the requirement that we take concerted effort against bashar al assad as a precondition for the turks to have any greater role in the coalition to deal with isil. >> isn't it true that turdy at this point is still allowing foreign fighters to cross its borders into syria? >> if foreign fighters get across the border, it's not because the turks allow it. i had a conversation with them yesterday. i've watched them grip the problem. it is a greater problem that me of us had imagined at the beginning. they've attempted to strengthen their border crossing protocols. we're seeking greater intelligence sharing with them in that regard. we're restructuring some elements of the coalition, specifically to focus the capabilities of nations on the issue of the movement and the dealing of foreign fighters through transit states of which the turks are going to play an important role in that process within the coalition. to foreign fighters cross turkey

and get into syria? yes, they do. do the turks permit that? i don't think so. >> one final question. iran is in the midst of iraq. it's in the midst of syria. do we share much rale goals with iran? >> well oob i'll say that our goals with respect to iraq is that we return iraq to the sovereign control of the people and the government. >> do you think the iranians share that view? >> i believe so. i believe the iranians would believe that their interests -- would consider their interests are best served -- >> because they have significant influence in iraq? >> they have regional interest and those interests are in iraq. that's not something that should surprise us or necessarily alarm

us. >> i'm looking beyond. so if we think an accommodation with iran to fight isil is good the aftermath of that in iraq, in syria, in yemen and elsewhere in my view is not so good. so times we look at the short game versus the long one and i'm concerned about what the long one is. >> i would not propose that we're accommodating iran and iraq at this moment. we're undertaking the measures that we're undertaking in iraq with the iraqis. but as you have pointed out and your question presupposed, the iranians have an interest in the stable iraq, just as we in the region have an interest in the stable iraq. that doesn't mean we're accommodating the aryanians by the measures we're taking in iraq. >> general allen, thank you for your service. i do not envy your task.

in your testimony you say that isis has lost half of its iraq based leadership. how do we know that? >> i'm sorry, say again your question, sir. >> you say that isis has lost half of its iraq-based leadership? how do we know that? do we have pretty good intelligence on this? >> we actually do have pretty good intelligence on this matter. the process of tracking the elements within the senior esh longs of isil's leadership we've been tracking them and dealing with them. >> in the last six months you we've aptly demonstrated that isil now finds itself under pressure. how many people are coming into the battle actually being drawn and recruiteds by what they see in isis versus the people that really are dying? >> well i think that's a

difficult number to -- >> is it positive or negative? are more people joining the fight versus what we're able to -- >> i would say two things. the numbers are up and they're up because we ooh now tracking the numbers in ways that we haven't before. i think the numbers are also up because of the caliphate. and that has created a magnetism for those elements that want to be part of this, that want to support this, this emergence within their own sense of their faith. and so that has created a recruiting opportunity for isil that they had not had before. so we're going to continue to track those numbers. it's not just a matter of dealing with those numbers in the battle space. we're dealing with those numbers by virtue of taking other measures. as my testimony indicated, we operate along five liebs of effort. the military line is one of

them. another line where we'll be seeing more traction be realized as time goes on will be the consortion of nations that have taking the necessary steps to make it difficult to be recruited in a country, to transit out of that country and ultimately get to the battle space. plus, as isil, the so-called caliphate as it continues and receive blow after blow, using that to message what this organization is to decrease its attractiveness to other those that might otherwise be attracted. it would take all of those measures in concert. >> that leads to me next question. defeat sounds good. but can you describe what defeat looks like? >> it is that this organization has been rendered ineffective in its capability of being an external threat to iraq. we're not going to eradicate or

annihilate isil. most of the organizations that we've dealt with before, there will be some residue of that organization for a long period of time to come. but with we don't want it to be abilities to threaten iraq ore other states in the region. we want to deanyonish its kpas pi to generate funding which limits dramatically its operational decision-making and capabilities to affect discretion with respect to its recruiting and battlefield capabilities. we want to compete with it and ultimately overcome or defeat its message in the information sphere where it's ashooefd significant cape capeabilitycapability. we know how we want to deal with them in the financial sphere and the information sphere and all of those together constitute -- will constitute the defeat of isil.

>> you mentioned the establishment of the caliphate the article in the atlantic really laid out that that is a draw, that is a pull that establishes a certain benchmark, a certain motivation for people being recruited. it relies on territorial gains or holding on territory. is that part of defeat deny them territory. >> absolutely. >> so that that caliphate no longer exists? we're talking about december mags. that's what secretary kerry -- that was the word he used, decimate. kind of like after nazi germany people scattered around the world. that's not what i'm hearing from you. >> december mags is clearly one of the terms that we might apply to it. we want them to have in operational capability in the end. break them up into small organizations that don't have the capacity as it begins to attempt to mass to be a threat. >> define a small organization. again, i'm just trying to get

some sense of what we mean by defeat. it sounds great deny them operational capabilities. are we talking about taking 30,000 down to 500? >> it will take time. it will take time that will ultimately berealized in name ber of ways breaking up the organization through kinetic and military service means it will take time to reduce the message and the attractiveness that gives it the capacity to regenerate its forces, it will take time to deny it to the international financial system that gives it the capability of restoring itself or generating capabilities. all of those things together, if we deny the access, defeat their information, break them up into small groups then that's defeat. >> i'm out of time. thank you general. >> senator carden.

>> thank you very much for your continued service to our country. these are extremely challenges times and we're very proud of your leadership. >> thank you, sir. >> you're urging us to be patient, that this is going to take some time in order to achieve our mission of not only degrading but destroying and defeating isil. you believe as i understand that the authorizations previously passed by congress give the administration the authorization nes for use of force. but i also understand you support the president's request to congress? >> i do. i do sir. >> and of course the president's request for congress is pretty specific on isil and expires in three years. it's clear that there may well be a need for a continued military presence beyond that three years. >> i would say probably a need

for military activity u.s. activity in some form or another, yes, sir. >> and i think that's an honest assessment. >> sure. >> and if i understand the reasoning behind the request is that the current administration recognizes it will be up to the next administration to come back to get the next congress and administration together on the continued commitment to fight terrorists and what use of force will be necessary. >> i can't answer that precisely but it would seem that's a logical reason for that. >> so my point is, why doesn't that also apply to 2001 authorization of force? here we're talking about a threat that was identified last year that we are currently combatting recognizing that the campaign or use of force may well go beyond three years. but it's the prerogative of the next congress and administration to define the authorizations

that are needed. the 2001 authorization which was passed against a known threat against the united states and afghanistan now still being used to a threat such as isil, wouldn't the same logic apply that congress should define the 2001 authorization contemporary with the current needs to go after al qaeda? >> i've traveled to many of the capitals of this coalition and one of the things that has been clear to me as i have traveled to these capitals has been the really substantial gratitude of the coalition for american leadership. and the willingness for america to act. and in so many ways, these nations, the coalition, see isil

in a very different way than they ever saw al qaeda. they're grateful for our leadership and our willingness to act. and i believe that that amuf which is specifically tailored to isil, with a strong support of the congress, gives not just the president the options that are necessary ultimately to deal with this new and unique threat, but it also reinforces the image of the american leadership that i think is so deeply wanted by our partners and so deeply needed by this country and ultimately by the coalition to deal with isil the way we want to. >> and i understand that and it's limited to three years. >> that's right. >> would you agree that our success in iraq in dealing with isil very much depends upon the sunni tribes taking a leadership role in stopping the advancement of isil, that it's difficult for

the shiites and the western force to be able to get the type of confidence in the community to with stand the recruitments of isil? >> i put it slightly differently. i would absolutely agree with you. but i think it takes decisive sunni leadership as well within iraq. but the tribes will be essential to the outcome. kwlour question is correct, sir. >> what is your confidence level in the government of iraq and baghdad and its ability to work with the sunni tribal leaders to give them the confidence that their centralized government represents their interest and protects their interest? >> it's a hard sale senator. because previously we asked the sunni tribes to trust the central government in baghdad under maliki. it didn't work out too well for

