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 getting what they need to effectively fight isis and how will the central government in baghdad supplied military equipment directed to the kurds? >> at it prevent the transfer of equipment when i was ambassador. i don't have the statistics but the kurds believe that it has. they cite only 25 of hundreds of m. rapp armored vehicles that have been provided to them and there are some pretty good reasons why we are careful in what we give them. the point is they are fighting. they are the allies of baghdad and a lot of these weapon systems and are not a threat to

baghdad but they are a threat to isis. >> we will go to tom amory of minnesota. >> thank you mr. chairman i will try to be brief. i apologize for going back and forth. there seems to be a bunch of things going out of the same time. i don't want to cover old ground but i'm afraid i might touch on it a little bit. my understand first we are here because the president has requested renewed authorization for military force and it seems everything that i have read in everything that i have been listening to including your testimony everybody agrees that isil must be defeated. there seems to be absolutely no disagreement. i heard today and i think this is for you dr. brennan if you would and the others can expand on it, you must first start by stopping the military manifestations and we have had reference to you have to cut off the revenue sources. you have got to -- i just wrote

another one down listening to testimony. we have the ability to interrupt or interfere with internet social media and the like. i'd love to know to the extent this new authorization of military force is that something the administration is planning on doing on every level and how are we going to know what the strategy is. i will tell you i agree with my colleague mr. zeldin from new york. i would offer the executive should have all the authority that he needs to make sure that whatever the situation is as fluid as it maybe may be you can deploy whatever resources are necessary to take the action that is necessary to win not just hold something at bay. i guess i will add this for the ambassador. i thought i heard you say earlier that we have never ventured into our country is

never ventured into combating such a complex ideology and all that came to mind with fascism and marxism and i would just ask you to help me with that. you have that background so dr. brennan could you fill us in what needs to be done? >> the first thing we need to do was and that person is doing this correctly this is an iraq first issue. how do you defeat isis in iraq? ugoda the finances which are much more complex than they were earlier and they have their own revenue stream. the internet social media and attack the ideology. >> continue the airstrikes? >> enhance airstrikes and i think we need to do more than we have been doing but that will require back to my point boots on the ground armed forces with those for leaving elements but

to be able to reach back and pull the resources from the u.s. government. one of the things on the aumf the present was going to use our unique capabilities and i read that as meaning in air and i have to tell you u.s. capabilities whether it be special forces conventional forces or army or marine because it's not that one individually put out there. it's the joint capacity that brings the battlefield and if we are going to make certain our allies are going to be successful we have to be up there with them. to my question dr. brennan because we are so limited on time is congress is going to authorize the additional military force that the executive as asking for why wouldn't the congress authorized authorize the executive to take whatever action with whatever unique resources are available because this is such an

immediate and dangerous threats not just to this country but the entire globe. why wouldn't the authorization be that broad? >> i personally think it should be that broad. again the president can restrict what he chooses to do but i think this aumf is going to continue and i think what we shouldn't do is limit the next president based upon what this president may would not want to do. >> last question mr. ambassador and i'm sorry if you are pinched but that is what i would expect is the answer. common sense would tell me not necessarily the experience because i don't have viewers that the only limitation and i'm going to ask if this is accurate or if you would disagree with this. the only limitation if there was one would be the amount of time that certainly has to come back to congress for authorization and discussion of what the strategy has been and where it's been. would that be the only -- >> i would be perfect --

perfectly acceptable. >> how long? >> i would go beyond the three years, maybe four years so the president has time to look at it and revise a strategy and make the changes he needs. >> thank you and my time has expired. >> mr. allen grayson of florida. >> thank you. section 2 c. of the president strapped authorization for the use of military force reads as follows. the authority granted in subsection it does not operates the use of u.s. armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations. ambassador jeffrey what does and during main? >> my answer would be a somewhat sarcastic one whatever the executive at the time defines it as about the real problem with that. >> dr. brennan. >> i have problems with that also. not only because i don't know what it means. the lawyers are fighting over

the meaning of this but more importantly if you are looking at committing forces for something that is vital or of important interest to the united states and you get in the middle middle of battle and all of a sudden are you on offense are you on defense? what happens if the neighbors cause problems? wars never end the way they were envisioned so that would be a terrible mistake to put in the aumf. >> dr. rand. >> it specifies an open and invest and specifies lack of clarity in a particular objective at hand. >> dr. rand is two weeks and during? >> i would leave that to the lawyers to determine. >> so your answers you don't know. how about two months? >> again i think it would depend on the particular objective and not having a particular military objective in mind. >> so you don't really know what it means. is that a fair statement?

