readiness force that the member states talked about, can you go through the process decide when,l about what is in that force and specifically what units the u.s. could contribute? >> okay. so to your first question about policing, and what we see there. of balticional tempo air policing will continue as thesee it today as far as nato contributions to baltic air policing. months ago when we first had crimea and this nations,oncern by the my headquarters was tasked to assurance meshessers and they were to be air, land and sea, in the north, center and south. so a comprehensive set of operations. so the air piece is just one of those assurance measures. have done is stepped up such that we used to have one location, policing

and then we opened a second policing in estonia and then we added other locations where we flew air policing and normal exercises in romania and other places. we will maintain the tasking, it was reaffirmed in the summit, that we will have assurance measures in the same capacity and type that we have now. maintain those assurance theures until we make permanent adaptations that are by the readiness action plan, the rap, as we call that was addressed at the summit. so you can he that our efforts, which really did a good job of assuring our nations, those assurance measures will remain in effect at the current level we get the adaptation.

there was a short spike in engagements, but if you look at the trend of russian flights and engagements in the northeast our alliance, they're fairly traditionally normal. lot more activity across the borders in russian aviation, but those are not the aviation that come along the borders and we have reacted to as a function of our air policing. understand that difference? okay. your second question was about to develop the very piece.adiness so, when allied command shaped, began the paper which eventually became we had thoughts about how this would work in general. was to get to the

summit and get the decisions that we needed to make those three adaptations, which you've heard me call as the three-legged stool. one of those legs is that very high readiness force. more inescribed it purpose and function than in detail to the summit. and the summit completely endorsed and embraced it. the process that will put the detail on the bones. paper, written a second which we will deliver to the next weekdefense which will advance the ball in nationsnding what the believe that force should look like. and we'll have a robust aboutsion at that meeting how this force looks in the future. agreed to and a clear understanding of what it needs to be able to do. we effect that now will be the details that we'll work next couple months.

important to remember that i current assurance measures, which has four will remain inm, effect until we get to the adaptation of rap. so we have both an assurance and deterrent force that will remain in place until we effect the change. >> thanks. today general dempsey made some talked aboutn he the possibility of actually putting u.s. combat troops in a combat role on the ground in iraq to assist iraqi security forces and possibly peshmerga. i'm wondering if you've gotten any similar commitments from any to actually put their own combat troops on the iraq. in >> so, as to what the chairman said, i would refer you to the to get definition from

him on what he said and intended. i will report is i think you're already aware of. natoe summit, a group of nations, not nato, but a nato nations met and discussed commitments on a in western iraq, and to some degree what might happen syria.ern and because those deliberations not firmncements are and finalized yet, i would refer individually to the nations to ask them what they're committed to. >> general, i wanted to follow said something you yesterday about russia's role. you said i don't think we can arrive at a europe whole free and at peace without rush as -- partner. a as would you expand on why that's so important? and leaving aside the politics

of it, what role does nato play conclusion?at that >> so, yes, day make this statement yesterday. expound on what that means. tohink it's fairly easy understand that for us to europeanogether in the land mass, that is going to need the cooperation, accommodation, want to describe it, of russia. the russian energy part of the equation, transportation, manufacturing relationships, agricultural relationship. to a're ever going to get europe that we describe, whole, free and at peace, and a europe, we're going to need to be able to work with relationships. years, trying for many

12 to 14 years to develop a russia.hip with clearly the actions of the last four or five months are not the partner.f a so now we have to redefine that, willve to approach how we go forward, and you see nato and other nations taking those the conditionset for how we need to be able to relate in the short term. but in the long term, we're going to have to reach some sort andof understanding in order, i think, prosperousward for a europe. i think russia has to be part of a prosperous europe, so that's of what i said. oh how does nato fit into that? of bythere are a lot lateral relationships in nato with russia, which will be a big defining the future of and militarily. we in nato are held together, as shareow, because we

common values, common morals. is toat we would hope that sharesurope those common values and morals. changing international borders not part of that framework. and that's what we've got to term.hrough in the short >> general, you mentioned a few the assuranceat measures will continue. does that specifically include of theational presence u.s. forces that have been over the pastorry several months? you offer any further clarity on your thinking levelsong-term force in -- i think last time you were here wassaid that before there any discussion of maybe ticking wanted to put a hard stop on the draw down that been under way.

what's the status of that, is drawcounty one the table? hardhere been an implicit stop on that? >> the simple answer tour first the u.s.about will participation in the rotations in the current force presence continue. the simple answer is yes. assurance know, the measures that we affected very involved european based 173rd, in four locations, those forces will be october by a u.s. based force. mentionedn to, as i earlier, we were given the task maintaine summit to these assurance measures until theere able to put in place longer determine, a-- longer determine

adantations. so the u.s. forces will be part force thatational continues, and u.s. forces will be part of that longer term adaptation. what i have said several times about u. conn forces is the bottom line, is straight forward. currently sequestration is the law of the land. make all ofn will the services get smaller. as the services get smaller, fresher -- pressure on overseas forces. torently there are changes overseas forces on the books. and this is a physics problem much those changes are on happen unlesswill readdressed. leadershipalked to here about a function to readdress those decisions, because those sequestered decisions were clearly made before russia, crimea.

this building now moving towards a review of those decisions. inand the longer term status u. conn, i have been on record that is i believe still have new frastructure that could be brought down, and i support the study that works on that. inputs and iy think they have been well heard. any furtherport force structure cuts, and that's of i've asked for a review those cuts, which are on the books and automatic, should we action to correct the .ffects >> i understand you recently met guard statel

officials because the national guard has this relationship with european countries. what goal to you ascribe to that bigger context? you understand russian concerns that their neighbors are tying themselves to the united states,. >> first of all, i don't agree with the such position that you question, ebb of your that these associatessings lead to the conflict. that.t agree with we do have a magnificent program guards, air and army national guards called the inte partnership program, fact the state department between california and ukraine is a robust one and we expect it to continue into the future. our national guards bring an me as ale capability to

, because these relationships that are bit in these long-term with ourociations nations, they build trust, they confidenceionships, with these coordinations. we have young officers growing up in the state of california who are growing up with young officers in ukraine. and some of these nations have associateses for almost two decades. and so these officers and these have formed long-term relationships, which are incredibly valuable. these state partnership programs are well funded. as the budget in u. conn comes down and my ability with our active forces to engage with the anythingses is challenged, still have a robust program supported by the national guards. so these are great programs,

i've said it now three times, so i'll stop with that. but the bottom line, this is a program that is a oure and growing part of outreach to many nations. withgain the program ukraine will continue into the future. standing promise, they are not a result of russia, connected inot be alluded.s you >> you mentioned that you are opposed to further force level cuts in europe. requested additional forces? are you looking to beat that up trying to freeze the forced cuts? isillso with regard to last week president obama said that toughs military is preparing to go after targets in was wondering if any additional assets had been moved

aircraft to prepare operation? >> okay. to the additional forces. i'm a realist. are in an age where our budgets are going down, not up. not expect and would not asking for of energy force truck tour to move back to europe. it's realistic to expect. i am very emphatic that we should cease further decrease of forces. we adegrees the additional challenges which we see. through rotational forces. and the army's program of aligned forces, the ability of the national guards to rotate as we mentioned just before when the 173rd comes current assurance

measures work. presencehat rotational will add the capacities that we need to address the increased challenge. so the recipe that i see for the we should reduce, cease reductions in awrp and through rotational forces add capacity and capability as need to address challenges. that frankly, the forces are in europe now are working at full speed as part of their normal rotationings into afghan and theirrequirements normal taskings is part of the management scheme. and what we're going to add on top of that now is a requirement rap, in how we would do that. for think that calls rotational forces and their utility. believe that our army

staff has a great plan for the plan and we are working through the others now i think raiseompletely doable to that, to meet that increased requirement. being here. all for to discussng operational details in support of any actions that are going on iraq. i think it's inappropriate. thank you. >> defense secretary chuck hagel announced an increase in air strikes against the islamic isis during a hearing tuesday. that's next on c-span. on this morning, "washington journal," we talk about president obama's decision to

to west africa in response to the ebola outbreak there. atshington journal" is live 7:00 eastern. state department officials will testify before a house select on benghazi, as they the 2012 attacks that killed four americans much live coverage starts today at eastern on c-span 3. you can also join the bock andion on face twitter. later in the day, secretary of on capitol will be hill to talk about the administration's strategy, talk about isis. watch live from the senate foreign relations committee at 2:30 eastern, also c pan 3. this weekend, our campaign 2014 debate coverage continues friday

night at 8:00. of the arkansas governors debate. saturday night at 8:00, live governorsf the iowa debate between republican branstad and his challenger, jack hatch. the president and cofounder of tea party patriots at 8:00. and saturday night at 10:00, directoruniversity's of astro biology, talks about life on expert the current debates about how it began. sunday, morten storm on his experiences about al qaeda.

