wonderful statement. he said, you know across the south, we have a deep appreciation of history. we haven't always had a deep appreciation of each other's history. i think that speaks volumes about where we are right now. and sometimes we don't have an appreciate for our own history. and i hear all of this talk about we have to honor those that fought and died in the civil war. and we should. and we do. as a matter of fact, we have a monument on the front lawn of our state house and i dare say on the front lawn of every courthouse around our state, the most prominent place or location for a monument is the confederate soldiers monument in virtually every county and our state house grounds and so don't tell me moving the flag fails to honor our soldiers because we're doing that.

and let me tell you what dishonors our soldiers. let me tell you what is a dishonor to their memory and their service. it is to fly that flag -- i want everybody to remember this, i'm talking to all of my colleagues who think we must keep it up there because of heritage. oh how i wish -- how i wish robert e. lee general lee's portrait is in the senate, i wish he was here right now at this podium he would tell you all, it is an abomination for his flag to fly -- as a matter of fact his very flag was furled -- it was furled when they surrendered at appomattox and it has never been unfurled and to do so dishonors those who fought and died and it violates the terms of surrender.

general lee, when it came time, and the cause was lost, he called everybody to come back work, be good citizens and build a country together. many times he was called to start -- start a gorilla war. the flag is furled. maintain your soldierly honor, go back and serve your country. never, never, never let the flags fly again. and you want to take flags from other units and fly them. that would offend every member of those regiments particularly those who sacrificed so dearly, to put that flag up there and subject it to political ridicule. you want to talk about flags being abducted.

when we put a flag up -- that should have been unfurled a long time ago in honor of their memories of those soldiers, we're the ones allowing it to be abduct the, we're the ones giving legitimacy for the ones that have taken it and used it for improper purposes. you don't think that those out there who believe as dylann roff believed find legitimacy and encouragement and justification that their flag and symbol flies on the front most prominent spot of their state house. i'm going to give you the words -- not my words the words of general wade hampton who led val lently his soldiers in the civil war, they gathered and came back and gathered after the civil war was over and he brought them together to talk about their banner.

and what is the appropriate thing to do. and he was very very clear for all of the right reasons. and his speech it was titled, the duty of the present. and that present and that duty is still very much here today. he told the father of the sons of the confederate veterans here today very clearly these are his words, though it will never again brave the battle and the breeze, yet as long as one shred of its battle scars cling to another, it will tell you in language morrello quent than words of the perishable renowned for you and your words it will speak constantly to your hearts of our dead comrades and it will serve to remind you always that when you furl it forever you pledge your soldierly honor to

serve the terms upon which you surrender. sons of confederate veterans when you fly the flags, you violate the terms of surrender of your fathers, you offend those who fought and died under that banner. it is undeniable. we did fine in south carolina for over 100 years without a confederate flag flying here. we didn't need a confederate flag. for years, we got along just fine without a confederate flag flying in these chambers or on that front lawn. it wasn't until the civil rights movement and the federal government said, you know what, we're not treating people right. we're discriminating on people because of their race and not allowing them to access the ballot and that is not right. so our response in south carolina was just a little symbolic middle finger to the federal government by throwing a flag on the dome and in these

chambers. that is all it was. and nothing more. and to continue that in my manner whether it is another flag on that pole or something else, all you are doing is continuing a legacy based upon hate. if it meant heritage for people some day at some time in the past, it sure as heck doesn't reflect that these days. and i have to say, those that put it on the dome and put it in these chambers at that time they bear full responsibility for that. you want to make sure we get back to heritage for those flags, you do what general lee and wade hampton said, listen to them, furl it forever. then you protect it from ridicule and abuse and only then does it really mean heritage. this is a time like very few times that we have in this body,

and you know while it is important, and it is important, which is why we're all here, it ought not to be this hard. we should come together. and i'm encouraged by what i see, my friends in this chim -- chamber, that we'll by the end of the night vote on a clean bill that won't delay this process or give comfort to anybody who would see delaying our actions, they would find comfort in that and find somebody else out there fighting for their racist beliefs and twist that in ways that are never intended. that is not who we are that is not what we're about. so we have a monument. and we should have a monument. and it is in a most prominent place on these grounds and that is there to be the remembrance for those who died in the war.

but i hope before we're done with this process, and when we come back in january which we will, and i'm sure we'll build a fine and appropriate designation location for this banner in the relic room. >> mr. smith that is your first ten minutes. >> i would like to be recognized for a few more. >> yes, sir. >> i hope that after we do that, we also find a way to memorialize, to remember what brought us all here tonight and let there be no mistake about that fact this event in history would not be occurring but for nine murders of innocents in charleston. and we talk about wanting the future generations to understand what took to bring about change and bring about a positive movement in our history let's never forget that. and lastly i have to say, and

in working with my leader on the democratic side representative rutherford, and with the majority leader, representative banister, i'm privileged to work very closely with as we've tried to make our way through this and the governor downstairs who by the way has made it very clear -- you know what, she has every right and ability and she will ensure that that flag is going to come down in a respectful manner. i'm sure there will be all kind of appropriate circumstance. she's not going to do that -- send somebody out there with a hacksaw and cut that pole down. that is not going to happen. and nobody should think that would ever happen. but the time has come, and dare say i hate what it took to bring us all here but the time has come to do the right thing finally, make history. remember what got us all here

together. and let's move this state from changing monuments on our front lawn, to monumental change in areas that we know will make our citizens' lives better. thank you, mr. speaker. >> thank you mr. smith. mr. collins is recognized back in the chamber. >> what are you all still doing here? as you know, at 3:00 i left today. and as providence would have it apparently there were a number of thunderstorms across the nation and up in greenville spartanberg, you think it is contentious in here, try to be in the us air terminal where four or five canceled and postponed flights -- i wasn't

clear this morning i was going to vegas to officiate i'm a wrestling official. and fortunately or unfortunately, the earliest flight i could get is tomorrow night at this time. and i had a decision to make at about 9:00. i turned on the phone and you all were still debating down here and wondered if it was necessary to come back and the state tweeted a recent vote that was only succeeded or failed by two or three votes. and i know it was too important to not come back down here. i was able to get outside of the bubble a little bit, even listen to a little bit of conservative talk show radio that we all love in the upstate. and the world is still turning out there. i know that emotions have been

high today. i'm sorry that i haven't been in this fox hole with y'all today. but i have respected everybody's demeanor, i think for the most part you all have shown south carolina what we're about. so i just encourage that as we're getting tired, that we continue that and thank you for what you all have done today. now let's get it done. >> thank you, mr. collins. mr. robert brown is recognized. >> members of the house it's a little bit after 12:00, it's been a long day. i know many of you are tired and sleepy. but i'm not. but i promise you i will be

serious, i will be brief, and i will be seated. because the civil war is over. the e manuel nine have been laid to rest. all of us have grieved as a state, all of us will hale as a -- he'll as a state. united we stand, divided we fall. remember china, russia and isis. they are all watching and waiting. they want to take control of this country. they hate americans. but they love america. now is the time, now is the time for south carolinians to become

the vanguard in peace, unity and prosperity simply by taking down that flag and scrap its pole. we want one state for all of our people. thank you. >> thank you, mr. brown. mr. mitchell is recognized. mr. mitchell. mr. quinn is recognized to speak on this bill. >> ladies and gentlemen, members of the house i haven't had a lot of time to talk to my colleagues but i -- i was here

in 2000 when -- as i mentioned before, when we took it off the dome and i've been here before. and i got to be honest with my -- i appreciate representative ott and i think it is very gracious of him to offer these resolutions. i don't understand why they can't be in the bill. the reason i was trying to do it to be quite frank with you is i was trying to give folks in this chamber a way that they could honorably say that at least we know that the legislature is standing through the redick and can handle the flag when it is removed in an honorable fashion and i think i was on the verge of accomplishing that. i had other members in the caucus gracious to support me and mr. corley had strong feelings and he would not support this bill and know he would never change. i had others that i felt like i was bringing toward us to try to get to the two-thirds vote we're going to need tomorrow.

