nothing proposed from your president seems to be that you contain il and you somehow create the space for the time for the iraqi state to get in there and clear, hold, build, and create effective, legitimate and credible state structures, the iraqi army gets into mosul and gets in and bar and someone turned the situation around. how i characterize it that probably and what would be your analysis of that kind of theory? >> i would think that's the best case scenario. i think that's going to happen? know, because we've already seen how a shia regime handles this. the other problem we are going to have is the same one as one man in afghanistan. we're going to have a safe haven across the border into syria or whatever you want to call it, just like the taliban and pakistan. you can't get added so they're going to continue to attack and stabilize. then what do you do? are you going to be like the french in algeria where you

invade tunisia because you the fln across the border? it just expands. where do you stop? these things keep escalating. at some point you've got to decide how the moral question you have to say, this is it, this is what we're going to do. otherwise we're in for a lot of money and a lot of lives lost, and a lot of treasure expended, in my opinion. >> i.t. very much. -- thank you very much. briefly for our next witness, general shirreff. >> the committee is fortunate to have with us today, again

general sir richard shirreff, mostly so serve as the deputy supreme allied commander europe, and has otherwise headed for distinguished career, in which she has served in kosovo, and iraq. indeed, in most of the combat situations of the british military. he is with us today to provided perspective on the strategy as a very recently retired british general. general sir richard, when did you formerly the military? >> formally on seven august. >> you have been critical of the government strategy. i want to put a question to you in two parts. would you be confident that our current military is clear and confident about what the

government strategy is an iraq and on taking on isil? in answering that question, do you believe that actually whatever that may be, that can be attained by airstrikes alone? >> i can't answer for the current server military, as to whether they are clear or not. >> i'm asking what you think. >> if you're asking me if i think this is a credible and sensible strategy that is going to achieve a policy, i would start by looking to define the policy. i think we've seen at least on two occasions in sunday papers articles written by both the prime minister and the foreign secretary highlighting the threat that isil causes in fairly a public terms --

apocalyptic terms and stressing the need to exercise them from the face of the earth, or words to that effect. i paraphrase wraps. if that is the government policy, then i don't think that the strategy such as it is is going to achieve that. >> why not? >> because i think strategy is about integrating ins, ways and means in the pursuit of policy. i quote from the rcds pamphlet on strategy. the policy needs to be clear. the ends need to be clarified. the problem needs to be scoped. you then need to determine how you're going to resolve the problem. and then you need to allocate means to achieve that. that means putting your money where your mouth is, in a sense. what we've seen, i'm afraid, for the government is a degree of what i described as gesture strategy.

a lot of noise about the nature of the problem, but precious little in terms of resolving the problem. if you go back, for example, to the protection of the yazidis, back in august, what did we see? a lot of noise about protecting these cds and the deployment of two c-130s to drop relief supplies. you do not protect people by dropping humanitarian relief on top of them, and the results of data plane to see. >> i was under pressure a little further. i think you partly answered it. you have said that the government vi the of the prime minister and foreign secretary have said, but do you see a strategy? i'm trying to pin you down to be a bit more succinct. >> well, as i think i said, a strategy requires -- >> you have set out the objectives, bullet what is the strategy? >> i do not see a strategy because a strategy requires the application not only of military

force. your previous interviewee, dr. porch, stressed the importance of politics and i would actually sanction that. it's about applying all the levers of power, political, diplomatic, economic, reconstruction, humanitarian as well as military to achieve the aims of policy, and they don't think we've seen that. >> what difficulty with up with the military in, in terms of trying to do their job? >> if you ask the military to take the lead in a political vacuum, you are asking for problems because there is no such thing as a purely military solution. you cannot expect the military to apply force without the other levers of power being applied at the same time. so if that is your strategy, it is going to fail. >> a number of distinguished heads of our armed forces have said this will not work without ground forces. would you like to comment on

that? the fact is, you have a problem with a strategy in the first place. >> yes. if you have a threat, and tv take the threat posed by isil, which is potentially looking at defeating and undermining a state in the middle east, iraq, given the collapse of the iraqi armed forces in june, and, frankly, by the look of things they do not seem to have gotten much better since then, the only way you're going to stop that if you decide that's what you want to do, in other words, your policy, is to apply military force. you can't apply partial military force. you have to concentrate efforts. as was said, klotzen, nicht kleckern, concentrate don't trouble. what we are seeing at the moment is dribbling. politically expedient o their power. if you are serious about you have to be prepared to plot all

the leaders of military power, from the air, if necessary from the sea and if necessary on the ground. i would've thought that if you're serious about dealing with isil, your first step is to try to do what you can to build up the capability of regional powers to deal with it themselves, but we all know the challenges of getting engaged in the middle east. however, maybe you do not have time to do that. it may be that your national interests say that you've got to stop them earlier. you don't have the time to build up a regional capacity so you might have to deploy force itself. i think the capacity building point is the key issue to be looking at, and you don't build capacity and armies unless you are prepared to get on the ground and do it alongside. i think the afghanistan example is a great example of where capacity has been built up in line with strategy. it has been built from the bottom up and i think it is a

great credit actually that isaf, by the end of the mission at the end of this year will be able to say, nader will be able to say it has built a capable, and adequately cable afghanistan defense force. but that is our significant expenditure significant expenditure both blood and treasure and that's what it takes. you can't stand up expect privacy security compass to do a little bit of training and call a capacity building. >> followed on from the important point that you just me, what went wrong with the iraqi armed forces, and were you surprised? >> i saw one specific area in my view, a service of this to the chilcot inquiry in the survey my post tour report, is that we adopted a hands-off approach to training the iraqi army. i think we adopted an approach

that was excessively risk-averse. we did not build up a relationship of trust. we did not train alongside, live alongside, and if necessary, fight alongside the iraqis. we stood up the divisional level and expected them to do. certainly the results are plain to see when some iraqi formations are put into the fight in baghdad in 2006. that said i think the americans did a much better job because they were prepared to engage and get stuck in on the ground alongside the iraqi army and did extremely well. roll forward a bit, and my last expense of working alongside iraqis was as deputy saceur when a very small nato training mission working alongside the americans back in 2010-11 was actually achieving a significant effect in professionalizing the iraqi army through training in officer cadet schools, staff

colleges, mentoring senior officers, training mission was training iraqi oil place and the like. that was having an impact on the iraqi army and through that's the state of iraq. that ended at the end of 2011. >> what's your view of the fighting capabilities of the isil? dr. porch suggested that it was groups of fighters, not really an army, so do we really want to send in our ground forces against them and to stir up a hornets nest? >> well, i haven't seen the intelligence assessments of isil, but the key point is that isil only needs to be one but better than its enemy and it is clearly one bullet better than the iraqis. you have a jihadists terrorist movement which is managed to clip itself with the means and

capabilities of a national army through equipment captured from the iraqi army. so it's got tanks. it's got armored vehicles. it's got guns and, therefore, you need the capability to deal with those. i'm sure that in terms of professionalism, procedures and the like, it would be absolutely no match for a well-equipped western army, but the fact is it will probably be better than iraqi army is up against. >> if i understood your thesis correctly, it is a perfect we are one, namely that is the policy, as laid out in newspaper articles and elsewhere, is to remove a cancer that is isil, quite plainly the strategy of limited airstrikes against iraq will not achieve the. in order to achieve the policy, the strategy would have to be very much more extensive use of military levers of all kinds, as you've described. that is a perfectly sensible visas.

politically the latter is extraordinarily unlikely. there will not be an all-out war against isil with the british forces there. given that case, what should the policy the? >> you need ask the policymakers that. i'm not a policymaker. i am here as an ex-professional soldier, and my military recommendation is that if you want to be short isil, you've got to do it properly. >> but i am saying that the reality is that we can do that. >> that is a political judgment. >> that generals, at the apex between politics and the army. the previous witness said, broadly speaking, i hope i'm not misquoting him, and i think you're in the room at the time, that we should really do anything and we can't do anything. given the reality of the politics, namely that we can't have it all-out war in iraq or syria involving british and american troops, at this stage at least are you not advocating broadly the same thing namely

that because we can do that, the current tokenism, as i think was a term to use, of limited airstrikes in iraq is pointless and, therefore, we should do nothing? >> no. i think that at the very least we should do whatever the art of the possible is to build the capability with the iraqi army and whatever anti-assad forces in syria we deem might be suitable to be build up into a force capable of taking on isil. >> general, you sort of answered the second part of the question i was just about to ask. if we are going to train people to do things, whether a means extracting him and putting them in jordan or whatever we do it, whether we do it in country, trying to help them to gain by wreaking capacity is one of the things that is going to be attempted. on your point about iraqi army, in 2010-11, a lot of money was

spent trying to assist the iraqis in training the army, but interestingly enough that was not weapons systems and it was done by contractors who were selling arms and all the rest of it. so on the point about contractors coming in and aiding the iraqi state by their choice to train their army, they were trained them in weapons systems, rather than trained him to be an army with a moral component whereby they would stand and fight for the country rather than their allegiances being somewhere else. what you think we should build into this training program? i would say we should start with ncos. what would you say? >> i think you know everything that army needs into a training program. >> but on the wrong? do you start with the officers and clear that political question? >> you start with the individu individual, soldier, nco and officer. you build up the capability of the team, whether section, platoon, company and battalion.

