was he conspiring against us? there were specific regionalzwbye1 the war started in the region.ok i don't think that was our cup of tea and we sort of got involved in it and now have the lp whole problem. >> thank you mr. brzezinski. mr. scowcroft, you made a comment we need to be middle east.u can you give me an yupá w3v that means in terms of policy ñi execution?çów3 >> yes. i think it means we should e1çó$ guide, help, assist but not be a player in ourselves. that is ground troops. i think what we're doing in syria, it's okay. it was an emergency. i think that we should not carrye1qçóxdokxdkozv the burden on that, much less being in the region or of the ñie1lpñiñi

region ground troops. we don't know what the best fáçó outcome for syria is. it is very, very complicated. we need to help our friends.lp we need to encourage others to be more helpful.ok the turks, for example, have a heavy interest in the kurds.t(okjft( not necessarily the kind of ok interest the kurds want them to have. we need to be careful all the ucw3ñi way through but help those who xd

want to do what we think would improve the situation without it belonging to us.ce1t(p,."r >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to join in thanking you for holding this hearing to provide some intellectual and conceptual context of the very challenging work that we're çóçó going to have ahead of us in these next two years and i want to thank both of our witnesses not only for being here today but for your long-standing service to our nation and uniform. as national security adviser each of you have contributed q enormously to the readiness and preparedness and performance of our armed forces in pr'mecting our national security.lp i want to focus on an area i ñi think you mentioned in your openinúp.qqqj%erá(ju(ájip r(t&háhp &hc% cyber, a new emerging form of r warfare, perhaps difficult to r imagine in the!fays each of you ñi served as national security fáfá adviser illustrating how the r

nature of warfare really is changing and perhaps each of youfár how you think we need to be better prepared not only in the v and cyber warfare but also in the education of our country as to the importance of this very jf complex area, which is also e1 probably going to be increasing fá importance. >> i think cyber is of xdw3d increasing importance.okñr i believe we're just touching a surface and that we could profitjf by some innovative thinking lplpok

about how we can approach that problem and how we can get otherçóçó; countries like the chinese, for example, involved in ways thatfbxd and we may have to try several r different things. but the potential danger of cyber not just to us but to those who are practicing it now should enable us to have some i] serious discussions with othes"xd countries.i]c

discussion within the united fár states, too, because the government and some of our industries are not cooperating t(jf the way, at least my ñi understanding are not cooperating the way which could xd really s/uq he ball forward. this is a ball sbt looks different to different people. >> do you think that oñxrr(t&háhp &hc% response, for example, to the robust and vigorous some let me vjl pose that question to both of koñr you. >> well, i think you need to ok know more about it before you answer the question.e1 it depends who really pushed the attack and what can best -- what kind of reaction is best to move the ball forward and to give us a better grip on how we can deal with this difficult situation. >> mr. brzezinski, do you have any observation?xdcfáe1 >> i don't have an answer.t(xd i have a comment.w3+

this is a hyper sensitive issue #boj($r' terms of what it r involves and the need for secrecy and dealing with it. basically we have to seek two objectives.qñiq one is toli,eujááá c predictable immunity against some preemptive actiuñd that possib ip r(tf o that will require major, major probably move us into a field which we haven't yet fully sufficiently explored. rt and the second is to have a +sgañ preemptive capability.?;jfr a preemptive capability or ábw preempt some action of that sort1@,goke1t( or match some action against us tit for tat instantly. i don't want to be too specific mq about who the enemy might be.5a.qu

ìáhp &hc% i $nb7i"ájjz we need to create public hysteria on the subject. but it certainly stands to reason that there are some countries in the world that u.y might think that cyber warfare against the united states is the best way to preempt the whole issue, to change the balance of power.xd i think we are still on the very, very early phases of responding to that.xd something like the united states ñxd was in 1943, '44 when we startedjf getting really serious about acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> i want to thank you. my time has expired, and we barelyx(bu!1bup&one 4jsj i would justr/ observation that our private sector probably is 4e;m%uu(áq"c than it should be, and our military -- at least our t(z#-xdñifár civilian leadership has the opportunity to provide more ok

