Department of Defense Press Briefing by Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook in the Pentagon Briefing Room

PETER COOK: Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Pentagon.

Just a quick schedule announcement for you. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter will be the keynote speaker at the Air Force Association's Annual Air and Space Conference and Technology Exposition tomorrow. That's at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center just outside of Washington.

This year's event is bringing together Air Force leadership, industry experts, academia, current aerospace specialists from around the world to discuss the issues and challenges facing America and the aerospace community today.

The secretary will deliver his remarks 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. He will talk about how the Air Force continues to provide the flexibility to demonstrate U.S. power around the world, and the need to innovate and reinvest in the next generation of capabilities. We hope, of course, you will be there for his remarks, but you can also see them -- if I'm not mistaken, at -- on the website, tomorrow. It should be live streamed.

I also want to remind everyone of the event here at the Pentagon on Thursday, where the secretary and the vice chairman will host the three young men who stopped that gunman on the Paris-bound train last month. They will be honored for their actions here at the Pentagon. And that's going to happen Thursday afternoon, at 2 o'clock.

And with that, happy to take your questions.

Lita?

Q: Peter, a question about the secretary's interactions, if any at all, with his Russian counterpart.

Today, the State Secretary Kerry was talking to his counterpart in Russia a couple of times. The last we heard, the secretary has not had any -- either calls or discussions with Minister -- (inaudible).

Do you know, has any of that taken place, is it going to? And can you explain, perhaps why, considering all of the military issues going on with Russia, why -- what's behind the decision for the secretary to at least, at this point, not have any interactions with him?

And I have a quick Syria -- (inaudible).

MR. COOK: Well, first of all, as you recall, there was a suspension of military-to-military relations with the Russians after what has transpired in Crimea and the Ukraine.

And I don't have anything to read out to you at this point about plans, at this point, for the secretary to engage with his counterpart.

Right now, Secretary -- Secretary Kerry is taking the lead with regard to discussions with Russia. And we're going to leave it at that. And if that changes for Secretary Carter, we'll let you know.

Q: Has there been any thought toward having either General Dempsey or any of the military leaders have any discussions with their military counterparts? Or is this still not allowed?

And then on what's happening in Syria, where now we now understand there are tanks there, is this an escalation? Does this change the dynamic? And is there any thought that maybe there's training going on? Russian training of the Syrian military? How do you interpret it?

MR. COOK: We're still tracking the developments closely. We're in touch with our allies and partners.

And as you know, Lita, we continue to believe there's got to be a political solution to the conflict in Syria; this is not going to be a military solution that's going to bring peace to the conflict in Syria. And we continue to believe that support for the Assad regime -- military support is counterproductive to that effort.

So that's how we view what we see on the ground there.

Q: What are the military discussions, military to military, with the -- with either the chairman or the military leaders for the --

MR. COOK: I -- I don't have any at this time to -- to outline for you. If that changes we will let you know.

Q: Can we get some clarity on that for me?

MR. COOK: Hold on one second.

Don?

Q: The secretary said zero conversations with his Russian counterparts since he took office right?

MR. COOK: I believe that's correct. Predates my arrival here but I think that's correct, yes.

Q: Does the mil-to-mil suspension prevent him from making that call.

MR. COOK: We do -- secretary has not engaged with his Russian counterpart. We have had our challenges with our relationship with Russia over the last few months, of course. You've documented that yourself. And if that changes, if for some reason if you -- if the secretary believes it makes sense to engage with his Russian counterpart, he will. At this particular moment in time, that's not happening.

And again, Secretary Kerry has taken the lead on this and Secretary Carter, of course, talks to Secretary Kerry all the time. So he is fully informed as to what's happening as to what the relationship is going forward, and if it comes a time for the secretary of defense to engage with his Russian counterpart, certainly he'll do that. It's not happening right now.

Q: I just want to get some clarity. You mentioned the mil-to mil suspension. I was trying to understand if that prevents him from making that call or if it's his call.

