>> i'm david shuster, al jazeera america headquarters in new york. and you continue to look at testimony this morning, that is the chairman bud mccain questioning chuck hagel about the administration's plans for fighting isil. the secretary of defense announced that the air strikes are being expanded and there has been a plan approved by the president to go after isil targets in syria. the secretary of defense is still getting scepticism and request from lawmakers that the president not take the option

off of the table of using ground troops. a number of republicans and some democrats are saying that sends the wrong signal. mike viqueira we knew this was coming as far as expanding the air war, but we're now starting to get more details politically. does that take some pressure off of the obama administration from these members of congress who want to see things ratcheted it up in >> politically the pressure is going to be off because congress is leaving over the course of the next couple of days. they are not going to be in town and have the microphones in front of them. so the president -- and remember this will follow a house vote later today and authorize the arming of those rebels and that has become the most controversial point, to arm the free syrian army and others

within syria. and secretary hagel summed it up rather nicely. he said yes, it's a risk that only some of these weapons could end up in the wrong hands and this force might not be as viable as we hoped, but it's a risk that is justified. >> all right. let's continue with mike lyons. the risk of training theian syrian free army, and the risk that the weapons fall in the wrong hands how big of a risk is it? >> it's a big risk. they are going to train them inside saudi arabia, while that is happening, the assad government could be attacking. when you take soldiers out of the fight, you don't know what the enemy is going to do. so the risk is not just that the weapons fall in the wrong hands.

>> and fair to say for all of the talk about taking the military action against syria, if they have targets that they could strike they would have already done that, so this may be more to apiece congress, and say, eventually we'll get to syria, but right now the target is iraq. >> yeah, when you think about it, only 170 air strikes is not that much. we fired 2500 during the initial run-up into iraq. so there is a greater campaign that has got to take player if there is going to be success. >> there may be some friction between some of the republicans and defense secretary hagel. so let's go back to that now. >> -- the points you made, because each is particularly

important and not only are your points right, i think, and i think the president agrees with what you have said, but most of the points are centerpieces and pillars of his strategy. on the particular question on boots on the ground, what he has said is that there's no ground combat role for americans. yes, a combat role on the ground is going to be required, obviously it is going on in iraq today. it will be required in syria. and what he has said is -- it is the iraqi security forces, the peshmerga of the kurdish forces that are the ground forces in iraq, and we will continue to support them through air strikes and other capabilities we have. in syria, as you know, the whole

point of train and equip is to help develop that ground force, a capable unit by unit ground force in syria. but he's fully aware of anding a agrees that this isn't going to be done without ground forces, but what he has made clear to the american people that he is not going to order american combat ground forces into those areas, but i thought that was a point that you made that you gave me an opportunity to maybe -- hopefully clear -- clear that up. your point about informing and updating the american people. you are right. i think any of us in this business understand how critical that is, the american people understand what is going on. they are represented obviously in this body in the body across the way as it should be.

but to have the american people understand it, and be part of it, and especially the congress as i noted in my testimony, the president thinks is critical component of going forward. so thank you for allowing me to maybe clear that up. >> thank you. mr. smith. >> the boots on the ground thing, the problem is, we just don't want to go back into another war, and the president is seeking to reassure those folks, but i agree with the chairman it's better to explain it's not a boots on the ground issue. and it's not just a matter of we're just war wary, but we just don't think it will work. if there is too much emphasis on

american force, we push more people into the arms of isil. it would be better if you make it clear that we're not doing this because it's not the most effective way to confront these forces. so both buk and i will task you to going to the president and working on his messaging. but it is important. on the issue of signing sunni partners, because i still contend that that is the key. if the find enough sunnis in iraq and syria, who are willing to fight against isis, that's when he will start to be successful. what is our outreach to some of those tribes focusing on iraq at the moment. they are still there, i suspect many are fighting with isis, what are we doing to try to turn

some of those tribesmen as we did in the awakening. >> as you just pointed out and as i noted in my testimony, the reaching out to the sunni tribes through an inclusive representative, functioning government in iraq, is -- is a start. generalal len's relationships will help. general austin's relationships, relationships of other coalition partners in the area, especially arab, sunni countries, that are a part of the coalition will be critically important to this. this cannot be seen as a u.s., western effort against any component of the muslim world or islam, sunni versus shia, so it's all of those working

together, as we go forward in this coalition to get once again the sunni tribe leadership and buy-in, and as i noted in my testimony to what we're doing, one of the most fundamental parts of that is the evolution, and development of a government in iraq that the sunnis trust and have some confidence in, that begins to unite that country, and as you defined it in your opening statements, much of the maliki government did everything but that the last five years and brought -- as and secretary hagel talks about efforts to strengthen a coalition government, we want to bring you up to date on some of the news that has been happening. first regarding the coalition effort, by secretary of state john kerry has been testifying

