but as the president said last week, american forces will not have a combat mission. instead these advisers are supporting an iraqi and kurdish forces and supporting the government's plan to stand up iraqi national guard units to help sunni communities defeat isil. the best counter weight to isil are local forces and the people of the area. as you know, in june, the president asked congress for the necessary authority for dodd to train and equip moderate syrian opposition forces and $500 million to fund the program. we have now secured support from saudi arabia to host the training program for this mission, and saudi arabia offered financial and other support as well. the 500 million request the president made in june for the train and equip program reflects the estimate of the cost to train, equip, and resupply more

than 5,000 opposition forces. the package of assistance we initially provide would consistent of small arms, vehicles, and basic equipment like communications as well as tactical and strategic training. as these forces prove their effectiveness on the battle field, we would be prepared to provide increasingly sophisticated types of assistance to the most trusted commanders in capable forces. because dod does not currently have the authority to conduct a train and equip mission, the administration asked congress to provide the authority and the continuing resolution it is currently now considering. a rigorous vetting process will be critical to the success of this program. do did, will work closely with the state department, the intelligence community, and our partners in the region to screen and vet the forces we train and equ equip. we will monitor them closely to ensure that weapons do not fall

into the hands of radical elements of the opposition. isil, the syrian regime, or other extremist groups. there will always be risk, there will always be risks in a program like this. but we believe that risk is justified by the imperative of destroying isil. and the necessity of having capable partners on the ground in syria. as we pursue this program, the united states will continue to press for a political resolution to the syrian conflict resulting in the end of the assad regime. assad has lost all legitimacy to govern, and has created the conditions that allowed isil and other terrorist groups to gain ground and terrorize and slaughter the syrian population. the united states will not coordinate or cooperate with the assad regime. we will also continue to counter assad through diplomatic and economic pressure. the third element of the

president's strategy is all inclusive approach to protect our homeland. in concert with our international partners, the united states will draw on intelligence, law enforcement, diplomatic, and economic tools to cut off isil's funding, improve our intelligence, strengthen home land defense, and stem the flow of foreign fighters in and out of the region. the department of justice and homeland security launched an initiative to partner with local communities to counter extremist recruiting and the department of treasury's office of terrorism and financial intelligence is working to disrupt isil's financing and expose their activities. the final element of the president's strategy is to continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians displaced or threatened by isil. alongside the government of iraq, the united kingdom,

canada, australia, and france. u.s. troops have already delivered life saving aid to thousands threatened iraqi citizens on mount sinjar. in total the u.s. conducted 32 air drops of food and supplies providing over 818,000 pounds of aid nearly 50,000 gallon of water and 122,000 meals ready to eat in the operations. in in addition to the assistance, last week the state department announced an additional 48 million in aid for civilian organizations to meet the urgent needs of iraqis displaced by isil. our total humanitarian assistance is more than $186 million for fiscal year 2014. the united states is also the single largest donor of the humanitarian assistance for the millions of syrians effected by the civil war.

last week secretary kerry announced an additional $500 million in humanitarian assistance. since the start of the syrian conflict, the united states has committed almost $3 billion in humanitarian assistance to those affected by the civil war. all four elements of this strategy require a significant commitment of resources on the part of the united states and our coalition partners. mr. chairman, i think everyone on this committee understands fully this will not be an easy or a brief effort. it is complicated. we're at war with isil as we are with al qaeda. but destroying isil will more than military efforts alone. it will require political progress in the region and effective partners on the ground in iraq and syria. as the congress and the administration work together, we know this effort will take time. the president has outlined a clear comprehensive, and

workable strategy to achieve our goals and protect our interests. mr. chairman, senator inhofe, thank you for your continued support and your partnership. thank you. >> thank you very much. secretary hagel. thank you. would you please leave. would you please leave the room now. we're asking you nicely. we're asking you nicely to please leave the room. we're asking you nicely, would you please leave the room. thank you. we asked you the last time. thank you very much. thank you for leaving. >> don't drag us into another war. >> we want to ask all of you to avoid these kind of outbursts. they're not doing anybody any good including hearing what the testimony is. they're not doing you and whatever your cause is any good either. thank you very much.

