and it just so happened that adam smith was questioning a witness about the militia that was contracted by our embassy to guard them and how they turned on us, how that militia that was, i assume, muslim and had every intention we thought to be on our side actually gave us up, in some cases walked away and in some cases assisted. >> so what would you you like our guest to address? >> caller: on back to this. we're looking on associate ourselves with the local -- whoever the locals are. which has been defended by the administration. yet at the same moment, hearings

examining a similar situation that bush got us into. >> well, first and foremost, i would just say george w. bush did get us in in a dramatic way into this caldron. and for republicans not to admit that is wrong. and so that's number one. we should not have jumped in with the united states military with the huge occupation force into iraq to change the situation. i would have certainly supported at that time arming the kurds against saddam hussein as i'm supportive now that you have to make sure very well that the people you're working with are, number one, do not have a long term, how do you say, a long term reason to hate you and to not like you and thus in the end they will end up being your

enemy. and that was true in a number of areas in this region. so that's one of the reasons why i think we should rely on the kurds who have a long history of being friends with the united states. there are other forces in play. there are friends that we should stick with. like israel. and there are forces there that showed up, there are other force has we don't know. the saudis have been arming our enemies for decades thousan now. arming the radicals. so when we figure out who to support, and i'm sorry, the free syrian army doesn't make the grade. it's not there that we can be assured that the same thing

won't happen that you you just talked about in benghazi. >> augusta, georgia, patrick up next. >> caller: hi. first off, let me thank all the representative, congress, everything that our forefathers put in this position to take care of our country and guide it. thank you. >> you're welcome. >> caller: i understand you have one critical job. given the fact we have double digit unemployment, hundreds of thousands in our own country going homeless without food, at what point do we -- spent over 100 years worrying about everyone else's problems and say that's it, we're worried about our are borders and our people. you can deal your own crap. we can't afford to anymore.re b. you can deal your own crap. we can't afford to anymore.e bo. you can deal your own crap.

we can't afford to anymore. bor. you can deal your own crap. we can't afford to anymore.bord. you can deal your own crap. we can't afford to anymore. >> the point you're making is much more significant than just the surface. there is a central purpose to watch out for the interests of the american people and the safety of the american people. there are too many who think they're here to fulfill some long term philosophical goals that may or may not be in the specific interests or safety of our people. frankly, i think the president has motives about his vision of the world that are superseding just the specific area of security where the united states. and that's one of the problems here, that who we will ally with. we're having trouble for example with providing general sisi in

egypt, he's now the president, he won an election, but he overthrew a radical regime that was going to set up a caliphate there. but we know general sisi, if he's not successful in creating a stable situation and total return to democracy in egypt, if radical islam takes over, if the terrorist wing of islam takes over that country, there will never be any stability in that part of the world and we will -- that will threaten the united states, the security of our own people. but this administration's having trouble even giving him spare parts to his military. and we have this idea that we have to keep -- in iraq this very issue we're talking about. we're giving all of the aid to the kurds who are really pro american and would be watching out for the interests, their

interests or our interests. well, we have to give the money to baghdad, which is basically a government that is allied with the regime in iran and thus we have to keep -- the president believes he has to keep the borders the same, that's why we conditions recognize the kurds. all of the aid that we are giving to the considerkurds goeh a force that is hostile to them politically. america should find out who our friends are, who will contribute to our safety and security and go directly to them and work with them rather than trying to look for a bigger picture. >> representative rohrabacher our guest. virginia next on the republican line. >> caller: thank you. i find it baffling, sir, that you don't find any rob with assad killing over 200,000 of his own people.

it's like if he isn't removed, you have no problem with that. and if there is any radicalization that has occurred in the free syrian army, it's due to our lack of involvement earlier in the civil war to help the peaceful uprising. i'm just really baffled as to how -- >> okay. that's good. because the arab spring has relat resulted in a nightmare, the stability and peace and democracy winter for the region. in the spring, they had lots of hope for that approach. and the bottom line is the caller before suggested we should be doing what is really is in the american security. and temporarily, yeah, assad even at this moment and even then having assad taken out would have furthered the cause

of democracy. no doubt he is a mad guy. but joseph stalin was a bad guy, but we allied with him against hitler.ad guy. but joseph stalin was a bad guy, but we allied with him against hitler.bad guy. but joseph stalin was a bad guy, but we allied with him against hitler. hitler and the japanese militarists were the greatest threat to americans' safety and security. and assad, as much as you could say for him, he has not got a grudge against the united states. and just like saddam hussein. and that's what opened up all this chaos. and assad means us no harm, but will fight those radicals who do mean us harm or crucifying christians there. so i think we should try to put him at least in a position of thwarting these radical muslims who by the way will not bring anymore freedom to their country

and will probably bring more murder and death. >> mississippi, go ahead. >> caller: just something real quickly. history repeats yourself. yesterday pat sajak gave a prize of a trip to vietnam to it a guy who was jumping in joy because he was going to vietnam. we must remember vietnam we lost thousands and thousands of america. history repeats itself. islamic empire goes back generations. and it is like a wave. it goes up and they conquer many, many countries. and islamic regime until the catholics defeated them.

this will go a long way. >> i have to tell you that talking about vietnam, i spent some time this vietnam in 1967. i was not in the male takers mi but in the war zone. and i walked away thinking this was the worst mistake we ever made coming this with american troops on the ground to do the fighting for the locals. maybe special forces teams going out i thought was a good idea, but it was not a good idea for us to become the warriors in that area. we turned a lot of people off. when you have outside troops like that carrying the load. we made the same mistake in iraq. and so those were the two major mistakes. but we can't be the person who ger g gerri sons the world and has to

exercise force. it will break our bank and unfair to the american people who deserve to live their lives in freedom here and not be taxed or mobilized and isn't overseas to have their sons and daughters murdered in behalf of someone else's sons and daughters. unless it directly affects the security of our country. we have too many republicans i might add and too much of the military industrial complex that is too anxious to send our troops all over the world and put our people in harm's way. maybe it's a macho thing. local people have got to -- that's why i like president abe in japan. he wants to carry the load. and he said i canindia, a new p there who wants to carry the load. let's side with those who want to carry their open load who are allies of ours and let's make p apalliances with whoever will

locally around the world that will eventually come and threaten our own security.us de around the world that will eventually come and threaten our own security. >> ukranian president will address joint session tonight. what are you expecting on hear? >> i expect him to ask us for more money and frankly to -- i don't know if he will justify overthrowing the democratically elected government that preceded him. ukranian president has not been elected by anybody. i'll one of the few republicans or members of -- i'm one of the few members of the house that do not see things in ukraine the way most people see it. >> so no more support for ukraine when it comes to dealing with russia? >> i think that our oeuropean friends have manipulated us in on doing their bidding. but i would hope that we can be

a force for peace there rather than just arming the ukranians. we should try to find an agreement and i think they're well on the way to finding that through a federal system where they can run their own affairs. >> thank you for your time. the capitol hill newspaper reports house lawmakers will look into the federal government's no fly terrorist watch list in light of isis members using western passports to enter the u.s. on commercial airline flights. keith lane reports lawmakers have said isis has thousands of members that have u.s. or european passports and could slip into america undetected. the house homeland security transportation subcommittee will hold a hearing thursday afternoon for focus on the role of the tva in preventing isis

from attacks inside the u.s.. chuck hagel is on capitol hill this morning to testify, he will explained president's strategy on combatting isis. the u.s. house voted on wednesday to give president obama authority to aim and train syrian rebel forces opposed to isis. the senate is expected to vote on the measure today.

president obama talked about the house vote on the syria resolution last night while members of congress were at the white house for their annual picnic. we'll show you his comments while we wait for this hearing to begin. >> i want to say thank you to house members republican and democrat who came together today to pass an important component on our strategy for dealing with this terrible terrorist organization known as isil. and i want to in particular thank speaker boehner and nancy pelosi for he showing us that when it comes to america's national security, america is u. so i appreciate all of you you

in the efforts that you made there. and that brings up this more general point. we've gone through just in the last decade and a half the worst attack on our home land in our history. the worst financial crisis since the great depression. we continue to face significant challenges. but i came from tampa where i talked to our troops this morning. and in talking to them and seeing the dedication and professionalism that they make, i was reminded once again as i'm reminded once again as i travel around the country that the american people are good and they are strong and they are resilient and because of them, we bounce back from anything.

