principle, stemming from the constitution, that makes the grave matter a shared responsibility of the president and congress. the president's proposedd authorization, affords the american people a chance to assess our progress in three year's time. and provide the next president and congress the opportunity to reauthorize it if they find it necessary. to me this is a sensible provision of the aomf. in addition to providing the authority and flexibility, i said i had another key consideration. and that is sending the right signals most importantly to the troops. passing the proposed aomf will demonstrate to our personnel that their government stands behind them. and signal to our coalition

partners and adversary that the united states government has come together to address a serious challenge. we all took an oath to protect the nation in its interests. but to do so we must work together. i know everyone here takes the threat of isil seriously and president obama and everyone at this table does as well. we encourage a serious debate. but i urge you to pass the president's aomf because it provides the necessary authority and flexibility to wage our current campaign, and it will demonstrate to our men and women in uniform, some of whom are in harm's way right now, that all of us stand unflinchingly behind them. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. let me begin by adding my personal thoughts and prayers to

those at of the secretary of defense of the loss of those folks on that helicopter. a reminder to us that those who serve put themselves at risk both at training and in combat and we will work with the services to ensure those survivors or i should say their family members will be well cared for. >> and the committee will join you in that. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i just returned yesterday from a strip to the middle east. i spent a day in baghdad with iraqi and u.s. leaders, discussing our strategy. i also spent a day with my french counterpart aboard the aircraft carrier, charles degal. these two great vesseling

sitting side by side their aircraft, and crews are a powerful image of partnership and commitment in this fight. it's actually the solidarity of all of all of our members ens against this regional threat. the government of iraq has a lot left to do to ensure that isil is defeated and importantly stays defeated and that will take time. i have been consulted on the proposed authorization for the use of military force against isil as its groups. we should expect our enemies will continue to adapt their tactics and we will adapt ours. i met with some over the past weekend and they are performing magnificently as you would expect. i thank you for your commitment

to our men and women in uniform and look forward to your questions. >> thank you all for your testimony. and let me begin with secretary carter and general dempsey, i know secretary kerry mentioned that he feels that currently the aomf that we have from '01, and '02, give the united states the legal authority to what is now occurring. do you both believe that to be the case? >> i do yes. >> yes, i do. >> from your perspective you will make unanimous, that every witness who comes before us believes that currently we're operating under a legal premise with what we're doing today. secretary carter chairman dempsey, has there been any indication to the people we're dealing with as part of our coalition or the troops that congress today is not behind

what is happening on the ground with isis. >> i can't speak to that mr. chairman. i think that the folks i have talked to of ours do in fact believe that the outrages that secretary kerry described on the part of isil warrant the operation that they are involved in. and we don't anything that isn't lawful -- >> but there's no one that you deal with that doesn't believe that congress is wholeheartedly behind the effort to deal with isis is that correct? >> i haven't talked to people one way or another. they know a hearing is going on and i presume like me they welcome a good outcome of it. >> chairman dempsey. >> i have no doubt to suggest that they have no doubt they

have the support of the congress or the american people. >> chairman dempsey we have had great conversations and always appreciate your candor. should there be any concern by people here that -- that iran is influencing the outcome against isis? does have shia militia on the ground? does have some of their own personnel helping command and control. is that a concern that anyone that cares about u.s. national interests should have? >> yes, of course. there's -- there's six things that -- from the military's perspective concern us about iranian influence. four of them are regional. two are global. the four regional concerns are surrogates and p proxies some of which are present in iraq in syria, in lebanon, and other places in yemen. weapons trafficking.

