impact on the operations.
Is that to say that there was no interception of
any of these missiles that were fired?
- So we did no coordination, no agreements
with the Russians before the strikes,
important to know that.
We deconflict.
We do nothing more than that.
And I want say that to the best of our ability
to determine at this time, no Syrian weapon
had any effect on anything that we did.
- [Dana] Tara?
- Thank you.
Dana, for you, last year when a similar-type strike
occurred, there was an assessment that it degraded
Syria's ability to generate chemical weapons.
Yet a couple months later the Pentagon thought that
that specific airfield was right back at it.
What assurances do you have now that you have
significantly degraded Syria's ability to generate
chemical weapons?
And then for General McKenzie, that slide appears
that the B-1s were escorted by U.S. fighters.
Could you tell us who escorted the B-1s,
and what type of surface-to-air missiles were shot out
in the air, the 40?
And then getting back to the Russian defenses,
if their defenses weren't employed, were Russian radars
at all employed?
Were they pinging any of the U.S. aircraft?
- So I'll take the first one.
Last year the focus was on the delivery.
This time, we went, the strikes went to the very heart
of the enterprise, to the research,
to development, to storage.
So we are very confident that we have significantly
crippled Assad's ability to produce these weapons.
- [Reporter] Can I follow up?
- Let me just answer.
- I got you.
- So the B-1s employed the JASSM,
our joint-standoff missile.
So that was the weapon that they used.
B-1s were accompanied by U.S. fighters
up to the launch-and-release point,
as a normal way you'd integrate an air package,
to provide protection to the bombers.
Just as the French and British aircraft were accompanied
by their own fighters as part of an integrated package
that provides defense for the shooters.
Additionally, we positioned defensive counter-air
around the theater.
And in fact that's still operational
right now, as we observe the potential
Syrian response.
- [Tara] Were the escorts Raptors?
- I don't know the answer to that question,
but we'll get back to you.
I just don't know that.
- [Dana] David, go ahead.
- There were reports that these facilities,
there were reports today that these facilities had been
evacuated in the days prior to yesterday's strike.
Do you have any indication, either of you,
that that's the case?
And wouldn't that, to some degree, degrade your assessment
of the damage that's been done to the regime?
- Sure, the Syrian regime knows that we've been looking
at these targets for a long time.
So it is possible, it's possible that there might,
some people might have left it.
We also chose to strike it as three o'clock in the morning,
four o'clock in the morning local time,
so we weren't trying to kill a lot of people
on the objective, and so we struck at a different time
of the day.
I believe, however, that there's material
and equipment associated with each of these sites
that was not movable.
And that's the source of the, that's what really
sets them back.
And to go back to an earlier question,
that's really the difference between striking an airfield
and essentially a delivery platform
and a research development and generation
part of the facility.
This is far more damaging to Syria.
- [Dana] Michael.
- General McKenzie, were the three targets that were struck,
does this represent the totality of Syria's known
C.W. infrastructure or were there C.W. structures
that were -- that you didn't hit because of collateral
damage concerns?
Second, is chlorine the new red line?
Because the administration monitored the use of chlorine
for many months and didn't take any action,
and it seems to have only taken action because
a nerve agent appears to have been used.
And this is the last weapons question,
was the JASSM used, an extended-range JASSM,
or just the first-generation JASSM?
- So let me, in terms of the targeting,
as we've selected targets, obviously the Syrian
chemical weapons system is larger than
the three targets that we addressed tonight.
However, these are the targets that presented
the best opportunity to minimize collateral damage,
to avoid killing innocent civilians,
and yet to send a very strong message.
We could have gone to other places and done other things,
but we, in close coordination with our allies,
decided these were the ones that best fit those,
that best fit that criteria.
So certainly there's an element that is not part of the,
there are other elements, and we'll continue
to examine those as we go forward.
So we did employ the JASSM-ER.
