we hope you enjoy the rest of your day-to-day, and we will see you back here tomorrow. ♪ } >> coming up today here on on pan, a house hearing combating isi. take you to the justice from march. that event being organized by several civil rights groups, of of rpton, and the families michael brown. capitol hill today, the senate will be in session beginning at noon eastern.

sanders will continue to debate the $1.1 trillion spending bill that passed the house on thursday. rules, the e earliest date for voting is monday. that is if a procedure of all passes later tonight. meanwhile, funding will run out tonight. sanders will be considering as well as several judicial and branch nominations today. on can watch this and live c-span two. q and a, eek on political reporters share stories about being on the campaign trail with senator mitch mcconnell. p plan for four years this campaign. it started in 2010 after he saw what happened in the republican primary.

rand paul b mcconnell's handpicked guy. at that point, mcconnell had to recalibrate everything that he knew. a hired key staff and build sophisticated infrastructure knowing that this was going to be a difficult campaign. >> they spent a lot of money and technology. had watch obama's campaign. senator watched reed's campaign. it was a tough race. he was going to have the latest technology. he said, he was going to build the most thorough campaign ever -- >> iin american history. >> he probably got there. at 8 est. night

>> brett mcgurk recently testified on capitol hill about the obama administration strategy on isis. he also spoke about the humanitarian situation in the region and what is being done to address it. before the house foreign affairs committee. >> this hearing will come to order. i'm going to ask those in the audience to take their seats at the time. this morning we welcome back and ambassador mcgirk. the few er was one of administrations pounding the isis alarm early on, as you did

we were s committee -- holding hearings last february on this problem. after four months of the us-led campaign in iraq and in syria, ice is still controls essentially the same amount of territory that it did in the summer. reasons for this -- is the limited - nature of this effort. we have only done 100 airstrikes today. when u compare that to saddam hussein invaded kuwait and the response on the part of back then we ates, had 1000 sorties per day. in terms of idea

response, and how minimal it is, as compared to what we've in the past. moreover, committee is by the courts that have been micromanaged in the white house. with his flawed air kurdish and iraqi forces have pushed prices out key infrastructure area. on that without the heavy equipment that they need. have done that at great loss, shedding a lot of their blood. and frankly, more air attacks more isis defeats. we look at another program

in syria, u. s. backed groups have not received support in the past several months. in fact, the syrian efforts have suffered from lack of ammunition. in addition to not being supplied with the heavy weapons to fight isis, and at the same time as they are fighting isis, for example border of aleppo, isis or 50 one side, and 40 airstrikes per day. peshmerga he kurdish remain that strongest force against isis. but baghdad has refused to more than em anything

light weapons. weeks ago nt a couple of a small squadron 10 hmerga tried to take on pieces of armor that were put into play by isis -- they hem -- billy had small arms, and as a call in nce they airstrikes -- it took a considerable time for the come in -- by then, they were wiped out on the ground. that is why, we've heard from the foreign minister, the for the peshmerga for

armor and artillery, for long mortars, for missiles, that on met need is a very real consequence for them. the recent , that accord between baghdad and -- for the kurds.t if not, the ranking member and do just egislation to that. although the administration knows that 60+ countries have joined the anti-ice's campaign, some key partners perceive the strategy as misguided -- turkey, for one. the saudi's, and other areas, do not see how allowing assad on the ground e in aleppo makes any sense. a no-fly they push for

area along the kurdish border. dave jordan control that long-term to keep from having free syrian forces hit from their by assad. meanwhile, their graves security consequences allowing ices to control the territory the size -- western iraq, they astern syria, clearly are already over 15,000 fighters in isis. reportedly isis has been recruiting 1000 new fighters per month. this is part of the problem is not turning back isis. on social media, they claim that they are on the advance. resonates with certain young men who enlisted the

cause. we argue that an effort to roll word hinder their effort. secretary kerry said that it is time for defensive strategy, we and our international partners have transitioned from an office in strategy. concerns s with deep about the present strategy, i -- this is how this incredible offense. next congress, we anticipate improve military force. we won't omething that do in a timeframe the fitting

of the issue. congress also expect to work in a bipartisan way to garner maximum support. before turning to the ranking member, i would like to note that this is the last full of this congress. we have accomplished a lot in the last two years. recognize all o members for their participation. to mr. engel.urn he thought certain things before many. while we wait for the ranking would suggest that

we go to an bastard, your testimony, and after you conclude, he will make his statements. ambassador mcgirk. >> he currently serves as the for iraq and iran. objection, the witness' folder parent for ement will be released the record. an bastard, if you would please summarize your remarks. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. it is an honor to appear again before this committee.

before discussing the state of where we're , and going, i would like to reflect briefly on how far we have come in the last six months since the city of mosul fell. i was in iraq six months ago mosul collapsed. isil threaten the northern approaches to baghdad. to the west, there was an offensive vastating isis taking the city of -- baghdad during this period, just six months ago, there was among the panic population, government, and diplomatic community. at the embassy, we evacuate 1500 people.

we also prepared for the iraqis to fight back. within 72 hours, we prepared for possible counteroffensive. find one platform per day, hs to 60 gaining more intelligence. we established joint centers, gaining new insights into the needs. third, we deployed special forces teams. finally, and perhaps most supported the e iraqis. throughout the summer months, we work these four tracks simultaneously. by iraqi relationships

commanders, while supporting iraqi political leaders as they stood up a new government. present t 8, when the to st ordered forces we were e action, prepared. later, a new government represented -- policy is s governing decentralization. last week's historic oil accord was an outgrowth of this policy. new government is

committed to strengthening local level forces. third, the new government is committed to a policy of and oring relations remaining independents. the is first hundred days, government has undertaken breakthrough visits with a number of countries. nonetheless, despite the progress, the challenges of this new government are enormous. isis has thousands of fighters controlling major cities where state structures have collapsed. the economy, which was growing, is now expected to contract. this new government, despite cannot defeat nd isis on its own, it will need the support of the united states, and the world. that is why, we've established a global campaign.

last week in brussels, secretary kerry brought 60 coalition partners in a conference. the first rence for time formalized the global to defeat isis. the lines include counting prices financing, humanitarian delegitimizing isis. today, we've conducted over 1200 airstrikes against isil terrorist. the strikes, f ability to -- have been degraded. in the past 60 days alone, iraqi forces have retaken ground. held the line of the

dam. still, multiple fights will begin across iraq with the of our allies. leaving two significant attrition of isil fighters. they are now with losing over fighters per week. modern opposition forces are also holding the ground. on combating foreign fighters, we now have in place a all lution calling for member states to stem the flow foreign fighters. in the past month alone, one-sided networks have been broken up. on county finance, we are

working with partners to cut avenues of revenue. these efforts are not having an impact. on the humanitarian front, much as been done, but much still needs to be completed. we started at an aggressive campaign. leaders have declared ice is a direct threat to islam. we've also been combating social media presence. and i have n allen visited 16 capitals over the past few months. we found the coalition strongly united. the situation. as more complex. our tools for the moment are more limited.

