the issue, we are trying to engage with nae engage with nate oh, and the other countries. we are working with them. we are talking with them. and we are looking at every option to try to put that in place. can it happen today? can it happen now? no, it's going to take time and we will do it in a way that will not make the situation worse. >> thank you for the statement. i am engacouraged by you. all i can do is plead with you and other nations that we are reaching out to do move as quickly as possible, people are dieing every day and strategic opportunities are being lost. the fact is that we have an opportunity here. and it's also a responsibility and i think it's critically

important that we exercise it and i say finally that, i know some people continue to hope that a way can be found for assad to leave the country and usher in the democratic practice of transformation that we talked about, from everything i hear, everything that i see, he will only do that if he thinks his life, his regime is really in jeopardy. and right now i think he thinks he is dominant and has the kind of momentum, physical momentum that general mattis and general dempsey spoke about today, the sooner we put international military pressure on the assad regime, the sooner we have a chance to end this peacefully. thank you, thanks mr. chair. >> that you, senator lieberman, senator brown? >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you said we are

leading in iraq and afghanistan, i do not disagree with that, and leading in syria? i do not see that yet, and maybe that is because we are not privy to the information we have. maybe we set up a secure briefing so we can better understand the things happening. right now, i agree with everything surprisingly that senator lieberman said, and that is i think very important, it was well said about, you know, we are missing a potential opportunity. that being said, also, i would like to shift to general dempsey. we know that syria has biological weapons, and the regime will eventually collapse, there's a plan available to address those weapon -- that weaponry and do we have an elimination plan of any kind set

up? >> that is another one of those senator, i would very much like though chance to talk about -- like the chance to talk with you about it, but not in this hearing, a hundred times more than we experienced if libya. >> great -- in libya. >> great, i would like to talk about that. what are the lessons that we learned that we need to apply thoughtful consideration can of military intervention in syria, i recognize that libya, everyone hated gadhafi, they wanted him out. we had the arab league, we had broad coalition, we do have a lot thoughtful concerned partners that want to step up. is there a chance that we move without the u.n. and just with those partners to take advantage of that leadership role that we

should have have. >> my job is to place military options in context, when you asked me about lessons learned that are transfer able sure. but the context of this, you mow, i very much want to elevate our thinking here about this -- we are talking about about syria, but we are looking at it through a straw, it does not exist as an isolated country, it's in the context of the region and even of actors outside the region. the inside of syria is a far different demographic, ethnic religious mix than in libya and we need to understand that before we seek to use a

particular pattern to deal with what they face. this issue has to be dealt with in context and we are looking at it through a straw. >> mr. secretary, who aside from the united states is in the best position right now to exert the most effective pressure on the assad regime? >> there's no question in my mind that russia could play a very significant role in putting pressure on assad. they have a port there. they have influence there, they have dealings there unfortunately the position they have taken in the u.n. was to oppose the resolution and that is a shame. but, there's no question that they and the chinese, if they want though advance the cause of the syrian people they could bring great pressure on them to do the right thing. >> and presuming secretary clinton is working and reaching

out? >> that's correct. >> thank you, i'm all set, mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, very much, senator brown. senator reid is not here and senator nelson is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you gentlemen for your service. it's been reported that al qaeda leaders and others extremists have called their members of their groups to support the uprising of syria and general mattis stated that there's evidence that the terrorist network is involved in supporting the opposition. do we have an idea regarding the number of violent extremists that are engaged in the uprising secretary? >> we do, but i would prefer to -- >> no. >> -- discuss that in closed session. >> so we do have an idea, we

have the intel? >> yes. >> do we have an idea of what sort of outside assistance they are getting as well, you do not is have to tell me what it is necessarily. >> that is correct. >> do we have some idea of what iran is providing in the way of outside assistance? >> that's correct. >> to the level of detail that we need to have? >> as a former director of the cia, i would like a lot better detail. >> always want more detail. i understand that of course, yeah. and if the decision of -- to arm the syrian opposition forces is predicated in defining the force, how long do you think it would help us to have that definition of the force if a decision is made on a multi-national basis to engage in arming that force internally?

