having conversations is one thing but as we learned with the authorization to train and e equip the folks in syria until you get words on paper it's hard to make progress. let me follow-up a little bit with some of your comments that you made to ms. sanchez and i noted never before seen a threat like i.s.i.s. or i.s.i.l. and worse than we ever seen before. one of the key questions under lying all of this is to what extent we can ultimately be successful against i.s.i.s. without dealing with assad. and what is your view of that? some people believe, some of our closest allies involved in this effort believe that we can only be successful against i.s.i.s. if we become involved in the effort against assad. >> congressman, it's a fundamental question you ask and i'll answer it this way, first

let me make a brief comment. and by the way it's not only mine but when you look at the brutality, the slaughter and what i.s.i.l. has been doing, killing, slaughtering, murdering women and children sunni, shia, kurd, minorities of any kind completely indiscriminate and when you add it up represents a pretty clear and different kind of threat. how does that relate to your question about syria?

define a stable government, leaders in syria to be able to bring some stability to that country is part of it. but isil is right now, and isil is threatening the country of iraq, and the government of iraq. and so that's why we are dealing with that component first, because we must. they are a threat to our allies, they are a threat to us. >> thank you. mr. larson. >> thank you mr. chairman. secretary hagel, you have my first two minutes and general dempsey will get the next two. for secretary hagel there has

been no discussion of the request for '15, which is $5.6 billion. what do you know about the current 2014 oco requests through the end of the cr? what is in that, and why do you need an additional 5.6 in 015 given that there is authority for you at least through the cr for -- out of 014 money? >> the quick answer is i have noted in my testimony, part of that -- that new additional money, the $5 billion for defense is for a new train and equip program in iraq. when we had the budget hearings when the original oco submissions were made months and months ago that wasn't the case, so it is a new and

sustaining -- and -- and sustaining effort. the -- the other -- the other dollars are for the continuation, which we didn't have six months ago either of our efforts in syria and iraq, air strikes, train and assist -- train and equip will be in 1.6, but the other assistance that we are giving iraq. so it is separate. it is new. it is different. and particularly the sustainability of us being able to do that and carry it out. [ technical difficulties ] >> let everybody know the accounting -- i'm del walters in new york. we're having temporary problems. we have our signal black now. >> general dempsey the defense has requested waiver in existing

laws. why is the department need -- what would the impacts be if you didn't get waivers and you had to follow existing acquisition laws in order to implement. the irk you is pace, i think is probably the short answer to your question. the national security waiver in the hands of the secretary of defen defense allows us to move with the pace in an environment where -- you know, it's interesting, one of the real advertise of this complain is kind of the conflict between progress and patience. you know what i mean? i have mentioned strategic patience is actually a virtue in this kind of conflict. i think it would allow us to move it a pace that would allow

us to produce that kind of progress that would -- as a result, result in patience. >> all right. that's fine. thank you both for giving me some food for thought. i appreciate it. yield back. >> thank you. mr. jones. >> thank you. mr. secretary, it's kind of ironic, the last time i heard before today a secretary of defense talk about military involvement in iraq was secreta secretary donald rumsfeld that got us into a war that was unnecessary. i know isil needs to be taken out, but i think back to 2002 when you were a senator, and i also looked at your statements in 2007 when like myself you came out against in iraq. now we are possibly going to be

asked by the president of the united states like we were by george bush to authorize an amuf. this is nothing but an abvocation of our constitutional responsibility to give any president an aumf. we tried in june when we had the addma bill, adam shift tried to sunset out the aumf that we gave to president bush, which has been used by president obama, and i do not understand how we can continue to advocate what the constitution says is our responsibility. james madison once said the power to declare war including the power of judging the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. and i do not believe

sincerely -- because when -- this happens to be president obama, he wants to have another aumf, or an extension of what we have, i hope that the congress, both parties will look seriously at what is our responsibility. because it's not going to be so long you have sent more and more troops to iraq to train many of these former sue dam hussein loyalists, and now they are fighting with the other side. it's very complex, i agree with that. but why in the world should we make such a commitment and we don't even have an end point. i would like for you and general dempsey to submit for the record, two things very quickly -- how does this new war end in your opinion? and i realize it's just your