have common n and i questions. partners ur coalition as e not envision themselves bring about a change. at the same time, other coalition partners are urging strikes against the regime. our message to all these partners has been cleared, we believe there must be a political transition in syria, through a negotiated political process. commitment, in our that featured government cannot involve al-assad. a political transition will also involve a counterweight to isil. this process of course will take time. throughout, we will always

we can assure how people can protect themselves from threat. conclusion, looking back six months ago, we have indeed began to make progress against isil. i want to emphasize, this will be a long-term, multiyear campaign. we are in the early phase of phase 1. as we move into the next phase, it will require the support of this congress. to be here. >> thank you, ambassador. i think i will begin with my questions. ambassador, you know the syrian city of aleppo is the last the r city -- refuge of syrian middle-class -- it is of er the partial control

the moderate syrian opposition. this is an absolutely critical the opposition -- both for symbolic and strategic reasons. through the city that most humanitarian assistance flows. the past year, as the modern opposition has struggled maintain the city, as better resource fighters from isis -- as 40 airstrikes per day had them, they've had to contend with assad's use of hezbollah against them. you see a situation where isis has gradually captured an increasing portion of the city. as have others -- as have those want to extinguished the

middle-class efforts to hold on. are encircled. if aleppo is hat toppled, it will have consequences. when we meet with them, we share the same things. they cannot get the equipment that they need to fight back against isis. in late august, a team of state with tment prefers met committee staff on the situation in aleppo. the state department official of not was a question would fall -- but, it when, not if.n of when, not if. when the staff asked if

aleppo was associated priority, the state department said that they were still trying to decide. -- sounded like diplomats speech for no. isis continues to advance on aleppo. this is now on a daily basis. we are bastard, if serious, we cannot let aleppo fall. far more lives are at stake. airstrike are r focused not in that area.

if aleppo falls, a massive wave of displaced people and refugees would result. fall of reventing the aleppo and administration priority? >> thank you. we are very focused on the situation in aleppo. want to be clear on what our authorities are on attacks in syria. all our operations in syria are focused on isil. in these is operating areas, i can assure you that my colleagues are looking closely at what we can do. on the level situation, we are we can do.ed on what that is why general alan and i up fortunes to turkey past few months.

another bviously doing with the moderate opposition in this area. north of aleppo -- just turkish border -- within the city of aleppo so much isil. not focused on are isil which are sometimes hard to find. the hat calls into question fact that, fighting al qaeda unions as well. it calls into question our policy on safe zones. on this -- we had the stylus back in february on isis. a time -- frankly, before

isis even took falluja. then city by city, the call members of others with d experience, that devices wasn't hit while they were on the ground, musel itself would fall. now we're at the point where we last major stronghold for the syrian middle-class and al to hold off isis qaeda -- and the barrel bonds and we still can't see any policy to try and rescue the city. when we directly ask if it is a try and c objective to

hold against the fall that get is he response we that we're still trying to decide. we can be still trying to decide after we have lost the ability to reverse what is going on in syria. as we lostthe ability to reverse what was going on in not hit the we did target price than taking musel. anyway, my time has expired. we will now go to mr. sherman of california. >> and bastard, interrupt me if i got this wrong, but you are the un ing that gives the administration under american to use troops.ion that also my understanding the use the efforts that taken against isis --

arguably at continuing the streams of al qaeda. >> our international bases -- >> i was not asking about your international bases. >> i'm saying that the situation in aleppo is a very confused one. our ability to look closely at is happening that is limited by the fact that we are flying always from the golf. our focus right now is on isil. >> and bastard, i would ask you legal position of demonstration -- and you're is ling me how difficult it to bomb -- you will not answer my question, so let's move on to another question.

the iraqi government -- you pointed out that they might well have taken baghdad work for us -- they are at camp ing the people liberty in clear violation of international law. themselves with iran. sometimes folks at the upper level of the state department don't focus that much on the u. s. taxpayers -- we're giving a tremendous to iraq -- is my understanding that iraq is paying and acknowledging arabia and saudi kuwait for tens of billions of

dollars borrowed by saddam hussein. bothered -- is iraq still making payments to kuwait and saudi arabia on the debt? does that therefore put them in a position where, instead of for what we're giving get it for free. facing a fiscal crisis. there facing not because they are paying on the debt from saddam hussein. i've asked on this for five years, i've never gotten a straight answer. >> the payments to kuwait are commanded by you and resolution. iraq is obligated to pay those funds.

saddam e are payments on hussein debt? i'm not talking of reparations. -- i ight about the money money that about the saddam borrowed. >> the vacuum government also considers itself a victim of saddam hussein. >> but they have not renounce those debts. >> they have. >> you haven't urged iraq to refuse to pay. it is one thing the creditor, -- tear up the note. it is another thing for the debtor to say they will not pay.

>> we are doing everything -- >> except stand up to saudi arabia and kuwait and void this that. money they let saddam hussein to carry out award. >> it is a slightly different issue. with kuwait, we are in very good discussions with themabout relieving those payments. >> you time a completely different payments. the same part.rom >> i hope for the record you -- l brief us on white youth what you have done. >> i would be happy to come up and give you a briefing on that. of course, the new iraqi government has been in place for 100 days and is very different than the previous government. mr. elliott to

ingle. >> thank you. you for calling this and military is operations. recent reports indicate that isis is recruiting more than 1000 foreign fighters every month. these fires are streaming into syria and iraq. most troubling, some are returning to home countries knowledge of terror. just as the threat spreads to the world, the committee will be responding to the threat. more than 60 countries have anti-isis commission

support iding military for our partners. european countries, countries and other have worked alongside the united states. we've made progress, but we're nowhere near stamping out the threat. talk what ay we can strategy of trying to close to the goal. it is critical that we engage with local partners. that cooperation is essential in stopping a set of isis. and to ensure that the u. s. have a t disproportionate share of the burden. congress voted overwhelmingly to get a program off the

ground, and i look forward to hearing about this effort. secondly, we must ensure that assad leaves syria. assad is a dictator responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of syrians. horrific w the pictures. assad is also a magnet for extremism. the conflict in syria and iraq as he ever end as long remains in power. lastly, we must determine and understand that the u. s. takes role in this. i understand that the american are uneasy about getting more involved in the conflict around the world.

