component going forward. think you for allowing me to clear that up. >> boots on the ground i think the problem is people have the instinct we just don't want to go back into another war in the president seeks to reassure the people but i agree that we need to explain. . . ground issue. and also, it's not even a matter of we're war wary, we're not going to send in troops because we know it'll upset people. it's because we don't think it will work. and i think that's to make it clear if there's too much of an excessive reliance on u.s. military force, then oddly, we push more people into the arms of isis. and i think, you know, too often the president does sound more like he's in the former camp of

we don't want to do this because we know it's hard and we know you don't like it. it would be better if you would make it clear that we're not doing this because it's not going to work. it's not the most effective way to confront these forces. so, you know, both will task you with going to the p tresident a work on his messaging. but it's important how it's presented to the american people and how we build support for this program. on the issue of finding sunni partners. i still contend that is the key. if we find enough sunnis in iraq and syria who are willing to fight against isis, that's when we'll start to be successful. what are our efforts in terms of outreach to some of those tri s tribes, folks in iraq for the moment. they're still there, i expect many of them are fighting with isis. how are we doing working with the iraqi government or the locals there to try to turn some of those tribesman the same way we did during the awakening. >> congressman, as you pointed out, and as i noted in my

testimony, the reaching out to the sunni tribes through an inclusive representative functioning government in iraq is a start. general allen's relationships will help, general austin's relationships, relationships of otr especially arab-sunni countries that are part of the coalition will be critically important to this. this cannot be seen as a u.s. western effort against any component of the muslim world or islam, sunni versus shia so it's all those working together as we go forward in this coalition to get once again the sunni tribe leadership and buy-in and as i

noted in my testimony what we are doing, one of the most fundamental parts of that is the evolution and development of government in iraq that the sunnis trust and have some confidence in that begins to unite the country and as you have defined it in your opening statement, much of the maliki government did everything but that in the last five years and brought a lot of this on. so that can be done. it's a critical component of this. we know that and we are working hard to do it. >> pie-in-the-sky for a moment. the whole area would benefit from the sunnis and the shia finding some way to coexist. that's an understatement i understand that our partners saudi arabia, uae, qatar, is there anyway to have

conversations to say look we know you guys hate iran and understand that. the big part about what motivates saudi arabians in other countries in the early stages of the worst two say hey we will throw money at you you and pro-gun to you which is what really empowers the violent extremists. saudis, they care. they were like we hate iran. whatever we have to do to get the sob is in our interest. do you think it's dawning on them at this point that they are caught between two things here and they don't find some way to make peace with iraq they are going anywhere. is there any effort at saying how do we take the edge off that because that is what isis feeds on. >> you have just identified a big part of the complications. yes, we are much aware of that. we are working with that and i

noticed secretary kerry was in jeddah last week he convened a meeting of the foreign ministers from the six dcc countries as well as for other middle eastern countries. as i noted in my testimony ended my comments, this is a complicated dynamic on a good day. and there are many factions and factors that are flowing through this. we have to be mindful of that as we perceive them try to calibrate achieving an objective here that the president has laid out clearly in our interest interesting clearly in the interest of those sunni countries, arab countries, all the countries in the middle east and to find that common ground and common interest to seize upon that or we can find that cooperation and we are doing that. that is coming together as these countries are stepping forward on committing to what they are

going to be doing. they're going to be doing more of that as we coordinate that. what you have identified congressman is a core piece of this effort. >> thank you chairman. mr. thornberry. >> i want to yield my time to the gentlelady from indiana. >> i i think this film and for and thank you secretary for your service and for being here. we appreciated and i remember on september 11 that reporter was asked, was asking a question to white house press secretary and he said how are you defining victory in the white house press secretary said i don't have my webster's dictionary with me up here. what is on the minds of the american people i know is on my mind as well that we talked about degrading and destroying and now those seem to be the two coins we are understanding. we are degrading which i understand we are slowing down the process and slowing down the

isil's and i think it's a fair question to ask on behalf of all americans if this plan is successful and there are so many doubts about the plan being successful, it's a big if, what is the endgame? what does it look like what they destroy the isil? >> first destroying the isil which is clearly as you have noted and we have said clearly is not an easy or simple or quick task and we have been very honest about that and we continue to be honest about it but your question, what is the end state, it is a region and it is a reality and a threat that is eliminated from threats against united states against our allies. that threat of beheadings, of

terrorists, sophisticated terrorist attacks, of slaughtering people, of barbaric approach to everything they do, and ideology that has nothing to do with religion, any religion. the capacity that now isil possesses through funding through their organization and their strategy is a threat to everybody. mechanisms, through their sophistication, through their organization, through their strategy is the threat to everybody. so what is an end game look like is a world without that threat. is the world always going to be dangerous? i suspect it -- in our lifetimes, it will be. but that, that's something that we're aware of, but we're dealing with the threat right now. >> right, i understand that, and the enormity and complexity. but i think it's a fair question to say with the

stability in the middle east. is success also going to be measured in the fact that we no longer have a group are we ever going to be able to deal with that because it seems to me if we don't continue to have some kind of bold and aggressive approach that there is democracy and freedom in that region with the limited partners we have that there will never be an endgame and my fear and i think i fear the american people is we have all heard this before. we have all lived through this already. >> so what is the choice? do-nothing? >> if this plan doesn't work what is the alternative? >> we always have plan b's and c's. that is what the military does as well as anybody in the world that we believe this plan will work and we believe the way display that with our partners

and structuring the reality of it in the timeframe to the partnerships, commitments to this it will work. it the more fundamental question of understanding your question as i said i don't know if we'll we will ever see a world without threats particularly our question question about will there are ways be threat out there with some extremist group wanting to build an extremist caliphate in the middle east? i suppose. but i've got to worry about what i have right in front of me right now and this is an immediate threat. guess we have to think long-term and we do. we are trying to think through that as to what will work, what will be effective? how do we bring the civilized world together to stop this? the other way to ask that question congresswoman is what if we don't? >> just quickly what else do we do with congress to make sure we get the passports away from the foreign fighters that are coming to america? >> thank you i'm glad you

mentioned that it is something i noted in my testimony. it's a critical and dangerous and real threat. with those kinds of individuals floating around out there possessing those passports, with easy access as i said we are coordinating with using every interagency we have coordinating with our partners all over the world and databases in everything we can do right now. to address this and identify those threats out there to stop those threats. some countries are further ahead like the u.k.. i was in a national security council meeting yesterday afternoon. when we came back from tampa the attorney general is there and the secretary secretary, security was there. we were all there. this was a big part of the topic and a central part of the topic, foreign fighters and the president wanted updates and to give them every week on what are

we doing and how much are we doing and how much can we still do and what do we have to do? >> thank you mr. chairman and i yield back my time. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you gentlemen. yesterday we took a vote. the vote was on whether to arm the syrian rebels. we i think all of the knowledge that isis is a problem and something we need to take care of. i find it pretty disturbing that we are having this hearing after we have taken a vote because i don't think that the plan that i have seen was detailed enough to make me believe that your plan will work. i'm going to ask you some questions most of which will probably have to go on the record or you will have to brief me. i hope the other members of this committee believe it's important enough for us to understand exactly what this plan is.

