the iraqi military i know that there is a very strong effort underway to ensure they are deeply engaged elsewhere and all the other aspects of the recovery of the population. >> one quick follow-up you might get more support if you are saying it is an invading sunni force led by the generals and now renounced. ..

operation enduring freedom. we are now past 13 years in that enduring fight and that resolution, of course was also the basis for the justification of our actions in somalia in yemen and the administration is saying quite clearly that they oppose the repeal of that and that the operations that are going on right now to my in fact, are consistent with that 2001 resolution. now, that causes great problems to me and many members of the community because even in the absence

of the passage of a knew aumf the administration is maintaining that they have the authority to continue as they have for 13 years under operation enduring freedom. so that obviously is a problem for us because it sits there as an underlying authority for the next president, democrat or republican who is sworn in on january 20 2017. most of us we will be sitting here then as your successor is sitting here and perhaps not with the same interpretation of the word enduring. so my questions and then go to, is this going to open up a potential for an open-ended war in the middle east? will it allow for unfettered deployment of ground troops and ultimately whether or not we are opening up pandora's box, especially in syria?

my 1st question to you goes to president assad and what the goal we will be underneath this authorization in terms of the removal of president assad, which has been historically an objective that the united states has said is important. so could you tell us what president assad and his removal represents as one of the goals that exist in training 5,000 troops in syria for the next three years in a row as the long-term objective after the defeat? >> well, or political goal or policy goal ultimately is that the process of change of the departure of assad should occur through a political process and ultimately he should depart

and not be a part of the future political landscape in syria. the role of the tmd program is to 1st and foremost, give those elements of the moderate syrian opposition we are supporting the capacity to defend themselves, build battlefield credibility and ultimately to use those elements and forces to deal with dash. at the same time we are building that capacity in the moderate syrian opposition from our hope would be to build within the political echelon a level of coherence and sophistication that the two together, the modern syrian political echelon and the military echelon are the credible force that will have a place at the table during the political process which we will ultimately see the replacement of assad.

>> i appreciate that, but it seems to me that is a ten year proposition. if that is the case we should be talking about a ten year time frame. we can finish iraq in the next three years, but that is a much longer prospect and we should understand what it requires from us in syria, and saying assad name over and over again we will help us focus on the objective the free syrian army will have in that country and what we are signing up for in terms of the long-term military effort inside of that country. and i thank you, mr. chairman for the opportunity to ask this one final question which is the basic tension that king abdullah was talking about which is that of the americans providing help to fight the war but not claiming credit so it does not look like a crusade inside of that region.

can you talk about that so that the people in the region do not view this as a us-led coalition against isil? because ultimately that then comes back to haunt us and is the message we are receiving from middle east. >> as your question presupposes king abdullah of jordan has been very clear throughout this coalition that in the end the solution to the problems of the region must not only look like but must be a function of those states within the region to take concerted action supported by the united states and supported by a broader global coalition for those concerted actions to be successful. it is very important obviously that the solution have an arab face and the

muslim voice with regard to dealing with the so-called caliphate and all it is has brought to the region. the king and other muslim arab leaders in the region have been clear on the desire that they not just appear that really are exercising leadership frontally in this process. >> i don't think people in that region view it that way right now but that has to be our goal. we have to switch it so that it is not us. what the senate is referring to is that it must be a muslim led effort, and i don't think right now that is the internal view. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general allen, thank you for your service to our country. >> thank you, sir. >> we are operating currently in the middle east under the 2001 aumf is that correct?

>> that's correct. >> would it be a fair statement to say the one the president has sent to us is actually a limiting aumf compared to the 2001 authorization? >> it is specifically intended to deal with the threat of isil, that's correct. >> but it is limiting in the authority the president would have primarily by the interpretation of the enduring phrase is that correct? >> enduring in the expectation as he has describe described within it in the proposed legislation on the size and kind of forces that might be applied, measures and might be applied. that's correct. >> i voted for the 2001. it came on the heels of september 11 2,001 and was passed at a time when americans had flags on the windshield and front doors. and the patriotism in our country because of the terrible attack was at an all-time high, at least in my lifetime in my memory. only going to have to wait for that type of event again

before we use whatever it takes to destroy this evil? meeting isil and those like them. >> we are taking those measures now to get after the evil that is isil, and it is one we have not seen before. just today the fbi role that three individuals in this country that were intent on either joining isil in the battle space or doing space bar doing ill to the american people. as long as we are on the front edge of this and taking those kind of measures we have the possibility from keeping it becoming something that looks like 911. >> in your printed statement he said it would ultimately be the aggregate pressure of the coalition activity over multiple mutually supportive lines of effort that will determine a campaign success. >> that's correct, sir. >> what are those mutually supporting lines you are referring to? >> working closely within the coalition and more broadly in the committee of nations to limit the flow of foreign fighters to deal

with the measures, to take the measures necessary to deal with the ability to limit the capacity of isil to generate revenue ultimately to support its operations and given discretion to take action against us or potentially our allies to provide support to those elements of the population and the region that have been displaced by virtue of the activities of isil or have been directly suppressed by the boot of the conquest of isil and subjugation command very importantly to work together to in the information space ultimately to defeat the idea of dash. and the coalition is working very hard in those areas. i have just come back from southeast asia where i met with the leadership of several countries they're. they are watching with great interest and concern those things that are occurring in

the middle east which could spread into their region and they are interested in joining us in ways that can limit the ability of those organizations they're to travel to the battle space or to limit there ability to directly challenge the authorities of those countries. so it is not just the countries of the middle east, not just the countries of europe. it is the countries of southeast asia, and very importantly within the context of the multiple lines of effort working closely to outreach to the indigenous populations of these countries in ways that can dispel the image of the so-called caliphate in ways that can work with religious leaders and tribal leaders in those countries with populations that may be at risk to work with teachers and clerics and families to reduce the attractiveness of dash and this kind of extremist message. and the combination of all those activities together, we think will pressure and

ultimately put the kind of pressure on dash 1st to defend ourselves and ultimately to defeat the organization. >> very briefly are we doing enough to counteract the use of social media and technology to communicate exactly what you are talking about that they are doing? because what you heard about an southeast asia and what i have heard about on troops i have taken is the fear they will use social media and modern communication mechanisms to spread ideology and fear around the world? are we attacking that is much as we should? >> they are doing it now. it is in fact an explicit and explicit objective within our efforts, within the counter messaging one of effort among the many nations involved to do just that. in nations where free speech is an issue we have to accommodate that aspect of our relationship with industry that owns these platforms to ensure that we are either able to interdict that message will work with industry to remove that message in its own content.