ballistic missile technologies. and mines that they have developed with the intent to be able to close the straits of harmuse. and the two global threats are their nuclear aspirations for a weapon, which is being dealt with through the negotiations on a diplomatic track. and then cyber is the other global threat they pose. so iran's activities across the region and in the case of -- of nuclear aspirations and cyber activities are concerning of course. >> but as it relates to dealing with tikrit or mosul, should we care that iran's militias or others are involved in helping move isis out of those areas, or will when we begin the mosul attack? >> i think there is general

consensus inside of our own forces and also with the coalition partners with whom i engage, that anything anyone does to counter isil is in the main, a good outcome. in other words, the support for the iraqi security forces is a positive thing in military terms. but we are also concerned about what happens after the drums stop beating, and isil is defeated, and whether the government of iraq will remain on a path to provide an inclusive government for all of the various groups within. we're very concerned about that. >> and so the concern is that once we hit that twitching hour if you will when it appears that isis definitely is on the -- on the -- towards their end, and all of a sudden the shia militias could turn on our

own military and other things could happen at that time. >> we have no indication that they intend to turn on us but what we are watching closely is whether the militias, they call themselves the popular mobilizations forces whether they engage in acts of retribution and ethnic cleansing. there's no indication that that is a wide-spread event at this point, but we're watching closely. >> so if we could move to syria. i know we talked a little bit about this but this is again, a term i think even the administration has begun to utilize themselves. it would appear in syria where it's sort of in a containment mode that we are really not taking aggressive steps to turn the side there. we're obviously involved in some aerial attacks, but that it's more of a containment mode. when we say iraq first it's

really syrian more containment. we have a train and equip mode right now. are we going to train and equip folks in other countries that are being trained against isis i know there has been an alleged other program that is against assad himself, but if we're going to have an overt program that is going to deal with isis i could assume that we would consider it only moral, that if we're going to train them in other countries and bring them in that we would supply air power and other support to protect them especially from assads barrel bombs. i know that center graham may have asked a question about whether this aumf itself provides that legal authority. and does the aumf that the president has sent forth, does it provide the legal authority for our military to protect those that we're training in

other places against isis to protect them against assad? in other words take assad on? and i would also like for you to talk to us a little bit about why we haven't yet agreed to the air exclusion zone that turkey has asked us to approve that would more fully bring them in on the ground in syria, and actually get something much more positive occurring, at least as it relates to having some ground movement there. >> let me just briefly describe the way -- militarily we characterize our campaign against isil in iraq and syria. i wouldn't say that our goal is simply to contain isil inside of syria, but rather we have a main effort and a supporting effort. our main effort is in iraq because we have an credible ground partner for whom we

supply this air power to distribute it and degrade and eventually defeat isil inside of iraq. we don't have that credible partner inside of syria yet. we're taking steps to build that partner. in the meantime we're attacking isil where we can. and it's intended to disrupt their activities so that they can't compliment each other. it was formally before we began this effort that isil could transit freely across the syrian iraq border. they are no longer able to do that. they are isolated and degraded inside of syria, while we conduct our main effort in iraq. we have not -- the administration had not added a -- a syrian regime or an

assad component to the aumf although we are in active communication about what support we would supply once the new syrian forces are fielded. militarily there's a very pragmatic reason. you mentioned the moral obligation i suppose. let me not speak to that but let me speak -- >> well, congress has approved a significant amount of money to train and equipment people to go against isis and yet we know assad will barrel bomb them. >> yeah. >> so i'm asking -- so the president has sent us an aumf that doesn't allow us to protect them against what we know they will be facing down the road. in that to me is somewhat odd and doesn't seem congruent if you will with previous steps relative to train and equipment.

>> i understand completely. and i'm not discounting the moral obligation. i'm rather giving you military advice and militarily there is a very pragmatic reason to support them, and that is we're not going to be able to recruit men into the force unless we support them militarily. >> we have a pretty good crop that have signed up on the front end, at least that's my understanding, but we're not going to be able to protect them is that -- is that clearly what you are saying? >> we're under active discussion about whether and how to support them. and part of that discussion is the legal authority to do so. >> i know i'm way over but the air exclusion zone what is keeping us from -- >> yeah we have been in two

rounds of discussion with our turkish counterparts about that. and we are continuing to develop that option should be it asked for. >> thank you. >> thank you, center. [ inaudible ] has to go to be part of that hearing -- so i would ask that that statement be included in the record. all right. and i have heard all of you several times refer to no geographic limitations. so for the purposes of the record let it reflect that the aumf that was passed out last year democrats put together has no geographic limitations. so i think there is -- although that was a subject of debate. nonetheless they came to the conclusion to have no geographic limitations. let me ask you, general dempsey, is it fair to say that iran's

