becomes even more clear in the course of this debate, i think it is going to be very difficult for iran and or russia to decide against all of that evidence that there's something worth defending here. so this is the kind of calculation you have to make, but i'd measure that against the calculation of what happens if we don't respond. if we don't respond, we're going to be back here asking you to respond to some greater confrontation with greater potential for damage and danger because somebody miscalculated as a result of believing the united states isn't good for what it says. and that will invite much greater danger for the american people, much greater risk for our armed forces, and conceivably, much greaterence chas of a genuine kind of conflagration that we don't want to see. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time's up. >> senator card.

>> and let me thank all of you for being here but also thank you very much for your service. mr. chairman, and senator corker, i thank you very much for arranging this hearing. it's very clear that the type of conducting that president assad has done in syria, the pattern of his actions creating a humanitarian crisis, and now the use of chemical weapons, the evidence that's been presented, it's clear that we have to respond in a military response is justified. so i support your efforts and mr. secretary, the way that you have described it as what i think we need to do. we have to have a tailored mission that deals with degrading and deterring the use of chemical weapons. we need to have it focused on that mission. it's got to be done in a way that protects civilians the best that we can. and it's going to be a very limited duration. but i just want to come back to the point at that time chairman

raised, and your own comments where you say we should shut that door as tightly as possible when dealing with putting our troops on the ground in syria. i've read the resolution that you presented to us. i think it is broader than what you have stated the president's intentions on the mission and i understand that, and i understand the president's strong desire to keep the mission very tight. and it certainly does not leave open, it does not close the door on the introduction of ground troops. i've also heard your comments about the unexpected. something could happen. i would just point out that the president as commander in chief has the authority, the inherent authority to act in urgent situation whereas time requires that action. and i would suggest as you have come to congress for this authorization if circumstances change and there's time to come to congress, yaoal have the opportunity to come back to congress and seek our

participation. we are a separate branch of government, as you recall. so i just want to urge you in the strongest possible terms to work with our leadership to draft a resolution that is as tight as we can make it to allow you to carry out the mission that you have defined here today so that we can go back and tell the american people that we will in congress are supporting your action but are not leaving open the door for the introduction of american troops into syria. i want to talk a little bit about the specific military operations, and i'm going to leave most of this for tomorrow in our discussions. but i just want general dempsey and secretary hagel to understand whether the mission is to degrade the weapons and deter the use of chemical weapons. have you put into that equation the fact that obviously, syria

is aware that we are contemplating military action and therefore, may try to change the equation during this period of time to make it more difficult for us to carry out that mission? has that been brought into your planning stages? >> yes, senator, it has. and you know, time works both ways. you recall about a week and a half ago, there was a significant week of military planning that caused the regime to react. so time works both ways. we have some pretty significant intelligence capabilities and we continue to refine our targets. >> both of you have indicated your concern about american military involvement in syria that it could draw us in in a way that we do not want to be drawn into an internal conflict. are you also putting into your plans ways to prevent that type of drawing in of america into

the internal conflict in syria? >> senator, we are. as i know theed in my opening statement, we have taken great care and much time in looking at all not only the options to present to the president but the contingencies that may be a consequence of the president selecting one of those options. including what you have just noted. it is imperfect, as i said, and i think everyone recognizes there's always risk. we've tried to minimize that risk in every way we can ask, every presentation we've made to the president. the president has insisted on that collateral damage across the board. so yes, we've taken a lot of time to focus exactly on your point. >> secretary kerry, you point out that if we don't act, we're liable to lose some friends. i want to point out, we do have

a direct interest here. we not only have humanitarian reasons to respond to the use of chemical weapons, we have direct american interests in that region and we have americans that are in that region that are at risk of additional chemicals used. so i see a direct connections to u.s. interests. you say we might lose some friends if we don't act. why don't we have have more of participation in the u.s. military response in addition to just support? it seems to me that this appears to be -- we understand america 0 would be in the lead but it does not seem like we have a growing list of countries that are actively joining us in the military operation. ing >> well, first of all, there is no definitive list at this point in time because the president has not made the decision as to specifically which set of choices he's going to operate

on. secondly, as many countries as we could conceivably need to be able to be helpful in a limited operation have volunteered to be helpful. and they stand ready to take part in any specific operation. and we're very, very comfortable with that. but the bottom line in many ways remains that we're talking about very specific kinds of capacities that in some cases only the united states of america possesses. and so you know, that's remains open. it's a process that will evolve as this debate evolves and as the president makes his decisions and the joint chiefs can of staff and the military present him with the various options. those will probably evolve as you mentioned. people may make adjustments in syria, and i can assure the syrians, general dempsey and his people were making adjustments

