and i don't have any problem sleeping. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i yield back. >> the gentle lady's time is expired. they have called the votes about six minutes left, but about 394 haven't voted yet. so i want to thank the secretary. we've gone over what we thought we would -- it would take, but it's a very important issue, and this is the largest committee in congress, and everybody wanted to have their questions answered. the secretary has agreed, we will take one more question, then we will break for votes. i would encourage all who have not had an opportunity to ask a question that want to return. the secretary said he will stay for that, and then we will reschedule at a later time the closed session part.

dr. fleming. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel, we've talked about this 30-day notice. yesterday the chairman told us that he received notification after sergeant bergdahl had actually been transferred. i'm sure his senate counterpart received that notice at the same time. it was really a notice after the fact, and i listened carefully through all the questions, all the legalese, the technical, the spin, everything. it's clear to me that really what happened here, and this goes back to the question from the previous gentleman as to what else could have been done, has there been any other offers. my understanding is that back in 2011 and in 2012 when this issue was first brought forward that secretary clinton opposed it without additional measures and protections. and i believe also mr. clapper

and others as well, congress on a bipartisan basis pushed back on this. and so it really suggests to me that when this erupted again this past january, that the president decided he didn't want to hear no. all he wanted to do is to move forward, get it done, and whatever thing he could do here in terms of lawyering or end runs around congress or whatever -- i mean, it's been reported by many different agencies that at least 90 people in the executive branch knew about this, but yet the chairman of house armed services did not know about it. so, i mean, isn't this really just an attempt by the president to do an end run around congress to not take no for an answer or not get some pushback and maybe a little bit of wisdom from people who have been around here a long time and have been elected. >> congressman, the president of

the united states, like every president of the united states, as you know, has not just constitutional responsibilities but moral responsibilities on behalf of every american, and his first responsibility is the security of this country, and i have never seen in the time i have known him, and i have known him since he's been in the senate and i have been in this job about 15 months, ever a time he flinched on that. you may disagree with decisions he's made but there was no political decision here. now, on clinton and clapper, the director of national intelligence has already made a statement on his agreement with this -- >> but he first opposed it, is my understanding. >> he did but he explained why he has changed his position. >> but let me -- >> as did secretary clinton's situation was the same. it was a different world in 2011, 2012 for all --

>> all i'm saying is there's a benefit for more heads, more wisdom in this, and i think the president really didn't want to hear no. he wanted to do this no matter what. let's go to number two here. >> he wanted to make sure we could get our p.o.w. back but not no matter what. >> i understand. >> you all were driving this as the american people -- >> i didn't say no matter what. that wasn't my statement. >> as far as who had control of sergeant bergdahl, we keep hearing about the taliban, but the reports have all been it was the haqqani network. you yourself i think suggested that. we know the haqqani network is an international terrorist organization. we all agree with that. and so ultimately just because we have a surrogate, in this case qatar, who is going between who is acting as an agent, how is that not negotiating with terrorists? >> well, first, let's look at the objective here. it's to get our

war back. >> i get that, i get that, but aren't we violating a commitment, a doctrine we have had for decades? >> no. >> how is that not negotiating with terrorists? simply because we put someone in between, how is that better than direct negotiations? >> we agree -- we negotiated with the government and with the taliban and. a combatant against us in war. >> would the outcome have been any different had we talked directly? like you and i disagree on that. >> i don't think that it would and i don't hear you saying it would be different. >> hear me say what? >> i did not hear you say that it would be any different. >> didn't know what? >> that the outcome would be any different. >> i didn't say that. i didn't say that at all.

we were very clear who we were talking to and why in following the law. that is what i said in my testimony, i have said it all morning. >> i yield back. thank you. time hasntleman's expired. we will recess for the two votes . i would encourage members to return as soon as possible so that we can finish up the questioning. the committee is in recess. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] hearing, sergeant birdsall has returned to the united states. a two star general is going to investigate the actions in afghanistan and reports that he walked away from his posts. he wrote letters to his family while being held captive, saying he did not want to the judged too quickly for disappearing before his capture. the pentagon said they would investigate but that the first

priority was the sergeant's health and that the first investigation could begin as early as this week. we will bring you news as soon as we can hear on the c-span networks. the defense department is also dealing with the situation in iraq. militants with isi s have spread to the northwestern part of the country. though there are advances south towards baghdad that have slowed down, the u.s. is still considering its options. they moved an aircraft carrier and other equipment into the persian gulf in preparation for possible airstrikes. theeard more about situation recently from "the washington institute." the former u.s. ambassador to a rack, james jeffrey, took part in the discussion. it is about 35 minutes. >> the map in front of you gives you some basic areas of control. this green area that you see is the unarguable three provinces in the kurdistan region of iraq.

