with the families. i certainly hope that you will help in this effort as we look at how we can better support those families. >> well, senator -- excuse me. senator, first of all, let me begin by saying that i know how personally and deeply involved you are in jim's case and then working with us to try to keep the focus on it. i know how close you were to the family, and i know how much effort went into the prior effort to when jim was in libya. i worked on that personally and on the subsequent effort we raise it country after country to try to get foreign minister or some contact in the country. is there a way to get proof of life, find out, a way to

negotiate the release. most recently even in the last two months before he was barber's lee killed i was talking with people in one of the middle eastern countries to travel to syria on our behalf in order to try to find out whether there was a way to secure the release of these hostages. and we -- i know that you also made an incredible effort to reach out to country after country. i know the czech republic and others, you were very much active and engaged. and we get them out of libya, which we worked hard to do, you know, i was in touch with people who i know very closely. they're friends of mine who

are part of that effort, so they were always in touch with me and talking personally about it. i have read these accounts of things that have happened, their judgment. i talked to diana and john after jim was killed. i think that everybody here would just, you know, i shudder at what they have to go through. so this is something that we feel very deeply. so much so that i remember the hours that we sat in the situation room in the white house working with our brilliant military he did a remarkable job of designing a rescue mission and the president made the difficult decision because it is always difficult putting american service people at risk. if you don't know what will happen.

even know that you're going in where there is isil. and i sat in the white house and the situation room and watched that entire mission unfulfilled. i was amazed by the capacity of our military people to do what they did. a high-risk mission performed flawlessly, and the intelligence was correct to every degree that they went to the right place, they did things correctly. it just was empty. they had moved them, and we do not know exactly how soon or when have time. and you have no idea how just a feeling in that room with a message came to our people on the ground saying nobody is there. so we felt that and feel it to this day. but you know, if they feel i'm happy somehow that it was not done properly,

however agency it was, we have to make sure in the future that we're going to make sure that that is just not a feeling. first of all, we hope no other family has to suffer that are feeling, but to whatever degree that is a possibility or any eventuality, we have to make sure that people feel better about the process. i can assure you, the president on down, everybody feels that that -- feels that sensitivity. >> i appreciate that and for the hostages who are still being held, i hope there will be an effort to look at how those families are being supported. mr. chairman, i know that my time is up, but i wanted to make one more comment. i know, mr. secretary, that you have repeated the president's argument that this military campaign does not require a separate authorization for the use of military force. but i certainly believe that if we are going to commit to

long-term effort to address isis that having specific congressional action that is bipartisan to support that effort is important, and i believe we should undertake that. another chairman has said that he intends to do that regardless of whether the white house and administration comes to congress or not. i support that, and i hope that the administration will work with us as we do that. >> well, we are coming to cars speed we are here and we welcome it and look forward to working with you want. >> and the senator has expressed to me on more than one occasion your desire to work with the chair and others on behalf of such a aumf and we look forward to working with you as well. >> senator. >> thank you. mr. secretary, obviously these are complex issues. i do not envy you in your

task. your and my purse. i should ask all americans to include you because if you succeed that means america and americans remain safe. i have been listening to you and the president's carefully. i am sure that the world has been. barack -- words have meaning. i appreciate the fact you testified that isil must be defeated. the president in his speech to the nation said that the goal here is to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. here is my concern. in the final two paragraphs of his speech to the nation president obama said, our own safety and security depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation. mr. secretary, by taking options off the table isn't president obama really saying to do what it takes up to appoint? as secretary of state, you are dealing with potential

coalition partners who are also listening. if we stay a goal and the world does not believe we're committed to it, is that going to be difficult to get the kind of commitment out of our potential partners to do what they need to do to actually achieve that ultimate goal? >> that is a fair and a really good question, by the way. thank you for your comments in your purse. the answer is that the presidents and and the military folks currently be the fed we have the capacity, the plan, the coalition to be able to do the job. now, you know, there are a lot of countries in the region who have capacity going forward who, in our judgment ought to be lining up first to be on the ground. there are a lot of options

before we start getting to the top. >> okay. we have covered that ground. in your discussions with, for example, saudi arabia, potential arab states, do they understand how fragile american public opinion will be to this effort, toward this destruction if they do not fully commit? and when i think fully commit, and thinking back to the first goal for when america only paid for about 15 percent of that and almost 50 percent of that war effort was paid for by gall states and the other by germany and japan. do they understand why it is so important for them to step up to the plate and visibly support this effort? >> yes. in fact, king abdallah has said to me personally, we will do whatever is needed to be done. we are committed fully to this effort, and they have been. now, there are bigger complications than just sitting here and talking about having the kingdom of

saudi arabia put troops on the ground and syria next door to iran with all of the extraordinary complications of the reasons regarding other geostrategic challenges. so we need to be working with his carefully with all the nations on the part of the coalition recognize only after when we're just getting started about that i can tell you we're not going into this in order to fail, nor any of these other people. >> senator carton. i would like to offer whatever i can do to help convince those arab states that they do need to be fully committed to this battle. here is another concern of mine.

this will literally take years. if you identify a hornet's nest in the backyard for me realize we have to get that taken care of. all we are doing is going in the backyard and poking that nest with a stick, is that a concern right now? if we are not fully committed to wipe out isis quickly. you mentioned powerful testimony to this committee back at the end of july of all the threat that isis really does represent him of being able to funnel suicide bombers and. now we have seen those suicide bombers come from australia and germany and america with passports. and his comment was that they could easily be funneled into the west and american. that is my concern, not being fully committed, not getting in there, not cleaning up that hornet's nest as quickly as possible, don't we just increase the

time where we are really under threat in danger? >> well, we hope not, senator. obviously that is not a strategy. look, isil, why do we have to focus first on isil and focus on it the way that we are? because they are seizing and holding thousands of square miles of territory, because they are claiming to be a state. they are not a state in so many ways, and we can go through that. they are confronting in defeating this far conventional armies with conventional tactics. they have -- they are allowed genocide this who have already practice genocidal activities at a certain level. and they have a very large amount of money, unlike lots

of other terrorist organizations because they clean out the banks and have sold oil and done other things in the process. so even al qaeda, bold as they were in what they decided to do, did not exhibit these characteristics and capacities. that is why we believe -- and we think most of the region has come to understand this, including the moderate opposition who are already fighting isil. so we believe we have the makings of an ability to be able to have a very significant impact and already, by the way, france and the united kingdom are flying with us over iraq. and several other countries are now starting to be willing to join that. we think we have the building of an ability to be able to turn that around. i guarantee you, the president's goal is to keep them. and as you and we see this

unfold and make judgments about how well we're doing, we can, you know, have further discussions about what else it may or may not take to get the job done. at the moment these are the judgments that are being made. >> well, thank you. you make a strong case for defeating isis and being fully committed to doing it, the sooner the better. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary. mr. secretary, as i look at this challenge from isil, i think there are two distinctly different parts to it relating to iraq and syria. i cannot believe there is any future for iraq unless iraq is committed to that future. the new leaders there have given us hope, but ultimately we have to trust that we can either train or provide the skills and support necessary to the iraqi army that, in fact, there will not be an overrun

of corruption that they cannot be an effective fighting force. that is a big task, but i think that it is at least hopeful. it is within our grasp. and look at syria and see a totally different circumstance there. syria is a dog's breakfast of violence and terrorism and deceit and carnage. it has gone on for three years. here we are talking about harming, a clipping, and training a moderate force within syria. i have read the language that is being considered in the house unless it has been changed in the last fare so, never mentions the word assad once when it talks about what we are trying to achieve in syria. comes down to this basic question. it looks to me that there are at least three identifiable forces in syria , assad, isil, and what

we hope our moderate opposition forces that we can work with. but i am also told that have been told there are up to 1500 different militias in that country, some are neighborhood militia. how can we chart a course here that defeats isil and syrian and does not in the end of strength and assad? how can we find it the so-called moderate opposition in syria and believe that something will emerge there that results in serious deciding its own fate and future as their responsibility? >> a very good question. the calculation is that, even with the difficulties that they face over the last year-and-a-half particularly

