focusing on diplomatic and political approaches rather than military intervention. guided by our approach from libya and elsewhere, we believe it is important in this instance that we do the following. that we build multi-lateral international consensus for any action that is taken. two, that we maintain clear regional support from the arab world. three, that we make substantial u.s. contributions to the international effort, especially where the united states has unique resources that can be brought to bear. four, we need to have a clear, legal basis for any action that we take. and five, keep all options on the table. but recognize that there are limitations of military forces

specially with u.s. boots on the ground. each situation, as i said, is unique and as i've said there is no simple solution here. the reasons for the differences between our approach with libya and the current approach to syria are clear. although there has been widespread support in the security council and the arab league for military intervention in libya, no such consensus currently exists with regard to syria. for us to act unilaterally would be a mistake. it not clear what constitutes the syrian armed opposition. there has been no single unifying military alternative that can be recognized, appointed or contacted. while the opposition is fighting back, and military defections and desertions are on the rise, the syrian regime continues to

maintain a strong military. and as secretary clinton noted, there is every possibility of a civil war and a direct outside intervention in these conditions not only would not prevent that, but could make it worse. even though the current approach is focused on achieving a political solution to this crisis, the assad regime should take no comfort. the pressure is building on the regime every day. make no mistake, one way or another this regime will meet its end. we will continue to evaluate the situation and adjust our approach as necessary. let me close by briefly addressing the united states broader strategic interests in syria and the region. the stability of syria is vital to this region, and to turkey

and lebanon and iraq and israel. all of these countries and the united states have a strong interest in preventing a humanitarian crisis in syria. but perhaps most notably, syria is a pivotal country for iran. as senator mccain pointed out. syria is iran's only state ally in the region. and is crucial to iran's efforts to support those militants throughout the region who threaten israel and threaten regional stability. unrest in syria has already greatly weakened iran's position in the region. and it is clear that iran only stands to lose further as assad is weakened further. as groups such as hamas distance themselves from the assad regime, iran is quickly becoming

the assad regime's lone backer. this shows the world the hypocracy of tehran. i cannot predict how the volatile situation in syria will unfold. but the united states made clear we are on the side of the syrian people. they must know that the international community has not under estimated either their suffering or impatience. we all wish there was a clear and unambiguous way forward to directly influence the events in syria. that, unfortunately, is not the case. that is not an excuse. that is reality. only our clear path, our only clear path is to keep moving in a resolute manner to find a way to return syria to the syrian people. thank you. >> thank you very much,

mr. secretary. general dempsey? >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today and discuss the evolving situation in syria. it's tragic for the people of syria and the region. real democratic reform should have been the assad regime's response to last year's peaceful protest. instead, the regime responded with brutality. syria's internal convulsions are having consequences for a region already in turmoil. refugees are fleeing, spill over is an increasing concern. we need to be alert to the movement of extremists and others who till actors seeking to exploit the area. biological weapons must stay where they are. with our nations the united states is a mying diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime to compel assad to stop killing their own. our military's role has been

limited to this point to sharing information with our regional partners. but, should we be called on to help security u.s. interests in other ways we will be ready. we maintain an agile posture, we have solid military relationships with every country on syria's borders. should we be called our responsibility is clear, provide the secretary of defense and president of the united states with options. all options will be judged in terms of their suitability, feasibility and accept ability. we have a further responsibility to articulate risk and potential implications for our own global commitments. in close, i want to insure this committee you and the nation that america's armed forces are always ready to answer our nation's call i'm prepared to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, general. let's try a seven minute round. secretary pa net, take the arab league proposed a transition

plan, has the arab league requested military intervention in syria? >> it has not. >> did they support military intervention in libya? >> they did. >> what explains the difference? >> i think they share some of the same concerns that we do with regard to the situation in syria. and just exactly what kind of military action would have the kind of impact that we all desire and because of the divisions within the opposition, because of the situation that is occurring there and volatile and unpredictable, i think that -- those concerns have impacted on their decision making here. >> general dempsey, you made reference to putting together

options for the president should he decide to move in one direction or another. without telling us what you would recommend, can you give us kind of a menu of military options which might be available? >> yeah, i can actually discuss it in greater detail in closed session if you choose to do that. you mentioned the principle options in your opening statement include humanitarian relief, no-fly zone, maritime interdiction, and limited aerial strikes for example. we've -- we're at what i would describe the commander's estimate level of detail, not detailed planning, have not been brefd to the president, have been discussed with thetial sec staff, and as general mattis testified sterday, the next step is take whatever options we deem to be feasible in the next level of planning. >> would the use of air power

against their troops be an option and tell us about the air defenses that syria has. >> well, first of all as you know we're extraordinarily capable and can do just about anything we're asked to do. in doing it, we have some -- we considerations we would make in terms of whether we would do it alone or with partners, we generally in fact always provide a better outcome when we work with partners, especially that part of the world. the ability to do a single raid like strike would be accessible to us. the ability to do longer term sustained campaign would be challenging, and would have to be made in the context of other commitments around the globe and you wi i'll just say this about their air defenses. again i can speak more openly in