>> enduring in my mind means open-ended. >> irate section 5 of the draft authorization for the use of military force reads as follows. in this joint resolution of the term associated forces me to individuals and organizations fighting for on behalf of or alongside isil or any closely related successful -- successor hostilities. ambassador jeffrey what does alongside isil main? >> i didn't draft this thing. >> nor did i. >> nor did u. but i would have put that in there if i had been drafting it in the reason is i think he went back to 2001 and of course this is the authorization we are still using for this campaign and these things for example we have had a debate over whether isis is really in elements of al qaeda. it certainly was when i knew it as a qaeda in iraq in 2102012

and the semantic arguments confuse us and confuse our people on the ground in trying to deal with these folks. you will know it when you see it if it's isis or an ally of vices. >> what about the free syrian army? are they fighting along side iso? >> often they are fighting against isil and i slow danced them in particular. >> it's hard to tell the scorecard is not? can you tell me what alongside isil means? >> i really couldn't and the commission uses the phrase radical islamist organizations and i think wording like that includes all of those 52 groups that adhere to this ideology that threaten united states. we are putting ourselves in boxes and i'm trying to understand what that means and

what the limits are who we are dealing with. it's very confusing. >> dr. rand. >> first of all i believe it's a function of the fact that this is an unclassified document so it's not going to specify a classified setting. second as i said in the testimony the nature of the alliance is isil is changing and those we are targeting their military experts know who is a derivative or associate or ally of vices at any given moment. >> why are you so confident about? it seems to me it's a matter of terminology not ascertainable fact. >> based on my public service. i've seen some of the methodologies. >> here's the 64 billion-dollar question for you ambassador jeffrey and if we have time for a few others. if you three experts can't tell us what these mean what does that tell us ambassador jeffrey?

>> it's very difficult to be using a tool basically designed to declare war on something like were on a nation-state which has a fixed definition against a group that has allies and other things. do we not fight it? we have to fight it. are we having a hard time defining it? you bet. >> dr. brennan. >> i agree with the ambassador and the issue made to be looking at is trying to broaden terminology and understand it is an organization group that adhere to this ideology and make a broad enough that once it pops up in a different country that is doing the same thing. the president has the authority. >> dr. brennan i think you just described a blank check which

i'm not willing to give to the president or anybody else but thank you for your time. >> we go now to mr. -- >> when a president issued in september the white house said the authority to act based on the 2001 and 2002 aumf and so the media's reporting he is asking congress for authority but by their own view he is act -- asking congress to restrict and limit the authority both and i agree these are terms that are nebulous but having some prohibition on the use of ground forces in having a time limit and i agree with the witnesses i don't think that's an effective way to fight an enemy. i think you need to determine the enemy determine the strategy and bring all force to bear or be willing to do that and obviously the commander-in-chief needs to make these decisions so i'm trying to figure out what is motivating this and i think it's because if you look at the way things are going, if you look at the

strategy that's in place or lack of strategy this is not going to succeed. i think everybody understands that so i think the president is looking to give congress its imprimatur on his strategies that he can point the finger at us and say what these guys limited me on this. we all thought this was a good idea and right now these -- congress is urging him to do different and he gave an interview where where he said look terrorism the news makes a big deal about it. it's like a big-city mayor and you have to do with criminal so i'm thinking like giuliani when he is to get these guys at the squeegees. who's that really how you are seeing as i'm skeptical of the motivation for doing this now. let me ask you this dr. brennan because i think this kind of informs where we are going. it's the problem that group of violent extremists that happen to go by the name of vices or whatever you want to call them or is this a global jihad that

