being a terrorist state and so forth. there is one of the things that i ran into very strongly with all the meetings i had in the region. one of the key parts of this strategy is to not ever give them the legitimacy that they are trying to seek as to being a state. they have no legitimacy. they're not an islamic state. they're not in the vaein of any other state in the region that tries to give meaning to the consent of islamism as they celebrate it with their citizens in their countries. this is important for us because islam doesn't produce the no legitimacy in islam produces the butchers who killed stephen sotloff or david haines or jim

foley. that's not islam. islam is not isil. increasingly, all of the voices in the region are really starting to feel that they have a need to speak out and reclaim islam. that's one of the most important things that could come out of this. we're working on ways to do that. so isil is not a state, obviously. it isn't remotely like a state. what we need to do is make that more clear. so let me share with you two important things. the home of mecca, which by the way are in the target scale of is isis, these are islam's most holy cities, they days ago said of these murderers they are enemy number one of islam. that comes from the grand mufti

of saudi arabia. today, saudi arabia's top clerical council, all 21 members, the only institution in the kingdom of saudi arabia that is authorized to issue fatlas, invoking mohammed, using the words of the koran itself, today they said isil are killers, they are thugs, they should be singled out and punished as apostates and made an example. they were not following the profit, but that these -- these are their words, not mine, they are following the order of satan. that's what you are beginning to hear from the region. that's a key part of this strategy. obviously, we don't have the legitimacy to do what people in the region can do to delegitimatize. where he going to do everything in our power to encourage that and make sure that people are aware of it. >> senator paul.

>> thank you. thank you for your testimony. i agree with you and with the president that we must confront and destroy isil. i think that, you know -- i'm well on record as being very skeptical about our interventions in middle east. i think that the original war in iraq has led to more chaos and less stability. i think the president's war in libya as well as intervention in syria have led to less stability and more radical islam throughout the community. and have enabled isil. i do also and have been a frequent critic of secretary clinton for not providing adequate security though for benghazi and the consulate. i think there is an american interest in defending our embassy in baghdad as well as our consulate in irbil. i want there to be a message going forward from the hearing today that there is bipartisan support for defending american interests in iraq. however, i am very disappointed

in the president for not obeying the constitution. the constitution is very clear. it gave the pourer wer to declar to congress. we're going to be committing war for the next three or four months and we will do as we please, that's not what the constitution intended. the interesting thing about the creative logic that is used to say that a vote in 2001 has anything to do with today is that it seems to be acknowledged that, well, that allows us to do anything with forces that may be associated with terrorism or al qaeda. one of the interesting things is, if you look at ambassador ford's testimony, he will say that moderate forces have and will tactically coordinate without al qaeda, with i'll can a da-linked grouped. so i think really, anybody who

is intellectually honest would say the people who voted in 2001 to go to war with the people who attacked us on 9/11, the people in afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with this. this committee, congress, senate and the president are all abdicating their responsibility to vote for a new use of authorization of force. what you are doing now is illegal and unconstitutional. i think also from a practical point of view it would be better to bring the country together. i think we would galvanize more support. it would be a bipartisan war. had the president been a great leader, you should have come before a joint congress instead of going on tv, should have come before a joint congress and asked for resolution and there should have been a vote. that would have been true leadership. there would have been true bipartisan support. the president also used to believe this. the president ran and was run of the reasons the public went for the president is he said no president should unilaterally go

to war without the authority of congress. i liked the president as a candidate but not so much as a president. the other problem with this is is that who are these moderate people? are there really moderate islam -- islamic rebels in syria? here is a quote. i would like your comment on this. ryan crocker, the distinguished former u.s. ambassador to iraq and syria said that the administration's knowledge about the non-isis opposition is that we need to do everything we can to figure out -- this is crocker, we need do everything we can to figure out who the non-isis eopposition is, we dont have a clear. they stop briefly before isis takes the weapons. some of these, the syrian national revolutionary front have signed a cease-fire. maybe not all of the vetted rebels are, but the syrian revolutionary fire has signed a cease-fire.

really, i argue and i would believe and i would like to hear your comment. i think we have allowed there to be more of a safe haven for isil in giving weapons to the moderate rebels. it has taken pressure off them. it kept assad at bay. i think had we bombed assad, isil would be in damascus. we're lucky and we should be careful about arming any islamic rebels, because the weapons may not stay where tle are intended and they may have the inintended consequence of enabling isis. >> we don't want to nor have we armed islamic folks in syria. the united states doesn't do that. we have opposed it. robert ford will tell you that. robert ford worked very hard to make sure that we weren't doing that. i also think it's good that you're going to hear from rob erd ford. he will give you about as good

an a naturnalysis of who the no opposition is and he will break it down point for point. did he that for me on many occasions and articulated who they were and so forth. he was also a passionate supporter of making certain thatted moderate opposition god support. he fought hard to get more support than they did get. absolutely. i think he should do that for you. let me make it clear that -- i'm grad that you can guarantee there would be a vote if the president sent something up here. i have 60 nominees waiting more than a year to get a vote up here. the chair, the ranking member have been terrific at helping to try to break them out. but they can't get a vote.

if you can tell a president you can guarantee a vote, i would be really amazed. >> i find it unbelievable that if the president came before a joint session of congress and asked for use of force that he wouldn't get a vote. i find it unthinkable. there's no way that you can imagine that he would not get a vote if he asked for it. really, let's be honest. politics are engaged here. people don't want to have a vote before the election. they're afraid. people are petrified of the electoral. that's why we're not having a vote. >> let me answer the first part of your question so we make it crystal clear why the president is doing what he's doing. you are not insinuating, you are stating quite declaratively that the president is violating the constitution. the president absolutely clearly by almost any legal standard that i can imagine is not violating the constitution. he is upholding it. article 2 gives the president the power to do what he is doing. he has lived by the war powers

act. he has sent notices up to the congress. and i think every legal analysis suggests that while you may not like it -- >> if article 2 gives unlimited power, why come at all. >> because he believes that the congress ought to do this. no one has -- >> he doesn't believe he is bound? >> the president has the right as president under article 2 to defend this nation. and to take the steps necessary to do so. the war powers act declares the terms under which you do that. you know that. he has lived absolutely within that constitutional per ogive. secondly. like it or not -- i can agree. i think you can find reasons to be uncomfortable. that doesn't mean it's not legal. the chairman is going to try to recal bait the aumf. we welcome the opportunity to

have it recalibrated. it should be. for the moment, the president believes we need to move now and that is a full and appropriate exercise of constitutional power. >> for the record, that will be after the election. >> senator cane. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for your testimony. it has been illuminating back and forth. i want to thank ambassador ford. the written testimony, very instructive. i walk away from hearings older but not smarter. i'm walking away from this older and smarter. thank you for that. mr. chair, i want to thank you for your comments at the beginning with respect to the authorization. a number of us feel like additional congressional authorization for the mission as described by the president is mandatory. some of us don't feel that. but all of us, i think, on both side s believe it's advisable. your commitment to crafting that is notable and important. i have introduced a draft and

others have as well that we know will be forwarded to this committee as we look to put something together that is bipartisan on the statements around the table, it should be. an observation. tomorrow in virginia, a container ship is returning to the commonwealth of virginia. it's a merchant marine ship. it's the ship that has been in the mediterranean involved in the destruction of the declared syrian chemical weapons stockpile. that's a good news day tomorrow. i think it is something that we should contemplate as we're thinking about u.s. power, that there was a dip mroe mattic breakthrough that led to the destruction of one of the largest chemical weapon stockpiles in the world. the u.s. played a critical role and this committee played a critical role. the break through a factor in that was the willingness to use military force.