- Would you say you hit most, you destroyed
most of the infrastructure, 50 percent, 80 percent or--
- You can look at the map, you can particularly
at the Barzeh site and make your own conclusions.
I would say they had three buildings there
and a parking deck, and now they don't.
And so I think very, that's probably the one
that's easiest to see because it's a building structure.
- [Michael] I meant of their infrastructure.
- I think we dealt them a severe blow.
There's some left, but we dealt them a severe blow.
- [Michael] And what about the prospective use
of chlorine in the future?
Would you, the administration didn't act in the event
of previous use of chlorine.
Dana, will it act now?
Is that a new red line?
- What's important to understand is that the Assad regime
has a pattern of using chemical weapons against
its own people, against the chemical weapons convention.
Despite the fact that they had agreed to it,
and despite the fact that the Russians
were their guarantors.
So what happens next has everything to do with
what the Assad regime decides to do.
And it has everything to do with what the Russian government
decides to enable as well.
Stephanie?
- [Stephanie] Thanks, Dana.
Why does the administration, you touched on this,
but why does the administration feel these strikes
are enough to deter the Assad regime
from using chemical weapons again?
- [Dana] I'll pass it to the general in a second.
We were very methodical in making the decision
about these sites.
And it was a deliberate decision to go
to the storage facilities, to go to the research
and development facilities.
That was the difference.
We think by doing this, this was very successful,
and we are confident that we've significantly degraded
his ability to ever use chemical weapons again.
- [Stephanie] One more.
And what kind of response should the Assad regime expect
from the U.S. if they were to use chemical weapons again?
- One, I think it's very important to remember that
we had, that this represents three permanent members
of the U.N. Security Council who did this.
The U.K. and France are our oldest allies.
This is about values.
We did this because it's intolerable
for any civilized nation to tolerate
the use of chemical weapons.
- [Stephanie] Thank you.
- Missy?
- [Missy] Thank you.
I just have two, one follow-up on Michael's question
for you, general, and a question for you, Dana.
General, can you just, to press you a little bit
on the chemical weapons program.
Can you give us an idea of, was this, should the American
public understand that this is a minority
of the existing chemical weapons programs?
Is this more than half?
Is there any way you can give us a better sense
of the scale of what these three sites represented?
Also for you, general, how long did the strike last?
How many minutes, hours?
And, Dana, can you just comment on,
to put this in the context of the broader civil war.
I know that the U.S. policy is not to get engaged
in the civil war, and that the objective is to get
to a negotiated settlement eventually.
But you know, we have this significant military response
to chemical attacks that, in this instance,
killed an estimated 45 people.
At the same time, the Assad regime has continued
to use conventional means to attack women and children,
civilians repeatedly, using barrel bombs
and other means.
Can you talk about that?
How should people understand the difference
in the response to these more isolated chemical attacks,
and the ongoing conventional attacks by the Assad government
on its own people?
- It is clear to everyone that the Syrian people
have suffered for too long.
And it's why we are 100 percent behind the U.N.
backed Geneva Peace Process, and we encourage our allies
and partners in the region to also help facilitate
that conversation.
We have a new U.N. envoy, and this is an opportunity
to really put real steam behind the process.
But our mission in Syria remains the same.
It is to defeat ISIS.
It is not to be involved in the civil war.
Christina?
Oh, sorry.
Christine, I'm sorry, there you go.
- Missy, so your two-part question first.
We believe by hitting Barzeh first,
we've attacked the heart of the Syrian
chemical weapons program.
I'm not saying that they're going not be able
to reconstitute it, not saying that it's going to continue.
This has dealt them a very serious blow,
so I think that's the core of what I'm saying.
Second point is how long did the attack last?
As you know, an operation like this has many,
many elements, from a 0400 time on target,
which all of our missiles impacted within a minute or two
of that time.
Really several hours before you begin to launch tankers,
you begin to launch intelligence aircraft;
you can begin to do a variety of things.
Probably a couple hours before would be the period
of maximum intensity for the mission.
