voices in the house that want to get things done. we will find out. we are supposed to get things done. we do not get elected to tell people we did nothing. i hope people recognize it. >> we have to get things done. >> pulling back a little bit there is a lot before congress in the next month. if you had to rate your confidence on a scale of one to 10, how confident do you feel that things are going to move? they're talking about the inability to do multiple things at the same time. soon some point in the -- it will cause a distraction. be able to find common ground. has our congressmen

so dysfunctional we cannot agree that this will come before our country? i believe that folks will put country ahead of party soon. the fever has to break. sometimes you have to break a few of these members of ingres's -- of congress that are being instruction this. the fever will break here in washington dc. republicans have every right to expect that. i have no complaint that the public things that congress is just totally off base. they do not see things getting done. they do not believe in their government. i hope what we can do is show people that we can find common ground to get things done. >> let me conclude on that with regard to syria.

we know the president has been reaching out to members of congress, asking for their support. has he called you? what is he asking? to a number ofn his representatives from the white house and beyond. i've not spoken directly with the president. i have been to the white house my thoughts. i will continue to do so and make the president and his staff available to our members so every wing can be apprised of what is going on so we can make the right vote. joining us onrra "newsmakers." becerra, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> you can see this tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern time writer on c-span. c-span.here on president obama will be appearing tomorrow in a series of interviews on the television networks talking about syria. it will happen before his address to the nation on tuesday night where he is expected to speak more about his proposal military action against syria. the c- have that live on span networks. you can let us know what you think tummy tuck. we are taking an informal poll on our about military intervention in syria. right now 52 people say they are in favor of a military strike. 361 and against 17 say they are undecided.

>> c-span. we bring public affairs from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house advance, briefings, conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage as a public service of private industry where c-span can be watched in hd. >> next, hearing before the house foreign affairs committee with secretary of state john kerry, chuck hagel, and the generalief of staff martin dempsey. they discuss serious and talk about president obama's proposed a military strike. this is one of two appearances they made before congress last week to discuss the issue. this portion is about 2.5 hours. >> thank you very much.

as he said, let me just say i have enormous respect that hurriedlyas returned to come back here as part of this debate. . think you for doing so the world is not watching did -- is that what seemed to see what we decide but how we decide it, whether or not a singleill achieve voice speaking for the united states of america. to know whether or

not america is going to rise to wes moment, whether or not will express our position with the unity that this moment demands. the question of whether or not to authorize force, as the chairman referenced my 28 years now, i had a number of occasions to make those votes in the number of other occasions to make judgments on presidents who acted without coming to congress. i found that we were and are always stronger when we can act together. first and foremost, i think it is important to explain to the american people why we are here. and i don't think it can bear enough repetition as people grapple with this at the end of summer, post-labor day, kids going back to school, and a lot of other concerns on their mind.

we are here because against the multiple warnings from the president and the united states, warnings from congress, many of you, warnings from friends and allies, and even warnings from russia and iran that chemical weapons are out of bounds, against all of that the assad regime, and only undeniably the assad regime, unleashed an outrageous chemical attack against its own citizens. we are here because a dictator and his family's enterprise, which is what it is, unleashed a poison in damascus that killed mothers and fathers and children, their lives all snuffed out a gas during the early morning hours of august 21. some people in a few places, amazingly, against all the evidence, have questioned whether or not this assault on conscience actually took lace. and i repeat again here today,

unequivocably, only the most willful desire to avoid reality, almost the most devious political purpose could assert this did not occur as described or that the regime did not do it. it did happen. and the bashar al-assad regime did it. i remember iraq. secretary hagel and general density both were member it. secretary hagel and i both voted in the united states senate. both of us are especially sensitive to never again asking any member of congress to vote on faulty intelligence.

that is why our intelligence community took time. that is why the president took time, to make certain of the facts in this case and to declassify unprecedented amount of information in order to scrub and re-scrub the evidence and present the facts to the american people, and especially to the congress. and through you to the american people. we have declassified unprecedented amount of information. some of it, i might add, because that might have been the instinct in protecting sources, and some of it leaked. after it leaked, we thought it was born to verify whether it was true or not.

by now you have heard a great deal from me and others in the administration about the comprehensive evidence we have gathered. i am not going to go into it all right now. i'm happy to discuss it further if any of you have any questions. i can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt -- and i used to prosecute cases. i ran one of the largest district attorney's offices in america. i can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence proves the assad regime prepared this attack and they attacked exclusively opposition- controlled or contested territories. at some point in an appropriate setting you will learn additional evidence which came to us even today, which further documents the acknowledgment of various friends of the assad regime that they know that this happened.

our evidence proves that they used sarin gas that morning and it proves they used some of the world's most heinous weapons to kill more than 1400 innocent people including at least 426 children. i'm sure many of you have seen the images yourselves. the men and women, the elderly, and children sprawled on a hospital floor, no wounds, no blood, in chaos and desperation around them. none of which could possibly have been contrived. all of that was real. we have the evidence. we know what happened. there is no question. this would meet the standard i which we send people to jail for the rest of their lives. so, we are here because of what happens. but we are also here, not just the cause of what happened two weeks ago. we are here because of what

happened nearly a century ago. when in the darkest moments of world war i, after the horror of gas warfare, when the majority of the world came together to declare in no uncertain terms that chemical weapons crossed a line of conscience, and that they must be banned. and over the years that followed, more than 180 countries -- 184 to be precise. including iran, iraq, and russia joined. even countries with whom we agree on very little else agreed on this. some have tried to suggest the debate we are having today is about this president's redlined, that this is about president obama's redline. let me make it as clear as i can to all of you. that is just not true. this is about the world's red line.

it is about humanity's red line. a line that anyone with a conscience should rot and a line that was drawn nearly 100 years ago when the chemical weapons convention was agreed on. this debate, i might add to you, is also about congress's red line. you agreed to the chemical weapons convention. not all of you were here to vote for it, but the congress agreed to that. the congress asked the syrian accountability act, which congressman engel referred to an altered. the act says clearly "syria's chemical weapons threaten the security of the middle east and the national security interest of the united states." repeatedly members of congress have spoken out about the grave consequences if assad in particular were to use chemical weapons. and both speaker boehner and nancy pelosi have stated in recent days that the actions of the assad regime are unacceptable and the united

states has the responsibility to respond. as we debate, the world is watching and the world is wondering. not if assad's regime actually did this. i think that fact is now beyond question. the world is wondering whether the united states of america is going to consent through silence to stand aside while this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence. in the nearly 100 years since this global commitment against chemical weapons was made, only two tyrants have dared to cross the line. bashar al-assad has become the

third. history, i think everyone here knows, old nothing but infamy for those criminals, and history also reserves very little sympathy for their enablers. that is the gravity of this moment. that is really what is at stake in this decision the congress faces. syria, bottom line, is important to america and our security for many reasons. first, you can't overlook the danger that these weapons, as you said in the syrian accountability act, post to our allies and our friends. you cannot overlook the danger they pose even to the united states ultimately if they fall into the wrong hands or are used with impunity.

since president obama's policy is that assad must go, it is not insignificant that to degrade assad's chemical weapons degrades his ability in this civil war. we have a strategic national interest to read not just limiting the proliferation of chemical weapons, but to avoid the creation of a safe haven for extremists to use these chemical weapons, either against us or against our friends, forcing assad to changes calculation about the ability to ask with impunity. it may force his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament. syria is also important because quite simply -- and i cannot say this strongly enough to all of you. many of you are parents. you know how lessons are learned by children.

many of you may have confronted at one point of bully on the block or in a building. i think quite simply common sense and human experience and reality tell us that the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. if we do not take a stand here today, i guarantee you we are more likely to face up or greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict that demand our action in the future. why? because we, as confidently as we know what happened in damascus on august 21, we know that assad will read our silence, our

unwillingness to act as a signal he can use his weapons with impunity. after all has been said and done, if we don't now, knowing he has done this at least 11 times that our intelligence community can prove, and here in this grotesque larger event, larger than anything that has happened before, it we back down, if the world backs down, we have sent an unmistakable message of permissiveness. iran, i guarantee you, is hoping we look the other way. and surely they will interpret america's unwillingness to act as an unwillingness to act against weapons of mass destruction. and we will fight for the credibility to deter the creation of a nuclear weapon.

north korea is hoping for ambivalence from the congress. they are all listening for our silence. so, the authorization that president obama seeks is distinctly and clearly in our national interest. in our national security interest. we need to say to syria and the world, the dictators and terrorist, to allies and civilians alike, the unmistakable message that when we say never again, we don't actually mean sometimes. we do not mean somewhere. we mean never again. this is a vote for accountability. the norms and the laws of the civilized war. that is what this vote is for. if we don't answer assad today, we will erode the standard that has protected our troops for a century. our troops. our troops in war have been protected by the existence of this prohibition. through world war ii, through korea, through vietnam, through both iraq wars.

the fact is we have not seen chemical weapons in the battlefield but for the two occasions i mentioned previously. our troops are protected. we have to stand up for america's interests. i say to allies and our partners are counting on us. the people of israel, jordan, and turkey, each look next door and they see chemical weapons being used. they are one stiff breeze away from the potential of those weapons harming them. they anxiously await our assurance that our word is true and they await the assurance that if the children lined up in those un-bloody burial shroud in damascus where their own children, as they might be if this got out of hand, they want to know that we would keep the world's promise.