to over at the hours of foreign affairs committee this morning, we just got word from paris that the french president has now announced that the french will provide air support, and this is significant because both france and the u.k. have made it very clear in the past that they would not provide any sort of military combat operations. so the air support could be command and control, navigational systems, and what not. in addition, as that news isment calling from france, there's news coming from the region as far as the fight on the ground between islamic state forces, the kurdish peshmerga and others. and there are reports that islamic state forces in northern syria have now captured 16 kurdish villages near the turkish border. and there are wide-spread fears now that the peshmerga, the

kurds, may face some severe retribution from islamic state, and you may have the kind of humanitarian crisis in northern syria that we had a few weeks ago in northern iraq. mike the situation on the ground isil making progress. how does that complicate things? >> it complicates thing. it was very important that the peshmerga take over that area. and if they are losing that kind of space there, that mosul dam now becomes at risk. >> there is a lot more interaction on the ground. >> and the peshmerga have

loyalty to themselves first. the question is they are still undermanned. they don't still have armored vehicles. they have 20-year hand me downs from the iraqi military, but they are fierce fighters. there is likely an air campaign getting together right now to try to helping. >> and we have heard that the french will provide air support. because again, the french are very sensitive about providing direct military combat assistance. >> yeah, that's a pr move for the french. get with general allen and we'll get back to you as to what we need. >> let's go over to mike viqueira now. the administration has john kerry in front of the hours foreign affairs committee. again, mike, i want to get your reaction as the news shifts on the ground between iraq and syria, and isil is taking

villages, does that put more pressure on the administration? does the administration react on a day by day basis? >> i think the messaging coming from the white house is no ground forces they are going to stick to that come hell or high water, unless something completely unforeseen happens on the order of the fall of bagdad or something like that. let's talk about what is happening here in washington at this point, and we have just heard -- you are talking about a little bit of breaking news, harry reid was saying the senate will get around to authorizing not simply arming those rebels, remember covert aid has been going on for about a year now, and overt aid, the $500 million has to be authorized by congress. that vote coming later in the day in the senate.

but after the election harry reid is now saying, in the first week in november, the senate will come back and debate authorizing the entire expanded air campaign that president obama has put forward. david you have to wonder why in the world they can't do it before the fact. leadership does not want to put their members in a difficult position of voting to authorize this before an election. in that is the perhaps unfortunate political reality here. congress will not be back until after the election. i think you just heard secretary hagel say what has been said by others, the arab participation, shifting to the coalition, arab participation is very important. and it's a perception issue. the united states cannot be seen as driving this enterprise and carrying the entire load.

there has to be participation of the neighbors of syria and iraq, and the concerns -- and you heard this from bob corker yesterday, is that these nations will be here for window dressing, as coat holders, is the phrase he used, so you will see them pressing on what these nations are going to be doing in terms of military operation. and the saudis have stepped forward, obviously, and agreed to host the training and arming of the free syrian rebels on their territory, something that is somewhat remarkable break from past precedent. but this is another controversial issue, along with the arming of the rebels, the coalition, and we heard secretary hagel talking in terms of the brightest possible scenario about what the unity

government in iraq is going to look like. these are still very much open questions, david. whether or not the post maliki government can bring these warring factions in order to turn the attention, full resources and effort towards defeating isil within iraqi territory, syrian territory become an increasingly problematic piece of this. >> mike viqueira at the white house, we have retired army major mike lyons in studio with us. and secretary hagel has announced a broader air campaign that will include targeting in syria. and john kerry is trying to explain the coalition being built. we'll take a break, update you on the news on the other side of this. you are watching al jazeera america. nity

>> sharks like affection >> spot on... >> don't try this at home... >> tech know, only on al jazeera america i'm david shuster. al jazeera america headquarters in new york. you are looking at a live picture from paris where the french president has announced that the french will participate in military air strikes. the french had previously said they would not participate in military action. in the meantime in washington, d.c., chuck hagel, and he is

testifying there under questioning from loretta sanchez -- chuck hagel has announced that the united states is expanding the u.s. air strikes into syria. there have been no strikes yet. but the plans have been approved by the president, following a briefing the president received yesterday. here is exactly what makel said about that earlier this morning. >> sentcom's plan include targeted actions in syria, including command and control, logistics capabilities and infrastructure of isil. general austin as i noted briefed the plan to the president in tampa yesterday. >> and that could conceivably become more urgent given the

news that in northern syria, islamic state fighter have captured 16 kurdish vil agency -- villages in the last 24 hours, raising fears that the kurds could now face retribution. >> the question is whether they are going to attack inside syria as well. but more aircraft in that region is going to be good. >> when the president and central command agree on a plan, and then they sent the sort of news coming in now that the islamic state is on the offensive. there may be a humanitarian issue develop aing, how does that change things? >> they have got to focus and shift towards that now.