>> again, in open session, i'll say there's approximately 100 groups that we have identified as part of the opposition. rough numbers. >> some of them are monthity necessarily the terrorist are organization. >> no, no. we can go into that more in closed session, we are not suggest issing that part of al qaeda that has made i.ts way to syria aligned with or in bed with the opposition, they are there trying to exploit it. of those groups of how long would it take us to do something if we chose to, the question is how quickly, not how quickly we can vet them all, but how quickly can we vet them that can find a core. it does not exist right now. >> could occur on its own, but

there's concern about getting worse before it gets better, more people dieing in the interim. so time is of the essence in trying to get international interest? this, given the fact that we have two of the largest countries in the world not supporting our efforts. if we made the decision and we have a multi-national force and we have 100 groups to go through, how reasonable do you think it is that you'll get a coalesce essence of those groups? will providing the arms and support if we don't put boots on the ground that that coalescence

will occur or will they just be desperate and devolve into some sort of civil war? >> senator, i wish we could predict that, but it's dangerous to do that. you know, we faced somewhat the same situation in libya and you know, heads up the intelligence operation was one of the first order of business, was trying to figure out what the opposition was and what kind of coordination there was. but you have triple the problem because there's so many diverse groups that are involved, whether they can find that one lead and that one group to bring them together, there have been efforts to do that but frankly they have not been successful. >> are we in a position where we have plans in place in the event

that we engage in syria to some extent or another to deal with the potential of the chemical weapons that they currently have. >> i think as general dempsey has pointed out, that is clearly one of our great concerns. and have developed options to try to address those concerns. >> if i could reinforce, if you think it's a concern of ours, you can imagine the concern it is of syria's neighbors on we are in consultation with them about that challenge. >> what are the chances of neighbors in the region working with this, perhaps they are, working with this to get multi-national interests in this this? >> there are efforts to try to engage the neighbors with regards to the issues in syria. and the neighbors clearly share

the concerns that we all this have with regards to the situation there. two neighbors are being directly impacted by refugee problems, we are engaging with both of them and we are engaging with others to try to see what we can do to try to build at least a coalition of those countries. to try to engage with regards to some of the issues there. >> and in our efforts to do that, do we think that they are getting sufficiently motivated and sufficiently conditionered to engage in some joint effort with their neighbor, syria? >> i think there's great concern, and they are experiencing directly the concern, not only from the refugees but from the fallout of what is going on in syria and they too are concerned about, you know, what ultimately

happens there when assad is removed steps aside, what are going to be the consequences within syria itself, that could impact them as well. >> thank you both and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator nelson. senator aot. thank you, chairman, thank you secretary dempsey. i would like to ask the role of on china and russia here. let me say up front, and i'm sure you'll agree, that it's outrageous that china and russia blocked the u.n. resolutions and both of them most recently in february. as i understand it, according to the center for strategic ay natl studies that was issued, the

arms imports to russia and syria, that they have been a leading arms supplier to the assad regimregime, has that bee case, do they continue to provide arms to the assad regime now? >> theyes they do. >> so russia is providing arms to the assad regime as they murder their own people? >> they have a long standing foreign military sales relationship with then and it continues on unstopped. >> and us does not seem to matter to russia at all that they are using these arms to murder their own people. it's outrageous, and china has provided arm as well to a lesser extent to assad? >> let me get back to you, there are other issues of assistance but i'm not sure about arms. >> i would appreciate a follow-up about that, but to

some extent they have provided assistance to the assad regime in the past, do we know in they are providing any now of any type? >> i've not been tracking intelligence in china's roll of course iran and russia from the report. economically they have had ties into syria that they still are trying to maintain. >> is it not true also that with respect to our posture with iran they were of wanting to impose the toughest economic sanctions possible to make sure that iran has no -- has not developed nuclear weapons capability, that russia has an interest in the iranian nuclear program and china relies heavily on iran for

oil exports, is that true? >> yes. >> and they have failed to step up to the plate to impose the tougher sanctions that we would like them to do so the world is together in keeping iran from obtaining nuclear capability, is that correct? >> yes. >> what can we be do to be tougher on russia and china if they are going to take their position in the world as part of the world leadership, i view their behavior in blocking the u.n. resolution as irresponsible and they have not stepped up to the plate to make sure that iran does not nuclear weapons capability, it's damaging for to world. what can we doing to be tougher from them? >> hear this from clinton, my

knowledge is that secretary clinton is doing everything to engage russia in a effort. and china. but russia in particular, because they own a harbor in syria and that is the record that you just described with syria that russia could, if they wanted to accept the responsibility that they should, they could be helpful here in the effort to remove assad. >> i appreciate those efforts and mr. putin just got re-elected and i would hope that he would not want the blood of the syrian people on his hands. i would hope that russia and china step up and support the resolution, and both the countries in my view, i don't know why they would not want

pursue every possible means to stop what is happening and the bloodshed there, i hope they understand that we are very serious about that. and we will in the congress look at actions we can take here, this is wrong and they are on the wrong side of history both with respect to to syrian regime they are on the wrong side of history, with respect to iran and they will look back at this a as a big mistake by both countries if they do not step up to the plate right now. i also wanted to ask about the assad regime's relationship with some of the groups we labeled terrorists groups, what are their republican with hezbollah? >> -- what is their relationship with hezbollah? >> that is better addressed in a closed session in terms of a specific relationship, but there has been a long standing