would you please -- i'm asking you nicely to please leave the room. we're asking you again. thank you very much. goodbye. thank you. general dempsey. general dempsey -- thank you, chairman and ranking member inhofe. members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. secretary hagel described in detail the elements of our strategy against isil. the role the united states military is taking is in my judgment, appropriate. this is an iraq first strategy but not an iraq only one. job one is empowering the iraqi ground forces to go on the offensive, which they're already beginning to demonstrate. this requires a partnership with a credible iraqi government, which is also showing positive

signs of becoming inclusive of all of the population. within the partnership, our advisers are intended to help the iraqis develop a mind set for the offensive and to take actions consistent with offensive. our military advisers will help the iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler, and logistic support, and coordinate our coalition activities. if we reach the point where i believe our advisers should accompany iraq troops on attack against specific isil targets, i'll recommend it to the president. as long as isil enjoys a safe haven in syria it will remain a threat. while the work in iraq is taking place, we'll simultaneously pressure isil in syria. with coalition partners we'll begin a force of vetted, trained syrians. we'll work to ensure say that have a syrian chain of command and report a moderate political

authority. it will work at the local and community level and help pull together syrians who have felt the hand of isil. in conjunction request the long-term effort we're prepared to strike targets in syria. this won't look like a shock and awe campaign because that's simply now how isil is organized. but it will be a persistent and sustainable campaign. i want to emphasize that our military actions must be part of a whole of government effort we're disrupting the financing, interdict the movement of foreign fighters across borders, and undermine the isil message. given the coalition of willing capable international partners i believe we can destroy isil in iraq, restore the iraq syrian border, and disrupt isil in syria. ice logical ultimately be defeated when the cloak of religious legitimacy is stripped away and the population on which they have imposed themselves reject them. our actions are intended to move

in that direction. this will require a sustained efrlt over an extented period of time. it's a generational problem and we should expect our enemies will adapt their tactics as we adjust our approach. as the situation in the middle east evolves and continues to demand our attention, we're also balancing other challenges and other regions. ebola being the most recent. along with reassuring our european allies continuing our mission in afghanistan. but our young men and women in uniform are doing so much more. they conduct hundreds of exercises, activities, and engagements every day. actions that deter conflict and reassure allies around the world. they're performing magnificently. i am growing increasingly uncomfortable that the will to provide means does not match the will to pursue ends. the secretary and i are doing what we can inside the department to bridge that gap. but we'll need your help. if we do not depart from our

present path over time, i will have fewer military options to offer to the secretary and to the president. and that's not a position in which i want to find myself. thank you. >> thank you very much, general dempsey. we're going have a six minute first round. we have a lot of us here. we want to have an opportunity and then we go around once and have reasonable hour facing us, we'll try to have a short second round. we won't know until we get to it. general dempsey, let me start by asking you -- >> we're watching the senate armed forces committee and the two principle speakers this morning are chuck hagel and general dempsey. they're talking about the president's policy and plan to deal with isis both in iraq and in syria. and we're going to see members

of the senate with their six minute period of asking question questions. >> the muslim populations in the region reject it. therefore, the way forward seems to me to run clearly through a coalition of arab and muslim partners and not through the ownership of the united states in this issue. and so the strategy does that. it seeks to build a coalition, encourage an inclusive government to address the grievances that have caused it in the first place. it applies u.s. military power where we have unique capability to do so. over time it allows those populations to reject isil. >> in terms of utilizing the on the ground. the forces that are syrian and iraqi rather than western forces is that part of the thinking at this time as well to avoid a

western ground force in an arab or muslim country for the same reason you gave? >> well, i do think that the approach to build a coalition and enable it leads me to leverage our unique capabilities, which tend to be, as i mentioned, the ability to train and plan and provide intelligence and air power. as i said in my statement, however, my view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. i believe that will prove true. but if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the united states, then i, of course, would go back to the president and make an recommendation that may include the use of military ground forces. >> secretary hagel, how important is it -- you've made reference to this. i would like you to elaborate that the coalition have strong, visible participation by arab

