>> >> after 14 years of the u.s. military engagement americans have a right to a strong, clear and convincing answer to this question. why should our resources be

deployed in this fight? the best dancer we're trying to move destroy isis' under very three specific objectives to prevent attacks against united states and our direct interest abroad, to control populated areas to recruit foreign fighters and to protect the sovereignty of u.s. partners against tyson is. the third question is the most complicated. how to read defeat isis? how to read degrade this threat enough of what i just enumerated? it will necessarily entail coercive and on course of tools. the use of military power is just one tool to be integrated with the status of others of multilateral and bilateral diplomacy.

perhaps the degree of success is the administration's ability to mobilize a is a ticket coalition. there are participating in the air strikes a and responding to the humanitarian catastrophe. the use of military force is necessary but not sufficient the draft language in my view was carefully tailored strategy. and also the evidence of what is looking so far. we have seen evidence to make significant progress to degrade i says with a combination of air strikes by the coalition with local forces on the ground. we have eliminated nearly

6,000 isis' fighters in iraq and syria and we have decreased momentum most support the. three main military partners are the erech security forces the kurdish writer -- fighters in the syrian opposition forces. a limited use reflects this strategy that prioritizes the roles of the partners on the ground in the vacuum left behind.

though ltd. tailored approach to the war-weary public and the muslim world in the heart of the middle east to reduce the threat it poses it does not require that type of approach. with one element of the strategy to use it wisely in the way it is most effective. this one element is insufficient in a sustainable and long-term manner. even speaking with the proper use of force over a larger political strategy with the work that would be necessary per our look forward to your questions about this military objective. to diminish the a peal of the i.c.e. is ideology.

>> ambassador, you raise the question who will dig them mount? this committee raised the issue before we should have used their power while they were on the desert to decimate the force but it was not done at that time. saw as of this morning the forces had surrounded isis on three sides. into the greatest problem right now is south of mosul where the city triads are slowly gaining control. so looking at the authorization of jurisdiction from the white house to provide the

flexibility to conduct ground combat operations with limited circumstances. with special operations forces to take military action against the leadershileadershi p. sova to enable kinetics strikes to call them in and i guess there is about 3,000 special forces involved right now. with other forms of the fisa and assistance i want to get to the question because i am concerned about the situation occurred to we have had numerous meetings in which they have called repeatedly for a anti-tank weapons, artillery long-ran ge mortar, and that has not

been done. as they saw around mosul what kind of leadership would be given and what types of air strikes? with the spotters on the ground maybe we can open with that. >> it is to separate questions. carving the kurds is the important issue in there are two elements. with what they need and the political ramifications. so one of the problems is keeping iraq together. the administration's position makes sense to give these weapons through the

iraqi government. regis have to try harder. it is easy for a defensive weapons that is for counterinsurgency. even with the night vision goggles it could be used against isis' also in a conflict and would focus on better equipment to make sure they have the ammunition to move around the battlefield. i am not sure that is such a good idea is assuming they can hold the ground now with

a difficult to attack from kerr cup last week but taking will still there are various opinions on that. part of losel was kurdish was that element to the population and they may be willing to fight. i am not so sure they're willing to take heavy casualties. >> a are taking them now. they are taking against artillery with no artillery to match. :the 25 that we sent got through so the weaponry is not getting through to the kurds in double sides of the ideal, the fighting will be done and by jordanians by the sunni tribes and by arab

and kurdish troops on the ground. if we're not giving them the assistance they need this allows isis not to be rolled back we need them decisively rollback. in with those coalition and ground forces to help them on the ground. would you elaborate? >> thank you. my view is a tortuous system the organization's, we have got to put u.s. forces with them. is a perfect mission of the special forces and would put it eight teams down at the

battalion level to plan intelligence and help them organize and allow them to bring in the type of air support that is necessary. the problem you had going into cities there is a reluctance to use air support because of the potential for collateral damage. and is extremely difficult. >> you have 3,000 special forces now. and they're calling in air strikes right now prepared. and they need to be deployed >> than to be engaged with all military. something much greater than we have right now.

>>. >> and thank you for your testimony that hearing today takes place in the wake of president day of the sending his request to the congress yesterday. squarely in the jurisdiction of this committee and with colleagues on both sides to review the proposal to defeat isis in the days and weeks ahead. with the humanitarian situation with hundreds of thousands of iraqis as well as the spillover effect we work to cut off the funding stream to be kidnapped for ransom and i am working so

that the group cannot steal the country's heritage to pay for the weapons of terror. in moving with the battlefield waiting to take their place the coalition is pushing back preached with eyes as propaganda. and they are seeing reversals that the chairman spoke about. in the chairman's lots? isis has been driven out of areas upset that we are looking at serious opposition although it is of long long long overdue.

and when questions arise so we can bring the uae back into the effort that is why jordan has doubled down on its commitment after the horrific murder of the captain's. we're not out of the woods but i would start by talking about the a you msf -- aumf proposal of of life to hear from more witnesses. should it be limited to a certain geographic area? shouldn't limit u.s. combat troops on the ground? should reconsider a sunset clause? ambassador jeffrey? >> i would urge the

committee to give as much latitude as possible i am concerned about the three years beginning administration as the next administration comes into office and they're getting people confirmed they hr june to think about a resolution of the overall strategy will be. if there is a time limit i would urge a broader one in iowa a bit concerned about the offensive ground to to be interpreted no ground operations with deifies three teams that the doctor has talked about are very feasible and a normal

procedure with such campaigns that have been used many times before. of the commanders on the ground the them, they should. i would not rule out the ground troops to take territory of that is necessary to defeat isis. i will rollout long-term american presence. it does not work. >> don't the people worry that there might be a loving troops pouring lager period of time? stick is of bad idea to have been grounded trooper presents almost anywhere in the middle east and traditionally we have not done that before since 2003

and it is of great will to keep back to. advisory teams comair power but you don't want to keep a large ground presence. >> the other point i would like to make is that limiting the president to govern during ground operations and sent the signal battle the two friends but enemies pick if this is the great threat to u.s. national security i believe congress should authorize the president to do what is necessary. we do not knowsix months. to have the flexibility of commanders on the ground as someone who has bad with

troops on the ground that the lawyers will be wrestling with this every day. and that is a mistake to keep this in the aumf. >> overall the aumf reflects the strategy with a preliminary way. the most important clauses is as my colleagues have mentioned so much is changing. with how extensive the ground forces may to be with geography put into years or three years we have to evaluate. as the most important