as they go along. >> i would hope we would have stronger international participation. is there a consideration of a role for nate toe to play here considering that one of nato's partners, turkey, is on the direct frontline here on the use of chemical weapons? can we -- is that being considered? >> well, as you say, is it being considered, everything is being considered. and all of these things are being evaluated, discussions are taking place. i will be meeting on saturday in vil knee yas with european ministers. i know this topic will come up. most of them, they're all all members of nato. most of them are, not all of them. so we'll have discussions when we're there. i at the moment, this is a limited operation with the scope of support that the president makes a judgment that we ought to have. we will have very broad, we have already very broad, i think i've been in -- we've had some 53

nations or countries and organizations have acknowledged that chemical weapons were used here and have condemned it publicly. 31 nations have stated publicly that the assad regime is responsible, and i think we're at about 34 countries have indicated that the allegations if they're true, that they would support some form of action against syria. so there's a very broad coalition that's growing of people who believe we ought to take action against syria. but the question is, you know, whether or not it makes sense for whatever number to be part of it is a decision that our military and the president have to make as we go along here. >> i'll are the rest of the questions to the closed session. thank you. >> senator rubio.

gentleman will sit down or i'll have the officer remove you. police will make sure that the committee's in order. >> vietnam. he knows that this nation used depleted uranium in iraq. >> senator rubio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me begin by answering a fundamental question that i get asked a lot as we discuss this important issue. that is, why do we even care about what's happening in syria. i want to make clear my belief refrequentflects the belief of most of the members of this committee. what happens in syria is vital to our national security for reasons outlined. the syrian relationship with iran is significant. it's a key part of their ambitions to be the dominant regional power. in fact, the iranians love to brag that syria gives them a border with israel. number two, assad is an anti-american supporter of terrorism. a supporter of hamas, hezbollah

and a supporter of al qaeda in iraq, the same al qaeda in iraq responsible for the death and maiming of countless brave young men and women who served our country in uniform. it's also of interest because of the instability this is creating in syria, instability that's allowing portions of syria to quickly become kind of what afghanistan was before 9/11. the premier operational space for global jis jihadists to come train and fight and plan attacks in the future. added to that is this chemical attack which undermines and the post world war ii world order which basically said that these things are unacceptable. allies that look at the united states and our capabilities of living up to our security promises is all at risk as a result of all of this. this is why what happens in syria matters to our international interest, why it's so clearly tied to a critical national security interest of the united states. by the way, most if not all of this was true two years ago when i joined other voices on this

committee and in the senate and beyond that advocated at that time when assad was on ropes, the united states should engage in trying to identify moderate elements and equip them so they became the predominant rebel force in syria and not others. instead the choice was made to lead from behind. choice was made to watch as this thing unfolded. others advocated we should mind our own business. what we're seeing here now is proof and an example when america ignores these problems, these problems don't ignore. we can ignore them but eventually they grow and come to visit us at our doorstep. secretary kerry a moment ago you said one of the calculations that assad used in deciding to use chemical weapons was that the u.s. wouldn't do anything about it. i understand perhaps why he made that calculation because yes, this was a horrible incident where a thousand people died. but before this incident, 100,000 people had died including snipers used to pick off civilians, including women that were raped as part of -- they were going to villages and carry this out. and nothing happened.

so, of course, he reached that calculation. so this is a reminder of what happens when we ignore the world when we look inward sometimes and ignore these problems. they only get worse and more difficult to solve. that's the mess that we have here right now. we are left with options all of which are less than ideal. i want to talk through the three presented to us by different voices and then ask specifically about the one the president is considering. the first option is to decide to help syrians remove assad and replace a more moderate government. that's the ideal outcome but it has its own complications. today rebel forces are not just the moderate rebels. they're jihadists now control major portions of the countries. other parts of the country are intermingled with these rebel forceset creating a real prospect after the fall of assad a new civil war could be triggered that could involve sec ariane violence, massacres of minorities. this comes with its own set of complications. the other is doing nothing.