MR. COOK: At this point he is not engaging with his counterpart and I'll just leave it at that.

Q: You're not answering the question. You understand that right?

MR. COOK: I'm just explaining exactly where we are at this particular moment in time.

Q: But that's actually a pretty easy yes-or-no question. Is the secretary -- can he -- is there -- is there a reason, something that specifically prohibits the secretary of defense from phoning his Russian counterparts? It's a yes-or-no question, that's all.

MR. COOK: Right now there isn't anything. But it's not happening at this particular moment in time, and if that were to change we'll let you know.

Q: Wasn't it just on Lita’s?

MR. COOK: Go ahead.

Q: Okay. Let's just -- just to be clear, you were saying -- but you say correct -- that you were saying there is nothing that prevents Secretary Carter from telephoning his Russian counterparts?

MR. COOK: I'm just telling you that the secretary is not telephoning -- is not telephoning his Russian counterparts. If that were to change, Barbara, we'll let you know.

Q: No, I'm sorry. I think you said to Courtney there's -- that there was nothing.

MR. COOK: There's nothing to prevent it, that's correct.

Q: There is nothing to prevent it.

MR. COOK: Yes.

Q: Why has Secretary Carter -- what is his thinking, what is he reasoning that he believes it does not make sense for him to call? Why is he not doing that?

MR. COOK: We have had our differences with Russia over Ukraine, over a host of other issues, Syria included. At this particular moment in time, the engagement with Russia is being led by Secretary Kerry. I refer you to the State Department as to exactly what Secretary Kerry is doing on that front. And at this point -- Secretary Carter, if that changes, you will be among the first to know, Barbara. But for the moment, that is the position right now, that the secretary is not engaging with his counterpart. And as we've said, the military-to-military relationship has also been suspended in light of what's happened with regard to Ukraine.

And -- and that's where things stand right now.

If it changes, if we see some reason for it to be -- for the secretary to engage more directly, you can be sure the secretary will, but at this moment in time, that's not happening.

Q: Is that a decision by Secretary Carter to not be in touch with his Russian counterpart or is that a decision by the NSC and the White House?

MR. COOK: That is where we stand right now, where this secretary stands. That is the position of this department of defense at this particular moment in time, and he's in consultation constantly with the White House, the state department, his interagency colleagues.

Q: Did the White House tell him not to do it?

MR. COOK: I am not aware of a specific directive. I will ask the question if you'd like, but I'm not aware of any specific directive at this point. But this is a unified position by the United States government and this department of defense, this secretary of defense, as to where we are at this particular moment in time.

Let me move over here. Jennifer?

Q: Is the Pentagon planning to do anything to stop the Russians from this military build up?

MR. COOK: Well, we've obviously raised our -- explained our -- our own situation here about tracking these developments. We've tried to keep abreast of what's happening there. Secretary Kerry's had engagement with his two -- with his counterpart in recent days and that has been the outlet for us to communicate our concerns to the Russians.

Q: And if I could switch to North Korea for a moment. Are you concerned about the reports today that they have restarted Yongbyon and the uranium enrichment as well as the plutonium enrichment there. Are you concerned that they're on the verge of a nuclear test? And could the U.S. military shoot down a ballistic missile if it were heading towards Hawaii or Guam or Japan at this point?

MR. COOK: I'm not going to talk on the last part. I'm not going to talk about our capabilities right here from this podium, but let me share with you that we are of course monitoring the current situation on the Korean peninsula. We are in close contact with the Republic of Korea and our allies there remain committed to the defense of the Republic of Korea, and we've seen recent provocative statements.

We think those are only heightened tensions, we call on Pyongyang to refrain from actions and rhetoric that threaten regional peace and stability and security in the area. And the department continues to urge North Korea to refrain from irresponsible actions that aggregate tensions and violate U.N. Security Council resolutions, which we believe that the -- that this particular launch, for example, would violate a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Q: Have you seen evidence that they're preparing either for a launch or a test?