i'm not so sure of that and i haven't heard the details as i would like to hear them. i want to begin by saying i have a community and they are all over the place on this. i talk to them etc.. syrian moderates. most of the people say the syrian moderates have been over to isis and they tell me they don't think the syrian moderates whoever those may be, are they going to fight against the isis moderates who used to hang out with the syrian moderates? equip and train because we do such a great job in iraq. $35 million later and mr. chairman i was the one every single time and others in front of us asked to equip and train the summit said as my good friend and colleague here that

it wasn't a problem of equip and train. it was a lack of leadership. it was bad people commanding. it was the commander-in-chief, maliki it was wrong and didn't help us on this or didn't make this thing work. can you tell me who the commander-in-chief of the syrian moderates are who are all over the place and don't even talk to each other sometimes? how we will see that leadership even for the record, okay, what type of arms exactly what type of arms are we going to hand over to these people? the last time i checked we hand over arms to maliki and they ended up with isis in the very same arms going after us. what will they really do? i have been through this you guys.

i saw the coalition in iraq and seeing some of these countries with one person. maybe a bomb expert but a coalition of 40 who, what, how much? how are they going to get there? i would like to know those things. and i have a problem. when you go out in front of the american people and start talking about why certain countries might not want to suggest they are with us. this is why want this information. somehow i don't even put out to the public but when i'm told by my turkish americans that turkish army of arms are in the isis hands and the government of turkey has with weeks to let those go into those hands. it's a very complicated issue and you are getting america into an even more complicated situation.

more importantly, and secretary you shouldn't be under your purview but it is under the administration, so and i hope your plan works because you know isis and isil, they're not good. i hope the same thing when i voted against the iraq war that i was wrong but i don't believe that i was wrong on that. so, i want to see the plan in particular. i want to ask the administrators for this. the neighborhood players. let's say we eliminate isis and isil. what has to fill that gap for this to work for people putting up homes, people putting up schools, people putting up jobs, people giving people the kinds of lives they see on television

and all these lies we export but aren't living. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentlelady yields back. mr. jones. >> mr. secretary november 2005 as a senator you penned an article in foreign affairs magazine asserting that vietnam was a national tragedy partly because members of congress failed the country come or remain silent and lack the courage to challenge the administration in power until was too late. he wrote and i quote to not question your government is unpatriotic. america owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifice. these are your words mr. secretary. in the past you informed america that many in in the middle east css is obstacle and an aggressor in an occupier. you wrote our cause is our

source of significant friction in the region and we are at the same time both destabilizing and destabilizing force in the middle east. also you said, you described a fear of the uncontrollable, the unpredictable consequences of military action. you stated how many of us really know and understand iraq, the country, and history the people in the role of the arab world. you have asserted that the american people must be told long-term commitment, risk and costs undertaken. mr. secretary u. and i have a friendship that was based on my coming out against the iraq war. i did not know you prior to that and i was very grateful that you extended the hand to me because i was getting beaten up pretty bad down in my district and by some of my republican

colleagues. in fact the chairman at the time told me he would not appoint me to be a subcommittee chairman because i was voting with the democrats to pull our troops out of iraq but she was right in that assessment. not necessarily naming me as a subcommittee chairman but my position. the reason i bring this up and what you said back in 2005 is that in the year 2000 when bill clinton left the presidency, president clinton leftist president we wear $5.6 trillion in debt. today mr. secretary the dead of this nation is over $17.6 trillion. i have heard you testify and you will in 2015 that when it comes to the military you are concerned about it. we are concerned about it. you also have said that sequestration will complicate

the cuts that are coming. i want to ask you today, do you think that congress should pay for whatever we decide to do and if administration decides to do as it relates to syria and to iraq? do you think we need to pay for it today or put it on the back of a grand jury because we will not be able to continue to police the world and in fact using what we have is known as foreign money from the chinese, japanese and all these other countries, we cannot pay our bills today. would you agree that we need to pay for whatever we do in syria and iraq to be paid for today and not tomorrow? >> congressman thank you and recognize any time any of us ever write anything or say

anything is always at some peril. but let me address my own words for a moment and say that i obviously agreed with what i wrote them and i still agree with it. now, the big difference between what we are talking about today versus where we were in 2005, the president strategy, where and how and i apologize to you for that but please answer we pay for today or pay for tomorrow? >> the responsibility of elected officials is always to be honest about anything they get this country into any action they take including paying for it. i can assure you that secretary of defense will be very clear and this administration on what believe it's going to cost, how we are going to pay for it and

there will not be any ambiguity about that but yes every elected official has the responsibility and that financial responsibility and fiduciary responsibility. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. generally history would show that the west won the cold war. it would also show when the cold war didn't end communism or get rid of communists. so the point i want to make is, is it fair to say that we might be able to beat isil is a group but that's not going to end extreme islamic militants or the desire for those folks to create a caliphate sometime in the future?