america is now positioned better than we could have ever imagined if we continue to act in the interests of all of us and if every once in a while we're willing to set aside politics and try to get something done. there is no doubt that we can make sure our schools work better, no doubt that we can make sure that our roads and bridges and infrastructure works the way it should. there is no doubt that since we still have the most innovative companies in the world that he we can't succeed and that we can continue to put money in research and development and cure diseases and continues to lead the world when it comes to not just security, but also dealing with issues like kree bol la and making sure that more people are safe and well housed and well fed and children and girls are getting the kind of

education they deserve. all these things we can do. and so hopefully a picnic lenic this just reminds us of the fact that there are a lot of people counting on us to be able to work together. it doesn't mean we don't have --

good morning. we intend to conduct this hearing in an orderly an efficient member to ensure all members have an opportunity to ask questions and our witnesses have an opportunity to be heard. to that he said please be advised i will not tolerate disturbances of these proceedings including verbal disruptions, photography, standi standing or holding sign.

thank you all for your cooperation. if there are disturbances, we'll stop and have those who are disturbing leave the room. the committee meets to receive testimony on the administration's strategy for the islam i ic state of iraq an isil. i'd like to welcome secretary hagel and lieutenant general mayville. general dempsey is meeting with his defense counter parts in europe. given the many crises in the world right now and the immense demands placed on our military, general dempsey is exactly where he should be. i received a call from secretary hagel i think it was about a week ago, he said i'm in i think -- whatever, georgia.

and i said is that near atlanta. and he said, no, a different georgia. and he was there and then he was going to turkey and then he was coming back here and then he just -- it's really great to have you here, mr. secretary. and i understand how busy you you are and how much you're traveling. really appreciate your time. what you, general dempsey, what all the men and women in uniform are doing to keep us safe and from harm. just yesterday, the house on a bipartisan basis and in large numbers passed by amendment to the continuing resolution at the president's request which authorizes the secretary of defense to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the syrian opposition. we strengthened the proposal through congressional oversight including detailed reporting and reprogramming requirements. although not everyone supported the authority, there was

widespread agreement that isil is a threat to our allies and to the united states. apparently agreement that isil must be defeated, agreement that the landscape is incredibly complex and any option will carry risk and agreement that the syria train and equip authority is but one part of what should be a broader regional strategy to defeat isil. i listened to the president's speech last week and i've talked with military experts, including those who know iraq best. i traveled to the region earlier this month and got blunt answers from our allies and partners on what needs to be done. i do not believe the minimalist counter insurgency strategy that the president has proposed is sufficient to achieve his objective to degrade and destroy isil. i gave a speech at the american enterprise institute calling for

swift action. for every week we wait, isil glows. we need to conduct military operations this both iraq and syria to deny isil any safe haven. while the kurds and iraqi security forces are willing to fight and have some capability, they still need our trainers, our advisers, our command control, our intelligence, are our air support, special forces. the capabilities that only the united states can provide. none of us should minimize the risks. we cannot succeed from the safety of some headquarters building, engages those divergent groups and advising indigenous forces will put our military in harm's way. this is a dangerous business. the most irresponsible thing that the president can do is give the military a mission but not give it the tools it needs to do the job. by taking options off the table, i fear the president is setting

the mission and our military up for failure rather than success. i know when eisenhower was planning the invasion of normandy, one of his subordinates questioned some of the planning and he said we're planning for success. failure is not an option. we're. same situation today. today's hearing is important for us to understand the administration's strategy for isil. the president has identified his objective to degrade and ultimately destroy. we need to hear from our defense and uniform leaders on what you you believe will be required of the military to achieve that objective. we need to understand the campaign, the role our partners will play, the rifrgrisks, the capabilities our military will need and consequences of

inaction. again thank you fu fyou for bei. i look forward to gaining answers to our questions. i would like to point out that we have a staff member who is leaving us. is debra in here? >> not at this time, sir. >> we can thank her any way. >> she already left? she is a professional staff member for the subcommittee on military personnel for the house armed service committee, a position she's held since 1999. she served as lead staff member for the subcommittee from 2007 to 2010. and briefly served as deputy staff director for the committee in 2011. in 1999, she served as legislative affairs specialist

for the national park service. she served as legislative assistant for u.s. senator acting as the senator's principal aide on national defense, maritime issues, educational social security and welfare from 1987 to 1999. she received a b.a. from drake university, sounds like an obituary. it's not. she is leaving to become the assistant secretary of the army for manpower and reserve affairs department of defense. so we just got her ready to move down to another very important job. she's still in the fight. so we want to point that out and thank her for what she's doing and wish her well down there for you, mr. secretary. some pl mr. smith. >> not an obituary, but she's been sentenced to the pentagon. so we wish her well.

i thank you very much for being here, secretary, general mayville. and this is a very difficult moment for our country.z84vphs i think the best way to sum it up, our country simply wants this problem gone. ever since 9/11, ever since we learned about this terrorist threat that is out there, the two wars that we fought, all the decisions that have been made, and it wouldn't be hard for anyone to go back over those decisions and criticize them step by step from just about any point on the political spectrum and say why did we to this, if only we hadn't done that, everything would be fine. but the bottom line is this problemo this, if only we hadn't done that, everything would be fine. but the bottom line is this problemdo this, if only we hadn't done that, everything would be fine. but the bottom line is this problem is not going away. i can't imagine any set of decisions that would make go away now. i can certainly imagine ones that would have been better and we can look back and learn. but the threat that we face, and isil is just but one peace of it, is the ideological threat that we first came to understand

with osama bin laden and al qaeda. it is a violence ideology. and their ideology is very straight forward. they want to destroy us. the only thing that stops themt. and their ideology is very straight forward. they want to destroy us. the only thing that stops theme. and their ideology is very straight forward. they want to destroy us. the only thing that stops them . and their ideology is very straight forward. they want to destroy us. the only thing that stops them is our efforts and the lack of capability. this threat exists and we have to confront it. and every time a decision comes up, i really think that a lot of the opposition is we just don't want to have to deal with it. but it's there. the threat is real. it is not made up. and isil is the latest manifestation of that threat. we have seen how just absolutely brutal and vulgar they are. they have committed small scale genocides every place they have gone. nip who doesn't believe what they believe, they kill and usually in the most brutal fashion imaginable. and they threaten us. certainly they threaten the region first. there has been considerable debate about whether or not isil

is a direct threat to us right now and in a truly technical accepts, they aren't. in the accepts that they vice president been able to yet set up a system for plotting and planning attacks overseas. but i vividly remember and this was a mistake i made along the way when we were focused on al qaeda and in pakistan, for the longest time i said pakistan, aefg, th afghanistan, that's where it's at. and that was true until abdullah showed up on the airplane in detroit. that was planned out of yemen. and we've responded to that. we were responding to it at the time by working with the yemeni government. if isil were on settle down and get secure territory in syria or iraq, i have no doubt that they would try to train fighters and send them back to attack targets in the west. anyone who wants to say that that wouldn't happen, i wish you were right. but you are not.