this is another reason why working with local partners is so important. will help prevent further escalation of american involvement. we must not forget that freedom, dignity, and justice are constantly under attack in other parts of the world. if u. s. does not lead as the one pion in his values, no else will. there are times when defending advancing this vision involves difficult choices and sacrifices. that is what makes the united states the one and indispensable nation. i look forward to hearing the questions and answers, and the testimonies. i once asked my first question, question iran. to defeat isis. have involvement does iran in iraq -- both in the air and on the ground?

can we prevent our best intentions in iraq from empowering iran? i has artie happened once, we it to happen again. >> there's no question that iran is playing a role in iraq. every country has a role to play in the defeat of isil. the question with iran, is whether or not they will do it in a constructive way. now of what we're seeing iranian militias is problematic. the iraqi government has made a commitment to reaffirm before 60 countries to ensure that all are operating under the structure of the

iraqi state. in the total security class had the summer, there's that militias fill that vacuum. i just think, and all your back, that we need to be very wary of iran. it is not simply the enemy of my enemy, i think we need to be on y careful to not stumbled a path. thank you. >> thank you. now we go to the chair of the middle east subcommittee. >> thank you. following up on mr. ingalls questions regarding iran. the secretary stated very clearly that iran is not cooperate with iraq. in addition to 15 page you do not mention

one single time, bbut clearly it plays a role in iraq. minister abaddi claims no knowledge of the airstrikes. who currently controlled in iraq -- given that iraq is to not have sufficient capabilities to maintain their own air sovereignty? iraqi iran violate airspace -- will there be any repercussions from that -- as talks tinue our nuclear with iran, we ignore multiple continues that iran to make. will this be yet another violation of iran that we turn a blind eye to? secretary has called

possible iranian action in iraq isil as positive, fact that tehran meddling in baghdad, and sectarian tensions in iraq and syria has played a large part in the rise of isil. if the demonstrations view that a shiite iran, in spite of our nuclear talks, invade he airspace -- this administration see this as a positive development? is syria, you testified the our goal to find a series that isil or assad, e that we are relying on moderate rebels to defeat them both. the side risking being

as they d by brescia, are, and isil being so well-financed, how will a group defeat ls be able to them both? what will they need to accomplish that goal? ddemonstration does not have competence of policy, nor does it seem to want one. realistic plans to defeat isil. begun the t even training. away from t a year this standing up minimal force up -- if ever at all. where are we with admission? >> let me address your questions. of all, in my testimony i just malitias. of lso focused on the desire this government to defend the

to arab - outreach neighbors. in iraq -- you just have to look at the map to that, the border. >> would you say iran invaded iraq he airspace. >> i would have to defer to my colleagues. up to iraq to defend their own airspace. pilot during training, and there were two of jordan to f-16s on it every basis before their bases are ready. >> what is the latest with the training?

>> that the title 10 dod program. mike dod colleagues can give your briefing on that. have been an and i tto those countries. we hope to get badly by march. >> is it demonstrations view that assad must go -- does that removed needs to be from power -- or that he does not have a future in syria? >> we're focused on a political transition progress. two political tracks right now. up approach -- freezing the situation in aleppo. support the initiative. also, secretary kerry has been in talks with key stakeholders in the region. one believes that

aside can govern that state. the rebels will remove him from power? who is going to remove assad from power? my dod collies -- colleagues can discuss that. regarding the syria training equipment program, it is that the beauty was unable to provide a witness today. a request today. >> thank you mr. chairman for the support hearing. as i'm sitting, listening to your testimony, listing to i estions being asked, understand that this is a

complicated situation. it has been since we have been here. it is not easy, people have those areas -- n some for decades, some for centuries against one another. this is not a simple scenario. this recall being at hearing -- many of us can think it is simple. would be easy to get rid of saddam hussein -- that it would take a couple days. i'm glad we're not being that simplistic about this. demonstration saying that it will take years to get this this done right. based on trying to get together with our allies in the region, with complicated relationships, so that we can figure out once and for all how get this done -- not just

the united states, and then everyone turning back on us. it is complicated, it will take some time. we have to figure this out. had some problems -- that's what happens with complicated situations. if it was easy, anyone can do it. it is not easy for the united states of america. when you look at this world, and we have to deal with our their in the region, interest -- in this world, they are going to say, we're not going to do what the united states wants to do. they have their own self-interest also. weigh that in, so that we do not have an artificial result that last for a short period of time. my first question is, going has been difficult with the iraqi government.

i know that it has just been an agreement with baghdad and israel. my question is, how is that? at the malki government, how was this landmark agreement that was just reached last week? reached it was just last week. what is the likelihood that it will hold? how will payment be made to the kurds? so we can fix this scenario the has also historically been a problem. >> thank you for your excellent question. you're absolutely right, this is an extremely complicated situation. it is viewed differently from every capital that we go to.

in the middle east right now, it is going through a historic transformation. the oil deal is really significant. it is something we worked on from 10 years. the terms of the deal reached the same deal that we came up with the march, with the cting them government. back then totally government is pragmatic -- they figured out a win-win solution. kurds the solution, the will export thousands of barrels of oil per day. taking the oil from those fields and exporting it through north, through the kurdish about 300,000 barrels,

all that revenue will come in, and 17% will go to the kurdish government. also in this, $1 billion will go to the curtis peshmerga. so very clearly, the iraqi saying they would will fund the kurdish peshmerga. will there be problems moving forward? work and we will have to through those -- but is a significant sign that they got this done, and a very hopeful moment. i was on the phone with the leadership, and there is a mood of optimism -- something i've not heard in some time. i think you questions very think the -- and i oil agreement is very indicative of where we are in we q and the foundation that have built. six months ago today, it was hard to see where we might be today, but it gives us some hope for the future.

the iraqis will have to work out the details. there will be setbacks as you said. significant a breakthrough, and a testament to the iraqi leadership. >> thank you. >> mr. joe wilson of south carolina. >> thank you. for your early warnings of the threat to american families. the american people need to know the threat of isis. last week, it was reported that isis spokesman called upon followers in the u. s. and europe to attack members of the military. on to say, do not ask do not s advice and anyone's verdict -- both of them are disbelievers, both

be waging war. to a grotesque ideology that we face, and our coalition partners face. i think it is important that we never forget how grotesque it is. also, jihadist carry signs that are very clear, that two americans, death to europe. they say, we value does more you value life value. we do have allies. the american no-fly zone saves thousands of lives. as of mid-october, the

forces only had limited supplies. i think the president actions match the threat. under what timeline? discuss the discussion of arming the peshmerga. detailed with them list. we've delivered everything on those lists. i want to go back to, we have a new government now -- a minister defends. one of his first trip was going up to irbil and getting the kurds the supplies they need. i was just in berlin last week, and the germans are supplying the peshmerga.

