sanctions that the operation and congress could enact that would further dissuade other countries who might be assisting syria either directly or inadvertently to try and continue to isolate syria and those countries who are helping? >> there are. i have to tell you, i mean, one of the things that has really come together are the sanctions that had been put in place. they target senior leadership and assets, hampering foreign transactions. there's been a gdp decline from minus 2 to minus 8%. the gdp has taken a hit from sanctions. 30% loss of revenue due to the oil embargo that's taking place. that's continuing to have an impact. there's been almost a 20% currency depreciation.

>> do we think there's a possibility that assad is just going to run out of money if this continues indefinitely? >> you know, they'll always struggle to find ways around this. this is squeezing them badly. and they are -- at least in the process of running out of money. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator shaheen. senator sessions. >> thank you. thank both of you for your service to the country. i had the opportunity to travel a few weeks ago with senator mccain and graham and bloom bloomenthal and others to the middle east. i think there is a sense, and senator mccain's vast experience in this region that the united states' position clearly spoken does impact people. revolutions and people are standing up against oppressive regimes are encouraged and

emboldened if they sense the united states clearly. >> reporter: tiarticulates the justice of their cause. i think we've been a bit week on that in iran, when we had the revolution there, the protests there. that was a window of opportunity. i am really, really disappointed we didn't somehow participate more positively in. and so i don't know. i believe he said -- secretary panetta or general dempsey. there's a difference between contingency planning and a commander's estimate? what is the difference? >> the commander's estimate process looks at what are the potential missions, what is the enemy order of battle, what are the enemy's capabilities, or potential enemies, what are the troops we have available, and how much time. so mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time.

that's a commander's estimate. >> so you are looking at that? >> yes. >> have you completed that? >> yes. >> and you said secretary panetta, that you're waiting on the president before doing continengency planning. what would be the contingency planning? >> the next level of detail would be for us to take actual units and apply against taking them someplace else and applying that against a template in order to come up with operational concepts, how would we do it? >> if you were another nation that was potentially interested in helping in this situation, wouldn' wouldn't you be more impressed if we went further in detail and does it not suggest that we're really not interested in taking action if we've not gone further? >> no, not at all. i think the assumptions that we've worked through, we have --

you know, we've discussed them with president. we've discussed them with national security council. we are in the process of developing even further ideas with regards to some of those options. and ultimately obviously when the president makes this decision as to what course he wants to take in line obviously with our international partners, you know, we will be ready to go. >> well, you said that we'll take our time earlier. you know, when we do it, we'll be well prepared. but i have to say, senator bloomenthal and others have raised the question whether or not this window is already closing. i mean, dictators have successfully crushed revolutions, many times in history. how confident are you that this -- i know you have an estimate but i don't see how an estimate that this country is -- that assad's about to be toppled can be justified based on what

we're seeing just publicly on the ground. >> senator, i think the fundamental issues before us is whether or not the united states will go ahead and act unilaterally in that part of the world and engage in another war in the muslim world unilaterally or whether or not we will work with others in determining what action we take. that's the fundamental decision that needs to be made. >> well, isn't there a window and isn't it -- can you say with certainty that even in a matter of a few weeks that assad may have re-established his control in the country and there would be no likelihood of his regime toppling? >> i think according to the intelligence evidence that i've seen this insurgency is not only continuing but it's growing

wider and when that happens, it's -- it's going to continue to put a tremendous amount of pressure on assad. >> well, i hope that's true. i hope that we have -- we don't miss an opportunity here. i know senator kerry and senator mccain said use a no-fly zone over libya. a long time went by before that was done. i think senator mccain believe, i believe, had they been listened to earlier, there might have been fewer casualties and the regime might have collapsed sooner. i just would say i value your opinion on this because you know more detail than i do. general dempsey, you -- in one of your criteria for determining what we might do militarily, you say you have to ask the question whether the action is worth the cost and is consistent with law.

what law does united states military look to? >> if i could, i would like address both because they are related. cause resources risk incurred elsewhere by the use of force one other place. this is a zero sum game. take them someplace and use them. that's the issue of cost. and, of course, in blood and treasure. the cost of legal basis is important though. we, again, we act with the authorized use of military force either at the consent of a government, so we're invited in, or out of national self-defense, and it's a very -- there's a very clear tie yearia for that. and the last one international basis. >> wait a minute. let's talk about an international legal basis. you answer under the

constitution to the united states government, do you not? and you don't need any international support before you carry out a military operation authorized by the commander in chief of the united states -- >> no. >> i just want to know that because there's a lot of references in here to international matters before we make a decision. i want to make sure that the united states military understandses, and i know you do, that we're not dependent on a nato resolution or u.n. resolution to execute policies consistent with the national security of the united states. now, secretary panetta, in your talk, in your remarks you talk about first we are working -- first we're working to increase diplomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to join european union and arab

league imposing sanctions. and then you note that china and russia have repeatedly blocked u.n. security council from taking action. are you saying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if it was in our interest to do so if the u.n. security council did not agree? >> senator, when it comes to our national defense, you know, we act based on what unprotecting the security of this country and we don't look for permission from anybody else when it comes to our national defense. when it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners, obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis on which to do it as we did in libya. >> now some sort of legal basis.

