mar thaw jones on female slaves and the law. and president george h.w. bush's former secretary of state james baker. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know about the programs you're watching. e-mail us at comments@cspan.org, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> on tuesday, the wall street journal ceo council held its annual meeting in washington d.c. among the speakers, mitch mcconnel of kentucky. topics including the economy, taxes, immigration and health care policy. this is about 20 minutes.

>> thank you very much, senator mcconnell, for being here. he had to work harder than you know to get here because it's washington and it rained. and, you know, washington doesn't cope with many things well, including rain and so, thank you for percent veering. and you won the senate. congratulations. >> one of my better months. >> exactly. >> you know, let me start with the 10,000 foot level if washington. i think the words dysfunction and congress have gone together a lot in the last few years. you've talked from the minute you guys won the majority about fixing the way the senate works.

talk a little bit about how you're going to do that and what you have in mind when you say that. >> rarely does an issue like functioning resonate with the american people. but it clearly did. there were two things that we heard all over the country this year. number one, people were very upset with the administration. you could have figured that out pretty quickly. but they were also not happy with the fact that we don't seem to do anything anymore. it was pretty clear to those of us who work in the senate, the reason we weren't doing is the senate. we evolved into a body that basically doesn't ever pass anything except in an emergency situation. so i feel like we have an obligation to the american people to be responsible, right of center, conservative

governing majority which involves allowing votes on matters. i mean you had a freshman democratic senator in los angeles running for relection who had never had a role call vote on an amount on the floor of the senate in six years. and his opponent brought that up on a routine basis. so not only did it not work politically, it didn't work for the government. so we'll be working longer. we'll be working harder. and there will be an opportunity for members of both the majority and minority to offer their ideas and to get votes. i know that sounds revolutionary, i know. but we're going to pass individual appropriation bills and funneled the government rather than balling everything up into a continuing resolution which only further underscores the dysfunction. >> you know, one of the things that helped to blow up the senate in the last few years was the democrats' invoing what is known as the nuclear option which is a rule to say you can't filibuster presidential nominees. can you get them recruit with 51 votes. your side hated it. you're going to be in charge in a matter of weeks. are you going to stick with that rule or are you going to get rid

of it? obviously there are some people saying let's keep it in place and let the democrats get a taste of their own medicine. >> the worst thing about it is the way it was done. the rules of the senate requires 67 votes, a very high threshold to change the rules of the senate. very clear. senators a continuous body. it doesn't adopt rules at the beginning of every session like the house -- every congress like the house does. so what was done was the majority leader moved to change the rules in the senate and said you can't do it. he appealed the ruling and the chair overturned it with 51 votes. thereby setting a precedent that any majority at any time for whatever reason could change the rules in the senate. it's impossible to unring a bell so the precedent is there, regretfully. but your question is what do you do about it? and we're going to have an indepth, lengthy discussion on this on december 9th. we invite the our freshmen to come back. and there are points of view on

both sides of this. leaving the way it was done, there are those who argue this was the way it was until 2000. even though the rules permitted filibustering executive branch and judicial appointments. there are those arguing that put aside the way it was done, this is, in fact, the way it was up until 2000 when the democrats decided to start filibustering george w. bush's circuit court nomination. so i can't give you the answer to what we're going to do but we're going to have a discussion. >> you know, most people would agree at this point most important relationship in this town is now the one between you and the president. talk about what that relationship is like from your point of view. and how you think it evolves

now. >> we don't have any personal difficulties. in fact, i negotiated. some with argue the only bipartisan agreement that's we have with this administration involved by the vice president and myself. the vice president is not a free agent. he was allowed to do so by the president. the two-year extension of the bush tax cuts and december 2010 the budget control act and august of 2011 the fiscal cliff deal. and news of 2012 were all bipartisan negotiations. so i don't have any fundmentaal negotiating. when you look at the way the president reacted to what could only be described as a butt kicking in the election, you know, maybe you could explain away us winning red states for senate races. how do you explain the governor of maryland, the governor of

massachusetts? the governor of illinois? by any objective standard, the president got crushed in this election. so i've been perplexed by the reaction since the election, the sort of in your face dramatic move to the left. so i don't know what we can expect in terms of reaching bipartisan agreements. that's my first choice to look for the things that we actually agree on if, there are any. at least on trade, i think there's a potential for agreement, trade agreements are more popular in my conversation than they are in the democratic -- than they are in the democratic conference. comprehensive tax reform. we all think it ought to be done. so fate president's view has been that he wants a trillion

dollar ransom to do it. in other words, he wants a trillion dollars in scorable revenue for the federal government as a condition to do comprehensive tax reform which reagan and tip o'neill agreed would be revenue neutral to the government, from a congressional budget office point of view. that's, you know, we're not going to pay a trillion dollar ransom to do something that would make the country more competitive. certainly need to do it. want to do it. but we don't -- are not going to under any circumstances give this administration a trillion dollars more in revenues as a condition for doing it. >> to the people in this room who want corporate tax reform, what do you tell them the chances are that you get from here to there in the next two years? >> i would tell all of you to lob i didn't think president to agree with us what the purpose of this all is. to make america more competitive.

you know, they've already gotten plenty of tax increases. i mean we've had a tutorial in the last six years over spending, borrowing, taxing and overregulation. on the front page of your paper today, points out how much regular americans are falling behind. we know this stuff doesn't work. we've had an experiment here for six long years. if the president wants to make the country more competitive, the single best thing he can do would be comprehensive tax reform. you notice i keep saying comprehensive. it will be tricky if not impossible to convince my members that you get a rate down here and pass throughs get a rate up here. so i think there are two things that we really ought to have an understanding about at the beginning. but large and small businesses should be treated the same. and that it ought to be revenue neutral to the government. if we have those kinds of understandings before we start down this path -- >> but you can sort it out from personal tax rates, right? >> the president wants higher rates, my point of view, we would have the same type of rate for everybody. but at the very least, we don't think big businesses should have

a tax rate down here and pass through businesses have a tax rate up u here. >> the other thing that people would ask for from washington is please stop the unpleasant surprises, no more government set back scenarios, give us predictability, no more market rattling events. can you give us assurance on that point? >> i have made it very clear, the day after the election, no more government shutdowns and no default on the national debt. we need to quit rattling the economy with things that are perceived by the voters as disturbing. having said that, there's still a lot of change that the people