them. but i've met with them and been pleased frankly, very pleased at their willingness to accept the leadership of prime minister abadi and the minister of the interior and helping them to be a principle mechanism. that has been an encouraging sign for me frankly to see them not just as a group of tribes but also as leaders of the tribes be public and forthcoming in their willingness to support the central government in iraq and in particular prime minister abadi. >> i really do appreciate your service. >> yes, sir. >> senator paul. >> general allen, thanks for your testimony. what percentage would you say is an estimate of how many of the official iraqi army are sunni versus shiite? >> i'll have to take the

question. the standing army the prepond dance is the majority is shia. i'll take the question. >> it's on the hills of what senator carden is asking. global security reports 780% to 90% of the iraqi army being shia. i think to have an enduring victory there's some question whether you can have an enduring victory and occupy mosul. so i think that still is a significant political problem and a significant military problem as well. of the chief tans that fought in the surnl, what percentage are engaged on our side now fight against isis, what percentage on the shrines and what percentage indifferent? >> those are numbers that are difficult to give you with any precision. the ones i fought alongside in '07 and '08, the ones i've spoken to without exception have

indicated their desire to fight to recover their lands, to ultimately return to the tribes and ultimately to iraq. they've been forthcoming in their desire to do that. >> and the chief tans are no longer in the area? >> many of them are. some at great risk traveled out of the area it mately to speak with us. but they are. and many of them are in ie man and they're in other places. >> with regard to arming the kurds, there were reports a month or two ago that germany wanted to send arms directly to them but there were objections by our government saying everything had to go to baghdad. are the arms forced to go through baghdad to get the kurds? >> i'll take the question but let me offer this. baghdad has not disapproved any request that the kurds have made for weapons. we have attempted to work with

baghdad to streamline to the maximum extent possible to reduce any delays that may inhibit or impair the expeditious delivery of arms and equipment to the kurds. >> do you think this includes sufficient technology and long range weaponry to meet their needs and their requests? >> all that is coming. as you know sir, through the support of the congress we're training and equipping 12 iraqi brigades, and the peshmerga brigades will be armed and equipped with the same sophisticated weapons that the other brigades will receive. >> is there any possibility that any of that could be transported to the kurds? >> that's a question we should pose to the department of defense but i'll take the question. >> thank you. with regard to ultimate victory,

with regard to trying to get turkey involved, do you think there's any possibility of an agreement wean the turks and the kurds, particularly the turkish kurds to accept and agreement where there would be a kurdish homeland not in turkish territory that would encourage turkey then to participate more heavily and is anybody in the state department trying to come to an accommodation between the turks and the kurds? >> not to my knowledge. >> take that message to them too, please. thank you. >> senator if i may, on the one comment that you made to the shia and iraqi security forces, the actions that are going to be taken in these towns are going to be more than simply those of the clearing force. what's going to be important to recognize is there will be follow alongs after the clearing force.

we're working closely with the iraqis for the hold force which will be hopefully the sunni police which will actually secure and provide support to the iraqi population that will just have been liberated. the govern ans element the most important aspect of the clearance, the immediate humanitarian assistant necessary to provide for relief of the populations. it's more complexion than just the clearing force. while we may have to accept that there is a large presence of the shia elements within the iraqi military, i know that there's a very strong effort under way to ensure that the sunnis are deeply engagedless where in all of the other aspects of the recovery of the population. >> one quick follow-up to that. i think you might get more support from the sunni people if you were leafletting the place

saying it's led by sunni generals. i think our problem was mosul was being occupied by a shiite force and they didn't say long once push came to shove they were pretty much gone. thank you. >> senator markey. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. thank you general so much for your service. in the authorization for the use of military force text that the administration provided to this committee, it said it would prohibit enduring ground forces. and this was meant to convey that large numbers of troops wouldn't be on the ground for a long time. whatever that means. i voted for the 2001 resolution and i'm reminded that the u.s. combat operations in afghanistan

were dubbed operation enduring freedom. we are now past 13 years in that enduring fight and that resolution, of course, was also the basis for the justification of our actions in somalia, in yemen and the administration is saying quite clearly that they oppose the repeal of that. and that the operations that are going on right now in fact are consistent with that 2001 resolution. now that causes great problems to me and i think many members of the committee. because even in the absence of the passage of a new amuf, the administration is maintaining that they have the authority to continue as they have for 13 years under operation enduring freedom. and so that obviously is a problem for us because that sits there as an underlying

authority for the next president, democrat or republican, who is sworn in on january 20th 2017. and most of us will be sitting here at that time as your successor is sitting here. and perhaps not with the same interpretation of the word enduring. so my questions then go to, is this going to open up a potential for an open-ended war in the middle east? will it allow for unfeted deployment of ground troops? and ultimately whether or not we are opening up pandora's box especially in syria. so my first question to you goes to president assad and what the goal will be underneath this authorization in terms of the removal of president assad

which has been historically an objective that the united states has said is important. so could you tell us what president assad and his removal represents as one of the goals that exists in training 5,000 troops in syria for the next three years in a row as the long term objective after the defeat of isis? >> well our political goal the policy goal ultimately is that the process of change of assad's departure should occur through a political process and that ultimately he should depart and not be part of the future of the political landscape in syria. the role of the tne program is to first and foremost, give those elements of the moderate syrian opposition we're

supporting the capacity to defend themselves, to build batter field acredibility and ultimately to use those elements and forces to deal with stash and the context of the strategy to deal with stash. at the same time we're building that capacity our hope would be to build within the political esh long, a sophistication that the two together the political and the military esh lon are the critical force that will have a place at the table during the political process that will see the replacement of assad. >> it seems to me that's a ten-year proposition. and if that's the case, we should be talking in a ten-year period. we can finish iraq over the next three years, but then that's a much longer process and we should just understand what the

long term goal requires of us inside syria. and just saying assad's name over and over again will help us focus on the ultimate objective that the free syrian army is going to have in that country and then what we're signing up for in terms of the long term military effort inside of that country. and if i -- and i thank you, mr. chairman for the opportunity to ask this one final question, which is, the basic tension that king abdullah was talking about which is that of the americans providing help to fight the war but not claiming credit, so it does not look like a kru said inside that region, can you talk about that so that the people in the region do not view this as an u.s.-led coalition against isil because ultimately that then comes back to haunt us.

that was the message that we were receiving from all across the middle east. >> well i think, senator king abdullah of jordan has been very clear throughout the period of this coalition that in the end the solution to the problems of the region must not only look like but must be the function of those states within the region to take concerted action supported by the united states and supported by a broader global coalition for those concerted actions to be successful. it's very important obviously that the solution have an arab face and a muslim voice with respect to dealing with the so-called caliphate and all that it has brought to the region. and the king and other muslim and arab leaders in the region have been very clear on the desire that they -- not just appear but really are exercising

leadership frontally in this process. >> i don't think the people in that region view it that way. but it has to be our goal. we have to switch it so that it's not us. senator paul was referring to that, that it has to be an indig nous muslim-led effort and i don't think right now that's the internal view. thank you. >> senator isaacson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general allen, thank you for your service to the country. i followed you closely on tv the last couple of months and i think you've done a great job. we're operating under the 2001 amuf is that correct? >> that's correct. >> would it be fair to say that the one the president sent to us to consider is actually eliminating amuf compared to the 2001 authorization? >> it is specifically intended to deal with the threat of isil, that's correct >> but it's limiting in the authority of the president would have primarily by the

