involved is really, really important in terms of being successful going forward. and you are right, the previous operation in tikrit did stall and it stalled because i think the wrong approach was taken. those -- many of the forces being employed were not controlled or supervised by the ministry of defense or government of iraq. that has recently changed as of the last several days and we started supporting this effort. we think this effort will begin to move forward with the employment of the special operations forces and the help of our enablers. but i think it is absolutely key that, number one, the government has to be accommodating to both the subby and -- the sunni and the kurd population and increasingly get the sunnis

involved. >> can you help make that happen? because the concern is the body -- abaddy a lot of folks are from the previous administration. and you've had extraordinary experience in the an bar area and can you help to identify the key sunni moderate leaders to make them part of this and is that what is going to -- you look and say we think we're going to get it right this time and how do you think this turns out? >> sir, to answer both of your questions, we are encouraged and we continue to encourage the leadership in iraq to be more accommodating to the sunni population. and to do some things that are demonstrable, that increases

their confidence in the leadership and in the government. and you may know that we are helping the iraqi security forces and the government of iraq reach out to the tribal elements in anbar and bring in the elements to train and equip them and get them involved in the fight as well. and those that we have trained and equipped have performed remarkably well. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general votel, when we met last week you talked about how the resources allowed you to meet threats with moderate risk. and over the past year we've seen that terror threat increase smaller problems become more serious they become crisis. and in this -- do you believe this is part of the result of the strategy that accepts

moderate risk? are we less able to nip those problems in the bud and so that they grow into these series -- serious threats? >> senator, thank you for the question. first of all i think we can continue to -- i think all commanders operate in an area where they are constantly balancing risk of their forces and the missions that are being done on a regular basis and i think that is what i'm principly paid to do. as we move forward and continue to deal with changing and complex situations for me it is down to prioritization and for us, what we will intend to do is offset the risk associated with increased operations by prioritizing those operations with the biggest impact and np np np np -- and supporting the broadest

impact. >> is libya the place where we will accept the most risk? >> i think that is the policy question. in my perspective and working with my partner in africom we are looking to address the threats in libya today. >> thank you, general, rodriguez, in your opening statement, you said libya-based threats to interests are growing and if left unchecked they have the highest threats among security challenges among the continent to have risks to u.s. and strategic interests in the next two years and beyond and you describe it as emerging as a safe haven where territories, including al qaeda and the islamic state of iraq and the levant can retrain and rebuild with impunity. and that doesn't sound like we are on the right trajectory.

do you think our approach to libya is not adequate? are we accepting too much risk? >> thanks, senator, first of all, to make sure everybody is clear on what we are doing in and around libya, a significant effort is going in around libya to prevent that from spilling over. so when you look at what is happening in tunisia and we are working with our partners as much as we can and as much as we have the authorities to do that to strengthen the capacities to limit the spillover of that effort and working with our european partners to increase their effort there. and we are supporting at this point in time the u.n. effort to come to a diplomatic solution and anything past that will require policy decision. >> how would you rate the

success of the efforts that you just described, the spillover the work with our european partners and the u.n.? >> the work with our partners have for the most part, gone very well, with one or two attacks as you read about in tunisia the other day but the capacities have continued to grow and they can handle the threat every day as does nigeria and chad. and the work of the european efforts and the u.n. has not had as much progress as anybody wants to date, ma'am. >> thank you. and general votel, if i could just return to that idea of moderate risk for my closing questions here. over the long-term, do you think that if we see risk continue to increase and the smaller problems continue to accumulate

how do we prioritize that? if they are viewed as smaller problems at the time but yet they continue to escalate and become greater and greater risk to this country not just the region they are in how are you going to prioritize or address it and do you have the resources you need? >> thanks, senator. right now, i think i do have the resources i need to support the gcc commanders at the moderate risk i'm being asked to do today. what i think in the future as i mentioned in the opening comments i think soft is in the play zone, before wep get to -- we get to open conflict and what i bring to the commanders is our ability to come in and help shape and develop partnerships and help build capacity and support relationships in those areas to strengthen partners

before big problems -- small problems grow into big problems and i really think that is the direction in which we should be focusing into the future. >> general rodriguez, did you have a response? >> thanks, senator. as far as the prioritization, that is done by the policymakers relative to our national security interest. and the input we put into the risk is what our partners can handle and what they are doing themselves and we prioritize it based on a whole of government and inner agency effort and who can help most in different places and so that is what is done every day in the department. >> thank you, gentlemen and thank you for your service. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, i'm now determined that budget gimmicks have no attachment to party. that both parties are -- are capable of using budget gimmicks

as we approach the challenges of sequestration and defense spending. it is now being used in the current budget we are debating and the budget that passed the house yesterday. rather than confront sequestration and be honest about the challenges we have in our base budget that we've all given a lot of time in terms of rhetoric to. we are now going further down the road as using oko for further down the road for the american people that we can face the tough decisions and not retreat to rhetoric and gimmickry that is not really true. we are not going to build, as my colleague said we are not going to build a px in america with oko funds an -- and i'll ask do you believe the army can build

back strength with oko funds? >> i do not senator. >> do you believe the navy can address the shortfalls in shipping with oko funds? >> no ma'am. >> i just think that we've got to be -- and believe me i'm not saying that we come to this with clean hands, as democrats. we don't. because we have engaged in gimmickry also. but i know the chairman wants to face this head on and i know it is a challenge in this political environment but i did want to bring it up that we have obviously not met the challenge with the budget as it is currently configured. i wanted to ask you general austin about something troubling to me and that is i have been told that operation sentinal is a new contingency operation. do you see it as a new contingency operation. >> it is a continuation of our efforts, senator.

so, in terms of the types of things that we're doing, we're continuing to train the -- and advise and assist the afghan security forces but in terms of how we account for the funding that is -- that we're allocating to that that is a different issue, so -- >> the reason i'm asking this is i'm told there is an effort underway of naming a new lead inspector general in afghanistan as opposed to the special inspector general in afghanistan and if that determine is made i want everybody to understand that will impose a lot of additional burdens in terms of oversight, on contracting. i know there is continuity in cigar, i don't understand the value of changing inspector

generals on this point, the projects ongoing and the inspector general in afghanistan is aware of and working on. i don't get it. and if there is really a sincere attempt to replace him by labelling this a new contingency, someone has some explaining to do i think to me and others on this committee as to why that would be a good idea. are you aware of an effort to do that at this point? >> i'm not aware of the effort but certainly i'll go -- i'll find out and look into it, senator. >> that would be terrific. as you know, we've worked very closely with the inspector generals both in iraq and afghanistan and i think the body of work they've done is incredibly helpful to the nation's military as we look as how we honestly con front sequestration, one of the ways is being better stewards of the resources we have allocated to

these efforts. general rodriguez, i understand that most of the service members who deployed to africa as part of the ebola response, operation united assistance have begun returning home. is there any effort to keep track of the number of contractors around this effort and how many of them have been pulled and remain in ebola as we continually try to stay on top of contractor costs? >> yes ma'am, there is. there is a very, very strict accounting that we've done. we've had oversight from the d.o.d. from the beginning and we've been cognizant of the contractor oversight and paying too much money for contracts outlined as well as the host nation providing so we have a strict accounting of that. >> that would be terrific. we would love if you could share that with our office. and general austin if you could share how many contractors have been plussed up in iraq as a result of the efforts against

