Asked if it was time for the U.S. to consider redeploying its nuclear weapons stored at the base as part of NATO’s deterrence policy, Esper said, “I make no comments regarding where the United States may have weapons.”

“I think the issue here is, once again, what is Turkey’s direction with regard to the NATO alliance, and the actions they’re taking on any number of issues that I’ve mentioned in the past, whether it’s the [purchase of Russian] S-400 [missiles], whether it’s the holding-up of NATO plans for the defense of Europe?” he said.

“This is something that the alliance would have to discuss, if the Turks are serious about this,” Esper addeed. “I mean, they’re a sovereign nation to begin with so, you know, they have that inherent right to house or to not house NATO bases or foreign troops.’

MOVE THE NUKES? As a matter of policy, the United States does not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at specific locations, but the Federation of American Scientists estimates that the U.S. has about 50 B61 nuclear gravity bombs stashed at Incirlik, each with a maximum yield of 170 kilotons, or 10 times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Last month, retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, a former deputy commander of U.S. forces in Europe called for removal of nuclear weapons from Turkish soil, arguing they “no longer serve the same strategic purpose that they did in the past.”

Good Tuesday morning and welcome to Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense, written and compiled by Washington Examiner National Security Senior Writer Jamie McIntyre (@jamiejmcintyre) and edited by Susan Katz Keating (@SKatzKeating). Email here with tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. Sign up or read current and back issues at DailyonDefense.com. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email and we’ll add you to our list. And be sure to follow us on Twitter: @dailyondefense.

Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!

NOTE TO READERS: Daily on Defense will go on holiday hiatus beginning Dec. 20 and will return to your inbox Jan. 3, 2020.

HAPPENING TODAY: The House is set to vote today on a massive $1.4 trillion government spending bill that provides the $738 billion in defense funding promised in a compromise agreement earlier this year, along with $632 billion in non-defense spending.

The 2,313 pages-long bill is expected to be passed by the Senate and signed by the President by week’s end. Along with the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the Senate last night, the two bills will mean the Pentagon can begin to tap into $19 billion in additional funds that were off limits under a Continuing Resolution that expires Friday.

“This is the 59th year in a row we’ll be passing an NDAA,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe on the floor of the Senate last night. “We’re not going to win with a strong military alone — but we will lose it without one. That’s what this NDAA will do: revitalize American military power so that we can achieve our vision of a safe, prosperous and free world.”

WALL FUNDING FLAT, BUT… The 2020 spending bill finessed one of the major sticking points that prevented passage of the measure on time by the end of September, funding for more border barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border.

The bill provides only $1.4 billion in wall funding, not the $8.6 billion the president requested, but does not stop Trump from doing what he did this year, shifting money appropriated for military construction projects to wall funding.

But to discourage the practice, Democrats refused to “backfill” the $3.6 billion he took from military construction, which means further transfers would have a serious impact on much needed quality of life projects and infrastructure improvements at bases worldwide.

NO ORDERS YET, BUT AFGHANISTAN WITHDRAWAL COMING: In his in-flighjt interview with reporters yesterday, Secretary Esper confirmed that the U.S. is on a path to significantly reducing its troop presence in Afghanistan, whether or not there’s a peace deal with the Taliban.

“The best solution for Afghanistan is a political agreement, but I think we could go down to a lower number with or without that political agreement,” he said. “I have issued no orders yet to do that. We’ll just take this a day at a time and see how things play out in the coming weeks.”

But Esper did not dispute reports that a reduction of about 4,000 troops could announced soon, and said Gen. Scott Miller, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has assured him the U.S. counterterrorism mission would not be affected by the drawdown.

“The commander believes that he can conduct the all-important counterterrorism mission and train, advise and assist so that we ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists,” Esper said. “I would like to go down to a lower number because I want to either bring those troops home, so they can refit and retrain for other missions or/and be redeployed to the Indo-Pacific to face off our greatest challenge in terms of the great power competition that’s vis-a-vis China.”

GRAHAM OK WITH THAT: Sen. Lindsey Graham, who in the past has voiced concern about a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, says he has no problem with a limited drawdown. Speaking in Kabul yesterday, the South Carolina Republican said he’s ok with having 4,000 fewer American troops in country, down from the current 12,000 to 13,000 troops.