their ideology is clearly a threat. so who do we confront that threat. the one thing we can do, we can learn from our past mistakes. and i think one of those mistakes and one of the areas that we need to change and move forward is the assumption that u.s. military might will fix this problem. and i understand that trap, as well. you see a problem, you say we're going to go get them but that's the american way. to a hammer, every problem is a nail. but the problem here is this ideology ing awestern aggressio. the strongest argument they have to present to the people who want to join them is that they are protecting islam against westerning western aggression. that is how they present

themselves. it's not true, but that is their message. so when we show up with 100,000 troops, it is effective you have to a point, but it also reinforces that message. and that's why the vote we took yesterday is so critical. to win this fight, we have to find partners, muslim partners in the case of isil preferably assume sunni partners. they need to fight the evil for their open sake. we were incredibly successful in the awakening because that's what we did. we worked with the sunni tribes to convince them al qaeda was evil and then they took the fight. that made a huge difference and that's what we have to do here. that's why i think the train and equip mission makes so much sense and it was a bit frustrating yesterday to listen to people who were concerned about it, didn't want to do the

train and equip because they were concerned about u.s. military getting too engaged. they were in favor of the bomb, but didn't want the train and equip. and i understand how those issues can become conflated, but train and equip is how we get us out of the fight. it is how we develop a capable force and we've seen this succeed against isil in iraq, we've seen the kurds who were a broken force until we showed up, provided some arms and trained them and they have now turned the tide and are starting to take back territory from isil because we helped them. slashly t lly similarly the ira government. people say gosh here we go again. how did that work out? the primary reason that didn't work out is because the sunnis in the iraqi military chose not to fight for maliki. i don't know whether they were a capable force or not because they didn't fight.

so we insisted on a change in the government and now they are at least trying initially power sharing arrangement that can bring some sunnis in. so we have sunni partners who will lead that fight. so when we go after isil, the one big point, has to be locally driven. we have to find local sunnis who are willing to that. we have to be smart about how we build local support. but make no mistake, they are a threat. one of those i wish we didn't have to think about it. it involves money, it involves putting lives at risk, it involves difficult military decisions. i wish that there wasn't a threat from isil. but we've learned that there clearly is. we have to come up with a plan for confronting it and i look forward to hearing about how we will keep working on that plan, implement it and move forward. thank you.

>> mr. secretary. >> chairman mckeon, members of the committee, i very much appreciate the opportunity this morning to discuss the president's strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. mr. chairman, on a personal note, i want to thank you for your leadership on yesterday's vote. i believe and the president believes the vote was very important and defining vote and we are not unmindful of the work that you you au u and you and o this committee invested. yesterday i joined president obama at macdill air force base in tampa where he received a briefing on operational plans to inch plement isil strategy.

as met with representatives as did the president for more than 40 partner nations. i'm joined here today as you have noted, mr. chairman, by the joint staffs director for operations, y you lieutenant general bill mayville. general mayville helps oversee among many of his responsibilities our military operationsbill mayville. general mayville helps oversee among many of his responsibilities our military operations in iraq, middle east and in centcom and works closely with general austin in centcom to develop all of our military plans. so i appreciate very much general mayville being here. and as you noted, chairman dempsey is with our partners internationally over the next few days and as you noted, he

should be. much of that discussion will be about specifically iraq and syr syria. he consults with our allies in this fight against isil and tomorrow will attend a special nato chiefs of defense conference in lithuania where they will be focused on the isil challenge. the defense department civilian and military leaders, mr. chairman, are in complete agreement with every component of the president's strategy. and we strongly believe it offs the best opportunity to degrade and destroy isil. the president, chairman dempsey, general austin and i are in full alignment on all our tactics and strategy. that military strategy necessary to achieve the president's

objective. however as president obama has made clear, american military power alone cannot rerad ceradie threats by isil. we believe iraq's new prime minister is committed to bringing all rairaqis together against isil, against terrorists. special coalition that we are assembling will need to use all of its power in coordination with the countries in the region. to succeed this strategy will also require a strong partnership between the

executive branch and congress. the president has made it a priority to consult with congressional leadership on the isil challenge as have vice president biden, secretary kerry and many senior members of the administration. i appreciate the opportunities i've had to discuss our strategy with members of this committee including you, mr. chairman, and other members of the senate and house over the last couple of weeks. and we'll continue with these consultations. isil poses a real threat to all countries in the middle east, european allies and to america as you have noted, mr. chairman, as has congressman smith. in the last few months, the world has seen zeisil's barbari up close. as its fighters slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians, including sunni and shia muslims and kurdish iraqis and all religious minorities who stood

in their way. isil's murder of twojou journalisted outraged the american people, exposed those tactics and that brutal i'd yol go to the world. over the weekend, we saw isil's murder of a british citizen. isil now controls a vast swoath. isil has gained strength by exploiting the civil war in syria and sectarian strife in iraq as it has seized territory and acquired significant resources and advanced weapons. isil has employed terrorists and conventional military tactics. isil has also been adept at

employing social media. its goal is to become the new van guard of the global extremist movement and establish an extremist islamic caliphate across the middle east. it considers itself the inheriter of osama bin laden's legacy. we also know that thousands of foreign fighters including europeans and more than 100 americans have traveled to syria. with passports that give him relative freedom of movement, they plan, coordinate and carry out attacks against the united states and europe. although the intelligence community has not kryet detecte specific plotting, isil clearly has global aspirations. and they have so stated. and as president obama has made clear, isil's leaders have

threatened america and our allies. if left unchecked, isil will directly threaten our homeland and our allies. in his address to the nation last week, president obama announced that the united states will lead a broad multinational coalition to roll back isil's threat and defeat isil. more than 40 nations have already expressed their willingness to participate in this effort and more than 30 nations have indicated their readiness to offer military support. president obama and vice president biden, secretary kerry and i and others are working to you unite and expand this coalition. at the nato summit in wales, there was a meeting of key partners. and i then went to georgia and turkey as you yu you noted. gorg georgians made clear they

would help. turkey, indispensable member of play toe from tnato, wep)>s chash notthe chair notes th is a disturbance of the committee hearings. well be in order. the committee will stand in recess until capitol police can restore order.

>> general, proceed. >> thank you. as i was noting, isil is currently holding nearly 50 turkish diplomats hostage. and this obviously is a high and first priority of the turkish government to get those hostages back. in my conversations with leaders in turkey, we talked specifically about that. but also the important role turkey will play in our overall efforts in this coalition. secretary kerry convened a meeting last week with foreign ministers from the six gulf country states also egypt, iraq, jordan and lebanon.

all 22 nations of the arab league adopted a resolution calling for comprehensive measures. president hollande hosted a conference attended by the u.n. security council permanent members european an arab leaders and representatives of the eu arab league and united nations. they all pledged to help iraq in the fight against isil including through military assistance. other key allies such as australia, france and united kingdom are already contributing military support and other partners have begun to make specific offers. at next week's u.n. general assembly, we expect additional nations will be making commitments across the spectrum of capabilities building on the strong chapter 7 u.n. security council resolution adopted last month calling on all member

states to take measures to co t counter isil. also next week president obama will chair a meeting of the u.n. security council to further mobilize the international community. as you know, acting centcom commander general john allen has been designated to serve as special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter isil. general allen will work in a civilian cdiplomatic capacity drawing on his expensive experience in the middle east. he will work closely with general austin to ensure that coalition efforts are aligned across all elements of our strategy. in his address to the nation, the president outlined the four elements of this strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy isil.

let me now describe how we are implementing this government approach. first, in close coordination with the new iraqi government, we are broadening our air campaign against isil targets to protect americans threatened by isil and advances that isil is making and also to prevent humanitarian capacity. the u.s. military has already conducted more than 170 successful air strikes. these strikes have disrupted isil tactically and helped buy time for the iraqi government to form an inclusive and broad based governing coalition led by the new prime minister. that was one of president obama's essential pre-conditions for taking further action against isil. because the iraqi people, iraqi people, must be united in their opposition to isil in order to defeat them, this is ultimately their fight. the new broader air campaign against isil are tar gets will

enable iraq security forces including kurdish forces to continue to stay on the offensive and recapture territory and hold it. the president of the united states has the constitutional and statutory authority to use military force against isil in syria as well as iraq. because isil operates freely across the iraqi/syrian border and maintains a safe haven in syria, our actions will not be restrained by a border that exists in name only. centcom's plan includes targeted actions in syria, including logistics capabilities and infrastructure. general dempsey and i both approved and spent time reviewing and adapting the septemb centcom plan which was briefed

to therd yesterd president yest. second element is to increase forces fighting isil on the ground. not american forces, but forces, iraqi forces, fighting on the ground. to support iraqi and kurdish forces, the president announced we will deploy an additional 470 american troops to iraq. part of that number includes approximately 150 advisers and support personnel to supplement forces already in iraq conducting assessments of the iraqi security forces. this assessment mission is now transitioning to an advise and assist mission with more than 15 teams embedding with iraqi security forces at the headquarters level to provide operational advice and assistance. by the time all these forces arrive, there will be approximately 1600 u.s. personnel in iraq responding to the isil threat. but as the president reaffirmed yesterday in tampa, american

