or second us a tweet at #comments. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. now on efforts to combat isis in iraq and syria. deputy mckirk testified before the house foreign affairs committee about the obama administration's strategy and efforts to build a more effective national government in iraq. this is two hours and ten minutes. this hearing will come to order, i will ask those in the audience to take their skates at this time. this morning we welcome back

ambassador mcgirk who was one of the few sounding the itsis alar as early as you did. we were having hearings last february to discuss the need to use airpower to turn back isis. after four months of the u.s.-led air campaign in iraq and in syria, isis still controls essentially the same amount of territory than it did in the summer. and one of the reasons for this in my opinion is the limited nature of this effort. we have conducted only about 1,000 air strikes to date, to date. now if you -- if you compared that to when saddam hussein invaded kuwait, and the response on the part of the united states, back then, we had 1,000 sortes per day. so you get an idea in terms of

the response and how minimal it is compared to what we have seen in the past to deter an entity like this. moreover, the committee is concerned by reports that targeting has been micromanaged from the white house. this clearly has been an issue within the pentagon. but even with this flawed air campaign, kurdish and iraqi security forces have pushed isis out of specific key infrastructure areas, such as mosul and the haditha dams. they have shed more of their blood and more air attacks would mean more isis defeats. another parallel to the

administration's effort to pair -- but when we look at that program in syria, u.s.-backed groups have seen no increase in support in the past several months. in fact, the syrian groups have suffered from dire ammunition shortages in the last several weeks. we had meetings with a representative recently. they're out of ammunition. in addition to not being supplied with the heavy weapons they need to fight isis, and at the same time as they're fighting isis, for example on the border there, aleppo has isis on one side and 30, 40 air strikes a day, barrel bombs being dropped from the assad regime on their forces while they're trying to fight isis. in iraq, the kurdish peshmerga remain the most effective fighting force against isis, but the administration and baghdad have refused thus far to supply them with anything more than

light weapons as they go up against isis's tanks and tar tillry and of these and other heavy weapons. tragic event a couple of weeks ago, when you had a small squadron of peshmerga try to take on ten tanks or ten armored personnel carriers, ten pieces of armor that were put into play by isis against them. they only had small arms, and as a consequence, they called in for air strikes, but after 2 1/2 hours, it took quite a considerable time for these air strike to come in. they had been wiped out on the ground. this is why we have heard from the foreign minister, that the situation for the peshmerga, with their need for armor and for artillery, for long range

mortars, for anti-tank missiles, that unmet need has had very real consequences for them. i am hopeful that the recent accord announced between baghdad and irbill which i appreciate the administration has helped engineer, will speed support for the kurds. if not, the ranking member and i have an intention to do just that. 60 plus countries have joined the anti-isis campaign, some key partners continue to perceive the administration's strategy as misguided. t turkey for one has with held use of its air base, ground forces and other resources and the saudis and other arabs don't see how allowing assad to pummel those on the ground from the air in aleppo makes any sense. instead, they push of course for

a no fly area along the kurdish border where they suggest they and jordan can patrol that long-term to keep from having the presyrian forces hit from the air by assad if it's very time they're trying to fight against isis. meanwhile, there are grave security -- allowing isis to control an area of that size. there were 15,000 foreign fighters within isis and recordedly isis has been recruiting 1,000 new fighters per month. this is part of the problem of not turning back isis is that on social media, they use the argument that they're on the advance, they're carrying out their jihad and of course this resonates with certain young men who enlist in their cause.

this is why we would argue that a more effective strategy that would roll them back would hurt their recruiting effort. and these fighters, particularly with western passports, have the potential to attack us at home. as members may remember, when secretary kerry testified here in september, he said it's time for the defensive strategy we and our international partners have pursued thus far to transition to an offensive strategy. ambassador mcgirk, with a lack lurser air campaign, severely under supplied partners on the ground and key allies with deep concern about the president's strategy, i just don't see how this is a credible offense. and we would like to talk to -- i would like to ask you about that. and of course next congress, this committee expects to consider a new authorization for use of military force to support this effort and that is something we will do under a time frame that is befitting of

the gravity of the issue. and the committee also expects that the commander in chief will come to congress with his request and work in a bipartisan way to garner maximum support. before turning to the ranking member, i would like to note that is this is last full committee hearing of the 113th congress and we have accomplished a lot during the last 13 years of which i would like to recognize all the members for their contribution and for those members who will not be return, we wish you well and i was going to turn to mr. angle at this time whose long held observations on syria have proven prophetic. he has seen thing as they really were on the ground, frankly before many and suggested a strategy to engage isis before this committee some two years ago. while we wait for the ranking member, my suggestion then would be that we go, ambassador to