so we are working very closely actually with industry and with our partners to counter that message across all of social media. >> thank you for your time and your service. >> thank you. >> thank you. senator boxer. >> thank you, mr. chairman ranking member. general, thank you so much for your dedication to this nation. i want to thank the president for the wisdom he showed in appointing you as the special envoy. i find your presentation to be very direct, no no-frills, straightforward and i appreciate it under article one section eight congress has the power to declare war. i no you agree with that, yes? >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. i hope you can then understand why we would want to be very precise when we do that because we are sent here by a lot of people who have a lot of kids who serve

in the military and they are the fabric of our community. so we want to be careful. i just want to ask you to expand on this enduring word because you have said it very clearly that your definition is no enduring presence could mean a two-week presence of combat boots on the ground, american combat boots on the ground or a two-year presence of american combat boots on the ground which answers the question the democrats on this committee have been searching for this definition. what you have proven with your honesty here is there is none. it is the eye of the beholder. when you say to me, if i vote for this no enduring combat presence and am sending my kids there in my state for two years i would argue with you that you have misinterpreted it. yet the congressional research service congressional research service says there is really no definition and if i

wanted to take an administration to court because i say, as a member of congress, no enduring presence crs says i would not have a legal leg to stand on because they're is no definition. i think it is very important the administration here this once again. i know secretary kerry had to hear it over and over again yesterday but we are very uncomfortable with this language. the previous chairman cobbled together a good aumf that united all of us on our side because he essentially said no combat troops with these exceptions and put in the kind of exceptions i think you would agree with special forces operation, search and rescue protective personnel command we would urge you please, to go back and take a look at it i feel very strongly. i want to ask you questions

that have nothing to do with that because i think you and i would probably disagree on that subject and there is no.in going over it again. but i am concerned about us military support for the kurds. you answer the question in a very short way which is wonderful. no problem. however the kurds are not saying that. i want to call to your attention a recent interview with bloomberg view just three weeks ago. the head of the kurdistan regional security council expressed concern about our commitment to the kurds, and these are our boots on the ground these are our boots on the ground. he said, we are starting to have doubts that might be a political decision on what sort of equipment should be given to the kurds. we are fighting on behalf of the rest of the world against this terrorist organization. we are putting our lives on the line. all we ask is sufficient equipment to protect these

lives. i need you to respond to that. is that off base? do you take that comment seriously? does it concern you? >> i listen very carefully to what the kurds have to say, and they have demonstrated battlefield courage that should demand all of our respect. we have worked carefully and closely with the kurds command your question presupposes and is correct that american support to the kurds has given them the capacity and more broadly and more recently coalition support to the kurds have given them the ability to do much of what they have been able to

accomplish. for the successful defense of him -- we worked with coalition members to respond to curtis requests for equipment which has been flowing in. also in the context of the $1.6 billion that was appropriated for the train and equip program for the 12 iraqi army brigades, three of which are fish murder they are getting the same sophisticated equipment that the iraqis are. >> my question was not about how good they are. we agree. they are saying they do not feel they have enough equipment. i am just saying you are saying everything is rosy. they are complaining about it. as one senator -- i cannot speak for anyone else -- they are our boots on the ground, and we need to get them what they need. i know they're is pressure from different factions, but if they are going to be our boots on the ground, we have to get them what they need.

>> thank you. first of all, thank you for your service to our country and your willingness to come back and and help with this new endeavor of great difficulty. i no we are not debating the authorization for use of force but i want to ask you, it is my understanding from our review of the process only two times in our history has congress authorized the use of force with limitations, command both for un peacekeeping missions. the question that i would have now, if our objective here is to defeat isis would it not be more prudent to authorize the commander-in-chief to move forward in that regard and allow him as commander in chief and any future commander-in-chief to decide what the appropriate strategy is moving forward to ultimately defeat them if that is the ultimate goal. what would be wrong with simply authorize authorizing the president to defeat them? >> well, the strategy that the president has approved in fact, does envisioned the

envision the defeat of dash. >> i understand the strategy does. for purposes of authorization from congress command i understand you have endorsed here today with the president what the president wants to do and perhaps that is what the president thinks he can get past but from a military.of view would it not be easier to authorize the president to do whatever it takes to defeat them? >> the president needs the options that should be available to him ultimately to defeat dash. >> my 2nd question, is it possible to defeat isis without them being defeated by someone on the ground? if you can update us on efforts that i have seen in the past conversation among some of the regional countries about the potential for a coalition of armed forces brought together, egyptians turks, saudi's some of the kingdoms, jordan etc. who

could provide a coalition of local forces who could play that role with significant us assistance from the air logistics intelligence, etc. has there been any progress on that? is that being discussed with those nations? >> senator, i would prefer to have this part of the conversation in a closed -- >> i understand. let me move on. the nature of this conflict, isis has proven for a group like this to take root and take hold they need ungoverned vacuum spaces that they can operate from. that is what has attracted them perhaps to libya, not just the port town but the ability to operate uncontested by a government. it is important to understand that as this conflict continues the possibility continues to grow that isis we will look to other places where they can set up nodes of operation libya as an example but

potentially training camps in afghanistan. any place a vacuum opens up is an attractive and appealing place for them to move operations. therefore as we move forward with stretch -- strategy that reality needs to be taken into account yes? >> i agree. >> my last question is about the nature of this conflict. it has been talked about in the past that isis is a group of monsters that take on acts of extreme violence, but these are not just random acts of extreme violence. this is a group their barbarism has a purpose. at the end of the day it is to purify, there mind, to purify that region to their form of islam, not just one sunni islam but especially of non- islamic populations. in that realm it is clear that christians in particular are in increased danger in this region, and

they specifically target christian populations for barbarity to shock the world and in an effort to carry out their ultimate goal of purifying the region for islam. is they're not a deep religious component to the strategy? using a term that they would use cleanse the region of infidels and nonbelievers and in that realm may have specifically targeted christians were the sort of atrocities they are committing on an ongoing basis? >> i would say yes to that. the interpretation that they apply to all of those segments of the population that live within the area that they control has permitted them to do the things that they have done to certain elements of the population. i absolutely agree with you.