would like to see and the president is going to have to -- there's no way to work around the president of the united states. i like to remind people he's the only person in the country who can sign something into a law and get the members of his party to make a deal. we are having a firing squad in the wake of the last election. regardless of what action the president takes, there are 12, 15 democrat who is wanting to get back to normal and who seem

to me to be more willing to do that even when the president doesn't want to do it. >> although that center got a little wiped out in the last election, on the democratic side? >> look at the vote on the keystone pipeline. this might surprise all of you in the room, the most calls i got from senate democrats were happy at the last election, they said they were happy that we were going to get back to normal and that people were going to be honored and people would be

encouraged to share their ideas. if you look at the keystone pipeline vote, i think it's a core of the senate democrats who don't like dysfunction, who think we ought to work together to achieve at least what we can agree on. >> you know, one of the questions at the moment is whether you can convince your caucus to fund the government between now and the end of the fiscal year in september. there's a conservative group that downtown want to do that because they think that the budget is leverage against president obama who has done this executive order on immigration. >> in the short-term, the senate will be in a reactive role. i mean, we're going to support what the house republicans send over to us. next year, we'll be co-equal partners on that issue. i think what -- i think other members are going to be supporting that. >> talk about immigration, you mentioned it earlier and the president's executive order has royaled the waters, but your centers passed comprehensive immigration reform a couple of years ago, is it possible now? is that what you seek? can that be done in this environment? >> if you'll allow a historical analogy, a guy named henry clay

tried to hold the country together before the civil war. we had new territory all the way to the pacific. a lot of potential new states which always raised the issue of whether they're going to be slave states or free states. clay cobbled together a whole lot of compromise a whole lot of other things. the senator from illinois took it apart and every piece of it passed separately, and only five senators voted for every piece. why this point? i think what's made it really difficult for the congress to swallow is the comprehensive nature of the way it's been presented. our democratic colleagues in the senate, who suspect this is the

case in the house, or focus like a laser on one issue, and that is that people who are in the country no matter how they got here, and what happens to them? what's their status? there are a whole lot of other aspects to this that are part, as the proud husband of an immigrant who came here not speak english, i'm a big supporter of legal immigration. the legal immigration system is a pretty big mess. what i think we ought to do is bust it up, pass as much of it as we can. starting with border security, which is a way of reassuring the american people that we're not going to have another calamity like we have had. and the speaker will have to give you his take on it. but i would bust it up, if i were -- h2a, ag worker provisions, e-verify and some of the other things we can get pretty broad agreement on, open it up for amendment, but i don't know what the fate for senate democrats would be. but put it on the president's desk, a bill that proves we can strengthen immigration. >> i want to open it up to

questions if somebody's got one. if not, i'm happy to keep rolling here. health care, there were questions earlier about the affordable care act. you're a big fan of the affordable care act. and there was a repeal affixed to debate. how do you view the affordable care act? >> i think you're joking. it's the single worst thing we have passed in the last century, and it's the biggest step to europeanize america's health care. but the chances of the president signing a full repeal are pretty limited. there are parts of it that are extremely toxic for the american people, the elimination of the 40-hour workweek, the medical device tax, the health insurance tax. you can anticipate those types of things be voted on in the senate. such votes have not been allowed in the past. who may ultimately take it down to the supreme court of the united states. it's a very significant case that will be decided before june

on the question of whether the language of the law means what the language of the law said, is that subsidies are only for states who set up exchanges, >> i think you're joking. it's the single worst thing we have passed in the last century, and it's the biggest step to europeanize america's health care. but the chances of the president signing a full repeal are pretty limited. there are parts of it that are extremely toxic for the american people, the elimination of the 40-hour workweek, the medical device tax, the health insurance tax. you can anticipate those types of things be voted on in the senate. such votes have not been allowed in the past. who may ultimately take it down to the supreme court of the united states. it's a very significant case that will be decided before june on the question of whether the language of the law means what the language of the law said, is

that subsidies are only for states who set up exchanges, many states have not. if that were to be the case, i assume that you could have a mulligan here, a major do-over of the whole thing. if that's something that's mitt mitigated through the supreme court. >> one more question and we'll have to let you get out. one of the imminent questions is whether is going to give the president a new version what's called the -- the who is seems likely to ask for that. is it going to be granted and how difficult will that be to work through congress. >> there's a bipartisan desire in the congress to pass an aumm. i think the administration was less interested in that than we

were. i think we probably will. it looks like this is going to be a long-term engagement at some level by us, i think it's appropriate for the congress to weigh in and i expect that we will. >> how open ended, how long-term is that going to be? >> we'll see, that's a very complicated issue. as recently as earlier this year, the president was calling us the junior varsity, it's clearly not a junior team, it's an nba team, with some serious threats and implications for our country. >> are you optimistic that this can be a bipartisan issue? is it becoming a bipartisan issue? >> there are people on both sides of the aisle that feel that benign neglect is not going to lead to a good outcome. that we'll have to have some level of american involvement, probably a big discussion about how much vomt. but i don't think we can ignore

groups that make it clear they want to kill us by beheading american citizens and making sure we see it. >> you have been kind to take a break on a busy week and a busy day. hopefully we can do it as time rolls on next year. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> first you will hear from senator rand paul and then remarks by the panel's outgoing chair. they also spoke tuesday at the wall street journal's ceo council annual meeting here in washington d.c. >> ladies and gentlemen, if i may ask you to -- divert your attention from your colleagues and your neighbors and lunch and have your attention, please, thank you very much. i want to welcome everybody.

i am the editorial page editor of the wall street journal, responsible for the fun parts of the paper. the opinion pages. we have a session today on the changing politics of foreign policy. it is in two parts. first i am going to talk to senator rand paul who is seated then we are going to talk with the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, bob menendez of new jersey. we are going to try to get you all into it. lots to talk about given the turmoil around the world. i want to first welcome senator paul, senator from kentucky, elected in 2010, ophthalmologist before he entered the dark arts of politics. making a name for himself in the united states senate right from the start. you have been, i think, making a

name for yourself on foreign policy and national security. critical of the iraq war, certainly. and i think parts of the way the afghanistan war has been prosecuted, though you supported that from the beginning. and critical of your own party on occasion. where do you think the republican party has gone wrong? >> there is a little bit of blame to go around on both parties. if we put this in terms of where we are right now, the biggest thing that has occurred to me is that congress has abdicated its role in the declaration of war or war-making. our founding fathers saw one of the great responsibilities of congress was to debate whether we go to war. we have been back at war in the middle east and they are using the justification of a war resolution or all three should -- or authorization of force

