James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

\*Please see below for a correction and an addendum to the transcript, marked with asterisks.

1:20 P.M. EDT

MR. EARNEST: Afternoon, everybody. Apologize for the delayed start of today’s briefing. One of those days.

Q   What’s going on back there? (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST: If the walls had ears.

Q   Well, they do talk.

MR. EARNEST: All kinds of --

Q   How bad is it? (Laughter.)

MR. EARNEST: Not that bad, fortunately. But there’s a lot going on. And not everybody is on my schedule today, unfortunately. And because all of you are on my schedule, that’s why we’re late. So I apologize for that.

Q   Can you tell us what’s going on?

MR. EARNEST: Well, we will -- if we have a robust questioning period here I think we may get to it all. (Laughter.)   

So, Darlene, in that spirit, do you want to get us started?

Q   Thanks. And welcome back to the podium. 

MR. EARNEST: Thank you, I'm delighted to be here. Although I'm pleased it was well tended in my absence. 

Q   Do you have any comment on the possibility that the Islamic State leader that was killed on Friday had for a time been the captor of American Kayla Moore? 

MR. EARNEST: Darlene, obviously we saw over the weekend the bravery and courage of our men and women in uniform who carried out an operation, at the direction of the President, to go after an ISIL leader in Syria. As you know, the results of that operation were the death of that ISIL leader and a number of other ISIL fighters who were at the compound. There was one individual, the wife of this ISIL leader, who herself we believe was also involved in some ISIL activities. She is somebody who is currently being -- is detained and is somebody who is currently being interrogated. 

And we’re trying to learn as much as we can about her involvement with ISIL and what information she may have that would shed some light about a variety of ISIL activities. For example, we know that this individual was likely -- played a prominent role in some of the oil and gas activities, essentially some of the financing of ISIL. Information that we could learn about those activities would be useful. But if there are other things related to ISIL’s use of hostage-taking to fund their operations, we’ll seek to gather that information as well.

So this information is -- or this process to obtain this information has only just begun in the last couple of days. But I don’t have any information to share at this point about what has been gleaned from that process.

Q   There’s been a lot of commentary since ISIL took over Ramadi in Iraq, and a lot of it has been skeptical of the administration’s approach there. Speaker Boehner today said that, again, said hope is not a strategy. And Congressman Schiff said alarm bells should be going off. You get the drift. Is the President feeling any pressure to reevaluate or rethink his strategy there with regard to ISIL?

MR. EARNEST: Well, let me start by directing you back to something that the President said back on October 14th of 2014. You’ll recall that that was the day that the President invited military chiefs from the members of the coalition to Andrews Air Force Base for a discussion about how military efforts of the coalition that was being led by the United States against ISIL could be efficiently integrated. And in a statement that the President delivered after that meeting, he noted that this is going to be a long-term campaign; there are not quick fixes involved. “As with any military effort, there will be days of progress and there are going to be periods of setback.” 

And again, that’s something the President said back in October. And I think that over the course of the last four or five days we’ve seen all of this. We have seen that there are no quick fixes involved. We have seen that there have been important -- there’s been important progress that’s been made, as we just discussed as it relates to this military operation against the senior ISIL official in Syria. But there have also been periods of setback. And certainly the ISIL effort to take over Ramadi is a setback. 

And we’ve been pretty candid about that. But I think this illustrates how important it is for us to maintain some perspective on this. We’ve had other periods of setback, too, that have been followed shortly by important progress. There was extensive discussion on Capitol Hill and in the media about the risk posed by ISIL when they took over Kobani inside of Syria. There were even cameras trained on the village of Kobani from Turkey, sort of filming the day-by-day effort of ISIL to take over that village. 

But because of the effort of the U.S.-led coalition to coordinate closely with Peshmerga fighters on the ground, ISIL fighters were driven out of that city, and even several miles from that city. Again, that is in indication that while we have certain periods of setback, that we also have days of progress. 