find our schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. e-mail us or send us a tweet. now military commanders testify about president obama's strategy militantd combat the group isis. defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs chairman general martin dempsey took questions from members of the senate armed services committee. committee is chaired by senator carl levin of michigan.

additional u.s. personnel in iraq and training syrian fighters. you're watching live coverage here on c-span 3. no more war, no more war! no more war!

this meeting will come to order. we'll ask everyone to take their seats and be quiet or please leave. this morning the committee receives testimony from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the threat posed by the islamic state of iraq, known as isis or isil. and on the president's strategy for addressing this threat. secretary hagel and generall dempsey, we welcome you both. we look forward to your testimony. isis has terrorized the iraqi and syrian people, engaging in kidnappings, killings, persecutions of religious minorities, and attacking schools, hospitals and cultural sites. isis has brought home its barbarity with the behe of american journalists and a british aid worker.

while assiisis is focuses on building an islamic caliphate in the middle east, its poisonous ideology is hostile not only to the region but to the world and there is real risk that the area it controls can become a launching pad for future terrorist attacks against the united states and our allies. this threat is amplified by foreign fighters who travel from western countries to join with isis, and then return to their countries of origin with advanced training and fighting experience. i recently returned from iraq where u.s. air strikes are helping kurdish peshmerga forces and iraqi security forces break isis' momentum. however, our military leaders and intelligence experts uniformly say that air strikes alone will not be sufficient to defeat isis. a number of elements of a successful strategy against isis are embodied in the approach outlined by the president last

week. first, the participation of key arab states in the region will be critical to the effectiveness of any international coalition. if western countries act in iraq and syria without visible participation an leadership of arab nations, it will play into the propaganda pitch of the violent extremists that we want to dominate iraq and syria. isis and isil is a threat to all islamic countries and can only be purged in a lasting way by mainstream islam and the arab world. international conferences last week and in paris yesterday were a good start. with the number of arab states declaring their shared commitment to develop a strategy "to destroy isil wherever it is, including in both iraq and syria," and joining in an international pledge to use "whatever means necessary" to achieve this goal.

second, our assistance has been requested by the government of iraq, which has made a commitment to govern in an inclusive manner. the effort to rid iraq of isis cannot be successful without the support of all el. ments of iraqi society, including not only shiites, kurds and religious minorities, but also the sunni tribes who strongly oppose the maliki government. the more the new government in baghdad does to address the grievances of iraq's sunni communities, the more successful they will be in helping rid their country and the world of the isis poison. third, the president has announced that combat operations in iraq and syria will be carried out by iraqis and syrians. but the support of a broad international coalition. that is the better approach because in this part of the world, the use of military force by western nations can be counterproductive if it is not done correctly. in the absence of a western

target on the ground, isis' actions will undermine its own cause because its brutality will continue to be targeted at fellow muslims. we should be fully engaged in training and equipping iraqis, syrians, kurds and other local forces that are willing to take on isis, but we should try to counter the narrative of fanatics who attack western combat forces on the ground as an occupation. i believe the president under both domestic and international law has the authority to conduct the type of limited military campaign that he outlined last week. however, bipartisan, congressional support will make it easier for the president to build an international coalition, including the open and visible support of arab countries. we should have the chance before we leave to vote on legislation that would authorize the u.s. military to openly train and

equip the vetted moderate opposition in syria, and i hope that congress can come together to support it. senator inhoff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. after a year of the white house indecision and hand wringing, the president finally presented to the american people his strategy to defeat isis. however, that was announced last week fell sort in two vital areas that i want to share with you. first, the president again failed to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat that isis poses to the united states national security and its homeland. his claim that america is safe may support his political narrative but it is not true. secretary hagel, i appreciate your honesty when you described isis on august 21st. you said it is an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in iraq or any place else. i agree with you. isis has reported 35,000 fighters. nearly three times larger than it was in june. it's tripled since june. it is growing larger every day.

it is estimated that at least 2,000 fighters hold western passports and at least 100 are u.s. citizens. that's coupled with their vast resources, large safe haven, blood thirst to kill more mens is a recipe for disaster. the administration continues to say no specific evidence of thoughts against the homeland exist. i want to remind everyone we didn't have any specific evidence or plots against the homeland before 9/11. now we face an extreme disorganization that is larger, more brutal and better networked and better funded than al qaeda ever was. i believe it is critical to have in the record that we established today how isis is fundamentally different from al qaeda. first of all, al qaeda hides in caves. isis takes holds and governs territories the size of my state of oklahoma. secondly, al qaeda has small groups of specialized fighters using terrorist tactics. isis is an army with tanks, artillery, using conventional

insurgent and terrorist tactics. al qaeda is based in remote regions of the world, isis sits on europe's doorstep. al qaeda outdated propaganda -- used outdated propaganda in arab language media but isis uses sophisticated media in multiple languages, including english. al qaeda spent $1 million -- this is very significant, mr. chairman. they spent $1 million on 9/11. isis we are going to say until today takes more than $1 million every day. there's an ap story it morning that shows very convincingly that they have access to an additional $3 million every day. now the second thing that i think is a vital area. the president's strategy to defeat isis is fundamentally detached from the reality on the ground. let's be clear. isis commands a terrorist army

surprised of tens of thousands of organizers fighters who have tanks and high-tech missiles and artillery. its conventional battlefield successes have allowed it to triple its ranks in size in only three months. it will take an army to beat an army. but instead the president presented the limited counterterrorism strategy that he compared to his approach in yemen and somalia. the difference between al qaeda in yemen and somalia and that of isis are enormous and our streej for each should reflect that reality. taking this one-size-fits-all is destined for failure. the architect of the successful u.s. air campaign that destroyed the taliban army on the battlefield in 2001 said, this is a quote, "we need to institute an aggressive air campaign in which air power is applied like a thunderstorm not like a drizzle. furthermore, air strikes can only be fully expectative especially in urban areas and isis is entrenched in. when paired with skills of the

trained air controller on the ground, the president already ruled out boots on the ground. there was a selective sigh of relief at isis headquarters in syria when they heard him say that. his claim of no boots on the ground is an insult to the men and women in iraq today who are serving in harm's way. we already have boots on the ground in baghdad and throughout iraq. we should ask the pilots dropping bombs over iraq whether they think they are in combat. pilots who face the real threat of having to eject over isis-held territory. i'm not advocating an army division or combat elements on the ground, but it is foolhardy for the obama administration to tie the hands and so firmly rule out the possibility of air controllers and special operators on the ground to direct air strikes and advise fighter forces. it sends the wrong message to our troops, to the enemy and their partners. furthermore, if congress does authorize the training and equipping of the syrian moderate