from 2011. no one really purports that isis attacked us on 9/11. they are now enemies of al qaeda . this didn't cousins of al qaeda did attack us on 9/11. we have a loose definition and no oversight. our founding fathers thought it was really important that this power go to the legislature. madison wrote that the executive branch was the branch most prone to war, therefore we have vested that power in the legislative branch. if i would say what is wrong, it is the abdication of the role of congress. when they talk about the separation of powers, madison wrote that the separation of powers would work because we are going to divide the power but then we will pit the ambition of one branch against another. the ambition we have should be enough to check the other branch. we have gotten so far away from that that we may not ever have a vote on the use of authorization of force for the new war. i recently introduced a

declaration of war to try to shake them up a bit, to say, this is our responsibility. >> one of the presidents you have praised his ronald reagan. if you look at the course of his presidency, he used for several times abroad without authorization from congress. there was the bombing of libya. there was the invasion of granada. there was the reef lagging of ships in the gulf, all of which were controversial. he didn't get authorization. are you saying that anytime time a president uses force, he must get an affirmative vote from congress? >> if you look at most of our history, they would say the commander in chief definitely

has the power to repel imminent this has now been dumbed down to the extent of being almost farcical. i had a conversation with the president about a year ago and repeated back to him what he said in 2007. he said no president should unilaterally go to war without the approval of congress unless he is under imminent attack. i said, what happened libya? he said, benghazi was under threat of imminent attack. i said, really? you meant imminent attack of a foreign few on my side have been very good at discerning congressional authority, and nobody on the other side has. >> are there any instance other than repelling attacks? >> there would also be instances of minor military skirmishes that would occur. i would also say that when people use reagan as an interventionist, we actually weren't involved in

that many wars. when we did get involved in the middle east, he thought twice about it and came home. >> but he deployed those troops without the permission of congress. >> i'm not saying that reagan was perfect, but for the most part, if you make the argument back and forth, what is historical nature of how foreign policy should be conducted, if you look at weinberger's doctrine, he says that when troops are involved, there should be congressional authority. >> i hear you saying that if you were commander-in-chief, you would want to go to congress to get an affirmative vote. to say, back me up on this >> i don't think anybody can give a blanket answer to every possible instance. i can give you an answer to the

current one. when it became clear that isis was a threat to our consulate in irbil, to our embassy in baghdad, i would have come before a joint session of congress and ask them for permission to declare war on this group. i would have gotten every vote. i'm not going to apologize for this. if i'm ever commander-in-chief, i will not want to take the country to war. it will be the last resort and only when the country says, we are united and says we must fight and will fight. it won't be eagerness on my part. in this case, i see that there is a threat to american interest. i would have voted for force and will still vote to use force against this group because i think they are a threat. >> let me change the subject to another one, surveillance. recommending limits on what the nsa has done in collecting metadata.

you voted in fact, you were one of our republicans who voted for the bill that failed, mainly because your party, all but four of you, voted against the bill. it would have put new restrictions on the pfizer court review process and barred the collection of the nsa of metadata. you were with president obama on that. where were your republican colleagues wrong? >> many people >> many people say, these are just business records. these are just boring old business records. what do you care about metadata? metadata is your visa bill. i can tell whether you drink, whether you smoke, and how much. i can tell what doctors you go to see. two stanford students put an app on a phone and asked students to volunteer. all they got off the app was your phone records. how long you spoke and who you

spoke to. they could tell 85% of the time what your religion was. they could tell who your doctors were and what diseases you could have. they could tell one woman had a long conversation with her sister and then called planned parenthood. the government has no right to look at your records unless they have suspicion or probable cause you committed a crime. it is not that hard to get a warrant. we wrote the fourth amendment for a reason. the constitution isn't about restraining the people, it is about restraining the government. when i look at the nsa program and they tell me they wrote a single warrant with a guys name on it, verizon, they got 100 million phone calls, that is antithetical to everything i understand about american

freedom and i will oppose it until my last breath. >> yet the reform that you voted for would have allowed those -- >> actually i didn't vote for >> it was whether or not -- >> i didn't vote for it. i voted with republicans but for a different reason. i voted against it because it reauthorizes the patriot act. one of my main objections to the patriot act, there is a section, section 213, where they sneak and peek in your house without announcing they have ever been in your house. people say, we must do something let's give government authority. do you know what they are using it for? 99% of the time, for the war on drugs. do you know what happens with unannounced raids? look at the baby in atlanta. they threw a concussive grenade into a crib in 1:00 in the it was the wrong house. people say, we have terrorism, then it is a slippery slope.

i object to that. >> there are people who would argue, there is not one documented case we found of real abuse. individual staffers were punished for sneaking a look at one account or something, but nothing systematic. nothing serious in terms of abuse of that authority. meanwhile, one of the things that was in the bill would have allowed google and private collectors of data to keep that metadata. >> they own the data. google is not going to put me in jail. the whole internet is based on information. i give up privacy all the time voluntarily. google and facebook are not putting me in jail. i object to saying google and the government are somehow the same. they are completely different. there is an argument to be made. the argument is that these are

good people. by and large, they are good people. here is what madison said about government. the reason we restrain government is because if government were always comprised of angels, we wouldn't have to worry. i don't feel we have to limit the nsa's power because of one bad person but i do object to the accumulation of power for the danger of abuse. i will give an example. in 2011, we passed legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of an american citizen. that goes against everything that is fundamental to our country. this means an american citizen could be sent to guantanamo bay without a trial forever. yeah, if they're dangerous. who gets to decide who is dangerous and who is not? the president signed it and he

objected to it also. he said, i object to it but i'm never going to use it because i'm a good person. even if you love this president, who is going to be the next president? it always is about the restriction of power. to me, it is incredibly the potential for the abuse of collecting of metadata is one other example, there was a former head of one of the security agencies. he says, metadata, we kill we kill foreigners based on metadata. they can find out a lot through metadata. i'm concerned whether they abuse it or not. i think the idea of bulk collection goes against the individual nature of the fourth amendment, the particularity argument of it. i think our founding fathers

would be horrified to know that all of our phone records are stored in utah. >> going back to reagan, one of his watchwords was, peace through strength. he presided over an enormous buildup in defense spending. the current trajectory of defense spending is down to below 3% of gdp. which is going to be as low as it was back in before 1941. would you support a significant increase from current levels in the defense budget and do away with the sequester? >> i absolutely support the concept of peace through strength. i think the most important thing the federal government spends money on is national defense. you can't rely on state governments. you can't rely on corporations. you have to have a national

