we will have it done in 18 months. >> mr. speaker, on saturday, there was a petition calling for -- [inaudible] will my right honorable friend agree to meet with me, the campaign to make sure we bring cancer treatment journey shorter? >> i know from having visited his constituency how important the issue of the hospital is. i know my right honorable friend the health secretary is linkage in this issue and perhaps i can fix a meeting between him and my right honorable friend to make sure this issue is dealt with. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the royal bank of scotland has recently enacted another 300 jobs. mostly in edinburgh and london. it was a jobs have not gone completely to india. the prime minister and the government are the biggest shareholders on half of the

stakeholders. so when will the prime minister stand up to rbs to seek these job losses from the uk's because i think the most important and where to do with the royal bank of scotland is to recognize that the last government put in over half of the country 45 billion pounds into that bank. that is two and a half thousand pounds for every working family in the country. and the most important thing is we get that money back. we need rbs to return to health. it's got to do with its bad loans, have to do with a troubled economy, it's got to go the rest of us visited then moved into a position where we can return people the money that they put into that bank. that's what matters most of all. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i offer my sympathies to the families and friends of the six soldiers who have been killed, five of which have served with the yorkshire regiment, the third battalion, the duke of wellington which i had the privilege of serving with. cannot ask the prime minister, i

recognize the important fighter role which our troops and ever to undertake, and i support that process. but can i say that we do need to bring our troops back in year 2015. can i ask the trend three, we do everything to support the families of those who were lost? >> my honorable friend speaks with expense because of his service in our armed forces. i think it's important we have a date for our troops coming home from afghanistan, a date which i said we would not be in a combat role anything like the numbers we are in now at the end of 2014. i think it's important we make sure that all the equipment between now and then to keep them as safe as possible. i pay treated, the last of a start this with the extra money put into vehicles since 2006 and we spent since been around 2 billion pounds of better protected vehicles. we put an additional 169 pounds on counter ied equipment but he's right we need to do more for the families at home and that is what the whole military cabinet progress and also the cabinet committee which ushered

the first meeting of is all about. >> using applied language -- last week we heard the police were unable passionate is that the canisters we can expect from our police forces? >> i don't think there's anything wrong with the police giving back office functions carried out by private sector organizations. indeed, when the shadow police minister was asked the question at the home office, he said he was quite relaxed about that. so i think that is right. but can i say to the honorable lady i'm delighted she's looking at the issue of whether to become a police and crime commission. it will be an actual way of calling the police to account and help many other audible members will consider this career change. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will my right honorable friend do all he can to support --

[inaudible] not to leave the city of london because of the attack by the european union on the city of london's competitiveness? could i invite him to block the fiscal union treaty by applying to the european court of justice, because it is illegal, and to get the city safeguard which was demanded in the summer? >> my honorable friend is right to raise the case of prudential because it is an example we are ill thought out e.u. legislation is endangering a great british business should have its headquarters right here in the uk. so i do recognize the importance that we are working hard at the european level and with the potential to try and deal with it. i know we have the full support of mr. johnson in doing a. >> order. we come now to the main business, and the debate on the address to her majesty in

relation to the diamond jubilee. i call the prime minister. [shouting] >> here on c-span2 we will leave the british house of commons now as they move onto other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired live wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern apartment is in session. you can see this weeks question time and again sunday night at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org, click on c-span series for prime minister's questions, plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can watch recent video including programs dealing with other international issues here.

>> at this sender and the commander of u.s. forces in the middle east said he believes syrian president bashar all aside will remain in power for quote some time. general james mattis said iran is the biggest threat to the united states and is working to keep the syrian leader in power. general mattis, along with the command of u.s. special operations, spoke about the future of u.s. afghan relations with and violent protests there over koran burnings. this is two and a half hours. >> good morning, everybody. this morning we continue the committee's review of the posture of our combatant commands to meet the security challenges and operational requirements in the areas of responsibility in light of the president's budget request for fiscal year 2013. our witnesses are general james mattis, commander u.s. central command, and admiral vilma

craven, commander of the u.s. special operations command. thank you both for your dedicated and distinguished service to our nation. also on behalf of the committee, please extend our heartfelt gratitude to the military men and women serving if you. many have served multiple deployments, often directly in harm's way. we thank them for their dedication and courage. we thank their families. as reflected in the president's budget request of $88 billion for overseas constituency operations, in fiscal year 2013, the conflict in afghanistan remains our military's foremost security challenge. the afghanistan mission is entering a critical phase of transition. the drawdown of the 33,000 u.s. search force is scheduled to be completed by the end of the summer him and turning 68,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan are

to continue to be reduced quote at a steady pace, there after through 2014, according to present obama. u.s. and coalition forces have begun to move from the combat lead to an advise and assist role in support of the afghan national security forces as those forces increasingly assumed the lead for providing security. this transition is to be complete by 2014 when afghan security forces will have assumed their security, the secret elite throughout the country. as the u.s. troop presence in afghanistan winds down, our special operations forces will assume greater and greater responsibility for the afghanistan mission, and for advising and supporting the afghan security forces. even after 2014, our u.s. military plans on having an ongoing presence in afghanistan to train the afghan forces, conduct counterterrorism operations and provide key

enablers such as logistics air lift and intelligence support. the recent violence in afghanistan, following the unintentional and regrettable burning of koran's at a u.s. military base, is deeply troubling. president obama has expressed his regret. and i would hope that president karzai would condemn the killing of six american soldiers as part of that violence. while these events could weaken the level of trust between u.s. and afghan forces, secretary panetta has reaffirmed that the united states remains committed to the current approach in afghanistan, saying that the recent attacks on our troops quote will not alter our commitment to get this job done. the success of the afghanistan mission would depend on building the capabilities to the afghan national security force is. at the end of the day, the conflict in afghanistan is an