that would guarantee the following outcome and embolden assad and iran, increased instability in the country because portions of the countries will still be ungoverned and send a message to the world there is no red line they should fear crossing. iran will move forward toward nuclear weapons. north korea can act crazier. our allies may start to doubt their security arrangements with us. israel may decide it needs to strike iran unilarly. iran will move towards the bomb which will be a turkey bomb and saudi bomb and maybe an egyptian bomb one day. the third is the action the president is asking us to consider, what he called an i shot across the bow, a military strike of limited duration and scope that has three goals as i understand it that have been outlined here today. goal number one is to hold assad accountable. two is to deter this behavior in the future. and three is to degrade assad's capacity to carry out these attacks in the future. this is the president wants us to authorize a limited strike

that would accomplish these three things. the questions that i have quite frankly, i'm a bit skeptical. that the act what the president is asking fwlor provide the support needed to achieve these objectatives and that these objectives are even realistic at this point. here's my first question and i think i'll ask this of general demp i. the calculation that assad has made is that the reason why he's using these chemical weapons is he's afraid if he doesn't, he could lose this war, be overthrown and killed. that's the calculation he's made. that's why he used these weapons. he wants to beat the rebels. my question is this. can we structure an attack thaech indianapolis that calculation where he'll basically decide that he would rather risk being overrun by rebels than risking a limited attack from the u.s. if he uses these chemical weapons? he has to decide, i'll use chemical weapons and take on a limited u.s. attack in the future or i'll risk being overrun by the rebels.

how are we going to unbalance that and lead him to calculate he's better offistic aring losing to the rebels? >> well, senator, i think the -- it may be even more insidious than that. he's reached the point where he thinks of chemical weapons as just another weapon in his arsenal. that's the part that makes this so very dangerous. i think that as i've provided advice on what targets may be appropriate, i certainly want to degrade his capabilities coming out of this. i want to come out of it stronger than we go into it. >> leads me to my second question. how confident are you and can you express to this committee how confident you are that we can in fact put in place a military plan limited in scope and duration that can be degrade assad's capability to carry out future chemical attacks? >> i'm confident in the capabilities we can bring to bear to deter and degrade and it won't surprise you to know that we have not only an initial target set but subsequent target

sets should they become necessary. >> and this question is probably of a secretary kerry. i think this was asked earlier but i think it's important to elaborate on it. one of the concerns i've had and i've heard others express, agsad could take three, five, six days of strikes and emerge from that saying i have faced down the united states and held on to power and survived. and at that point, be further emboldened domestically and perhaps abroad. have we taken that into account? i understand your argument that inaction would be worse. but have we taken into account what the implications could be of an assad that could whether a limited strike and what that could mean for the long-term prospects of the conflict? >> yes, we absolutely have. for certain we've taken that into account. he will weather. the president's -- the president's asking for a limited authority to degrade his current capacity and to deter him from

using it again. he is not asking for permission from the congress to go destroy the entire regime or to, you know, do a much more extensive kind of thing. that's not what he's asking. so he will be able to stand up and no doubt, he'll try to claim that somehow this is, you know, something positive for him. but i think general dempsey has made it clear and i think we believe deep little as do other who are knowledgeable about this in the region that there is no way that it will in fact be beneficial for him, that it will not translate for him on the ground. that the defections that are taking place now and other things that will happen will further degrade his capacity to prosecute going forward. and i want to emphasize something. i want to come back to it because i don't want anybody misinterpreting this from earlier. this authorization does not con

tep play the and should not have any allowance for any troop on the ground. i jut want to make that absolutely clear. you know, what i was doing was hypothesizing about a potential it might occur at some point in time, but not in this authorization in no way be crystal clear, there's no problem in our having the language that has zero capacity for american troops on the ground within the authorization the president is asking for. i don't want anybody in the media or elsewhere to misinterpret that coming out of here. as i said earlier, i repeat it again now, that's important. >> thank you. and i can assure you that will be in the resolution. >> good. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. i agree that we should not turn our back on such a blatant violation of international norms with respect to the use of chemical weapons. and that if we stand quietly by

while a tyrant like assad uses chemical weapons on his own people, that we will be giving carte blanche to any dictator anywhere in the world to develop and use chemical weapons. i think the question now is, as we've all said is how do we respond specifically. how do we best send a message that it's completely unacceptable to develop much less use these types of weapons. and how do we do that without inadvertently spreading the conflict beyond the borders of syria? that's really the question that we have today. and we've heard that we want to deter the future use of chemical weapons, but according to the president and your testimony today, we don't want to tippett

scales on the ground. so how do we ensure that we can do that without spreading the conflict throughout the region and how do we hit assad hard enough so that we deter his future use of chemical weapons and yet, don't affect the military outcome on the ground? >> well, joageneral do you want address the military piece and i'll take the other piece? >> sure. i think the language about not using american military power to tip the scale is -- would be our direct action. in other words, this resolution is not asking for permission for the president to be able to use the united states armed forces to overthrow the regime. on the other hand, back to the earlier questions about developing a moderate regime that has capabilities to be a stabilizing force inside of syria. that's the path our military action in this case is very