we are very focused on this. what is important is that, unlike some of the tension that we had with the last government, we are very strong cooperation now. there been about 40 cargo flights. they land in baghdad first and then go to irbil. we are working on this every day. centers joint operation set up. i went to them. we are working with them every day. our military colleagues have on this -- what do they need, how do you get them. the hundred tanks that they it takes -- we they are sure that fully --

>> do you think the person i be on offense of operations and not just defensive? on the offensive. importantly, they're working closely with iraq he forces, to take back the dam. operation was done in collaboration with others in the area. six months ago, the kurds have -- we are working with them in joint operations centers. we provide them with air cover and air support.

>> i want to join with my colleague in queens, aactually needed to south carolina, and pleased i am that there is an agreement on oil. i yield back. for hank you mr. chairman holiness hearing, and thank you for being with us, and always being straightforward with us. as i sit here -- we talk about training and retraining, i just three report two or weeks ago, that iraq has soldiers on payroll but do not up -- to me, maybe we will spend millions of dollars and not be as effective.

also, we talk about the being more pragmatic -- i think it is the reality not work in a o different way, they will lose their country. people have poured billions of dollars in this country to straighten them out -- now they have become pragmatic -- i is the reality. i was concerned with the kurdish getting all the weapons that they needed, but they have to go through baghdad, so it was difficult. these are the kinds of things -- the last thing -- spreading conflict throughout the area. i read some articles that lebanon was concerned that there was activity in lebanon. they were asking for more arms, and more support. to that also?ak producer at as a

the conference we had in brussels last week. they were at the table with the the ign minister, as were other neighbors. has 1.8 or example million refugees. it is extremely difficult, and lebanese are very about this particularly. in the our partners region, the country neighboring syria, lebanon, iraq, and jordan are central to the efforts of this coalition. what we heard in brussels, countries all around the world, the fact that our friends are suffering from this crisis.

i can follow up on this with a more detailed briefing. >> i'm happy you raise the issue with jordan. i understand it a more and more active in demonstrations, and aggressive activities. >> well, jordan is also front-line state. you know, the refugees they are taken and have really taken a on the resources. general alan and i met with someone last week -- working closely with jordan. trying to limit stream is present in southeast there a lot of focus on the aleppo is very - but jordan focused. state is a front-line

and providing substantial humanitarian assistance. the n, our friends in region -- lebanon, jordan, turkey, and iraq are impacted by this crisis every day. central the present policy is focused on this very issue -- the neighbors of syria. we look at it every single day. my colleague jonathan winer who is our senior adviser is in albania today with a team with dhs represented as well and we've gotten about 600 residents

of camp liberty out of camp lib ter and out of iraq to safety over the past year and we're looking to increase that number this year. albania has been very helpful in this regard and jonathan winer has really done a tremendous heroic courageous job at getting this moving and i think the new government will be more cooperative. we want to get all of the residents at camp liberty as i testified before out of iraq to safety. that's our goal. and we're working with partners around the world to try to achieve that goal. right now albania has been extremely cooperative and we should thank them for taking in hundreds of residents and the residents are assimilating quite well in albania. but my colleague is there now discussing this issue and i'm sure he would be happy to come follow up with you. >> thank you very much. >> per that issue, i would just point out when senator kerry was

here, we raised this issue of supporting the kurds. not selling them the heavy weapons, the heavy equipment and the armor they needed, the anti-tech missiles. i'll quote from his testimony, no we're not. you are. we're adhering to u.s. law passed by congress. if you want to change it, fix it, we invite you. i would just point out that i put out bipartisan legislation to change that, to allow us to directly sell the weapons they needed to the kurds and then the administration opposed the legislation that we had been invited to put into change it. so, just for the record, i would raise the point that the argument has changed. >> mr. chairman, i feel your pain on crimea, too. >> yes. it's a moving target and a moving argument. we go now to judge poe of texas. >> i thank the chairman.

there's no question about it that isis, as i call them, they're a bunch of bad people who just commit murder. and we are doing battle with isis. the united states has been in middle east with boots on the ground for a long time. ambassador, would you say that the united states is at war with isis or not? >> congressman, having seen it up close, i would say we are at war with isis, yes. >> it seems to me that our strategy is twofold at this point or maybe threefold. send aid to different groups, countries. there are 60-something nations i understand are in the coalition to fight isis. one is to do air strikes as the chairman has mentioned the success of those air strikes depends on who you're talking to. i do not believe they have been quite as successful as we had hoped they would be.

the other is to take syrian moderate rebels, vet, train and equip them to go back to syria and defeat isis. how many of those people have been vetted, trained and equipped and sent back to syria to fight isis? >> congressman, again, it's a d.o.d. program -- >> it's not. you're the ambassador. you represent the state department, you're not the states. we're at war with this country we're at war with isis. you can't tell me politically whether we have armed, vetted, armed and trained anybody yet and sent them back to syria to fight isis? you can't give that answer. >> i did answer it. the answer right now is no. >> so not.

>> it was designed to be a long-term program and we hope -- >> i understand, beard. just a second. wait a minute. i'm asking the question. you give the answer. meanwhile, isis is beheading people and committed all kinds of atrocities, but our plan, if i understand our strategic plan, it's to help aid, it's to drop bombs, it's to train mercenaries to go back and fight isis in syria, none of which have been trained. how long is it going to take before we get all those people that are being trained in saudi arabia back in syria to fight? how long do you think it will take? >> well, congressman, the program is to train 5,000 per year and the training we hope will start in march. so -- >> so a year from march? >> and the program is to build -- >> a year from march? >> about 5,000 by then. we have to be very --

>> by thousand in march that will be trained or will it be a year from march, 2016 before we that wese 5000 fighters send back to syria? answer the question. 2016?5000 and >> the training we hope will begin in march. we hope -- >> but it will take a year to train 5,000 people. >> yes, that's right. >> so march of 2016. then we have a plan, then we have fighters, then we send them to syria. does the united states have some other strategic plan other than arming these folks that aren't going to show up until 2016, dropping bombs, that are marginal whether they've been successful, and helping with military aid to some of these coalition countries. is there a strategic plan overall that you know about in the state department? >> yes.