MR. COOK: I'm not going to talk about intelligence from this podium.

Q: Excuse me, I wanted --

MR. COOK: Let me -- let me go to Tom first, sorry.

Q: The Marine Corps released a summary of a study last week about women in combat, showing mixed gender units did not do well -- as well as all-male units. Has the secretary been briefed on that report?

MR. COOK: To the best of my knowledge, the secretary has not received information from any of the services yet, final information on their assessments. They have until the end of the month to provide their information, and then he has until January 1st to make his decision.

So my understanding is the secretary has not received -- individual information has not been transmitted from the services to the secretary yet.

Q: Nothing on this report?

MR. COOK: Nothing on this report that I am aware of. Again, the deadline is not -- they have not hit the deadline yet.

Q: Was he aware of the report before the Marines released the synopsis to reporters?

MR. COOK: Tom, I can't tell you if he was aware that the report was being put together, but I can tell you that again, he is waiting for all the information to come in before he renders his decision. And we had not hit that time yet, so would be premature for the secretary to be weighing in on any individual piece of information until he has got the full collection in front of him.

Q: Right. And I understand the secretary's office has told the Marines not to release the full report. They've only released the four-page summary, and not the hundreds of pages in the report.

MR. COOK: My understanding, Tom, is that all of the information collected by the services is going to be put together, and the plan has always been that that information be released after the secretary makes his decision at a point in time after he's gotten all the information put together, so.

Q: But has the secretary's office told the Marines not to release the full report? The Marines had expected to release it in the coming days.

Has that -- they've been told not to release it?

MR. COOK: I'm not aware that they've been told not release, Tom, what have been made aware of is that all of the services were told that any of the background information material supporting their position with regard to women in service, would be coordinated, put together, and would be released at the appropriate time in the future.

Q: I was told that (inaudible) with the secretary's office sent an e-mail to the Marines, saying, "Don't release it." Can you look into that?

MR. COOK: I can look in that. I'm not aware of that myself.

Jamie?

Q: On the same subject. Can you just help me understand the process for this service recommendation? It's a little complicated in the Navy, which includes the Marine Corps, obviously.

Does the Navy secretary make the recommendation to the secretary of defense about whether or not there should be any waivers? Or did the Marines make an individual recommendation, based on their experience? How does that work, do you know?

MR. COOK: Well, I think what is most important, Jamie, and my understanding is that services -- the service secretaries and the services, secretary will get information from both, the service secretaries and the services themselves, the service chiefs, with regard to the final decision here.

So, he's going to get a full range of information from as many sources as possible in making this decision. And so, anyone who feels strongly about this will have their voice heard at the table, and that's the way it should be. The secretary wants as much information as possible in making these decisions, if there are, indeed, exceptions that are requested.

Q: Well, let me ask this, obviously, if -- so, if the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Dunford, feels one way about it, and the secretary of the Navy feels another way about it, it's --

MR. COOK: You can rest assured that the -- you can rest assured that this secretary of defense wants the input and views from as many people as possible, and that those voices will be heard.

Q: Well, I also thought, originally, that these recommendations were going to go through the service secretaries, but it sounds to me like you're saying that all of the service chiefs --

MR. COOK: That procedurally, that may indeed be the case, but what I'm telling you is that the secretary will hear input from as many people as possible in making this decision.

So, if someone's voice is out there, they will be heard in making -- in this decision. So, he's going to hear from a whole host of people, some of whom may disagree on some points.

Let's go -- sorry, Joe, I promised you in the back.

Q: Thank you. I want to go back to what you had -- you just said about the political solution in Syria. This is not the first time you are mentioning that.

Are you able to explain to us, to highlight what do you mean by political solution? And will this political solution include the Assad regime? Could you address that please?

MR. COOK: I think it’s best -- a lot of what you're talking about is the diplomatic side of this equation, which falls to my colleagues over at the State Department.