focused on the chemical weapons but will have the added benefit of degrading and we'll also have the added benefit of supporting 0 the diplomatic track and with that let me turn it over to the secretary. >> senator shaheen, the president has made it very, very clear that the policy of this administration and sometimes people have said questioned with precisely what it is. i'll tell you precisely what it is. the president is asking for the congress to take steps that will specifically deter and degrade assad's capacity to use chemical weapons. he is not asking the congress for authorization to become whole hog involved in syria's civil war to try to change the regime through military action. this is a targeted action to deal with the problem of

chemical weapons. but there is a separate track which the president has already committed the administration and the country to which is that assad must go. that he has lost all moral authority or capacity to ever govern syria, and that he is pursuing that, the president is pursuing that track by helping the opposition by now having made the decision to lethally arm ta opposition by upgrading the efforts for the opposition to be able to fight the fight, not the united states, the opposition, and to be able to be come to a negotiated settlement because the president's convinced as i think everybody is that there is no military solution. that ultimately, you want to get to geneva, you want a negotiated settlement and under the terms of geneva 1, there is an agreement which the russians have signed on to which calls

for a transition government to be created with a mutual consent of the current regime and the opposition and that transition government will establish the rules of the road for the syrian people to choose their new government. there is no way possible that by mutual consent, assad is going to be part of that future. the russians have agreed that that is, in fact, geneva 1 and the purpose of the geneva 2 meeting is to implement geneva 1. now it's complicated, obviously. how do you get there? and that's part of the struggle. but the president is convinced that as the support to the opposition increases, there is much greater likelihood that you will wind up ultimately with a negotiated settlement. the alternative is, that you stand back and do nothing and syria in fact implodes, becomes an enclave state. there are huge ungovernored

spaces, all news ra, al qaeda, hezbollah, others become more of a threat to our friends in the region and the region becomes much more of a sectarian conflagrationing. >> thank you, mr. secretary. >> that is part of the effort. >> secretary hagel and general dempsey, you made a number of statements throughout the spring cautioning against of intervention in the conflict in syria. why do you feel at this point that it's appropriate for us to take action? what's changed? >> senator, thank you. i'll let general dempsey respond for himself. well, first, very clear intelligence and evidence that the assad regime used chemical weapons on its own people. so we are dealing with a new set of realities based on facts. and i think it is at least my

opinion that that needs to be addressed. that needs to be dealt with. for the reasons i've noted. i've said in public and also addressed in my statement, i think in what have secretary kerry and general dempsey has said and obviously what the president has said. so that's the most specific reason. the dynamics have changed. one additional point in regard to your question on this as to your previous question. if in fact, the president is given the authorization are from congress to go go forward and he's already said he believes he has within his constitutional power as commander in chief to act, as well, and he's given his reasons which we all support why he came to the congress. there are parallel actions that would work along with whatever

action the president would take. opposition strength, which secretary ker ril has noted. second, defections within the syrian government and military as secretary kerry has noted. other intelligence, other consequences. and this is about getting to an end game. that end game is a diplomatic settlement. it is driving this toward what we believe the president believes is the only way out of this if for no other reason than what secretary kerry has noted. we do not want to see the country of syria disintegrate, result in ungoverned space which i think the consequences would be devastating for our partners, for our allies, the entire middle east. then we would all have to respond in some way. so i just add that on to

answering your last question. >> chairman, i'll make it brief but in response to your question about the -- let's say the past year. over the past year, we've provided a full range of options, and my advice on those options was based on my assessment of their linkage to our national security interests and whether they would be effective. on this issue, that is the use of chemical weapons, i find a clear linkage to our national security interests and we will find a way to make our use of force effective. >> thank you all. >> senator johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm trying to reconcile i guess the two tracks of goals we've got going here, military action and then gaucnegotiated settlem. secretary hagel you said we are not seeking to resolve the situation in syria. why aren't we trying to resolve that? >> i was refer in my statement

to the authorization to use military force. that specifically is not why we have come to the congress, why the president asked for the congress's support. as he has said, the authorization is for a very specific and focused military action. >> but our stated goal really is to remove assad and move toward a negotiated settlement. why wouldn't we use this opportunity, military action, to move toward that goal? >> well, that is one option. if those options would range from an invasion, or a lot of military options on the table, what the president has said, what this authorization is about is limited authorization for a limited exercise. the goal of removing assad from office has the president has stated is still the policy of this administration. >> general dempsey, how you confident are you that you can