>> i can't nor were they and i don't believe the president would ever say that what we are doing now and attempting to do our strategy and our focus on the isil well and forever. any terrorist group or any group of people who want to do harm to our country or establish an islamic caliphate, of course i can't guarantee. >> that's what i want to hear and i think we need to have the right expectations. when people ask you the definition it's a great questi question. you have the right expectation about what that is. >> i think also congressman the reality of the threat as it is today is very real. i will never come before this committee and overstated threats or understated threat and we have a threat. >> second in your testimony and pastry you said the plan includes targeted actions

against isil safe haven. general dempsey and i have approved the centcom plan so you have the centcom plan that includes airstrikes inside syria. >> that plan was provided to the president in full explanation yesterday with all the options and all the plans. i laid it out generally my testimony in the president has said. >> in your testimony you said you have approved that plan. he was briefed to the president. as the president approved a plan or taking any action to operationalize that plan? >> the president has not yet approved his finality but he will do that. i just wanted to be sure of the steps the white house.

general i don't want you to feel left out. on the train and equip mission i think mr. smith made a good point as to how we get out of the fight. the quipping moderates syrian opposition, obvious after 14 years in afghanistan to iraq we should learn and the concern is how do we know people are moderate, people are syrian committed to a free syria and third that they are not the opposition and they are not going to turn on us? >> congressman you raise a good point. we have to be very upfront that the vetting process is absolutely essential if we want to get this right. we have a tremendous amount of experience from the last decade in vetting and standing up to these types of forces. we have an eye on folks we get

drawn but we need to be very deliberate. despite our her best efforts this will not be perfect. but we are looking for individuals that can come together to want to defend their community and work is a-team. they have to be able and willing and they have to be appropriate to the attacks. many will be former military and some were from -- but many of them are fighting against the assad government. we will have to put in place mechanisms to assure ourselves of reliability and make sure we have a system of accountability and we will build from there. we will build a chain of command. we will take small-group sabill clusters and permissions. it will be something that is multiyear and a requirement we will have to look at. >> i think that that is was played out in the amendment with head yesterday we will have time to talk to ball on how that's going and what you are running

into the. finally i don't have a lot of time so i will just make a note on this. i was surprised that the president used the 2001 amuf justification. the last time we discussed this issue at all if it was at that i wouldn't say 100% opposition but a lot of reluctance to the 2001 amuf because there was no commitment. at some point i would like to find out what changed but time is up and i do want to have exported some point. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. forbes. >> mr. chairman thank you for holding this hearing and secretary thank you for giving us your time today to help walk through the strategy. i would like to get your thoughts on two areas. strategy has a lot of components as you mention. when you look at a lot of these terrorist groups the oxygen that

tends to to feed them is twofold twofold. one is which we can't do a lot about that the second one is their financing and their money. when i look at isil and the figures that i have would expect them to be out $1 billion this year through kidnapping for ransom selling oil on the black market stealing money from banks and funding states from the gulf. could you give us your thoughts on the strategy we were used to cut off that one at second i could give me your thoughts. general dempsey about. told us that syria had five times more air defenses some of which are high-end systems, that is to say higher altitude longer-range. could you give us your concern defending about the impact of the systems could have on some of our airstrikes and capabilities? >> congressman thank you. on the isil to financing, you stated it correctly.

we must cut off the funding of those sources. it is as high a priority in this effort as anyone priority. as i mentioned in my testimony just generally the treasury department through a couple of their offices set up to deal with foreign financing and these general kinds of threats have set up a special office on this particular issue. working with their international partners. you had some of the main ones, the black market avenue that they use to sell oil. i know you are aware i so has taken control of certain small oilfields and syria and we have some estimates of 100,000 barrels of oil that those people are producing.

they get them out in different ways so to cut off that main source. you mentioned other sources. that obviously have taken over cities and towns in resources and banks but there are to day-to-day illegal activities that they are involved in, businesses that we are trying to find and will find but that has to be working working with our partner summit. there is no higher priority than getting god, to cut that off. on your question on the syrian air defenses i feel a lot more comfortable congressman if we could do this in a private, and a close setting and we would be happy to give your briefing on this. >> mr. secretary thank you and something i would add i know we have a priority of cutting off the funding but i think as a committee we would love to hear what our strategy is for actually doing that because we would like to know if they are

getting a billion dollars a year we want to get them down to 200 night, what if we laid out as our strategy and what exactly do we have planned to get her hands around back and do that? at some point in time if you could maybe share that with us in whatever venue or setting you think is appropriate with appreciated appreciate it. >> we can do that and whenever you want to do that i think it would be more effective in a closed briefing and how we could take you into depth on this wiki coordinate with your staff. >> thank you and mr. chairman i yield back. >> that's one thing that really separates isil from all the other terror groups as they are so well-funded and they have good leadership and know how to use that money is a very good to attack. mr. chairman and we will do it for your committee however way you want to. >> we just found out there are

votes tomorrow so people will be in the airport. we will get back too quickly. >> secretary your predecessor one time or remove secretary gates as he was leaving west point where he said in my opinion any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big american land army into asia or the middle east or africa should has that -- should have his head examined. yesterday during the debate the chairman's amendment obviously there was high anxiety that this amendment was sort of a scenario that secretary gates warned against. one of the reasons why i voted for the amount was on close examination of the texts showed in fact we were talking about using a program, title x which is not about the putting in

large ground forces from the u.s. but almost the opposite which is to stand up indigenous forces to take the fight to our enemies. i guess i just want to ask you and not i've got to hear if you could reiterate whether that's the correct interpretation of the mccain amendment or dna to have a headache examined? >> having my head examined, that question is open for many reasons, not just this issue is suspect but i completely agree with secretary hayes. i would not make that recommendation unless it would be such a catastrophic situation but i don't think that's the case. i know it's not the case. i think the issue over although it is always one of first identifying the threat and then

what you do about it. your question about the interpretation of the amendment for example i mentioned in my testimony when we put all the additional soldiers in place that the president has ordered that would be approximately around 1600 americans in iraq. interpretation as i have read the amendment in the cr is i think your interpretation is correct. i said this test to be a partnership and the president has said that between the congress and the administration. i was once on your side of the dais. the i understand article i pretty well and the responsibilities of congress starting with the money and the

authority that goes with your side of the equation. so there are some specific issues that we will go through on how we implement that amendment two authorities. there's always the question of i thank if we could rewrite it we would rewrite in certain areas but i think what you have laid out and your understanding of what you voted for is pretty clear. >> thank you mr. thank you mr. their secretary and in fact one of the benefits of the amendment is that it really does engage the congress with the administration as opposed just kind of advocate -- advocating our role. some of the comments before were the eight amuf from 2,012,002 authorize whatever it meant authorizations the administration needs to make. it's not the way her checks and