black area is the area in which government control has largely collapsed. that means that no one else is in control of the area. it may be isis, it may be scattered government forces, it may be local militants. to briefly explain the lines you are looking at, the lines on the line is red or orange the forward edge of control just before this june crisis. now you can see a light blue line, the current forward position that demonstrates how they have moved forward a pretty much the entire disputed line, encompassing almost all or very many of the disputed areas that they claim. certainly the ones they care most about. when you see the black area of loss of control at the bottom of the map, you see a pencil thin cord or from samarra, the stop line, the defensive line where

hopefully the tide will be stemmed. that is where the f-16 is supposed to go, though they may be now located somewhere else where they arrive later in the year. at the bottom of the map i wrote the refit in crowd of points for the destroyed units, the major logistical bases in the area. as can be seen from this, i will point out two things about the way the battlefield is evolving at the moment. just looking at strategic geometry, if you look at it, isis has got great strategic depth in terms of the distance that the federal forces, once reconstituted, would have to travel between baghdad and mozilla. tremendous depths. but it is actually very limited, which underlines the role that

the kurds can play. kilometers of strategic depths, north-south, in many places as many as 10 to 30 kilometers strategically from west to east. the key things they want to hold onto are within close striking distance. how vital it is to get the kurds into this fight, meaning the government has to come to them with a solution on revenue sharing and and a bagity issues that some conferences. for now there is a bigger issue their working remnant to the federal security forces and air power. the buffer between them and isis

is now gone. what is coming up showing that they are in the not be anyt could in the past, they are not willing to have a major isis control center within a one hours distance drive of the economic capital of kurdistan. no successful emerging economy in the world has been able to hatch a huge ok'd a presence in the city of 1.8 million people just the 1 hours drive away. be acceptable to the kurds, but we need to swing into the fight. the second brief observation i would like to make is that we need to pay a lot of attention to the moral dimension of this crisis.

estimation, speaking to the people in a rack, 60 of the 243 iraqi army but -- iraqi army combat battalions cannot be accounted for now. 60 out of 243 cannot be accounted for right now. with all equipment lost. job is a mammoth refitting to put these units back together and arm them properly for combat. this is an area where the u.s. will, i am sure, become the arsenal of democracy. no one likes the idea of having to refit the iraqi army yet again after the taxpayer dated the first time. this time around will be paying. of this is aspect refitting. as important as that is, turning around a defeated army and enabling it to fight again embedded with security forces, their military has a long and proud tradition amongst arab countries as one of the best

militaries. they have many proud achievements to .2, including the defeat of the militias in 2008. and the surge that defeated al qaeda the first time. to be turned around. the acme of skill for military commander is to take a defeated army and turn it around. look at burma, the account of turning the defeated british , his points are laid out in great detail and it is one of the most difficult tasks you can imagine. this is where the u.s. can play a key role. it would not take that many embedded at the divisional level and above to insert some wisdom into the way that the iraqi security has picked themselves up and dusted themselves off to get back into the fight. one of the key levels here is taking baby steps in ways that can be small successes and easy

battles that rebuild the confidence for the larger battles the common. the final thing i will say as , the provision of u.s. military assistance on the ground is something that we need to think seriously about, as i'm sure the president is. i hope that what i am detecting in his remarks is that we play hardball with the iraqi government about coming out with a political deal. about putting an end to all of ethnicctarian nonsense, bullying of the kurds. some of these disruptive policies can end, i hope we are willing to help out this long-standing ally. u.s. air power into a rack right now, it is not a silver bullet, but it would have tremendous moral effect in terms of supporting the military.

