arab league to establish a syrian led political transition to democratic, pluralistic political system. despite these despite these vetoes, the general assembly voted to condemn the brutal use of force against civilians. last week, the friends of syria, which included representatives of the syrian national council, secretary clinton, and other leaders came together in the home of the first arab spring uprising to forge a way forward. leaders from more than 60 other countries, came together in tunis, the home of the first arab spring uprising, to forge a way forward in syria including for the call for assad regime toned the violence, withdraw forces from cities and towns and insure unhindered access for arab league monitors. the friends also praised the work of the syrian national council, to form a broad and inclusive body and lay the

ground work for a political transition. and importantly they agreed to continue to ratchet up the economic pressure through tough sanctions on the assad family and supporters. the dialogue in tunis included a robust dialogue whether there is a feasible way to help those under assault by the assad regime in order to defend themselves. as the international community continues to search for an avenue, there are a number of questions which we must ask about the nature of the conflict in syria. what is the make up of the syrian opposition? how unified are they, would they be a force for democracy should they succeed? what are the objectives and who are the benefactors, is there a political entity capable uf uniting the small bands of fighters across syria and then coordinating the efforts of the opposition groups against the

syrian military? violent extremist elements infiltrated the opposition movement? the military questions are equally important. what are the options available? what are the military actions that could be taken and who would they need to be taken by? to maximize the chances of success. and what are the risks and down-sides to each option? these are just a few of the questions wes hope to discuss with our witnesses this morning. just as was the case with libya, there is a broad consensus among regional leaders and organizations on the preferred outcome until syria, assad and his cronies must go. there is not, however, a consensus how the goal can be achieved. each situation is different, unlike gadhafi who prevented the formation of a capable and professional fighting force, president assad and his father before him built a substantial and professional military with a modern air defense capability.

a large, deadly stockpile of chemical weapons. and well-trained troops. so far, this military establishment has remained mainly cohesive and willing to carry out assad's brutal order to conduct a violent campaign against his people. some observers believe the uprising in syria, which is led by the sunni majority, could aggravate sectarian tensions beyond syria's borders in a region already riven by others. syria is also home to ethnically and religiously diverse population, that includes minority christian and other populations. some leaders are raising concerns about the situation in syria, devolving to the point there is little tolerance for religious minorities, a

situation all too familiar to us following the invasion of iraq. we must also try to understand the impact on the region. elements of hezbollah and hamas call syria home. more i mportantly is iran's sol ally in the world. they use them to carry out destablizing agenda in the region. syria is home to a russian naval installation, russia's only regular port of call in the mediterranean. these are but some aspects of the situation that need to be considered as we develop a path forward. our witnesses have the responsibility to provide the president options, to address these challenges and provide him their best professional advice as to the pros and cons of such options. as the committee heard from general dempsey last month, the joint staff has already begun

the careful planning necessary to support a full range of potential operations, including i'm sure humanitarian airlifts, naval monitoring of multi lateral sacks, aerial surveillance of the military and aerial enforcement of safe havens. we look forward to discussing these options and many others with our witnesses this morning. we thank you both, for being here this morning. we are grateful for your steady leadership and also appreciate your very positive relation with this committee and its members. senator mccain? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses. let me thank you, mr. chairman, for convening today's hearing on horrific situation in syria. the urgency of the hearing has grown more important over the past several weeks. it's estimated nearly 7500 lives

have been lost and many informed observers think that figure could be low. syria today is the scene of some of the worst state-sponsored violence since the balkans. what is all the more astonishing the violence continues despite the severe international pressure that has been brought against assad and his regime. syria's almost completely isolated diplomatically. the regime is facing a punishing array of economic sanctions imposed by the united states, european union, arab league and others. this has been an impressive international effort and the administration deserves credit for helping to orchestrate it. unfortunately, the violence continues and worse. it appears to be escalating. assad seems to be accelerating his fight to the finish and he's doing so with the active support thus far of russia, china and iran. a steady supply of weapons,

ammunition and other assistance is flowing to asaid from moscow and tehran and as "the washington post" reported on sunday, iranian moment and intelligence operatives are likely working in syria to strepg then the regime's crack down. general madis testified yesterday that "assad is clearly achieving what he wants to achieve, that assad's military tame campaign is gain physical momentum on the battlefield." in general madis' opinion, aside will employ heavier and heavier weapons on his people. similarly, general ronald burgess, the director of the defense intelligence agency and james clapper, director of national intelligence, told the committee recently absent some kind of external intervention, asaid would likely remain in power for the foreseeable future. the united states has a clear

national security interest in stopping the slaughter in syria and forcing assad to leave power. the end of the assad regime could sever hezbollah's life line to iran. eliminate a threat to israel. bolster lebanon sovereignty and independence and remove a committed state sponsor of terrorism that is engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it would be a geo-political success of the first order and as general madis told the committee yesterday and i quote, "the biggest strategic set back for iran in 25 years." the president made the objective of the united states that the killing in syria must stop, and assad must go. the president has committed our prestige and credibility to that goal and it is the right goal, but the killing continues.

what opposition groups in syria need most urgently is relief from assad's tank and artillery sieges in cities that are contested. but time is running out. assad's forces are on the march. providing military assistance to the free syrian army and other opposition groups is necessary but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. the only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power. which could break assad's siege of contested cities in syria, protect key population centers, and help the opposition to asaid on the ground to establish and defense safe havens in syria where they can organize and plan their political and military activities against assad. at the request of the syrian national council, the free syrian army and local coordinating committees inside the country, the united states

should help to lead such an effort in syria. but as i have repeatedly said, this does not mean we should go it alone. we should not. we should seek the active involvement of key arab partners such as saudi arabia, uae, jordan and qatar and allies in the e u and nato, the most important of which in this case is turkey. rather than closing off the prospects for negotiated transition that is acceptable to syria's opposition, military intervention is now needed to strengthen this option. assad needs to know that he will not win. and unfortunately, that is not the case now. to the contrary, assad seems convinced that he can wipe out the opposition through violence and is fully committed to doing so. the ideal political outcome of military intervention would be to change this dynamic, to

prevent a long, bloody fight to the finish by compelling assad and his top lieutenants to give up power without further bloodshed, thereby creating the opportunity for a peaceful transition to democracy, possibly along the lines proposed by the arab league. to be sure there are legitimate questions about the effacacy of military options in syria and equally legitimate concerns about risks and uncertainties. it's understandable the administration is reluctant to move beyond diplomacy and sanctions. unfortunately, this policy is increasingly disconnected from the dire conditions on the ground in syria, which has become a full state of armed conflict. secretary panetta you were chief of staff to president clinton over the debate in bosnia,

including the nato bombing campaign. you remember many painful years when the un and eu kept sending envoys pleading to agree to reasonable requests such as lifting the siege and allowing access to humanitarian assistance. you remember how the serb leaders cynically used diplomatic treaties to buy time to continue their killing. in bosnia, later in kosovo, we heard arguments against military intervention, it was said there was no international consensus for action, that the situation on the ground was messy and confused, that it was not clear who we would actually be helping on the ground, and that our involvement could actually make matters worse. we heard all the arguments about bosnia, as you know, mr. secretary, and now we hear them about syria again today.

we overcame them in bosnia, thank god and we must overcome them in syria. i want to read how president clinton described boss knee why in 19 # 5. >> no where is a need than bosnia. for four years a terrible war has torn it apart. president clinton went on to say and i quote, "there are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests. there are still times when america and america alone can and should make the difference for peace." those were the words of a democratic president who led america to do the right thing, in helping stop atrosities in the balkans. i remember working with my

republican friend and leader bob dole to support the president in that endeavour. the question for another democratic president today and all of us in positions of leadership and responsibility, is whether we will allow similar mass atrosities to continue in syria, and whether we will do what it takes to stop them. i thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much, senator mccain. secretary panetta? >> chairman levin, senator mccain, thank you, for the opportunity to be able to discuss with you the ongoing violence in syria. this tragedy has evoked concern and outrage of the united states government, american people and much of the world. at the outset i would like to stress that the president in a pro broad cross session of the international community stated

bashar assad must had campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately. furthermore, through its repeated violations of human rights, any government that indiscriminately kills its own people, loses legitimacy. this regime has lost its legitimacy and right to rule the country. this situation demands an international response and for that reason the united states has been leading efforts within the international community to pressure assad to stop his violence against the syrian people, and to step aside. unfortunately, this terrible situation has no simple answers so the result is a great deal of anger and frustration that we all share.

there are some members who are concerned about whether we are doing enough to stem the violence in syria and that is understandable. and there are others who are concerned about the dangers of ourselves in still another conflict in that part of the world and that, too, is understandable. let me try and address these concerns by providing some context for what is guiding the administration's views on syria and our actions in response to the violence. the turmoil in syria is clearly part of a larger transformation that has been reshaping the arab world for more than a year. the change we've seen has manifested itself in different ways. sometimes through peaceful protests and negotiations, aimed at a more responsive government. but also, in other cases, in violent uprising and brutal crackdowns from repressive

regimes. many countries have been affected by these changes. and although each conflict has its own dynamic, it's part of a broader trend that is fundamentally and irreversibly reshaping the politics of the arab world. although this is clearly a challenging and unpredictable period of time, our goal must be to encourage governments to do more to insure that their people can live in peace and prosperity. as a global leader with a vital interest in the stability of the broader middle east, this administration has been determined to do everything we can to positively shape the course of events in the middle east. but each situation by virtue of the politics, geography and history of each country, is unique and demands a unique response. there can be no cookie cutter

approach for a region as complex and volatile as the middle east. nevertheless, from the outset, we have made clear that our response has been guided by three fundamental principles. first, we oppose the use of violence and repression by regimes against their own people. second, we have supported the exercise of universal rights, freedom of expression, right to peaceful assembly, right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. the prohibition against discrimination and the right to vote through genuine elections that express the will of the electorate. and third, we support political and economic reforms. that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region. these basic principles have shaped our response to tunisa, egypt, libya and now syria. the violence there has become

increasingly dire and o outrageous. the assad regime has ignored every warning, squandered every opportunity and broken every agreement. we are forging an international consensus that the assad regime's brutality must end and that a democratic transition in syria must begin. although china and russia have r repeatedally blocked, delivering a clear message from the international community that the assad regime has lost its legitimacy and they are continuing efforts to try and agree on a security council resolution as we speak. the administration's focus now is on translating that international consensus in action. along four tracks.

first, we are working to increase the diplomatic and political isolation of the assad regime and encouraging other countries to join the united states, the european union and arab league in imposing sanctions on the assad regime. these sanctions are having a significant impact. second, we are providing emergency humanitarian assistance to the syrian people. with an initial commitment of $10 million and we are working to broaden our efforts at relief. third, we are working with the friends of syria and other groups to help strengthen the opposition to try to encourage the various opposing groups to unify and lay a groundwork for a peaceful, orderly transition to a democratic government. a government that recognizes and respects the rights of all syrians including minorities

fourth, we are reviewing all possible additional steps that can be taken with our international partners to support the efforts to protect the syrian people. to end the violence, and insure regional stability, including potential military options, if necessary. this approach has succeeded in putting unprecedented pressure on assad, but it is clear that there is no simple or quick solution to this crisis. we believe that the best resolution to this crisis will be a peaceful political democratic transition led by the syrian people. and along the lines suggested by the arab league. we believe there is still an opportunity to try to achieve that goal. although we will not rule out any future course of action. currently the administration is focusing on diplomatic and political approaches rather than military intervention.

guided by our approach from libya and elsewhere, we believe it is important in this instance that we do the following. that we build multi-lateral international consensus for any action that is taken. two, that we maintain clear regional support from the arab world. three, that we make substantial u.s. contributions to the international effort, especially where the united states has unique resources that can be brought to bear. four, we need to have a clear, legal basis for any action that we take. and five, keep all options on the table. but recognize that there are limitations of military forces specially with u.s. boots on the ground. each situation, as i said, is unique and as i've said there is

no simple solution here. the reasons for the differences between our approach with libya and the current approach to syria are clear. although there has been widespread support in the security council and the arab league for military intervention in libya, no such consensus currently exists with regard to syria. for us to act unilaterally would be a mistake. it not clear what constitutes the syrian armed opposition. there has been no single unifying military alternative that can be recognized, appointed or contacted. while the opposition is fighting back, and military defections and desertions are on the rise, the syrian regime continues to maintain a strong military. and as secretary clinton noted,

there is every possibility of a civil war and a direct outside intervention in these conditions not only would not prevent that, but could make it worse. even though the current approach is focused on achieving a political solution to this crisis, the assad regime should take no comfort. the pressure is building on the regime every day. make no mistake, one way or another this regime will meet its end. we will continue to evaluate the situation and adjust our approach as necessary. let me close by briefly addressing the united states broader strategic interests in syria and the region. the stability of syria is vital to this region, and to turkey and lebanon and iraq and israel. all of these countries and the

united states have a strong interest in preventing a humanitarian crisis in syria. but perhaps most notably, syria is a pivotal country for iran. as senator mccain pointed out. syria is iran's only state ally in the region. and is crucial to iran's efforts to support those militants throughout the region who threaten israel and threaten regional stability. unrest in syria has already greatly weakened iran's position in the region. and it is clear that iran only stands to lose further as assad is weakened further. as groups such as hamas distance themselves from the assad regime, iran is quickly becoming the assad regime's lone backer. this shows the world the

hypocracy of tehran. i cannot predict how the volatile situation in syria will unfold. but the united states made clear we are on the side of the syrian people. they must know that the international community has not under estimated either their suffering or impatience. we all wish there was a clear and unambiguous way forward to directly influence the events in syria. that, unfortunately, is not the case. that is not an excuse. that is reality. only our clear path, our only clear path is to keep moving in a resolute manner to find a way to return syria to the syrian people. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. general dempsey? >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to

meet with you today and discuss the evolving situation in syria. it's tragic for the people of syria and the region. real democratic reform should have been the assad regime's response to last year's peaceful protest. instead, the regime responded with brutality. syria's internal convulsions are having consequences for a region already in turmoil. refugees are fleeing, spill over is an increasing concern. we need to be alert to the movement of extremists and others who till actors seeking to exploit the area. biological weapons must stay where they are. with our nations the united states is a mying diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime to compel assad to stop killing their own. our military's role has been limited to this point to sharing information with our regional partners. but, should we be called on to

help security u.s. interests in other ways we will be ready. we maintain an agile posture, we have solid military relationships with every country on syria's borders. should we be called our responsibility is clear, provide the secretary of defense and president of the united states with options. all options will be judged in terms of their suitability, feasibility and accept ability. we have a further responsibility to articulate risk and potential implications for our own global commitments. in close, i want to insure this committee you and the nation that america's armed forces are always ready to answer our nation's call i'm prepared to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, general. let's try a seven minute round. secretary pa net, take the arab league proposed a transition plan, has the arab league

requested military intervention in syria? >> it has not. >> did they support military intervention in libya? >> they did. >> what explains the difference? >> i think they share some of the same concerns that we do with regard to the situation in syria. and just exactly what kind of military action would have the kind of impact that we all desire and because of the divisions within the opposition, because of the situation that is occurring there and volatile and unpredictable, i think that -- those concerns have impacted on their decision making here. >> general dempsey, you made reference to putting together options for the president should he decide to move in one direction or another. without telling us what you

would recommend, can you give us kind of a menu of military options which might be available? >> yeah, i can actually discuss it in greater detail in closed session if you choose to do that. you mentioned the principle options in your opening statement include humanitarian relief, no-fly zone, maritime interdiction, and limited aerial strikes for example. we've -- we're at what i would describe the commander's estimate level of detail, not detailed planning, have not been brefd to the president, have been discussed with the president's national security staff, and as general mattis testified yesterday, the next step is take whatever options we deem to be feasible in the next level of planning. >> would the use of air power against their troops be an option and tell us about the air defenses that syria has.