interpretation of the enduring phrase, is that correct?? >> enduring and the expectation as he's described it in the proposed legislation on the size and kinds of forces that might be applied, measures that might be applied is that correct? >> i voted for the 2001 authorization when i was here. it came on the heels of 9/11/20109/11/ 9/11/2001. it was passed at a time when americans had flags raised and the patriotism in our country was at an all-time high, at least in my lifetime and my memory. are we going to have to wait for that type of event to happen before we use whatever it take to destroy this evil? meaning isil and those like them? >> i think we're taking those measures now to get after the evil that is isil. it's an evil we haven't seen before in a very long time. just today the fbi rolled up three individuals in this

country that were intent of joining ice until the battle space or doing ill to the american people. and as long as we're at the front edge of this taking those kinds of measures, we have the boss oblt of keeping it from becoming something like a 9/11. >> in your printed statement and i presume it's part of your remarks you said verbally, you said it will be the aggregate pressure of the coalition's active over the mutual supported lines of effort that will determine a campaign's success. >> that's right. >> what are the mutually supported lines that you're speaking about? >> working more aligned in the community of nations to limit the flow of foreign fighters, to deal with the measures to take the measures necessary to deal with the ability to limit isil's capacity to generate revenue ultimately to support its operations and to give it discretion to take action against us or potentially or

allies. to provide support to those elements of the population in the region that have been displaced by virtue of the activities of isil or have been directedly suppressed by the boot of isil's conquests and sub tro gags. and then very importantly to work together to, in the information space, ultimately to defeat the idea of dash. and the coalition is working very hard. i've just come back from southeast asia where i met with the leadership of several countries there. they're watching with great interest and concern those things that are occurring in the middle east, which could spread into their region, and they're interested in joining us in ways that can limit the ability of those organizations there to travel to the battle space or to limit their ability to directly challenge the authorities of those countries.

so it's not just the countries of the middle east it's not just the countries of europe, it's the countries of southeast asia. and very importantly within the confines of effort. working closely to outreach the indig nous populations of the country in ways that the can dispel the image of the caliphate. in ways to work with the religious leaders and tribal leaders in those countries with populations that may be at risk, to work with teachers and clerics and family to reduce the attraction to this extremist message. and the combination of all of those activities together we think will pressure and ultimately put the kinds of pressure on dash first to defend ourselves and ultimately to defeat the organization. >> on that point and very briefly because my time will be up in 45 seconds. >> yes, sir. >> are we doing enough to counter act the use of social media and technology to communicate exactly what you're

talking about? what you heard about in southeast asia and what i've heard from on trips i've taken is the fear they'll use social media and the modern mechanisms that we have today to spread their ideology and fear around the world >> they're doing it now. it is in fact an explicit objective within our evers among the many nations involved to do just that. obviously in nations where free speech is an issue, that we have to accommodate that aspect of our relationship with industry that owns these platforms to ensure that we're either able to intradistrict that message or work with industry to remove the message many its own content. we're working closely with industry and with our partners to counter that message across all of the social media. >> thank you for your time and your service. >> thank you sir. >> thank you. senator boxer. >> thank you so much mr.

chairman ranking member menendez. general, thank you so much for your dedication to this nation. i want to thank the president for the wisdom he showed in appointing you as the special envoy. i find your presentation to be very direct, no frils just straightforward and i appreciate it. under article one section eight, congress has the power to declare war. i know you agree with that yes? >> yes, ma'am. >> so i hope you can then understand what we would want to be very precise when we do that. because we're sent here by a lot of people who have a lot of kids who serve in the military. and they're the fabric of our community. so we want to be careful. and i just want to say i'm not even going to ask you to expand on this enduring word because

you've said it very clearly. your definition is no enduring presence could mean a two week presence of american combat boots on the ground or a two-year presence of american combat boots on the ground. and that answers a question the democrats on this committee have been searching for this deaf sigs. and i think what you have proven with your honesty here is that there is none. because it's the eye of the beholder. when you say to me if i vote for this no enduring combat presence and i'm sending my kids there in any state for two years i would argue with you, you've misinterpreted it. yet, the congressional research service says there's really no definition and if i wanted to take an administration to court because i would say as a member of congress i said no enduring presence, crs says i wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on because this's no definition. so i just think it's very important the administration

hear this once again. i know poor secretary kerry had to hear it over and over again from our side yesterday. but we're very uncomfortable with this language. and when senator menendez was chairman, he cobbled together a good amuf that united all of us on our side because he essentially said no combat troops with these exceptions and he put in the kind of exceptions i think you would agree with, special forces operations search and rescue protecting personnel. and we would urge you, please, to go back and take a look at it. i just feel very strong. and i want to ask you questions that have nothing to do with that because i think you and i would probably disagree on that subject. there's no point in going over it again. but i am very concerned about u.s. military support for the kurds. and you answered the question in a very sure way which is

wonderful. you said, oh no problem. however the kurds aren't saying that. so i want to call to your attention a recent interview with bloomberg view just three weeks ago. the head of the expressed concern about our commitment to the kurds. these are our boots on the ground. these are our boots on the ground. he said quote we're starting to have doubts that there might be a political decision on what kind of equipment will be given the kurds. we're fieging with the rest of the world against this terrorist organization. we're putting our lives on the line. all we ask for is the sufficient equipment to protect these lives. so i need you to respond to that. is that off base? what do you think about that? do you take that comment seriously? does it concern you? >> i listen very carefully to what the kurds have to say. and they have in so many ways demonstrated battlefield

excellence and courage that should elicit all, all of our respect. but we have worked very carefully and very closely with the kurds. and your question presupposes and is correct that american support to the kurds have given them the capacity and more broadly and more recently coalition support to the kurds has given them the ability to do much of what they have been able to accomplish, recovery of mosul dam, the seizure of kisook junction. the many things they've done is because the coalition has been in close support with them. at the same time, in several different rounds, we've worked very hard with coalition member to respond to kurdish requests for equipment and that equipment has been flowing in. also in the context of the $1.6 billion that was appropriated for the train and equip program for the 12 iraqi army brigades, three of which are peshmerga,

they're getting exactly the same sophisticated equipment that the kurds -- >> my question was not about how good they are. we agree. they are saying they do not feel they have enough equipment. and i'm just saying ingsaying, you're saying everything is rosy. they're complaining about it. as one senator i can't speak for anyone else. they are our boots on the ground. we need to get them what they need. i know there's pressure from certain factions but if they're going to be our boots on the ground, we've got to give them what they need. thank you. >> thank you. senator rub jo. >> thank you for your service to our country and your willingness to come back in and help with this new endeavor of great difficulty. i know we're not debating the authorization for use of force but i want to ask you, it's my understanding from our review of the process that only two times in our history has congress

authorized the use of force with limitations and both were u.n. peacekeeping missions. and so the question that i would have now is if our objective here is the defeat of isis would it not be prudent to authorize the commander in chief to move forward in that regard and allow him as commander in chief and any future commander in chief whoever they may be to decide what the appropriate strategy is moving forward. what would be wrong with simply authorizing the president to defeat them? >> well the strategy that the president has approved in fact does envision the defeat of dash. >> i understand the strategy duds. for purposes of an authorization from congress -- i know you've endorsed today what the president wants to do. and i understand that that's what the president thinks he can get passed. but from a military point of

view wouldn't it be appropriate to authorize the president to do whatever it takes to defeat them? >> the president needs the options that he -- that should be available to him ultimately to defeat dash. >> is it possible to defeat isis would them being ultimately defeated by someone on the ground. someone is going to have to confront them on the ground an defeat them there. >> yes. >> can you update us on efforts -- i've seen some conversation amongst the regional countries about the potential for a coalition of armed forces brought together, the egyptians, the turks the saudis, perhaps some of the kingdoms jordan, et cetera who could provide a coalition of local forces who could play that role with significant u.s. assistance from the air. has there been any progress plaed made in that? is that being activity discussed with the nations? >> i would really prefer to have

this sort of a conversation in a closed session. >> let me move to a separate topic. the nature of the conflict isis has already proven they're going to move in -- for a group of this to take hold and be able to grow, they need ungoverned vacuum spaces. that's what's attracted them to libya, the ability to operate uncontested in terms of another government, et cetera. it is important to understand that as this conflict continues, the possibility continues to grow that isis, in addition to being based in ear ya and iraq will look to other places where they can set up nodes of operation, libya season a example but potentially training camps in afghanistan, any place where a vacuum opens up is attractive and appealing for them. as we put forth our strategy and the congress deliberates the authority it gives the president, that reality needs to be taken into account correct?