limitation and it demands that congress will require. with that geographical scope for those against a the affiliate's and associates. >> thank you, mr. chairman chairman. it is a large part of a strategy to see evidence of success. that the administration to fight with the modern fighters if it does get up

and running what should the mission be? and who would coordinate that strategy? is set united states or coalition partners? can they fight simultaneously? that also we cannot defeat isil over the long term without a more forceful policy to the side -- assad regime. and how does this impact our fight against isil? do you suspect we're not going after assad because we're not negotiating? and when iran violates iraqi airspace with the prime minister will the coalition in turn a blind eye because

it is not convenient? >>. >> first of all, i agree that we need to do much more to explain how serious threats into the equation the campaign is correct because we are engaged and syria is say a longer-term question but that doesn't mean you cannot answer questions. most of them that assad contributed to a recreation and as my colleague said we're dealing not just with one extreme islamic violent movement but a whole series and one is on the side of

the every in the establishment it is the country and a cause and the poster boy has done a great deal to do drive iraq did to this unity. too encouraging members of the shia coalition to disagree that it is not holding together very well. still simultaneously and so it doesn't do more against iran and i hope that is not the case. end that has to rest on its own merits whatever they may

be a. and our policy to provide security in this region has to be moved forward without consideration. >>. >> wade to approach this issue with the regional strategy. as the announcer said we have a lot of hmu'ers in the region that are threatened by what is taking place. look at the expansion of what iran has done recently recently, to have a large number of shiite militia maybe five or 10,000 to look at the success lot has been done by the militia inside iraq.

you have yemen and then the creation of the shia presence threatening all allies in the region. and then they see iran as a primary threat. and then to move on from there but i said sandarac cast to be the first priority. >> by a matter of time. >> there ranking member of the subcommittee. >> now i am the ranking member. >> congratulations on and your promotion. [laughter] >>.

>> to be a lesser threat that ground troops necessary to take territory will be necessary to hold territory. the al iraqi army, we saw what they did a transfer of weaponry to a terrorist organization the iraqi government is the shi'ite militia with the ethnic cleansing so i don't see who we have to take in the areas.

but to vote to laugh american soldiers in a bloody hand-to-hand combat role. with the aumf we have with the president sent over with the 2001 aumf and defect and publishes data and reaffirm said. so unlamented with what tactics or ground forces authorizing in afghanistan is one of did thousand it to be deployed on the ground next decade and a limited geography. so it is hard to say he doesn't have enough authority end has to the time the issue if there is

the three year aumf after two years if we pass something else while they have soldiers in the field wondering if congress will pass the bill. but economics is the richest terrorist organization in history. huge quantity of iraqi currency. some of that currency exchanges. end they wear extremely popular with governments that he would describe

baghdad. are any of you qualified if iraq can do a currency exchange with the billions of dollars of iraqi currency ? >> moving on to another question i think it is of a good idea. and after you reflect on a to have a written response to the congress rand question would be helpful. >> and i will yield to any member who says i have a good idea. [laughter] >> it doesn't happen all the time. is enrolled or to zero and

three regarded those areas that they could not abide argentina agreed to to ship to the ocean but yet i am told that the reports indicate that the iraqi government is paying the civil servants in those zero and isis takes as much as those as they want precocious that continue? >> that is a tough question and though the embassy is focused on that. and we did that from time to time.

a la the second and tertiary impact on people. the reason the iraqi government continues these payments is first of all, with the legal obligations of the government. >> but they feel necessary to pay the teachers. >> is not consider the legal government of france and it is important but it gets to use a questions who will do though liberating? much of it is by the sunii population for the tribes they need to feel a loyalty.

>> every penny that goes to the i.c.e. is controlled areas is scooped up. but in addition to provide free electricity to the i.c.e. is serious. in world war ii retook it seriously we bombed the facilities in france and then there was taken by iraq the forces. i yield back. >> rigo to the chairman from new jersey. >> thank you choose the three panelists for their extraordinary service to

provide the benefit of your insight and recommendations. you say you did not take up campaign is appropriate. how do think president obama finds that? that did your testimony that the stress of the operation in soweto career with the containment mission to lead to a new i.c.e. this threat but dead you say tavis not on our side and the administration has to move faster and then to meet the criteria to go faster. cpac the administration moved baghdad has led to a

tragedy. and then i am surprised how rapidly he responded in and then have put together a coalition but my problem is more of what will happen next? and obamacare has laid this out with the interview today out in the "state of the union" speech and is very dear is about the use of military force without a lot

of allies sometimes than there is necessary but there are times i am concerned we're not moving fast enough >> with i says leadership and other interest, how do they live dash but what is happening appear? >> had with those restrictions instead encourages the enemy. and died j.b. dishes right now with russia and in china and members of the committee we have to take this in the context of the extraordinary variety of challenges of

china or russia or a al qaeda elements and isis itself. they're all watching us. i.c.e. is probably would respond the most and i am concerned across-the-board. >> i have repeatedly asked a desert date boko haram as a terrorist organization of the date we have another hearing as they're getting ready to mark up the bill that the administration announced nevertheless. in my opinion we don't trade to secure that operation of the of military. i saw how the fire bombs already church is.

your thoughts on the parallels? as well as trading up battalions like boko haram. >> i go back to the responses i made earlier. that you have to find allies if they are willing to fight i don't know that much about vetting them but it gives them weapons. in iraq is a bit more complicated but so those who are fighting them deserve support from domesticate the -- the same kind that this is a regionwide to struggle. in a did you are today's

storage to declare boko haram a terrorist organization. >> thank you for your testimony and leadership. >> thank you mr. chairman. the at these hearings deciding what is the best thing to you do and trying to utilize understanding what to play sid 2001 and sometimes talk about patients we didn't have any. to think it is a quick hit. with shot in an all happens in a few days later as many

members of this committee thought once they get in there they would raise a flag that we bring our values and everything would be different. but now we still have troops on the ground even more than anybody else. ends those to get back out there. in there the ones that are threatened. to help in the strategic interest but those that are in immediate danger, we need tear back out. really is a naturalized.

i think we should ban the president was very clear. if we find there is somebody over there that the organization that our allies cannot get to them, with that limited number of the aumf they can go after them. and i do think clearly saying what they did tuesday a jordanian pilot, that is and he is long. we have to make sure is out there to legitimize the ideology. maybe they're just asking. they would love to have people on the ground.