What I can tell you is, again, we don't think there's going to be a military solution here. There will be a political solution and we are encouraging, again, the -- the Russians to -- to consider that in their efforts in Syria as well.

Anything that can be done to promote that political resolution, we think would be important and we do not think further military support for the Assad regime is constructive to that effort. In fact, it's counterproductive.

Q: To follow up the -- the Russian -- Russia's actions in Syria, do you know if this building has asked the Iraqi government to not allow Russian aircraft to fly in Iraqi airspace?

MR. COOK: The diplomatic negotiations between countries -- this -- these are engagements that I'm going to refer you to the State Department, because they're having our conversations with our allies and partners in the region on these issues.

Q: (off-mic)

MR. COOK: Sure, Lucas.

Q: Are there anybody -- is there anybody in the Pentagon that is drafting plans to stop Russian flights from entering Syria?

MR. COOK: Again, diplomatic negotiations of the kind I just discussed with -- with Joe are happening with the State Department, with our allies and partners in the region and I'm not going to get into those diplomatic negotiations from here. It would be inappropriate for me to talk about it from this podium.

Q: But I'm not talking about diplomatic negotiations. If the Pentagon sees these Russian flights as, as you say counterproductive, shouldn't you outline from that podium steps that if Russia takes that they will meet some consequences?

MR. COOK: I'm not going to talk about red lines up here from -- from this podium. We've made clear what we think with regard to the military support for the Assad regime. We don't think it's productive for a political solution in that country and we can't be much clearer than that, and -- and so I don't think it makes sense for me to get into, again, the diplomatic side of this conversation, which falls to my colleagues at the State Department.

Q: President Putin says that the flights will continue into Russia, his foreign minister said the same thing yesterday. Would it -- into Syria, excuse me. What is stopping the Russians from making these flights if all they hear from Washington is it's counterproductive?

MR. COOK: We have made our position clear. My colleagues at the White House and State Department have -- can explain their part of this equation as well. We think the Russians should be aware of our position on this and again, if they -- is an opportunity for them to play a constructive role here in the effort against ISIL, then by all means, we think there should be that opportunity, but right now we don't see that in terms of the actions the Russians are taking right now.

Q: What is your position -- what is the Pentagon's position on Russian -- if the Russians start airstrikes in Syria, how -- if you're not having conversations mil-to-mil are you de-conflicting the airspace? And is there any talk now of setting up a no-fly zone in the north?

MR. COOK: Well, first of all, we're not talking about de-confliction because there's nothing to de-conflict at this point, so I'm not going to get into hypotheticals that we have not yet seen. So -- and I'll just -- I'm going to leave it at that.

Q: Yesterday, the head of the Air Force in Europe, the U.S. Air Force in Europe, talked about Russia has these new anti-aircraft capabilities that are state-of-the-art and all the concerns in Europe because of that. Are you seeing any of that in Syria? Is there any kind of new threat to coalition aircraft that are flying over Syria right now with this new Russian presence on the ground?

It's not -- I'm not asking about intelligence, I'm asking about is the --

MR. COOK: You sort of are.

Q: Okay. I'm asking about is there any -- do you -- does the Pentagon and U.S. military recognize any new threat against coalition aircraft that are flying because of the Russian presence on the ground?

MR. COOK: Again, we're tracking their developments closely. I'm not going to get into intelligence assessments from up here. You can be sure that our coalition aircraft, U.S. aircraft flying into Syria will take into account everything that we see as a potential threat.

And I'm not talking about what we see specifically with the Russian presence in Syria. I'm just talking in general.

We are -- those coalition aircraft, everything is being done to reduce the threat to our crews. And that's understandable and that's going to continue to be the case going forward.

Q: Everything's being done including talking to the Russians to make sure you deconflict any flights with them?

MR. COOK: We're not talking about deconfliction right now, because we're not seeing those flights at this moment in time and we're not talking about hypotheticals at this point.

So I promised down here, sorry.