forces will not have a combat mission on the ground. instead, these advisers will continue to support iraqi and kurdish forces, including t government's plans to stand up iraqi national guard units. these units are to help sunni communities defeat isil in their area. the best counterweights to isil are local forces and local is the zcitizens, the people. the president asked for the necessary authority to train and equip moderate syria opposition forces. and we appreciate yesterday's house vote authorizing will this train and equip program. saudi arabia will host the training program to this mission. and saudis have offered funding and additional assistance with recruiting and vetting. the $500 million request the

president made in june for this train and equip program reflects centcom's estimate of the cost to train, equip and resupply more than 5,000 opposition forces over one year. this this is the beginning of a multi-year scaleable effort designed to eventually produce an even larger opposition force. the package of assistance that we initially provide would consist of small arms, vehicles and basic equipment like communications as well as tactical and more advanced training. as these forces prove their effectiveness on the battlefield, we would be prepared to provide increasingly sophisticated types of assistance to the most trusted commanders and capable forces. the goal is not to achieve numerical parity with isil, but make sure they are superior

fighters trained by units. our goal is to undercut isil's recruitment and to enable the syrian opposition to add to the pressure isil is already facing from the iraqi security forces and the security forces of kurdistan. we want to force isil into a three-front battle against more capable, local forces. a rigorous vetting process will be critical to the success of the program. dod will work closely with the state department, the intelligence community, and all of our international partners, and in the region to screen and vet the forces we train and equip. we will monitor them closely to ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of radical elements of the opposition, isil. the syrian regime or other extremist groups. there will always be risks, mr. chairman. there are risks in everything. there are risks in action, and there are risks in inaction. but we believe the risk is

justified given the real threat and to our region and allies. as we pursue this program, the united states will continue to press for political resolution to the syrian conflict. assad has lost all legitimacy to govern. he has created the conditions that allowed isil and other terrorist groups to gain ground and terrorize and slaughter the syrian population. the united states will not coordinate or cooperate with the assad regime. an all-inclusive approach to preventing attacks from isil to the united states and homeland. the united states will draw on intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic and economic tools to cut off isil's funding.

improve our intelligence, strengthen homeland defense and stem the flow of foreign fighters. the united states and our allies have been stepping up efforts to identify and encounter threats emanating from syria against our homelands. this includes increased intelligence sharing. working with dod's partners at the national counterterrorism center. the department of homeland security, the fbi, and across the intelligence community. our terrorist screening and analytical data bases now have special threat cases linking together known actors and potential foreign fighters, making it easier and faster to update them regularly with new information. department of homeland security secretary jay johnson has directed enhanced screening at 25 overseas airports with direct flights to the united states. a step that the united kingdom and other countries have already taken. the departments of justice and homeland security have laumplged an initiative to partner with

local communities to counter extremist recruiting. and the department of treasury's office of terrorism and financial intelligence is working closely with coalition partners to disrupt isil's financing and expose their financing activities. the final element of the president's strategy is to continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians displaced or threatened by isil. alongside the government of iraq, the united kingdom, canada, australia, france, u.s. troops have already delivered life-saving and thousands of threatened iraqi civilians on mt. sinjar in iraqi town. our total humanitarian assistance to displaced iraqis is now more than $186 million for fiscal year 2014. the united states is also the single largest donor of humanitarian assistance for the millions of syrians affected by

the civil war. since the start of the syrian conflict, the united states has committed almost $3 billion to those affected by this war. all four elements of this strategy require a significant commitment of resources on the part of the united states and our coalition partners. this effort will not be easy, this effort will not be brief. this effort will not be simple. we are at war with isil just as we are at war with al qaeda. but destroying isil will require more than military efforts alone. it will require political progress in the region and the effective partners on the ground in iraq and in syria. and as president obama said yesterday in tampa, we cannot do for the iraqis what they must do for themselves. we can't do for them. but this is an effort that calls

on america's unique, our unique capabilities and abilities and responsibilities to lead. as the congress and the administration work together, we know this effort will take time. the president has outlined a clear, a comprehensive and a workable strategy to achieve our goals and protect our interests. mr. chairman, members of this committee, thank you, thank you for your continued support, your partnership and what you do for our men and women in uniform who protect this country. thank you. >> thank you. will the general have an opening statement? >> no, sir. >> thank you. thank you, mr. secretary. you outlined a lot of things. i think the president's stated objective to degrade and ultimately destroy isil is a very worthy goal.

and i think you've outlined a lot of things that he plans to yet, the only thing he's asked congress for, i presume he will be coming for other things. so far, all he's asked is for the train and equip. we acted on that yesterday. the senate, i understand, will act on that today. so i think that's a -- that's a good message that we are trying to work together. we are all americans, and we have one common enemy. and that should unite us and unite us strongly. i was glad to hear you say that you're all united, your team, all the military leaders. it was reported that general austin's military advice was to send a modest contingent of american troops to advise and

assist in iraq more than the president, i think, has decided to do. is that an accurate report? >> what i would tell you, mr. chairman, is as you know and i think the president has been very clear and certainly general dempsey made this clear two days ago in our hearing before the senate armed services committee. first, the president expects from his military leaders in honest, direct evaluation of what they think and what's required to implement strategies that will protect this country. there were a number of recommendations on a number of things based on the questions the president asked of our military leaders. i would tell you this, general austin as i have said is in full agreement with the president's decisions on the resources the president has decided to use to implement that strategy. and general austin made that

very clear, again, yesterday with the president when the president was in tampa to get -- spent the day there with general austin and his commanders to get a thorough briefing of the plan. thank you. >> there's one thing that i'm going to give you, give the president some advice through you. i -- i think it's very important that he does follow the advice and counsel he receives, the professional advice of the military. they are the ones best suited to do that. i realize he's commander in chief, he has the final say and the final obligation and responsibility. i would also request that he not take options off the table. it seems to me, every speech he

gives, the first thing he says is no boots on the ground. and then makes an announcement of sending more boots. i think that that's confusing to the american people, and i think it builds distrust rather than understanding of what he's really saying. i think no boots on the ground, i think people are thinking divisions and full bore thing we did in iraq, shock and awe. i understand that's not the strategy. but i think the american people get confused. and if we explain to them, look, boots on the ground means no combat forces. or boots on the ground mean we're not going to do shock and awe or whatever. but we are going to have our people there. and there are certain things that they have to do, and without them, we can't be successful in this battle. and i think -- i think they can

accept that. and they can -- they're smart enough to figure it out. and if they think they're not hearing the truth, the whole truth, i think then they get -- they kind of get their backs up. i think it's also very important that the president give lots of updates. i think, you know, over the last several years, the war in afghanistan, there have been a lot of accomplishments that we've achieved over there. and i don't think the american people know. and i think only the president can tell them that. and i think they would like to know as we move forward how we're -- how we're doing in iraq, how we're doing in syria. and i was -- i would strongly suggest that he go before the people. he's the only one that can do it. and keep them informed as to what's going on.