there interpretation of there responsibility under this so-called caliphate is to take action against certain elements of the population and treat them one way and treat certain elements of the population another way. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, general allen for your service. you did a very significant important work with respect to trying to provide a security roadmap for the west bank in the event of a peace deal between israeli and palestinian leaders. whether the leaders we will do what there citizens want them to do and find such a deal is up to them but it should not go unnoticed that you worked very hard on that and have put in place a template for security on the west bank that is a very good thing. and your work then and in this context is in the best traditions of american diplomacy. i want to make a comment about ends and means. i we will pick up senator johnson was quizzing you

about what is the defeat of isil. they are not a state. they say they are. they are not. they are not islamic. they say they are. they are a mutation of islam. they are ideologically driven death cult. as we grapple with the authorization we have to grapple with what defeat looks like. i am practical about this. i want to protect americans from isil command i want to protect our allies who ask for help. the defeat of the ideology, the death cult fantasy that they have we could be chasing after a phantom, but i want to protect americans and defend our allies who ask us for that. on the means side, a question about the ground troops issue. we have had meetings with two leaders from the region king abdulla and.

[indiscernible] king abella said this abdulla said this is our fight, not yours and suggested that us ground troops would not be a good idea. the earlier of cover was more straightforward about that today. he said, i don't want american ground troops. we did not suggest this. he brought up the notion that they may be a recruiting bonanza and change the notion of what the fight is. it is against the west. >> i think that is accurate. >> the ground troops thing is a wordsmithing issue but the wordsmithing is subsidiary to the bigger issue which is do we become an occupier? do we become a recruiting tool for isil? king abdulla's notion that this terrorism is born and bred in the region. the region has to stand up against it. if the region is not willing to stand up against it, there is virtually nothing the us can do no matter how many resources we put into

it that we will lead to success. forget about the wordsmithing but when the leaders from the region say american ground troops are a bad idea that is a powerful thought to those of us who will be voting on authorization. how would you respond to that notion that the presence in any significant weight of way of american ground troops changes the character of this and makes it the west against isil rather than a region needing to police its own extremism? >> i do agree with the two leaders. the presence, the infusion of a large -- this is where they would be a little more precise, if given the opportunity. the presence of a large conventional force would change the nature of the conversation. it is really important to understand that during iraq and afghanistan and in the way that we have responded to other similar challenges around the world the united

states brings to bear a variety of really important capabilities. the 1st is the capacity of our strategic leadership. just our leadership alone has brought to bear 62 nations against this challenge. our leadership brought to bear the 1st night of our strike operations five arab air forces flying on the wing of the united states air force in strikes against isil target in syria. that is not anything that any of us could have imagined a year ago. our strategic leadership counts as an enabler to this process. other ways and means -- and your question is important. other ways and means we can bring success to the arab solution to this is providing technical support intelligent support focused

special operations striking abilities the training and equipping that we are doing today, some of which can be done in country some of which can be done offshore in partner nations the aggregation of those activities undertaken with partners in the region ultimately to achieve the ends that we seek. the united states and our coalition partners really have many means at our disposal from leadership all the way through to potential for special operations strike to give our arab partners exactly what they want, which is the capacity for them to be the defeat mechanism, in the end, of dash. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you general allen for your service and time and testimony today. again we have to recognize that isis is a real threat to this country that requires a comprehensive strategy and the commitment

to their total destruction, i think, is the only thing that we can accept. i am glad the president has made the effort to forward the aumf to congress. i obviously look forward to working with the president on the aumf and this committee. in the letter the president transmitted along with his language for the aumf he stated i have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat isil. as part of the strategy us military forces are conducting a systematic campaign of airstrikes in iraq and syria. it is my understanding in the testimony you provided today the us has conducted around 2500 airstrikes is that correct. >> that's correct. >> says the operation began on august 8. that is the timeframe. an average of about ten a day. the question i have is, is the pace of the operation

sufficient to eradicate isil at this time? >> well, eradication is not the end state that we are seeking at this particular moment. our hope -- hope is not the term i want to use. what our expectation is given the strategy is that the combination of us and coalition airpower in conjunction with the training and equipping of iraqi forces and ultimately syrian forces we will overtime give us the strategic outcomes we desire it is not going to happen tomorrow but the combination of all those things together is what we anticipate will permit us to achieve the objectives of the strategy. >> besides the airstrikes what does the president is comprehensive and sustained strategy involved? >> several things. the 1st is to provide support to the stability of the iraqi government, which is essential.

we are doing that, working closely with the iraqi government with respect to reforms in partnership with the government which is inclined to see it that way, working closely with the iraqi security forces to prepare them ultimately for a long-term counteroffensive which will remove dash from the population centers and ultimately ejected from the country. we are working as an international coalition on behalf of iraq to pressure the capacities of dash to generate funds and resources necessary for its long-term survival. we are working as an international coalition to staunch the flow of foreign fighters into the battlefield so that dash has difficulty replacing combat losses. we will work closely as partners to share intelligence so that we are working with the iraqis to give them a clear picture of what we understand dash to be but also between and

among the members of the coalition that we can defend ourselves and the homeland from the potential for dash activities within the united states. and then of course we are working closely with our partners to provide humanitarian assistance to those elements of the population that we will need to be recovered and relieved as we liberate them from the presence of dash in the population centers. and then finally caught to work together with iraq and our partners to deal with what i think -- to deal what i think is the decisive blow beyond the physical defeat of dash which is the defeat of its ideal and attractiveness over the long-term. >> the pace of operations we discussed, with the passage of the aumf, does that change it all? >> the pace of the operation we will be judged as time goes. commanders take stock of the operational environment and ultimately resource the operations that either takes