as justice jackson said in the opening argument at nuremberg, the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen as possible to the law. if the world's worst despots see they can flout prohibitions, then those prohibitions are rendered just pieces of paper. that is what we mean by accountability. and that is, i say to all of you respectfully, that is why we cannot be silent. let me be very, very clear. when i walked into this room, a person of conscience stood up by me, as is the ability of people in our country. and that person said, please don't take us to war. you will take us to another war.

i think the three of us sitting here understand that plea as well as anyone in this country. let me be clear. we are not asking america to go to war. and i say that sitting next to two individuals who well know what war is, and others here today know what war is. they know the difference between going to war and what the president is requesting now. we all agree there will be no american boots on the ground. the president has made crystal clear, we have no intention of assuming responsibility for assad's civil war. that is not in the cards. that is not what is here. the president is asking only for the power to make certain that the united states of america means what we say. he is asking or authorization,

targeted and limited to deter or degrade bashar al-assad's capacity to use chemical weapons. i will make it clear. for those who feel more ought to be done in keeping with the policy that assad must go, the degradation of his capacity to use those weapons has an impact on the weapons available to him and it will have an impact on the battlefield. just today before coming in here, i read an e-mail to me about the general, the minister of defense, former assistant minister, i forget which, who has defected, and is now in turkey. there are other defections we are hearing the potential of because of the potential we might take action. there will be downstream impacts, although that is not the principal purpose of what the president is asking you for.

some will undoubtedly ask about the unintended consequences of action. let me say unequivocably, bluntly. if assad is arrogant enough and foolish enough to retaliate to the consequences of his own criminal activity, the united states and its allies have ample ways to make him regret that decision without going to war. even aside's supporters, russia and iran, say publicly the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. guess what? even iran and syria itself acknowledge these weapons were used. they just say that the guys who did not have the capacity to do it did it. some will question our responsibility to act here.

to them i say, when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we are all responsible. it is true because of the geneva convention. but it is also true because we share a common humanity and sense of decency. this is not the time for armchair isolationism. it is not the time to be spectators to slaughter. this is not the time to give permission to a dictator who has already used these weapons the unfettered ability to continue to use them because we stepped back. neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence or inaction. so, we have spoken up, the president of the united states has made his decision. the president has decided we

need to do this. but in keeping with our constitution and the full measure of the articulated aspirations of our founding fathers, the president is coming to the congress of the united states, a decision the american people agree with, and asking the congress to stand with him and with this administration, to stand up for our security, to protect our values, to lead the world with conviction that is clear. that is why we are here. we look forward to having a rigorous discussion with you in furtherance of that mission. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we have been joined by secretary hagel, who before being appointed secretary of defense, served in the united states army until 2009. he is the recipient of two purple hearts for service in vietnam and we have been joined

by general dempsey, a former platoon leader to commandant commander. he has served in the united states army for over 40 years and now serves as the chairman of the joint chiefs. we will now go to our secretary of defense, mr. hagel first. >> mr. chairman. ranking member engel, members of the committee. thank you. general dempsey and i also apologize for being late. the other side of the capitol held us up. but we are much better for it. so, thank you for your understanding. in the coming days, as we all know, congress will debate how

to respond to the most recent chemical weapons attacks in syria. a large scale sarin gas assault perpetrated by the syrian government against its own people. i welcome this debate and i strongly support president obama's decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of force in syria. as each of us knows, committing a country to using military force is the most difficult and important decision america's leaders can make. all those who are privileged to serve our nation and have a responsibility, in many ways, to serve our country -- but the primary responsibility is to ask the tough questions before any military commitment is made. the american people must be assured that their leaders are acting with the court to u.s. military objectives with an

understanding of the risks and consequences involved. the president and his entire national security team asked those tough questions before we concluded that the united states should take military action against syrian regime targets. i want to address very briefly, mr. chairman, before i get to your questions, how we reached this decision by clarifying our interests at stake, our military objectives, and the risks of not acting at this critical juncture. as president obama said, the use of chemical weapons in syria is not only an assault on humanity. it is a serious threat to america's national security interests and those of our allies. the syrian regime's use of chemical weapons poses rate risks to our friends and partners along syrian borders including israel, turkey, lebanon, and iraq.

if assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like hezbollah, which has forces supporting the assad regime, would use them. we cannot afford for terrorist groups to acquire or use these chemical weapons. the syrian's regime's actions threatens to erode the nearly century-old norm against the use of chemical weapons, a norm that has helped protect united states forces and our homeland.

for example, north korea maintains a master supply of chemical weapons that threaten our treaty partner the republic of south korea. i just returned from asia, where i had a very serious and long conversation with the south korean defense minister about the threat of north korea's stockpile of chemical weapons. our allies throughout the world must be assured the united states will fulfill its security commitments. given the threat to our national security, the united states must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. the president has made clear that the objective would be to hold the assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to take out these kind of attacks, and deterred the further use of chemical weapons. the department of defense has

developed military options to achieve these objectives and we have positioned u.s. assets throughout the region to successfully execute the omission. we believe we can achieve them with a military action that would be limited in duration and scope. general dempsey and i have assured the president that u.s. forces will be ready to act whenever the president gives the order. we are also working with our allies and our partners, key partners including france, turkey, saudi arabia, the united arab emirates, and other friends in the region. defining our military objectives, we have made clear we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in syria through direct military force. instead we are contemplating actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. a political solution created by the syrian people is the only

way to ultimately end of the violence in syria. secretary kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in syria move forward to a negotiated transition. we are also committed to doing more to assist the syrian opposition, but assad must be held accountable for using these weapons in defiance of the international community. having defined america's interests and military objectives, we also must examine the risks. there are risks of taking action. there are also risks of inaction. if the assad regime and feel empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks, chemical weapons make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians and inflict the worst

kind of indiscriminate suffering, as we have recently seen. a refusal to act would undermine the credibility of america's other security commitments including the present's commitment to prevent iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the word of the united states must mean something. it is vital currency and foreign relations and international and allied commitments. every witness here today at this table -- secretary kerry, general dempsey, and myself -- has served in uniform, fought in war, and seen its ugly realities close. we understand a country faces few decisions as grave as using military force. we are not unaware of the cost of war. but we also understand that america must protect its people and its national interest.

that is our highest responsibility. only those of us who have the privilege and responsibility of serving this great nation oh our people and those wearing the uniform of our country a great debate. i know everyone on this committee agrees and take the responsibility of office just as seriously as the president and everyone at this table. mr. chairman, thank you. >> mr. secretary, thank you. we also appreciate general dempsey being here today to answer the committee questions. if i could go to you, secretary kerry, a question i referenced in my opening statement. other countries are watching. as i understand it, the administration and you have been in contact with the governments

in discussion with south korea, turkey, saudi arabia, israel. i have read several others in the press. i was going to ask you, the communications that you are having -- what are those communicating to you about this incident, when you talk to these governments? >> mr. chairman, i'm very happy to share that with you. let me just say at the outset, i mentioned an e-mail i got coming in. the same news outlet, reuters, has now said the syrian government is saying the defection has not taken place. who knows if it has or it hasn't? what i do know is this. the intelligence is very clear. in other settings, i urge you to go and look at it.

there are currently defections taking place. i think there are something like 60 to 100 in the last day or so. officers and enlisted personnel. and there are serious questions taking place among the so-called elite of syria about whether or not bashar al-assad has taken things to far. there are serious westerns. i put that on the table for you to think about. >> i understand, but -- >> we have reached out to over 100 countries. we continue to reach out to these countries. 53 countries have acknowledged that chemical weapons are used. 37 have said so publicly. that number will grow as the evidence we released yesterday becomes more troubling.

i will be meeting with the foreign ministers of europe, 28 foreign ministers, on saturday. this will clearly be a topic of discussion. many of them have had reservations, waiting for the evidence. i see many more countries joining. 31 countries, or organizations, have stated publicly or privately that the assad regime is responsible for this attack, and that was before our evidence package was put together. 34 countries organizations have indicated that if the allegations prove to be true

they would support some sort of action against syria appeared to be specific and bear down on the president's proposal and this particular action, currently in the region there are a number of countries, friends of ours, that have offered to be part of this operation. and those countries can speak for themselves. but there are more countries that have offered to be part of this operation that our military currently believes we need to have part of it, in order to affect the operation. there is interest in having a multinational effort and i think the president is committed to doing so. but there are friends of ours, including france as you know, which is sticking with its position, and others in the region who are prepared to be part of this operation with us. >> let me ask you this. one of the first reactions i've gotten from the members here is on the open-ended nature of that authorization. on the senate side, as you know,

there is now discussion. there is no support of the boots on the ground on the house side, but there is no reference to its in the authorization. now they are talking about a comprehensive syrian strategy and resolutions here on the house side are coming at this from a different direction than the original authorization. i would like your views. can you express your response to the resolutions you now see on the senate side and here on the house side, on rewriting the original authorization? >> i have made a point of importance not to discuss my personal views. that is for you to determine. i will tell you that militarily, the broader the resolution, the more options i can provide. but that said, i will also assure you that the president has given me quite clear guidance that this will be a

limited and focused operation, not open-ended. >> i will maybe go to secretary hagel for a few comments on this, if you could sum up, but again, it is clear there is no support on the house side for boots on the ground. the rewriting of the authorization, your response? >> i have seen one draft. i have not seen anything in the last few hours. i know that all of our agencies represented at this table as well as the national security council are working with the appropriate people. i have confidence that we will be able to come up with a mutually agreed upon resolution to accomplish the objective. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary kerry and secretary hagel, the -- maybe you can comment to this.