isil. we have the point we are counting contractors in afghanistan and now back to counting contractors in iraq and we would appreciate an update on that number as well. >> yes. i'll take that for the record. >> thank you so much. thank you, chairman. >> thank you gentlemen for your service and the men and women that sit behind you, not just on behalf of the troops you represent and you personally, i know you've spent many years down range. general austin i want to return to the topic that senator mccain was talking about in tikrit. do i understand there are no iranian forces in tikrit. >> the forces in tikrit are ifs, special operations forces and federal police. and as of this morning when i checked with my commanders the shia militia and pmf have pulled

back. >> by pull back, is that the iranian forces or the cud forces in the area. >> i'm sure they are on the east side of the river and as you know tikrit is -- the city of tikrit is on the west side of the river. >> do we know the whereabouts of silly manny? >> to my understanding cass imsill manny, my last update he was not in tikrit or in that area. >> in any way have we implemented that we don't target iranian forces in the vicinity of tikrit? >> we caused the iraqi security forces to develop a scheme of maneuver that can effectively

accomplish the mission of clearing the town. and our fires are supportive of that effort and so we are focused on that. we always do everything that we can to ensure that there is not excessive collateral damage. but our focus is on the isf forces we are supporting. >> would you consider that if silly manny was in the area of the air strike. >> i would consider thattin intended consequences. >> does he have freedom of movement within iraq. >> i believe he does, senator. >> general votel, six months ago, president obama cited yemen as success of our counter-terrorism strategy. do you believe yemen is a success story today? >> certainly with the withdraw of our soft forces over the

weekend it put us in a different posture right now, particularly on the threat of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula so it is much more challenging than it was with people on the ground. >> general austin, do you consider yemen a success story today? >> it is certainly challenging today with the houthis and so i think the country is in turmoil. >> general austin approximately ten months ago, the president released five taliban commanders in exchange for bowe bergdahl who yesterday was charged with desertion by his chain of command. i believe their house arrest agreement expires in two months is that correct? >> i believe that to be correct senator. >> do we know what will happen to the five taliban commanders in two months in qatar when that agreement expires? >> i don't, senator. >> will they have freedom of

movement, both inside and outside of qatar at that point? >> i think that is -- i think we have to consult the qatar government and also the elements in our -- our government charged with monitoring the movement of these developments. i can't answer that senator. i can take that for the record and try to do the research on it. >> i would like to get an answer to that for the record general austin. and i'll direct to to general austin and rodriguez. given the situation in yemen, if there were efforts to block the mand em strait, i presume that american forces would react to reopen that strait. >> we would work in conjunction with the gcc partners to reassure that the straits would

remain open. we need to have free flow of commerce through both straits. >> yes, sir. we would work with the host nations of africa and our european partners to support those efforts. >> thank you, gentlemen i appreciate your answers and once again i appreciate your service to our country. >> for a record, i would like a response to senator cotton's question, do you consider yemen a success story or not? yes or no. it is a pretty simple and straightforward question. >> it is not a success story. >> it the not a success story today. >> thank you very much. senator kaine. >> the president was talking about the response to success of counter-terrorism. >> i believe so. >> i believe he was talking about aqap.

and my follow up question is how much has it compromised it and are we able to maintain that counter-terrorism against aqap or is that in abeyance pending the dust settling in yemen? >> well right now we'll be working with our other partners in the area to look at how we regain situational awareness and look at what is happening on the ground and look at how to continue to address the threats that emanate from yemen. >> and i would like to talk about using oko to solve the problem and it doesn't go to the base budget and it is unpaid for. it is just absolutely the wrong way to approach this problem and i hope that congress can find a more realistic and responsible solution to sequestration. also general austin, again,

because you talked to senator donnelly about this, it seems to me that it is critically important that we use the leverage that we have which apparently was used in the tikrit battle to be sure that this isn't a shiite militia-led offensive, because if this becomes another version of a war of shiites against sunnis we've lost. this has to be inclusive and i hope that your relationship with -- with the president and the iraqi government emphasizes that because it is just essential to a successful out come in iraq, regardless of the short-term strategic advantage in tikrit or mosul. would you agree with that? >> sir i would. and i would say further that we take -- i take every opportunity to emphasize those exact points to the leadership in iraq when i -- when i engage them.

>> and it sounds like these air-strikes in the last couple of days in tikrit were, in fact, conditioned on that kind of consideration, is that correct? >> that is correct, sir. this operation had to be under the control of the government of iraq and iraqi security forces. there had to be a force -- once the city is cleared to main tain stability and security and that needs to be an iraqi security force and so those things and those conditions were met early on in terms of the planning and the synchronizeation and we were able to provide some support. >> i hope you can stay that, but i think the problems in iraq because of the maliki government mistakes and we can't afford to make that mistake again.

and we heard a passionate speech from ghani this week. and i'm concerned we're still in a calendar-driven status in afghanistan and even though the president has allowed the troops to stay through 2015 we're still talking about kabul only at the end of 2016. do you believe that is going to be sufficient in order to support the afghans? we've made some progress there i would hate to see us pull -- pull out in terms of authorities for air support and train and direct services, so give me your thoughts on that? >> sir, i certainly agree with you, that new leadership in afghanistan causes all of us to be encouraged and optimistic and i think from what i've seen both president ghani do and also abdullah do to reach out to the

international community and the folks in the region as well, it is all encouraging. the relationship with the security forces, the support of the security forces, there are statements of common goals with the u.s. i think that is all very encourageing encouraging. so i think this gives us opportunities -- new opportunities that we didn't have before. and we have to think about what we want our relationship to be with afghanistan going forward and what it means for the region. >> well i certainly hope you will counsel the white house to think seriously about what i would consider a modest additional investment to maintain the tremendous gains that have been had. it's not for sure that the government of afghanistan can handle the taliban on its own

and it is not good to walk away at five minutes to midnight and have that all fall apart and base on general campbell and the other information from the field, they need not only the troops but authorities and president ghani talked about air support, i think that will be crucial. so carry that message, will you, sir? >> thank you, mr. chair. gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today. and also to your staff. thank you for your many years of combined service to the united states. general votel, i just want to mention, in your testimony today, i would like to thank you for mentioning not only our active duty forces, but the reserve and national guard components. your operators, your lodgist ises and analysts it is one team and one fight and i appreciate you acknowledge that today. and something you brought up and

others have brought up is stress and suicide with our active duty members and with our veterans, those who are off active duty and it is important that we continue with resiliency programs and making sure that not only are they physically fit for the fight but mentally fit as well. so thank you for bringing that forward. a number of us are working on initiatives to make sure they are well cared for. i would like to address my question and thoughts. general austin and general votel, last week was the 12th anniversary of our entrance into iraq with the iraq war. we've had 3000 -- excuse me 4,000 american men and women who have lost their lives in iraq and more that have been injured in that war and i want to thank you for your service in that war and i know all of you have engaged in the war at some point

in iraq. and many of our servicemen and women will come home with not onlyin advise inl injuries -- invisible injuries but physical injuries that will impact their lives for many years. but before we entered iraq on march 20th of 2003, the iraqi kurds were engaged and preparing the battlefield before we ever got there. they have been an important part of our effort in iraq and so i would like your thoughts on involving more -- more involvement of the iraqi kurds the person america-- the person americaa in this fight and what their role has been from 2003 forward and if you would address that general austin? >> and when we went into iraq 12