afghan war, and it will be up to the afghan forces to win it. for this reason i am concerned by news accounts that the united states is circulating within nato a proposal to reduce the afghan security forces by as much as one-third. according to "the wall street journal," under this proposal the size of the afghan army and police would be reduced from 352000 personnel this year to 230,000 after 2014. lieutenant general daniel bolger, the head of the nato training mission in afghanistan, is cited as saying this proposal is based on quote with the international community will provide financially and with the afghans can provide for themselves, closed quote. i am surprised and i am disappointed that our military commanders are focusing on afghan foresight based on what they think might be affordable instead of what number of afghan

security forces they believe will be needed to maintain security. it strikes me as unwise to base decisions on the future size of the afghan army and police exclusively on projections of future affordability, instead of military requirements to secure the gains that have been made at great cost and to prevent a taliban return to power. the sustainability of the progress on security in afghanistan will also be affected by a number of issues including the progress of reconciliation talks with the taliban and whether pakistan chooses to play a constructive role in those talks, eliminate the threat of insurgent safe havens in pakistan, this doesn't of a long-term strategic partnership between afghanistan and the united states, and because i governments efforts to improve governance, deliver services, increased government revenues, fight corruption, and promote inclusive and transparent elections.

general mattis, the committee will be interested in your assessment of the progress on security in afghanistan and the sustainability of security gains through 2014 and beyond. there is a strong determination on this committee and in this congress to do all we can to counter the threat posed by iran and, in particular, to stop iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. the national defense. the national defense authorization act included breakthrough sanctions with respect to iran by requiring foreign financial institutions to choose between maintaining ties with the u.s. financial system or doing business with the central bank of iran, especially relative to the purchase of iranian petroleum and related products. president obama has appropriately focused considerable and determined diplomatic effort quote to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and he has repeatedly said that there are quote no options off the table

to achieve that goal. general mattis as the task of conducting the prudent planning and assuming the military options for the president relative in iran in case they are needed. i'm going to put most of the balance of my statement in the record except for the following. the new strategic guidance and priorities emphasized the importance of special operations personnel for counterterrorism operations. the capacity building and other security cooperation activities in support of the geographic combatant commanders. admiral mcraven, recent published reports indicate that you're seeking new authorities that you believe would help socom be more responsive to the geographic combatant commanders requests for special operations personnel and the unique capabilities that they provide. the committee looks forward to your comments on these reports in learning more about any authorities that may be

necessary, you believe may be necessary to fulfill socom's global missions. finally, general, we would appreciate your comments relative to these events in syria. as to what you believe the options might be to end that slaughter of syrian civilians by the government of syria. we are all determined that we want to end it. the question is what are the military options that might be available, and then they case that they were seized upon as being one of the ways to do that. we very much appreciate your comment on that. gentlemen, again, our thanks to the two of you and the men and women who serve with you for your great work. ..

it is fitting that you do alongside general mattis, macy's and veteran of this committee's hearing who has the scars to prove it. know where is the work of america's special operated more persistent and important than i cincom in's operations in counterterrorism operations in the region and around the globe. al qaeda senior leadership has been diminished by sustained pressure against them in pakistan, al qaeda's global operations have become increasingly decentralized and no less deadly.

regional affiliate's seek safe-haven in countries beset by weak government and internal instability, this is why the ongoing efforts to build the capacity of carnations and troubled regions become a vital component of our strategy to disrupt and defeat these terrorist organizations. am concerned that if the administration seeks to decrease the size of our military's conventional ground forces that many people already coming to see special operations forces as a fix all to the myriad security challenges our country faces. i look forward to your thoughts as to the pro tour role of special operations in the total force and what more can be done to ensure these operators are not stretched at the expense of their unique core

responsibilities. general mattis, of us have the utmost respect for you but we do not envy you. our military leaders have more on their plate supporting our friends in jordan and egypt, saudi arabia, e.u. keeping an eye on a fragile but different situation in bahrain. in afghanistan despite the progress our troops are making on the ground we're at an impasse with hamid karzai on negotiation of a strategic partnership agreement. which is critical sustaining our goals and blocking and lasting success. pakistan our relationship remains fraught by a series of setbacks and lack of trust largely are rising from the fact the country's intelligence service continues to support terrorist groups that are killing americans. in iraq prime minister maliki continues to centralize power at the expense of the political

blocs while the threat posed by al qaeda appears to be growing along with the horrific spectacular attacks like the one we saw yesterday. the iranian regime continues working to support, to assassinate the saudi ambassador as well as israeli officials in southeast asia and the caucuses, growing and increasingly reckless threat that would expand exponentially if the iranian regime acquire nuclear weapons capability that it clearly seeks. to impose crippling sanctions appear to have done nothing to dissuade iran from its nuclear pursuits. and then there is syria. it is estimated at 7,500 lives

have been lost. a scene of the worst state sponsored violence, accelerating of a fight to the finish. full support of russia and iran. steady supply of weapons, ammunition and other systems exploding to assad from moscow and tehran and as the washington post reported on sunday iranian military and intelligence operatives are likely working to support assad. the president made it the objective of the united states that the killing in syria must stop and assad must go. he is committed to prestige and credibility. national-security interest in stopping the squad in syria and

forcing assad to leave power. and with hezbollah's lifeline to iran eliminate a longstanding threat to israel and sovereignty and independence. a state sponsor of terrorism engaged in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it would be a geopolitical success of the first quarter and strategic defeat for the iranian regime. it is not clear that the present policy will achieve our goals in syria. recent testimony to this committee, director of intelligence stated if it persists assad could hang on for the foreseeable future. with each passing day the international response is being overtaken by events on the ground in syria. what opposition groups in syria