>> i agree, yes, sir. >> the last question is about the nature of the conflict. it's been talked pabt in the past that isis is some sort of a group of monsters that take on these acts of extreme violence. but these are not just random acts of extreme violence. this is a group -- their bar boarism has a purpose at the end of the day, to purify that region to their form of islam at the exclusion of non-sunni islam but especially of nonislamic populations. and in that realm it is clear that christians and yazidis but recently christians in particular are increased dark in this area. they target the christians as a way to shock the world and as an effort to carry out the ultimate goal of pour fieing the region for islam. is there not a deep religious component to isis's strategy

here. they're trying to again using a term they would use, not one that i necessarily enjoy using, but cleanse the region of infidels and nonbelieves and in that realm they've specifically targeted christians for these sorts of atrocities they're committing on an ongoing basis that we saw yesterday again. >> i would say yes to that. the interpretation that they apply to all of those segments of the population that live within the area that they control has permitted them to do the things that they have done to certain elements of the population. to i absolutely agree with you. their interpretation of their responsibility ushd the so-call caliphate is to take action against certain elements of the population and treat them one way and certain elements of the population and treat them another way. it's based on their historic interpretation. >> thank you senator cain. >> thank you mr. chairman and

thank you general allen for the service. i want to thank you. you did very significant and important work with respect to trying to provide a security road map for the west bank in the event of a peace deal between israeli and palestinian leaders. whether the leaders will do what their citizens want them to do and find such a deal is up to them. but it shouldn't go unnoticed that you have worked hard on that and your work then and in this context in the best traditions of american diplomacy. i want to thank you for that js thank you, sir. >> i want to ask you a question and then ask two questions about means. senator johnson was quizzing you about what is defeat of isil. they're not a state. they say they're a state, they're not. they're not islaming. they say they are. they're not. they're a mutation of islam. you talk about defeating the idea of isil.

they're an i'd logical driven death cult. we have to grapple with the question of what does defeat look like. i'm very practical about this. i want to protect americans from isil. that's what i want to do. i want to protect americans from isil and i want to protect the allies who ask for our help. the defeat of the ideology, we could be chasing a phantom but i want to protect the americans and defend the allies who ask for that. on the means side, a question about the ground troops issues. in the last three weeks we've had meetings with king abdullah and the mayor of cutter. king abdullah said this is our fight, not yours and basically suggested that u.s. ground troops would not be a good idea. the emir of cutter was actually even more straightforward about that today. he said, i don't want american

ground troops in. he actually -- he didn't suggest this to hum. he brought up that it may be a recruiting bonanza for isil. it's against the west, now we can really recruit people. >> i think that's accurate. >> the ground troop thing is a wordsmithing issue, but that's subsidiary to the bigger issue. do we become an occupier a recruiting tool for isil. king abdullah's notion this terrorism is board and bred in the region. the region has got to stand up against it. if the region is not willing to stand up against it there's nothing that the u.s. can do that will ultimately lead to a success. we can't police a region that won't police itself. when the leaders from the region say american ground troops are a bad idea, that's a powerful thought to those of us who are going to be voting on

authorizationings. how would you respond to that notion that the presence in any significant way of american ground troops changes the character of this making it the west against isil rather than a region needing to police its own extremism? >> i do agree with the amir and the king. the presence infusion of a large db i think this is where they would be a little more precise if even the opportunity. the presence of a large conventional maneuver force would change the nature of the conversation. pu it's really important to understand that during iraq and during afghanistan and in the way we have responded to other similar challenges around the world, the united states brings to bear a variety of really important capabilities. the first is the capacity of our strategic leadership. just our leadership alone has brought to bear 62 nations

against this challenge. our leadership brought to bear the first night of our strike operations five five arab air forces flying along on the wing of the united states air force in strikes against isil targets in syria. that's not anything that any of us could have imagined a year ago. so our strategic leadership counts as an enabler to the process. other ways and means -- your question is really important. other ways and means that we can bring success to the arab solution to this is providing technical support, intelligence support, focused special operations strike capabilities, the training and equipping that we're doing today some of which can be done incountry, some of which can be done offshore in partner nations. the ag gags of those activities

undertaken with partners in the region ultimately to achieve the ends that we seek. the united states and our coalition partners have many means at our disposal from leadership all the way through to potential for special operations strike to give our arab partners exactly what they want, which is the capacity for them to be the defeat mechanism in the end. >> thank you. mr. chairman. >> senator gardner. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you general allen for your service and your time and testimony today. and again, we have to recognize that isis is a real threat to this country and it requires a comprehensive strategy and the commitment to their total destruction, i think, is the only thing that we can we can accept. i'm glad the president has made the effort to forward the amuf to congress. obviously i look forward to working with the president on the amuf and this committee.

in the letter that the president transmitted along with his language for the amuf he stated, and i'll quote, i have directed a comprehensive and sustained strategy to degrade and defeat isil. degrade and defeat isil. as part of this, we are conducting system mat particular air strikes against eisenhowerisis in iraq and syria. the u.s. has conducted about 250 air strikes. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> since operation irthe operation began. is the pace of the operation sufficient to eradicate isil at this point? >> well eradication is not the end state that we are seeking at this particular moment. our hope -- hope is not the term that i want to use.

what our expectation is given the strategy of the u.s. co- coalition air power and ultimately syrian forces will over time give us the strategic outcome that we desire. the combination of all those things together is what we anticipate . >> so besides the air strikes, then does the president's comprehensive and sustained strategy envision? >> several things. the first is to provide the stability of the iraqi government which is essential. we're working with the government in respect to reforms in partnership with the body of government which is inclined to see it that way. we're working closely with the iraqi security forces to prepare them for a long-term counter

offensive which will remove them from the country. we're working as an international coalition on behalf of iraq to pressure and generate funds and resources necessary for its long-term survival. we're working as an international coalition to staunch the flow of foreign fighters to dash has difficulty replacing its combat forces. we're going to share intelligence so we're working with the iraqis to give them a clear picture of what we understand dash to be and also so that we can defend ourselves and homeland for the potential of dash activities within the united states. and then of course we're working very closely with our partners to provide humanitarian assistance to those elements of the population that will need to be recovered and relieved as we

liberate them from the presence of dash in their population centers and then finally to work together with iraq and our partners and beyond the defeat of dash which is the defeat of its ideas over the long term. >> and the operations that we just discussed, does that change at all. >> commanders take stock of the operational environment and ultimately and takes advantage of the opportunities available to them in the operational environment. we could well find that, based on our current estimates, that the activities that we'll undertake in the counter offensive will follow along the pace and timeline that we

anticipate. but we could easily find that as a counter offensive unfolds, that daesh is unwilling to defeat at the hands of the iraq security forces which with what we want to see. so we may see that the operational environment could change and it's the responsibility of our very capable commanders in this case to constantly be monitoring the success of the unfolding operation to ensure we're getting the most out of the resources that we have and if we need more resources that we ask for them. >> thank you mr. chairman. senator murphy? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. general allen, thank you for your service. thank you for your answers to the questions. they are very helpful. he want to build on some questions from senator menendez and boxer on the language that we have before us. a lot of attention has been on

enduring between what our offensive forces and what are defensive forces. just so i understand this, you've talked about the potential limitations under the enduring limitation but so long as the presence of troops is considered defensive there is no limitation in this authorization of military force as to the number of troops or the duration of their time in the conflict area, so long as they are considered defensive forces. >> again, i'm not sponsoring the legislation. but the -- i think your point is correct in that regard. >> i thought your answer to senator mccain's question was definitive. i know you worry, as the president does that a large-scale of deployment of troops could become recruiting