the train and equip program is one small element in an overall campaign and this is a multi-year campaign and phase one, phase one is iraq. what we're doing in syria right now is degrading isil's capacity. every time we've had a local force on the ground that we can work with. kobani is a good example of this. >> reclaiming my time. what are we doing in syria right now? people are dying in syria and the calvary isn't showing up until 2016 the way i understand it. is that correct? >> those trained and equipped units are not the only units on the field that we can work with in syria. >> who else? >> we're working in kobani with a number of units. >> who are these people? deal wes thanks to the

worked up with the turks. >> they working in syria or iraq? >> in syria. >> last question. sorry i'm out of time. last question, are we going to put more boots on the ground, american military in the middle east to defeat isis? >> the president's policy is not to put combat forces on the ground in iraq, but we have advisers and trainers that are working right now -- >> middle east. i'm not going to talk about iraq. in the middle east, are more americans going over to the middle east to the fight against isis? >> we have about 30,000 troops in the region. >> i yield back. >> mr. conley? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. ambassador, certainly i think most of us wish success in your endeavor, but i have to confess to you, listening to you makes me feel like i'm in the scene of the wizard of oz. we're being counciled to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. meaning the previous iraqi government, which we supported way too long in terms of ma lacky and the damage he did in absolutely severing relations between the shia and the sunni, which contributed mightily to the rise of isis. and frankly to the loss of moderates, not only in iraq but spill over in syria. i mean, you said to us, pay attention to the fact that we have a new government. yeah, it's kind of relatively new, but when one looks at measures of progress, one dispairs frankly, ambassador. i'm fixated on what constitutes progress?

we have used metrics in the past about how many iraqi troops we trained in the past. how did that work out for us? they melted away. now we have isis, one of the best funded, best equipped terrorist organizations on the planet, thanks to u.s. assistance. not because we intended it, but because our ally in iraq collapsed. comprehensively. now we're talking about well, maybe, what we have to do is have a smaller, you know, fast force that can go in. we'll train them. we won't train hundreds of thousands and they'll do it. you've talked in response to judge poe about the training and we all hope that works. but i don't think -- i don't know anyone who seriously thinks that you can train effectively even with successful vetting 5,000 insurgents who are moderate and maybe secular and they'll be reintroduced to syria and turn the tide.

in fact, all of the indications are the moderate, you know, are part of the insurgency such as it is has collapsed in syria. is actually losing ground cat strofically, almost to the point , almost tophically the point of extinction. and so you decided decentralization, security reforms and the new government is reaching out to regional capitals as if that is going to turn the tide. maybe you didn't intend for that. i guess, i would like to see ef cay shous metrics with respect metrics withs respect to the subject of this hearing which is are we making progress? how do we measure progress in an efficacious way, not a feel-good way, not a check-the-box way. how do we measure progress given the fact that this administration has said the end goal with respect to isis is destruction. i don't hear anything from your testimony and i hear nothing in

the so-called metrics of progress reported here today that would give me or frankly anyone at this dice confidence that we know what we're doing and that we have any fair chance at all to return to the wizard of oz and actually be a powerful wizard. i just don't see it. could you please comment on the metrics we've got and the reason we should be confident that those metrics will lead to, quote, progress, unquote. >> well, it's a very good question and we try to take an empirical data driven approach as much as possible to what is a very complex situation. one data i look at every month are the suicide bombers coming into iraq. we had -- we went from to 5 to 11 a year up to 35 went up 30 a month, sometimes 50 a month. the month before the iraqi elections in april we had 50. it is coming down when i look at the indicators.

i can't tell you if that's a trend or simply an amomly but right now it's coming down. we're looking to see the reforms that this new government is making and without an iraqi commitment long-term we probably won't succeed. but if you look at what the government has done in 100 dies, , it's abolished the office of the commander in chief which was an irritant to the sunnis and centralized all security responsibility in the office of prime minister. terminated almost three dozen problematic security commanders. it has identified as it has said 50,000 ghost soldiers on the role which is san anti-corruption mechanism. so it is taking steps that we wanted to have taken. to change the government, congressman, we couldn't just say, we have to have a new government. we had to get to elections. iraqis had elections on april 30th, earlier this year. for those elections to happen, we had to work over the course of 2013 to get the elections system in place to get the mechanisms in place and have

u.n. oversight to make sure they were genuine and credible. they happened on april 30th and set the conditions to get to a new government. this was a multi-year process. we have a new government now and it is taking some measures that we find promising. >> as i said, mr. ambassador, i want you to succeed. i hope you succeed. but just as i think some of the criticism of the administration with respect to syria was very fasle and i single out two prominent members of the other body who were all too quick to say there were easy answers and the administration wasn't doing enough as if we knew who to support in syria. we on our side can't be overle facile either in the difficulties we face and the goals we set for ourselves. and i am very fearful at the end of the day that those goals are not realizable. they're not realistic and we can't really set up metrics that are efficacious. thank you, mr. chairman. my time is up.

>> arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ambassador, i apologize. i'm just getting my voice back. you're going to be real thankful about that. but the fact is, i think many members today on both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns that maybe the administration's posture is more defensive than offensive. and that as such, the isis controls roughly as much property as they did five months ago or territories as they did five months ago. the president described the training of the free syrian army as the tip of the spear on the ground game. and we're learning they're not going to start the training until march of next year. now, yesterday the secretary left the door open for u.s. ground troops at the senate armed -- excuse me, senate foreign affairs committee. for the record, that is a pivot.

you've stated that the president has promised over and over again we didn't need to have you say that, we heard him say the same things. and i'm -- i believe that ultimately u.s. ground troops are going to be essential to completely defeat and not just contain isil as i believe the current administration policy is. so my first question is when can we expect the administration to come to congress for an authorization for the use of military force? and i don't believe that the one that was passed ten years ago was adequate. this is a hybrid. i do want to do everything within my power as other members have said of eradicating and defeating isis and not just containing them. my second question is that recent reports indicate that our allies are concerned about the u.s. commitment to this fight and some are threatening to withdraw from the coalition. what are we going to do to reassure them and keep them in the coalition?