years ago, and whereas i didn't make it up to kurdistan, i can tell you what the kurds were doing in the north at that point in time was very instrumental to the forces, our forces that followed or flowed in later and facilitated our work there. most recently, with their efforts in the current fight against isil they really have done a terrific job. and i've talked with president barz anie and his staff on numerous occasions about what we're doing, what the requirements were and what they needed to do more. as you look at what they've done in the north up there in terms of actually inflicting damage on isil i think their efforts have really shaped this overall fight in a positive direction. and they continue to do more on a daily basis. so they are a big part of this

fight. they've punched a bove their weight clos and i think -- class and i think they will continue to do so. >> general votel? >> thank you. i absolutely agree with what general austin said. i would add that a key part is the long-term relationship with them. so they were a key partner with soft forces when we were there from 2003 through 2011 and addressed a variety of networks and the great and enduring relationship from the soft force to the kurdish force aspect was one the initial successes we were able to achieve when we went back in late last summer. we were able to resume those relationships and get going quickly and to me that highlights the importance of the long-term relationship with them. >> do you believe our resources would be best utilized if we were directly arming the

peshmerga forces. >> they are certainly capable forces so i do think they would make good use of any resources provided for them. >> i think they have a successful force and an ally to our forces in that area. thank you for your services and your staff for being here today. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you to the chair and thank you for your service. i want to begin with yemen. i was intrigued with the account in the news this morning about the saudi and other action in yemen and in particular the number of partners that have been part of this, in addition to saudi arabia, bahrain kwater, there is reports that egypt is involved and surprisingly pakistan and sudan. so nine nations springing into

action to cover the houthi takeover in yemen. i want to see a region trying to stand up and deal with its own problems rather than telling us quietly they think it is a problem and not doing anything. but i was struck by the fact the nine nations haven't come together and acted with dispatch against isil. they are involved but not acting with dispatch against isil, even nearly a near into isil's sort of accelerating taking of territory in syria and iraq. as experts who spend time in region, what explains why the nine nations would react with such speed and force to the houthi takeover in yemen but not so engaged in the fight against isil? >> sir like you, i'm very encouraged that we've seen what we've seen here recently with the number of nations coming together to address a problem.

the core of these nations are gcc nations. and i certainly believe that they all think that yemen is it a -- is a critical piece of real estate border with saudi arabia and aman and so i think the gcc countries are naturally predisposed to helping protect another gcc country. and then the relation shichs between the saudis and the egyptians and others are driving their participation there. i would remind you, senator i know you are very, very well aware of this, but the night that we flew into syria for the first time, we had five sunni air abe-led nations fly in that formation with us which is really unprecedented. and we continue to see them

offer support to -- in terms of material support they also have offered to train and equip forces. but throughout they have remained with us in terms of flying strikes against syria. so they have continued to participate in that. now as they begin to focus on the yemen problem, naturally because of resources we'll probably see less of an effort in syria. >> you indicated that you thought, in response to earlier questions, that you thought that isil was our most pressing challenge but iran was our greatest long-term challenge. is a possible action against yemen is all of the nations believe that iran the more pressing challenge and they don't think of isil as the same pressing challenge that they do when they lock at iran?

>> i can attest to the fact they do see isil as a pressing challenge, sir. i do think that a big driver here is that the geography associated with this yemen border and saudi and oman and the direct threat to their homeland. >> each of you work in the military lane, but with partners partners state aid, doj, ads, intel agencies and there is the question about sequestration on the agency but would you agree that to the effect that sequestration affects your allies and in your special forces that that is also an aspect of sequester that we need to take seriously to avoid challenges to our national security? >> i agree, senator. >> i do too senator.

>> i definitely agree senator. >> general rodriguez, at tack in tunisia was troubling but a bright spot in terms of how they came out with the constitution and islamic parties participating in democrat and-- democracy and stepping back from power and what is your observation of the newly formed and newly elected government and reaction to the terrorist action in tunisia and how we can help them proceed. >> their military institutions are strong and it was a stabilizing influence as they went through the transition and we continue to work with them to build some of the capacities with our inner agency partners. those elements were involved in that effort and we continue to

also share intelligence with them and we will continue to build up their capacity to make sure they move in a positive trajectory, sir. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen, thank you for your service. mr. chairman, i wanted to let you know, ten years ago as a marine corp major, i had the privilege of serving with general austin. and i can tell you, he's one of the finest officers i've ever served with so i'm heartened that he's in this very important position. >> it is -- he's not generally very nice to marines so i see that. >> and he has one there on the staff so with the sen com, i appreciate that. and so general i think it is

important to us in the congress and in the military and in the operation as to -- is to speak with language that is -- gives our citizens a sense of what is happening and one of the things that you hear a lot about now president, the administration talks about winding down combat operations and they are over. we've ended combat operations in afghanistan. that has been stated several times. the president of afghanistan mentioned that in a joint session of congress yesterday. but you also mentioned that we have a robust c.t. effort. so aren't we kind of speaking out of both sides of our mouths. isn't a robust c.t. administrations -- operations don't we have robust c.t. operations in afghanistan. >> we are supporting our partners and what could be

termed as combat operations at their effort. and with respect to counter-terrorism, i think as we pursue this here is not just the kinetic aspect of it. >> but it is the epitome of counter-terrorism. aren't american soldiers, or counter-terrorism in afghanistan, isn't that the definition of combat operations, going in with weapons and killing bad guys correct? >> we are not doing that today. >> there is no c.t. operations? >> there are c.t. operations but they involve not only helping and enabling our partners and helping with c.t. operations and the kinetic strikes that are specifically against threats there and then how we address the over all ideology and narrative aspect of this. >> but our c.t. operations are not members of the u.s. military

in action against enemy forces? >> right now, today, we are -- we are not putting people in unilateral u.s. operations against forces on the ground in afghanistan. we are supporting our afghan partners as we get after those and doing other -- other operations related to those networks. >> okay. again, i think that clarification is important just because it seems to me if we have special forces operators in afghanistan, in direct combat, we should let the american people know. but if you are saying that is not the case, that there is no combat going on there is no s.f. actions direction actions against al qaeda operatives or anything like that. >> senator. >> i'm not saying there is no

combat going on, there is no unilateral combat going on. we are working with our partners and working on -- >> do we have j-tack on the ground. >> we have j-tack operating at command and control. >> but they are not on the ground or front-line troops. >> they are not accompanying forces doing operations. >> general, you mentioned the whole of government approach with regard to isil, i appreciate that. and i appreciate the fact that you are focused on the military aspects of that but what are the other instruments of power we're bringing to bear with regard to american power with regard to isil and i just haven't really seen the administration articulate that at all. you mentioned it in your testimony and that is encouraging but what is it? we haven't seen it. i know it is not your realm that you are responsible for but it is heartening to know what other instruments of our american