fodder. do you think that that changes if our cat gore rye zags of the forces are offensive or defensive if we have 100,000 defensive troops? i don't think this president is going to authorize this but this is a three-year authorization so the next president will get the chance to decide differently. will it matter in terms of the ability for extremists to recruit as to whether our troops there were categorized as defensive versus offensive? >> i -- again, these are all individual measures. it depends on how the crisis has unfolded. it depends on the region in which those forces may be involved. it would depend on the activities that would have occurred prior to the introduction of forces that we

might call defensive. it's just not possible to give a specific answer to that question. you know, i would have a difficult time understanding how we have 100,000 forces in a defensive environment if we hadn't had substantial on fen sif operations to begin with and that would, of course change the regional view and the perspective on our forces and the outcome. so i think there may be occasions where we have facilities or concentrations of friends and allies need to be defended. the rationale that we would use for the insertion of our allied troops to defend those locations or those populations would be very, very important. so i think each of those circumstances will have to be judged independently. >> and do you have a sense -- i know you're not the sponsor of this legislation but you were there -- as to what the limits

of that word defensive are. if our forces were there taking fire from an isil position and you do advance on that position to eliminate it in order to defend our troops i assume that that action in that time and space would be considered defensive in the sense that it was necessary in order to defend our troops or coalition troops. >> well, yes. in that particular answer yes. again, we would probably prior to the deployment of those forces have come forward with as clear an explanation as we could as to what defensive would look like in the context of accomplishing that mission and accomplishing those tasks associated with defense. >> you're going to get stuck with a lot of hypothetical questions on these two phrases enduring and offensive and defensive because we're stuck with trying to figure them out.

part of the success of the awakening was not just persuasion but also the transfer of substantial resources to tribes. we effectively paid tribes in various ways in order to compensate them from moving away from insurge insurgency and coalition forces. how do we educate as we move forward once again a strategy of trying to win over these forces? >> that's a really important question. i was deep in that process and we did in fact, provide direct support and we gave that direct support to the tribes in so many ways because the central government was incapable of doing it. and when we provided that support, as you well recall,

fundamentally the operational environment changed very quickly in '07 and '08. i think what we learned from that was not the fundamental change in the battle space that favored us it was the long-term outcome of the sons of iraq, which was the hand-over of the responsibility to resource the sons of iraq to the central government in iraq. and that didn't work out frankly. because it was never clear to us whether maliki intended to support them or not. in this case, we seek in every possible way, both to encourage and support the central government to bridge those elements now by supporting them, being present in the training process and ultimately ensuring that the linkage between the shaiks and the sunni leaders is effective with the government

not in a handoff later. one of the most important messages or lessons that have come from this. >> and does that include financial resources from the iraqi government to these tribes. >> yes, in the context, for example, of the 2015 budget by the iraqis and there is a way for the recruitment of tribal elements and into the national guard organizations. those organizations will belong to the governor and support and be nationalized in the event of a national emergency. that entity will belong to the ministry of defense and paid by national funds. so the mechanism is under way

right now where we are training tribal elements in anbar right now, they are being trained by the iraqi government. we're providing the training. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator flake. thank you for your testimony. we've got a vote so we need to go quickly. just a couple of questions, quickly. how important do you think -- and i apologize if you answered this before i came. how important do you think it is to have this usmf? >> i think it's very important. the united states has exerted great leadership in bringing together these countries ultimately to support the restoration of the situation in iraq, its sovereignty and ultimately to help the deal -- to deal the defeat daesh. isil is a threat that is unique in our time and certainly unique in the time that i have been in

the service and while the elements of the aumf will be treated by this administration and many of the members have brought up important points for clarity or for continued discussion, i think that's extraordinarily important, the message that it sends, that the administration is in a constant conversation and dialogue. but most importantly in support of the u.s. leadership globally on this issue a strong bipartisan vote to support the aumf compliments the leadership that the united states has exerted in this crisis. >> thank you. both our adversaries and our allies need to speak with one voice here. >> exactly. >> is there one that is more important in that regard or equally important for both of them to hear these messages? >> our friends who are in the coalition in the 21 capitals i've traveled to have been extraordinarily grateful for the american leadership on this

issue. but what i want is for our adversaries not to be able to sleep at night because we have the unqualified support of the congress in our actions necessary to defeat this enemy. >> at what point is the impact of this aumf diminished if we have language -- if we try to include every point of view and every nuance as opposed to something straightforward that we're in this to win? at what point does it become less important? >> it would be difficult for me to answer, senator, but i would just hope that the consultation between the administration and this committee puts the language in there that the president needs to defend the american people to defend our country but also to deal the defeat that daesh that it desperately needs. >> well, other examples of aumf, there hasn't been much change. we have basically done what the administration has asked for. there's been some amendments in recent aumfs but, by in large it's been rather straightforward

language, rather short. i frankly think the language that the administration put forward is a good start and it may be amended some but i would caution the committee and the congress in general, the senate and the house from going too far to make it all things to everyone. and probably diminish the importance of it. thank you for your service and thank you for your testimony here. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you senator. senator king, i know had a follow-up. >> i wanted to ask about one of the lines of effort that we're working on in a fairly significant way and that's the humanitarian relief line. the u.s. is the most generous nation in the world in terms of humanitarian relief in relation to refugees to syria but the problem is getting worse in some ways because of closing of borders with lebanon too many refugees there, turkey with border issues is probably less

willing to see waves and waves of syrians coming over. and so what are we doing in tandem with the other nations to try to deal with the humanitarian crisis to deal with all of these displaced folks in syria whether they are displaced because of assad, cholera, poverty outbreaks, i wonder if the humanitarian efforts are in tandem with other nations. >> i'll give you a partial answer and take the question and give you the ability of the department to come back. we obviously take that very seriously. we have the relief efforts that, as you point out, have been generously supported by the united states and others directly to the populations of syria and iraq. we have the u.n. appeals which need a lot more assistance to bring those appeals up to 100%. we're in the depth of a winter

which has made this more urgent and timely and we have the front-line states struggling with the influx of syrian refugees. turkey lebanon and jordan. we need to give them the support necessary to ensure these demographic changes that they are experiencing are in the end, not destabilizing to their stability and their security. and then very importantly is the humanitarian assistance that will follow in trace of the counteroffensive when that ultimately kicks off. it could be argued that the clearing operation will be important to remove daesh out of the population center. but we're going to find that these people have lived under indescribable conditions. and so our ability to quickly

apply the humanitarian assistance necessary to the female populations, to the more broadly the liberated populations, to the internally displaced persons that will come home as we begin to clear these population centers of daesh, supporting their return to their homes, the necessary humanitarian assistance to the restoration of the central services electricity, water and then ultimately reconstruction. as your question presupposes, this is a huge bill and a huge undertaking to -- should be to everyone's satisfaction or at least optimism. many of the members of the coalition have been very clear in their willingness to support the broader u.n. for the region and the front-line states and a number other of the coalition members have put their hands in

the air to be leaders of and supporters to that very important humanitarian effort that will follow right on closely on the heels of the clearing operation that will move daesh out of iraq. so it's a multifaceted, multi-layered, complex issue but in the end i think the humanitarian issue is one of the death blows that daesh will experience. >> you talked about the complexity of the no-fly zones and i would commend this along the border of jordan or turkey or both that would be justified by u.n. security council resolutions in place promoting crossword or delivery of humanitarian aid. that would be humanitarian zones for people whether they are following bashar al assad, the winter hunger, whatever once the borders have been closed and