defense. when i look at priorities, national defense is the number one priority. looking at dollars spent, i always say a priority. with regards to the sequester, the last budget we produced, we have a five-year budget that balances, eliminates the military sequester, and spends money above the military sequester. but we do eliminate five departments of government. if you want a strong defense, but if you run up an $18 trillion deficit, then i think you may the country weaker. i will spend as much money as i can get out of congress, however i won't run up another $10 trillion in deficit. so it has to be done by cutting other parts of government. >> so you are saying that if you can't politically succeed in cutting five departments of government, which has not

succeeded during my lifetime, you would not be in favor of an increase. >> i think that twists my words. i am in favor of a strong national defense. >> i'm not trying to twist your words. >> i think it is a mistake to acknowledge that you are going to admit defeat. this is the reason you can't. there are people on our side. there are conservatives who are, i'll spend anything and i don't care if it bankrupts the world. we have got to have it. that is wrong. you will be a weaker country. i truly believe the number one threat to our national security

is our debt. we are borrowing a million dollars a minute. i am not all in no matter what. we spend what we can from what comes in. we bring in $3 trillion every year, we spend $3 trillion. that is very simple. everybody understands that. we do nothing rational in washington. it is bankrupting the country. i think it threatens us and makes us weaker. i want to be clear -- >> you think the current levels are adequate, for do we need to increase at some point? >> i think it is a mistake to say, we are going to spend 4% of gdp or we are weak. if you are going to protect the country, you have a strategic vision.

if tomahawk missiles are important, we need to have a discussion with our military folks, how many do we need for next year? we don't breed aside that we are going to spend -- pre-five that we are going to spend 3% of gdp on this. what i have done in the past is, my five-year balanced budget eliminated the sequester from the military, of our military spending to grow out of the sequester and did so while balancing the budget. that is my preferred vision. if we want every song again, we should balance the budget and spent on military defense. >> okay. let's take a topical issue that you addressed earlier, isis and the president considering a proposal to put a safe haven for the syrian rebels in syria with the help of turkey, and u.s. bombing to enforce it. good idea? >> the syrian rebels? i read a good description.

i don't mean to be flippant but that is the best description i've read. a former cia agent said the only thing moderate about rebels is their ability to fight. they have been a conduit for giving weapons to isis. i voted against arming these people because the ultimate irony is, we will be back here fighting against our own weapons within a year. i was found to be correct. we are going back to the middle east, which i support begrudgingly. i think it is a mess there and it's never going to end. but we are going back in and we are fighting against our own weapons. 600 tons of weapons went into syria in 2013 alone. those weapons, many found their ways into the hands of isis. i don't think there are any

moderates there. 2 million christians are on the other side of the war. we shouldn't be involved in it. the only reason i am forgetting involved in there, is because we have an embassy and a consulate which should be defended. >> how do you defeat isis if you allow them to have a safe haven inside syria? >> isis will never be defeated until the people who live there decide to rise up and say this is a barbaric form of islam. that would be the turks rising up, the iraqis rising up. the thing is, we have to question if there is one overwhelming truth that cannot be disputed by the facts, it is this -- every time we have toppled a secular dictator, it has been replaced by chaos and the rise of radical islam. look at hillary's war in libya. what has happened?

it is chaotic there. hillary was the biggest promoter of getting involved in the syrian civil war. libya is an absolute disaster. you had qadhafi, but you had some stability in libya. now that he's gone, our ambassador is assassinated. our embassy has fled into tunisia. libya is now chaotic. there are jihadist groups running amok. to those republicans who love a republican intervention, iraq is worse off now. do you think we are better or worse off with hussein gone? there was more stability under hussein. there was more stability under him. and iraq was able walk against iran -- a bullwark against iran. you had a geopolitical stalemate.

now, we topple hussein, iraq is a huge mess. a year ago, many on the side of intervention wanted to bomb assad. if we didn't do it -- had we bombed a side a year ago, who do you think would be in damascus now? isis. isis has become stronger because of our involvement in the syrian civil war. intervention has unintended consequences and we have to be careful and think about what we are doing. >> i want to open this up -- >> we and our allies gave 600 tons of weapons. qatar and our allies and the saudi's together put 600 tons of weapons into syria. most of it wound up in the wrong hands. i think we are worse off for it. >> do i see any questions out there for senator paul on anything regarding foreign

policy or any other subjects? we have one right here. >> the question is regarding iran. i guess we now have the second extension. your colleague will be on later. he has great concern over that second extension. >> so do i. one of the interesting things that has come out in recent weeks has been netanyahu's response to this. he thinks extension is a good thing. that will may be some of the

debate. i think we need to and should do everything we can to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon. that includes the threat of force. i do think the sanctions -- and i voted for every sanction that has come forward in the senate -- the sanctions have brought them to the table. i think it would be a mistake to push them away from the table. if you institute sanctions again right now, there is a very good chance the international coalition will collapse. i think also that there is a certain bit of irony for the group that believes in virtually on unlimited power for the president but they want to circumscribe the president's capacity for diplomacy. i think sanctions do have to come before congress but i think it is a mistake to pass new sanctions in the middle of negotiations, particularly if they start out with something that is a nonstarter position for iran which is no enrichment. if you start out with no enrichment, there will be no negotiations. >> anybody else? right here.

>> in europe, the russian-ukraine crisis seems to be more important than here in the u.s. how important do you think this is for the u.s., and what went wrong, and what could be a solution? >> i thought we said no hard questions. [laughter] i'm not sure there is an easy answer to your questions. i agree that because of proximity, europe sees this in a heightened way over the way it is seen here. i don't think it would be correct to say that we don't see it as important. if you are talking about international order and trying to look at an international civilized and stable world, allowing one country to invade the integrity of another is an enormous step that words and a real problem. that being said, it is difficult to understand. even when the most hawkish members of political parties here are not advocating sending

military troops, i think there are ways of talking about and introducing either defensive arms, weapons, and/or money into ukraine, that could bring russia to negotiating on this. i think also trade is an important part of this. i think trying to get independence or having other alternative sources of gas would have less dependency. people fail to understand that dependency goes both ways. russia requires foreign capital and continuous trade. while europe could be heard by cutting off natural gas, so will russia. i think there are limitations to it. i'm not sure what the easy answer is. i think part of it, when you have an analysis of the current president, when the current president sets redlines and doesn't adhere to them, that may

encourage other people to step through when he tells others not to step across a certain line. i think there has been a certain fecklessness in this president's foreign policy that may have encouraged these transgressions. >> i want to ask you a practical political question. there have been some rumors that you may be considering a run for the white house. i assume that you will probably announce sometime next year if you are going to do that. i asked a lot of republicans about your candidacy. here is what they tell me, they say, fascinating person saying interesting things about the party needing to reach out, but i don't think he will ever make it out of the primaries because of his foreign policy positions and security positions. a super pac will take your positions and hit them one after another and you won't survive.