a closed session about their exact capabilities, but they have approximately five times more air -- sophisticated than libya, covering one fifth of their terrain. they are all on the western border, their population center, so five times the air defense of libya covering one fifth of the terrain and ten times more than we experienced in serbia. >> has nato taken up the issue of some kind of an intervention militarily in sir yar? >> not at this point. >> would it not be useful as either preliminary consideration or as an important signal to the libyan regime that at least nato take up the question? >> i believe that nato ought to take up the question. >> can you make sure that happens or recommend at least to

the president that that be done? >> yes. >> okay. i think that would be important signal to the syrian regime. general mattis recently indicated to the committee that president assad's regime is going to fall and he said it's just a matter of when and not if. do you share that assessment and are you as confident that will happen? and do you attach any conditions to that happening, secretary let me start with you. >> no, i've heard the intelligence and i share the assessment that it isn't a matter of at the will fall but when. >> is that dependent on our actions or other actions against him or is that going to happen even in the -- with the current momentum and current status quo

continuing? >> i think i've asked the same question of our intelligence people and i think their view is that the state of this insurgency is so deep right now and will continue in the future that ultimately he will fall one way or the other. >> general, can you tell us what capabilities there are to get additional weapons to the insurgents or opposition and also tell us what weapons assad is getting in from what source, if you can try to give us as best you can the type of weapons that could be provided to the opposition, and what weapons are actually going in to assad and from where. >> i can't speak in open session about the source of his weapons,

except to say -- i will in closed session, except to say that he has some securit arrangements with others both in the region and outside the region to provide weapons and what we would describe in our situation as a foreign military sales program. he has an existing foreign military sales agreement with at least two nations that i can discuss in closed session. >> are you able to tell us what iran is supplying? >> i can in closed session. >> not here. okay. >> could you give us some idea in open session? in other words, are you able to give us, if not precisely, can you give us just some general estimate or idea as to what is going in from iran? types of weapons, and quantity without being too precise. >> i would describe -- if -- if

iran succeeds in some of their movements of weapons to syria, and they have, then it would be largely smaller caliber, rocket pro pemmed grenade, weapons. the other actors who have opened foreign military sales agreements are upper tier stuff including air defense. >> thank you both. senator mccain? >> general dempsey as the reports in the washington report accurate about iranian involvement? we don't need a closed session i don't think for you to say whether "the washington post" is correct or not. >> "the washington post" has parts of their reporting are accurate, yes, senator. >> thank you. serkts general mattis said the

departure from asaid would be the biggest strategic set back for iran in 25 years, basicicly you're in agreement? >> i agree with that. >> by the way, the kuwaiti parliament called forearming the opposition, the saudi foreign ministry called for it, other elements in the arab league are calling for it, and clearly it's a matter of time before arab league takes a stronger position on it. general mattis told us, general dempsey, yesterday, that asaid's crackdown is gaining physical momentum, do you agree with general mattis' statement? >> i do, he has increasingly used heavier weapons. >> even though you agree sooner or later assad will fall, at the moment he happens to be, including regaining control of homs, gaining momentum, that is

correct? >> that is correct. >> would you characterize this as a fair fight when he's using a artillery and tanks to kill syrians? >> i would characterize them as brutalizing their own citizens. >> i see, but since sooner or later he will fall, we don't have to act. the president said yesterday he has taken no options off the table, mr. panetta, in the case of syria. you said in your opening statement that includes "potential military options if necessary" you said in your statement. and yet, general -- admiral stavridis and general mattis said there was no contingency planning. will there be contingency planning? >> we have looked at a number of

options that could be involved here. we have not done the detailed planning because we are waiting for the direction of the president to do that. >> the president, mr. secretary, president obama issued a presidential directive stating "the prevention of mass atrosities is the core national security interests of the united states" that is the administration's policy. with at least 7500 and possibly more than 10,000 dead, with assad using tanks, gaining momentum according to general mattis, would you agree mass atrosities have occurred and are occurring in syria? >> i don't think there is any question we're experiencing mass atrosities there. >> the president said he is taking no options off the table you said in your opening statement, you said potential mome military options if necessary. can you tell me how much longer the killing would have to continue, how many additional

civilian lives would have to be lost in order to convince you that the military measures of this kind that we are proposing necessary to end the kill and force to leave power, how many more have to die, 10,000 more, 20,000 more? how many more? >> i think the question as you stated yourself, senator, is the effort to try to build an international consensus as to what action we do take. that makes the most sense. what doesn't make sense is to take unilateral action at this point. as secretary of defense, before i recommend that we put our sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way, i've got to make very sure that we know what the mission is, i've got to make very sure that we know whether we can achieve that mission, what price, and whether or not it will make matter better or worse. those are the considerations that i have to engage in, and