it is a massive boost to them. whenever they know there is u.s. air power at their backs waiting to help them out if things get tough, you don't need to use a lot of it to for it to have a tremendous amount of moral impact. for people who ask how they can be sure of where the sites are targeted, i honestly have to say that we do need the joint special operations task force on the ground. it does not need to be massive, but we need eyes on the ground. when we turned around the libyan regime's near destruction of the rebels at benghazi and the french and other airstrikes turned that around, that had in norma's effect and there were many instances in a rack where i could imagine a little bit of air power going a very long way. now, we have already got boots on the ground in a rack. people in the embassy, i wish this boots on the ground phrase

would leave our lexicon, because it just does not mean anything. it is an excuse not to do something. we already have boots on the ground. use whatever legal conceit is required to get some u.s. advisers up to the forward headquarters and get them on the front line. i say this with the caveat that they could already be there now, but they are keeping it low. buthat is the case, fine, if it is not, it is something that we should seriously consider. if i had space for one final comment, it is not hard at this stage for me to imagine a rack becoming syria. meeting northwestern iraq going the same way as syria, under isis control, perhaps permanently, like falluja. just 35 kilometers from baghdad international airport. imagine therd to iraqi government if we don't give them sufficient backing, turning to someone with a

sufficient record of protecting their allies. that is the rainy and's. through themselves they stabilized the regime's the fat -- the regime's's defense. when i was there in march speaking to top level leaders, what i heard was that the iraqi government feels it needs to use some of the same formula that assad did. the islamic revolutionary guard corps, the revolutionary militias. this is really the time for a desperate plea to the u.s. government on the behalf of the willing tothere fight hard. if we are using the withholding of military support to come over the political deal, good, but i hope there is a baseline

toermination underneath that do something to stabilize the situation. it cannot be a cosmetic cap measure. we have to commit to the defense of a rack. orcannot leave them to isis the array means. those are really my only comments. >> jim, do you want to speak from the podium? >> i will speak from here, if that is ok. >> i put the map back up. ok, what iis great. am going to say is going to parallel, surprisingly, much of what you said. first of all, everyone, thank you for coming here today. about two months ago, feels like two years ago, when i was diverted from my main job looking at the middle east into

ukraine, i wrote something saying that the crimean situation was the biggest challenge to the united states since 9/11, if not the cold war. i have changed my opinion. what is happening now in iraq is the biggest challenge to international order since 9/11 at least. here is why. in september, president obama addressed the u.n. general assembly and he said that in the middle east, still a cauldron of most of our security concerns and a large percentage of our troops, there were four issues that would require all elements of american power, on the -- a euphemism, of course, for military force. securing the oil lines, combating international terror, standing by our allies and partners. other than the last for the all three of the others are very much in play right now.

the largest concentration about cato we have ever seen anywhere. yemen, you name it, in this combined area of western iraq and on into syria. of all ofhe nastiest them. secondly, we have already seen oil prices spike. a rack is the second largest exporter of oil. opec estimates that it could go up to 6 million barrels of production per day. two thirds of what saudi arabia produces, if it remains stable. folks, this is not a recipe for stability. granted, the oilfields are around basra, but in all kinds of ways i won't get into, but trust me, if there is instability in iraq and if there is no government worthy of the name in baghdad, you won't have a lot of development in the oil sector anywhere except perhaps curtis dan.

interests are very much at stake. clearly the president and u.s. government realize this. the fact is that he is being briefed and i will keep it shark and to what the general calls major muscle movements. at this point that is what we should do. speed is of the essence and a lot of the things that we could say about a rack that are relevant and true are not important at this point. there are only in the next few days a few things that are crucially important by the major actors. there are six. i s importantly there is l. they are facing a decision. they have seized almost all of the sunni arab areas of a rack. the question is -- do they carry out their threat and go after kabbalah?

do they try to besiege baghdad? they certainly can. i know the area to the north and to the south and it is still an area where al qaeda has always had a presence. they have already this morning seized two of the towns to the north and northeast of baghdad. they could pretty much cut it off all the way around. is, even if they can't take the city, and i will get to that second, i don't think they can, how do you get , electricity, and all the other things a country, i capital, five or 6 million people and an army needs if they are surrounding you? i am not speaking theoretically. in 2004 with 130,000 troops in the country, that was a

situation that we faced some days in baghdad in june, july, and august, being hit i ok to from the west with militias from the south and out of sadr city. it was very tough, you know we so, we willoops. have to see what they're going to do. in the decide to stay sunni areas, we are going to have a classic counterinsurgency. things might play out the need to be done for re-conciliation. troops are not going to liberate the areas of a rack. will provide the logistics, the training, and the overwhelming firepower in the months ahead, but i don't think we will do it and i will not recommend it. if they are not going to fight for their own country, we should not on the