Kobani is just one example. There are a variety of other examples, whether it’s the recent example in Tikrit, or even going back a little farther to earlier in this campaign where there was public concern about the siege at Sinjar Mountain, where hundreds, if not thousands, of religious minorities were at risk because they were surrounded by ISIL fighters vowing to carry out essentially an act of genocide against them. Or even a strategic location like the Mosul Dam -- again, an area that’s been hotly contested, that briefly was under the control of ISIL fighters but is now safely in the control of Iraqi security forces because of the support of coalition fighters.

So there’s been a lot of back-and-forth, and that’s something that we would anticipate we’ll see over the course of this military campaign.

The last thing I’ll say is that the President is always -- or I guess should say is regularly in discussion with his national security team to get updates in terms of the success of the strategy so far -- where are we seeing areas of progress; where are we seeing areas of setback; and are there things that we can do to tweak the strategy to better reflect those areas of concern, or to capitalize on those elements of our strategy that have worked and apply them in other areas. This is something that the President is mindful of. It’s something that he’s talking about with his national security team just about every day, including today.

Q   On trade -- I wanted to switch to trade for a second, with the debate getting ready to move over to the House. Could you talk a little bit about the role Nancy Pelosi is playing for the White House? She has said that she wants to help members get to yes on this, so what is she doing to help you all get to yes?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Darlene, you know that the White House has found Leader Pelosi to be an extraordinarily capable partner when it comes to advancing our agenda through the United States Congress, and the working relationship that the White House has established with Leader Pelosi has been effective. And that doesn’t mean that the administration and Leader Pelosi agree on every issue -- we’ve had our differences -- but our areas of agreement and effective cooperation have far out-numbered those areas where we’ve disagreed.

I know that Leader Pelosi has indicated that she’s going to keep an open mind when it comes to trade legislation, and I think that is all that the President has asked -- that member of Congress in both parties, frankly, keep an open mind and evaluate these legislative proposals in the context of facts, and to consider carefully those facts before making up one’s mind.

And we’re going to continue to work closely with Leader Pelosi. We’re certainly interested in winning over her support. But short of that, we’re interested in engaging with members of Congress in the Democratic Caucus to consider carefully this legislation that we’re trying to advance through the Congress. And we’re going to continue to work with her, even if this is one of those rare instances where she does not side with the administration.

Q   And then, tomorrow, with the President’s address to the Coast Guard Academy, can you say if he’s going to be making any announcements there? I believe that’s his last commencement address this season, if I’m right. Is that right?

MR. EARNEST: That’s correct, yes.

Q   He’s given a course of three or four addresses in past years. Why so few this year?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I don’t know that a policy process was convened to determine the number of commencement addresses that the President would give. But the President obviously enjoyed the opportunity that he had a couple of weeks ago to address the Lake Area Technical Institute commencement, and talk about the important work that that community college is doing in terms of serving their community and helping people in the community get the skills they need to get good middle-class jobs.

Obviously the graduates of the Coast Guard Academy will be assuming responsibility for serving their country -- in some situations, even at great risk to their own personal safety. And that’s an indication of their service and commitment to the country, and that’s worthy of the President’s praise. And he’s looking forward to the opportunity to give that commencement address. 

But I don’t have any information on why the President didn’t have any more thoughts for graduating students this spring.

Roberta.

Q   Just going back to trade for a second. Hillary Clinton said earlier today that she thinks that trade legislation should address the concerns about currency manipulation, and I know that’s something you’ve talked a lot about. Is it possible to do? I thought that Secretary Lew today called it -- said it would be a poison pill for TPP if it was included. So is the President open to including some kind of currency manipulation language? Or is that really putting Secretary Clinton at odds with the administration and what it’s saying?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Roberta, what the administration has said, and I believe Secretary Lew has said this as well, is that, thus far, what the administration has successfully been able to do is to advocate for fair currency policies in a variety of multilateral meetings. Whether it’s the G7 or the G20, or the IMF meetings, Secretary Lew and other senior officials in the administration, even including the President, have regularly made the case to their counterparts that unfair currency practices should not be pursued. 