diplomacy is important. you get a better rulesult if yo are willing to use military force. the president stepped away from a red line. no. there was a red line. we will take action against you if you use chemical weapons. we were prepared to take military action. had we taken military action, the best we were going to get from the mission as described was convincing the assad regime not to use chemical weapons again. we weren't going to get their complete destruction. they would have been out there, possibly seized by isil or other elements. what we have because of a willingness to use military force as a factor is the complete destruction of the stockpile widely viewed as a possibility. as we move forward, diplomacy is important, credible military thread. mr. secretary, you talked a lot about this. we are very deeply concerned about the extent of the

coalition. we understand it's still coming together, the purpose for the hearing today is not to describe every nation and what their role is. to sort of put it on the table for you and others, it is incredibly important that this coalition not just be vast but that it also be public as the appropriate point. and that the participation of arab nations, nations in the region, be public. they have often been willing to support the united states playing the lead in a financial way where they haven't wanted to be public in condemning atroc y atrocities in their region. i don't think the american public and congress will support the united states policing a region that will not police itself. it's important for the success of the mission and for the success of both getting bipartisan support and the support of the american people that the coalition be vast but with the nations in the region that their participation not be we will finance it but we don't want to be public about it. they have to be full public

partners for this mission to be successful. in addition, the importance of their public participation is critical to the success of the mission on the ground. if this is a campaign of the west against isil or the u.s. against isil, in a bizarre way we will potentially legitimate isil even more. if it is and you read the quotes early they're are helpful -- if it's a public campaign by leaders in the region, whether religious or clerics and certainly nations, against isil, this is not about islam the more public that is, the more isil is delegitimatized. the success of this is not just military, it will strip away the pretense that this is an organization that anything to do with islam and demonstrating to the public they need to back away and condemn it. that's why the coalition thing is so critical. and the public nature of the

coalition is important. if you want to comment on that briefly. >> senator, look, you have said it. i think i've said it in the course of the hearing. we completely understand that. we do not want this just to be -- this is not just an american effort. that's one of the reasons why the president took the time to make sure that the iraqi government was in place. that we were going to build a coalition, that we took the time to do what was necessary because we all understand that no one is advantaged by this being perceived as just american effort. it's not. many other -- france helped step up and bring people to paris the other day for a larger conference. saudi arabia hosted that meeting. countries that had not sat at the table together for some period of time were at that table. one of the things that people really haven't, i think, sufficiently focused on in this story is the iraqi story.

iraq was on the brink two months ago. many people were talking about, is it going to break up? can it hold together? what's going to happen? we worked very, very closely with iraqis. iraqis led that effort, awful them. the sunni folks who had bitter feelings about what had happened in the last years came together. picked a new speaker. the kurds who had plenty of reasons to be mistrustful and not be certain of the future, came together and elected a new president. that new president had the courage to choose somebody other than the current prime minister to say, you try to form a government. it didn't. they came together. put together that new government. actually rad phied the new minister. the new prime minister is

putting the government together. his foreign minister was in paris. this photograph i pointed out of a kurd president, of a suadi arabian foreign minister, of a shia/iraqi foreign minister, all together conferring about how they will deal with isil tells you the story of an amazing transformation that has taken place. i think people need to recognize that that's a big step forward. now we have to build on it. secondly, i say about the -- i want to thank your people. i wish you would extend the huge gratitude of the administration and of the world for this incredible job well done. you are absolutely correct. the president announced he was going to strike. we had been talking with the russians and others about how to get the weapons out. and then the deal came together

and took away the necessity for the president to make a judgment he would have made, whether or not to strike under his constitutional power based on the announcement he made. clearly, getting one 100% of the declared weapons out, we still have questions about a few other things. but 100%, 1,300 tons of weapons out completely and destroyed is the first time that has ever happened in the time of conflict in any part of the world. i will tell you, ask netanyahu, ask people in the region, they will tell you they are safer. you have an x factor that has been eliminated from this equation of what we may or may not do in syria. as a consequence of that action. >> thank you. thank you for the excellent work when you are doing. turkey doesn't want to become

part of our combat operations because isil has hostages from turkey. at the same time, turkey has become the destination for the oil which has been captured by the isil army in both iraq and in syria. it's upwards of 1 million to $3 million a day, $300 million to a billion dollars in the course of a year. the smuggled oil has become the life blood of the isil army. talk a little bit about turkey and what are efforts are going to be to shut that down. without that money, they don't have the money to produce hollywood-style videos. they don't have the money to pay soldiers. they don't have the money to take care of cities and towns they are taking over. talk about what we have to do with turkey to just get them to shut this down.

>> senator, it's a very, very relevant question and one we're working on very hard, obviously. we really do understand the sensitivities that turkey has. i don't want to talk about it too much publically, to be honest with you, because of that. i think we're better off having a classified conversation about this. but i have hopes that as we move forward here over time that the current dynamic may be able to shift in a way that will help us deal with that a lot more. turkey understands the challenges, believe me. we have had some very candid conversations about it. turkey will have to make its decisions in the days ahead. we will see what happens. >> it's unconscionable that occurty has become the principal source of funding for isil. if we can shut that down, we do almost immeasurable damage to their ability to finance this war.

i just think we have to put turkey right front and center and have the world say to them, they must stop. let me move on. the language which is in the resolution says that one of the goals is to promote the conditions for a settlement to end the conflict in syria. we'll be voting on that. experts are saying that it will take upwards of three years to resecure the border between iraq and syria. experts are also saying that it will take up to ten years to create the conditions on the to the table in order to, in d fact, have a negotiated settlement.

so i would ask you to talk about those two time lines that experts are talking about, regin the weakness of the free syrian army, how long it will take to push the isil army out of iraq. the american people want to know how long we are going to be engaged in this effort towards that end game. >> let me talk macro in a sense here. i have heard various accounts of summaries of various experts, some of whom are experts and some of whom are called experts. there's only one expert right now that i'm looking to, and that's general john allen. he has the responsibility here. he is putting together his team very rapidly. he is having meetings. and i will listen to him very

carefully before i start pushing out time lines. now, that said, president obama said it will take a number of years to do the broad-based effort that we're at. you can do a lot to isil and then you have a longer fight as you go into the full destruction and defeat mode, so to speak. i got to tell you -- this is something i expect to talk about with this committee and congress over the course of the next months. the fight of our generation is a combined fight against the immediate challenge of radical religious extremist and its exploitation in various parts of the world and large unemployed populations of young people

without good governance and without dignity, respect. this is a challenge we face, all of us, in all countries that consider themselves developed and near developed and civilized. it's our challenge. we need to figure out how we're going to do all the things we need to do. this is part of what president obama talked about when he went to west point and about the focus on count erterrorism and the need to talk more as we go forward in the days ahead about exactly how we're going to fill out the full agenda of our country to be safe in the long-term. it is a big, long-term operation. that part of it is is going to take years and the united states, i think it is clear, is going to have to lead that effort. that's going to require a different attitude about foreign policy and engagement than a lot of people have been willing to embrace.

i look forward to that discussion very much. we're doing our homework to be able to come to you with thoughtful ideas about how we can deal with it. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we are very fortunate to have you as the person sitting in that seat. thank you. >> you are, because you're now in my seat. >> the most fortunate of them all. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your engagement here today. you became the secretary of state at a time in which i have never seen in 22 years in the congress a confluence of challenges globally as they exist right now. the topic we have been discussing here for the last three hours, the challenge of isil, the russian invasion in ukraine, the challenges of ebola in africa, the reality of our continuing challenge with iran and its search for nuclear weapons and the list goes on and on. your service comes at an

extraordinarily important time. we want to salute you. i do want to make one or two final comments. number one, this sh is going to an issue in which more information and a steady flow of information in briefings will be critical to having the congressional understanding and the ultimate support for what i believe is our mutual mission to defeat isil. i just want to say that on various occasions you have legitimately said that we need to have some of these conversations in classified settings. i will say that i look forward to and intend to hold those classified hearings. but i hope it's going to be as robust so that whether we get into a classified hearing we don't have to hear, i can't talk about that in that context. that will be problematic. secondly, there have been many -- i don't question anybody's intentions here.

i always believe that there are many legitimate questions. there are certainly legitimate questions when we think about putting america's sons and daughters into harm's way. we are strongest in the national challenge that we face when we speak with one voice, as democrats, republicans and independents together as americans. it is that unity of purpose i think that will be critical -- a critical element of our success against isil. this is a moment in which politics must stop at the water's edge. this committee for the last two years has taken on a whole host of major foreign policy and national security challenges in a bipartisan way. i look forward to working with my colleagues to come together y to do that in this most critical case. i think we can. finally, i remind those who are concerned about the use of u.s.

military might in a foreign country that we face the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. i don't know how you negotiate with an entity that beheads americans. so thank you, mr. secretary, for your testimony engagement for what i expect will be a continuing engagement. i do want to urge colleagues, we have an important panel coming up with a lot of information. i hope members will stay or come back. >> i will be very, very brief. thank you very much -- i look forward to having those discussions. i think you know this, i long believe that the chairman and ranking member should have the same input as the chair and ranking member of the other committees, armed services, etc., intel because of the poli policy considerations. i have advocated for that within this administration. it's something that i think ought to happen.

>> thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we appreciate your testimony. let me call up our second panel today as the secretary leaves. the committee will come to order. i will ask the capital police to remove individuals who will not come to order. our second panel today is robert ford, senior fellow of the middle east institute and ambassador ford, of course, has a long and distinguished history in the foreign service of the united states which he did so exceptionally well in syria. and ben conable. i appreciate both of you, both

in your written statements will be included in the record in its entirety without objection. and i appreciate your willingness to hang in there for the last several hours and to still be here to provide what i think is some critical testimony and insight. with the thanks of the committee to both of you, i will recommend -- i will recognize senator -- i will recognize ambassador ford first. then we'll turn to mr. coable. ambassador ford. >> mr. chairman, senator johnson and other distinguished guests and members of the committee, it's a very big honor to be with you today. i thank you for the invitation. as you noted, i submitted a

written statement. so let me just make a few opening remarks. then i'll turn it over to my co-panelist ben. many have spoken about the dangers of the islamic state against us and against our allies in the region. i would note that i have been looking on arabic social media sites. some of the language is blood curdling. i take these people at their word. they do present a serious danger to us. the administration's proposal to increase assistance to moderate elements of the armed opposition in syria will be useful as one part of addressing the islamic straight threat and the administration's proposal deserves congressional support. i understand from you -- secretary kerry, that the house has voted.

i hope the senate does as well, as soon as possible. let me just make three points. first -- i heard it again today here. people question whether there is a moderate armed opposition. but there is. and it is already fighting the islamic state. i put some details about some of the groups in my written testimony, mr. chairman. when i say moderate, what i mean by that word is that its leaders, the leaders of this these groups do not seek to impose a religious state on syrian society by force. many of them are islamists, mr. chairman. but they do not seek to impose a religious state by force. that said, there are no angels in the syrian war now.

however, the moderate groups emanate from what were peaceful protest movements around syria in 2011. these are the protest movements that i myself saw. and their leaders accept the idea that there has to be an eventual political deal in syria. that also makes them moderate. some of these groups, including groups in my written testimony, had representatives at the talks where secretary kerry was present. my second point is these moderates now are fighting the islamic state. they lost badly in eastern syria. they lost very badly. that's how the islamic state took control of oil fields. they're holding their own right now in northern syria, not far from the turkish border. but it's a hard fight, it's a desperate fight. they would benefit from greater and more reliable material aid

in the battles against the is m islamic state in northern syria. we just had delegation here from the iraqi kurdish government, like the iraqi kurdish ma peshmerga, they would benefit from american air strikes. they would benefit more than assad because those air strikes up in northern syria would help the moderates we're trying to help secure the moderate's vital supply lines. assad doesn't even have forces that far north in syria anyway. my last point is that we have to go into this with our eyes open. le the moderates, their primary enemy is the assad regime which has killed for man syrians than

has the islamic state. so as we try to work with them, they will always be thinking about how to manage their two-front war. islamic state on one side. assad regime on the other. but as their resources from the entire coalition of countries that secretary kerry and the administration is assembling, as their total resources increase, they will have more resources to devote again of the islamic state but i doubt all of their new resources are going to be used only against the islamic state. i think we have to understand that going in. mr. chairman, i will be happy to take questions later. thank you again for your invitation. >> thank you. >> chairman, ranking members, distinguished committee members thank you for allowing me to testify. it's an honor.

have i been engaging with sunni iraqis. most recently, in support of my research on sunni iraqi perceptions also. my remarks are based on relationships and on my research. i will outline options the u.s. and allies can take in order to help free northern and western iraq from islamic state dominant. the thrust of my proposition is that the success or failure of any effort hinging not on tactical considerations or tribal engagement issues but on the wreck sillization. they generate considerable fear. also because the ongoing sunni revolt against iraq has given is an opportunity to lack on to the sunni host. i.s. serves the purposes by fighting with a temporary accommodation.

in late 2014, we have a situation in iraq that closely resembles that in late 2004. iraqis are disenfranchised from their government. they don't trust the coalition. underlying all of this is the desire to turn out the extreem t extremists. the ways in which they might be ejected matter a great deal. the coalition counterterrorism approach which has air strikes, iraqi operations will reduce i.s. influence and power in iraq. the coalition plan to defeat and defaces a range of challenging. i will --. in al anbar. second, the offensive capability of the iraqi army is questionable. they may be able to mount a

successful campaign into mosul but more likely they'll move slowly, haltingly and have insufficient force to overcome many of the objectives they'll face. third, the iraqi army is not structured, trained or inclined to k ukt the kind of thoughtful counterinsurgency campaign that appears necessary in the sunni provinces. instead they're likely to conduct the kind of tactical campaign they executed in anbar in 2014. this approach is unlikely to generate grassroots sunni support for the government. it is critical to the success of the coalition campaign. this kind of uprising a revolt against i.s. is possible to the certain loogs i'm laying before you this afternoon. to achieve this some hope to force a reprise of the 2006-2008 awakening movement by ensentivizing sunni with military aid. simply paying or incentivizing sunni to fight at the local level absent national reconciliation is likely to perpetuate rather than reduce

instability in iraq. if not addressed the ongoing revolt will continue even if i.s. is ejected. in this event the second awakening is likely to end the same way as the first, with armed angry sunni fighters turning against the government in a recurring cycle of violence. president obama and senior administration officials have correctly stressed that success against i.s. is dependent on iraqi reconciliation and positive leadership. i recommend two mutually supportive approaching, one solely iraqi and one for the broader coalition to capitalize on this strategic assumption. prime minister al abadi has a window of opportunity now in the early stages of the campaign to make moves toward genuine reconciliation. the coalition should encourage him to enact all grievance resolution measures within his authority in one fell swoop. following this top level iraqi action, all coalition activities should be predicated on reconciliation. this may mean taking some tactical risk but these risks will be taken in the hospital of achieving long-term stability

rather than short-term tactical success. stopping i.s. now is wise. current i.s. action should be applied aggressively to keep the organization on its heels. in the case of i.s. military force is necessary, yet addressing root causes of any insurgency is also historically proven to be the best and most lasting way to defeat insurgent groups. leveraging reconciliation and using military force to support reconciliation rather than using reconciliation to support military force seems to be the least costly and possibly the only way to defeat islamic state in iraq and to stabilize that country. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> well, thank you, thank you both for your testimony. ambassador forth, let me start with you. one of the main arguments that the administration has presented in addressing members of congress' concerns about the vetting for the fighters that we seek to train and equip, the so-called moderate vetted syrian

rebels, is we know them. we know them. and i can tell you that, as this issue has come forward, that i am constant ly caught by colleagues for which this is one of their central question. not their only question but one of their central questions particularly as this vote comes up. my question to you is do we really know these fighters that would receive u.s. training and equipping if congress provides the authority? and are there enough willing, capable fighters that would pass u.s. vetting standards, do you believe? >> the answer to the second question is a simple yes. there will be enough. actually, the problem has always been, senator menendez, that there have been more willing fighters in the free syrian army than they've had materiel, guns ammunition, et cetera.