need most urgently is relief from assad's taint and artillery seizures in many cities that are still contested. time is running out. assad's forces are on the march providing military forces to the syrian army and other opposition groups necessary but at this late hour that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. the only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power and the time has come for it. air strikes would help to establish and defend safe havens in syria especially in the north and which opposition forces can organize, military activities against assad. this could allow the delivery of humanitarian and military assistance including weapons and ammunition, body armor, tactical intelligence, secure communications equipment and

medical supplies. these 8 havens could also help the free syrian army and other groups to train and organize themselves into more cohesive and effective military forces likely with the assistance of a foreign partners. rather than closing off prospects for renegotiated transition, it is acceptable to syria's opposition, military intervention is now needed to preserve this option as credible. assad needs to know that he will not win. but right now unfortunately assad seems to think he can win and for good reason, i am afraid. i look forward to hearing a witnesses about how we can change the balance of power against assad so as to finally end this bloodshed. thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me call on you, general mattis. >> thank you.

members of the committee. an opportunity to discuss u.s. central command region. submitted recent statement to be accepted into the record. it is my privilege to appear today alongside admired leader and good friend admiral bill mcraven. the work more closely together than u.s. special operations command and central command. let me begin with what i see today in the region. manifesting differently in each country. we may hope for and certainly for early support all efforts for more democratic governments in the region, the origins are not necessarily a rush for democracy. rather than the awakening stems from breakdown of the social contract between government and their people. unjust or unresponsive regimes have fallen or are in the throes of falling as is the case in syria. the transition to a democratic government is never easy as we

see in egypt. it is not clear what the resulting governments will look like. challenges remain be on the promise of the arab awakening. iran and its surrogates work violence worldwide as evidenced by the plot to kill the saudi ambassador in washington d.c.. iran presents the most significant regional threat to stability and security. the threat created a high potential for miscalculation. we made security gains in the fight against terrorists, the threat remained. al qaeda and associated groups continue to kill innocents and are adapting in the face of u.s. pressure. we maintain our pressure on this enemy but nesting military effort for broad diplomatic -- support for each country's political reform to adapt to their own face.

second, support for economic modernization that provides people ownership of the future. feared a renewed pursuit of middle east peace recognizing of the status quo is not sustainable. we stand firmly with our friends supporting regional security. territorial integrity, sovereign nations and the free flow of congress. as the military commander for the central region might overarching goal is to present further conflict. we seek to deter those with hostile intent and should deterrence prove unsuccessful we provide military options to the president. as our president has said, strong presence in the middle east and doors and the united states will never waver in defense of our allies, partners or our interests. the military challenge will be determining how we retain a sustainable presence and operational flexibility in a fiscally constrained

environment. although we are withdrawing ground forces from the region we are not withdrawing our support for longtime allies and partners nor are we pulling back our commitment from our region that too many times has taken a commitment of american pressure to restore stability. through persistent military engagement our troops reassure our friends and temper adversarial intentions. security cooperation activities such as foreign military sales, military education, security force training and multinational exercises are cost effective means for building our friends capabilities allowing us to operate allies and friends to respond in times of need. a sustained joint presence with pronounced naval character supported by embark troops, special operations forces, strong aviation elements and

expedition army ready demonstrates our commitment to allies, underwrites regional stability, familiarizes our forces and builds partnerabilities to protect themselves when we prepare timely response to crises. there are some other key capabilities that we have. improved counter efforts to protect our troops from pervasive threats that extend beyond afghanistan. information operations and voice programs that counter adversary information and recruiting on the internet. improved intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance assets that enable us to locate an elusive enemy, intelligence expertise to support our elements. we need specific resources vital to the afghanistan campaign. coalition support funds and commander the emergency response

program, afghan infrastructure fund and reintegration of 40 enable us to meet urgent humanitarian and infrastructure needs of a population that is increasingly secured by its own forces that we have been building and training through the afghan security forces fund. in conclusion i appreciate the essential resources you provide which enable us to carry out a strategy assigned to us. we ask for what we need and request is critical as we carry out the transition in afghanistan and continue on course to achieve our desired strategic -- by december of 2014 as laid out in the nato conference in lisbon. thanks to the sacrifice of our military families our forces represent america's determination to stand by our friends and maintain regional stability and defense of our values and interests. i look forward to entering your questions. >> admiral mcraven.

>> good morning, distinguished members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and to represent the extraordinary men and women of united states special operations command. it is an honor to command the finest special operations forces serving side by side with our broader military and interagency team mates. i am proud to appear today with my good friend and next-door neighbor jim mattis. he is rarely there but when he is he is a great neighbor. with your permission i will submit my written statement for the record. i would like to provide an overview of addressing our nation's ongoing emergency security challenges. secretary panetta outlined how he viewed the future. he called for a low-cost technologically advanced responsive and innovative force able to address a variety of challenges. as i read those characteristics

i am struck out how accurately they describe your special operations forces and what we bring to our nation's arsenal. special operations have had a tremendous impact on our nation's security and never more so than during the last week in years. since 9/11 our forces have doubled in size at 60,000. our budget has tripled and the number of deployed as quadrupled to meet the emerging demands but even with that growth our $10.4 billion budget in fiscal year 13 still comprises only 1.7% of the total department of defense budget. it remains relevant in high demand and offers unparalleled return on the nation's investment. as we evaluate strategic landscapes it is clear the demand for special operations capabilities will remain high. our near-term focus is winning the current fight against extremism. we will sustain our efforts in afghanistan in support of