power we are integrating to the fight with regard to defeating isis? >> there are a couple of important things that have to be done, senator, as you know, in order to really defeat this enemy, the kinetic piece is one issue but you have to really do some constructive things to begin to cut off the enemy's ability to resource themselves. so countering the threat financing is one issue and then stopping the flow of foreign fighters or slowing down the flow of foreign fighters both of those issues have to be worked by -- in our whole of government and have to be worked in conjunction of other countries not only in the region but internationally. and also there is a requirement or a need to counter the narrative. and so i think we have to do more. i know there are some initial steps that have been taken to begin to do that but there is a lot of work yet to be done. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here and for what you've done for our country and continue to do. i wanted to ask general austin again a couple of questions about yemen senator cain had pointed out that there were, in addition to the saudis there were nine other countries participating in this coalition to assist in yemen. so just to be clear, we've been obviously participating state department side on negotiation with iran for very intensely for the last year at least if not more. and during that period what has iran being doing in yemen and is it not the fact that iran's influence and support of the houthis which is in part prompting the saudis and others to engage in this? >> certainly, senator, iran has

been enabling the activities of the houthis as they've done what they've done. and i would go further to say that iran's desire is to be a hedgeman in this region. >> meaning regional domination? >> right. >> right. >> as it seeks to increase influence in various countries it does so through the reach of the shia population in the region's countries. that won't allow iran to dominate any specific region in domination, but it increased sectarian tension and thereby serves as a destabilizing effort. >> let me be clear. when we are talking about support, i know general votel, you are familiar with this as well, and we are talking about money and arms aren't we?

we're not talking about boy, we support you because you are shia, we are talking about actual support, aren't they giving that on the ground? >> yes senator. we are talking about material support as well. but again, i think that support is provided through the shia -- >> through the proxies they give them the money and arms which is undermining our interest in the mission we had in cooperation that we had to try to deal with al qaeda, isn't that right general votel in yemen? >> yes senator i think it is true. >> so the other thing i wanted to ask about general austin is bahrain. we have an important partnership in bahrain. in fact we have the location there of the united states fifth league correct? >> that is correct, senator. >> and what is iran doing with regard to the bahrain government right now which is the sunni government as i understand it. they are also trying to destabilize that government

which that would, in my view, threaten our interests there. >> correct. we see the same reach through the shia population which increases sectarian tension and serves as a destabilizing effect. >> which obviously bahrain is a different country than yemen but a similar playbook in a different country is it not? >> it is a similar approach. >> a similar approach but obviously they are very different countries? >> yes, ma'am. >> but i think we need to be clear here what iran's activities have been. and as a look at your testimony, one of the things you pointed out, general austin is that the iran routinely continued in maligning activities through support to proxy actors such as lebanese hezbollah and hamas which threatens the sovereignty and security of israel and this

is going on in addition to ubd mining -- ubd mining our security in yemen. >> that is correct. >> and so i think as we look at the issue -- the attempt at regional domination by iran, this is of deep concern to us in the long-term and even in the short-term in terms of how the region can be destabilized further, is that true? >> there is a significant concern for a long-term effects in terms of this type of behavior, destabilizing the region and having effects in other parts of the globe as well. >> and could further fuel a sunni-shia fight in the region if they continue their efforts toward regional domination, would you agree? >> yeah, i would. >> thank you. i just wanted to comment, as well, on senator cotton's question to you about the status of the taliban five. and i know that you're going to get back to him on it.

but i have to say i find it shocking, the fact that you are commanding of africom and state department has not already coordinated with you -- it is not -- not to put this on you, as my point is the fact that we've got these dangerous you are the commander of these two countries, qatar and where the taliban five is from and could return and present great danger into afghanistan, it would seem that you would be most closely consulted on this. i'm kind of dumbfounded that they are not consulting you now and there doesn't seem to be a plan. i look forward to the follow-up. but to the state department and to everyone else out there, to this administration, it seems to me the commander of sent com needs to be brought into this in terms of the five central

commanders that could be back in afghanistan and threaten our troops. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to all of you here today and to the member and women who serve under your command and all you do to help protect us. last year i expressed some reluctance regarding the syria train and equip program based on concerns that any lethal assistance we may provide might end up inadvertently or perhaps purposely end up in the hands of some of the very extremists that we're attempting to fight against. and that could possibly fuel further violence in the region. while i believe the service members who are under your command, who are in the process of executing this program, are the most skilled in the world at what they do, and that is really what gives this program the very

best chance of success, the losses of u.s.-provides equipment by the iraqi security forces last year and in yemen this year, are stark lessons that the fluid and volatile nature of the middle east can compromise even our best laid plans. i'm further concerned that for this program to have the best chance of success the united states will need to become more militarily involved in this con flkt than many americans realized. senator carter stated recently that, quote, we'll have some obligation to support them after they are trained closed quote, yet we don't know what that support will look like and yet do we know what the costs associated with that will look look. this is part of the administration's strategy to address the isis threat should be fully and openly debated in

this body so the american people might have a say in how their military forces are used. general austin, since this program was conceptualized it was we armed might face a larger or better equipped army. larger or better equipped enemy. why was the decision made to start the train and equip program, why was that decision made before determining whether the united states would provide further protection or support for the groups, once they were trained and equipped and returned to syria? >> it was made because we will need an element on the ground to complement the work we are doing with our fires to begin to counter isil in syria. my best military advice is as we

go forward, as we introduce forces that we have trained and equipped, then we should provide them support. we should not only look to provide them fires. we should provide them logistics and we should provide intel support as well. i think that gives the best opportunity for success. >> do you think assad forces in syria will attempt to attack some of the opposition members we have trained and equipped? if so, what level of military involvement should we expect from american forces? >> i think there is a likelihood that could happen. we'll try to initially as we put forces in and begin to build combat power, we'll put them in those positions where they're

focused on isil. that's first task at hand. and then, again, if they are attacked, we should protect them. >> what do we do if the forces we train and equip end up attacking assad's forces? >> that is not what we are focused on. we will discontinue providing support for those forces if they vector off and do things that we haven't designed them to do initially, and ask them to focus on initially. >> do you think the success of the opposition groups that we're training and equipping, that we're supporting, do you think that will require a new governing structure in damascus? and if so, would the u.s. military be involved in helping to facilitate that change? >> i think eventually forces will need to plug-in some type

of structure for sure. again, that's not what the military typically does. this is a whole of government approach here. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> general, i'd just like to follow up on what senator lee said. in syria, these young people are training, and we send them back in to syria, if they're attacked by assad, we're not going to protect them? are we going to protect them? >> my recommendation would be we protect them. no matter who is attacking them. we have to protect these forces once we've trained them and put them on the ground. >> are we going to have a provision to protect them? >> we currently don't have that. that policy decision, sir. >> we are going to train them to go back into syria, and we don't have a policy as to whether or

not we protect them? >> currently that decision has not been taken. >> then why are we training them if we're not going to be able to tell them whether we're going to protect them or not? >> i'm very hopeful that we will be able to tell them that, sir. >> i'm very hopeful, too. but hope really doesn't stop barrel bombing. could i ask you again when it is that the saudis notified you that they were going to begin attacks in yemen? >> sir, i had a discussion with saudi chad the day of the attacks. so it was not much before that they actually started the attacks. >> isn't that quite a commentary on our relationship with saudi arabia and the other 13 countries in their coalition, that they would, on literally the day of the their attacks they tell you that tell the

united states of america that they're going to launch a major campaign? that is really a fantastic indicator, the deterioration of the trust and confidence that these countries, particularly saudi arabia, have in us. and it's been quoted quite frequently some people believe it's better to be an enemy of the united states than a friend. this is quite remarkable. finally, i do not know how you recruit young people to fight and tell them they are going to go back into a country and we do not have a policy yet whether we will protect them or not, that is immoral. it is not only unworkable, it is immoral. if we train them and equip them to go and fight, we have not yet