And we have had some success when it comes to China. Their currency has appreciated about 30 percent over the last five years or so. That’s an indication that the advocacy of American officials has been effective. We’ve seen that Japan over the last three years have not intervened in their foreign exchange markets. That’s an indication that they at least have been open to the message that’s been aggressively delivered by American officials when it comes to fair currency practices. 

But what we have been concerned about, principally, has been the need to ensure that the Federal Reserve here in the United States has the independence and the authority to implement monetary policy in a way that they believe is consistent with the best interest of the U.S. economy. And certainly over the last five or six years, we’ve seen how important and valuable a tool that has been in terms of trying to prevent a second Great Depression. And we have been concerned that some of the currency provisions that some have floated would undermine that independence. And that’s why you’ve seen the administration come out quite strongly against that. 

There have been other proposals that are much more measured that would talk about the priority that we have placed on ensuring fair currency practices while, at the same time, preserving the independence of the Federal Reserve.  So the point is that there are some provisions that we strongly oppose, but there are some permutations of these proposals that could earn the administration’s support because they wouldn’t threaten the independence of the Federal Reserve.

Q   And which permutations are you referring to?

MR. EARNEST: Well, obviously there’s at least one provision that has been floated by Senator Portman that would undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve and interfere with the ability of the Federal Reserve to implement monetary policy in a way that would have -- in a way that’s critical to the stability of the U.S. economy. And the President would certainly not support that kind of provision, and would even take the extraordinary step of vetoing the TPA bill if this amendment were added.

And there are, however, other provisions, including one that’s sponsored by Senator Bennet, that the administration is still open to considering.

Q   Then on Ramadi -- given the setback, does the White House still have confidence that Prime Minister Abadi can pull together the kind of ground response needed to go with the coalition airstrikes? And does the White House still have faith that the Prime Minister can be the kind of inclusive leader that had been hoped for?

MR. EARNEST: Well, the strategy that we’ve seen from Prime Minister Abadi is one that is predicated on a multi-sectarian security force. So what Prime Minister Abadi has done is he’s consulted closely with leaders in Anbar Province, and this was put to a vote of the Anbar Provincial Council and they unanimously recommended that Prime Minister Abadi follow through with deploying the Popular Mobilization Forces. 

These Popular Mobilization Forces do reflect the multi-sectarian nature of the nation of Iraq. The Popular Mobilization Forces include some Shia militia and they include some Shia volunteers, but they also include Sunni volunteers, including tribal fighters from Anbar. That, again, reflects the diversity of the country. And that will be, again, something that we have held up for a long time as part of the criteria that we believe is integral to Iraq’s ability to repel the threat from ISIL. 

What’s also important is it's important that these forces are under the command and control of the Iraqi central government, whether it’s through the Prime Minister and through the Secretary of Defense in Iraq. That is what’s critical. And this is a principle that we have established previously, that the United States will be very supportive of multi-sectarian efforts who are taking command-and-control orders from the Iraqi central government. And we’re going to continue to be -- while there obviously is significant work that needs to be done to push ISIL out of Ramadi, this is a strategy that we believe is one that’s worth pursuing.

Jim.

Q   Josh, is it safe to assume that the President and Secretary Carter will be talking about ISIS during their meeting this afternoon?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I don’t have a preview of their meeting to offer. They typically cover a range of topics in the context of their conversation, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this came up. 

Q   Okay. And you said earlier that the President meets with his national security team from time to time to talk about tweaking the strategy with respect to ISIS. I guess the question, though, really is does the President need a new strategy when it comes to ISIS? What do you think?

MR. EARNEST: Jim, we’ve been asked this question in the context of other situations, too -- when we saw ISIL forces take over Kobani, there were questions raised about the success of the President’s strategy, and what we did see over time was that the strategy that we have laid out of local forces taking the fight on the ground to ISIL with the backing of coalition air power succeed. And they did succeed in liberating Kobani and driving ISIL forces not just outside the city limits of Kobani, but actually several miles away from the city. 

That’s just one example. There are other examples, including Tikrit, several provinces where there had previously been populated territory that were dominated by ISIL that no longer are. These are provinces like Diyala, Nineveh, and the Kirkuk province. And so this is an indication that the strategy that the President has laid out has enjoyed periods of progress and success. 