and what are we going to do to get back on the offense and not so much on the defense? those are my questions. >> on the umf, congressman, as you know, secretary kerry devoted an entire session to this yesterday before the senate foreign relations committee and he made clear we're prepared to work very closely with the congress. there is legislation being drafted in the senate, particularly from chairman menendez which secretary said we're willing to work on and we find some very promising elements there. i think the secretary was also pretty clear the president has been clear that his policy is that u.s. military forces will not be deployed to conduct ground combat against isil. we don't want to tie the hands of the commander in chief given a very uncertain environment and you could face a bad situation. but this will come within the give and take with congress about what the actual terminology will be. in terms of the coalition, this

is why it was important that we had this conference in brussels last week because we brought every member of the coalition together. they signed or joined a very detailed joint statement whiches -- which lays out the way forward and i'll make sure you have that if you haven't seen it. it is significant. it brought countries all around the world focus on the same problem and how about to proceed. that is the kind of initiative that can help keep the coalition together and general allen and i in our travels are very focus on this and there will be a lot more over the next month in keeping it together. right now we think the commitment is very firm. in terms of offense, i have to say, the last time i testified here, we had done no air strikes that wasn't too long ago. we now done last i looked i got the most recent numbers 1219 air strikes, 689 in iraq and 530 in syria. our coalition partners have done 208 of those air strikes. what's different about past campaigns is that our air strikes now are focussed on very precise intelligence and we are striking with pretty devastating

effect and to date and, you know, we have to be very careful about this but we've been very careful about making sure we have no civilian casualties in these attacks. we talked about the state of the overall campaign and he is very focussed on that because we want to keep the population as much as possible on our side. and our strikes to date have been very precise, very effective and i can just tell you by getting the reports every morning we are hitting the targets we seek to hit. we are hitting the leadership targets. we're hitting the mobile refineries. we hit about 22 of them which is really impacting isil's ability to finance itself. we're hitting the command and control cells. we have completely destroyed isil's ability to mass and maneuver force. what it was able to do so effective it masses force, they would do these swarming maneuver tactics with heavy armored vehicles and overrun anything in its wake. it can't do that anymore. that's an empirical sign of

progress that we're making but we have to keep ate. -- keep at it. >> mr. higgins of new york is recognized. >> mr. ambassador, you indicated earlier that the deal between prime minister abaddi and the kurds was a big deal, that the central government in baghdad will permanently resume payments to curd stan representing 17% of the national budget, including a billion dollars to pay for the salaries of the peshmerga and weapons for them as well. and why is it important? because to date there hasn't been an effective count vailing fighting force in iraq. now there appears to be.

the peshmerga estimates are about 190 fighters. they've proven to be reliable. they're experienced, and they've also proven to be reliable allies to the united states in our involvement in iraq. iraqi officials now want to push for a winter offensive in mosul. and american officials, it's been reported, are concerned that this schedule is a little too ambitious. can you explain that? >> let me first say on the peshmerga -- one additional point i want to make addressing your question in about how we're kind of in a new era here. part of our plan is to train and equip, as you know, 12 iraqi ber -- iraqi brigades. three will be kurdish. and those units will receive the same western weapons vehicles equipment as the iraqi units that we're training and equipping. this is all done in cooperation

between baghdad and urbil. in terms of mosul, it's an on going discussion we have with the iraqis about how best to prosecute this campaign. i would just caution that i think we have to be very prudent in our expectations and the the one thing we want to do is manage expectations. i have said repeatedly the president has said, the secretary has said this will be a multi-year campaign. and nobody wants to rush into mosul or a city that is held by isil before the conditions have been set. it's an on going situation with the iraqis about how to proceed, when to proceed and what area and not another? >> how many isis fighters are in and around mosul today? >> it's hard to say. we think it's probably the last i've seen in the low thousands. the leaders in mosul we've taken off the battlefield. >> give me that number again, estimate? >> the last i've seen are the

low thousands. >> meaning what? 3,000? >> i can't give you a precise number but that sounds about right. >> this hybrid force that you talk about between isil and peshmerga and the iraqi national army would represent 20,000-25,000 fighters? >> roughly depending on how you count the size of the peshmerga. >> 25,000 is a reasonable estimate? >> reasonable. >> reasonable. okay. >> what's the size of the

population of the city of mosul. >> 1.5 million. >> 1.5 million. and we don't believe that an offense of is advisable right now because the hybrid fighting force is not ready yet. as an have the proper training? >> well, we want to set the conditions before. one thing we've learned is that you don't want to move into -- >> what are the conditions? >> an urban combat environment before the conditions have been set. well, you want to work with the local population. we're working, in fact, with the government and other local leaders in anyone noah who are now located in regions right near mosul making sure a police force is set and once isil is kicked out of mosul to make sure there's something to maintain law and order and bring services and stability to the community there which will have been suffering under isil's rule for some time. the point is you have to get this right. you can't rush into it and that is why we have these joint operation centers and are working day and day hand in

glove to plan these. >> would you characterize -- >> it's hard to say. it's hard to say. >> has their momentum been broken? >> i think there are signs that the tide is beginning to turn, that the population is turning on them. >> has that hurt their rebuilding efforts? >> it's hard to say but there are enough signs that they're having a hard time in mosul specifically paying their fighters. they're having a hard time getting fuel. the refinery, congressman, they tried to seize the refinery in june. they needed it for the fuel they would need to make sure that mosul had the lights on. they failed. there was a very heroic fight put up by iraqi forces six months ago. just a couple weeks ago were able to break that siege and isil has no chance now. >> my time has expeered. thank you. >> thank you very much. pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, madame chair. welcome, ambassador. it's good to see you again. your position is between a rock and a hard place here with us and the talks that go on at the white house.

i'm a member of the nato parliamentary alliance and routinely get comments from our members that -- asking is the president taking this seriously? is the president taking isis seriously? after listening to senator kerry's testimony just recently, i get the impression and you folks may be frustrated too, the president is trying to micro micromanaging this and not listening to you and to the military personnel. >> it's hard to say. >> i do speak up to my other nato colleagues and say any time you want to join in and contribute, we would be more than glad to have you on board. but with that said, you know, we didn't attack isis when they were leaving syria going into iraq. i think that was a major mistake. i want to ask you -- and i know what you talk about in the oval office and what you can say here not by your choice maybe a little different. we made a mistake by not doing that. would you agree with me? >> what's your question? >> by not attacking isis when they were leaving?