, i remember when i first kamen and unborn february of last arbil, the opposition in syria was actually in a slightly better position with respect to assad and the other group's commander were not as many of the other groups at that moment time. and then regrettably they started to squabble politically as well as which military group would do what they lost some momentum with that. they did not get enough supplies at that point in time. the country began to be flooded with these external fighters from outside. some countries in the region who wanted to get rid of assad started finding people who seemed to be tougher fighters who morphed into either isil or other groups

and began to fight. so concentration on assad was dissipated. during that time some of the support that was coming from countries in the region was, frankly, also very badly directed and managed. all of that has changed. we have up our support and engagement, training, things that we are doing. other countries have upstairs. they have worked out many of the issues that existed. they're seems to be -- and despite these difficulties they have been able to fight isil and move it out of certain areas and keep fighting assad. you have seen is continually our belief therefore is that as the principal antagonist more so than assad in some ways starts to take hits and a gain greater strength,

training, equipment, capacity, the success will bring to them, we think, larger structure as well as greater know-how and ability and if isil is defeated, they are going to be taking that experience in the same direction that they originally set out to which is to deal with assad. >> i would like to ask one last question. we know, and you have said it in this testimony that russia is supplying assad. we have known in the past when there have been sources of money, equipment, and other support for enemies. as we look at assad today you told us in testimony that russia, you mentioned russia, and china and we know by its nature iran is a shia nation oppose isil.

which countries are aiding and abetting the isil cause either by providing resources, equipment, arms, or allowing their trade to create resources and wealth so that they can continue to fight? >> we do not believe at this point that it is a state-supported. what we believe is that because of their success and particularly getting the bank and other successes along the way as well as and selling oil -- >> let me stop you there. you are they selling it to it? >> and just about to get there. we have raised with a number of countries in the region the question of how they could possibly be getting oil. net is part of the approach you're. >> through what countries do you believe it is being smuggled? >> the border countries of syria obviously. through turkey 11 on.

>> of a joining us to stop the smuggling? >> they are. obviously turkey has difficulties right now. they talked about the publicly. we have had some conversations within. >> the sooner we can cut them off from their source of funds -- >> exactly what the objective. now, if there is other money that comes through social media, internet, individuals fund-raising and, we have been able to trace a one time lump-sum hundred $40,000 that came through one country from an individual in the region. and -- excuse me. that is where we're going to have this focus on the movement of money and began to get tough in shutting down the flow of funds. >> senator. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary, for laying out the strategy. i think you know where this

committee is and where i am in terms of wanting to get the president and the administration the authority and where with all to move ahead and succeed in this mission and all our foreign policy missions, but i am a little confused that the position is being taken by the administration now that a aumf is now required, desired but not required. i look back at the last hearings they you appeared in. it was with regard to syria and chemical weapons. the president, as you know, had drawn a red line and said that he would act if they went beyond it. they went beyond it. then the president came to congress and said, what do you want me to do? i question whether or not that was a wise move. you said to me -- these are

your words, it is somewhat surprising to me that a member of congress are particularly one of the foreign relations committee will question the president for fulfilling the vision of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution, divided power on foreign policy to have the president come over here and honor the original intent of the founding fathers in ways that do not do anything to distract from the mission itself. now, what are you and i think others would as well that that to distract from the mission. in fact, it torpedoed it. if coming to congress where we said we would strike and what was described as a ten days or two week mission to degrade the ability to use chemical weapons. but then in this case in what you yourself today described as a what will be a multi-year effort said you do not need, your desire but do not need congressional by an. it is best when we speak with one voice.

our allies know that, and in order to build the kind of coalition that is going to be required to defeat isil and sustain that defeat overtime, our coalition partners and adversaries have to believe our threats and promises. and i would submit that it helps for us to be together. so i question the unwillingness to come and ask for a renewed aumf. can you enlighten me as to why the change of heart from the last hearing? >> there is no change of heart, senator, honestly. their is a big difference between the authorities that are available. we did not have authority in the form sufficient without congress passing a except for article two.

excuse me. in article two authority for the president of the united states, which is always there. and no one has ever gone to the question of whether or not he would have exercised it had congress not passed a but the fact is, the president did make a decision to strike. he made a decision and publicly announced it. he said, i have made decision to strike. then, as you know, there was a lot of request and our briefings with congress to come to congress. and since we did not have authority beyond article to -- and that is the distinction between then and now. then the 2001 aumf did not cover chemical weapons with assad. it covered terrorism and al qaeda. and so if it weren't isil that was this direct component of al qaeda

command we were talking about one of the other entities there, we might not have the same capacity here. we are looking at an entity that was al qaeda from 2004 or five all the way through until 2013 and then tried to disassociate itself by name but continued to do the very same things it was doing the entire time. that is not true of what happens with assad. now, it also happened -- and remember this distinctly obviously. that during the walk up to the process of the request for the aumf the russian president and president obama had a conversation in st. petersburg regarding the removal of weapons. prime minister netanyahu called me and we talked about the possibility of removal of weapons. >> i just have a few seconds here. i appreciate that history. i hope that we have a better

explanation than that when we go to our allies and said that we are going to be in it for the long haul and that we are united in this mission. >> and that is why we want congress to pass a aumf. i think five times in the course of this hearing have said, we welcome the effort to work with you to refine the aumf going forward and, yes, we will be stronger and better with the passage of a aumf and with congress involved in a. but we're not going to put ourselves in the position of not being able to do what we believe we need to do with legitimacy at this moment time. >> with respect, i would argue that that is what we did ourselves before. we put ourselves in a position where we dry red line and then were not willing to do what it takes to go in and force that red line. >> well, that is going to affect our ability to move forward and build the kind of coalition that we need to do this mission. that is why i am saying at think there is an inconsistency here.

i hope that the administration will change its mind and asked for a aumf, and i hope congress gives it. with that i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. secretary, thank you for your tireless, committed, caring approach to these international issues kamal the ones which are so pressing today. i think you're probably one of the most travelled secretaries we have ever had. i think all of us wish you the very best in your endeavors. chairman, i would like to thank you for this hearing. i think that it is very important that we carefully weighed the president's request. we must address the very real threat presented by isis. a little over a year ago we were in this in room talking about air strikes on the assad regime and army rebels

to fight it. today the weapons and gun. thank you, secretary for your diplomatic efforts. we are debating air strikes on isis and army rebels to fight that. that is really, in a way, quite a turnaround. the american people deserve a full debate an explanation about this new plan that you have presented, and we have heard today a number of senators, talk about that isis is a brutal terrorist organization and must be stopped. and that is a subject to think we can all agree on. and i would associate myself with all of the comments about the brutality and murderous ways. but there's no doubt about that.

we must use strategic force to stop isis and end its murderous path. let me be clear. i don't want us to lose sight of the forest from the trees. calls for more and more direct u.s. military intervention in the middle east putting us back on the risky course. thrived on the chaos and instability and unintended consequences of america's failed policy and iraq for the past 13 years. and this is the crucial point. military power is one tool, one among many tools that will be needed to bring stability to the region. isis emerged from disorder, function, alienation and the divide between sunni and shia followers of islam.

those will remain without a comprehensive strategy of diplomacy, development command commitment to long-term stability. we must destroy isis, but we cannot put ourselves in a situation of creating and avoid, one that could then be filled by other extremists or by iranian and iranian-controlled regimes. ..xtremists or by iranian and iranian-controlled regime. we should support the iraqi government as well as the kurdish and other moderate forces, however, i remain skeptical about the so-called moderate forces. and secretary kerry, you've heard several times here this issue about moderate forces and are there moderate forces. and i think one of the key issues for us is the effectiveness of the moderate forces that are there on the ground now. and my question to you has to do with -- and this is all public information, but everybody's well aware there's been a covert

operation. operating in the region to train forces, moderate forces, to go into syria and to be out there, we've been doing this the last two years. and probably the most true measure of the effectiveness of moderate forces is what has been the effectiveness over that last two years of this covert operation, of traingto are they a growing force? have a trained ground? how effective are they? what can you tell us about this effort that's gone on and has been a part of the success that you see that you're presenting this new plan on? >> senator, i hate to do this, but i know it's been written about in the public domain that there is, quote, a covert operation. but they can't -- and i can't

confirm or deny, whatever that's been written about and i can't really go into any kind of possible program. >> well, i want to say that, chairman menendez, i mean, to me the key here is on effectiveness of whatsapp in the past two years. so i think we should have a briefing by our committee specific on what has gone on in that area from our intelligence people. and just one final question. isis is over imposition of u.s. weapons, paid for by u.s. taxpayers. that extremists seized from his trained iraqi forces in city rebels. how will you guarantee or push with the weapons and resources requesting will not end up in the hands of radical sunni insurgent? >> we've been following that very, very closely. and our folks have been involved in this at all levels, and again

is probably ought to be in a classified session for various reasons, but we had -- we have been doing is providing various kinds of support to them, nonlethal as i think you know, and we are begging people very, very carefully. our folks who do that, because this is something we really watch very carefully, the president has been very concerned about this question of downstream and impact. with the exception, a couple of instances of an overrun of the warehouse up in the north in aleppo in one instance, a couple of things. but by and large we found vetting to be very effective. effective. our guys have been doing it for about 20 years now, for better or for worse. they've gotten pretty good at it. >> thank you. and i would also agree with and i appreciate your offer to work with us on an authorization of force. i think we have to have one with what you're describing, and i

hope that we can get to do this it is possible. i yield back. >> senator udall, let me take your request and say, first of all, we will have as robust intelligence briefings as we can. however, to the core question that you raise, this is a problem that both the administration as well as the senate leadership must be willing to deal with. because when it comes to questions of being briefed on covert operations, this committee does not have access to that information. yet it is charged with the responsibility of determining whether or not the people of the united states should, through their representatives, support an authorization for use of military force. it is unfathomable to me to understand how this committee is going to get to those conclusions without understanding all of the elements of military engagement, both overtly and covertly.

