0 require constant coordination and deconfliction with the taliban. it is absolutely requiring us to keep these lines of communication with the taliban open that have checkpoints beyond the airport. we have seen this coordination has worked well in terms of allowing access and flow to continue. one of our commanders used helicopters to bring people in because of the crowd size. crowd size matters, too, and that's what the president was referring to. >> i have two questions. i would like to go back to the incident. can you be a little more specific and tell us if you can rule out the attackers were the taliban first. i would like to go back to the deadline. the french foreign minister said today that it's quote, necessary to continue the afghanistan evacuation beyond august 31. >> can't rule out who the hostile actor was in the incident last night. central command's statement referred to it as a hostile actor. we don't know more than that. this just happened. i don't know when we'll have more forensics on this. our focus was on making sure we could maintain security at the airport. it was maintained. sadly it resulted in the loss of a life of one afghan soldier and wounded several others. that is our focus right now. on the deadline, i can't speak for other nation states only for the department of defense. you heard the secretary address this over the weekend. the goal is to get as many people out as fast as possible and while we are glad to see the numbers we got yesterday. we won't rest on any laurels. the focus is on trying to do this as best we can by the end of the month. as the secretary said, if we need -- if he needs to have additional conversations with the commander-in-chief about that timeline he will do that. we're not at that point right now. >> has the taliban told you that august 31 is the deadline and you must leave then? are those communications happening? is that something you've agreed to with the taliban? >> we've seen those. we understand the view. >> can you explain is it only americans and siv holders that are allowed through the gate now? has that changed? what's the policy about afghans in need now coming? >> they are still being processed and facilitated. >> given the number of people who are in hiding who were either siv recipients, some americans of afghan allies, why not reopen bagram air base and why not get an agreement from the qatar people to land in kandahar and elsewhere? we saw kandahar bring -- why not use the pakistanis and qataris to help bring people out? now you're just bringing people out from kabul. it is a choke point. >> first of all, the through put has improved and increased and i'm not going to -- i don't think it would be a useful expenditure of our time to monday morning quarterback the whole issue with bagram. it was closed down >> i'm talking about looking at the situation now. you need air fields to land on to get people out. i would like to ask general taylor about this. >> we are improving our through put at the airport in kabul and we think that we'll be able to continue to try to improve that. that's the goal. what you are talking about would be an expenditure of resources and personnel as well as an increase most likely to the threat they're under to try to go back and as you put it retake bagram air base, which is the size of a small city. and i understand a lot of people have views and opinions about this. it was closed down as part of the retrograde. always supposed to be closed down as part of the retrograde. the last base to be turned over to the afghans and even as recently as three weeks ago, before we actually had to conduct an non-combatant evacuation operation the leaders in this building ran a tabletop exercise on what it would be like to run an effective operation out of kabul airport. it is not without its challenges for sure but we are doing that now. that's a focus on making sure that we can get as many people out as possible using the kabul airport. the numbers are showing that it is working. nobody is taking it for granted. don't want to predict about tomorrow but it is working. >> thank you. back to august 31 question. is august 31 extending the deadline an option for the u.s. anymore? is this wholly dependent whether the taliban would let a u.s. presence remain in afghanistan during that date. >> our focus is getting it done by the end of the month. what we do at the building at the pentagon is options. our job is to provide the president, commander-in-chief options. as you heard the secretary say, if he gets to appoint, he and chairman milley they believe they get to a point where they need to provide that advice and counsel to the president about an extension he will do that. we just aren't there right now. you heard the secretary say himself if he had more time on the clock he would use more time on the clock. we are focused on getting it done by the end of the month. >> major general taylor. you mentioned 42,000 have been evacuated since july. 42,000 just on military airlift or including the commercial and chartered planes? >> that total number is u.s. military plus u.s. civilian state department. some was state department contract air that went out also. >> any breakdown of the number of u.s. citizens in the 42,000 that got out? >> i do but i don't have it right now. >> just a couple of quick questions. first on the vaccine. this would be specifically to pfizer that would be mandatory or the other? >> right now we're focused on the pfizer vaccine because of the fda approval. >> how many afghan soldiers remain in the perimeter? you said 500 to 600. is that still the number? >> i believe that's the operative number. >> how many americans have been evacuated? 