calibrate, tailor, tine tune military action that doesn't have spillover effects that we keep it to the limited stated goal of i guess degradinging and deterring? >> well, the task was to do just that, to deter and degrade, not -- and to be limited and focused in scope and duration. that's the task i've been given and the task -- >> how can you calibrate that? >> well, we can calibrate it and 0 our side. there's always the risk of escalation on the other. but they have significantly limited capabilities to do so and movie of the intelligence informs us, we can talk about that in a closed session. >> what planning is being undertaken right now in case this does spin out of control? we were talking about potential for boots on the ground. >> uh-huh. >> secretary kerry, i'm very glad to hear you're bringing into the equation what i think is it our number one national supreme court interest. and that is those chemical weapons eps fall into the hands of al qaeda elements or possibly

even hezbollah. what commitment do we have long-term to make sure that doesn't happen? and if have a very limited resolution here, how do we know we will prevent that from happening in. >> senator johnson, this is this moment in time and as the president has said, he is asking for a limited military response recognizing that neither he nor most of america want to be dragged in to a civil war in syria. >> but our bowl is to get rid of assad. >> our goal is to help the opposition and there are lots -- i mean, you have to look over all. the president and i think all of us agree, i mean, can you imagine assad running syria? can you imagine this man who has gassed his people and -- >> i'm trying to reconcile why if we're going to go in there militarily and if we're going to

strike, why wouldn't we try and do some kind of knockout punch? is it because we have no faith there's nobody on the ground to -- >> no. >> or is it not ready for regime change? is that the problem? >> no, senator, that's not the reason. the reason is that the president is listening to the american people and has made a policy decision in addition thatting that is not something that the united states of america needs to engage in or ought to engage in. that is a much broader operation. >> well, yeah, it is. it is, senator. >> is the congress of the united states ready to pay for 30 days of $30,030,000 air strikes and there legal justification for doing that? you can run through a whole series of different questions nar very serious about what you're talking about. >> what do we know about the opposition? have we been tracking them for the last two years? it seems like this is more of an impression i have have, but it

seems like initially the opposition was maybe more western leading, more moderate and democratic. as time has gone by, it's become more infiltrated by al qaeda. is that basically true? >> no, that is actually basically not true. it's basically incorrect. the opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership and more defined by its adherence to a democratic process and to an all-inclusive minority protecting constitution which will be broad based and secular with respect to the future of syria. >> secretary haig. >> that's critical. let me just finish one other important about the opposition. it's my understanding because i talked to the president of the opposition yesterday. he's in germany now. he's meeting with the german parliament. he is coming to great britain. he'll be meeting with the parliament in great britain and he is prepared to come here as soon as those meetings are over in order to meet with you, and

you can having an opportunity to talk to president josher and meet with the opposition and have a better sense of who they are. >> secretary hagel, do you have a feel for the number of members of the opposition? how large is their force? >> i don't know the numbers. our intelligence communities have estimates of those numbers. but i think as secretary kerry said, the momentum has shifted in the opinion of our intelligence community and others who are close to the situation. >> i'm kind of a numbers guy. gem dechcy, do you know the force strength of the rebel forces? >> i don't have them committed to memory, senator. >> we have them? >> yeah, the intelligence community has that available. we'll make it available. >> do you have a pretty good feel for how many would be considered moderate versus elements of al qaeda? >> i have seen documents that lay that out. >> how do we know hezbollah that

they will already don't have access to chemical weapons? do we have any feel for that at all? >> i think we need to talk about that in our classified session, but let me just say to you that in terms of the opposition numbers, you see ranges up to 80,000, 90,000, 100,000 in total opposition. you see ranges from, well, i don't want to go into all the numbers but nut tens of thousands in terms of operative active combatants. the -- i've seen some recent data on the numbers of the extremists. they're actually lower than former expectations. i would also say to you, syria historically has been secular. and the vast majority of syrians i believe want to remain secular. it's our judgment that -- and the judgment of our good friends who actually know a lot of this in many ways better than we do

because it's their region, their neighborhood. i'm talking about the saudis, emirates, the turks, the jordanians, they all leave believe that if you could have a fairly rapid transition, the secular component of syria will re-emerge and you will isolate. >> that tends to arguing for a morre robust response. final question, you said this is the world's red line. i agree. so in the intervening time period before we potentially act here, how many additional countries will be supportive of this action? what is your goal? and what do we have right now? what is your goal? >> our goal is to have as broad a coalition and support of what we might do as is possible. we're working that right now. but the military and the president are going to having to decide how many they will actually want to have take part in the action. as i said, we already have more partners ready to do something kinetic than the military feels