and so i am foursquare with you. but this is the challenge, i'll call upon lack of a better term a procedural hurdle, that we are going to have to overcome if we want this information to make an informed judgment and to get members on board. before i turn to senator mccain, let me just recognize some distinguished members of the kurdish delegation and the iraqi ambassador, i appreciate your being here. and in the kurdish delegation, chief of staff, as well as minister of foreign affairs for the kurdistan regional government. so thank you both for being here. senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to recognize our kurdish friends who bring such a steadfast and good allies for so long. mr. secretary, today, septembe

september 17, secretary gates said the following, former secretary of defense gates. the reality is they're not going to be able to be successful against isis strictly from the air or strictly dependent on the iraqi forces or the peshmerga or the sunni tribes acting on their own, gates said. so there will be boots on the ground if there's to be any hope of success in this strategy. and i think that by containing, by continuing to repeat that, that the u.s. won't put boots on the ground, the president in effect traps himself. now, mr. secretary, i've talked to so many people who are military experienced, who have been on both sides on this issue. they all agree with secretary gates assessment. and that's just the reality, and there are some of us that place a great deal of confidence in the opinion of people like secretary gates, general keane. so the architects of the surge.

so many others. is it your view that the syrian opposition is a viable? hello? >> hello, senator. i'm taking you so seriously on writing notes. >> is a your view the syrian opposition is viable? >> the syrian opposition has been viable enough to be able to survive under difficult circumstances but not yet, but they still have some distance to go and we need help and go that distance. distance. >> right. they. >> right. the obvious in our systems and weapons and training, which you were going to embark on. are you surprised sometimes at the degree of disinformation that members of congress will swallow whole, like there's been a cease-fire agreement between the free syrian army and isis, put out by isis? does that surprise you sometimes? >> senator -- >> doesn't surprise you, i got

it. >> no, no, no. >> the hero of this basic so far is him either guys going to testify after, robert bork am ambassador ford. he did a magnificent job at the risk of his own life, riding around damascus in support of the free syrian army. here's what he's going to say in his testimony. a moderate armed opposition's biggest enemy is not the islamic state. it's the assad regime which is still far more civilians than as a detestable islamic state, and they won't stop fighting the assad regime even if the advance against the islamic state. what you were saying, isil first. so we're going to train, equip the free syrian army, and they're going to find against china today be as benevolent enemy. i agree with ambassador ford's assessment. you were saying isil first. so we're telling the young syrian today, i want you to join the free syrian army. you've got to find isil first. and by the way, those barrel

bombs that are being dropped on you and these attacks from the air that have massacred so many syrians, we are not going to do anything about that. i think that least we owe the free syrian army, negate the air attacks that they will be subjected to when they finish their training and equipping, and go into the fight. so why is it that we won't at least neutralize bashar al-assad's error of type to be -- activity which have slaughtered thousands and thousands and thousands, 192000 dead, 3 million refugees, and we're not going to do anything about assad's air capabilities? and finally isil first. that's what you were telling these young men who really do assad as the one who slaughtered their family members, not isil, as bad as isil is. so how do you square that

circle, mr. secretary? >> you square this way, senator. and first of all, let me just say a word. i think everybody knows, i had the pleasure of working with robert ford in the department from the day i arrive there. >> we share admiration for him. >> we worked very closely together. i have huge respect and admiration for him. he and i worked many long hours with the syrian opposition. i respect his opinion, et cetera. he is correct that they won't stop fighting the assad regime. i understand that. we understand that. >> not only won't stop fighting, it's their primary goal. >> well it is except -- >> i know two of them, john. >> i understand. it is. i'm not denying that, but they also are fighting isil. they are up in a level fighting isil. they're fighting isil in other

places. they are engaged in fighting isil. our belief is, i think, i bet you, i hope robert ford believes that they believe actually get stronger as result of isil being removed from the field. spent are you not going to protect them from air strikes? >> i think what we need, yes. that's a legitimate concern. and it is a concern that i would need to address with you in a classified session for reasons i think you will understand. and i think robert ford while understands that. >> i think the free syrian army would like to understand, too. >> and if we have a good classified session and other good things happen here, who knows. the important thing is for us to recognize that if isil continues doing what it's doing, and i think you know this, without being stopped, and if we hadn't stood up when we did stand up

and work with the peshmerga and help them to push back and retake mosul dam and so forth, they were threatening baghdad. they were threatening more. if they did -- >> we're talking about syria. and the free syrian army. >> i'm about to come back. >> thank you. i'm running out of time. >> that pertains to the capacity and to focus on assad, and that might be not the free syrian army but isil that you see in damascus. and isil bringing on this or and other people to them because of the level of their success -- al-nusra front. clearly many people told us in the region, access breeds success. and many of the people who come to isil have come because it seemed as if they weren't being opposed. we believe that transition works to the benefit of the moderate opposition, works ultimately to all of our benefit by removing isil from the field. >> you cannot ask people to go and fight and die unless you promise them that you will

defeat their enemy and defeated them right away. you can't say, wait into we defeat isil. people will not volunteer for such things. >> i don't believe it's going to be ultimate a wait-and-see because i don't believe, number one, that the people supporting the opposition in various parts of the region are ever going to stop until the assad problem is resolved. number two, i do with isil, i don't believe that the moderate opposition will obviously stop in that effort. so, therefore, they will be these two prongs. there's no way to avoid that. >> i hope there are two prongs and not isil first, if that message is not given to these brave young people we're asking to sacrifice. >> if we don't stop isil first, there may not be much left of the other prong. >> john. >> senator murphy. >> that means we get to go to adversaries at once. that's bogus and false. >> i know you two colleagues would like to go at it for the rest of the session, but --

>> no, no, no. >> we have other -- >> we have a great tradition. i believe in john's adage that a fight not join is a fight not enjoyed. we always have a great time. >> senator coons. i'm sorry. >> thank you. thank you, secretary for entering and outlining and discussing with us the details, the strategy to degrade and destroy isil. i want to thank ambassador ford for his commendable service and is ongoing to but to the people of syria. i have a long opening statement which i will suppose that for the record. i share your grave concern about isil, the threat it poses to regional allies and the united states, and the actions added to can the massacring of christians, you see these, turkmen, and i'm proud we have stood up to them and he could hear her about how it will play of the first if i might in your visit to baghdad last week, the prime minister announced a proposal to establish a national guard style force of sunnis that would reclaim and protect

predominance in the areas. i think reconciliation between shia and sunni in the form of government and in the on the ground position is a subject or have an prospect of success. can you explain how long it will take to establish this national guard style sunni force on the ground in iraq? how this model will work and if there be any role for our national guard in training or equipment or supporting this iraqi national guard. >> senator coons, that's really good question, and i don't have all the answers at this point in time. there are military decisions with respect to who's going to be involved in training them and whether there's room for some national guard input, et cetera. i'm confident that the military folks would not dream of advising and assisting with respect to the national guard structure without using their experience within our military as to how it is work and how

it's been effective. that said, let me just say very quickly, the theory of it is to try to localize capacity in a way as i think you know that deals with the sectarian divide. one of the reasons that the quote iraq army as it's been called folded in mosul before the wave of isil was frankly that some of the officers abandoned the men who were left behind, and there was a real sense of sectarian divide. they left because they were perceived i many people, this was part of the problem with that iraq at that time, that there was a sunni, there was a sunni-shi'a divide, sectarian divide within a construct of the military itself. people to some degree felt even better went so far to be the prime ministers personal military entity, and there wasn't a stake into. so as to the absence of that commitment that motivated people to take off.