i believe the that american credibility on the international stage hangs in the balance, and while it is crucial to make sure that assad never uses chemical weapons again, i believe there's something bigger at stake, that is, the message to iran as they continue to pursue a nuclear capability. they're watching how we respond to the assad regime's crossing of the president's red line, and the world is also aware that president obama is seeking to stop weapons of mass destruction.

how do you think the calculus on the nuclear program will change based on what we do now? >> congressman, there's an enormous amount of question in the region, not just by iranians, but by the saudis, the kuwaitis, as to whether the u.s. means what it says. and they ask me all the time, are you guys serious about iran? i'm sure when they come and visit with you, they look to you for reassurances with respect to america's position on iran. the there is no question in my mind that the president of the united states does not bluff, and he is committed that iran will not have nuclear weapons. but if we fail to enforce a standard that has been in

existence for almost 100 years regarding regarding weapons of mass destruction, we are putting that into question in the minds of a lot of observers and creating problems for ourselves. we may get closer to a test that may not be constrained or managed as a consequence of our actions today. i believe it is critical -- two things i would say without any question in my mind. if we fail to pass this, those who are working with us today with the syrian opposition, we have been working hard to keep them from funding bad elements, whether it is a misrata or others, which they have funded out of frustration because they think they are the best fighters and the only people that are

going to get the job done. if we back off and failed to enforce our word here, i promise you the discipline that we have put in place with respect to the moderate opposition vs. bad guys will dissipate immediately the it and people will resort to anybody they can find to help them accomplish their goal. and we will have created more extremism and a greater problem down the road. the word will be misinterpreted in many ways, not just iran. >> thank you. perhaps secretary hagel could answer this. secretary kerry just mentioned the opposition. i put in the bill several months ago that would allow us to aid

the well vetted syrian opposition. i do not think the potential use of military force we are considering can be looked on in a vacuum. this operation must be like as one piece of a comprehensive strategy. as the downgrade syria's use of chemical weapons, will we be in turn downgrading iran? and will we be downgrading assad's ability to murder his own people? >> you are correct, this one option that we are debating today, it works in parallel with a number of other tracks that are ongoing. i think most all of us believe the president believes -- and everyone at this table believes

there is no military solution in syria. it will require a political resolution. in that regard, the actions that we take will be in parallel with the opposition, the strengthening of the opposition. it would be parallel to what secretary kerry noted, the continuing defections from assad's military. it would be with the international community continuing to strengthen their voices and joining us with this condemnation. all of the other consequences that come from this would be part of this. that is the way i would answer your question. >> we will go now to the chairman emeritus of this committee in florida. >> thank you. welcome, gentlemen. we have been aware of assad's chemical stockpile for years,

but we have failed to hold him accountable. the united nations has been completely useless at affecting any change in syria, thanks in no small part to russia and china's persistent stonewalling of the security council. and congress has certainly had our fair share of missed opportunities. last congress, the house passed the iran, north korea, syria action. but no action was taken on it. had the united states taken on a more pro-active role in syria by instituting strict sanctions against assad's regime, it may have changed his calculations on using chemical weapons. the president must clearly identify what our national security interests are to keep from further escalating that situation. what does target airstrikes look like? what does degradation look like?

and what will we do if it does not yield the intended result? one senate resolution ground troops for combat operations. this sounds like it leaves the open possibility of butz on the ground for other things like a special operations. is this intentional? will you confirm that under no circumstances will we place butz on the ground in syria? even a limited engagement, if it ends up being the only limited, could cost taxpayers billions appeared with the members of the arab league so eager for the u.s. participation, have they offered to offset any of the costs associated with this action? iran and north korea are carefully watching our next move. if we say that the use of chemical weapons is

unacceptable, yet we fail to act, we will either emboldened iran's pursuit of chemical breakout possibilities. the failure to act will be seen as a green light by the iranian regime, who will see that we do not have the will to back up our words. what about boots on the ground, the arab league, will they pony up? and there's a rumor circulating today that perhaps the house will not have a vote on authorization. the senate will and not on the house side. if you could comment on that. >> i do not know anything about this for mark nusoor will not comment on it, because it is a rumor and it's the first-ever of it.

with respect to either -- the first i have heard of it. with respect to arab countries and their offer to help with the cross, yes, they have appeared that offer is on the table. with respect to boots on the ground, now the. there will be no boots on the ground. the president has said that again and again. we reiterate, no boots on the ground. we have absolute confidence that what our military undertakes to do, if it is ordered to do so, will degrade the capacity of assad to use these weapons and serve as a very strong deterrence. and if it doesn't, then there are subsequent possibilities as to how you could enforce that.

>> thank you. the details of the offer and the proposal on the table, what are the figures we are talking about? >> we do not know what action we are engaged in right now, but has been quite significant. i mean, very significant. some have said that the u.s. has been prepared to go do what we have done in previous places. obviously, that is not in the cards and nobody is talking about it, but they are talking about taking seriously getting this job done. >> my time is over? >> we better go to mr. meeks of new york in order to get through the full panel. >> mr. sherman of california than.

>> the president drew a red line. presidents often draw red lines in order to deter action. usually, they deter that action to our benefit and at no cost. when the president drew that red line for i'm not aware of anyone in this room who criticized it or disassociate themselves from that red line. now assad has crossed that red line. it is america's red line. if we do not act, he will use chemical weapons many times in the future. they may be decisively successful for him. and dictators for decades to come will learn from assad's lesson. chemical weapons use on civilians in and mass scale the is effective. in picking targets, gentlemen, you will be torn between the germane and the effective.

germane would be directly related to chemical weapons. but we want assad to keep control of his chemical weapons. you'll be seeking out targets related to the storage or delivery or control of chemical weapons. instead, i think you should focus on punishing and deterring assad by having a valuable asset that will demonstrate to him that it was a military mistake to use chemical weapons. even air or naval assets unrelated to the delivery of chemical weapons will make that lesson clear to him. we have all learned a searing lesson from over 4000 casualties in iraq. but we should also know there are 150 occasions -- and i would

like to put in the record acrs listing an analysis of 150 occasions in the last 40 years where america has deployed its military into dangerous or hostile situations. in most cases, limited purpose, limited deployment, and the cost was so limited we forgot the incident involved. i hope that what you are planning is something much more along those lines than iraq. the resolution sent to us on august 31 is obviously flawed. i sent secretary kerry amendments on the first. i would like to explore with you what elements a good resolution would have, knowing that this resolution adds to the authority

you already have under the war powers resolution of 1973. is it acceptable for this resolution to confirm what you have already said? that is, the resolution itself does not add in any way to the powers of the president to put boots on the ground in syria? is that an acceptable resolution? secretary kerry? >> absolutely. >> would a time limit of 60 days indicating you might have other authorities to act beyond those 60 days, what we are authorizing now is limited to 60 days. is that acceptable? >> we would prefer that you have some kind of trigger in there with respect to his -- if he were to come back and use chemical weapons again, there would be the capacity to respond to that. >> you could always come back to congress. or you could have a provision every time he uses chemical weapons to get another 60 days. >> that would be acceptable.

>> the first or the second? >> the second. >> and finally, would you accept a provision that says you may want to consider a regime change, including the rebels under the authority that you have, but that this resolution is limited to the punishing and deterring of the use of chemical weapons and not to change the outcome of the civil war? >> the president has a narrow authorization so that no one gets confused about being offered a vote on two different things. one is with respect to the use of chemical weapons and to make our word respective to the region. >> the more narrowly tailored it is, the more careful you are. finally, for the record, if you could explain -- >> we will introduce the

questions for the record afterwards. but we need to go now to mr. smith. >> the "new york times" editorial yesterday said it was "alarming that president obama did not long ago put into place with our allies and partners a plan for international action." very alarming that we have failed to do in the last several years what ought to have been done. that is a "the new york times" editorial, hardly a conservative newspaper. i have three questions. i would ask that you best of your ability answer all three. president obama said yesterday that he wants to make president assad regret using chemical weapons.