Q   And you’re saying that ISIS will be driven out of Ramadi? 

MR. EARNEST: What I'm saying is that there have been areas of setback, too. That doesn’t mean that the strategy needs to be discarded. But I do think we need to -- and the President -- more importantly, the President thinks that it’s important for his national security team to be focused on giving him the best options, evaluating our strategy, examining where the strategy is working and applying those best practices in other areas. It also may mean reevaluating in some areas where the strategy isn’t working as intended and needs to be upgraded. This is part of the continuous process that’s underway at the National Security Council, throughout the President’s national security team.

Q   And you mentioned Kobani. Are you saying that ISIS will be driven out of Ramadi? 

MR. EARNEST: Well, that certainly is what the strategy is intended to effect. I'm not going to set any timelines in terms of this, but obviously our goal here is to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL, and, yes, that means driving them out of Ramadi.

Q   And is the President frustrated with what’s happened in Ramadi? Is he frustrated with the progress of this mission against ISIS?

MR. EARNEST: Jim, what I can say is the President is mindful that this is not a short-term proposition. That’s something that the President has indicated on a number of occasions. But the President is also mindful of the fact that we’re going to have days of progress and periods of setback. That’s been the approach that the President has taken for almost a year now, and he’s very mindful of that. 

And again, he’s also mindful of the fact that that phenomenon was on display this weekend where we did have U.S. military forces carry out a daring raid in Syrian territory to take out a senior ISIL leader and a dozen or so of other ISIL fighters. 

But we also saw on display that ISIL did succeed in eventually overrunning Ramadi, and that's an indication that that would be a setback. And the President is mindful of this dynamic, and this is a dynamic that is common in military conflicts and it's the way that the President continues to evaluate our success.

Q   Earlier today, Secretary Clinton said that she would like to see her emails released as soon as possible. I guess the State Department has said that we may have to wait until January to see these emails, which is right around the time of the Iowa caucuses, which seems like it would be a pretty poor time for that kind of release to occur. Would the White House consider honoring Secretary Clinton’s request to expedite the release of these emails? Might the President be persuaded to issue some sort of executive order so these emails could be released sooner than seven months from now?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Jim, I can only imagine the headlines that we’d see if the President were to personally intervene in the standard processing of a FOIA request. And essentially, that's what Secretary Clinton’s emails are being subjected to. So for questions about how that process will be carried out and how long it will take to complete it, I'd refer you to the State Department.

Q   But seven or eight months, I mean, that's a long time.

MR. EARNEST: It's also a testament to the large number of emails that they’re going to have to process. 

Q   They can't process faster than 10,000 emails a month?

MR. EARNEST: Again, you’d have to ask them about that.

Q   And finally, there’s a pretty disturbing report in the Wall Street Journal that said that the Justice Department is looking at going after officials in the Venezuelan government there for potentially being involved in narco-trafficking. Is the White House concerned that Venezuela is becoming something of a narco-state?

MR. EARNEST: Well, we have raised concerns previously about the Venezuelan government and the frequency with which they have flouted the basic human rights of their people. And this has been the subject of some concern for a while. This is something that was discussed while the President was at the Summit of the Americas in Panama a month or two ago. But I don't have any details on that specific Wall Street Journal report. I'd refer you to the Department of Justice on that.

Nadia.

Q   I'm going to have another go at Ramadi. You just said that it was a setback. Yesterday was almost like a unifying message among all government agencies that you're going to take it back. How are you going to take it back? Surely, you're not talking about the Iraqi forces, because they have proved to be unable to stand up to ISIS. And you just mentioned now the popular forces. They are -- contrary to what you said, they are perceived and they are seen as Shia militia trained by Iran, equipped by Iran, and actually sending them to Ramadi would increase the sectarian strife there, not alleviate it.

MR. EARNEST: Well, let me take your first question first, which is that we have seen that the Iraqi security forces, when backed by coalition air power, have demonstrated some effectiveness on the battlefield. It was the efforts of the Iraqi security forces backed by coalition air power that drove ISIL from Tikrit. That was an important measure of progress. 