relationship between hezbollah and syria. it's diminished of late, hezbollah has stood aside while what is happening -- and has not directly been involved in some of the situation. some of the violence that has taken place in syria. >> thank you. and also with hamas? >> same thing. >> and in fact, as i understand it, based on public reports, hamas is step issing back from the situation yet iran has not stepped back? >> correct. >> they are continuing to push forward? >> that is right. >> let me ask you, does the violence that is happening in syria have any impact on stability in iraq? >> interestingly, we -- you know, there was a point at which obviously iraq was kind of

standing to the side and not engaged and i think as a result of what they have seen happening in syria, that iraq itself has now asked for assad to step down and let me put it this way, they are more engaged than they were in the past. >> do you view this as a positive step? >> yes. >> okay. thank you both, my time is up, i appreciate you being before the committee today on such an important issue. >> thank you, senator ayotte. our planning on a closed session immediately following this, that means that there will be one round here and it is or plan to succeed. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and secretary. all of the options that are beginning to be contemplated, the humantarian corridors and

aerial strikes and all would presume that we would have complete control of the air space over syria and given what we know about their defense systems that would presume, i don't know what you can comment on opening, that the first step in any type of military operation was a campai-- can yo us how long an operation would be be? >> we have demonstrated the air program, that stays we have that capabilitity. as i mentioned, to conduct an enduring or sustained campaign, we would have to suppress the air defense, and we do is have an estimate based on gaming and modelling of how long it would take to do that given the

density s density of their capabilitity. >> and it will be led by the united states rather than our allies because of our capability? >> yes. >> so from a view alone, the opening stages in any military operation would be an extended exclusive air campaign against syria, supported politic eed poy by the e and everything -- is that a fair judgment. >> it is a fair judgment, we

alk with military force with the consent of a nation in our national self defense or with an unsker, whatever we did must be part of a coalition, and we have shown that that produces an enduring outcome and we have to balance, it against risk elsewhere in the region. >> in our testimony yesterday, general mattis indicated that unlike iraq, there were no natural save haven areas, the mountains and also i think unlike iraq, there's no well organized forces that can provide a limited self den eed there's a physical and institutional challenge, who will physically defend them,

with we can have air power and try to stop tank columns and convoys but that would not work 100%, so is that another challenge you are considering? >> sure, it's a challenge and again, in the context of this, as you note, the boarder with iraq and jordan, with israel and turkey all have their own unique complexities, so, i think we have to get through there. i want to be clear, we can do anything, the question is -- so it's not about can we do it, it's should we do it and what are the opportunity costs elsewhere and what are the risks. >> and in terms of opportunities of course, there are cost to casualties and air operations, there are cost terms of time to set up the operations and these, so that the notion that we can

sort of in a few hours or days quickly go in and establish superiority, stop the fighting, is not accurate? >> you obviously have a military background, sir. >> thank you. i show up on time most times. >> senator, if i can just point out, again, we can discuss this in closed session, what we have talked about is that air defense system that is pretty sophisticated but more importantly a lot of it is located in populated area, there would be severe collateral damage going after those areas. >> let me change the subject, mr. secretary, because we have talked on the military aspect and there's a political aspect here, what struck me in my reading is there's a small alawite clan of is shihia that

dominate the region, but others seeing themselves closely a lined with the group. there has yet to be i think creation of a truly national and credible opposition to assad, so it's awful difficult to build this or to get him off when there's nobody to take his place and there's still strong support in communities that you would not necessarily think would be supporting him, is that part of the analysis that you have looked at? >> that is correct, and that is part of the problem. it is you know, having worked closely on the libyan situation,

when there were leaders that came to the front, and were able to organize a consult and had credibility with the opposition, that is not the case here, there are outside groups that are trying to organize, but, there's not the relationship with regards to what is happening in the country. and as a result, it's very difficult to have -- to be able to know who we deal with there in trms on of an opposition. i think the only final point i would make is that going back to military capacity in libya and again, i think the first points is that we have to aassume is seyriabya there seems to be tribal military organizations, i do not get the

same impressions that outside the military there's any counter point and that we would have to unless there was a political solution to on force assad off, it would be -- we would have to organize a force and that would take many, many months, is that a -- >> that is the -- that's the current state of on our thinking about how we may do this. if you think of two recent experiences, libya we had tribal forces on the east and west collapsing on the center essentially, we had the northern alliance center. there's no geographic density of opposition to collapse anywhere, they are all intermingled and it's 70% sunni and 30% other groups and those three have been

in, you know, the alawites have been in control and protect today the others, on so there's that -- and protected the oth s others. >> you discussed briefly withayn syri syria, i have a article, the title is russia boosts arms sales to syria despite world pressure, i would and that is made part of the record. >> it rerd. i'm grateful to you for that. it suggests that russia is continuing to supply a variety of weapons to syria, through an arms exporter by the name of rosoboron export. and could you, i guess, general