your testimony and after you conclude, he will make his opening statement. ambassador mcgirk. >> the ambassador recently served as the dep -- isil, working alongside general howell, he currently serves as the deputy assistant secretary for iraq and iran, he was previously senior advisors to ambassadors ryon rocker, christopher hill, and james jeffrey in baghdad. without objection, the witness's full statement will be made part of the record, members will have five calendar days to submit statements and questions and exstrain you materials for the record. >> it is an honor to appear again before this committee to

provide an upgrade on the global cam feipaign to degrade and def isil. i would like to reflect briefly in how far we have come in the six months since the city of mosul in iraq fell. i was in northern iraq on june 10, six months ago today when mosul collapsed. during the next 72 hours, other cities fell, isil's -- to the west, a lesser noted but equally devastating offensive took place from across the syrian border with isil capturing the strategic border city, isis then poured down the euphrates valley. in baghdad during this period, just six months ago this week, there was a growing panic within the population, the government, security services and the diplomatic community. at the embassy we prepared for the worst-case scenario and evacuated 1,500 people moving

them to amman, kuwait -- the president ordered four initiatives to hold the line and set the condition force a possible counter offensive. first we served intelligence over the skies of iraq, we went from flying o iningflying -- se established joint operations centers in baghdad and irbill restoring critical relationships with iraqi and kurdish commanders. third, we deployed special forces team with a focus on the defense of baghdad. and finally and perhaps most importantly, we supported the iraqis as they work to stachbtd up to a new and more inclusive government. throughout the summer months we work these four tracks sma

simultaneously -- while supporting the iraqi political leaders as they set up a new government. for all of these reasons on august 8, when the president first ordered u.s. military forces to conduct air strikes in iraq, we were able to act with precision and efficacy. one month later, the iraqi parliament -- new and different leaders across every cabinet position. including oil, finance and defense. this new government led by prime minister abbadi. first it's governing philosophy is decentralization or a functioning federalism within the constitutional structure of iraq. last week's historic oil accord with the kurdistan region is an outgrowth of this new policy. second the new government has committed to significant security reforms including a

smaller more agile army, strengthening security forces at the local level, including tribal forces and ultimately provincial based national guard. third, the government is submitted to a policy of restoring -- maintaining iraqi's independence. even in its first 100 days, the government has made agreement -- nonetheless, despite this progress, the challenge of this new government are truly enormous. isil has thousands of fighters controlling three major cities in iraq. the iraqi economy which had been growing at 4% per year is now predicted to contract due to falling oil prices. this new government despite the promise simply cannot defeat isil and stabilize iraq on its own. it will need the support of the united states and the world. that is why we will need a global campaign to prosecute an

effort against isil, last week in brussels, kerry held a -- common and shared commitment across five lines of effort. this conference for the first time formalized a global coalition to defeat and degrade isil. the lines of effort include military support to our -- humanitarian support and deal with -- we're now seeing progress along each of these lines of effort. on the military side, there are now seven countries flying combat air missions over iraq. as a result of these strikes, isil's offensive has been halted, it's ability to mass and maneuver forces degraded, it's leadership cells eliminated. in the past 60 days alone, iraqi forces have retaken ground at

mosul dam, and down baghdad. they have also held the line. efforts to generate additional forces, specifically 12 new brigades, will soon begin at multiple sites across iraq in cooperation from our coalition partners. in syria, coalition air -- massive isil assault leading to significant attrition of isil fighters. they are now losing 100 fighters per week including top commanders and p top foreign fighters. on combatting foreign fighters, we now have in place a chapter 7 security council resolution calling on all major states to send -- criminalizing foreign fighter related activities and in the past month alone, foreign fighter networks have been broken up in austria, malaysia and foreign fighters prosecuted

in germany and the usa. we're cutting the avenues of revenues and destroys isil's refining capacity. these efforts are now having an impact. on a humanitarian front, much has been done but far more is noted and this was a key focus of our conference in brussels last week. we have begun a campaign, fatwas issued from top religious leaders declaring isil a direct threat to islam, and other coalition partners are working to establish operations rooms to combat social media programs and messaging campaigns in real time. as president obama's envoys to the anti-isil coalition, we have viz it -- we have found the coalition strongly and firmly united. particularly when it comes to the way we interact. the situation in syria is more complex and our tools for the

moment more limited. general allen and i have a common set of questions about the best way forward in syria and also a divergence in how to proceed. many of our coalition partners have not envisioned themselves as -- ensuring such a transition potentially even more destabilizing than the situation we face now. at the same time, other coalition partners are urging strikes against the assad regime, considering the regime a central source of instability in the region. our message to all these partners has been clear. we believe there must be a political transition in syria through a negotiated political process. any future government cannot include bashar al assad which remains a magnet for terrorism in the region. a political transition will also require a strong counter weight to extremists like isil. that is why the department is leading an effort to modernize forces subject to funding from congress. this process of course will take