advantage of opportunities avail to them by the changes in the operational environment. we could well find that based on our current estimates that the activities that we will undertake undertaken a counter offensive we will follow along the pace in the timeline that we anticipate. we could easily find that as the counteroffensive unfolds that dash is unwilling to receive defeat after defeat at the hands of the iraqi security forces, which is exactly what we want to see and decided it's time to pull out. the operational environment could change, and it is the responsibility of a very capable commanders to constantly be monitoring the success of the unfolding operation to ensure we are getting the most out of the resources that we have and if we need more resources that we asked for them. >> thank you. >> senator murphy. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. general allen, thank you for

your service and answers to the questions. straightforward. very helpful. i want to build on some questions from senator menendez and senator boxer on the authorizing language we have before us. a lot of attention has been given to the phrase enduring and not as much to the juxtaposition that has been created by what our offense of forces and defense of forces. just so i understand this you talked about the potential limitation on size of force or duration of force under the enduring limitation but so long as the presence of troops is considered defensive there is no limitation in this authorization of military force as to the number of troops or the duration of their time in the conflict area so long as they are considered defensive forces. >> again, i am not sponsoring the legislation. i think your.is correct in that regard.

it is about offensive maneuver forces. >> i thought your answer was definitive in that you worried, as i no the president does large-scale deployment of troops could become recruiting fodder for extremists as our presence in iraq over the course of ten years. do you think that that changes if our categorization of the forces are offensive or defenses if we have a hundred thousand defensive troops? i don't think this president will authorize this. the next president we will get the chance to decide differently. would it matter in terms of the ability for extremists to recruit as to whether our troops they're were categorized as defenses versus offensive? >> again, these are all individual measures.

it depends on how the crisis has unfolded the region in which this forces may be involved the activities that may have occurred prior to the introduction of forces that we might call defensive. it is just not possible to give a specific answer to that question. you know i would have a difficult time understanding how we have a hundred thousand forces in a defensive environment if we had not had substantial offensive operations to begin with which would of course, change the regional view and perspective on our forces and the outcome. i think there will be occasions where we find that locations or facilities or concentrations of friends and allies need to be defended. the rationale we would use with our regional partners for the insertion of allied troops to defend those locations or populations

would be very, very important. and so i think each of those circumstances would have to be judged independently. >> do you have a sense -- and i no you are not the sponsor of this legislation but you were there -- as to what the limits of that word defenses are? if our forces were their taking fire from a isil position and needed to advance on that position to eliminate it in order to defend our troops i assume that that action in that time and space looking like an offense of action would still be considered defensive in the sense that it was necessary in order to defend our troops or coalition troops. >> yes in that particular example. yes. again we would probably prior to the deployment of those forces have come forward with as clear an explanation as we could as to what defensive would look like in the context of

accomplishing that mission and the competition those tasks associated with the fence. >> you are going to get stuck with a lot of hypothetical questions on these two phrases simply because we are stuck with them. one last question if i could. part of the success of the awakening was not just persuasion but also the transfer of substantial resources to tribes. we effectively paid tribes in various ways in order to compensate them for their moving away from insurgency's and toward coalition forces. what did we learn from that experience? how did it educate us as we try to move forward a strategy, once again, of trying to win over these forces? >> that is a really important question. i was id been that process.

we did indeed provide that support and gave it because in many ways the central government was incapable of doing it. when we provided that support and ultimately the tribes made the strategic decision to side with us against al qaeda as you will recall, fundamentally the operational environment change very quickly. what we learned from that was not the fundamental change in the battle space that favored us. it was the long-term outcome of the sons of iraq, which was the handover of the responsibility to resource the sons of iraq to the central government in iraq and that did not work out frankly, because it was never clear to us i think whether malik he intended to support them or not. in this case we seek in every possible way both to encourage and support the central government to build those bridges now with the tribal elements by providing

support being present in the training process and ultimately ensuring that the linkage between the shakes and the iraqi civilian sunni leaders that linkage now is effective, not in a handoff later. that is one of the most important messages or lessons that have come out of this. >> is that include financial resources been transferred from being transferred from the iraqi government to these tribes? is that one of our recommendations? >> well, yes in the context from the 2015 budget that was just passed by the iraqis, there was a wedge in their for the recruitment of tribal elements and indigenous populations from each province into the national guard organizations. those national guard organizations we will belong to the governor support the police locally in the event that they're is a crisis or we will be nationalized, federalized to support the

army in the event of a national emergency. that entity we will belong to the ministry of defense. they we will be recruited into the ministry of defense, part of the national guard brigade but be paid by national funds. the mechanisms underway right now where we are training tribal elements in al anbar they are actually being paid now by the iraqi government and armed by the iraqi government. we are providing the training. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony. just a couple of questions quickly. how important do you think -- and i apologize if you answer this before i came. how important do you think it is to have this aumf? >> very important. >> go ahead. >> i think it is extraordinarily important actually. the united states has exerted great leadership in bringing together these countries ultimately to support the territorial

sovereignty of iraq and to help deal with the defeat of dash necessary in syria, so it is very important. isil is a threat that is unique in our time certainly unique in the time that i have been in the service, and while the elements of the aumf we will be properly debated between this body and the administration and many of the members here today have brought up important points for clarity or for continued discussion. i think that is extraordinarily important, the message it sends that the administration is in a conversation and dialogue with this committee and the congress on the issue but most importantly in support of the us leadership globally on this issue a strong bipartisan vote to support the aumf complements the leadership the united states has exerted in this crisis.