but that is a recruitment. because it is them against us. otherwise if we start to use legitimizes their ideology the recruitment is that i happen to agree that we have to do everything in a multilateral basis. so i did agree that from a bad singer jeffrey what was wrong with the testimony? >> i agree. but getting back to lose strategic patients if that means not make the mistakes that means not only this

administration but no casualty your risk of casualties but assuming that people in the region not only have more at stake but that they could carry a big part of the burden that and see anything in the history history, the chairman and talked about during 85% of the strikes. look that libya libya, bosnia, echoes of though, you will find in we can complain but that is not how we maintain international security. where we run into trouble has been when we thought we could do regime change.

we will but to the athletic anyone is suggesting that. we are suggesting that at least we would consider if the military commander or diplomats the did a more aggressive policy of diplomatic action. >> i will stop you there. >> just tura clarify my opening statement and in and asking for aggressive use of force the what has already been reduced. by in the 25th year but that the military operations in iraq is quite remarkable still talking about the american forces. the first is still make americans parts of the story. you're not taking of a back

seat will be to want the presence to create the insurgency against the american power. that was clear in the 2002 situation. the importance to be a sustainable but the iraqi government and security forces the to be professional and less penetrable to the outside doctors. that is the only way to sustain their protect iraq and a sovereign countries over the long term. we have had problems with that sunii region and it's connectivity with central baghdad. this is the third time that has happened. so in these two represent and that is part good teacher in the with ever

arab allies. >> now regards the chairman of the subcommittee on europe a year and asia. >> this is said discussion about which direction and we should go rand we appreciate your vice. dr. brennan, agree with your basic assessment that we're not just talking about isis' horror isil then it is actually an enemy that 10 of 58 years around us that the islamic fanatic groups that are willing to use terrorism

to terrorize the western world and it goes back to even before 9/11 park row where americans murdered to terrorize our country. let's give a try to show was how mean and nasty they are to bring down the buildings in new york. whenever they want to call their organization at that moment. the primary threats to security and safety that we defeat these type of enemies.

i personally will lot -- will not believe i will give the president of the united states, i don't thank congress would give the president a blank check of the use of american military force in the arab world gore in the gulf. and ran to drive the way it is not specific enough with the territory. we will not give him a blank check we need to know if that means he is willing to commit a major force is on the ground so the president is asking sarah to recount

the details and i think this will be settled by the military. we eliminated the soviet union than that was the ultimate threat to peace and stability of the world not by deployment of large timbers of troops and we need to create a dynamic ended up with the defeat to create that dynamic. we make that the number one goal for anyone who can work with us to defeat that goal. and that made it possible by the way for direct military conflict. let me note that this

president has now reached out to to the kurds or other people or groups in the world or the region you should be our best friends to mobilize them and whether it their rent -- launched against radical islam to be a supporter of those kids early on. we need to have that debt -- that dynamic created rather than asking for a military black -- blank check. we're almost at a time. shouldn't we be working with assad? we worked with stalin to defeat hitler we had a

question in an -- questionable allies should we work with putin in order to do defeat the threat you have capitalized for us does radical islam? >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> ask unanimous consent that he is able to insert. >> no objection. >> we need to talk to all countries in the region but go back to my earlier argument. but that movement that is supported in the middle east today equivalent of the sunii persius civil war taking place. which side of this are we on?

and how well we tried to pull together these countries to address the issue? you're absolutely right. vide grand strategy in the military is just one component but that is where we ought to be going. if one thing comes at of the committee how do you move forward to confront the global threat? bareback think you're a. >> they give for your service to the country than being here. i reside my fifth year at midnight with witnesses talked to me about the iraqi army. because of the experience that we have had with the

trading. i don't know where we get the confidence that if free trade - - trade and the army will solve all our problems. we spent to go back and start treating people i and just where david say what about us? directory loss 6,000 lines in soldier's contract for what? we sell one group of a fluff i do go he answer button i

do agree the real should fund the kurds to give them the weapons that they need. and the few years ago vice president said maybe iraq should be divided into three her call viable is that? may we done now but it seemed like an idea back then. then lamp concerned about jordan the impact of the refugees are having on the economy and more more people are coming. and i am concerned if we're doing enough to make sure. >> they have stepped forward ?

>> item no baby some of the things would be wrong to train iraqi cleaner but it is hard for me to except that. >> could questions. of the iraqi troops did not run the ball province -- there we're pulled up because of the political dispute in bed took over the police that were much weaker. they have bad days in the province but my experience with a good number of laws on various levels including trying to train them as you can train forces to do well with the advisory teams and

the american air power. there fran until replayed in massive air strikes and the advisory team out there fighting with them and the result was they turned the tide to push back. i have seen this in iraq 2010 and 2011 iraqi troops did well against al qaeda but in particular with the american advisory team with them. having spent much of my license with them so most deployed to the yom kippur war that is the history of my life to be constantly redeployed. but why take away is this is something we will not fix. we can provide multipliers but the most important is to

wear sure that really radical violent elements do not get a hold of large territories. that is the iranians, isis iranians, isis, al qaeda and assad. to be tobaccos forces so that people have the chance to move on the way people in other places have moved on. but this is a long struggle and because of that we should not tie lot of troops down in a high casualty effort to fix this once and for all. >> would about biden's idea? gimmicky has recanted first of all,. but the problem with that is i know of two-stage june to

put their overlapping groups but webern and agree to a piece of paper. if you change one porter often do have a barrier -- and even bigger problem. >> they key very much. now we turn to the attention of arizona and we have our condolences for kayla. >> thank you. is there anyone on the panel that would like to take a stab? first let me say for the record high very much support a robust. >> moderator: t being given to the president that is maximum flexibility so they can prosecute this

effort and we do it as quickly as possible. but the president and his advisers are clear over the last several months they believe they have legal authority under the 2001 to prosecute isil under the aumf. why with the president submits to congress or ask them if that ties his agents? i have never heard of a president sending that kind of day request to tie my hands and give me a time limit and limit liability to use ground forces. i get frustrated so then standing up to say here is

the fight it doesn't offer what we're willing to do and he has the authority why would that be of the moody seven he does have the authority and under the existing situation but he is is good in terms of why? says his philosophy and i have worked with him, he doesn't take military force rather than other breeds of national power?