obviously, the administration believes that every effort ought to be made to deal with those concerns in the international setting to try to build the kind of international consensus that worked in libya and that can work in syria if we can develop that. >> well, let me tell you what's wrong with your statement, you don't mention american leadership. americans should lead in this, america should be standing up, america should be building coalitions, we shouldn't have statements like we are not going to intervene no matter what the situation is, such has been up until now the statements by the administration and the president. in past experiences, those that i mentioned before, america has led. yes, it has been multi-lateral and multi-national. that is vital. we're not leading, mr. secretary. general dempsey, again, i hear

the same old refrain that i've heard for many, many years. "it's not clear what constitutes the syrian armed opposition" that was the same argument that administration, the same excuse that was used to not step in in libya. the deputy and prime minister in libya are former universities professors from the university of alabama. so, we can find out who they are. we can find out who they are. they are not fighting and dieing sacrificing their lives because they are muslim extremists. they are fighting because they want the saum freedoms and rights that we guarantee in our constitution. so i reject the argument that we "don't know who they are."

we spend a lot of money on defense and intelligence. we should know who these people are and it would be easy enough to find out. the best way to help them organize is help them have a place to organize and equip. we are allowing -- i was interested in your answer, and i'll conclude with this. sooner or later assad will fall. i do not disagree with that. meantime, he is gaining momentum, he has regained homs and the death count went up and the atrocities continue. mass atrociti. s are toing on, i hope that america leads and exercises those actions necessary to stop these actions as has been the history of america in the past. thank you.

>> thank you very much, mccain. senator lieberman. >> thank you secretary panetta and general dempsey. on this question of what to do in syria, i'm of like mind with senator mccain except reference of the brave graduates of yale university, i'll have to talk to him later about that. and perhaps we were of like mind because we went through in the '90s together the similar circumstances in bosnia and kosovo, i would say and in each case, the american entrance i o conflict was late. in my opinion the argument for

the united states to be involved and help lead an international effort, which is military, to stop the slaughter in syria are actually greater than they were in the case of either bosnia or kosovo, there's as great as those were, there's the humantarian crisis, he is slaughtering his people and for all we noelle keep doing and not -- for all we know, he will keep doing it. we agree on this, how positive it would be if assad, who is the only ally of iran, is taken down, and how liberating to those that live under syrian pressure, and perhaps this is

unique and different and we are not giving it enough weight. in our foreign policy, we have done a lot of things over the years inclu sins which youing i years, including in recent years of trying to regain the confidence of the muslim world much we have here a moment where the arab league, the gulf coordinating council, turkey are out this, i know turkey is not the arab world, are out there against what is happening in syria. and i think if we seem to be holding back, and incident iall the countries are seeing their strategic interest in this and because their people are demanding it because of the wave of change sweeping the area. if we can help bring assad down it is a benefit and it can help

improve our relations with not just the allies but the called arab street. when i went to libya, as an example, the u.s. and nato, are naturally popular, and there's a lot of appreciation for it because in their hour of need we were in. and i hope and pray that we can come to do that again with regard to syria. i agree we should not do it alone, but without leadership, and being prepared as you suggested to provide the critical resources, it will not be successful and it will not happen in a timely way. to me, i've kept saying that the factors that led us into libya

with our international coalition, they are here and happening. we worried mostly about a humantarian disaster, you said it why libya is different, and i want to offer a different view. there was widespread support in the security council in the arab be league for military intervention in libya, no such consensus exists for syria, and that is literally true, and that is particularly because of russia and china. within the arab league, there's clearly a lot of interest in a military intervention in syria, same is true of the gulf coordinating council, and the -- i take it that the saudis are beginning to arm the syrian opposition as well, the other thing that i want to say is, that in kosovo, the u.s., with a coalition of the willing acted without u.n. security council

approval because again, there were one or two nations blocking it. the second concern is when you hear it all the time is syrian armed up, their position is we are not sure who they are, they have no single coordinating person at the top or group at the top, but that was true in libya as well. the groups formed in difference parts of the country and in some sense they were hostile toward each other, but when the international community came in, it gave strength, and military assistance, it gave strength to the national council there and they worked together to bring about the change that occurred. and finally, the statement that military would not prevent civil war but could speed it up,

senator clinton said something to that effect, obviously of course there's a civil war going on now. and history shows that foreign military intervention, has been critical, libya most recently, in ending civil wars in those countries in the absence of foreign military intervention in countries like ruwanda, the congo and somalia and others, and they have suffered through extended civil wars. the clock is running and people are being killed in great numbers every day. i think if we do not get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we will look back and say we did not do the right thing morally from stop innocents from being killed we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity to position free

people in the middle east. i want to give you an opportunity to responds, if you will, without asking a specific question. >> no, senator, i guess -- i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not divided here. and we are not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, we have lead in afghan sfan and in the war of terrorism and we are leading in syria, we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we out not to just simply go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multi-lateral coalition, we have to work at that. it's not that easy to deal with the concerns out there. we are working at it every