incentives and maybe more ok compulsory measures to assure that we are better prepared in the private sector against thesezaa-%9 zerduúp()áh!ecause certainfát( kinds of attacks are as much a threat to national security, fánbs7 whether they are to our xdñiñi financial system, our utilities, even a corporation like sony. i shouldn't say even a corporations like sony who ñrw3t(oklpdy muá á5)$rpáhp' impact on ourñiñrt(n6e1cr society. thank you for your responses.çóxdñio5+çóçócr thank you, mr. chairman. ik"t

some observations and conclusions that you've made xdw3 seemed a bit -- don't reconcile,cjf but we'll talk about that in a moment.p, you agree with me that whatever chance there is to get a deal s.]%q!"ár)anian nuclear ambitions we should take it? whatever opportunity we have to xl get a peaceful resolution of our sátu)sue that diplomatically.q just say yes. i think if i understand the m[ question. ñrñiçó but one thing we shorbá get a nuclear weapon. do you both agree with that?

>> yes. >> yes. >> that would open up a nuclear arms race in the middle east, káv9%% táhuá$u(já p r(t&háhp &hc% whatever problem we have today how do we find a peaceful resolution to iranian nuclear ambitions is the primary goal i share with you and everybody else in the world. do you agree iranians in the past have been trying to develop a bomb not build a peaceful nuclear power program. their past behaví?( would sughkáu heycg ávr'g to get nuclear capability. >> yes, i tw4&k q)e was a phase. >> do you agree with 55that congress may actually make xdxdxdxd ç /p'ctions but we should have a say about the final outcome nuclear review process through atomic energy act.ñiçó does that make sense? let negotiations go forw!$fáw3xd without sanctions. but when a deal is reached, if congress under one, two, ok three session of atomic energy act could review it to see if + there's a deal.w3 would that be a good outcome?xd >> i don't know -- >> i don't know that i'm cñrñi equipped4pá. >> we have in the past approved 24 agreements regar,i(g civilian áclear programs between the united states and foreign óomñrlplp powers. all i'm suggesting is let the xd administration pursue a deal with the p5 plus 1 if they reach i- an aó$úq9ñfáçó bring it to congress for our

review and approval.c would that be a good check and lpçó >> i think that depe urjr the other partners to the t( negotiations.lp w[gtq ot the only ones ñ negotiate. >> aren't going to left france xdw3fájf tell us what to do.w3 and the administration, we don'tokñixdxd want to disrupt the last best chance to get a good deal but we don't want to be dealt out either.ok we'd like to have a say. under at+áeá ection w3fáok fá one, two, three, in the past congress has reviewed deals between united states and c foreign powers regarding e1 civilian programs.x÷ r(t&háhp &hc%

would that be a provocative kod thing for congress to do, look w33÷9óñixdr at the deal after the fact. >> well, let me take a stab at ok this.okr i think you'll do it anyway, r don't you?t(fá >> well, the question is should ok >> i think that depends a little bit on the nature of the relationship with the other çóçó powers and how much you are informed.e1 i think you will make the judgment yourself if youú? uzñiçót(fáñi do it. >> fair enough.r let's get back to syria.r this whole conflict started when people went to the streets in syria petitions assad to have a better life within syria.xrnt do you agree with that? that's how this all started?b. anyway.

>> you just made an observation that m#kut to say i have dignity. i'm not going to let the guy down the street tell me how to we can read and see how life jjp)e going fá could be. that's a good thing. do you both agree the individual in the world being empowered and knowing the difference between a good life and a bad life is overall a constructive thing. >> it certainly is for -- >>xw assad's syria? can you understand why millions p]"tjáv)ians believe that assad's syria is not what they want to pass onto their children? can you understand why people throughout the world no longer want to live in totalitarian dictatorships for our convenience? there's a complication here i get. but the big theme sweeping the world to me is that young peopler have had enough living a life that none of us would adopt for our convenience. i'd like to help those young people in the process. do you agree with the president 4' that the goal should be to defeat and destroy isil, degrade and destroy. >> destroy what?çó >> defeat, degrade and destroy isil.w3ñi that should be the united states goal? >> i'll speak for myself. i think it's importans> i agree with that. r >> if isil kills our people, we lpr certainly should act. i] >> do you agree with the goal the president has stated, that ñi it is in our national interest lñ