you ensure they have the capabilities in terms of the weapons systems, and you ensure they know how to use the weapons systems as individuals and electively as teams. you ensure they have the staff systems to be able to deploy those capabilities and the supply chains in order to ensure that the logistics is there for them to do that. >> leadership and at the? >> leadership training is absolutely integral of course to the building up of the individual officer and nco. >> you start at the end rather than teaching them to shoot again. a lot of them know how to pull trigger. it's about getting them formed into a unit that is going in the right direction. >> you've got to start with foundations, and the foundations our individual basically, whether soldier, officer or nco. >> you remain surprisingly optimistic about training the iraqi army, but it might be possible to say that this was

tried. we saw this. the u.s. army put a lot of effort and a lot of money into the stuff you're talking about. when i went to see them in baghdad in 2008-2000 can they were living alongside the iraqi army. they were very proud of doing that. you had units trying to rebuild all the way from the private soldier up to the officer level. what we ended up with is this incredibly corrupt shia dominated, iranian dominated army. now you are essentially proposing that we return to try to do the same thing, but presumably this time with less resources than we had before, without the american soldiers embedded at every level. so why should we share your optimism? is this not sent to suggesting something that is impossible? >> it's not a sectarian-based force in which one section is able to predominate over the others. arguably in 2008 this was a relatively sectarian fray armed

force. since then, of course, you have seen the sunni being eliminated -- alienated and the predominance of the shia eleme element. >> is not the problems that it was a sectarian free force in 2008 but within six years the whole thing collapses and becomes a sick care in force again because of the politics, iran and the government, it looks like the best that we achieved was a temporary stopgap your we are putting a lid on something. we walk away and six years later we're back to square one again. >> i think i would say that certainly by 2011, when we were renegotiating with the iraqi government a mandate of the nato training mission, that this was not an entirely unprofessional organization. as a result, i think what you saw with the nato training mission which was only about 150

people, was that the focus on officer training in the academies, on staff colleges and higher staff level of training was definitely, without question, improving the professionalism of the iraqi army. and through that was providing a stabilizing force in the iraqi state. of course, in 2011 the status of forces agreement is not signed and nato has to pull its training missing -- nation out very quickly. it is worth mentioning that met the iraqi defense minister, general abdul cutter, in april of that year. the iraqi government was keen to maintain and, indeed, were prepared to part fund as well. they recognize how valuable it was. and, of course, you can see the end of that at the end of 2011 and i think from then on you get increasing shia domination.

you get the impact of the syrian civil war, the rise of al-qaeda in iraq or a.k.a. isis, and then i think the whole thing begins to implode. i stick by what i say, the ideal world you would do it properly, but nevertheless you can achieve quite an impact at a higher level with a relatively small focus, professional mission along the lines of a nato training mission. >> cannot just ask a bit of each question on police and police forces, the other part of the security element? do you see that as all part of the same set of training, or do you see a separate set of arrangements for that? how do you see that working together? i wonder what you have to say on that. >> i think it is very much part of the same set, and actual again that nato training mission is a good example. because this will train the officers as i just described at different staff college levels and officer cadet school, being

a multinational nato force it had a significant care of an airy contingent from italy who did a superb job in training the iraqi police and the iraqi oil police. i think if you can do that, this highlights the daughter of a multi-national force we can bring in different disciplines such as carabinieri and the like, to focus on the police as well. >> so you would say it's not an army, it is a security force. >> it is a security force, yes. >> general shirreff, do you think the uk's current force structures are optimal in terms of our capacity to respond to crisis such as that in the middle east at the moment? >> no. >> and in saying no, which is very clear, what do you think

needs to change, especially in terms of not just the middle east but the potential situation in eastern europe as well? >> well, i think what we've seen with army 2020 is a hollow wing out of the force structure. i think the army has done as good a job as akin to with a very difficult set of cards to play, but i think that by reducing the army by 20,000 expecting the army reserve to be able to fill the gap, i think what we see is a very hobbled out the force structure. although on paper the army is meant to be capable of deploying up to a division, i think the reality is that whatever is behind the shop window in terms of sustainability and logistics would be pretty wafer thin.

so i think the chances are that it would not be able to do its job. >> so if in addition to our current commitment in the middle east and our declining commitment in afghanistan, we have to deploy troops with nato in eastern europe, are you saying that it is difficult to see how that could happen successfully under the current structures? >> i think it is, yes. >> are you saying that essentially what we are sending is what we can send rather than what we might like to send or what we need to sit? >> no, i'm not, because i think we could send a lot more than six tornadoes. >> what could we send? >> you would have asked the chief of the general staff that in detail. >> you are becoming a politician spent under the army 2020 structure according to the rubric, you should b give a lisn up to division if necessary. i think if you look in detail at that you would find that a truly

difficult do. if you go back to the first gulf war 1991, a division consisting of two armored brigades and an artillery brigade effectively had a course worth of logistics. pretty well the whole of the british army of the rhymes of core capability for logistics was deployed there. the result was that was a force about which the american corps commander at the time, general freddie thanks -- general freddie franks, described its ability to advance across the desert as relentless. i don't think we could begin to match that. >> in terms of the current crisis in the middle east, and do you think that's likely to have an impact in terms of the isaf withdraw from afghanistan and how that is managed post-withdrawal, and are there lessons from iraq, for example, that can be applied in relation to withdraw from afghanistan or is it too late for that?

>> a lot of questions. first on the impact on drug and in afghanistan of isaf, the isaf mission finishes in just over two months time. effectively, at the time i left shape, the play that really by the end of october the force level in afghanistan would be pretty much the same as the post-isaf train advised assist mission which we were planning at that time around about 12,000 i think what you will have seen by now, the majority of isaf would have drawn down and you will keep them at a flat line now through into the training of isaf mission when the isaf flag is drawn down at the end of december. i don't think it will have a major impact on the train, advise, assist mission in afghanistan. that was one question. reminded of the others. >> are there lessons to be

learned from iraq, for example, in terms of how this is managed? has gone beyond that? what do you think the impact is in terms of withdrawal from afghanistan in terms of the early questions about our capacity to deploy into separate theaters of war? >> right. i would slightly change the angle. there are lessons from the afghan experience which could be applied to iraq, particularly on capacity building. as i said earlier, building up an army from the grassroots, building up the respect, the confidence, the capability is in a way which wasn't done frankly in the version expense in iraq, is relevant to what might happen in the future. >> and on that point do you think afghan army is likely to perform better than we've seen with the iraqi army? >> yeah, i'm optimistic. there is one major caveat, providing the international

community stays committed, both in continuing to train, advise, assist, and also very importantly in providing the money. don't forget that afghanistan did not collapse after the russians, the soviets left in 1989. it collapsed when the soviet union collapsed in 1992 and the money dried up. i am optimistic about providing the two caveats are satisfied, the afghan city forces will be able to contain what will be an ongoing insurgency in afghanistan. >> on the final point, do you think that the drawdown from afghanistan will ease the pressures on force structures and our capacity to deploy? >> it certainly should, because you were not committed anywhere. we see now with the drawdown in afghanistan that the level of uk forces committed on operations overseas is probably at an all time low since about 1968.