2500 americans. has that number changed? >> we think that overall we've been able to evacuate several thousand americans. i would be receipt sent to get more specific than that. since the 14th we believe we have been able to evacuate several thousand americans. >> very quickly. the last size for an operation from kabul was three weeks ago. >> certainly before kabul fell. this was something that -- i talked about this before. this was something that the pentagon had been thinking about for a long time. as far back as late april when we held a rehearsal of concept exercise looking at the retrograde and parse out through the summer. a part of that conversation was the potential for non-come at ant evacuation operations and how we would execute that. >> clarify a couple points you made earlier. you said any extension between august 31 would be the secretary talking with the president. would that decision include input from nato allies, particularly those who say they need more time? is that a factor? >> absolutely consider the views and opinions of our allies and partners who have people there and as a general briefed very much a part of moving people out. >> have those allies commune indicated to the united states they need more time? >> not aware of that. >> the perimeter i'm having a hard time understanding when the president talked expanding the perimeter, who is part of that? is that u.s. forces? have they moved where they are positioned from where they were a few days ago? >> i want to be careful here. to talk about specific movements at a tactical level on any given day. i will not do that and i know it will be unsatisfying but let me finish. so that as caveat, we continue to look at security on the airport itself as well as the immediate environs of the airport. because in those immediate environ us outside the airport that's where you have taliban checkpoints and crowds assembling and that's where access to the gate is critical in that space just outside the airport. where we don't have a military presence of a sustained nature. what we're doing is we are in constant communication with the taliban about that space and what that space looks like. and the only thing i would say is that as you heard the secretary say this and general milley say we will do required every day at every opportunity to make sure that those who need to get out can get out. that includes the monitoring and accessibility of that space outside the airport. what it looks like on any given day will change. >> i appreciate that. i'm not looking for tactical details. what that movement happens and threat to u.s. forces and the public has a right to noe. i want to understand how we should be thinking about where the u.s. military is in that environment. >> i would tell you we already consider our troops in harm's way at the airport. it is a dangerous situation no question about that. we're not taking any of these threats for granted. and the commanders on the ground have the wherewithal to move their forces as they see fit to again do essentially three things. make sure the airport is secure and can be defended. make sure that air operations can continue to carry on at the clip we need them to carry on. and c, this is an important one, to make sure that american citizens at-risk afghans and siv applicants can get access to the gate and process and entry to the feed. the three primary tasks. and they know what the tasks are and can move forces, can employ forces and assets as they see fit to do that. on any given day it could change. i don't think it would be helpful particularly because of the threat environment so high for us to talk with specificity what it will look like. david. >> were you being deliberately vague when you said the number of americans was several thousand or was it because you are not sure of the number? if you need to check the number that's the most important number here, numb nerf americans. if it is use a matter of checking the number, can you do that and give it to us? or if you are being deliberately vague, tell me why you are being deliberately vague. >> i will leave it at several thousand right now, dave. >> then tell us why. >> because i think the number is very fluid and it literally changes nearly by the hour. >> it is not more fluid than these 11,000, 37,000. >> i will leave it at several thousand right now. >> you said you heard the public statement from taliban about the red line of august 31. does it mean you didn't hear it directly from them since you are communicating with them on a daily basis? are you with this issue did you discuss with them the need for extending the august 31st? >> i'm not going to speak with specificity to communications we have with the taliban on every given day. it happens several times a day. we're well aware of the stated desire to -- by the taliban to have this mission completed by the 31st of august. we, too, are still planning on completing it by the 31st of august. that's the mission that we've been assigned by the commander-in-chief and what we're trying to execute. >> are the forces remaining now in kabul focusing on that evacuation, that mission, the u.s. forces, of course, are they maintaining that capability to maybe deal with a threat from taliban beyond the august 31st deadline or maybe attacks? >> again, i appreciate the question in terms of hypothesizing past the 31st, we just aren't there yet. our troops are focused on the mission, the three missions i just articulated. including being able to defend the airport, which means being able to defend themselves and their operations and we have assets in place to allow them to do that as well. i am not going to speculate about post august 31st. we are head down focused on keeping these numbers up as best we can getting as many people out as we can by the end of the month. if there needs to be a discussion about extending that timeline, then we absolutely will have that discussion at the appropriate time with the commander-in-chief. let me go to the phones. jeff, you get the first one. >> thank you very much. regarding the incident, was the gunman killed? and was it u.s. troops who shot this person? >> i do not know on either, jeff. you could certainly reach out to central command for more detail at that level of the incident but again this just happened, jeff. i just don't think we have that level of forensic detail to offer you today. >> do you have one more? >> from what we're hearing on the ground only american citizens and green card holders are being allowed into the airport. you know when that will change and afghans at risk will be able to enter? >> it's for american citizens, siv applicants can be processed to the gates, at-risk afghans are absolutely being considered for entry. >> first of all, how many people have been killed at the airport. we hear reports of seven, nine, nato official told abc20 killed around the airport. what is the number? >> are you talking about afghans at the gates? >> adding the people killed on monday when the c-17 took off. two killed during skirmishs inside the airport. the guy killed today. what's the total number of people who died? >> i don't have exact numbers of that. so i can't answer the exact number right now. >> can you take that question and get back to me? >> absolutely. >> you mentioned the capacity was 5,800 troops at the airport rieft -- right now. the secretary of defense didn't have the ability to do extractions and there aren't enough troops. have you asked for authorization of additional troops