the first question, do we have clear proof that assad himself ordered it? the second question has to do with chris wallace on sunday. you said the very second the planes were in the air on coste row, there was a vote in the house. your word, very instant, is certainly an elastic term. it was a full month later. the bombing of serbia began on march 24 and the house voted against it on april 28. during that time, there were significant assurances that the entire operation would be a short duration, very limited. and i know many people had

thought, including in brussels at nato headquarters, that it would last just a few days. it lasted 78 days. 488 in-527 civilian deaths occurred from the bombing. and significantly, the milosevich retaliation killed about 10,000 people and put most albanians to flight. how do you define ltd. and short duration? and what might assad do in retaliation in attacking other areas that we might not have anticipated? and finally, i plan to introduce a resolution to authorize the president to establish a specialized court, he syrian war crimes tribunal to help hold accountable all those on either side, including assad, who have

slaughtered and raped in syria. i wonder what you might think about that as well, whether or not the administration would support such a court. we have learned things from the special court in sierra leone. and certainly, we have learned from the court in yugoslavia. it has to be immediate and i think it could be a rallying place. you yourself have said that we should send them to jail. let's send them to jail. i think there are other alternatives. >> congressman, i actually did not have time yesterday because of our testimony to read the "the new york times" editorial. i would like to read it. but there is a plan in place. the london 11 so-called have been working internationally. last year, secretary clinton

joined in the, in can meeting with the russians and others to set up a process for transition in syria. that is what we are currently pursuing now. together with our allies and friends in this endeavor. that includes france, great britain, italy, germany, the emirates, saudis, and others. it may not be working as well as we would like and has not had its impact yet fully, but in addition to that, we have seen the president take steps in response to the initial attacks

of chemical weapons to increase lethal aid to the opposition. that is now known. >> i'm almost out of time. with all due respect, limited, a short duration, a special tribunal on war crimes for syria. >> perhaps we could have more luck with that, a special court. i would certainly welcome holding people accountable for as youkinds of abuses. know the international court of not fared well with both parties. >> mr. meeks of new york. >> i would like to submit my statement for the record. >> without objection. >> i agree with the president's decision to come to congress for the authorization for the use of military force to address chemical weapons use by syrian forces. i think it was the right decision, both constitutionally and morally. in making my decision on the use

of force, i try to look at it from both short and long term interest for the security of america. to that end, i believe the use of chemical weapons by the assad regime is a flagrant violation of international norms against such use of weapons and it is against u.s. interests. but it is not only against u.s. interests, but also against international interests. if we act in a unilateral way, i have huge concerns. there's a violation and we react, especially militarily, in a multilateral way. i don't know where nato is, but i've heard medeiros say they have condemned it. i don't hear them saying they will step up with us militarily. i have heard the arab union, the

arab league step up with us. i have heard people condemn. and you have said the world is watching what we are doing. but i have yet to hear concrete things of what the world is doing. i am fearful they will isolate the united states if we are only doing something unilaterally while the world sits back and watches. when there is an international violation that took place. you say that it matters today that we are working as an international community to rid the world of its worst weapons. and i could not agree with you more. but i do not see and hear where the world is stepping up and agreeing to act with us militarily, not just condemning

the actions. but acting on that condemnation of the actions with us in the military fashion. russia has obstructed efforts to investigate the use of chemical events. would you elaborate on what, if any, role russia has in bringing about a political solution in syria? and how has that been engaged, given the administration's attitude that there is no military solution? one of my concerns of the possibility of unintended consequences, including the prospect of prolonged military engagement. in august, you sent a letter saying there were actions that could be taken short of a military presence that could alter their behavior. you also said that it could

escalate and commit as decisively to the conflict. could you elaborate on what you meant when you said that we could decisively be committed to the conflict? how do you minimize the possibility of prolonged commitment? and if international support is as limited as it appears to be now, how would you keep this from being more pronounced? >> i want to take george for the record, i predict. in the time remaining, i believe it is the focus and the purpose of the military action that will give us the best chance of limiting it in time and

commitment. in other words, my letter to the representative talked about answering the question of what it would take to tip the scales in favor of the opposition. if we were to take military action ourselves to support the opposition, that is a very long prospect. what we're talking about here is not that. the purpose is to determine the grade for the specific purpose of chemical weapons. our intent is to limit it. that is not to say that i can discount the escalation. i can never discount that, but we will mitigate it as much as possible. >> welcome, gentlemen. i know you would all like me to tell you that a number of people came up to me in the airport this morning and urged me to stand with president obama on

this issue, or that my phones have been ringing off of with callers supporting the administration's position, but i think we all know that would not be accurate. nevertheless, trying to approach your potential resolution with an open mind and will consider any argument the administration might make for the use of force against the assad regime. i have some serious concerns. and many of my colleagues on this committee probably share a number of them. before we support a resolution on the use of force or not, it will depend on how these concerns are addressed in the coming days by the administration. this is part of that process. secretary kerry, president obama did not come to congress seeking a resolution on the use of force in libya. what is the difference between a in libya and syria when it comes to seeking congressional authorization? >> the difference is that in the case of libya, you had already

passed a u.n. security council resolution and an arab league resolution, and a gulf states cooperation resolution. and you had a man who you knew was prone to follow through on his word, promising that he would kill like dogs all of the people in benghazi. there was an urgency to respond. the united states provided air support, while the french and british carry out the mission. under those circumstances, the president felt the urgency, the emergency to protect life, and and a capacity that had already been granted. that is where he's coming to congress. >> had the british parliament

not rejected prime minister cameron, would he have bothered to come to congress? >> i believe he would have. there were discussions, to some degree, about whether or not it should happen. he had not made of his mind. he did not announce it to us. but my personal belief is, yes. and there are people making that argument on his legal team. >> you indicated that you have not had time to read the "the new york times" editorial, so i'm assuming that you have not had time to read tom friedman's column. >> actually, i've read it today. >> i do not always agree with him, in fact i seldom do, but i tend to agree with his assessment of the syrian situation today where he says that rather than firing missiles, a better solution is to arm more moderate groups in

syria. my only concern is that it may be too late. failing to arm these groups months, or even years ago has allowed al qaeda to become more powerful. would you comment? >> i am delighted to. on what tom friedman said, and i often do agree with him, but i do not on this particular occasion. he said you should arm and shame. i do not think assad is going to be changed in this particular situation. and there is our main taking place. but if you simply arm and state that your policy is too ashamed, and to back off, deteriorating his capacity to deliver chemical weapons and say, ok, that does not matter to us, you have opened a pandora's box for the use of chemical weapons. and all those people that you

arm will be victims of a chemical weapons attack. it is important that we send a message and deteriorate his capacity. and we would have given him in shooting with respect to any future use. >> -- impunity with respect to any future use. >> what made the president change his mind and consult with congress? >> you have to ask him. i don't know completely. >> i assume you discussed it. >> we did discuss it, and the president said very strongly that it was important for us to be in our strongest posture, that the united states needed to speak with one voice. you all ask for consultations. the president began a process of consultation.

we hear from many of you, and you said that it was very important to come to congress. i know that mike rogers in one particular conversation talked about the need to not have a display. you're fighting with congress, fighting with your allies, fighting with the u.n., and try to unify it if you can. i think that was great advice. the president tried to put america in the strongest position possible. >> mr. secretary, one of the things i read today that disturbs me a great deal was by the end of the year, we are going to have about 3 million refugees from the syrian conflict. i am concerned of the impact striking syria would have on increasing the number of refugees. and i'm concerned about how the

it is going to destabilize our friends in the region. jordan is already experiencing it, turkey also. are we creating policies to alleviate what is coming, this avalanche of refugees? by the end of the year, they expect 3 million refugees. that could be a big destabilizing factor in that region. >> this brings you squarely into a confrontation with this question that is fundamental to the treaty will make. there are risks of acting. but believe me, it is our judgment collectively, and the president's, that the greater risks are not acting.

you have 1.6 million to 2 million refugees today without our acting. and every indication is that it is going to get worse. if we do not act and assad is able to rein gas down on his people, watch the number of refugees. the greatest way to affect his capacity to create refugees in the region is to act and get a stable and of syria were you can have a transition government. that is the goal. and we have no chance of getting there if we back off and give

him a message of impunity. we will have said, nobody cares, gas your people, you do what you need to to stay in office, and we are backing off. that would be one of those moments in history that would live in infamy. and there are some of those moments. munich, a ship off the coast of florida that was sent back and filled with used and they lost their lives to gas because we did not receive them. there are moments you have to make a decision, and i believe this is one of those moments. >> are we making any new policy? i know we already contribute more money than anybody else to assist the refugees. >> the world needs to step up on

this refugee issue. the united states is probably providing more than anyone else, but it is unsustainable. there are other discussions taking place as to how we might respond to this ongoing crisis in non-military terms, but i think there are options available to us. but we do not want to get ahead of ourselves. >> this military action, i assume we are coordinating with our friends in the region. >> we are, congressman. >> and do you anticipate they will go along with us if it increases, the need for them to participate? >> there with us, some with basing and some with oversight. >> mr. joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you. thank you for your longtime leadership to avoid a crisis that we face today. thank you for being here today. we are here to learn more about a very serious issue, a u.s. strike on syria. as a member of this committee

and chairman of the house armed services military personnel subcommittee, has a 31-year veteran of the south carolina national office guard and army reserve, but also the father of four sons currently serving in the u.s. military, i'm very concerned about what we are hearing today. i have many questions about the proposed strike and the risk to the military, american families, and our allies, particularly neighboring israel, jordan, turkey, and iraq. some have characterized this strike as a pin prick that will not prevent president assad from using his chemical weapons. what will you do if he resumes chemical weapons? where do these chemical weapons come from? >> congressman, thank you for your service and for your sons'

service. i can speak for general dempsey and all of our military leaders that there is no higher purpose that we all have, nor more significant responsibility than the protection of the men and women who served in uniform. they are our highest priority. as your questions, the president stated again yesterday in a meeting in the cabinet room with leaders of congress, and i think congressman engel was there, as was chairman royce, this would not be a pinprick. this would be a significant strike that would, in fact, degrade his capability. the three of us have noted that

any action carries with it risk, and the action carries with it consequence. but also does inaction. i can assure u.s. secretary of defense, that the department of defense, our leaders, have spent days and days going over every contingency, every option, everything you have talked about and more -- security of our forces, our embassies, consulates, the president insisted on seeing those plans. collateral damage, innocent people being hurt. we think the options that we have given him, first, would be effective, and the would carry out -- >> the time is flying. where did the chemical weapons

come from? >> it is no secret that the assad regime has had the significant stocil of chemical weapons. >> from a particular country? >> the russians supply them and other countries supply them. they make some themselves. >> on april 25, the white house legislative director wrote that our intelligence community does assess that the syrian regime has used chemical weapons. with the president's redlined about why was there no call for military response in april? it was a delayed to divert attention today from the benghazi incident, the failure of obamacare enforcement, or the failure of the debt limit vote? why was there no call for a military response four months ago when the president's red line was crossed?