opinion. but it's very important because of who you are. what is the in-state -- end state of what we're trying to accomplish. over 50% of the american people do not want our personnel in syria or iraq. and i will be honest with you, i don't know how we can convince the american people that a nation that's financially broke -- you sat right here and you are exactly right. sequestration and all of the budget problems coming your way, and yet you are asking for 5 or $6 billion to drop more armament in iraq and syria. where is it coming from? please explain to the american people and this congress how this war is going to end some day? whether we are advisor ors or fighting, and i hope to god we with not fighting. so if you will get those into the committee for written form, then you won't have to answer

the questions, but this again -- it looks like we are going down the same road that secretary donald rumsfeld told us we had to do. we had to do, and we had no end point. >> congressman if i might respond very briefly. you very accurately described my position when i was in the united states senate, but it's basic as you have noted to the responsibilities of congress. and aumf comes out of congress. the authority of military force for a president, that -- that authority comes from the congress of the united states, and i too hope that congress will engage in this, and i have great confidence that congress will. they need to, they must. it is the responsibility of the congress. i'm with you on that point, and

i'll give you my best thoughts on your other question as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. ms. bordelo. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this important hearing. secretary hagel and general dempsey thank you for your time today. as i stated before, i believe that isil could become a direct threat to the united states or our allies in europe, and we must make efforts to avoid that threat. while i believe that we must keep all of our options open, it must be a joint effort with our coalition and allies to stop isil. secretary hagel, what additional u.s. or allied military support do you believe it will take for the iraqis, the kurds or the syrian rebels to hold their current position and eventually advance to retake areas now controlled by isil?

>> kong woman -- congress women as i noted in my statement, that's a very important part of what we are doing to assist the iraqi security forces as they strengthen their capacity, capabilities. that's obviously a big part of the train and equip effort. as our coalition partners are with us on this. as well as a reinstitution of the iraqi security forces at -- at the top with confidence, with trust, of the men and women in uniform, and a unity government that they in fact believe is worth fighting for. as general dempsey said they have some confidence in, not just for themselves but their families, so it -- as i have noted, it is a comprehensive

strategy. it -- i believe can be done. but this is an iraqi fight. it is their future, and we can help. we are helping. we are doing everything we can, and we'll continue to support them as -- as we will with our coalition partners. but that's the way i would just very briefly respond to the question. >> thank you. >> general dempsey, in testimony before the senate back in october, you mentioned that oco is not the solution to funding. and i have stated before that i agree that the oco credit card is going to come to an end sometime very soon. however, as the ranking member on readiness, i'm deeply concerned about the impact of the loss of oco on readiness. when will you have a better sense of what this is going to cost, both monetarily and in manpower to continue

depreciations against isil? what is the department doing to plan for these activities in the base budget. >> yes, i did say that, i said that the overseas contingency operations fund was gas money, and that the service chiefs also need the base to support the recruiting, training, organizing, and equipping of the force over time. you can't sustain the force with oco. you can use it. and that's why i described it as gas money. we have a pretty good idea of what it is costing right now, and given that we think our level of commitment is about what it will be for the foreseeable future. it's approximately $8 million a day, and the request that the secretary mentioned accounts for that. we're well aware of the desire to reliless on oco and more on

base. from a military perspective, i can just tell you what i need, and you all have to decide how to provide what i need. but the base budget is an important component of readiness, because it's the foundation on which we build. >> thank you very much. and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields black the balance of her time. we understand you recently had to postpone your trip to vietnam and burma to prepare for this hearing. i know we're concerned with senior officials postponing travel to a region, but i hope they can understand that our government does have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. while we are focused on this hearing, we remain committed to the interests in the indo pacific area. i also hope you will reschedule

your trip and continue your strong record of engagement in asia, and thank you for being here. the last time you were here, we asked a question about a strategy to cut off the finances for isil, and i think you were kind enough to acknowledge that we needed to develop that, and i was just wondering if you could outline for us a little bit, about the strategy that we have now in trying to cut off the finances of isil. >> congressman, thank you for your -- your thoughts on the asia pacific emphasis and rebalance. as you have accurately noted, i unfortunately had to make a decision, and i didn't want to have to do that for the reasons you mentioned. as you probably know, since i have been secretary of defense, i have had six major trips to the asia pacific.