from restricted touche the number or others we have gone ender's stand why in a lot of americans agree. >> i will just modify that. is the assembly that he you pick? >> i agree. we need to put something on the ground that gives the president the ability to make a decision. he may choose he doesn't want to do that but that is the most illegitimate choice

in assets soon as they grow in attitude and a will happen six months ago. >> but this sounds like a view the effect but it could be cleaned up for amended. it is not a perfect fit but whether or not read the to be concerned as a commander or somebody who looks at this. >> i have one other question because i am deeply concerned the administration is serious about the fight. only those of the roughly 1,000 airstrikes per day with those previous conflicts, i can do more

with the air power that we have? and couldn't additional air power support further funding streams they're using to support their caliphate? >> i believe we ought to be having a more robust air campaign but to do that you need to have more targeted intelligence and do get that from the allies. without that you run the risk of having collateral damage counter to policy and the interest in iraq. >> tickets back to the ground forces and support again? >> i think so. >> it amazes me how quickly we bypass the united states

paid $25 billion to build up the army against the islamic state of iraq and syria. and the essentially ran. we were told that the previous minister was not inclusive of the shia and sunni population and therefore did not feel was a fight committee to. now there is a new prime minister that is more shia but more inclusive of us in a community with the iraq national army. thousands of lives lost to the most effective fighters today?

the new prime minister had said trying to fill the void of the of iraqi army. you had said earlier with the shiite militia who had experienced success to make a reference to the leader you really negotiated second term with one condition. that the americans leave. now we have of president whose resolution before congress is asking for authorization to engage militarily. the shechem militia is not there to prop up the iraqi

government. we are there to do what others tried to do that is to place it to where they want to control it syria, a southern lebanon or iraq. my concern is if we commit american forces, and everybody has weapons and they die courageously. we are continuing a situation in this country that has been going on for way too long. tom friedman said sedan is the way he is sorry he is the way he is because of the way iraq is that way? so it speaks to the sectarian and tribal nature of a place we tried to

impose a political solution to. we are told the american military with extraordinary courage and commitment could only do one thing, within which the kurdish community could achieve reconciliation including the sharing of oil revenue. to know that was occurring with the 17% sharing of the national revenue and $1 billion to equip and train others. but our investment has been an abject failure. what we are proposing to do with this resolution is

continue the failed policy without any clarity about what it is mitt going to achieve. here is what we know it right now there is no political center. the changing of dacia prime minister in iraq will fundament of the the iraqi army. so our investment of 25 million failed miserably because 250,000 of them them, isis' fighters because they're majority shia many of those, least they would not run.

but i don't know what is going on. but i know where it is leading. it is not a good place because america is essentially goes it alone. for the third time in two different countries. unless there is a recognition of minority rights or a pluralistic nature there will never be peace there. >> the gentleman from california. >> thank you. it is of some help because good questions have been asked. but because we are considering the authorization for use of military force.

but we have verses were we need. slow the global war bonterre then al qaeda. 2002 was specifically in the parade iraq. with the revised calendar is are not. it has been the very -- liberated. that is why i have challenges because but they're both absolutely did al qaeda as we knew it are no longer as we knew it to your to find -- defining. it needs to be opened for such police fundamentally.

so let me ask the broader question. there are a threat to the west but ultimately a group that looks, in his proclamation of what you have to do which is more or less take a whole living and to bring back all the glory and peace. i listen to the president of

iran but it was a call 4g hyde for the shia -- jihad. so are really dealing with the need as the test the poster child we have someone said backing him invent the first but we have to be sure we give nimble authority the

defense is the other is a really isn't that the doctrine? >> bed we're now in the middle of it it is not just assad or has below or isil. it is a conflict in which many cases we're fighting on one side and in powering a our enemy in the. but to understand this is the movement that has evolved from various elements of islam. in we need to go back and reenforce to those that they were helping us.

but they have been aerosolized of the last 10 years or three years. but we can encourage them to do that. >> i will narrow the question. >> is it the president's obligation with whenever the authority we give him to work with those who will be for sears for moderation or a least to tolerate in the region? talk about those averages respected in the amazing way. they were quick to recognize the muslim brotherhood is very slow to call the president even after he was internationally recognized and elected. of his leave the king is the one who tries to bring back a moderate sunni border.

i know my time is expired but for me this is the important part. i don't want to topple a syria that it has power in but i don't want to defeat the extremist only for the shia aspiration and paid for out of a dictatorial i ran 1975, 1979 and have consistently managed to ruin country after country. >> thank you. >> thinks to the witness is for your excellent written testimony. it is helpful. but to go one to the gentleman from new york last question, i don't think we have a clear understanding of what the end game is. i think it builds:in it is more just defeating and killing individuals that do

have the ability to kill the ideology. could is this a solution? and that is part of the testimony. but if you think about the security forces and the money we spent in now embarking upon the opposition how can we have confidence there is any different result? so presumably isis will not stand still while we get up to speed. so how we tell the american people we should have any confidence after trading hundreds of thousands that

somehow this time it will be different? that is my first question. second, we talk about the role of international partners then neither 85% of the airstrikes is impossible to imagine that the weak e and egypt who were in the our region will take on the responsibility? . .

the other allies to the regions jordan being the stronger one has capacity but it's limited, and i think that ware doing now is probably as much as they can. in terms of ground forces action the ambassador commented earlier, each country has an islamist problem anywhere own country, and the armies there are being used to make security in those countries. so they can deploy some but need to maintain security within their own borders so that's a challenge for them. >> first of all, i have a lot of sympathy with what you said. i've been out there and lived this. but it's not just in the middle east. again, since world war ii we have had conflict after conflict where the number of saudis, the number of infantry companies on

the ground have been 90% americans where are allies leave behind their american equipment, they did in south korea and we've seen ever since. we have also seen, including in korea and vietnam with my own eyes in iraq, where they turn around and go back, often we, including small numbers of we, can make and do make a difference, but there i agree with mr. higgins, particularly in the middle east in my 18 years, counting turkey i never felt one day i was in a good place, compared to even the rest of the world -- >> i want to give him a chance to respond describing these or two excellent questions, and i think the answers are linked. what is different about the enterprise right now is the partners involved. if you consider november and december the reformation of the iraqi government, the arab neighbors not interested in the