>> well, first of all as you know we're extraordinarily capable and can do just about anything we're asked to do. in doing it, we have some -- we considerations we would make in terms of whether we would do it alone or with partners, we generally in fact always provide a better outcome when we work with partners, especially that part of the world. the ability to do a single raid like strike would be accessible to us. the ability to do longer term sustained campaign would be challenging, and would have to be made in the context of other commitments around the globe and you wi i'll just say this about their air defenses. again i can speak more openly in a closed session about their exact capabilities, but they have approximately five times

more air -- sophisticated than libya, covering one fifth of their terrain. they are all on the western border, their population center, so five times the air defense of libya covering one fifth of the terrain and ten times more than we experienced in serbia. >> has nato taken up the issue of some kind of an intervention militarily in sir yar? >> not at this point. >> would it not be useful as either preliminary consideration or as an important signal to the libyan regime that at least nato take up the question? >> i believe that nato ought to take up the question. >> can you make sure that happens or recommend at least to the president that that be done? >> yes. >> okay. i think that would be important

signal to the syrian regime. general mattis recently indicated to the committee that president assad's regime is going to fall and he said it's just a matter of when and not if. do you share that assessment and are you as confident that will happen? and do you attach any conditions to that happening, secretary let me start with you. >> no, i've heard the intelligence and i share the assessment that it isn't a matter of at the will fall but when. >> is that dependent on our actions or other actions against him or is that going to happen even in the -- with the current momentum and current status quo continuing? >> i think i've asked the same

question of our intelligence people and i think their view is that the state of this insurgency is so deep right now and will continue in the future that ultimately he will fall one way or the other. >> general, can you tell us what capabilities there are to get additional weapons to the insurgents or opposition and also tell us what weapons assad is getting in from what source, if you can try to give us as best you can the type of weapons that could be provided to the opposition, and what weapons are actually going in to assad and from where. >> i can't speak in open session about the source of his weapons, except to say -- i will in closed session, except to say

that he has some security arrangements with others both in the region and outside the region to provide weapons and what we would describe in our situation as a foreign military sales program. he has an existing foreign military sales agreement with at least two nations that i can discuss in closed session. >> are you able to tell us what iran is supplying? >> i can in closed session. >> not here. okay. >> could you give us some idea in open session? in other words, are you able to give us, if not precisely, can you give us just some general estimate or idea as to what is going in from iran? types of weapons, and quantity without being too precise. >> i would describe -- if -- if iran succeeds in some of their movements of weapons to syria, and they have, then it would be

largely smaller caliber, rocket pro pemmed grenade, anti-tank weapons. the other actors who have opened foreign military sales agreements are upper tier stuff including air defense. >> thank you both. senator mccain? >> general dempsey as the reports in the washington report accurate about iranian involvement? we don't need a closed session i don't think for you to say whether "the washington post" is correct or not. >> "the washington post" has parts of their reporting are accurate, yes, senator. >> thank you. serkts general mattis said the departure from asaid would be the biggest strategic set back for iran in 25 years, basicicly

you're in agreement? >> i agree with that. >> by the way, the kuwaiti parliament called forearming the opposition, the saudi foreign ministry called for it, other elements in the arab league are calling for it, and clearly it's a matter of time before arab league takes a stronger position on it. general mattis told us, general dempsey, yesterday, that asaid's crackdown is gaining physical momentum, do you agree with general mattis' statement? >> i do, he has increasingly used heavier weapons. >> even though you agree sooner or later assad will fall, at the moment he happens to be, including regaining control of homs, gaining momentum, that is correct? >> that is correct. >> would you characterize this

as a fair fight when he's using a artillery and tanks to kill syrians? >> i would characterize them as brutalizing their own citizens. >> i see, but since sooner or later he will fall, we don't have to act. the president said yesterday he has taken no options off the table, mr. panetta, in the case of syria. you said in your opening statement that includes "potential military options if necessary" you said in your statement. and yet, general -- admiral stavridis and general mattis said there was no contingency planning. will there be contingency planning? >> we have looked at a number of options that could be involved here. we have not done the detailed planning because we are waiting for the direction of the

president to do that. >> the president, mr. secretary, president obama issued a presidential directive stating "the prevention of mass atrosities is the core national security interests of the united states" that is the administration's policy. with at least 7500 and possibly more than 10,000 dead, with assad using tanks, gaining momentum according to general mattis, would you agree mass atrosities have occurred and are occurring in syria? >> i don't think there is any question we're experiencing mass atrosities there. >> the president said he is taking no options off the table you said in your opening statement, you said potential mome military options if necessary. can you tell me how much longer the killing would have to continue, how many additional civilian lives would have to be lost in order to convince you that the military measures of this kind that we are proposing

necessary to end the kill and force to leave power, how many more have to die, 10,000 more, 20,000 more? how many more? >> i think the question as you stated yourself, senator, is the effort to try to build an international consensus as to what action we do take. that makes the most sense. what doesn't make sense is to take unilateral action at this point. as secretary of defense, before i recommend that we put our sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way, i've got to make very sure that we know what the mission is, i've got to make very sure that we know whether we can achieve that mission, what price, and whether or not it will make matter better or worse. those are the considerations that i have to engage in, and obviously, the administration believes that every effort ought to be made to deal with those concerns in the international

setting to try to build the kind of international consensus that worked in libya and that can work in syria if we can develop that. >> well, let me tell you what's wrong with your statement, you don't mention american leadership. americans should lead in this, america should be standing up, america should be building coalitions, we shouldn't have statements like we are not going to intervene no matter what the situation is, such has been up until now the statements by the administration and the president. in past experiences, those that i mentioned before, america has led. yes, it has been multi-lateral and multi-national. that is vital. we're not leading, mr. secretary. general dempsey, again, i hear the same old refrain that i've heard for many, many years. "it's not clear what constitutes

the syrian armed opposition" that was the same argument that administration, the same excuse that was used to not step in in libya. the deputy and prime minister in libya are former universities professors from the university of alabama. so, we can find out who they are. we can find out who they are. they are not fighting and dieing sacrificing their lives because they are muslim extremists. they are fighting because they want the saum freedoms and rights that we guarantee in our constitution. so i reject the argument that we "don't know who they are." we spend a lot of money on defense and intelligence. we should know who these people are and it would be easy enough

to find out. the best way to help them organize is help them have a place to organize and equip. we are allowing -- i was interested in your answer, and i'll conclude with this. sooner or later assad will fall. i do not disagree with that. meantime, he is gaining momentum, he has regained homs and the death count went up and the atrocities continue. mass atrociti. s are toing on, i hope that america leads and exercises those actions necessary to stop these actions as has been the history of america in the past. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator mccain. senator lieberman. >> thank you secretary panetta

and general dempsey. on this question of what to do in syria, i'm of like mind with senator mccain except on the reference of the brave graduates of yale university, i'll have to talk to him later about that. and perhaps we were of like mind because we went through in the '90s together the similar circumstances in bosnia and kosovo, i would say and in each case, the american entrance i o conflict was late. in my opinion the argument for the united states to be involved and help lead an international effort, which is military, to

stop the slaughter in syria are actually greater than they were in the case of either bosnia or kosovo, there's as great as those were, there's the humantarian crisis, he is slaughtering his people and for all we noelle keep doing and not -- for all we know, he will keep doing it. we agree on this, how positive it would be if assad, who is the only ally of iran, is taken down, and how liberating to those that live under syrian pressure, and perhaps this is unique and different and we are not giving it enough weight. in our foreign policy, we have done a lot of things over the

years inclu sins which youing i years, including in recent years of trying to regain the confidence of the muslim world much we have here a moment where the arab league, the gulf coordinating council, turkey are out this, i know turkey is not the arab world, are out there against what is happening in syria. and i think if we seem to be holding back, and incident iall the countries are seeing their strategic interest in this and because their people are demanding it because of the wave of change sweeping the area. if we can help bring assad down it is a benefit and it can help improve our relations with not

just the allies but the called arab street. when i went to libya, as an example, the u.s. and nato, are naturally popular, and there's a lot of appreciation for it because in their hour of need we were in. and i hope and pray that we can come to do that again with regard to syria. i agree we should not do it alone, but without leadership, and being prepared as you suggested to provide the critical resources, it will not be successful and it will not happen in a timely way. to me, i've kept saying that the factors that led us into libya with our international coalition, they are here and happening. we worried mostly about a

humantarian disaster, you said it why libya is different, and i want to offer a different view. there was widespread support in the security council in the arab be league for military intervention in libya, no such consensus exists for syria, and that is literally true, and that is particularly because of russia and china. within the arab league, there's clearly a lot of interest in a military intervention in syria, same is true of the gulf coordinating council, and the -- i take it that the saudis are beginning to arm the syrian opposition as well, the other thing that i want to say is, that in kosovo, the u.s., with a coalition of the willing acted without u.n. security council approval because again, there were one or two nations blocking

it. the second concern is when you hear it all the time is syrian armed up, their position is we are not sure who they are, they have no single coordinating person at the top or group at the top, but that was true in libya as well. the groups formed in difference parts of the country and in some sense they were hostile toward each other, but when the international community came in, it gave strength, and military assistance, it gave strength to the national council there and they worked together to bring about the change that occurred. and finally, the statement that military would not prevent civil war but could speed it up, senator clinton said something to that effect, obviously of course there's a civil war going

on now. and history shows that foreign military intervention, has been critical, libya most recently, in ending civil wars in those countries in the absence of foreign military intervention in countries like ruwanda, the congo and somalia and others, and they have suffered through extended civil wars. the clock is running and people are being killed in great numbers every day. i think if we do not get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we will look back and say we did not do the right thing morally from stop innocents from being killed we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity to position free people in the middle east. i want to give you an opportunity to responds, if you will, without asking a specific

question. >> no, senator, i guess -- i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not divided here. and we are not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, we have lead in afghan sfan and in the war of terrorism and we are leading in syria, we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if the agreement here is that we out not to just simply go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multi-lateral coalition, we have to work at that. it's not that easy to deal with the concerns out there. we are working at it every day. there are diplomats engaged in the issue, we are trying to

engage with nae engage with nate oh, and the other countries. we are working with them. we are talking with them. and we are looking at every option to try to put that in place. can it happen today? can it happen now? no, it's going to take time and we will do it in a way that will not make the situation worse. >> thank you for the statement. i am engacouraged by you. all i can do is plead with you and other nations that we are reaching out to do move as quickly as possible, people are dieing every day and strategic opportunities are being lost. the fact is that we have an opportunity here. and it's also a responsibility and i think it's critically important that we exercise it and i say finally that, i know

some people continue to hope that a way can be found for assad to leave the country and usher in the democratic practice of transformation that we talked about, from everything i hear, everything that i see, he will only do that if he thinks his life, his regime is really in jeopardy. and right now i think he thinks he is dominant and has the kind of momentum, physical momentum that general mattis and general dempsey spoke about today, the sooner we put international military pressure on the assad regime, the sooner we have a chance to end this peacefully. thank you, thanks mr. chair. >> that you, senator lieberman, senator brown? >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you said we are leading in iraq and afghanistan,

i do not disagree with that, and leading in syria? i do not see that yet, and maybe that is because we are not privy to the information we have. maybe we set up a secure briefing so we can better understand the things happening. right now, i agree with everything surprisingly that senator lieberman said, and that is i think very important, it was well said about, you know, we are missing a potential opportunity. that being said, also, i would like to shift to general dempsey. we know that syria has biological weapons, and the regime will eventually collapse, there's a plan available to address those weapon -- that weaponry and do we have an elimination plan of any kind set up? >> that is another one of those senator, i would very much like though chance to talk about --

like the chance to talk with you about it, but not in this hearing, a hundred times more than we experienced if libya. >> great -- in libya. >> great, i would like to talk about that. what are the lessons that we learned that we need to apply thoughtful consideration can of military intervention in syria, i recognize that libya, everyone hated gadhafi, they wanted him out. we had the arab league, we had broad coalition, we do have a lot thoughtful concerned partners that want to step up. is there a chance that we move without the u.n. and just with those partners to take advantage of that leadership role that we should have have. >> my job is to place military options in context, when you

asked me about lessons learned that are transfer able sure. but the context of this, you mow, i very much want to elevate our thinking here about this -- we are talking about about syria, but we are looking at it through a straw, it does not exist as an isolated country, it's in the context of the region and even of actors outside the region. the inside of syria is a far different demographic, ethnic religious mix than in libya and we need to understand that before we seek to use a particular pattern to deal with what they face.

this issue has to be dealt with in context and we are looking at it through a straw. >> mr. secretary, who aside from the united states is in the best position right now to exert the most effective pressure on the assad regime? >> there's no question in my mind that russia could play a very significant role in putting pressure on assad. they have a port there. they have influence there, they have dealings there unfortunately the position they have taken in the u.n. was to oppose the resolution and that is a shame. but, there's no question that they and the chinese, if they want though advance the cause of the syrian people they could bring great pressure on them to do the right thing. >> and presuming secretary clinton is working and reaching out? >> that's correct. >> thank you, i'm all set, mr. chairman, thank you.

>> thank you, very much, senator brown. senator reid is not here and senator nelson is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you gentlemen for your service. it's been reported that al qaeda leaders and others extremists have called their members of their groups to support the uprising of syria and general mattis stated that there's evidence that the terrorist network is involved in supporting the opposition. do we have an idea regarding the number of violent extremists that are engaged in the uprising secretary? >> we do, but i would prefer to -- >> no. >> -- discuss that in closed session. >> so we do have an idea, we have the intel? >> yes. >> do we have an idea of what sort of outside assistance they

are getting as well, you do not is have to tell me what it is necessarily. >> that is correct. >> do we have some idea of what iran is providing in the way of outside assistance? >> that's correct. >> to the level of detail that we need to have? >> as a former director of the cia, i would like a lot better detail. >> always want more detail. i understand that of course, yeah. and if the decision of -- to arm the syrian opposition forces is predicated in defining the force, how long do you think it would help us to have that definition of the force if a decision is made on a multi-national basis to engage in arming that force internally? >> again, in open session, i'll say there's approximately 100

groups that we have identified as part of the opposition. rough numbers. >> some of them are monthity necessarily the terrorist are organization. >> no, no. we can go into that more in closed session, we are not suggest issing that part of al qaeda that has made i.ts way to syria aligned with or in bed with the opposition, they are there trying to exploit it. of those groups of how long would it take us to do something if we chose to, the question is how quickly, not how quickly we can vet them all, but how quickly can we vet them that can find a core. it does not exist right now. >> could occur on its own, but there's concern about getting worse before it gets better, more people dieing in the

interim. so time is of the essence in trying to get international interest? this, given the fact that we have two of the largest countries in the world not supporting our efforts. if we made the decision and we have a multi-national force and we have 100 groups to go through, how reasonable do you think it is that you'll get a coalesce essence of those groups? will providing the arms and support if we don't put boots on the ground that that coalescence will occur or will they just be

desperate and devolve into some sort of civil war? >> senator, i wish we could predict that, but it's dangerous to do that. you know, we faced somewhat the same situation in libya and you know, heads up the intelligence operation was one of the first order of business, was trying to figure out what the opposition was and what kind of coordination there was. but you have triple the problem because there's so many diverse groups that are involved, whether they can find that one lead and that one group to bring them together, there have been efforts to do that but frankly they have not been successful. >> are we in a position where we have plans in place in the event that we engage in syria to some extent or another to deal with

the potential of the chemical weapons that they currently have. >> i think as general dempsey has pointed out, that is clearly one of our great concerns. and have developed options to try to address those concerns. >> if i could reinforce, if you think it's a concern of ours, you can imagine the concern it is of syria's neighbors on we are in consultation with them about that challenge. >> what are the chances of neighbors in the region working with this, perhaps they are, working with this to get multi-national interests in this this? >> there are efforts to try to engage the neighbors with regards to the issues in syria. and the neighbors clearly share the concerns that we all this have with regards to the situation there. two neighbors are being directly

impacted by refugee problems, we are engaging with both of them and we are engaging with others to try to see what we can do to try to build at least a coalition of those countries. to try to engage with regards to some of the issues there. >> and in our efforts to do that, do we think that they are getting sufficiently motivated and sufficiently conditionered to engage in some joint effort with their neighbor, syria? >> i think there's great concern, and they are experiencing directly the concern, not only from the refugees but from the fallout of what is going on in syria and they too are concerned about, you know, what ultimately happens there when assad is removed steps aside, what are going to be the consequences

within syria itself, that could impact them as well. >> thank you both and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator nelson. senator aot. thank you, chairman, thank you secretary dempsey. i would like to ask the role of on china and russia here. let me say up front, and i'm sure you'll agree, that it's outrageous that china and russia blocked the u.n. resolutions and both of them most recently in february. as i understand it, according to the center for strategic ay natl studies that was issued, the arms imports to russia and syria, that they have been a leading arms supplier to the

assad regimregime, has that bee case, do they continue to provide arms to the assad regime now? >> theyes they do. >> so russia is providing arms to the assad regime as they murder their own people? >> they have a long standing foreign military sales relationship with then and it continues on unstopped. >> and us does not seem to matter to russia at all that they are using these arms to murder their own people. it's outrageous, and china has provided arm as well to a lesser extent to assad? >> let me get back to you, there are other issues of assistance but i'm not sure about arms. >> i would appreciate a follow-up about that, but to some extent they have provided assistance to the assad regime in the past, do we know in they

are providing any now of any type? >> i've not been tracking intelligence in china's roll of course iran and russia from the report. economically they have had ties into syria that they still are trying to maintain. >> is it not true also that with respect to our posture with iran they were of wanting to impose the toughest economic sanctions possible to make sure that iran has no -- has not developed nuclear weapons capability, that russia has an interest in the iranian nuclear program and china relies heavily on iran for oil exports, is that true? >> yes. >> and they have failed to step up to the plate to impose the

tougher sanctions that we would like them to do so the world is together in keeping iran from obtaining nuclear capability, is that correct? >> yes. >> what can we be do to be tougher on russia and china if they are going to take their position in the world as part of the world leadership, i view their behavior in blocking the u.n. resolution as irresponsible and they have not stepped up to the plate to make sure that iran does not nuclear weapons capability, it's damaging for to world. what can we doing to be tougher from them? >> hear this from clinton, my knowledge is that secretary clinton is doing everything to