>> thank you. that is the case i have made. our adversaries and allies need to know we are one voice. is they're one that is more important in that regard, or is it equally important for both to hear this message? >> our friends in the coalition in the 21 capitals i have traveled to have been extra ordinarily grateful for the american leadership on this issue. what i want is for our adversaries not to be able to sleep at night because we have the unqualified support of the congress in our actions necessary to defeat this enemy. >> at what time is the impact of his aumf diminished if we have language that is -- if we try to include every nuance as opposed to something straightforward that we are in this to win? at what time does it become less important? >> it would be difficult for me to answer. i just of the consultation between the administration and this committee that is needed to defend this

country and deal a defeat to dash that is desperately needed. >> and other examples of aumf there has not been much change. we have basically we're basically done with the administration has asked for they're have been some amendments and recent aumf but by and large it has been rather straightforward language. i frankly think the language the administration put forward is a good start. it may be amended some, but i would caution the committee in congress in general, the senate and house, from going too far to make it all things to everyone and diminish the importance of it. anyway, thank you for your service and thank you for your testimony your. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator. >> i wanted to ask about one of the lines of effort that we are working on in a fairly significant way the humanitarian relief line. the us is the most generous nation and the world in

terms of humanitarian relief to refugees from syria , but the problem is getting worse because of closing borders with lebanon jordan, turkey is less willing to just see waves and waves of syrians come over. what are we doing in tandem with the london 11 and other nations to try to deal with the humanitarian crisis of all of these displays folks in syria, whether being displaced because of assad isil cholera outbreaks? i wonder about our humanitarian efforts in tandem with other nations. >> i will give you a partial answer, sir and take the question and give the ability of the department to come back. we take that very seriously. we have relief efforts that as you properly.out have been generously supported by

the united states and others directly to the populations of syria and iraq. we have the un appeals which need a lot more assistance to bring those appeals up to 100 percent. we are in the depth of a winter right now which has made this more urgent and timely. we have the frontline states that are struggling with the influx of syrian refugees turkey lebanon and jordan. so we need to work closely with them to give them the kind of support necessary to ensure that these demographic changes that they are experiencing in their countries are not in the end destabilizing to the stability and security. and then very importantly is the humanitarian assistance that will follow in trace of the counteroffensive when that ultimately kicks off. it can be argued that the clearing operation we will be important to remove dash out

of the population centers and the police will secure the population. but we we will find these people have lived under indescribable conditions and so our ability to marshal and quickly apply the humanitarian assistance necessary to the female populations two more broadly the liberated populations to the internally displaced persons that will come home as we begin to clear these population centers of dash supporting their return to there homes the necessary humanitarian assistance to the restoration of essential services, electricity and water and ultimately reconstruction. as your question presupposes this is a huge bill and a huge regional undertaking and two i think it should be to everyone's satisfaction or at least optimism that many members

of the coalition have been very clear in their willingness to support the broader un effort for the region and the frontline states and a number of other of the coalition members have put there hands in the year air to be leaders and supporters to that very important humanitarian effort that will follow closely on the heels of the clearing operation that will move dash out of iraq. so it is a multifaceted, multilayer, complex issue but in the end the humanitarian piece, i think is one of the death blows that dash will experience. >> i no in response to a question from the chairman you indicated the complexities of no-fly zones i just would commend the idea of a humanitarian zone inside syria probably on the border with turkey with the border with jordan or

maybe both that would be justified by un security council resolutions already in place promoting cross-border delivery of humanitarian aid humanitarian zones for people, whether they are fleeing assad isil, the winter, whatever it is, once the borders of enclosed and they cannot transit across the border i hope we would have some form of safe haven for the citizens who are suffering so badly. the worst refugee crisis since world war ii. >> that is correct, sir. >> and that would be in the form of some type of no-fly zone. >> because no-fly has the military, you no, label right up front i call it a humanitarian safe havens out but definitely i would want such a zone to be protected from whoever might try to mess around with people were refugees just seeking safety, yes. >> very good. >> general, i no you have a hard stop and 20 minutes and i think you have certainly helped us in the

ways that we wanted you to help us. i would have one question and that is you and response in response to the senator talked about the need for congress to be behind the effort that is taking place of isil. they're have been differing discussions about the length of time from a aumf standpoint. is there anything about the timeframe? i no the president has asked for three. whether it is longer shorter is there anything about that that you think matters at all relative to those that you are talking about , appealing to our enemies and allies together? >> welcome our intent with respect to dash is to end its abilities to deal that defeat as quickly as we can. if it takes longer than three years, my suspicion would be he would come back to this committee and

request an extension. >> and if it was shorter than that, it would not trouble you either. >> if it was shorter than that, it would not trouble me at all if dash were defeated in less than three years. >> it would not trouble us either. does the length of time really particularly matter to you from the standpoint of the allies and those we are defeating, or is it just more congress getting behind the effort in a bipartisan way? >> i think it is the latter. >> listen, i called you over the weekend when i no you are on your way to kuwait. i no you are on your way to centcom now. i think you can tell by the respect everyone has shown you today that we all view you as someone who is an outstanding public servant. we appreciate the way you have gone about your work. it is difficult and decisions don't always get made in the manner and timeframe that someone like you wants to seek to get this done in the appropriate

way. but i think your demeanor and the way the you talk with all of us is certainly very well received. we wish you well and what you are doing and hope you will be before us and update us. >> honored to be with you. today, sir. >> with that the record we will be open until friday for any questions. we ask that you and your staff respond in a timely fashion. the meaning is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate remains in recess this evening. both the house and senate were in recess as

congressional leaders try to find a way forward to fund the department of homeland security. the department runs out of money at midnight tonight. a while ago in the house members holding voting down a temporary spending bill that would have funded dhs for three weeks. now it is unclear what might happen this evening in the house and senate. this morning in the senate members passed a bill funding dhs through september 30. that bill does not include funding for the president's immigration executive orders all senate democrats joined 20 republicans and voting for passage. thirty-one republicans voting no. of the senate blocked a bill that would have defunded immigration orders by the president. a 60 yes votes were needed to move ahead with that bill in the senate. again the senate in recess, awaiting word from the chair that they're is work to be done. live coverage we will

continue at that time. while we wait for the senate to reconvene we will bring you other events from the week. from monday attendees of the cyber security conference here from a syrian cyber security specialist on issues in that country followed by a panel on protecting personal information. this is one hour and ten minutes. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. it is a little bit cold today but we have to get through. i believe to get hacked in the us is different than to get hacked in europe. nowadays we go through kind of like my personal story and why i'm here in the us today. back to 2011 i used to live