to degrade aá,#destroy isil. xd >> i support that. it depends on how we do it.çó i don't want us to become the lpq only protagonist and others sit back. >> do you agree with that, general?xd >> yes. >> do you think the strategy in e1 place today is achieving that goal? >> no. >> i agree with you, general. would you like to comment where it's working? >> i don't know if it's working. i think it's going to take a long time.ñrxd we're in a situation where the=[jráhp ix of motivations in r the region. cñ >> absolutely two good answers. i jécu got back from the middle çó east. nobody believes this is working.ñilp

the best solution from my point of view would get an i coalition together, doesn't haveok to be all there, an islamic coalition to go on the ground in syria and take isil down in the name of islam saying you do not xd represent this great religion.cxd we're here to take you on and destroy what you stand for. does that make sense, a good e1 outcome, have ? coalition of the willing within c the religion to go in and take isil down. i]ñi >> if it's spontaneously formulated in the region and notwm+okxd created by us, yes. it, it wouldn't work. >> finally, should we support such an efforu"giving capacity to that will where we have r unique capability? i'm not advocating 100,000 lpxl american troops go on the groundxd in syria, but i am advocating é@=zwñ the longer this problem goes, t(i]çó the more likely we're going to get hit here. i am advocating americx"%q1ñ sit on the sideline and let 300,000 syrians get slaughtered r because it's complicated. i'm advocating we defeat túi+ enemy to mankind, not just to islam, and that we get islamic world eoeaged but we provide capacity when they have will,ú(÷ñr

that we would provide air power, special forces, intelligence fá capability.çó gentlemen, what i will not accept is the status quo that itfá is okay to not go after these t( guys because it is not atb level in the world it is not okay. so my only plea is that you wéuld have an open mind to a ground component where ás lay a role, not the leading role,i]ok thank you both for your great w3ñi service to this country.c >> would you like to make a response to that tirade. xdxd tirade. i thought it was very sincere and impassioned.b.w3 i don't think deal sufficiently ok with the complications of the region.e1okfájf they are different countries in the region.e1lpxd there are some regimes we can cfá

work with, some playing a double game.xdr last but not least there is i]' than we would have wished or probably anticipated.q otherwise, why is he still there and has not been overthrown. >> general, would you like to ñixdfá make a comment on the exchange that just took place?xd >> well, i think -- >> becau/]hr hink it's important. çó >> syria is a most difficult ok it's next to lebanon, it's probably the most mixed @ %9ññi terms of physical mix-up of c d- q:%uáp'y area of okjf the middle east.xd)ph

i think i understand the é@ko i am reluctant sitting here to ñrçó get into executive legislative struggles, but i think we oumháñ to do what we can without r getting ownership again. we have not only the syrians to worry about, we have to worry jf about the turks, too. the kurds are very heavily engaged there.xz, they have different notions about their own future. yr(t&háhp &hc% >> do you support a no-fly zone áx- 55ájj_áut(u yrian army and population from further destruction and no-fly zone to ñikoq give people a chance to regroup? >> i think we -- i would çó÷3wñi consider that but i would not ñrr use air power to do it.t(xdm ok there's some 20 air fields in

of them with missiles and keep nblp bombing them.ñiq in effect ground their air force. i would have no problem doing that. >> doctor? >> yeah, i probably would have no problem but i don't think that solves the problem, the larger pzo >> i thank you. i think it's been a very impor4wqá5á t senator king. >> thank you. gentlemen, i apologize for xdb.jfjf coming in and out.c3w i had a meeting with mr. carter, ñ who is, as you know, been c nominated by the president to beçót( secretary.lp mr. brzezinski, you mentioned ok something very interesting which suggest!÷aq!q: uq hreat of terrorism to russia as well as other par3c the world, does this create an opportunity a5

for an alliance with russia to deal with an issue like isis + that might be an openin?%q=ip r(t&háhp &hc% more general settlement in syrialpok that we have a common interest in dealing with this terrorist çóxdfá threat?ccñiçódb >> yes. but i wouldn't use the word xdok alliance because that goes too far.ñi3wq i think regional accommodation, regional cooperation might be in to' jeu nd our interest, potentially expose themselves fáoéém and it would make it more difficult for russians to sit onñiq the sidelines and watch us getting bogged down alone.t(r they own part of the responsibility for the problems çó in the middle east in t%)s of previous policies.