that's a practical question. >> i think the thing is that, that fails to understand the people in the country. it also fails to understand who i am and what i support. i grew up as a reagan republican. peace through strength is something that i believe viscerally. do i believe defense is the number one thing? absolutely. anyone who wants to say otherwise will have to argue with the facts.

they asked americans, do you agree more with john mccain and more intervention or with rand paul and less intervention. i have budget plans to get rid of the military sequester. people have to argue with the facts. people want to call names or say this or that. in iowa, they ask ordinary republicans who live where i live in middle america. they ask them, they put it in general terms, they said, do you agree more with john mccain and more intervention, or do you agree more with rand paul and less intervention? i think that is a great way to put it. i'm not talking about all or none. i think we do have to intervene with isis. but i do believe less. we have been everywhere all the time and we are about the bankrupt our country. i want less. mccain wants more. he wants 15 wars more. the thing is, there is a more

and a less argument. in iowa, 41% agreed with me. this is not a small movement, nor is it easy to say that people like myself who believe in less intervention can be characterized as people who don't believe in strong national of the world that we will never tolerate being attacked. and, i'm right there. with most of america and most of the party. but i'm not there when you tell me tha we need to have boots on the ground. i'm not there. >> how about four? >> i'm there for even a number. if you said a number, i think there's a problem. also, if you tell me there's a tril yoen dollar deaf sit and spend 4% of gdp, i'm not with that. unless you're going to pass a budget to eliminate everything else. there can't be one or the other. there has to be fiscal sanity with what we do. >> all right, senator paul, thank you so much for being

here. i appreciate it. thank you. >> senator robert menendez now joins us. senator menendez is chairman of the form relations committee. senator from new jersey appointed in 2006, i believe and then served consistently in new york city and of cuban imgra immigrants who arrived here the year before you were born. do you feel times that you've switched political

parti parties. >> no. i have a great deal of respect for senator paul. i thi your poignant line of questioning to senator paul is when is strength appropriate. after serving 22 years sitting on the house or foreign relations k34i9 trelatio relations committee i've come to the conclusion that weakness invites provocation. that is a global message. it's a message if you're dealing with the russian invasion in ukraine. it's dealing with china in the south china sea, in conflicts with japan and south korea.

we always seek to use diplomacy. and we always seek to use economic inducements, whether positive or negative, to get a country to act a certain way. but the ability to have political strength is important at the end of the day in order to back-up those actions whether they be economic or diplomacy. and i truly believe weakness invites provocation. to me, putin is an admirer of peter the great. the reality is if you look at president putin's speeches over the last two years, he has basically involved with other speeches. so when it comes to ukraine, which is very significant for

the yukrainian people, if the order can be ebded without consequence, then other international actors will say what did the united states and the west do to russia in terms of invading a sovereign country without provocation and if the answer is not much, then you will see what that allows them to do. >> has, since we're on russia and ukraine, has the response from the west be adequate that you put to the global order in the ukraine? >> i would hope what we began to do with the europeans, which is

important, can be denounced early on. when you see russian troops, surface tanks and a host of vehicles cross from one country to another, to me, where i'm from, that's an invasion. >> so you have an invasion taking place. and then you have the cease fire and now you have a second invasion taking place. you see the annexation of cry meal ya. crimea and now you see the eastern part of ukraine being pursued by russia. they probably want to make that land bridge to make crimea a total success. i and my committee voted 18-0.

i've e eve worked very hard to make that the case. in particular, our bipartisan ship is incredibly important to make a stand. >> and sanctions, you know, russia is an extracted country. it relies upon its extraction, particularly of oil. and with oil so low, the group will have to fall dramatically.

today, their announcement that they will probably go into recession, this is a critical moment. what stops north korea, which is an enormous challenge to the yiet. what stops the iranians in the midst of a negotiation. at the end of the day, the west won't do very puch. there is a global consequence to what we do. >> to give any lethal aid to the crew yanians, beyond anything that we would have given them, would make things worse. it would escalate the situation.

it would make putin more incl e inclined to react faster. what's your response to that? >> my response is we haven't done anything, nor has the ukraine, to provoke russia. russia and prksz utin will calculate their potential losses if they go forward. at the end of the day, i think it's a sad commentary that we would not give a sovereign country who is looking to the west, the ability to defend them. at the end of the day, you have to have a liability. as to the bipartisan basis, as for every member who voted 18-0

to give the ukraineians the where with all in themselves. i e. >> i would hope that in the close days, that's the most this year. at the same time, there's an attempt to extend the loans. i look forward for the opportunity for that to happen. >> let's turn to isis and the syrian campaign. you were one of those against going to war with iraq in 2003.

and, now, we have a democratic president taking the country back to war, not in the same way, but certainly con flikt back in iran. you heard senator paul talk about the need for congressional authorization. do you agree with that. let me take the premise and then get to the heart of your question. >> first of all, when we were struck on september 11th, and i loz e lost hundreds of people in november noef new jersey.

that's where we needed to fight. if i believe the cause is right, i will send my son or daughter. if i believe the cause is not right, i will not send my son or daughter, nor anyone else's. at the time, it indicated to me that there was no evidence of mass destruction. no clear and present danger to the united states. no imminent threat and we were going to take our eye off the prize, which was bin laden and al-qaida.