>> could i ask sir richard this question? bearing in mind that turkey is a member of nato, would you care to comment on its refusal to get involved with the major humanitarian disaster on its own doorstep? >> all i would say is that, yes, turkey is a member of nato and it has been a loyal member of the alliance since its formation, but, of course, nato is not engaged in any operations in iraq at the moment. >> nato nations are though. >> that is a different thing from saying that nato is involved. there has been no decision taken around the north atlantic council to engage nato. nato nations may be engaged unilaterally, but that is not saying the alliance is engaged.

and, therefore, it is up to turkey and turkish national interests what they should or should not do. if i may say so, standing on the sidelines a long way away from a tough neighborhood and telling other people what they should be doing is not a clever way to do business. >> no, i recognize that, but are you telling us that it is turkey's domestic situation that is the dominating factor in its decision not to get involved? >> i suspect it is a turkish national interests more than anything else. turkey is applying the palmer stone in dictum of our interest are eternal, and those interests it is our duty to protect. >> do you think that what little we've agreed to do so far will have a negative impact on our relationship with the u.s.? >> yes, i do.

i think there is a real danger that we have given up by default a position, which we were proud to have, of standing shoulder to shoulder with our number one ally and that could have long-term consequences. >> such as? >> well, there was a time when the americans could always rely on us, as i say, standing shoulder to shoulder. and i think one of the consequences of this could well be a further distancing of america from engagement in europe. and instead of being able to say that we are alongside, in a sense we joined a long list of other allies that are not prepared to deliver when america makes the call. >> by that rationale, we ought

to be joining the u.s. and those members of the coalition that are extending operations over the iraq border into syria. >> well, if we want to continue to have influence with our premier ally, we need to be prepared to commit alongside. that willingness to commit significant military force into a coalition or an alliance with the americans has, i think, give it has significant influence. if you don't commit, if you're not standing shoulder to shoulder, you don't have influence. it's as simple as that. >> can you tried to communicate that, translate that into something that is tangible? i also they understand what you were saying in a general sense, but in terms of the influence that it can give us, how can you

say that is in inches of the united kingdom and its citizens? >> i think by committing alongside the americans, we have a say in outcomes that we would not otherwise have and an influence on those outcomes that we would not otherwise have. >> because you could say, i am not suggesting i take this view, well, what good did that do us in the iraq reconstruction, because we really messed that up? >> you could say that, but i think in return i would say that if we had done it properly, we would be in a different position. >> and did we not do it properly because we were not listened to or because we, too, got it wrong? >> i think we failed to do it properly for a number of reasons and i look forward to the chilcot inquiry reporting on this.

i think time would preclude, how long have you got? with it's been a long time discussing why we didn't do it properly. >> to return the goods on the ground, you were very clear about the need to follow through and do things properly. but your response on turkey and not seeming to hector of the countries that are much closer to the danger and the gravity in the region is, i am sure, a point well made. does that mean that the hope of persuading other nations, arab neighbors of iraq and syria, to commit ground forces is, in your view, probably futile? >> well, if the uk is trying to persuade other nations to commit more than we are prepared to commit ourselves -- >> the rationale for a number of arab neighbors is clearly, the threat is greater for you because you're nearby, and we

will help you in some way. >> it goes back to the same point. if you're prepared to commit and stand shoulder to shoulder with people, they may be prepared to commit, but if you going to stand at the back of the room and shout, o forward, go forward, i'm not going to come with you, you don't stand on very firm ground. >> general, you talked about strategy. is the mission to destroy isil? >> the nation is what -- >> no, the military mission. what is the military mission? >> the military mission will be determined by government policy, and i don't know what the mission is because we haven't got the government policy that says it. on the one hand, i hear destroy isil. on the other hand, i hear humanitarian relief. >> like we've had before. >> i don't think we have got

clarity. if you don't have a clear strategy, you can't have a clear mission. >> let us assume that the mission is to destroy isil, and as you say, we are picking at the edges with airpower, at the very best, we are going to contain isil into, hopefully, the prime minister that it is currently occupying. we are hoping, a big help, that the kurds and the iraqis will get their act together and be able to deal militarily with and destroy the enemy, which is isil, themselves, which is a pretty tall order, as i think we would agree. we are also hoping, as john woodcock has just implied, that the arab world would put up troops to back iraq and the kurds, which is clearly not evident.

i asked that question of the defense secretary yesterday in defense questions. what is the arab world actually going to put up beyond something from airpower? we have declared again, repeated yesterday, that there will be no infantry on the ground from the united kingdom and apparently, the united states, too. i just cannot see where we're going to have an in game, because in the end, i fear that if, as we started this conversation, isil is such a threat to this country. prime minister said it. foreign secretary said, such a huge threat. in the and we may have to commit ground forces into action in the

middle east, and we may have to eat our words on whether we will put infantry, armor and artillery on the ground in support of those people on the ground. in a way i'm not asking a question. i'm asking for you to comment. have i got this wrong? >> i was going to say, and your question is? >> i'm not sure i have got a question, chairman. my point is i just can't see how we can do anything else at all those things happen. if the arabs don't cough up, if the iraqis and the kurds are good enough, and isil stays there terrorizing. i which is hoping for a miracle, that the people who are terrorized by isil will rise up and destroy them, each of them

-- id.? >> you highlight the importance of the political process or political approach that achieves that political aim. >> it is going to be very difficult to get policies into that area anyway, but it may well be that the military would have to go into get the politics in. that is perhaps my question. is there a military requirement to go in so that politics can operate there? >> if the scenario you postulate came to pass, or comes to pass, we are left with the basic fact that if you want to neutralize isil, you have to do it militarily, or you take the time to build up local capacity to do so. that is going to take time. you either contain, in which case, it might not be enough, or you have to deploy force to destroy. >> finally, general, before we

let you go, you have talked a lot about training and i want to finish on that. if we were training sunni forces to take on isil, what exactly would we be training them to do? are we trying to create the kind of force that we created in the 1980s against the soviet backed afghan government? in other words, are we training a people in guerrilla tactics, laying ieds, or are we training up a counterinsurgency warfare force which is going to clear, hold and build sunni territory? if it is the latter, is that going to be in the form of tribal militias, the sunni awakening sort we had in 2007 2007-2008, or would this be a fully integrated part of the iraqi army? >> it is the first duty of the commander to determine the nature of the campaign of which he is embarked.

you need to understand the nature of the problem. you need to understand the nature of the threat posed by isil, the way i so operates and then design a force which can counter that. it may be any of the above. it may even be a more joined up, capable armed force that looks more like a conventional army. >> general, thank you very much indeed.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> we are lucky to have general jonathan shah, who was the colonel commandant of the parachute regiment. he has commanded at every level, right the way through kosovo, iraq, but particularly relevant, he was the commander of the multinational division, southeast and iraq. general shah, thank you very much for coming. i'm going to hand to mike lee, dai havard. >> we are going to run around some of the same sort of issues, but you have said that, or reported to said, whether it's true or not, that it may be futile to do some of these things and does you have a clear political plan to go with it. it's an obvious remark to make

but it has a lot in it. what are the objectives? what should we be seeking? what are your comments about whether to put together and whether they do fit together? >> yes, i did say that. i did indeed say that military action without a political plan to pursue is futile. what he meant by that is that it stands very limited chance of success and a pretty good chance of making things worse. worse, in a wider context, i think it provides an excuse for politicians not to get to grips with the really difficult issue which is sorting out the politics. it's as if reaching for the military is what they do if they can't think of anything sensible politically to do. that's a big mistake because it strikes the media puts everyone's attention, like this committee, on the military side would ask the really difficult issues are the political winds. >> so if the real political question is a rapprochement between iranians and the saudis and how you curtail the

countries -- batteries? what is the political question that we should be dealing with people reach for the military and had to resolve its? >> need to address the question of what you think the problem is of isil were isil come from. and it's been characterized in many ways. it is one level, a simple, yet another manifestation of sunni extremism. at another it is admittedly different al-qaeda in its orientation whereas al-qaeda wasn't external influence as a corrupted islam. and attacking the united states in 9/11. isis is focused initially what out by daddy is accessing, is very much into purifying inside of sunni islam. you could therefore characterize it even more so not just about within sunni islam but a battle within wahhabi islam.

