of the conflict. if only russia and iran shared that commitment. instead they are fuelling assad's killing machine. we need to deal with reality as it is not as we wish it to be. and the reality in syria today is largely a one-sided fight where the aagreaggressors are n lacking for military mean and deal. assad appears to be willing to crush the opposition. iran and russia are helping them doing it. many syrians who have taken up arms to defend themselves in community appear to be fully committed to acquiring the necessary weapons and leading arab states appear to be to provide those weapons. the only ones that worry about the militarization is the united

states and our allies. the time has come to ask a different question. who do we want to win in syria? our friends or our enemies? there are always plenty of reasons not to do something and we can list them clearly in the case of syria. we know the opposition is divided, we know the armed resistance in the country lacks cohesion or command and control. we know that some elements of the opposition may sympathize with violent extremists ideologies or harbor dark thoughts of sectarian revenge. we know neighbors remain cautious about taking overly provocative actions that could undermine assad and we know the american people are weary of conflict, justifiably so, we would rather focus on domestic problems. these are realities. but while we are compelled to acknowledge them, we are not

condemned to accept them forever. with resolve, leadership and wise policy, we can shape better realities. that is what the syrian people have done. by no rationale calculation should this uprising against asaid sti-- against assad be go on. they are confronting a regime whose disregard for human dignity and capacity for sheer savagery is limitless. for an entire year the syrian people have faced death and those unspeakable things worst than death and they still have not given up. still they take to the streets to protest peacefully for justice. still they carry on their fight and they do so on behalf of many of the same universal values we

share and many of the same interests as well. these people are our allies. they want many of the same things we do. they have expanded the boundaries of what everyone thought was possible in syria. they have earned our respect and now they need our support to finish what they started. the syrian people deserve to succeed and shame on us if we fail to help them. mr. president i yield the the floor. senate armed service committee ranking member john mccain made the remarks earlier this week. we're live from the dirksen senate office building on capitol hill we'll hear more on the situation in syria. the same committee is taking testimony from defense secretary leon panetta and chair of the joint chiefs, general martin dempsey. the head of u.s. central command informed the armed services

committee said it would be hard to establish a no-fly zone over syria because of the sophisticated nature of the anti-aircraft weapons. thousands of syrians have died during a government crackdown that began last year. p captioning performed by vitac

let me try that one again. good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to hear from secretary of defense leon pa net take and martin dempsey to update the committee on the situation in syria and discuss the policies of the administration with respect to syria. it was nearly a year ago that demonstrations in syria peacefully demonstrators took to the streets. to call for an end to the rule of president assad and demand an opportunity to choose a leader through a free and fair democratic process. since those first days of the uprising, the world has watched as the syrian people have continued to challenge the assad

regimite tyranical ways. according to the united nations estimates, more than 7500 people in syria have been killed and at least 100 more people are being killed each day. the assad regime's brutle crackdown included gross human right violations, use of force against civilians, torture, extra judicial killings, sexual violence and interference with access to medical treatment and other humanitarian assistance. these acts when committed in part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilian populations as is the case in syria, amount, in my view, to crimes against humanity. president obama's efforts to

build a broad international coalition to put massive pressure on assad have been met with opposition from china and russia. they vetoed a proposal brought by the arab league to establish a syrian-led political transition to a democratic political system. despite these vetoes, the un general assembly voted overwhelmingly to condemn the assad regime's brutal use of force against civilians. last week, the friends of syria, which included representatives of the syrian national council, secretary clinton and leaders from more than 60 other countries, came together in tunis, the home of the first arab spring uprising, to forge a way forward in syria including for the call for assad regime toned the violence, withdraw forces from cities and towns and insure unhindered access for arab league monitors.

the friends also praised the work of the syrian national council, to form a broad and inclusive body and lay the ground work for a political transition. and importantly they agreed to continue to ratchet up the economic pressure through tough sanctions on the assad family and supporters. the dialogue in tunis included a robust dialogue whether there is a feasible way to help those under assault by the assad regime in order to defend themselves. as the international community continues to search for an avenue, there are a number of questions which we must ask about the nature of the conflict in syria. what is the make up of the syrian opposition? how unified are they, would they be a force for democracy should they succeed? what are the objectives and who are the benefactors, is there a political entity capable uf uniting the small bands of

fighters across syria and then coordinating the efforts of the opposition groups against the syrian military? violent extremist elements infiltrated the opposition movement? the military questions are equally important. what are the options available? what are the military actions that could be taken and who would they need to be taken by? to maximize the chances of success. and what are the risks and down-sides to each option? these are just a few of the questions wes hope to discuss with our witnesses this morning. just as was the case with libya, there is a broad consensus among regional leaders and organizations on the preferred outcome until syria, assad and his cronies must go. there is not, however, a consensus how the goal can be achieved. each situation is different, unlike gadhafi who prevented the formation of a capable and professional fighting force,