and that has to be done away with. there has to be a unity. whatever this national guard is it's going to have to still be unified and connected to the state, into a sense of national enterprise, but made up of people who have a greater stake in their local community, in their region, which was absent previously. >> i agree and support your hard work in the diplomacy side of trying to address the challenges in iraq, because if we have a she only government and military is not sustainable and that is what created the backing. let the backing. let me move on to regional questions if i could. has the campaign against isil affected our ongoing negotiations to end iran's illicit nuclear program? how has the potential to expanded military campaign against isil made it more difficult to find a final deal between iran and the p5+1, the deadline coming in november, or have a mutual interests of iraq

and some of p5+1 members provided a comment pointed interest for ongoing dialogue? how has it affected -- >> we hope it's going to be the latter. we hope very much it will be the latter part of your question. that it hasn't affected it, that they can continue. our p5+1 folks left for new york this afternoon. we will be engaging in that activity over the course of the next days. we will get a better sense of it. my belief is that the nuclear issue is so huge in its consequences, not just to iran but to the region, to the world, to all of us, the interest in getting rid of the sanctions which is the end goal here with respect to iran and our end goal to reach an agreement is significant enough that it won't let things. intand to the credit of people n the p5+1, thus far there's been a compartmentalization.

russia and china both very constructively continuing to be active and involved in the negotiations and constructive within them. our hope is that that will prevail going forward. the answer is, not yet defined fully. >> let me make sure you're not misunderstood because i don't think he meant exactly what you just said. the end goal is not to end the sanctions but the end goal is not -- >> the end goal is to end of the nuclear possibility. what i said is their end goal. their desire. >> that might be helpful speech i thought i said their desire is to obvious get sanctions. you can do that, you can't lift the sanctions without so guaranteeing that the four pathways to a nuclear weapon have been closed off and that's what we're working at. >> last question. i'm very concerned about the stability, security, safety of the kingdom of jordan. our vital ally in the region which has borne so much of the

challenge and burden of the refugees from syria. and i'm concerned that isil has had efforts to infiltrate jordan and there've been some isolated outbreaks of violence in jordan related to isil. what are we doing and what more can we do to strengthen king abdullah and to partner with him and work with him as we expand the mission we're talking budget as it has an impact, not just in series and iraq, but also in jordan? >> we are working very, very closely with our friends in jordan. i was in jordan and i met with king abdallah a few days ago, last week i think wednesday night after i'd been to iraq. we spend the evening talking about the various things we need to do together. they are determined to be helpful to us that we're determined to be helpful to them. and we will be. we're committed additional funds, committing additional equipment and capacity. and everybody shares concerns

with all the neighbors in the region. isil, 20 reasons why this is so critical. and i can assure you that an already extremely robust mil-to-mil, intel to intel, and you know, supply assistance program and economic program will be even more robust going forward. you all have the budget. you know what we're trying to do. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> thank you to mr. coming. yesterday's "new york times" headline, john kerry says u.s. is open to talking to iran. i agree with your comments about the nuclear issue is so huge. you to talk about compartmentalization, and also that iran's goal is to eliminate the sanctions. we've already seen the administration rollback sanctions january, $7 billion in

sanction relief. administration recently introduced and announced another 2.8 billion and iran sanctions relief. there is these concerns the administration could further relieve and remove sanctions in terms of trying to get concessions relating to iran and the fight in syria or iraq. clearly, iran and the united states don't have the same goals that we have in syria. i'm curious, what are you hoping to achieve by reaching out to iran regarding isil? >> senator, let me clarify something. it's very important to understand. every aspect of the interim agreement that we arrived at with iran, which required iran to do certain things, they have done. every aspect. the thing that's not standing still is the iaea compliance where a recent meeting was not as forthcoming as people would've liked but with respect

to the agreement they entered into with the united states, they've done all the things they said they would do. we have people daily inspecting in fordo. before that agreement we had none. we have people daily inspecting figure for the agreement we had none. we have people in iraq on a periodic basis with the plans and deliver it to us with the commissioning completely halted. and before that that wasn't true. i mean, i can run down the list. we've had access to centrifuges, with centrist production, centrifuged storage. we have mining and milling, and you know, it clear to hear to their activities that simply didn't exist. that's what we've gotten out of this. they are program has been halted where it was when we begin. they have reduced their stockpile of 20% going down to zero. that's an extraordinary thing for all the people who, frankly,

said to us it's never going to work, the sanctions will come apart. that's not what's happened to the sanctions regime has not only held, there have been additional sanctions. now yes, was there an agreement to release a portion of initial round of some of the money that had been escrowed and held? yet, 4.6 billion. was there an agreement for the extension of a plan to continue this cooperation of 2.8? yes. that's a total of about, what, 7 billion over what, nine months or something. the fact is that during that same amount of time, tens of billions of dollars have been withheld. there's more than 100, i forget the exact figure, more than 100 billion that iran wants to that is being held in a freeze again. until this gets resolved. so i would have to say to you, senator, this has been an enormous success thus far. our hope is that in exchange for

whatever schedule might be worked out, all of which will have to be subject to public scrutiny and a final agreement, any pathway to a bomb will be eliminated with a sufficient breakout time that we have the ability to come to you and say, the world is safer, our allies in the region are safer, and this is a deal that people believe can be upheld. that's the goal. we are not there yet. i don't know if we can get there. i hope we can get there because the alternatives are, you become more complicated. >> i don't want to get to one or sanctions have been removed and they're still on a path -- >> that will not happen. >> can ask you, switching to follofollow up on senator mccaio commit any intelligence on how the assad regime is going to react to the coalition launched airstrikes on isis targets in syria in terms of commitments that assad will not be getting specifically? we no isis doesn't have the

capable to shoot down our jet bombers, but syria does. are there precautions in place to prevent that's because the answer is we're going to take precautions but what i need to do is take it on with you in a classified session. >> a couple final questions on hostages. do you know how many american hostages are being held by isis or militant groups right now? >> about three or four. i don't want -- i think we've got to be careful on the number of. >> after the barbaric murder of james foley, the operational details of rescue attempts were leaked to the press completing the special operations unit. i just want to make sure the administration is committed to working to stop leaking classified information that undermines our military operations. >> i on us we don't know where it came from. i can't argue that. we have a problem in the city with leaks in every department of government. we tried, believe me, to stop that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. the world today is more complicated and more dangerous than any time during our lifetimes and i wake up everyday thankful that we have leaders like you and president obama, thoughtful, strategic, guiding our way through it. so thank you for all the work that you're doing and for him during this process for as long as you have. it strikes me we're dealing with a fundamentally new problem and a frustratingly familiar context, the new problem is isil. they are on the verge of becoming the world's first autonomous scarce state. if they are successful. i have no doubt that they will turn their focus on the united states and our allies, but the familiar new problem is the middle east. if we learned anything over the last 12 years '04, it's not the middle east seems largely immune from u.s. efforts to bend it to our well. so that's not an excuse to sit idly by. it's just agree somewhat with

very careful about crafting a strategy that's just well-intentioned and realistic. >> i think you in the president have got it largely right. i'm broadly supportive of the strategy that you've laid out with one exception. and so i just want to bring us back to the question about arming and training the same rebels. when we talked about this in open session a year ago, we raised concerns about the potential for the free syrian army to coordinate with al-nusra, the wing of al-qaeda, and there was conference that that would not end up being the case. but we have a variety of reports that that indeed has been the practice, most recently in a joint effort between the free syrian army and al-nusra front to take a border post between syria and israel. so let me ask you that question.

you answered senator udall's question about the ways in which we can keep arms from falling to islamic extremist groups. but why are you confident, how can you give us confidence that we're not going to train a fighting force that has going to enter a battle within the affiliate of al-qaeda? and how confident are we that ultimately when they get on the field of battle that they aren't going to look to isis, cited as an enemy that originally entered into battle against, assad, in common cause? >> senator, there is no failsafe obviously. as i said earlier in answer to an earlier question, our guys have gotten much, much better at getting. and now we're doing the training, to some degree and hopefully do it openly, going to be in a much better position to do command and control, to do

much greater in depth accountability, if you will. in the end there probably will be strange bedfellows moments in the course of this kind of battle. it would be crazy if i said and said to you, it will never happen, nobody, you know, these are circumstances that we don't always control. but by and large we're beginning to get a much better handle with other players in the region on the funding streams, for instance, out \mr.{-|}\mister, different countries that are played the angles pashtun al-nusra, are now coalescing together, and we see a shift and they think it's going to be to our benefit to be able to exercise at least a greater amount of control. fail-safe, i can't center and promise you that. but we're going to do the best we can. now let me just say to you, all of you here, a couple of things. one, the house just passed the syria train and assist and equip bill, and, obviously, we hope the house having done that that

the senate will follow suit in short order. also want to correct one thing i said earlier. i was talking about the agreement, and john is gone but i just want to emphasize, i didn't mean to say we didn't have any inspection before. we did not daily inspections. we have some inspections through our process, but now we have the daily. we did have a sufficient level to guarantees in a place like fordow that we had a comfort level. one of the thing to me just say because you raised this, senator murphy? >> fine. go ahead. >> go head. >> is my only followed is this. i understand that they will be strange bed close to the extent the strange bedfellows are the free syrian army fighting alongside al-nusra, which is a wing and an affiliate of al-qaeda, i hope that is not a reality that we are prepared to

accept. we have had all sorts of talk about isil, but it's important to remember that the only major terrorist organizations that has plans and stated intentions to carry them out against the united states today is al-qaeda. so i did want to make sure that we have a specific focus on that particular set of strange bedfellows. >> i'm with you 100%. we will, to the greatest degree possible, absolutely. but what i wanted to say to everybody here is, you mentioned something very important a moment ago, which was about isil being a terrorist state and so forth. this is one of the things that i ran into very strongly with all the meetings i had in the region. i want to share with you that one of the key parts of the strategy is to not ever give them the legitimacy that they're trying to seek as to being a state. they have no legitimacy.