>> the reason is very simple. the president made a decision to change his policy, but he did not believe the evidence was so overwhelming. it was significant, and cleared was happening, but on a scale that he felt merritt said the increase of assistance and the announcements that he made with respect to the type of aid to the opposition. he did respond. this was so egregious, and now builds on the conclusions of our intel community as to the numbers of times, but such a clear case, so compelling and urgent with respect to the fragrancy of the abuse that the president thinks as a matter of conscience and a matter of policy, the best route is to proceed through military action.

>> but in april, it was very clear. chemical weapons are chemical weapons. >> but the president did not believe it was a compelling enough case to win the support of the american people, as well as the world. this is, and the president did respond. he upgraded what we were doing so vividly. he came to congress. we had to struggle to get congress to agree to do what he wanted to do to agree that effort. >> your time has expired. we need to go to mr. gerry connolly of virginia. >> thank you. mr. chairman, late last night we delivered to all members of congress, and i physically delivered a copy today of an alternative resolution very narrowly drawn that actually codifies what the president has said he wishes to accomplish, and codifies no boots on the ground to try to make sure that

we stay focused on the issue and one response to that issue, and possibly provide the white house to a path for authorization. i urge you to look at it, and hopefully we will be able to market up. i looked at this issue and recommended it to my colleagues if they find it helpful. the first was, if the evidence strongly compelling and if not, incontrovertible? second, if so, what action is warranted? thirdly, what is the efficacy of the proposed action and what are the risks? fourth, what is the efficacy and were on the risks of doing nothing? and finally, if the latter always the former, how can congress provided authorization

that is narrowly drawn to ensure no further involvement, but does two things -- enforces international law with respect to the ban on chemical weapons and deter future use of such weapons? all of this is a matter of judgment. everything i've heard from both sides of the aisle this week has been sincere and heartfelt. it is a difficult issue. i have come to the conclusion myself that the evidence is convincing and compelling. i also believe that the overhang of iraq has many of us chained.

iraq was faulty information to justify a wrong priority. we are not dealing with a president who is hungering to invade another country or to put boots on the ground. in fact, he has shown his reluctance to do so. there is no doubt the weapons exist, the stockpiles are there, and there is no doubt he used them. the question for us is what we do about it. mr. secretary, let me ask one question. if we do nothing -- and secretary hagel i invite you to answer as well, keeping in mind limited time. what is your judgment that's assad will use chemical weapons

as a routine weapon to turn the tide of this war? >> i think the likelihood is very high that he would use them again. >> mr. secretary? >> i a agree completely. i might even put it at 100%. you should check the intel on it. i think you will be convinced. >> if you are right that it is 100%, that we will see these weapons used to turn the tide of the war, what is the probability that these will also get into the hands of hezbollah and other elements supporting the regime, and perhaps best proliferate the region for friend and foe alike?

>> i cannot give you that probability. i just do not know what it is. i can tell you there are three principal supporters of assad and the rest of the world that are in horror of what is happening. those are iran, hezbollah, and russia. if iran and hezbollah are allowed to both see him stay in power, as well as to do so with the use of chemical weapons, that is extraordinarily dangerous for jordan, israel, lebanon, and our interests. >> we need to go to the chairman of the homeland security committee. mr. michael mccall from texas. >> thank you for being here. next week, we commemorate the 12th anniversary of 9/11. it was al qaeda that hit the world trade center and the

pentagon down the street from here. al qaeda is the enemy and before 9/11, al qaeda was the enemy. as chairman of the homeland security committee, i want to make sure that never happens again. i know you share that as well. it gives congress and the american people great pause because there is no good outcome here. there is no good side. assad is the actor who used chemical weapons, no question. but who were the rebel forces? who are they? i ask that in my greetings all the time. and everytime i get briefed on this it gets worse and worse. the majority now are radical islamists pouring in from all over the world. they come to syria for the fight. and my concern is that any strike against this regime, as

bad as it is, will empower these radical extremists. and we have seen this before. we have seen it in afghanistan. we saw what happened in egypt, in libya, and what the arab spring has brought us. they have filled the vacuum. who will fill the vacuum when the assad regime falls, which we know it will. who will fill that vacuum? are the extremists going to take over not only the government, but these weapons? they're the ones most likely to use these weapons against americans and the united states. and while those images of children in damascus are horrific, i do not want to see those images in the united states. that is my grave concern. this is a very dangerous step that we are taking and we have to be very careful on how we

proceed. with all due respect, i think this is well-intentioned. but i have these concerns. i want to hear from you as to whether you share these concerns and what you're doing to stop that outcome, because that is the worst outcome that could happen. >> congressman, i apologize for interrupting. i think it would be helpful to you -- as you were asking the question. because i'm very concerned about the foundation of your question, the premise of it. a woman by the name of elizabeth bagley, she works for the institute of war. she is fluent in arabic and has spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition, a city in syria. she just published a very interesting article which i commend to you. sitting behind me is ambassador

robert ford. he has spent time in syria. the has been done enormous amount of time working with them and helping to understand is dynamic. i just do not agree that the majority are al qaeda and the bad guys. it is not true. there are about 700,000 oppositionists. about 15% to 25% might be in one group or another that we would deem to be bad guys. there are many different groups. and sometimes they are fighting each other, even now. the general belief, there is a real moderate opposition that exists. and our allies in the region are now in a disciplined way funnelling resistance to the moderate opposition.

>> i get when you're saying, but there are moderates. the briefings i have received are that it is at 50% and rising. these fighters coming globally are not coming in as moderates. they're coming in as jihadist. i also want to hear from the secretary and from the general as well. >> i agree with secretary kerry's analysis. let me remind us all, and you know this very well, congressman, especially with your responsibilities as chairman of the homeland security committee. this is an imperfect situation. are the -- there are no good options here. every point you made of the complications with the various terrorist groups that we have noted are there. i don't question that.

secretary kerry has pointed out that we are moving in the right direction. >> time has expired. >> i believe we stand at a pivotal moment where congress is either going to uphold its duty to protect our national security or we will retreat from our moral and strategic obligations. it will have to be a narrowly drawn resolution to determine whether congress to end of four human-rights or allow our power to dramatically shrink.

this is a hard choice. by emboldening the vial regime and its terrorist proxy's, i think it is essential that the united states send an unequivocal message to assad and especially iran, that the president, and every civilization on earth says that

you cannot dass ines and children to death. it is about preventing atrocities in the future. american credibility is also on the line in iran. this committee has been strongly bipartisan and said a street -- a clear red line that we will not allow iran to obtain weapons capability. if congress votes down a limited robert -- authorization, then to iran's leaders, our red line

against their development of nuclear weapons is meaningless. the sanctions we have passed unanimously out of this committee and supported by 400 members on the house floor will be largely worthless because it will not be backed up by a credible threat of force. secretary kerry, if we're when to do everything in our power to solve the iranian nuclear issue without actual conflict, then we must support this. make no mistake. this resolution is about syria and making assad accountable. it is also about iran and making sure they do not up chain nuclear weapons. i do not want to be in this position. none of us do. the president did not put us in

this position. bashar al-assad put us in this position when he chose to gas his own people. secretary kerry, a lot of people have come up to me. which are the nations who said they will support our action and how are they prepared to support it? >> the united states of america is not being the world's policeman. united states of america is joining with other countries in upholding an international standard that 184 state -- 184 nations have joined into. obviously, we have a greater capacity. the american people have

invested in and in order to protect our security interests our security interests are directly involved in what is happening in the middle east. our security interests are directly threatened with respect to assad's use of these chemical weapons. we are building support with other countries. among them, the arab league, which announced its condemnation of this. the turks, the french, obviously the british government felt it should. it had a different vote, but that -- in fact, i think that raises the stakes in terms of holding ourselves accountable to a multilateral effort, to a multilateral standard in which

the united states is the most technologically advanced partner. >> we go now to -- >> think you, mr. chairman. we heard a lot today about credibility in the united states. it seems to me that we have a credibility problem because our foreign policy in the middle east is inconsistent. our enemies really do not know what our foreign policy is. our friends don't know what it is and i am not so sure that americans know what it is. we see it playing out with different reasons, going into different countries, removing people from leadership and putting someone else in. i like my friend from austin, i

am concerned about the pla on both sides. or are no players in this civil ah, a bunch ofand then you have other terrorist groups on the other side, including newsroom and all sharon. i do believe these are powerful groups on both sides. history will find out who ends up winning this civil war. you factor in the religious connotation in this civil war and you really do have a real problem. we do have a real problem on our hands. my concern is, specifically, we want to do something to punish mr. bad guy assad. no question about it. he is a bad guy, wasting good air breathing. we're not going to shoot him or take him out because we do not want to this stable the civil

war -- destabilize the civil war going on between both sides, if i understand what that civil war is. let's assume that we do that. i will ask you general dempsey this question first. assume we do that. what ever it is to destabilize the weapons of mass destruction. get rid of them. i assume that is what we are trying to do. i eliminate the weapons of mass destruction, even the secretary hagel said they are getting those things from russia, which are they going to give them our weapons? i do not know. so, we do that. assad fights back. he does not just take it. he retaliates against us or let's iran retaliate against israel because we have come into this civil war. so, they shoot back. what do we do once americans are engaged and escalated in a specific strike not by our