president assad and his father before him built a substantial and professional military with a modern air defense capability. a large, deadly stockpile of chemical weapons. and well-trained troops. so far, this military establishment has remained mainly cohesive and willing to carry out assad's brutal order to conduct a violent campaign against his people. some observers believe the uprising in syria, which is led by the sunni majority, could aggravate sectarian tensions beyond syria's borders in a region already riven by others. syria is also home to ethnically and religiously diverse population, that includes minority christian and other populations. some leaders are raising concerns about the situation in

syria, devolving to the point there is little tolerance for religious minorities, a situation all too familiar to us following the invasion of iraq. we must also try to understand the impact on the region. elements of hezbollah and hamas call syria home. more i mportantly is iran's sol ally in the world. they use them to carry out destablizing agenda in the region. syria is home to a russian naval installation, russia's only regular port of call in the mediterranean. these are but some aspects of the situation that need to be considered as we develop a path forward. our witnesses have the responsibility to provide the president options, to address these challenges and provide him their best professional advice as to the pros and cons of such

options. as the committee heard from general dempsey last month, the joint staff has already begun the careful planning necessary to support a full range of potential operations, including i'm sure humanitarian airlifts, naval monitoring of multi lateral sacks, aerial surveillance of the military and aerial enforcement of safe havens. we look forward to discussing these options and many others with our witnesses this morning. we thank you both, for being here this morning. we are grateful for your steady leadership and also appreciate your very positive relation with this committee and its members. senator mccain? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses. let me thank you, mr. chairman, for convening today's hearing on horrific situation in syria. the urgency of the hearing has

grown more important over the past several weeks. it's estimated nearly 7500 lives have been lost and many informed observers think that figure could be low. syria today is the scene of some of the worst state-sponsored violence since the balkans. what is all the more astonishing the violence continues despite the severe international pressure that has been brought against assad and his regime. syria's almost completely isolated diplomatically. the regime is facing a punishing array of economic sanctions imposed by the united states, european union, arab league and others. this has been an impressive international effort and the administration deserves credit for helping to orchestrate it. unfortunately, the violence continues and worse. it appears to be escalating. assad seems to be accelerating his fight to the finish and he's doing so with the active support

thus far of russia, china and iran. a steady supply of weapons, ammunition and other assistance is flowing to asaid from moscow and tehran and as "the washington post" reported on sunday, iranian moment and intelligence operatives are likely working in syria to strepg then the regime's crack down. general madis testified yesterday that "assad is clearly achieving what he wants to achieve, that assad's military tame campaign is gain physical momentum on the battlefield." in general aside will employ heavier and heavier weapons on his people. similarly, general ronald burgess, the director of the defense intelligence agency and james clapper, director of national intelligence, told the committee recently absent some kind of external intervention,

asaid would likely remain in power for the foreseeable future. the united states has a clear national security interest in stopping the slaughter in syria and forcing assad to leave power. the end of the assad regime could sever hezbollah's life line to iran. eliminate a threat to israel. bolster lebanon sovereignty and independence and remove a committed state sponsor of terrorism that is engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it would be a geo-political success of the first order and as general madis told the committee yesterday and i quote, "the biggest strategic set back for iran in 25 years." the president made the objective of the united states that the killing in syria must stop, and assad must go. the president has committed our prestige and credibility to that goal and it is the right goal,

but the killing continues. what opposition groups in syria need mostomassad's tank and art sieges in cities that are contested. but time is running out. assad's forcesarch. providing military assistance to the free syrian army and other opposition groups is necessary but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. the only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power. which could break assad's siege of contested cities in syria, protect key population centers, and help the opposition to asaid on the ground to establish and defense safe havens in syria where they can organize and plan their political and military activities against assad. at the request of the syrian

national council, the free syrian army and local coordinating committees inside the country, the united states should help to lead such an effort in syria. but as i have repeatedly said, this does not mean we should go it alone. we should not. we should seek the active involvement of key arab partners such as saudi arabia, uae, jordan and qatar and allies in the e u and nato, the most important of which in this case is turkey. rather than closing off the prospects for negotiated transition that is acceptable to syria's opposition, military intervention is now needed to strengthen this option. assad needs to know that he will not win. and unfortunately, that is not the case now. to the contrary, assad seems convinced that he can wipe out the opposition through violence and is fully committed to doing

so. the ideal political outcome of military intervention would be to change this dynamic, to prevent a long, bloody fight to the finish by compelling assad and his top lieutenants to give up power without further bloodshed, thereby creating the opportunity for a peaceful transition to democracy, possibly along the lines proposed by the arab league. to be sure there are legitimate questions about the effacacy of military options in syria and equally legitimate concerns about risks and uncertainties. it's understandable the administration is reluctant to move beyond diplomacy and sanctions. unfortunately, this policy is increasingly disconnected from the dire conditions on the ground in syria, which has become a full state of armed conflict. secretary panetta you were chief