they are not an islamic state. they're not in the vein of any other state in the country come in that region that tries to give meaning to the concept of islamism as they celebrate it with her citizens and their countries. this is important for us because, you know, islam doesn't produce the no legitimacy and islam produces the butchers who killed steven sotloff or david haines or jim foley. just, that's not islam. and islam is not isil. iand increasingly all all of the voices in the region are really starting to feel that they have a need to speak out and to reclaim islam. and that's when the most important things that can come out of this, and we're working on ways to do that.

so isil is not a state, obviously. it is remotely like a state, and what we need to do is make that more clear. so let me share with you two important things. the home of mecca and medina, which by the way are in the target scale of isis, these are islam's most holy cities. days ago they said of these murderers, they are enemy number one of islam. that comes from the grand mufti of saudi arabia. and today, saudi arabia's top clerical council, all 21 members, the only institution in the kingdom of saudi arabia that is authorized to issue thought loss, invoking mohammed -- for cause come using the words of the koran itself, today they said that isil are killers, thugs who should be singled out

and punished as apostates under sharia and made an example of. and they said they were not following the prophet but that these, and these are their words not mine, they are following the order of satan. that's which are beginning to hear from the region. that's a key part of this strategy and, obviously, we don't have the legitimacy to do what people in the region can do to delegitimize but we're so going to do everything in our power to help encourage that and make sure people are aware of it. >> senator paul. >> thank you, thank you for your testimony. i agree with you and with a president that we must confront and destroy isil. i think that, you know, i am well on record as being very skeptical about our interventions in the middle east. i think that the original war in iraq has led to more chaos than less stability. i think it presidents were in

libya as well as intervention in syria have led to less stability and more radical islam throughout the community. and have actually enabled isil. i did also and have been a frequent critic of secretary clinton for not providing adequate security though for benghazi and for the consulate. so i do think there is an american interest in defending our embassy in baghdad as well as our consulate and irbil. i want to be some method going forward from this thing today that there is obviously why partisan support for defending american interest in iraq. i am disappointed though in the president for not obeying the constitution to the constitution is very clear. a.k. the power to declare war to congress and jupiter were going to come back when it's convenient but we'll be committing war for the next three or four months and we will do as we please but that's not what the constitution intended. the interesting thing about the creative logic that's used to say that a vote in 2001 has anything to do with today is

that it seems to acknowledge that, well, that allows us to do anything with forces that may be associate with terrorism or al-qaeda. one of the interesting things is, if you look at ambassador ford's testimony, he will say that moderate forces have and will tactically coordinate with al-qaeda, with al-qaeda linked al-nusra. if we use your logic in saying the 2001 aumf can be used to justify this, the 2001 aumf can be used to justify going after a moderate syrian rebels. something really anybody who is intellectually honest would say that the people who voted in 2001 to go to war with people who attacked us on 9/11, the people who congregated in afghanistan has nothing to do with this. this committee, ma congress, senate and the president are all abdicated their responsibility to vote for a new use of authorization of force. and that which we're doing now

is illegal and unconstitutional. i think also from a practical point of view it would be better to bring the country together. i think we would galvanize more support. it would be a bipartisan war. had the president agreed to the president agreed the issue to come before a joint congress instead of going on tv, should have come before a joint congress and asked for resolution and it should have been a vote. that would have been true leadership, true bipartisan support and the would be less carpet on both sides but the president also used to believe this. the president ran and was one of the reasons the public would for the president initially is he said no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of congress. i liked the president as a candidate on this issue but no so much as a president. the other problem with this is bad, unicode who are these moderate people? are there really moderate islamic rebels in syria? here's a quote and i like your comment on this. ryan crocker, a distinguished former u.s. ambassador to iraq in syria said the

administrations knowledge about the non-isis opposition industry is that we need to do everything we can to figure out -- this is crocker. we need to do everything we can to figure who the non-isis opposition is because, frankly, we don't have a clue. most of the weapons we have been giving to the moderate rebels, they're sort of a stopping place. that's what he stopped briefly before isis takes the weapons. some of these, three national revolutionary front have signed a cease-fire. maybe not all of embedded rebels are by the same revolution in front has signed a cease-fire. so really i argue and i would believe at all like to your comment. i think we have allowed there to be more of a safe haven for isil in giving weapons to the so-called moderate rebels. it's taken pressure off them. it's kept assad at bay. and i think contrary to what others have said, that we bombed assad lester, i so would be in damascus. i think we are lucky we didn't bombed assad last year and that

we should be very careful about arming in the islamic rebels in syria because the weapons may not stay where they are intended and they may have the unintended consequence of action enabling isil. your comments. >> we are not planning to nor do we want, nor have we armed islamic folks in syria. the united states doesn't do that and we of the posted. robert bork will tell you that. and robert ford worked very hard to make sure that we weren't doing that. i also think it's good that you're going to hear from robert ford because he would give you about as good an analysis of the non-isis opposition is, and he will break it down point for point. because he did that for me on many occasions and articulate who they were and so forth, but he was also a passionate supporter of making certain that the moderate opposition got support and he fought hard to get it more support than they

did get. absolutely. so i think he should do that for you. let me just make it clear that the -- i am glad that you can guarantee that there would be a vote if it presidents and something up here. i've got 60 nominees, some of whom have been waiting more than a year to get a boat up here. the chair, the ranking member have been terrific at helping to try to break them out. but they can't get a vote. so if you can tell the president you can aptly guarantee ago, i would be really amazed. >> i find it unbelievable that if the president came before a joint session of congress and asked for use of force, that he wouldn't get a vote. i find it unthinkable. there's owsley no way you can imagine he would not get a vote if he asked for it. so really let's be honest. politics are engaged here. people don't have a vote before the election to the are afraid

of the vote. people are petrified not of the enemy but petrified of the electorate. that's why we're not having a vote. >> let me answer the first part of the questions we make it crystal clear why the president is doing what he's doing. because you are -- not insinuating, you are stating quite declaratively that the president is violating the constitution. the president out fully clearly by almost any legal standard that i can imagine is not violating the constitution. he is upholding a. article ii gives the president the power to do what he's doing. he has lived by the war powers act. act. he is countless noses up to the congress, and i think every legal analysis suggests that while you may not like it spent his if article ii gives unlimited power, why come at all speaks let me finish. because he delays that the congress to do this. and no one -- >> but he doesn't believe he is bound. >> the president has the right

as the president under article ii to defend this nation. and to take the steps necessary to do so. the war powers act declares the terms under which you do that, senator dick you know that, and he has lived absolutely within the constitutional erotica. secondly, like it or not, and i can agree. i think you can find reasons to be uncomfortable. that doesn't mean it's not legal. and the chairman of this committee has a probably going to try to recalibrate the aumf, which we support entirely. we welcome the opportunity to have it recalibrated. it should be, but for the moment the president believes we need to move now and that is a full and appropriate exercise of constitutional power. >> and for the record that will be after the election. >> senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, mr. secretary, for your testimony. it has been eliminating back and forth but i also want to thank

ambassador ford and mr. connable to the written testimony very instructive. i often walk away from hearings older but not smarter i'm walking away from this one older and smarter. so thank you for that. mr. chair, i want to thank you for comment at the beginning with respect to the authorization. a number of us feel like additional congressional authorization for the mission as described by the president is mandatory. some of us don't feel that but all of us i think on both sides of the day is believe it is advisable. your commitment to cracking that in an appropriate way is notable and important. i've introduced a draft and others have as well that we know will be forwarded to this committee as we can put something together that is intact bipartisan, and they should be based on the statement around the table, it should be. and observation. tomorrow in portsmouth, virginia, a container ship is returning to the commonwealth of

virginia. it's a merchant marine ship with merchant rings and dod personnel and its bishop that it's been in the mediterranean involved in the complete destruction of the declared syrian chemical weapons stockpile. that's a good tuesday tomorrow. i think it is something that we ought to contemplate as we are thinking about u.s. power, that there was a diplomatic breakthrough that led to the destruction of one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world. the u.s. played a critical role in this committee played a critical role. a diplomatic breakthrough a factor into was the willingness to use military force. diplomacy is important ar. often you get a much better result if you are willing to use military force to some enter the what happened less you at the present step away from the red line. know, there was a bread line. will take action if he used chemical weapons. we were prepared to take no to action. had we taken military action, the best we're going to get from the mission as described was convincing the assad regime not

to use chemical weapons again. but we weren't going to get their complete destruction to those chemical weapons still would've been out there, possibly seized by isolate or other element. what we now have because of their willingness to use military force as a factor is the complete destruction of the stockpile that is widely viewed as a real positive, especially by neighbors in the region. as we move forward, diplomacy is important, credible military threat is important. those things can work together. mr. secretary, you talk a lot about this. we are very deeply concerned about the extent of the coalition. we understand it's still coming together the purpose for them to do is not to describe every nation and what their role is, but just to sort of put it on the table for you and others, it is incredibly important that this coalitio coalition not just but that also the public at the appropriate point. and that the participation of arab nations, nations in the region, be public.