this would have been my seventh. i will reschedule. we are planning on that rescheduling. i have talked to all of our asia pacific partners, explained to them why i was having to reschedule, and i get the emphasis i agree with you completely, but at the same time to your point about the administration being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, as you know the president is there now, and will be in that area for a few more days in the different countries. we'll have other follow-up visits as well. but i am rescheduling, it is important. there is no less emphasis on the importance of the rebalance. on your question on financing on isil, i alluded to a couple of things in my statement when i talked about cutting off their

more obvious oil sales as they have -- as you know, taken control of some of the oil fields in eastern syria as -- as -- and -- and they did have some in western iraq. we have been able to take back some of that. the iraqis have and most all of it, beiji oil refinery and so on. that's one thing we are doing and been pretty effective to not only disrupt that, but stop that oil flow out of there that gets into the borders, and they were -- they were getting a few million dollars a day from that. now other things, our treasury department is taking the lead on this. with partners all over the world, united nations, european partners, middle eastern partners. we're trying to shut those -- those money markets off any way of funding and resourcing isil has, continues to have. we had made a global effort that

we lead. as you know, they also get funds from contributions inside. we try to stop that through our intelligence communities, so this is as much of a focus as it was when i was hear two months ago, has to be for the reasons that i mentioned, and as i always said in our comprehensive strategy, cutting off those funds is a very big part of what we're doing and attempting to do -- >> you are listening to al jazeera america continued coverage on the hearing on isil and the administration's efforts to continue the campaign in both iraq and syria, that campaign according to the chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff costing u.s. tax payers $8 million a day. we are going to take a brief break and be back with more on the continuing coverage.

hello, i'm del walters in new york. you are watching our continuing coverage of the house armed services committee hearing, on the administration's new plans for isil, the strategy to deal with the terrorist group in iraq and syria. i want to go now to jamie macintyre who is watching the hearing along with me. the big area of contention seems to be that $1.6 billion that the administration is asking to retrain iraqi troops. >> i think if you step back and look at the big question here, the u.s. spent over $25 billion in ten years training and

equipping an iraqi army that when it came time to fight just melted away. the congresswoman from california put her finger on it when she said what is different this time. they tried to make the point that the real question here is the unity government in iraq which is crucial to making this work, general dempsey said look, we wouldn't be standing up and fighting ourselves if we didn't have the support of congress and the american people. we can't hold the iraqi forces to a different standard. and secretary hagel said what gives troops the will to fight is confidence in their leaders. so they are putting a lot of hope in this change of 3 dozen iraqi commanders who were sacked and replaced with people who are supposed to be more professional and able to lead and more inclusive, plus the concern that

the u.s. isn't all in this fight. the outgoing chairman referred to the obama administration policy as minimalist. and he said he thought some of the best options had been taken off of the table, and but ruling out the use of american troops in a combat role in iraq, but the plan that they have outlined is a long-term plan that they said is going to take time, patience, and also going to take some will of the iraqi people to stand up for themselves and actually form a unity government, and at this point a lot of those things are still unknown. >> i was curious that it was the congressman from north carolina who pointed out the statements of then secretary donald rumsfeld, pointing out that as a nation we have been here before. did that surprise you? >> well, no, i think there are a lot of people who in reck troe

speck looked at the u.s. intervention in iraq and decided it was a big mistake. and if we had known the outcome, it wouldn't have embarked on this adventure. but that's i think a question for historians to debate for a long time. the administration, though, has conceded that -- the authority to wage war technically rests with the legislature, the congress, not the president, and that's why the obama administration is requesting this authority for the use of military force in order to move forward. so there is no question about whether the president is acting within the constitution. >> and by way of a brief housekeeping note. aumf does stand for the authorization for use of military force, which is why the defense secretary and the

secretary of -- excuse me, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are on capitol hill seeking that approval from congress. let's listen in. >> -- two of my sons served in iraq, they developed a great appreciation for the people of iraq who do want to live in a democratic society. i have four sons now serving in the military, and i believe in peace through strength. i'm counting on you, and so are my constituents, the american people. in this regard, does the islamic state does it still pose an imminent threat to the united states and is it an eminent threat to our allies. >> thank you congressman. thank your sons again. as i said in my statement, and i

think in some of the comments i made here this morning, it is a threat. it continues to be a threat, a significant threat to the united states, to our interests, to oural -- our allies. and we have seen that play out. >> and say the seizure of an extraordinary city, mosul, that enhances the threat, doesn't it? >> it does. and we're very honest about that as i said in my statements. i think that there is good progress being made by the iraqi security forces, peshmerga. over the weekend you may be aware of this, there was a ceremony in anbar province where about 2,000 sunni tribesmen were there, and are preparing to be sworn in through the iraqi sewer

security forces. this is in the general area of mosul, and the areas that will have to be taken back. the isf forces have taken much of that back. not mosul yet. they will, but the mosul dam i mentioned in my comments, zumar, beiji oil field, a lot of good news there. but, yes, any time they hold specific identifiable cities or pieces of geography it makes it more difficult. >> and we should remember that osama bin laden operated from a cave, a say safe haven in the middle of afghanistan and was able to conduct mass murder around the world.