the question is do we know them. two things i would say. first, we don't know all 1500 groups because some of the groups are just two or three guys and they have a video camera and, wow, you're a group of freedom fight eers there is actually a pretty small number of serious groups. when i say serious, i mean that have 100, 1,000, 5,000, that group is small. it wouldn't pass more than 15 or 20. funny how that's never mentioned in the press. those groups, we don't work with all of them. some are beyond the pale politically in terms of not being moderate, like arad asham which has sectarian tendencies and may well impose a state. that's a big group. not provide assistance to them. we have groups and the state department was providing nonlethal assistance to.

yes, we know them. it's not a secret that i met them on occasion in places like turkey and i went over the border and met them in syria about 14 months ago. we know them and we've talked politics with them, we've talked about the nusra front with them. those i think we know, and we've had more experience just in the last seven, eight, nine, ten months with them as well. so i think the groups that we need to help that will have an impact on the ground, we know them. >> so we know them, and you believe that a sufficient enough number of capable fighters would pass u.s. vetting standards? >> yes, i do -- i feel very strongly about that. >> that's very important to know. now, in an article in sunday's "new york times" there was a report that says mr. assad and his closest advisers have looked at the american decision to

undertake anti-isil military strikes in syria as representing a victory for their longstanding strate strategy, which is obliterating any moderate opposition to his rule and persuading the world that he faces a stark choice between him and the islamist militants who threaten the west. how do -- how do we respond to those who raise that concern? how do we prevent assad and his iranian and russian backed forces from seizing back territory after military strikes further squeezing the moderate syrian rebels. >> two comments on that quickly, senator. first, assad doesn't have enough forces. he's been seriously depleted. that's why he couldn't hold the air base in topka, for example, where they actually flew some of

their senior officers out and then left hundreds of their soldiers to be murdered by the islamic state of iraq and alam. and they couldn't hold other parts of eastern syria, for example. he doesn't have the troop to put back in. his forces are very stretched. he was depending a lot on hezbollah and iraqi shia militia. the iraqi shia one other comment -- i think his strategy all along has been to destroy the political opposition and the moderate political opposition and the armed

fighters attached to it. forward on this proposal to help the moderate armed opposition, i think he will say indeed my strategy is working. then americans will come around and eventually deal with me. that will make it even harder to get a resolution to this. yrian crisis. >> that is in part we had an authorization a year ago. part of what i want to do is get some of the concerns of my colleagues responded to by your .xpectation the authorization only good by the administration order to equip the opposition is to defend the syrian people from attacks from the isil and syrian regime and stabilizing territory controls by the opposition.

two, protecting that u.s. and its friends and allies from the threats posed by terrorists in syria and promoting the nd the conflictm --syria to the degree conflict in syria. do you agree? would you change or add anything? >> sorry should i hadn't seen the language. it may seem reasonable to me, i would caution that getting to the negotiation will be a very long and hard process. i wouldn't want to pretend that we can get there quickly. year. was a bad until the regime feels the pressure, it is already under pressure. there areteresting is

demonstrations against him. there is a whole campaign [indiscernible] criticizing assad and keeping his "thrown" the college. theythro "throne" as call it. there are cracks. those are in the short term and things to work on right away. negotiation still come later. those are in short-term things we have to work on right away. negotiations will come later. >> and do you think -- senator mccain's back so he'll probably ask this question on its own, but i think it's an important one. do you envision the moderate vetted syrian rebels understanding that if we're training and equipping them with our focus being isil, that they

will look towards that fight even as their main goal is to displace assad? >> absolutely they will for two reasons. one, isil is actually threatening their supply lines right now. and there are hundreds of members of the moderate syrian opposition -- and i mean butchered, cut their throats, video, the whole nine yards. so there's no -- there's a lot of bad blood between them. that's the first reason. second reason is in places where isil was in authority, especially in northwestern syria, in idlit province, there was a popular reaction against them. and that public popular support helped the moderate armed opposition actually eject isil fighters out of that province and also the same thing happened

in aleppo to the west of the city. there was also an uprising, senator, a very big uprising against isil in a province where an entire tribe rose up against them. but they didn't get any help. and that's not a criticism of us, per se, but they just -- they lost a military battle and isil killed -- i've seen estimates as many as a thousand of the tribesmen afterwards in retaliation. so there will be constant problems and fighting between the moderate armed opposition and isil. i don't see any way that that's going to end. >> syrians just in general are mediterranean people and they do not go for this kind of very heavy duty conservative salafi type state. they're just that kind of

fundamentalist religiously. >> these insights are very important. i do have questions for you, but my type has run out. in deference to my colleagues, i'll come back to that. senator corcoran. >> thank you for your time and testimony. ambassador ford, i think we've all experienced or most of us, refugee camps looking into the eyes of syrians who counted on us to do a lot of the things we said we were going to do and didn't do. and their brothers and cousins and uncles were butchered and we never supported them like we said we would. you actually encouraged them out doing your patriotic duty. we encouraged them out. and in fact we didn't follow up with much that they thought was coming. and when we did, it was delayed

i want to thank you for your service and heerdship in syria and i think probably all of us on this panel probably wish to do so. my question to you is what is the mentality now of the syrian opposition having seen promised support if not being what was envisioned, what is their mentality, their attitude towards the united states right now related to helping them now against assad? >> senator corker, thank you. just to be clear on the record, i did not encourage them but i did defend their right to protest peacefully. when i was in the country i said do not resort to violence because it will cause problems even for us if you do that. that's ancient history, but just to be clear what we did. we didn't encourage them out,

but we absolutely stood for their right to protest peacefully, in the u.n. charter for human rights. what is the mentality of sear yags opposition right now? towards us, i think we both know there's a lot of bitterness, 200,000, maybe more have died. i think there's very grait grear that the united states didn't intervene militarily to stop that. there is a belief that we could have stopped it. not sure that belief is accurate, but in any case it's widely held. and so we have a credibility problem and we have a credibility problem, senator corker, with some of these groups even. you don't regain credibility overnight. it's based on new shared experiences. were we to go forward with the administration's proposal, and i certainly hope we do, i thing

with the passage of time, credibility and confidence can be restored. but i think it will be bumpy at the start. >> one of the things that -- thank you for that. one of the things that people have said -- by the way, i strongly support it, as most people did here arming especially back in may even before a year and a half ago and i think we might be in a different situation today. i would say we would be in a different situation today if we had taken action at a more -- at a better time. i still support what's getting ready to happen, although i have a lot of questions. what, relative to the moderate opposition being trained and armed, some people have said who have been close to this issue that there aren't enough -- i know you answered a question specifically to menendez -- but there aren't enough and it's very difficult and expensive to

train these people, that 5,000 troops over the next year, short-term training in saudi arabia, getting more sophisticated weapons after they have proven themselves on the ground, is something that is not going to be particularly effective. could you respond to that? >> syria is a big country, senator and 5,000 is not a lot for a country of that size. the syrian armed opposition is a lot bigger than 5,000. the latest numbers i've seen for the non-nusra, non-isil groups still in the range of 80 to 100,000. i think most people are saying it's more on the lower end of that. so say 80,000. some say higher. the islamic state, you probably saw the same things in the press i did. somewhere, 20,000 to 30,000 of which some are in iraq and some are in syria.

so it's not as if the 5,000 would be the only ones on the field. i think there will be a lot of others on the field. and although we're not helping some of the harder line islamist groups like arad asham, arad asham is also fighting isil right now and isil killed a number of arad asham prisoners. we're not in that exact fight in the groups that we have helped areód not in that fight but the are other people also fighting the islamic state. i don't look at it as only 5,000. >> knowing what you know about the way things are on the ground, is what's being laid out something that will evolve into an effective ground strategy or are there additional components that you, knowing the country the way you are, are necessary if we really want to destroy and defeat isil are necessary to make that happen?