in beautiful damascus. at that time the civil movement part at the beginning of 2011 and a lot of people joined the civil movement. most of these people were really aware about how the government is drawn regarding civilians and the technology they had and still have regarding civilians and control for the internet and infrastructure. at that time the syrian government used to block all social networks and only the people with good background knowledge about cyber security had access to the social network. in a very smart movement march 2011 the syrian government removed all blocks on the social network these people needed to see what was going on. they joined the social network and it became a good

movement. the government was collecting information, but it was not only for collecting information, not only for social engineering let's say but more deep into cyber attacks. back to june 2011 in damascus i get the chance to meet one of the journalists that came to film a commentary about the civil movement. sean mcallister who works for channel for asked me if he could join me in the training that i used to do for activists and lawyers back at that time and teach them how to protect themselves online. he found that, but they're was kind of an agreement between us i we will allow you to film this, but you have to at least encrypt your data. let me teach you how because you are here on a touristy visa.

they can just arrest you for any matter. i taught him how to encrypt is data. he filled a lot of people a lot of very important sources. october 181 a.m. at night i received a message from a mutual friend who was assisting sean that he got arrested in a coffee shop and to hide myself because they arrested a lot of people he worked with. they got a storage is a backup. i asked him if the data was encrypted and if they had access to the video? he said yes. it was kind of underestimating the power of the government at that time. in a very famous coffee shop in damascus city and having conversations and both of them got arrested.

he is still in jail today. .. >> >> even to go that day

encrypted that. so it's very simple face recognition technology that is available in the government or any other oppression government. and to date isis is with the syrian government over six months but they just darted -- started they have more access because they're not under sages as warner passports. so here we are today of a group of the juniors we try

to help people connect people on the ground with those technologies makers and explaining for them you have to improve this technology and at the same time you try to protect people on the ground and i just want to mention it is half of the world is ruled by the city government so we can see the threat there not only threatening the syrian people but how isis was active. i still see a lot of growing up in technology and there is in this connection that

is well lead us to those problems. so i hope conferences like this will bring people from different places so we'll understand what is good and what is bad. thank you very much. [applause] >> many thanks and would like to invite the first panel. [inaudible conversations] och. >> good morning. i am a senior research fellow with a new america open technology institute.

for the past 3-1/2 years i have spent a great deal of time working with groups and researchers on the topic of the digital divide. and today's discussion is cybersecurity will have was thinking of cybersecurity in a more everyday context. what do they think about in relation to the agent -- digital safety in security? it isn't often that we use this term in relation to the potential of this user access to information. as it translates for one person to another.

in addition with the common person who will spend some time to think about society's most marginalized members. people who don't have access not just technology that basic needs. and we will do that to the engaged three panelists who have taught -- bought long and hard women's to engineer or design for security and blood is at stake. joining us is our staff privacy in a list that google and nonresidential fellow at stanford, over postdoctoral fellow at new

york university, and then technology fellow with the aclu's speech privacy technology project you all have a background in computer science by trading in has been involved in policy debates so i will die if right in. i spend a lot of time working on issues looking at long term assistance typically older adults that have limited english speaking skills or low levels of literacy, for example, low access to the internet.

reported last year that 30 percent of households in america still do not have access to the internet or too high a broad range. are they on the wrong side of the digital divide? or are they more secure because they're not connected to digital services or infrastructure? >> it is only one piece of the puzzle with a digital infrastructure those that most likely have mobile phones so in terms of people being more saved because they don't have internet there certainly is no guarantee.

with continued deployment also think it's like day mobile phone with surveillance concerns to go with there everyday life. >> i could add people who want to get themselves involved if they want to educate themselves with information about security to be connected helps that the information is still put out about other sources that it will make you harder to

be available to become engaged in the community. >> but that digital divide the tree in the surveillance divided and the policy divide. and we know from studies there are more likely to be subject to surveillance and the privacy divide with to have as access in understanding with respect to privacy and they don't necessarily overlap. >> we will come back to that idea of community connections but can you describe what does it mean to be secure?

if i am walking into a public library talking to a group of people who have not access technology who very frequently on their own terms, what does it mean? >> there are some basic things you would like to have two major communication is readable and to act anonymously without identifying yourself to be part of the community that is not necessarily directed by the adversary. to secure your communications not just individuals but also communities. technologically it is

encryption and in committee services so with those behavioral patterns in rare that shows up with another piece that you may not be thinking about cynic is that your same take? >> they have done some great work to show that we are insecure. so those that our responsible and then it will be through the phone with the security weaknesses indebted with the

information but what it means to be informational they secure that somehow through the phone or using encryption that they can use those services. but those data breaches with the company's of a breach the database to let individuals no and there are serious concerns with the reformation in sharing to remove this liability and the impact of that on the community. also to be informed to have a choice to use services and

is to profile individuals but what we see right now is data mining as a way to make decisions but we know those that don't have a good representation is the impact could be very different could have a better understanding. so that impact so to articulate that this error data mining is also part of technical security.

>>. >> talk about the unemployed with a broader level un security through the communications. so those groups to see certain information to put that into a broader lives. >> is a rose like what we are talking about is technical security is the not sufficient. >> it is a precondition in. >> and we need to talk about that. but basically a bad

precondition to have anything above that. but what happened to the technologies and the devices? so what constitutes a secure a mobile phone? [laughter] >> we don't have one yet. >> the issue is not just a network that it connects to. but if that hands that connects to a broader infrastructure that enables tracking opportunities with the content collection then it doesn't matter if the device. some of these need to get the in infrastructural level.

sova want them to have a secure communications then talk to each other on-line. then date need to operate privately on the networks the ability to have them all seeing analysis to make that massively insecure. but it isn't possible with a broad scale surveillance to allow just the good guys to do surveillance. but those that allow access that simultaneously keep out the actors? so those that have security

at the level at the way that we defined. >> that is interesting talk about making several security more accessible to members of low income communities what comes to mind is the question of these abilities. i have spent time observing people in the classroom because an english-language skills the christians are someone who spent at least three glasses literally trying to figure out how to drive the mouse from one side of the computer screen to the other.