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

efforts in this coalition helps that. it's critically important for the ultimate success of winning against all extremist factors and factions in the middle east specifically isil. >> and that same approach of having forcing the people of these countries -- the strand of islam that is so poisonous that is trying to take over in their country, i gather, is one argument to using indigenous, national forces on the ground rather than outside and particularly western forces. >> yes. i said in my statement, mr. chairman, that the most significant powerful force against extremism in the middle

east are the people themselves who will not accept this kind of b barbaric. muslims the world know what isil represents in no way is what their religion, ethnicity, their background represents. to have the local forces be involved supported by local people is the most significant thing, i think, we can do as we support them. as we are doing and continue to do in every way to defeat isil and other extremist threats. >> i believe that you have testified that the goal is to on the equipment training syrian people that the goal is to equipment train about 5,000 in one year.

how is that, first of all, going to match up against the isil numbers? and well, let me start with that one >>well, as i have said and the president said and general dempsey said and in our briefings here in our closed session briefings we've had with members of the senate and the house and our staff the last week, this week. 5,000 is a beginning, mr. chairman. this is part of the reason this effort is going to be a long-term effort. we will do it right. we'll be able to train and equip these forces through our ability to give them tactical, give them strategic guidance and leadership. the kind of equipment they need. they can move not just as bands of a few people, but as

legitimate forces. 5,000 alone is not going to be able to turn the tide. we recognize that on this side. on the isil side, on different estimates that continue to come out. those estimates float, mr. chairman, because it is hard to pinpoint exactly what the strength of isil is. we know it's significant we know because of their successes over the last few months they have picked up significant support. we also know a lot of that support is forced support. you will either be part of this or families killed or you will be. so it is an imperfect process, but the 5,000 per year -- we may do better. we might be able to do better by then. we don't want to overstate or

overpromise because we want the right people. are part of the overall strategy that i articulated here as outlined by the president. >> thank you very much. senator inhofe. >> thank you very much. i ask you turn the maps over. we put this together with the help of the military, with the help of some think tanks and the colors represented there the orange would be what is under isil control right now. the gray would be the kurdish control and the brown would be the ambitions of isil. look at the map and find any problem with it, either one of you? >> actually, senator, in terms of the ambition, i think that's probably understating. i think if left unaddressed they would aspire to restore the ancient kingdom, which includes the current state of israel and runs down to kuwait.

>> yeah. we're trying to be conservative on this. let people know it's a big area. it is a major -- secretary hagel, do you have a problem with this? >> no. i think general dempsey stated it exactly right. >> right. okay. according to some of the reports, the u.s. intelligence agencies believe that isil does not represent the immediate threat to the united states. daniel benjamin who was proper's top counter terrorism adviser during the first term. he said, quote, members of the cabinet and top military officers all over the place describing the threat in lurid terms that are not just justified. i appreciate, secretary hagel, the statement you said when you said isis poses, an imminent threat. do you agree with the statement? >> i do. >> and you, general dempsey?

>> i do, senator. >> one of the things i was glad to see is the american people -- there's been a wake-up call. last week there was a poll that was the cnm poll that 70% believe it's a threat to the homeland. yesterday another came out. it was a "wall street journal" poll the same thing. 70% of the people. so i think that wake-up call has been taken. now when president obama, it gets back to some of the statements you made in your opening remarks, he said our objective is clear, we would degrade and destroy isil through a comp hence i have, sustained strategy. it's clear we've talked about this. this is an army. and i have outlined in my opening statement that the six defenses between al qaeda and what we're facing right now, do you general agree with that? >> what i general agree with, senator, they have been using