opposition, and then pushes them into combat without advisors on the ground, that effort is most likely to fail. and we still don't have answers to the most important and fundamental questions about what we're ultimately trying to accomplish such as what does a defeated or destroyed isis look like. finally, i hope we get answers today, not only to the president's strategy but also about the current state of our military residents. general dempsey, nothing significant has changed when you warned on february 12th of last year -- not this year -- that our military is on a path where the force may become "so degraded and so unready that it would be immoral to use force." with six years of massive budget cuts and another round of defense sequestrations on the horizon, we're still on that path. despite this, the administration is still calling on our military to support its pivot to asia, bolster our european allies against a growing russian

threat, successfully transition or missions and launch military operations against isis in iraq and syria. unlike what the president seems to believe, you can't have it both ways. fr9rgridx$ñ on one hand while expecting our military to do it on the other. if we want our military men and women to go into harm's way, defend this country, we need to give them the training, tools and support they need to sucsu succeed. the trademark of this administration -- a lot of tough talk, not backed by meaningful action. i was hoping we could debate these broad dly important issue but we have not been able to do that. looks like, mr. chairman, this is it. thank you. >> thank one senator inhoff. secretary hagel. >> chairman levin, senator inhoff, members of the

committee. chairman dempsey and i very much appreciate the opportunity -- >> okay. we're asking you again to please sit down and if not we're going to ask you to leave. no, thank you. thank you for -- would you please now leave? would you please now leave? i'm asking you to please leave. >> you're acting very war like yourself. would you please leave. >> no military solution to this. no more war. no military solution. no more war. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, as i was saying, chairman dempsey and i very much appreciate the opportunity this morning to discuss the president's strategy to degrade and ultimately defeat isil. as you know, you all know, today president obama's in atlanta meeting with cdc officials

regarding the ebola crisis. then will travel tonight to tampa to receive a briefing from the commander of u.s. central command, general austin, on operational plans to implement his isil strategy. i'll join the president tomorrow in tampa for that briefing. the defense department civilian and military leaders are in complete agreement that the united states and our allies and partners must take action against isil and that the president's strategy is the right approach. however, as president obama has repeatedly made clear, american military power alone cannot, will not eradicate the threats posed by isil to the united states, our allies, and our friends and partners in the region. iraq's continued political progress toward a more inclusive and representative government in its programs of reform and reconciliation will be critical to achieve the progress

required. we believe that new iraqi minister, prime minister is committed to bringing all iraqis together against isil. to support him and the iraqi people in their fight, the coalition will need to use all its instruments of power. we intend to use all of those instruments of power, military, law enforcement, economic, diplomatic, and intelligence in coordination with all the countries in the region. to succeed this strategy will also require a strong partnership between our executive branch and our congress. the president has made it a priority to consult with congressional leadership on the isil challenge. as have vice president biden, secretary kerry and many senior members of the administration. i have appreciated the opportunities i've had to discuss the president's strategy with many members of this committee and other members of the senate and house over the last couple of weeks. europeani.

the world has seen isil's barbarity up close as its fighters advanced across western and northern iraq and slaughtered thousands of innocent civilians including sunni and she a muslims and kurdish iraqis and religious minorities. ais isil's murder of two journalists exposed their tactics. over the weekend, we saw isil's murder of a british citizen. isil now controls a vast swathe of eastern syria and western and northern iraq including towns and cities in all these areas. isil has gained strength by exploiting the civil war in sear dwra and sectarian strive in

rag. and it has seized territory and acquired significant resources and advanced weapons. isil has employed violence acon military tactics. isil has been very adept at using social media to increase its global profile and attract fighters. its goal is to become the new van guard of a global extremist movement and establish extremist islamic calliphatcaliphate. while isil clearly poses an immediate threat to american citizens in iraq and our interests in the middle east, we also know that thousands of foreign fighters, including europeans and more than 100 americans have traveled to syria. with passports that give them relative freedom of movement,

these fighters can exploit isil's safe haven to plan, coordinate and carry out attacks against the united states and europe. although the intelligence community has not yet detected specific plotting against the u.s. home land, isil has global aspirations and as president obama has made clear, isil's leaders have threatened america and our allies. if left up checked, isil will directly let p our homeland and our allies. in his address to the nation last week, president obama announced that the united states will lead a broad multinational coalition to roll back the isil threat. more than 40 nations have already expressed their willingness to participate in this effort and more than 30 nations have indicated their readiness to offer military support. president obama, vice president biden, secretary kerry and and others have been working and will ten to work to unite and expand this coalition.

at the nato summit, secretary kerry akon scrend i convened a of key partners. turkey by virtue of its common interests in destroying isil will play an important role in this effort. turkey joined our meeting in wales and secretary kerry and i continue to discuss specific contributions turkey will make. secretary kerry convened a meeting last week with the foreign ministers from the six gulf corporation councils nations egypt, iraq, jordan and lebanon. and all signed a communique to do their share in the comprehensive fight against isil including joining the many aspects of a coordinated military campaign against isil. also last week 2 it nations of

the arab league calling for comprehensive measures to combat isil.2 it nations of the arab league calling for comprehensive measures to combat isil.it nations of the arab league calling for comprehensive measures to combat isil.t nations of the arab league calling for comprehensive measures to combat isil. nations of the arab league calling for comprehensive measures to combat isil. and french president hollande hosted a conference attended by permanent members, arab leaders and representatives of the eu, arab league and the united nations. they all pledged to help iraq in the fight against isil, including through military assistance. key allies such as united kingdom, france and australia are already contributing military support and other partners have begun to make specific offers. at next week's u.n. general assembly, we expect that additional nations will be begin making commitments across the spectrum of capabilities. building on the strong chapter 7 u.n. security resolution adopted last month calling on all member states to take members to counter isil and suppress the

flow of foreign fighters to isil. also next week, from be will chair a meeting of the u.n. security council to further mobilize the international community. as you all know, former international security assistance force commander general john allen has been designated to serve as special presidential envoy for the global coalition to counter isil. president obama is meeting with general allen this morning. general allen will work in a civilian diplomatic capacity to sustain the coalition drawing on his expensive experience in the region. he will be the administration's point man to build support within the region. he will work closely with general austin to ensure that coalition efforts are aligned at croc all elements of our strategy. in his address to the nation,

the president outlined the four elements of this strategy. let me now describe how we are implementing this whole government roach. first, in close coordination with the new iraqi government, we are broadening our air campaign to conduct systemic air strikes against isil targets. to protect americans threatened by isil's advances, and to prevent humanitarian catastrophe, u.s. military has already conducted more than 160 successful air strikes which have killed isil fighters, destroyed weapons and equipment and enabled iraqi and kurdish forces on get back on the offense and secure infrastructure. these actions have disrupted isil tactically and have helped buy time for the iraqi government to begin forming an inclusive and broad based governing coalition led by the

new prime minister. that was one of president obama's essential pre-conditions for taking further action against isil. because the iraqi people must be united in their opposition against isil in order to defeat them, this will require a united and inclusive government. this is ultimately their fight. the new broader air campaign will include strikes against all-isil targets and enable iraqi security forces including kurdish forces to continue to recapture territory from isil and hold.security forces includ kurdish forces to continue to recapture territory from isil and hold. because isil operate as freely and maintains a safe haven in syria, our actions will not be restrained by a border in name only. as the president said last week, if you threaten america, you will find no safe haven. the president of the united

states as thas the constitutionl authority to use military. and centcom is refining those plans. this plan includes targeted actions against safe havens in syria, include ing its infrastructure. general dempsey and i have reviewed and approved the plan. second, kurdish and iraqi forces and moderate syria operations, to support them, the president announced he would deploy 475 additional troops to iraq. part of that number includes approximately 150 advisers and support personnel who supplement forces already in iraq,