time and throughout we will constantly assess how we can ensure the moderate forces in the field are able to protect themselves against moderate threats cloug isil and the syrian regime. in conclusion looking back six months ago at this very hour, we have begun to make progress against isil, but i want to emphasize this will be a long-term, multiarea campaign. we are now in the earliest faces of phase one. as we move into a new phase, we will require ongoing support from congress. >> i think i will start with my questions and then when elliott arrives he can give his opening statement and i'll ask his and we'll go down the line. ambassador, as you know, the syrian city of aleppo is the last major city, the last refuge of the syrian middle class, it's

under the partial control of the moderate syrian opposition as it's pushed by isis. this is an absolutely critical city for the opposition, for both symbolic and strategic reasons. it is through this city that most foreign humanitarian and military assistance to the people of northern syria and the moderate opposition flows. yet over the past year, as the moderate opposition has struggled to maintain its defense of this city, as better resourced fighters from isis, as, you know, as many as 40 air strikes a day from the assad regime hit them, they have had to contend with assad's use of hezbollah fighters against them. and so you see a situation where it's sit has gradually captured more parts of city as have those who want to extinguish this last

representation of the syrian middle class efforts to hold on. and they're encircled. and they're defending it from within. and most observers agree that if aleppo follows out of moderate control, it will have catastrophic consequences for the free syrian army. so they're all right on the ropes after years of anemic support. when we meet with them, we hear from them the same thing that you hear from them, they can't get the equipment that they need to fight back against isis. so in late august, a team of state department briefers met with committee staff, which had requested a briefing of the situation in aleppo. the state department official said it was a question not of when it would fall, but ---it was a question of when, not if, aleppo would fall, a question of when not if aleppo would fall.

when our staff was asked if eliminating ---the state department said that the administration was still frying to decide if it was. which sounded like it was can diplomatic speak for no. and as events have played out over the past few months, it seemed clear that that was the case. isis continues to advance on aleppo, the barrel bombs continue to drop on the city and this is now on a daily basis. so ambassador, if we're serious about combatting isis in syria, we cannot let aleppo fall. it is far more strategically important than kobani, but all of our efforts are focused not in that area, but up in kobani. if aleppo falls, it's likely

that another mass waves of people and refugees and the syrian middle class would all but be destroyed. i will ask you, is preventing the fall of aleppo an administration priority? >> mr. chairman, let me address this question a few ways, we're very focused on the situation in aleppo. right now we are acting on requests from the iraqi government and the united nations security council to protect them against isil. so all of our kinetic operations in syria is focused on isil. on the aleppo situation, we're very focused on what we can do. that is why general allen and i have made about four trips to turkey over the last couple of months and the focus of the conversation with the turks is how we might be able to work

together to begin to improve the situation there, we're obviously doing a number of things with the moderate opposition, which i can't discuss here. but i can assure you that we're very focused on the situation and looking at ways to allow them to hold the line. aleppo, and surrounding areas, it's not so much isil. but what we're focusing on is isil targets, they can be very hard to find but we're looking at it very closely and our conversations with turkey specifically focussed on this question. >> that calls into question the fact that they're fighting al qaeda units as well, as you know, it calls into question our policy on safe zones. but my worry about the dithering on this is that we had these dialogues back in february on

isis at a time, frankly, we began this dialogue before isis even took falluja. we were calling for air strikes and action against isis before they managed to pull that off. and then city by city by city, the call went out to members of congress and others who had syrian experience, if isis wasn't hit while their columns were on the ground that mosul itself would fall. and it did. and they took the central bank. still no action, still discussion, still dithering and now we're at the point where we see the last major stronghold for the syrian middle class trying to hold off isis and hold off al qaeda on one front, and hold off the barrel bombs and we still can't seem to see any policy that will rescue the city and when our -- when we directly ask whether it's a strategy

steic effort, the response we get is we're still trying to decide. we can be still trying to decide after we are have lost the ability to reverse what's going on in syria, just as we lost that ability to reverse what was going on in western iraq because we didn't hit the targets prior to them taking mosul. so i -- anyway, my time is expired and we will now go to mr. sherman of california, we will return to mr. angleal. >> ambassador, interrupt me if i've got this wrong, but you're not saying that the u.n. resolution or the request of the iraqi government gives the administration legal authority under american law to deploy troops, you're relying on the various authorization to use military force. it's also my understanding that the interpretation is that they authorized the efforts that you have taken against al qaeda in

syria, that you have taken against isis, which is a splinter arguably, a continuing splinter, one of the many streams of al qaeda. do i have that right as to your legal position? >> international basis for operating in syria now -- >> i wasn't asking about your international basis. that is not legally binding. what's legally binding is the laws of congress. and you're not claiming that the u.n.'s actions or the iraqi actions give you authority under the war powers act. >> i'm saying the situation in aleppo is a very confused one, our ability to look closely at what's happening there is rimt limited to the fact that we're flying all the way from the gulf. and our focus right now is on isil. >> i was asking you about the legal position of the administration, it's authorize days to use force and -- you're not going to answer my question, so i want to go on to another question.