highsap by the application of indirect approaches. the direct approach, lis wiehl and precise continue to degrade their facilitation networks. the indirect approach which i believe offers the greatest opportunity for victory builds security and governance and stability operations and development of afghan security forces. the direct and indirect approaches have daily positive impact on strategy. our sacrifice and effort in afghanistan has been tremendous and we make this our highest priority. in addition to our efforts we strive to maintain persistent presence globally. today u.s. special operations forces are in 78 countries around the world supporting u.s. policy objectives. in the pacific, africa, other regions cultural knowledge and the ability to work with partners creates effects far above our relatively small numbers. of these international engagements are done with

support and approval of the respective geographical commanders and chief of mission. in addition to our forces -- focus on winning the current 5 uncommitted to strengthening support the geographic commanders by reinforcing and enabling special operations command. the special operations command are self unified commands that provide the regional commander his special operations capabilities. as provider of those capabilities, u.s. socom and for special operations command of human capital, capability and expertise to meet sec requirements. an important aspect is our ability to partner with national units. at the establishment of special operations forces in the 1916s and u.s. socom in 1987 all relationship with allied partner forces have strengthened the nation and each nation's ability to deal with their own security problems. we must continue to build these

relationships wherever possible. in the current fight to strengthen our support with geographic commanders it will be necessary to ensure our forests and families remain strong. my predecessor established a task force to examine the frame around the edges. we confirm a decade of war coupled with a consistently high demand has exerted a physical and emotional stress on our forces's families. i am committed to make taking care of our people with the best support we can provide. a general officer and my command sergeant major in charge of the preservation of the fortune families. they are empowered to implement innovative solutions across the socom enterprise and improve the well-being of our families. in conclusion the demands will not end in the foreseeable future. with your strong advocacy we will sustain a world class special operations capability. they are providing the nation a decisive edge in assessing

challenges that affect us today and will undoubtedly emerge tomorrow. it is an honor to appear before you as commander of the united states special operations command. you can take pride in what the men and women of special operations are accomplishing around the world each and every day. thank you for your continued support and i look forward to answer your questions. >> we will try seven minute first round. general mattis and general mcraven, for the fiscal 2013 budget, and the 2013 budget request reflect the strategy. >> do you support that budget request? >> i do. >> the following violence afterburning of korans in

afghanistan and killing of six american soldiers secretary panetta said this violence does not alter the commitment to get this job done in afghanistan. our goal is by the end of 2013 the afghans will have the responsibility is about to secure themselves. should we modify afghanistan? >> i don't believe so. i believe it is working. we should not allow a few criminals, malcontents to be fine afghan security forces and their performance in the last two weeks, restrained -- this force has come a long way. the 52,000 mark, the afghans to

fight for the country. we are on track. >> we had some afghans showing american forces, how does that strike you? is that a significant shift, willing to take on the taliban or reliability of the afghan army? >> treasury has existed as long as warfare and there have always been a few people you couldn't trust. i am one of those who slept peacefully, no force is perfect. i would remind everyone that even jesus of nazareth had one

of 12. somebody will not make the standard. in this case the overwhelmingly positive response by the afghan security forces, and an intentional mistake by the u.s. forces. it will not shake the team work. it does not cause us any questions about the reliability. at the same time prudent measures taken with the full support of the afghan chain of command, unprecedented support means we are on the right track to address the concern. >> according to the wall street journal united states has proposed reducing the size of

the afghan national security forces from the 352,000 to 230,014. the reaction is if so are we projecting the need for afghan troops two years in advance as the security force needs of afghanistan? >> i understand your question. i completely support general allan's recommendation we hold a 352,000 afghan security forces through 2015. there can be any number of levels of maturity of planning or thinking going on, the conditions on the ground will have to determine the size of that force. between now and 2015 it sustains

the gains we made especially after 2014 when our troops have largely been withdrawn. the 352,000 is a prudent measure. >> the decision has been made relative to that? >> i'm confident there has not been a decision made on that. >> i want to change the subject to the stability operations. some of it use local afghan police units, serious abuses, wondering whether or not you have a response to that. is a special operations center. so first general the person what is your response to the criticisms of the afghan local police program. i would like to ask you.

>> that program is under the provincial governors command. they are not on our own out there. living alongside them. it is interesting -- difficulty we had some of our troops attacked. not one of these living at the very edges of the battlefield in small groups that have been attacked. those forces are ethical, and any indication of unethical behavior or violent behavior, taking advantage of their position is investigated immediately and we keep a close watch on it. >> as you know general allan investigated these investigations and found the allegations to be false.

as general mattis mentioned, the afghan local police in particular are in fact part of the minister of the interior. that chain of command goes back to the simple government and gives it some credibility from the tribal level to the village level to the simple government and there are currently 11,000 afghan local police and we are growing to 30,000 over the next couple years and we think this is an exceedingly important program for the stability of afghanistan. >> thank you both very much. senator mccain. >> after all the sanctions have been imposed on the iranian regime do you believe the regime has been at all dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapons capability? >> no, sir. i have not seen that.