I'll go back to the Kobani example. There was a situation, again, in Kobani where there was a lot of concern that ISIL had successfully threatened and overrun that Syrian village. But Iraqi security forces, in this case, primarily Peshmerga, were backed by coalition air power and they did succeed in driving ISIL fighters out of that village and essentially out of that area.

That said, clearly the Iraqi security forces that were mobilized to protect Ramadi did not succeed. And that's an indication that they need some additional reinforcements, and that's what Prime Minister Abadi is considering.

Now, as it relates to your second question, the Popular Mobilization Force does include Shia militia, but it also includes some Shia volunteers and it also includes Sunni volunteers, including tribal fighters. It's a multi-sectarian force. And those forces that have indicated that they will be responsive to orders from the Iraqi central government are forces that the coalition will support.

The last thing I'll say about this is that the decision to deploy the Popular Mobilization Force is one that was backed by the Anbar Provincial Council, so obviously they believe that the Prime Minister is taking the right step here and they are committed to supporting this decision. This is something that was also put to a vote essentially of Prime Minister Abadi’s cabinet that we know also is diverse and reflects the diversity of the nation of Iraq. They strongly supported the deployment of the Popular Mobilization Forces into this effort.

So there’s a lot of work that needs to get done, and the last couple of days have been a setback for the effort against ISIL. But I think past guide tells us that in the proper circumstances, that Iraqi security forces, when they’re backed by the effective use of coalition airpower, can be effective against ISIL.

Q   So the only difference here is Anbar is majority --almost 90 percent are Sunni?

MR. EARNEST: That’s the significance of the Anbar Provincial Council saying to the Prime Minister, send the Popular Mobilization Forces -- they would be effective in helping us.

Q   But do you believe that the central government, led by Prime Minister Abadi, has given enough weapons to the Sunni tribes to fight against ISIS? And this is a criticism now that’s leveled against it.

MR. EARNEST: Well, that’s something that’s difficult for me to speak to. I know that this is a concern that has been raised by some.

Q   Yes, but you supported him.

MR. EARNEST: No doubt.

Q   I mean, all the decisions were going through --

MR. EARNEST: You can even say that in the present tense. We continue to support Prime Minister Abadi because of the multi-sectarian way in which he’s governed that country and which he sought to prosecute this war in his country. 

To be honest with you, I can’t speak to the specific provision of equipment to some tribal fighters. But obviously, Prime Minister Abadi is mindful of the need to make sure that those fighters are properly equipped. Obviously, he’s going to make sure that those fighters are responsive to the command-and-control of the Iraqi central government. And if so, it would be in the interest of the Iraqi central government to make sure that those fighters have the training and equipment that they need to succeed. And obviously the coalition will have something to say about that as well.

Q   One last question. The U.N. is estimating that 25,000 civilians fled from Ramadi, and apparently they are not allowed to go to either Baghdad or Babil. Have you raised this issue with the Prime Minister? Because the options for them are either stuck in the desert or being killed by ISIS.

MR. EARNEST: Well, we obviously are very concerned about the humanitarian situation that ISIL has created all across Iraq, most recently in Ramadi. As it relates to the details in terms of trying to provide for the needs of those individuals who are fleeing ISIL from Ramadi, I don’t have information about that, but I’d encourage you to check with the Department of Defense.

Justin.

Q   First, on ISIL and Iraq. Speaker Boehner obviously was critical today, but he also said that he wanted the President to withdraw his AUMF. He said that it was --

MR. EARNEST: Months after suggesting that he couldn’t do anything until the President sent language up there, right?

Q   Yes. But he said that the President’s proposal is irresponsible because it called for more authority than he had today, and sort of -- I think he used both the recent developments and evidence that the proposal hasn’t moved through Congress to justify asking you guys to resubmit it.

MR. EARNEST: He’s the Speaker of House and he’s blaming the President for something not moving through Congress. It doesn’t line up very well for the Speaker on this, does it?