“If President Trump decides in the next few weeks to reduce our forces below the 12,000 we have, I could support that,” Graham said. “With 8,600 American forces aligned in the right configuration, we would have a very lethal punch.”

But Graham warned against total withdrawal, or dropping below the 8,600 number that President Trump announced last August, when he first floated the idea of a drawdown.

“The Taliban cannot be trusted to be a reliable counterterrorism force,” Graham said. “It would be insane for America to rely on the Taliban to ensure that al Qaeda and [ISIS] doesn’t come back in a way to represent a threat to our allies and the American homeland. Even if they had the will, they don’t have the capability.”

‘HIGH STATE OF READINESS’: Esper also expressed “concern” over North Korea’s return to bellicose threats to resume missile tests, which he said seemed likely if they “don’t feel satisfied.”

“It is a concern, their rhetoric,” he told reporters traveling with him. “My role remains twofold: first of all, ensure that we are in a high state of readiness and we are working closely with our [South Korean] partners, and then secondly, help enable the diplomats.”

“We need to get serious and sit down and have discussions about a political agreement that denuclearizes the peninsula,” he said. “That’s the best way forward and arguably the only way forward if we’re going to do something constructive. I would like to remain optimistic that we can keep moving forward [with] negotiations, because the alternative is not a positive one.

‘WATCHING IT VERY CLOSELY’: “I’d be disappointed if something would be in the works, and if it is, we’ll take care of it,” President Trump said yesterday about the latest threats from North Korea. “We’re watching it very closely.”

The Rundown

AP: Putin Hails Russian Arms Sales Abroad

Washington Times: Russian Spy Ship Operating In ‘Unsafe Manner’ Near U.S. Submarine Base

Yonhap News Agency: N. Korea Appears To Have Tested Liquid Fuel Engine For Multi-Stage Rocket Last Week: Sources

Defense News: NATO Declares Space ‘Operational Domain,’ But More Work Remains

Defense News: Despite U.S. Complaints, Top NATO General Says He’s Working Closely With The EU On Military Projects

Stars and Stripes: U.S. Military Permanently Ends Curfew for Troops in South Korea

Washington Post: Amazon And Justice Dept. Spar Over Redactions In Cloud Computing Suit

Washington Examiner: Two Marine Raiders and a Navy corpsman face charges after contractor dies following brawl in Iraq

New York Times: Congress to Place Sanctions On al-Assad Administration

C4ISRNET: Pentagon Issues $6.5B Contract For Network Support

Defense One: U.S. Forces Can’t Hide from Ubiquitous Satellites. They Need to Fool Them.

Air Force Magazine: Pararescuemen Awarded Silver Stars for Afghanistan Battles

Task & Purpose: This Air Force master sergeant claimed his unit ignored sexual assault for years. He nearly lost his career because of it

Military.com: Saudi Officer Who Killed 3 at Pensacola Had Passed Rigorous Vetting, DoD Says

AP: Hundreds attend funeral for Navy sailor slain in base attack

Air Force Magazine: Defense Bill Would Promote Cole, McGee

Washington Examiner: Now hear this: New Top Gun: Maverick trailer buzzes the internet

Calendar

TUESDAY | DECEMBER 17

12 p.m. 740 15th St. N.W. — New America book discussion on “Trump and His Generals: The Cost of Chaos,” with author Peter Bergen, vice president of global studies at New America; and Sharon Burke, senior adviser in the New America International Security Program. https://www.newamerica.org

WEDNESDAY | DECEMBER 18

10 a.m. 1775 Massachusetts Ave, N.W. — Brookings Institution discussion with retired Air Force Gen. Lori Robinson, former commander of USNORTHCOM, on current national security challenges and the need for diverse public servants in meeting them, with Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/events

THURSDAY | DECEMBER 19

2 p.m. 1030 15th St. N.W. — Atlantic Council discussion on “The future of Nord Stream 2 and TurkStream: The impact of sanctions legislation,” with former U.S. Ambassador to Poland Daniel Fried; former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst; former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar; and Melinda Haring, deputy director of the Atlantic Council Eurasia Center. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event