Thread by @Headsnipe011

***I love Mattis***

Media Availability by Secretary Mattis En Route to India

@drawandstrike @ThomasWictor @HNIJohnMiller @catesduane @rising_serpent @_ImperatorRex_ @Debradelai @LarrySchweikart @GodlessNZ @almostjingo @utliberal

dod.defense.gov/News/Transcrip…

***I will not be posting in full. Please read the link. Everything the man says has value.***

***On going to India.***

But my visit is a firm indicator of what we see as India's place among our most strategic, and I would even call them "consequential" emerging partners.

And not just in the Indo-Pacific Region, but in the world, as India steps up to its legitimate role as they see it in the community of nations.

***Another great Mattis quote***

And it says something about the way democracies count heads; they don't beat heads. That is what sets us apart for like-minded nations, nations that are democracies and for shared -- what I would call just and responsive governments.

***Mattis on Syria chemical weapons reports***

Q: So sir, before we go to Asia, if I could just quickly ask about Syria.

SEC. MATTIS: Syria, ok.

Q: Yeah. I mean, over the past few weeks, the Russians have talked, or accused the United States of using, you know, the talk about chemical weapons to strike Syria and (inaudible) assets.

And then, CENTCOM has talked about the Russian disinformation campaign going on in Syria, and sort of that.

SEC. MATTIS: Yeah.

Q: If you could talk a bit about that, and how you see that developing, and how concerning that is.

SEC. MATTIS: Thanks for bringing that -- I should have brought that up in -- in -- in my opening remarks.

We have zero intelligence that shows the opposition has any chemical capability. We -- we have not seen it used in Syria.

There were some attempts, of course, by ISIS to use it in Iraq. Those attempts were very sophomoric; basically, generally failures. You know, a -- a grenade with some kind of mustard agent in it or something,

but nothing on the lines of what the White Helmets and the United Nations have seen exposed by the -- the Assad regime's violation of the chemical -- the prohibition on chemical weapons.

So when we start hearing stories about this, and we have fairly good penetration of many of the opposition groups, and certainly, we have a history now of how many years of a tragic war that did not have to happen, but for Assad, did not have to happen;

but for Russia's regrettable vetoes in the United Nations, did not have to happen but for the Iranian's support of Assad's murders. We have seen the repeated use in this fight by the Assad regime.

So we have made very clear that by putting out innuendo, that somehow any chemical weapon use coming up in the future could be ascribed to the opposition, well, we want to see the data.

And right now, we have data -- not just American data, not just U.S. data, but international data -- that the Assad regime has done this before, and we are watching very closely for this. We cannot see anything that indicates the opposition has that capability.

Q: Do you see any indications that the Assad regime is getting ready to use chemical weapons in (inaudible).

SEC. MATTIS: Yeah, I -- I'd prefer not to answer that right now, Idrees. I would -- I think the best answer to that is: we are very alert.

***Here we see a journalist try to make job growth a bad thing***

Q: Mr. Secretary, well, one of our readers was interested in knowing: Are you concerned that as the economy heats up, the U.S. Army is going to have to lower standards in order to meet its recruiting goals?

SEC. MATTIS: Interesting question. You know, if we’d go back to when we went to the all-volunteer force, we knew we'd be competing. We compete in -- in terms of, can we get young people to come into the military and go to college afterwards?

Some go straight into college so we try to bring them in to other programs that we have, ROTC being one.

But the bottom line is that in this competitive world, we're always competing for the high quality that, so far, we've been able to maintain.

With some years where it -- it dipped down in terms of quality and all, which is really the focus of your point.

There's a reason why young -- young people at age 18 have to still sign up for the selective service.

We always assumed when we went to war -- matter of fact, that was the assumption when we went to the all-volunteer force, that conscription would go back into play.

We've not done it during this very long war. And yet so far, the quality standards have not dropped. You know, at this point -- and I speak to my own time in the SecDef job.

In fact, the Army, as you're probably aware, has actually raised its -- tightened up some of its standards over the last, I'd say, three or four months. I -- I'm not quite sure of the time frame, but recently.

