I have elise labott and Major General james spider marks cnn military analyst. Great to have you both on. Were waiting in anticipation of what the sec def might say. What isnt being said specifically is who are what the russians are targeting. What are your sources telling you . Well, theyre telling me that this is not a target for strategic enforcement if you were toing going after isis. If you look where the strikes started in homs, this is not an area that isis is really on the ground. These are more areas for the Free Syrian Army, even al nuthra, which to be fair is considered a terrorist group by the United States. Again, these are groups against Bashar Al Assad. This is not an isis campaign. This is to shore up the Syrian Military which has been very weakened over the last many months on the battlefield. Lets call it what it is. Lets do that. The russians have inserted themselves in this conflict. When they deploy aircraft, theyre going to have ground to air weapon systems to protect those aircraft. Theyre going after antiregime forces to bolster assad. End of sentence. Not isis. End of sentence. They have the capability to go after isis but what theyre doing initially is making a very strong statement to both the United States as Coalition Partners and assad, were with assad. Were going to help bolster this up. And by the way, the United States said, we got your message, we dont want us to fly. We can continue to fly our missions but there can be natural deconfliction so the u. S. And russian aircraft arent going to everybody is using this word deconfliction. This is not deconfliction. This is russia trying to ground the u. S. Its creating this new reality on the ground which is basically not to go after Bashar Al Assad. And lets be fair. I dont think this u. S. Wants assad to fall right away. They are definitely concerned that there is some element of the Russian Military that will go against the opposition, but if theyre there to make sure the Syrian Regime doesnt fall and theres not a vacuum, i dont think thats really at otds with what theyre looking at. And thats in effect what secretary kerry told me yesterday in an interview i did with him. He said, yes, we are concerned about their intentions on the ground, but there is actually an opportunity here if he could use his military if putin could use his military influence, his strategic and political influence with Bashar Al Assad but thats a huge if. Huge if. Hang on. Two days ago putin and obama met 90 minutes behind closed doors. And said they would cooperate. And look whats happening right now. This is checkmate. This is putin saying, yes, i understand what you want in syria. This is what i want in syria. And im going to make it happen. Look what putin did in ukraine, with crimecrimea. He talked on a 60 minutes interview, once kgb, always kgb. How can he be trusted . I cant be. The elise, i understand what youre saying. I dont know that we need to be fair with russia here. It has done nothing to engender itself toward a peaceful solution or acknowledging there really is a challenge with isis and we need to collectively go after it. But we have no experience coordinating with the russians in any type of a cooperative manner. And weve never had a hot war against russia. So we are really tipping the scale right now. This is true. But Barbara Starr made a very good point earlier today. This is not the way militaries cooperate. Absolutely not. You can have opposite aims especially in the wake of the meeting where president obama and president putin said, our militaries are going to talk this week. This is not the way to communicate. Let me come back to you two in a second. I also have as we anticipate the secretary of Defense Ash Carter speaking from the pentagon any moment now on whats happened to senior. Let me go to arwa damon who is live in i believe istanbul. Talk to me what about youre hearing on the ground from syria from where these bombs have landed. Reporter well, the activist networks are basically saying that these were not isis strongholds that were targeted. In fact here he is, secretary of Defense Ash Carter. Today let me begin with syria. Last week i observed from this podium, as i had observed privately to russian minister of defense the week prior, that there is a logical contradiction in the russian position and now its actions in syria. Russia states an intent to fight isil on the one hand and to support Bashar Al Assad and his regime on the other. Fighting isil without pursuing a parallel political transition only risks escalating the civil war in syria. And with it the very extremism and instability that moscow claims to be concerned about and aspire to fighting. So this approach that approach is tantamount as i said then to pouring gasoline on the fire. In contrast, our position is clear, that a lasting defeat of isil and extremism in syria can only be achieved in parallel with the political transition in syria. And we will continue to insist on the importance of simultaneously pursuing these two objectives. Now, i would hope that russia would join us in pursuing these objectives, which they claim to share, in parallel rather than in a sequence that cannot succeed. During my phone call with theni minister, i also told him i was prepared to send a dod team to meet with Russian Defense counterparts at a location to be agreed upon to ensure that we would avoid any inadvertent incidents over syrian air space. And yesterday i directedly team to proceed with exactly such a meeting as soon as possible, that is, in the next few days. Now, our goals for this meeting are the following, to facilitate the flow of information between Coalition Forces and russian elements that will help us maintain the safety of our personnel in the region, which is critical. To ensure that any additional russian actions do not interview with our coalitions efforts to degrade and defeat isil. And to clarify that broader u. S. Security commitments in the region remain