because i think they're going to have to be in this. and this is not going to be -- this is going to be for the entire duration of his presidency and probably the next president's. so if we don't let people know what's going on and make them a part of it, we're not going to have the political support we need to go forward. i'm concerned about the strategy of counterterrorism. i don't think it's been overly effective in yemen or other places that he pointed out that had actually been successful. i think we're going to have to be more aggressive than that. i see what we're doing in iraq is building up, pushing isil out -- i think the plan is to push them out of all their occupied territory, regain that,

take it back, and free up iraq. and then as you're pointing out, we don't want to have a safe haven where they can slip over into syria. my understanding of what the president's saying, he's not going to give him safe haven. we don't know yet what he will do. he has said he'll make -- take air strikes there are possible. so i just -- more than questions, i just want to relay a few of those things. my thoughts and feelings. i'm not going to be in a position to do that much longer. i want to take advantage of it while i have the opportunity. thank you, thank you very much. >> mr. chairman. may i respond to a couple of the -- >> you bet. >> the points you made. each is particularly important. and not only are your points right, i think. and i think the president agrees

with what you've said, but most of the points are center pieces and pillars of his strategy. on a particular question on boots on the ground, what he has said is that there's no ground combat role for americans. yes, a combat role on the ground is going to be required. obviously, it is going on in iraq today. it'll be required in syria. and what he has said is it is the iraqi security forces, the peshmerga, the kurdish forces that are the ground forces in iraq. and we will continue to support them through air strikes and other capabilities we have. syria, as you know the whole point of train and equip is to help develop that ground force capable, unit by unit ground

force in syria. but he's fully aware of and agrees that this isn't going to be done without ground forces. but what he's made clear to the american people, and i know there are differences of opinion as he does that he is not going to order american combat ground forces into those areas. but i -- i thought that was a point that you made that you gave me an opportunity to maybe, hopefully clear that up. your point about informing and updating the american people, you were right, i think any of us in this business understand how critical that is, the american people understand what's going on. they are represented, obviously, in this body, and the body across the way as it should be. but to have the american people understand it and be part of it and especially the congress as i've noted in my testimony, the president thinks it is a

critical component of going forward. so thank you for allowing me to maybe clear that up. >> thank you. >> and the boots on the ground point, i think the problem is that the president and many people have the instinct. we don't, we just don't want to go back into another war. everyone's very concerned about that and the president's seeking to reassure those folks. but i agree with the chairman. i think it would be better to sort of explain, you know, what -- it's not a boots on the ground issue. and also, it's not even a matter of we're war wary, we're not going to send in troops because we know it'll upset people. it's because we don't think it will work. and i think that's to make it clear if there's too much of an excessive reliance on u.s. military force, then oddly, we push more people into the arms of isis. and i think, you know, too often the president does sound more like he's in the former camp of we don't want to do this because we know it's hard and we know you don't like it. it would be better if you would

make it clear that we're not doing this because it's not going to work. it's not the most effective way to confront these forces. so, you know, both will task you with going to the p tresident a work on his messaging. but it's important how it's presented to the american people and how we build support for this program. on the issue of finding sunni partners. i still contend that is the key. if we find enough sunnis in iraq and syria who are willing to fight against isis, that's when we'll start to be successful. what are our efforts in terms of outreach to some of those tri s tribes, folks in iraq for the moment. they're still there, i expect many of them are fighting with isis. how are we doing working with the iraqi government or the locals there to try to turn some of those tribesman the same way we did during the awakening. >> congressman, as you pointed out, and as i noted in my testimony, the reaching out to

the sunni tribes through an inclusive representative functioning government in iraq is a start. general allen's relationships will help, general austin's relationships, relationships of other coalition partners in the area, especially arab/sunni countries that are a part of the coalition. will be critically important to this. this cannot be seen as a u. u.s./western effort against any component of the muslim world or islam, sunni versus shia. so it's all those working together as we go forward in this coalition to get, once again, the sunni tribe

leadership and buy-in. and as i noted in my testimony to what we're doing, one of the most fundamental parts of that is the evolution and development of government in iraq that the sunnis trust and have some confident in that begins to unite that country. and as you defined it in your opening statements, much of the maliki government did everything but that the last five years and brought a lot of this on. so that can be done. it's a critical component of this. we know that, and we're working hard to do it. >> and it just -- little pie in the sky for the moment. the whole area there would benefit from the sunnis and the shia finding some way to co-exist. massive understatement, i understand. but our partners, saudi arabia, uae, qatar, is there any way to have conversations with them and

say, look, we know you guys hate iran and understand that. a big part about what motivated some of these other countries in the early stages of the civil war to say, hey, if you were against assad, we're going to throw money and guns at you, which is what empowered some of these violent extremists was the saudis, they didn't care. they were like, we hate iran, assad is a partner, so whatever, whatever we have to do to get assad is in our interests. do you think it's dawning on them at some point they're caught between two things here and if they don't find some way to peacefully -- iran's not going anywhere, okay. now, we do wish they would stop messing in external affairs, as well, as they do, but has there been any effort saying how do we sort of take the edge off that? that's what groups like isis feed on. >> you have just identified a big part of the complications. yes, we are much aware of that. we are working with that, as i noted secretary kerry was there

last week, convened a meeting of foreign ministers from middle eastern countries. as i noted in my testimony and my comments, this is a complicated dynamic on a good day. and there are many factions and factors that are flowing through this. and we have to be mindful of that as we proceed and try to calibrate achieving an objective here that the president has laid out that's clearly in our interests. and clearly in the interest of those sunni countries, arab countries, all the countries of the middle east. and to find that common ground and common interests and seize upon that where we can find that cooperation, and that is coming together. as these countries are stepping forward on committing to what they're going to be doing.

and they're going to be doing more of it as we coordinate that. so what you've identified, áá4 a core piece of this effort. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. thorneberry. >> i want to yield my time to the gentlelady of indiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank the gentleman for yielding his time. thank you, secretary hagel and general for being here for your service, we appreciate it. and i'm thinking, i remember on september 11th, a reporter was asking a question to white house press secretary and said how are you defining victory. and the white house press secretary said i don't have my webster's dictionary up here with me. and it's on my mind, as well, that we've talked about degrading and destroying, and now those seem to be the two coins. we're degrading, which my understanding is we're slowing down this process, disrupting isil's maneuvers and operations

and then ultimately destroying. and i think it's a fair question to ask on behalf of all americans if this plan is successful and so much plan "b" being successful, the big if. what is the end game? what does it look like with a destroyed isil? first, destroying isil is clearly as you have noted. we'll continue to be honest about it. your question, what's the end state? it is a region. and it is a reality and a threat that is eliminated from threats against the united states and against our allies. >> so -- >> that threat of beheadings, of terrorists -- sophisticated

terrorist attacks of slaughtering people of barbaric approach to everything they do, an ideology that has nothing to do with religion, any religion, the capacity that isil now possesses through their funding mechanisms, through their sophistication, through their organization, through their strategy is the threat to everybody. so what is an end game look like is a world without that threat. is the world always going to be dangerous? i suspect it -- in our lifetimes, it will be. but that, that's something that we're aware of, but we're dealing with the threat right now. >> right, i understand that, and the enormity and complexity. but i think it's a fair question to say -- the success that iraq gets its territory back, that would be successful, i would imagine you would agree. that syria.

stability in the middle east. is success also going to be measured in the fact that we no longer have a group of people that literal will insist on world dominance in the caliphate or will we ever be able to deal with that? it seems to me if we don't continue to have some kind of bold and aggressive approach there is some kind of democracy and freedom in that region with the limited partners that we have, that there will never be an end game. we've all heard this before. we've all gone -- we've all lived through this already. >> so what's the alternative? do nothing? >> if this plan doesn't work, what is the alternative? what does it look like in the middle east then? >> well, we always have plan "bs" and "cs," but we believe this plan will work. . and the way it's laid out with our partners, the reality of it,

the time frames, the partnerships, commitments to this will work. and i understand your question. as i said, i don't know if we will ever see a world without threats. particularly your question, won't there always be threats out there with an extremist group trying to build an extremist caliphate in the middle east? i suppose. but i've got to worry about what i have right in front of me right now. and this is an immediate threat. yes, we have to think long-term, we do. we're trying to think through that as to what will work, what will be effective. how do we bring the civilized world together to stop this? because the other way to ask that question is what if we don't? >> correct. >> and my, just quickly, what else can we do as a congress to make sure we get those passports away from the foreign fighters coming from america? >> thank you. and i'm glad you mentioned that.