Look, here’s the thing. The President has been very clear about what he would like to see from Congress, and that is Congress fulfilling their constitutional responsibility when it comes to matters of war and peace. And we have seen the Congress -- I think I’ve said this before -- Congress has been AWOL when it comes to the AUMF. 

They’ve demanded that the President send up language; we sent up language. They’ve demanded that the President spend time in advance of sending up that language with Democrats and Republicans to try and craft a compromise; we hosted -- I know there were at least dozens of conversations and at least a dozen meetings here at the White House with members of Congress and their staff throughout the fall and over the winter, as we tried to put this proposal together. 

At some point, it has to be the responsibility of the Speaker of the House to do his job, and for members of Congress to do their job. And we have not seen members of Congress and we certainly haven't seen the Speaker of the House do his job when it comes to this specific matter.   

Q   I guess the Speaker said repeatedly that you guys haven't laid out enough of the strategy. I think that’s a rhetorical debate, but if that’s the concern, is there any more that you can do to sort of bring clarity to your plans for Iraq?

MR. EARNEST: I think what we see from the Speaker is excuse after excuse for why he hasn’t done his job. And particularly on this matter, that’s a pretty significant disappointment to the President. I know it’s a significant disappointment to our men and women in uniform who are looking for the United States Congress. You’ll recall that this was part of our rhetoric leading up to this AUMF debate. This was an opportunity for the United States Congress to step and show their support for our men and women in uniform, to show the support of the United States Congress to the international community, that they were committed to the strategy that the President has laid out to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. And we haven't seen the Congress fulfill that basic step, and that has been a source of significant disappointment to the President.

Q   And then I just wanted to ask about Elizabeth Warren. She’s made a big criticism over TPA that --

MR. EARNEST: You think? (Laughter.)

Q   Well, specifically, the possibility that it could alter financial -- deregulation in Dodd-Frank.

MR. EARNEST: Yes. Yes.

Q   She’s offered an amendment that she says sort of tracks with statements that you guys have made that would essentially prohibit any free trade agreement that could impact financial regulations from fast track. Is that an amendment that you guys would support?

MR. EARNEST: I’ve only gotten a very cursory rundown about what her amendment would do if it were to take effect. And the way that it’s been explained to me is that it would actually have the opposite of the intended effect; that it could be a situation where the language that she has put together could actually make it easier for Wall Street reform to be unwound. And because the President has placed such a priority on Wall Street reform, and has actually worked closely with Senator Warren and others to implement Wall Street reform, even under the vociferous objection of a bunch of K Street lobbyists, obviously we would have concern about a proposal that would do exactly that. But there are a wide range of amendments that --

Q   Can you explain why?

MR. EARNEST: Actually, I can’t. But let’s see if we can get you some more information about that specific proposal.

Jon.

Q   So on the authorization to use military force, I know from the very start the White House’s position is we would like to have this. You sent up your draft, but you don’t need it.

MR. EARNEST: As a legal matter, that is just a fact.

Q   So would you consider it a setback? I mean, it certainly appears to be going nowhere, and not just because of the latest developments with Speaker Boehner, but I can’t really find any Democrats up on Capitol Hill that have gotten behind what the White House sent up. Is it going to be a major setback if you don’t get this as it looks?

MR. EARNEST: As I told Justin, I think it would be a significant disappointment if Congress continues to be AWOL when it comes to the AUMF. For members of Congress to stand up as often as they have and insist that the President respect the role that they have to play when it comes to national security, and for them to demand meetings with the administration that were organized by the administration, to demand language from the administration that the President sent up, to demand that administration officials participate in congressional hearings on this matter, and we sent up the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to testify on it -- I mean, at some point, somebody in Congress needs to assume responsibility for this, and not just complain about it the whole time.

Q   But when you look at all that’s happened since the White House sent up the draft of the use -- authorizing the use of military force, you’ve seen setback after setback. You’ve seen some successes, but you’ve seen huge setbacks like we’ve seen in Ramadi, the most significant. You’ve seen the reports that ISIL is not only operating in Syria and Iraq, but they are exporting operations to Libya. Doesn’t it make sense to say maybe the strategy needs to be overhauled? I mean, since you sent that document up to Capitol Hill, the situation in a whole variety of ways has gotten much worse. Maybe it’s time for a different strategy. That’s not unreasonable, is it?