conventional tactics until such time as we applied air power. and they're beginning to adapt now. >> now you don't agree that strategy that we would impose against terrorists in some group is appropriate today with looking in terms of the army we're facing? >> i agree we have to build the capability of the isil to address it conventionally while including a counter terrorism component in our strategy. >> okay. secretary hagel, i would like to get on record who is in charge of the record. we hear people like the ambassador and the state department that say they are a lot of control. my -- it's commander austin, i feel better about it. is that who is in control of this? >> -- >> now military? >> yes. as i said in my opening statement, senator, i tried to frame some of that up in, for

example, what i mentioned about general allen's role. as a coordinating role but i said he would directly as the commander. that's why president obama will be with the commander in tampa tomorrow to go over the plans. >> sure. mr. speaker, i dona't want peope to be under the dill lugs that this effort are going to be pursuing. asked by a reporter the white house press secretary said i didn't bring my websters dictionary with me. secretary hagel, you didn't bring yours either. can you define what victory looks like with the united states against isil? >> i believe victory would be when we complete the mission of degrading and destroying, defeat

ing isil as the president laid out as his objective. >> i understand that. i got a different interpretation when i listened to the speech when he said on the fight against isil, quote, it would not involve american combat troops fighting on the soil. american forces do not have a combat mission. in your opinion, let me ask you two questions, general dempsey. are dropping bombs in iraq as they're now doing a direct combat mission? and secondly, will u.s. forces be prepared to provide combat search and rescue if a pilot gets shot down. will they put boots on the ground to make the rescue successful? >> yes and yes. >> i appreciate that. the last question i have, because i know i've gone beyond my time. we've been complaining about what happened in the funding and now we're looking at the sequestration and all of this.

in light of all of this that occurred since we started talking about the funding do you think we're adequately funded now to take care of all of these things i stated in my opening statement and you have agreed to? where are we on the funding? >> well, two answers to your question, but no is the first basic answer. the budget will be coming up here presenting in a few months will contain we believe will be required to carry forward for the longer term this effort. but in the short term this is why we're asking for the $500 million authority for the train and equip. plus, as you know, the president asked a few months ago for a $5

billion counter terrorism partnership. so i think what general dempsey said in his closing comments in his statement probably summarized pretty well, as you have noted. all the different pressures that are now coming down on this country residing a good amount of it at the defense department. one of the things we've been warning about is sequestration over the last year and a half. so we will come forward in our budget for the next fiscal year with some new requests. >> could i just elaborate on behalf of the joint chiefs. we have discussed this frequently about our ability to balance capability, capacity, and readiness. last year we said that we -- the size of the force that was projected over the course of the time, over the future defense plan was adequate to the task.

if the assumptions made were valid. and some were made about equipments. some of the consumptions made were about pay compensation, health care, changes infrastructure, infrastructure changes and weapons systems. if we didn't get any of those, actually, or very few of them. and the commitments have increased. we have a problem. i think it will become clear through the fall. it's not a problem we can solve just with oko. the operational contingency fund. there's a base budget. >> i know that's true. i know, that's true. you mentioned -- they have testified in the room even before these things erupted it was not adequate as well. risk increases with the adequacy is not met. thank you very much. >> we have a quorum now. i'm going to ask the committee to consider the list of 24058

pending military commissions is there a motion? all in favor say aye. opposed nay. motion carries. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony. general dempsey, we've had a debate going on and on about boots on the ground. some boots on the ground, no boots on the ground but no personnel on the ground. it might help us if you can clarify precisely what our forces are doing in iraq today and you also suggested if situation changes you might recommend will come to us with recommendation that would enhance the mission or change the mission. can you clarify what they're doing? >> yeah, i can. thank you for asking, senator. first of all, i think everyone should be aware when we talk about combat forces. that's all we grow. when we bring a young man or woman in the military. they come in to be a combat soldier or combat marine. we don't bring them in to be