to go into the airport to help with potential extractions should it come to that? >> the word capability. the actual troop number are two different things. we have approximately 5,800 forces and as i briefed over the week, as forces flowed in, capability continued to increase. initial security was the most important ability to establish. without that the ability to do other things is not possible. so as our capability increased and as you've seen, we have the capability and have executed other operations to insure that american citizens are being brought in safely and prepared for evacuation. >> so i can understand what you're saying you think 5,800 troops the u.s. has the capability to expand the perimeter at the airport and continue all this or to do whatever the president had mentioned and also to do extractions if needed, or are you going to ask for authorization of more troops? >> 5,800 were able to continue to secure the airfield and increase safety there and continue to do the operations that we already have. >> what the secretary said was that where he was on last wednesday we didn't have the capability to do large-scale massive movements of people but he did say if there is an incident where somebody and we need to get them in small numbers and we can do that and have been doing that. that was last wednesday. more capability and troops have flown in over the last few days and we do have the ability to help when and where we can to help americans move toward the gates. we won't talk the details of every one of those but we have the capabilities. >> do you foresee -- authorize additional troops to go in should you have a hard stop at august 31st and you have the ramp up capacity again, do you foresee authorizing -- >> i don't think it would be helpful to get ahead of where we are now. no plans at this time to request or to authorize additional u.s. forces to this mission. >> are troops leaving the airport on a regular basis. i still don't understand what's going on. >> our commanders have, as needed, the authority that they need to use their assets and forces to help assist americans who need to get to the airport get to the airport on a case-by-case basis. your question was leaving -- it is not regular. i don't want to leave you with the idea we're somehow patrolling the streets of kabul but on occasion where there is a need and there is a capability to meet that need our commanders on the ground are doing what they feel they need to do to help americans reach the airport and there is a variety of methods that can be affected and without going into detail we're using the variety of methods at our disposal. >> we know about the helicopter on thursday at the hotel and any other situations like that? >> at least one additional instance where rotary airlift was used to help amamericans ge from outside the airport into the airport. i think i will leave it at that today. >> your planning organization, when do you expect you will have to -- assuming you are sticking to the august 31st deadline, when will you have to stop taking in additional people at the airport to evacuate? you will have to get the 5800 american troops out, right? >> stop taking in evacuees. >> and additional americans. what is the deadline so that you can get the american military who are there at the airport and any latter embassy people out. >> we aren't the only people flying evacuees out. so it's certainly conceivable that even without a u.s. military footprint there people could still be able to get out of kabul. i don't have specific retrograde timeline to speak to today. we'll work through that as appropriate as we get closer to the end of the mission. and as you well know we very methodically and deliberately plan in the movement out of assets and equipment and resources so that we can preserve the capability we need for as long as we need it. i will leave it at that. >> it took several days to flow the 5800 in. there were hurdles to get them in. it could take a day or two to get everyone, the military back out. that may bump the timeline back from august 31 to the 29th? >> i'm still speaking about 28 here. >> clearly you have to do backward planning for retrograde. i'm not prepared today to speak to this specific dates or process by which that would occur. but obviously we're thinking through that right now and a lot of that will depend on how far we get as fast as we can get by the end of the month. i just don't want to speculate now about what it will look like. let me just back up. the focus is on getting as many people out as we can as fast as we can. that means being able to secure and defend the airport, which we are doing now. and we will factor all of those things in to whatever the departure timeline looks like to make sure we can maximize through put as best we can without getting anybody hurt. thus far some exceptions, some small exceptions. we've been fortunate that nobody has. >> is there any effort to tally up the number of u.s. weapons and equipment that are now under taliban control? is there any program to mitigate this problem through destruction or confiscating them and taking them back? >> we talked about this before. i don't have an exact inventory of what equipment the afghans had at their disposal that now might be at risk. obviously we don't want to see any weapons or systems that -- to fall into hands of people that would use them in such a way to harm our interests or those of our partners and allies. we have a vested interest in not wanting that to happen. but i don't have any policy solutions for you today about how we would or could address that going forward. i would remind you though, mike, that an awful lot of equipment, weapons, resources were drawn down even in the last years and months of the previous administration as president trump decided to move down to a force of 2500. there was a lot of retrograde of things up to that point. and then after the president's decision in mid april to complete this drawdown albeit on an extended timeline. a very big part of the retrograde was the disposition of weapon, equipment, systems and vehicles. some were destroyed. some of them were brought back home. some of them were redeployed into the region and some were turned over to the afghans. we are working through right now to try to get a better sense of what that would look like. i don't have any specific solutions for you in terms of what we can or will do going forward on this. to the degree -- well, i'll leave it at that. >> thank you. let me ask general taylor, please. general taylor. the united states has -- [inaudible]. do you have a