we have been pushed around by this iraqi government. we state offed it, you've pointed out, i believe that they may have taken baghdad, or might well have taken baghdad if it hadn't been for us. they are terrorizing the folks at camp liberty in clear violation of not only u.s. preferences but international law. they have allied themselveses with iran, with the iranian air force carrying out operations over iraq and iranian ground forces operating on the ground in conjunction with iraqi forces. and sometimes folks at to the upper levels of the state department don't focus that much on the money of the u.s. taxpayers. we're giving all this a tremendous amount of aid to iraq. whereas it's my understanding that iraq is still paying and still acknowledges arabia and

kuwait for tens of billions of dollars, borrowed by saddam hussein. have you bothered -- is iraq still making payments to kuwait and saudi arabia on that debt and does that therefore put them in a position where instead of paying for what we give them often we have to give it to them for free? >> as i mentioned briefly in my opening testimony, the iraqis face a very serious fiscal crisis. they're forcing a $40 billion. >> they face that fiscal because they honor the debts run up by saddam hussein. and i've brought this up at hearings for the last five years in this room. i've never gotten a straight answer out of the state department. figured i would try it again. >> i'll give you a straight question. the payments to kuwait are mandated. they come to a billion dollars a month. iraq is obligated to pay those

funds. >> those are payments on saddam hussein's debt? >> they're payments of the '90-'91 gulf war reparations. >> no, i'm not talking about the reparations. i'm talking about the money saddam borrowed to carry on his war against iran. the promissory notes and bonds. >> right. the iraqis resist paying, as you know, the debts of saddam hussein because the new iraqi government considers them also a victim of saddam hussein which is true. >> but they haven't renounced those debts. we haven't urged them -- >> we have. we urged over the last decade all the debt holders from the saddam era to renounce those debts. >> wait. you asked the debt holders -- but you haven't urged iraq to refuse to pay. it's one thing to ask the creditor, oh, please tear up the note. it's another thing to stand behind the debtor saying in effect we don't owe the money, we're not going to pay. >> we're doing anything we can to help the iraqis preserve

their fiscal resources right now. that's why we're working -- >> except stand up to saudi arabia and kuwait and void this debt, money they lent saddam hussein to carry on a war against iran. >> it's a slightly different issue. with kuwait, we're in very good discussions with them. secretary of defense just saw the amir about relieving those payments. so we are -- >> you're talking about completely different payments, sir. i'm talking about the debt -- >> they come from the same pot. they come from the same pot. >> okay. i hope for the record you'll brief us on what you've done to push the iraqi regime to honor its obligations to the residents of camp liberty and camp herb ra. >> i would be happy to come up and give you a briefing on that. of course the new iraqi government has been in place for 100 days and it is much different than the previous government. i would be happy to come brief

you on that. >> okay. >> thank you. >> we go now to the ranking member, mr. elliott engel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, thank you. thank you for your good work. mr. chairman, thank you for calling this important hearing on the fight against isis. though our military operation against isis is focussed in the middle east, the threat posed by this terrorist group spans the globe. recent reports indicate that isis is recruiting more than 1,000 foreign fighters every month. these fighters are streaming into syria and yaerk from europe, north africa, the gulf, the u.s. and other nations. most troubling some are returning to their home countries armed with the knowledge of how to sew terror. the good news is more than 60 countries have joined the anti-isis coalition together we're cracking down on terrorist financing, stemming the flow of foreign fighter, discrediting isis faults and violent iedology

providing military support to our partners. it's left hundreds of thousands without homes or families and a significant number including several european countries, australia, canada and a number of regional partners have worked alongside the u.s. military to impede its growth. we're making progress but nowhere near stamping out this threat. today i hope we can discuss what strategy will get us closer to the goal. i think there are a few areas that i think are especially critical. we need a global coalition, it's krits kal we engage closely with local partners, iraqi, syrian, curd. such cooperation is essential to stop the threat of isis and the u.s. does not bear a disproportionate burden in this fight. i supported a program to train and equip the syrian operation. congress voted overwhelming to get this program off the ground

and i look forward to hearing the status of this effort. we need to state clearly if there's no future for assad in syria and seeing assad go remains a top priority and the interests and goals of the united states simply don't align with assad and iran. assad is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of syrians. we also have the horrific pictures smuggled out of damascus by ceaser, a prafer, the syrian army defector. assad is a magnet of extremism. as long as he remains in power, courtesy of iran and hezbollah. we must determine and understand that the u.s. plays a unique role in this situation. our capabilities are unmatched. i understand that the american people are uneasy about getting more involved and the conflict half bay around the globe. i feel the same way. we're tired of war. we want to bring your men and women home.