anything other than combat capable. but that is different than how we use them. and in the case of our contributions in iraq right now. the airmen as the ranking member mentioned are very much in a combat role. the folks on the ground are very much a combat advisory role. they're not participating in direct combat. there's no intention for them to do so. aye mentioned if i found that evolving i would change my recommendation. for example, if the iraqi security forces and the person were ready to retake mosul, a mission i would find to be extraordinary complex. it could be part of that particular mission to provide close combat advising or accompanying for the mission. for the day-to-day activities i anticipate will involve over time, i don't see it to be necessary right now. >> one of the presumptions, i'll raise it, would be because we're

using air power that there is sufficient capacity in iraqi forces to coordinate the power on the ground. is that an issue? >> we have, senator. let me use the mosul dam operation as a great example. on the ground we had the peshmerga and the counter tropical sto tropical storm. we had our own folks use we call the rover to be able to help the iraqis manage the battle on the ground. incredibly complex. three languages, english, kurdish, and arab. we worked through it. it was a real challenge but we worked through it. as we did, we learned some things about how to use advisers in remote locations. i'm not saying it will work every place every time. we pulled the mission off. i think it's a good template for

future operations. >> and i presume one of the areas you're looking at is these capable iraqis who can communicate and coordinate on the ground the special forces particularly? >> trained by us, that's right. >> mr. secretary, we are -- you are proposing to train about 5,000 individuals a year to go back into syria. the saudis agreed to host it in some manner. how do you intergrate the forces in syria. will they go in as units? what is the plan after they're trained? i think it's part of the issue. >> senator, one of the points i've made a couple of minutes ago in answering senator inhofe's question was the point about the training them as units. so they can operate as units. as you know, with your military

experience is critically important as you build an effective opposition force. not just hit and run group of rebels. but an effective force, command and control, tactics, strategy. yes. that's the fundamental training principle of how we begin. length of time here depends on a number of things. we're probably talking about eight weeks per cycle that might move within a week or two. that's the intent of how they train. the leaders are already focussed on that or already structured to do that. are preparing. one of the things the president will get tomorrow as he spends the day with general austin with

planners and commanders in tampa is take him through the entire structure. >> thank you. general dempsey, i think in your remarks or the secretary's remarks you suggested that the immediate operations is probably the most likely be in iraq. simply because we have the iraqi national security forces, we're partnering them. we conducted strikes. that will put isil in the position of as we hopefully become more effective of making a decision to reinforce or to respond in iraq and weaken them in syria or pull back into sir ya -- syria. i think your strategy is probably the most effective use of what we have at time. would you like to comment on that? >> well, the strategy is to squeeze isil from multiple directions so they can't do what they've been doing which is maneuver places where they're not under pressure. if we can get the government of

iraq to reach out to these populations that have been disadvantaged during the maliki regime so the isil doesn't have a free flowing stream in which to float. if we can get the isf. we have done an assessment of the 50 brigades. we know which ones are capable of improving. if we get enough to go on the offensive west and north, get the peshmerga to squeeze from north south, and then find a way over time in syria initially to disrupt using air power and eventually to pressure using a moderate opposition, then i think we place isil in an untenable position. in the middle of that restore the order so they can't flow back and forth freely. >> thank you. >> senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the witnesses. i understand that according to your testimony that we will be

taping and equipping approximately 5,000 in one year, is that correct? >> yes. >> and is isil now the estimates now there are some 31,000 me it's aizi izize -- metastasizin a rapid, larger force. to many it seems like an inadequate response to what -- >> would you please be quiet. i'm asking you now to please leave the room. please remove their things. the disruptions will not be acceptable to anyone. lea please remove the lady. i always appreciate special

attention from this group, mr. chairma chairman. >> third disruption this morning at the armed services committee and hearing this morning. we're going to listen to arizona senate john mccain. >> mentioned in unit size deployments will be back in syria fighting against isil. they'll also be fighting against bashar assad which they've been doing for a number of years before isil was ever a significant factor. they'll be fighting against bashar assad and assad will attack them from the air, which he has done with significant success not only against them but there has been 192,000 people have been slaughtered in syria since the on set.