much the same applies to china.« >> and i would think that the russians would see this in their own national interest. >> one would have to assume that's the case because they have a national interest. >> a second question, partially a statement, partly a question. i was delighted to w7(áhvá @r(t&háhp &hc% general scowcroft talk about the threat of cyber. i sort of feel like we're kmbñ scfland before world war ii ignoring a threat that's right in front of us. we had the sony -- what if sony company had been new york stock exchange or gas pipeline. i have never seen an issue where we've had more warnings and we're doing less. i hope you would concur with meed this should be one of pi qqp& wié his cyber threat and okt:g develop cyber strategies.t( >> yes, i do agree with that.ñi we're still at step one. i think we need serious analysis on what the charac%v áq! r(t&háhp &hc% problem is, what our i]# alternatives to take a3omre q positive role can be and which +okq one we should select. ñ

>> i thought one of your lp interesting suggestions was a kçow3 kind of reprice of mutually rsnç assured destruction strategy of okxd the '50s in the cyber area to create a deterrent not only ñ to -- not only a defensive s5a=mquiuet could you elaborate on that? >> well, i don't -- i used that ñ only to show how serious a threat i think cyber is. it is on the par with nuclear ñi weapons. it doesn't kill people itself, but it can destroy the sinews oft(tpthe country, the banking system. >> general, i just hope what youfá said today and that analogy is a headline tomorrow, because we've1fá got to -- we've got to deal with this issue.ym one other area of concern. doctor brzezinski, i'm very +çó interested in developing a strategy beyond ad hoc military intervention to deal with isis xd and the whole issue of jihadists

and extremism.ñi7d@#g $ñcould you talk about what you would think would be the #"m0u elements of an anti-extremists strategy beyond just military t( response?xdok >> some form of the more moderate and more established states in the regioncok3w in creating viable outcomes that consolida4"ñu their political evolution and soi] forth. the list has been mentioned.ñir it's turkey. it could be iran under some árc circumstances. it could be saudi arabia, which r otherwise might face serious çózur(t&háhp &hc% international problems. it certainly is egypt. on a more limited basis, it includes lebanon and jordan, with the latter being close to xd an explosive situation given the number of refugees that flowed into the country.

there is potential commonality of interest here, but it should not be focused primarily on american military action as ñr such, though we have the right r of self-defense and we have the right to deal with threats that become sort of extensive enough r top possibility of destabilizinglpñi the region.i] last but not least, if i may say so, we should be very careful not to proclaim our actions are ñr somehow or other anti-jihadist. you used the term.c part of ter]=i1 á$ur' anyçót(t( way are engaged in a religious ok war against them. jihad means holy war. and so we don't -- >> anti-extremists might berb?vçóñr better term. ñijf >> yes, exactly, something alongñi those lines.qo.n)

fanatics, in some cases sadists, like those beheadings. avoid saying we're engaged in a okokok struggle with jihadists. that frankly attacks some peopleáa%9:á$u$ey say is holy war. >> that's a very good point. i appreciate thantfá i think the other side of that is we have to be very, very careful in this country to not lump in the muslim world with çót( these extremists.ok i think that also is a do that. t%m the west and islam. >> that's right. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you very much for your service to our country.xdt(xdz3ow3

i apologize for no, sir being here foréq ntire discussion different committee meetings going on as usual, it appears. i did have one question i would w3ñiq like to focus on, perhaps in a little differemut))p' i've heard in the last 15, 20 that has to do with the national security strategy that was last presented in 2010. normally that would be updated r or expected to be updated in ( +3w 2014. the qdr was presented and +kor strategy that was in place. i don't understand, but i was hoping you might give us your ñit( thoughts a little bit about c whether( that was completed in 2010,

whether or not with all of the ok changes today, particularly c those issues in the middle east, changes in terms of russia and what's happened since 2010, whether or not the qdr that we currently operate with and the ok strategy that was proposed in q 2010 that we opera whether or not we're missing something here and does it really matter. is it time for congress to take a different approach in terms of looking at the overall ó[ strategies when it comes to our national defense.ñi >> that's a very difficult w3ñi question to answer. i think my answer is both.fá providing funding for a parv military themselves.cr the armed forces. that's the kind of cooperation that is getting increasingly