it's something i noted in my testimony. it's a critical piece to this. it's a dangerous and real threat with those kind of individuals floating around out there, possessing those passports with easy access. as i said, we are coordinating with every agency force we have. our partners all over the world. everything we can do right now. to address this to identify those threats out there stop those threats. some countries are further ahead like the uk. probably further ahead than almost anyone. i was in a national security council meeting late yesterday afternoon when we came back from tampa. the president chaired. and the attorney general was there, secretary of homeland security there. we were all there. this was a big part of the topic. in fact, it was a central part of the topic foreign fighters. and president wanted updates and

he gets them every week on what are we doing. how much are we doing? how much can we still do and what do we have to do? it's a big part of what we're doing here. >> i appreciate it, thank you, mr. chairman. yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, gentlemen. yesterday, we took a vote, the vote was on whether to arm the syrian rebels. we, i think, all acknowledge that isis is a problem and something we need to take care of. i find it pretty disturbing that we are having this hearing after we've taken a vote. because i don't think that the plan i have seen was detailed enough to make me believe that your plan will work. i'm going to ask you some questions, most of which would probably have to go on the record or you'll have to come in and brief me. and i hope the other members of this committee believe it's important for us to understand

exactly what this plan is. because i'm not so sure of it and i haven't heard the details as i'd like to their them. i want to begin by saying i have a syrian/american community and i've -- they're all over the place on this. i go and talk to them, et cetera. syrian moderates left, most of my people say those syrian moderates have gone over to isis, and most of them have told me that they don't think that the syrian moderates we arm, whoever those may be are actually going to fight against the isis moderates who used to hang out with the syrian moderates. equip and train. we did such a great job in iraq $35 billion later. and mr. chairman, i was the one every single time rumsfeld and others were in front of us asking about equip and train. but some have said as my good friend and colleague here that

it wasn't a problem of equip and train, it was a lack of leadership. it was bad people commanding, it was the commander in chief, maliki who was wrong and didn't help us on this or didn't make this thing work. can you tell me who the commander in chief of the syrian moderates who are all over the place don't even talk to each other sometimes? how we're going to see that leadership go through -- these are just for the record, okay? what type of arms? exactly. what type of arms are we going to hand over to these people? because the last time i checked, we handed over arms to maliki and they ended up in isis and the very same arms are going after us. coalition, coalition of 40, the president says. who? what will they really do? how many troops? i've been through this, you guys. i saw the coalition in iraq, and

we used to sort of like chuckle at each other at seeing some of these countries with one person. i don't know, training dogs, maybe a bomb expert. but coalition of 40, who? what? how much? which are the combat troops? how are they going to get there? i would like to know those things. and i have a problem. when you go out in front of the american people and start talking about why certain countries might not want to suggest that they're with us. that's why i want all this information. somehow, i don't need to put it out in the public. but you know what i'm told by my turkish americans that turkish army arms are in isis' hands and the government of turkey has winked to let those go into those hands. a problem. it's a very complicated issue, you're getting america into even more complicated situation.

more importantly, and secretary, this isn't and shouldn't be under your sort of purview, but it is under the administration's. so let's say, and i hope your plan works because, you know, i -- isis, isil, they're not good. i hope i am wrong. i hope the same thing when i voted against the iraq war that i was wrong. but i don't believe that i was wrong on that. so i want to see the plan in particular, i want to ask the administration for this of the neighborhood players, let's say we eliminate isis and isil. what fills that gap? what has to fill that gap for this to work? are people putting up homes, people putting up schools. people putting up jobs, people getting -- these people the type of lives they see on television and all these tv shows we

export. but aren't living. and that's one of the reasons this has been created. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. gentlelady yields back, mr. jones. >> mr. secretary, in november 2005 as a senator, you pinned an article in foreign affairs magazine asserting that vietnam was a national tragedy partly because members of congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administration in power until it was too late. you wrote and i quote to question your government is not unpatriotic. to not question your government is unpatriotic. america owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifice. these are your words, mr. secretary. in the past, you informed america that many in the middle east see us as an obstacle of peace and an aggressor and occupier. you wrote that our policies are

a source of significant friction in the region and that we are at the same time both a stabilizing and de-stabilizing force in the middle east. also, you said, you described a fear of the uncontrollable. the unpredictable consequences of military action. you stated how many of us really know and understand iraq? the country, the history, the people and the role of the arab world. you asserted that the american people must be told that long-term commitment, risk and cost of the undertaking. mr. secretary, you and i have a friendship that was based on my coming out against the iraq war. i did not know you prior to that. and i was very grateful that you extended a hand to me because i was getting beaten up pretty bad down in my district and by some of my republican colleagues.

in fact, the chairman at the time told me that he would not appoint me to be a subcommittee chairman because i would vote with the democrats to pull our troops out of iraq. which he was right in that assessment. not necessarily, not naming me as a subcommittee chairman, but my position. the reason i bring this up and what you said back in 2005 is that in the year 2000 when bill clinton left the presidency, president clinton left this as president, we were $5.6 trillion in debt. today, mr. secretary, the debt of this nation is over $17.6 trillion. i've heard you testify, and you will in 2015 that cuts are coming to the military, you're concerned about it. and we're concerned about it. you also have said that sequestration if it's not repealed is going to complicate

the cuts that are coming with t without -- normally. i want to ask you today, do you think that congress should pay for whatever we decide to do and the administration decides to do as it relates to syria and to iraq? do you think we need to pay for it today? or put it on the back of our grandchildren? because we will not be able to continue to police the world. and by using what we have is known as borrowing money from the chinese, the japanese and all these other countries. because we cannot pay our bills today. would you agree that we need to pay for whatever we do in syria and in iraq? we need to pay for it today and not tomorrow? >> congressman, thank you. and, i recognize any time any of us already write anything or say

anything, it's always at some peril. but let me addresscwwwww my own for a moment and say that i, obviously, agreed with what i wrote then and i still agree with it. now, the big difference between what we're talking about today versus where we were in 2005. the president's strategy in where and how, why -- >> mr. secretary, one moment, i apologize to you for that. but please answer my question about do we pay for it today or do we pay for it tomorrow? my time's going to expire. >> the responsibility of elected officials is always to be honest about anything they get this country into, any action they take, including paying for it. and i can assure you, this secretary of defense will be very clear in this administration on what we believe is going to cost, how

we're going to pay for it. and there will not be any ambiguity about that. but, yes, every congress, every elected official has that responsibility. that financial responsibility and fiduciary responsibility. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i think generally history would show that the west won the cold war, but also show when the cold war either didn't end communism or get rid of communists. so the point i want to make is it fair to say that we might be able to beat isil as a group but that is not going to end extreme islamic militants or going to end the desire for those folks to try to create a caliphate some time in the future? >> i can't nor would i, and i

don't believe the president would ever say that what we are doing now and attempting to do with our strategy and focus on isil will end forever any terrorist group or any group of people who want to do harm to our country or establish islamic caliphate. of course not. >> that's what i want to hear. i think we need to have the right expectation here. when people ask you what the definition is, which is a great question. we need the right expectation about what that is. >> but i think, also, congressman, the reality of the threat as it -- as it is today is very real. and -- >> yeah. >> and i will never come before this committee, overstate a threat or understate a threat. and we have a threat. >> second. in your testimony on page 3, you say centcom's plan included

targeted actions in syria. general dempsey and i, meaning you, have approved the centcom plan. so you have approved a centcom plan that already includes air strikes inside syria? >> that plan was provided to the president in full explanation yesterday with all the options, all the plans. and i laid it out in -- generally in my testimony and the president has said as to what our options are. >> and your testimony, in your testimony you say you have approved that plan. it was briefed to the president, has the president approved that plan, taken any action to operationalize that plan? >> the president has not yet approved its finality. he will do that when he feels that he's -- >> i'm sure he's putting a lot of thought into it. i'm sure he's not saying he's not. i want to be sure what step the white house is with that. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> the third question, mainly for the general, i don't want you to feel left out.