and what i would say to you is i'm going to borrow a phrase from mr. lucas, there were some hard words tonight and i won't remember them tomorrow. and heck i turned 50 this year. i'm at the point in my life where i have kids and mr. corley i said to him earlier, i don't back down much and i think most of you all that know me a lot, know that. and as i did in 2000 i know we have to resolve this issue. and i don't understand why we're taking the position that in the bill -- having it in the bill, i don't understand why that is a big deal to come back on january 1st after we remove the flag and give us a plan on how to handle it. but that is the card that has been played. and i appreciate you, representative ott for reaching out to me and mr. anderson and todd rutherford and there were a couple of things that changed my

perspective on this. i spoke with senator ledgerman and he said he would do everything he could to get these through as quickly as possible. and representative rutherford said he would support the effort to get the relic room the funding it needs to do this in an honorable way, but also he's given me his word that he won't be a part of going after the monument on the grounds or other positions. so i'm going to -- and when i get the opportunity, i'm going to ask you too, because we can't withdraw it, the amendment is there to -- since we debated it, i believe, unless it has been so long, i forgot the rules and i think some of them have changed but i think we have to vote it down. but as a bit of free advice for my friends in this chamber and as i said i won't hold ill will feelings tomorrow, but for somebody to take a podium today

tonight, on a mission -- a issue that is so emotional and say you don't have a heart for asking for a plan on how we can handle the flag once it is taken down, when you get personal the issues go away and i think that is what has happened here. i think this issue that i was trying to offer was a good heart-felt heart-felt effort to bring move of us together to bring a two-thirds vote and that good faith effort i was making has become a bad thing. i'm not going to be a part of that. i think we have to resolve this issue. so i'm going to support this, i have a resolution that is in mine and mr. ott and mr. rutherford's name and others and we'll put them in. and i hope -- i have respect of my friends that were supportive of me and that would like to see the flag stay at the monument and i hope you don't lose resperve for me but i hope you see that it is the right thing.

and in the future, if you are working on an issue that you think is something that is best for state, don't make it personal, be reasonable, try to make -- try to bring people together and that is what i was trying to do. and anybody that wants to make that evil, mr. smith is lying. lying about what my efforts. and i knew clem when he was 19 years old and he joked how he would beat me for being younger than me. and he met me when i was a page and said how do you run as young as you do and so when you sit there and say when i don't have a heart and try to get a consensus together, that is lying. so please in the future when we have these kind of issues, let's work together. and mr. ott, you always had my respect and you got more today and you reached out to me and that is how you get things done. and i know i'm probably ending friendships that folks that joined with me in trying to get

this done and they think i'm giving in but i think this is a good victory in the respect that we have two resolutions now, one a joint and one singular he's out to get what he wants because he has the purse strings, has agreed to help. thank you mott. thank you, mr. rutherford mr. anderson and others in a good faith effort to reach out to me. that's what i was trying do do. i'm still around that we're not going to have the two-thirds vote and that could be a horrible thing. but again, thank you for your effort in reaching tout me. you handled yourself in the way it should work the way it should work, mr. rutherford the same can't say that about everybody that spoke tonight. >> are you requesting to table this amendment if mr. quinn? you're requesting to table this amendment? okay. mr. quinn is requesting to table amendment 56.

roll call is requested. mr. corley request roll call nine member second. nine members do. roll call is required on the board's order. question is tabling amendment number 56. .

the close, the clerk will tabulate. vote of 76-51. amendment 56 is tabled. mr. quinn, you want to move to reoccur the morning hours all in favor say yea. we've incurred the morning hour. the clerk will read. >> introduction of a house resolution by mr. quinn bingham rutherford anderson robert williams expressing the sense of the house of representatives regarding the placement of the south carolina infantry battle flag at the confederate relic room. >> all right. house resolution 4380.

all in favor say yea. those opposed. the yeas have it. >> joint resolution by mr. ott, robert williams directing the south carolina confederate relic room and military museum. this is house bill 4381. build quinn asked unanimous concept for immediate consideration. >> okay. >> objects. # refer to house judiciary committee.

unanimous consent request. miss cobb hunter. >> i move that we recall the bill that we just referred to house judiciary. i'm sorry? 381. i'm sorry, mr. speaker, i apologize to you and the clerk, mr. speaker i move that we recall 4381 from judiciary. thank you, sir. it be put on the calendar. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. speaker. somebody else? somebody else, somebody else, somebody else somebody else. somebody else somebody else. # >> mr. mitchell into mr. speaker. >> move that we recall house

bill -- house resolution 4381 out of judiciary and be placed on the calendar. >> is that the same one just objected to. >> i wasn't listening to. >> renews his objection. >> mr. neal. >> thank you mr. speaker. i rise to recall 4381 from judiciary. >> mr. sanford refew his objection. that takes us to the motion period. mr. rutherford asked to be recognize. mr. rutherford is recognized. >> recall house bill 4381 from [ inaudible ]. >> mr. rutherford asked unanimous consent we recall -- excuse me, we're in a motion period. i'm sorry. pending question is, recalling house bill 4381 from judiciary. miss kopp request a roll call. mr. corley. mr. corley asked that we table the request. miss cobb hunter request the

roll call. nine do will vote on the board. any question mr. corley's tabling motion.

the close the clerk will tabulate. vote of 86-27 the house refuses to table the motion to a recall pending question recalling the bill from the judiciary committee. all in favor say yea. >> nos. bill is recalled from judiciary committee on the calendar for the next legislative day. we're back on senate bill

897. >> we advanced over and adjourned debate on 34 pitts and delaney. withdrawn you need to -- >> mr. pitts moves we table amendment 34 all in favor say yea. >> oppose no. the yeas have it. clerk will read. >> the next one we passed over is 35. mr. pitts, 35. mr. pittss moves to table amendment 35. all in favor say yea. >> oppose no. yeas have it. clerk will read. >> same action on amendment 36 pitts bettingfield, taylor long kennedy, tool and butnumb. >> mr. pitts moves to table

amendment 36 say yea, oppose no. amendment 36 is tabled. 37. pitts taylor and kennedy. >> mr. pitts moves to table amendment 37 all in favor say yea. oppose no. the yeas have it. >> 38. we had adjourned debate. this is pitts delaney quinn and others. 38. >> mr. pitts moves to table amendment 38. all in favor say yea oppose no yeas have it amendment 38 tabled. >> 39 we passed over and then adjourned debate. 39 pittss. >> pitts moves to table amendment 39. all in favor say yea, oppose no the yeas have it. tabled. >> next one is mr. lowe 58. we had originally passed over 58. mr. lowe moves to table

amendment 58. all in favor say yea, oppose no yeas have it. amendment 58 is tabled. >> next one was 60 mr. lowe 6-0. >> say senta. >> 60. >> mr. lowe recognized. mr. lowe moves to table amendment 60. all in favor say yea, oppose no, the yeas have it. >> 67 finley. merrill delaney and quinn 67. >> mr. finley moves to table amendment 67 all in favor say yea, oppose no yeas have it clerk will read. >> number 68 is a new amendment, 68 by mr. pitts. >> amendment 68 mr. pittss recognized on his amendment

house will come to order. members will come to order. >> thank you. >> mr. pitts. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this is -- i think the last amendment. >> yes, sir. >> i will be very brief. this amendment places the state flag on the pole when the confederate flag comes down. that's all this amendment does. >> pending question the adoption of amendment 68. mr. mitchell moves to table amendment 68. mr. loftis i heard request a roll call, nine do will vote on the board. pending question, tabling amendment 68.

the south carolina house went on to pass the bill to remove confederate flag. we take you live to columbia where south carolina governor nikki haley will sign the legislation that sends the confederate battle flag at the capitol complex to a museum. this is live coverage on c-span 3.