>> i would think we're goingx t get into a long-term relationship with any of these groups that i mentioned, it has to be really carefully coordinated with other countries in the region that have been funneling in help. and it's got the be centralized in a way, senator. there's too much stuff going to too many disparate groups and it actually has made the job of the armed coalition difficult. we hmo to be tough with some of the allies. that's on the diplomatic political side. on the ground, senator, as isil is pushed out of places, it will be really important to try to get help into the civil administrations. the syrian government won't go into these place.4+ and again these are, in a sense, the political side of the opposition linked to the moderate armed opposition. and so the state department has worked in some places with these

people. i think there's going to have to be a dedication of resources and program money to back fill as isil is pushed ow of places. so that the lights stay on some hours a day so that there is clean water some hours of the day. maybe so schools can reopen in some places. that kind of thing. >> just one more question. i know time is short. we put a lot of stock in idris. and many of us got to know him and yet we didn't support him. left him hanging. trucks that were supposed to be delivered to him, were delivered months late. things -- i mean, it was almost like a -- i don't even want to use the word because it's such a negative connotation to the

activities we undertook. has there been a control and command established for the moderate opposition that is workable after we, in essence, again, undermine by not really doing the things we said we would do, not that idris was general patton, but too do we h someone there, an organization to deal with command and control? >> i think this is a question that tyou'll want to be asking going forward. idris was not empowered not only by us but other regional states that were funneling assistance in. he was always in a very difficult position. i think going forward, if we want the moderate armed opposition to be successful we have to figure out a way to get a more centralized command structure and aid goes through that structure and all countries must support that structure and not help friendly group over here or friendly group over

there. >> senator rubio. >> thank you, thank you both for being here. thank you, ambassador. a couple points that i wanted -- first, i want to go back in time simply for purposes of pointing fingers of saying who was wrong or right but i think it's important to learn lessons from this. s this my prim egs in this conflict when this arose -- and by the way, this was important to remind that this was not a u.s.-instigated thing. this was syrians who wanted to get rid of assad. in the initial stage the rebellious were syrians. but the decision not to go in and empower them early created a vacuum that attracted foreign fighters from all over the world to pour in and take advantage of that situation.r÷÷ in your opinion, had we been more forceful:a early on, we ca go back 2 1/2 years in time knowing what we know now and had empowered those groups early on to be more capable, do you think that it's possible that you would -- that that space that was left there for isil may never have existed? in essence having a more forceful group on the ground,

the syrian military defectors early on would have closed off the opening for some of these more radical foreign fighters to come in and be able to take advantage of the chaos on the ground? >> senator, i do think that. i've said that publicly before. and in particular, three things, cash, ammunition and food. and had more of the moderate groups i'm talking about that are not seeking to impose an islamic state by force, had they had these things, cash, ammo, food, in greater supplies in, say, second half of 2012, it would have been very hard for masouda to gain recruits. i heard that repeatedly from the free syrian army. they couldn't pay salaries, the other guys could. you're a liberation movement, why do you need salaries? you got to understand the fighters have families. they've got kids, they've got parents they have to take care

of. so yeah, if there had been more back then, i think the problem today would be smaller, but i'm encouraged at least that now i think there's an understanding of that, and if this program goes forward, i think that will actually help reduce the recruiting of isil and nusra. >> the second question i wanted to ask and touches upon a theme that senator mccain has also explored. these troops are on the ground that we want to work with now. the biggest threat they face, the people who are targeting them right now the most although they will fight isil but the group doing the most damage to them militarily is assad. it seems from here to appear that to be that assad has undertaking a very tlib rat strategy of trying to wipe out what we would call moderate forces so that the world is left have a very simple choice fp if you want to defeat isil in syria you have to align yourself with assad. he's the only alternative to them if he can wipe these more moderate groups out. then over the last few hours,

days and weeks he's ramped up the effort to wipe them out in pursuant to that strategy. do you agrees that the calculation he's made and, if so, how could any effort to equip and empower and capacitate these groups, how could any effort to do that be successful if we don't protect them from the assault that's being undertaken against them? and as i asked the secretary when he was here two hours ago now when i asked him questions, there might not be anyone left for us to arm or train if assad is continued to give free rein to target them and try to eva eviscerate them. >> i do think that's assad's strategy. it's very evident. just look at what he's doing day by day, it's clear. i do think the moderate armed opposition has some staying power, and if the administration's proposals are adopted and go forward, i think that will help bolster them and

they'll be in the field for the long term. but, but absolutely they're going to fight bashar al assad. i think the idea that they would somehow turn away from that fight, the original fight and focus solely on isil is simply not realistic. >> they can't ignore the fact they're being attacked. >> precisely. and in the end, i talked about the bad blood between isil and the armed moderate opposition, but there's plenty of bad blood between them and the assad regime, too, not to mention the air strikes you're talking about. i do take heart, senator rubio, that the armed moderate opposition, i think they've gotten more supplies, though i'm not sure where from. but they have been making some gains on the ground and in particular against the syrian regime. and in particular up in the area

between damascus and aleppo, hama and homs up there, there's a lot of heavy fighting, also along the lebanese border in a place called kalamun, where they suffered a big defeat in may and june of 2013. they've actually retaken a lot of those places. part of it is hezbollah had to redeploy to other places and this just goes back to the manpower shortage of the regime itself. as we go to the american people and make the argument we need to do this, i'm in favor of doing this, i've called for this for quite a while and was part of those on the committee that voted to do that while back, the american people will best understand when either a face or a name. but right now a generic term, moderate rebel, but we don't know who they are. in the absence of being able to point to who they are it leads to misinformation that i've seen in the press including member of congress who have made claims that are not just inaccurate but

outrageous as to who some of the groups are and who we'll be working with. can you help us navigate some of the local organizations. there are groups that we've heard, the steadfastness movement is one. but other groups like this. i don't know if that's the right example but who are some of the groups that fit the bill of who we would look to work with? >> i'll quickly name a few. they're in my win testimony. i'm happy to provide members of your staffs more information later. haraka hasam, the hasam movement has fighters in the south. they're one of the groups. they actually are kind of more or less fighting the nusra front right now as well as the islamic state and the regime. so they're in it up to their eyeballs. there are two units of the moderate opposition that are mainly officered by recently defected syrian army officers.

one is called the 101st divisionals although i don't think it has anywhere near in the divisions worth of men, i think it's in the range of 3,000. the 101st, kind of ironic. too bad dave's not here. and the 113th led primarily by recently defected army members. you might remember there was a syrian air force pilot who flew his plane to jordan a couple of years ago. that pilot is the commander of the 13th division now. but it's not a division in terms of like 13,000, 15,000. a couple thousand. >> senator johnson. >> mr. chairman, ambassador ford, you mentioned a word that i really want to be the crux of my questioning is credibility. i want to explore the credibility of our commitment and credibility of our strategy.

so first, in my questioning of secretary kerry, i quoted the president when he said that our safety, our security depends on our willingness to do whatever it takes to defend this nation. and, of course, by taking off the number of options off the table, i certainly am concerned about that credibility of our commitment. what is your view in terms of our potential coalition partners. they have seen this as well. do they feel there's any cred it to our commitment to the defeat of isis? >> i think the meeting in riyadh was really interesting, i'm sorry, in jebdah. i was really surprised that the iraqis brought the foreign minister there, that was something when i was working five years during the war with all of our ambassadors there, we could never get the saudis to do that. never could get the saudis to do that. so i think that's a change and it's significant.