on the train and equip mission, i think mr. smith made a good point. it's how do we get out of the fight? we want to train and equip moderate and syrian opposition. obviously after 13 years in afghanistan and iran, we should've learned some lessons about the vetting. and i think a big concern is how do we know people are moderate, people are syrian, that is committed to a free syria. and third, that they are in the opposition. they're not going to turn on us. >> yes, congressman, you raise a good point. i think we've got to be very upfront that we -- that the vetting process is absolutely essential. if we want to get this right. we have tremendous amount of experience over the last decade in vetting and standing up these types of forces. we have an eye on the pool right now of folks that we can draw from, but we need to be very

deliberate. despite our best efforts, this will not be perfect. but we are looking for individuals that can come together that want to defend their community, can work as a team. they have to be able and willing, they have to be appropriate for the task. many of them will be former military, some will come from the large syrian that have been displaced, but many of them are fighting right now and against the assad government. we'll have to put in place mechanisms to assure ourselves of their reliability and make sure that we have a system of accountability. and then we'll build from there, we'll build a chain of command, take small groups and build formations. it'll be something that is a multi-year requirement that we'll have to look at. >> i think we'll -- as was laid out in the amendment yesterday, we'll have plenty of time to talk to y'all later on how that

was going and what you're running into. finally, i don't have a lot of time. i'll make a note on this. i just -- i was surprised the president used the 2001 aumf as a justification for this because it's the last time the pentagon was in front of us to discuss this issue at all. there was at that time, i wouldn't say 100% position, but a lot of reluctance in using the 2001 aumf. there was no connection. at some point in the future, i'd like to find out what changed. but time's up and i do want to have that explored at some point. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. forbes. >> chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. thank you. i'd like to get your thoughts on two areas.

the oxygen -- one is hatred, which we can't do a lot about, but the second is the financing and the money. when i look at isil, at least the figures i have that we expect them to get about $1 billion this year through kidnapping through ransom, selling oil on the black market, stealing money from banks and funding from state sympathizers from the gulf. could you give us your thoughts on the strategy we're going to use to cut that off, one? general dempsey told us that syria had five time more air defenses, some of which are high-end systems, that is to say higher altitude, longer range, could you give us your concerns if any about the impact those air defense systems could have on some of our air strikes and our capability of them? >> congressman, thank you. on the isil financing, and you stated it correctly, we must cut

off that funding and those sources, and it is as high a priority in this effort as any one priority. as i mentioned in my testimony just generally, the treasury department through a couple of their offices set up the deal with foreign financing and these general kinds of threats have set up a special office on this particular issue. working with our international partners. you hit some of the main ones, the black market avenue that they use to sell oil. they have, as you -- i know you are aware. isil taking control of certain small oil fields in syria. and we have some estimates of 100,000 barrels of oil those fields are producing.

and they get them out in different ways. so to cut off that main source, you mentioned other sources. they obviously have taken over cities and towns and resources and banks. but there are day-to-day illegal activities they're involved in, businesses that we're trying to find, will find, but that has to be working with our partners on it. so there's no higher priority than getting that to cut that off. we can do this in a private, closed setting. we can give you a thorough briefing on this. >> another thing, i know we have a priority of cutting off that funding, but i think on the committee, we would love to just hear what our strategy is for actually doing, you know, doing that because, we'd like to

know -- if they're getting $1 billion a year, do we want to get them down to $200 million? what have we laid out as our strategy? and what exactly is our plan to get our hands around that and do that? so if at some point in time you could maybe share that with us in whatever venue or setting you think is appropriate, we'd appreciate it. >> we can do that whenever you want to do that, and we could do that, i think it'd be more effective in a closed briefing on exactly how we're doing it and take you down into some depth on this. >> i'm glad you brought that up. that's something that separates isil, they're so well funded. and they have good leadership and know how to use that money. very good to attack that. >> we can do it through your committee however you want. >> we just found out there's no votes tomorrow.

so probably people in the airport pretty quick. we'll get back to you. thank you. mr. courtney? >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel, your predecessor one time removed secretary gates as he was leaving gave a speech at west point where he said in my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to send a big american land army into asia or the middle east or africa should have his head examined as general mcarthur so delicately put it. obviously there was high anxiety that this amendment was a prelude to the scenario that secretary gates warned against. one of the reasons why i voted for the amendment was that i think a close examination of the text showed that, in fact, we were talking about using a program, title ten, not about

sending in large ground forces from the u.s. but the opposite, stand up indigenous forces to take the fight, you know to our enemy. and i guess i just want to ask you, as long as i got you here, just if you could reiterate whether that's the correct interpretation. or do you need to have your head examined? >> well, having my head examined, that question is open for many reasons, not just this issue, i suspect. but i completely agree with secretary gates. and i would not make that recommendation unless it would be such a catastrophic situation that -- but i don't think that's the case today. i know it's not the case today. now, that said, i think the issue overall, though is always one of first identifying the

threat, is it real? and then, what do you do about it? and your question about the interpretation of the amendment is, for example, i mentioned in my testimony, when we put all of the additional soldiers in place that the president has ordered, that will be approximately around 1600 americans in iraq. the interpretation as i have read the amendment in the cr, i think is your interpretation is correct. i said this has to be a partnership. the president has said that between the congress and the administration. i was once on your side of the dice. i understand article one pretty well, starting with the fact you have the money.

and the authorities and all that goes with your side of the equation. so there are specific issues that we'll work through on how we implement that amendment and those authorities. there's always a question of, i think if we could rewrite it, we would rewrite it in certain areas. i think what you've laid out, your understanding of what you voted for is pretty clear is my understanding. >> right. thank you, mr. secretary. and, in fact, i think one of the benefits of the amendment is that it really does engage the congress with the administration as opposed to just kind of abdicating our role, which, you know, some of the comments on the floor were just we'll let the aumf from 2001 and 2002 kind of control or authorize whatever action the administration needs to take. which i think is not the way our checks and balances should operate.

>> no, well, i agree. but the difference aumf 2001 or the moderate opposition of syria is this is equipping and training a nongovernmental group that we've historically done that. i suppose we have, legally, but above board. that was different in iraq. in some of these other situations. but the authority of the president has statutorily. i know there are different opinions. from 2001, 2002 really comes down to the connection isil's had with al qaeda and still has in terrorist groups.

but the training and equipping mission with nongovernmental groups is a little different. >> right, and i think that's our role now. it's by statute that we will get your reports from the department and we'll have a time line where we'll be reengaged almost immediately after the election. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman, secretary for being here today. over the weekend, the president promised that as we defeat isil, there would be no more mistakes. i look forward to working with you to avoid his mistakes. the obama mistake of underestimating isil as junior jarsty, jv. we know that 16 months ago as the president was underestimating the terrorist threat and saying it was diminished that that was not true. the american enterprise institute released a map showing in warning of the growing terrorist threat across north africa, middle east and central

asia. and this was ignored by this administration. the obama mistake of failing to secure a basic security agreement undermining the achievements of the allied service members who promoted freedom in iraq and i particularly appreciate that i had two sons serve in iraq and working with the people of iraq to preserve their freedom. the obama mistake of a sequestration, downsizing our military as jihadists expand their safe havens across the world to attack the american families. the obama mistake of failing to support the students of iran's green revolution. the iranian revolution supporters in tehran carries signs in english declaring clearly their goals. death to israel, death to america. the obama mistake of declaring a red line in syria on chemical weapons and then blaming others. clearly the red line was stated by him in a speech on august the