. we're waiting for south carolina governor nikki haley to sign the bill to remove the confederate battle flag from the complex in south carolina to a

museum from the charleston south carolina post and cur your today the battle flag will fly for one more night as part of the confederate soldier monument before it gets taken down at 10:00 a.m. friday and is sent to the confederate relic room and military museum. the confederate flag has flown at the state house complex in one way or another for more than 50 years. it flew at the top of the dome until 2000 after having been raised in the 1960s around the time of the civil war centennial in a move seen by many as a protest of the civil rights movement. again we're live in columbia south carolina, waiting for governor nikki haley to sign the bill that will remove the confederate battle flag from the capitol complex.

>> you know that. >> right. >> i couldn't have done it without y'all. >> okay. let's see where she is. >> okay. >> coming in. >> give me a hug. >> i tell you, [ inaudible ]. >> you're still traveling. >> yeah.

>> i'm still going to a bunch. yes, sir. [ inaudible ]. >> i do a little work for them. >> a little process for you. a little bit. process oriented. and they're good. tare' good. >> always more -- [ inaudible ]. >> good to see you. >> yeah. >> it's been a while. >> sorry about the loss of your [ inaudible ]. remember very well. >> members of the south carolina house and senate gathering as well as other dignitaries waiting for governor nikki haley

of south carolina to sign the legislation that will remove the confederate battle flag from the capitol complex. "the washington post" writing that governor haley set to sign a bill that will bring down the flag less than a day after lawmakers in the state house of representatives voted to remove it. haley a republican called for the flag's removal last month in the wake of the shootings massacre inside a charleston church. the bill cleared its final legislative hurdle early this morning when the south carolina house voted 94-20 in favor of the proposal after more than 13 hours of debate house republicans and democrats agreed not to amendment the legislation with the proposed -- with a proposal that threaten to make final passage more difficult. [ applause ]

again, ale not going to try to see if all the cameras are ready. you know look at everybody around us. i mean that's the first thing i want you to take in. look at the shot. can you all hear me on the mic? >> no. >> press guys. are we good, one, two, three. one, two three. are we good? >> no. >> can the tv guys hear some. >> yes. >> i will yell as loud as i can. so you know it's hard for us to look at what is happening today and not think back to 22 days ago. it seems like so long ago because the grieving has been so hard. but at the same time we have

all been struck by what was a tragedy that we didn't think we would ever encounter. nine amazing people that forever changed south carolina's history. having said that, i have to acknowledge the series of events that took place through all of this. because it is the true story of south carolina. the actions that took place are what will go down in the history books. nine people took in someone that did not look like them or act like them. and with true love, and true faith, and true acceptance, they sat and prayed with him for an hour. that love and faith was so strong that it brought grace to

their families. it showed them how to forgive. so then we saw the action of forgiveness. we saw the families show the world what true forgiveness and grace looked like. that forgiveness and grace set off another action. an action of compassion by people all across south carolina and all across this country. they stopped looking at each other's differences, they started looking at each other's similarities because we were all experiencing the same pain. so then you take that compassion and that compassion motivated action. that compassion motivated people wanting to do something about it. so the action was taken by the general assembly. and what we saw in that swift action by both the house and

senate, was we saw members start to see what it was like to be in each other's shoes. start to see what it felt like. we heard about the true honor of heritage and tradition. we heard about the true pain that many had felt and we took the time to understand it. i saw passions get hot, i saw passions get low, but i saw commitment never ending. so what we saw was another action and that action is that the confederate flag is coming off the grounds of the south carolina state house. [ applause ] so tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. we will see the confederate

flag come down. we are a state that believes in tradition, a state that believes in history a state that believes in respect so we will bring it down with dignity and we will make sure that it is put in its rightful place. but this is a sfor story about action. this is a story about the history of south carolina and how the action of nine individuals laid out this long chain of events that forever showed the state of south carolina what love and forgiveness looks like. and i will tell you that now this is about our children. because when they go back and look in thestory books, while we're still grieving and the grieving is going to last for a long time, when the emotions start to fade the history of the actions that took place by everyone in south carolina to get us to this moment is one that we can all be proud of. so 22 days ago i didn't know

that i would ever be able to say this again. but today, i am very proud to say, that it is a great day in south carolina. [ applause ] and so with that we don't want to wait any longer. we are now going to sign the bill. so i want to say it is with great pride that i am surrounded by members of the emanuel nine families. i want to thank them for taking the time to come. i'm also surrounded by former governors who put their name on a letter, put their support together to say, yes, while we have been a part of south

carolina's past, we want to see this part of south carolina's future go in the right direction. i thank everybody that is with me today.

with that, i am proud to say that the bill has been signed. i do want to also acknowledge these nine pens are going to each of the nine families of the emanuel nine. [ applause ] may we never forget the actions that those people took to get us to this point today. and then i've got a couple of other pens. many people have talked about the courage that took place by so many across this state, but one person started this almost

two decades ago and that was governor david beasley and the last time i saw him, i said you started it and he said well i need you to finish it. i am now finishing it. [ applause ] and the second one was someone who also understands what this can feel like, what the tensions can feel like, what it means to do something, he worked very hard and is the person that brought the confederate flag off the dome and i want to thank you for all that you've done in terms of support and all that you've done for south carolina in the past. >> thank you. thank you governor. [ applause ] and these two are for me so with that i will tell you, thank you very much, thank you for making it another great day in south carolina. we are looking forward to the

future and the future of our children. thank you very much. god bless. [ applause ] >> sweet day. [ inaudible ]. >> she will want to speak to you. >> miss betty. >> first time i ever -- >> look behind the governor signing the piece of legislation -- [ inaudible ]. >> sfrl. >> really? >> sure was. [ inaudible ].

>> that's when he was a young -- [ inaudible ]. >> you are not young anymore. >> this one -- >> and with the stroke of a mighty pen. >> when congress is in session c-span 3 brings you more of the best access to congress with live coverage of hearings news conferences and key public affairs events. and every weekend, it's american history tv. traveling to historic sites, discussions with authors and historians, and eyewitness accounts of events that define the nation. c-span 3, coverage of congress and american history tv. . >> on tuesday defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey testified before the state armed services committee about the u.s. strategy for combatting isis including coalition efforts in iraq and syria and the u.s.