MR. EARNEST: Well, I think it’s a different question. The fact is -- and I think I tried to acknowledge this to Jim -- is that the President and his team are constantly testing the strategy and evaluating what elements of the strategy are working well and where can those lessons be applied in other areas, and what elements of the strategy aren't having the intended effect and need to be reformed or changed. This is something that the President and his national security team are always focused on.

And there are a number of discussions that we've had with members of Congress about this issue. The fact is that it is the responsibility of Congress to send a clear signal to the world, to our enemies, and to our men and women in uniform that the United States Congress is committed to the effort to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. And, again, when it comes to making their voice heard and fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to do that, Congress and their leadership in both parties has been AWOL.

Q   Now, on the overall track record of military operations of the President’s strategy on this, you said we've seen periods of progress and success. Would you say that overall, this strategy has been a success?

MR. EARNEST: Well, Jon, yes. Overall, yes. It doesn’t mean that there haven't been areas of setback, as we saw in Ramadi.

Q   I mean, is exporting terror to Libya, taking over the capital of Iraq’s largest province -- this is overall success?

MR. EARNEST: What we've also seen is we've also seen a coalition of 60 nations both in the region and around the world join the United States in this fight. We've seen a new Prime Minister take office in Iraq and unite that country and deploy a multi-sectarian security force against ISIL that has succeeded in liberating important areas of Diyala and Babil and Nineveh and the Kirkuk Provinces. We've seen important Iraqi security force gains in Tikrit \*and Ramadi. We've also seen strategic areas like Sinjar Mountain and Mosul Dam where Iraqi security forces have emerged victorious.

So we have seen a lot of success. But we've also seen significant periods of setback. And that's part of what a military conflict is going to be, particularly when it's going to be a long-term proposition like this one. 

Q   Now, in the President’s interview with Nadia on Friday, he was asked directly if he think the bloodshed in Syria will end before he’s out of office, and he said, “I'll be honest, probably not.” So was the President essentially acknowledging that he’s going to be unable to deal with the situation or at least basically going to leave the mess we've seen in Syria now to the next President?

MR. EARNEST: Jon, the mess we've seen in Syria is one that's been going on for some time. And that's principally the responsibility of the failed leadership of the Bashar al-Assad. And that's why the United States and a number of other nations have insisted that he leave that country so that a political transition can take place. 

We know that because of his failed leadership that a vacuum was created and that did create an opportunity for a group like ISIL to mobilize and to organize in a way that's been very destabilizing to that region. And it's caused a lot of violence to break out. And that's not something that’s going to get solved overnight. This is a --

Q   I'm not asking about overnight. Has the President given up on solving this situation before he leaves office?

MR. EARNEST: The President hasn’t given up on anything. The President is seeking to implement a strategy that has shown some success -- in Kobani, inside Syria. We have had some success against an ISIL leader in Syria just over the weekend who was taken off the battlefield. So there is evidence of success to point to, but there’s no doubt that there’s more important work that needs to get done.

I think the last thing -- and this is critically important, too, particularly in the context of the ongoing political debate -- the President feels very strongly that the very significant problems that are faced by people in Syria, for example, are not problems that the United States is going to come in and solve for them. We're not going to impose a solution on Syria. We're not going to commit billions of dollars and the lives of hundreds of thousands of our men and women in uniform to try to solve those problems. 

What the United States is going to do under the leadership of this President is mobilize the international community to try to protect the national security interest of the United States. And whether that is taking discrete strikes on extremists that are using Syria as a safe haven to plot against the homeland, or whether that's carrying out specific special operations raids against ISIL fighters, or deploying U.S. military to back the fighters on the ground against ISIL inside of Syria, or continuing to try to facilitate a political reconciliation inside Syria -- that will be the role of the United States under this President. And the President believes that that's a wise manner to try to protect our interest in that region of the world.