balances should operate. >> i agree but the difference amuf in 2001 or 2002 on this particular issue to train and equip moderate opposition with syria is that this is equipping and training -- training and nongovernmental group. i am not sure recently or when historically we have done that. i suppose we have but wait wait, legally and that was different in iraq. i was different and some of situations. but the authority the president has statutory i know using that amuf in 2001 and 2002 really comes down to the connection isil has had with al qaeda and has an terrorist groups. the training and equipping

mission was nongovernmental groups is a little different. >> again i think that there will roll now with the statute and when we get that to reports from your department or the timeline when we will be rain gauge almost immediately after he alleged. thank you mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you mr. secretary-general for being here today. over the weekend the president promised as we defeat isil there will be no more ms. mistakes so i look forward to working with you to avoid his mistakes, the obama mistake of underestimating isil best university, j.d.. we now 16 months ago as the president was underestimating the terrorist threats and saying they were diminished that was not true. dr. kagan of the american enterprise institute released a map showing a warning that the growing terrorist threat across north ayr -- africa the middle

east, this was ignored by this administration. the obama mistake of failing to secure basic security agreement with iraq undermining the achievements of the america american at allied servicemembers who provided freedom in iraq and i particularly appreciate that i had two sons serve in iraq and with the people of iraq to preserve their freedom. the obama era of downsizing or military and do you have as safe havens around the world. the obama mistake of failing to do support the students of iran's green revolution. we should remember the iranian revolution supporters in tehran carried signs in english declaring clearly their goals. just to israel, death to america. the obama mistake of declaring a red line in syria on chemical weapons and then blaming others on clearly the red line stated by him and i speak on august the

20th, 2012 pretty clear he divided which is not correct. the obama mistake of releasing five murders the taliban while negotiating with the terrorists. one of the terrorist was praised as the equivalent of 10,000 lawyers to destroy america. it's more important than ever that this facility at guantánamo bay be retained to protect american families. the obama mistake of announcing in afghan-led probate and his conditions putting afghanistan and pakistan are at risk. the obama mistake of equating hamas rocket attacks with israel's self-defense. we should recognize hamas creag quote but we value to more than you value life end of quote. the obama mistake of the benghazi assassination cover-up. the obama mistake of the massacre. though workplace violence in the

little rock murder, the drive-by shooting. a president -- president needs to adopt peace through strength. i believe the president should take action remembering september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the way to change course is backing up the kurdish regional government and our courageous allies and i would like to know what are the plans for weapon to four or bill. i understand there's a problem in delivering the weapons. we need to be there to back up people who have been so greatly associated with the united states. >> congressman, your question regarding backing up erbil and passionate peshmerga there is no country that we have accelerated our deliveries to quicker than iraq and specifically the peshmerga. we have had allied countries flying missions in their

directly to erbil do we reinforce them with ammunition and with equipment coming from many nations. it has been as high a priority for many months as we have had. it has been ongoing and it is a high priority as we have with their partners. >> is the co-chairman of the kurdish regional caucus i appreciate that and i have been to the kurdish region for decades. they have resisted oppression and identified with freedom in the united states. a final question for me mr. secretary is yes or no, is america at war? >> i have said about is at war against isil just as we are al qaeda. is al qaeda. i said that my testimony. >> we are in a global war on terrorism? >> yes. terrorists would try to kill us, the president is taking action and is live action out very

clearly and has asked for the congress's partnership. >> the actions are so important. they thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. ms. tsongas. >> thank you mr. chairman and welcome secretary hagel and general mayhill mayhill mayhill. americans and as you have heard in our discussion today everyone on the committee and on the floor throughout the past several days i have been greatly concerned with the events in iraq and syria. we know that isil isil is illegal terrorist organization and we must confront the difficult questions that our president has raised about the serious threat that it poses. but this is a complex and long-term challenge. as such i am wary of commitments that the president has admitted will spill into future administrations creating enduring costs while raising substantial and unpredictable risks.

without a more robust clearheaded debate. i like him were summoned sanchez appreciated the opportunity to have his hearing before we come to a vote. i appreciate the presence continued commitment not to send u.s. ground forces into combat but experience has shown any expansion of u.s. involvement in this region raises serious concerns over the slippery slope we may find ourselves on. chairman dempsey's recent testimony that he could foresee a scenario in which he could recommend u.s. ground troops in the future crystallizes the alarming uncertainties around this effort. manic questions remain and you have heard some of them adjusting including the costs, the timetable, the nature of the participation from the region arab states to name just a few. yesterday's endorsing just one piece of the strategy is focused on expanding our effort in syria.

there are multifaceted challenges ahead and i cannot endorse it but i appreciate the opportunity today to begin to ask some of these questions. in a september 16 testimony before the senate chairman dempsey noted the united states and its allies would work to develop a military chain of command in syria that is linked to a political structure. i would like to know more about the political structure that chairman dempsey is envisioning. secretary hagel do you think the syrian opposition has a solid and widely supported political structure on which to make a military demand and if not who do you think it will be linked to? >> first on the issue of political agreement and a political resolution i mention that in my testimony. the president has very clear on that point when he said on many occasions that there is not a

military solution to this in syria or iraq or the middle east. a political resolute resolution must be achieved. >> reclaiming my time but that is not the question. we are now embarking upon an effort to train and equip the syrian forces that we, the moderate syrian forces that we think we can work with them for it to be effective general dempsey had said and i believe it's correct that has to be tied to political structure. you start structure. you start down this structure. to start on the established way of focusing on training and equipping a force that is not aligned with any syrian oriented political structure really in some ways puts the cart before the horse. >> well, not exactly. if in fact there is no alternative that is allowed to develop in syria because of the

brutality of isil and other terrorist groups that are slaughtering the people in syria and you have a regime that has no legitimacy to govern what started all this, you have got to start somewhere. we recognize this is difficult. we recognize there is no good option here. if we don't help where we can help develop some infrastructure and this is why we would train in units, not individuals, to allow a political opposition to come together based on security because security is required in this as well. it isn't either/or and that is how we envisioned and that is how we would move forward. that's partly why this is a long-term effort. this is why we have been very clear. it's complicated, it's serious but if there is no open