engage russia in a effort. and china. but russia in particular, because they own a harbor in syria and that is the record that you just described with syria that russia could, if they wanted to accept the responsibility that they should, they could be helpful here in the effort to remove assad. >> i appreciate those efforts and mr. putin just got re-elected and i would hope that he would not want the blood of the syrian people on his hands. i would hope that russia and china step up and support the resolution, and both the countries in my view, i don't know why they would not want pursue every possible means to stop what is happening and the

bloodshed there, i hope they understand that we are very serious about that. and we will in the congress look at actions we can take here, this is wrong and they are on the wrong side of history both with respect to to syrian regime they are on the wrong side of history, with respect to iran and they will look back at this a as a big mistake by both countries if they do not step up to the plate right now. i also wanted to ask about the assad regime's relationship with some of the groups we labeled terrorists groups, what are their republican with hezbollah? >> -- what is their relationship with hezbollah? >> that is better addressed in a closed session in terms of a specific relationship, but there has been a long standing relationship between hezbollah and syria. it's diminished of late,

hezbollah has stood aside while what is happening -- and has not directly been involved in some of the situation. some of the violence that has taken place in syria. >> thank you. and also with hamas? >> same thing. >> and in fact, as i understand it, based on public reports, hamas is step issing back from the situation yet iran has not stepped back? >> correct. >> they are continuing to push forward? >> that is right. >> let me ask you, does the violence that is happening in syria have any impact on stability in iraq? >> interestingly, we -- you know, there was a point at which obviously iraq was kind of standing to the side and not engaged and i think as a result

of what they have seen happening in syria, that iraq itself has now asked for assad to step down and let me put it this way, they are more engaged than they were in the past. >> do you view this as a positive step? >> yes. >> okay. thank you both, my time is up, i appreciate you being before the committee today on such an important issue. >> thank you, senator ayotte. our planning on a closed session immediately following this, that means that there will be one round here and it is or plan to succeed. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and secretary. all of the options that are beginning to be contemplated, the humantarian corridors and aerial strikes and all would presume that we would have

complete control of the air space over syria and given what we know about their defense systems that would presume, i don't know what you can comment on opening, that the first step in any type of military operation was a campai-- can yo us how long an operation would be be? >> we have demonstrated the air program, that stays we have that capabilitity. as i mentioned, to conduct an enduring or sustained campaign, we would have to suppress the air defense, and we do is have an estimate based on gaming and modelling of how long it would take to do that given the density s density of their capabilitity.

>> and it will be led by the united states rather than our allies because of our capability? >> yes. >> so from a view alone, the opening stages in any military operation would be an extended exclusive air campaign against syria, supported politic eed poy by the e and everything -- is that a fair judgment. >> it is a fair judgment, we ali generally, we can only work with military force with the consent of a nation in our national self

defense or with an unsker, whatever we did must be part of a coalition, and we have shown that that produces an enduring outcome and we have to balance, it against risk elsewhere in the region. >> in our testimony yesterday, general mattis indicated that unlike iraq, there were no natural save haven areas, the mountains and also i think unlike iraq, there's no well organized forces that can provide a limited self den eed there's a physical and institutional challenge, who will physically defend them, with we can have air power and try to stop tank columns and

convoys but that would not work 100%, so is that another challenge you are considering? >> sure, it's a challenge and again, in the context of this, as you note, the boarder with iraq and jordan, with israel and turkey all have their own unique complexities, so, i think we have to get through there. i want to be clear, we can do anything, the question is -- so it's not about can we do it, it's should we do it and what are the opportunity costs elsewhere and what are the risks. >> and in terms of opportunities of course, there are cost to casualties and air operations, there are cost terms of time to set up the operations and these, so that the notion that we can sort of in a few hours or days quickly go in and establish superiority, stop the fighting,

is not accurate? >> you obviously have a military background, sir. >> thank you. i show up on time most times. >> senator, if i can just point out, again, we can discuss this in closed session, what we have talked about is that air defense system that is pretty sophisticated but more importantly a lot of it is located in populated area, there would be severe collateral damage going after those areas. >> let me change the subject, mr. secretary, because we have talked on the military aspect and there's a political aspect here, what struck me in my reading is there's a small alawite clan of is shihia that

dominate the region, but others seeing themselves closely a lined with the group. there has yet to be i think creation of a truly national and credible opposition to assad, so it's awful difficult to build this or to get him off when there's nobody to take his place and there's still strong support in communities that you would not necessarily think would be supporting him, is that part of the analysis that you have looked at? >> that is correct, and that is part of the problem. it is you know, having worked closely on the libyan situation, when there were leaders that came to the front, and were able

to organize a consult and had credibility with the opposition, that is not the case here, there are outside groups that are trying to organize, but, there's not the relationship with regards to what is happening in the country. and as a result, it's very difficult to have -- to be able to know who we deal with there in trms on of an opposition. i think the only final point i would make is that going back to military capacity in libya and again, i think the first points is that we have to aassume is seyria is not libya, there seem to be tribal military organizations, i do not get the same impressions that outside the military there's any counter point and that we would have to

unless there was a political solution to on force assad off, it would be -- we would have to organize a force and that would take many, many months, is that a -- >> that is the -- that's the current state of on our thinking about how we may do this. if you think of two recent experiences, libya we had tribal forces on the east and west collapsing on the center essentially, we had the northern alliance collapsing on the center. there's no geographic density of opposition to collapse anywhere, they are all intermingled and it's 70% sunni and 30% other groups and those three have been in, you know, the alawites have

been in control and protect today the others, on so there's that -- and protected the oth s others. >> you discussed briefly with senator ayotte, russia's role in syri syria, i have a article, the title is russia boosts arms sales to syria despite world pressure, i would and that is made part of the record. >> it is part of the record. i'm grateful to you for that. it suggests that russia is continuing to supply a variety of weapons to syria, through an arms exporter by the name of rosoboron export. and could you, i guess, general dempsey i'm catching myself, because you suggested that some of this you want to go into on closed session, but let me ask,

does russia have a physical presence in syria as part of their arm's sales business? >> they do. >> and what specifically, secretary panetta, is russia's interest in syria? >> they have had long standing economic and military relationships in syria, and as we said, the port there in syria is owned by the russians, it's their port. so they have had a lot of shipping that is going in over there over the years, they have transferred not only military, aide, but economic assistance as well. so, they have had a very long standing relationship with syria that makes them as i said, one of the key players in they wanted to assert you know, the

kind of responsibility they should, they would be a key player in bringing pressure on assad. >> let me transition you a bit to the department of defense's business transactions with this same firm i mentioned earlier. rosoboron export, they are engaged in military sales of russian weapons to assad's regime. reportedly, the company has signed a deal with the syrian government to is sell it 36 combat jets capable of hitting civilian ground targets can you confirm that? >> i can't. i would have to look into that. >> i don't mean to blind side you i'll share with you this article and i would be interested in following up in greater detail. the company was sanctioned by

the united states in october 2008 for assisting the nuclear program but those sanctions were lifted by the department of state in 2010. this is what i wanted to get to, it's my understanding that the department of defense through an initiative led by the u.s. army is buying dual use m-1 -- excuse me, m-i-17 helicopters from this same company. i would like to know whether either of you can confirm this as that point? >> no. but i can confirm that we are buying m-i-17s for the afghan military but i cannot done firm that is the corporation providing them. >> thank you. can you explain why we would buy helicopters from the afghan military from this arm's

exportser that has been sanctioned by the u.s. govern for its activities with iran and the principal means by which russia is arming assad's regime and killing so many civilians. >> i have to confirm that we are, assuming we are, as the process goes in a competition, if they are not sanctioned and enter the competition, they could very well be that they ended up being the lowest bidder and therefore they could very well have been selected. but i have to confirm that and get back to you, senator. >> i understand that. if in fact this article is correct, this means that instead of creating jobs and selling american helicopters to the afghan military we are working with a russia arm's of courexpo

sell these helicopters that makes to sense to me. but, as you said, and as i said, i do not want to blindside you with this information, i would like to get in explanation, if in fact this report is true, that this same arms dealer is arming assad's regime and killing innocent syrians, and also under a contract with the united states department of defense, to provide helicopters to the afghan military, that causes me significant concerns and i'm -- i bet it does you too. and so i would like to get to the bottom of that. if you'll help me do that. general dempsey, you talked about the need to balance the risks of intervening in syria with other parts of the region.

what would -- what would happen if assad were to fall and force his democracy begins to take roots, what would that do to iran's goals in the region, what would that do to hezbollah, a terrorist organization supported by iran, what would that that do to hamas and what that do to lebanon, what would be the impact that you would hope for in the region? >> well, as general mattis testified yesterday, it would certainly diminish iran's influence in the region and set back their goal of becoming a regional leader dramatically. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. thank you, gentlemen. >> thank you very much, senator bloomenthall is next.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you bother to your forthright and careful and cautious approach to this problem. and i think many of us are approaching this issue with a high degree of hu millity because of the lack of information and looking for as you brief us in a more secure setting. even with all that care and caution, i'm struck, mr. secretary, by the conviction that the regime will fall, you said that they will meet their end. there are few things in life that are inevitable and right now the assad regime seems to be on the march and seems to have

momentum on its side and you described how this opposition is less organized than the libyan and so, i think that is the reason that many of us here feel that we need to do more. that is united states needs to take a more aggressive and pro active role in this fight without, and i should stress, without american troops on the ground. no boots on the ground. and that is the reason that senator graham and i are planning to introduce and co-sponsor a resolution that will ask for condemnation assad for the war crimes he is inflicting on his people, the brutal and bar baric criminal actions about his own people and slaughter and massacre that will

seek sending that message that the united states will support the syrian people, but there needs to be more than just words here, let me begin by asking, whether there's currently planning for the deliveryy of medical and other aide to the opposition? >> yes, there is. and let me mention also with regards to your prefacing remarks. look, it's always dangerous to make predictions in that part of the world, what i'm giving you is the best assessment by our intelligence community as to the situation there in syria, but i think that you should not take it for granted that somehow we are going to sit back and allow the status quo to be the case. we are working very hard at trying to build the international coalition that we

need. we are working hard at aide, we are working hard to try to bring additional pressure on syria in order to ensure that assad steps aside. >> is aide being delivered now? >> we are delivering elements of aide as we speak. >> and how much? can you quantify it? >> $10 million was the case that we had, let me give you in homs alone, we have usg partners that have delivered food 4,000 households and medical supplies, and we a we are working to getting greater access to provide additional aide. >> how quickly and in what quantities could that aide be

increased? >> let me give you a -- i'm going to have to look at that and give you a more direct answer based on what is state department and a.i.d.are doing right now. >> is planning under way to increase the aide? ? yes. >> on communications equipment which seems essential is for them to launch a coordinated defense and offense, what is being done to provide communications equipment? >> i would prefer to discuss that in a closed session, but i can tell you that we are considering an array of n

nonlethal assistance? . >> with respect to other technical assistance, is other technical assistance being provided? >> it -- plans are being made to provide an array of nonlethal assistance including technical assistance. >> and general dempsey has very with well described the time that it would take to supress the aerial defense, but i take it that issue is not an obstacle to providing these other kinds of assistance? >> that's correct. >> it could be done immediately? >> that's correct. >> and i would appreciate additional information to this committee as to what can be done within what timeframes short of aerial strikes. is there support among any of

the potential allies in military action for the kind of planning that you would be looking for, or are specific countries volunteering specific contributions in potential military action? >> that again is something that we would prefer to discuss in closed session. but there have been discussions in other countries about that. >> so that planning is under way, fair to say? >> i don't want to -- i would rather discuss that in closed session. >> i would say it's rising to the willful of -- >> in order to do planning you would have to engage in that consultation, is that fair to say? turning to the resolution that senator graham and i have proposed, would that resolution,

a sense of the senate that there should be an investigation and prosecution of assad for war crimes have an encouraging and positive effect for the is syrian people to resist the regime? >> i prefer you direct that to the state department, because of the negotiating that they are doing on a broader international front, you need to ask them the question whether this is helpful. >> we will do that. let me close because my time has expired. but i would to say i share the concerns about the sales of equipment by the same company that is arming the syrians to the iraqi government helicopters that are being sold to the iraqi

government by the same company that is acting on behalf of the russian government to arm the syrians and i share his concern that there appears to be a less than compelling reason to use return an helicopters sold by this company in afghanistan, when we could be selling our own helicopters to them. and i ask also, mr. chairman that an additional article on that subject be made a part of the record, it's a july 24, 2011 article from the "washington times" involved pro russia stalls afghanistan helicopters. >> if those reports are true, we will share your same concern. >> there's no denial in the reports that it's no true, there's no denial from any

official sources and i hope we would have a response. thank you so much for your service to the country and you are is very helpful testimony. -- and your very helpful testimony. thank you. >> because we would all be very much concerned with the issue that senator has raised and was just mentioned, we would hope you get us the detail on that forth with. mr. graham? >> i asked that question when i was over in afghanistan a year or two ago and i was told the helicopter in question was a better fit for the afghan military they were of maintenance and capabilitity, so that may not be the case if an american helicopter fits the need, i'm all for them buying from us. the senator made a good

observation, i do not think that any of us believe that boots to ground is a good idea rkgood ids what i would like to do is kind of build on when he ask you, he asked a good question. you basically said, mr. secretary that assad should be viewed as a war criminal, i think that is a good analysis to take. in february there was a report issued, 72 pages but this is the sum and substance of it to me, such violations, talking about the gross human rights violations, originated from paumss and directives issued at the highest levels of the government and armed forces government. do you agree with that? >> yes. >> the problem is if you go

after him, maybe itten trenches him. but i have come to understands that he will do what he will do, but from his point of view, he believes that he is rational and trying to kill as many people as we can, and wait us out and hope we walk away. i think it would be good for the syrian people to know that the international community views what is being done to them is an outrage, and they would get support that we all saw what happened to them is unacceptable. i think it would help them. let's into the situation of what happens after he leaves. do you believe, secretary and general, that the people are going through the pain and suffering at the end of the day to replace assad with al qaeda?

>> no. no nor do i. >> the real concern we have is that there are minorities, the alawites, that would be on the receiving end of reprise alabamalabama -- repriseales if we are not careful. >> that's correct. >> are we guiding a sort of plan or are we involved with them? >> well, obviously, that is -- that is the biggest challenge is to because we are dealing with a pretty desperate group -- >> are we trying to create rdorr out of chaos, somebody will bet on the stock that follows assad and i want to be on the ground floor of this new enterprise. >> that the right. >> i don't want to just show up after it's over. i want to get ready now and try to mold the outcome and you do not have to have boots on the ground to do that. when it comes to what happens

next, do you believe that if assad was replaced by the will of the international community, led by the united states, that that may be -- that may do more good regarding iran's goals for nuclear we nuclear weapons than sanctions that we had the resolve to take their a ally down? >> it would add to the impact of the sanctions to have this happen. in showing that ining that the. >> i cannot help but believe a that if their ally went down, because the united states said enough is enough, and did reasonable things to take him down that that would not have a positive impact. now, when it comes to planning, senator bloomen thall asked what we are doing and planning, am i wrong to aassume that from your

testimony, the president of the united states has not requested military plan regarding engagin? >> no, that's not correct. he -- the president of the united states, through the national security staff, has asked us to begin the commander's estimate, the estimate of the situation. >> that's good. so there is movement and process in dod to provide the president some options. is that correct? >> correct. >> okay. now, when it comes to china and russia, do you believe they will ever change their tune at the u.n., that we'll ever get them on board for a u.n. resolution like we had in libya regarding syria? >> you know, i don't think it's totally out of the question. i think both countries -- >> if you were a betting man -- >> both countries have been embarrassed by the stand. >> they can withstand a lot of embarrassment. >> yeah.