they have often been willing to support the united states playing the lead in a financial way when they haven't wanted to be public in condemning atrocities within their own region. i don't think the american public i don't think congress will support the united states policing a region that will not police itself. so it's critically important for the success of the mission and for the success of both getting bipartisan support, the support of the american public, that the coalition be fast, but with the nations in the region that the participation will help finance a but we don't want to be public about it be public about it. they had before public partners for this nation to be successful. in addition the importance of the public participation is critical to the success of the nation on the ground. because if this is a campaign of the west against isil or the u.s. against isil, in a bizarre way we will potentially legitimize isil even more. but if it is in terrific was earlier that are helpful, if

it's a public campaign by leaders in the region, whether they be religious leaders are clerics, against isil, this is not about islam. you are -- to the more public that is, the more isil is delegitimize. the ultimate success of this nation is not just a military success. is a delegitimization strategy that will strip away the pretense that this i is in or decisions than anything to do with islam. and chemistry to the public they can back away from academic. that's why the coalition thing is so critical. the public nature of the coalition is important. if you just want to comment on that briefly, please. >> senator, look, you said it everything i've said in the course of hearing. we completely understand that. we did not want this just to be, this is not just an american effort. that's one of the reasons why the president took the time to make sure that the iraqi government was in place. that we're going to build a

coalition, that we took the time to do what was necessary because we all understand that no one is advantage by this being perceived of as just american effort. and it's not. many other countries, france help step up and bring people to paris the other day for a larger conference. in jeddah, saudi will be hosted at me. me. countries that have not sat at the table together for some period of time were at the table. one of the things people have is officially focus on in this story is the iraqi story. iraq was on the brink two months ago. many people were talking about, isn't going to break up? ended altogether? what's going to happen? we work very closely with iraqis. iraqis led the effort, all of them. the sunni folks who had bitter feelings about what had happened in the last years came together,

picked a new speaker. the kurds were plenty of reasons to be mistrustful and not be certain of the future, came together and elected a new president. that new president had the courage to choose somebody other than the current prime minister to say, you try to form a government. that could have altered. it didn't. they came together. put together that new government, actually ratified the new prime minister. the new prime minister has been contending to put the government together. is forward missed was in jeddah come in pairs. so this photograph i pointed out of the current president -- a curved president, of a saudi arabian foreign minister, of a shia iraqi foreign minister, altogether conferring about how they're going to deal with isil

tells you the story of an amazing transformation that has taken place. and i think people need to recognize that that's a big step forward. now we have to build on it. the second thing i would just say, i want to thank your people. i wish you would extend the huge gratitude of the administration end of the world for this incredible job well done. you out to be correct. the president announced he was going to strike. we had already been talking with the russians and others about how to get weapons out. and then the deal came together and took away the necessity for the president to make a judgment he still would've made, whether or not to strike under his constitutional power based on the announcement he made. but clearly, getting 100% of the declared weapons outcome we still have some questions about a few other things, but 100%, 1300 tons of weapons out

completely and destroyed is the first time that has ever happened in the time of conflict in any part of the world. and i'll study, ask prime minister netanyahu, as people in the region. they will tell you they are safer pick you up and x. factor that has not been eliminated in this whole equation of what we may or may not be in syria. as a consequence of that action. >> senator markey. >> thank you for the excellent work you are doing, mr. secretary. turkey, turkey doesn't want to become part of our combat operations because isil has hostages from turkey. but at the same time turkey has become a destination for the oil which has been captured by the isil arm in both iraq and in syria. it's upwards of a million,

$3 million a day, 300 million to a billion dollars in the course of the year. in fact smuggled oil has now become the lifeblood of the isil army. to talk a little bit about turkey and what efforts are going to be to shut this didn't get because without that money they don't have the money to produce hollywood salvages. they don't have the money to pay their soldiers. they don't have the money to take of the cities and towns they're taking over. talk about what we have to do with turkey to just get them to shut this down. >> senator, it's a very, very relevant question and one we're working on very hard, obviously. we really do understand the sensitivities that turkey has. i don't want to talk about it too much publicly to be honest with you because of that. i think we are better off having a classified conversations about this. but i have hopes that as we move

forward here over time, that the current dynamic may be able to shift in the way that will help us deal with that a lot more. turkey understands the challenges, believe me. we have had some very candid conversations about it. but turkey will have to make its decisions in today's head and we will see what happens. >> is unconscionable that turkey has become the principal source of funding for isil. if we can shut that down, we do almost immeasurable damage to the ability to finance this war. i just think we have to put turkey right front and center, and have the world say to them, they must stop. let me move on. the language which is in the resolution says that one of the goals is to promote the conditions for a negotiated

settlement to end the conflict in syria. we'll be voting on that. so experts are saying that it will take upwards of three years do we secure the border between iraq and syria. and experts are also saying that it will take up to 10 years to create the conditions on the ground in syria to bring assad to the table in order to, in fact, have a negotiated settlement. so i would ask you to talk about those two timelines that experts are talking about, realistically given the weakness of the free syrian army, how long it will take to build them up, how long it would take for us to push the isil army out of iraq. the american people i think want to know how long we are going to be engaged in this effort towards that end game.

>> well, let me talk macro in a sensor, senator, if i can. first of all i have read there is accounts of summaries of various experts. some phone our experts and some of them are called experts. there's only one expert right now that i'm looking to, and that's general john allen. he has the responsibility. he is putting together his team very rapidly. he's having meetings, and i will listen to him very carefully before i start pushing out timelines. now, said, president obama has always said we'll take a number of years to do the broad-based effort that we -- when i said that, i think you can do a lot to isil fairly quickly and then you have a longer fight as you begin to really go into the full

destruction and defeat mode, so to speak. but i veggie chili, and this is something that i expect to be talking about more with this committee and with congress over the course of the next month. the fight of our generation is a combined fight against the immediate challenge of radical religious extremism and its exploitation and various parts of the world, and large unemployed population of young people without good governance, surrounded him and without opportunity, without dignity, respect. this is the challenge we face, all of us, in all countries that consider themselves developed and underdeveloped and civilized. it's our challenge, and we need to figure out how they're going to do all the things we need to

do. this is part of what president obama talked about when he went to west point and about the focus on counterterrorism and the need to talk more as we go forward in the days ahead about exactly how were going to fill out the full agenda of our country to be safe in the long term. it is a big, long-term operation, and that part of it is going to take years. and the united states, i think it is clear, is going to have to help lead that effort and is going to acquire a different attitude about foreign policy and engagement that a lot of people have been willing to embrace. i look forward to that discussion very much. we're doing our homework to be able to come to you with helpful ideas about how we can deal with it. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we are very fortunate to have you as the person sitting in that seat. thank you. >> well, you are because you are now in my seat. [laughter] >> the most fortunate of them all. well, mr. secretary, thank you

for your engagement here today. he became the secretary of state at a time in which i have never seen in 22 years in the congress a confluence of challenges globally as they exist right now. a topic we've been discussing here for the last three hours, the challenge of isil, the russian invasion in ukraine, the challenges of ebola in africa, the reality of our continuing challenge with iran and its search for nuclear weapons, and the list goes on and on. and your service comes an extraordinarily important time, so we want to salute you. i do want to make one or two final comments. number one is this is going to be an issue in which more information and a steady flow of information in briefings will be critical to having a congressional understanding and the ultimate support for what i believe is our mutual mission,