choosing, but by their choosing? do we escalate or do we not fight back? and i know, general dempsey, you have a tough situation on your hands. what do we do if they literally shoot back at america? our friends the israelis? >> just to clarify, this is not about eliminating chemical weapons. that is not possible, given the number and distribution of them. it is about convincing the assad regime it is unacceptable to use them and that is this military operation. we are postured for the possibility of retaliation and i can assure you our regional partners are as well. >> let me just ask that question with a little more clarification from you. i know you are in the military and you are to the point. that is great. you are in charge. can you see that escalating, though, with you as military

involvement in the region -- have you made a contingency plan with u.s. military involvement in the region -- have you made a contingency plan for us being in and escalated military operation in the region? >> in the spirit of your compliment on my conciseness, yes. [laughter] >> do you see escalation as a possibility? u.s. military escalation as a possibility? >> i could never drive the risk of escalation 20 -- to zero, but i think the contributions we will seek from others, it begins to limit that risk. >> one last question since i am nearly out of time here. general dempsey, you mentioned

earlier that you are concerned about removing assad from power. will you elaborate on that and if so, what is your elaboration? >> separate from this conversation which is about the limited purpose of the hearing and degrading, i still am cautious about whether we should use military force for the purpose of tipping the balance. i think there are other ways we can contribute to that through the development of modern opposition. i remain cautious about taking the oppositions role here in the civil war. >> thank you emma mr. chairman. >> -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> that bashar assad used chemical weapons i think is irrefutable. however, i think the facts of history are needed here as well. the situation in syria is that of a national civil war.

that conflict that america cannot solve and should not try to. this is not a fight for freedom and democracy. there is no democracy movement in syria. if there is no unifying vision or social contract. not a constitution, or even a preamble of what syria wants to become. this is nothing more than a fight for control between two secretary and fashion -- to factions. -- two factions. it is estimated to be about 1000 militia with no air power. this is a conflict between a brutal and murderous dictator and an opposition who's best fighter are represented by al qaeda affiliates and islamic extremists bent on creating islamist sanctions in syria.

there are no good options. the lesson in syria, as in iraq and afghanistan, is that civil wars should be fought internally and that political reconciliation cannot come from without, it has to come from within. if that cannot be a post from outside influences. we know that from our own history. the syrian civil war has caused 100,000 apps in a countries 23 million, the american civil war caused 675,000 deaths from a young nation of 34 million people. after spending two dollars trillion in iraq and afghanistan, representing $40,000 in debt for every american family and the loss of 6668 american lives and the destruction of tens of thousands of americans, iraq is -- at any time in its history.

afghanistan is as corrupt as it's always been. the american people are sick and tired of war. it is time to nation build in america and invest in the growth of the american economy. bashar al-assad used chemical weapons on his own people. that is morally reprehensible for certain. he should be condemned universally by the international community and stiff sanctions should be imposed. he should be indicted as a war criminal in the international tribunal for his murderous deeds. unfortunately, the use of chemical weapons in this part of the world is not new. saddam hussein used them in the iraq-iran war. and again, against his own civilian population in northern iraq in 1991. unfortunately, the stockpiling and use of mustard gas and staring, thousands of tons of -- and sarin, is all too common

today taking back decades. the international support for the united states-led military strike in syria, however limited in scope at the time, consists two countries. turkey and france out of 194 countries. the rest of the international community, but for china and russia, says we support you, america and your military strike, so long as we do not have to do anything. the air of league's restaurants response to this -- the arab league's response to this is a joke. here we are, left to topple the last regime in the middle east. for the third time, in a decade, entering a national civil war in that part of the world, essentially alone, again,

secretary kerry, you spoke on the world's response to the use of chemical weapons. even that history, one would think that more countries would join the u.s. in participating, not supporting, in participating in a military strike against syria. what gives? >> well, congressman, i will try to be quick here. first of all, i do not want to make this debate about what is happening in terms of regime change and a larger issues. i just want to clarify. a -- who was tired of corruption and being slapped around started the arab spring in tunisia and throughout a dictator who had been there for a long. of time. that's a long period of time. it was a bunch of young people with facebook and so forth who organized a resolution.

it was not the muslim brotherhood. it had nothing to do with religion. it had to do with a generation of people looking for freedom, opportunity, and aspirations to be met. the same thing happened in syria. in syria, that opposition was met with violence by assad. that is what has happened here. the moderate opposition is, in fact, committed to democracy. it is committed to the protection of all minority rights, inclusivity, they want elections in syria. i do not want a debate about that because this is not about regime change. this is about the enforcement of the standard with respect to chemical weapons. the president is asking for a limited authority to enforce that standard, not to deal with all those other issues. >> matt salmon of arizona, chairman of the western hemisphere committee. >> secretary kerry, let me first

congratulate the president on bringing this matter to the congress as i believe he is constitutionally required to do. verhappy aschosen to do this. morning that draa red line, the world did with the ratification of the chemical weapons treaty. where is the rest of the world in the response? why are we looking at a go it alone mission? you said in your testimony that there are 34 countries who are with us. what degree are they with us and you are they, specifically? >> i do not have the full list of them here. i have listed a bunch of them. the arab league countries have condemned this. a number of them have asked to be part of a military operation. the turks, nato countries have condemned it.

they have asked to be part of an operation. the french volunteer volunteered to be part of an operation. there are others who have volunteered, but frankly, and i will let general dempsey speak to this, we have more volunteers and we can use for this kind of an operation. in the next days, those names as they chose to as evidence comes out will be made more public. as i said here, we have 53 countries who have already condemned the use publicly area 37 have said so publicly. -- publicly. 37 have said so publicly. i think it total of 34 nations have said they are prepared to take action. that is growing. more countries are reviewing the evidence we have shown. as i have said, over time the president has purposively -- purposely taken this to congress. he has asked me and the state

department to reach out to more countries and to build the kind of international support thatwe. >> thank you. i would appreciate it if we could get a list of the countries and what assets they are willing to -- >> i have -- >> not now. we can get that later. i do have a question for general dempsey. what are our goals in the military strike? the president said the military attack would be limited in duration and scope. do you believe that the use of strikes will achieve the president's goal and can you guarantee the american people that the assad regime will be unable to launch any chemical warfare attacks altered home or on their neighbors? do you believe the region will be more stable after u.s. attacks or less stable?

>> the mission given to me was to prepare options to attack, did terror, and degraded. that would be targets directly linked to the control of chemical weapons, but without exposing tho cl we secondly, the means of delivery, and third, those things that the regime uses, for example, air defense, long range air missiles and rockets in order to protect those chemical weapons. so, that target packages still being refined as i sit here with you. as far as whether it will be effective, given the limited objectives i have received, the answer is, yes. i believe we can make the military strike effective. what it will do to the region, that really will depend on the reaction of the assad regime. as i mentioned earlier, our partners and the united states military is postured to deter his retaliation.

>> finally, general dempsey, as we have been discussing this over the last few weeks, we have given pretty clear -- we telegraphed our message to assad and his regime that we are planning to make an attack. do you not assume that they might circle those wagons with civilians and with the possibility of civilian casualties being very great? >> the targeting requirements, as given to me by the president, require us to receive a collateral damage estimate that is low. though they are, in fact, moving resources around and in some cases placing prisoners and others in places that they believe we might target, at this point our intelligences keeping up with that movement. >> karen bass of california.

>>nk tnk you chairman ranking member for ld our witnesses for coming. i have three questions and i would like to get out all three questions. then ask whoever chooses to respond. as i recall in libya, the arab league asked us to intervene. if i am wrong, correct me. i want to know what was different this time. i know they condemned the attacks, but why haven't they asked us to intervene? and then second, what type of retaliation, if any, do you expect from syria, from iran, hezbollah, or other unaffiliated parties and what are we doing to prepare for any retaliation? finally, as i understand, -- made some comments today that he might be open to the idea of responding if it could be proven where the chemical weapons came from. i was wondering if you thought this provided an opportunity?

how you might interpret his comments, but is there an opportunity for the international community to come together? those are my questions to which ever one of you chooses to answer. >> i will answer the one that actually most up lies to my particular expertise, and that is what kind of risk of retaliation. there is conventional risk, that would be if he chose to use some of his long-range rockets to attack his neighbors are some of our facilities. there is also asymmetric. he could encourage some of these surrogates and proxies such as lebanese hezbollah to attack an embassy. there is action secret seek to achieve in a cyber and we are

alert to all of the possibilities. we are mitigating strategies in a way that we have positioned ourselves in the region. >> thank you. the arab league and the other one was about putin. i rall, dui believe the arab league asked us to intervene. i wanted to know what the difference was with syria. so, they condemned to the attacks but they have not asked us to intervene and why? >> the reason is that a couple of their members, a number of their members, three or four of them are not in favor of it, so they did a consensus statement. individual countries are prepared to and are in favor of it. i named the number of them. lebanon, for obvious reasons,

has some problems. nigeria and iraq have some issues. you can understand why people might be a little restrained. let me just share, could because this has been a recurring theme here today. australia, the foreign minisrpo. position on syria. it right nal norms.at he noted that australia believes the united states has its right independent of any endorsement from the united nations council. lightning yet said they are ready to politically support the u.s. and nato in any action that needs to be taken to put an end to the massacre of the syrian population and support the syrian population. >> before i run out of time, could you respond about putin? >> i would interpret his question -- his comments as hopeful that the jeep 20, -- that the g-20, the president and he will have a conversation.