>> i think the nation is stronger. the wourld is more cohe's ef eive when they know we are acting together. and i think creating limits is incredibly important because a 2001 authorization is openly broad.

i want to make sure that we succeed against isil before it has the capacity of september 1 th. i don't wish it to be alone enough to succeed. that's one of the critical elements against our strike. >> we may need to introduce ground troop not just as trainers, but as targeters with local troops on the ground.

and so it was at a critical moment after the authorization on a military force on a bipartisan basis. too agree on the use of force. now, whether you're being killed with mechanical weapons or not doesn't really matter. but as it relates to spotters and maybe even special forces.

at the end of the day, you have to make a determination. how that evolves is a question to be listened to. >>. >> would you support the president on this idea of a safe haven? >> that needs to be fret out. that's a very significant. and that requires a lot more than the united states.

with a use of force resolution against isis pass in the senate? and would a majority of democrats vote for it? >> i think how it's structured is going to be incredibly important. but i know in the senate democratic caucus, there was a strong appetite to have an authorization for the use of force well structured that would give the president the where with all to fight isil but not create an open ended set of circumstances based on the 2001 aumf which many people think has become openly broad and taken us to many places in the world. >> why don't we open it up to anybody having any questions here for senator menendez about his party or the conduct or

foreign policy or, for that matter, anything else. >> senator, one of the responses on sanctions in russia and the possibility that either things will change or there will be a post-putin russia. how do you promote flexibility to the bill so that one can respond to the situation with russia itself? >> i think that's a good question. rjs e. >> in there, we create the opportunity to respond changes in iran's position.

and i would think that you would do the same thing on a different set of circumstances. for russia to stop its aggression, particularly now in the face of ukraine. if it observes, it's not for the amount of punishing russia in a permanent basis, it's an international order. >> anybody else have something? >> yes, right over here. senator, on iran, why do you

think given all the support that the entire senate was 98-0, was there so much resis tense on the part of the administration when you have that much support to pursue that very policy. where do you think we go from here? >> when i was a member of the house foreign relations committee, then u.s. voluntary contributions to the economic national administration were going to what? was going to help create operational capacity not in the national interest or security of the united states.

i had to follow it for the course of 20 years. the only reason is because of the sanctions. and consequences to its economy. i read a lot of expectations, but the reality is iran and it's going to decide whether an agreement can be reached or not. for the iatolla, the question is regime change. is this to ultimately change the regime in iran? or is it really about stopping a path towards nuclear weapons.

>> what do you think he believes? >> if he believes -- >> it's a moot point. if he believes that regime change comes through settling economic consequences, then he will. i believe in the negotiations. we're all business people. you hope to be in the position of strengthening the government. and in making that deal, you don't want to portray that you want the deal more than the other side. if you want the deal more than the other side, the other side has a good sense of that, it's only a question of how far they're going to take you in that deal before mare e maybe the deal breaks or you're in a bad deal.

in the context of the iranians, we need them to understand that after 20 years of a global perspective has a consequence to it. if you want a peaceful nuclear facility in a country that has almost all the world's oil, supposedly for energy use, you don't build it underground. so the sanctions got them there. the problem is after a year of negotiation, what it seems to me

the only reason products have changed is because we have moved closer and closer to where the uranium is. we were told that the facilities had to be told. we were told that there's no right to enrich that's breath and scope and length of what it can hit. but it can hirt an ally in europe and under the articles of engagement. we are obligated on the hits with real concerns there. as i've traveled the reason, i've heard for many countries that have said to me that

chairman, if in fact iran is allowed to pursue nuclear weapons, we will pursue them as well. for all of these reasons, it is in the national interest of the united states to make sure that iran durnt achieve this. now, i believe that prospective sanctions, sanctions that go beyond where we are today and say if by march we have a new agreement, would move forward.

they continue to move their infrastructure development. they're getting billions of dollars of relief to create greater capacity. and we are weakening. we are weakening the reality. you see a mild growth taking place. you see business lined up to, you know, chomping at the bit to do business. and so the dynamics have changed. that's my concern. >> would you be willing to produce those additional sanctions in march? >> actually, i'm looking for an opportunity to do it well before then.

depending on how the authorization works. >> i would just simply say that every time i have led the sanctions on the table, i was told the same thing. is anyone going to do this willingly? no. i have to believe that there's a real consequence to not striking the deal. we will weaken ourselves to a point that the iranians believe there's no credible military threat on the table anymore. they will believe that the sanctions will be reimposed and then they will move forward.

when we continue down the pathd, at some time u when they're diminished to the point where we go forward, the only option will be a military option. and why should we wait for that moment when we know that's the only option. this is a good negotiating step. >> i think we have time for one more question.

>> the question is was it a mistake to engage ukraine in the possibility of entrance in to nato. that could be true for estonia and latvia. putin did this in georgia. he did it in muldova. you know, i think that for so long as you do not have offensive weapons along what is the eastern europe side assigned to europe. if you put offensive weapons, that changed the dynamics for russia. but so long as you're talking

about a defensive possibility, i'm not quite sure why that evokes, you know, putin's as. and so i think that for putin and his eurasia view and his russia view, ukraine is an essential element to them. it is not about defense or con sirn. i don't think it was a mistake to enter those negotiations. and i don't know which one of us is willing to suppress the also pragss of're people for the same reasons that we enjoy them in the united states.

>> fascinating discussion. thank you for joining us. [ applause ] welcome to the defense committee on the situation of iraq and syria and a threat posed by the islamic state.

a big welcome to our guests. an apology, firstly, to the general because his name tag is not included. so we apologize and thank you for coming. if i can just e please just begin with a relatively straight forward question. >> as the general said, i'm defense supervisor for the middle east. i think my fairly consistent theme about engagement in the

middle is i think there remains an extraordinary and respect and regard for this country and my very consistent message throughout my career, as i've spent a lot of time in the middle east, in areas of iraq, iraq again now, is the united

kingdom should remain very, very firmly engaged politically, diplomatically, militarily across the board. that is my major, major message. >> peter watkins. >> i agree with all of what simon says. >> our priorities are to have an alliance with the gulf states and central to the relationships whether it is providing training or close contact between the respective armed services. so in terms of your -- both the current inquiry, that is defense engagement is very much supporting wider political engagement with those countries. which in return is our strategy towards containing and defeating isil. >> little to add. quite a significant military hardware footprint in the gulf

region. yes, it is there to deliver security to the region. yes, it is there as part of a coalition including gcc counter iranian influence in the region but also wide objectives in security and otherwise. >> in terms of the resources, and parliamentary questions revel that military so far trained zero personnel in level four, expert level arabic and level three professional level arabic, do you really have the resources in order to fulfill these kinds of objectives and in particular, could you project on the comparison that french for example put in this kind of

activity. >> i would say we have the resources. this comes back to my earlier answer about the question about mind-set. but thinks in terms of decades and not years. and its mind-set is on policy that i think should on the basis of what i say this long historical connection we've got and we will go on inevitably. it is nondiscretionary in the arabic speaking world. and i think we have been neglectful. i say that as a country. i say that probably as an institution. i do think of french partners are more ruthless in using their military footprint around the world. and i could quote one or two