military-led train and equip program in syria. general martin dempsey will be stepping down by the end of september as he completes his second two-year term. marine corps general joseph dunford nominated to replace him by president obama had his confirmation hearing today before the armed services committee. that's available on our website c-span.org. now, here's tuesday's hearing. good

morning. senate armed services committee meets today as soon as the media allows us to see the witnesses. # to receive testimony on the u.s. strategy to counter the islamic state of iraq and isil. i'm grateful to our witnesses for appearing before us today. the risk posed by isil must be sign seen in the context of what many of america's foreign policy experts have described as the most complex environment since the end fd world war ii. across the globe america's interests in security and stability are at risk. as part of a broader strategy to dominate eastern europe vladimir

putin's russia continues its onslaught in ukraine with troops and equipment leading a campaign to undermine ukraine's government and independence as the united states has refused the ukrainians' weapons for its defense. >> china's destabilizing behavior poses a challenge to u.s. national interest, reclamation and militarization of vast land features in the south kleinchina sea and military buildup and blatant and undeterred cyber attacks against the united states. iran is expanding its malign activities and ambitions across the middle east as we see in lebanon, syria, iraq yemen and elsewhere and yet some in the administration seem to operate under the dilution that a nuclear agreement could lead to a new modus with the islamic republic. in syria bashar al assad's

slaughter of his people which has been the single greatest contributor to the rise and continued success of isil goes on and on and on. aided by russia iran, and hezbollah. for four years the president has said assad must go as a part of a political transition in syria, but continues on the ground have never allowed it. tranlically that remains true today. what each of those growing threats has in common is a failure of deterrence brought on by dangerous perception of american weakness and lack of resolve which our adversaries have taken as a provocative invitation for hostility. when it comes to isil president obama's comments yesterday at the pentagon reveal the disturbing degree of self-delusion that characterizes the administration's thinking. it is right but irrelevant to point out as the president did that we have conducted air strikes, taken out isil fighters

and pushed it out of some territory. nonof the progress the president cited suggest we are on a path to success. since u.s. and coalition air strikes began last year isil has continued to enjoy battlefield successes including taking ramadi holding over half the territory in syria and controlling every border post between iraq and syria. moreover the longer isil remains undefeated in iraq and syria the more potent its message is to those around the world who may be radicalized and inspired to join the group and spread violence and mayhem on its behalf. it's not that we're doing nothing. it's that there is no compelling reason to believe anything we are doing currently will be sufficient to achieve the president's long-stated goal of degrading and ultimately destroying isil in the short term or the long term. our means and our current effort

are not aligned with our ends. that suggests we are not winning and when not winning in war, you are losing. the reality today isil continues to gain territory in iraq and syria while expanding its influence and presence across the middle east, africa and central asia. there is no responsible ground force in either iraq or syria that is both willing and able to take territory away from isil and hold it and none of our current training efforts of moderate syria, sunni tribes or iraqi security forces are as yet capable of producing such a ground force. it is unclear why the latest gradual escalation of effort, the deployment of a few hundred additional advisors to anbar will make the difference that our previous efforts failed to achieve. while our coalition may own the skies as the president said yesterday, our air campaign against isil continues to be of limited significantly by overly restrictive rules of engagement

and a lack of ground intelligence which only gets worse as isil moves into urban areas to avoid coalition bombing. any pilot will tell you that they are only as good as the targets the he receive and when three quarters of our air missions against isil still return to base without dropping weapons, that is indicative of a fundamental problem with our air campaign. what's worse, none of our efforts against isil in iraq can succeed while a conflict in syria continues. and with it the conditions for isil's continued growth, recruit recruitment and radicalization of muslims around the world. as published media reports indicate our syria train and equip program is anemic and struggling because our stated goal does not include going after assad and his regime forces an we still do not provide the forces we are training with the enabling capabilities to succeed in any

engagement they may face inside syria. given the poor numbers of recruited and trained syrian fighters thus far, i am doubtful we can achieve our goal of training a few thousand this year but even if the program achieves its goal, it is doubtful it will make a strategic ginchsdifference on the battlefield. yes, we need a political solution in syria, but none is possible with assad in power. until the united states leads a coalition effort to put far greater battlefield effort pressure on assad the conflict will grind on and isil will thrive. the lack of a coherent strategy has resulted in the spread of isil around the world, to libya, egypt, nigeria, and even to afghanistan where i visited last weekend. afghanistan is certainly not iraq. but the parallels are eerily familiar. as in iraq, the united states is

contemplating a drastic reduction in force presence that places at risk the hard won gains of the last decade while afghanistan security forces are improving in quality, they're still missing the same set of key capabilities the iraqis were missing when the u.s. withdrew in 2011 including intelligence aviation, special operations, and logistic capabilities. at the current pace, our military commanders know these capabilities will remain critically undoefrlds at the end of 2016 when president obama has announced that u.s. and coalition forces will dramatically downsize to a presence solery in kabul. we have seen this movie before. and if we make the same mistakes, we should expect similarly tragic results. i do not want to attend another hearing like this with your successors trying to figure out a strategy to clean up after avoidable mistakes. what that means is, that the

president must provide our commanders on the ground with necessary forces, capabilities and authorities to help our afghan partners in continuing to secure their country and defeat our terrorist enemies together. isil is not 10 feet tall. it can be and must be defeated. but that will never happen if we continue to delude ourselves about our current campaign. the president is fond of the truism that there is no military solution to isil or any other problem. what he has so often failed to realize is that there is sometimes a major military dimension to achieving a political solution. this was the critical lesson that the united states learned in the iraq surge and we must learn again. security on the ground is a precondition to political reconciliation, to the the other way around. the unfortunate irony is that a president elected in opposition

to the war in iraq, is repeating some of its worst strategic mistakes and what's worse, despite obvious indication that the current strategy against isil is failing, he has yet to find the courage of his predecessor to admit mistakes and choose a new direction. this needs to happen sooner rather than later, whether disaster the next president will inherit in the middle east but also far beyond it will be overwhelming. it is clear we are living in a time of unprecedented turmoil. we see it on our television screens every day. isil's spread across the middle east russia's invasion of ukraine and china's maritime expansion in asia. once again, i thank our witnesses and look forward to their testimony. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome, secretary carter general dempsey thank you. this morning's hearing is an important opportunity for this committee to hear from the administration regarding its

strategy to counter the islamic state of iraq and isil. it follows up on the committee's hearings in may which outside witnesses regarding the counter isil strategy. isil with its violent ideology and brutal military capabilities poses a clear threat to the stability of the middle east, africa and beyond. and a threat the united states and our partners' interest in those regions and, indeed even in the homeland. isil's campaign to establish a caliphate threatsens to create a breeding ground training extremist fighters attracting foreign fighters returning to western countries to carrying out attacks and inspiring others in the united states and elsewhere to commit violence. the american people recognize the threat posed by isil, but at the same time are appropriately wary after nearly a decade and a half of u.s. military involvement overseas about being drawn deep near a seemingly attractable middle east conflict. as part of the administration's whole government strategy, the

department of defense has the lead for two of the nine lines of effort against isil and plays a supporting role for the efforts of another of other departments and agencies. this committee has provided resources to the department to implement the strategy through funding of the overseas contingency operation fund including the president's request of iraq and syria equip funds and a billion dollars for the counterterrorism partnership fund. the severe cuts mandated by sequestration puts at risk the ability of the civilian departments over government including the state department u.s. agency for international aid, the development and the department of homeland security and treasury department to carry out fully the other seven lines of effort that comprise our counter isil strategy. the effect of sequestration could be that the u.s. government is having to fight isil with one hand tied behind its back. the success is getting the military and civilian

departments the necessary resources to confront isil. at this committee's hearing in may several witnesses called for expanding the u.s. military involvement in iraq and syria in response to isil's seizure of the an bar capital of ramadi. the president's announcement last month of an additional 450 u.s. troops to be deployed to iraq to train and assist iraqi security forces begins to address the critical needs to bring local sunni tribes into the fight against isil. we will be interested in hearing from our witnesses what additional steps they would recommend for expanding the presence of sunni fighters in the iraqi security forces and to ensure that kurdish peshmerga receive expeditiously the weapons they need to counter isil in the fight. in many respects the current challenge in iraq result from two intersecting forces. the rise of isil and the deterioration of the iraqi security forces and complimentary governmental capacities. many of the factors and personalities forming isil can