of staff to president clinton over the debate in bosnia, including the nato bombing campaign. you remember many painful years when the un and eu kept sending envoys pleading to agree to reasonable requests such as lifting the siege and allowing access to humanitarian assistance. you remember how the serb leaders cynically used diplomatic treaties to buy time to continue their killing. in bosnia, later in kosovo, we heard arguments against military intervention, it was said there was no international consensus for action, that the situation on the ground was messy and confused, that it was not clear who we would actually be helping on the ground, and that our involvement could actually make matters worse. we heard all the arguments about bosnia, as you know, mr. secretary, and now we hear

them about syria again today. we overcame them in bosnia, thank god and we must overcome them in syria. i want to read how president clinton described boss knee why in 19 # 5. >> no where is a need than bosnia. for four years a terrible war has torn it apart. president clinton went on to say and i quote, "there are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests. there are still times when america and america alone can and should make the difference for peace." those were the words of a democratic president who led

america to do the right thing, in helping stop atrosities in the balkans. i remember working with my republican friend and leader bob dole to support the president in that endeavour. the question for another democratic president today and all of us in positions of leadership and responsibility, is whether we will allow similar mass atrosities to continue in syria, and whether we will do what it takes to stop them. i thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much, senator mccain. secretary panetta? >> chairman levin, senator mccain, thank you, for the opportunity to be able to discuss with you the ongoing violence in syria. this tragedy has evoked concern and outrage of the united states government, american people and much of the world. at the outset i would like to stress that the president in a

pro broad cross session of the international community stated bashar assad must had campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately. furthermore, through its repeated violations of human rights, any government that indiscriminately kills its own people, loses legitimacy. this regime has lost its legitimacy and right to rule the country. this situation demands an international response and for that reason the united states has been leading efforts within the international community to pressure assad to stop his violence against the syrian people, and to step aside. unfortunately, this terrible

situation has no simple answers so the result is a great deal of anger and frustration that we all share. there are some members who are concerned about whether we are doing enough to stem the violence in syria and that is understandable. and there are others who are concerned about the dangers of ourselves in still another conflict in that part of the world and that, too, is understandable. let me try and address these concerns by providing some context for what is guiding the administration's views on syria and our actions in response to the violence. the turmoil in syria is clearly part of a larger transformation that has been reshaping the arab world for more than a year. the change we've seen has manifested itself in different ways. sometimes through peaceful protests and negotiations, aimed at a more responsive government.

but also, in other cases, in violent uprising and brutal crackdowns from repressive regimes. many countries have been affected by these changes. and although each conflict has its own dynamic, it's part of a broader trend that is fundamentally and irreversibly reshaping the politics of the arab world. although this is clearly a challenging and unpredictable period of time, our goal must be to encourage governments to do more to insure that their people can live in peace and prosperity. as a global leader with a vital interest in the stability of the broader middle east, this administration has been determined to do everything we can to positively shape the course of events in the middle east. but each situation by virtue of the politics, geography and history of each country, is

unique and demands a unique response. there can be no cookie cutter approach for a region as complex and volatile as the middle east. nevertheless, from the outset, we have made clear that our response has been guided by three fundamental principles. first, we oppose the use of violence and repression by regimes against their own people. second, we have supported the exercise of universal rights, freedom of expression, right to peaceful assembly, right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. the prohibition against discrimination and the right to vote through genuine elections that express the will of the electorate. and third, we support political and economic reforms. that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region. these basic principles have shaped our response to tunisa,

egypt, libya and now syria. the violence there has become increasingly dire and o outrageous. the assad regime has ignored every warning, squandered every opportunity and broken every agreement. we are forging an international consensus that the assad regime's brutality must end and that a democratic transition in syria must begin. although china and russia have r repeatedally blocked, delivering a clear message from the international community that the assad regime has lost its legitimacy and they are continuing efforts to try and agree on a security council resolution as we speak. the administration's focus now

is on translating that international consensus in action. along four tracks. first, we are working to increase the diplomatic and political isolation of the assad regime and encouraging other countries to join the united states, the european union and arab league in imposing sanctions on the assad regime. these sanctions are having a significant impact. second, we are providing emergency humanitarian assistance to the syrian people. with an initial commitment of $10 million and we are working to broaden our efforts at relief. third, we are working with the friends of syria and other groups to help strengthen the opposition to try to encourage the various opposing groups to unify and lay a groundwork for a peaceful, orderly transition to a democratic government. a government that recognizes and

respects the rights of all syrians including minorities fourth, we are reviewing all possible additional steps that can be taken with our international partners to support the efforts to protect the syrian people. to end the violence, and insure regional stability, including potential military options, if necessary. this approach has succeeded in putting unprecedented pressure on assad, but it is clear that there is no simple or quick solution to this crisis. we believe that the best resolution to this crisis will be a peaceful political democratic transition led by the syrian people. and along the lines suggested by the arab league. we believe there is still an opportunity to try to achieve that goal. although we will not rule out any future course of