achieving a stable iraq, can this be done with the personnel that you have sent, or what do you anticipate? >> first, we, the united states, cannot assure a stable iraq. the iraqi people will have to do that. as i have said, we are supporting them. we are doing the things that we think are most important. the things they have asked us for. they have requested from us, and that's a significant difference from recent years. they have invited us in to help them with our coalition partners. but i believe the president and others understand the seriousness of this. it's imperfect, but they have to do it. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the congresswoman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i like my colleagues remain

greatly concerned with recent developments in iraq and syria, but given the long-term consequences, i think we have to be sure that the administration's overarching strategy are fully discussed and robustly debated here in congress. this is especially important given the lessons of the past decade. 4500 american lives lost, and more than $1.5 trillion spent, our military effort did not resolve the sectarian conflict we are now confronted with. given these harsh lessons and because a full-throated debate has not occurred, i have voted against the short-term authorization to train and equip the mod wrat syrian forces. before we move forward, we need to be clear on what we are asking or will ask of our brave service men and women what the costs might be, how we are going to pay for any operation against

isil, what the exit strategy is, what we are asking of our regional partners, their willingness and capability to meaningfully engage in effort, and what our ultimate goal might be. but it seems to me the horse is ever more out of the barn. while have i appreciated the president's current commitment to not send use ground troops into combat, i am troubled by the request for an additional 1500 troops to iraq, and the statement that he has not ruled out deploying more troops. general dempsey i think you are very forthcoming when you describe a complex, multi-facetted long-term effort that requires strategic patience, and a situation that will continue to evolve, and you have said in the past and are clear about today saying that there are situations in which you could consider recommending ground froops. you also just described the very

important role of the iraqi security forces, and the deep investment that we're making in bringing their capability back to par, so that they can take on this task. but what if they are not up to the task? could you talk about some scenarios you might envision. as you have said, you only make recommendations. i would like you to talk, if you could, about some of the recommendations you might make if it becomes clear that the iraqi security forces cannot take this on. >> yeah, what i would like to do, congresswoman is give you kind of an unclassified answer, but promise you that -- you know, in a classified session next week, we can talk and contingency planning. i mentioned earlier if some of the assumptions we have made are rendered invalid, of course we'll have to have a branch to our campaign plan. there are other -- look, we

absolutely need a credible partner to provide ground forces in that region, so that we don't have to provide the ground combat power to accomplish the task. if the government of iraq fails to reach the kind of national unity agenda that we think they need, which would empower and encourage the iraqi security forces, then we'll have to look for other partners in the region to assist us. but again i would refer to a classified setting anything more than that. i will say since -- i think we agree that this is a long-term commitment, you mentioned end state. the end state is defined as ultimately the defeat of isil. i have said including in my opening statement, that will occur when the -- the 20 million

disenfranchised shoe -- sunnis reject that ideology. isil has to continue to advance to succeed. it has to maintain momentum. and we have begun to break that momentum, and then i think we'll have a clearer picture in answer to your question. this campaign i have been described as three steps forward, two steps back, and at every step forward or back, we'll debate about the size of the step. >> i look forward to the classified briefing. >> chairman recognizes mr. turner from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel i want to personally thank you for your support for the provision that protests the custody rights of our service men and women. as you know the house on a bipartisan basis has in the past years taken action to provide a

national standard to protect men and women in uniform custody rights. i appreciate your letter where you confirm the support for that provision, but also go further to say this legislation does not affect other state custody laws and precludes federal court jurisdiction. thank you for the time you spent with me and your thoughtfulness in this matter. general dempsey, you said you have never been limited in your recommendations to the president. we are also aware he has never been limited in his ability to reject them. our inquiry to you is not whether or not you have been forthcoming in your recommendations but in the gap that might exist between your recommendations and the president's proposal that is before us. we all have concerns about how effective the air strikes have been, as thigh have both been intermittent and -- and disbursed. also the issue as loretta sanchez has raised as to how