because remember the president said in an interview with the new yorker magazine that, they were junior varsity basketball players. what has changed that they're not junior varsity anymore and why did we not -- was there an opportunity to attack them leaving syria going into iraq? >> well, i testified about a year ago some things that we were doing at that time. but all i can say as soon as mosul fell, i was on iraq, i was on a video conference with president obama and we acted immediately to set the conditions for what we're doing now. and the president made decisions within the earliest hours of mosul falling to get special forces into the field to see what was happening and to get our intelligence overhead to set up joint operations centers and that help set the conditions for being able to fight black. most importantly for working with the iraqis they got a new iraqi government up. it's a strategic foundation we have that we did not have back in june or really the past year. >> i'm not going to second guess you and sit here and question

the decisions on getting the information that we needed before you could go in and do what you decided to do. i mean, i would just would not do that. but should we increase air strikes and can we increase air strikes? i do take particular notice and agree with you on your urban combat situation. so, could we increase air strikes and pound isis even more? >> i think in going to the point of how careful we are being, there's -- i think you'll see air strikes increase as iraqi offensive operations increase because when there are on going -- ongoing operations, we're able to strike targets in support of those operations and our limitations are not as narrow as when we strike targets

simply by our intelligence picture. so, when iraqis are moving in the field and then when isil begins to show itself, our air strikes increase. so you might see an increase in the numbers. but again the numbers i just gave are pretty significant. i just got a report when i was coming here in the car, we've done over the past couple days we struck targets just in iraq in mosul, al qa'im, kirkuk, so we are -- to say we're extremely serious about this, we're offensive minded and taking the fight to isil every single however. >> would we be in a better position -- i'm playing monday morning quarterback, would we have been in a better position to leave troops in iraq instead of pulling them out? >> i'll let the historians sort that out. there's a lot that went into those decisions, but i'm really focussed on where we are right now. >> well, you pretty much

answered the question for me and i know you have a fine line to walk, but there's no doubt in my mind, we left there way too soon. it was the president's agenda. and now he realizes that we're up against -- our backs are up against the wall here. with that i yield back my time. >> if i could say real quick. >> please. >> it's significant to point out we left in 2011 under an agreement in 2008 and one issue from the moment we invaded iraq is that we invaded iraq. into iraq. invited what is significant about right now and this was really apparent to me when i was iraq last month that the iraqis have now invited us in to help them. it's a totally different environment than our presence in the past. and it gives us kind of a new foundation in which to operate in iraq is significant. right up until the end of our presence in iraq, it was extremely controversial that we were there at all. >> mr. ambassador, i have to cut you off because i will recognize

the remaining members to four minutes each. i know you need to leave by 12:15. >> thank you, madame chair. thank you, mr. ambassador, for being here today, to discuss the implementation as it relates to our strategy to defeat isis, an area of tremendous difficulty. you, believe there's no military solution to the conflict in iraq and syria and i have continued to have very deep reservations about the efficacy of the military actions we've taken particularly as it pertains to the equip and train rebels. this will lead to a deepening of our involvement in sectarian civil war. to the extent that you can comment, it would be extremely helpful. international coalition to fight isil on a global scale.

could you share more details about the progress we made in building that coalition, what the barriers have been to sustaining the coalition? particularly as it relates to the train and equip programs, what kind of response we've had from war wary countries and how they're working together to share the burden of responding to this global threat. yunded kingdom, belgium, denmark -- only the united kingdom, belgium, denmark are involved in the air strikes. there are no regional partners. that raises concern about this notion of outside the region engaging in this military conflict. would you talk a little bit about where we are in building a meaningful coalition? not just kind of photo-op but people really committed to this effort and how they're sharing the burdens of this fight against sois? -- against isis? >> thank you, congressman. we built this from scratch.

90 days ago, this did not exist at all. the president and secretary kerry. after that, we brought the gcc together and other key partners, meeting in jetta, which issued a very strong communicae. and u.n. general assembly later that month, we began to build this coalition. in jetta, the focus was joining an air campaign in syria. once those air strikes start, you saw the regional states, ua ahrain, qatar were part of those. 60 members joined in brussels for a cooperative effort. there's a different role for

everyone country to play. the military side, we have the air campaign. we also have now substantial contributions developing to support the train/eequip effort in iraq. we have qatar, turkey, saudi arabia supporting the train/equip effort for syria. foreign fighters, president obama chaired pretty extraordinary security council session at the u.n. general assembly and passed a chapter 7 resolution on foreign fighters that had the most response in history i'm told. we're having real progress. we're seeing foreign fighters cells broken up. this wasn't happening 90 days ago. on counter finance, the same thing. kuwait has passed legislation, in working with other partners in the gulf.

i could go on. the coalition is extremely meaningful, considering we built it from scratch 90 days ago. i saw president obama and secretary kerry work this directly with the world leaders to pull this together, really extraordinary. and with the appointment of general allen -- >> thank you very much. >> each of the respective countries. we would benefit from a real understanding. >> mr. duncan of south carolina. >> about the situation in iraq and the collapse of iraqi army in the face of isis. i just wanted to comment, provide an answer to him. i think it's the elephant in the room that nobody wanted to talk

about. this is the fact that we prematurely left iraq campaign promise to be out of iraq by the end of his first term. and even after prime minister maliki offered troops there. the president wanted to see the iraqi parliament cast vote on that, which they did and it failed. so, ambassador, sitting here, listening to this and the president really fails to articulate what success in iraq or success against isis or isil looks like. i'll ask you. and a little bit of my time to define success. what does success look like to you against isis? >> what we're looking at is helping iraqis control their sovereign space. they do not control a third of their country.

it is a critical test of how we are going to be doing. degrading isil in syria. they control a huge swath of territory in syria, number two. leading ultimately to political transition in syria, which will be extremely difficult. the first phase of this campaign, it's helping iraqis regain control of sovereign territory. territory. >> let me shift gears here. success against isis is reclaiming all the land in iraq that we lost american blood liberating. liberating action. who may or may not be friendly there that we want to back. i know who is friendly. that's the kurds. they've been there since 1990 when we first went in the gulf war and have been there with america against the iraqi government government. iraqi soldiers cut and run in

most. -- in mosul. who didn't cut and run was the kurdish fighters. who didn't cut and run in the face of a bull dozer who was armored, they didn't cut and run. they actually ran toward the bull dozer to try to stop it. 25 or so kurdish fighters lost their lives. they didn't have the necessary armament and ability to stop that and some of the other weapons that isis now has and using in theater. my question to you is this. does the administration tend to more robustly equip the kurdish forces to commence? other than small arms, pistols, rifles, small arms, what else are we going to give our friends and kurds to fight isil? >> i discussed this earlier. we're going to be giving them a lot. >> if i asked them, would you they say that? >> the same western equipment than any iraqi brigade would