That's when you beginning to spin and launch the TLAMs
from the ships.
That's when you're other aircraft are beginning to get
to the point where they're going to release their missiles.
But the operation actually many hours before
in order to just get set up.
- [Dana] Christina?
- [Christina] Thank you.
What would trigger another wave of coalition attacks?
Are we talking another chemical weapons attack
or retaliation?
And do we expect any retaliation either from the regime,
the Russians or the Iranians?
- I can't speculate on what could happen.
But what I will tell you is that this,
we took action, and what happens next is
the decision of Assad.
- [Christina] Do we expect any kind of retaliation?
- I can't speak to that, but I can tell you that
we're ready for it.
We're postured both in the region and globally.
We're on the balls of our feet, and we're ready
for anything.
- [Dana] Tony?
- [Tony] General, a couple of questions.
One, was this the least extensive of all the options that
were crafted?
Can you give us a feel for how many options
were put together?
And was this the one that would mete out the least amount
of damage?
- So I would tell you that we can't comment on options
we present to the president.
That's the choice he makes.
I'm not going to be able to discuss that.
I will tell you that of all the options
carefully looked at ways to minimize collateral damage.
You balance always minimizing collateral damage against
getting maximum effect.
These are three targets that seemed to hit the sweet spot
and do that.
- One follow-up, what impact did the very public
prelude to this attack have on military planning
in terms of enveloping in maybe a 21st century
bodyguard of lies in terms of deception on ship movements?
What impact did it have on possibly launch axes
of the aircraft or ships used?
We were all focused on the Donald Cook.
The Donald Cook wasn't used.
Can you give some sense of that?
- Sure, if I could build on your
"bodyguard of lies" comment,
the truth is, it had no effect.
- [Tony] No effect at all?
On military planning.
- It had no effect on military planning.
- [Dana] David?
- Yes.
- [Dana] David Martin.
- I thought I heard you say that the strike
put more steam behind the Geneva Peace Process.
How does this help bring peace to Syria?
- The U.N., we have been very clear
about the fact that we fully support
the U.N.-backed Geneva Process.
Sochi has failed.
Our focus remains defeating ISIS.
It is not to get involved in the Syrian civil war.
We call on all nations, and I think
the demonstration of our allies,
France and the U.K. helping us,
demonstrates that we are serious about
the fact that chemical weapons use is intolerable.
It's inexcusable.
- But we will remain committed to the
70-nation coalition to defeat ISIS.
- But how does preventing the use of
chemical weapons affect the outcome
of the Syrian civil war?
- It affects it by, again, demonstrating to the world
that this is a heinous regime.
This is a regime that murders its own people daily.
We, yesterday, with the help of our allies,
addressed the fact that they continue
to use chemical weapons against their own people.
We continue to hope and urge, and we're confident,
that the U.N. process will move forward.
But our mission remains to defeat ISIS.
There is still work to be done, and we will do it.
Right here, and right here.
- [Reporter] I'm going to ask three quick questions.
First, were you ready yesterday to engage
Russian targets in case Russia responded to that attack?
Second, you keep talking about the
current Syrian chemical program.
Can you give us an idea about the size
of this program in comparison to what the regime
had before dismantling it?
What is it in percentage?
And third, you're talking about evidence
of chemical weapons attack.
We haven't seen any evidence really.
That's what you're saying.
However, there's an organization
on the ground in Syria, the OPCW,
and it will conduct an investigation.
Why didn't you wait for that investigation to end?
- Well, let's remember that OPCW and others
have been blocked from entering Ghouta and Douma.
This, that's because of the Assad regime.
We need to remember that everything
that's happening with respect to the murder
of these people, innocent people,
is the responsibility of the Assad regime.
So we were very confident about the evidence
that we had, and it was clear.
And the secretary said yesterday,
he was very confident about the intelligence,
as well as the evidence.
And that's why we moved forward.