so if you were a betting man do you believe they will ever come on board? >> i -- you know, if russia wants to maintain its contacts with syria, maintain their port and have some involvement whatever government replaces assad, i think they might be thinking about an approach that would allow them to have some impact on where this goes. i don't rule it out, that they wouldn't -- >> would you say that should not be our only option, that we could come up with a contingency plan in case russia doesn't make up one day and realize they're on the wrong side of history, we have another way of engaging without china and russia. >> absolutely. >> let's talk about the arab league. the arab league has changed mightily in the last year, haven't they, given their involvement in the mideast? >> they sure have. >> do you believe it's generated by the arab spring, the arab

league was in association with dictorial regimes, that now are betting on the right side of history and they see assad as being on the wrong side of history and that's incredibly encouraging? >> absolutely. >> don't you think in our long-term national security interests, we have the window in time here to marry up with the arab league in terms of military, humanitarian, economic, follow them assistance to the countries have people who are saying, i'm tired of being led by dictators and are we doing enough to seize that moment in history? >> i can assure you that secretary clinton and i are working with our arab league partners trying to do everything we can to develop and maintain the coalition that was establish we'd libya, but to maintain it as a continuing influence over

what happens elsewhere in that region. >> and my final thought is that if the slaughter continues, i do believe that the world, including the united states, has the capability to neutralize the slaughter through air power. and given the way the world is and the way syria is, is there a likelihood, even a remote possibility, that if we engaged the artillery forces and the tank drivers who are killing people who basically have ak-47s, that maybe the other people in tanks would get out and quit if we blew up a few of them? >> there's certainly that possibility. >> i think that is high likelihood. thank you both for your service. >> thank you, senator graham. senator shaheen. >> thank you, secretary. general dempsey, thank you both very much for being here. i want to follow up on the

issues that have been raised about arms shipments from russia and china. reports are that 30% of syrian arms come from china and north korea. and you talked a little bit about the russian perspective, but i'm not clear whether we think there's any way to engage the chinese on this issue. and is the -- is this something the international community has developed a strategy on for how to prevent or reduce future arm shipments from russia and china. >> the international community is concerned about what you just discussed. and i think the international community led by the united states is trying to engage both russia and china to try to see if we can change their approach to syria. >> senator, if i could, we said here this morning that it's very

clear and documented that russia has an arm sale agreement with syria. we've also said we need to get back to on whether china is. i don't know the answer to that question. >> that comes from published reports. i appreciate ed what you both had to say about our efforts around humanitarian aid. i think most of using looking at the pictures, the reports on the news, the pictures in the newspapers of the slaughter that's going on inside syria are very concerned about the cost in human lives, particularly for civilians, the women and children who have been killed. and obviously as the result, there have been a lot of thousands of refugees who are going over the borders. first of all, is there more they should be doing to address those refugees who are fleeing as well

as the humanitarian efforts on the ground in syria that you talked about? and then can you also address concerns that we might have about the disstabilizing effect that refugees might have particularly in lebanon? >> we are doing everything we can to expand the humanitarian effort. there is more that can be done and that needs to be done. indeed, one of the options we're looking at is whether or not to establish these humanitarian zones, to try to assist the refugees in a more effective way. the refugee flows, if they continue it at the rate that we see, are clearly going to have an impact on the neighboring countries. we've already seen that happen. >> and can i add, senator, one other thing, having liftd over there for more than five years,

refugees, because of family and tribal relationships, they -- they're hard to pin down, actually, how many and where they are because they blend in. >> sure. >> so during the iraq war there were many iraqi/sunni refugees who flow into syria. many of them are flowing back now. we think maybe 15,000 from syria into jordan, maybe 10,000 into lebanon, 10,000 into turkey. it's not as though they set up camp someplace. the way you first learn about it is when they put demands on the host nation medical system and some other things. to a t. answer to the question is, yes, of course there's more we can do and should. we've got to do it through the host nations because they really understand this in a way that we can't. >> how engaged are the arab league and the european community in supporting these kinds of humanitarian efforts? >> they're very engaged. and we are working with the

international community and the arab league in addressing the humanitarian issue. >> thank you. >> to go on to syria's weapons arsenal, i know that there have been reports that they have the biggest chemical weapon arsenal in the world. i had a chance to ask general mattis about this yesterday, about what concerns we have, should assad fall, about the security of those arsenals and what potential threat to the rest of the region they might present. can you all address that? >> i can address it in great detail in closed session. >> okay. well, i appreciate that. senator collins and gillibrand

and i sent letters expressing this. >> senator, look, there's no question that it got huge stockpiles and that if it got into the wrong hands it would -- it would really be a threat to the security not only in the regional countries but to the united states. >> can you -- recognize that you don't want to address this in an open session, but can you compare it to the situation that we found in libya last year? i know we -- 20,000 man pads disappeared in libya so how do we compare with that situation? >> it's 100 times worse than what we dealt in with libya. and for that reason that's why it's raised even greater concerns about our ability to address how we can secure those sights. >> thank you. and are there other new sanctions that the operation and congress could enact that would further dissuade other countries

who might be assisting syria either directly or inadvertently to try and continue to isolate syria and those countries who are helping? >> there are. i have to tell you, i mean, one of the things that has really come together are the sanctions that had been put in place. they target senior leadership and assets, hampering foreign transactions. there's been a gdp decline from minus 2 to minus 8%. the gdp has taken a hit from sanctions. 30% loss of revenue due to the oil embargo that's taking place. that's continuing to have an impact. there's been almost a 20% currency depreciation. >> do we think there's a possibility that assad is just going to run out of money if this continues indefinitely?

>> you know, they'll always struggle to find ways around this. this is squeezing them badly. and they are -- at least in the process of running out of money. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator shaheen. senator sessions. >> thank you. thank both of you for your service to the country. i had the opportunity to travel a few weeks ago with senator mccain and graham and bloom bloomenthal and others to the middle east. i think there is a sense, and senator mccain's vast experience in this region that the united states' position clearly spoken does impact people. revolutions and people are standing up against oppressive regimes are encouraged and emboldened if they sense the united states clearly. >> reporter: tiarticulates the

justice of their cause. i think we've been a bit week on that in iran, when we had the revolution there, the protests there. that was a window of opportunity. i am really, really disappointed we didn't somehow participate more positively in. and so i don't know. i believe he said -- secretary panetta or general dempsey. there's a difference between contingency planning and a commander's estimate? what is the difference? >> the commander's estimate process looks at what are the potential missions, what is the enemy order of battle, what are the enemy's capabilities, or potential enemies, what are the troops we have available, and how much time. so mission, enemy, terrain, troops, and time. that's a commander's estimate. >> so you are looking at that? >> yes. >> have you completed that?

>> yes. >> and you said secretary panetta, that you're waiting on the president before doing continengency planning. what would be the contingency planning? >> the next level of detail would be for us to take actual units and apply against taking them someplace else and applying that against a template in order to come up with operational concepts, how would we do it? >> if you were another nation that was potentially interested in helping in this situation, wouldn' wouldn't you be more impressed if we went further in detail and does it not suggest that we're really not interested in taking action if we've not gone further? >> no, not at all. i think the assumptions that we've worked through, we have -- you know, we've discussed them with president. we've discussed them with national security council. we are in the process of

developing even further ideas with regards to some of those options. and ultimately obviously when the president makes this decision as to what course he wants to take in line obviously with our international partners, you know, we will be ready to go. >> well, you said that we'll take our time earlier. you know, when we do it, we'll be well prepared. but i have to say, senator bloomenthal and others have raised the question whether or not this window is already closing. i mean, dictators have successfully crushed revolutions, many times in history. how confident are you that this -- i know you have an estimate but i don't see how an estimate that this country is -- that assad's about to be toppled can be justified based on what we're seeing just publicly on

the ground. >> senator, i think the fundamental issues before us is whether or not the united states will go ahead and act unilaterally in that part of the world and engage in another war in the muslim world unilaterally or whether or not we will work with others in determining what action we take. that's the fundamental decision that needs to be made. >> well, isn't there a window and isn't it -- can you say with certainty that even in a matter of a few weeks that assad may have re-established his control in the country and there would be no likelihood of his regime toppling? >> i think according to the intelligence evidence that i've seen this insurgency is not only continuing but it's growing wider and when that happens, it's -- it's going to continue

to put a tremendous amount of pressure on assad. >> well, i hope that's true. i hope that we have -- we don't miss an opportunity here. i know senator kerry and senator mccain said use a no-fly zone over libya. a long time went by before that was done. i think senator mccain believe, i believe, had they been listened to earlier, there might have been fewer casualties and the regime might have collapsed sooner. i just would say i value your opinion on this because you know more detail than i do. general dempsey, you -- in one of your criteria for determining what we might do militarily, you say you have to ask the question whether the action is worth the cost and is consistent with law. what law does united states military look to?

>> if i could, i would like address both because they are related. cause resources risk incurred elsewhere by the use of force one other place. this is a zero sum game. take them someplace and use them. that's the issue of cost. and, of course, in blood and treasure. the cost of legal basis is important though. we, again, we act with the authorized use of military force either at the consent of a government, so we're invited in, or out of national self-defense, and it's a very -- there's a very clear tie yearia for that. and the last one is with some kind of international legal basis. >> wait a minute. let's talk about an international legal basis. you answer under the constitution to the united states government, do you not? and you don't need any international support before you

carry out a military operation authorized by the commander in chief of the united states -- >> no. >> i just want to know that because there's a lot of references in here to international matters before we make a decision. i want to make sure that the united states military understandses, and i know you do, that we're not dependent on a nato resolution or u.n. resolution to execute policies consistent with the national security of the united states. now, secretary panetta, in your talk, in your remarks you talk about first we are working -- first we're working to increase diplomatic isolation and encouraging other countries to join european union and arab league imposing sanctions. and then you note that china and

russia have repeatedly blocked u.n. security council from taking action. are you saying, and is the president taking the position, he would not act if it was in our interest to do so if the u.n. security council did not agree? >> senator, when it comes to our national defense, you know, we act based on what unprotecting the security of this country and we don't look for permission from anybody else when it comes to our national defense. when it comes to the kind of military action where we want to build a coalition and work with our international partners, obviously we would like to have some kind of legal basis on which to do it as we did in libya. >> now some sort of legal basis. we worry about international legal basis but nobody worries about the fundamental constitution legal basis that

this congress has over war. we were not asked, stunningly and direct violation of the war powers act, whether or not you believe it's constitution. it certainly didn't comply with it biological weapon spent our time workrying about the u.n., arab league, nato, and too little time, in my opinion, worried about the elected representatives of the united states. as you go forward, will you consult with the united states congress and can we be assured that we will have more c consultation and more participation and legal authority from the dooley elected representatives -- >> believe me, we will. you know, we don't have a corner on the market with regards to, you know, issues involving our defense. we want to consult with the congress. we want to get your best advice and your guidance. and when we take action, we want to do it together. >> and do you think that you can act without congress and initiate a no-fly zone in syria?

without congressional approval. >> you know, again, our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to the congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this whether or not we would want to get permission from the congress, i think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here. >> well, i'm almost breathless about that because what i heard you say is we're going to seek international approval and then come and tell the congress what we might do and we might seek congressional approval. i want to just say to you, that's a big -- when you agree, you served in the congress. wouldn't you agree that that's -- would be pretty breathtaking to the afternoon american, so would you like to clarify that? >> i do. but i -- you know, i've always served with republican presidents and democratic presidents who always reserve

the right to defend this country if necessary. >> before we do this you would seek permission of the international authorities? >> if we're working with an international coalition and we're working with nato, we would want to be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. that's something that, you know, all of these countries would want to have some kind of legal basis on which to act. >> what legal basis are you looking for? what entity? >> well, obviously if nato made the decision to go in, that would be one. if we developed an international coalition beyond nato, then obviously some kind of u.n. security resolution. >> a coalition of -- so you're saying nato would give you a legal basis and an a ad hoc

coalition of legal basis? >> we were able to put together a coalition and were able to move together, then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make that justified. i mean, you know, we can't just pull them all together in a combat operation without getting the legal basis on which to act. >> who are you asking sfort legfor the legal basis from? >> obviously if the u.n. passed a u.n. security resolution from libya, we would do that. if nato came together as they did in bosnia, we would rely on that. we have options here. if we want to build the kind of international approach to dealing with the situation. >> i'm all for having an international support, but i -- i'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis

for the united states military to be deployed in combat. i don't believe it's close to being correct. they provide no legal authority. the only legal authority that's required to deploy the united states military is the congress and the president and the law and the constitution. >> let me just for the record be clear again, senator, so there's no misunderstanding. when it comes to the national defense of the country, the president of the united states has the authority under the constitution to act to defend this country. and we will. if it comes to an operation where we're trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and operate as we did in libya or bosnia, for that matter afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by nato or by the international community. >> well, i'm troubled by that.

i think that it does weaken the ability of the united states to lead. if we believe something ought to be done i would think we would be going more aggressively to nato and allies, seeking every ally that we can get. but i do think ultimately you need the legal authority from the united states of america, not from any other extra territorial group that might assemble. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator webb, if you would yield to me for just one moment. >> certainly. >> i would just like to clarify the last point because you used the word permission at times as being helpful to achieving an international coalition. you don't need any authority from anybody else, any permission from anybody else, if we're going act alone, you made that clear. you said it three times. ic that's essential. but as i understand it, saying is that if you're seeking international coalition, it would help if there's a legal basis internationally in order

to help obtain that legal coalition. i don't think the word permission is appropriate even in that context, by the way what i think you really corrected it when you said a legal basis in international law would help you achieve an international coalition. >> that's correct. >> and if you're seeking international coalition, having that kind of international legal basis will help. i think that's what you're trying to say and i hope that is what you're trying to say. >> that's what i'm trying to say. >> okay. >> thank you. >> senator westbound? thank you, senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if i may -- senator sessions is raising an important point. >> senator sessions is. i don't want to eat up too much of my own clock on this. >> you have the time that's allotted. >> i would like to clarify a point that has been a concern to me on this very same issue. and that was the difference between the united states acting unilaterally if we decide it's

within our national interests and it's something that you raised in terms of the situation in syria. there's a difference between that and the president deciding to act unilaterally in an area that arguably has not been defined as a national security interest. i made floor remarks on this. i have a great deal of concern. when you look at the libya model where basic justification has been humanitarian assistance, which is very vague and it's not under the historical precepts that we have otherwise used. like a treaty if you're talking about nato, or defending americans who have been captured in grenada or retaliating as a certain act as we did in libya in 1996 when i was at the pentagon. i think senator session has raised a point of concern and i would just like to put a per rehn thesis around that, but

hold the thought. i think there definitely is room for some very serious discussion here in the congress on the way that the president, any president, can decide unilaterally to use military action and this rather vague concept of humanitarian assistance. but to set that aside, what i really would like to talk about today is my thoughts about your testimony and i would like to say very specifically that i found both of your testimony with respect to the situation in syria very resay -- reassuring. it was careful and forthright. the approach that you take on this. i think when people talk about the need for leadership, we need to understand, we need to have a sense of history here. leadership is not always taking

preciptent action when the emotions is going. it's the achieving results when bringing about long-term objectives and probably the greatest strategic victory in our lifetime was the cold war. that was conscious decades long, application of strategy with the right signals, with respect to our national security apparatus, there's no one in the world that will doubt the ability of the united states to put lee thatity on the battlefield if we decide to do it but that's not really always the question when we're developing these kinds of policies. at least not the first question. i thought your testimony was very clear on that. from both of you. secretary panetta, your comment about each situation is unique and general dempsey, i think your example of the danger of looking at this through a straw

is probably the best way to put it. we have to look at all of the ramifications on these sorts of matters. i think the principals that you've laid down are -- we should all support this type of logic. to for an international conse consens consensus. translate them into acts. and at least express our hope that this change can be brought about through a peaceful, political transition. i was taking notes as you made your testimony, secretary panetta. i want to ask you about one thing that you said because i think that we all need to think about it. you said any government -- i think this is a direct quote. i'm an old journalist here. i can write fast. any government that indiscriminately kills its own people loses its legitimacy. would you say that is a statement of policy of the united states? >> i would.