formation of the iraqi government post-saddam. they were distancing themselves from iraq. they sent no ambassadors. it was unprecedented the neighbors were helping get the prime minister started and that is a source of promise that suggests to me there could be a chance for this new iraqi government that will be different and the mistakes of the predecessors. thank you. >> , i yield. >> mr. brooks of alabama. >> thank you madam chairman. i want to follow up on some of the comments of my colleagues and some of the responses-plus some of the written testimony we have had the benefit of. dr. brennan, stated in response to a question from darryl issa that the islamic state has quote, metastasized from various elements of islam end quote. further, and dr. brennan's

written testimony, i'm going to read some quotes. quote, while the threat is often portrayed as terrorism this true danger is the ideology that provides the logic of extreme jim, violence, and acts of inhumanity end quote. next another dr. brennan quote. while bin laden has been killed the ideology of jihaddism continues to spread and the global threat posed by al qaeda, assist and afailated groups, is greater than ever, end quote. the next again from dr. brennan quote: while the tactic of terrorism is frequently the immediate threat focused upon by political leaders, i think it is critical to note that the ideology underlying these actions vehicles revolutionary change of the existing political and social order, thus the strategic challenge of our generation isn't one particular group of insurgents or terrorists. it is the ideology that gives them cause, defeating this

ideology will require a development of a grand strategy that employs all elements of national power and influence. and then finally, dr. rand, quoting, isil's savage tactics are the core of its ideology. while al qaeda justifies individual suicide bombing attacks against civilians and civilian areas through fatwahs, isil has adopted a new ideology manipulating select stories from islamic history and modern jihadi texts to redefine jihad and to generate a blanket justification for violence including against women and children, end quote. if we take these remarks of dr. rand and dr. brennan on face value, dr. brennan can america permanently defeat the islamic state and other islamic terrorist organizations without also defeating the underlying

ideaogy that attracts so many fighters to their cause? >> a short answer to that is, no. i think what we find is that the -- this is an ideology of revolution, and if during the late 20th century we had marxism providing the ideology of revolution that went around the world. today this is it. we have to confront the ideology. >> dr. rand, do you concur the answer is, no, we have to defeat the ideology that breeds so many reinforcements to the islamic state and other islamic terrorist organizations. >> we are. this one of the nine pillar's of the areas where the coalition is working on the counter-erring violent extremism, and our arab parter ins are starting programs to counter the ideology. thank you.

>> with respect to ambassador jeffrey, dr. brennan and dr. rand how can america best conduct-to-defeat the underlying islamic ideology of the islamic state and its brethren islamic terrorist organizations? whatever -- whoever wants to answer. >> i'll start. i agree with the problem. i would be very skeptical of the idea of we, the united states or the western world, defeating a philosophical concept or distortion of a religion. that is a very tricky thing. this vast majorityitt of muslims around the world not our enemies. they look at their religion differently i than the isis people -- >> i'm not asking for kind of an overall picture of what is going on. i'm asking for what has to be done to defeat it? 40 seconds. >> fair enough. stop the military manifestations of it, which is what we're doing with isis, which is what we're trying to do with iran on

nuclear weapons, and give the people of the region the space and support those who are strong in fending off this threat among themselves. that's all we can do. >> dr. brennan, how do we defeat the ideology? >> continue to work with people like king abdullah and develop that in other countries so we have the cure from the cancer comes from within lahm. >> dr. rand, any additional worded. >> i would add the people in the sunni heartland kraus iraq and -- cross iraq and iran are tribes. they have been exploitedded by the isis groups in their midst. so we're trying to help them. >> thank you for the additional 15 seconds. >> thank you. dr. berra. >> thank you madam chairman and thank the witnesses. dr. rand, was i correct in hearing you saying we have been involved in 25 years of

continuous engagement in iraq? >> to clarify, on and off for 25 years. i was counseling the time at the beginning of -- counting the time at the beginning of the gulf war, which coming up on the 25th anniversary of the invasion. >> so, as we look at this current engagement, it's accurate to say we're not talking about years. we're talking about pro longed periods of time, perhaps decades. no one disagrees with that. dr. brennan, in answer to my colleague from rhode island, when asked about who can provide the numbers of ground troops in order to maintain stability to create that open space, i think you characterized it as our allies in the region have limited capabilities limited ground troops, and the ground troops largely are tied up within their own country. is that accurate assessment? >> they are tied up bit that doesn't mean they can't provide

some. we have to have reasonable expectations what they can do based upon their own internal security interests. >> so, in this larger debate, much of the debate is what the united states involvement is, what our troops' involvement is. no one discounting that isil are monsters. they're despicable individuals, folks that are distorting a religion and we do have national security threats and we do have an interest in ridding the region of this ideology. but it's not a going to be easy and it is going to be prolonged and it going to take deck -- take decades. i think it is our responsibility as members of congress to be engaged in defining the context of what this engagement looks like not in prosecuting this. that is up to our military

commanders, our diplomats and so forth. bitten -- but engaging in the dish think the public want to us be engaged in the definition. this is not going to be easy, and there clearly is a scenario -- i think ambassador jeffrey, you talked about the bad guys here. assad, iran, others. but you can clearly see a scenario where you defeat isil you drive them out. where you see this change from iran to a shia dominated iraq, to assad, to hezbollah to hamas, which we have to be conscious that that is one outcome here which is not an outcome i desire. i think it's an outcome that puts our closest allies in a very precarious position and maybe even creates a worse scenario. so, as we, members of congress engage in this debate we have to be very conscious of all possible scenarios.

ambassador jeffrey, you touched on lessons from vietnam. i can imagine a ground campaign in iraq with shia militia, with iraqi forces with kurdish fighters, a prolonged ground campaign that drives out iraq but the real challenge is what happens in syria? there isn't a moderate syrian force that can cut off that line of retreat. that then draws us into another rabbit hole, and another prolonged scenario. so i guess in the minute i have, i think starting with dr. rand, these scenarios i'm laying out are they inaccurate? the questions we should be thinking about and asking? >> sure. obviously none of this is clear and that the outcomes are not predetermined. this is a very difficult region. it's undergoing generational change in the form of the

popular uprisings that have weakened state authority across the region. we this is an unprecedented moment in the region and dangerous potential. but this strategy is trying to figure out the political end game as i said in the written testimony in each of these particular theaters, and in syria, the idea of inserting a trained moderate opposition fact, 5,000 fighters, is smart because this is the type of fighters we could ally with, the chance of fighters that have a chance for reclaiming the territory once isis has become weakened. >> but it will take time to create a fighting force, and ambassador jeffrey, am i thinking about this in the correct context? >> thank you, doctor but your time is limited. mr. perry of pennsylvania. >> thank you madam chair. thank the panel for your service. dr. brennan, additional thanks to you for your time in uniform.