So we're going to be looking at it, but we have no doubt that as the economy improves, we have more competition. It's that simple. So we'll have to adjust our recruiting in order to maintain the quality standards. But it will be a challenge, I think.

***Here journalists try to make an issue of women's integration, Mattis parried excellently***

Q: Are you tracking the progress of integrating women into Army and Marine Corps infantry units? If so, are you satisfied with the progress?

SEC. MATTIS: It is probably too early to talk about progress because the numbers are so small. I think you need a larger cohort before you can evaluate something like that.

You can if -- make broad assessments based on very few -- very, very few numbers.

***Here a journalist tries to make it look like the U.S. needs the Taliban***

Q: Do you need the Taliban to help you to defeat ISIS?

***Profound statement if you think about it...***

SEC. MATTIS: Do we need the Taliban? I think what we need the Taliban to do is to recognize that if they live by the Afghan constitution, they can still get their say.

If they can run on their -- their policies, they don't need to be setting off bombs. If they'll stop using bombs and if they'll break with al Qaeda and ISIS, which clearly is going on, you see this move toward a potential reconciliation with Taliban.

And that, I think, is what we need, is the reconciliation where they rejoin their own people, the Afghan government. And that in itself is what helps to defeat the ISIS, that -- that political accommodation will turn into a security reality that's much harder on ISIS.

***Mattis on challenges in Afghanistan facing new Commander

Now this first part is big, @ThomasWictor, but that isn't it***

So what has changed is you have seen a cease-fire initiated by the Afghan government that the Taliban, I think, had little choice but to respect part of it, because their young guys were coming into the cease-fire regardless.

***Again, big difference***

You see the -- the continued operations. It is now routine where we never, before a year ago, saw all six corps conducting offensive operations at the same time.

That has now become routine. Not even - I don't even tell you about it; it's not newsworthy. It has become the norm.

***Not newsworthy, no need to report that or anything. @ThomasWictor***

Still hard fighting. But right now, we have more indications that reconciliation is no longer just a shimmer out there, no longer just a mirage. It now has some framework, there's some open lines of communication. So I think that is the difference.

The steadfast nature of a nation reinforcing are going to stay, the Afghan Army fighting now continually on an offensive basis. Certainly still vulnerable and isolated outposts, that sort of thing.

***Enemy killing civilians to drive world-wide media***

Or if the enemy masses covertly into a city and then sets off bombs, those are, I think principally done, to give a sense of doom in the information sphere.

They're not militarily significant other than the tragedy of killing innocent women and children, which our adversaries seem to take a certain amount of pride in.

But right now, there are a lot more indications that reconciliation now reinforced by the State Department has put additional staff into the embassy with that sole effort. You're seeing this now pick up traction.

So that's the way I'd see it, characterize the difference that we see now, along with several hundred thousand Afghan forces, are better trained, better equipped, and have NATO mentors out in the field with them.

!!! @THOMASWICTOR

***I forgot this part somehow.***

Q: Mr. Secretary, what's your current assessment -- or what's your -- sorry, what's your current assessment of the ISI in Pakistan's support of the Haqqani network?

And can you tell us, do you have any, like, read of -- or -- can you share with us any -- any feeling about why they announced -- the Taliban announced Haqqani's death yesterday?

SEC. MATTIS: On your second question, no. I saw their -- their acknowledgement of it. We're -- we -- as you know, we've been -- we keep a very close eye on Haqqani.

And we have our own views on it. Right now I’m not satisfied that I'm firm on how -- why they -- why they announced it when they did.

As far as the ISI, let me just say that Pakistan has a new government, against the odds of some skeptics. There was a peaceful transition of power. Government's being put together.

As you know, Sec. Pompeo is going in there and we do expect that Pakistan will be part of the community of nations that give no haven to terrorism. I mean, that's what we expect of all nations in the world. And so that's where we're at on it.

ISI is part of the Pakistan military. The Pakistan military is part of the Pakistan government. So, that's where it lies.