>> would you believe that with the circumstances in the square in 1989 when the they turned their own tanks loose and killed more 1,000 people, would you say that fits into this statement? >> let me put this on a personal deal. my personal view would be that that was the case there. >> i think it also illustrates your comment that in policy terms each situation is unique and that we have to try to use the best building blocks we can in order to best address these types of situations depending on

where they happen and what other capabilities any one of these governments might have. it's just something i actually held a hearing on this, formulations committee, talking about what might be viewed as a situational ethics in terms of american foreign policy. but it clearly demonstrates that you can't -- there's no one template here when we're tempting to resolve differences in philosophy and in policies with the different countries. so i would say that other than -- i do believe that your exchange with senator session may have been lost in translation because it went back and forth so much. but i do believe senator session has a very valid point in terms of presidential authority. but i strongly support the analytical matrix, the the policy matrix that you are putting into place with respect

to syria. thank you for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator webb. senator collins? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i think that this hearing and discussion this morning as well as yesterday demonstrates how difficult the challenge is that is posed by syria. as appalled as we all are by the slaughter of the innocent civilians in syria. one of the options that i would like to return to, which has been discussed today is whether or not we should try to arm elements of the syrian opposition. and i think this, too, is a

difficult issue, although, mr. secretary and general dempsey, you both responded to a question from senator graham that you don't think al qaeda is the ultimate viktoctor, if you will when the regime falls. when secretary clinton testified at a house hearing last week she raised the question of the we arm, who are we arming? and she specifically noted that zawahiri of al qaeda is backing the syrian opposition. and her comment recalled to me the situation in afghanistan where some of the groups that we armed in the 1980s are now some of the same people who are attacking american soldiers

today, perhaps using some of those same arms. so if the united states or another country or even the international coalition chose to arm opposition groups in syria, what's your assessment of the risk that we might be taking that we could end up arming terrorist groups or other enemies that are hostile to the united states or to israel or to other allies in the region? >> well, if you sense any reluctance on my part at this point, it's because i can't get my intellect around that risk. i just can't understand it yet. but i will tell you that the president's been very direct with the intelligence community. but that's what's got to happen. we've got to be able to

understand the opposition to the extent we can, we should help it coalesce into something that's understandable and definable, coherent enough. and then if we ever do reach a decision to arm the opposition, it just can't simply be arming them without any command and control, without any communications because then it becomes a roving band of rebels. and i think we can do better than that. but we're not there right now. >> secretary panetta? >> yeah, senator, one thing we found in this region of the world is that, you know, these -- once you provide these arms, there are no boundaries as to where they can wind up. we saw that happen in libya, and we are seeing evidence of some of the weapons used there popping up in the sinai and elsewhere. and if we provide arms in syria

we have to have some sense that they aren't just automatically going to wind up going to hezbollah, going to hamas, going to al qaeda, going to other groups that would then use those weapons for other purposes. >> i think that's an extremely difficult issue as we look at whether or not to encourage the provision of arms to provide arms ourselves. senator shaheen and i have been working on the man pad issue with libya. we've been very concerned about that, as you know. and as you say, the situation in syria makes the libyan situation pale by comparison, plus syria has, as i understand it, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons as well. so it's a very difficult issue.

i want to get your answer. he said nato would not get involved in syria because western assistance would be insufficient to solve the crisis. he said, and i quote, that nato could not bring about a sustainable solution to the problem and instead he advocating for an arab league effort to the crisis. first, i would ask what your general reaction to the secretary general's statement was, mr. secretary, and, second, can we expect military and humanitarian assistance from the har rab league? >> first of all, you know, i think -- i mean, i understand his concerns about the situation

in syria from a military perspective because we share some of the same concerns. at the same time, i think that nato in the very least ought to take a look at the situation there and determine whether or not they could play an important role there. the fact is when you look at libya even though nato was there, we had partners in the arab community that joined that coalition that were very helpful to the operation there. and it's that kind of coalition that i think can work very effectively. turning to the arab league, the arab league obviously is working to try to develop an approach here, individual nations are looking at different ways to try to provide assistance of one kind or another. but the arab league itself

doesn't, you know, it doesn't have the capability that nato has to be able to engage militarily if necessary. >> i was in turkey recently, and obviously turkey historically had good relationships with syria but the prime minister has been very strong in calling for assad to step aside and, indeed, has provided sanctuary for the free syrian army within its borders. what advice are we getting from the turks on what approach we should be taking towards syria? are there conversations ongoing with turkey? >> yes, there are. and turkey is actually exercised, you know, very responsible leadership with response to the issue. obviously they have a direct

concern because it is a border country but they have called for assad to step down. we have engaged with them on consultations with regards to the concern over the chemical and biological sites that are located there. and we're continuing to consult with them with regards to refugees as well. but answer to your question is that turkey is playing a very responsible role in dealing with this issue. >> thank you. mr. chairman, would you allow me one very quick final question? >> please. >> thank you. general dempsey, is iraq playing a positive role in actual lly interdicting the supplies and weapons? it's really straddling the communications and transportation lines between the two countries. >> iraq has done two things that

i view as quite positive. one as the secretary mentioned, the statement that they too, now advocate assad stepping down. that's on the political sect. on the issue of iranian shipments crossing through their airspace, they have, in fact, demarshed their e eed iran from. remember now, they don't have the ability to control their airspace. they can't interdict anyone crassing it. they have on more than one occasion say they would land to be inspected and at their insistence once that occurred the flights were delayed and in some cases we believe to allow the offloading of the shipments. so that it wasn't identified when it landed in iraq. so they are. they're trying but again, they don't have much capability to do anything beyond diplomatic engagement. >> thank you both. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator collins. we're now going to move directly

to room 217 for our closed session. thank you both. we stand adjourned.e should havs

with local ministers are responsible for delivering these in northern ireland. >> order. questions for the prime minister. >> number one, sir. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i hope you'll permit me before answering questions, mr. speaker, to make the following announcement. yesterday, a warrior armored fighting vehicle on patrol near the eastern border of helmand province was struck by an explosion. it is with very great sadness i must tell the house that six soldiers are missing, believed killed. by the soldiers are from the server tied to yorkshire

regiment and once from the first battalion the duke of lancaster's regiment. our thoughts are with their family and friends of these brave servicemen. this would be the largest loss of life in a single incident in afghanistan since 2006. it takes the overall number of casualties we've suffered in afghanistan to over 400. every injury reminds us of the human cost paid by our armed forces to keep our country safe. i have spoken this point to the chief of defense staff, chief of general staff and the commanding officer of third battalion the yorkshire regiment. they expressed the commitment of our troops to the mission of getting the job done. i know everyone will want a message of support and backing for our troops and their families to go out to the south today. >> here, here. >> this point i had meetings with minister of colleagues and others, and i shall further such meetings later today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i echo the prime minister tribute to the fallen, their service and their sacrifice humbles us all.

with this terrible news in mind, will my right honorable friend uses meetings next week with president obama to coordinate a prudent drawdown of allied forces in afghanistan, as to ensure that afghan forces get the training and equipment they need to take over? >> well, i think my honorable friend for his question. i think next week is an opportunity to make sure that britain and america, the two largest contributors to the isaf mission, in afghanistan are absolutely in lockstep about the importance of training on the afghan army, training up the afghan police and making sure all partners have a process for transition in that country so the afghans can take responsibility for the security of their own country and we can bring our forces home. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, ghana join the prime minister in expressing profound sadness at the terrible news of our soldiers being

feared dead. today is day we a reminder of the ongoing commitment of sacrifice that our service made on our behalf. by putting themselves in harm's way, for our benefit, they demonstrate the utmost service and courage. we owe them and all those who lost their lives in afghanistan an immense sense of gratitude for our thoughts are with her family and friends and colleagues at this terrible time. mr. speaker, at moments like this does the prime minister agree with me we must restate clearly the reasons for our mission in afghanistan, a more stable, self-governing afghanistan, to produce more stable outcomes in that region, and to ensure greater safety for our citizens here at home? >> i think the right honorable gentleman for his words. he's absolutely right to our mission in afghanistan does remain vital to our national security. we're there to prevent that country from being a safe haven to al qaeda, from where they might plan attacks on the uk or

our allies. our task is simple. it is to equip the afghan government and forces of afghanistan with a capability and capacity to take care of their own national security without the need of foreign troops on their soil. that is our aim. we are making progress, in terms of afghan national army it stands 184,000 on target for 195,000 by the end of this year. the afghan national police 10 at 145,000, on target for 157,000 at the end of this year. that we are making progress, this is essential for bringing our troops home. but i agree with him we need to restate clearly why we are there, why its international interest and to make sure, as both the command of the battalion said to me today, his men have high morale, they know they are doing an important mission for the future of this country but for the future of the world and they want our support as they go about it. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i think the prime minister for the answer

but he and i agree it is essential that we build now for a political settlement in afghanistan when our troops are gone. can he therefore take this moment to update the house of what diplomatic progress is being made while securing a broader and more inclusive political settlement needed for a stable afghanistan? tessie further agree with me that the whole international community must up the pace of progress so that we can assure we do all we can to make concrete progress between now and the departure of our combat troops at the end of 2014? >> thank the right honorable friend. we are clearly planned increase in the army and the place which are physical forces that will take over but the greatest difference we can make it a stronger political settlement that will make sure that afghanistan has the chance of real peace, stability, prosperity and security in the future. there are some good sign as there are proper discussions now between the afghan and pakistan

governments. there is a clear message coming out of afghanistan and pakistan to all those who are engaged in violence to give up the violence and to join a political process. their strong support for the across the arab world, particularly in the middle east. we need to get at every possible support we can and send it very clear message to the taliban that whether it is our troops are there or whether it is afghan troops that are there, they will not win on the battlefield. they never win on the battlefield. and now it is time for political settlement to give this country a chance for peaceful progress. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would also like to echo -- who were asked to make sacrifices, on a daily basis, to keep our country safe. so will the prime minister said, despite these events, isaf in one form another -- with the

afghanistan people taking responsibility? >> we have now a very clear timetable which is all about transitioning parts of afghanistan over to afghan security control which allows our troops to move into the background and eventually move out of the country. we are already seeing an element itself where we have been for all these years, one of the toughest parts of afghanistan, for instance, the effective capital of helmand, that is now controlled by afghan forces. this process is ongoing. i believe it can be properly completed by the end of 2014 so that we will leave in a proper an orderly fashion handed over to afghan troops. let's be clear. the relationship between britain and other countries in afghanistan will go on. they will be relationship of military training, diplomacy support of it and it helped to the country. we must learn lessons of the past which was a mistake was to turn away from afghanistan. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the prime minister's business secretary -- [inaudible] other actions are frankly rather piecemeal. does the prime minister -- [inaudible] >> i don't agree with it. what this government is doing is -- [laughter] cutting corporation tax, investing in apprenticeships, building enterprise zones, making sure right across our economy, there's a rebalancing taking place that is necessary for sustained economic growth. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituents have to wait longer to get a hospital appointment than they would in england. there are five times less likely to get council on drugs if they are anymore. does it prove to the prime minister you can trust labour with the nhs? [shouting] >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point, which is if you look at what has

happened to the nhs in wales i think it does show what happens if you don't put in the resources come if you don't put in the money, because the resources are being cut in wales. but also if you don't reform the nhs to make sure there is a proper chance for people to get the treatments they need. and so there isn't a cancer fund in ways. are much longer waiting times, there are much longer waiting lists and i think that's an example of what happens without the money, without the reform. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister is proud of his welfare reform. [shouting] can he love me any i can tell me -- can he look me in the eye and tell he is proud of this decision to remove all this belief benefit from a 10 year old child who can hardly walk, cannot toilet himself, because

she has cerebral palsy? easy truly proud? >> this government is not cutting the money that is going into disability benefits. we are replacing, we are replacing disability living allowance with a personal independence payment. and someone who is filled out the forms for disability living allowance and had a child with several palsy, i know how long it takes to fill in the form. we will have a proper medical test so people who are disabled or need that help give it more quickly. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, on friday -- >> order. i say to the honorable gentleman from brighton they will stay silent and that sort of noise is not acceptable in this forum. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on friday, two of the best of the police came to see me about the life-threatening effects of a new legal high called black

mombo on the life of a 13-yard and my constituency. it is the latest high being sold on our street in uk. cannot ask my right honorable friend now that we have regulations that allow us to act swiftly to ban dangerous highs, will my right honorable friend act on this immediately? >> we're grateful. prime minister. >> my honorable friend raises an important issue. we're determined to stand by the so called legal highs. the home office is aware of this particular drug. we now do have this drug early warning system and so the system brings these things are attention but as he said, a decision now needs to be so timid and i will make sure that happens. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, tim howell is a delivery driver. he is a married father of three and the sole owner in his family. he currently works 20 hours a week. next month under the prime

minister's proposal and thus he works 24 hours a week, he will lose all his working tax credit from 60 pounds a week. these as i approach my employers to increase my hours but i told there simply aren't of the hours there. i would love to work full-time. mr. speaker, what's the prime minister's advice? >> first of all let me just set the context for this because we did need to reform -- i will enter the question very directly. but we do need to reform the tax credit system because we have a massive budget deficit. when we came to office, tax credits were going to nine out of 10 families including people right up the income scale, including members of parliament. what our changes to in terms of this specific case is we're dealing with a basic answer that we ask a single parent to work 16 hours before getting access to the tax credit system so i think it's only right to say decouples that between them they should work 24 hours. i eat 12 hours each.

that's the case and they do that they would be better off. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i have to say to the prime minister that answer is no use to mr. howell and his family. he can't find the extra hours but he's going to lose, he's going to lose -- he shot what about his wife? let me tell you, his wife is at home with her three school age children and can't, and can't, and can't, and can't find consistent -- powers consistent with the. mr. speaker, tim howell, 200,000 couples are going to lose, are going to lose as a result of this. and before the election the prime minister said in a tv debate that the labour to say and i quote, that the changes we're making to tax credits will hit low income families is simply not true. why has he broken that promise?

[shouting] >> we have increased the child tax credit the go to the poorest families in our country. but to answer directly, i don't think it's unreasonable when we say to a single parent that they have to work 16 hours to get access to the tax credit system, i don't think it's unreadable to ask a couple to work an average of 12 hours each. that is what we are asking. that in a way this relates to the bigger picture. we have a massive budget deficit. [shouting] is he not going to support the welfare catholics it is not going to sport the housing benefit cut, if he won't support cuts to legal aid animals support cuts to tax credits how on earth will we deal with the deficit? >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, in case the prime minister didn't realize, doubts whether a house families, there are five people chasing every vacancy but it's not good enough for the prime minister to say they should get out. they can't find work. they will find it better off on benefits than in work whether

the prime minister -- that's something he said he wanted to avoid. and it also goes to this matter of trust. the prime minister made it clear promise just like you made a clear promise on child benefit. before the election he said i'm not going to flanagan. i'm going to give it to you -- [laughter] i'm going to give it to you straight. [shouting] >> i'd like a child benefit. i wouldn't change child benefit. i wouldn't means test child benefit. i don't think that's a good idea. we've already established his broken promise to low income family. why have you broken his promise to middle income families, to? >> here we go, another change he doesn't support. he seems to think, he seems to think that -- >> order, order. question has been asked to the prime minister answer must be heard. prime minister. [shouting] >> does he really think that people are earning 20,000, 25,000 pounds should pay for his

child benefit? i don't agree with it. i think we have to make savings so not giving child benefit to the wealthiest 15% of families in our country, of course it's a difficult position. life is about difficult decisions. government is about difficult decisions. isn't it a pity he is just not capable of taking one? [shouting] >> mr. speaker, first of all we're talking about families on 43,000 pounds a year, and secondly, it's no good the prime minister says he now supports the principles that people in higher income shouldn't get job and that's because before the election he supported the opposite principle. [shouting] and he said quite clear to families up and down this country i'm not going to take away your child benefit. mr. speaker, in my book there's a very simple wood for the. it is a broken promise, a broken promise by this prime minister. [shouting] >> to broken promises. they are right.

to broken promises. the reality is this. lower income families are losing their tax credits. middle income families are losing their child benefit. does the prime minister understand why people just don't believe him when he says we are all in this together? >> i really do think it is time for the right honorable gentleman to listen to his own shadow chief secretary who said this, we must ensure we pass the test of fiscal credibility if we don't get this right, it doesn't matter what we say about anything else. she is absolutely right, reducing our deficit takes tough decisions. he is opposed every single time, he has opposed to welfare gaps, he's opposed housing benefit cap, he opposes legal aid cuts. no wonder, when people phone in and they work at who they is, he is not remotely up to the job. >> mr. markey prichard.