20th, 2012. and a year later he denied it, which is not correct. the obama mistake of releasing five murderous taliban while negotiating with the terrorists. one terrorist was praised as the equivalent of 10,000 warriors to destroy america. it's more important than ever that the detention facility at guantanamo bay be retained to protect american families. the obama mistake of announcing an afghan withdrawal date disregarding conditions, putting afghanistan and pakistan at risk. the obama mistake of equating rocket attacks with israel's self-defense. we should recognize the hamas creed. quote, we value death more than you value life, end of quote. the obama mistake of the benghazi assassination's cover-up, the obama mistake of the ft. hood massacre dismissed as workplace violence in the little rock murder as drive by

shooting. the president obviously needs to change course and adopt peace through strength. we know weakness endangers american families worldwide. i believe the president should take action remembering september 11th in the global war on terrorism. and a way to change course is backing up our -- the kurdish regional government, our courageous allies. and i'd like to know, what are the plans for weaponry for irbil? i understand there's a problem in delivering the weapons. we need to be there to back up people who have been so bravely associated with the united states. >> congressman, on your question regarding backing up irbil, the peshmerga, there is no country that we have accelerated our deliveries to quicker than iraq, specifically the peshmerga. we've had allied countries

flying missions in there directly to irbil to reinforce them with ammunition, with equipment, coming from many nations. it has been as high a priority over many months as we've had. so it has been ongoing, and it is as high priority as we have with our partners. >> and as the co-chairman of the regional caucus, i appreciate that. and i've been to the kurdish region for decades. they have resisted oppression and identified with freedom of the united states. a final question for many, mr. secretary, was yes or no. is america at war? >> i said america was at war against isil just like we are al qaeda. i said it in my testimony. >> and we're at war in a global war on terrorism? >> yes. >> terrorists who try to kill us and the president's taking action and has laid that action

out very clearly and has asked for the congress' partnership. >> thank you. the actions are so important. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and welcome, secretary hagel and general maville. like all americans and i think you've heard in our discussions, obviously everyone on this committee and if you could have been on the floor throughout the past several days, i'm greatly concerned with the recent events in iraq and syria. we know that isil is a lethal terrorist organization, and we must confront the difficult questions that our president has raised about the serious threat that it poses. but this is a complex and long-term challenge. and as such, i am wary of commitments that the president has admitted will spill into future administrations. creating enduring costs while raising substantial and unpredictable risks without a

more robust, clear-headed debate. and i like congresswoman sanchez appreciated the opportunity to have this hearing with you before we took the vote. and i appreciate the president's continued commitment not to send u.s. ground forces into combat but his experience has shown any expansion of u.s. government in this region raises serious concerns over the slippery slope we may find ourselves on. chairman dempsey's recent testimony that he could foresee a scenario in which he could recommend u.s. ground troops in the future crystallizes the alarming uncertainties around this effort. many questions remain. you heard some of them addressed today, including the costs, timetable, the nature of the participation from the region's arab state to name just a few. yesterday's train and equip vote endorsing just one piece of this strategy expanding focus on expanding our effort in syria

masked the multifacetted challenges ahead and i could not endorse it. but i appreciate the opportunity today to begin to ask some of these questions. in the september 16 testimonysed the united states and its allies would work to develop a military chain of command in syria that is linked to a political structure. i would like to know more about the political structure that chairman dempsey is envisioning. secretary hagel, do you think the syrian opposition has a solid and widely supported political structure on which to base a military command? and if not, who do you think it will be linked to? >> first, on the issue of a political agreement and a political resolution, i mentioned that in my testimony. the president has been very clear on that point when he has said on many occasions -- and i have just noted -- that there's not a military solution to this

in syria or in iraq or the middle east. so political resolution must be achieved. >> but that is not the question. we're now embarking upon an effort to train and equip the syrian forces that we think -- the moderate syrian forces that we think we can work with and for it to be effective, general dempsey has said and i believe he is correct that it has to be tied to a political structure. so to start down this path in which we're focusing on training and equipping a force not aligned with any syrian-oriented political structure really in some ways puts the cart before the horse. >> well, not exactly. if, in fact, there is no alternative that is allowed to develop in syria because of the

brutality of isil and other terrorist groups that are slaughtering the people in syria and you have a regime that has no legitimacy to govern, which started all this, you got to start somewhere. we recognize this is difficult. we recognize there's no good option here. but if we don't help where we can help develop some infrastructure -- this is why we would train in units, not individuals, to allow a political opposition to come together based on security, because security is required in this as well. it isn't either or. that's how we envision and that's how we would want to go forward. that's partly why this is a long-term effort. this is why we have been very clear it's complicated, it's serious. but if there's no opening, no

opportunity for a political opposition group to develop because they're all out of the country -- >> it doesn't exist today? >> there is very little organizational opposition in syria today. that's right. >> thank you. >> that's part of the problem. >> thank you. my time is up. thank you. >> thank you. mr. kline. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen for being here. this morning i saw a brief news story that said that decisions for approving targets for air strikes in syria would be made by the president and only by the president. is that true? >> no, it's not true. that story in "the wall street journal" was not true. >> i can't tell you how relieved i am to hear that. i think that's a terrible mistake if we're going to make daily tactical decisions in the white house. >> i might say, i was sitting next to the president yesterday

when this entire issue was being discussed. and he was very clear with general austin, once he makes decisions, he gives general austin and our military leaders the authority to carry out those policies. >> outstanding. as i said, i'm very, very relieved to hear that. that does lead me to the larger question though. i have three or four minutes here. could one of you outline what the command structure, what the command and control structure is going to be? what is the role of general austin and what is the role of iraqi commanders of peshmerga? who is going to make the decisions? >> well, because the general is just a pretty face here and hasn't had to answer a question really except one -- [ laughter ] >> i was hoping he would answer. >> you have never been indirect before, congressman. so with your permission, i will ask general maville.

>> the command and control structure begins with iraq and their security forces. our role is to supplement that. we're doing that right now. we will switch out some of the initial assessment teams and replace them with more -- with army advisers that can better help at the general officer level as well as reach into the ministries and assist as well. but the chain of command is an iraqi chain of command enabled by partners in the region. >> pretty face or not, let me try it this way. i started my questioning by asking about targets for air strikes in syria. so if it's not the president of the united states, who is it? >> for targeting, targeting will be planned jointly and enabled by u.s. central command through its kaok in the region.

the nemechanisms to command and control -- they are in place. you saw that unfurl when we retook mosul dam. so we're not going to change that. the air force command and control structure component underneath central command will orchestrate this. the coordination and planning will be done in concert with iraqi forces and iraqi leaders. >> air strikes in syria i'm talking about. >> we haven't received authorization -- that's part of what the secretary was talking about. we have yet to receive authorization for those missions. >> it's not the president of the united states but we're not quite sure who is going to make the decisions? >> if i could, sir, whether we strike -- where we strike, regardless of the geography, the command and control structure that i played out is the command and control structure that we

will use wherever the president allows us to strike. >> i yield back.oowçmvzky >> thank you. miss hanabusa? >> thank you. thank you mr. secretary and general for being here. i think part of the problem -- you hear it with the questioning that we're having today -- is that because the amendment that we voted on involved syria and the potential to train and to arm the syrian quote whatever that moderate force will be that's going to be vetted 15 days from now when the senate passes it, and the fact that the 170 air strikes are really in iraq and we're talking about our 1,600 -- as far as i know are in iraq, that the public i think are getting confused as we probably are as to what exactly is being done in iraq versus what we're authorizing. you also know that part of the

continuing resolution was to fund oko at the 2014 level which is about 30 some odd billion dollars more than what was requested in 2015. whether or how you determine what that money is and how it plays out for the remainder of the continuing resolution is something else. but we also know that it was the request early on that the funding include the $500 million which is to arm and train 5,000 syrians. so having said that, whoever can answer that question, take it. my question is really, when we divide the two, not syria part but the iraqi part which we are clearly engaged in, one, where is the funding coming from? is it funding? two, how much is that costing us per day? and though we feel that we don't

have the same kind of legislation as we have in the amendment which clearly defined who would be appropriated -- who would be appropriate vetted people in syria, now who are the people that we're vetting -- if we're vetting them at all -- in iraq? because right now air strikes are in iraq. and we need the ground forces, as i understand the philosophy, to be in iraq. so who are we vetting? because general dempsey i think made a statement yesterday that there are 50 brigades or so in iraq of which 26 or 24, one of those two numbers, are not appropriate because it's not of the right composition. so who is making these vetting decisions, and what are we in for in the iraq portion of this? though we have sort of been kind of thrown off the path because we're talking about syria.

but our people, 1,600 of them, are in iraq. i think my constituents want to know what does this mean for iraq? iraq is the concern right now because that's where we are. who can -- whoever wants to take it. >> i will give you an answer, and then the general may want to go deeper on this. your question about who are we vetting. we would be vetting the syrian opposition forces that we would begin to train and assist. >> i'm talking about iraq. >> you asked the question about who are we vetting. that's who we are vetting. it's not iraq. >> we're not vetting anyone in iraq? >> the iraqi security forces under the government -- the sovereign government of iraq and the peshmerga, who are as you know are part of the overall structure, are in place. they are institutionalized. they are functioning armies now. >> mr. secretary, not to