>> general mattis, are there strong indications that al qaeda is making a come back in iraq? >> yes, sir. notably in western iraq area. the threat is extending into baghdad. >> general burgess, director of defense intelligence agency testified last month that the assad regime and its military remain a, quote, viable, keys of an effective force. james clapper, director of national intelligence said after external intervention, assad will, quote, a in and continue to do as he has done. do you agree with general burgess and director clapper's assessments? >> assad has chosen violence. i think his military is under more pressure every day. there are desertions going up.

i agree general burgess's assessment. >> if current conditions persist absent external intervention hall long do you think assad could remain in power? indefinitely? >> i don't think indefinitely but i would be very slow to put a time horizon on it. he will be there for some time because i think he will continue to employ heavier and heavier weapons on his people. it will get worse before it gets better. >> recent reports of increased iranian involvement and russian arms supplies make it worse. would you say that his crackdown, especially in recent events is gaining or losing momentum? >> he is getting physical momentum on the battlefield. he is creating more enemies. he is creating more

international pressure against him but on the technical battlefield he is clearly achieving what he wants to achieve. >> i think we would agree that syria, out of the hands of assad, a chance to be free and democratic would be one of the greatest blows to iran as far as lebanon is concerned, hezbollah, iran's closest ally. in america's strategic interests to see assad go. >> yes. it will be the biggest strategic setback for iran in 20 years when assad falls. when he is going to go. >> fundamentally, we went to the balkans because ethnic cleansing and genocide was taking place in

bosnia and kosovo in the 1990s. do you see a difference between the kind of slaughter going on in syria and our and the kind that was going on in kosovo and bosnia, difference in scale but sort of the same actions being taken by the government? >> each situation is unique but as far as the trend i would not disagree with your characterization. >> under current conditions, would simply providing arms to the opposition be sufficient to help end violence and force assad to leave power? >> providing arms is perhaps an option. it would be a policy option. we have to do our best to determine who we're providing

the arms to and provide the positions and first do no harm to make sure we're doing is going to reduce violence ultimately. it may go up for a short time but we have to look at it closely because blogger this goes on the more potential areas for al qaeda and basically a full-scale civil war. >> have you seen any influence that al qaeda has any significant role in syrian opposition? >> yes, in terms of the spectacular attacks. >> every time i have seen one of these crises the first answer is we don't know who these people are and it could be al qaeda. i heard egypt, to nietzsche, libya. we don't know who these people are. probably al qaeda. you know what that flies in the

face of? people who are not under the rule of an oppressive dictatorship, all of us southern, we assumed -- i just returned from a trip, egypt and tunisia and libya there's always the threat of extremism but there is no doubt that people who made the revolution were not al qaeda. they were direct repudiation of al qaeda. so frankly one grows a little weary of this we don't know who they are and they're probably al qaeda. we can find out who they are? >> it is always prudent to find out who your allies are and -- >> is it prudent to stand on the side of freedom and democracy against one of the most oppressive dictators in the world? is it? is that prudent? isn't that what the united states has been standing for for couple hundred years at least? isn't that why we fought wars?

so frankly i grow irritated and i grow angry when i see and meet people who sacrificed their lives and visit a hospital where a whole shipload of wounded young men had just returned and didn't see a single one has al qaeda. not a single one. didn't see a single one that died before my eyes who was al qaeda. so i suggest -- i suggest we find out who these people are and i guarantee you that you will find out that it is not al qaeda. it is not al qaeda. it is people with the same yearnings that universal. freedom, democracy and our god-given rights. via would hope we would spend time with your unique capabilities finding out who these people are. i am surprised you haven't tried to do that before.

you should do it. this conflict is going to go on and the lot of people are going to die if we allow the status quo to prevail and the slaughter to continue because, quote, we don't know who they are. >> thank you, general mattis, thanks for being here. thanks for your leadership. consider the records both of you have had and what you're doing now. don't think we can have two better people in the position you are in and we ought to be grateful to you for that. general mattis, always look forward to your testimony because in some sense when i read your stuff or listen to it i am point classroom because you do have a developed sense of history. i want to read the context from your submitted testimony. over 30 years of supporting u.s. forces in the central command area of responsibility i never

witnessed such changes -- change is the only constant and surprise is the dominant force in the region. transformation is under way across the region as a result, malign efforts by other regional actors particularly iran to influence the ultimate outcome, the greatest immediate and long-term threat to regional stability. and i am skipping here but interesting perspective that maybe we mess in the tumult in the region. there's only one state actively seeking to destabilize the region and actively foment violence and that is iran. that helps put things in context. let me go back to something john mccain touched on but i want to ask if you can go into more detail which is this about syria. can you describe in more detail, what is the extent of iranian

and russian assistance to the military assistance to be outside government at this time? >> the russians have provided very advanced integrated air defense capabilities, missiles and radar and that sort of thing that would make imposition of a no-fly zone challenging if we were to go that direction. in terms of iran they're working earnestly to keep assad in power. they have flown in experts and weapons. it is a full throated effort by iran to keep assad there and oppress his own people. >> the iranians to the best of your knowledge have some expert or high-ranking personnel that move from pteron to damascus to assist the syrian forces. >> they have. >> what kinds of military

assistance or systems are they providing to the syrian army? >> the kind of weapons that are being used right now to suppress the opposition. they are providing listening capability, eavesdropping capability to try to pick up where the opposition networks are and providing experts who i could only say are experts in a pressing their well schools--a press their own people and flown them into damascus to tel assad to do the same thing. >> generally in sympathy with the argument that senator mccain just described. the international community for reasons that are both humanitarian and strategic, really just shouldn't setback any longer and watch assad do

what he is doing because my own sentiment is i suppose eventually they will fall but when there's such a disproportion of military power between the government and the opposition he could really as you suggested earlier hang on for a long time and the killing could go on and in the balkans in some sense in the 90s before we got involved and stopped it and i don't minimize the difficulty of getting involved but i do want to say that your answer to the last question which i appreciate does lead me to say this. some say if we get involved or our arab allies get involved, people in the european union provide weapons to the opposition army that we will be militarizing the conflict. the conflict is already militarized. in one sense it is only miller tries adequately on one side

which is the iranians and russians providing a lot of military support to the assad government and the opposition doesn't have much of that at all. has the white house asked you as head of centcom to prepare any contingency plans for possible assistance to the syrian opposition? >> i would prefer to answer that question in closed hearing if i could. >> okay. i hope we will have the opportunity before this is over and for the record i don't believe senator mccain believes we should do this on our own. i hope we can organize something but i gather that the saudis are actively thinking about supplying some weapons to the syrian opposition. let me move to iran.