we need the kurdish forces fighting in there now. they are going to get stretched very thin if they have to go on a 3 or 400-mile march. >> and as far as the situation in iraq, let's look at some of the clips now of what has been going on, but when we look at the map of northern iraq, again explain the significant points for any u.s. air strikes and the iraqi forces and the kurds as far as what they are doing on the ground. >> isis controls the red areas. the mosul dam is in that region, the tigers valley flows through there, there is an airstrip under isis control. and we have to win back these key military features that allow

us to fly in and move supplies in and out. >> and are the peshmerga, are they well equipped, well trained enough, so they have sufficient forces to be able to do that? >> they are separated right now, and that's the problem. the peshmerga forces were going to fight to the south and west, the iraqi security forces primarily around bag, would go due west, and then, again, if you had another ground force, you would be able to put another ground force on that border, and create a hammer and anvil, and be able to drive the isis forces to that anvil where they could be destroyed. >> we have heard several times, secretary hagel said it this morning, secretary kerry said it yet, and again this morning, president obama yesterday, that any u.s. troops on the ground will not be engaged in district

combat. what happens if -- and secretary kerry and hagel were talking about trying to enlist is sunni arab support, what happens if some of the arab governments say we will support you, but we want 50,000 american troops. >> yeah, that happened during desert storm, and the president will have to walk a thin line. i do know the military from the army's perspective would want to get into the fight. but they would have to go with a plan like i just described. we couldn't get into another counter terrorism -- you know, that kind of operation. it would also take four to six months to get all of the equipment there and get everybody ready to go. >> as we continue to watch live coverage of secretary hagel and secretary kerry there, he continues to get criticism from

both sides of the aisle from members of congress who essentially it's a free political shot for them, because they know they are not going to have to face this, but they continue to criticize the administration for not seeking authorization for the use of military force from congress, the kind of thing that congress provided after 9/11 and leading up to the iraqi war. essentially they get to criticize the administration for free, but from a military perspective, does the military prefer in this sort of situation that congress take a vote, that congress buy into this, or would they prefer that the administration make a decision? >> i think they would prefer it. because going to war is different than conducting a counter terrorism activity. and war implies a stronger commitment. the country goes to war. the military does the counter terrorism activity, and in order to align both of these

objectives, the country has to go on the counter terrorist activity. part of the challenge in the last 13 years is the country went to war, and if we are going to do this again, the country has to do it. >> mike what do you anticipate flash points for this afternoon? >> i think the press is going to continue to hammer the spokesman on the point we have been talking about, number 1 in the wake of what general dempsey said, the president compelled to repeat again, that no ground troops would be involved, and jo josh earnst then saying, some military may be deployed to for example call in air strikes or advise iraqis in close combat,

and they are still going to make that distinction that american boots on the ground are not in combat, because they would not be engaged in live fire kinetic action with opposing forces, i think a lot of people will be questioned about that. i think what you are going to hear from the press corps is largely what you have heard from congress in the last few days. questions about the viability of the coalition, questions about the setbacks that have been suffered by the kurds in northern syria at the hands of isil. does that present more urgency? about the iraqi government, and the free syrian government and their viability. and the president in an interview with the "new york times" just a month ago said it has always been a fantasy to arm the free syrian army.

and let's remind people one more time, david, the important part about syria. yes, they have a plan to use the iraqi army and the peshmerga. in syria, who is going to carry that fight on the ground? according to chuck hagel's own testimony, two-thirds of the isil fighters now reside within syria. and sanctuaries cannot be allowed to exist for these terris. syria has to be addressed sooner or later. it will take a year at the minimum to train those free syrian army fighters. >> mike viqueira at the white house, and mike lyons here in studio. we thank you both. secretary hagel announcing new plans to escalate the rhythm of air strikes in iraq, and against syria. and it appears that isil is on the move in northern syria,

perhaps making things even more urgent. "the stream" is coming up next. tune in tomorrow at 8:00 pm eastern, and 5:00 pm pacific, for more exclusive coverage. i'm david shuster this is al jazeera america.

>> thousands are dead i'm lisa fletcher, and you are in the "stream." thousands are dead with no end in sight. the latest on the ebola outbreak plaguing west africa. has the world's response been adequate? ♪