be traced to the invasion and occupation of iraq. planning for that war failed to account for deep seated sectarian divisions between sunni and shia within the region which gave rise to grievances that fueled the rise of isil. in addition many of the factors contributing to the deterioration of iraq's security forces can be traced to the actions of prime minister mall lackey in particular his replacement of competent leaders in the military with cronies local to himself. iran's role in iraq and the broader regions must never be forgotten either. many of the aforementioned actions by maliki were at the behest of iran or with their acquiesce sense and iran's efforts in iraq can be seen even prior to the 2008 visit of the iranian president ahmadinejad to baghdad. today iran has its own military boots on the ground in iraq and syria and continues to support its proxies. we must deep keep a close eye on iran and assess carefully their interest at the tactical and

strategic level. as we work the coalition to counter the threat of isil will be useful to obtain your perspective in an effort to reshape our policies and strategies. one of the key lessons from the iraq war is that no amount of u.s. or coalition military assistance or boots on the ground will lead to the laing defeat of violent extremism if the underlying courses that allow such extremism to arise and thrive are not addressed. in iraq their body government must continue to take substantive steps to govern in a more inclusive manner, address grievances of iraq's sectarian and ethnic minorities expand sunnis and kurds into iraq's military and political structures and disarm iranian backed shia militias. in syria moderate and extreme elements to s tos to the opposition have made tactical gains but isil remains the dominant force in western syria. absent a modern opposition

willing to and capable of taking territory from isil and holding it any change in the status quo is unlikely. boasted by critical assistance the assad regime remains in the seat of power in damascus but has ceded territory in months. despite these shifts in the ground bat until syria a defeat on the battlefield is not the most likely and the battle in syria. a political solution that addresses grievances and a broad range of constituencies in syria is the only pathway to a sustainable solution. when i met with military and political leaders in iraq earlier this year they emphasized that u.s. and coalition forces are at the beginning of a multiyear campaign against isil. they stress the need for [ inaudible ]. i hope our witnesses today will provide their perspectives on where we are in the long fight and what to expect in the coming months and years ahead and i look forward to your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i welcome the witnesses, secretary carter. >> thank you mr. chairman. ranking member reid.

members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to come before you to address your questions and concerns about this campaign. and i want to especially thank the chairman for going to afghanistan over his fourth of july weekend which i appreciate in visiting the troops means a lot to us, sir. and as all of you know from your travels around the world there is a high demand everywhere in the world for american leadership. asia, where i saw some of you in may, to europe where i was two weeks ago, the obama administration and the members of this committee have helped ensure that we meet that demand and i thank you for that. same is true in the middle east. where we're standing by our friends like israel, working to

prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, otherwise exercising malign influence and confronting isil the subject of this hearing. it was the subject of a meeting at the pentagon where president obama and chairman dempsey and i discussed our counter-isil campaign with senior defense and interagency leaders. we all agreed that isil represents a grave threat. and that it must be and will be dealt a lasting defeat. that's our objective, which is shared by a global coalition that reflects both the worldwide consensus on the need to counter isil and the practical requirement for others to do their part. the administration's strategy to achieve that objective as the joint chiefs definition of strategy puts it integrates all the nation's strengths and instruments of power as has been

noted. it's executed through nine synchronized lines of effort. the first and arguably the most critical line of effort is the political one as has also been noted which is led by the state department. this line involves building more effective, inclusive and multisectarian governance in iraq. at the same time the united states continues to work diplomatically to bring about a political transition from bashar al asad to a more inclusive government with which we can also work to defeat isil. the next two lines of effort are interconnected to deny isil safehaven and build partner capacity in iraq and syria. both are led by the department of defense which alongside coalition partners is conducting an air campaign advising and assisting iraqi security forces on the ground and training and equipping vetted local forces in iraq and for syria. before i go on let me say that

these first three political and military lines of effort have to be in sync, a point that's been made already. that's a challenge. one we're working through with our partners in the coalition, on the ground and around our government. the fourth line of effort is enhancing intelligence collection on isil which is led by the national counterterrorism center. the fifth line of effort disrupting isil's finances is co-led by treasury and state. lines of effort six and seven both co-led by state and the national counterterrorism center are to counter isil's messaging and disrupt the flow of foreign fighters to and from isil both of which are critical in today's connected and network world. the eighth line of effort providing humanitarian support to those affected by the conflicts in iraq and syria is led by state and a aid. finally, the department of

homeland security, the fbi and the department of justice work together to protect the homeland, the ninth line of effort, by disrupting terrorist threats. in addition to our full spectrum cooperative relationship with the department of homeland security and other law enforcement agencies d.o.d. personnel continue to strike isil elements in iraq and syria. the effective execution of all nine lines of effort by the united states and its coalition partners is necessary to ensure isil's lasting defeat. i want to add briefly there are important classified dimensions to our approach to isil and the middle east more broadly. mr. chairman, that we won't be able to discuss in the meeting but can discuss separately. let me turn to the execution of the two lines of effort on which d.o.d. leads which our personnel have been performing with the excellence we all expect of the finest fighting force the world has ever known. american service members and

their coalition partners have conducted over 5,000 air strikes. that air campaign has produced some clear tactical results. limiting isil's freedom of moment, contraining its ability to reinforce its fighters. coalition air support enabled gains by local forces in iraq and syria, including syrian kurdish and arab forces who recently took the keyboarder town of talabiad from isil, cut off one of its key lines of communication and supply and put isil on the defensive in its stronghold of raqqah under pressure. those examples demonstrate again that where we have a credible ground force working in a coordinated way with the coalition air campaign, isil has suffered. it's what makes the third line of effort, developing the capacity and capabilities of local forces, so important. indeed, we know recent

experience that success against isil requires capable, local ground forces. and we know from our history in the region that putting u.s. combat troops on the ground as a substitute for local forces, will not produce enduring results. that's why we're bolstering iraq's security forces and building moderate vetted syrian opposition forces. but both of these efforts need strengthening. in iraq, the iraqi security forces were severely degraded over four divisions dissolved and mosul fell a year ago this june. our efforts to build partner capacity and advise and assist ongoing operations involve around 3,550 american personnel at six locations around the country. their training work has been slowed, however, by a lack of trainees. as of june 30th we've only received enough trainees to be able to train about 8,800 iraqi

army soldiers and peshmerga forces, in addition to some 2,000 cts personnel. another 4,000 soldiers, including 600 cts service personnel are in training. i've told iraqi leaders that while the united states is open to supporting iraq more than we already are, we must also seek greater commitment from all parts of the iraqi government. we're also in the early stages of our training and equip mission in syria. three months in our program training is under way and we are working to screen and vet almost 7,000 volunteers to ensure that they're committed to fighting isil, pass a counter intelligence screening, and meet standards prescribed by u.s. law regarding the law of armed conflict and necessitated by operations. as of july 3rd we are currently training about 60 fighters. this number is much smaller than

we'd hoped for at this point. partly because of the vetting standards i just described. but we know this program is essential, we need a partner on the ground if syria to assure isil's lasting defeat, and as training progresses we're learning more about the opposition groups and building important relationships which increases our ability to attract recruits and provides valuable intelligence for counter-isil operations. we're also working to equip vetted local forces in iraq, after earlier delays we're expediting delivery of essential equipment and materiel to the iraqi security forces and working with the government of iraq to ensure this equipment is quickly passed to kurdish peshmerga and sunni tribal forces. in syria we'll begin equipping forces as soon as they complete training. we're constantly assessing this approach. we did so after the fall of ramadi, continued through yesterday with president obama at the pentagon. the strategy is the right one