got a policy on whether we protect them or not. i would say that would also be something of a disincentive for recruitment. so i hope for the sake of these young people's lives that we are training now that we at least have a policy decision as to whether we are going to protect them or not. and of course the best way to do that is with a no-fly zone which was recommended years ago with out any result from this president. senator gillibrand? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow the chairman's line of questioning. so what do you believe the strategy is for this new campaign, and what is the ultimate goal in yemen, sorry? >> i do not know the specifics of their goals and objectives. i can tell you that they're

interested, number one, in protecting their homeland. they have a border with yemen, obviously, and also that they received requests from the president of yemen to help with military assistance. >> what advice have you given or will you give the president about what our role should be? >> current position is that we will help the saudis with the intelligence and logistics and planning support, and again, they are great partners and i think they are very appreciative of the help that we'll provide them. >> what is your assessment of their likelihood of success? >> in yemen? >> yes. >> again senator, i don't currently know the specific goals and objectives of the

saudi campaign. and i'd have to know that to be able to assess the likelihood of success. >> i hope you get the information sooner than later because more than $500 million of u.s. military assistance to yemen can no longer be accounted for and has fallen into the wrong hands. we have a role in yemen that we have to have much greater accountability for. how does something like that happen? given the instability in the region what steps should the u.s. be taking to protect or prevent losses like that in the future? >> the $500 million as i understand it is the amount of investment over an eight-year period that we've made to help the yemeni government, the yemeni military forces, or security forces, build capacity. this not only includes materials but also training. as you know, training can be costly.

when we are there we have the ability to monitor how this equipment is being used but of course the embassy is no longer there and it does not have an office of security corporation that would typically do these things. so we do not have the ability currently. if we have the opportunity to go back in and partner with a new government or a government then i think that will be one of our focus areas. >> given the houthis are still in control how do you believe we should deal with al qaeda in the arabian peninsula given the state of yemen? >> as we have done and will continue to do in every case where we don't have people on the ground but there is a threat there that we need to be concerned about, we'll use every

intelligence collection capability that's available to us to continue to monitor what's going on with this extremist network. we do have resources that are in the region that we can use to apply to counter this network once we've developed the appropriate intelligence. >> what do you see as the presence of isil in the region, and is that going to be affected by the state of yemen today? >> if i could get you to -- if i could ask a question, get you to ask the question again, i missed a piece of it. >> how you see the threat of isil in that region? >> i think the threat of isil in the region is the most pressing threat we're facing.

>> in yemen? >> that's really undetermined. i know that the most recent attack was attributed to an isil element in yemen. i think the intelligence agencies are working their way through that. determining the veracity of whether or not this is a hard-core isil element or someone claiming to be isil. or what this really is. clearly aqap is dominant in that country, and whether or not isil and aqap can coexist is left to be seen. >> thank you very much. >> thank the witnesses. >> senator mccain? >> senator cotton. >> one point to follow up on something that he just said. there's a breaking news alert from the associated press, general austin, that egypt and saudi arabia have begun a ground incursion into yemen. that saudi arabia or any other country give you or central command advance notice if this report is accurate? >> no, i did not have notice.

>> thank you. >> quite a commentary. this hearing is adjourned.

next live here on c-span3, a series of discussions about new methods in the development of modern missile defense and technology. representatives from the defense and state departments will be discussing improvements in capabilities international implications for u.s. missile defense. its funding and other policy issues. it is hosted here by the center for strategic and international studies in washington. should get under way shortly. want to tell you that at this hour rand paul, kentucky senator, has just finished announcing he's running for president in 2016.

live coverage is over on c-span with your thoughts and comments. he becomes the second republican candidate after ted cruz to make that announcement. you'll be able to see all of that later in our program schedule and also online at c-span.org. this event from the csis should get under way shortly.

this is the center for strategic and international studies in washington. they're about to get under way with a series of discussions on missile technology, new methods in development and improvement on that technology. they'll hear from a number of representatives, both in the industry and from defense and state departments about the improvements and capabilities in

a u.s. missile defense. okay, folks. all right. richard, you're having too much fun back there. thanks, everybody, for coming. delighted to have you here. we're going to have an interesting afternoon together. my name is john hamre, the president here at csis. and when we have outside groups that meet with us we always begin with a bit of a safety

presentation. so i want you to know aim your responsible safety officer. i'm going to take care of you this afternoon. but if something happens, follow me. we are going to -- these are the exits, you see on this side, the stair goes right around the corner, right in that cornerback there. everybody head out that way. we'll rendezvous across the street at the beacon hotel and i'll pay for the drinks. okay. follow me if we have to do anything. i want to say thanks to our friends at boeing that are making it possible for us to hold this conference on next steps in missile defense. when i first started in think tank land, about 15 years ago, think every think tank every month held a conference on missiles. it was derigor. everyone was focused on it. over the last ten years, our focus has shifted to other things. we have become so focused on things like insurgency, warfare

et cetera. and there hasn't been this national perspective to look at the role that missile defense is going to have to play. you look at all of the kind of troubling events, technology developments in the world and they all kind of come around to this point. we need to be able to respond and have confidence that we can still operate successfully in this country when we could very well be attacked by missiles. that's just the reality. it is not a happy reality to talk about. but it is real. it is part of what we're doing here today is to learn where we are, where are we in this -- in this -- in this work together. i want to say thanks to tom, for you, for heading up our effort. tom karako just joined us, with us as a senior fellow, but we twisted his arm and offered and asked him to stay with us permanently to help us with this. i want to say thank you to him. he's going to really launch this effort for real, but it is

obviously we got excellent, you know panelists that are with us. but the quality they all give us is -- and conversely related to your engagement. you have to be very active here and pull out of them all the insights we know they have for us today. thank you very much. and, tom, let me turn it to you to get this started for real. thanks, everybody. >> thank you, dr. hamre. i'm tom karako. i think we have a great lineup of three panels today. i think dr. hamre was alluding to some of what i was going to say about how the character and the tenor of the discussion on missile defense changed over the past couple of decades. over ten years has passed since missile defense became operational in alaska. i think during that time as missile defense has gone from infancy to adolescence, you've got a lot more bipartisan and much more widespread support. not as divisive an issue. it is a question of how much missile defense we can afford and what kinds and what

priorities and what balance we put into it. so this is an exciting time for it. a lot going on in the missile defense world. you're going to hear over the next several hours, over the next three panels, about both homeland and regional missile defense and technological and other steps that we can be taking along that -- along those lines. our first panel will be on policy and operations. our second is on international dimensions. and third on future directions. i'll be directing traffic. and first up we have deputy assistant secretary of defense elaine bunn followed by missile defense agency deputy director brigadier general ken todorov. elaine elaine, would you like to kick us off? thank you. >> thanks, tom. thanks, john. thanks for having this forum. i find that csis continues to be in the forefront of civil discourse on defense issues and security issues. and i find that to be the case

whether it is their engagement with international partners whether it is the project on nuclear issues near and dear to my heart or events like this one. i've been asked to focus on the policy aspects of missile defense. that is, really i think to set up a framework for the discussions throughout the afternoon. part of that means starting with basics so we're all speaking of it in the same terms or at least know when we're not speaking of it in the same terms. so for those of you who are deep, deep into missile defense, please forgive the basics here. the u.s. i think it is clear as john hamre just said, that the united states as well as our deployed forces our allies partners, face a number of threats around the world from literally thousands of ballistic missiles. those missiles can be short range, medium range, intermediate range, long range.