having -- you know, the diversity of populations participate in being able to take iraq, how the kurdish and other forces might be able to be armed, and your assurances that that would be able to be accomplished in working with the iraqi regime. we would like to know what is missing in your recommendations versus what we're receiving from the president. >> let me -- before i actually answer the question. you have described the air campaign as -- i think you described it as erratic -- >> intermittent. >> i knew there was a -- >> i would never say erratic. >> yes. thank you. the word i want to add is precise. the thing that will sauce sunni populations to take heart is if

we're very careful not to cause civilian casualties. so we have to be very, very deliberate and precise in our air campaign, and i think we're accomplishing that. and just over 800 strikes to date, i think we have been successful and careful. to your point about whether there is a gap, i can say to you today, there is no gap. both general austin and i have made recommendations, and those recommendations have been accepted. any recommendation is made with a risk assessment. there's high-risk options, moderate-risk options, and low-risk options. a low-risk option would probably include the introduction of u.s. ground forces to take control of the fight. neither general austin or i believe that's the right thing to do. >> you know we're continue to

provide oversight and inquiry, and we hope you share if that gap evolves, because we're very concerned about the president's plan to degrade and dissolve. >> you are listening to the continuing coverage of the house armed services hearings concerning the ongoing campaign in iraq and syria, involving isil. i'm del walters in new york. we're going to take a brief break and resume our coverage when we come back. stay with us. ♪

welcome back to our

continuing coverage of the hearing involving isil. that bandage on the face of the defense secretary came from a kitchen accident, his words saying that it did not require any hospital treatment other than the fact that there is that bandage, which looks rather awkward. jamie macintyre has been watching the hearing along with me. the congresswoman from massachusetts who took the seat of her late husband paul asking what was the administration's backup plan, contingency plan in case what is going on right now in syria and iraq doesn't work. were you surprised at the response? >> well, no, really, because general dempsey can't speak in public using the assumption that their plan that they just laid out today is going to fail. but obviously in the real world that's possibility. and as he said you have to have options and contingencies.

he said he would detail who those were in a classified setting. but he said that the u.s. military would have to develop other partners on the ground. they do need ground forces on the ground. they have ruled out american grounds fors. if the iraqi forces can't do, they are going to have to find other forces that can do it. he hinted that that would be the answer there. general dempsey also outlined how a tenuous and fraught with setbacks this process is going to be. three steps forward two steps back, and then an assessment about how big the steps would be. just trying to break down in lehmann's term that this is not an easy process. and he also disputed the idea that his best military advice

that he was giving to the president -- there was no gap between what he was advising the president to do, and what he was doing. he did lay out the fact that the low-risk option would be to put u.s. ground troops on the ground. he said both he and general austin, the four-star commander of u.s. central command were in agreement that that was not the right approach to take. interesting testimony from the top military if i recall at the pentagon. >> in january another congress will take the oath of office and the reins of power in washington, d.c., is there a sense that a republican house and senate will be able to get the president to do something that he so far has vowed not to do and that is put boots on the grounding in iraq and syria?

>> i would say that is highly unlikely. however, the president has always said never say never. if circumstances were to change significantly, and the mood of the country were to change significantly, and the stakes were to be higher, the president would always reverse himself on that decision. but right now, the obama administration has staked out, and has the leadership of the pentagon behind it in saying they don't believe it's a wise thing to do to put troops on the ground. yes, they could put troops on the ground and have some initial success, just like they did in the anbar awakening, but then the question that secretary hagel posed, what happens if we leave? if we do that we're not setting the conditions for success, he says. and we're just setting up another situation where u.s. troops have to remain in iraq

indefinitely. >> perhaps the reason for caution could be best served up in terms of the human treasure that was lost during the last war, one of the congress people pointing out that 4500 people lost their lives. again, you are listening to the ongoing hearing in washington, d.c. we want to take you back to washington now. let's listen in. >> -- the policy is to defeat isil, our enemy. whatever we do with iraq is a tool in achieving that policy. our ultimate goal here isn't to protect and build a stable iraq. we just need that tool to affect our policy of defeating isis, and sometimes i think we forget. we start talking about how many wars we're in. can the iraqis defend their own country, and so forth. but the policy is to defeat