it's symbolic, but it's a start. i think ultimately, senator johnson, our credibility by counties in that region, saudi, emirates, qatar, turkey, will be judged by what we do ourselves in the next few weeks and months. if the proposal to help the syrian armed opposition doesn't move forward out of washington this week and gets bogged down, i think our credibility will suffer not only with the syrian opposition but it will suffer with counties in the region. >> let me quick ask, is it true that the saudis are willing to base as well as pay for that training effort? >> i haven't received any classified briefings since i left government, senator johnson, but it seems everything i'm seeing in both arabic language media as well as english language media says that's the case. >> if that's the case, let's face it, the moderate vetted

syrian rebels will be armed and trained. wint make sense, that being the case, wouldn't it be better for the u.s. to be involved this that training especially if we pay for it? >> totally. >> that's the argument voting for that authorization? >> i'm assuming. i haven't received any classified briefings. you know more than i do. i assume there will be u.s. personnel working with them as well as saudis. >> i understand our colleagues' concern about who they'll be training. but i'd rather be involved this that process, reduce the chance that the wrong individuals be trained by whoever. >> we'll be much safer from isil in the future if we lead this effort rather than hand it off to someone else. >> mr. connable, you've been sitting here. do i actually utilize you in the testimony here. i want to talk about the

credibility of the strategy. there's two major steps to the offense. first of all, to drive isis out of iraq and secure iraq again, then you've got the whole mess in terms of syria. let's go back in history. i think both of you gentlemen were there in iraq during the surge. we had greg mcguirk testify before us. i was trying to put this thing in context using some numbers. we had about 6,000 to 8,000 al qaeda in iraq at that point in time were the estimates. we had 130, surged over 160,000 u.s. troops to defeat al qaeda in iraq. now we've got 31,000 isis. we have 1500 noncombat troops on the ground. we've got an iraqi security force, we have the kurdish peshmerga. how credible is it that we're going to be able to, first of all, just get isis out of iraq with that force? >> i start by saying i don't put a lot of credence in the numbers

that we had either in the first iraq war that we have now, i don't believe we have any degree of accuracy there. assuming we're within in order of magnitude there, i don't thing the key to this in 2006, '07 and '08 was the surge. the announcement of the surge helped strengthen our people on the ground. it was them turning against al qaeda in iraq was the key to victory there. that's the key to victory now. whether there are 10,000 i.s. in iraq or 30,000, over time that becomes less relevant when you look at how much territory they have to control. if that's hostile territory they'll have a real hard time doing that. just bombing them and trying to force them out with iraqi units, i think that's much lower. >> the key here is reconciliation between the sunni and shia in iraq. the question i wanted to ask, either one of you or both of you, i'm trying to think of the exact term you used. the grievance resolution

measures. is the shia government threatened enough to actually do what you thing is necessary, pass those grievance resolution measures to bring the sunnis back into the government? >> frankly i think the chances of reconciliation are low. i think it's the best strategy and probably the one that's going to lead to long-term success, but haid ar al abadi is in a difficult position. they have no enthusiasm for reconciliation with iraqi sunni. he's got other fragmented elements of the shia that he lass to deal with, they just voted down a couple of nominations for key posts in his cabinet. i don't hold out a great deal of hope, but i do think that's where we need to put all our emphasis. >> go ahead, ambassador ford. >> i totally agree with what brian said, that the key to the success in iraq back in the period 2007, 8, 9, was getting

sunni support. the presence of our troop was vital but the key part was to get the buy-in from the local populations. just one little thing on your question about are the shia today, 2014, are they sober, brian is right the nominees for such sensitive positions in the cabinet were just disapproved by the iraqi parliament yesterday. not a good sign. however, i have also seen prime minister al abadi say they will not send the iraqi army deep into sunni regions again and that they're going to try to build a national guard. i've seen him say that. so i think now what they're arguing about in iraq, if i understand it, is who do they trust enough from among the shia an the s and the sunni to do that mission. the proof will be in the

pudding. i've spent five years in iraq. i learned trust nothing at first look. but i at least was encouraged that abadi said we will not send the iraqi army deep into the sunni provinces. again we'll get a national dpard. >> i have more questions but i'm out of time. >> senator mccain. >> i thank the witnesses and thank you, mr. koconnable for being here and thank you ambassador ford for your outstanding service. mr. connable, if i got you right, the iranians are in a position of significant influence in baghdad right now, is that correct? >> i believe that to be true. >> that can't be good for our interests over time. >> i agree with you. >> and another legacy of total withdrawal. >> i think that would have happened anyway. i think it was exacerbated by the fact that the western and northern parts of iraq

collapsed. >> ambassador ford, is there any doubt about the viability if, given the proper training and equipment and you mentioned, my understanding is, that isis has given them as much as $2,000 a month because they've got plenty of money, that there's no doubt in your mind that if we do it right, the fsa is viable? >> with much less support than we've been giving, they've actually held ground and advanced in a few places. >> and i share that view. the thing that's frustrating to me, all of this stuff that people accept, they've made a deal with isis, they can't fight, and having known them as you've known them a lot better than i do, they'll fight and they need our support in order to do that successfully but

they're not about to become part of isis or al nusra if from time to time they have to have a cooperation because of their straitened circumstances. >> that's absolutely true they're in a tough situation, a two-front war is never fun, but i'm very impressed that they've held up as well as they have despite the difficult circumstances. so in my view, i conclude that it is an excuse that people use, frankly, to not have us involved, and i don't expect you to comment on that. but here we are, again, i want to sort of pursue what i was pursuing, the line that i was with secretary kerry. we're going to train them, we're going to equip them, but we're not going to protect them from these air strikes that are so devastating to their capability. the barrel bombs, the helicopters, the fixed wing,

which by the way included, as you know, is the main way for bashar assad to move his people and materiel around iraq. so isn't it -- we're asking them to fight, we're asking them to rick their live, and yet we won't give them the protection from the air attacks which would be the major source of casualties for them. make sense of that for me. >> well, i think we both know that there are concerns that if we provide surface-to-air missiles, that they'll be somehow transferred to the nusra front or isil or something like that. one encouraging sign i take from the recent fighting, senator mccain, up in hama, which is a city between damascus and aleppo, the regime has a very important air basep and using standoff weapons, mortars and such things, the free syrian army was actually able to bring

most of the air traffic to -- at the hama military airport to a stop. >> i'm impressed with what they do. but if i'm a syrian and i'm being armed and trained and asked to go into battle and i see that we're not giving us the capability even much less the united states taking out that air power, it's not great for my morale. >> our refusal to provide surface-to-air missiles has been a gigantic irritant not only to the armed opposition fighters but to the population in general that's getting barrel bombed. there's no doubt of that. >> did you see -- i'm sure you saw the quote i gave from secretary gates, his comment today that we really can't succeed without boots on the ground is basically what he was saying. >> i didn't see secretary gates' remarks. >> well, i guess i could read it to you again, but do you think

that in your estimate that the 5,000 being trained and not taking out bashar assad's air assets, telling everybody that it's isil first as if we can't address two adversaries at the same time, that the chances of success without much more significant involvement on the ground and it doesn't mean combat units but air controllers, special forces, et cetera, that basically secretary gates was saying we're going to have to do that over time. >> i think several things on this, senator mccain. first, 5,000 is not enough. syria is a really big country. but there's going to be more than 5,000. i think already in the elements of the armed opposition excluding nusra and isil, 80,000 plus. the 5,000 might be one of the better parts and might be the

part that we would have more influence, but we'll have more influence if we provide more weapons and cash anyway. second point with respect to isil first, i just think realistically, of course, the armed opposition is going to fight assad even as they fight the islamic state. we would be foolish to think otherwise. so -- >> the question is do we help them to do that? and if we help them to do that we neutralize the air assets. >> we have not neutralized the air assets, obviously. there have been horrific barrel bomb attacks almost daily. we have been providing other help. we suffer a credibility problem, senator mccain, i'm not going to argue with you on that. we have been providing other help which they use against the regime. i would actually argue that help that we have provided has actually enabled them to make advances in places like southern