can't transit across the borders, i hope we would contemplate some form of safe haven for these citizens who are suffering so badly and what i think is the worst refugee crisis since world war ii. >> that is correct sir. >> that would be in the form of some type of a no fly zone. >> because no fly has the military you know label right up front, i call it a humanitarian safe haven zone but i would want such a zone to be protected from whoever may be seeking safety. yes. >> very good. >> well, general, i know you have a hard stop in 20 minutes and i think we've -- you've certainly helped us in the ways that we wanted you to help us. we appreciate your testimony. i would have one question and that is is you talked about the

need for congress to be behind the need for dealing with isil. there's been discussions about the length of time from an aumf standpoint. is there anything about the time frame? i know the president has asked whether it's longer or shorter. is there anything about that that you think matters at all relative to what you're talking about appealing to? >> well, our intent with respect to daesh is to end its abilities, to deal that defeat to them as quickly as we can. if it takes longer than three years, my suspicion would be that we would come back to this committee and request an extension. >> and if it was shorter than that it wouldn't trouble you either? >> it wouldn't trouble me at all if daesh was defeated in less than three years. >> no. they would not trouble us either. does the length of time really

particularly matter to you from the standpoint of the allies and those that that we're defeating or is it just more congress getting behind the effort in a bipartisan way? >> i think it's the latter. >> well, listen, i called over the weekend while you were on your way to kuwait. we all view you as someone who is an outstanding public servant. we appreciate the way you've gone about your work. i know it's difficult. i know decisions don't always get made in the manner or time frame that someone like you wants to seek this, get this done in the appropriate way but i think your demeanor, the way you talk with all of us is certainly very, very well received. we wish you well in what you're doing. >> honor to be with you. thank you, sir. good day, sir. >> and with that, the record will be open until friday for any questions.

we would ask that you and your staff respond to those in a fairly timely fashion. meeting is adjourned. a reminder that if you missed any of today's hearing, go to c-span.org. elsewhere on capitol hill, the senate has just voted to open debate on the house-passed homeland security funding bill. the associated press reporting that democrats signed on to a republican agreement to fund the homeland security department without the immigration

provisions provisions proposed by president barack obama. as a partial agency shutdown loomed on friday at midnight. here's what leader reid told reporters earlier today. >> for weeks we've asked that there be a vote on clean funding of the homeland security department. it's so important. coast guard secret service customs and we're glad to see that a vote has happened and we'll do everything that we can to make sure it passes by an overwhelming vote. i think virtually every democrat will vote for that. it's an important step to be able to send to the house of representatives a bill that funds the department of homeland security. one thing that we agreed on without any registration this isn't the time for games. the house of representatives led by speaker boehner is interested

in doing a funding measure for the department of homeland security, it has to be one that has no tricks. no writers and if you send something back there's all these writers and he won't be able to go to conference and he has to understand that. so we look forward to working with our republican colleagues in the next 24 hours to get this done. all eyes now shift to the house of representatives as soon as we pass our clean funding bill. there will be a vote, as everyone knows, on a motion to proceed on the measure and it's way premature to move to proceed to a many weeks on debate on immigration. >> again, the senate has just voted to move forward with the homeland security funding bill. a vote of 98-2 on the procedural vote. just republican senator inhofe

and sessions, the only "no" votes. so the senate moves on to the homeland security funding bill and it's expected that the immigration bills proposed by the president will be removed. you can watch live coverage on our companion network on c-span 2. we are traveling to u.s. cities to learn about their history and literary life. next weekend we partner with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> with the opening of the suez canal, sailing ships were dealt a death blow. coal-fired ships had a shorter route to the far east to india to all of those markets. so sailing ships really needed to find a way to make their own

living. so instead of high-value cargo, they started carrying lower-valued cargos oil, cotton et cetera. so there was a niche in carrying cargo that did not require getting market at a very fast pace. alyssa's connection to galveston is really unique in that she sailed and arrived here in galveston probably about 100 yards from where we are standing right now back in 1883 with cargo full of bananas. she came again a second time later on in the 1880s, in 1886 and it was real important for galveston historical foundation to find a vessel that had a connection and the fact that she was a sailing vessel was all the more important. >> watch all of our events from galveston, saturday, march 7th noon eastern and sunday, march

8th on c-span 3. >> editorial director says the french government is considering internet restrictions in the wake of the january terrorist shootings at "charlie hebdo" magazine and at a grocery store in paris. the french american foundation hosted this discussion featuring press freedom and radicalism. >> i'm going to introduce a little bit to make sure that everyone understands the order of the day. i'm going to ask sylvia who as you probably already know, is the editorial director and columnist and contributing writer to "the new york times" and then i'm going to ask floyd abrams to follow on all of us -- i hope everyone in journalism knows, if you have a problem with the first amendment, you

call floyd abrams and there really is no number two. you just call floyd abrams. and then to sort of talk about the elephant in the room and really bring us to the point of understanding what the problem is, what the underlying problem is and where things are going and i'm hoping there's a lot of cross dialogue. i'm going to ask each person to speak for about five minutes to set the stage. sill yeah will tell us what is going on and what the problems are, from her perspective. i'll let floyd outline the differences and similarities between our idea and america of free expression and perhaps a french notion which may be different in some respects. and then finally, brett. with no further ado, sylvia, can you let us know what you think? >> thank you very much and thank you for having me here. it's always a great flesh you are to come back to new york

where i have spent five of probably the most enjoyable years of my life. i will go straight to the point. we have a very serious situation in france at the moment. i would like to remind you of a basic fact to start with, which is that france has the biggest jewish community in europe and the biggest muslim community in europe. so i used to say we have our own little middle east in france. we've had tensions at various times. you may remember in 2003, 2004 during the iraqi invasion in the war, you know, there were a lot of tensions in the middle east and they immediately reflected in france there was, at that

time, a rise in anti-semitic incidents. so there have been that kind of periods where also during the israeli offensive in gaza last year. also, we had a lot of tensions in france. but the january attacks have really brought us to a new level and i think since these attacks we have reached a crucial point. i have written that these attacks were a direct assault on our identity because they targeted periods of this french identity, as i see it free speech diversity, the targets were very obvious the

cartoonists who had drawn those drawings of muhammad. jews targeted as jews and killed as such. and security force members. also most of the victims of those attacks over the past couple of years, most of the security forces who have been targeted in various attacks have been men and women who had diverse ethnic background or religious or muslim and this is not a coincidence, of course. so we are now forced to confront the threat that has been there and we knew it was there but the intensity and voracity of the attacks in january just have

made us look squarely at the problem. now, how do we confront this threat? again, we go straight to the point, there is no simple answer and we are struggling with it. we are struggling as a nation and struggling as a society. the government is struggling. the security forces are struggling, you may have read the report in today's "new york times" about how the intelligence work was a challenge by this and also a big report addressing these issues. schools are struggling. teachers find themselves with new burden. churches are struggling.

the media is also struggling. this is the situation right now. there are positive elements. the rally of january 11th was something extraordinary by all standards and also the solidarity expressed on that day. i was there. i was myself personally and totally subpoena totally surprised by the size of the crowd and its behavior. and people demonstrated a fresh responsibility and maturity. and it is definitely something we have to build on even though

we don't know yet exactly how to build on it concretely. we have this famous slogan which very quickly was followed by all of this debate about -- and we very quickly found out that a lot of people in france did feel that they were -- so this is another respect of the debate and i'll come back to this later. another positive element in this terrible rise of anti-semitism that we have witnessed lately is that french/jewish organizations have broken -- that's the step that they have taken. they have tra dilgs nally stuck to israeli policy and they have broken with this line by saying

no to prime minister netanyahu's call to mass immigration for jews from france. people have been shocked by this and french jews most of them, i mean, those who have expressed themselves have been shocked by this call and have very openly said that they feel that there are place their place is in france and they don't want to -- that they shouldn't leave. another positive element was the much smaller but it's a sign was spontaneous demonstration yesterday by high school students. this place this town where a jewish cemetery was vandalized by five teenagers 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds. we don't know the extent of their motivations but they have been charged with this morning,

they were charged with -- i'm not sure in english what the charge is but their motivation was anti-simetic. yet we have huge challenges and to name just a few, one is to stop anti-semitism without giving way to standards within the muslim community. this is something which is a huge issue in france.