icbm kind of range. keep that distinction in mind as we talk about the policy. what that means is that we're pursuing a variety of missile defense capabilityies for two missions. first, highest priority, is for defending the united states against limited attacks by countries such as north korea and iran. and then the second is defending against regional missile threats to u.s. forces allies and partners. and then also enabling our allies and partners to defend themselves against those threats. so keep those two different missions in mind if you would. for both the homeland and regional defense missions our policy and strategy have to take into account uncertainties.

uncertainties in the development of the -- of threat capabilities, and uncertainty with regard to technological and fiscal constraints as we develop missile defenses. so a lot of uncertainties in both those categories. the policy goals of homeland and regional missile defense are different. and sometimes you hear discussions that mix and mingle the two, but let me lay out very clearly what they are. for homeland missile defense, we are trying to defend against the whole range, against all of the long range ballistic missiles that are -- that threaten the united states from north korea and potentially from iran. we are not, let me remind you, designing our homeland defense to defend against russia and

china and their much larger, much more sophisticated ballistic missile arsenals. in the regional context, where there are thousands of adversaries, short medium and intermediate range missiles more of the short range fewer at the medium, and fewer still at the intermediate range but collectively thousands of ballistic missiles, what we are trying to do is -- is to defend against some of those. we know that we will not be able to defend against all of them. we just can't buy enough -- we can't buy enough interceptors for that. what can regional missile defenses do if you're not going to, say, i'm going to be able to shoot down every one of those short, medium intermediate range ballistic missiles. regional missile defense can

help defang, which is not really an english word i like the word defang the coercive value of ballistic missiles. it can provide some protection and defend against cheap shots, it can defend against some number of those regional ballistic missiles and make sure that adversaries don't get a free ride, thinking if they shoot it, it will get through. regional -- i have to emphasize this, we had a discussion of it around lunch earlier today, regional defense is only a part of a broader mix of capabilities. it has come into -- into the forefront again. i think you'll hear more about it this afternoon from m. this is part of a mix of capabilities of dealing with ballistic missiles.

on the regional side we're focused on developing capabilities that are mobile that are relocatable that you can surge where they're needed in -- as crises build. in other words, you're not going to have enough everywhere, all the time. regional combatant commanders want -- they want more and more and more. and there will always be -- these will always be low density, high demand assets. let me go back to homeland defense and talk about the threats and what do we see out there. the threats to the u.s. to u.s. territory, from north korea, and potentially iran, what we're trying to -- we're trying to stay ahead of that threat to be early to need, and stay ahead of it. north korea, conducted three nuclear tests is seeking to

develop longer range ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the united states. they continue their effort to bring the road mobile kno 8 icbm to operational capacity. they paraded it several times in parades, up to six missiles in those parades operational. again, the reliability of an untested kno 8 is likely to be very low. if we were going to deploy a missile, we would want to have tested it. north korea hasn't yet tested a kno 8. they have used their taepodong 2, which is a launch vehicle, they used to put satellites into orbit, and some of those technologies are applicable to long range missiles but they

have not tested that kno 8. while the reliability of their long range missile is likely low, the issue really is how much risk is the u.s. willing to accept when it comes to defending the u.s. against country like north korea where our confidence, or maybe i should say our lack of confidence, in our understanding of north korea's leadership and what their decision-making calculus is really i think motivates a lot of our high priority on homeland missile defense. turn to iran, iran is not jet deployed an intercontinental ballistic missile. it does have space launch vehicle vehicles. a number of folks speculate they have the motivation and desire to be able to deter the u.s. and allies and that that provides

them along with their space capabilities of means and motivation to bring to fruition an icbm. i would note that if the negotiations that will be concluded by the end of june are fruitful, and we come to agreement on the just agreed nuclear framework then its ballistic missiles would not be nuclear armed. that's a good thing. the u.s. homeland today is -- it has defenses to protect us against icbm attacks from north korea, kno 8, and from iran if they can make it to an icbm capability. to ensure we can stay ahead of the threat and, again, that's the policy on homeland defense. early to need, stay ahead, don't want to take chances on those two actors.

to ensure we can stay ahead of that threat we're continuing to strengthen our homeland defense posture and invest in technologies that better enable us to address evolution of threats in coming decades. so this is over a longer term. that means continued improvement to the ground based midcourse defense system, the gmd system, including enhancing performance of the ground-based interceptors, the gbis, and deployment of new sensors. we're on track, if you look at some of the changes made in that gmd system we're on track to deploy an additional 14 interceptors. this was the announcement that secretary hagel made in march of 2013 that we would deploy an additional 14 interceptors in alaska, and those, along with the 30 that are already deployed in alaska and in california

would improve the protection against both north korea and iranian threats as they emerge. late last year, we also deployed a second forward-based discriminating radar in japan and that's operating today, thanks in large part to the amazing work of the japanese government as well as mda. that radar is important for homeland defense but it is also important for regional defense. talk about regional defense in a moment. this year's president budget request reflects that highest priority on homeland missile defense. it reflects the commitment to modernizing the gmd system, moving toward more reliable more effective, you'll hear more from this about this from general todorov in a moment.

but the development of a new radar that when it is deployed in alaska will have persistent sensory coverage against an improved discrimination capabilities against north korea. it also -- this year's budget also continues the redesign, the funding for the redesign of the kill vehicle for the ground based interceptors. there had been some problems in the past. those are identified. the test in june of last year showed that the changes made for the gbis would make that -- that system more successful. so it is back, fitting those on to existing interceptors. but also the redesigned kill vehicle that not only gives you better performance and discrimination capability, but

also will be more -- will be easier to build easier to maintain easier to upgrade than the previous versions were. let me turn now to regional missile defense. and what is it that we see as the threats there. north korea, besides the threat to the homeland also poses a substantial regional ballistic missile threat. it conducted a number of short range ballistic missile launches in the recent past. and also has medium range missiles. scud and nodong that can threaten further, further allies and u.s. forces in the region. they also -- their efforts to produce -- not only produce, but to market their ballistic misses raises broader concerns about

ballistic missile technology, proliferation. regional threats from the middle east, iran and syria, have regional ballistic missiles today. iran has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the region, and is capable of striking targets throughout -- not only throughout the region, but also into the eastern part of europe. the assad regime in syria also possesses several hundred short range ballistic missiles and have shown themselves willing to use them. in the regional ballistic missile context, i would also note that china's development of advanced ballistic missiles in the conventionally armed medium and intermediate range ballistic missile area improves their ability to strike regional targets at greater ranges, as

well as the concern about their ballistic missiles. so when it comes to regional missile defense i think what you'll see in the president's fy '16 budget request continues to implement the deployment of defenses tailored to the specific circumstances of europe the middle east and asia pacific. three big areas. we are also -- spent a lot of time, energy and effort encouraging our allies and partners to acquire missile defenses of their own and to strengthen the operational defense cooperation whether through exercises or sensor sharing. in europe, we continue to implement the european adaptive approach. we're doing that in close