syria and northern syria. the aid has actually been effective that way. >> there's no doubt in your mind they're not going to join forces with any extremist organization? >> as i mentioned, i'm glad you asked that question. i actually have raised with them, when i was working at the state department, the problem that nusra poses for us. i get a rr consistent answer. i got a very consistent answer, which is we don't like them either. we're not -- we don't like al qaeda. nie these are defected army officers or people that were civilians but were high up in the syrian military before they went into civilian life and then they became leaders in the free syrian army. we don't like them either, but you can't ask us to not deal with them when they're over on the next neighborhood and we're pushing against the regime and they're pushing and not

coordinate with them. they said that's not reasonable because we don't have enough stuff to do this by ourselves. and they were very blunt with me. and said, you give us more stuff, we won't have to deal with them. >> mr. connable do you have a comment on that aspect of it? >> in regards to syrian air power, i think it would be very interesting to see if we eventually do put title ten adviser on the ground in syria what affect that will have on the assad regime's decision to attack the syrian army. if our special forces teams are providing higher level advice there, i think the syrian government would be very reluctant to attack those forces. >> thank you, senator. one last question, mr. connable, you made a very point ed effort to make the case that it was the sunni awakening that was the

critical element in the success, yes, the surge, yes, the other elements, but without the sunni awakening, that we might not have had the success that we ultimately achieved there. so what steps must, in your view, the iraqi government take to facilitate reconciliation with the alienated sunni tribes and anbar province and other sunni majority areas in order to reduce support for isil and to get them to have a second awakening? >> yeah, as i've stated, that's the fundamental question. there is one major problem, and i think one major opportunity. the major problem is the sunni political leadership are so badly fragmented that there's really no hope for some kind of negotiated settlement at the top level or even with regional leaders.

there simply is not enough credibility there in the sunni leadership to ray lou thallow t happen. how far the real opportunity that the sun ne a dispersed way have accumulated a lot of the grievances that they think are most kriblcritical to them. it's almost like a laundry list. i've included that in my testimony here. abadi listed another laundry list of these when he assumed office and put his government together. that was a very positive step. he's already announced the things that need to be done. the trick is executing. i think about 50% o the things he identified -- and you can probably add in another small group of things that could be critical, he could probably do with a stroke of a pen. the others require deliberation of the government. i think he should do whatever he can under his own authority immediately and together. if he's able to do that, the sunni i've spoken to would react quite favorably to that.

a first step but an important one. >> even the sunni leadership as you describe it is fragmented, there are some universal issues that they've raised that, if addressed as part of reconciliation, would be cross cutting? >> i think prime minister abadi is speaking to the sunni people and not the sunni leaders. i think they are cross cutting, yes. >> well, this has been very helpful. you have the thanks of the committee for your insights. this record will remain open to the close of business on friday, and with that this hearing is adjourned. >> defense secretary chuck hagel

testified about the strategy for combating isis. he appears before the house armed services committee. live coverage starts at 11: 15 a.m. on c-span3. up next, president obama speaks to military in florida. the homeland security director and fbi director testify about national threats. and some of the debate about arming rebels to fight isis. coming up on washington journal, a representative discusses the house vote on training the rebels.

then congressman dana rohrabacher talks about defense and foreign policy including the threats posed by isis. and later, our series on higher education continues with indiana university president. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. here are a few the -- of the comments we have received from the worse. >> i enjoy c-span every day. i especially enjoy watching c-span three to watch real america every sunday afternoon at 1:00 the civic time. -- pacific time. i have never missed one episode. please keep real america on the c-span schedule. i say what every american says. thank god for c-span. >> c-span has gone downhill.

there are neocons on. heritage foundation. it is funded by time warner. you can't say anything to criticize israel. they cut you off. also, i want to make a comment. you have the national summit on c-span3, which nobody watches. some people don't even get. about the israeli relations. they were telling the truth and are they air it. they should have had that on c-span1, i think. >> i have watched washington journal for many years. i have seen many shows that have inspired me. the show this morning is the absolute best. it isimpossible for me --

so good. it is over the moon. this, in my opinion, the format of the show and the way it has moved forward this morning, to me is the answer to all of our problems. does is it allows all of an in-depth look, have an in-depth look at a thatfic problem or topic is important to all of us. not just the republicans or democrats. to all of us. it will bring good to our society. thank you so much. my vote as we have many more of these kinds of shows. just like this morning. thank you. whatntinue to let us know you think about the programs you are watching. call us.

e-mail us. or you can send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> president obama met with u.s. central command officials wednesday in tampa. strategy spoke about combating isis. this is happened our. -- half and hour. afternoon. let's try that again. good afternoon. it is great to have you here, thank you for coming. day.is a wonderful

there is no question that you are among the finest soldiers, sailors, and civilians. years, you have played a central role in the defense of our country. privilege of serving along many of you in combat. i watched you do remarkable things. selfless things on behalf of the people of those countries. you have much to be proud of. as do your families. homesure when you get tonight come you deliver the message. we are grateful for their

service and sacrifices. we are all very proud of them. our nation and military have been extraordinarily busy over the past decade plus. orther you work at centcom the sixth air more ability ring -- mobility wing, much of your focus and efforts have been directed at cap areas of the world where there is tremendous chaos and volatility. areas,ppens in those good and bad, can and does have an impact on the security of our homeland. in the interests of our partners and allies. what you do each and everyday matters. the sacrifices you make are incredibly of porton and appreciated. including leaders

those at the most senior levels recognize your hard work. they are grateful for your service. they are committed to making sure you have what you need. and to do it as safely as possible. we are appreciative of the president and the first lady's strong support of our troops. certainly his presence here today is a testament to how important you are to him. and how important you are to our country. it acknowledges the critical role you are continue kenneth play in ournue to efforts to counter adversaries. the crowd is ready and able to give our special guest a warm temple welcome. ladies and to the men, it is my -- ladies and gentlemen, it is

my honor to introduce the 44th president and our commander-in-chief, present a mama -- president barack obama. [applause] ♪ chief plays] ♪ >> hello. [applause] i want to thank general austin for his introduction. were you about to sneak off the stage? >> yes, sir. >> go ahead. >> it's better when lloyd is not standing next to me because i don't look small.

general austin has done such extraordinary work both commanding our forces in iraq, today as the commander of centcom, i want to thank somebody else for his lifetime of service to america, first as a soldier who fought in vietnam, now as secretary of defense, chuck hagel. give it up for chuck. [cheers and applause] chuck was here a few weeks ago to welcome the new head of special operations command, general joe votel. give joe a big round of applause. [cheers and applause] for those of you who don't know, 13 years ago, joe led his team of army rangers as they jumped into afghanistan to establish our first base there. by jumping out of the plane alongside them.

joe is a tough guy. and he knows what he's doing and i can't think of somebody who is more qualified to head up our special forces and so we want to thank joe for accepting this assignment. your member of congress, kathy castor is here. there she is right there. [cheers and applause] your wing commander, colonel dan scully. your senior enlisted leaders, command sergeant major chris greca, command sergeant major chris burns, chief major sergeant matt lucera. [cheers and applause] and most of all i want to salute all the spouses and military families on base because let's be honest, they're the force

behind the force. [cheers and applause] i spent time with some of the them last night. it's clear why our military is the finest fighting force in the history of the world, and it's because our military families are serving right alongside you. i know we've got some air force in the house. [cheers and applause] great to be at the home of the sixth air mobility wing. 927th air refueling wing. centcom. socom. we've got some army here. navy. marines. coast guard. [laughter]

we love our coast guard. now i'm not here to give a long speech. what i really wanted to do was just come down and shake some hands. i just received a briefing from general austin and met with your commanders. met with representatives from more than 40 nations. it is a true team effort here at macdill. and i came here to say the same thing that i've been saying to troops on bases across this country, around the world, and a few months ago in bagram and that is thank you. on behalf of the american people, i want to thank all of you for your service. i want to thank all of you for your sacrifice. i want to thank you for your commitment to each other and your commitment to our country. as your commander in chief, i could not be more proud of each

and every one of you. for nearly 75 years, the men and women of macdill have lived a commitment to airmen, mission, and community. you supported our troops through each generation of challenges. and as home to both central command and special operations command, you have shouldered some of the heaviest responsibilities in dealing with the challenges of this new century. for more than a decade, ever since that awful september morning 13 years ago, ever since joe and his rangers took that jump a month later, you and all our men and women in uniform have borne the burden of war. some of you are -- some of you, our quiet professionals, our special forces, were first to go. when the decision was made to go to iraq, you were there. when we refocused back to afghanistan, you were there. you have served with skill, honor, commitment and professionalism. and some of you carry the wounds of these wars.