difficult, but it still is the way we have to proceed.np when you do unilateral

large scale systematic effort ini] the national security council to define national ob utáhp'd ñi to help the president think it jfw:=ññi through and eventually endorse it as a kind of overall national security planning mechanism. i think we could use that and ñiçó perhaps that would be helpful in clarifying some issues. - >> would you consider that to be new in terms of how we have operated, or is that something xdt(fáñinb which you have seen, both seen interactions between the r administration and congress overs7k a period of literally decades. is this new? is this something which people have looked at and simply said okjc that's the way it is, or is this something that clearly presents a threat in terms of how we do systematically the planning for fá the defense of our country. >> i think we ought to take a look.fákoñi i don't know whether it's new or not.çótu)r'k we ought to take a look

ñrñr at the existing system.s7ñi my sense is we don't really haveçó in the white house a service to the president when he makes his decisions, a deliberate effort ñit( at creating what might be called four years or whatever that administration is in office. other agencies do that. i think that creates perhaps kookt(xdñiçó some of the uncertainties to u 3pp$at we're doing. fáe1 >> one more thought on this.t( it seems to me when we talk 'kf about in business, when we talk t(r about those issues we're concerned about being important

issues as opposed to on the day to day business that's urgent in front of us. we tend to focus on the urgent e1 as opposed to critical or important would you care to n[b fáb" comment, we face on a military basis day to day.xd items in front of us, regularly, those urgent issues, have they nbq clouded our ability to keep in issues that we are losing sight of?xdlqñi >> well, i don't know answer that. fá >> i think the answer is ñix probably yes, but it is not an g÷b easy thing to do, to bring all r the elements of the government together on such a thing as our okc national military strategy. we've tried different things.ok

some work better than others.dñ some work better than others.xd but it is also a political xdñiw3fáok exercise as well as a strategic t(lps;n and i don't think we have developed anything which is -- fáxp]jfw ok goes beyond bureaucratic to genuine steps forward.t( but i think we ought to keep trying.ok+ñr >> mr. chairman? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i r work forward to working on this coáb)uáee and continued with my 4t2we1

colleagues and thank both of the witn( today. what is each of your opinion ñiçóc about need for congress to expeditio5)fv ork on an lpñi authorization for use of military force to cover the xd current war against isil which is now in its sixth month.xd >> i'm notrs-re :ur(juu that.r i think we should not be more çóxd involved. the isis exercise.6ah÷ ñ i believe this is a case where the region is bsúju$reatened.lpñiw3

and the powers of the region are being threatened.ñit( the states of the region are being threatened.lp wcuáuu o encourage and help them to respond.çóxdq that's a difficult lin4> &háhp &hc% i think it's an important one does belong to the middle east ñi['i]ñiw3 countries.xd to behave responsibly.e1w3 >> dr. brzezinski. >> in different ways, i think wec engage the other major powers in the world to be involved and çót(çów3 shouldn't be our baby only. pd i have said this this ok _uáárp nd china. secondly, i think we have to ñi

minimize the visual involvement in the problem of other powers ñic record in the region is so negative because of their c$x involvement with cglénialism that they, in fact, handicap ther effort of dealing effectively ok with the region. and third, we have to try to ñiñicy involve in a difficult process, have both viability of sorts and {; ej )j *q oderate.okr >> you've each answered my question in this strategic and lpñizqr(t&háhp &hc% tactical sense. 3!orer)hp(uup&ly meant it in the institutional and constitutional sense. the president started a hz unilatexa ampaign august that is now in its sixth month justifying that based on the two previous authorizations done in 2001 and 2002. the president last night said kg cf1 o congress should do an authorization and weigh in and vote about whether this mission is, in fact, in the national interest. do you have any opinion on whether that is an important matter for congress to take up?