but usually the last five weeks of the class is spent understanding what in the world is a user name and password. but is a complete cognitive dissidence what does this mean to have the right in the online? people are definitely choosing insecure passwords or what is easy to remember and if you have lowe's literate skills are limited english she will pick something that is much easier to remember that a computer can decipher quite easily. you have not done this before. so usability it seems like an obvious thing to focus on

>> peddled fake we should pick usability. so for every tuesday infrastructure is built in a secure way. i agree it is a critical concern. but we have those usable tools that people understand that working in the insecure way. >> so it is near and dear to my heart. but i do agree gore and it comes down to priorities

these are very hard problems. with a large number of users with various backgrounds or levels of expertise. how well do we serve that population and? over the last five years i am hoping more people are prepared to work to put money into initiatives. or to put together a set of tools for people better easier to use. but it was an effort to not go into the world to figure it out themselves.

but they are difficult but here is a particular example to explain the nuances. and not sure what went wrong see you can make an informed decision. but we still have not cracked it open in. but if they have to make this decision we need to support people in this situation. >> it is a very hard word to pronounce that helps the analyzers but it is called

responsibilization that we ask individuals to manage their risk as a result of organizations or governments relating at has certain to risks that are not taken over so what we are doing is to collect more data to say if you didn't want to be a part of this then you get responsibility if you think there are risks bin you are responsible for protecting your cells. we have done projects in the past but to give secure

phones or the network is secure the they cannot be eavesdropped on but also your partner but in the case of user names you can use that anonymously without getting that information to incur more risk and there is that risk of securing that organization with little secure them well themselves like asking the security question but what is your mother's maiden name? that is public information is a users are responsible for not keeping that private which is again has bad

security design. >> want to come back to a theme that was mentioned earlier but that there is a shared responsibility. it you pointed to the idea that we should be thinking about individuals security and i wonder what that was like gore in tales and with your work at the aclu?

>> so at least two different ways is that for the tool to be developed and then to be engaged with the user base for the user is better. so to contribute to those tools that they rely on. to value that kind of feedback so the communities themselves so it is a separate question but we need to think about the way

to marginalizes people those that have the whole move to applause or culture or have ways to communicate with each other. the you can focus on the community themselves rather than a whole. but the fact that there still participating highlights them as a potential target. >> so that suggest with their broader base with technologies. i want a reality check as to where we are at because i heard you say something about hypothetical is and

you also mentioned you have a lot to do. how many people? with the global populations to understand with the base of consumers with the practice to use encryption tools that keep the individual units the community? what are we looking? >> there is already an infrastructure. with the large amount of encryption deployed. this is what we don't necessarily see.

with a lens that were indebted. but those that take the vantage of those but i don't have the good read on the other tools that are being passe. but their baby people that that brought this forward taking care with communication and but they aren't seeing the diversity but are they using the tools if you're looking at developer communities for example? it is the way you hear about

the tools and the developer community i just want to add a little bit more to this. the numbers are pretty low. anyone that is in the group tend not to have the excess of resources with a free labor project or someone who is taking care of children. you may decide to don't want to do dedicated few hours a week to develop a tool. so trying to tear abrades the gap is an interesting challenge. we want to hear from the users bayou have to involve people so i am intrigued how we could bridge the gap.

>> with the diversity it is terrible. >> and also the user community? >> but it's looking at that often they don't want to identify themselves. so there is a bit of a chicken and egg problem for those that do want to have that information so it is hard to answer so i assume the numbers are relatively low. >> maybe it is good to distinguish the three types of encryption use that is out there right now.

wasn't that we do know that basically projects communication between that service provider that you speak to it is important to talk about the men. but the next one is increasingly used on phones and tablets is that the into and those that use encryption with control over the devices and that is quite popular the man in the middle of also due to increased privacy concerns and then we were talking about with the developer community with a minuscule numbers of users that i now

call an end to end encryption. and what happened last two months officials thus spoke against the end to end encryption through wider use surveys. so provided that to their users. but e google is using something we have not seen deployed but we saw government officials said

that law enforcement would not be a whole to do their job because we would ban encryption it to show that it wasn't well-received tuesday companies would be liable because of the use of end to end encryption there would find that if the attack have been dorsum but it was formed. so in my opinion they should not implement these technologies. there is so whole economy where it is implied or encourage storer discourage. and to make sure it is the available though we have not see that happen.

>> let's talk about that later may be. so the quality of security the end-users are receiving receiving, one thing that is of concern in marginalized communities is stuff they use across the board does not work. are we at risk so to protect us as much as they should be? then i will come back. but that is a very prominent concern. >> are you getting what you thank you are getting?

>> there are very few tools from the confidentiality and privacy protection that there are gaps that i call key management there are gaps with limited data analysis with mechanisms that are broken. so i think they are right to be concerned with that level lowe's security that they want but that said there are a step up from where they have been. and to mention three years

ago traffic was the small faction of the internet. in into now looking at the web traffic that we need to be doing this. so even across the internet in the first place. so this doesn't get to the end to end encryption because it is the step up. there's still failures i don't know if they heard about that superficial incident last week that was an attack. so anybody who bought that so to click yes, yes, yes.

but who reads all the licensing agreements? wow. that is very rare. so is getting better in better but that attack happened because they just use it. >> thanks for asking the crowd about being a crackerjack. but i am curious to see a show of hands in the room how many people are working

with vulnerable communities? >> we have a few in the back for the benefit coming in and myself does well i have heard you talk about usability and protocols and they have heard you mention the role of government both as barriers of opportunity. for those of us that are working with foldable community is what is the greatest opportunity rehab ahead to institute of more secure audience? to wear these tools are easier to use?