example where there is a highly professional french officers who have been deeply immersed in the intelligence language diplomatic steer. whereby i think they support wider french interest like that. so it is a common criticism but i hope as we move elements of the last -- some of the defense engagement issues, we will take into the next test. one of them is this acknowledgement. and we should be investing in the young generations of captains who will sit in front of house committees with rank

and experience and we have better tools in which do this diplomatic engagement. >> you give us a couple examples, can you give us the sense of the defense and a french position in the uae. >> well, the one example i've used many times just within the defense, a military training and one or two years of arabic training and egyptian staff college and three years in cairo, three years in ua and probably would have done three years if tripoli if hadn't been pushed out by the crisis in libya. and i just feel it isn't for everybody and there is an element of our armed forces that i think should be put on that mind-set. which i think is not -- we could do much better than the french. i think we just need a mind-set prepared to invest in it. and i united kingdom will be 6&%

much the better for the global footprint if we have a bit more regard for people. we have made a considerable investment over the last couple years in upgrading and improving our language. we moved our school, made a considerable investment in teaching and facilities. and though there aren't precise figures, we do train people in arabic. perhaps not as many as we should to the level you said, but we are making a major level in that respect. and simon alluded to what we are calling the -- and there is postings either serving in or related to particular parts of the world and can build you over their years. i don't want you to have the expression we are miles behind on this because we are not. >> the full figures that have

been achieved, in level four diary, and in arabic, nil and in pashtun one. i would suggest politely that we have a long way to go before we -- >> there are levels -- >> the level below. in level 3, speaking arabic and qualified as six. pushing back a bit more to learn about that. >>. [ inaudible ] can you give us a flavor of the trade-in and things that you have, and arabic for example? >> what are you doing through the job you've done is so fantastic. and the flavor of the kind of

training of the military. arabic training in 1985, it is that type of investment but i had been dealing with arabic. and the comment across many decades and nearly four decades in the military now that we have not seized in concept that we are still much loved and respected and renowned in the arabic speaking world and we would do well to argue back to peter, to invest a lot more. in parts of the world where defense of security we begin this access and privileged position which the united kingdom should be hugely ambitious. both in terms of opportunities that are responsibilities for threats. it is not something you can turn on overnight but actively to be

giving people the tools to move in that area. and inevitably, and go to a certain level, and the best arabic speaker of my generation. complete indictment. not a boast at all. and i think people in my ilk, 20 years time, we won't be dealing with the committee we are looking at today. just a process to start. and peter is right, absolutely his guidance and as your statistics show, gentlemen, it takes a long time to get to that level.

but you've got to start some day and you don't need to go with interpreters the whole time or just deal with those that can speak english to you. you can tackle things here. just swung through and huge intelligence gathering, but we don't have that. >> and given that, what sort of resource do we really have focused on iraq and syria? for example, what presence do we have of the defense section in northern iraq. do we have the depth of expertise to get a detailed understanding of the enemy. >> well we've had a defense section in iraq for a long time.

>> before that we did not have a defense section and in baghdad having responsibility for the -- >> would i be right in saying that the moment in which the islamic state mounted its defense, there was no defense section in iraq. talking in august. >> that is right. >> that is still a unitary state. and putting defense sections in the capital where they work with the other -- [ inaudible ] .

>> why have you now put the defense session in northern iraq if you didn't think it was necessary -- >> quite clearly, there was a lot more activity going in and around than before -- >> perhaps. >> -- >> do you think he might have been better equipped in august when the state advanced if you had like the americans had on the ground able to visit the front line. >> that was speculative. the speed and scale and all those months ago took many people by surprise. >> and there was not a defense section specifically. but the defense section took their responsibility wet kurds and were through -- we gave an

understanding of the situation. and it is not just a defense issue and understanding of situation prior to the isil advance. and it was something that what a cross government effort and we were -- there was information flowing from that and -- >> and would you like to reflect the resources, kind of resources we have and the enemy and the resources that we have before the resources we have -- >> we ended up with two very distinct military problems. they anticipated the klg and would be fighting and separate wars within throw weeks or less than that. and 1050 kilometer front line with a terrorist state and 15 kilometer front line with the rest of the iraqi state. so from that point of view that's why it became critical to

treat the area around baghdad and am bar and et cetera. as 1 military problem let alone a political or diplomatic military problem and actually then when we had to do our at about toast keep depesh in the fight -- i think overall, like the americans, since 2011, and in a combination of an american desire to get out of iraq and maliki inspired by iran to get

western influences out, i think we have a very good footprint across the region and in the ministries of defense we all understand and i'm sure people cover. and the politics in baghdad. i think in gathering the politics and keeping contribution to ist and our ability to move in and out of the ministries and various operational command centers so we know very well placed, i think we probably no less take by surprise in the iraqi government. >> a sense of where this is going, the focus today is on the middle east. but we're beginning to hear a wider threat. are we making sure that we're

aware of that threat and prepared should it grow. i'm thinking particularly in the border between pakistan and afghanistan. >> you mean a wider threat from violent islamic -- >> no, from -- >> from i.s.? >> yes. >> i can't say much about that. yes, there is -- there are, if you like rumors and speculation but there may be some sort of broader i.s. presence spreading toward the east. that is something we are watching very carefully. and i think i.s. is quite a big brand at the moment and therefore association with that brand is something that extremists might seek and that is something that we are seeing and not an enormous extent but

to some extent looking both east and west and the area you describe and areas of north africa. >> all of these are manifestations. some of them regional, cultural, of this extremist ideological and now the islamic state for the loyalty and the allegiance or baghdadi and what you talk about in pakistan and

afghanistan, is a manifestation of issues we've had in al qaeda and taliban areas and afghani. and through a slightly different prison with i.s. so the brand name which we picked up, and the arabian peninsula, is becoming a bit of i.s. in the fatah, i.s. in the saw hill. there is a bit of competition for that. which brand is most attractive. but the core of it is this very, as i said, the scale and the l velocity of the isis advance through the direction back then. that's what was surprising.

at least to be led by them and the mes angerers.

is that much better? likely, again, this goes back to preparing our armed forces than having a foot pript out there. precisely, i would say a unit for western countries, just to see that without the constant manifestations, i fear that this type of threat. it's absolutely a generational fight for the southern islam and the battle of ideals between extremism. >> my question is really about our preparedness. whether we're discussing the elements. we are learning as we're going along, making sure that we're

sharing it and there's an open door if it's, you know, in afghanistan, we're talking about a very limited group that's come in. and, indeed, pack staj e stan, should they need it. >> they've developed considerable excellence sills in this area. we have been working with the governments in the region to help them develop their communications, their messaging, working with moderate elements within islam and so on, so that we can gradual ly isolate the

isil brand. >> if we had large parts of the various different groups were to recoop under isil, one way or another, would that make them any more of a threat than they are a terrible group. >> the answer is no. i think this gets back to the idea that the threat you

described was general rated because, essentially, vacuum of governments, the countries in which this thrived weren't able to contain the threat from within. so a very strong, powerful part of assuring that it doesn't flare up again. that is in the area you described. and, as i said, it's in northwest africa and in other places around the world. this will never be a u.k.-only affair.