i'd like to associate myself with my colleagues, issa, brooks and higgins and their remarks, and regarding the contention that none of what we have tried in this arena has worked in the past since we tried to provide the breathing space. i think must acknowledge that america was providing the support for the broguing space. of course it's not going to work when you walk away and no longer provide the support. that having been said to dr. brennan, we have already agreed, i think, isis is a symptom of a portion of a larger challenge. would you agree with senate i think you said that before but i want to clarify. >> i would. >> you said it should be the first priority. you particular live said that. it would be fair for know characterize -- everybody is looking for a way to whichize is a global violent jihad movement. is that a way of characterizing

is. >> it is but you have to ensure it addresses both sides of the equation. >> sure. we have to acknowledge that we're in the middle of shia-sunni civil war sharia dogma. let me ask you this. they fight each other hate each other but they see us, the west, the united states as a common enemy, where they will get together and fight us. is that true or not true? >> i think if we're there in a large capacity that we will attract those forces to attack us. we had that situation in iraq where we being attacked -- >> even if we're not there in large forces they travel the glob looking for us and the west. >> we don't need to do anything for them to -- >> we have already proven that. people say we incited this and caused this. that's a little specious. further, dr. brennan, we have already kind of brooched broached the question, the aumf

why now, the article 2 powers the first day iumf and look at the administration's track record from a member of congress' standpoint, libya syria, yemen, the sides they chose in egypt, chat happened in iraq. we declare he prosecutes. in my mind he hasn't prosecuted very well. no disrespect intended. is there some rational the president might be looking for a come miss for in what many people feel is a failed ineffective policy, strategy -- i don't want to call it's strategy a plan, execution, smithing don't see a strategy. is that a fair rationale? i'm not saying it's not the end result but is it reasonable to think that people could feel that way? >> not going into the motivation of the president, it's fair to say that he is looking to have congress as a participant in the

process. >> agreed. can i step you there. ambassador i agree with you that military force is not the only acknowledge tediously, i'm a student of -- an extension of diplomacy. that having been said, where is the proper place for the associated actors here in this country and abroad that enable, that fund that support through fighters and material -- how should they be dealt with in an amf -- aumf, and if not where? >> you mean the people who are supporting the isis movement. >> the people that support the global jihaddist movement. >> i think that -- >> and the organizations that have vowed publicly that we let walk around among us, that we have in this building, and down the street. what about them? where do we deal with them if we're in this fight committed to winning, and where is that in the strategy? >> it is in the strategy. it's actually a nine-track strategy which internationally is a five-track strategy but

it's actually -- it includes all of that. the problem is, some of this is political, some is legal. for example pursuing a lot of these people requires american laws and judicial action. >> with all due respect. we have a couple hundred maybe or more unindicted co-conspirators in the holyland foundation trial. they're walk around among us and if you say this is a strategy that includes going after these people and american laws are stopping us, there's one person stopping us, the attorney general because he refuses to prosecute them. how do we feel -- how do you explain to me this is an authorization without a strategy. the strategy is an aspirational goal of defeating the enemy. that's it inch because in reality we're not going to do the hard things that need be done. >> i think the congressional record of declarations of war and things like declarations of war, including this one, have

not tried to expand into these very complicated ideological, legal and other things but rather, authorize the use of military force as part of that strategy. you need an explanation of that strategy. you need an explanation of why those people have not been arrested, and what we're doing about them, as part of your analysis of our whole process here, but i wouldn't stick it in the legislation. >> appreciate your thoughts. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you to the panel. and let me just start i am -- many folks on the panel who served the country. i want to thank them. i come from a little different perspective. i have a son i saw going to two wars. i'm sorry if babble. i'm lucky. he came home safely. i can't tell you how horrific

for his family. i think of the families who lost their children, their loved ones. the morbidity of the thousands of soldiers who return and we have to say what for? so, for me to make a decision of whether to send someone else's child into harm's way is, i think, the biggest decision and most important one that i will make in congress. i feel like we have been given this huge jigsaw puzzle where the pieces do not fit. my colleagues have made a lot of -- asked a lot of good questions and a lot of good comments. i can't repeat all of them but i have a number. pick which ones you want to answer. i feel like we're in conflict all of the world. and we have to have some strategy. what is the most important enemy to be focused on? we're trying to prevent iran

from getting a nuclear weapon. obviously they're a player against isil. we have -- we're trying to weaken russia. obviously they're a player with assad. that's just two examples. you have identified that we have to go after al qaeda as well. how does the -- the past aumf affect that repealing that? what about -- is military action the only thing? how does humanitarian aid fit into this or educating women? i mean, is this the only way out, and where does it leave us? who fills the void if we get isil? i could ask a lot more questions. so start with those and go at it. >> well, i criticized earlier the president's national security strategy does talk about that and it does a pretty good job.

and while i am a doom and gloom guy because that's where i've been deployed for many years. this is a much safer better world now than it was when i started in this business as an army lieutenant in 1969, and that's largely because of the united states the executive branch the congressional support, and the american people? what we have done. so even though it's a jigsaw we don't like working in this jigsaw anymore that you do observing it. we wish we could give you a clean, sensible way forward and we're aware we're not. what we have seen in our lives in my case almost 50 years now lot of progress we have seen that smart use of military force with all of the other things you said combined, working with allies actually does work. we usually don't have the end game spelled out because we never know. we didn't have it spelled out with communism. we thought we could contain it,

push it back, go against it, and hope for the best, and it worked out. that's about all i can tell you. i'm pretty optimistic in the long run but i share your frustration at the jigsaw. >> i agree with you, congresswoman, and i like the image of a jigsaw puzzle. that apt. there's three different theaters and it's helpful to me to think of them as the partners and objectives in iraq which differs from syria, which is much more complicated than iraq and final through third, the global -- a marketplace of ideas and change and social movements and twitter and all kinds of youth bulges all over the world, not just the arab world. they're leaning to radicalization causes. the tools of u.s. statecraft need to be refined and specific to each of these three domains, where a part nors will be -- partners will be different, the