ground. it will be bloody. but as history goes, that is a long-term question. they are pushing towards baghdad, the president is faced with a different situation. given that we have a large contingent of americans in the middle of this thing, given what can happen to baghdad and how the other five actors play. government, the iraqi army, not entirely but largely soldiersof shia ground and some of the militias that are also in the mix. andogether they can hold maintain their cohesion and use their vastly superior firepower and extraordinarily large number of superiority of troops to hold the territory where their families live, then we won't have to worry about a siege. they will be able to push these people back and keep the roads open.

it will be messy, as it was in 2004, but they can do it. but that is a big if, folks. can't -- that is, looking at the first of the six elements, if isis decides to go for baghdad in option b and if the authorities are not able to break the siege, i am sure they are strong enough to avoid being overrun. the city of 6 million people will not be overrun by 5000 people, i am almost sure of that. but they may not be able to maneuver, use firepower, coordinate effectively against people who are good at this at this time and they may find themselves essentially besieged. if you get to those decision points, you get to those other actors. the kurds. they are now, as michael said, sitting on a new green line that includes most of the mixed area where there is a kurdish

population. point if there was danger anywhere occurred was living, that is essentially what we have right now. have two other choices, depending on how things go in baghdad. see, they are on either side. they are right along the fault lines. they can move forward and push these people back. they have a lot of heavy equipment and well-trained troops, they can exert tremendous pressure on them if they want to. on the other hand, if they see a total mess, disintegration, irani and domination to the south? they are out of a rack in my view. they have talked about this for years. they have opened certain options.

but that is something to watch. they have decisions as well based on these other decisions. the next actor is the uranium's. if baghdad is besieged, if some of the cities that are so important to them in the south are under threat, it is very hard to imagine the irani and's not acting if someone else doesn't act. consequences of the shia sunni in the middle of the middle east are beyond calculation. the second to last actor is the turks. they are in an awkward position, as they have 80 people, including the entire council, people, but isil they are still a major actor with major military capabilities and close ties to the kurds, so watch them. the final actor is the most important, the united states.

many of you just heard the president. it is a somewhat mixed message at this point. he is saying he will consult with congress to look at his options. when he rules out ground forces he is talking about major ground forces, not necessarily forward air controller teams and other things. he already has military advisers on the ground. he did not rule out airstrikes, but he did not rule it in either . he said he can do anything militarily without a political process. again, going back to the first of the six actors, if they stay ansunni arab iraq, that is acceptable and smart way to move forward. all he can do is provide the aerial firepower for somebody's ground forces, and if some of these forces don't show up to the fight there is no sense in a struggling love alms on people. but if isis is moving south we are facing irani and's.

i am going to leverage my decision to use force and that is smart politics and smart diplomacy with more power to them. if having tried to get this reconciliation and failing , what he is telling us onuntil after this happens the planes will stay in the aircraft carriers in their with other actors shaping the middle east on the ground. one last thing before i stop, people say that -- and mike did

this well -- you know, when are we going to hit the tigers? the 1972 north vietnamese? the easter offensive? it was exactly like 1975 and they are well on their way to overrunning the country even quicker. and then the planes came. b-52s, the f fours. you could feel the ground rumble and every vietnamese could feel the ground rumbled. suddenly they stopped running and started fighting. bit by bit they held their ground and threw back the army until the paris peace accords. we had people on the ground, forward observers, true, but nonetheless it is the meet -- the use of military power, of we didn't sometimes have ground observers.