canada, stephen harper stionwer. all have suggested the unid states should take action and would be prepared to take action with us. this is a building response and i think other countries understand of the moment. >> we are going to go now to mr. tom marino of pennsylvania. >> thank you chairman. secretary hegel, if you could tell me or tell us, who are the bad guys? or maybe put it this way. who are our allies? who are the good guys in syria? >> you are referring to the opposition, i assume? >> who are they? >> we have covered some of this ground. again, you are looking at

various groups that are part of the opposition. as secretary kerry noted, under the general there are groups who have one motive and one objective. that is a free and inclusive syria. >> do you trust thesle? >> that is not my business to trust. >> it has to be the ss ibune you are making decisions to go into war and put american lives at risk. it is a simple onset. you either trust or do not trust. if you do not trust, we do not call these people our allies or support. >> congressman, every nation, every individual, every group response in their own self- interest. we are not unaware of all the different groups self-interest. >> excuse me, sir, with all due respect, i think we are aware if we look back at what happened in

libya and in the middle east in the past. if we look at the muslim brotherhood. al qaeda. we havto take this into nseration. obviously, we do not know yet who the good guys are. >> congressman, let me respond to that. not on good guys-bad guys. if the focus is on a narrowly drafted resolution asking resolution from the congress. >> i would not think the good guys would be using gas. secretary kerry, if i may ask you, from one prosecutor to another, i believe you are beyond a reasonable doubt assertion. i truly believe that. this will not stop the butchering and the killing that takes place over there. what is the purpose? what is the endgame? what is the imminent danger to the united states?

>> congressman, you are absolutely correct that it will not stop the butchering. i wish it would. what it will do is what it is intended to do. it is intended to a search the principal, which has been in192e should use chemical weapons under any circumstances. >> i understand that. this is the reality of this. what is the reality of this? we have seen this used in the past. you made the comment in 2002, when bush wanted to go into iraq which i did not agree with. the president also made the statement which i think was in the senate, in the state that was advancing his career, that we should not do this, even know even though saddam hussein gassed his own people. what is his own -- what is the

difference here that you are so intent in going into syria because assad has done this? >> the gassing was not the pretext for that operation am a but ultimately saddam hussein was held accountable for not just that crime but all of his other crimes. he hung. the bottom line is he was held accountable. >> in hindsight, i concede see you stating that. but you are not supporting that in 2002. you are supporting it now. i do not see the difference. my issue gets to this. who is going to pay for this? and what is it going to cost the united states taxpayers? >> i will let secretary hegel address the cost issue from the military. >> we have looked at the different costs depending on the different options depending on the decision the president makes.

we have given some ranges of this. it would be tens of millions of dollars, that kind of range. >> i see my time is running out. believe this, regardless of the minimization of intervention, american military personnel will die. this i cannot accept. soldiers coming home in a body bag is not acceptable to me and therefore i cannot and will not vote for this intervention. thank you. >> this notes that no boots would be on the ground, i might remind the congressman. >> i have heard that before. >> we go back to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you or your service to our country. i want to thank all of you for sharing the information you have so far with congress and the

american public, as well as the world. i think, clearly, that anyone looking at this evenly that has been a success in terms of making clear the case that there were chemical weapons used and that the assad e-government -- assad government use of them. i want to congratulate you on those efforts. neral dempsey -- so general mpwith a few seconds to answer wereing ntuld. you raised conceinilitily in the syrian conflict. obviously, you are here today to support a limited military reaction. you did start ay remarks that there are military outcomes in supporting the opposition. but you qualified as saying, that is not what we are doing here. i am concerned that regardless of our stated intent in this area, that others will not share that same view.

that is not our intent. if you could, and in plenty of exnd upon what your concernsre d in the past that you stet ey aru enough time to see what your views might be on how we can mitigate that or navigate around those concerns in the situation we are right now?

>> i want to separate support for the opposition from acting in a limited focused way to deter and degrade the assad regime from use of chemical weapons.thformer, support for te opposition, does come with some risk of a slippery slope of not entirely understanding when that support ends and how much it has to grow over time, which is am f helping the opposition by their equipment. not by becoming their military arm. sepa tom what we are in my view, militarily, the fact that ahas increased its use of chemicals over time to the point where it initially was a weapon intendedf a particular neighborhood. to send a message to the most recent case it was used to literally attempt to clear anei. they reached a point where assad is using chemical weapons as just another military pool -- military tool in his arsenal. that runs a great risk for syria. it runs a great risk in the region. it runs a great risk for the globe. i am able to, with a lotsintegro come to you today to make that distinction that we should do something in our national interest based on the use of

chemical weapons without committing to supportingo ov throw the regime. >> is part of thatliabout how o ined sse, we areld be taking helping the opposition because we are attacking the assad governme. that respect, is thaty concern that you had prior to that question mark how do you mitigate that now? >> we always considered not only whether -- the actions we would have on our partners and even the iraq use, for that matter. with what impact it would have on our potential adversaries.

of coarse, that has alwaeen a n. a concern and a consideration. t whenomething reaches thelevewr n europe andrreratgn is not whar eurasia. it was set in 1999 -- there was a precedent set in 1999 were nato m without approval. do you think this helped them moving not just individually. -- trying to get nato support as an organization? >> i apologize. i was just reading a note. could you repeat that question mark it was about nato, the 1999 precedent where they moved fowithrward t that securit council approval. is there any hope of doing that going forward? >> i doubt it, but i cannot tell

rou eetiunl bet sense of that. mpaign in kosovo.gressmanth there wer 30ve00 of our aira none of which is contemplated he and there were zero casualties. zero. >> we should go to jeff duncan at -- of south carolina at this time. >> thank you, mraian. i cannot discuss the possibility of the u.s. involvement without talking about benghazi.us credibility issue with the american people. the behaack was almost one year ago. when you factor in the targeting of the irs to conservative

groups and nsa spying programs, the bottom line is that there is a need for accountability andtr. to i am noti ampset because from n. the it ministration has benghazi is germane to the discussions in syria, because as watching for our response. after almost a year of not bringing anyone to justice in benghazi, they are watching our response. your predecessor asked, what difference does it make now? isen. these issues call into issue he accountability of this nistration. the american people need to speak up. if this is about accountability. it sure it is. mo forward in syria's civilnghae

war. this family deserves answers.wen into harms way, a specially in theranheis no clear indication that there is an imminent threat i do not question that cd in sy. i have looked at the classified briefings. umof war against this regime and syria? i have spoken to hed constituents. this rse mails that my officeas and nomyt a on district are the e-mails of people who have contacted my

fight this regime. they say, no. getnvolved in t civil war. ou else's civil war where there are shou nugnto someone no good guysion . souick to involve the u.s. i syria now was reluctant to uset bt foht for their lives in benghazi. secretary kerry, you have never ted r anything other than caution in past conflicts. president and vice president.chu woab favor of pullingheer on a military response so qui?e ren

united states directly orinrect. >> have there been efforts to?os ian rebels and also transfer weapons from libya to syria.begin, congr challenging your proposition that i have never done anything except advocate caution because i country and that n conscious thin d it. 'g to finh, congren. and i was in the u could run a list of them.arytioe told by you that i d' i'm not into sit here and be judgment i abo people to go talk about benghazusi d >> absolutely. americans lost their lives. i t worldwide response, but we

we are acting so cautiously that the esident of the united stat bee case properly. >> it has been 15 days.ege,ere. thiss important. i think this is iman it is important whether or not we are going into syria in a wa, ic sod will interpret from you that he is free to do this any day he wants to. that is what this is about. novit gettwar. s dr the properssma on the re another benghazi discussion when stand up for international norms to dictators that

have onlend. hitler, and saddam husse continue that, shame on us. >> we go to mr. davis of rhode island. he opportunity to i was on the telephoneda or ric i in ongoing consultation and sharing of information. e is is a difficult question.ido associated with the li being deep up the wrong opposition and set of actions we d of international institutions. things like making china and

wa isolate syth broabuild the internatiol d do , of worhe idea together and using aconhurtssad, the turk the use of chemical weapons again, liesave ample waystioned america i would love more -- i w gresan, a very good havwithsimplying blame at all.. talking about this and raising the stakes. he has done some of that on

mo of that.will have to do a lot he has got to get serious about congressional consultations at least. i think he has made his domestic situation with suspected iran touch more difficult because in some ways syria is an easy case, when someone uses weapons of mass desertion openly and publicly in a decisive way. that is in some ways the easy way to get people to act. on iran i have this is that if he does that we advocate and hit them before they are about to test a bomb, all of the stars have got to align for him to be able to take a credible case to the american people, and if he does it without congress and

with very low support amongst the american public for going into a big, wider war with iran compared to syria, so we are told, he is buying himself a hell of a problem. some people have talked about the issue of getting some kind of earlier pre-authorization from congress on the question of the use of force in the iran under certain conditions. and people have shied away from that because it will lose in the congress. that is an idea out there, and at a minimum, this conversation the president is having with the people and congress about iran, pivoting off of syria, i think he has got to engage that in a much more serious way. >> you asked a good question about the presidential value of this when it comes to iran. fortunately, the syria matter