patrons will be different, et cetera. >> i just add that it is a jigsaw puzzle. it's very complex issue. but i think that leads back to a piece i put in the paper which is that we need to be thinking about, how do you develop a grand strategy that moves us for the next 30 years as we address this issue? we have the strategy containment that came out of nsc6 and the work of george cannon and others. we need to do the same type of thinking can the current world weary, how do we carry this forward using all of elements, not just military. military is one piece of the pie. >> okay, can we go now mr. reed of wisconsin. >> thank you mr. chairman. this has been really an insightful hearing and i thank all three of you for being here. i would like to start with dr. brennan. we have heard from some of our

colleagues here today that almost an implicit idea we should just leave this to the region. if we leave this fight to take care of isis to our regional partners and we kind of step back out of it one what do you think would happen as a result of that strategy, and would the u.s. homeland be put at risk implementing that strategy? >> thanks for the question, congressman. i think that if we -- since president carter the united states has taken on the responsibility of being the guarantor of regional scatter in that part of the world. we have vital interests with our partners as well as europe and our own economy that are at stake here. if we pull out it will create a huge power vacuum that will be filled by the very organizations we wish to stop. that would be the exact worse thing to do, and the perception unfortunately from the withdrawal of u.s. forces in 2011 by many of the partners in the region is that we are just

engaging from the region. we have to convince them that's not true. part of the way of doing that is by being more active in what we're doing in iraq, showing our commitment. the argue immigrant made on putting troops on the ground. unless you put troops on the ground how aren't showing commitment and resolve and i think if nothing else that's one of the big feign fits we'll -- big win benefits. >> ambassador jeffrey in your written testimony, in your second paragraph you talk about the campaign with the coalition partners and its strategy and i'll quote: building up political capacity with our whatter ins in iraq and syria is one thing you wrote, and then you wrote combating the violent extremist ideology that fuels eye simples can you give us specific ways that our partners along with the united states are combating the violent extremist ideology and also, cue tell us

how successful our political pass efforts in syria -- capacity efforts in syria. >> not very successful. we don't have a good argument for the sunnis fighting against the assad and against at the isis people. a long-term program to tulane a few thousand people is not an answer. what is our long-term vision of syria? we have a long-term vision for iraq. i can tell it out. it's not to different than since 2003 and it's sometimes one hop one third, 60% there. that is a unified iraq with the three groups living in something approaching harmony, and the people we're supporting interact including prime minister abadi, the kurds, sunni tribes sunni politics, are

working together to some degree better than in the recent past certainly, and they are all opposed to this kind of violent extreme perversion of religion that we see in isis and that we see in iran. and they are our allies. but they need a lot of support because if we did just walk away the bad guys win as dr. brennan said. >> is there a specific strategy that you can use to combat the extremist ideology? or is this just flowery language that sounds good. >> it's kind of like but even more complicated, how did we respond to communism? that was different because it was an alternative vision how we should live. this is how these people should live. and what they should draw from their religion. the basic -- the first thing is fight those people who are coming out after us and coming out after the moderates.

secondly make it clear this not a war against islam. we're not trying to take anybody's territory. we want to live in peace with the 1'40"00000000 muslims around the world and support people -- 1.4 million muslimed around the world, and support it through our economic assistance and our diplomacy, and i think that this will work. >> thank you. dr. rand, a question specifically for you. you seem fairly supportive of the president's language in the aumf. why would it necessarily bad for congress to give broader authority than the president is even asking? because he then would still have the ability to choose to restrain himself or not? why is that a bad idea? >> the aumf is fill allege lot of roles and we -- >> can you please move that closer to you. >> the aumf is serving a lot of roles and we have talked about them today policy and legal. we have not hit on one of them, the legitimatizing role it's playing and the message it's

sending to partners and the coalition to to the people in the region and the american public and public opinion polls show our majority opposed to more extensive use of ground forces in this fight. so i think it hits the right target. balances between the need to send the message we're not going re-engage and the same kind of engagement, boots on the ground we lad for the post ten years. i it was deeply unpopular at home in the united states and in the region. >> mr. chairman, yield back. >> thank you. we go now to mr. jerry jerry connally of virginia. >> ambassador jeffrey where are you from originally. >> south of boston. >> where. >> sargas. >> okay. i'm from boston. dr. brennan, i want to make sure i understood what you were

saying about boots on the ground. where and how many? >> what i suggested is that the commanders on the field be allowed to have the type of capabilities they need. i think -- >> which field are we talking about? >> talking about iraq today. >> okay. >> and i believe what we need is to put -- have a greater advise, train and assist role. we need to be able to put special operations forces down at the tactical level with our allied forces using a-teams and b-teams like they were meant to be used. we may need to put supporting elements out there. my my view we're looking at package between 5,000 and 8,000 troops but that's a general range. the bigger issue is, that's bailed on today's situations and

conditions. as we get into the situation of having to get back mosul there might be a different need and different determination necessary for the mission itch think the commanders need to be able to have the flexibility to come back and say this is what we need for success. >> okay, thank you so much. and just a real quick question for you. do you agree that an aumf is in order holding in advance what should be in it or shouldn't but the president is correct to seek one and we're correct to authorize one? >> i think it's very useful to go through this discussion and have this debate in terms of whether or not to deploy forces and if so how they should be utilizees. >> thank you. ambassador jeffrey, you said we want to sent a message to 1 about 4 billion muslims in the the world we're on your side,

there's some bad apples and let's work together, muss him and nonmuslim alike to deal with the barbaric violence perpetrated and insanity perpetrated by the group isis. >> that sound goods to an american audience but aren't we somewhat unwittingly the hand maidens of the creation of isis in that we so long supported the al-maliki government that was perceived as absolutely hostile by the sunni majority, and in fact that hostility, even today, continues to fuel support, even with the barbarity. they're not looking at the nuance of the violence. they're looking at where do i throw my lot. where is my future? and the choices is a hostile shia government that is

absolutely seeking to exclude me, if not worse versus at least a sunni group that is fighting on my behalf allegedly, however violent it may be. i'm not uing that. isn't that really what is going on in terms oft what is fueling isis. >> you're right. that is how a lot of sunnis think, both about the maliki government and about us it's how the muslim brotherhood thinks about news eye gyp, how ironically plouffe of the egyptian military who threw them houston think about us. it's centered in your phrase, supporting them. we -- and "we" means american service offices as well as the administration and pundits and media -- have given the impression we actually make or break governments. we really have very little control over them in the middle east. the iraqi people overwhelmingly voted for either a shia party, a shia coalition, that maliki was basically the head of, or a