what we were dealing with was flying columns of highly mobile regular army troops. here we are dealing with an army of people roaring around 30 miles per hour. are vulnerable to airstrikes and there are ways to get forward observers if there are ways to get them in. i will stop there. thank you very much. >> erin? >> thanks for coming out and for everyone watching online. i am going to be talking about isis and get into the details of who they are, what they have been up to, and what we could potentially see. this didn't necessarily come out of nowhere, even though it has been or trade as if it has. there has been a reemergence of isis, the group that [indiscernible]

was in charge of the last decade. they themselves changed the name and rebranded over the years to have a better time operating in a rack. they started reemerging in april of 2013, when isis decided to extend control beyond the rack last year. theyis also the time when officially broke away from al qaeda itself. then in early of february, 2014, they confirmed that isis was no longer in the organization. the thing to remember about isis is that while they were pushed back, they were not completely defeated. least 300still at people killed per month in iraq from 2008 to april of 2013. what was important in theory is that they were able to poor resources and get new money and when theynto iraq operated outside syria. one of the things we have seen for the past six months or so is

the return of foreign fighters into the iraqi arena, many of whom are originally just went to serious to fight against the assad regime, and from there they were plucked and brought into a rack as well. since april of 2013 violence has risen 3.5 times more than what we saw on average for the previous 4.5 years. in addition one of the things that helped them out was a prison break last july where at least 500 individuals were released from prison. some of them were arrested and detained in the surge timeframe. them had experiences that provided more levels of competency to their operations. of course, earlier this year we saw that they were able to take over falluja. another additional aspect of what they have been doing that we did not see last decade and is one of the reasons why people are in a backlash against them

are originally as they have had our hearts and minds strategy, providing food, medicine, religious classes, tribal outreach, allowing people in the movement to repent and join their cause without getting killed. therefore more and more victories have raised the level of prestige of this organization. isis operatives operate in syria and a rack and view the border as nothing more than going from one province to another, not between nationstates. most soul was liberated, and isis was not the only fighting force their tom a there were also baptists and other islamist involved in the takeover, when isis takes over an area, they view it as under their sovereign control and every individual within the territory must pledge allegiance to the leader of the group and if you don't go along with the program you are essentially -- you have a death wish. this is the backdrop to how they

plan to rule, as well as what they are going to lay out. yesterday morning they released the charter of the city to the residents. in it they highlight and whatons on actions people can do. if you steal, your hand will be chopped off. you have to perform all five daily prayers on time. drugs, alcohol, cigarettes are forbidden. orrying non-isis flags weapons is illegal. shrines and graves will be destroyed as they are viewed as polytheistic. women must dressed modestly, which is you prison that he -- euphemism for the full body covering. they stated that those who repent it would be fined and not be executed. i am going to highlight the ways they have been in charge in addition to the criminal

aspects. it is not just terror, they have a soft power aspect as well. they put up a lot of billboards themescity that had related to the sacredness of women and piety. isis tried to initially reach out to local notables tribal stave off alunt or potential backlash in the future . the same way we saw in the last decade in a rack. what most people don't realize is that their operations are highly sophisticated and they have a bureaucracy themselves. i am going to go through how they have been governing these areas. in terms of the law and order side of things, they have sharia courts where they can throw down the rulings related to someone

getting their hand chopped off for thievery or someone getting summary executions. we have even seen a number of individuals crucified, which i am pretty sure most individuals for hundreds of years. they have a police service that rolls around and a consumer protection authority that looks at the different markets and places where you can get food in whethereas and decides a food product is edible or not, essentially, in the same way that the fda would do something. they also have a vigilante aspect where they burned cigarettes and destroy shrines and tunes. we saw one of the more larger destroyedhrines being earlier this year. in terms of public works, they help to build new markets. they have an electrical office that helps to train and repair electrical services throughout the town. a lot of roadwork has been done

in some areas where they have rehabilitated roads and put plants in the medians. they have also been able to continue operating the dam. in addition they have set up offices to provide money for the needy and claim that this helped with farmers in their harvests. they are also now conducting a post office. on the ideological side of things, they have stalls for their media outlets where they pass have dvds of video releases they put out online. in addition they have a truck that rolls around with a lot of different things related to islam and their ideology in different areas, they talk to children, adults, trying to teach them their interpretation of islam. they have in addition set up a number of religious schools for boys and girls and if you memorize the koran, you can get a certificate. i have provided child fun days,

where kids can play around on these inflatable slides and moonwalk devices, as well as have food and eating contests. in addition for the older members of society they have created sessions for mothers and preachers to be trained. in the terms of regular social services, they have run bread factories and provided fruits and vessels for many people, setting up a food kitchen for the needy. they also set up an office for orphans to register them and place them with the family. while the tail -- while the taliban has been paranoid about have beenns, there vaccination program was put out by isis. scoutsen have a cub program that is far more worrying, children from the ages of six to 14 in these housing places and put into training camps. they are essentially having charro -- having child soldiers

be set up. what is next for them? this is what the potential could be. this is what it could be in a rack now that they have taken over. that they will try to consolidate the strength with the money from the bank that is million, up to $425 exceeding any money that osama bin laden had. be used to reinforce the front in syria. as many people know come earlier this year they started an uprising and pushed them out. it is likely that they use this to reinforce and help out on that front, as well as try to push back in. ime of the questions currently have are -- are they stretched thin? 7000 people to 10,000 people, spanning from the countryside all the way to emotional. can they hold this territory?