but its execution can and will be strengthened especially on the ground. in iraq we're focused on increasing participation on participation in and through-put of the training facilities. an example is our effort at tech atam in anbar province where we deployed 450 of the american personnel authorized. we assessed our presence at this military base and provided access to thousands of previously unreachable sunni tribesman. in support of the iraqi government to increase out reach to the anbar tribes. as of june, the iraqi government has enrolled and armed an in ishl group of 800 fighters at tack at um and supporting 500 additional fighters there. the iraqs have identified 500 more trainees that will follow the current group and will work

to ensure the sunni fighters that are critical to the success of our campaign have the training and equipment needed to effectively fight isil. and should note that the anbar operations center is located at tack at um so we can advise and assist the iraqi commanders there, commanding sunni forces. in syria we seek to capitalize on the recent successies in tal annie and cab annie and iraqi. at the same time we're looking for ways to stream line the vetting process when i noted earlier to get more recruited into the training pipeline. we're also refining the curriculum and expanding the out reach to the moderate opposition and incorporating lessons learned from the first training class. i'm happy to speak about that more. in conclusion i sought to describe to you clearly the strategy the department of defense's execution of its

critical lines of effort and where our execution can and will and must be strengthened. achieving isil's lasting defeat will continue commitment and steady leadership from the united states and our global coalition, hard work by our member and women in uniform essential complement and synchronized along the other seven lines of effort and commitment and sacrifice by iraqis and saernans. together and with your continuing support for the men and women for the department of defense for which we are ever grateful we will achieve isil's lasting defeat. thank you. >> general dempsey. >> thank you chairman, ranking member reed and i thank you for coming back to talk about our military strategic picture in context. i've said before that the global security environment is as

uncertain as i've ever seen it. the world is rapidly changing everywhere and we're seeing significant shifted in an already complex strategic landscape. isil is one of many. we are contentioning with russia, chooip in the south china sea and iran in the middle east, and technical advancements by north korea rising aggression of nonstate networks and a playing field in cyber and space. as while our adversaries grow stronger many allies are dependent on united states and our assistance and our military advantages have begun to erode. what makes this complicated is that the trends are manifesting themselves simultaneously. when the middle easts characterize three converging sets of complexity. several governments are struggling for political

legitimacy because they are not pluralistic or accountable to their citizens. weak states are less able to assert independence amid the tug-of-war between sectarian regional powers and third we're seeing rising competition between moderate and radical elements of islam and isil and others are taking advantage of that competition. within this global context, the role the united states military is taking against the transregional threat of isil is appropriately matched to the complexity of the environment. and is at a level of effort sustain able over time. military power alone, as we said will not solve isil. >> don't think anyone here would disagree with that. all nine lines of effort need to be considered in the aggregate. this campaign focused on actively reinforcing and hardening our partners in the

region who are and must take responsibility for their own security. and that is an important point. the fight is enabled by the coalition but it must be owned by the regional stake holders. it bears repeating this is the beginning of a complex nonlinear campaign that will require a sustained effort over an extended period of time. we have to be just as agile as the network of terrorists we face. we are constantly evaluating our approach and making sure we are resourcing it appropriately, balanced with our other global commitments. but four years and counting of budget uncertainty have made this balance distinctly harder. thank you and i welcome your questions. >> thank you general. mr. secretary let me clear up a couple of points before we get into the strategy. you stated before you would recommend a veto of the ndaa to

the president. is that your position? >> he stated -- restated his position yesterday and i support it. i'm happy to give the reasons for that if you'd like, mr. chairman. >> sure. but you might answer also in your answer, do you choose between fully funding the president defense budgeting with oko funding or funding defense at sequestration levels? >> well, the short answer is i'm hoping we can do better than that. and my view hasn't changed since i came up here a few months ago on this issue and the chairman alluded to the problem. i very much hope that a way will be found to come together and get beyond the gridlock that we have and to give us a budget --

a normal budget process that provides a stable runway for the department. i'll explain why that is so important. we've been going one year at a time budget airily now for several years straight and it is extremely disruptive to the operations of the department. it is managerially inefficient because we are in a herky jerky process and it is difficult to have a multi-year national defense strategy which we must have with one year at a time perspective. it is difficult to run large ship building programs aircraft programs sufficiently in a one year at a time budget. and i also believe mr. chairman, that our people deserve better. that is, they need a horizon in front of them. our military people and their families. and last i travel around the

world, as you all do and it is embarrassing that we cannot in successive years now pull ourselves together before an over all budget approach that allows us to do what we need to do, which is reprogram in a multi-year manner not in a one at a time year manner. so for all of those reasons mr. chairman, i appeal, it is not something i have any particular expertise in or obviously much bigger than defense because as noted, the success of this campaign and the success of our national security hinges importantly -- very importantly on this department the department that i lead but also on law enforcement and homeland security. >> i understand. >> so i'm hoping, mr. chairman that we can do better than that choice and that we're not -- we don't continue down what i've called a road to nowhere.

>> well you may be presented with that choice. and i would also add this is an authorizing bill. the appropriations committee is where the money is. but just very quickly, your confirmation hearing you stated in response to my question about whether we should arm the ukrainians and you said i very much incline in that direction because i think we need to support the kraunans the nature of those arms i can't say right now but i incline with the direction of providing arms including to get to what your question of what is lethal arms. you still have that position? >> i have not changed my thinking in those months and i had the occasion to talk to the cranan ministers of defense just the other week -- >> fine. i'm just asking if you still want to support arming them or not. that is a pretty straightforward

question. >> we are considering that. we have not made a decision in that regard and we are providing -- >> are you still inclined to provide arms to the ukrainians. >> yes. >> yes. that is a simple answer to a simple question. >> but if i could just -- >> no. because i only have two minutes left. thank you. now we are -- let's -- 5,000 air-strikes have been conducted, 75% of the air-strikes returned without having dropped a weapon. if there is ever a compelling argument for federal air controllers it seems to me that is the case. now you mentioned we are currently training about 60 fighters. i have to tell you after four years, mr. secretary that is not a very impressive number. and is it true that with these people that you are training and equipping to fight in syria is it true that you are telling them they are only there to fight isis and not assad is

that true? >> yes. we are telling them -- that we are arming and training them in the first instance to go after isil and not the assad regime and that is our priority and these are people who are inclined in that direction and come from areas that have been overrun by isil. >> so if they are barrel bombed by assad -- >> no. i think we have some obligation to them once they are in certificated into the field -- >> is that to defend them against barrel bombing? >> well that decision will be made when we introduce fighters into the field. >> that is a small comfort to those people you are recruiting right now, that that decision will be made later on. is that fair to these young men, to say we are sending you in to fight isis only and by the way, we will decide on the policy, whether to defend you if you

are barrel bombed. >> they know we will provide support to them. >> does that mean you will provide them with support to the barrel bombing. this isn't a very pleasant exchange. i would like to have answers to exchanges. will we defend them against assad's barrel bombing? >> i think we have an obligation. >> will we tell them that. >> we have not told them that. >> so you are recruiting people and not telling them that you are going to defend them because you haven't made the decision yet and yet you want to train them quickly and send them in. now there is success on the part of an outfit called the -- the army of conquest which is funded and trained and equipped generally -- mostly by saudi arabia qatar and perhaps others. they are succeeding and they have -- if there is battlefield games, they are achieving them. does the united states have any relationship with that out fight

because they are fighting against bashir assad as well as isis? >> i'll have to get to you on the answer of that question because who has that contact is something would have to discuss separate separately. can i just go back to -- >> go ahead. >> can i go back, mr. chairman. you mentioned the question of air sortees and which fraction of them result in strikes and i would like to explain those numbers to you a bit. in the case where the air-strikes are mounted, and i'll ask the chairman to elaborate further on this. in the case where the air-strikes are conducted in the deliberate manner that is one knows at the time the aircraft embarks on the -- on what the target will be, in those cases 93% of the time they are concluding the sorting. when it comes to dynamic

targeting, the fraction is much lower, it is about 37%. and the reason for that is that in the case of dynamic targeting, by its nature, the aircraft is deployed with the -- expectation that a target of opportunity, let's say something moving on the ground or developing tactical situation will provide the opportunity for a strike. that doesn't happen all of the time but it does happen about 37% of the time a fraction, i should note, that is much higher than it was in afghanistan where we did the same thing. we routinely flew sortees in order to capitalize upon fleeting opportunities or developing opportunities. so our experience here is, in fact better than it is in afghanistan. but any way, that is what explains --