under this particular operation we need to effect that. now, obviously we want them to participate because we want it to be a broad coalition. but the final numbers will have to be decided by the president and by the specific operation that he defines together with you in the authorization. >> i look forward to tomorrow's briefing. thanks. >> senator kuhns. >> i'd like to thank secretariesing kerry and hagel and general dempsey for your testimony in front of us today. i think the authorization of the use of force, i think the commitment of americans military strength is one of the most important issues we will debate in this congress. i'm grateful for the opportunity to have this conversation today as secretary kerry. >> we are listening to live proceedings at the senate foreign relations committee where secretary of state john kerry, secretary of defense chuck hagel and joint chiefs general martin dempsey are testifying on the importance of limited action in syria in the

face of a chemical weapons attack. but will it be enough to win the support of congress? we're joined by representative raul grijalva, democrat. >> good afternoon. >> you like myself have been following every moment of the discussion, the question and answer that's been going on. are you persuaded by what the secretary of state has said? >> at this point, no. and it's not because i doubt the veracity of the secretary or the president in terms of what occurred which is the use of chemicals on the syrian people. a violation of international protocol from 1925. that everybody signs. and this is why i think it creates an even great ker urgent sill to pressure china, russia, and get the u.n. to pass a resolution not only condemning but it is a war crime, and as

such, belongs squarely in the hands of the world court and squarely in the hands of the united nations. a broad coalition of people for a limited strike is not a broad coalition for the final resolution of what the situation in syria. >> congressman, the secretary of state said that 53 nations have condemned assad's use of chemical weapons. and 31 nations have said that assad and his regime are responsible. but when the secretary of state argued that it is in the interests of the united states and that the interests of the united states will be seriously setback if we don't follow through on things that matter to us, in his words, he said, we'll be opening a pandora's box with a number of other nations including iran and north korea watching. did that not persuade you that this is a very serious moment and action has to be taken? >> it's a gut-wrenching moment

for every member of congress. i'm truly support the strength of the president to not only ask fog for a consultation but to you ask consent before any military action is taken from congress. the persuasion is has to be reflected in the history, martin. and you know, this un unilateral preemptive kind of military actions created a war in iraq and afghanistan that seemed to go on forever. >> but sir, doesn't the nature of this very limited authorization that the administration is seeking, does that not reflect the fact that this administration is deeply conscious of what happened in iraq and is not wanting to expose this nation as secretary of state has repeatedly said, there will be no american troops on the ground. this is a limited strictly limited in his words

authorization. >> the volatility of the region, the fact that we do have a historic record now in iraq and afghanistan, i think leads one to believe that this has the potential of not only a military quagmire but a diplomatic quagmire. i really believe that the international pressure to break the assad regime is what is going -- is necessary and for the united states to be the preeminent, the preeminent unilateral force that carries out this limited action is like john kennedy said, you know, limited military action is like a drink to an alcoholic. it just keeps going on and on. and i have that history to reflect on, and i also have my great concern for a region in which we have yet to make a significant movement toward peace. another military action now just

adds and aggravates what is already a very volatile situation. >> congressman, thank you sir. both of us now will place our eyes upon the hearing live as it imcoulds at the senate foreign relations committee. >> our decisiveness and our action in this instance? >> well, i think the language that the administration submitted with respect to the military action necessary to degrade and deter and prevent the use of chemical weapons specifically is very targeted. but i, as i've said several times now, i'll repeat again, i know the administration has zero intention of putting troops on the ground and within the confines of this authorization, i'm confident we'd have zero problem in including some kind of prohibition there if that makes you comfortable. i would not urge an excessively pinpoint the congressionally mandated set of targets and i think in the course of the

classified briefings, the intelligence community and the military community will make it very clear to you why that's not advisable. and i think they have to have some the general needs some latitude here to be able to make sure he can accomplish his task. but i think the broad confines and constraints of this particular operation are not hard for us to arrive at in agreement. i'm confident we'll do it very quickly. >> thank you. one of my other concerns, mr. secretary, is the flood of refugees and their impact on the region in a visit in january to a syrian refugee camp in jordan, i was moved both by the humanitarian situation they're facing and by the very real impact that this is having on our regional allies on jordan, on turkey, on the destabilizing impact on lebanon and, of course, the real impact it's potentially going to have on our close ally israel. i was encouraged to hear there was successful missile defense

system tests earlier today. secretary hagel, what steps are we taking to ensure that our allies in this immediate area, turk and jordan and israel, are able to defend themselves from a potential response by the assad regime? >> well, senator, first jordan, you know we have patriot missile in defense batteries in jordan. and we also are working very closely with the israelis. you know they have a very sophisticated iron dome and missile defense system there. we are in constant coordination with all of the allies in the region. and as you may know, general dempsey was just in jordan for a commander's meeting which included all the senior military from the neighboring countries and our partners. so we are closely connected with and assisting our allies on this and other issues. >> thank you.