collaboration with nato. they are -- nato is developing advance network of sensors and interceptors on land and sea. since 2011 the u.s. has operated the forward-based radar in turkey, and maintained sea-based missile defense in europe. we're on track to deploy aegis ashore in romania at the end of this year. and to send two additional aegis bmd destroyers to join the donald cook and the uss ross already in spain. we'll have four aegis destroyers that are deployed in spain. their multimission ships, bmd is not the only mission of aegis ships. they have amazing capabilities. they're in great demand, whether

in europe or elsewhere. president's budget also supports the eaegis ashore that is to be deployed in poleland ed ined in poland in the 2018 time frame and the interceptor that will be deployed both on land and at sea. the -- when we have that capability, and the other aegis destroyers in europe we will have the u.s. -- the u.s. donation to european missile defense will, indeed, extend coverage to all european territory. that's not to say the u.s. is doing it all with regard to nato missile defense. our allies are also making significant contributions. romania, spain and turkey are obviously hosting missile

defense systems. and providing security for external parts of those facilities. poland, beyond just hosting the second eaegis ashore site announced its intention to buy about $10 billion worth of advanced air and missile defense capabilities. the u.s. patriot system is a finalist in that competition for poland's acquisitions. and several other allies are also in the process of considering the purchase of air and missile defense capabilities. some have combatant ships that they can -- with sensors that can be upgraded. the netherlands and denmark are in that category. the netherlands and germany have committed pac 3, patriot pack 3s as part of nato's deployment in turkey and spain will be replacing the netherlands later

this year in that mission. if you look at the asia pacific region, our force posture there, there is what we do on missile defense in these regions and what allies do on missile defense in these regions. our force posture in asia pacific includes aegis ships and patriot batteries that are deployed in both japan and south korea. and we also have a battery in guam. where does that fall? homeland or regional missile defense? it is both. guam is u.s. territory. those are u.s. citizens. we have a battery there we deployed in -- during the 2013 cycle of north korean provocations and it remains there there. the strong bilateral alliances we have in this region with japan, south korea and australia also play a role in the effective missile defense

capabilities there. japan, very far along on its own missile defense capability. they include their own aegis bmd ships and standard missile three intercepters. pac three batteries, only pac three batteries, early warning radars sophisticated command and control systems, upgrading two of their aegis destroyers to be certification scheduled for 2018, 2019 correct me if i'm wrong. and they also host two of our missile defense radars. they are -- they are becoming a critical partner for international cooperation as well. one of our most significant cooperative efforts in co-development is with the advanced version of the sm 3, the 2a and being produced in

japan. south korea is -- has an immediate proximate stake in preventing missile strikes from north korea. we worked closely with south korea to assure as an liance wealliance we can maintain the capacity to do that. one thing we bring to south korea, batteries to defend our forces deployed there and south korean forces. but south korea is also taking steps to enhance its own missile and air defense including sea and land based sensors, upgrading the patriot missiles and also pursuing its own indigenous korean capability. u.s. and australia long cooperation, partnership on missile defense research and development. most notably with regard to sensors. in the middle east we have a

robust missile defense presence including land and sea-based assets deployed there. that is in addition to our efforts to work with allies to build their own capabilities to defend themselves. strong -- we have a strong relationship with israel on missile defense. i was the action officer in 1986, 6, for the very first agreement we had with israel on cooperative missile defense for research and development. it has advanced and advanced over the years. they go from iron dome to david sling weapon system to the era weapon system and a lot of that is in conjunction with both missile defense agency and then operational cooperation with the united states. we're working with a number of

the golf cooperation council countries on missile defense including supporting their purchases through foreign military sales programs of capabilities. uae is procureing thad. that's in addition to the earlier purchase of patriot. saudi arabia is in the process of upgrading their skwifte inging their existing pack 2 batteries. qatar joined the international community of u.s. patriot partners late last year and that as the gcc stit states s states begin to field more capable systems, we and gcc partners are trying to work together more on the

capabilities across the region, especially sharing of sensory data among those countries. technology development. let me say one word about that. about the need to continue to look ahead. talking at lunch about how sometimes when budgets are tight and trying to priority, high priorities, homeland missile defense, regional missile defense, it is the advanced technology, the seed corn that gets cut, but we do have to balance the investment priorities to be sure that we do continue to look at advance technologies that can help us be more effective. you'll get more on that this afternoon so i won't belabor the point. all of that is a brief summary of the policy strategy and priorities you will see and what others will talk about in more

detail today. i know ken todorov will talk more about budgets and programs and frank cannot hope himself. he's been quite a stalwart in those efforts. so i don't want to steal all of their thunder because i got to speak first, but we made a lot of month depress on missile defense in the last several year but we have to constantly reassess the mix of missile defenses as well as the role of missile defense in the broader set of capabilities we bring to bear on dealing with ballistic missile threats around the world. i think the budget, for all of you here from the hill i think the president's budget reflects the policy strategy and

priorities that are just laid out here. thank you for having me here today. i look forward eventually to questions. [ applause ] good afternoon, everybody. as tom said, my name is ken todorov, the deputy director of the missile defense agency. it is an honor to be here today and continue this dialogue with you. dr. hamre thank you for the invitation. todd thank you for getting everyone here. on behalf of the 8,000 or so employees and my boss, thank you for allowing mda to be here and talk about our priorities, talk about the work that we're doing the very important work we're doing near term and into the future to advanced the course and the cause for missile defense. what i intend to do today is give you an operational

perspective. i'm an operator. i'm a unique animal. we have a lot of hugely bright people that are engineers working on these problems. i'm not an acquisition officer. given the difficulties of that enterprise but i am an operator. i come from an operations background. i'm a pilot. in 2009 i came to colorado springs, and that's where i got into missile defense. i was the deputy director of operations there. that officer's job is to really be the point man or point woman. that's really where i cut my teeth in the system. i've been involved with missile defense that day. i want to thank all of you for whatever your role is in this dialogue.

whether you're here from the press, the hill one of our foreign partners it is a team effort to be sure and so thanks for what you do and thank you. i like to rely on videos to make my point. simple kind of guy. and i'm a military officer. no one can get away without a little power point. a few short video clip and we'll make points about the individual you see. if we can roll the first individualvideo please.

>> didn't say i was good at power point. just said i like to use it. ♪ ♪ i show you that video for a number of reasons. the threat is real in our minds. i had the benefit every morning of getting to work, opening up an intelligence book and seeing what is going on in various places around the world. i can tell you it is real. the threat is increasing in

quantity and in quality. as elaine said we aim to stay ahead of that threat in everything we do. it is vitally important we do. in north korea, the kno 8 is something we're concerned with. that regime is very unpredictable. just last night they had another unannounced short range test of some of their systems. they're not resting on their laurels. in iran, they assess as early as this year there could be a space launch from iran. space launch. as you know, that could be translated to an icbm. the threat is real and something we take seriously. next video, please.

♪ today, it is credible, it is reliable. from the war fighter perspective, having been there, we have confidence in this system to defend our nation in both the homeland and regional interests around the globe. we have confidence in that system. we have a shock doctrine set up to deal with some of the issues that the system may have. but that's why the shock dock continue is what it is. i can tell you we have confidence in and the war fighter has confidence to deal with the threat.

the key will be to continue to outpace that threat as we go. as elaine rightly mentioned a point i always like to make about this system, it is not designed to be sort of a stand alone catch all system in and of itself itself. it is part of a larger continuum of capabilities that they bring offensively and defensively. we have to continue to look at the system that way and not as a -- as some kind of a fly catcher or catcher's mitt. i heard a lot of analogies used when talking about the system. it doesn't make sense. it is part of a larger war fighter tool kit. next, please.