opportunity for a political opposition group to develop because they are all out of the country. >> you would agree that obviously it doesn't exist today? >> there is very little organizational opposition in syria today, that's right. that's part of the problem. >> thank you, my time is up. >> thank you gentlemen for being here. this morning i saw a brief news story that said that decisions were proving targets for airstrikes in syria would be made by the president only by the president. is that true? >> no, it's not true. that story in "the wall street journal" is not true. >> i cannot tell you how relieved i am to hear that. that's a terrible mistake if we make daily tactical decisions in the white house so i'm relieved to say that. >> i would to say was sitting next to the president yesterday

when this entire issue was being discussed and he was very clear with general austin, once he makes a decision he gives general austin and our military leaders the authority to carry out those policies. >> outstanding. as i said i'm very relieved to hear that. that leads me to a larger question though. i've only got got through for minutes here but could one of you sort of outline what the command structure, with the command-and-control structure is going to be and what is the role of general austin and centcom and what is the role of iraqi commanders in the peshmerga? who is going to make the decision? >> because the general is just a pretty face and can answer a question really except for one, actually i was still hoping you would. >> you have never been an director for congressman so with your permission i will ask the

general. >> the command-and-control begins with the iraqi security forces and our role is to supplement what they need so they can make informed decisions. we are doing that right now and we are going to switch out some of the initial assessment teams and replace them with army advisers that can better help at the general officer level as reach into the ministries and assist as well. the chain of command is an iraqi chain of command enabled by partners in the region. >> pretty face or not let me tried this way. i started my questioning by asking about targets for airstrikes in syria so if it's not the president of the united states, who is it that we are targeting? >> targeting will be planned jointly and enabled by u.s. central command through its chaotic which is in the region. the mechanisms to

command-and-control are in place. we did that. you saw that unfurl when we took over the dam. you saw that when we assisted in the operations around emirates. so we are not going to change that. the air force command-and-control structure component underneath central command will orchestrate all of this. the court nation in the planning will be done forward in concert with iraqi forces and iraqi leaders. >> airstrikes in syria i am talking about. >> we haven't received authorization. we have yet to receive authorization for those missions. >> so it's not the president of the united states and we are not sure who it is? >> if i could sir where we strike regardless of the geography that the mannequin stroll -- command-and-control structure that isa will have is

the command and control structure we will use where for the president allows us to strike back. >> okay, i yield back. >> thank you. ms. hanabusa. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you mr. secretary-general for being here. i think part of the problem and you heard it with a questioning we are having today is that because of the amendment we voted on involves syria and the potential to train and two armed syrian quote whatever that moderate force will be that it's going to be fed at 60 days from for now or when the senate passes it and the fact that the 170 airstrikes are really in iraq and we are talking about our 1600 as far as i know better in iraq. the public i think are getting confused as we probably are as to what exactly is being done in iraq versus what we are

operating quincy wilson of the part of the continuing resolution was to fund the 2014 level which technically is about 30 some odd billion dollars more than what was requested in 2015 and whether or how you determined what that money is and how it plays out for their mentor of the continuing resolution is something else. we also know that it was the request early on that the local funding include the 500 million dollars which is to arm and train 5000 syrians. having said that whoever came after this question, take it. my question is really when we divide the two, not the syria part that the iraq part which we are clearly engaged in, one, where's the funding coming from? is it zero cao funding and how much is that costing us per day and though we feel that we don't

have the same kind of legislation as we have in the amendment which clearly defines who would be appropriate -- appropriately vetted people in syria, who are the people we are vetting if we are vetting them at all in iraq? right now airstrikes are in iraq and we need to ground forces as i understand the philosophy to be in iraq so who are we betting? general dempsey made a statement yesterday that there are 50 brigades or so in iraq of which 26 or 24, one of those two numbers are not appropriate because it's not at the right composition so who is making these vetting decisions and what are we in for in the iraq portion of this so we have been thrown off the path because we

are talking about syria. that's our people, 1600 of them are in iraq and what does this mean for iraq? iraq is the concern right now because that is where we are so whoever wants to take that. >> i will give you an answer and the general may want to go deeper on this. your question about who we are vetting, we would be vetting the syrian opposition forces that we would begin to train and assist. >> i'm talking about iraq. >> you asked the question about who we are vetting. >> we are not letting anyone in iraq? >> the iraqi security forces under the government, the southern government of iraq is the peshmerga who as you know are part of the overall structure are in place. they are institutionalized in their functioning armies now.

spain mr. secretary i hate to interrupt you but general dempsey said of the 50 brigades only 20. >> ozar in iraq. >> i'm talking about iraq. we have mixed the whole thing together but i'm looking at iraq. are we setting the iraqi forces that are supposed to be the ground troops or is it only iraq that's going to provide? the generals knotting and you are saying no. >> we are not vetting iraqi forces and troops. but general dempsey was talking about is the most capable iraqi security forces, iraqi security forces. setting in that part of it is part of the syrian train and equip modern syrian opposition. general do you want to add anything? >> congressman understand the question and i could see out can be confusing. what we are too doing today in iraq where first and foremost

securing u.s. government facilities and u.s. government personnel, american citizens in iraq. we have to operating centers, one in erbil and when in baghdad designed to facilitate iraqi security forces operations. we advise them and make them aware of what they need to do next and we help them track issues. as was mentioned earlier when they go on an operation in an operation that needs to be enabled by your support these operations centers do that as well. most recently the assessment team that went in into the baghdad area to area that general dempsey identified, 50 brigades they gave an assessment, that assessment is over and we are changing those forces out and they will be advise-and-assist forces to work with selected brigades and divisions in iraq. i hope that helps. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady's time has expired in the chairman recognizes himself for questio

questions. i understand that the administration was prepared to acknowledge publicly that the russians were in violation of the inf treaty over a year ago but didn't for policy reasons. you know what thought went into why we didn't publicly acknowledged violations earlier? >> i know that we were carefully examining the evidence that we had and we were looking at to see if in fact they were in violation. as to your specific question no, i don't know. >> okay. yesterday are recently the -- do

you know how the u.s. response and bought the applications are for us if he in fact does move those weapons into ukrainian territory? >> well again i think rather than talking about this in an open hearing we probably ought to do this in a closed hearing. i can take you through a number of steps on this and i would feel more comfortable talking about that way. >> i understand. do you know why the united states is considering continuing to approve of russia's proposal to fly under the open skies treating -- treaty and has sensors and aircraft of the united states? i amro concerned about this going forward with open skies ask us when we they are cheating on biological conventional weapons and now they are cheating on the inet. what are your thoughts going