sponsor's shia militias in iraq fighting isil is definitely their immediate interest but would it also be fair to say they have other designs beyond that? >> it would be fair to say that that hasn't become evident, but it is of great concern of us who have served in iraq since 2003. iran is not a new entrance into iraq. they have been there since 2004. and in some cases their influence -- their economic influence and in other ways has contributed to the future of iraq, and in other ways it has absolutely been disruptive to the potential for an inclusive governance. so believe me i share your concerns and we are watching carefully. the tikrit operation will be a strategic inflexion .1 way or

another in terms of easing our concerns or increasing them. >> okay. well, i know [ inaudible ] these days. so i would like to believe it is only to fight isil. but we have different goals as it relates to iraq. both in the short testimony as testimony -- term as it relates to isil and then in the long term of a multi-ethnic government. so it's a continuing concern. chairman dempsey you said in your remarks -- i don't have a copy of your statement, so correct me if i'm wrong here -- something to the extent that the authorization is proposed by the administration basically or substantially i think was the word deals with our campaign as we have presently devised it. >> that is correct.

>> always it also deal with a campaign that would alter the campaign as presently devised. >> i don't know which part -- >> well let me perfect my question. if in fact your campaign needs to morph change to the realities of what is happening, do you believe the authorization will allow you to do that? >> yes, i do. and that's because most of us who have studied and served against these kinds of threats over the last -- now almost 14 years, we believe that the primary way you defeat these groups is by with and threw partners in the region and through sustainment of a brood coalition, and that the u.s. forces involved should principally within enabling not

necessarily leading the effort. although the aumf does provide -- first of all i will always go back to the commander in chief, and recommend whatever i think is necessary to accomplish the task. but i presently conceive of this threat and how to defeat it this aumf is adequate to the task. >> i appreciate that answer because it underlines the challenges the congress has to degrade and defeat isil and at the same time not to provide the open-endedness, so if in fact it meets your present criteria but you believe it has the wherewithal to meet the future criteria that may morph that is the essence of the challenge. last week you in response to questions said that your view of

what enduring offensive combat operations would mean would be mission specific is that fair to say? >> yes, and i also said -- it's not -- there is no word enduring in military doctrine. but it is a statement of the commander in chief's intent. >> right. and we all know it may be the intent of someone not to have any large-scale, long-term offensive combat troops but that intention can honestly change along the way, so that's part of our challenge here. general allen testified before this committee last week when we asked him what is no enduring offensive combat operations mean to you? and he said that could mean two weeks or two years. and considering his experience it was not a -- not a -- an insignificant statement.

so secretary carter what -- what does it mean to you as ultimately the secretary of defense who oversees all of the armed forces under your department, of course, under the president's command, what does no enduring offensive combat operations mean to you? >> the -- there are two ingredients to this. the -- the how and the when and the aumf as proposed is as i noted -- provides for a wide range of activities to defeat isil but it has one significant limitation, which is the one you referred to which essentially -- does not authorize the kind of campaign that we conducted in iraq and

afghanistan. that is not what we foresee as necessary for the defeat of isil, so it's -- it -- it -- it meets my objective of having necessary flexibility. but there is that limitation that is what is written in and what the meaning of those words is. as regards to the three-year limit that's not based on an assessment of how long the campaign will take that is based on how our system works here at home. >> i appreciate that. and that's what we did in our authorization. but even not in iraq or afghanistan-sized commitment still can commit thousands of troops for a long period of time. so it may not be the size of afghanistan or iraq so that's part of our challenge. secretary kerry, the -- one of the criticisms of the president's proposed aumf is it does not make clear that it is in fact this aumf and not the

2001 aumf that governs this conflict. if we passed a isil specific aumf would the administration have any objection to specifically saying that the isil aumf supersedes any authorization for the use of force in this engagement? >> senator, only if it was absolutely clear that there was no limitation whatsoever with respect to the other activities authorized by the 2001 aumf because that's the principle authorization with respect to al-qaeda and other efforts. so the president has made it clear that if the congress passes an authorization specifically that is what he will rely on with respect to isis. >> so there's no reason to have language that says --