presents national security implications and threatens our national security and our allies not just in this part of syria or that part of iraq but in countries across the globe? >> i think it's useful to look at this not as a terrorist organization but it is a global phenomenon that we are seeing. i think you can also look at it as a global insurgency where you have sister organizations sprouting up all over the world in and supportive the same ideology even though they may not have direct linkage or control. again if i may use loosely the analogy for the 20 century while we have marxist revolutions all over the world. maybe they did work with each other that they supported each other in different ways. >> dr. rand mentioned a lot of the sunni tribes in iraq

certainly when i was serving there they are really not jihadist. they are sunni arabs and if they think that an aqi was better than the deal they had with the central government and they were out to do that and if they think it's a shiite government that's going to push them further so i guess my question is if you look at the administration's policy there's a clear attempt to have a major burr person with iran and if you look at yemen and asaad i know we have been two different machinations bear there but the administration is content to leave aside their and so if you are just the average sunni-arab wanting to figure out should you work with the americans and whatever forces we may be supporting or should you work with some of the sunni jihadist groups if they see us as a facilitating shiite domination of the region is not going to push some of the sunni

arabs who are not necessarily jihadist into the arms of the more radical sunni groups? ambassador? >> absolutely which is why we can't pick a side in the sunni-shia struggle anymore than we can pick a side in the christian muslim struggle in the balkans. we have to have a set of values and friends who will accept them and go after a buddy who is violating them whether they are coming out of mosul or coming out of damascus. >> of you have for example isis fighters threatening the outer baghdad belts and you have shiite lishan groups which we have considered to be terrorists when we were in iraq supported by iran's quds force summit said there's an alliance with the u.s. trade we are supporting some of the isis forces in other parts of iraq and we are essentially relying on the iranian backed forces to keep isis out of baghdad.

is that sustainable strategy? >> in the long run know that there is a saying you slave the world closest to the sled. when isis is moving forward we should be working with anybody that can stop and not move forward anymore. now we have to figure out how the going get them. >> the ranking member of the middle east subcommittee. >> thank you mr. chairman and thanks to the witnesses for your willingness to comment states are all these questions. i would like to associate myself with many of my colleagues comments on the tragic death of kayla mueller and assure the committee is a strong voice in this aumf. i request -- we deserve to have a robust debate in congress over the use of our military in order to make sure our mission is clear and to ensure past mistakes are not repeated. i would like to follow up with the last two members.

both my florida colleagues at seven i want to start by asking ambassador jeffrey in this discussion about whether ground troops are needed to combat isis we talk a lot about the president leading our partners in the region take the lead. the question is what would be the impact of having jordanian troops on the ground wexler with the united states role be in getting back to the site you had a little while ago what our role serving aside those troops in something less than an enduring or could our role be described as anything less than an enduring an offensive role? >> i think again i didn't draft the thing that the draft is probably want to blinken during an offensive because we have an enduring presence in middle

east. we have had combat troops in kuwait for over a decade since i was there in the mid-90s so it isn't the question of enduring. it gets too could we use to returning troops? absolute that there are lots of political problems and frankly we have never seen arab troops on the offensive in any of our earlier wars not in iraq and with a few exceptions not in afghanistan and in kuwait. there are huge taboos about that in the arab world. some of them might be broken for some countries. >> do you think they have been? do you think in light of recent events we wouldn't face those same political barriers? >> if i were biting the president i would say be very careful about that because the main guy you of these allies is their political support which plays well here and what they are doing in their own societies to deal with this violent

islamic manifestation. if they start taking a lot of casualties in ground combat against isis and they will, but that the kurds, five to 600 kilobits going to be hard for them to sustain and as i mentioned in my opening remarks these are countries that are very weak states. they have lots of problems internally. >> do you think and dr. brennan and dr. rand do you think given the concerns ambassador jeffrey just laid out it's realistic to believe that the ground war could be fought by those troops without u.s. troops? >> i think u.s. groups -- troops and with the peshmerga and even with the iraqi military as we push into anbar province and especially as we start moving into the key cities and most importantly mosul it they would be critically important to have our troops with them.

exactly what that composition of troops is depends on the situation at the time and the commander's analysis but if congress is going to look at this and believe that this is something we are fighting for and we need to give the commanders on the ground flexibility. >> let me ask you something else else. this aumf only deals with 2002 aumf. it doesn't touch the 2001 aumf so the real question i think a lot of us have is congressman desantis said earlier if the argument is that everything we are doing now we can't pursue pursuant to the 2001 aumf then should we assume that whatever the limitations are that ultimately might be included in this aumf, however broad the limitations are that ultimately we could wind up doing anything we want pursuant to the existing