to defeat isil. and i just want to say that on various occasions you have legitimately said that we need to have some of these conversations in classified settings. i will say that i look forward to an intentional to those classified hearings, but i hope it's going to be as robust so that when we get into a classified hearing we don't have to hear, well, i can't talk about that in the context. that would be problematic. secondly, there have been many -- i don't question anybody's intentions here. i always believe that there are many legitimate questions. there are certainly legitimate questions women think about putting america's sons and daughters into harm's way. we are strongest in the national challenges that we face when we speak with one voice, as democrats, republicans and independents together as americans. and it is that unity of purpose

i think it would be critical, a critical element of our success against isil. this is a moment in which politics must stop at the water's edge. this committee for the last two years has taken on a whole host of major foreign policy and national security challenges in a bipartisan way. and i look forward to working with my colleagues to come together again to do that in this most critical case. i think we can. and, finally, i remind those who are concerned about the use of u.s. military might in a foreign country, that we face the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. i don't know how you negotiate with an entity that the heads americans. so thank you, mr. secretary, for your testimony for what i expect will be a continuing engagement. and before you have a parting

word, do want to urge call x., we have an important panel coming up with a lot of information but i hope members will be able to stay or come back. >> i will be very brief. thank you very much. i look forward to having those discussions. i think you know this, i've long believed that the chairman and ranking member should have the same input as the chair and ranking member of the other committees, armed services, et cetera, intel, because of the policy considerations. and i have advocated for that within this administration. and something i think i to happen. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary. we appreciate your testimony. let me call up our second battle today as the secretary leaves, and i -- the committee will come to order. i will ask of the capitol police to remove individuals who will not come to order.

our second panel today is robert ford, senior fellow of the middle east institute and ambassador ford of course has a lot of interesting osha street in the foreign service of the united states which he did so exceptionally well in syria. and ben connable, international policy analyst at the rand corporation in washington. i appreciate both of you, both in the written statements will be included in the record in its entirety, without objection. and i appreciate your willingness to hang in there for the last several hours and to still be here to provide what i think is some critical testimony and insight. so with the thanks of the committee to both of you, i

would recommend, i mean, i recognize senator, i mean i will recognize ambassador ford first. then we will turn to mr. connable. ambassador ford. >> mr. chairman, senator johnson, and other distinguished guests and members of the committee. it's a very big honor to be with you today. i thank you for the invitation. as you noted, i submitted a written statement. and so let me just make a few opening remarks. then i'll turn it over to my co-panelist. many have spoken about the dangers of the islamic state against us and against our allies in the region and i would send a note that i have been looking on arabic social media sites in arabic language, and

some of the language is bloodcurdling, the threats against us, and they take these people at the work. they do present a series of danger to us. the administration's proposal to increase assistance to moderate elements of the armed opposition in syria will be useful as one part of addressing the islamic state threat, and the administration's proposal deserves congressional support. i understand from you, secretary kerry, that the house has voted and i hope the senate does as well as soon as possible. let me just make three points. first, and i heard it again today here, people question whether there is a moderate armed opposition, but there is and is already fighting the islamic state. i put some details about some of the groups in my written testimony, mr. chairman.

when i say moderate, what i mean by that word is that it's leaders, the leaders of these groups, do not seek to impose a religious state on searing society by force. many of them are islamists, mr. chairman, but they do not seek to impose a religious state by force. that said, there are no angels in the syrian war now. however, the moderate groups emanate from what were peaceful protests movements around syria in 2011. these are the protest movements that i myself saw. and their leaders accept the idea that there has to be an eventual political deal in city. that also makes the moderate.

some of these groups in fact, clinton groups in my written testimony had representative ree talks in geneva where secretary kerry was present. my second point is these moderates now are fighting the islamic state. they lost badly in eastern syria. they lost very badly. that's not the islamic state to control of oilfields. they're holding their own right now in northern syria, not far from the turkish border, but it's a hard fight. it's a desperate fight, and they would definitely benefit from greater and more reliable material aid in those battles against the islamic state in northern syria. we just had delegation here from the iraqi kurdish government. like the iraqi kurdish peshmerga who are fighting the iraqis did on the -- the moderate armed opposition in syria would benefit as well from american air strikes against islamic state targets. they would benefit more than

assad because those airstrikes up in northern syria would help the moderates we are trying to help secure the moderates vital supply lines. assad doesn't even have forces that far north in syria anyway. my last point is that we had to go into this with our eyes open. the moderates in the free syrian army and the syrian armed opposition, their primary enemy is indeed still the assad regime which has killed far more serious than has the islamic state, as often and as terrible as the islamic state is. so as we try to work with them, they will always be thinking about how to manage their two front war. islamic state on one side, assad regime on the other. but as the resources from the entire coalition of countries that secretary and the administration is assembling, as

their total resources increase, they will have more resources to devote against the islamic state there but i doubt that all of their new resources them all of the countries are going to be used only against the islamic state. i think we have to understand that going in. mr. chairman, i will be happy to take questions later, and thank you again for your invitation. >> thank you. mr. connable? >> chairman mendez, ranking member corker, thank you for my me to testify. i've been engaging with sunni iraqis and 2031 as a marine intelligence officer and then as an attaché. iraqis. most recently, in support of my research on sunni iraqi perceptions also. my remarks are based on relationships and on my research. i will outline options the u.s. and allies can take in order to help free northern and western

iraq from islamic state dominant. the thrust of my proposition is that the success or failure of any effort hinging not on tactical considerations or tribal engagement issues but on the wreck sillization. they generate considerable fear. also because the ongoing sunni revolt against iraq has given is an opportunity to lack on to the sunni host. i.s. serves the purposes by fighting with a temporary accommodation. in late 2014, we have a situation in iraq that closely resembles that in late 2004. iraqis are disenfranchised from their government. they don't trust the coalition. underlying all of this is the desire to turn out the extreem t extremists. the ways in which they might be

ejected matter a great deal. the coalition counterterrorism approach which has air strikes, iraqi operations will reduce i.s. influence and power in iraq. the coalition plan to defeat and defaces a range of challenging. i will --. these groups will drop to support iraqi advances for the west and the almost wholly -- there limits to iraqi collaboration. second, the offensive capability of the iraqi army is questionable at best. it is more likely they will move slowly, haltingly everyone in sufficient force to overcome many of the objectives they will face. e insufficient force to overcome many of the objectives they'll face. third, the iraqi army is not structured, trained or inclined to k ukt the kind of thoughtful counterinsurgency campaign that appears necessary in the sunni provinces.

instead they're likely to conduct the kind of tactical campaign they executed in anbar in 2014. this approach is unlikely to generate grassroots sunni support for the government. it is critical to the success of the coalition campaign. this kind of uprising a revolt against i.s. is possible to the certain loogs i'm laying before you this afternoon. to achieve this some hope to force a reprise of the 2006-2008 awakening movement by ensentivizing sunni with military aid. simply paying or incentivizing sunni to fight at the local level absent national reconciliation is likely to perpetuate rather than reduce instability in iraq. if not addressed the ongoing revolt will continue even if i.s. is ejected. in this event the second awakening is likely to end the same way as the first, with armed angry sunni fighters turning against the government in a recurring cycle of violence. president obama and senior administration officials have

correctly stressed that success against i.s. is dependent on iraqi reconciliation and positive leadership. i recommend two mutually supportive approaching, one solely iraqi and one for the broader coalition to capitalize on this strategic assumption. prime minister al abadi has a window of opportunity now in the early stages of the campaign to make moves toward genuine reconciliation. the coalition should encourage him to enact all grievance resolution measures within his authority in one fell swoop. following this top level iraqi action, all coalition activities should be predicated on reconciliation. this may mean taking some tactical risk but these risks will be taken in the hospital of achieving long-term stability rather than short-term tactical success. stopping i.s. now is wise. current i.s. action should be applied aggressively to keep the organization on its heels. in the case of i.s. military force is necessary, yet addressing root causes of any insurgency is also historically proven to be the best and most lasting way to defeat insurgent

groups. leveraging reconciliation and using military force to support reconciliation rather than using reconciliation to support military force seems to be the least costly and possibly the only way to defeat islamic state in iraq and to stabilize that country. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> well, thank you, tha th for >> ambassador ford, let me start with you. one of the main arguments that the administration i has presend in addressing members of congress is concerned about the vetting for the fighters and we seek to train and equip the so-called moderate vetted syrian rebels is we know them. we know them. and i can tell you that as this is your has come forward that i am constantly caught my colleagues for which this is one of their central questions, not the only question but one of their central question, particularly as this vote comes up. so my question to you is do we