>> sold the beginning of the wider adoption of the tools you hear more from users that begin to hear about the tools for what may be useful to them. from those so we did not hear from the floor to give factual information about what people need what they believe with their imagination is. so perhaps that there will be more funding or more

projects to be funded door to look into. to seriously tackle the gaps in to be very dedicated with expert personnel with a wide variety of complicated tasks. they may have the resources to do a feasibility testing. / of good the kid is great to have documentation or user support for when they have the problem for someone that can talk them through their problems. i recognize there are a lot of larger challenges but perhaps we will move closer

to the tools that our more available to a wider group of people. >> looking at it more structurally with the proposals for cedras' security but greasy with research in development is the way to move from critical infrastructure. sova to add on not rely upon security but instead makes systems horror critical infrastructure. so the data breach this the

given to do surveillance on everything to recognize and that will happen in the future. resilience is a failure of the state to provide security for its citizens to put their responsibility on the individual communities to secure themselves or organizations to secure themselves. but it and this gave the disenfranchised will lose even more. already did of have the resources to protect themselves now the government will save make yourself more resilient. so the point we need to look at is to see that not everybody will have equal

resources or to think about security is not something to just give up on. >> but to benefit the entire network we definitely need security for those marginalized communities but at the technical level it highlights who was active in those communities. so at some level what we actually need to argue for those that who are not in marginalized communities that provide the same protection provided effectively a baseline expectation these are the normal tools that they bring

in more additional funding as a result in to bring more traffic so if one of the goals we want to see is for the security of marginalized communities then read the tomb pick them up. >> we have time for questions. i will open it up to the floor. and i have a #newamcyber

select one of the most disenfranchised groups are the women. slow to establish the trust it is the matter of life-and-death. the secure means to get nine days a trusted network entirely secure to discuss those issues from small business they are attempting to educational issues. so those that are secure enough especially those in a difficult system ration like women and children in afghanistan.

and we look at that and some cases with technology in danger. >> is there a question? >> has the panel considered a secure portal at the national level or people that have sent simple emails that they have never been heard or seen from again.

>> i'm afraid i don't know the architecture specifically. i am happy to hear you are working on a project like that. one of the concerns that i would have in terms of secure portals there is a large amount of the information's stored and if they come under attack for our targeted then it makes that particular place the point of vulnerability this is the externality where if the administrators tornadic with a secure it and i am not saying they are not, but if they this -- lives then

all people become times. >> please be sure to ask a question. seven guys know that processing went down but it to you think it is as secure as that commercial credit card system? >> in the united states that is from the mobile phone. i cannot speak to the security of the food stamp system but minder standing

is it is backed by the legal framework around fraudulent with stalls not technology itself. seven talking about security and confidentiality if you talk about the availability part then triad comes up a lot this is that people are dependent on a system to not have that secured again nothing about confidentiality but we have to think about. >> also with the communities that are focused on economic justice is systems for the

port our core systems in the will see that changing in the future. >> my question is about the topographer your geography of how the digital world appears. to think about whether doesn't fall on the county line and the internet doesn't necessarily fit borders so how do we interact with that? with the ways we a change our behavior? what are things to understand based upon how you would describe how it is actually designed in how we should interact with it?

>> kdp more specific? >>. >> don the more technical side to watch the bbc internet videos that i cannot see because i am in the u.s. but by a -- by digital at kennedy can be copied. so that is what i am worried about. if this can be done all over the world, then how do we go about protecting ourselves? those are things to keep in mind. >>. [laughter]

i will let you pause and come back to that. >> i am wondering of providers charging for the privilege not to be tracked? with at&t ruling held that service to deliver the targeted ads were $29 a month. the answer is perhaps obvious what does this mean for those low income communities it is this a growing trend? >> it is and not just at&t but another situation was similar consequence is the facebook o plan where facebook says to the provider we will cover the

connectivity cost as long as they talk to facebook so if your mobile phone was free but the only one you were talking to is facebook then it becomes your mobile phone your network then they get the data collection. then the answer to your question is that is the only way they will get that access. >> but what we currently think of as the internet could become the domain and i think that is a tragic outcome. >> we have time for one more question. >> to do with a existing

infrastructure that affects every day severs security issues so what is that proliferation that this gentleman mentioned to do with security issues affecting every day people? is that a good solution? >>, the sec more people using the browser it is not new to all problems it is a very specific step up preservation but it doesn't solve all the problems i am happy to see facebook open this service and not because i have a stake. i don't use it but it is a

fundamental activity that people would because they block those network services that their loved by the government or the employer or the whole internet provider. >> i want to end with a question that hopefully will get us thinking from the connection what we will have throughout the day. so we will see the concept of cyprus security. -- cybersecurity and i get the ideas we have been talking about with availability and affordability am protocol and standards what's you

hope of these issues we have been talking about? to travel or intersected those conversations happening later today? >> i could follow up on two questions like the anonymity question of what we call real life and said digital world right now makes it very difficult to enact these things anonymously. and i think it is very important that digital and virtual are in mashed and they can't make that distinction. we have to make sure that the basic cultural and

societal practices also remain available in that environment. not necessarily on line but the gentleman that was talking about afghanistan and syria does a similar list surveiled countries to make that ever structure available to enable parties in those countries to do surveillance on their own populations and in the case of syria to have deep packet inspections software from companies mostly in the west which endangers and a project for any minority or disenfranchised people are vulnerable populations so although we could always look at the privacy and security of tools developed there only as secure and

private as a general environment that they exist if we do that with surveillance with a good strategy them and agree it in danger the new enmeshed world. >> so it is the interactive system. vera out of time that i want to get a word from terre. >> is hard to add on to that. i like the discussion of the virtual world we spend so much time in the digital with the broader community since social systems that we interact with of a bite to hear more discussion of social and interpersonal systems throughout the day and beyond. >> i just want to reinforce the idea those policy

proposals i made have technological components. . .

please join me in welcoming him. [applause] >> thank you everyone for coming. thank you peter for inviting me and for future america. i am a weird individual. i'm actually trained as a political scientist but i do law and i do political philosophy so i like to merge these together to think about new technologies. today my job is to tell you how to look back 200 years and find information to help us. this is how political scientists think about war. this is a bargaining model. what it assumes is too rational actors making rational