Q: Last week the spokesman for the Kurdish YPG force in Syrian said they had been trained by the Western countries. And was the Pentagon a part of this training product for the Kurdish forces in Syria?

And also, as you review your strategy in Syria, are you planning to recruit and train the Kurdish forces in Syria?

MR. COOK: We're not training any forces in Syria. We've said that from this podium in the past. And so I can just say -- that's -- that's not a U.S. effort.

We are training moderates, Syrian forces, opposition forces outside of Syria. We've talked about that and that's -- that's where our efforts stands at this point.

Q: But are you willing to include Kurd, like Kurdish fighters, into this training and recruit program?

MR. COOK: We're working with a range of opposition forces and we will continue to do so going forward.

Q: But do you think as long as -- you know -- on an operational level, what kind of cooperation do you have with the Kurdish YPG on the ground? The – except the airstrike -- is that what you're doing in support of them?

MR. COOK: I'm just going to, again, maintain that we are working with a range of different groups on the ground and you're going to continue to do so going forward. We are looking for help and support from a range of forces that are bringing the fight to ISIL and are going to continue to do that going forward.

Tara ?

Q: If Secretary Carter isn't carrying on any conversations with his Russian counterpart, is Secretary Kerry communicating any sort of military concerns that this department might have about adding risks to its pilot?

And I have one to follow on tomorrow's morning.

MR. COOK: I'm going to refer you to the State Department for questions about what Secretary Kerry may or may not be saying to his Russian counterpart.

And your follow up, sorry?

Q: Okay, and on a unrelated note, tomorrow Airman First Class Stone will be awarded both the Purple Heart, which is typically awarded for combat injuries, and a non-combat medal. And my question was, what is the thinking behind awarding a Purple Heart? And is the department at all considering an expansion on what defines a combat injury, given the expanding war on terrorism?

MR. COOK: Well, first of all, the service secretaries have the authority to determine the most appropriate award based on criterion.

In this case it was Secretary James who decided that he qualified for the Purple Heart and I'm not aware of any consideration for changing the -- the definition, if you will, for combat zone.

This is a particular instance in which Secretary James has made that decision on her own, based on the circumstances that she was made aware of.

Q: Do you know if they -- there were a couple of several airmen who were shot in Germany on a bus; I'm sorry, I don't remember exactly when that happened. They were -- I don't believe were -- were presented with the Purple Heart. Is there any -- is there any -- are you going to look back now or is DOD going to recommend that the Air Force look back on that?

It was -- I mean it was a similar situation and it was not a combat zone. They were killed and again it was someone who was, you know, claiming to be a terrorist.

MR. COOK: I obviously wasn't here when that incident happened. But happy to go back and check and see what happened in that particular case. I'm not completely aware of what happened.

But this, again, was a decision made by Secretary James based on the information that she’s received about the incident itself, and that, in her view, that he had qualified for this, so.

Q: Do you know if the U.S. has declared or decided that this was a terrorist event? I know France did. But did the U.S. independently determine that, yes, indeed, this was a terrorist event, the train?

MR. COOK: The secretary has a made a decision based on her understanding of the circumstances. But this was an investigation, of course, that the French had been taking the lead on, but it was up to her discretion to determine the facts as she saw them, as I understand it, in making this determination.

Let me go -- right here, Christina, and then we'll move over.

Q: Thanks, Peter.

Can you talk about the effects of a continuing resolution, or a shutdown on this department, program-wise and especially the workforce here?

MR. COOK: Well, continuing resolution is not the way we want to do business here at the Department of Defense.

And I know that budget certainty is something that this secretary has talked about, and about the need to get budget certainty on behalf of the war fighter, so this department can plan, and we can do training. We can do the basic blocking and tackling of providing the nation's security, so we can have programs -- procurement programs, continue to move forward.

A continuing resolution, I can tell you, is not the best way to do that, to provide budget certainty.

That being said, we see the budget reality on the wall right now. And trying to deliver the message as best we can that, ultimately, a long-term budget is critical for this department going forward, critical for the war fighter going forward. And anything that we can do to try and encourage that, we'll do, as this budget process plays out.