isis. general dempsey are americans flying helicopters now in iraq? >> yes. >> thank you. and in a classified session, i would like to get more about what that force looks like. but it reminds me that while we may have forces in come pounds doing various intelligence and logistics, we actually have americans out and about, in harm's way, and that makes me think that -- i hope -- and again following the discussion the other day -- we have good american medical support for those soon to be 3,000 forces there. we don't american's in harm's way being reliant on iraqi medical support. so again, probably a discussion for another day. my question general dempsey is you say in an earlier answer to a question, as you were talking about turning over to iraqi

security forces some responsibility to do some fighting that if that can't do it, we would, quote, hold them accountable. i can't understand what that means. how would we do such a thing? hold them accountable? >> i actually think congressman there have been two answers that have been pulled together into one. what i said was among the penitenting -- tenants of our strategy is that as we assist, the government of iraq has to be held accountable for the progress that matches the military progress. >> what does that mean? >> what that means is if they do not form and manifest in national unity agenda, then frankly i will be among those

that recommending that we -- we do not support them to the degree we're supporting them, because that's not -- there has to be some conditionality to our support it seems to me. >> i clearly -- i agree with you. i'm just not sure we know yet what that hold accountable means. we don't give them anymore money? i don't know what that means. but i do think that's important that we all, and certainly the two of you, the president and so forth, what does that mean? hold them accountable, again, keeping in mind what our policy is, and what your job is, is to defeat isis. mr. chairman i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentlemen from california for four minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. general dempsey thank you very much for your service, and secretary the same. we appreciate all that you are attempting to do. my question, general dempsey are

we at war in iraq and syria? >> we are at war against isil, yes, sir. >> since that is the case, would you, secretary please provide in writing the most recent legal authority for the united states to conduct such a war. we know that previously there was talk of the war powers act, but apparently that is no longer the case, since 90 days has passed, and we are still at war. perhaps there's the iraq -- or the afghanistan authorization to use military force, but i would like to have the most recent legal justification, if you would please, for the record. also we heard the chairman in his opening remarks say that any authorization to use military force that is not unlimited is

dead on arrival. since the chairman is not here, perhaps his staff could tell the chairman that at least this member of this committee would love to see his proposed authorization to use military force as brood as he might like to do. bottom line here, this is more for us than for you two gentlemen is the obligation that we have under the constitution to declare war. now there may be some legal justification in the past that could be stretched for this war. i don't think so. so we have an obligation here, and we would be about that, we ought not wait until the next congress. you have said, the president has said to conduct the war successfully, we all need too be supporting it. we're not at the moment. my questions to you two gentlemen have to go to two

issues that are have not yet been discussed. you have not specifically mentioned turkey or iran. what are they doing? what is their role now and how you see it in the future? >> well, iran is not a member of the coalition. as you know historically iran and iraq have had cultural, religious, economic ties. that doesn't stop, hasn't stopped. we're not coordinating with the government of iran. we're not working with the government of iran. >> is the government of iran involved in any of the military activities in iraq? >> they are not involved in anything that the united states or the coalition is involved in. >> that's not my question. >> are they involved in any military activities in iraq -- >> as far as i know the iranian army is -- is not engaged in iraq.

there -- there may be other come opponents. shia militia, those kinds of groups that have been there, and have -- have over the years we have dealt with over the years, but as far as an official iranian government military presence in iraq, i'm not aware of any. >> now turkey. >> turkey, as i noted in my comments has agreed to be one of the training sites for the train and equip of the syrian moderate opposition. they -- as you know worked with us, opening up the air space to get in supplies into kobani for the peshmerga to resupply their forces. they continue to work with us on other areas of -- of common interest that are important to our efforts there, and of course, their own border.