does not exist in a vacuum. there is history, including in the obama administration, and i have in mind libya, which obama conducted operations without authorization, relying on his constitutional authority, and part of the consternation i expressed earlier is accounted for by the contrast with libya, which unlike what i understand to be completed for syria, was a much more serious operation. forgive my digression, but i know that there is a good case to make that what president obama has in mind with regard to syria would not even trigger the war powers resolution, because that resolution states at any time the president introduces

united states armed forces equipped for com territory, airspace or waters of a foreign country, he has to notify congress, and after 60 days he has to withdraw them if congress has not authorized the operation. tomahawk cruise missiles did not exist in 1973 when the resolution was written, but there is a good case to be made at the tomahawk cruise missiles fired from a distance are not united states armed forces equipped for combat, and so on like in libya, where we had manned aircraft flying over the country and had u.s. armed forces for combat in libya, the war powers resolution applies. a cruise missile strike, over in a few matter of minutes, not involving manned aircraft, i think is a decent case that that resolution does not cover that. in syria, the president has decided to go forward without authorization. when it comes to iran, i think

he has a precedent to not seek authorization, but there will be members of congress who will say absolutely, for a larger, more momentous operation against iran, he needs to seek authorization. i am not a military expert, but i would suspect that the success of any operation against iran will be much greater if we have the element of surprise on our side, and a prolonged debate about whether or not to authorize this of course will probably cost us the element of surprise. >> again, i echo some of the things that have been said. i have worked in congress. i have reverence for congress. i would say that on the issue of iran, the president should do

much more consulting with congress than they have, and i agree with john on this. there should be much more of a dialogue. what is an acceptable agreement? the legislative perspective differs from the executive. both capsules, washington and tehran, are falling into the same mistake. rouhani has talked about moving the nuclear department to the foreign ministry, because one of the advantages of the council, where they have a bottom of all the critical constituents. everybody had a buy-in. on the other side, i think the executive branch here has done not a particularly good job of

bringing in congress into their way of thinking about iran. iran has always been -- you know policies do not work. i think they should shed light on bringing in members of congress. let me focus on the diplomatic agreement. a diplomatic agreement cannot be an agreement negotiated by john kerry. both parties have to understand they have to sell that agreement back home to critical constituencies. and preparing those constituencies for what concessions they want to make is an important step forward, and that is a dialogue that needs to be had, along with what has been spoken about. what sort of a program is the administration willing to live with? what sort of program are the revolutionary guards willing to

live with? what kind of nuclear program are congressional persons easy to live with? all these things need to come to align, and there has to be much work. this was in 1970. it does not work that way anymore. there is way too much media. the iranian media is full of speculation about the messaging that has been sent between the united states and iran. iran does not have a free press, but it has a competitive press. the right wing press will create the story the way they broke the iran-contra story. this will not remain behind curtains. that is not the era we live in. it is time for us to start having those dialogues here, and rouhani should have that dialogue with his constituencies as well. that is when you begin to see their arms of a doable arms- control agreement as opposed to one that is expeditiously violated.

>> i would like to it back to a different aspect of the question you asked, which was what is the impact of what has been going on this past week, the syrian question on the iran question down the road. we focus on the presidential issue of going to congress. there is another issue that i do not think he has received sufficient attention, which is that if the congress authorizes military action, and the president indicates a serious, more robust action than what has been suggested, and as dennis said, it is effective, it is going to be an expensive proposition. it is going to cost as much as a couple of billion dollars. it is going to expend a lot of u.s. military assets, and this comes against a backdrop of being on the cusp of a second year of sequestration of the defense budget, with a $52

billion additional sequester of the defense budget when the new fiscal year hits, unless there is a deal by january 1, which will make it extremely difficult for the department of defense to plan rationally for the next time, which could include the iranian case. and in which certain military tools that might be useful in a military strike on iran to be expended. this is already against a back round of a circumstance in which sequestration has forced on the administration a choice that secretary hagel and the vice chairman described between capacity and capability as it tries to deal with the consequences of sequestration. i do not want to get into the debate about which is right or not, that you are talking about

a military whose readiness is being graded and having to carry out what will be a complex military operation and how it will be enabled goes to one of the core recommendations we make him a which is we need to seek certain military activities going on with parallel efforts to make them suspects will. >> the best solution is whether or not we have credibility in what we say we would do if iran goes beyond certain red lines. and how to we do that in a sense at this stage of the game, given what clearly seems to me has been an impact in the arab world, not a positive impact of what has happened. i came back two weeks ago and i was astonished at how completely upset they were about the attitude of the united states and the behavior of the united

states. but can the united states do in terms of public opinion here and in terms of what we can do militarily? i would in some way or another give enough credibility to the fact that we will act or react to what we come to the conclusion is going on in iran, that persuades them to come to a different conclusion that it seems to me that they are going to now. >> first, i accept that we are where we are in terms of perceptions, but i would, as someone who is doing a new book that also involves a fair amount of looking at america's historical posture in the middle east, i am struck by the fact that this moment is not unique. it is interesting at one point after the coup in libya in 1969, kissinger in his memoirs remarked at one point that every

single one of our friends in the middle east, at the highest level, is sending messages to the white house about perceptions of our unreliability and we are not doing anything about it. it is not the first time that the perception has been the case, and what tends to turn things around is when we actually act and are seen as being effective. we have within our means to do that now. for all of the unease that we have been collectively feeling, if the congress authorizes, as it should and must, and if in fact we carry out not cosmetic, but what are an intensive set of strikes, over a short time, that, if you listen to what secretary hagel was saying

yesterday and what the chairman of the joint chiefs was saying as well, that actually degrades the capability of the syrian forces and this is seen throughout the region has the u.s. is now suddenly in the context of where the congress has actually authorized -- and some ways it seems to me that even if the use of force is finite, you actually have an interesting situation i suspect where the president may feel the need, having gotten the authorization, to ensure that strikes are somewhat more intensive, are more effective, as a way of making not just a symbolic statement, but having a practical effect upon syria's ability to use their forces, that will send a message to the whole region and will also send a message to the iranians. as i said, if you look at this, not the first time we have been in this position, and when the u.s. acts in a way that is seen as being effective, it changes those perceptions.

>> it is the first time in which we're dealing with a country that is developing nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering, and that is not going to be an actual act of warfare, it is going to be something that is handled fairly secretly within however iran is going to do it. we do not have quite the same kind of clear guidelines that we can rely upon here. how do we persuade them not to go too far when we do not know exactly where they are and we do not know exactly where they are going? what will be credible at this stage of the game? >> i was going to ask everybody the same question anyhow. >> i will start. it seems to me this is where there are a number of things that we can do and by the way, all of these fall in what i would describe in a dramatic realm hurt quite apart from how

you posture your forces, and also by the way what eric was getting at, if we were to do something to address this issue, i would be another way to send a single that we are meeting what we say and preparing the ground. one way to prepare the ground is for us to go to the other members of the five plus one and make it clear we are very serious about diplomacy, but we also need to plan for the day after. the more you begin to do that, the more you're sending a message. you are not just focused on diplomacy. he wanted to work, but the fact is if you have to use work against the nuclear program that will not end the nuclear diplomacy, because you will want to engage in diplomacy, you will want to make it difficult for the iranians to build, and that is why maintaining sanctions is important. there is no doubt remaining that we want to pursue a diplomatic

path. there is some disagreement about what the character of that proposal would be, and i come back -- this gets to what you're asking -- what reason you want to put a proposal on the table that shows the iranians could gain what they want, which is to say all they want is civil nuclear power, if you put a proposal on the table that would enable them to have civil nuclear power, that is seen as being credible by much of the international community, and the iranians turn it down, then you have exposed them, internationally, domestically as well. that puts the president in a different position to go to the american public and say the last two presidents have said they cannot have this capability. i have said it consistently. we have offered them a way to get out, a proposal that allows them to have exactly what they say they want and they have turned it down because it turns out that is not what they want, they want weapons, and that will

not be permitted. that would be part of how you get addressed the question you raise. >> if i could chime in for a second before john and other colleagues. when we announced this panel in june, we had an event, and i cannot remember which panelist made a point that plagiarism is the highest form of flattery -- [laughter] the point was that people who think iranians do not pay attention to red lines have not been paying attention to the iaea quarterly reports, because the red line that prime minister netanyahu said for the amount of 20% low enriched uranium that the iranians produced has been consistently avoided by them because they have been transforming some of it into

oxide for the tehran research reactor. when there is uncertainty about whether the red line will be upheld, it modifies their behavior. that is another argument why to fail to go forward now with the red line that has been drawn on syrian chemical weapons use would have disastrous cuts wants is for those of us who think diplomacy still has a chance of being successful if it is underpinned by credible threats. >> there are more commerce historians on this panel then mean, but in 1969 and what followed is a bad time for the united states in the middle east and more broadly in the world. if we are in that kind of

posture in 1969 where the american order looks to everybody else like it is unraveling, we are in a very serious situation that needs to be addressed. i think that is where your question goes to, because otherwise disaster strikes. the arab oil boycott of the 1973, the war, all kinds of awful things can happen, the start of the retreat from vietnam. i agree that there are certain parallels in what is happening in the world today, in the basic sense that people out there who have relied on us since world war ii, that the system, the order that the united states established and enforced is beginning to unravel at some level. and people are really beginning to start to make calculations based off of that, and for me, example number one is the saudis