we want to work with local partners is so important to help prevent future escalation of american involvement. but we must not forget in so many places around the world, freedom, dignity and justice are under constant attack and i firmly believe if the u.s. does not lead the way as a champion of these values no one else will. we believe in a world in which all people are free to decide their own futures and there are times when defending and advancing that vision requires difficult choices and sacrifice. that's what makes the united states the world's one indispensable nation. we didn't ask for this conflict but we cannot ignore it, so i look forward to hearing the questions and answers and the testimony and i want to ask as my first question, a question about iran. iran also wants to defeat isis, but reports indicate that iranian fighter jets were targeting isis in iraq. what involvement does iran have in iraq, both on the air and on the ground? what is their involvement with

the shia militias and how are they involved in the fight again against isil? it's happened once, we don't want it to happen again. >> thank you. there's no question that iran is playing a role in iraq. isil is a threat to iran and we have said that every country in the world has a role to play in defeating isil. the question for the iranians is whether they're going to do it in a constructive way or d n a destructive way. somewhat of what we're seeing right now in terms of iranian militias is not only problematic in terms of what we're seeing it's also problematic i know to the new government and also to ayatollah who has spoken out against any armed group operating outside the structures of the iraqi state. in the iraqi government made a commitment that was reaffirmed before 60 countries last month in brussels to assure that all armed groups are operating under the structures of iraqi state

and that's something that the government will be working on. but in the total security collapse we had this summer, there's no question that mili a militias and some armed groups filled that vacuum that iran has played a role in that and it's something that the new government will have to begin to work on. >> i just think -- i'll yield back, that we need to be very weary of iran. it's not simply the enemy of my enemy is my friend. i think we need to be very, very careful not to stumble down that path. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go to, chair of the middle east sub committee. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. good to have you back, ambassador. following up on mr. engel's questions regarding iran, secretary has stated quite clear tla the united states is not coordinating with iran on iraq and on the fight against isil. and in addition in your 15-page

testimony, you don't mention iran even single time, yet the regime clearly has a role that it is playing in iraq as you just stated. prime minister abadty has claimed no knowledge of the recent air strikes but iran has confirmed that it did carry them out. so, who currently controls the air space in iraq given that the iraqis don't have sufficient capabilities to maintain their own air sovereignty? and if no coordination had taken place and the iranians did, indeed, take this action into their own hands without coordinating, didn't iran violate iraqi air space? will there be any rep cushions from that? as we continue our nuclear talks with iran, we ignore multiple violations that iran continues to make as the talks take place. will this be yet another violation of iran that we turn a blind eye to?

secretary has called possible iranian action in iraq against isil as positive despite the fact that teheran's incessant meddling in baghdad and its stoking of sectarian tension in iraq and in syria has played a large part in the rise of isil. is it the administration's view that having a shiite iran the world's foremost supporter of terrorism, inspite of our nuclear talks, invade iraqi air space to attack sunni isil. does the administration view this as a positive development? on and syria, you testify that it is our goal -- not that it is an absolute necessity to find a future in syria that does not include isil or assad, as you stated in your testimony and that relying on moderate rebels to defeat them both and usher in a political settlement, will the assad regime being supported by

iran and russia as they are and with isil being so well financed, how will a group of rebels be able to defeat them both? and what would they need in order to accomplish that goal? the administration doesn't have a comprehensive policy to deal with all of the threats in iraq and syria and iran, nor does it seem to want one. these aren't realistic plans that can truly destroy isil, can defeat al news ra and defeat the assad regime. we haven't even begun the train and equip mission and we're about a year away from even standing that minimal force up, if ever at all. is that the case? where are we with that mission, sir? in my testimony, i did focus on the concern about the militias and prime minister's batty to reign those in, all armed groups within the structures of state. i also focussed on the desire of this new government to have

strategic independence in the in the region and that gets to his outreach to his arab neighbors and also the important outreach to on kra which is happening now which wasn't happening over the past few years. that's very important. iran is a fact in iraq. you have to look at a border -- at a map to see that with a 1,500 kilometer border. >> excuse me, sir, would you say that iran violated iraqi air space? >> i would to refer to my d.o.d. colleagues. >> if they did, would we -- would there be any consequences for that violation, one of many? >> well, it's up to the iraqi government to control its own air space. they lack the assets and resources to do that. i would mention on that score, the f-16 program is moving forward. the pilots are in training and we're working with jordan to house those f-16s on a temporary basis before the bases in iraq are ready. >> if i could just on a few seconds we have left on syria, what is the latest with the train and equip mission?