- [Reporter] And then the two other questions on Russia
and then the size of the--
- [McKenzie] Sure.
We have an active, effective deconfliction
channel with Russia.
It's been used months before this attack.
It was used through this strike.
It has been used afterwards.
And I'm not going to be able to comment
on anything more specific than that.
- [Reporter] The size of the program,
the current program that, what the Syrian regime has now?
Because you made, like you said, like,
you made lots of assessment.
You have a good idea.
You have lots of target.
So in comparison to what the Assad regime had before.
- I would say there's still a residual element
of Syrian program that's out there.
I believe that we took the heart of it out
with the attacks that we accomplished last night.
I'm not going to say that they are going
to be unable to continue to conduct
a chemical attack in the future.
I suspect, however, they'll think long and hard
about it after based on the activities of last night.
- [Dana] We have a couple, time for a
couple more questions.
Idrees?
- [Idrees] Thanks, Dana.
President Trump tweeted about an hour ago
"mission accomplished,"
which, of course, historically has not borne out
when the phrase has been used.
And you're saying that if, you know,
you've left the option for future strikes
in case chemical weapons are used again.
So could you sort of reconcile those two statements,
"mission accomplished" and "could be used in the future?"
And in terms of authorities,
if there are other strikes,
does the secretary, the secretary have to go to
President Trump, or has he been delegated
the authority to carry them out as he sees fit?
- So to your first point, last night operations
were very successful.
We met our objectives.
We hit the sites, the heart of the chem-weapons program.
So it was mission accomplished.
Give me your second part.
- [Idrees] The second part if is the authorities question.
If there are future strikes, does the same process
have to go, where you go to the NSC and the PCC?
What is the process now?
- As the secretary said last night,
the president has the authority under Article II
to defend U.S. interests and national interests.
And so I am not going to speculate on anything
that happens in the future, but he was full,
this was a fully legitimate operation.
Ryan?
- General McKenzie, did the chairman
of the Joint Chiefs General Dunford,
did he communicate with General Gerasimov
in the days or hours leading up to this strike?
And then, in addition, would you,
do you assess this has actually fundamentally
changed the military balance of the Syrian civil war,
or is the Assad regime maintaining its advantage?
- So I go back to some of the things
I've already said about the deconfliction channel
with the Russians.
It's a multilevel, robust system of communication
that we've employed for some time.
I'm not going to be able to give you any more
information on a particular conversation
that the chairman may or may not have had.
What was the second part of your question?
- The military balance of the civil war,
do these strikes fundamentally affect that,
or does the Assad regime's apparent ascendancy remains?
- I think our strikes were targeted
to send a message about the employment of chemical weapons,
and I think they were successful at achieving
that military objective.
- [Dana] Wait, I want to get to someone who hasn't spoken.
Way in back here, Connie.
- [Connie] Connie Marks from Channel 4 News.
Thank you, Dana.
Just following up on Idrees' question,
this question of mission accomplished.
If the mission is to deter President Assad
from producing, from spreading chemical weapons,
isn't it actually impossible at this state militarily
to know whether that mission, as described,
was accomplished?
- Last night, operations were successful.
We met all of our objectives.
We hit all of our targets successfully.
No aircraft, allied aircraft, were engaged.
It was a successful mission.
What happens next depends on what the Assad regime
decides to do.
Right over here.
- [Patrick] Thanks.
Patrick Tucker, Defense One.
You said earlier that you didn't observe
any material effects on forces during the strike.
Can you describe any other effects,
electromagnetic or cyber effects that were perhaps
targeted toward coalition craft?
And also, have you observed any activity
around residual or remaining sites
that you didn't strike that suggests perhaps
an after-action plan to hide or use chemical weapons
in some other way?
- The Syrian response was remarkably ineffective
in all domains.
That's probably the best answer I can give you.
So they, they had no material impact on the strike.
As I noted in my prepared comments,
they actually typically began to fire their missiles
after the last impact of our weapon.