forward on the open skies? >> we had an open team in moscow last week on this specific issue and we were represented by a senior member, defense department state department others and these were all the issues that were discussed. the russians and us have many mutual interest on different things and what they have done in ukraine and their actions in the last six months have not only complicated but put in jeopardy all of those interests that we have. so we are working our way through the very questions that you have just asked. >> in fact it's one of the consequences they may experience as a result of the imf violati

violation? >> no decision has been made him is that we are looking at a lot of different options and we are talking to the russians. >> my last question is recently or yesterday the committee received the second of two reprogramming request that totaled a billion dollars out of the army 01 them to pay for the military to respond to the ebola outbreak. we are to have a serious readiness problem. what are your thoughts about what the billion dollars would do to that? .. our readiness and capability to respond to other challenges and we have a lot of them, as you know. on the money, that can be -- that can be done okay by using

oko that would not affect our readiness in any other area. but the other question that you ask is a legitimate question. right now, general dempsey and our commanders have agreed that what we will be providing, the military, in assisting in africa with the specific areas that the president announced on usi >> d, because these are capabilities that we have that we wouldn't take away from any of the other areas that we are now dealing with that are significant threats. >> am i hearing, since you said oko is the proper source for the money, would it be accurate to say that we can expect to you come and a us to and spec.

>> or not but in this case it is the imperfect process probably the appropriate account for these kinds of things that developed the overseas contingencies i don't think anybody would have forecast this the seriousness of this. we are working right now with the of comptrollers and appropriations people. >> the wave though world is looking oco may have to get bigger. >> i hope not but we have

spent every year. >> thank you for your service. >> thank you mr. secretary and general for your service in uniform and public life and our secretary of defense after consideration of what we are doing to give authorization for those moderate forces in syria i would give that to you be coz that must up that savagery committed at the hands of isil to be sure to do everything we can to have a safe haven we must do

everything we can but i have two questions and also to a the larger issue to limit or destroy a isil could you speak to the question of how isil current capabilities to carry out transnational terrorism? and second, could do speak to our rink that a syrian opposition will roll back the territory to launch the attack and how what would you estimate it takes the opposition to a engage isil for its capabilities? >> thank you. the first question on transnational criminal activities is a source of

isil funding and is the part of that funding and the couple of questions we asked earlier specifically with the marketing of oil. >> luggage is your view how to export the tear if? did you have to cut off the funding and that is what i was talking about earlier as the huge priority of the overall strategy to defeat isil and defeat them. taking that funding away is a big part of that and operationally we're doing that right now with our partners through the treasury department and it is the key part to degrade and a capacity but with long-term, the president has

been clear on this when general dempsey and i were at the senate committee, i cannot give you the exact number of years but it will take some time and it will take some years maybe sooner but you know, so well that was reflected in the comments and the group that has capacity we have never seen before outside of the nation's day. you mix the religious and ethnic dynamic and the factors that complicate the this experimentation time and we know that. >> with your isil spending radicalized americans back to the country to do harm to

the united states? >> they are capable to do that today. >> given that to expand the question of the threat can you speak to us about what you see already happening and further threats that would exist? >> it is very clear to me and those people who have looked at this and the president coming his instability that currently besides your each of the country starting on the west and the middle east, every one is in under threat from it isil and other terrorist organizations. if we see further destabilization of these countries, that will create a global problem to ripple

out to every where. >> if you destabilizes the countries in the middle east that would affect the economy and israel. look at where we are today in that part of the world it is as unstable as it has been in our lifetime. >> mr. secretary thank you for being here i did support the amendment yesterday of the chairman. however that is only good through december 11th at the latest we will revisit the issue soon. because we know isil is so dangerous just looking at

australia today going against the public. this is a bloodthirsty groups said the heading of two americans is a horrible situation in the real reason i supported the president's plan. however i would like have you elaborate i know other questions have done this previously but particularly will be be using armed predators to take out the isil leadership like we did with iraq and afghanistan and doing currently in somalia and yemen? >> the president noted this in his statement one week ago, we are looking at every option, every target using

our capabilities to degrade and destroy isil. >> that is something that is on the table? >> everything is closely examined. >> i hope he would not take it off. >> everything is on the table. >> syria or iraq or a neighboring country the american people would support eliminating that leadership. >> as you also recall he said wherever they are. >> with the elite special forces to amount to assaults on the ground to capture and apprehend isil leadership for ever they are found. this is what i meant is that something that will be

contemplated a and is on the table? >> we don't want to get into specific tactics we will have a closed briefing on that we can do that. >> certainly let's follow-up on that. also using boots on the ground for lack of a better word to guide and direct air support, that is something that is critical also is that something we can talk about? i want to see as many tools in the box as necessary so the plan can be successful taking things off the table goes against that. >> within the confines of the open hearing dyewoods they will look at everything and nothing of the table but i would point to the success recently of the strikes were

iraqi security forces on the ground and we did not have cover people embedded with them. the security forces have a capability. >> i am glad to hear your answers. my concern is sometimes the president takes things off the table right off the bat. that is troubling to me and want to see as many options as possible. >> if i might, i don't think it is a matter of the president taking options off the table but he wants to make sure the american

public is certain and clear of his intent and of the president of this country is willing to do but once the people to a understand what is he asking the american people for? that is the clarity. tactically he will not. >> i will continue to be supportive. i yield back. >> it this time we tried to go to four minutes to get everybody's questions in. >> 84 in being patient until the freshmen get to ask questions. >> i was the freshman one. >> u.s. the best questions.