the iranian regime is now involved more actively in other countries in the region. in a way that poses some threat to our forces in the region. i wanted to ask particularly of yemen beyond syria, other areas where you feel if iran is beginning to threaten our forces. i would like to hear about it. >> they are fighting a shadow war every day, moving weapons into sudan and extending them into yemen, trying to make inroads by passing out money and ordnance to yemen as they take the first step towards a democracy in the future having

come out of a very good election. we see what they are doing and recognize it will be cut if in fact assad falls. we see this for route the region. we have never got along that well. the iranians with the taliban but they're willing to help the taliban to some degree in afghanistan and we see their mischief all around the world and attempted to kill an arab ambassador. so this is an ongoing effort with this regime. something we have to accept as part of their modus operandi and we take a lot of prudent steps to maintain our own protection. we are seeing them take advantage of any thing that any of these -- pretty well

rebuffed. the iranian revolution is not seen as an example for any of the arab nations in their awakening. it is highly concerning. >> is all this activity in the region -- if they want to stretch out across the region or can we not conclude that? >> one of the reasons -- the arab league is banding together is a force for initiating operations in libya. and concerns about damascus, this whole region is becoming aware of this sort of effort on

iran's part. it had a fear the soviet union and their forces -- >> significant parallel. >> thank you for taking time to come in. senator levin referenced the after local police program and an opportunity and honored to observe as a soldier this summer and go out and visit with special forces. i see that program at work and visit villages and speak with tribal leaders and also the soldiers that were there and to me this is the program we should have implemented from day one. the value for the dollar is incredible. the amount of cooperation

between the tribal leaders and people of the villages and special forces is unheard of. it never happened like it is happening now. the check and balance when one village is coming to the aid of another village when being attacked or harassed. it never happened. it is because of the advent of the simple road connecting those villages. it is important to continue with the infrastructure in that region. from point a to point b.c. in what the village is doing and create trade with that village and be the safety and security of that village and vice versa. is that your observation of those positive activities as a result of our involvement in the afghan local police? >> absolutely. the afghan local police program is one component of the village stability platform or operation which looks at security, governance and economic development. the afghan local police are part

of a security aspect at the village level linking the village to the district and district to the province and the province to the central government and the program is working well. >> thank you. i had the opportunity as a result of my military duty to actually go to the detainee facility and participate a so-called board to determine whether the detainee should be released who is not dissimilar to our drug lords and other types of lords who seem to be in concert with everything on have been taught at the jag. i found it troubling to the girl potentially troubling because the strategic partnership agreement with the afghan government is in port. something we need to get signed and implemented right away.

it puts to bed we're packing airbags and leaving. the transfer of detainee's to afghan custody presents real concerns for me. they don't have the capacity at this point based -- to assume the security of these facilities -- was one of the best run facilities i have seen ever. i have been to gitmo and the old senate district and responsibility participated in getting funding for three or four prisons. is that generally your understanding and position? are you concerned about that transfer and whether they can handle that? >> yes we are. we are in negotiations with them now. master crocker is leading those negotiations. general allan alongside him. the most important thing is we figure these things out or a

process for figuring them out and not go into an agreement. we want the right agreement. as you point out we want to make certain we are not turning people over before the afghans are ready to take care of them and we end up with abuse or some failure in terms of how we take care of these prisoners. >> it is a top-notch facility. they're expanding it and i have seen the caliber of afghan corrections officer soldier. got to be honest with you have deep concerns, senator graham to monitor very closely along with you and ambassador crocker and general allan working that through. regarding iraq i am concerned as others are about the vacuum that is created and al qaeda in iraq is carrying more attacks, the entire second half of last year. do you think there's a security vacuum there now since we left?

or what? >> it is not a security vacuum but it is a less capable of iraqi security force without our capabilities there. there are scrambling to try to fill in those gaps. working with our small footprint to help them fill in those gaps. it is a concern for the iraqi government and ambassador jefferies. >> you think al qaeda is making a come back in iraq? >> yes they are. it is not significant and will not threaten the government but will kill a lot of innocent people. >> what about a favor to the many iraqi government from majority shia? is that fueling another insurgency? does this play into al qaeda's hands to create that instability? >> it is not play into all kayak's hands yet. there has been some progress into a political dialogue in the last couple weeks that is back

on the right track. i give you a cautious optimistic view of this but it is very cautious at this point. >> regarding syria, you see iraqi al qaeda moving to syria to fight against the syrian regime? how do you think this affect our understanding of the assad opposition? >> al qaeda is trying to increase the chaos because they like and governed spaces. i don't think they have a moral bone in their body. they're simply opportunistic. i don't think they characterize or represent or define the opposition to assad. then they would try to take advantage of and have no doubt but they do not define the opposition to assad. >> can i touch base? can you comment -- not often understood but equally effective contributions of the guard reserve elements. how do you view their role now?

how are they doing? how do you wrote view their role in the future? >> as you know the garden reserve has been essential to socom and capability in the fight over the last ten years since the establishment of u.s. socom in 1987. we have two reserve units, special forces group that do phenomenal work force in afghanistan. we have the 190 third special operations wing of the edge fries our unique garden reserve assets. we are very strongly enabled by the guard and reserve across all components, all service components, special operations and we expect they will continue to be well resources in the years to come and play a vital role in u.s. special operations. >> you will combat role? >> absolutely. >> senator reid. >> thank you very much for your short service and information.

serving with such distinction. general mattis, you indicated that the most significant threat in your regime is iran. given the issue of strategic focus where you have limited resources, maximum pressure on the key threat, can you comment about if we either coordinated or supported or encouraged or participated in military operations in syria with respect to the iranian, would this be neutral in terms of our efforts with this disruption in international collaboration? would this create unanticipated and unwarranted advantages to the iranians? >> if we went into providing options, whatever they are, to hastened the fall of assad, as

long as those were put together in a coalition leaders the international forum, it would cause a great deal of concern and discontent in tehran. >> the one area that would be problematic would be something that was perceived as unilateral or so dominated by the united states that this lack of international collaboration could undermine our intentions or motives. is that true? >> international collaboration would be essentials to the successful outcome. >> in effect we are working on as we speak pulling together international context for efforts directed to where many have said, we hope the ultimate demise of the assad regime. is that a fair characterization?