2001 aumf anyway? >> i believe the intention is -- >> i'm not talking about the intention. i'm asking whether you can rely upon the 2001 aumf to conduct whatever operations regardless? >> isis is a different threat than al qaeda. >> so you think you know and ambassador do you think as? >> the present has done everything up to now and may 2000 airstrikes drying on that and it's a very broad thing that i actually like you but i'm having to give you an honest answer and yeah that's a problem. >> thank you. >> we go to mr. ted yoho. >> thank you mr. chairman and gentlemen we appreciate you being here. dr. brennan he said son's carter presidency the u.s. have been the guarantors of peace in the region and i look at israel and palestine syria with 220,000 dead plus and we know the

situation in afghanistan iraq libya yemen lebanon jordan is a bright spot and let us not forget iran. how do you assess we have done since the carter administration? >> i think our success rate has not been high. >> okay and i heard our president the other day say if the failed policy like cuba has not worked after 50 years of has to change. i agree with that statement. i'm not going to go into the cuban debacle right now. our whole process in the middle east has to change because where devices come from? dr. brennan you go ahead. >> originally came from al qaeda in iraq to isi and later into isis. >> we go back to what the president is saying here that we are going to degrade and defeat isis. i remember the statements in the

iraq war, mission accomplished but we weren't done. i remember this president saying al qaeda is on the run and the gb team they are gone. the question i have for all three of you is what is a definitive definition of defeat of isil because isil is an ideology. we are not fighting a nation-state. it's like fighting a tumor that metastasizes and we are going after the metastasis. we are not going after the root cause so i would like to hear definition of defeat a definitive one of than i would like to hear what you're root cause is of why there is an isis and why there was an al qaeda and i have one other question. an you would go first. >> it's a good point its and it's the major flaw of this draft. the draft doesn't tell coming you give us back to the present

and it doesn't authorize the president to do anything more than use the armed forces against isil. it doesn't doesn't say they feed although that is one of the things he says is his goal so there is no goal. one of the reasons we are debating about how long this should be or what troops and what enduring means as there is no goal. my goal is to defeat isis to destroy its terrain and iraq and syria. that is what should be amiss. that is the military mission and we can do it if possible with our allies. potentially we will have to use their own forces but if that's the vital mission that is what the president should be asked to do by you. >> i think you're absolutely right in if we don't define what isil is that the radical islamic jihad is group you can defeat it. it's like let's build a house and i will give you a bunch of 2 x 4's and material and what is the plan? i don't know just build a house

and that's what i see here. i know that's a simple analogy or a bad analogy but i see us wanting to commit but not really wanting to commit. it's like you are not playing to win, you are playing not to lose. if we are not going to go in there with a very specific strategy this is a bad idea. dr. brennan what is your opinion? >> i agree with that and i think what we need to do to defeat iraq and syria were isis is to understand that some level at the border between iraq and syria we have to look at the entire organization. i agree iraq first but we need to think about how we attack the entire rotation make sure we no longer controlled territory. that's a military objective but it means we have to move into syria also. >> which is attacking a sovereign state.

we are attacking mad and that opens up another can of worms. dr. rand. >> i would disagree with my colleagues. >> did you say disagree? >> again there is preliminary evidence that is working. this is what the president is recommending as a way to defeat that so this combination of limited airstrikes. with the coalition partners on the ground has killed 7000 isis fighters. >> , and they have grown out of that though? every time you kill one you get 10 or 20 more that join the cause so are we winning? >> and it does help the iraqi forces the kurds and the iraqi serb forces retake key strategic area so in my mind they strategy should be assessed based on how well it's working and so far there is significant evidence this combination of limited force and partners is working. >> i appreciate your time to time out of time. thank you mr. chairman.

>> i thank the member from florida. while we appreciate the time of oliver witnesses today and this is the start of a very important conversation so i think as we deal with this growing threat from isis and as we deal with the presidents request we thank you again. we are going to submit additional questions to our panel. appreciate your response and we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]