obviously many people do not like their ideology and don't want to live through this. obviously, the type of penalties the they pursue created backlash last time. some statements from tribal members about how they were going to stand up not just of the malik e-government and isis themselves, the fact is that the islamic state is a reality. the ability of isis to crisscross provinces within their state can prove difficult for completely dislodging and territories can find more abilities to consolidate the states. worldwide the continued battlefield victories and the perception that the will of god will onlyr side enhance the procedure of joining the group and furthering its goals. so, this is the state of isis right now. it is obviously different from what al qaeda was up to in the

last decade, but it is a sophisticated organization and this will be much for difficult to dislodge than anything we have seen before. thank you. >> friday president obama said his national security team was considering options in response to the escalating violence in iraq. he made the statement on the south lawn and we will show you his brief statement and questions with reporters. then we will take your comments on the situation in iraq and the proposed measures being considered. >> good morning, everybody. i want to take some time to give you an update on the situation in iraq.

a terrorist organization operates in both iraq and syria. in the face of a terrorist offensive, security forces have proven unable to defend a number of cities, which has allowed the terrorists to overrun part of their territory. this poses a danger to a rack and its people. given the nature of these terrorists, it could pose a threat eventually to american interests as well. this threat is not brand-new. over the last year we have been steadily ramping up our security assistance to the iraqi government with increased training, equipping, and it -- and intelligence. a rack needs additional support to bolster the capabilities of their security forces. we will not be sending u.s. troops back into combat, but i have asked my national security team to prepare a range of other options that could help to support iraqi security forces and i will be reviewing those in

the days ahead. i want to be clear, this is not solely or even primarily a military challenge. over the past decade american troops have made extraordinary sacrifices to give iraqis an opportunity to claim their own future. unfortunately, the leaders in a rack have been unable to overcome the mistrust and sectarian differences that have long been simmering there. that has created vulnerabilities within the iraqi government as well as their security forces. we may takeon that to provide assistance to their security forces must be joined by a serious and sincere effort by iraqi leaders to set aside sectarian differences and promote stability and account for the legitimate interests of all of iraq's communities and to continue to build the capacity of an effective security force.

we cannot do it for them. in the absence of this type of short-termffort, military action, including any assistance we might provide, it won't succeed. this should be a wake-up call. the leaders in a rack cap to demonstrate a willingness to make hard decisions and compromises on behalf of the iraqi people in order to bring the country together. effort they will have the support of the united states, our friends, and allies. iraq's neighbors have responsibilities to support this process. no one has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside a rack. no one will benefit from seeing a rack to send into chaos. ourunited states will do part, but understand that ultimately it is up to the iraqis as a sovereign nation to solve their problems. indeed, across the region we have redoubled efforts to build more capable counterterrorism forces of the these groups

cannot establish safe haven and we will continue that effort through our support of moderate opposition in syria, the support for iraqi security forces, and our partnerships with other countries across the region. we are also going to pursue intensive diplomacy throughout this time inside a rack and across the region. there is never going to be this ability in iraq and across the region unless people can is all the differences peacefully without resorting to war or relying on the united states military. we will be monitoring the situation carefully over the next several days and our top priority will remain being vigilant against any threats to our personnel serving overseas. we will consult closely with congress as we make determinations about appropriate action and we will continue to keep the american people fully informed as we make decisions about the way forward. i will take a question.