kurdish coalition that for its own reasons in the end wanted to form a coalition with that shia coalition. that led to maliki being in power. it was a democratic legally done thing. although people argue about it, it's about is a democratic and legal as anything gets in the middle east. the question is were we going to withdraw our support? overthrow it? how do we do that? i didn't have an answer and i was. this trade to find alternative candidates. i was -- to the extent i could, getting involved in the internal match nations of that society because we all saw or problems with maliki. but we laugh maliki -- we have malikis all over the middle east and there are worse people out there. >> you make a very good point. there's this assumption in large chunks of the world we're somehow omnipotent and we most certainly are not. thank you. >> we go to mr. lees of new

york. >> thank you mr. chairman. i believe personally that's good that the president has brought an authorization for the use of force against isis. my litmus test is going to be very simple. are we doing absolutely everything in our power to ensure that we win? i have some questions and concerns. the president in his original strategy back in september, when he gave a speech, he was talking about dropping bombs and a reliance on iraqi military and law enforcement to finish the job. when i was in iraq which 2006 it was an accomplishment to get them to show up to work. expecting no threat that day. to get them to show up to a precinct a quarter mile from their house. so relying on elements on the ground who have no morale new orleanser peat detroit tisch, don't have the training and will, something we have to take into account. in that speech the president said, this is going to be

different than past wars in iraq and afghanistan because there will be no boots on the ground. and in the same exact speech he says, tonight i'm sending 495 additional troops to iraq. someone shows me a picture of their grandson the air force in baghdad, wearing a uniform, carrying a rifle, wearing boots. the boots are of own the ground. the term boot on the ground in washington, the realities is we have boots on the ground and we fleet to not worry about what polls or wording sounds the best. we have to understand we have some of greatest special operation forces in the entire world. we have the best special operations forces in the entire world. army rangers, greenber raise navy seals marines delta force. when we talk about boots on the ground we're not talking about an enduring occupation. no one is talking about that. i don't support that.

but i tell you what i do want. for a member of isis to sleep with one eye open because they fear an army ranger may be visiting their house or their fellow terrorist's house to put a round of lead between their eyes. we have to cut off logistics, command and control, we have to find their funding streams and figure out how to cut them out. we need to increase our intelligence gathering abilities. these are all critically important. american exceptionalism isn't about strategic patience. american exceptionalism is about instilling fear in an element that does not respect weakness. they only respect strength. understanding if we wait five years what we're going to be up against is 100 times greater than what it is right now. i want to support the president's use of force. i was want to do my due

diligence. i want to know how many troops which troops. what are their missions? who is in charge? are they going to be given the flexibility and resources and ability to -- necessary to accomplish the task? the president talks about necessary and appropriate in his resolution. what to him is necessary and appropriate? i'll read a letter i just received with my remaining time. i received this letter from someone who is watching so there are people at home who watch these hearings. he says we as a parent of a lieutenant in the marine i have no doubt if deployed he will do his duty with valor and distinction. however, unless one, the president can specifically articulate our goals, two the president explains a strategy specifically designed to achieve those goals and nose goals including the utter destruction of isis wherever they function and, three our troops are given whatever they need for how long long they need it without lem

addition -- limitation i request you vote against the authorization. it appears to be an attempt to codify -- a political document which allows the president to say he cannot do more because congress will not let him. he knows his strategy is failing and he needs someone else to blame. will be damned if my son will be asked to risk his life for the president to avoid the consequences of his incompetence. war is an all or nothing. the either authorize the full force, political military and economic of the united states or do not send our troops into harm's way. we must fight to win or not fight at all. our military has been outstretched. lives have been lost. limbs have been lost. missed birthdays, missed anniversaries, missed holidays. we're not looking for conflict but conflict has found us. and it's time for us to defeat isis. we can't half-ass it.

we need to go all out or not send our troops at all into harm's way. i yield back my time. >> we go now to miss grace plinth of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for all of our honorable witnesses for being here today. i sort of want to piggyback off of what was previously asked about what coalition members should be prepared to do to continue delegitimatizing isis 'ideology. for example, a recent report indicated that around 4,000 foreign fighters have joined isis since the airstrikes began. are there specific strategies that coalition members should be employing to further prevent the flow of foreign fighters into syria and iraq? and part two of the question is it often talked about isis calls themselves an islamic state. what name might you suggest we

in america and around the world and in me media use to describe this barbaric group so as not to confer any undo sense of legitimacy. anyone can -- >> those are excellent question skis just add that i'll defer the second one to my colleagues but the first win, it's interesting the choice of capital needed to be invest bid leader in the arab muslim world to counter ideology. some examples were the leaders saudi arabia and egypt have had their clerics issue fatwahs condemning isis' violence which is unprecedented. there's also the importance of social media. the united states government is not to the only government who has the capacity to tweet against isis. this is one lesser played part of the technical capacity. we're helping our coalition government build antisocial --

it's small thing but youth are being radicalized. and the foreign fighters, my understanding is that the foreign fighters flowing into syria and iraq has been slowed in the past three or four months based on a couple of factors. one is turkive increase ordinary diplomats dish the coalition increased diplomacy with turk gentlemen turkey improved hit border security processes. so a lot thereof this is technical. it's better in a coalition so it's not just the united states telling people how to do better blows security and fighting foreign fighters, and i mention the u.n. security resolution the president introduced in september that was condemning and urging all member states to stop the flow of foreign fighters. >> let me just go back to your question on the name. ...

iraq has a lot of problems and i'm not certain where it's going to go. half the time i think it's going to survive in the other half i think is going to fracture but the reality is we have invested

trillion dollars and a million manhours of labor. we should continue to work on it and taking us off for second we missed a great opportunity in 2006 when the maliki government needs as the most and we did not push for reconciliation. i think at this point in time when the iraqi government needs us that a part of our strategy has got to be and our support for them has got to be honest honest-to-goodness reconciliation that is not going to walk away. >> thank you and i will try to answer my last question best. secretary kerry previously testified that the u.s. would be resupplying the peshmerga going to baghdad so not undermined the central government. has this arrangement prevented the kurdish peshmerga from