unchanged. As ive said before, we will deliver a lasting defeat to isil. With a Global Coalition of over 60 nations, were taking the fight to isil across the physical, virtual and ideological battle space. The coalition has conducted over 7100 air strikes, hampering isils movement and operations and systematically targeting this terrorist groups leadership. And the coalition will continue to fly missions over iraq and syria as planned, as we did today, in support of our International Mission to degrade and destroy isil. As we pursue the defense level talks with russia on syria, i want to be absolutely clear that these talks will not in any way diminish our strong condemntion of russian aggression in ukraine or change our sanctions or security support in response to those destabilizing actions. On that subject, the facts remain. If russia wants to end its International Isolation and be considered a global power, it must stop its aggression in Eastern Ukraine and its occupation and attempted annexation of crimea and live up to its commitments under the minsk agreement. Next, let me say a few words about the immediate budget impasse that we find ourselves facing here in washington today. It appears at this hour at least that we will avoid the trauma of a Government Shutdown for now. But thats not enough. Its not enough for our troops, not enough for the defense of our country. Because this is about more than just the shortterm damage of a temporary shutdown. Its also about the accumulating and lasting damage that comes from a paycheck to paycheck approach to budgeting for the defense of our country. We need to innovate. We need to continue to attract the best people, to develop the next generation of capabilities, and to meet a current generation of threats. Yet again we face the real risk that political gridlock will hold us back. Without a negotiated budget solution in which everyone comes together at last, we will again return to sequestration level funding, reducing Discretionary Spending to its lowest real level in a decade, despite the fact that members of both parties agree that this result will harm National Security. The alternative to a budget deal, a longterm continuing resolution, is merely sequesterlevel funding under a different name. And the longer the continuing resolution is, the worse it becomes. Eventually resulting in a 38 billion deficit in resources for our military if congress chooses to pursue this path for the full year. Now, the department of defense has done its best to manage through this prolonged period of budget uncertainty, seven years in a row of continuing resolutions, making painful choices and tradeoffs between size, capabilities and readiness of the joint force. But the world has not stood still. Russia and china have advanced their new capabilities and new imperatives such as ensuring a lasting defeat of isil have emerged. In this kind of security environment, we need to be dynamic and responsive. What we have under sequestration are longterm continuing resolution is a straightjacket. We would be be forced to make irresponsible reductions when our choices should be considered carefully and strategic aalstra. Making these kind of indiscriminate cuts is managerial inefficient and transfer wasteful. Its dangerous for our strategy and frankly its embarrassing in front of the world. Most importantly, most importantly to me, for our men and women serving our National Defense and their families, it adds an absolutely undeserved element of uncertainty about their future. And, finally, as we plan for the force of the future, he note the reports that will be submitted by Service Leaders today to the chairman with their recommendations on positions they plan to open to women as well as any exceptions to opening all combat specialties to women. When i myself review these reports over coming months, i will be focused on the quality of information and the analysis behind the recommendations. I want to hear from everyone, but im less interested in who said what but why they are saying it. And to be clear, i will carefully review the analysis from all four services and special Operations Command to make my final determination. As secretary of defense, im committed to seeing this through because attracting the best and staying the best means that wherever possible we must open ourselves to the talents and strengths of all americans who can contribute with excellence to our force. As ive said before, everyone who is able and willing to serve and can meet the standards we require should have the full opportunity to do so. Thank you. I look forward to your questions on this or any other topics. Mr. Secretary, do you believe based on what you have seen and heard today that russia has been targeting isil in the strike that they took overnight, or do you believe instead that they attacked perhaps some other Opposition Forces that have been waging war against assad . And can you give us we have been observing russian activities, and i dont want to go into detail about that at this time. But the reason wuchbt reason reasons why the russian position is contradictory is exactly the potential for them to strike as they may well have in places where, in fact, isil is not present. Others are present. And this is one of the reasons why the result of this kind of action will inevitably simply be to inflame the civil war in syria. And why, therefore, its illadvised to take this kind of action in support of assad only without pursuing a political transition there. Thats why were trying to get them to that same position. But your question exposes exactly what is the fallacy in the russian approach and why its doomed to failure. I just want to make sure i understood your answer. Are you saying, then, that the strikes were in a place where you believe there were no isil fighters and therefore leads you to that . Again, i want to be careful about confirming information, but it does appear that they were in areas where there probably