Q: And are there plans in case there is a shutdown, as far as the workforce and other programs? Or in the case of a C.R.?

MR. COOK: We're not going to -- right now, we're hoping for -- again, budget certainty going forward.

And our effort is going to be as focused as we can be on doing our part to deliver that message, to try and encourage members of Congress and folks within the administration to move forward towards that. And we're not going to get into talk about shutdowns and things like that, at this point.

We hope those things need to be avoided, because it's in the best interest of the war fighter that they are.

Jacqueline.

Q: Going back to Syria, for a second. Has anyone at the State Department or the White House asked the Pentagon about what military options would be available to them if they were to need them?

MR. COOK: You can be sure that this department is constantly looking at military options, not just with regard to Syria, but around the world. And it, you know, doesn't need a request from the State Department or the White House for this building to always be looking at contingencies. That's what this building does.

And so, I think it's safe to say that we're tracking the events carefully, closely. And if something needs to change going forward, then we'll be prepared to take those contingency steps. But there's nothing formal that I can tell you about at this point, in terms of requesting we've gotten from anyone, so.

Let me move over here. Yes, sir -- oops, sorry. Damaging the building.

Q: Going back to the military-to-military suspension --

MR. COOK: Sure.

Q: -- sorry, excuse me for my ignorance, but if this is a formal policy by the Defense Department?

And secondly, has -- do you know if Russia has reached out to the Defense Department here to try to, you know, come to some kind of agreement (inaudible) suspension?

MR. COOK: First of all, I can't speak for the Russians. I'm not aware of any direct contact, but I'd refer you to the Russians to ask that question. Again, some of this predates my arrival here as well, but this is the place we've been for some time now and if it changes, we'll let you know.

Q: So as soon as -- as soon as Russia -- as soon as -- Crimea -- was, you know, was annexed, then there was a defense department --

MR. COOK: If you want, I'm happy to go check the -- the exact date. Again, it predates my arrival here at the Pentagon, but -- but we can track that down for you.

Yes?

Q: (off-mic)

MR. COOK: How are you?

Q: My question is, where do you put now – the military-to-military relationship, because United Nations -- United States and India and (next week ?) both countries will have a strategy in Washington D.C. -- (inaudible) -- is coming of course from the highest level from India.

So what role do you think secretary and the Pentagon will play in that? And overall, our relations between the two largest democracies?

MR. COOK: Well, I'm -- I know that of course, the relationship between the two largest democracies is something that President Obama and others have talked about for some time when we had the prime minister's visit here and I can tell you that the Department of Defense is going to do what it can to further that relationship. But I'm not going to get into specific details about the military-to-military relationship and how that might change going forward from right here.

Q: You think the secretary's planning any other -- any next meeting to India? Or Indian defense minister coming?

MR. COOK: We've got travel to -- to tell you about, we'll be sure to tell you about it. I don't have anything to say about it right now.

Nancy?

Q: (off-mic). As you know, the Egyptian military was involved in an indecent in which 12 – at least 12 Mexicans -- were injured or killed and a number were injured, including U.S. citizen. The presumption is that the helicopter used was provided by the United States. Can you offer us any clarity on that?

And also, are there any concerns out of this department about U.S.-provided weapons being used in Egypt in a way that some would argue was reckless and is leading to the death of civilians? Not only in this incident, but in the Sinai.

MR. COOK: I'm not aware of the exact kind of helicopter that was used in this incident. I can try and track that down if it was an American made helicopter. Obviously, the United States -- the Department of Defense is always concerned when we hear about civilian casualties and military incidents.

This case is no different. This is a tragedy what took place there, and you can be sure that the United -- that the Department of Defense will continue to encourage Egypt and anyone else using military equipment that was supplied by the United States to take the utmost care to avoid civilian casualties whenever possible.