>> well, if he asks and since he's acting as commander in chief, i should think that he's entitled to make that request. and probably congress should consider it. but if for no other reason thanrw@r(t&háhp &hc% it helps to consolidate national unity on the delegate but terribly complicated issue. >> i think as i understood your last answer on the tactical side, let me do a follow-up question. there's been much discussion 5xqz( azá: j as necessary in iraq or syria to defeat the threat of isil. ground troops broadly defined, çó peshmerga, the iraqi security forces.i]t( syrian, trained syrian moderate. what do each of you think about the wisdom of using united xdñi states ground troops in the mission against isil in iraq or w3 syria? >> except in very special fáokxdok individual circumstances where the use of ground forces will be very limited in terms of its pízi &háhp &hc% mission basically against boots on the ground so far as the i think the political and historical climate is so ñr uncongenial to us doing it that it will simply become involved t( in the protracted conflict which will be extremely costly and, which it'll be very difficult for us alone to win.

>> the president has announced a plan to withdraw u.s. forces completely from afghanistan by the end of 2016.9 should the u.s. actions with respect to the forces in afghanistanrd)ju$jr(h"ate on the calendar? or should it be based on conditions on the ground and stability to allow us to withdraw without plunging the country back into a chaos thatp world? >)p+á(p''t entirely separate the two.okc but you have to take into fác proájt$q'gagement at the very least begins to create its own antithesis. so i think some end line is absolutely necessary.d >> i -- i think in the case, á )(u&ar case of afghanistan, z7w3 an end line right now is not theñi right wbcá=:ujip r(t&háhp &hc% it is my sense that afghanistan

has made considerable progress, t(b. that the new leadership shows lp great promise, and that what ?;çó?; their military security forces really need is the sense of the

on their shoulder. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. =@q!9-juá tátáráh has been very, very helpful. let's talk about russia and nato. when russia invaded georgia, about all we could do was talk about it and denounce it.yq5 wámujj)q ction that ally of ours whose border we had promised to defend if they gave fá up nuclear weapons, military ?; action was clearly off the cie1 table.w3 presumably russian action would the united states.ñi but dr. brzezinski, you draw a t(çóñifáñi line when it comes to the baltic

states.çós7 and i'd certainly -- i want to agree with you there.jf let me ask you this, could you ok: 3ñiçó explain a little more your idea about working with nato on trip fáo) wirespi'"á(p&tic states? general scokroft, what do you think about that idea having it been described?c and what can we do to get our c nato allies to take national ñi defense and western defense ñi responsibilities seriously?çó ñ we ask them to spend a mere 2% of their gdp on thq=military.ñrñixdt( and frankly, it's only two or ok three of those nato allies that do that.t( if you comment on dr. brzezinski, you can begin. >> well, first of all, on your last question, i think we should address that in nato.

and perhaps some device, some procedure could be formulated whereby nato members who, which ko lose some of their sort of çó entitlement to participate in çóçóxdw3ñi key decisions. i don't know precisely how to xd work that out, but it seems to ok me if you don't pay, you don't ok decide.r and that, at least, might make ñi them a little more conscious of the fact that collective obligations should be treated seriously.okñrkook that the baltic countries, what i said earlier, i'll simply repeat. i think the russians don't know how active we would be in saving them for one reason or another.r the leader of the russian away with the seizing quick ñii] the situation which he finds so nbr

abhorrent, namely, the creation of independent states, or the ñi recreation of independent statesok and early '40s.r if you are to do that, we would ?.:ç be faced with a horrible ñi situation, because we don't havet(ñi the means to stage an amphibiousqt(c warfare that results in the ÷w landing of our forces and gradual ground war, presumably on the territory of the baltic states and the expulsion. the only sensible stepce+it(z kookxd now take, i think, is to qxdxdxdw3 preposition some trip wire typea q forces, forcing putin to t( consider seriously whether he's prepared to go into major rni conflict with us. and if he does that, then we é@

have no choice to respond, not r only in the baltic republics, kot(zur(t&háhp &hc% but perhaps elsewhere.ñi for example, the worldwide embargo. soviet ships, soviet airplanes, xd type, which would be a response ñi designed to impose further costs and ] occasional military engagements ju utq)e if we couldn't c do something directlythe baltics. >> what do you think about this lpñicr topicqpñi >> welr'k that we ñr -8_q(áqpáe the cold t(xdt(xd war. and i don't think it's necessary.cxd i think if we want to do ç something, trip wire, nato is the trip wire, to me. and i think if we want to tell what we will do, if they do certain things i don't have a