wahhabism as you will know is a very pure form of islam and he sees itself as a legitimate form of islam. and 80 if you look at the feet of isis when they have taken over areas in the region, they have not just been against non-muslims cannot even not against toshiba action against any form of any sunni that doesn't comply with their very strict wahhabi interpretation of islam. so this is a particularly internal illogical causality behind isis which we really do understand but it seems to me, therefore, that the real threat that isis post is not to us in the west. it is to saudi arabia and qatar which, let's face it, are the only two states in the region that have as their official

state religion as wahhabi salafism, or wahhabism, to be more precise. and i think it is to them that we should be looking for resolution of what i see us to be fundamentally an ideological religious album. i go back to early response. my concern with the response so far is that we seem to be mowing the grass as far as killing terrorists is concerned but we seem to be doing very little about talk that the real problem, which is this particular ideology or mentality. if we're talking threats to the united kingdom i think it's that ideology that is a major threat rather than anything military force that may be rampaging around syria and northern iraq right now. >> do you see the existing military response as containing this expression as it currently is, while these guys from around the place grading their caliphate as best they can? my understanding of his declaration is that his caliphate is full of the world, or the entire muslim population of the world, including malaysia and everything else, but he's

just starting with the middle east, the levant and cyprus, interestingly enough. >> indeed. >> but you got to do something in response. what you're saying is that's a containment strategy but in one sense it's not addressing the real underlying problem. you've got uae woman pilot flying about the place in shooting. is there not some progress in terms of the neighbors understand their own problem and accommodating themselves in a different way? >> there is some sign, but very little. i think a containment policy is a sensible policy in so far as it goes, in that at least it tries to buy time. buying time for the sunni nations in the region to work out of their response. we need to have some sympathy with them because although you cite the case of them raising the curiel to fight the battle,

-- matériel. i think saudi arabia has sent about as many things as we have which is pretty inadequate. and i suspect that the life of the poor female pilot in uae is now being made held by the religious extremists in uae. underneath the surface of those countries, whatever their formal states say, we have to recognize that reasonable and saudi arabia had 90% of people in saudi arabia think isis was a legitimate expression of islam. and also a blog about the saudi pilot who refused to go on a bombing raid against isis because he believed in isis. so we need to recognize that there are extreme internal divisions within the sunni world, and we should not assume the government says some nice words about joining the coalition. actions do speak louder than words and think minimal efforts that the sunni states have made towards tackling isis show just how difficult their find to

handle it. the internal power struggle in saudi arabia is so extreme that some people out terms of what is going on at the moment the war of saudi succession. in many ways that's what we are seeing. when you look at what we should do, it's right that we should see this as a threat but i think we should be wise to take a hippocratic oath on this one, and trying to do something we do no harm. one of the great problems is although we and our western way see evil and we believe are on the side of good, that's not the way it's been in the region to give are going to do military engagement in the middle east, we should never allow swiss words, not the bit about war being a continuation by politics by other means but victory being defined and political stability terms, not in terms of a fleeting passage of arms. what is that long-term medical stability look like? until you work that one out, it's very hard to know what military action is useful. if we in the west leading on

this, what is the effect of christian forces in what is not just an interim islam, or even an internal sunni, that an internal wahhabi battle for legitimacy? how does christian people intervening in internal wahhabi battle, how does that play? how does that make the people i would identify as our allies in saudi arabia like king abdullah, how does make them feel? doesn't make the job easier or more difficult? i would feel a lot more confident in the western plan if i felt that i fully understood our plan is fully understood the mindset of the saudis. >> we could go in discussing this for a long time and just want to bring up you back to some of the practical things where we are. a couple of things come out of what you say. this is the criticism about the iraqi armed forces. you heard some of the discussion we had earlier today. who were not going to stand and fight as a coherent army. maybe some these elements you

described are reasons why that was. what is your view of the training of the iraqi army, its ability to become a coherent force? what should we do? is there some way we can assist in that? >> before i answer that can just go back to your comment about practical matters as against the sort of intellectualism mentioned earlier -- >> yes, it was a mistake. i understand that. >> those bits are absolutely fundamental to understanding the nature of the problem. back to the practical issue of change in the iraqi army. and army as i said to be a reflection of the society that it is drawn from. the iraqi army like the afghan army will be asked on or as weak as the governments and the governance and the societal glue from which it is drawn. we can do all we want. when i was out in bastrop in 2007 trying to organize the withdrawal, a police chief just got sent in and he suffered about three death threats in as many weeks and i said what do we do to help? he said this isn't about

training or equipment. it's about loyalty. you can't touch that. i think that's a lesson we just need to learn very hard. we can give these people the best weapons in the world. we can train them updating and, but fundamentally is the moral component this week, they won't be any good. that's what i said 30,000 what an mosul against 3000. i so believe in what they did. >> but when the same gaza fighting, they have moral component. they don't run away then, do they? >> they are fighting for the own patch, or do they? >> exactly. are we slightly diluted in assuming that we did the sunni awakening or whatever that was meant to be and that in some way magically all of these different groupings will cohere into a reformed iraqi army? is that not going to happen? >> there is sort of a yes and no to that.

i still think that if we're looking for answers but what to do but isil, i think we need to look at the divisions that possibly exist within isis. isis is in part a positive force. they have certain objectives. in part it is an anti-forced to do what are the baathists who are not religious particularly, perhaps sunni, but not fundamentally religious, how come they are allied with these ultra religious people? what's the bonn between them? answer, they both hate the existing status quo. we have to drive a wedge between them. i'm not there and i'm not reading the intelligence but i would be surprised if the tribes in the and bark are any keen on isis than they were on al-qaeda. there are wages there which is why this containment mission, which previous question, things were slacked off a bit. it seems to me that strategy, has a certain coherence because it buys time in order for the

intelligence people and for these discontents and these divisions to become apparent. that again when my concerns is that the more we christians get in there, the more we allied people against them. if we just need to be in atlanta on internal divisions, and it'll come. to come back to your other question. the real question is what sunni force can we muster to take back northern iraq if our objective is politically to restore the territorial integrity of iraq as it was before? there's the difficulty. the iraq army will be a fundamentally she army. seeing a fundamentally she army taking over sunnylands is going to be problematic. they are all certainly not treated as liberators by the local sunni population which poses its own problem. where are you going to get his army from? are you going to get it from the local tribes? saudi arabia? i doubt it. you can see the problems.

>> i do see the problems. my argument would be, why not? that's an argument will have when they go in see them, no doubt. all of this has to be long-term. you made the point about sustainability and persistence. what do you americans call their operation at the moment? inherent resolve, is at? into something about resolve and persistence. it has to be sustainable. how do you see that running if it is going to be a long-term political argument to deal with the objectives? >> i have no idea. >> you have no idea your. >> i don't know what it means. >> but it is important, isn't it, in terms of how we configure and participate. >> absolutely. therefore, politically we shouldn't be looking for quick wins, because the are not going to be any. it gives credibility to the containment program's mac so the

prime minister is not wrong in saying it is generational? >> no, he is not wrong at all. if he's going to adopt that philosophy i don't think he should see this as being something as a recent event. i think he should see it as merely the latest returns since 9/11 of sunni extremism. the most encouraging line came from tony blair, not a man are normally priced too much, when he came out recently and said the biggest threat in the world face the sunni violent extremism. i think he is out for the right. if that sets the world priorities, that's the problem we been facing for the last 12 years or since 9/11. that is generational struggle to we have already been doing it since 9/11 and we will keep doing it. it comes back to the root cause and the root cause in my view is not the military. it's education. its eyes what about education because the nature in my view,

the nature of islamic observance across the world is being altered by the forms of islam that are being taught in those schools. that is the time bomb that will lead to the generational struggle that the prime minister talks about. >> those two gentlemen can't be wrong over time, can they? bible of averages they have got to be right sometime. what is turkey's involvement? one thing that interests me in the discussion that syria was we give a lot of attention to the south of syria. where arms are going in, were they coming from croatia into his pain from them? all of a sudden we have isil in the north. it's a big place, big spaces that neighbors at the top end is turkey. it's moving every day but what do you think they can do given they are not even seen, they're not arabs. your point about religion and all the rest of the. how should they play and how can we help them play

constructively? >> i think our starting point should be to limit our expectations and see the world against a turkish eyes, not our own. if you look at it from a turkish point of view they, like many countries, ourselves included, assumed that assad would go quickly and they opened their borders for gis to go across. it all went rather sour for them when they did not work out and with the nature of the jihad is became more extreme. if your city in turkey, you see three threats. easyou see the kurds, isil and assad. they have got to balance those three and work out which ones is the party but it seems to me at the moment that their priority is to get rid of the kurds first, assad second and then deal with isil. if you take seriously early ones stable lastly, in which he said he wants to redraw the boundaries of the sykes-picot, down the euphrates and into iraq. given that those our stated objectives, the question is, what will he actually do?