>> i voted no yesterday it was tough because i simply have a lot of questions. it was on the reauthorization for the 500 million that expired. why would we not start to put more forces and resources into iraq first before the short-term funding for arming the rebel groups in syria? >> to lancers. we have to do both. we are presently supporting the iraqi security forces with literally expanded accelerated armaments and we

have been doing that so it is not either/or we need to do both to get the training and part of that opposition be started as quickly as possible because they both fit in the strategy have you defeat isil with those countries particularly iraq. it is not one vs. the other. >> starting with the rebels to retrain and equip these rebels to send them back in there have much of a command and control structure? there are self identifying? no military structure the

first mission is to deny territory to isis so how can they support themselves? how can day conduct the operations? where is that coming from? do you look now at contractors or how to do that? >> you do raise the important issue to develop the leadership that have the aptitude for additional skills who has yet to to be a communications expert and we will build that capability first is to

identify a relationship of the basic training but to go back to protect their communities we will stay connected there has to be accountability to create amended to do that with the leadership will identify within the trading -- trading. >> see you are not moving out we could turn tear blackwater to provide logistical support of those initial stages? >> berry and still of the plan earning plan a but no discussion of how the military would do this. >> your time is expired. >> mr. secretary i heard you

say we are at war and everything is on the table? >> yes. >> one of the things that is to be -- confusing to me that is not what the president says when he takes other actions operations off the table. my granddad was world war ii pow he would say the first decision is the decision to win to make sure we do whatever it takes. desert storm was 1990 we were in those country 24 years half my life, trillions of dollars hundreds of thousands of

americans. general, these 5,000 moderate syrians i assume there 10-foot tall and bulletproof but the question is how can 5,000 moderate syrians did with the united states and all coalitions' could not do in 24 years? >> those of basic training will have some effect but not the effect that use speeto. >> it is only one part of a larger effort to assist in the iraq security forces we have the use of air power to assist with it is necessary

and looking to employ a the direct support of partners in the region so we will squeeze through multiple venues then the president should outline that with the separate vote. this is as much on my leadership as the president is much more serious than the amendment to the continuing resolution. i would suggest fighting since the seventh century we don't understand the of war but talk about the headings headings, it is my vendor standing -- maya understanding they have one of the strictest forms of sharia law and do things by any stretch i think any american would consider barbaric.

how low do we pick our friends? >> first america or in a country responds in its own self-interest. what is our self-interest? with american citizens are publicly killed or murdered his debt and interest to this country? i think it is is it a threat to we are? i think it is that is partly the answer but to the bigger question that is the history of that area we can interject arsenals or impose ourselves with traditions or history.

what we do differently is to bring partners then from the region this will be half to be settled we can help but we cannot determine the outcome of that. >> they give four years' service to our country. can you describe talk about coalition what will have people on the ground or troops with us? >> as i said we're close to 50 coalition nations. >> to interrupt but specifically committed to work arm in arm.

>> it will provide assistance summit is airpower son his people. -- some is people. we have the essential responsibility to bring that together. we're in the process of doing that. >> i am a confused about the nature. but i.m. concerned people are on the combat mission but could you clarify if people are shot out they have rules of engagement? >> absolutely.

doesn't that lead to combat missions? '' baby in a combat? >> anybody in the war some they know that you are in combat but the president said there would be no specific ground combat will i think that is pretty clear. yes if you have advisers there is a combat zone the role of americans did in that war as the president has laid out is pretty clear what we will do our what we want. >> how many americans will be put in harm's way? >> what i said in regard to the president last week by

the time they get there it will be 1600 in iraq. not syria. iraq. >> trying to figure out who we are helping i know you have been asked the questions but i am still fuzzy how you will identify the forces we could train or enhanced echoes back to my question are we alone? it seems if we train them we will eventually leave the force there but in the meantime all the enemy build

up their forces far more than we can catch up? >> in the beginning we might be able to do more than 5,000 it depends more training sites will trade in the unit's so they can take on more responsibility without partners this is an undertaking that is pretty dramatic but at the same time all day other dynamics as noted are in play at the same time. >> they q mr. chairman. i really want to take you for your service across the

board we really do appreciate that. but he made a comment about combat i want to make sure our troops will be compensated as they should be referenced to combat pay because they will be exposed to that. are they going to be? >> yes. they are now but let me ask let general. >> in country receive combat pay? >> typically you talk about cost dial duty day and there are procedures that are clearly outlined under what conditions we will apply that standard here and that will go to the secretary.

>> so the secretary will make that decision? >> yes. they will be compensated. >> i appreciate that. i voted no. it was difficult to -- because of all of the briefings i have heard the syrian force i voted no they have very little organization, no political structure in place to support them i would support the issue of how to start talking zero to fix things we know there is no command and control. there is for the iraqis. and in trading the forces it

is easier than trying to train up by their own description. they may have combat experience for the fight for their lives but not trained combat as iraq is because we train them even though they had issues at least they have a base to start from that is why i disagree with us being involved when we have the ability to do that. we haven't shown we can work with them so there's a lot of coping and wishing on the training facilities but 5,000 troops. how do we overcome command

and control and political system and train forces? because as we move forward? >> i would explain ijtihad it is my opinion and of the president that if he defeats isil you will not defeat that just in i racked. that threat will have to deal with them. >> then i take that step by step and as we do that focus back on syria. >> we have to do both at the same time. >> dash i -- i am of the opinion the 2001

authorization needs to be rescinded a more specific authorization needs to be drafted for the isil threat so what advice or caution or request would it you have if we were to consider that effort? >> we believe the president has the authority to do what he believes is important to do for the security of the country and he welcomes the congress involvement, support, if congress believes they want to get involved to right the new report -- force that is your authorization of congress but to go beyond that i am not a lawyer so i leave that up to the lawyers and specifically what the

white house would need if they think that is something would need to do. >> is there something they would not want? i guess my question is we would welcome the congress to provide a more specific authorization. any constraints you would see in that regard? >> that is not my area. the president makes those decisions. for us the department of defense that we're required to implement, we want to have the commander in chief have as much flexibility

which chin the coequal branch of government to recognize that but we have to have that flexibility to carry out his duties. >> as the department began to provide air support and training? i am concerned of wear and tear of military airplanes and seagoing vessels from that requires more maintenance than originally presumed of the of fly 15 budget submission? and those to request the allies to cover that maintenance where will that money come from? supplemental request? >> we're looking at that right now. as a pick up the pace we

will have to change some of those numbers. the world is dangerous and fluid and dynamic. >> i yield back. >> now i will take my four minutes. looking back that vice president biden is the great success and as i looked out to see you with your combat patches that the success goes to those in the field but we did succeed with combat troops and it is a gift that has fallen apart. but talk about counterterrorism operations operations, i have some concerns. isil is of sight -- a state

they have wealth and an army and by a understand our desire to use the kurds and the iraqi army and syrian forces. my concern is from who has central command and you really calls the shots? i have a concern with that but is the iraqi army authorized to move into syria if that is what it takes to destroy the enemy but the effort with syria is not successful? i got the answer i know we will go to germany but not built in -- go in and. what is the contingency knowing our strongest asset on the ground is not willing