>> order. let's hear from mr. mark prichard. >> following last week's statement on the use of wild animals in circuses, could the prime minister inform the house whether a band will be introduced in this parliament and before the next general election? >> well, i do want to see, i do want to see a band introduced to get the overwhelming opinion of members in his house. we're putting in a revelatory to scheme in the short term but i think my right honorable friend, the private sector he made absolutely clear that it's our intention to introduce a ban in full as well. >> mr. speaker, today that the select committee reported on debt. last november are three reported 60% of people were about debt and 3.5 ming considering payday

loans. india since the government concluded its consultation, no action has been announced. will the prime minister commit to ask dad to protect vulnerable found or will he accept he is simply out of touch with the financial reality facing a result of his policies because i think it's less exchange just proved wha we are worried about debt. all worried -- the whole country needs to be worried and the promise the labour party doesn't seem to understand there is a debt problem. there's been a debt problem in our economy that is also a debt problem for many households and we do need to make sure that the ghetto. that's what we're making sure citizens of advice bureau continue to get health. >> the coalition agreement contains many bold and brilliant proposals to give britain's the change we need. open primary, radical localism. sometimes our progress has been a little slower than some of us on this side would have hoped.

sometimes the radicalism has been ever so blunted. >> it was good to have such a helpful start for my honorable friend. i think this government has done a number of radical things right across the board whether it is welfare reform to make sure it always pays to work, whether it is education reform to give greater and attendance to our schools, whether it is tax reforms to give us competitive tax rates. of course, i always want us to go further and faster. i don't blame the y. tall machine machine began in the politicians must always take responsibility. >> my constituent was arrested nearly three years ago on drug charges but he was subsequently released when it was known to police officers arrested him were under investigation for corruption. he cannot travel come he cannot

work that he doesn't even know when his case will come to court. will the prime minister agree with me that justice delayed is justice denied? will he make sure he meets with me to discuss the case of my constituent? >> i will certainly do that. i think it's important the honorable gentlemen and others feel they can stand up for the constituents on the other side of the world who have been treated this way. i think the work of fair trials abroad and other organizations is important and i will make sure the foreign office meets with him soon. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will prime minister join me in congratulating the project that is starting in my constituency, which is being funded by both the private sector, the london bureau, charities, congratulate the co-chairman to get young people with special needs into employment? >> i will certainly join him in supporting that project. i think it is important that we not only help children with

special needs through their schooling time but also through that transition after school and into college, and then try to help them to find work. it sounds like this is an excellent project that deserves support. >> thank you, mr. speaker. cannot ask the prime minister, is it true, and i quote, the problem is the policies being ruined by two public schoolboys who don't know what it's like to go to the supermarket, and to put things back on the shelves because they can't afford it for their children's lunch boxes? the words of conservative mps -- [shouting] >> i would have thought, coming from the northeast she should be celebrating the fact that they will be building their new -- [shouting] instead of what ever the nonsense she read out. >> my personal tributes to the

fallen as well. mr. speaker, on monday, clare hall came into being. will my right honorable friend be willing to meet with me and sergeant carney howard to learn firsthand how is teenagers groundbreaking initiative is helping to make sure that children in my constituency, in an area where they will not be domestic violence? >> i think my right honorable friend is right to raise this issue in his constituency and also to raise it this week went to par with international women's day. i think it is important to note that has been made. i think it is a breakthrough to give women disinformation, if they seek it. i want us to follow that by looking at a specific offense on stocking that i wanted to continue to support the rape crisis centers as we are under this government and to make sure we act on domestic violence

right across the board. >> question number 10. close question. >> number 10. >> i look forward to visiting scotland soon. [laughter] >> i'm not so sure, mr. speaker, i'm not so sure, mr. speaker, that he is coming to my constituency very soon indeed. in fact, later this month. but i want, i want to know, i want to know whether or not he agrees with me that there's uncertainty that is being created, their own separates idea of of a referendum, it has been delayed longer than it should be -- [inaudible] will he come with me to perceive some investment, a promise, mr.

speaker, itma to meet at a meeting a year ago. >> when he asked this question i ago i did meet with the delegation from his constituency. i agree with every word he said, and i'm making this offer. as i'm going to be there, he can make a short trip from his constituency, we can share a platform to get and point out the dangers of separatism and the nationalistic agenda. [shouting] >> are you up for it? >> labour controls the council. >> order, order. i want the honorable ladies question to be heard. have a bit of respect. >> thank you, mr. speaker. labour controls the council are trying to suppress the report into the scandal. 26 million pounds of their money has been wasted. and now council is being threatened with disciplinary action if they blow the whistle. does the prime minister agree that council should come clean

with the people? >> i agree with the honorable lady. she raises an important point which is there is that proposals for total transparency in local government, expenditure over 500 pounds should be separately documented, that the salaries, names, budget and responsibilities of staff paid over 50,000 should all be published, including council allowances and expenses, including the organizational charts. we want the window transparency to go right through local government, colby included. >> thank you, mr. speaker. article 16 of the european fiscal compact states very clearly that it will be incorporated into european treaties in five years. with the promise now to veto that, or does he expect to be here in five years time? >> what the treaties is clear is it can only be incorporated with the position of all 27 member states of the european union. our position on that has not changed. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

can the prime minister join me, along with the thousands of families with missing loved ones, including the family missing york woman, claudia lawrence, in supporting the sensible recommendations of the justice select committees reform into missing people's rights on the presumption of death? >> i think this is an important issue he raises, and i paid tribute to peter lawrence for support in this campaign, missing people. the justice select committee has made an important report on this issue. we acknowledge the present law is complicated. i recognize all the emotional and practical difficulties faced by those whose loved ones are missing. we will consider these recommendations very carefully and perhaps i will write to the audible german women come up with an answer. >> is the prime minister -- to remove some of the anomalies of the child benefit policy to a people aren't 43,000 pounds a year, will he then helped the

couples on minimum wage is set to thousand pounds? >> i think we've dealt with his earlier, which is we are making a long-term reform, quite apart from the point about the unfairness between the single person and 16. we're making a long-term reform, universal credit which will mean that everyone is always better off in work no matter how many hours they work. that is something you have 13 years to put in place. we will have it done in 18 months. >> mr. speaker, on saturday, there was a petition calling for -- [inaudible] will my right honorable friend agree to meet with me, the campaign to make sure we bring cancer treatment journey shorter? >> i know from having visited his constituency how important the issue of the hospital is. i know my right honorable friend the health secretary is linkage

in this issue and perhaps i can fix a meeting between him and my right honorable friend to make sure this issue is dealt with. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the royal bank of scotland has recently enacted another 300 jobs. mostly in edinburgh and london. it was a jobs have not gone completely to india. the prime minister and the government are the biggest shareholders on half of the stakeholders. so when will the prime minister stand up to rbs to seek these job losses from the uk's because i think the most important and where to do with the royal bank of scotland is to recognize that the last government put in over half of the country 45 billion pounds into that bank. that is two and a half thousand pounds for every working family in the country. and the most important thing is we get that money back. we need rbs to return to health. it's got to do with its bad loans, have to do with a troubled economy, it's got to go the rest of us visited then moved into a position where we

can return people the money that they put into that bank. that's what matters most of all. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can i offer my sympathies to the families and friends of the six soldiers who have been killed, five of which have served with the yorkshire regiment, the third battalion, the duke of wellington which i had the privilege of serving with. cannot ask the prime minister, i recognize the important fighter role which our troops and ever to undertake, and i support that process. but can i say that we do need to bring our troops back in year 2015. can i ask the trend three, we do everything to support the families of those who were lost? >> my honorable friend speaks with expense because of his service in our armed forces. i think it's important we have a date for our troops coming home from afghanistan, a date which i said we would not be in a combat role anything like the numbers we are in now at the end of 2014. i think it's important we make sure that all the equipment

between now and then to keep them as safe as possible. i pay treated, the last of a start this with the extra money put into vehicles since 2006 and we spent since been around 2 billion pounds of better protected vehicles. we put an additional 169 pounds on counter ied equipment but he's right we need to do more for the families at home and that is what the whole military cabinet progress and also the cabinet committee which ushered the first meeting of is all about. >> using applied language -- last week we heard the police were unable passionate is that the canisters we can expect from our police forces? >> i don't think there's anything wrong with the police giving back office functions carried out by private sector organizations. indeed, when the shadow police minister was asked the question at the home office, he said he

was quite relaxed about that. so i think that is right. but can i say to the honorable lady i'm delighted she's looking at the issue of whether to become a police and crime commission. it will be an actual way of calling the police to account and help many other audible members will consider this career change. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will my right honorable friend do all he can to support -- [inaudible] not to leave the city of london because of the attack by the european union on the city of london's competitiveness? could i invite him to block the fiscal union treaty by applying to the european court of justice, because it is illegal, and to get the city safeguard which was demanded in the summer? >> my honorable friend is right to raise the case of prudential because it is an example we are ill thought out e.u. legislation

is endangering a great british business should have its headquarters right here in the uk. so i do recognize the importance that we are working hard at the european level and with the potential to try and deal with it. i know we have the full

let me try that one again. good morning, everybody.

the committee meets today to hear from secretary of defense leon pa net take and martin dempsey to update the committee on the situation in syria an discuss the policies of the administration with respect to syria. was nearly a year ago that demonstrations in syria peacefully demonstrators took to the streets. to call for an end to the rule of president assad and demand an opportunity to choose a leader through a free and fair democratic process. since those first days of the uprising, the world has watched as t syrian people have continued to challenge the assad regimite tyranical ways. according to the united nations

estimates, more than 00 people in syria have beenilled andt least 100 more people are being killed each day. the assad regime's brutle crackdown included gross human right violations, use of force against civilians, torture, extra judicial killings, sexual violence and interference with access to medical treatment and other humanitarian assistance. these ac when committed in part of a widespread or systematic attack directed agait civilian populations as is the case in syria, amount, in my view, to crimes against humanity. president obama's efforts to build a broad international coalition to put massive pressure on assad have been met with opposition from china and russia. they vetoed a proposal brought by the arab league to establish a syrian-led political

transition to a democratic political system. despite these vetoes, the un general assembly voted overwhmingly to condemn the assad regime's brutal use of force against civilians. last week, the friends of syria, which includ represtatives of the syrian national council, secretary clinton and leaders from more than 60 other countries, came together in tunis, the home of the first arab spring uprising, to forge a way forward in syria including for the call for assad regime toned the violence, withdraw forces from cities and towns and insure unhindered access for arab league monitors. the friends also praised the work of the syrian national council, to form a broad and inclusive body and lay the ground work for a political transition. and importantly they agreed to continue to ratchet up the

economic pressure through tough sanctions on the assad family and supporters. the dialogue in tunis included a robust dialogue whetr there is a feasible way to help those under assault by the assad regime in order to defend themsees. as the international community continues to search for an avenue, there are a number of questions which we must ask about the nature of the conflict in syria. what is the make up of the syrian opposition? how unified are they, would they be a force for democracy should they succeed? what are the objectives and who are the benefactors, is there a political entity capable uf uniting thsmall bands of fighters across syria and then coordinating the efforts of the opposition groups against the syrian military? violent extremist elements infiltrated the opposition movement? the military questions are equally important. what are the options available?

what are the military actions that could be taken and who would they need to be taken by? to maximize the chances of ccess. and what are the risks and down-sides to each option? these are just a few of the questions wes hope to discuss with our witnesses this morning. justs was the case with libya, there is a broad consensus among regional leaders and organizations on the preferred outcome until syria, assad and his cronies must go. there is not, however, a consensus how the goal can be achieved. each situation is different, unlike gadhafi who prevented the formation of a capable and professional fighting force, president assad and his father before him built a substantial and professional military with a modern air defense capability. a large, deadly stockpile of chemical weapons. and well-trained troops. so far, this military

establishment has remained mainly cohesive and willing to carry out assad's brutal order to conduct a violent campaign against his people. some observers believe the uprising in syria, which is led by the sunni majority, could aggravate sectarian tensions beyond syria's borders in a region already riven by others. syria is also home to ethnically and religiously diverse population, that includes minority christian and other populations. some leaders are raising concerns about the situation in syria, devolving to the point there is little tolerance for religious minorities, a situation all toofamiliar to us following the invasion of iraq. we must also try to understand the impact on the region.

elements of hezbollah and hamas call syria home. more i mportantly is iran's sol ally in the world. they use them to carry out destablizing agenda in the region. syria is home to a russian naval installation, russia's only regular port of call in the mediterranean. these are but some aspects of the situation that need to be considered as we develop a path forward. our witnesses have the responsibility to provide the president options, to address these challenges and provide him their best professional advice as to the pros and cons of such options. as the committee heard from general dempsey last month, the joint staff has already begun the careful planning necessary to support a full range of potential operations, including i'm sure humanitarian airlifts,

naval monitoring of multi lateral sacks, aerial surveillance of the military and aerial enforcement of safe havens. we look forward to discussing these options and many others with our witnesses this morning. we thank you both, for being here this morning. we are grateful for your steady leadership and also appreciate your very positive relation with this committee and its members. senator mccain? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming our distinguished witnesses. t me thank you, mr. chairman, for convening today's hearing on horrific situation in syria. the urgency of the hearing has grown more important over the past several weeks. it's estimated nearly 7500 lives have been lost and ma informed observers think that figure could be low. syria today is the scene of some

of the wst state-sponsored violence since the balkans. what is all the more astonishing the violence continues despite the severe international pressure that has been brought against assad and his regime. syria's almost completely isolated diplomatically. the regime is facing a punishing array of economic sanctions imposed by the united states, european union, arab league and others. this has been an impressive international effort and the administration deserves credit for helping to orchestrate it. unfortunately, the violence continues and worse. it appears to be escalatg. assad seems to be accelerating his fight to the finish and he's doing so with the active support thus far of russia, china and iran. a steady supply of weapons, ammunition and other assistance is flowing to asaid from moscow and tehran and as "the washington post" reported on

sunday, iranian moment and intelligence operatives are likely working in syria to strepg then the regime's crack down. general madis testified yesterday that "assad is clearly achieving what he wants to achieve, that assad's military tame campaign is gain physical momentum on the battlefield." in general madis' opinion, aside will employ heavier and heavier weapons on his people. similarly, general ronald burgess, the director of the defense intelligence agency and james clapper, director of national intelligence, told the committee recently absent some kind of external intervention, asaid would likely rema in power for the foreseeable futu. the united states has a clear national security interest in stopping the slaughter in syria and forcing assad to leave

power. the end of the assad regime could sever hezbollah's life line to iran. eliminate a threat to israel. bolster lebanon sovereignty and independence and remove a committed state sponsor of terrorism that is engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. it would be a geo-political success of the first order and as general madis told the committee yesterday and i quote, "the biggest strategic set back for iran in 25 years." the president made the objective of the united states that the killing in syria must stop, and assad must go. the president has committed our prestige and credibility to that goal and it is the right goal, but the killing continues. what opposition groups in syria need most urgently is relief from assad's tk and artillery

sieges in cities that are contested. but time is running out. assad's forces are on the march. providing military assistance to the free syrian army and other opposition groups is ncessary t at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. the only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power. which could break assad's siege of contested cities in syria, protect key population centers, and help the opposition to asaid on the ground to establish and defense safe havens in syria where they can organize and plan their political and military activities against assad. the request of the syrian national council, the free syrian army and local coordinating committees inside the country, the united states shou help to lead such an effort in syria. but as i have repeatedly said,

this does not mean we should go it alone. we should not. we suld seek the active involvement of key arab partners such as saudi arabia, uae, jordan and qatar and allies in the e u and nato, the most important of which in this case is turkey. rather than closing off the prospects for negotiated transition that is acceptable to syria's opposition, military intervention is now needed to strengthen this option. assad needs to know that he will not win. and unfortunately, that is not the case now. to the contrary, assad seems convinced that he can wipe out the opposition through violence and is fully committed to doing so. the ideal political ocome of military intervention would be to change this dynamic, to prevent a long, bloody fight to the finish by compelling assad and his top lieutenants to give up power without further

bloodshed, thereby creating the opportunity for a peaceful transition to democracy, possibly along the lines proposed by the arab league. to be sure there are legitimate questions about the effacacy of military options in syria and equally legitimate concerns about risks and uncertainties. it's understandable the administration is reluctant to move beyond diplomacy and sanctions. unfortunately, this policy is increasingly disconnected from the dire conditions on the ground in syria, which has become a full state of armed conflict. secretary panetta you were chief of staff to president clinton over the debate in bosnia, including the nato bombing campaign. you remember many painful years when the un and eu kept sending

envoys pleading to agree to reasonable requests such as lifting the siege and allowing access to humanitarian assistance. you remember how the serb leaders cynically used diplomatic treaties to buy time to continue their killing. in bosnia, later in kosovo, we heard arguments against military intervention, it was said there was no international consensus for action, that the situation on the ground was messy and confused, that it was not clear who we would actually be helping on the ground, and that our involvement could actually make matters worse. we heard all the arguments about bosnia, as you know, mr. secretary, and now we hear them about syria againoday. we overcame them in bosnia, thank god and we must overcome them in syria. i want to read how president

clinton described boss knee why in 19 # 5. >> no where is a need than bosnia. for four years a terrible war has torn it apart. president clinton went on to say and i quote, "there are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basi strategic interests. there are still times when america and america alone can and should make the difference for peace." those were the words . republican friend and leader bob dole to support the president in that endeavour. the question for another democratic president today and all of us in positions of

leadership and responsibility, is whether we will allow similar mass atrosities to continue in syria, and whether we will do what it takes to stop them. i thank you, mr. chairman. thank you very much, senator mccain. secretary panetta? >> chairman levin, senator mccain, thank you, for the opportunity to be able to discuss with you the ongoing violence in syria. this tragedy has evoked concern and outrage of the united states government, american people and world. at the outset i would like to stress that the president in a pro broad cross session of the international community stated bashar assad must had campaign of killing and crimes against his own people now. must step aside and allow a

democratic transition to proceed immediately. furthermore, through its repeated violations of human rights, any government that indiscriminately kills its own ople, loses legitimacy. this regime has lost its gitimacy and right to rule the country. this situation demands an international response and for that reason the united states has been leading efforts within the international community to pressure assad to stop his violence against the syrian people, and to step aside. unfortunately, this terrible situation has no simple answers so the result is a great deal of anger and frustration that we all share. there are some members who are concerned about whether we are doing enough to stem the violence in syria and that is understandable. and there are others who are concerned about the dangers of

ourselves in still another conflict in that part of the world and that, too, is understandable. let me try and address these concerns by providing some context for what is guiding the administration's views on syria and our actions in response to the violence. the turmoil in syria is clearly pa of a larger trsformation that has been reshaping the arab world for more than a year. the change we've seen has manifested itself in different ways. sometimes through peaceful protests and negotiations, aimed at a more responsive government. but also, in other cases, in violent uprising and brutal crackdowns from repressive regimes. many countries have been affected by these changes. and although each conflict has its own dynamic, it's part of a

broader trend that is fundamentally and irreversibly reshaping the politics of the arab world. although this is clearly a challenging and unpredictable period of time, our goal must be to encourage governments to do more to insure that their people can li in peace and prosperity. as a global leader with a vital interest in e stability of the broader middle east, this administration has been determined to do everything we can to positively shape the course of events in the middle east. but each situation by virtue of the politics, geography and history of each country, is unique and demands a unique response. there can be no cookie cutter approach for a region as complex and volatile as the middle east. neveheless, from the outset, we have made clear that our response has been guided by

three fundamental principles. first, we oppose the use of violence and repression by regimes against their own people. second, we he supported the exercise of universal rights, freedom of expression, right to peaceful assembly, right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. the prohibition against discrimination and the right to vote through genuine elections that express the will of the electorate. and third, we suppt political and economic reforms. that can meet the legitimate aspirations of ordinary people throughout the region. these basic principles have shaped our response to tunisa, egypt, libya and now syria. the violence ere has become increasingly dire and o outrageous. the assad regime has ignored

everwarning, squandered every opportunity and broken every agreement. we are forging an international consensus that the assad regime's brutality must end and that a democratic transition in syria must begin. although china and russia have r repeatedally blocked, delivering a clear message from the international community that the assad regime has lost its legitimacy and they are continuing efforts to try and agree on a security council resolution as we speak. the administration's focus now is on translating that international consensus in action. along four tracks. first, we are working to increase the diplomatic and political isolation of the assad regime and encouraging other countries to join the united

states, the european union and arab league in imposing sanctions on the assad regime. these sanctions are having a significant impact. second, we are providing emergency hanitarian assistance to the syrian people. with an initial commitment of $10 million and we are working to broaden our efforts at relief. third, we are working with the friends of syria and other groups to help strengthen the opposition to try to encourage the various opposing groups to unify and lay a groundwork for a peaceful, orderly transition to a democratic government. a government that recognizes and respects the rights of all syrians including minorities fourth, we are reviewing all possible additional steps that can be taken with our international partners to

support the efforts to protect the syrian people. to end the violence, and insure regional stability, including poteial military options, if necessary. this approach has succeed in putting unprecedented pressure on assad, but it is clear that there is no simple or quick solution to this crisis. we believe that the best resolution tthis crisis will be a peaceful political democratic transition led by the syrian people. and along the lines suggested by the arab league. we believe there is still an opportunity to try to achieve that goal. although we will not rule out any future course of action. currently the administration is focusing on diplomatic and political approaches rather than military intervention. guided by our approach from libya and elsewhere, we believe it is important in this instance that we do the following.