in the last two weeks he seems to change his political direction so many times, a green to one thing and the united nations, and digging up the next week and now apparently allowing america to go back in. so i don't know. there are lots of things we want from turkey but i think we should start by understanding the constraints interferes that he has been trying, doesn't give us a compass on where he is going to go next. >> at the moment you just want to hippocratic oath from him, do you? >> clearly from my point of view i would say i would hope he would see isil as biggest threat because, as i said before i think it is the biggest threat. but i would understand why from his point to it might not seem to be at the moment. >> two questions, general. with all your expertise and training, have you got any idea how to isil can pick up relatively sophisticated tanks and artillery, turn them around and be pretty good at using them without doing a british army

course? we spend weeks training on those things, and i'm confused about how they can pick up a tank, garnet, commanded and look after it. have you got any insight on that, because it seems extraordinary? >> like most people, i was surprised when isil suddenly burst onto the scene. i have not been reading classified intelligence for some years. reading back on it now, people are saying that this force was in gestation for some time. i can only go on what i read in open source, your sources of information are probably considerably better than mine. but it seems to me that they've been trained on these things are awesome. of time. >> so the prepared to pick them up? >> so it would seem that i have no particular knowledge on this. ..

but we should actually just say to hell with this and just to say we are leaving. >> a solution, i heard that word

he said if you want a solution, go to a chemist. [laughter] i was agree with them this is about people and how you manage it and how people manage their own conflicts and as it may have been said before from a different cast of mind to reward the sunni tribes for the result against al qaeda and also the seat of government. but actually what happened is in fact he saw the army as a very short-term experience because in that mentality it was to make sure there was no resurgence of the power so as soon as they got

out of al qaeda that was always a political weakness of arming of the tribes so that opportunity was missed. should we say to hell with them blacks into the other sunni approach to the sunni problem and that's why i'm actually -- >> the action taken i was just suspended. that's why i'm actually in favor of the long-term policy containment rather than trying to solve it from our point of view. >> that might be the alternative step. we don't abandon, we just contained. and we wait for the sunnis to sort it out. >> that's what i'm getting at. >> they think that's part of the solution or part of the way to

manage this may indeed be to reconsider the borders of the region. i know a lot of people understand certainly the borders of iraq will not be recovered and regained in the way that they were before. we aren't going to turn the clock back. so in that light there might be some sharp footwork politically to work out some standards. >> [inaudible] talking about the containment was would that take militarily to achieve? >> it seems to me that when there is a lamp on one side or the progress slows quite dramatically and you could argue therefore that all we need to do is provide airpower to make sure

that that helps maintain that sort of sectarian buffer if you like. how that works in serious i guess that's maybe a different battle. also perhaps on the ground i know some were saying earlier that might be providing that kind of assistance. and the task hit the headlines that ice is used to support the ied, having the counterforce out in iraq was useful in stopping that system to take out the outposts whether they were sunni or patchwork -- pesce peshmerga.

>> do you think that so far is the mission? >> they seemed to slow their incursion and if i'm right about them holding their own land, i am not sure. there will be a decision about how it is applied. when we have trouble finding a target it seems to suggest we have a bit of overkill. >> we have sizable ground force is [inaudible] various special forces and all the rest. >> i would hope that's enough on

the power to protect their own land and the will to fight. we do have a certain intense moral courage so i would be confident that they could hold where they are. >> do they have a role to play dividend and the number of refugees? >> my understanding is jordan is playing a role in the country and it's understandable and a good thing i would like to see is more participation from across the region.

>> i think you said you were not sure on the basis. >> you're quite right. i think that's what i would like to see a doctor supporting it coming out with a strategy and the christian action. >> at the moment i can't see that conflict. >> i misunderstood the tension between the need for the containment strategy brought this issue of essentially making it worse.

are you suggesting that it's unhealthy on the ground troops and that the level of engagement as you describe could be a politics thing or that is currently being involved in this way? >> i didn't see the intelligence factor to be able to judge the overall effect of the western airpower. i just see it by reading the papers and the communities. >> any sense necessarily. every action that you do causes negative things. you just have to balance those. so the airstrikes in the advance but the magic has to be what

effect it has in the political account and that's what concerns me. >> that isn't going to happen so we have to make a judgment in some sort or not. >> the rights in the past they do things in ways that we don't really conceive of. that is they have a different mindset and they work in different ways. you have ten minutes. >> general do you believe that

you failed to join the united states and its allies in carrying out air strikes in this area? >> as the legal foundation is good and sound, which i think the foreign secretary was saying it was, then militarily it would make sense for the same purpose >> you are being more a year than either the current size and structure of the armed forces are those structures a sufficient size and capability to deal with the crisis that we have in the middle east? >> i would say that we would seem to be using -- buy into

their own to last years and put a concrete block in the nose. the alterations and the costume had been gone. >> that's pretty definite. if there are further developments in eastern europe which require the uk forces as part of the nato mission or perhaps the further troops are required to be in the response of the ebola crisis.

it is a question that needs to be defined by what we mean and how you identify the mission. fortunately the chief end of the general staff are outlining the way that he saw the forces operating describe how they would engage in the hybrid for and it isn't the capacity of our armed forces to cope with it but the actual coherent plan rather than a comprehensive approach to deal with it.

and it exposes what i receive is a chronic weakness in the british government and the executive culture to find a plan in the accumulation. the book i've written on that exact topic as well. so submit as evidence to the committee. we have enough forces? if i understand correctly the military involvement in that campaign is precisely targeted because. most of the population as in georgia and ukraine and

certainly the game is lost and that's the worry that i would have about the baltics. what i see is that corruption, disinformation to classic stuff. in that sense it's in the position and education in support of the first countries in the baltics. >> i wonder whether you agree with one of our recommendations on the exercises and not a nato basis over exercise and the countries. they are right across nato already which used to be the

basis of the first was designed to represent every nation in nato and i'm very surprised we haven't gotten those troops on the baltics already. >> three witnesses this afternoon shared more than i thought. [inaudible] in all your discussions including the talks in recent weeks, have you come across anybody who enthusiastically supports what we are doing in iraq?

>> not in the terms that you're asking the question. >> was terms. can you think of anything at all they really well informed the matters and to save what we need to do is the right thing to have done. >> i think the airstrike in iraq the problem is that it isn't connected to the plan of the containment aspect. there will be a brief discussion with the general. thank you everybody for coming.

>> "washington post" executive bradley died at the age of 93. tomorrow at 6 p.m. we will air a special encore booknotes from 95 as he discusses a good life newspapers and other adventures.

democratic congressman representative maloney and his republican challenger haywood ran for the 18th congressional district seat located in the suburbs of new york city and includes or engine parts of westchester counties. the rothenberg political report calling the race leaning democrats. >> hello and welcome to time warner news at the 18th congressional district debate. i will be moderating a long with reporters. both candidates participating in this debate has actually represented the district in congress, former congresswoman was elected in 2010 and she held the seat for just one term before congressman maloney won

the 2012 election. he's a democrat and she's a republican. now they are facing off again during the next hour they will be answering as many questions as we can fit in. responses will be limited to one minute and halfway through the candidates will have the chance to ask each other a question. in addition of each candidate will have an opening statement and a closing statement. these are one minute each and the order was chosen by a claimed flip and also i should mention 45 seconds for the rebuttal and then there will be rebuttal at the moderator's discretion. the first up after the coin toss is doctor hayward. >> i'm a mom and a doctor and a leader and i'm someone who cares deeply about our hudson valley and the direction that our nation is headed. and i believe washington is taking our nation in the wrong direction. for the past couple of years congressman maloney has been devoting with nancy pelosi for

higher taxes, skyrocketing energy costs and obamacare. i fought to protect social security medicare. congressman maloney cuts $716 billion in medicare benefits. i want you to pay less. congressman maloney wants you to pay more. he is running one of the most vicious campaigns in the hudson valley has ever seen. i stand with you. congressman maloney stands with washington and washington has failed. thank you. good evening and thank you to time warner cable news and all of you. two years ago you gave me your voice and vote and sent me to washington and told me to get it to work. you were sick you've are sick of fighting the gridlock. i told you i was a clinton

democrat and i came from a middle-class family. my dad was a disabled veteran. we need a government fighting for those low class families struggling all over the hudson bally. i went to washington and had one of the most bipartisan records in congress. i passed 13 bipartisan bills in my first year in congress. my first term in congress, excuse me. each one of those was in response to listening to you. they were local solutions helping our veterans, investing in our infrastructure dot performing and giving the farm bill done and i want to keep doing this work and by reaching across the aisle i've gained the support of people at republican senators right here in the hudson valley and i've earned the ranking of the top 3% of all members of congress by independent observers, national journal and congressional quarterly and if you give me your voice and your vote for two more years and good to keep fighting for families struggling to get in the middle class and i look forward to a discussion on these issues tonight