>> yes, sir. >> let's take it one step further. there has been discussion of establishing safe areas and safe havens. operation on the ground, let's assume that can be done. it would seem to pose problems. the syrian military forces are well organized and robust and fairly proficient. i don't know how long they would tolerate those safe havens. second, given safe-haven is, it would imply that someone would have to go in and organize training and literally in harmony. that could take months if not years. are those considerations being fought through carefully? what it would mean in terms of commitment or resources,

deflecting efforts away from other more serious threats? >> i have not been directed to detailed planning on these. are would prefer to take some to senator reid in closed session. it would require regional surrounding state support to do something like this. i have looked at the maps. there are no terrain limiting features where we can create safe havens. you would have to create them using military forces. it is not like the mountains of northern iraq where the kurds could be in that area against saddam hussein. it would be a significant commitment of resources, the international aspect could reduce our commitment if we got sufficient -- >> thank you very much.

from both of you gentlemen one of the most difficult points in -- the persistence of president hamid karzai to resist operations to our forces and even his own forces. can you comment on how critical this is to us and is there a way to somehow ameliorate his concerns that are still effective? >> we think the night raids are essentials for our task force to go after high volume individuals. high value individuals we pursued during the course of a 24-hour period or days or weeks. generally bed bound at night. they are much more targetable at night. and you look at it tactically you find the afghans are much safer if we target an individual at night because there are not so many people out and about. what we have done to reduce the

afghans's anxiety is afghans special forces are in the lead on our night operations. this is an important point. it is an important point that general allen and general mattis have made and ambassador crocker to president hamid karzai. these are his forces surrounding a particular compound, trying to call about specific individual and the first forces through the door and that is the best way to reduce the afghans's concerns but it is a critical tactical component of what we do every day in afghanistan. >> do you have any comments? >> i would emphasize there's less chance of collateral damage of innocent people being killed and that on itself on a moral level besides military egyptian see aspect dictates we continue these operations as long as the enemy keeps an active force. >> one of the principal

assumptions going forward is that we will be able to operate with the afghan national forces, police forces and special forces and army forces at small unit levels which small groups of u.s. and nato personnel embedded with larger units and this is a particular something u.s. special forces, soldiers and other operatives. the recent attacks by afghan military force against american forces, one on one violence. to what extent does that cause you to reevaluate their approach and that assumption? >> as general mattis mentioned earlier we have not had what we refer to as with respect to our part relationships or special

forces with the afghans. that is not to say as general mattis mentioned there couldn't be treachery in the ranks and we are always cognizant of that. we build these partnerships over many years. strong partnerships and great respect for our afghan partners and we think this strategy of paring with the afghans is essential to victory in afghanistan. >> any comments about the a and a? >> the a and a definitely defined by tens of thousands of boys who fight loyally alongside us. their casualties are routinely higher than ours. significantly higher. they are doing much of the fighting now. and there is increasing need for us to have met doors among them as they take the lead. this is something we will take every prudent measure but at the same time eventually comes down to the trust between young men fighting alongside each other and this is characterized by a

high degree of trust although these tragic incidents become understandably what we hear about. senator ayat. >> thank you for your distinguished service to our country. general mattis, i want to ask you about the recidivism rate from guantanamo. the associated press ran a store to which i believe is misleading and the headline was not so many guantanamo real offenders. this said fewer detainees released from guantanamo bay have rejoined terrorist activities than previously reported. before this committee this is an issue by questioned many individuals about. last year director clapper said the real engagement rate from former guantanamo detainees who were confirmed or suspected of being gaging was 27%. three weeks ago before the

committee, he actually said the real engagement rate of those who read and aged confirmed are in the fight or suspected to be read engaging was actually increased close to 28%. with 27.9%. of course we heard the same testimony from secretary gates and secretary vickers that the way we calculate the recidivism rate is not just those who have returned but those who are suspected of returning to the fight. one of the big issues we have is it is difficult to determine who has read engaged because we are so poor once they have read engaged of reconfirm in we can't always reconfirm who is out there, who is back fighting us again and often we find them when we encounter them in the battlefield or elsewhere. so i want to ask about in my

view one terrorist we engaging is too many. the reason we tracked those who have every engaged is it is a more accurate reflection where we are with real engagement rates. two individuals i would like to ask about, who have read engaged, sayid al bashiri former guantanamo detainees, one became a leader of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and the other became a leader in the taliban and afghanistan. both of these former gitmo detainee's have been involved against us and our allies. can you update the committee on the status of these two former illustrious guantanamo detainees and what types of activities they are engaging in against us and our allies. >> thank you. he is the number 2 man in al qaeda and the arabian peninsula.