if one of the free syrian army is fights against bashar assad, and he's attacking them from the air would we take action to prevent them from being attacked by bashar assad? ? >> senator, let me begin the first part of your question the 5,000. >> i would like the answer to the question will we, if the free syrian army units are attacked from the air by bashar assad, will we prevent those attacks from taking place and take out bashar assad's air assets both el continuer and fixed wing that will be attacking the free syrian army units? >> first of all, we're not there yet. we're focussed on isil. that the threat to our country and our interests and the people of the region. so what we're training these

units for, yes, is a stabilizing force is an option. but the first focus is as i said, as the president laid out in his statement to the country. -- >> i take it from your answer we're now reciting these young men to go and fight in syria against isil. if they're attacked by assad, we're not going to -- >> they'll defend themselves, senator. >> will we help them against assad's error? >> we will help and support them. >> will we repel bashar assad's assets that will be attacking them? >> any attack on those that we have trained who are supporting us we will help them. >> i guess i'm not going to get an answer, but it seems to me like you have to neutralize assad's air assets if you're

going to protect the people we're arming and training and sending in to fight. is that inaccurate, general dempsey? >> the coalition we're forming won't form unless -- if we were to take assad off the table, we would have a more difficult time forming a coalition. i think what you're hearing us express is an isil first strategy. i don't think we'll find ourselves in that situation given what we intend to do wi with -- >> you don't think the free syrian army is going fight against assad that has been does mating them. you think they'll only go back to fight against isil? do you really believe that, general? >> what i believe as we train and develop a military chain of command linked to a political structure we can establish objectives that defer that challenge into the future. we don't have to deal with it now. >> it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire

concept and. it's assad that killed many more than isil has. >> i agree. and for us to say draft we're going to go in and help and train and equip the people and only to fight against ice, you're not going to get many recruits to do that, general. i guarantee it's a fundamental fallacy in everything you are presenting the committee today. as secretary hagel -- was the president right in 2012 when he overruled most of his national security team and refused to train and equip the moderate opposition in syria at that time? >> senator, i was not there at the time. so i'm limited -- >> i ask general dempsey then. he was there at the time. >> i'm sorry, senator. when you asked the question -- >> was the president right in 2012 when he overruled his

secretary of defense secretary of state, and drirector of the cia and refused and train and equip the moderate opposition forces in syria, which according to your testimony. >> you know i rechlded that we train them and you know that for policy reasons the decision was taken in another direction. >> thank you. are you concerned, secretary hagel, about the southern board. we have received testimony from our homeland security people that our border is porous and the people now free to travel to the united states and also -- >> i think we have to look at these things. >> do you think we have to

improve or border security? >> we can improve our border security. >> thank you. my time is expired. >> thank you. senator nelson. >> senator mccain, you're aware there were published reports of covert training? >> i'm aware of it. i'm also aware of the scale of the training that was required, and i'm also aware of the situation today and i'm also aware that 192,000 people have been slaughtered. a lot of so called barrel bombs and the use of chlorine gas, which is caused a humanitarian disaster of incredible proportions, yes, i'm aware of that. >> general dempsey, are you aware of the published report of covert training?

>> senator, we don't comment in public about any aspect of covert training. >> mr. secretary, as you know, i believe the president has the constitutional authority to go on and attack isis. this is going to be for the long haul and event ually this issue will have to come to congress for authorization for the use of military force. you all have an appropriations request right now. my question is if congress does not approve, and i've heard some member was congress say that they're not going to vote to approve this $500 million request. if they did that and refused,

before we adjourn to go home for the election, what kind of message do you think that sends? >> well, i think that message would be very, very seriously misunderstood and misinterpret ed by our allies, friends, and partners around the world, and our adversaries. this is a clear, clear threat what the president has talked about. the threat to this country from isil, and what his request is and reaching out to the congress for partnership as he has done in consultation with many members of the congress to be partners in this effort to

protect this country, and if the congress would not agree to that request. it would be a pretty devastating message we send to the world. >> i happen to. >> all right. all right. would you please not take advantage of the freedom of this place and will you please remove this lady. >> another disruption. we are following the testimony from the nation's top military men, defense secretary chuck hagel a hagel. i want to bring in a fellow with the brookings center for mill east policy and professor of international relations at the london school of economics and political science to talk about what we've seen seeing this morning. thank you for being with me. what is your reaction to what you've been hearing both in general dempsey as well as secretary hagel?