♪ apologies for the little bit of issues with the videos. we'll get it straightened out. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> so i don't want to belabor the points in the video. all of you are probably familiar with the ground based system. i want to talk about priorities and the things we're working on in the very near term. we got a flight test coming up in december. we're calling it ctv, control test vehicle. we're going to really, really wring out a discrimination season in this flight test we have never done before, want to continue again to outpace the threat. that flight test will be a huge hallmark for the ground-based midcourse defense system. we want to continue to work on reliability issues, testing our alternate divert thrusters, testing and discrimination. another priority for the system

and it is in our budget and elaine mentioned it is the redesigned kill vehicle. very much a priority at the forefront of the work we're doing within the agency. designed for as i laoike to say four things, reliability, produceability, performance all of the new redesigned kill vehicle that will help us maintain our edge on that threat that continues to develop. finally, in the big rocks pile among gmd i cannot -- it would be remiss if i didn't talk about the radar. we asked for the industry for help with us. they're evaluated their bids. we hope this will be something we turn the lights on, if you will in the year 2020. and it will be sort of a crown jewel of -- a complement to the great rate we already have out there today. a lot going on within gmd.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> so that was my very first day at the missile defense agency. i like to take personally all the credit for the success of that. and i often do. a lot of hard work went into that obviously none by me, but that was a hallmark event for our agency and for the nation. the conversation would be a lot different today had we not had the success we did. that's a credit to our friends in the industry and a lot of. that helped us with this. it was a very important event to be sure. and i like to say it was necessary, but it wasn't sufficient. in other words, we had to do that test, had to find those things out, had to make sure we gave that war fighter even more confidence in the system, but it wasn't sufficient to rest on our laurels. more work to do. this is laying the ground work for the next flight test into the future. you see in the center of that screen, the sbx.

there has been some things written recently about that platform, maybe some of you had seen it. i want to go on record and respect respectfully disagree with what i read. i can tell you from the war fighter perspective the operational perspective absolutely the most important sensor we had in our tool kit when the sabers were being rattled anywhere in the world but particularly with north korea. it is the first thing we thought of in a headquarters when we saw something, some intelligence cue that the regime in north korea may be lining up something to shoot into space or potentially at us. the first question was how soon can we get sbx under way? i was sitting with general jacoby some spring of 2013 and the national military command center. he had the responsibility to make the recommendation to the secretary of defense and the president whether or not we were going to release ground based interceptors on a potential

threat. i remember looking at him and said, boss, how are you feeling? we knew based on intelligence it was imminent. and he said, you know what, i'm feeling really g the nation has and i'm feeling good because we've got sbx in the right place at the right time. it's absolutely the best sensor out there for discrimination. it's laying the ground work for everything we're doing in the design of the lrdr it's a hugely important sensor to the war fighter. it's been a hugs a ee s aasset for us and vitally important. let me give you statistics from the year 2006 until today how many times we've deployed this asset. 13 real world special taskings to include burnt frost. remember that in 2008? to include numerous cycles of provocation. every cycle of provocation since 2012, we've had sbx underway. 11 individual flight texts that she's participated in. six ground test events.

you don't hear a lot about the ground test work that we do. but the flight test gets all the press, right? there's a lot of work that happens before flight tests or independent of a flight test where we do analysis. sbx has been a part of that, as well. three separate events 16 air force flyouts. stockpile reliability testing, making sure that those systems are operational and reliable and credible. the sbx in my mind a huge -- has huge value for the taxpayer. versatile both in operations and war fighter wants it every time and it's hugely important for tests. i think the numbers bear out. to call it a flop or call it or say it never should have been built. again, i just have to respectfully based on my experience in the war fighting headquarters and now at mda respectfully disagree with that.

and how valuable it is.

this is a really good news story. this is a homeland defense asset and it's a regional defense asset and an asset for the united states navy globally. we're very proud of the work we've done. we continue to advance the cause and advance the ball 35 just capable ships today. going to 33 today. we're going to 35 by the end of fiscal year '16. a very successful fall test campaign that we underwent. we did a test called ftn 25 where it taxed out the array on just the platform itself. both with a ballistic missile threat at a high and cruise missile surrogate threats flying low, simultaneously, the system handled it beautifully. it's really the basis for the work we're doing and baseline nine. a lot of advancements in this area continues to be a huge asset for the nation, a great

asset for the nation and for our partners around the world. another really, really good story.

to have to approach phase 2 capability the facility in romania this year, this calendar year. and that project is moving along. and we're ready to put the shovel in the ground. and start the next phase of this campaign we are maintaining our commitment to our friends and allies and partners in europe in particular with the capability. it's a fantastic capability and proven time and again this facility of prmf that participates in numerous flight tests for us. it's a fantastic capability. and, again things are going really, really well as we continue to be on track to deliver and keep our promises to our friends and allies.

>> 11 for 11 in flight tests. it's a great system. the war fighter loves it. we've got soldiers today in guam for the last two years defending regionally and homeland in guam. and you talk to the soldiers and they're satisfied with the system, love the capability it brings. the united states army loves the capability it brings and the combatant commander loves the capability the system brings. we're continuing to develop it working with the army on future requirement. we've delivered four batteries already to the army, working on a fifth and beyond. we're also delivering an

additional 48 interceptors by fy '16, giving us a total of 155. and studying the future of this system and how it may actually, we can adapt this system to an evolving threat. a different threat down the road. so thaad is turning out to be i think, a remarkable investment. and again not only for our nation, but our friends and allies around the world who are looking at this as an smf case.

>> that video covered a lot of items. a couple of highlights. you saw the radars that are deployed in various places around the world. we just declared an operational capability this past december in japan. once again, that was on time. we delivered it when we said we were going to. it's already plugged in into the war fighter suite for united states pacific command. it's soon to be plugged into the united states northern command. so it's an asset that regardless of where it is around the world can plug and play in various and different -- friends and partners thank you for the sm 32a, it's going to save the taxpayer and a great initiative we're partnering on. and i'd be remiss if i didn't offer kudos to our friends and

partners in israel. i think you've probably seen the press in recent days. we're still crunching the data, but we think very, very successful flight tests of the system, which you briefly saw in the video there. lots going on in international cooperation. we can talk a lot more about it in the q & a. so, again, i covered a ton of ground in a very short amount of time. again, i'm open to your questions in a moment here. one area i didn't talk about is technology, and what mda is doing in the technology realm. and that's because we've got our chief technologist here. in my mind having been around mda now for going on a year, close to still the bread and butter.

lost sight of that. so i'll close again put my war fighter hat back on. you can say what you want about missile defense generally or about the system or about the cost and the expense. and we used to banter this around in the cheyenne mountain on a lot of cold, dark nights on alert and doing an exercise or for real world contingency. and often times we would sort of come to the conclusion, what is it worth to us? is it worth seattle? san francisco, or los angeles, or increasingly now colorado denver heartland of america. potentially in the future eastern seaboard boston, new york, washington, d.c. is it worth the investment in these systems to pretend -- to protect what