it doesn't seem that we've come very far. >> as you know that's a title 10 d.o.d. program and my d.o.d. colleagues can give you a substantial briefing on that. general allen and i have been to some of the host countries such as turkey, qatar and saudi arabia. we hope we can get those programs moving as early as march with the training to begin. >> is it the administration's view as you stated that assad must go, does that mean that he must be removed from power or are you just saying that he should not have a future in syria? >> well, we're focussed on a political transition process and there's two political tracts going on right now. one is led by the u.n. special representative looking at a bottom up approach getting to the chairman's question on aleppo. we very much support that initiative to freeze the situation. secretary kerry has been in conversations with key stake holders in the region. but clearly nobody believes that

bashar al assad can govern that state and bring it to any sense of stability -- >> do you think the rebels remove him from power? who is going to remove assad from power? >> again, my d.o.d. colleagues could discuss the military situation but we do not see a situation in which the rebels are able to remove him from power? it will be have to be a negotiated diplomatic process. >> just regarding the syria train and equip program. it's undprnt that the d.o.d. was unable to provide a witness today. we had made the request. we go now to mr. meeks of new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for this important hearing and thank you, mr. ambassador for being here. as i'm sitting listening to your testimony and listening to the questions that are being asked, i understand that this is a

complicated situation. it has been since we've been here. it's not easy. people have relationships in that region, some for decades, some for centuries against one another, different interests and we're trying to navigate all that. this is not a simple scenario. i can recall being at this hearing on this hearing room before where many of us and it's easy for us to be up here to think that it's simple. we thought it was simple to get rid of saddam hussein. we said it would take a few days. in fact, we got on a ship and said mission accomplished. a few days later, shock and awe. i'm glad we're not being this simplistic about this. the administration has been honest to say that it will take years to get this done. and to get it done right. not based upon emotion, not based upon trying, just get us together so we can say ra-ra. but based on trying to get together with our allies in the region, those that got complicated relationships so we can try to figure out once and

for all how do we get this done without it being just stuck on the united states and everybody then turning back against us. so it's complicated. it's going to take some time. we've got to figure this out. we've had some problems. that is what happens with complicated situations. it's not easy. if it was easy, anybody could do it. and so it's not easy for the united states of america. and when you look at this world that's smaller, we've got to deal with all of our other allies in the region who have their interests also and in today's world, they're not just saying, oh, we're going to do what the united states says against our own self interest. they have their self interest also and we have to figure out howie weigh that so we can knit and weave and put this together so we don't have an artificial result that only lasts for a short period of time. so i understand that it's difficult. so my first question is toward what has been difficult with the

iraqi government -- past government. and i know there's just been an agreement with baghdad and ebril. so my question is, how is that? because i know that when you look at kazakhstan that's a difficult situation historically and the mall key government, they were not doing the right thing so that curd stan was getting some of the dollars that it needed from the central government. can you tell us how is this landmark agreement that was reached i think it was just reached last week again between the central government and the curd stan regional government, what is the likelihood that it will hold and how will payments be made to the kurds so we can fix this scenario that has also been historically something that has been a problem in the past? >> thank you for your excellent question and you're absolutely right. this is an extremely complicated situation. it's viewed different from every capital we go to, viewed differently from different groups within the countries that face in the conflict zone and the middle east right now is

going through a historic transformation. it's up to us to protect and advances those interests which we're working to do with our coalition partners. the oil deal is significant. it's something we've worked on almost ten years. we almost got there back in march. the same deal was on the table in march but simply couldn't get over the line with the government that was in place back then. the new government, as i mentioned in my testimony, is totally different across the board. more pragmatic actors and people who are able to get around a table and figure it out. i they figured out a win/win solution. under this solution, the curd stan region will export about 550,000 barrels a day. 300 barrels coming from cur kuk. that's a controversial part of the landscape. but taking oil from those fields and exporting it through the north, through the curd stan region and turkey about 300,000 from kirkuk, all of that revenue

will come into the central account and 17% will go to the curd stan region. this is a breakthrough accord. another part is that $1 billion within the new government will go to the kurdish. the first time the iraqi government very clearly saying we will fund our brave kurdish fighters who are fighting alongside us against isil. this is a big deal. it's a breakthrough. now, will there be problems in implementation moving forward? yes. we have to work through those and the iraqis as well. it's a significant sign they got this done. it's a very hopeful moment. i was on the phone with the iraqi leadership in baghdad with the kurdish leadership very shortly after and there was a really a mood of tremendous optimism, something i have not heard in some time and i worked on this specific issue for a period of years. so i think your questions are very insightful one and i think the oil agreement is just indicative of where we are in iraq and the foundation that we've built. given where we were six months ago today, it was hard to see back then where we might be today but it really gives us some hope for the future.