problem with that.ñiq but i -- i can see putin just trying to provoke us to spend wñ more efforts i believe the 'm contr!b)urjrjáááju$e ]-jd europeans to nato is deplorable.ñi and they're happy to leave t(ñilp everything up to us, including lé@?;."i] paying for it.r there, i think, we ought to give it some thought.çót(lp my sense is we would get greaterw3 clvááut(ráu(port if we had ideast(r about how to use nato usefully.ñir

no/pá to me a threat oí@pi! of troops is not a reasonable thing to happen.r >> let me just ask you briefly lém u$e chair will indulge. this committee about the lp adequacy of our naval fleet at the present time?xd the chair and his opening remarks talked about the size of our military being roughly + equivalent to what it was after çó world war i. do we have enough ships?ñr are we building enough ships?ok>( is our fleet adequate to protect?xd >> i can uváp straightforward answer. >> i don't think any one of us has examined that kind of ó[ok question.w3 simpoi@î9 p' answer to ñr

that.fá >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman.r and thank you, both, for being here. isis has said they are 4-a(establishing a caliphate. and their caliphate they want tolp]py'm &háhp &hc% establish is a whole lot bigger than where they are right now. their goal also, iffñdlpr share their religion, you xdçó convert or you're killed.jf and they tend to expand.t(e1xd how does the united states watchfáñi this when -- and i don't want to get into exact historical references, and i don't mean to by this, uá we've seen this kind of thing before. >> well, the danger is, if we

get involved directly in q opposing them, it will make it wj easier for them to promote the oke1 whole concept. >> well, ixb9 )áq(u&y.zv i mean as a partner.okc you are talking about not ?; getting more involved in isis ó[3w a!rjj çó with training an arab army or tñ(áñ advising, providing that kind of assistance, helping them to plan, helping them to train. do you thin)x.!=mur zio%u >> i have no problem with training as appropriate action.ñi"kjlet's remember that isis or isil however you want to call it, is down in the middle east.fá @eá re a number of our friends and allies whopl)y e2'@r(t&háhp &hc% the middle east. >> right.b. >> would they be happy to just sit back and have us deal with c+vkl the problem?ok maybe. but this is a -- this is a problem, which is a potential

threat to othe2a3jeqpáuq)n ok countries. >> do you see us having a role, though, as a partner?t(çó >> yeah. yes, i think a role in doing theñi÷lp kinds of things that they 9 do. >> right. >> encourage them in the things that they can.nbt(q we can help them know how to do. yes, absolutely. >> certainly, i don't think anybody -- ok >> but that's training. >> right. i don't think anybody's looking lplpxdf at our troops being the ground but being somebody who can help provide with the backb planning, the training. does that m! ur+áuñ >> it strikmsisq s no matter ñilpñic what we hope.lp and being from indiana where we have suffered from them already. we've already lost citizens who have been kiq@apped and killed by them.ñi and they continued to put plans together to cause other activities. anké=:)háheir stated goals cr

of furtigr establishment of thisçó and causing, taking activities elsewhere, it wol8 rá that we'd have to be engaged in 4/ some form with partners. because it seems that the goal.c6]"çó it's not something that's going to stay static. it either grows or gets eliminated.ñr would you agree with that? >> yes.x=zi &háhp &hc% >> dr. brzezinski?ñr >> i also agree with that. >> okay.ok as we look at putin, what l think his end game is in ukraine?ok >> my own estimate is to reverse what has transpired a year or soxde1r ago. namely, the decision by the okg ukraine people to associate themselves and their longer okçó range identity with the west. i think he views that as a major intrusion on historically okçóxd

. significant component of the f larger russian empire.ok i think he has this kind of gentle concept of imperial concept of imperial restoration as guiding him. you luke at some of the things he has done to define the presidency, the symbolism associated with it and so forth, he has a lot of imperial trappings and he is repaired to do use to make that happen and our position has been that we have no desire to intrude into russian sort of security aspirations, but that the nation has a right to define itself voluntarily. that is a complicated issue and as a consequence we now you have this serious problem between us and the russians regarding the future of ukraine and clearly striving to destabilize ukraine, not rising an all-out invasion but destable