we worry about international legal basis but nobody worries about the fundamental constitution legal basis that this congress has over war. we were not asked, stunningly and direct violation of the war powers act, whether or not you believe it's constitution. it certainly didn't comply with it biological weapon spent our time workrying about the u.n., arab league, nato, and too little time, in my opinion, worried about the elected representatives of the united states. as you go forward, will you consult with the united states congress and can we be assured that we will have more c consultation and more participation and legal authority from the dooley elected representatives -- >> believe me, we will. you know, we don't have a corner on the market with regards to, you know, issues involving our defense. we want to consult with the congress. we want to get your best advice and your guidance. and when we take action, we want to do it together. >> and do you think that you can

act without congress and initiate a no-fly zone in syria? without congressional approval. >> you know, again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this whether or not we would want to get permission from the congress, i think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here. >> well, i'm almost breathless about that because what i heard you say is we're going to seek international approval and then come and tell the congress what we might do and we might seek congressional approval. i want to just say to you, that's a big -- when you agree, you served in the congress. wouldn't you agree that that's -- would be pretty breathtaking to the afternoon american, so would you like to clarify that? >> i do. but i -- you know, i've always

served with republican presidents and democratic presidents who always reserve the right to defend this country if necessary. >> before we do this you would seek permission of the international authorities? >> if we're working with an international coalition and we're working with nato, we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. that's something that, you know, all of these countries would want to have some kind of legal basis on which to act. >> what legal basis are you looking for? what entity? >> well, obviously if nato made the decision to go in, that would be one. if we developed an international coalition beyond nato, then obviously some kind of u.n. security resolution. >> a coalition of -- so you're saying nato would give you a

legal basis and an a ad hoc coalition of legal basis? >> we were able to put together a coalition and were able to move together, then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make that justified. i mean, you know, we can't just pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to act. >> who are you asking sfort legfor the legal basis from? >> obviously if the u.n. passed a u.n. security resolution from libya, we would do that. if nato came together as they did in bosnia, we would rely on that. we have options here. if we want to build the kind of international approach to dealing with the situation. >> i'm all for having an international support, but i -- i'm really baffled by the idea

that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the united states military to be deployed in combat. i don't believe it's close to being correct. they provide no legal authority. the only legal authority that's required to deploy the united states military is the congress and the president and the law and the constitution. >> let me just for the record be clear again, senator, so there's no misunderstanding. when it comes to the national defense of the country, the president of the united states has the authority under the constitution to act to defend this country. and we will. if it comes to an operation where we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosnia, for that matter afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by nato or by the international

community. >> well, i'm troubled by that. i think that it does weaken the ability of the united states to lead. if we believe something ought to be done i would think we would be going more aggressively to nato and allies, seeking every ally that we can get. but i do think ultimately you need the legal authority from the united states of america, not from any other extra territorial group that might assemble. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator webb, if you would yield to me for just one moment. >> certainly. >> i would just like to clarify the last point because you used the word permission at times as being helpful to achieving an international coalition. you don't need any authority from anybody else, any permission from anybody else, if we're going act alone, you made that clear. you said it three times. ic that's essential. but as i understand it, saying is that if you're seeking

international coalition, it would help if there's a legal basis internationally in order to help obtain that legal coalition. i don't think the word permission is appropriate even in that context, by the way what i think you really corrected it when you said a legal basis in international law would help you achieve an international coalition. >> that's correct. >> and if you're seeking international coalition, having that kind of international legal basis will help. i think that's what you're trying to say and i hope that is what you're trying to say. >> that's what i'm trying to say. >> okay. >> thank you. >> senator westbound? thank you, senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i may -- senator sessions is raising an important point. >> senator sessions is. i don't want to eat up too much of my own clock on this. >> you have the time that's allotted. >> i would like to clarify a point that has been a concern to me on this very same issue.

and that was the difference between the united states acting unilaterally if we decide it's within our national interests and it's something that you raised in terms of the situation in syria. there's a difference between that and the president deciding to act unilaterally in an area that arguably has not been defined as a national security interest. i made floor remarks on this. i have a great deal of concern. when you look at the libya model where basic justification has been humanitarian assistance, which is very vague and it's not under the historical precepts that we have otherwise used. like a treaty if you're talking about nato, or defending americans who have been captured in grenada or retaliating as a certain act as we did in libya in 1996 when i was at the pentagon. i think senator session has raised a point of concern and i

would just like to put a per rehn thesis around that, but hold the thought. i think there definitely is room for some very serious discussion here in the congress on the way that the president, any president, can decide unilaterally to use military action and this rather vague concept of humanitarian assistance. but to set that aside, what i really would like to talk about today is my thoughts about your testimony and i would like to say very specifically that i found both of your testimony with respect to the situation in syria very resay -- reassuring. it was careful and forthright. the approach that you take on this.