conducting assessments of the iraqi security forces. this assessment mission is now transitioning to an advise and assist mission with more than 15 teams embedding with iraqi security forces at the headquarters level to provide strategic and operational vice and assistance. the rest of the additional 475 troops include 125 personnel to support intelligence, surveillance, and recognizance missions out of erbil. 200 personnel to increase headquarters elements in baghdad and ir beerbil. by the time all these forces arrive, there will be approximately 1600 u.s. personnel in iraq responding to the isil threat. but as the president said last week, american forces will not have a combat mission. instead these advisers are supporting iraqi and kurdish forces and supporting the

government's plan to stand up iraqi national guard units to help sunni communities defeat isil. the best counter wages to isil are local forces and people of the area. in june the president asked congress for the necessary authority for dod on train and equip moderate syrian opposition forces and $500 million to fund this program. we have now secured support from saudi arabia to host the training program for this mission and saudi arabia has offered financial and other support, as well. the $500 million requested in june for this train and equip program reflects centcom's estimate of the cost to train, equip and resupply more than 5,000 opposition forces over one year. the package of assistance that we initially provide would consist of small arms, vehicles, and basic equipment like

communications as well as tactical and strategic training. as they improve effectiveness on the battlefield, we will provide assistance to the most trusted commanders and capable forces. because dod does not currently train and equip mission, the administration has asked congress to proit authority in the continuing resolution it is currently now considering. a rigorous gutting process will be critical for the success of this program. the dod will work closely with the state department, the intelligence community and partners in the region to screen and vet the forces we train and equip. we will monitor them closely to ensure that weapons do not fall into the hands of radical elements of the opposition, isil or other extremist groups. there will always be risks. there will always be risks in a

program like this. but we believe that risk is justified by the imperative of destroying isil. and necessity of having capable partners on the ground in syria. as we pursue this program, the united states will continue to press for a political resolution to the syrian conflict resulting in the end of the assad are a ge regime. assad has created conditions that allow terrorist groups to gain ground.assad has created c that allow terrorist groups to gain ground. the united states will not cooperate with the assad regime. we will also continue to counter assad through diplomatic and economic pressure. the third element of the president's strategy is an all inclusive approach to preventing attacks on the hope land. the united states will draw on

intelligence, diplomatic and economic tools to cut off isil's funding, improve our intelligence,ll draw on intelligence, diplomatic and economic tools to cut off isil's funding, improve our intelligence,ill draw on intelligence, diplomatic and economic tools to cut off isil's funding, improve our intelligence, stem the flow of foreign fighters in and out of region. the department of justice and department of homeland security have launchedage initiative to partner with local communities to counter extremist recruiting and the department of treasuries office of terrorism and financial intelligence is working to disrupt isil's financing and expose their activities. the final element of theed from's strategy is to continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians displaced or threatened by isil. alongside the government of iraq, u.s. troops have already delivered life saving aid to threatened civilians on mt. sinjar. in total the u.s. military conducted 32 air drops of food

and supplies providing over 818 thurks pou81 818,000 pounds of aid and meals ready to eat. might be, last week the state department announced an additional $48 million in aid for civilian organizations to meet the urgent needs of iraq kiss displaced by isil. our total you humanitarian assistance to displaced iraqis is now more than $186 million for fiscal year 2014. the united states is also the sink guest largest donor of humanitarian assistance for the millions of syrians affected by the civil war. last week secretary kerry announced an additional $500 million. since the start, the united states has now committed almost $3 billion in humanitarian assistant to those affected by

the civil war. all four elementsct to those af the civil war. all four elementset to those afy the civil war. all four elements to those affe the civil war. all four elements require a significant commitment of resources on the part of united states and our coalition partners. mr. chairman, i think everyone on this committee understands fully this will not be an easy or a brief effort. it is complicated. we are at war with isil as we are with al qaeda. but destroying isil will require more than military efforts alone. it will require political progress in the region, and effective partners on the ground in iraq and syria as the congress and administration work together, we know this effort will take time. the president has outlined a clear comprehensive and workable strategy to achieve our goals and protect our interests. mr. chairman, senator inhofe, thank you for your continued

support and partnership. thank you. >> thank you very much, secretary hagel. thank you, would you please leave the room now? we're asking you nicely. we're asking you nicely to please leave the room. look, we're asking you nicely. would you please leave the room. thank you. we'll ask you for the last time. thank you very much. thank you for leaving. as soon as the noise is removed from the room, wild ae would as of you to avoid these kind of outbursts. they are are's not doing anybody any good including hearing the system and they're not doing you and whatever your cause is very good either. thank you very much. would you please -- i'm asking you nicely to please leave the room. we're asking you again please remove this gentleman. thank you very much.

good-bye. thank you. general dempsey. general dempsey. >> chathank you chairman. members of the committee, i do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. secretary hagel has described in detail the elements of our strategy against isil, the role the united states military is taking is in my judgment approach. job one is empowering the iraqi ground forces to go on the offensive, which they're already beginning on demonstrate. this requires a partnership with a credible iraqi government which is also showing positive signs of becoming inclusive of all of its population. within this partnership, our advisers are intended to help iraqis develop a mind set for the offensive and take actions consistent with offensive.

our military advisers will help the iraqis conduct cam been planning, argue for logistics support and coordinate coalition activities.been planning, argue for logistics support and coordinate coalition activities. if wi reach the point where i believe our advisers should accompany iraq troops, i'll recommend that to the president. as long as isil enjoys the safe haven in syria, it will remain a formidable force and a threat. so while this work in iraq is taking place, we will simultaneously pressure isil in syria. we will begin building a force of vetted, trained moderate syrias to take on isil. we will work to ensure that they have a syrian chain of command and report to a moderate political authority. this force will work initially at the local and community level and help pull together syrians who have most felt the harsh hand of isil. in conjunction with that long term effort, we will be prepared to strike isil targets in syria

that degrade us those capabilities. this won't look like a shock and awe cam been because that's simply not how isil is organized. but it will be a persistent and sustainable campaign. i want to emphasize that our military actions must be part of the whole government effort that works to disrupt isil financing and undermine the isil message. given a coalition of capable willing regional and international partners, i believe we can destroy isil, restore the border and disrupt isil in syria. isil will ultimately be defeated when their cloak of religious legitimacy is stripped away and the population reject them. our actions are intended to move in that direction. this will require a sustained effort over an extended period of time. it's a generational problem. and we should expect that our enemies will adapt their tactics as we adjust our approach.

as the situation in the middle east evolves and continues to demand our attention, we're also balancing other challenges in other regions along with reassuring our european allies against russian aggression. but young men and women in uniform are doing so much more. they conduct hundreds of exercises, activities and engagements every day, actions that deter con glikt and reassure allies around the world. they are performing magnificently. but i am growing increasingly uncomfortable that the will to provide means does not match the will to pursue ends. the secretary and i are doing what we can inside the department to bridge that gap, but we'll need your help. if we do not depart from our present path over time, i will have fewer military options to offer to the second and to the president. and that's not a position that i wish to find myself.