last question, secretary kerry, if i might. i am interested in our having a followon conversation about how this specific strike and this be side effect authorization that you're seeking can also lead to a broader strategy, a strategy for support and engagement with the opposition that will lead to the diplomatic resolution of the syrian civil war that you've spoken about repeatedly. i don't think these are mutually exclusive. i do think it's possible for us to take action that reinforces a global red line against chemical weapons use, but to still continue to strengthen and broaden our engagement with the opposition in a way that moves toward a post assad syria that is sustainable and secure. i'd like forward to your input with us in the next hearing on that topic. >> i look forward to it, too. i'd like to get the whole committee to maybe come down to the department. we could have this discussion inning that confine as a committee also. that might be helpful.

in addition to what we do in the classified briefing tomorrow. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, if you want to do that, i'm happy to do that. >> we'll follow up. senator flake. >> thank you all for your testimony. and i want to thank you particularly the state department for making information available with regard to -- unclassifying certain information and also for the classified hearings that have taken place with regard to the chemical attack. i think that one would have to suspend disbelief as you mentioned to assume that the regime was not in charge of this. secretary kerry, in your initial testimony, you asked us to ask ourselves what assad's calculation wok if we failed to act. i think that's an appropriate question. but i think it is appropriate for us to ask you or the administration, what is the calculation of assad right now

when rather than after we have proof that he did engage in what he engaged in, that we're waiting for congressional authorization? i think one would have to suspend disbelief to assume that we wouldn't be better off attacking those targets right now or a week ago than waiting three weeks for congress to take action. and just drawing some parallel to the conflict in libya, i think the president's statement was before we went ahead and engaged in combat there or at least along with nato, the president said i refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves to take action. and did so without congressional authorization under the war powers resolution. we had some dispute when he came back, but initially we went ahead. here we have evidence that chemical weapons were used.

and how can we assure or tell our constituents that this isn't political when you come, when the administration comes to the congress to ask for authorization to take action that the president clearly has said he has authority to take? >> well, senator flake, it's somewhat surprising to me that a member of congress, particularly one on the foreign relations committee, is going to question the president fulfilling the vision of the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution and divided power and foreign policy to have the preds come here and honor the original intent of the founding fathers in ways that do not do anything

to detract from the mission itself. general dempsey will tell you that he advised the president of the united states nug that not only was there not a deteriorationing in mission by waiting, there might even be some advantages. and so, in fact, we're not losing anything by waiting and i personally believe there are advantages because we have time to work with our friends in the international community, because we have time to make the case to the american people, and share with them the evidence that we have shared with you in the last days because we have an opportunity to be able to build greater support and as the general has said the, we can adjust to any changes or shifts that they make in that time. this does not in any way deteriorate the fundamental mission of degrading and

deterring the use of chemical weapons. now, if at any moment assad were foolish enough to believe that this period of waiting is somehow an invitation to do more of his criminal activity, i can assure you that the president of the united states and i think you all would probably speed up your process and or the president would respond immediately. so this is working. there are defections taking place. there's great uncertainty in syria. we are building support. a greater understanding, and i would far rather be playing our hand than his at this point in time. so i don't think we're losing anything. i think the president made a courageous decision to take the time to build the strength that makes america stronger by acting in unity with the united states congress. >> well, if i may, i can

certainly understand if that is a secondary goal or the primary goal that will in this intervening time, it causes our allies to get with us. it causes russia to put the pressure on, maybe assad regime to get back to the table peace talks. something like that. that's great. but purely in terms of military strategy and i don't have a military background, but i would have to suspend disbelief and i think all of us would to assume that we're better off in a couple of weeks doing what we're planning to do what we will authorize the administrationing to doing. general dechcy, is there evidence that the assad regime is right now moving some of the targets that can be moved or surrounding targets with civilians or others to make it more difficult to give effect to our strategy. >> thanks, senator. first, for interest of clarity here, what i actually said to the president is the following -- the military resources we have in place can

remain in place and when you ask us to strike, we will make those strikes effective. in other sessions in the principles committee, not with the president present, we talked about some targets becoming more accessible than they were before. but to your question, there are, in fact, there is evidence, of course, that the regime is reacting not only to the delay but also they were reacting before that to the very unfortunate leak of military plan. so this is a very dynamic situation. >> secretary hagel, you seem eager to jump in. >> i was just going to add something that you added, senator. and that is the international community. inch addition to what the president has already noted, a nation is always stronger when it is together when he gets the congress and the american people with him to begin with, but also, the international community as many of the members