>> any experienced pilot will tell you if you have a federal air controller on the ground to identify the targets then the number of targets hit is dramatically increased. and we have no federal air controllers on the ground and that i can tell you is incredibly frustrating to the young pilots flying the 16 1/2 hour sortees who feel they are not achieving anything. you might want to talk to them, mr. secretary, since they are doing the fighting. >> if i could address the j teches and that is a fundamental one and since you raised it, let me go back to the fundamentals of the strategies which are to support cape able and motivated ground forces when we find them. and we are supporting such capable and effective ground forces. for example, to give one example, the kurds in northern

syria now. >> mr. secretary my time is way up but that has nothing to do with not having federal air controllers on the ground. i hate to cut you short but we are three minutes over. >> i'm saying we don't rule that out and our strategy -- >> never rule it out. it hasn't happened. mr. reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, i was stuck by your statement the first and most critical line with our efforts is the political one led by the state department. and in your col ol kwee with the chairman you pointed out there are challenges with oko funding that is being proposed but the state doesn't have an option to that sort of funding so are you concerned they might be so resourced deprived under the budget control act they might not be the primary? >> i am. the state department, the department of homeland security, other agencies that are critical to protecting us against isil

and other threats they need resources too. and so that is another reason why i appeal for a over all budget perspective. and i realize it involves lots of moving parts and would need a major coming together for the gridlock for the last couple of years and i appeal not just for my department for the national security establishment, i think it is critical. >> now shifting to the training in iraq, one of the first issues was the composition of the provisional forces that rallied a year ago to try to defend overwhelming shia and now we're beginning to see sunnis appear. first, is that the deliberate cooperation of the government in baghdad, finally getting the message they have to have a support of the sunni community,

and second, are you beginning to see a trend that is a positive one in sense of the over all participation of sunnis? >> we see the commitment of prime minister abaddy so different from the behavior of his predecessor to engage in a multi sectarian way in the fight against isil that includes the kurds and the sub -- sunnis. and now that has gone slowly which explains why the numbers are small. we expect them to grow. we hope they grow. but what we need from the iraqi government is the enrollment of sunnis in the iraqi security forces and the commitment of the iraqi government to pay them, to equip them with our help, which we provide and then to get back to the chairman's question about direct support to them, when we

have effective ground forces under the control of the iraqi government, we are prepared to do more to support them. but we need to have those effective ground forces because local forces on the ground we know from experience is the only way to create a lasting defeat of isil and that is what the strategy is all about. >> general dempsey, can you comment on your perception of the situation in terms of sunni forces in anbar province particularly and the government in baghdad's relationship with them at expediting weapons providing support more than rhetorically, but actually? >> i can, senator thanks. as the secretary mentioned, the good intentions of prime minister abaddi have not always been met with activities of echelon or bureaucracies beneath

him. and there was a time when we couldn't recruit. but that was a result of the failure in ramadi and there is a renewed effort by the prime minister to empower his isf, his iraqi security force leaders to reach out to the sunni tribes and to arm them. it is our policy to do that through the central government, not directly, because our objective is a unified iraq. if it became clear that wasn't going to happen we would have to reconsider the campaign. >> one of the observations, the leadership at the tactical level, all the way up to brigade and division of the iraqi security forces continually seems to be unimpressive. is there active changes going on right now to ensure that the leadership at the brigade

division level is competent, in fact, it is startling because it appears that isil in fact there is some indication there are former officers operating with them much more operationally and tactically capable than the iraqi security forces. your comments? >> i do sir. we tend to look at the tactical shifting and who owns how much territory and how many air-strikes. but we need to watch iraqi leadership changes. recently we heard their chief of defense would retire. we consider that to be a positive thing. there are issues up and down the chain of command. we watch carefully the distribution of their budget how much money is going into the ministry of defense and the popular mobilization force and how oil is being generated and the revenue shared we watch the influence of the ministry of defense, whether the isf is the

dominant force for the government of iraq or whether that dominant is shifting to the popular mobilization forces. the relationship of the iraqi army and the iraqi police and we watch the activities of the shia militia. in every case there is positive indications and in every case there is indications that concern us. >> quickly mr. secretary could you just in the moment left the issues coming up about the training and equipping of forces going into syria. i would presume and general might want to comment also that part of the plan to insert these forces would be to protect them as much as possible from any type of response to focus them on isil but also to put them in places in the country where they would be much less likely to be engaged. but if they were engaged they would have the right to defend themselves but my presumption is

we would assist them from attack. is that a fair estimate? >> that is my feeling. that is what i said. i think we have an obligation to do so. you're right. i don't expect that occasion to arise any time soon. and to get to the chairman's point earlier, in the very first vetting, the thing mr. chairman, that made the number so small and i said the number is 60 and i can look out at your faces and you have the same reaction i do which is that this is an awfully small number, why is that number so small this is in the first class and the reason for that has to do with the criteria we apply and some of this is the law, to these recruits. we do counter intelligence screening and make sure that they for example aren't going to oppose a green on blue threat to the trainers, that they don't

have any history of atrocities. these are all things that are required of us. and that they are willing to engage in the campaign in a way complaint with the law of arm conflict. all of this is the legal -- and i would say principled and i'm not arguing with it, policies of the u.s. and that is why 60 of them got out of the other end of the process. noup the general doing the training, i indicated he has 7,000 more and expects that we'll do better as we get better and that number 60 which is not impressive will get more and get larger over time as he learns more to get to the chairman's earlier point about the groups that are willing to cooperate with us. but when we do get them, they will deserve our support and we'll give our support to them.

it will take some time to get the numbers up to where they can really have an effect. >> thank you. >> i should point out by the way, we're talking about fighting in syria these numbers are small this particular train and equip, i need to point out there are other capable ground forces fighting both the regime and isil some of which we can and support and do support with isr, air-strikes an so forth but we would like to see more and we would like to get better at training them because as the number 60 as you recognize is not an impressive number. >> senator sessions irng thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary this is a tough job you've undertaken. but as my wife reminds me when i complain, don't blame me you asked for the job. but i'm not sure you asked for it. you asked to take the job. but at any rate senator

mccain's opening comment is exceedingly important. it goes to the key of what we're here for. the whole purpose of this hearing is how to confront and stop isil in the -- isis and the leave ant and we want to talk about that and not other strategies and threats around the world. we need a strategy on this problem. and i'm -- deeply disappointed i don't see the confidence in your testimony or general dempsey's testimony. i believe we're actively carrying out a strategy that the president has. and i don't believe it has sufficient respect for the use of military force necessary to be successful. i mean, i hate to be a critic about this. this is important. senator mccain warned in 2011, we should not pull out all of our troops and we needed to remain engaged in the country and he warned if we do it in

afghanistan, the same thing is liable to happen there and both of which would be tragedies of monumental importance of how much we led, the soldiers general dempsey led in iraq. so i'm not happy about this. i think dilution is a word that is too accurate. so i just wanted to say that here at the beginning. and i hope we'll get into more details about what you plan to do to reverse this action. and at some point, the president is going to have to change his mind, it seems to me. he cannot just function based on a campaign promise when reality is different. >> all right, i'm sorry. >> would you like me to address that. it is a very fair question. let me just go back to the -- to the issue of the strategy and then i'll say something about

afghanistan. the strategy is -- for defeating isil on ground in syria and iraq is to train and then enable local forces. that takes some time. >> well i'm aware of that. general dempsey was training the iraqi forces eight years ago. i visited him in iraq. that was his primary responsibility. we've been training them for nearly a decade. and that is not the problem right now. i think the problem is confidence within the iraqi government and the soldiers that they'll be supported and they'll be victorious and if they had that confidence you'd get more recruits. >> agree with that. that was what was lacking under maliki. i agree with that. >> and you just used the word strategy, is to support capable and motivated ground forces where we find them.