i think when people talk about the need for leadership, we need to understand, we need to have a sense of history here. leadership is not always taking preciptent action when the emotions is going. it's the achieving results when bringing about long-term objectives and probably the greatest strategic victory in our lifetime was the cold war. that was conscious decades long, application of strategy with the right signals, with respect to our national security apparatus, there's no one in the world that will doubt the ability of the united states to put lee thatity on the battlefield if we decide to do it but that's not really always the question when we're developing these kinds of policies. at least not the first question. i thought your testimony was very clear on that. from both of you. secretary panetta, your comment about each situation is unique

and general dempsey, i think your example of the danger of looking at this through a straw is probably the best way to put it. we have to look at all of the ramifications on these sorts of matters. i think the principals that you've laid down are -- we should all support this type of logic. to for an international conse consens consensus. translate them into acts. and at least express our hope that this change can be brought about through a peaceful, political transition. i was taking notes as you made your testimony, secretary panetta. i want to ask you about one thing that you said because i think that we all need to think about it. you said any government -- i think this is a direct quote. i'm an old journalist here. i can write fast. any government that indiscriminately kills its own people loses its legitimacy.

would you say that is a statement of policy of the united states? >> i would. >> would you believe that with the circumstances in the square in 1989 when the they turned their own tanks loose and killed more 1,000 people, would you say that fits into this statement? >> let me put this on a personal deal. my personal view would be that that was the case there. >> i think it also illustrates your comment that in policy terms each situation is unique and that we have to try to use the best building blocks we can

in order to best address these types of situations depending on where they happen and what other capabilities any one of these governments might have. it's just something i actually held a hearing on this, formulations committee, talking about what might be viewed as a situational ethics in terms of american foreign policy. but it clearly demonstrates that you can't -- there's no one template here when we're tempting to resolve differences in philosophy and in policies with the different countries. so i would say that other than -- i do believe that your exchange with senator session may have been lost in translation because it went back and forth so much. but i do believe senator session has a very valid point in terms of presidential authority. but i strongly support the

analytical matrix, the the policy matrix that you are putting into place with respect to syria. thank you for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator webb. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i think that this hearing and discussion this morning as well as yesterday demonstrates how difficult the challenge is that is posed by syria. as appalled as we all are by the slaughter of the innocent civilians in syria. one of the options that i would like to return to, which has been discussed today is whether or not we should try to arm

elements of the syrian opposition. and i think this, too, is a difficult issue, although, mr. secretary and general dempsey, you both responded to a question from senator graham that you don't think al qaeda is the ultimate viktoctor, if you will when the regime falls. when secretary clinton testified at a house hearing last week she raised the question of the we arm, who are we arming? and she specifically noted that zawahiri of al qaeda is backing the syrian opposition. and her comment recalled to me the situation in afghanistan where some of the groups that we armed in the 1980s are now some

of the same people who are attacking american soldiers today, perhaps using some of those same arms. so if the united states or another country or even the international coalition chose to arm opposition groups in syria, what's your assessment of the risk that we might be taking that we could end up arming terrorist groups or other enemies that are hostile to the united states or to israel or to other allies in the region? >> well, if you sense any reluctance on my part at this point, it's because i can't get my intellect around that risk. i just can't understand it yet. but i will tell you that the

president's been very direct with the intelligence community. but that's what's got to happen. we've got to be able to understand the opposition to the extent we can, we should help it coalesce into something that's understandable and definable, coherent enough. and then if we ever do reach a decision to arm the opposition, it just can't simply be arming them without any command and control, without any communications because then it becomes a roving band of rebels. and i think we can do better than that. but we're not there right now. >> secretary panetta? >> yeah, senator, one thing we found in this region of the world is that, you know, these -- once you provide these arms, there are no boundaries as to where they can wind up. we saw that happen in libya, and we are seeing evidence of some of the weapons used there popping up in the sinai and

elsewhere. and if we provide arms in syria we have to have some sense that they aren't just automatically going to wind up going to hezbollah, going to hamas, going to al qaeda, going to other groups that would then use those weapons for other purposes. >> i think that's an extremely difficult issue as we look at whether or not to encourage the provision of arms to provide arms ourselves. senator shaheen and i have been working on the man pad issue with libya. we've been very concerned about that, as you know. and as you say, the situation in syria makes the libyan situation pale by comparison, plus syria has, as i understand it, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as well.

so it's a very difficult issue. i want to get your answer. he said nato would not get involved in syria because western assistance would be insufficient to solve the crisis. he said, and i quote, that nato could not bring about a sustainable solution to the problem and instead he advocating for an arab league effort to the crisis. first, i would ask what your general reaction to the secretary general's statement was, mr. secretary, and, second, can we expect military and humanitarian assistance from the har rab league?

>> first of all, you know, i think -- i mean, i understand his concerns about the situation in syria from a military perspective because we share some of the same concerns. at the same time, i think that nato in the very least ought to take a look at the situation there and determine whether or not they could play an important role there. the fact is when you look at libya even though nato was there, we had partners in the arab community that joined that coalition that were very helpful to the operation there. and it's that kind of coalition that i think can work very effectively. turning to the arab league, the arab league obviously is working to try to develop an approach here, individual nations are looking at different ways to try