that we build multi-lateral international consensus for any action that is taken. two, that we maintain clear regional support from the arab world. three, that we make substantial u.s. contributions to the international effort, especially where the united states has unique resources that can be brought to bear. four, we need to have a clear, legal basis for any action that we take. and five, keep all options on the table. but recognize that there are limitations of military forces specially with u.s. boots on the ground. each situation, as i said, is unique and as ve said there is no simple solution here. the reasons for the differences between our approach with libya and the current approach to

syria are clear. although there has been widespread support in the security council and the arab league for military intervention in libya, no such consensus currently exists with regard to syria. for us to act unilaterally would be a mistake. it not clear what constitutes the syrian armed opposition. there has been no single unifying military alternative that can be recognized, appointed or contacted. while the opposition is fighting back, and military defections and desertions are on the rise, the syrian regime continues to maintain a strong military. and as secretary clinton noted, there is every possibility of a civil war and a direct outside intervention in these conditions

not only would not prevent that, but could make it worse. even though the current approach is focused on achieving a political solution to this crisis, the assad regime should take no comfort. the pressure is building on the regime every day. make no mistake, one way or another this regime will meet its end. we will continue to evaluate the situation and adjust our approach as cessary. let me close by briefly addressing the united states broader strategic interests in syria and the region. the stability of syria is vital to this region, and to turkey and lebanon and iraq and israel. all of theseountries and the united states have a strong interest in preventing a humanitarian crisis in syria. but perhaps most notably, syria

is a pivotal country for iran. as senator mccain pointed out. syria is iran's only state ally in the region. and is cruci to iran's efforts to support those militants throughout the region who threaten israel and threaten regional stability. unrest in syria has already greatl weakened iran's position in the region. and it is clear that iran only stands to lose further as assad is weakened further. as groups such as hamas distance themselves from the assad regime, iran is quickly becoming the assad regime's lone backer. thishows the world the hypocracy of tehran. i cannot predict how the volatile situation in syria will unfold. but the united states made clear

we are on the side of the syrian people. they must know that the international community has not under estimated either their suffering or impatience. we all wish there was a clear anunambiguous way forward to directly influence the events in syria. that, unfortunately, is not the case. that is not an excuse. that is reality. only our clear path, our only clear path is to keep moving in a resolute manner to find a way to return syria to the syrian people. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. general dempsey? >> thank you, mr. chairman, senator mccain, distinguished members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to meet with you today and discuss e evolving situation in syria. it's tragic for the people of

syria and the reon. real democratic reform should have been the assad regime's response to last year's peaceful protest. instead, the regi responded with brutality. syria's internal convulsions are having consequences for a region already in turmoil. refugees are fleeing, spill over is an increasing concern. we need to be alert to the movement of extremists and others who till actors seeking to exploit the area. biological weapons must stay where they are. with our nations the united states is a mying diplomatic and economic pressure on the regime to compel assad to stop killing their own. our military's role has been limited to this point to sharing information with our regional partners. but, should we be called on to help security u.s. interests in other ways we will be ready. we maintain an agile posture, we have solid military

relationships with every country on syria's bords. should we be called our responsibility is clear, provide the secretary of defense and president of the united states with options. all options will be judged in terms ofheir suitability, feasibility and accept ability. we have a further responsibility to articulate risk and potential implications for our own global commitments. in close, i want to insure this committee you and the nation that america's armed forces are always ready to answer our nation's call i'm prepared to answer your questions. >> thank you very much, general. let's try a seven minute round. secretary pa net, take the arab league proposed a transition plan, has the arab league requested military intervention in syria? >> it has not. >> did they support military intervention in libya?

>> they did. >> what explains the difference? >> i think they share some of the same concerns that we do with regard to the situation in syria. and just exactly what kind of military action would have the kind of impact that we all desire and because of the divisions within the opposition, because of the situation that is occurring there and volatile and unpredictable, i think that -- those concerns have impacted on their decision making here. >> general dempsey, you made reference to putting together options for the president should he decide to move in one direction or another. without telling us what you would recommend,an you give us kind of a menu of military options which might be

available? >> yeah, i can actually discuss it in greater detail in closed session if you choose to do that. you mentioned the principle options in your opening statement include humanitarian relief, no-fly zone, maritime interdiction, and limited aerial strikes for example. we've -- we're at what i would describe the commander's estimate level of detail, not detailed planning, have not been brefd to the president, have been discussed with the president's national security staff, and as general mattis testified yesterday, the next step is take whatever options we deem to be feasible in the next level of planning. >> would the use of air power against their troops be an option and tell us about the air defenses that syria has. >> well, first of all as you know we're extraordinarily capable and can do just about anything we're asked to do.

in doing it, we have some -- we considerations we would make in terms of whether we would do it alone or with partners, we generally in fact always provide a better outcome when we work with partners, especially that part of the world. the ability to do a single raid ke strike would be accessible to us. the ability to do longer term sustained campaign would be challenging, and would have to be made in the context of other commitments around the globe and you wi i'll just say this about their air defenses. again i can speak more openly in a closed session about their exact capabilities, but they have approximately five times more air -- sophisticated than libya, covering one fifth of

their terrain. they are all on the western border, their population center, so five times the air defense of libya covering one fifth of the terrain and ten times more than we experienced in serbia. >> has nato taken up the issue of some kind of an intervention militarily in sir yar? >> not at this point >> would it not be useful as either preliminary consideration or as an important signal to the libyan regime that at least nato take up the question? >> i believe that nato ought to ta up the question. >> can you make sure that happens or recommend at least to the president that that be done? >> yes. >> okay. i think that would be important signal to the syrian regime. general mattis recently indicated to the committee that

president assad's regime is going to fall and he said it's just a matter of when and not if. do you share that assessment and are you as confident that will happen? and do you attach any conditions to that happening, secretary let me start with you. >> no, i've heard the intelligence and i share the assessment that it isn't a matter of at the will fall but when. >> is that dependent on our actions or other actions against him or is that going to happen even in the -- with the current momentum and current status quo continuing? >> i think i've asked the same question of our intelligence people and i think their view is that the state of this

insurgcy is so deep right now and will continue in the future that ultimately he will fall one way or the other. >> general, can you tell us what capabilities there are to get additial weapons to the insurgents or opposition and also tell us what weapons assad is getting in from what source, if you can try to give us as best you can the type of weapons thatould be pvided to the opposition, and what weapons are actually going in to assad and from where. >> i can't speak in open session about the source of his weapons, except to say -- i will in closed session, except to say that he has some security arrangements with others both in the region and outside the region to provide weapons and

what we would describe in our situation as a foreign military sales program. he has an existing foreign military sales agreement with at least two nations that i can discuss in closed session. >> are you able to tell us what iran is supplying? >> i can in closed session. >> not here. okay. >> could you give us some idea in open session? in other words, are you able to give us, if not precisely, can you give us just some general estimate or idea as to what is going in from iran? types of weapons, and quantity without being too precise. >> i would describe -- if -- if iran succeeds in some of their movements of weapons to syria, and they have, then it would be largely smaller caliber, rocket pro pemmed grenade, anti-tank

weapons. the other actors who have opened foreign military sales agreements are upper tier stuff including air defense. >> thank you both. senator mccain? >> general dempsey as the reports in the washington report accurate about iranian involvement? we don't need a closed session i don't thin for you to say whether "the washington post" is correct or not. >> "the washington post" has parts of their reporting are accurate, yes, senator. >> thank you. serkts general mattis said the departure from asaid would be the biggest strategic set back for iran in 25 years, basicicly you're in agreement? >> i agree with that. >> by the way, the kuwaiti

parliament called forearming the opposition, the saudi foreign ministry called for it, other elements in the arab league are calling for it, and clearly it's a matter of time before arab league takes atronger position on it. general mattis told us, general dempsey, yesterday, that asaid's crackdown is gaining physical momentum, do you agree wi general mattis' statement? >> i do, he has increasingly used heavier weapons. >> even though you agree sooner or later assad will fall, at the moment he happens to be, including regaining control of homs, gaing momentum, that is correct? that is correct. >> would you characterize this as a fair fight when he's using a artillery and tanks to kill

syrians? >> i would characterize them as brutalizing their own citizens. >> i see, but since sooner or later he will fall, we don't have to act. the president said yesterday he has taken no options off the table, mr. panetta, ithe case of syria. you said in your opening statement that includes "potential military options if necessary" you said in your statement. and yet, general -- admiral stavridis and general mattis said there was no contingency planning. will there be contingency planning? >> we have looked at a number of options that could be involved here. we have not done the detail planning because we are waiting for the direction of the president to do that. >> the president, mr. secretary, president obama issued a presidential directive stating "the prevention of mass

atrosities is the core national security interests of the united states" that is the administration's policy. with at least7500 and possibly more than 10,000 dead, with assad using tanks, gaining momentum according to general mattis, would you agree mass atrosities have occurred and are occurring in syria? >> i don't think there is any question we're experiencing mass atrosities there. >> the president said he is taking n options off the table you said in your opening statement, you said potential mome military options if necessary. can you tell me how much longer the killing would have to continue, how many additional civilian lives would have to be lost in order to convince you that the military measures of this kind that we are proposing necessary to end the kill and force to leave power, how many more have to die, 10,000 more,

20,000 more? how many more? >> i think the question as you stated yourself, senator, is the effort to try to build an international consensus as to what action we do take. that makes the most sense. what doesn't make sense is to take unilateral action at this point. as secretary of defense, before i recommend that we put our sons and daughters in uniform in harm's way, i've got to make very sure that we know what the mission is, i've got to make very sure that we know whether we can achieve that mission, what price, and whether or not it will make matter better or worse. those are the considerations that i have to engage in, and obviously, the administration believ tha every effort ought to be made to deal with those concerns in the international setting to try to build the kind of international consensus that worked in libya and that can work in syria if we can develop

that. >> well, let me tell you what's wrong with your statement, you don't mention american leadership. americans should lead in this, america should be standing up, america should be building coalitions, we shouldn't have statements like we are not going to intervene no matter what the situation is, such has been up until now the statements by the administration and t president. in past experiences, those that i mentioned before, america has led. yes, it has been multi-lateral and multi-national. that is vital. we're not leading, mr. secretary. general dempsey, again, i hear the same old refrain that i've heard for ny, many years. "it's not clear what constitutes the syrian armed opposion" that was the same argument that administration, the same excuse

that was used to not step in in libya. the deputy and prime minister in libya are former universities professors from the university of alabama. so, we can find out who they are. we can find out who they are. they are not fighting and dieing sacrificing their lives because they are muslim extremists. they are fighting because they want the saum freedoms and rights that we guarantee in our constitution. so i reject the argument that we "don't know who they are." we spend a lot of money on defense and intelligence. we should know who these people are and it would be easy enough to find out. the best way to help them

organize is help them have a place to organize and equip. we are allowing -- i was interested in your answer, and i'll conclude with this. sooner or later assad will fall. i do not disagree with that. meantime, he is gaining momentum, he has regained homs and the death count we up and the atrocities continue. mass atrociti. s are toing on, i hope that america leads and exercises those tions necessary to stop these actions as has been the history of america in the past. thank you. >> thankou very much, senator mccain. senator lieberman. >> thank you secretary panetta and general dempsey. on this question of what to do in syria, i'm of like mind with senator mccain except on the

reference of the brave graduates of yale university, i'll have to ta to him later about that. and perhaps we were of like mind because we went through in the '90s together the similar circumstances in bosnia and kosovo, i would say and in each case, the american entrance i o conflict was late. in my opinion the argument for the united states to be involved and help lead an international effort, which is military, to stop the slaughter in syria are actually greater than they were in the case of either bosnia or

kosovo, there's as great as those were, there's the humantarian crisis, he is slaughtering his people and for all we noelle keep doing and not -- for all we know, he will keep doing it. we agree on thi how positive it would be if assad, who is the only ally of iran, is taken down, and how liberating to those that live under syrian pressure, and perhaps this is unique and different and we are not giving it enough weight. in our foreign policy, we have done a lot of things over the years inclu sins which youing i years, including in recent years

of trying to regain the confidence of the muslim world much we have here a moment where the arab league, the gulf coordinating council, turkey are out this, i know turkey is not the arab world, are out there against what is happening in syria. and i think if we seem to be holding back, and incident iall the countries are seeing their strategic interest in this and because their people are demanding it because of the wave of change sweeping the area. if we can help bring assad down it is a benefit and it can help improve our relations with not just the allies but the called arab street. when i went to libya, as an example, the u.s. and nato, are

naturally popular, and there's a lot of appreciation for it because in their hour of need we were in. and i hope and pray that we can come to do that again with regard to syria. i agree we should not do it alone, but without leadership, and being prepared as you suggested to provide the critical resources, it will not be successful and it will not happen in a timely way. tome, i've kept saying that the factors that led us into libya with our international coalition, they are here and happening. we worried mostly about a humantarian disaster, you said it why libya is different, and i nt to offer a different view.

there was widespread support in the security council in the arab be league for military intervention in libya, no such consensus exists for syria, and that is literally true, and that is particularly because of russia and china. within the arab league, there's clearly a lot of interest in a military intervention in syria, same is true of the gulf coordinating council, and the -- i take it that the saudis are beginning to arm the syrian opposition as well, the other thing that i want to say is, that in kosovo, the u.s., with a coalition of the willing acted without u.n. scurity council approval because again, there were one or two nations blocking it. the second concern is when you hear it all the time is syrian armed up, their position is we

are not sure who they are, they have no single coordinating person at the top or group at the top, but that was true in libya as well. the groups formed in difference parts of the country and in some sense they were hostile toward each other, but when the international community came in, it gave strength, and military assistance, it gave strength to the national council there and they worked together to bring about the change that occurred. and finally, the statement that military would not prevent civil war but could speed it up, senator clinton said something to that effect, obviously of course there's a civil war going on now. and history shows that foreign military intervention, has been critical, libya most recently,

in ending civil wars in those countries in the absence of foreign military intervention in countries like ruwanda, the congo and somalia and others, and they have suffered through extended civil wars. the clock is running and people are being killed in great numbers every day. i think if we do not get the international community together in a coalition of the willing soon, we will look back and say we did not do the right thing morally from stopnnocents from being killed we missed an extraordinary strategic opportunity to position free people in the middle east. i want to giveou an opportunity to responds, if you will, without asking a specific question. >> no, senator, i guess -- i want to make the point that the concerns that senator mccain and

you and others have expressed are exactly the concerns of the administration. we are not divided here. and we are not holding back. this administration has led in iraq, we have lead in afghan sfan and in the war of terrorism and we are leading in syria, we are working with those elements to try to bring them together. if t agreement here is that we out not to just simply go in unilaterally, then we have to build a multi-lateral coalition, we have to work at that. it's not that easy to deal with the concerns out there. we are working at it every day. there are diplomats engaged in the issue, we are trying to engage with nae engage with nate oh, and the other countries. we are working with them. we are talking with them. and we are looking at every

tion to try to put that in place. can it happen today? can it happen now? no, it's going to take time and we will do it in a way that will not make the situation worse. >> thank you for the statement. i am engacouraged by you. all i can do is plead with you and other nations that we are reaching out to do move as quickly as possible, people are dieing every day and strategic opportunities are being lost. the fact is that we have an opportunity her and it's also a responsibility and i think it's critically important that we exercise it and i say finally that, i know some people continue to hope that a way can be found for assad to leave the country and usher in the democratic practice

of transformation that we talked about, from everything i hear, everything that i see, he will only do that if he thinks his life, his regime is really in jeopardy. and right now i think he thinks he is dominant and has the kind of momentum, physical momentum that general mattis and general dempsey spoke about today, the sooner we put intnational military pressure on the assad regime, the sooner we have a chance to end this peacefully. thank you, thanks mr. chair. >> that you, senator lieberman, senator brown? >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you said we are leading in iraq and afghanistan, i do not disagree with that, and leading in syria? i do not see that yet, and maybe that is because we are not privy

to the information we have. maybe we set up a secure briefing so we can better understand the things happening. right now, i agree with everything surprisingly that senator lieberman said, and that is i think very important, it was well said about, you know, we are missing a potential opportunity. that being said, also, i would like to shift to general dempsey. we know that syria has biological weapons, and the regime will eventually collapse, there's a plan available to address those weapon -- that weaponry and do we have an elimination plan of any kind set up? >> that is another one of those senator, i would very much like though chce to talk about -- like the chance to talk with you about it, but not in this hearing, a hundred times more than we experienced if libya.