of the international community with us on this, i think the president feels pretty strongly would be also an important part of whatever decision he might make. and it doesn't end with whatever military option the president decides to go with as we have all heard. that's all the more important we would want the international community with us. >> secretary kerry, what will happen if the congress says no and does not authorize this strike or this use of force? >> what will the president do? >> well, i can't tell you what the president's going to do because he hasn't told me, but the president, as you know, retains the authority, always has the authority, had the authority to strike before coming to congress and that doesn't change. but i'll tell you what will happen. where it matters in pyongyang,

in tehran,ing in damascus, folks will stand up and celebrate and in a lot of other capitals in parts of the world, people will scratch their heads and sign a sort of condolence for the loss of america's willingness to stand up and make itself felt where it makes a difference to the world. i think it would be an enormous setback to america's capacity and to our vision in the world and certainly to the role of leadership that we play. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on saturday, i was standing with a group of friends watching the television screen with the announcement that any minute the president would make a statement. and i turned to him and said, i'll bet the missiles were

launched and shot off hours ago and we'll hear about it now. and to my surprise, of course, the president came forward and said, i have that authority. i've made that decision. but i'm going to respect our constitutional dexcracy and give the congress, that is the american people through congress, a voice in this decision. from where i was standing, that was good news because for as long as i've been in congress, house and senate i've argued about that congressional responsibility. some presidents have respected it, some have not. most of the time, congress in writing or in speeches insists on being respected and being given this authority. and then starts shaking when it's given because it calls on us to be part of historic life and death decisions. it's one of the toughest calls we'll ever make as members of congress but i salute the president for respecting the constitution and giving us that responsibility and i think the

turnout today on short notice in the midst of a break on this committee, mr. chairman and ranking member, is an indication we're taking this seriously and solemnly. i'll also note to senator kerry and also to secretary kerry and secretary hagel, we all served together some 12 years ago, and faced similar awesome au historic decisions. related to iraq and afghanistan. we saw those differently in some respects. but i voted against the iraqi resolution and going to war in that country. and felt that the events that transpired afterwards gave me some justification for my vote. but i voted for the war in afghanistan. believing that it was a clear response to 9/11. we were going after those responsible for killing 3,000 innocent americans. and we were going to make them pay a price. i still believe that was the right thing to do.

but i didn't know at the time that i vote the for that authorization for the use of military force i was voting for the longest war in the history of the united states and an authority to several presidents to do things that no one ever could have envisioned at that moment in history. so secretary kerry and secretary hagel, i take this very seriously. i understand this president, i understand his values. but i take it very seriously that the language be as precise as possible when it comes 0 this whole question of expanding this mission into something much larger, something that would engage us in a new level of warfare or a new authority for their president or a future president. so i hope that we can have your word and assurance that we can work together in a bipartisan fashion to craft this in a way that carefully achieves our goal but does not expand authority anywhere beyond what is

necessary. >> senator, thank you, very important statement. and you not only have my word that it will not do that, but we will work with you very, very closely with the white house in shaping this resolution. we -- there's no hidden agenda. there's no subterfuge. there's no surrogate strategy here. there's one objective, and that objective is to make sure we live up to our obligations of upholding the norm with respect to international behavior on the use of choem cal weapons and that is what the president is seeking in this authorization. >> let me speak to the issue of chemical weapons. i don't know if general dempsey or secretary hagel or perhaps secretary kerry is the appropriate person. the french have done an assessment of what they believe the syrians have in terms of

their chemical weapons arsenal. general, are you familiar with it. >> i'm not familiar with the french assessment. i'm familiar with our own. >> we have a copy of it here and it's been published. and we have talked a lot about sarin gas and other nerve agents. and what we hear from their report and i'd ask you if it's close to what your assess. is, the syrians have more than 1,000 tons of chemical agents and precurse ker chemicals. several hundred tons of sarin representing the bulk of their arsenal. it's also been speculated that they have the missile capability of delivering these chemical weapons in israel, portions of turkey, jordan, iraq, and beyond. what is your assessment of their potential when it comes to the delivery and their capacity when it comes to the amount of chemical agents they have

available. >> our assessment closely matches the french assessment. >> i guess my question to you, mr. secretary, secretary kerry, is in light of the vulnerability of these countries, what has been the response of the arab and muslim world to this? and you've listed four or five who have stepped forward to say they support our efforts. it would seem that if this danger in the region is so profound, that we would have even greater support. >> senator, i think this is something i'd be happier discussing in greater detail with you in the closed session. there are obviously some countries for whom public statements are more coxplicated than others. i think we should talk about that at the other session. >> fair enough. general dempsey, we saw these photographs earlier. had it's heart breaking photographs. page 3 of the "washington post" this morning a