bags are you reluctant to get involved again? >> we need to look at the situation carefully. this is a vicious organization and we need to make sure they don't get a broader foothold. i think there are dangers of asrce sectarian fighting they try to overrun sacred sites that could trigger conflicts the could be hard to stamp out. we have enormous interest there. our troops and the american people and american taxpayers made huge investments and sacrifices in order to give them the opportunity to chart a better course and a better destiny. ultimately they will have to seize it. as i said before, we will not be

able to do it for them. given the very difficult history we have seen in a rack -- in observer objective would recognize that in the absence of accommodation amongst ,he factions inside iraq various military actions inside the united states, by any outside nation, the model -- will not solve those problems in the long term. anybody else? you is the syrian civil war spilling over the iraqi border? >> that has been happening for some time. they have been able to gain a foothold in syria, part of the reason we have been so concerned about it. part of the reason we have been supporting the opposition there. it is a challenging problem. wasiraqi government resistant to some of our offers

of help. they have come around now to recognizing that cooperation with us on these issues could be useful. that is obviously not the case assadia, where resident -- president assad has no interest in seeing us there and the governments supporting us have not been able to block, for example, u.n. efforts with humanitarian aid. this is a regional problem and it will be a long-term problem. we are going to have to combine selective actions by the military to make sure we are going after terrorists who could harm our personnel overseas or eventually hit the homeland, we will have to combine that with what is a very challenging international effort to try to rebuild countries and communities that have been shattered by sectarian war. that is not an easy task.

you been in touch? what are they willing to do? >> we are in contact with them now. we will have a better sense by , after of the weekend those consultations. we will be getting a better sense from them how they might to bring aboutrt the public -- the kind of political unity that bolsters security forces. look, the united states has poured a lot of money into these security forces. we devoted a lot of training to those security forces. the fact that they are not willing to stand, fight, and defend their post against admittedly hardened terrorists, but not terrorists who are overwhelming in numbers, indicates that there is a problem with morale and

commitment. that is ultimately rooted in the political problems that have plagued the country for a very long time. flex can you talk about about the u.s. concern over the potential disruption of oil supplies? >> so far, at least, we have not seen major disruptions in oil supplies. obviously, if in fact they were able to obtain control over major output, significant refineries, that could be a source of concern. as you might expect, world oil markets react to any kind of instability in the middle east. one of our goals should be that to make sure in cooperation with other countries in the region, not only are we creating a backstop in terms of what is happening, but if it does wind up being a disruption that some of the other producers in the

gulf coast are able to pick up the slack. that will be part of the this week.n to give people a sense of timing here, although events on the ground have been happening very quickly in a rack, our ability to plan, whether it is military action or work with the government on these political issues is going to take several days. people should not anticipate that this is something that is overnight.ppen and that weake sure have gathered the intelligence necessary. i do direct and order any when targeted to have the effect. the united states is not simply

going to involve itself in the military action in the absence of a political plan by the iraqis. that gives us some assurance that they are prepared to work together. we will not allow ourselves to be dragged back into a situation in which while we are there, we are keeping a lid on things and after enormous sacrifices by us, the people not there are not acting in ways that are conducive to the long-term prosperity and stability of the country. all right? thank you very much, everybody. >> that was president obama from the white house on friday. we are opening the phone lines to hear what you think the u.s. about the situation in iraq. numbers to call on your screen.

"reuters," they reported that sunni militants have reached the northwestern part of a rack, advancing south but slowing, the u.s. considering its options, moving an aircraft carrier it up -- aircraft carrier into the region to be ready for any decision from the president. we will take your calls now. liz is on the line from republicans. >> i think that we should use diplomacy only. television. your why do you think diplomacy only? >> we gave them plenty of help and that should be the end of it . >> thank you.

on to jordan, calling from new jersey on the independent line. what do you think? diplomacy or military? >> diplomacy. >> why is that? >> it seems the most reasonable. they are a sovereign nation, as the president was saying. let them handle their own business. bernie in to glen maryland, kevin is on the republican line. what are your thoughts? >> we should stay out of it. the problem is the u.s. gets involved in this stuff all the time and we should not go in. you think about what the president has facing him? >> he needs to go. he has caused enough problems and needs to get out of there. >> all right. tennessee, democratic line. what is your opinion? diplomacy or military? >> i believe in the air

military. we just got them recently. it is not a good thing to should democrats, so we help them. air, air military. we are just creating more terrorists in there. we should really help them, the iraqi. i do believe that. >> some comments are coming to us from facebook. forim is on the line democrats. you're on the air. what should we be doing in iraq? all, we started the