>> as long as it's clear -- as long as it's clear it doesn't reach any of the other activities authorized by the 2001, correct. >> secretary carter over the weekend boko haram in nigeria declared its allegiance with isil. >> the language anticipated as i indicated the possibility of other groups allying with isil and what the text says is that the aumf would cover such groups that associate with or fight alongside if they also have the intent of threatening americans, so both of those tests would be applied under the proposed aumf -- >> so swearing allegiance with will enough then? >> no, it also has to be a

threat to americans. that's what the language says. it says associated with et cetera, isil and threatening americans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> sensor rubio. >> thank you. i want to thank you all as well for recognizing what happened last night in my home state of florida. it's inherently dangerous work even when they are training. our thought goes out to them and their families and loved ones. secretary carter iran's goal is to become the regional -- most dominant regional power; is that accurate? iran's goal is to become -- >> probably true yes. >> and they see american military presence in the region as a threat to that goal correct? >> probably yes. >> they are never excited to see

americans anywhere in the middle east. >> i can't tell what excites them. i can't imagine that our bombing isil is unwelcome to them. but i don't know that. because i don't know what they are thinking. >> bombing isil is unwelcome to them. you agree the iranians are not fans of u.s. military presence in the middle east. >> i think they have the same suspicion of us as we have of them. >> but when they see us in the region, they are not fans of u.s. military deployments anywhere in the middle east. >> no i wouldn't think so. >> okay. i believe much of our strategy to deal with isis is designed not to upset iran and keep them from walking away from the table

on nuclear negotiations. can you state that iran's feelings about our military presence in the region and the fact that they would be upset if we increased military presence on the ground could you tell me today that under no circumstances is -- is how iron would react to an increase of u.s. military action against isis -- because as we heard they are not fans of us bombing isis are you telling me that that is a non-factor in terms of how it would impact the negotiations? or is that something you can't discuss in this setting? >> no they would welcome our bombing to isis. they want us to destroy isis. they want to destroy isis. and i think you are misreading it if you think there isn't a mutual interest with respect to daesh -- >> if the u.s. sent more military personnel into iraq they would support that?

iran would support that? >> they are not going to come a openly support it and they obviously would be nervous about it. but the point is you have bigger problems with that because the shia militia within iraq might have something to say about it. and other people might obviously react very adversely to that. but what is important senator with respect to your question is to understand this and i think this has been a misread by a lot of people up here on the hill. there is no grand bargain being discussed here. this is about a nuclear weapon potential. that's it. and the president has made it absolutely clear they will not get a nuclear weapon. now the presumption by a lot of people up on the hill has been that we somehow aren't aware of that goal even as we negotiate that goal. our negotiation is calculated to

make sure they can't get a nuclear weapon. and it's -- it's really almost insulting that the presumption here is that we're going to negotiate something that get a nuclear weapon. >> what i'm saying is that i believe that our military strategy towards isis is influenced by our desire not to cross red lines with the iranians about u.s. -- >> absolutely not in the least. there is no consideration whatsoever. we will do what is necessary in conjunction with our coalition -- remember, we have 62 countries, including five sunni countries that for the first time ever are engaged in military action in another country in the region. >> and i wanted to touch on that point, because general dempsey outlined the need to have a brood coalition that i imagine involves the sunni countries, the jordanians saudis the uae

and others is it not right that they feel we have kept them in the dark with our negotiations in iran. and that has impacted our trust level with these critical allies in this region. >> senator that is flat wrong also. >> they said so publicly. >> that's not wrong. i just came back from a meeting in the gulf. and met with the king who support sup -- completely supported what we are doing, i met with members of the uae, and they completely support what we are doing. provided it prevents them from getting that bomb. that's the test of this. and a whole bunch of people are trying to give this a grade before it has happened. >> so you are saying all in the region are perfectly comfortable -