>> moderator: the first question will go to doctor hayworth. it is pretty much the topic of the day. it is about ebola and this is a story that is moving so rapidly and it's difficult to get a handle on. today there is testimony being given on capitol hill lately heard from the cdc director that and sure everyone that in fact we are not going to have a widespread outbreak. we are talking about travel bans closing and in fact borders some people are calling for. are you in fact confident that the cdc can handle the situation or do you belief that doctor frieden should be responsive and responsible? hayworth: icon at this crucial perspective from the question of the doctor and as a doctor i am deeply concerned about making sure that the american people, you know, our public health is protected first and foremost. so, i do feel we have to institute strict travel

restrictions so that we contain the epidemic where it is located located and we can get our workers in and out through special transports. and i'm praying for our troops that are over there for their safety because as you know, gets u.s. military deployed to help control the epidemic. we need to do that. the cdc has not inspired confidence on fortunately that is characteristic of this administration. i think that doctor frieden has not been aggressive about trying to control the possibility that the epidemic could spread in the united states. but i have great confidence in the centers of excellence and i think the cdc is doing the right thing and directing patients to every university of nebraska. >> moderator: do you think that he should continue to serve? hayworthz: the cdc hasn't provided the leadership that it should and i would be open to him being replaced by someone

with more expertise in containing this kind of epidemic. >> moderator: congressman? maloney:l- congress then click the maloney:l- it's true that the they need to do better and they need to do that are fast. the most important thing right now is that we need to have new protocols for anybody that comes into contact with somebody that has been exposed to the virus. somebody that is a healthcare worker treating somebody with a virus shouldn't be getting on an airplane and exposing more innocent people to these infections. we have to have tighter protocols and a travel ban immediately on the travel directly from these countries. there are 200 people a day coming to the united states from the countries where the ebola outbreak is the greatest. we need to have tighter screening procedures even those that are transiting and other airports in europe and elsewhere because that's the way the majority of people come to the united states. one of the things we must not do as we must not keep cutting the centers for disease control. the truth is the congresswoman's

budget took $600 million out of the cdc. and those are exactly the funds we need right now to be fighting an epidemic like ebola because when you want to give tax cuts to the multimillionaires you go out and attack everything else? >> moderator: pardon me for cutting you off but you will have the opportunity for a rebuttal and regarding the director of the cdc, do you believe -- i know that you don't have -- you are upset about the administration's response to david to do you think that he should continue to serve? maloney:i think tom frieden can stay in the job right now, but we should measure him against a higher yardstick right away. i don't want to create additional disruption by terminating somebody this soon in the crisis but what if he can't get the job done let's get somebody in there that can but right now what's more important is action, not words and not any one person. we need a travel ban and a fully funded cbc. when he tighter protocols on health care workers and we need to make sure that we know what's going to happen with our men and

women. we are about to the 4,000 service members into the hospitals to hot zones and we have to know what we are doing. i don't have a lot of confidence in what's been done it's been slow and inadequate and we need to do better. >> moderator: doctor hayworth would you like to respond? hayworthz: i actually read the guidelines and guidelines and by the way congress is not a matter of politics to this disease does no party. we have to deploy the resources appropriately to deal with it today. and i read the cdc guidelines that were published and they are not adequate. i am not confident that doctor frieden has this fully enhanced. resolve it happened to the poor nurses at the texas presbyterian who were not given appropriate instruction. every healthcare worker that has a ebola patient should be completely covered and protected. that isn't in the current guideline and that is one example of the failure.

>> moderator: for disney regarding the allegation of cutting it is something that doctor frieden said today that he asked for 45 million additional dollars in the fiscal budget of 2015 and reductions some said left it less able to address the problem. >> the budget obviously is the responsibility. the cdc has come out with figures and has had various budgets under all different kinds of leadership and it needs adequate resources now and nobody is questioning that and this is a good time to play politics. >> moderator: think you very much. >> moderator: the next question is going to congressman maloney. obviously the polls and constituents told you job creation remains a top priority for them especially since new york and in terms of the private sector creation and the rest of the country there is so much disagreement about what the congress should do to boost the

economy. how would you make sure that the state and the hudson valley is getting help? maloney: it's a broad topic but it's the most important. we need good jobs like the one that i grew up in can win and serve and raise a family on. right now our middle class is getting squeezed. that's why we are working to create a whole new generation of wealth by the hudson valley that's why i want to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in american infrastructure we need to invest in our country so we can do it with private dollars. bringing back the corporate profits overseas to the investments in infrastructure we need to train the workers and invest in the schools and we need to help local businesses. we need to create jobs in the hudson valley and that's why i worked with the economic development council. that's why i'm working on a renewable energy project that

the congresswoman won't support and they say she is killing this. she's killing small business because the congresswoman doesn't believe washington has a role to play. i think that's wrong. we have to work together in the congress has to be a good partner as we grow jobs for the middle class. hayworthz: the record is one of complete and consistent failure to help folks in the valley go back to work. it's just that simple team voted consistently for the washington agenda the pelosi maloney agenda that helped keep the prices sky high which is indeed hiring and as you note the small businesses are afraid to hire because they can't afford to ensure that the energy prices are sky high because the congressman failed to rein in the regulators raising the energy prices or electricity prices in the hudson valley. if we want to help hudson valley go back to work let's help the

hudson valley businesses afford to be able to have operations here. let's stop the avalanche of red tape and regulations coming out of washington. congress has done nothing to help with that severe problem. he does, however, help his campaign donors and in both that he talked about in the hudson valley and the energy project a so-called energy project has to do with his pockets being aligned with campaign dollars. ..

the truth is that we got the farm bill done. that's the biggest economic job engine we have in the hudson valley. the congresswoman didn't get on the agriculture committee. i got that though done and it's the best farm bill that's ever been written in hudson valley. we are working with local businesses and i'm working with them whether they support me or not. you should be ashamed of yourself running down jim taylor. you stood in this very room two years ago and said that's a great project. you hope it thrives and he wished him well. then he started supporting mad made -- and all of a sudden he is a bad guy. look we have got to help everybody whether they are republicans or democrats and it's my job to be a good partner. we are getting improvements for businesses in our small cities

like poughkeepsie in newburgh so we can create job engines in a small cities and government has a role to play. the private sector is always going to be the job creation engine. i have run a business and they created hundreds of good jobs new york. i know what it takes to make payroll and how hard it is to deal with regulations. i asked legislation listening to local veterans called the red tape reduction act and what it does is it reduces red tape and bureaucracy. i mentioned the disability claims. those are the local solutions that i heard and took to washington. >> moderator: you are over your time. hayworth: may i? >> moderator: very quickly please. hayworth: the mom-and-pop businesses represented by an organization called the national federation of independent business. only one of us on the stage has a strong endorsement of the national federation of independent business and that's me. why? because i voted consistently to help our small businesses. congressman maloney voted consistently against small

businesses and that includes our farms. congressman maloney did not gain their endorsement because he had actually not walk the walk. he talks the talk but does not walk the walk. he voted consistently to place burdens on us not to lift them. >> moderator: we have got to move on. we are going to move onto the topic both of you have talked a lot about and that is veterans and i'm going to start with you dr. hayworth three do you have an ad out that criticizes congressman maloney's record on veterans and claims he voted to cut pensions for veterans because he supported a bipartisan budget agreement which included those cuts. he was supported by 332 of the house 335 members including some of your republican colleague speaker john boehner and congressman paul ryan. you did not mention the cuts restored a few months later and about the congressman maloney supported so a two-part question. one, why did you leave out the details in your ad into cop

please point to some specific policies that congressman maloney's that you differ with when it comes to veterans. hayworth: look i'm blessed to be the daughter of two world war ii veterans and is a doctor i worked in the veterans administration system. i cared for veterans and the va so i know very well how crucial it is that we provide the right kind of care and compensation to our veterans. one thing i would never do is cut $6 billion from veterans and military families benefits. i don't care which members of which party voted for that budget, it was the wrong thing to do. what i did do when i was in the house of representatives was to recognize the obama administration was trying to sell off pieces of our capital point campuses for private development and i stopped it. i acted in behalf of -- and stopping them when i get back to congress on what to make sure they have health insurance for