Q: And I appreciate you taking the question about whether it was a U.S. helicopter. In addition, can we find out if there was a camera on that and if it -- if it's somehow automatically turns on, if you will, when the helicopter is running? Just -- or is something more manual?

MR. COOK: We’d refer you to the Egyptian government, the Egyptian military for that -- it was their helicopter.

Q: So, if it's U.S. provided, if you could give us those additional details as well?

MR. COOK: I'll see if we can. Again, my guess is that's going to be something you're going to have to get from the Egyptians, since they own the helicopter.

So, James?

Q: Thank you, Peter.

I want to go back to U.S.-Russia relations. So if -- if U.S.-Russia military-to-military relations are suspended under the rubric of leading by example, I would assume, and perhaps others would assume, that Secretary Carter, as head of the United States military, and his counterpart, the defense minister of Russia, relations between them would be suspended. And that, if Secretary Carter were to reach out and talk to his Russian counterpart, that that would be a violation of the official suspension of military-to-military relations.

Is that correct understanding? Does -- regardless of his personal opinions, does Secretary Carter feel constrained by the official suspension of military-to-military relations?

MR. COOK: I don't think Secretary Carter feels constrained by anything at this point, and if it becomes time for the secretary to engage with his counterpart, he’ll do so.

At this point, the decision has been made that that's not happening, so --

Q: So, he could contact his Russian counterpart, without -- while relations were still suspended between the two militaries, is that right?

MR. COOK: I'm just going to restate where we are right now. The secretary has not engaged with his Russian counterpart. We have that military-to-military suspension, and if that were to change, you will be among the first to know.

I've got time for one more. Back here.

Q: (Inaudible) -- officials have told some news outlets that the Russians have several T-90 tanks, howitzers -- dozens of armored personnel carriers, and 200 -- (inaudible) -- and housing for as many as 1,500 personnel at the air field in Latakia.

Do you confirm these reports?

MR. COOK: I cannot confirm those reports.

Q: Just -- sorry. Is there a specific reason for you not to -- why is it military officials are giving these information without giving name at the Pentagon, at the podium or -- on record.

MR. COOK: I'm not get into intelligence assessments from up here.

We've relayed our -- obviously, the fact that we're tracking this carefully, and I'm going to leave it at that, for now. We still believe, again, that the military support for the Assad regime is counterproductive to the ultimates goal of a peaceful resolution in Syria.

And so, we will reiterate that once more.

One more. China -- Lucas, you get the last word.

Q: The head of the Chinese premier's visit to Washington, there's new information that this stolen OPM data is being improperly used to build profiles on Americans.

Is the Department of Defense confident that tracking a few years of credit reports is enough?

MR. COOK: In terms of the employees?

Q: Exactly.

MR. COOK: Obviously, we have concerns about this particular incident and the exposure suffered by federal employees, potential exposure here.

So we are going to do everything we can to make sure that their -- all of their personal information is protected as best we can. And so, I'm not every single detail about how were doing that, but every efforts going to be made to try and make sure that their personal information is protected going forward.

Q: Does that include the children on these OPM records, when people go up for their clearances, their families' names are on there.

There's some concerns in Washington and elsewhere that the children of these people who had their information stolen will be affected for years and possibly generations to come. Is that a concern in this building?

MR. COOK: Again, this incident, obviously a concern. We treated it very, very seriously.

I'm not going to get into all the details about what may have been, if you will, put at risk. Every effort is going to be made to make sure those people are protected, and that they do have some -- some opportunity to protect their information going forward and to monitor their information going forward. And I'll leave it at that.

And that obviously includes family members as well. This is going to be a wide-ranging effort on the part of the federal government to try to address this.

And again, it's an unfortunate situation. We're trying to do the best we can to help those, in particular those employees -- those federal employees, who may been caught in the crossfire here.

Q: Is China still the leading suspect?

MR. COOK: I'm not going to discuss at this point who we think may be responsible.

But again, serious situation. We're treating it that way.

So thanks, everybody.

Q: Thank you.