and i know some of you lost friends. today we remember all who have given their lives in these wars and we stand with our families who have given more than most americans can ever imagine. and we honor those sacrifices forever. but here's what i want every single one of you to know. because of you this 9/11 generation of heroes has done everything asked of you and met every mission tasked to you. we are doing what we set out to do. because of you, osama bin laden is no more. because of you, the core al qaeda leadership in afghanistan and pakistan has been decimated. because of you, afghans are reclaiming their communities. afghan forces have taken the lead for their country's security. in three months, because of you, our combat mission will be over in afghanistan and the war in afghanistan will come to an end.

that's because of you. you and our counterterrorism officials have prevented terrorist attacks. you have saved american lives, you have made our homeland more secure. but we've always known that the end of the war in afghanistan didn't mean the end of threats or challenges to america. here at macdill, you knew this and have known this as well as anybody. you played a central role in our combat and counterterrorism operations. you make sure our troops and pilots get what they need in order to get the job done. you train forces around the world so countries can take responsibility for their own security. the sixth air mobility wing is continuously deployed, supporting our humanitarian and combat operations around the world. ready to defend. and your work is as vital as

ever. because in an uncertain world full of breathtaking change, the one constant is american leadership. in a world where technology provides a small group of killers with the ability to do terrible harm, it is america that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists, including the group in syria and iraq known as isis. our intelligence community, as i said last week, has not yet detected specific plots from these terrorists against america. but its leaders have detected threats against america and our allies and they pose a threat against the people of iraq, sir ark the broader middle east, including our personnel, our embassies there. if left unchecked, they could pose a growing threat to the united states.

so last month, i gave the order for our military to begin taking targeted action against isis. and since then, our brave pilot and crews, with your help, have conducted more than 160 air strikes against these terrorists. because of your efforts, we've been able to protect our personnel in our facilities and kill isil fighters and given space for iraqi and kurd herb forces to reclaim key territory. they've helped our partners on the ground break isil sieges, help rescue civilians cornered on a mountain, helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. that's what you've done. going forward, as i announced last week, we'll degrade and ultimately destroy isis through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.

and whether in iraq or in syria, these terrorists will learn the same thing that leaders of al qaeda already know. we mean what we say. our reach is long. if you threaten america, you will find no safe haven. we will find you eventually. [cheers and applause] but, and this is something i want to emphasize, this is not and will not be america's fight alone. one of the things we've learned over the last decade is america can make a decisive difference. but i want to be clear, the american forces that have been deployed to iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. they will support iraqi forces on the ground. as they fight for their own country against these terrorists.

as your commander in chief, i will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in iraq. after a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries' futures. and that's the only solution that will succeed over the long-term. we'll use our air power. we will train and equip our partners. we will advise and assist them. we'll lead a broad ocoalition of countries that have a stake in this fight because this is the world rejecting the brutality of isil in favor of a better future for our children and our children's children, all of them. but we're not going to do think a loan. one thing we have learned is when we do things alone and the

countries, the people of those countries aren't doing it for themselves, as soon as we leave, we start getting the same problems. this is why we spent the last several weeks building a coalition to aid in these efforts. and because we're leading in the right way, more nations are joining us. overall, more than 40 countries so far have offered assistance to the broad campaign against isil. already france and the united kingdom are flying with us over iraq with others committed to join us. some nations will help us support the forces fighting these terrorists on the ground and already saudi arabia has agreed to host our efforts to train and equip syrian opposition forces. australia and canada will send military advisors to iraq.

german paratroopers to forces in iraq including the kurdish peshmerga. other nations have strengthened support for iraq's new government and do their part in all aspects of the fight against isil. nearly 30 nations have helped with humanitarian relief to help innocent civilians who have been driven from their homes, whether they're sunni or christian or any religious minority. yesterday at the white house i met with an outstanding american leader, john allen, he worked with iraqi tribal leaders as they fought to reclaim their own communities from terrorists. he's going to serve as america's special envoy to build and coordinate this incredible coalition. i called on congress to make

sure you've got all the authorities and resources you need to get the job done. but the point is we cannot do for the iraqi what is they must do for themselves. we can't take the place of their partners in securing their own region for themselves and a better future for their people. we can't do it for them but this is an effort that calls on america's unique abilities and responsibilities to lead. it is america that has the unique capability to mobilize against an organization like isil. in a world full of broader social challenges, it is america that has the unique capability and know-how to help contain and

combat a threat like ebola. the epidemic in africa. yesterday on top of all we're already doing to help, i announced a major boost to our response, we're establishing a military command cent for the liberia at the request of our government to support that region. our commander of forces in africa arrived yesterday, he's on the ground. our armed forces will bring their unique, unrivaled expertise in command and control, logistics, including creating an air bridge to get health workers and supplies into west africa faster. and in all our effort the safety of our personnel will remain a top priority. in the nation of liberia, one person who heard this news yesterday was reported to say, we have been praying to get the disease wiped out of our country so the if the coming of u.s. troops will help us get that done, we will be happy. and that's the story. across the board.

if there's a hurricane, if there's a typhoon, if there is some sort of crisis, there's an earthquake, if there's need for a rescue mission, when the world is threatened, when the world needs help, it calls on america. even the countries that complain about america, when they need help, who do they call? they call us. then america calls on you. any mission separates you from your families. sending our troops into harm's way is not a decision i make lightly.

no other decision comes close. i do it only because i know that you're the best there is at what you do. frankly, there just aren't a lot of other folks who can perform in the same ways. in fact, there are none. there's some things only we can do. there's some capabilities only we have. that's because of you. your dedication. your skill. your work. your family supporting you. your training. your command structure. our armed forces are unparalleled and unique system of when we have a big problem around the world, it falls on our shoulders. sometimes that's tough but that's what sets us apart.

that's why we're america. that's what the stars and stripes are all about. between war and recession, it's been a challenging start to this new century. we've been busy. this has not been an easy 14 year. many of you came of age in these years. i want you to know i'm as confident as i have ever been that this century, just like the last century, will be led by america. it will be and is an american century. at home, we're bouncing back, better positioning ourselves to win the future than any nation on earth. overseas, we're moving forward, answering the call to lead. and even when it seems like our politics is just dividing us, i want you to remember that when it comes to supporting you and your families, the american people stand united. we support you.

we are proud of you. we are in awe of your skill and your service. only 1% of americans may wear the uniform. and shoulder the weight of special responsibilities that you do. but 100% of americans need to support you and your families. 100%. this is a moment of american leadership. thanks to you, it is a moment we are going to meet and i will keep standing up for your interests and for our security. and for the human rights and dignity of people wherever they live. we're going to keep on working with our allies and partners to take out the terrorists who threaten us, wherever they hide,

because in stark contrast to those who only know how to kill and maim and tear down, we keep on building up and offering a future of progress and hope and like the yen rations before us, we're willing to defend this country we love. we're willing to help others on this planet that we share. we're protected by patriots like you. and for all those reason the united states of america will remain the greatest force for freedom that the world has ever known. thank you very much, everybody. i'm proud of you. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] ♪

♪.