any doctor in a hospital no questions asked. because for their service and sacrifice they deserve at all and they certainly don't deserve to have $6 million cut in benefits. >> moderator: to follow up why to some specific policies that they congressman that you disagree with. you mentioned what else could be wrong? hayworth: clearly to cut veterans benefits is something that indicates this is not a way to care for our veterans. what more do you need to say about that? but i know because i have thought for our veterans for preserving the va hospital. that's why he made sure that those va campuses would not be sold off for private development. >> moderator: congressman maloney. maloney: u.s. a great question and i would have been nice if the congressman answered. the truth is we restore the cut she was talking about so it's a bogus charge and allied. fact check.org call that

shamefully misleading. they call the shamefully misleading because it's not true congressman and when you say you would never cut $6 million that's true because you voted to cut $11 million twice. that was the cut in the ryan budget. your budget plan that you voted for twice. look folks here are the facts. my dad got out of the navy and he was 100% disabled. he prints -- spent three months of his life in a hospital bed and a year getting better. when you throw around charges like that you should think of who you are talking about and what you are saying. the fact of the matter is we helped 600 individual that's out of my office in the year. we returned $1.9 million to those military families. we pass the red tape reduction act to speed claims in the system and fighting everyday with folks. that is why republican senators chairing the veterans committee greg polis supporting my campaign and endorse me. that's why a republican 20 four-year veteran combat veteran

and an army colonel is praising my work on veterans. congresswoman sara ball and sara clarke and sara larkin know my record. you should stop playing politics with our veterans. >> moderator: congressman -- congressman hayworth. hayworth: senator ball is playing politics with these references. certainly i respect senator larkin as well and we have worked very well together. in fact he introduced me to the r&r project in middletown which is a crucial project to help veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and i was introduced to the folks at r&r actually this past july. not in office but i'm concerned about her veterans who have post-traumatic stress and i think this is a promising new therapy. it was a doctor who studied it so i have actually started a

support network for them so that they can continue this crucial work in this project and make sure that we will have effective therapies for this enormous suffering. everywhere i talk about this project i will encounter veterans who say i know what you are talking about because i have ptsd. >> moderator: we are going to move on. obviously you have both touched on this and dr. hayworth the questions for you regarding the farm bill. that farm bill was eventually, there was a deal but it took more than two years and there were fights on both sides. the main focus of the fight was the funding and it didn't really have to do with a farm. there were billions of dollars cut and republicans and conservatives actually wanted it. would you vote in favor of a final agreement and you believe it should be part of the discussion at all or perhaps as some have suggested she would take food stamps out as speaker boehner move to do when things were heating up on this issue?

hayworth: i served in the hudson valley and i know how crucial her family farms are. we have a tremendous local source of wholesome healthy food and i certainly have fought for farmers when hurricane irene struck. i charged in a bipartisan way with a great member of congress and we provided $11.5 million for relief and restoration to the devastated regions. that's how important a farms are and i know that and we actually also worked very hard to try to get better drainage for the soils that are so important orange county, the black dirt region. food stamps are obviously an important part of our nation's safety net so it was very troubling when the congressman went out of his way to vote for the amendment and agriculture

committee that cut $20 billion from food stamps. >> moderator: i am curious would you have voted for the final deal which did in fact cut billions of dollars but less than some of your former colleagues in the republican conference have cut. hayworth: less food from -- less cuts from food stamps better, 20 million too much and i'm not sure where the congressman did that but do we need a farm bill? >> guest: need a farm bill. >> moderator: you would have would have voted yes then and you believe that food stamp should've been part of the discussion on the farm bill going forward? hayworth: it's reasonable to consider them separately but we have to make sure that we respect their role in the safety net have to make sure that her family farms are represented in bills that tend to favor big agriculture. we need to fight for our family farms. >> moderator: thank you. congressman. maloney: i'm shaking my head

because sometimes when you debate congressman hayworth it's like she's debating are on record. to say that the farm bill had too many food stamp cuts is fine until you realize she voted for a plan when she was in congress that had $140 billion in cuts to food stamps, not 20, 140 billion, seven times greater than what she is complaining about but here's the point. when she said she works for farmers who didn't bother to get on agriculture committee. pick up the farm bill passed. she failed in its the best farm bill that has ever been written for the hudson valley and then and by working in a bipartisan way we got a farm bill that had very few food stamp cuts and emphatically made the cut so -- that the governor was able to eliminate it for the state of new york. there are no there are no food stamp cuts and we have a good farm bill for that's really really. what really. with the congressman gaby was a bunch of rhetoric and i'm shocked she would bring up hurricane irene because her worst day in congress was responding to hurricane irene. she said we can't help until

they cut the budget somewhere else. she compared cutting the budget to a family for a vacation. it was sensitive and it was wrong. >> moderator: i will give you an opportunity dr. hayworth but i want to be clear when this debate was going on regarding the farm bill he did say you'd thought large subsidies for big tag should be cut before food stamps yet in the end you did vote yes. some of your colleagues decided not to and some democrats in new york and they were so upset about it. i remember mazie hirono and yet in the end he did vote yes and there were cuts less than originally planned of course but they were considerable. nan hayworth -- maloney: they were dramatically less than what came out of committee as i predicted because we knew working with the senate and the white house we would reduce demand we did another thing. we tweak them in a way that made it possible that the governor of new york at little expense to

eliminate them which also happened and we did cut the corporate subsidies by tens of billions of dollars. we ended the cash payment that for so long for such a wasteful program. this bond bill saves tens of billions of dollars for the taxpayers but it's also the best farm bill that's ever been written and we got it done. i am in the top 3% of all democrats for bipartisanship so yes there were many times when i disagreed with my own party in my own president because it was right for you and your families and hudson valley. i think that's my job and i'm proud of the farm bill we got done and i'm proud i'm on the committee fighting for farmers and that's a very big difference to a congressman hayworth did when she got into financial services and help the big banks. >> moderator: congressman thank you but dr. hayworth you want to respond directly to the hurricane irene response? nan hayworth. maloney: i was the first to call for a devastated counties to be on the president's disaster list

and he did that. we succeeded in that. i succeeded in that. i was in the black dirt with other farmers who showed me the fields with the onion crop floating in them. i took that immediately to washington. i was there the night of the storm when you were in manhattan congressman in your home. the night of the storm i was on the ground in the next day i went to washington and made sure that we fought to get the relief and reconstruction that our farmers needed. that's the fact congressman. that the actual record and you need to stop taking credit for work that i did. he do it consistently. >> moderator: we will get to the resident issue. maloney: may i say something? >> moderator: i would like to move on. maloney: i heard the congressman say she brought $11.5 billion in a rain delay. that's interesting because the entire relief that congress

passed was $6.5 billion about the most important irene relief he did was in the sandy bill which waited 75 days wilshusen congress. we all remember the bickering and fighting. it's one of the first things we got done so in terms of taking credit there's a record in the facts speak for themselves. >> moderator: we will get back to that i'm sure. >> the controversial oil extraction depending on what he decide to do and drilling in the marcellus shell. what do you propose instead of trekking to make energy more affordable long-term for new yorkers and to reduce the country's overall boat reliance on foreign oil? maloney: this is the big difference between us. the commerce meant supports fracking in the hudson valley and i think it's a terrible idea. she supports cracking on federal lands like they reservation or the delaware river national park are the wallkill national bird century.

that is what open a federal lands to fracking would mean. she doesn't support disclosure of the chemicals being pumped in the ground. if we are going to do it like to know what toxic materials are being pumped into the ground. there's a bill that i support call big frack act that would force disclosure so we can follow the signs. the congressman opposes that. she has a radical energy agenda and i think we can do better. that's why support the biomass project in orange county that she has been making fun of. that's renewable energy with technology developed right here in orange county in the hudson valley that will create hundreds of jobs. another project like renewable solar and wind and i do support the use of natural gas because i have a plan to bring back manufacturing jobs to the hudson valley. i have a bill that will bring good jobs in manufacturing jobs back to the hudson valley we can take advantage of the low gas prices created by the natural gas boom.