but again, the iraqis have to work out the details. it will be difficult. there will be setbacks as you said. nothing is easy. it's complex. but it's -- it was a significant breakthrough and the testament to the iraqi leadership to really get it done. >> thank you. >> mr. joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you, chairman reuss fsh your determined leadership and chairman reuss thank you also for your early warnings of the threat of isis to american families. and mr. ambassador, thank you very much for being here today. the american people need to know the threat of the murderous idology of isis. last week abc news reported isis spokesman called upon followers in the u.s. and europe to attack members of military. he went on to say, quote, do not ask for anyone's advice and do not seek anyone's verdict. kill the disbeliever whether he is a civilian or military for they have the same ruling. both of them are disbelievers.

both of them are considered to be waging war, end of quote. this is a grow tesk idology that we face in our coalition partners face and i believe it's important that we never forget how grow tesk it is. additionally we need to know they carry signs, death to america, death to israel. their creed a mass murder is quote, we believe in death more than you value life. having that in mind, again, you've got quite a challenge. but we do have allies and i'm particularly grateful the kurdish regional government in iraq has been a success story of economic development for its people and as opposition to extremists. the american no-fly zone saved thousands of lives. the administration claims the kurdish are our primary u.s. partners in the efforts against islamic state. yet as of mid-october, the

administration's only provided rifles, small armers, mortars to the kurdish forces. i'm really concerned that the president's actions don't match the threat. does the administration tend to be more robust in equipping the kurdish forces to commence offensive operations against isis and under what time line? >> let me discuss the situation of arming the pesh mer ga because i've been involved with them. we've worked out two detailed lists one in august and two in september and with the government of iraq and delivered everything on those lists. and again, i just want to go back to the fact that we have a new government now. every request for weapon systems from the curd stan region have been approved. we have a new minister of defense, from mosul. he went to see the president. and he has committed to getting the supplies to the curds that they need. i was just in berlin last week. the germans are supplying the

pesh mer ga significant anti-tank munitions. so we are very focussed on this. we're acutely focussed on it. but what is important is that unlike some of the tension we had with the last government, we have very strong cooperation now. there's been about 40 cargo flights. they land in baghdad first but then they immediately go to supply the pesh mer ga with the weapons and supplies they need. we're working on this everyday. we have joint operations centers set up in the curd stan region. i've been to them. i went to dehook to see the president when he was commanding some of his units in an offensive near the border crossing. we're working with them everyday, but we work through this and our military colleagues work through what are the requirements, what do you need, how do you get them? we've went around the world to source getting t 62 tank rounds to make sure that the 100 tanks that the kurds have are fully resourced with the ammunition they need. this is an on going day to day activity and we're fully seized of it. >> and do you anticipate that

the pesh mer ga would be on offensive operations and not just defensive? >> well, they are on offensive operations, congressman. they taken back nearly all the territory that was seized from isil when isil launched its offense in august. the one exception being sin jar and we think that will kick off after the winter season. and that pesh mer ga importantly they're working very closely with iraqi forces to take been the mosul damn. the counterterrorism service was working side by side to take back the mosul damn and the operation at the border crossing was done in coordination. it's a significant development. given where we were six months ago and after isil moved into the curd stan region, the kurds have pushed back very effectively. they've taken hundreds of casualties as has v the iraqi security force. we're working with them to help plan and conduct operations. when they mount their operations, we provide them with

air cover and air support. >> i want to join with my colleague from queens actually a native of south carolina and point out how pleased i am that there has been an agreement in regard to oil between iraq and the kurdish regional government. i yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> we go now to new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing and thank you for being here with us and always being straight forward with us. you know, as i sit here in these hearings, we talk about retraining and training. i just read a report about two or three weeks ago where they had the iraqis had 50,000 soldiers that were on a payroll that never showed up. i mean, to me, this system that we're going to try to retrain again and spend billions of dollars and maybe not be as effective as they were. the other thing is, we talk

about a new government being more pragmatic. i think it's just the reality that hit them that if they really don't work and change their ways, they're going to lose their country. i mean, people have poured billions of dollars into this country to try to straighten them out. now they've become pragmatic. i think it's just a reality that has hit them that they have to. imply mentation of some of these accords, i was concerned with the kurdish getting all the weapons they needed but they had to go through baghdad. so it was difficult for them to get it to the kurdish. these are the kind of things. the last thing i'll just talk about is spreading the conflict in the area. i read some articles where lebanon was concerned that there was activity in lebanon and they're asking for more arms and more support so could you speak to that also? thank you very much. >> well, lebanon was a

participant at the conference we had in brussels last week at the coalitioned a min stair yal chaired by secretary kerry. they were at the table with their foreign minister as were the other neighbors. turkey had 1.8 million refugees from syria. we have to remember the burden that's taking on turkey and lebanon. we're doing all we can to help sure them up. it's extremely difficult. and again, the lebanese are very concerned about this, in particular, the enroads that isil is making into its borders. so, all of our partners in the region the countries neighboring syria, lebanon, iraq, turkey and jordan are central to the efforts of this coalition. and what we heard in brussels around the table 60 different members of the coalition, countries from all around the world talking about the fact that we need to help our friends who are suffering from this crisis. so we're very focussed on it and