whole thing underlies. we have killed thousands, hundreds of thousands of innocent people over there. soldiers over here. i think that we should stay out of it. and if anything, air -- we should go out and arrest cheney and bush, all of them, put them in jail where they should have been for creating this whole mess. >> chris is on the line for newfoundland. chris, what is your opinion? >> we armed these people to go after assad in syria and when they could not crack that nut, we turned them around to go into a rack to draw the arabians into a war. this is simply war profiteering by the establishment on both sides. people had better wake up on

this. >> all right, karen is on the line. karen, we just heard from president obama on friday, still trying to make a decision on what to do. diplomacy or military? definitely. obama don't know what he is doing anyway. all in all i think we should go over there and bomb the hell out of them. that's it. >> breaking news coming from the associated press. a string of explosions rocked the iraqi capital. iraqi police and hospital officials say the string of explosions has killed at least 15 people, wounding more than 30. this is in the city center and a car bomb moving 10, another explosion hit the area, killing two and wounding five.

killing three, wounding seven. some of the latest of what is going on right now in a rack. on the line i have got ira, oregon. go ahead and let us know what you think about the situation there. been said bys others who have called in so far , it seems to me that the a rack war, we were in there under false pretenses. there is no justification for that war. we wasted a lot of money training the military over there. they are obviously not for -- not interested in protecting their own interests. i don't think we need diplomacy or military, we need to get out of there and stay out of there. problems going on over there are partially our fault but at this point we need to cut our losses. >> the washington post has an

article talking about isis, the group calling itself the islamic state of iraq and syria. posting gruesome photos of a parent mass killings in iraq. this one appears to show isis fighters leading iraqi soldiers away. the group says it is inspired by al qaeda and posting put the newspaper calls gruesome photos on their twitter account. has been shut down by twitter since then. a general in iraq told reporters that the military is bringing parts of the military under control. 15 people now killed in baghdad. we have got chris, oceanside, california. what do you think about this situation? >> we should stop doing the and stop theg

foreign aid to these countries that create dissent among these people. they hate us for the fact that we support these regimes that eventually turn evil. when they are no longer friendly towards us we go ahead and make them our enemies. we are the ones that created saddam hussein when they were in a fight with iran. when we were through with them, we decided to go in there and take them out, saying that we are helping the iraqi people when, in effect, we are not helping nobody but oil businesses. >> what should we do now? >> i believe we have got to stop being the world's police and we need to worry about our nation and build our nation to what it , when kennedy ruled. when the moment that that the beginning was

of hypocrisy. >> william is on the line in mayo. what are your thoughts? >> a lot of people blasting bush . i blame obama and bush. they made a lot of mistakes. now i've's should have more access to the bids. we lost a lot of blood over there. made, thathat obama they would not work with the united states in these different tribes, these people have been fighting for thousands of years. two years ago you had a dictator running syria. we should have gone in there. russia was helping him. we should have been helping those evil stabilize that country. >> and we should send our troops over there? some specialsend forces and try to help them out.

probably going to have to help them with military equipment and try to get them around. they can do a lot of the fighting. they are not realizing that this is like the second-largest oilfield in the world. they have got these channels where they cannot get hold in saudi arabia. a world crisis is developing. >> taking a look at the note on facebook from thomas, he says -- how about minding our own business for a change? >> what are our options? which one should be choose? >> the reason that i say we should stay out of it, the bush

administration, along with some democrats -- not blaming it all about the it is all oil over there. they keep fighting those folks, those folks over there, they suffering. they killing innocent women and children and other people. just like they doing over there. what about that? in theds of people dying united states. we need that help here. bring the servicemen here. >> thank you. from virginia on the independence line, austin. your thoughts? we poured money that into the security forces over there. they are not willing to stand up and fight? they are all backing down? given that half of what we all know was created for the united states, i think we should stay it -- leaved move

it alone. years of people fighting without being civilized about it, the experience of our is somewhatr there lost. i think we should leave it alone. abc special forces going in? for security, and then them not willing to stand up and fight, andhould leave it alone encourage diplomacy and if we see symptoms of where it will affect us, and the united dates, -- states, then i say, load them up and let's go and do it we have got to do. >> let's hear what lindsey graham had to say. he talked about how the u.s. should approach the situation in the role of iran. >> any assistance we provide these to be corrugated with a political solution. acute military problem and a chronic political problem. there is no way in my view malik he can pull this off. there