that's crazy and i sure wouldn't do it on federal land and i wouldn't do it until it's assigned. the congressman -- she has been one of the biggest recipients of contributions in the energy industry. >> moderator: i want dr. hayworth to respond. hayworth: nobody's talking about fracking in the hudson valley. we have seen people time on something and do we need to recover natural gas? we certainly do. when we talk about pollution and about disclosing what's in fracking fluids i'm all for disclosing it. i think it's something we should do but let me tell you what the congressman supports while he claims to be an environmentalist and it's an absolute disgrace. i think you have talked with them. they will tell you the project

whose honor has got at least $100,000 into the congressman's coffers. those groups will tell you that project will pour more led cadmium benzene dioxin arsenic into the environment if orange county. you're always caring about the environment if orange county. that will pour multiples -- not. >> moderator: i want congressman maloney to respond on this transparency issue though. do you have in mind what appropriate regulations or an appropriate regulatory for hydrofracking? hayworth: i stand with our communities and accountability to our community so whatever they need to know so they can be comfortable with what is being done in our communities obviously that's the direction me to go. we need to have representation there.

i would like to point out representation versus the regulators that sounded want to compress for natural gas in the neighborhood. i stayed with them against ferc. congressman maloney -. >> what are the regulations you have in mind in a particular and the regulator framework you would like to see with hydrofracking? >> i do feel we have to have a safe sound scientific rational recovery nobody is talking about that. we have to have standards that fit our community. maloney: congressman hayworth assumed when talking about it. she supports opening up the federal lands within hudson valley to drilling. this isn't some academic exercise. these are your positions

congressman and the fact is the project she is running out in orange county would create hundreds of good jobs. everybody supports it. although republican elected officials all the democratic elected officials that local folks permitted by the dnc. what they need is someone who is fighting for them to get a loan guarantee of the federal program. the reason the congressman doesn't like it is because there's a role for government to play and on regulations nicu just heard it she didn't have an answer and the reason she doesn't have an answer she supports the tea party called the reins act. the rains after which the league of conservation both citizen unnecessary attempt to destroy health and safety regulations. every smart regulation and deregulation would still need a vote in congress so people like congressman hayworth believes there's no room for government that he could say keep your air claim underwater claim.

listen, and if you think a tea party radical -- >> moderator: you are over your time. we have the red like telling. >> let's turn to another source of endless conflict in washington and that's the federal budget. congressman maloney and going to start with you. entitlements are huge driver of spending. would you support changes to entitlements to support raising the retirement age for future retirees? maloney: absolutely not and this is one of the biggest differences between us. two years ago in this room and all over the hudson valley she went around scaring us a medicare would go broke in two years so he had to scrap it. we had to turn it into a voucher program in right now through smart reforms the medicare trust fund that has been extended for years and years and we have saved already $800 billion in medicare savings because the cost inflation i was in the program is coming down so no i

do not and i'd do not support the radical plan to privatize social security and turn it over to wall street and let wall street gamble with people social security. these were two proposals that if you look at her back to congress he would push. she wants and medicare and turned wall street lives on social security. those are terrible ideas. >> to follow if you would support no changes to medicare or social security? maloney: i support funding social security and medicare together promise we made for seniors. >> what are people who have not retired, 30-year-olds and 40-year-olds who have not reached close to retirement age? maloney: the only reason we would not keep them is because they're people like congressman hayworth who wants to give huge tax cuts for multimillionaires. we have to give them all the tax cuts and then they come after the middle-class programs. they come after medicare and social security. they try to sell you on it and they're going to turn over to

wall street cap at privatize it. we have to stop that. two years ago we made the decision not to panic and to keep the promise of those programs. the congressman would end them. >> dr. hayworth your response? hayworth: our seniors across the hudson valley are suffering from the cuts right now. he has voted to cut $760 billion in medicare benefits. i have parents who rely on their medicare benefits as the ages of 90 and 90 and i know that if we want to protect medicare the most important thing we need to do is take a fresh approach that puts $716 billion back that was taken up by obamacare. you're not going to get it from congressman maloney. no we will not privatize social security. we have instead to make sure that the 30 and 40-year-olds who asked about are able to go to work. under the agenda that the

congressman supports and voted consistently for the pelosi obama maloney washington agenda we will not see those people go to work. in fact they are losing jobs across the valley. people are losing medicare benefits and their jobs because of the agenda of the congressman supports. >> of social security would you support raising the retirement age for 30-year-olds not collecting social security and desai collected at 66 or seven the? hayworth: do you know what i would like to do? keep social security as it is because that's what works for people. here's what we need to do. we need to put americans back to work. we need to make sure that those get jobs because they don't have have jobs jobs and at the end of the congressman supports we don't have jobs in the hudson valley because we have obamacare, trillion dollar gift to the insurance industry taking $716 billion out on medicare. if energy prices skyrocketing

because the congressman has refused to roll -- bring in -- >> moderator: it seems like you have have a lot to say to each other so we have an opportunity that one of you could ask questions at the other and vice versa. dr. hayworth if you like would like to pose a question to your opponent. hayworth: congressman maloney voted 10 times to cut $715 billion for medicare. please explain that, why you would do something like that? maloney: this is the biggest bogus charge that's been out there for couple of years and two years ago i said congressman i believe we should put that 700 million back in medicare and it was taken out not by me. he was taken out by the ryan budget and here's the point. the point is the congressman plans for medicare is to destroy the traditional benefit of it. my goodness if you are listening to someone who wants to cap your benefits cap your benefits it will cost seniors thousands of

dollars. congressman you were dead wrong two years ago when he said we would run out of money in 2016. one of the reasons we have run out of money is because congressman hayworth wanted to give tax cuts to multimillionaires like yourself and take it out of middle-class families. we stop that idea. if you you think a bill clinton democrat poses a bigger threat than a tea party radical i don't know what to tell you. the fact of the matter is i don't support any changes to the medicare program. we have extended the life of the program for years and years. we have done the right way but we are not going to break the promise as long as i'm in congress. >> moderator: congressman you're not listening to your seniors across the hudson valley. when i sat with seniors across the hudson valley they are losing access to the doctors. they're paying more than they can afford for a lot of different reasons because of the agenda that you support. the congressional budget office which works with you in the congress said that the

affordable care that you support obamacare take $715 billion out of medicare. no matter what they are trying to distract you with the fact of the matter is our seniors my parents your parents congressmen are being harmed by votes that you have taken repeatedly with nancy pelosi. you are a pelosi democrat congressman. just admit it. >> moderator: you are going to ask her questions you will have an opportunity to respond if you wouldn't mind. thank you. maloney: on the subject of entitlements if someone goes to youtube, invite anybody to go to youtube and type in the word nan hayworth privatizing social security. you will see that a town hall meeting thing you want to privatize it and he said a moment ago you want to live alone. sometimes i feel like i'm debating you and your own reco record. why did you want to privatize social security and what you said i thought was very interesting. he said people need to realize

quote we asked the government are not going to take care of you closed quote and then you even compare people on social security to see. do you remember that? he said we are not sheep. we are free men and women. what did he mean by that? what you want to privatize social security and do you think people that have been paying in their whole lives to this program are shaped? hayworth: people that have been paying into social security their entire lives have been suffering under a terrible economy and they would like to know why you waste energy prices. i talked with these seniors because you failed to rein in the regulators. you can slice and dice whenever you want to do but the bottom line is this. i'm not going to privatize social security. i'm not going to take anything away for medicare. in fact i'm going to put $716 billion back into medicare that you congressman took out.

>> moderator: this is the energy question mark ferc. maloney: i thought we got a follow-up on the question. for the congresswoman to say we can slice and dice, we are talking about the video about you congresswoman that you were speaking in. please folks just go to youtube privatize social security nan hayworth and you will see the congressman not just supporting it but arguing fiercely for it. this radical plan because she believes government should -- >> moderator: we would like to move on to the energy issue that's been brought up a number of times. if you would like an opportunity to talk about it. she did say you voted in favor of an increase that people could see their energy bills went up because of the decision by the federal energy regulatory commission or ferc. you are sponsoring legislation to repeal that at this point and what can be done to prevent future increases like that?

maloney: that's flat wrong what you just said so let's be clear because i don't want folks getting confused. there is no vote certainly not by me. this is one of the methods we found only got to washington. what happened is before i got to congress this energy regulatory commission cooked up this artificial price hike and congressman hayworth said not one word at the time. i asked it to write a letter, did she give a speech or do anything? the answer was zero, zip, nada. but we did was we worked across the aisle. he and i've been hand in love and the poughkeepsie turtles turtles that we have done done excellent work. we wrote letters and petitions. i met with the sheriff sheriff of the rayleigh trade commission told her this thing stinks. when all else failed we passed a bill through the house of representatives to stop it in its tracks. pure teap