i can come follow up with a more detailed briefing particularly on lebanon or other neighbors. >> i'm happy you raised the issue with jordan because i understand they're getting more aggressive, more active in demonstrations and aggressive activities. can you talk a little bit about that? >> well, jordan is also a front line state and as you know, the refugees that they've taken in as really take an toll on their resources. king abdul la was just here i think it was last week. general allen and i saw him in amman about a month ago working very closely with jordan both on the security side about suring up the defenses of their board rer and also trying to limit the extremist presence in southeast syria. there's a lot of focus on the aleppo pocket in northern syria which is a focus to the turks and us and everyone. jordan is more focussed on the other areas. we need to help them. but jordan is a front-line state

and that's why we're providing them substantial security assistance and humanitarian assistance to deal with the refu yee crisis. our friends in the region are just impacted by this crisis everyday and that's why part of the president's central policy in his counterterrorism support in building partner capacity is focussed on this very issue, the neighbors of syria in making sure they can with stand this crisis as best they can. >> can you talk a little bit about camp liberty and any of the abuses by the iraqis? i know you're on the discussion. >> i get a briefing on this every single day and get reports from both the residents and also from the united nations. and as you know, the united nations monitoring teams confirms to us about human tear supplies and the other all situation at the camp. we look at it every single day. my colleague jonathan winer who is our senior adviser is in

albania today with a team with dhs represented as well and we've gotten about 600 residents of camp liberty out of camp lib ter and out of iraq to safety over the past year and we're looking to increase that number this year. albania has been very helpful in this regard and jonathan winer has really done a tremendous heroic courageous job at getting this moving and i think the new government will be more cooperative. we want to get all of the residents at camp liberty as i testified before out of iraq to safety. that's our goal. and we're working with partners around the world to try to achieve that goal. right now albania has been extremely cooperative and we should thank them for taking in hundreds of residents and the residents are assimilating quite well in albania. but my colleague is there now discussing this issue and i'm sure he would be happy to come follow up with you. >> thank you very much. >> per that issue, i would just point out when senator kerry was here, we raised this issue of on supporting the kurds.

not selling them the heavy weapons, the heavy equipment and the armor they needed, the anti-tech missiles. i'll quote from his testimony, no we're not. you are. we're adhering to u.s. law passed by congress. if you want to change it, fix it, we invite you. i would just point out that i put out bipartisan legislation to change that, to allow us to directly sell the weapons they needed to the kurds and then the administration opposed the legislation that we had been invited to put into change it. so, just for the record, i would raise the point that the argument has changed. >> mr. chairman, i feel your pain on crimea, too. >> yes. it's a moving target and a moving argument. we go now to judge poe of texas.

>> i thank the chairman. there's no question about it that isis, as i call them, they're a bunch of bad people who just commit murder. and we are doing battle with isis. the united states has been in middle east with boots on the ground for a long time. ambassador, would you say that the united states is at war with isis or not? >> congressman, having seen it up close, i would say we are at war with isis, yes. >> it seems to me that our strategy is twofold at this point or maybe threefold. send aid to different groups, countries. there are 60-something nations i understand are in the coalition to fight isis. one is to do air strikes as the chairman has mentioned the success of those air strikes depends on who you're talking

to. i do not believe they have been quite as successful as we had hoped they would be. the other is to take syrian moderate rebels, vet, train and equip them to go back to syria and defeat isis. how many of those people have been vetted, trained and equipped and sent back to syria to fight isis? >> congressman again, it's a d.o.d. program -- >> it's not. you're the ambassador. you represent the state department, you're not the states. we're at war with this country that we're at war with isis. you can't tell me politically whether we have armed, vetted, armed and trained anybody yet and sent them back to syria to fight isis? you can't give that answer. >> i did answer it. the answer right now is no. >> so non. >> it was designed to be a

long-term program and we hope -- >> i understand, beard. just a second. no, you wait a minute. i'm asking the question. you give the answer. the answer is, we have not trained any -- none of them are back over there. meanwhile, isis is beheading people and committed all kinds of atrocities, but our plan, if i understand our strategic plan, it's to help aid, it's to drop bombs, it's to train mercenaries to go back and fight isis in syria, none of which have been trained. how long is it going to take before we get all those people that are being trained in saudi arabia back in syria to fight? how long do you think it will take? >> well, congressman, the program is to train 5,000 per year and the training we hope will start in march. so -- >> so a year from march? >> and the program is to build -- >> a year from march? >> about 5,000 by then. we have to be very -- >> excuse me, beaambassador.