and this was part of the debate. one question you hear everywhere is how come "charlie hebdo" is a allowed to publish articles on the prophet. of course they published about many other religions but this is what is being addressed and at the same time, a stand-up comedian who criticizes -- who attacks the jews in his shows is being charged, being detained and charged with glorification.

why is there a double-standard with this? one thing the government is planning to do is to launch a national plan against racism and anti-semitism declaring it national cause. it should be done -- they are working on it right now. it was something which was planned but they are taking it forward to launch it in february. this will involve education -- educational programs, security repression programs or so. and also, regulation of the internet. i don't know exactly -- we don't know what does that mean concretely. i think we'll go back to this issue because i think it's a very important one but this is

one of the things which are -- one of the issues which have been raised. another thing we have to do in my view, is to open a debate about one of the most difficult things we have to do. we -- i hope we succeed. but at the moment it's proving extremely difficult because it's one of the main pillars of french culture and identity but it's drawing from a 1905 law when we didn't have a muslim community, of course so a lot of people feel that there has -- a change has to be brought or maybe some opening. but at the same time we don't want to be giving way just because there have been

terrorist attacks. so this is another very complex issue. it is new. we are pretty much in unchartered territory here and you can feel that there's this feeling that something has to be done but it's a very difficult thing to open. last thing freedom of speech. since the january attacks, we have heard a lot about these where -- i will not go in depth into this because there are more distinguished pabl lifts on this issue here. but just to name a few issues which have been raised in the context of freedom of speech the cartoons of course, religion, how do we address, how do we treat all of these issues without betraying our faith in the freedom of speech there is

a strong tradition in france of criticism to -- of religion which goes back to the 18th century and, yes, there are issues of sensitivity to other religions to, different religions but yet we cannot be seen as the threat of terror. this is an issue that the french feel very strongly about and the polls have shown it. self self-censorship, i think there will be self-censorship. that brings us to the dimension of free speech which i think is important if we compare the situation in this country and in europe particularly in france, there are cultural limitations to free speech and there are legal limitations to freedom of speech.

in europe we do have a lot of legal limitations. but that's -- i think that stems from our history. and last thing i mentioned it already, the internet. the french government has been saying since the attacks that there is an issue with the internet with this material circulating on the internet. it is -- if you start to look at it, it is just terrifying and sickening what is going on on social networks and anywhere. but we haven't had many details on what the government is planning to do. you also have here -- i see this debate about how to involve the high-tech companies in trying to regulate this. i think we're just seeing the beginning of this debate but it's -- in my view it's one of the most important debates. thank you. >> thank you very much. [ applause ]

thanks. it's a real honor to be here. and it's a special fit i think, to be at an organization that deals with french and american relations and the like. a man called thomas jefferson had not written to james madison at the time the constitution was being drafted and saying to him basically that he would not support the constitution if there was no bill of rights attached to it. and jefferson wrote that it was necessary to have a bill of

rights which clearly and without the aid of softism protect freedom of religion freedom of the press and the like. and really but for jefferson's strong view to that effect, we very well might have -- might not have the constitution that we have, let alone any bill of rights. the argument to the contrary is it was not necessary and therefore it ought not to have been added. i thought i had mentioned three areas of american first amendment law which bear on what sylvie was just referring to three sort of core first amendment principles. the first of which is that, as one great american scholar put it the first principle of first

amendment law is that there is no blasphemy in america. people may feel, think conclude that others have such views but the law does not recognize the notion of blasphemy or certainly the harrisy which is not to say that at the time of the founding of the country that there were not some state laws to that effect. indeed there were a few left but they were not enforced and they are as we say, unconstitutional. the second is that we don't have any ban which is constitutional on what is called hate speech. some of the sorts of speech that

were just referred to in the previous presentation. when jimmy carter was president an international covenant was drafted on political and civil rights, which was basically signed by leaders of every democratic country. and one of the provisions was that countries were obliged to take steps, to take action to prevent hateful speech based on race religion or the like. president carter signed it and attached what is called a reservation to it, a very important reservation which said that, as far as the united states is concerned, this was a core subject to the bill of rights, which is another way of saying, we wouldn't do it. we would not have legislation

because it would be unconstitutional if we were banning a speech because it was hateful against some religion against some race or the like. and the third principle is that we don't allow what has come to be a heckler speech which is involved and otherwise protected speech. the fact that some in our society are not only troubled by it but angered by it and maybe even led to respond illegally violently to it is not a basis for banning it, that we will not give heckler, so to speak ultimate control over what is

said. and what is not. now, very recent articles prompted by the murderous events in paris, you know have sort of asked hypothetical questions how much do we really mean that? suppose someone were to say, i'm going to kill hostages unless you stop saying "x." i think the odds are that our supreme court would still say that we're not going to let criminals decide what can be said and what not. that said, i don't mean to impress this as if it's an easy issue. at a time a few years ago when a

preacher in florida said he was going to burn the koran, you may remember that the secretary of defense personally called him on the phone and asked them not to. that there were riots in pakistan, that people were killed and justice bryer commenting off the record said that might constitute the clear and present danger which could justify even under american law a limitation on the person doing it. i don't think he's right. i don't think the court would say that that would be the law but these are not easy issues. for an american lawyer, it's easy to compare it to our law, to french law.

french law is more complicated. i use the word deliberately. looking at my wife, i recall a trip that she and i made to istanbul once from paris and we were talking to a french diplomat. it was the time of gary hart republicaning for running for president and getting in all kinds of trouble because of personal activities of his and we were chatting about it and he said to me, you know we don't understand in france why you're making such a big deal about who gary hart had sex with. our prime minister has a very complicated personal life he said. well, france has a more complicated law with respect to this area.

as the last presentation makes clear, france is a country that believes and treasures the freedom of speech. at the same time it has far more limitations on freedom of speech than we do. and sometimes those limitations make for very difficult decision making. after world war ii france passed legislation basically abolishing legislation and reinstating in 1939 a law which prohibited racist and anti-semitic speech. it did that for obvious reasons. france is one of many european countries that makes it illegal

to engage in the denial of the holocaust. french law basically distinguishes -- i'm reading here because it is so difficult and complicated to draw lines in this area -- but basically distinguishes between insulting a religion as a whole and saying things which, quote provokes discrimination hatred or violence, unquote. the problem is the first can cause the second or at least be involved in the second. so it's very difficult to make the distinction and us that one of the reasons that i think the question of dual standards comes up repeatedly in france why are

you prosecuting the anti-semitic comedian and you allow or indeed celebrated at least after the murders what the mocking publications said about muhammad. and that is a consequence of a choice that a country makes of these very difficult issues, which come about because of our very different histories, the different turmoils the different way we've seen our countries behave in one way or another. i'm not here to predict how we would react here if the next what i'll call paris or come pen

copenhagen-like event is here. it's almost easier to do that than to take the circumstances which you hope will prevent events like this from happening in the future. >> anyin any event, there are real differences and real similarities and both countries do have and act as a matter of law on the basis that they care a lot about broad freedom of expression. whatever the potential consequences of it. because there are always potential consequences. a thought, it always seemed to me, it's sort of interesting

that here where we have more legal protection for speech we don't have a lot of the publications that countries have more severely limiting free speech have. we don't have a publication like "charlie hebdo" and people would say, you know, it's in bad taste, it's offensive, it's, you know simply often, you know, trying to stick a finger in the eye. our law protects journalists far more than is the case in england, say but our journalists don't engage in hacking. our journalists routinely behave according to the law at least better than the tabloid journalists. and in england, notwithstanding

or perhaps a harder question because of the more laws that exist in that country. it's stuff that's worth talking about on a panel. thank you. >> thank you, floyd. >> so brett stevens, can you take the podium and just while you're going up acknowledge that you won the pulitzer price as a prize as a foreign columnist. just to set the stage. tell us what you really think. >> i single handedly took down osama bin laden. well, thank you. it's a great honor to be here before this audience with this foundation and, above all, to share the stage or the table at least with such distinct weshguished panelists. i'm going to be brief.

