roots, what would that do to an'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 regial 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 wit 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 hereeel 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 condemnati 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 intelligce 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 th 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 doneto provide communications equipment? >> i would preferto 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 pride 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. >> sthat 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 needo 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 ncern

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, 21 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 stimony. -- and your very helpful stimony. 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 usthe 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 ised 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 d 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 invold 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 the stock that follows assa 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 nowand 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 thei 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 chi 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 sia maintain their port and have some invvement whatever government reaces 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, thathey wouldn't -- >> uld 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 dvelop 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 i 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 worlds and the way syria is, is there a likelihood, even aremote 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. >>hank 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 % 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 particully 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 oking ats whether or t 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 tha 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 demandsn the host nation medical system and some other things. to a t. answer to the question , 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 t 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 arnals and what potential threat to the re 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 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 assistingyria either directly 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 rely come together are the sanctions that had been put in place. they target senior leadership andassets, 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 embao 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 t opportunity to travel a few weeks ago with nator 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 eny order of battle, what are the enemy's capabilities, or potential enemies, what are the troops we have available, and w 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 th? >> yes. >> and you said secretary panetta, that you're waiting on the president before doing continengency planning.

what would be the continncy 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 inrder to come up with erational 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 decisions 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 timate 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 needso 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-establishedis control in the country and there would be no likelihood of his regime toppling? >> i think according to the intelligen 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 tim 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 legalasis 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 the's a lot of references in here 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 s in our interest to do so if the u.n. security councidid 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 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 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 thishether 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 mht 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 e 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 internatiol 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 n, 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 an, 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 oug 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 apopriate even in that context, by the way what

i ink 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 sesons. >> 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 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 d 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 rm for some very serious discussion here in the congress on the way

that the esident, any president, can decide unilaterally to use militar action and this rather vague concept of humanitarian assistance. but to set that aside, what i really would like ttalk 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 say -- reassuring. it was careful and forthright. the approach that you take on is. 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 queion 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 onthese 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 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 isnie 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 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 demonstras 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 ido believe senator session has a very valid point in terms of presidential authority. but i strongly support the analytical matrix, the th 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 the1980s 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 intelligee community. but that's what's got to happen. we've got to be able to understand the opposition to the extent we canwe 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 becos 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 th 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 en very concerned about that, as you know. and as you say, the situation in syria makes the libyan situation pale by comparison, plusyria has, as i understa it, stockpiles o 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,nd i quot 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 militar 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 anotr. 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 advic 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

consultaons with regards to the concern over e chemical and biological sites that are located there. and we're continuing t consult with them with regards to refugees as well. but answer to your question is that turkey is playing a very respsible 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 to now advocate assad stepping down.

that's on the political sect. on the issuef 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 cability 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.

c-span[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> here's what we're covering on the c-span networks this morning. here on c-span, the live coverage of the house begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. they will begin working on a jobs bill. then a surface transportation bill on today's agenda. then attorney eric holder