to go. >> we recognize iraq is a sovereign country. we go under a -- order them to do anything. we can. if iraq makes the decision. >> to me that is their objective to deliberate. but our objective is to destroy isil. i am concerned about syria but then what? >> exactly. with the get this from that border this dynamic is a threat to all nations says they are principally focused

with the strategy we have laid out with a strong conclusive iraqi government with that must have muslim arab partners is not by borders each will play a role where they can and. >> my time is running out but i hope another setting we could find out what those contingencies could be the general already anticipated some of these but it is something we want to expose to everyone i yield back my time so we will break and

return after the vote i appreciate your time today i do encourage members to come back. [inaudible conversations]

smith the provisional agenda is peace and security in africa. ebola of the agenda is adopted. in accordance with rules 37 i invite the representative of albania in angola, austria of bangladesh bosnia and botswana brazil burundi

burundi, cameroon, canada, a nd a condo croatia cuba, cyprus democratic republic of congo, dominican republic egypt and estonia, finland georgia, germany, greece, gu iana, czech republic, honduras iceland's , i rackham israel can that and lebanon liberia, liechtenstein, mala ysia, marshall islands islands, moldova, monaco,

mo ntenegro, monaco islands, moldova, monaco, montee , namibia, and the netherlands, nepal netherlands, nepal, norway, panama, portugal, catarrh, r omania sierra leone leone, slovenia, solomon islands south sudan spain spain, and shrank back, switzerland and sweden, thailand the former republic of macedonia. trinidad and tobago to meshach and ukraine, uruguay , yemen and is in the head to participate in this meeting it is so decided.

in accordance with rule number 39 i would like the following to participate. dr. chen mr. jackson is so decided. on behalf of the council joining us to delaware beers of the video teleconference from monrovia he will only be with us for part of the meeting so he can return to his life saving work to the ebola treatment center in monrovia. i provide his excellency head of the delegation of the european union to participate in this meeting

it is so decided. i invite to his excellence a as a permanent observer to participate in this meeting it is so decided. the security council will now begin its consideration of item two of the agenda. we now give him the floor. >> thank you. distinguished members honorable ministers and excellencies, dr. david navarro ladies and

gentlemen. up with think ambassador paul and the united states for committing the session on the ebola virus. only twice before has the council met to discuss the implications of the public health issue for the aids epidemic. today's session of the outbreak is clearly warranted. the ebola crisis has evolved with a significant political social humanitarian issue. the suffering effects and beyond to demand the attention of the work. it matters to us all. the outbreak is the largest

the world has ever seen. the number of cases double every three weeks. there are more cases in liberia alone than the four decades previously. this is destroying the victims more people are now dying from a common medical conditions bin from ebola. the virus takes the toll. inflation and food prices are raising the situation is especially tragic given the remarkable strides we have made to put countries behind them. national governments do

everything they can i applaud the courageous actions of the government and individuals on the front lines. the federation for the red cross and the entities. and now requires a level of international action. the leaders for the country's asked to coordinate the response. we did what was needed and what was required. under the leadership of the did you a joe working to identify the best epistemological raise --

ways to stop an outbreak looking at that systemwide organization with that ebola response center with this support of the government does of gonna the u.s. peacekeeping mission has been established for the influx of the responders to operate between the countries. looking at the current context and look at the missions of support. to the international workers already a underground with

unicef and others actually delivering emergency assistance. and it has identified more than 200 professionals and experts willing to be trained. of despite this the spread of the disease outpaces the response forcing the government to manage a crisis. this situation requires steps to save lives. therefore i have decided to establish a commission combining that who perspective with this drug logistics' and operational

capability. this international mission known as the united nations mission for ebola emergency response will have five priorities. stopping a outbreak. stop essentials services and preventing further outbreaks under the leadership of the secretary general to bring the full range of expertise in support of the efforts. a trabzon the capacities and in close coordination such

as the african union and economic community of the west african states that the wide ranging efforts of line with the overall strategy. the goal is to have the advanced team on the ground before the end of the month for or have listened to both with full details and we thank you for your support and in a vital role as a special on for a to galvanize international support. excellencies? doing everything we can for your mission but this depends on support from the

international community the best estimate we need an increase in assistance. the united nations has outlined the critical need totaling $1 million of the next six months. one is medivac capacity that it is essential to the international aid workers who put themselves at personal risk i hope the leadership of the united states that they may deploy 3,000 troops to provide expertise and logistics' and trading. i am so thank many that have

made contributions including china and canada and the democratic republic of the condo, france, germany, irel and, italy, japan, a kenya, norway, catarrh, russ ian federation, south africa, switzerland, and the united kingdom. i hope other countries will follow suit and tuesday as logistics' but the european union to indicate its foundation we both get those to be in a position.

when i appear to major shipping companies that you're a services are affecting our country is. >> is the powers of the excellency? >> for that resolution to be adopted today. >> one week from today we would gather and most. >> but that penalty for commercial actions is hot.

and then face it with more of our energy and strength. all member states. thank you madam president. >> and. >> madam president and members of the security another excellencies i thank you for the opportunity to be with you this afternoon.

i have the honor to be. >> since then have visited the most effective coventry's wife to describe my feelings of america have head meanings. i know there was the opportunity to brief the president of the world bake and other agency chiefs chiefs, particularly the president of the african development bank. my findings are as follows. there is a disease outbreak that is a dancing in the exponential fashion. to be precise that means it

doubles at a particular time interval. look at this has of graf with a of a picture of robert -- rapid upward cycle -- and to have heard most believe the doubling speed is about every three weeks. that the outbreak has doubled since i was appointed. their response is increasing. you have heard not only are the governments themselves doing a great deal but it many excellent intergovernmental organizations to put in additional resources. the increase in response is that more like a linear speed.

that means the outbreak accelerate the way from the control effort. the longer it does that the harder it is to get it under control and most importantly to enable the people of the affected countries to return back to the prosperity and development they're happy to join so much in the last 10 years. with the celebration of the outbreak and the difficulty catching it. also the increased likelihood of societal and economic challenges for those affected. i estimate to get ahead of the outbreak of level of response he needs to be 20 times greater than it is at the moment that is a

calculation based on assessing battery to induce extending their recognizing it takes between one in two months to put someone in place. . .