i agree with sylvie entirely. i think of the events in paris as a watershed moment not just for the french but really ought to be for all of us, especially here in the united states. and let me sort of reflect on it in three or four different sentences. sense at least the attacks of 9/11, there's been a long-standing argument among -- in foreign policy circles which surrounds the question that fareed zakaria asked not long after the attacks why do they hate us? basically, there are two camps in this why do they hate us school. there's the camp that has made the argument fairly consistently that they hate us because of western policy in the middle east. that is to say, because of american support for israel and for dictatorships like hosni mubarak's regime in europe or

the late musharraf of iran or the saudi's energy policies in the middle east our involvement in the gulf war, tanker wars, obviously the more recent iraq wars, there's a list of policies that you can list and you can say, well this is the problem. if you change the policy and this is what would you hear from ron paul but you'd also hear it from people on the political left, if you change the policy you largely remove the problem, which is to say that terrorism is a function, is a reaction to western policy in middle eastern countries. and the second side of that debate has said no in fact, it's more fundamental and it's really a clash of civilizations or, if not civilizations, then perhaps of values, which is to say that you have throughout the middle east both among the secular autocrtats of the

religious fundamentalists, you have values or a set of of the shia and shiite. freedom of the press, freedom of conscious, all of the freedoms we associate with the american constitution and with liberal democracies like france. i think after the attack on "charlie hebdo," i would hope -- i'm speaking here as a columnist -- i would hope that that debate would finally be resolved. because it is very difficult for me to see how murdering a dozen journalists sitting around an editorial conference table who were guilty of nothing more than practicing not just free speech but sort of vulgar irreverent

speech with barbs aimed in multiple directions. it is very difficult for me to see that as a response to western policies in the middle east. i didn't tract politics of the various editorial board members of "charlie hebdo" but my impression -- correct me if i'm wrong -- is that they were not perfect -- well aligned with the views of american neoconservatives or others who are arguing that we should -- i don't know -- bomb iran's nuclear installations or do things like that. if anything, my sense is that they were very much people of the political left who simply insisted that to be -- to fully realize the promise of a liberal democracy, you had to prove that you could say and print and publish anything. and so i think it ought to be -- the attack on "charlie hebdo" ought to be a watershed moment in the sense that it ought to

give us some clarity about the nature of the conflict that engages us now between groups like islamic state al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and all of us in this room sharing all of the values that we have. that would be the first thing i would say. second thing is the attack on the kosher supermarket or the kosher grocery i think also ought to be an occasion for a certain amount of clarity. i started covering the middle east when i was based in brussels for the "wall street journal" in the late 1990s and early part of the last decade. and even then and especially after the outbreak of the so-called second intefadeh in the fall of 2000 i i sensed that there was a great deal of antisemitism on european streets and it was antisemitism coming in both a vulgar and high-tone

variety. the vulgar variety is the sort you would encounter if you walk through my largely muslim neighborhood in downtown brussels towards the canal. but also a high-toned variety which typically went by the anti-zionist catchphrases but anti-zionist catchphrases that had a weird reflection in a traditional antisemitic tropes. i'll never forget shortly after the outbreak of the second intefadeh, an economist had an editorial -- it is a serious magazine, maybe the best magazine in the world -- there was a line that said israelis are a superior people -- not sure if i'm quoting this exactly but i'm getting the spirit of it largely right. the israelis are a superior people. their talents are above the ordinary but they must curb their greed for other people's land. i thought, boy, if that's not an

naet antisemitic stroeptrope. those clever jews, superior, but greedy. it was very hard to sit in brussels and have dinner time conversations with the class of commissioners and foreign policy people in brussels and not get a great deal of this. so now with the attack on the kosher super market, i think it is at last out in the open. and in that sense i'm almost grateful that this happened that at least i think europe is coming to recognize that it has a real problem with antisemitism that can't be denied or can't be passed off as a function of a reaction to israeli policy. third point i want to make is this which is my grandmother -- i grew up in mexico city so trotsky is a favorite of mine. trotsky had this wonderful line.

he said at some point you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you. well, you may not be interested in the middle east and its troubles and turmoils and ideological fanaticisms, but it is interested in you. and i think that's another lesson that we ought to draw from paris. we can't simply -- we can't simply look away from what's happening in yemen today or in northern iraq or eastern syria and imagine that it's some far-away place. and in this sense i think that the french government has been admirabley out in front, i would argue, of the american administration with the action it took in mali and the general seriousness of the threat and it has to be confronted not just in the form of marches and statements about solidarity but it has to be confronted kinetic kinetically, so to speak. so that's an important point.

i would add -- let me add just two points. i know i'm running up against my time limit. i think as i said earlier, because we're coming to grips with the fact that this is a war on western values like free speech, one of the best responses is to have more free speech. if i were a french -- if i were part of the french political debate, i would advocate for two things, one of which would be what i once heard someone say is a pedigogy of insult. it is not going to help if it is left only to "charlie hebdo" or publications like that behind barbed wire and masses of arms to do it. people need to do it more. and at the same time, i would think if i were a french policymaker that they need to left lift, not impose new restrictions on free speech but to lift them because the charge of hypocrisy is a very potent charnel. i don't see the popularity of

what's his name -- the anti-semitic comic being brought low by the fact that he's been charged multiple times for violating the laws. if anything, it is elevating him. so this ought to be an occasion to reflect for the french perhaps to import some of that -- some of the american statutory values of simply allow allowing people to speak without fear of the law. at the same time, at the same time i would want to finish with one thing, which is this -- people after the attack said well, don't you understand, this comes in the wake of the gaza war so people's emotions are heightened and they're upset. someone said a few years ago, "if you try to explain antisemitic acts by what some jews in some other country did you're not explaining anti

anti-semitism. you're replicating anti-semitism. people's collar was up because of what israel was doing in gaza. so if only those israelis pursued a different policy vis-a-vis the palestinians, perhaps we would see the kind of anti-semitism we're experiencing here. but i don't think that's going to work very well. final, final point. and it's this. i swear this is the end. when i was in brussels and especially when i was editor in chief of "the jerusalem post," i was routinely scandalized by the crassness of european coverage of the israel-palestinian conflict. and when europe -- too much of european media routinely portrays the israeli-palestinian conflict as a story of a crass and brutal israeli goliath simply stepping on the necks of poor palestinians who lack all

moral agency, right? it's not surprising that we should now find this antizionism suddenly be translated into anti-semitism. there is -- speaking as a journalist, i think that the quality of journalism, particularly among some of my european peers the unthinking sense of solidarity with the palestinians, whether it's hamas or fatah or -- you name it -- the treatment of people like the prime minister of israel or any prime minister of israel. this one, the past one, the one before that, and so on, as some kind of unique figuredevil figure is not a good. i would wish that some better fair journalism, some more serious and sober-minded journalism came out of some of our european counterparts when it comes to portraying a very complicated conflict that is not

a story of angels on the one side -- angel victims on the one side and demon persecutors on the other. thank you. >> thank you. so just to set the stage again, i'd like to have about ten minutes of some cross dialogue. i'll open with one yes. then we are going to open it up to the audience to ask questions so get those questions ready. do we have a microphone in the audience? we do? okay. just drawing on something that floyd said and i think brett said, floyd said that there seems to be a -- the more you have laws that kind of restrict speech, the more obnoxious speech you get. i heard you, brett, say in effect there was some relief in this ugly situation that at least the problem was out in the open. so from a french perspective, if some magically laws restricting whether it's wearing headscarfs or whether it's speaking your mind regardless of how hateful