>> great -- in libya. >> great, i would like to talk about that. what are the lessons that we learned that we need to aply thoughtful consideration can of military intervention in syria, i recognize that libya, everyone hated gadhafi, they wanted him out. we had the arab league, we had broad coalition, we do have a lot thoughtful concerned partners that want to step up. is there a chance that we move without the u.n. and just with those partners to take advantage of that leadership role that we should have have. >> my job is to place military options in context, when you asked me about lessons learned that are transfer able sure.

but the context of this, you mow, i very much want to elevate our thinking here about this -- are talking about about syria, but we are looking at it through a straw, it does not exist as an isolated country, it's in the context of the region and even of actors outside the region. the inside of syria is a far different demographic, ethnic religious mix than in libya and we need to understand that before we seek to use a particular pattern to deal with what they face. this issue has to be dealt with in context and we are looking at it through a straw. >> mr. secretary, who aside from the united states is in the best

position right now to exert the most effective pressure on the assad regime? >> there's no question in my mind that russia could play a very significant role in putting pressure on assad. they have a port there. they have influence there, they have dealings there unfortunately the position they have taken in the u.n. was to oppose the resolution and that is a shame. but, there's no question that they and the chinese, if the want though advance the cause of the syrian pple they could bring great pressure on them to do the right thing. >> and presuming secretary clinton is working and reaching out? >> that's correct. >> thank you, i'm all set, mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, very much, senator brown. senator reid is not here and senator nelson is next.

>> thank y, mr. chairman, and thank you gentlemen for your service. it's been reported that al qaeda leaders and others extremists have called their members of their groups to support the uprising of syria and general mattis stated that there's evidence that the terrorist network is involved in supporting the opposition. do we have an idea regarding the number of violent extremists that are engaged in the uprising secretary? >> we do, but i would prefer to -- >> no. >> -- discuss that in closed session. >> so we do have an idea, we have the intel? >> yes. >> do we have an idea of what sort of outside assistance they are getting as well, you do not is have to tell me what it is necessarily. >> that is correct. >> do we have some idea of what iran is providing in the way of

outside assistance? >> that's correct. >> to the level of detail that we need to have? >> as a former director of the cia, i would like a lot better detail. >> always want more detail. i understand that of course, yeah. and if the decision of -- to arm the syrian opposition forces is predicated in defining the force, how long do you think it would help us to have that definition of the force if a decision is made on a multi-national basis to engage in arming that force internally? >> again, in open session, i'll say there's approximately 100 groups that we have identified as part of the opposition. rough numbers. >> some of them are monthity

necessarily the terrorist are organization. >> no, no. we can go into that more in closed session, we are not suggest issing that part of al qaeda that has made i.ts way to syria aligned with or in bed with the opposition, they are there trying to exploit it. of those groups of how long would it take us to do something if we chose to, the question is how quickly, not how quickly we can vet them all, but how quickly can we vet them that can find a core. it does not exist right now. >> could occur on its own, but there's concern about getting worse before it gets better, more people dieing in the interim. so time is of the essence in trying to get international interest? this, gin the fact that we have two of the largest

countries in the world not supporting our efforts. if we made the decision and we have a multi-national force and we have 100 groups to go through, how reasonable do you think it is that you'll get a coalesce essence of those groups? will proding the arms and support if we don't put boots on the grnd that that coalescce will occur or will they just be desperate and devolve into some sort of civil war? >> senator, wish we could predict that, but it's dangerous

to do that. you know, we faced somewhat e same situation in libya and you know, heads up the intelligence operation was one of the first order of business, was trying to figure out what the oppition was and what kind of coordination there was. but you have triple the problem because there's so many diverse groups that are involved, whether they can find that one lead and that one group to bring them together, there have been efforts to do that but frankly they have not been successful. >> are we in a position where we have plans in place in the event that we engage in syria to some extent or another to deal with the potential of the chemical weapons that they currently have. >> i think as general dempsey has pointed out, that is clearly

one of our great concerns. and have developed options to try to address those concerns. >> if i could reinforce, if you think it's a concern of ours, you can imagine the concern it is of syria's neighbors on we are in consultation with them about that challenge. >> what are the chances of neighbors in the region working with this, perhaps they are, working with this to get multi-national interests in this this? >> there are efforts to try to engage the neighbors with regards to the issues in syria. and the neighbors clearly share the concerns that we all this have with regards to the situation there. two neighbors are being directly impacted by refugee problems, we are engaging with both of them and we are engaging with others

to try to see what we can do to try to build at least a coalition of those countries. to try to engage with regards to some of the issues there. >> and in our efforts to do that, do we think that they are getting sufficiently motivated and sufficiently conditionered to engage in some joint effort with their neighbor, syria? >> i think there's great concern, and they are experiencing directly the concern, not only from the refugees but from the fallout of what is going on in syria and they too are concerned about, you know, what ultimately happens there when assad is removed steps aside, what are going to be the consequences within syria itself, that could impact them as well. >> thank you both and thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you very much, senator nelson. senator aot. thank you, chairman, thank you secretary dempsey. i would like to ask the role of on china and russia here. let me say up front, and i'm sure you'll agree, that it's outrageous that china and russia blocked the u.n. resolutions a both of them most recently in february. as i understand it, according to the center for strategic ay natl studies that was issued, the arms imports to russia and syria, that they have been a leading arms supplier to the assad regimregime, has that bee case, do they continue to provide arms to the assad regime

now? >> theyes they do. >> so russia is providing arms to the assad regime as they murder their own people? >> they have a long standing foreign military sales relationship with then and it continues on unstopped. >> and us does not seem to matter to russia at all that they are using these arms t murder their own people. it's outrageous, and china has provided arm as well to a lesser extent to assad? >> let me get back to you, there are other issues of assistanc but i'm not sure about arms. >> i would appreciate a follow-up about that, but to some extent they have provided assistance to the assad regime in the past, do we know in they are providing any now of any type? >> i've not been tracking intelligence in china's roll of

course iran and russia from the report. economically they have had ties into syria that they still are trying to maintain. >> is it not true also that with respect to our posture with iran they were of wanting to impose the toughest economic sanctions possible to make sure that iran has no -- has not developed nuclear weapons capability, that russia has an interest in the iranian nuclear program and china relies heavily on iran for oil exports, is that true? >> yes. >> and they have failed to step up to the plate to impose the tougher sanctions that we would like them to do so the world is together in keeping iran from obtaining nuclear capability, is

that correct? >> yes. >> what can we be do to be tougher on russia and china if they are going to take their position in the world as part of the world leadership, i view their behavior in blocking the u.n. resolution as irresponsible and they have not stepped up to the ate to make sure that iran does not nuclear weapons capability, it's damaging for to world. what can we doing to be tougher from them? >> hear this from clinton, my knowledge is that secretary clinton is doing everything to engage russia in a effort. and china. but russia in particular, because they own a harbor in syria and that is the record

that you just described with syria that russia could, if they wanted to accept the responsibility that they should, they could be helpful here in the effort to remove assad. >> i appreciate those efforts and mr. putin just got re-elected and i would hope that he would not want the blood of the syrian people on his hands. i would hope that russia and china step up and support the resolution, and both the countries in my view, i don't know why they would not want pursue every possible means to stop what is happening and the bloodshed there, i hope they understand that we are very serious about that. and we will in the congress look

at actions we can take here, this isrong and they a on the wrong side of history both with respect to to syrian regime they are on the wrong side of history, with respect to iran and they will look back at this a as a big mistake by both countries if they do not step up to the plate right w. i also wanted to ask about the assad regime's relationship with some of the groups we labeled terrorists groups, what are their republicanith hezbollah? >> -- what is their relationship with hezbollah? >> that is better addressed in a clos session in terms of a specific relationship, but there has been a long standing relationship between hezbollah and syria. it's diminished of late, hezbollah has stood aside while what is happening -- and has not directly been involved in some of the situation.

some of the violence that has taken place in syria. >> thank you. and also with hamas? >> same thing. >> and in fact, as i understand it, based on public reports, hamas is step issing back from the situation yet iran has not stepped back? >> correct. >> they are continuing to push forward? >> that is right. >> let me ask you, does the violence that is happening in syria have any impact on stability in iraq? >> interestingly, we -- you know, there was a point at which obviously iraq was kind of standing to the side and not engaged and i think as a result of what they have seen happening in syria, that iraq itself has

now asked for assad to step down and let me put it this way, they are more engaged than they were in the past. >> do you view this as a positive step? >> yes. >> okay. thank you both, my time is up, i appreciate you being before the committee today on such an important issue. >> thank you, senator ayotte. our planning on a closed session immediately following this, that means that there will be one round here and it is or plan to succeed. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairm, and secretary. all of the options that are beginning to be contemplated, the humantarian corridors and aerial strikes and all would presume that we would have complete control of the air space over syria and given what we know about their defense systems that would presume, i

don't know what you can comment on opening, that the first step in any type of military operation was a campai-- can yo us how long an operation would be be? >> we have demonstrated the air program, that stays we have that capabilitity. as i mentioned, to conduct an enduring or sustained campaign, we would have to suppress the air defense, and we do is have an estimate based on gaming and modelling of how long it would take to do that given the density s density of their capabilitity. >> and it will be led by the

united states rather than our allies because of our capability? >> yes. >> so from a view alone, the opening stages in any military operation would be an extended exclusive air campaign against syria, supported politic eed poy by the e and everything -- is that a fair judgment. >> it is a fair judgment, we ali generally, we can only work with military force with the consent of a nation in o national self defense or with an unsker,

whatever we did must be part of a coalition, and we have shown that that produces an enduring outcome and we have balance, it against risk elsewhere in the region. >> in our testimony yesterday, general mattis indicated that unlike iraq, there were no natural save haven areas, the mountains and also i think unlike iraq, there's no well organized forces that can provide a limited self den eed there's a physical and institutional challenge, who will phycally defend them, with we can have air power and try to stop tank columns and convoys but that would not work 100%, so is that another challenge you are considering? >> sure, it's a challenge and

again, in the context of this, as you note, the boarder with iraq and jordan, with israel and turkey all have their own unique complexities, so, i think we have to get through there. i want to be clear, we can do anything, the question is -- so it's not about can we do it, it's should we do it and what are the opportunityosts elsewhere and what are t risks. >> and in terms of opportunities of course, tre are cost to casualties and air operations, there are cost terms of time to set up the operations and these, so that the notion that we can sort of in a few hours or days quickly go in and establish superiority, stop the fighting, is not accurate? >> you obviously have a military background, sir. >> thank you.

i show up on time most times. >> senator, if i can just point out, again, we can discuss this in closed session,hat we have talked about is that air defense system that is pretty sophisticated but more importantly a lot of it is located in populated area, there would be severe collateral damage going after those eas. >> let me change the subject, mr. secretary, because we have talked on the military aspect and there's a political aspect here, what struck me in my reading is there's a small alawite clan of is shihia that dominate the region, but others seeing themselves closely a

lined with the group. there has yet to be i think creation of a truly national and credible opposition to assad, so it's awful difficult to build this or to get him off when there's nobody to take his place and there's still strong suprt in communities that you would not necessarily think would be supporting him, is that part of the analysis that you have looked at? >> that is correct, and that is part of the problem. it is you know, having worked closely on the libyan situation, whenhere were leaders that came to the front, and were able to organize a consult and had edibility with the opposition, that is not the case here, there

are outside groups that are trying to organize, but, there's not the relationship with regards to what is happening in the country. and as a result, it's very difficult to have -- to be able to know who we deal with ther in trms on of an opposition. i think the only final point i would make is that going back to military capacity in libya and again, i think the first points is that we haveoassume is seyria is not libya, there seem to be tribal military organizations, i do not get the same impressions that outside the military there's any counter point and that we would have to unless there was a political solution to on force assad off,

it would be -- we would have to organize a force and that would take many, many months, is that a -- >> that is the -- that's the current state of on our thinking about how we may do this. if you think of two recent experiences, libya we had tribal forces on the east and west collapsing on the center essentially, we had the northern alliance collapsing on the center. there's no geographic density of opposition to collapse anywhere, they are all intermingled and it's 70% sunni and 30% other groups and those three have been in, you know, the alawites have been icontrol and protect today the others, on so there's that -- and protected the oth s

others. >> you discussed briefly with senator ayotte, russia's role in syri syria, i have a article, the title is russia boosts arms sales to syria despite world pressure, i would and that is made part of the record. >> it is part of the record. i'm grateful to you for that. it suggests that russia is continuing to supply a variety of weapons to syria, through an arms exporter by the name of rosoboron export. and could you, i guess, general dempsey m catching myself, because you suggested that some of this you want to go into on closed session, but let me ask, does russia have a physical presence in syria as part of their arm's sales business? >> they do.

>> and what specifically, secrety panetta, is russia's interest in syria? >> they have had long standing economic and military relationships in syria, and as we said, the port there in syria is owned by the russians, it's their port. so they have had a lot of shipping that is going in over there over the years, they have transferred not only military, aide, but economic assistance as well. so, they have had a very long standing relationship with syria that makes them as i said, one of the key players in tey wanted to assert you know, the kind of responsibility the should, they would be a key player in bringing pressure on assad. >> let me transition you a bit

to the department of defense's business transactions with this same firm i mentioned earlier. rosoboron export, they are engaged in military sales of russian weapons to assad's regime. reportedly, the company has signed a deal with the syrian government to is sell it 36 combat jets capable of hitting civilian ground targets can you confirm that? >> i can't. i would have to look into that. >> i don't mean to blind side you i'll share with you this article and i would be interested in following up in greater detail. the company was sanctioned by the united states in october 2008 for assisting the nuclear

program but those sanctions were lifted by the department of state in 2010. this is what i wanted to get to, it's my understanding that the department of defense through an initiative led by the u.s. army is buying dual use m-1 -- excuse me, m-i-17 helicopters from this same company. i would like to know whether either of you can confirm this as that point? >> no. but i can coirm that we are buying m-i-17s for the afghan military but i cannot done firm that is the corporation providing them. >> thank you. can you explain why we would buy helicopters from the afghan military from this arm's exportser that has been sanctioned by the u.s. govern for its activities with iran and

the principal means by which russia is arming assad's regime and killing so many civilians. >> i have to confirm that we are, assuming we are, as the process goes in a competition, if they are not sanctioned and enter the mpetition, they could very well be that they ended up being the lowest bidder and therefore they could very well have been selected. but i have to confirm that and get back to you, enator. >> i understand that. if in fact this article is correct, this means that instead of creating jobs and selling american helicopters to the afghan military we are working with a russia arm's of courexpo sell these helicopters that makes to sense to me. but, as you said, and as i said, i do not want to blindside you

with this information, i would like to get in explanation, if in fact this report is true, that this same arms dealer is arming assad's regime and killing innocent syrians, and also under a contract with the united states department of defense, to provide helicopters to the afghan military, that causes me significant concerns and i'm -- i bet it does you too. and so i would like to get to the bottom of that. if you'll help me do that. general dempsey, you talked about the need to balance the risks of intervening in syria with other parts of the region. what would -- what would happen if assad were to fall and force his