-- that any iraqi brigade would have. there is a huge list of what we are giving them from rpg's two antitank rounds to everything else. that has been worked up with the iraqis and the kurds. arrived toights have offload this equipment. i agree with you that the peshmerka have been brave fighters and iraqi fighters south of the kurdistan region have been extremely heroic. look at the defense of the refinery. that went on for six months. >> thank you very much, mr. ambassador. mr. schneider of illinois. >> thank you.

thank you, mr. ambassador, for being here and for your service to our country. i would appreciate a more elaborate, written explanation. in your opening remarks, you indicated that it was going to take a long time. define that frame. and iraq and syria, can isil be defeated in one country and not the other? is this an either/or or do we have to do both? can isil be defeated in syria without first or at least simultaneous achievement of a political settlement in syria? can we achieve a political settlement in syria without pushing back or defeating isil? what are the biggest threats to our continued progress? what can and should congress be doing to push back, contain and ultimately defeat isil? with that i'll leave you with the remainder of the time. >> those are big questions. i thank you for your offer to follow up with those in writing.

we say years for a reason. i don't want to put a specific timeframe on this. i think that would be artificial. it's going to be a multi-year challenge. >> >> if i can, in the context, , thatg at the 12 months will be the front end of the battle against isis that will last longer? >> we would like to see the iraqis over the next 12 to 18 month months begin to restore control of the iraq/syria border. that process will begin over the next year. we're working with iraqis on a plan for that. in terms of congress, we have programs ready to go now, waiting for that authorization. thank you for all that the committee has done.

>> can we defeat isil in iraq, give iraq autonomy again and not defeat them at the same time in syria to be effective? >> we made a determination to degrade isil's war-fight capacity, we would have to target them in syria as well. >> you have to do both. is it possible to push back against isil without simultaneously having a political solution and, as you said, a political solution that cannot and does not include assad? >> these things do go hand in hand. in order to get a political solution, you have to have a counterweight to extremist groups like isil. that is what we are doing with the train/equip effort and some other efforts. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you, gentlemen. the chair will recognize the gentleman from illinois.

i do not envy the position you have decision -- sit in now. i appreciate your service. please don't take any of this personally. you mentioned 25 given to the peshmerga, 2500 to the iraqi government. -- 250 to the iraqi government. along a 650 mile border that the kurds have with isis. 25 mraps is really a joke. honestly. i know it's not your decision. when i was in iraq, i went on a trip, i left in 2009 and we had the war won. devastating and hard to talk about.

when i talk to the folks there, it was crazy. also it's kind of fun on the committee to see all these kind of new hawks that i remember talking two years ago about what we were going to have to go back to iraq and people thought it was a joke and thought i was joking and here we are. on the syrian side of things, our failure to enforce the red line was one of the most devastating foreign-policy decisions. up to the red line discussion, there was legitimate talk about getting bashir al assad out of office, give him money, send him somewhere with sanctuary. but we have to preserve the institutions of the state, had a new leader and actually solve this peacefully. today, there's no real discussion about bashir al assad leaving peacefully, because he has no incentive to. that's why i'm supporter of enforcing no-fly zone even against the assad regime. it changes the calculus in his mind to now understand maybe if

his life is at threat he will peacefully peacefully leave syria. i frankly think that bashir al assad is the incubator of isis. he is the reason they are there. people, 200,000 of your even a terror group like isis looks better than the guy who has killed your wife and son, as he has done in so many cases. you mentioned -- by the way, we've heard recent reports even that the fsa is complaining of us cutting funding off to them and not even able to pay their soldiers anymore. i hope that's not true. that would be devastating. as a military guy myself, i expect a paycheck. it doesn't mean i'm any less of a patriot. just means i have to support people when i was full-time active duty. one thing i do want to ask you, though, when we talk about, for instance, strikes in syria, you mentioned loiter time over syria, as having to come from the gulf. has there been any negotiations

with turks in place to open up those bases? if so, what's been the administration's response? from what i understand, if there's an air exclusion zone, which the administration is not not -- in fact, i've heard that. i would like to you address that, sir. again, thank you for being here. >> congressman, again, thank you for your service. i think everyone still continues to work on this issue does it in the memory of everyone who has served and particularly lost their lives in iraq. >> and i appreciate that. >> that's central in all of our minds and why we need to get this right. future of syria, we're very -- view that hearing

anytime online at c-span.org. we take you live to freedom plaza in washington, d.c. where the national justice for all march is about to begin. bys event being organized the national action network in partnership with other groups, including the naacp, the human rights campaign and the black women's roundtable. participants will be marching along pennsylvania avenue to the national mall for a rally. those taking part include al sharpton and the families of eric garner and michael brown. live coverage now on c-span. >> we won't stop. we can't stop. we won't stop. we can't stop. we won't stop. we can't stop.

we won't stop. .we won' op it -- we can't stop. let your money stop injustice. let your money stop injustice. let your money stop injustice. let your money stop injustice. let your money stop injustice. let your money stop injustice.

[no audio]

>> ok, go ahead. ok, my brother. get in there. perfect. ok, here we go. i've got it. that looks good. [no audio]

>> what do we want? >> justice! >> when do we want? -- want it? >> now! >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> hands up! >> don't shoot! up!your hands >> don't shoot! >> hands up! > hands up! >> don't shoot! >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> hands up!

>> don't shoot! >> what we want? >> justice! >> when do we want it? >> now! >> who are we? >> michael brown! >> who are we? >> eric garner! >> who are we? >> michael brown!! >> no justice -- >> no peace! >> no justice -- >> no peace! up!ands >> don't shoot!

>> what do we want? >> justice! >> when do we want it? >> now! >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> i can't breathe! >> hands up! >> don't shoot! >> i can't breathe! [indiscernible]

stop.'t >> can't stop. >> we can't stop. >> we won't stop.

>> we can't stop. >> we won't stop. [no audio] [no audio] >> we cannot stop until we the streets.

>> what do we want? >> justice. >> when do we want it? >> now. >> what do we want? >> justice. do we want it? >> now.

[no audio]

>> no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace.

[indiscernible]

democracy looks

like. >> no justice. >> no peace. >> no justice. >> no peace. [indiscernible]

[no audio]

>> show me what democracy looks like. democracy looks like. show me what democracy looks like! we want it? >> now! >> what do we want? >> justice! do we want it? >> now!

get it -- on't >> if we don't get it -- >> what do we want? >> justice! we want it? >> now! >> can't stop! >> won't stop >> can't stop! >> won't stop!

>> can't stop! >> won't stop! >> a killer cop! or a jail block! we can't stop! >> we won't stop! >> a killer cop. >>