well i think general stewart a few months ago testified to the intelligence defense strategy head who was there in the anbar region and led the effort that the forces -- when they turned it around in iraq. general dempsey you remember that effort. and he said, when pressed i felt that he was reluctant because it wasn't administration policy, but he acknowledged when you have embedded soldiers, forward observers united states forces embedded with troops moving out into combat situations that those iraqi troops will perform better. do you agree with that general dempsey? >> i agree there are points on the battlefield where the presence of j teches embedded and soft forces would make them more capable. >> and they would -- so is our

strategy now does it remain that we will not do that? >> i can tell you that i have not recommended it. whether we do it or not i'm telling you i haven't recommended it senator. and i can explain why if you would like. >> well i would like to know why. >> let's take the air power because it is a prominent one. in 2012, the number of aircraft that returned with their order nantz because there were not targets available on the ground was 83%. it is 65% in iraq right now. the j tacks and the special forces are not a silver bullet to the destruction of isil. the silver bullet is getting the iraqis to fight. >> i totally agree with that. i just believe that we have a few forces -- a thousand forces in mosul, then mosul never would

have fallen. so now our policy is to try to take back this territory. and what is the reluctance -- what is the reluctance to use our special forces here? this is what bothers me. i understand the problem in syria and i'm dubious about what we ought to do about syria. i don't know. we probably shoud not have involved ourselves in libya. but we committed our nation in iraq, general. we've been deeply committed for over a decade. so now is it our policy to we refuse to have special forces to be embedded. two special forces with 600 iraqi troops and a battalion, you are rejecting that idea? >> what i have recommended is that if we find a unit which is

led and is responsive and has an offensive mission where we can enable them or increase their likelihood of success i will make that recommendation. but to restore or to put embedded advisers in on a habitual basis. >> the environment is simply not set to do that. and it is not reluctance. we have 1600 pilots flying over syria and iraq today. we have 5500 boots on the ground doing train advise and assist. >> so if we had a few in the iraqi battalions, are you saying that would not make a positive impact on their moral and their capabilities to actually win? >> what i'm saying, senator is that for a brief temporal tactical gain we should wait

until we see a strategic opportunity to do that. >> well i would think if we started having some wins, isis would have fewer recruits and we would have better moral with the iraqi recruits too and they would fight better. it is a chicken in the egg perhaps, but i think it is very important. and i hope you'll really evaluate that and recommend to the president that we do that because without that we're not going to be effective. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you both of you for being here and in service to our country and i appreciate it very much and you can tell this is a pretty sensitive subject and a very concerning subject to all of us. as i go around the state of west virginia, my little state it is a very hawky state and a patriotic state and veterans and speak to all of them, they are confused right now, and you heard the frustration coming out, but basically, iraq is not a united country you have the sunni, the shiite and the kurds

and i think secretary carter said until they have the will and general dempsey said the same thing, until the group has the will to fight to defend the other group and that is where we're having the problem. well if you have a group that is fighting and the kurds want to fight, why do we still have to make them go through the bagdad centralized government in order for them to get the weapons they need to defend themselves and be aggressive. so they are confused about that and confused about syria and spending the money to find the people to train when you acknowledge we only had 60 successful right there and the amount of effort we're spending this and you said the syrian kurds were fighting and things of that sort. i don't know. and then i'm asked the question -- they said we continue to keep trying to train and arm the iraqis. and it seems like all they are doing is supplying isil with the

equipment that the americans are giving them and when are we ever going to stop giving equipment to the people who won't defend and fight for it. so i guess are we talking -- at your level, are you talking to the white house about rethinking the whole iraqi position as far as one centralized government one iraq or maybe a separated iraq? >> i think we're all aware that it is very difficult to govern iraq in a multi sectarian matter. we thought about the alternatives to that and i think we have for years and i'm sure all of you have as well. we are trying to assist prime minister abaddi of governing in a different way from the way maliki governed which led to the

disintegration of the iraqi forces, the sectarianism of this and led to their collapse in sunni territory. >> and also along those lines and i've been asked the question, and you just reminded me didn't we see signs that maliki was incompetent and he would have gone strictly to a sectarian position as he did, not for a strong, united, iraq did we not, with all of the people we had there, did not see that coming and could not have averted that from happening. >> i can only speak for myself and i certainly had that certain about mr. maliki and many of you met with him and i met with him several times and it was quite apparent to me. prime minister abaddi said he has a different intention which is to govern iraq from the center but at a decentralized enough way that the kurds the

sunnis and the shia each have enough space to carry on their own welfare in the way that they wish. but there is a single integral iraqi state. and that is what he said he's working towards and we're supporting him in that regard and that is why, for example when we provide arms to the kurds, we do it with consent of the iraqi government, in order to indicate that we support the idea of a single iraqi government in baghdad, but we also want the kurds in the fight and armed and that has not delayed the arming of the kurds. >> it seems like the biggest problem is with the sunni and the shiites. >> and then the sunni and the shiites. and that is why it takes the time to train a multi sectarian

iraqi force. there are elements of the iraqi forces that have that character. for example, the cts vm and so our strategy just to go to the beginning, is to train and equip those local forces. they are essential. then we can help them. and it is a chicken and egg thing except that you need to have the capable and motivated ground force and then we can enable it rather than substitute for it which doesn't lead to a lasting resort. >> and i would think, joenl dempsey, it has been multiple years, ten years plus, training dollars and lost lives in iraq and we had 100,000 troops there at one time trying to train and defend and get them motivated and that didn't work. that is the hard question. how do you go home and answer that and how do i go home and answer that and try this over again and maybe we'll do a better job of training again and i think that is the frustration

coming out of senator sessions. >> sure. but i think it is probably worth mentioning that my judgment about how this will evolve over time is that it is a generational issue. it is transregional, senator. it is elements of it in afghanistan. we see it in iraq and syria and the sanai and syria. and it has to be pressure across it. and we have to achieve a enduring defeat which means we have to work it through partners because they own -- they have more to gain and more to lose. and finally we have to find a sustainable level of effort since i do believe this is a generational challenge. >> i just think that the -- basically my question would be over all, are we trying to defend the british lines that were drawn 100 years ago and putting people into a territory that they don't believe is their country. why are we forcing something upon people that don't want to

accept -- >> i'll just follow up with you. i also share that concern that the middle east will never be the mideast again. and everything i recommend to the secretary and the president is recommended with the intention of being flexible enough that we can build upon it if we do find that inclusive national unit of government in iraq or not. >> thank you. >> i can't help but mention the situation was stabilized after the surge and we had won and we predicted if everybody was pulled out that the situation would descend into chaos. it is a fact that thanks to general pet rayus and the surge and great sacrifice, the iraq war was won and to ignore that in thar conversation,