it from within. >> if he takes similar action latvia, you know, his little green men and all of those things incurred -- going into late veryery latvian territory and nato does not respond snark effect the end of nato? >> i would say so because nato is meant to be a collective alliance and if the united states doesn't respond, that certainly would be the result. now, conceivably, we could let him do it, let him take latvia or estone ya and we would mobilize nato to counter this somehow, either on the spot or the larger world front, but that would be much more risky enterprise than doing what i advocate which is simply to create a trip wire within latvia and estone ya, which communicates clearly to russia that nato will be involved that the united states particularly

is present and, therefore the risks you are taking are much much higher than you might calculate in the light of the ease of the operation in seizing crimea crimea. >> dr. scowcroft, i will end with -- do you also see that as that's the the end end of nato? >> oh, most certainly. it would be the end of nato if the soviet union moved into a nato member and we did nothing. absolutely, it would. but i don't see that happening. i don't see -- putin's a nasty piece of work. probably shouldn't have said that. >> that's fine. >> but i don't think he is evil in incarnate and i think if we tell him quite clearly what we won't stand for in terms of nato members especially there won't be such an action.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the best way to tell him is to do something to make him think about it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. i appreciate your service very much. today, we have talked a lot about isis in the middle east and the fact that we do need partners in that region we do need those arab allies to come forward and you have mentioned it. both of you as more of an aside comment but i would really like to understand how we can more effectively engage turkey, which is an ally which is a friend in that region, how can we engage them more to combat isis and those other threats that exist within the middle east?

>> well, the -- the turks are playing a role. it is partly very helpful. the turks have a large minority in their country who are kurd. and so they have multiple concerns about what goes on. they also have very emotional feelings about -- about syria. but i think we can help the countries of the middle east turkey is one, with great military capability. as i say egypt is another one.

egypt is a large country in any part of the world. and they ought to want to shape their own region in the right direction and we ought to encourage that rather than taking their in forming the region. >> thank you. i do agree. and i just would love to know more concrete methods of engaging them. they do have are a lot at stake in that region and i think they can be very valuable partners. i just would love to know how we he do get them to play a more prominent role in the middle east. but thank you very much, gentlemen, today, thank you, mr. chair. >> senator vance? he is gone.

so -- >> could i say that i thank you both, not only for your appearance here but for your many years of outstanding service to the country and your wise and knowledgeable advice and counsel that you provided to many presidents and proven again today before this committee. obviously, there are disagree disagreements and might make mention that the head of mi-5 recently gave a speech a week ago saying that he believed that isis is planning an attack on the united states of america. i don't disagree with him. and i think that would change the outlook of the american people about the degree of our involvement if there was such a thing, which we hope will not happen. but when we have thousands of young men who were going into this fight who will then be

returning from the fight, i think that is something that is not beyond the realm of possibility. but i would like to say that i'm personally very honored to be in the company of two individuals who served our country and continue to do so with such distinction. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> okay.

the c-span cities tour takes book tv is and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. this weekend we have partnered with time warner cable for a visit to agains borrow north carolina. >> and after months and months of cleaning the house, charles halpern, who had been given that task, was making one more walk through and in the attic, he looked over and he saw an envelope with a kind of a green seal on it and walked over and noticed the date was an 1832 document. he removed a single nail from a panel in an upstairs attic room and discovered a trunk and books and portraits stuffed up under the eves and this was this

treasure of dolley madison's things. we have had this story available to the public some displaying different items from time to time, but trying to include her life story from her birth in gilford county to her death in 1849. some of the items that we currently have on display a carved ivory calling card case that has a card enclosed with dolly's signature as well as that of her niece, anna. some small cut glass perfume bottles and a pair of silk slippers that have tiny little ribbons that tie across the arch of her foot. and the two dresses are the reproductions of a silk -- peach silk gown that she wore earliest in life and a red velvet group which is intrigued both that it

lasted and part of this collection and a legend that is now -- accompanies this dress. >> watch all of our events from greensboro, saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2 on american history tv on c-span3. every weekend on c-span3 48 hours of american history. and this week, with the house and senate in recess all week for presidents' day, we are bringing you american history tv in primetime on c-span3. tonight, two discussions from the american historical association's annual meeting. first, a look at the social upheaval of the 1970s. then a conversation on historians being viewed as public intellectuals. up next on american history tv on c-span3, a look at the social changes of the 1970s such as the a