were not isil forces, and that is precisely one of the problems with this whole approach. Mr. Secretary, youve been dealing yourself with the russians for years. So a russian general shows up this morning at the embassy in baghdad and apparently reads your people a note saying air strikes are going to begin in ne hour. What do you make of that . Is that as secretary of defense acceptable military to military relations with you . And where does this leave you if you sit down and talk to the Russian Military about a way ahead . Is this not a little bizarre . Well, youre right. I have been dealing with them for a long time, and this is not the kind of behavior that we should expect professionally from the Russian Military, and thats one reason why i think its a good thing to have an avenue of communication that is less unprofessional than a dropin where we can talk about professional defense matters. But i think also and this is something that will occur in diplomatic channels its important to see if we can get russians in a position where they are coming to understand the contradiction in the position that they now have and the possibility that by seeing a political transition and defeating extremism as something you have to pursue in parallel to succeed in syria, maybe they could make a constructive contribution. But theyre not on the path to doing that in the way they are acting now. What are your concerns for u. S. Military pilots right now flying over syria . Were always concerned about the possibility of inadvertent incidents and lack of communication and so forth. Thats why its important to have communication in the air. Thats the reason for the talks. Secretary, have you spoken again with your why havent you spoken again with your russian counterpart, even as all this is happening and as secretary kerry has spoken with his counterpart . And getting back to barbaras question, given the fact theres a considerable greater risk to u. S. Pilots carrying out these missions in syria without direct coordinati coordination, are you taking any action for potential mishaps . The next step and the next dialogue will be in the professional defense to defense channel. Thats precisely our next step. Thats the next step that defense minister and i discussed when we talked. Its one that our president and president putin a couple of days ago i do understand that secretary kerry is speaking to the foreign minister, and i think these discussions are good. It doesnt mean youre going to agree, but it does mean you have the opportunity to try to clarify in this case for the russians where i think theyre making a mistake in how theyre thinking this through. Will you personally speak again to your counterpart . I dont rule that out, of course not. I think that these kind of contacts are good. Ive done it for many years in the course of my career. Thats not the next step, though. The next step is going to be these talks which are going to be secretary, quick question. I wanted to ask you about women in combat, what you had to say about the reports. There are indications that the marines have asked for an exemption, a waiver, barring some women from some Ground Combat units, infantry units. Is that true . Let me just back up. I really dont want to characterize recommendations. There are no recommendations made to me yet. Remember the process here, which is the services are doing analysis. What they owe to first the chairman and ultimately to me by the end of the year is their analysis, their studies and their thoughts both about which specialties, if any, should be left closed to women and, importantly, how they intend to make any adaptations that are required. So there are many different aspects to this. Its all important. And the only point i want to make at this juncture since it will be some months before these things make their way to me and i do want to give the chairman the time as has been planned for him to look at the them, the only point i wanted to make is i am going to be very facts based and analysis based. I want to see the grounds upon which any actions that we take the first of the year are going to be made. Thats the framework which im looking at. In their summary, women are less lethal im really not going to characterize, tom. These things havent come to me. Mr. Secretary, back to syria. As the secretary of defense, were you notified in advance that russia was conducting air strikes in syria . Did you have the intelligence that the russians are moving towards that target . Well, weve been watching their i think its been widely reported deployment of aircraft. Certainly both in the conversations with our president and our secretary of state and in my conversations with minist minist minister shoi gu, they indicated a desire and intention to conduct operations. And you heard about a communication this very morning about the specific activities that happened today. So thats the way that we have learned. Quick followup. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Back to the deconfliction issue, is it equally important now that we inform the russians when were conducting air strikes over syria, for instance, i understand we conducted air strikes over aleppo today. Did we tell them . Does that go both ways . Lets see what aconvenievent from these conversations. The type of conversations. Thats the purpose of the talks, to decide exactly what kinds of information it is important to exchange to avoid incidents. Yesterday secretary kerry said that russias involvement in syria could be an opportunity for the United States. Do you agree . Well, what i said, it could be if but not in the form in which they now conceive it, at least as they state it and have described it to me. And i tried to distill that into the convict ra indication between on the one hand saying we want to fight extremism and on the other hand supporting assad. We believe that those are in contradiction with one another and that a position that would sustain p