really know these fighters that would receive u.s. training and equipping if congress provided the authority? and are there enough willing, capable fighters that would pass u.s. vetting standards, do you believe? >> the answer to the second question is a simple yes. there will be enough. actually the problem has always been, senator menendez, that there have been more willing fighters in the free syrian army than they've had to carry all, guns and ammunition, et cetera. so a different question is do we know them? two things i would say. first, we don't know all 1500 groups because some of the groups are just two or three guys and they had a video camera and wow, you're a group of freedom fighters. there's actually a pretty small number of serious groups. when i see serious, i mean that have 1000, five, 7000 that

number of groups is pretty small. it wouldn't has more than about 15, 20. funny how that's never mentioned in the press. those groups, we don't work with all of them. some of them are beyond the pale politically in terms of not being moderate. that's a big group. so i've met but we do not provide assistance to them. the other groups and ones, for example, the state department was providing nonlethal assistance do, yes, we know them. it's not a secret that i met them on occasion in places like turkey, and i went over the border investing in syria about 14 months ago. we know them and we talked politics with them. we've talked about the nusra front with them. those i think we know, and we've had more experience just in the

last seven, eight, nine, 10 months with them as well. so i think the groups that we need to help that will have an impact on the ground, we know them. >> so we know them, and you believe that he sufficient enough number of capable fighters would pass u.s. vetting standards speaks you as i do. erd pass u.s. vetting standards? >> yes, i do -- i feel very strongly about that. >> that's very important to know. now, in an article in sunday's "new york times" there was a report that says mr. assad and his closest advisers have looked at the american decision to undertake anti-isil military strikes in syria as representing a victory for their longstanding strate strategy, which is obliterating any moderate opposition to his rule and persuading the world that he faces a stark choice between him and the islamist militants who threaten the west.

how do -- how do we respond to those who raise that concern? how do we prevent assad and his iranian and russian backed forces from seizing back territory after military strikes further squeezing the moderate syrian rebels. >> two comments on that quickly, senator. first, assad doesn't have enough forces. he's been seriously depleted. that's why he couldn't hold the air base in topka, for example, where they actually flew some of their senior officers out and then left hundreds of their soldiers to be murdered by the islamic state of iraq and alam. and they couldn't hold other parts of eastern syria, for example. he doesn't have the troop to put back in. his forces are very stretched. he was depending a lot on hezbollah and iraqi shia

militia. the iraqi shia about assad benefiting very much. the moderate armed opposition will benefit greatly more, special as they try to secure their supply line. it's interesting to me that i so is trying to cut their supply line coming down from turkey. so they need help to secure those lines. one of the comment about the sharpless on. i think his strategy all along has been to destroy the -- bashar unless on. destroy the army fighters attached to it. if we don't go forward on this proposal to help the moderate armed opposition, i think he will say indeed my strategy is working, the americans would come around and eventually deal with me. and that will actually make it even harder to get a resolution

to this hearing crisis. >> which is in part why we have an authorization in the committee a year ago which is your view. part of a want to do is try to get some of the concerns of my colleagues responded to by virtue of your expertise. thirdly, the authorization i were submitted by the administration effort to stand up, train and equip the effort for this string moderate opposition articulates three purposes. one, defending the syrian people from attacks by isil and the syrian regime. facilitating the positions of the central service and stabilizing territory controlled by the opposition. two, protecting the united states, its friends and allies and the syrian people from threats posed by terrorists in syria. and three, promoting the condition of negotiated settlement to end the conflict in syria. do you agree that those should be the stated purposes of? would you change or add

anything? >> sorry, i hadn't seen this language. yes, these seem reasonable to me but i would just caution that getting to negotiation is going to be a very long and hard process. i wouldn't want to pretend that we could get there quickly. geneva was a bad failure, and until the regime feels more pressure, it's already under pressure. what's interesting is in assad's own community now there are demonstrations against them. there's a whole campaign called scream of the nation, chris i think assad for keeping his throat, they call it, and sending young alawite to their graves. so there are cracks which we didn't see before. i don't think this will be fast, senator. so the first goal containing and

starting to roll back isil and sending three people and also as well, those are in the short term things we have to work on right away, negotiations will come later. >> bright. and do you think cashman said of mccain is back. he cannot ask this question on his own but i think it's an important one. do you envision the moderate vetted syrian rebels, understanding of where training and equipping them with our focus being isil, that people look towards that fight even as their main goal is to displace assad? >> absolutely. they will for two reasons. one, the islamic -- or isil is actually threatening their supply lines right now, and have butchered hundreds of members of

the moderate syrian opposition. and i mean butchered. cut their throats, video, the whole nine yards. so there is no, there's a lot of bad blood between them. that's the first reason. the second reason is, in places where isil was in authority, especially in northwestern syria, and was a popular reaction against them. and that public popular support help the moderate armed opposition actually eject isil fighters out of the province, and also the same thing happened in a little -- a level to the west of the city. there was also an uprising, a very good uprising against isil, an entire tribe rose up against them. but they didn't get any help. that's not a criticism of us are say, but they just, they lost a military battle and isil killed,

i've seen estimates as many as a thousand of the tribesmen afterwards in retaliation. so there will be constant problems and fighting between the moderate armed opposition and isil. i don't see any way that that's going to end. syrians just in general are better trained people and they do not go for this kind of very heavy duty conservative solidly tight state. they are just not that kind of fundamentalist religiously. >> i do have questions for you but my time has run out. indifference to my colleague i will come back to you at the end. senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador ford, i think we've all experienced being, are most of us, refugee camps looking into the eyes of syrians who had

counted on us to do a lot of things that we said we're going to do and didn't give. and their brothers and cousins and uncles were butchered, and we never supported them like we said we would. you're actually encouraged them out doing their patriotic duty. we encouraged them out. and, in fact, we didn't follow up with much that they thought was coming. when we did, it was delayed. and i want to thank you for your service also and your leadership in this area, and i think all of us on this panel probably wish to do so. my question to you is, what is the mentality now of the syrian opposition, having seen promised support, if not being what was envisioned, what is the mentality, their attitude towards the united states right

now relative to helping them against assad? >> senator corker, thank you. first just to comment to be clear on the record. we did not encourage and i certainly as ambassador did not encourage cities to protest, but i did defend the right to protest peacefully. and that when i was in the country i said, do not resort to violence. because it will cause problems even for us if you do that. that's ancient history, just to be clear what we did. we didn't encourage them out, but we actually stood for the right to protest peacefully in the u.n. charter for human rights. what is the mentality of the syrian opposition now? towards us i think you and i both know that there's a lot of bitterness, 200, maybe more, 200,000 may be more have died. i think there is very great that the united states didn't intervene militarily to stop

the. there is a belief that we could have stopped it. not sure that believe is accurate, but in case it is widely hailed. and so we have a credibility problem and when the credibility problem, senator corker, with some of these groups even. you don't regain credibility overnight. it's based on new shared expenses. and so where we go forward with the administration's proposal, and i certainly hope we do, i think with the passage of time, credibility and confidence can be restored. but i think it will be bumpy at the start. >> thank you for that. one of the things that people have said, and by the way, i strongly support it, as most people did here, arming especially back in may but even before a year and half ago and i think we might be in a different

situation today. i would say we would be in a different situation today if we had taken action at a better time. i still support what gingrich happen, although i have a lot of questions. relative to the moderate opposition being trained and armed, some people have said who have been close to this issue that there aren't enough -- kindly answered a question specifically to menendez, but there aren't enough and it's very difficult and expensive to train these people, that 5000 troops over the next year, short-term training in saudi arabia, getting more sophisticated weapons after they have proven themselves on the ground, is something that is not going to be particularly effective. could you respond to that?

>> steery is a big country, and 5000 is not a lot for a country that size. -- syria. this is armed opposition is a lot bigger than 5000 in the latest number i've seen for the non-newsroom, non-isil group is still in the range of 80, to 100,000 i think most people are now saying it's on the lower end of that, sosa 80,000. some say higher. the islamic state, you probably saw the same things in the press i did. .. somewhere, 20,000 to 30,000 of which some are in iraq and some are in syria. so it's not as if the 5,000 would be the only ones on the field. i think there will be a lot of others on the field. and although we're not helping some of the harder line islamist groups like arad asham, arad asham is also fighting isil

right now and isil killed a number of arad asham prisoners. we're not in that exact fight in the groups that we have helped areód not in that fight but the are other people also fighting the islamic state. i don't look at it as only 5,000. >> knowing what you know about the way things are on the ground, is what's being laid out something that will evolve into an effective ground strategy or are there additional components that you, knowing the country the way you are, are necessary if we really want to destroy and defeat isil are necessary to make that happen? >> i would think we're goingx t get into a long-term relationship with any of these groups that i mentioned, it has to be really carefully coordinated with other countries in the region that have been funneling in help. and it's got