>> why are we intervening? >> because we believe our national interests are at stake. it would not be in our national interest for us to allow isil to pose a threat to the existence of iran. it would have not been in our national interest to allow isil to set up. so the answer is that it's not been in our national interest to allow them to take hold. >> so it's not in our national interest to allow people to come to cause any problems.

>> have we really described a pattern? coming back to saying it's an intense ll lly complicated issu. >> a complicated conflict. the other has been seeking to contain and eventually roll back

and defeet isil in iran and syria. it's about consolidating doing what we can do. this wasn't clearly established, but one of the reasons why is because of alienation about the sunnis. >> by which measure have we established that we are actually

making the suggestion less complicated rather than more complicated of being there. have you got a mission? >> well, there is a risk of exacerbating the effect and therefore, as we calibrate our activity we're very alive to that risk. there's an awful rot of polling in this country of the population that asks the view of their approach. there's no sign that there are activity, militarily, because that's when any radicalization is in this country.

meant to be nonnational interest, not just domestic. >> said right from the outset that this would be a long, drawn out process. it would not be done quickly. >> i'm trying to get to the reason why aren't we there. i mean -- >> you asked us how we were measuring what effect we're having. amidterms of the situation on the ground, the isil advance we saw in the summer has been largely stopped and in places, it's being pushed back. that is at the moment, if you like how one can measure, the success we've achieved so far, but we have never pretended this would be something we did qui

quickly or success by christmas. it was going to take months, if not years. >> i'm still trying to get to the reason why we think we should be there. >> i think if we lose iraq, frankly, it's natural, tehran and the iranian, then that historical competition between turks, persians, arabs, where the die dye gram is in the area, falls there. i think we have, we will end up with tehran, baghdad, demascus and beirut and a very, very large mass of completely disenfranchised sunnis, when in which they will both act as a catalyst of a sunni extremist and begin to feed those max.

in my mind and i've always been a staunch believe, it's holding iraq together and our measurement of success, you need a stars in line of the pressures, more pressures in that area. of keeping the city together in something that looks ewan tri with a piece of government. if we fail, if we lose that keystone, then the effect frankly from the borders of iran all the way through medici mediterranean will be disastrous. hugely pressurized. and to the fact that the success up to a point had in 2011. and i do think that syria is hugely complex, but i do genuinely think a well thought

through political military strategy in iran could be it. deliver us. actually pushed iraqi politicians into a position where even yesterday for the first time, we had the agreement between erbil and background, distribution over hydrocarbon. >> just one final question, which is given to the massive coalition, the number of partners international coalition, the truth is, there's one very big part. to what extent is the u.s. strategy and our strategy. >> we are not trying to solve

this problem on our own. we have particular objectives, national instances, the first one which is related to security around the country that we are trying to achieve. but fundamentally, we are trying to achieve those objectives through participation and international coalition, led by the u.s. so, to answer your question, we have seen consistency. >> could it be fair to say that when one looks at a situation, which is dominated by by militant shiites and sunnis and there are very few democrats involved, that there are no really good outcomes to be had. but some would be worse than others. so, would it be fair to say that

our strategy is one of containment rather than seeking after a victory, which as society you just implied, is rather difficult to find or visit? >> i don't think we have used the word, victory, because this is not a military campaign in a military sense. in terms of situation on the grou ground, a big step forward, which took place a couple of months ago and the result of that are beginning to come through with the emergence of what is a much better government in baghdad, which is beginning to undo the damage. the word, victory, in your written evidence, you talk about

three objectives and two of these certainly fit in to what i would call a sensible strategy of containment, which you haven't yet confirmed or denied is or should be your policy. one is disrupting threats to the u.k. mainland. another is mitigating the -- the other one is to say that national coalition -- violent ideology in iraq. that's not really achievable. >> i would disagree. it's not achievable quickly.

and we never said that it would be achievable quickly. initially, the strategy goes through a number of steps, initially, the strategy is a containme containment. again, i'd refer back to the rapid moves that we saw during the summer. but eventually, if we are to achieve the other two objectives, we need to do more than just contain is irk l. we need to push it back and seek to destroy it as an organization. >> ta means victory over isil. as opposed to long-term containment, which is probably a more practical end. >> well, long-term containment would be less successful than being able to roll it back and destroy organization, but that will take a long time. >> i'll leave it there. >> thank you.

>> we say that the military campaign is part of the strategy because indeed, the witnesses we've had on this inquiry so far have nearly all declined the lack of any such wider strategy at all, so can you explain a bit more about what it is and what it's components are beyond getting the government to be nor inclusive by asking it to be? if you like the era of what we're dealing with, one is to achieve a more inclusive government in iraq. we are going to see stom encouraging process now despite the considerable pressures that government has in terms of

seeking the outreach to sunni tribes and making a number of other steps, including to try to start undoing the institutional damage done to the iraqi armed forces. then the second political strand, which i would accept is more difficult because the situation is much more comp kalted, is to try to get a political process going in syria, that would lead to an acceptable government in syria and manage many of the same pressures. >> i think we understood that was the aim, but how is the u.k. going to make a contribution to achieve that? what is it doing? how does defense come into that and other areas of the

government's reach abroad? how is that happening? >> i'll start and then turn to my colleague. much of this is diplomatic. it is working in conjunction with the americans and regional partners and others to encourage and support the new iraqi government, which needs to encouragement and support of friends. it's also engaging and so on in the political process going in syria. the military contribution to that. is first containing isil because if isil is not contained, then these political processes will not have the space to develop and it is well, fundamentally creating if you like the s