thank you. >> thank u veyou very much. we'll have a six minute first round. we all want to have an opportunity. and then if we go around once and have reasonable hour facing us, we'll try to have a very short second round. general dempsey, let me start by asking you for your professional military opinion of the military strategy which was announced by the president last week. do you personally support the strategy? >> i do, chairman. >> can you tell us why? >> because the nature of the threat is such that as i mentioned, it will only be defeated when moderate arab and muslim populations in the region reject it. and therefore, the way forward

seems to me to run clearly through a coalition of arab and muslim partners and not through the ownership of the united states and this issue. and so the strategy does that. it seems to build a coalition, encourage inclusive go. to address the grievances that have caused this in the first place, it implies u.s. military power where we have unique cape at to do so, and over time it you allows those populations to reject isil. >> and in terms of utilizing the on the ground forces that are syrian and iraqi rather than western forces, is that part of the thinking at this time, as well, to avoid a western ground force in an arab or muslim country for the same reason you just gave? >> well, i do think that the approach to build the coalition

and enable it leads knee leverage our unique capabilities which tend to be as i mentioned the ability to train and plan and provide intelligence and provide air power. as i said in my statement, however, my view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. i believe that will prove true. but if it fails to be true, i would of course go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of military ground forces. >> second hagel, you've made reference to this, but i'd like you to elaborate, that the coalition have strong visible participation by arab and muslim states. >> you've just reflected to

general dempsey on your point and i would pick up where general dempsey left off. this is not a west versus east issue. this is not a u.s. european coalition against muslim countries or muslim region. it's important that the world see especially the people in the middle east see that the threat is confronting them first and all of us needs to be addressed by the people of their region as well as all nations and all people in the world. to have arab muslim nations be present and public about their efforts in this coalition helps that and it's critically important to the ultimate success of winning against all

extremist factors and factions in the middle east specifically isil. >> in that same approach of having the people of these countries basically purge of strand of islam that is so poisonous trying to take over in their countries leads, i gather, to one argument of using indigenous national forces on the ground rather than outside and particularly western forces. >> yes. i said in my statement, mr. chairman, that the most significant powerful force against extremism in the middle east are the people themselves who will not accept that kind of barbarity and brutally. the muslims of the world know

what isil represents in no way is what their religion, what their ethnicity, what their b k background represents. and to have local forces be involved, supported by local!sbr people, is the most significant thing i think we can do as we support them, as we are doing and will continue to do in every way to defeat isil and other extremist threats. >> i believe you've testified that the goal is to equip and train about 5,000 in one year. now, how is that going to match up against the isil numbers and -- well, let me just start

with that one. >> well, as i have said and the president said and general dempsey has said and in our briefings here in our closed session briefings we've had with members of the senate and the house and our staff this week, 5,000 is a beginning. this is part of the reason this effort is going to be a long term effort. but we will do it right. we will be able to train and equip these forces through our ability to give them tactical, give them strategic guidance and leadership. kind of equipment they need where they can move not just as bands of a few people, but as legitimate forces. 5,000 alone is not going to be able to turn the tide to recognize that on this will side. on the isil side, on different

estimates that continue to come out, those estimates float, mr. chairman, because it is hard to pinpoint at any one time exactly what the strength of isil is. we know it's significant. we know because of their successes over the last few months they have picked up significant support. we also know a lot of that support is forced support. you will either be part of this or your family is killed or you will be. so it is an imperfect process. but the 5,000 per year -- and we might be be able to do better. but we don't want to overpromise because we want the right people. our part of the overall strategy that i articulated here as outlined by the president. >> thank you very much. senator inhofe. >> thank you. i'd ask that you turn the maps

over. this is just for reference. we put this together where the help of think tanks and the orange is what is under isil control right now. the gray would be the kurdish and brown the annumbitions of i. >> in terms of their ambition, i think that's probably understating. i think if left unaddressed, they would aspire to restore the ancient kingdom including the current state of israel and runs all the way down to kuwait. >> we're trying to be conservative on this. to let people know that is this a big area.

>> i think general dempsey stated it exactly right. >> according to some of the reports, u.s. intelligence agencies believe isil does not represent the immediate threat to the united states. in fact president obama's top counterterrorism adviser occurring his first term, he said members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are just not justified. and i appreciate secretary hagel the statement you made when you said that isis poses an imminent threat to every interest we have whether in iraq or anyplace else. do you still agree with that statement? >> i do. >> and do you, general dempsey? >> i do. >> one of the things that i was glad to see is that the american people, there has been a wake-up call. last week there was a cnn poll that 70 respect about of the

people in america believe it's a threat to the homeland. and yesterday a wall street journal poll, the same thing. 70% of the people. so i think that wake-up call has taken. now, president obama said our objective is clear, we would degrade and ultimately destroy isil through a comprehensive and sustained counter strategy. and we've talked about this, this is an army. and i outlined in my opening statement the six basic differences between al qaeda and what we're facing right now. do you generally agree with that? >> what i generally agree with, senator, is that they have been using conventional tactics until such time as we applied air power. they're beginning to adapt now. >> so you don't agree that that strategy that we would impose

against terrorists was appropriate today with looking in terms of the giant army that we're facing? >> no, i agree we have to build the capability of the isf and pesh to include it. >> secretary hagel, i'd like to get in the record here as to who is in charge of the war. we hear the state department saying that they're in line with control. if it's centcom commander austin, then i feel a lot better. is that who is in control of this? is it now military? >> yes. as i said in my opening statement, i tried to frame some of that up. for example what i mentioned about general allen's role, initial role. as a coordinating role. but i also said he would work directly in that coordination with general austin as the

centcom commander. that's why president obama will be with the centcom commander in tampa tomorrow to go over the plan. >> mr. secretary, my concern, i don't want people to be under the dilution that this is just another effort, another terrorist effort that we will be pursuing. asked by a reporter on september 11th to define victory against isil, the white house press said second i didn't bring my dictionary. secretary hagel, you didn't bring yours either. did you describe what victory looks like in the united states against isil? >> well, i believe victory would be when we complete the mission of degrading and destroying, defeating isil just as the president laid out that was his objective. >> i understand that. i got a different interpretation when he said on the fight

against isil, quote, it would not involve american combat troops fighting on soil. american forces do not have a combat mission. let me ask you two question, general p dempsey. in your opinion, are the pie the l pilots dropping bombs a direct combat mission and secondly will u.s. forces be prepared to comb search and rescue? >> yes and yes. >> i appreciate that. and then the last question i have, because i know i've gone beyond my time, we've been complaining about what's happened in the funding and now we're looking at the sequestration and all of this. in light of all of this that has occurred since we originally talked about the funding necessary, do you think we're adequately funded now to take care of all the things i've stated in my opening statement and you have agreed to?

where are we on our funding, are we adequate? >> well, two answers to your question. no is the first bafg answsic an. but the budget that we will be presenting as you know in a few months will contain what we believe will be required to carry forward for the longer term this effort. but in the short term, this is why we're asking for the $500 million authority for the train and equip. plus as you know the president had asked a few months ago for a $5 billion counterterrorism partnership fnd plus a billion dollar european might be difference fund, as well. so i think what general dempsey said in his statement probably summarized pretty well. as you had noted, all of the

different pressures that are now coming down on this country residing a good amount of it at the defense department, one of the things we've been warning about is sequestration. so we will come forward and our budget for the next fiscal year with some new requests. >> on behalf of the joint chiefs, because we've discussed this frequently about our ability to balance, last year we said the size of the force that was projected over the course of the defense plan was adequate to the task if the assumptions made were valid. and some of the assumptions we made were about commitments and some were about our ability to get pay compensation, health care changes, infrastructure

changes and weapon systems. he we didn't get any of those actually or very few, and the commitments have increased. so we do have a problem. and i think it will become clear through the fall. and it's not just a problem with the operational contingency funds. there a base budget issue, too. >> i know that's true before but you mentioned the treefchiefs. and they have testified that even before these things erupted, it was not adequate. risk increases when adequate is not mess. thank you. >> we have a quorum here now and so i'm going to ask the committee to consider the list of 2450 pending military nominations, they have been before the committee, the required length of time, is there a motion to -- is there a second? all in favor say aye. he opposed nay. motion carries. thank you very much. senator reid.

>> gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. general dempsey, we've had a debate about no boots on the ground, some boots on the ground. it might help us all if you would clarify precisely what our forces are doing in iraq today. you also suggested if the situation changes, you would come for us with recommendations that would enhance or change the mission. but can you clarify what they're doing? >> yeah, i can. thanks for asking. every should be aware when we talk about combat forces, that's all we grow. when we bring a young man or woman in the military, we they come into be a combat soldier or combat marine. we don't bring them in to be anything other than combat capable. but that's different than how we use them and in the case of our contributions in iraq right now, the air men as the ranking member mentioned are very much

in the combat role. folks on the ground are combat advisory role. there is no intense for them to participate this direct combat. but i've mentioned that if i found that circumstance evolving, i would of course change my recommendation. an example. if the iraqi security forces were ready to retake mosul, it could very well be part of that particular mission to provide close combat advising or accompanying for that mission. but for the day to day activities that i anticipate over time, i don't see to be necessary right now. >> one of the presumptions, and i'll just raise it, would be because we are using air power that there is sufficient capacity in the iraqi forces to coordinate the air power on the ground? >> we've come -- let me use the

mosul dam operation as a great example. on the ground we had the pesh mirg after the and counterterrorism security forces and in an operation somewhere in erbil, we had our own folks using predator feeds and a system we call the rover are to be able to help the iraqis manage the battle on the ground. three languages, english, occ kurdish and arab. but we worked through it. i'm not saying this will work every time, but we pull that ed mission off and i think it's a good template for future operations. >> and one area you're looking at are these capable iraqis who can communicate and coordinate on the ground that i eveir spec forces particularly?

>> trained by us, that's right. >> mr. secretary, are you proposing, the president is proposing, to train about 5,000 individuals a year to go back into syria. how do youq!@çgk3bñ integrate t forces back into syria? what is the plan after they're trained? >> senator, one of the points that i made a couple minutes ago in answering senator inhofe's question was the point about training them as units so they can operate as units. which as you know with your military experience is critically important as you build an effective opposition force. not just a hit and run group of rebels, but an effective force

command control tactics, strategy. . and so, yes, that is the fundamental training principal of how we begin. the length of time here depends on a number of things, but we're probably talking about eight weeks per cycle. it might move within a week or two. but that's the intent of how they would train. the centcom lead aers are alrea structured to do that, are preparing. and one of the things the president will get tomorrow as he spends the day with general austin and centcom planner and commanders in tampa is taking him through that entire structure. >> thank you. general dempsey, i think in your remarks or the secoretary's remarks, you suggested immediate operations would probably most likely be in iraq simply because

we have the iraqi national security forces, we're already appe partners with them. but that will be isil in a position as we hopefully become more effective of making a decision to reinforce or respond in iraq and weaken them in syria or pull back into syria. so i think your strategy is probably the most effective use of what we have at the time. but would you like to comment on that? >> the strategy is to squeeze isil from multiple directions so that they can't do what they have been doing which is maneuver places where they're not under pressure. so if we can get the ghoechlt of iraq to reach out to these populations that have been disadvantaged during the maliki regime so that the isil doesn't have a free flowing stream in which to float and if we can

get -- we've done an assessment and we know which one are capable of partnering. if we can get enough of them to go on the offensive from west to north, and find a way to disrupt using air power and pressure using moderate opposition, then i think we've placed isil in an untenable position. and in the middle of that, restore the border so they can't 234r flow back and forth freely. >> that you think you. senator mccain. >> thank you. i thank the witnesses. i understand according to your testimony that we will be training and equipping approximately 5,000 in one year, is that correct? >> yes. >> and isil now the estimates are that there are some 31,000

metastasizing in a very rapid fashion into a much larger force. on many of us, that seems like inadequate response to what -- >> would you please be quiet? i'm asking you to please remove this lady. disruptions will not be acceptable to anybody. please remove the lady from the room. thank you very much. thank you. >> i always appreciate special attention from this group, mr. chairman. >> senator mccain.

>> obviously this group of 5,000 as you mentioned in unit size deployments will be back in syria fighting against isil. they will also be fighting against bashir assad which they have been doing for a number of years before isil was ever a significant factor. now, they will be fighting against bashir assad and bashir assad will attack them from the air which he has done and with significant success, not only against them, but there's been 192,000 people slaughtered in syria since the onset. if one of the free syrian army is fighting against bashir assad and he's attacking them from the air, would we take action to

prevent them from being attacked by bashir assad? >> senator, let me begin the first part of your question, the 5,000. >> dispense with that. i'd like to answer the question will we, if the free syrian army units are attacked from the air by bashir assad, will we prevent those attacks from taking place and take out assets both helicopter and fixed wing that will be attacking the free syrian army units? >> well, we're, first of all, not there yet, but our focus is on isil. and that is the threat right now to our country and to our interests and to the people of the region. so what we're training these units for, yes, as a stabilizing force in syria as an option, but the first focus is as i just said as the president laid out

in his statement to the country -- >> i take it from your answer that we are now recruiting these young men to go and fight in syria against isil but if they're attacked by bashir assad, we won't help them? >> they will defend themselves. >> but will we help their against assad's air -- >> we will help them. >> will he wiwe repel the air attacks? >> any that we have trained and are supporting us, we will help them. >> i guess i'm not going to get an answer. but it seems to me that you have to neutralize as sad owingsad a that you haassets?

>> the coalition forming center won't form unless -- if we were to take assad off the table, we'd have a much more difficult time forming a coalition. but i think what you're hearing us express is an isil first strategy. i don't think we'll find ourselves in that situation given what we intend to do with -- >> you don't think that the free syrian army is going to fight against bashir assad who has been decimating them, you think these people you're training will only go back to fight against isil? do you really believe that, general? >> what i believe, senator, is that as we train them and develop a military chain of command linkeded to a political structure, that we can establish objectives that defer that challenge into the future. we do not have to deal with it now. >> that's a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire concept and motivation of the free syrian army. bashir assad has killed many more are of them. >> i agree.

>> and for to us say that we will help and train and equip these people and only to fight against isil, you're not going to get many recruits to do that, general. i guarantee you that. and that's a fundamental fallacy in everything you are presenting this committee today. secretary hagel, was the president write in 2012 when he overruled most of his national security team and refused to train and equip the moderate opposition in syria at that time? >> senator, i was not there at the time, so i'm limited -- >> i'll ask general dempsey there. he was there at the time. >> i'm sorry, senator, when you asked the question --nre. he was there at the time. >> i'm sorry, senator, when you asked the question --e. he was there at the time. >> i'm sorry, senator, when you asked the question --. he was there at the time. >> i'm sorry, senator, when you asked the question -- >> was the president right in 2012 when he overruled secretary of state and dweirector of the a and refused to train and equip the moderate forces which you say we're doing today?

>> you know i recommended that we train them and you know that policy reasons, the decision was taken in another direction. >> thank you. are you concerned, secretary hagel, about our southern border? we received testimony from our homeland security people that our border is porous and the people who are now free to travel to the united states and also other radical element, might cross our so you were b e southern border to attack the united states. >> i'm always concerned about our border. >> is that a serious concern of yours somestates. >> i'm always concerned about our border. >> is that a serious concern of yours some>> i'm always concern our border. >> is that a serious concern of yours some? in other words, do we have to improve border security? >> we can improve our border security. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> senator nelson. >> senator mccain, you're aware

that there were published reports of covert training. >> i'm aware of it and i'm also aware of the scale of the training that was required. and i'm also aware of the situation today. and i'm also aware that 192,000 people have been slaughtered, a lot of them with the so-called barrel bombs which -- and the use of chlorine gas which has caused a hugh mmanitarian disas of incredible proportions. yes, i'm aware of that. >> general dempsey, are you aware of the published reports of covert training. >> senator, we don't comment in public about any aspect of covert training. >> mr. secretary, as you know, i

believe that the president has the constitutional authority to go on and attack isis. this is going to be for the long haul and eventually this issue will have to come to congress for authorization for the use of military force. and you all have an appropriations request right now. my question is, if congress does not approve, and i've heard some members of congress say that they're not going to vote to approve this $500 million request, if they did that and refused before we adjourn to go home for the election, what kind of message do you think that

sends? >> well, i think that message would be very, very seriously misunderstood and misinterpreted by our allealley, our friends, our adversaries. this is a clear, clear threat what the president has talked about, the threat to this country from isil. and what his request is reaching out to the congress for partnership as he has done in consultation with many, many members of the congress to be partners in this effort to protect this country. and if the congress would not agree to that request, it would be a pretty devastating message that we're sending to the world. >> i happen to --

>> all right. all right. would you please not take advantage of the freedom of this place, would you please remove this lady from the room. this disruption is not helping the facts be known. >> as you know, mr. secretary, i've taken this position and i think he, the president, has the constitutional authority to go on and attack inside syria. the fact that you're making this request and as you've testified here today that you'll train up 5,000 over the course of the next year, does that basically mean any kind of coordinated effort on the ground in syria is delayed for a year?