So no appreciable effect that I, that we know at this time.
(chattering)
- [Dana] Finish your thought.
- [Patrick] Other activity around other sites,
perhaps the movement of weapons or movement
of chemicals or movement of--
- I just don't have that information right now, sorry.
- [Dana] OK, Tom, just, yeah?
- [Tom] You said we're very confident about
the evidence we have.
Now Russia and Syria denied any chemical weapons were used.
I'm just wondering why you wouldn't share
your evidence with the world?
Adlai Stevenson famously went to the U.N.
in 1962 with evidence of the Russian build-up in Cuba.
Why wouldn't you do something similar,
especially if there are doubts?
- [Dana] Well, there's no doubt for us.
- Well, why don't you share the evidence then?
- One, a lot of this has to do with intelligence.
And I am very happy to show evidence if I can.
But we were very confident about the decisions we made.
I'm going to take one more question from Aaron?
You've already spoken.
Come on, give somebody else a chance.
(laughing)
Aaron?
- [Aaron] Just a couple of clarification points.
Thanks, Dana.
(laughing)
General McKenzie, you said, I believe,
there's still an air-defense package
in operation right now in case there's potential
for retaliation from either Syrian or Russian assets.
How long do you intend to keep that package in the area,
specifically keeping an eye on if there's kind of
a retaliation to this strike?
And then during the strikes last year,
a couple of TLAMs, I believe, failed, just not because
of interference, but they just failed.
Were there any weapons that didn't make it to their
targets this time?
- [McKenzie] None of our Tomahawks
experienced any problems.
(mumbles)
I don't believe, no.
And you last question, we typically keep DCA
over deployed forces in Eastern Syria.
So typically, we've got aircraft up over them.
So this, as we, as we open in time from the event
going forward, the commander will continually readjust
the air-defense posture that we've got.
Right now, it's robust, and we'll keep it robust
for a while, and then we'll make adjustments,
just based on our observations of the environment.
- [Dana] Lucas?
(laughing)
- [Lucas] General, the Syrian government is saying
they shot down over a dozen Tomahawks.
Are they lying?
And what Syrian military units did you strike?
And for the people at home,
can you explain this deconfliction?
You say you didn't coordinate or give a heads-up
to the Russians, but you said you deconflicted.
And, Dana, finally, you say you want
to avoid conflict with Syria, yet,
with all due respect, you just lobbed
a couple dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles into the country.
Can you explain that?
- [Dana] Our mission stays the same.
It's to defeat ISIS.
But Assad's actions were beyond the pale.
Again, we will do our, we will 100 percent,
and we are supporting Envoy De Mistura.
We will continue to do that, because we want
a diplomatic, political resolution to the Syrian conflict.
But civilized nations can't let what's happened
in Syria stand.
So with that, I'm going to--
- [Lucas] General (mumbles).
- Oh, sorry, go ahead.
- [McKenzie] Sure.
So you asked about deconfliction.
Probably the best way to understand it is this,
the Russians don't have a veto on anything we do,
and that's probably the best way to describe it.
We're not cooperating with them in Syria.
We don't want to get into a fight with them.
They don't want to get into a fight with us.
The best way to do that is to share
certain information about what you're doing,
carefully, carefully metered out by us,
and I'm sure the same by them.
But we're not cooperating with them,
and they have no veto over what we do.
At the same time, we owe it to our service men
and women and those of our coalition partners
to do the best we can to simplify
the environment in which we're going to fight,
so the deconfliction mechanisms allow us to do that.
As to the last part of your question,
I can't help you with what the Syrians
are saying or not saying;
what I'm telling you is what actually happened.
- And on that point, as Secretary Mattis
said last night, the Russian disinformation campaign
has already begun.
There has been a 2,000 percent increase
in Russian trolls in the last 24 hours.
Therefore, we will keep you all abreast
of the facts moving forward.
Thank you all very much.
- [Reporter] General, does this operation have a name?
(shutters clicking)