they as you know are hosting 1.5 million refugees coming out of syria, so, no, they -- they are part of the coalition, an active part, and we continue to work with them on those areas. >> the gentlemen's time is expired. the [ overlapping speakers ] >> dr. heck is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you gentlemen. mr. secretary i appreciated your general comments regarding gitmo detainees earlier in the hearing. the committee appreciates the department's cooperation in this very important manner. in addition to previous requests the committee sent two letters to you requesting additional material and support, just ask if the committee would continue to have your commitment to the

department's cooperation with the items noted in these letters and with other aspects of the committee's ongoing work. >> yes, of course, and we'll continue to cooperate as we have been. >> and secretary, i'm curious as to whether or not you are being kept up to date with the terms of the memorandum of understanding for the prisoner exchange. and if soar are, who is responsible for keeping youp dated? and are you satisfied with the terms of the mou being met? >> yes, every two weeks i receive a report. we have a special envoy in the department that we work with, along with the general counsel's office. i talk with the general counsel every two weeks about this, steve preston. i am continually assured that the qatary government is

fulfilling its commitments that it made to us in exercising the operations that they said that they would to maintain security of these five individuals. but yes, every two weeks -- sometimes more often than not, but every two weeks i get a read out. >> you have been listening to our continuing coverage of the house armed services committee and any ongoing campaign against isil in iraq and syria. i want to go to jimmy macintyre. one of the questions that i have is that the administration wants close to $6 billion to carry out this campaign. based on the testimony you heard, two things, one, is this what would have been expected to the leadup to the last war in iraq? and do you get a sense that the white house is going to get what it wants? >> well, to answer the second part of that first. i do get the sense the white house will get what it wants,

because while there's division in congress about how tough of a response the u.s. should have, and exactly the approach it should be, i think the threat of the islamic state millitants is pretty clear. and the thing about going to war is the decision sets into play a series of consequences that are really unpredictable. the pentagon when they make up a war plan, they plan for all of the things they think will go wrong, and other things go wrong that they didn't anticipate. and of course the rise of isil, isis, or the islamic state whatever you want to call it is one of those consequences that was not foreseen a also is very much linked to what is going on

in syria, and i think that's the other theme of this hearing is the pentagon is focusing first on the situation in iraq, not so much because that's the smartest way to do it, but because they have more options in iraq than they have in syria. you heard -- if you were listening to the hearing, secretary hagel say that in syria, it's at the point where the removal of the syrian president would not solve the problem. would not in secretary hagel's words, put isil back in its box. it's a much more complicated situation there, and they are reduced to confronting the isil on one side, and forces loyal to president assad. so it's a very complex situation.

and again, the theme of this hearing today was this was going to take time, patience, resources, but the u.s. wants to draw the line at becoming involved again in a direct combat role. there's just no support for that among the administration, and i think they also sensed that there is a war weariness amongst the american public. >> yjamie -- >> so i think you saw of that ambiguity brought out today. >> something that has been curious to me out there this hearing, is during the run up to the gulf war, there was early talk about who was going to pay for that campaign, and whether the oil rich country of kuwait was going to pay for it. there has been no mention of

whether or not iraq will be asked to pay anything out of its oil riches. >> well, i think that that's a question -- first of all there hasn't been any discussion of iraq paying. some people have accused the united states in the past of simply going to war because of iraq's oil riches. i think you can see from the amount of money and resources and lives that have been extended by the united states of america, that if this was a war about money or resources, it would have been a very bad deal for the u.s. >> that was your best minute. several items of news coming out of today's hearing. the campaign is costing u.s. taxpayers about $8 million a day. the administration wants to spending $1.6 billion to retrain many of the iraqi forces that have already been trained to do so in the past those forces ran. thank you for watching.

more news straight ahead. ♪ >> november 27th. >> we're following stories of people who have died in the desert. >> the borderland thanksgiving day marathon. >> no one's prepared for this journey. >> experience al jazeera america's critically acclaimed, original series from the begining. >> experiencing it has changed me completely. >> follow the journey as six americans face the immigration debate up close and personal. >> it's heartbreaking. >> i'm the enemy. >> i'm really pissed off. >> all these people shouldn't be dead. >> it's insane. >> the borderland thanksgiving day marathon starts november 27th, 9:00 eastern. on al jazeera america. >> now available, the new al jazeea america mobile news app. get our exclusive in depth, reporting when you want it. a global perspective wherever you are. the major headlines in context. mashable says... you'll never miss the latest news >> they will continue looking for survivors... >> the potential for energy production is huge...

>> no noise, no clutter, just real reporting. the new al jazeera america mobile app, available for your apple and android mobile device. download it now israel's prime ready for talks in jordan aimed at easing israeli palestinian tensions. hello this is al jazeera live from doha, i'm adrian finighan. also ahead, signs of progress in the fight against ebola. fifa in chaos as an investigate for accuses of it of a cover up. plus -- >> i'm jonah hull at a brand new euro star train. s