>> if we don't have ground capability in a moderate opposition, yes, it affects a rather significant dimension of the overall strategy. >> as you know, some peoplei+vt saying that attacking isis both this iraq and syria is playing into their hand by then them using that to divide muslims against us. what is your opinion? >> this is why the coalition including out front publicly muslim arab countries is so critical to this. and i noted that i think in one or two of my answers this morning as well as in my testimony. >> can you shed anymore light as

isis as one of the two of you have sf e have testified recedes in to an urban area and takes shelter there among civilian population, how in iraq for example can the r iraqi security forces be able to root them out of that civilian territory? >> well, this again is why we need the people themselves in iraq in syria to support a unified unity inclusive representative government in rag to help them do that. the sunni tribes are critical to this. what has allowed so many of this to happen, senator, as you know as you visited there many times is the last government in iraq, the last five years, have actually can x. asser baited the

effort and intentionally destroyed the capability of a unity government to bring in the sunni kurdish populations to a government that they would trust, that they could have confidence in, that they knew would work in everyone's interests. so your question cuts directly to the overall effort of what the president talked about in a new inclusive unity government which we have some confidence in. but we believe that a body will do so far in his appointments to his cabinet we've seen evidence of that inclusiveness. >> thank you. senator wicker. >> thank you for your him today. here's how i view it. the surge in iraq ordered by

president george w. bush worked. president obama rejected the advice of many top military leaders to leave a residual force. our administration did not make every effort that it possibly could to gain status of forces agreement in iraq. and so we completely withdrew. and now isis is there controlling large parts of the territory and reeking the havoc that the president is responding to. i am willing to help the president and to help you gentlemen take this hill again if i believe there is a plan that will work and be successful if training 5,000 troops bhi the end of one going to help us be successful against

something that has already metastasized at 31,000, which is the size of isis now, i want to help if it is convinced it will work and if we have assurance we will not throw away our gains this time as we did after the surge worked. general dempsey, in answer to the question by the chairman of this committee do you support the president's strategy you say that you do. the "washington post" reports that mr. obama has rejected the recommendation of his top military commanders, the u.s. special operations force be deployed. is that report correct in the "washington post" and where do you come down on that

recommendation? >> no. that report is not correct. where i came down on recommendation in terms of having advisers accompany -- this is the issue we are describing, whether advisers who are already there and generally resident in headquarters, whether they would accompany the iraqi security forces into combat. i have not come to an occasion where i believe that is necessary. we are able to provide them air power using full motion video. >> who is doing fine? >> the iraqi security forces. if i get to the point where for a particular mission i think they should accompany i will make that recommendation. >> and i did hear you say that and i at least appreciate that. let me submit for the record a column in the post by mark

thesen where in he talks about general lloyd austin, a top commander u.s. forces in the middle east. to quote he advised president obama against withdrawing recommending that the president leave 24,000 u.s. troops to secure the military gains made in the surge and to prevent a terrorist resurgeance. had obama listened to austin's council the rise of the islamic state could have been stopped. where did you come down on that debate at that point? >> well, actually, senator, as you know we don't debate anything in the military. we let our elected officials make their decisions. it is well known that all military leaders believed we needed to leave some residual force in iraq to continue the development of the security forces. there is a debate in which i am not a participant about whether we tried as hard as we could to

leave it there. that is a debate that will continue, i believe. i thought we should have left forces there. i travelled to iraq and i was the chief staff in the army at that time and discussed it with the prime minister. i don't know how history will exactly describe this. let me describe malaki as a difficult partner most of the time. >> on the issue of trying hard enough i think anybody who has really observed the situation would acknowledge that a government, a united states government that can go into iraq today and persuade the prime minister to step down could certainly have mustered the skills to get them to sign a status of forces agreement. so it is obvious to me that we didn't try very hard. i want us to win. i want us to defeat isis. but i want a plan that can be

successful and i'm not sure if 5,000 trained in a year can be successful against 31,000. and i want to make sure we don't make the same mistake again by throwing the gains away. one quick question to you, secretary hagel. in reading your testimony about what the coalition partners are going to do i have no idea specifically what we are asking of them or what we can expect. they have expressed their willingness. they have indicated their readiness. they want to help to do their share, begin making commitments, take measures to suppress the flow. i have no idea based on your testimony what our coalition partners are expected to do or even what we want them to do. >> senator, my intent was not to give you that inventory this

morning and go through that. >> are you able to? >> we can do that privately in closed session with a number of countries. that is what we are doing right now. we are in the process of doing that right now as i mentioned over the last two weeks we have been building the coalition. we have been organizing the coalition. general allen's main job as i noted in my testimony is doing that right now. he is meeting with the president this morning. we have all finalized that effort. we have a list of over 40 nations who we have talked to, most have come to us who have volunteered specific areas of expertise, what they would do. we will make specific requests. but that is ongoing right now. that is part of the plan. >> will saudi pilots and jets be involved in air strikes? >> like i said, it is part of the plan and i don't want to get into the specifics of that in an open hearing. as i have said in my testimony

and as secretary kerry has said as recently as yesterday, we have middle eastern allies who have said that they will be involved in military operations with us. for right now in an open hearing let me leave it that way but let me assure you that that is going on right now and it is a key part of what we need to do. >> if i can assure the senator that when lloyd austin and i convene a chief of defense conference soon after the president approves the campaign plan there are a couple of things we need to accomplish, we need to make the campaign plan the iraqi campaign plan and the arab nations need to be real. this is military, now. i'm not looking for political support. i'm looking for special forces advisers and trainers and tankers and for isr and strike

aircraft. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. just to clarify a different set of circumstances, when malaki and the government of iraq told us to get out and refused to do a status of forces agreement i'm pretty sure iran was with them on that, correct? iran was very close to malaki and iran wanted us out of iraq as much as the iraqi government did at the time. is that a correct assessment? >> i guess i'm stuck with this one because i was the one here. here i am. i said i didn't want to get into the debate and now i'm in the debate. who knows what was going through prime minister malaki's head at the time? i can tell you he had an almost obsessive notion of his sovereignty. was he influenced by iran?

undoubtedly. it is hard to say. he was a very reluctant partner. >> it is a much different situation now in terms of getting malaki to step down. iran was very concerned about isil taking over iraq and what that meant. and clearly there was pressure being exerted for malaki to step down by iran. for us to take credit for getting malaki to step down is unrealistic in light of what the geo political forces were in their neck of the woods at that point in time? >> i was here on this episode. i can tell you that it wasn't the united states that pushed malaki out. it was his own people. iran being part of that. so it wasn't the united states dictating that malaki stay or not stay. let's not forget that iraq is a sovereign nation. it has elections. we may not like the outcomes,

but it is a sovereign country. that was the entire point when president bush signed the december 2008 agreement to leave iraq. it was a sovereign nation. the united states didn't force or push through some new system of influence malaki out. it was the people that made that decision. >> i want to touch on the issue of the shi'a militia. as we looked at the surge one of our successes in the surge was certainly our ability to bring over moderate sunnis and that was noted at the time and talked about a great deal about our ability to finally get the cooperation of a lot of moderate sunnis. clearly the moderate sunnis have thrown in with isil because of the political problems that they were confronted with in terms of exclusion from the iraqi government.