the number 2 military commander right now is engaged in active operations and we can confirm that. a taliban commander in afghanistan engaged -- i can get back to more specifics in a classified setting not today but -- >> i look forward to having more detail on that but to put it in perspective both of these individuals are engaged in activities to kill americans or our allies. >> that is correct. >> i can't imagine how frustrating it must be for our troops to encounter someone we have already in detention. one of the concerns i had is what do we do if tomorrow we recapture them? in terms of where do we detain

them and interrogate them and admiral mcraven, you testified before the committee last year that for example if we got ayman al zawajiri, we would detaining afghanistan. can you help me where we are on that and what we would do if we captured the two individuals we just talked about again tomorrow in terms of interrogating them. where we hold them under the law of war? have we solve this problem? >> i am confident we would be able to hold them. if the cases look bad individually. i can not to you in advance how we would do it. if they are listening and i suggest they don't sleep well at night because we are after them. we will hang on to them if we get them. i am not quite certain where we

will put them but we will be interrogating them and we will do our best not to see them on the battlefield again. >> we don't have the designated facility because we are not taking anyone else in guantanamo as far as i understand it pursuant to the administration policy. >> there's not a designated facility. no, ma'am. >> one of the concerns i have is we can't hold everyone on a ship particularly if we have to hold them in long-term detention. would you both agree with me on that principle? >> yes, man. >> is not clear where we would put them if we captured them tomorrow. >> no, ma'am. we captured some people and we have been able to facilitate their transfer to a detention facility. >> i would hope we would not bring those two individuals to the united states of america

because i would have a hard time explaining that to my constituents when we have the availability of the guantanamo detention facility and i would hope that would be an option given how dangerous both of those individuals are. is that a good option? bringing them to the united states? >> that is a policy decision. is certainly an option for the president to consider. >> why wouldn't we just use the facility that is secure at guantanamo? >> i am probably not the right person to ask the question. it is a policy decision and i have no reservations as far as where we put them. >> admiral, anything you would like to add? >> in the case of ziri and za zakhir the press and we have agreements with both yemenis and afghans then they could be held

in their country. for those two individuals that would be the likely solutions. >> i want to follow up, when you're for the committee last year for your confirmation hearing, i ask you about al-z a al-zawahi al-zawahiri, if we caught him tonight in pakistan where would we place him for long-term detention? last year you said you weren't sure what we would do in that circumstance. has anything changed since then? >> nothing has changed. >> we couldn't put him in afghanistan when we can't take individuals we have captured outside of afghanistan in pakistan or yemen and bring them to afghanistan for detention. >> that is our practice now, not to do that. it would take government to government agreement to do

something like that. >> where we already have existing issues we're trying to resolve on a secure way to deal with the detainees they have now. so thank both of you. >> thank you. senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me add my appreciation for your service as well. i have a number of concerns about our presence in iraq at the current time. i don't think i have a clear understanding of what our mission is. it further complicated by the fact that we have questions about the new embassy which is significant in terms of size, building with a significant number of security contractors located there, perhaps not even functioning in a security role

outside of the embassy. the embassy continues to be expanded. perhaps the state department is in charge of establishing what our mission in iraq is. either of you help enlighten me about what our fission truly is in iraq today and how that might relate as well to providing security, by contractors and continuing expansion of a building that seems to be gargantuan in size already. general mattis? >> part of our mission, iraq is going from a military led effort in iraq over the last eight years to a state department led mission under the ambassador. i do have a lieutenant general with a small footprint on the ground.

officer security cooperation iraq. they are engaged in everything from the sale of certain military equipment providing contractor led training to organizing the iraqis who want to go to military schools in the united states. we maintain those relationships. that is what they're doing. as far as the security contractors who protect the embassy, those come under the state department but having been there recently there is -- simply doing the guard do you expect a high threat area. as far as the size of the building i am not comfortable to respond on that question. >> it is fair, isn't it? >> it is big. >> in trying to understand the role of the contractors and providing security, in other embassies and other countries are we required -- do we require ourselves to provide security or

do we look to the host nations to provide security? >> the host nation provides the external security outside the ground, inside the grounds in sovereign territory. if we do that we do it generally with contract guards. many of them are long serving guards and inside the embassy building you have marine security guards. >> is that the way it works in iraq and baghdad? >> yes, it is. >> the iraqi provide external security? >> yes. >> if our personnel are moving from one place to another who provides the security? >> that security is provided by our own contract guards. >> what level of security with the iraqis provide externally to the embassy? >> in that zone if you go there

you see checkpoints are set up some blocks away. controls go by. not just for our embassy but other embassies as well as they provide the kind of diplomatic security that is expected around the world in washington d.c. some please provide because the threat is very low. in a place like baghdad prudent measures require iraqi army, iraqi police to do the external security in a much more visual, obvious way. >> turning back to iran, as we all know the threat in iran is real, what you have discussed, the relationship of iran to syria and has blocked -- his beloved --hezbollah there is a

red line for us. in the discussions between benjamin netanyahu and the president and the last several days there seem to be several closing of the gap on different ideas about dealing with iran and the growing concern, what actions military or otherwise should we be considering in connection with iran? a don't mean to put you in a classified position but generally could you give us your idea? >> yes, sir. the iranian threat is basically a long four lines. there is this nuclear program where they are enriching more uranium than they need for any peaceful purpose and that one through denial and deception they tried to keep that program going. iaea tried to monitor it.

they have an unfortunate -- a second thread is the long-range rocket ballistic missile threat. that one has the intention of all of our friends in the region as far as how they protect against that. the third threat is a of the maritime freight. we are going to be prepared to keep the sea lanes open and the fourth threat is mois like hezbollah and other terrorists that they found. on that one it is largely police and intelligence driven effort as we try to contain that but also special forces -- four basic threats and we look at how we check each one of those working alongside the most enduring long-term partnerships we have had with some of the country's out there. >> since this is a budget