so the clerics put out the call to repel isil to the shi'a militias. they have been partially responsible for the successes that have occurred on the ground. what are we doing? this is just one of many complex problems that presents itself in this tangle that we are in. one of the most complex is how we are going to deal with the empowerment of the shi'a militia within the iraqi security forces moving forward as we try to ultimately get a political solution which is a unified government and security forces that represent all parts of that country? >> a couple of things, senator. i am a little reluctant and try not to talk about the sunniism monolithic block. it looks like isil have geographic objectives. it has tribal objectives. it eats its way tribe by tribe.

if we showed the tribes on that slide it would probably be 48 to 54 different tribes that isil has coerced or driven away. the sunni are nottsn8jn8zr mon any sense. we have to remember that. the second thing is on your question about the shi'a militia. i think our offer of support here is, will be conditional. that is, for example, there were 50 iraqi brigades that we assessed. 26 of them we assessed to be reputable partners. that is to say they have remained multi confessional. they are well led and have a commitment to the central government. the other 24 concerned us a bit on the issue of infiltration and leadership and sect arianism.

we can condition our support. >> finally, i'm assuming this is a contingency operation and wanting to point out that the new provisions of the work contracting legislation put into law should be applicable for this effort. i know there is some talk that you have asked for cost estimates for security assistance, mentors and advisers in iraq through a contracting platform. and i don't know are we building training facilities in saudi in the american government? if so i wanted to sound the alarm now before rather than after. usually i am hollering about after. i want to sound the alarm before that all of these contracting provisions that we have worked so hard to get into place that we don't go down the road of mistakes that we have travelled so frequently. >> i can assure you, senator, that any commitments we made in

contracting or anything else we will follow the law clearly and consult with congress. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank both of you for your service during these challenging times. i wanted to follow up on a question about providing our advisers and special forces embedding them with iraqi forces. i believe you said you don't believe that is necessary right now. would you agree with me, though, that air strikes are much more effective with having our special forces or having a sort of capability in terms of the effectiveness of strikes on the ground with our people? >> it depends on the kind of contact that the two forces are having. let me explain. when the two forces are

separate, when isil is at some geographic separation from the iraqi security forces, it is not very difficult at all to discriminate between the targets. >> isn't our problem when they are not out in open space and we have to distinguish between civilian targets and military targets that our people are very effective at that? >> absolutely. if we get into a circumstance where the forces are very intermingled then the target discrimination becomes more difficult. this isn't a light switch. there are technologies available that allow us to actually apply force and to see the situation on the ground in ways we couldn't before. i'm not walking away from what i said. if we get to the point where i think we need with the iraqi security forces i will make the recommendation. >> you do not think we need that at this time? >> i do not.

>> what was general austin's opinion on this? >> on the dam operation, the one i described earlier which was very complicated, as much by the introduction of the two different forces speaking two different languages he did suggest that we should use the accompanied role. as we discussed it and worked through it he found a way to do it as i described it to you. >> so he has not made recommendations beyond the dam operation that we should embed our special forces capability? >> not at this time. he shares my view that there will be circumstances when we think that will be necessary but we haven't encountered one yet. >> i think we have experience with this prior in iraq with having our forces embedded and with afghanistan of our people being quite effective in terms of targeting the air strikes?

>> absolutely. we know how to do that. >> i think that i certainly would be thinking about as we are dealing with civilian populations i am not confident how this is going to happen without the assistance of our trained special operators on the ground here. i appreciate that you have said that you have not ruled this out. >> i have not in terms of recommendations. >> thank you. has the president ruled it out? >> well, at this point his stated policy is that we will not have u.s. ground forces in direct combat, so yes. >> including operators embedded on the ground. >> that is correct. he told me to come back to him on a case by case basis. >> let me ask you about the threat that we face, secretary hagel, general dempsey. general allen who i have great respect for has been appointed special presidential envoy for

global coalition to counter isil. we all know his experience in iraq and afghanistan. so he has described in august isil as a clear and present danger to the united states. do you agree with his characterization? >> senator, i was asked the question earlier whether i agreed with what i said my words were quoted back to me about an imminent threat to america's interest around the world and i said i do. isil is a threat to america, our allies, our interests around the world. i'm not going to answer for general allen. i think we all agree at least within the administration general allen, general dempsey, me, the president and others, that isil is a threat. i said that in my testimony. the president of the united states said it last week in his speech. >> do you believe it is a present threat to us?

>> a present threat meaning they murdered two americans over the last couple of weeks, i would say that is an imminent threat and other threats in how they threaten us -- >> jim foley was from new hampshire. i believe it is an absolute clear and present threat to us. let me ask you about the americans who have joined in homeland security committee last week. we had testimony from our top homeland security officials as well as from the fbi about the 100 americans who had gone to syria or attempted to go to syria. i learned that this is not a firm number. how confident are we that we have track of these individuals and we know there is only 100 involved? i ask the same question in

regards to those holding western pass ports where we know many of those countries unfortunately jim foley's murderer had a british accent. we have a visa waiver program with great britain. how confident are we with those numbers as we look at this homeland threat, the ability and track of those individuals to come back to the united states of america in some way? >> well, senator, i think like any of these threats they always present imperfect situations. when you ask how confident, we are as confident as we can be. you're constantly working at trying to make it better, more secure. i announced today in my testimony it was announced a couple of days ago what we are doing at homeland security and justice and with our border patrol in coordination with all of these other nations on

identifying these individuals that we do know or we are pretty sure of our, in the middle east or syria or wherever. there may be some we don't know. we are constantly refining and focusing on this. i don't think we can ever be too confident that we have it all. we have some confidence that we do have the numbers about right. >> i thank you. my time is up. what i heard in homeland security committee last week did not give me a great degree of confidence in terms of what we don't know because the fbi is basically said that 100 number could be many more and also we know less even about those where we don't always have full intelligence sharing with all of the western passport holders. >> that is right. >> this is a real issue for us. >> it is an issue. >> thank you. >> senator wicker made a request that a column from the

"washington post" be inserted in the record. it will be inserted in the record. i will also insert in the record secretary gates' paragraph which reads as follows. in the end the iraqi leadership did not try to get an agreement through their parliament. it would have made possible a continued u.s. military presence after december 31. malaki was just too fearful of the political consequences. most iraqis wanted us gone. senator udall. good morning, gentlemen. it is very clear that isil presents a very serious threat to u.s. interests and allies in the middle east and the group's actions have left no doubt that it will take both brains and brawn to defeat them. we have to hit them hard and deny them safe haven and bring strategic capabilities of the united states in a committed international alliance to bear

against them. we need to work with our partners on the ground to eliminate the conditions that have allowed this cancer to spread so quickly and the rise of isil should serve as a warning throughout the middle east. i would urge that the new iraqi government must take immediate steps to move past the harmful policies that have contributed to the current crisis. this is going to take our best effort. we do need to get it right. general dempsey in that spirit let me direct a question to you. in order to defeat this enemy we will need to be tough and smart. you noted last month that defeating isil will require all application of all tools of national power, diplomatic, economic, information and military. could you describe how the tools would be used as part of a well-planned international effort to confront this threat? >> first, let me align myself with your assertion that an

inclusive government of iraq that reconciles the three major groups is absolutely a necessary precondition to the defeat of isil inside of iraq. and so to your point there has to be an integration of diplomatic, economic in the sense of support for the government of iraq as well as counter financing efforts so that the money that a senator previously described that isil is garnering every day can be interdicted, tracked and disrupted. the flow of foreign fighters and those are kind of strategic regional issues really because isil knows no boundaries, knows no borders. it is not a matter of vooens that we form a coalition but a matter of