>> well, i have to say i'm a little bit surprised. i mean, there seems to be a gaping hole in our syria strategy. first of all, hagel said that we would train about 5,000 fighters over the course of year. even he admitted it wouldn't be enough to turn the tide. the question is what are we trying to accomplish there? what will change the tide? and the other thing that stood out to me, too, is general dempsey saying quite explicitly that we're training these rebels to fight isis and not necessarily the assad regime. i think senator mccain was right to raise the question how will you get rebels to focus on only isis when their primary concern has been over the last three years the brutality of the assad regime. so while we might have an iraq first strategy, and that is covered to some extent in the strategy, it seems that we don't yet have a strategy on syria. that's a big part of this, because isis is very strong and

has been gaining ground in syria over the past several months. >> and i was interested in the words of general dempsey when he talked about when, where, or how the united states could increase the presence in the war. for example, the general was as a hypothetical case saying if the iraqi army goes and tries to take over another city that is in the hands of isis who may be americans would be in close support for that military mission. so do you hear the possibility of troops, boots on the ground. if that was necessary in the future? >> i do. and i think this is not the first time that american military and political leaders have spoken about embedding. and special forces with some iraqi units once the offensive

begins. the so called islamic state. this is part of the strategy. if you want to take a city of 2 million people like mosul, you need tens of thousands of iraqi forces. how do you call it in a strategy? how do you help iraqi forces to basically hunt so the-called islamic estate extremists? having special forces with iraqi forces would help on the ground. in other cities as well. this is a possibility. i think the other thing that alarms american military leaders is the fact the risk factor in terms of the possibility that these particular forces might be killed or injured. let me say one word about the syrian strategy. there is no syria strategy. barack obama was correct when he said when he stated. we don't have a syrian strategy. i want to say a few words about what secretary hagel said about the end of his presentation.

i had said there are no easy answers. he said this is very complicated. he said we need more politics than military. we need -- and what it really means at the end of the day if you want a syrian strategy instead of arming 5,000 or even 10,000 or even 20,000 senator mccain is an interventionist. even if we can see his point about arming and training 20,000 free syrian army fighters, they would not change the calculus on the ground. let me give you an idea what i mean. we estimate between 100 and 125,000 in the opposition. what we need for the united states, for barack obama, who knows very well to double the effort to find a diplomatic and political solution to end the regional war by proxy to put out the secretary, to have a grand barga bargain, talk to iran, saudi arabia, and russia and have a

settlement where the moderate syrian opposition and the syrian governments are on the table. it could be done. it requires thinking. it requires getting rid of the particular illusion. that there's a military solution. there is no military solution. >> bringing it to a close here, the issue with that, of course, is that no real diplomatic only solution would help dissolve up to 30,000 fighters that make up isis right now. >> yes. this is where i would disagree with my colleague that the assad regime is not going to come to the taught unless there's a credible threat of military force unless they see that the syrian rebels are gaining ground. we tried to talk to the assad regime before. they have no interest in making peace. that's where there has to be a more concerted effort beyond 5,000 fighters. we have to do what question to train and equip more fighters

with advanced weaponry to unify the rebel forces under a command structure. that takes time, though. we need to be able to commit more resources. i think what we've heard from hagel and general dempsey. there's a total mismatch between means and ends. if the goal is to defeat isis in syria. it's an open question. if that that's the goal, we have to be willing to do more. >> clearly two different fronts military front and diplomatic fronts and clearly the two of them must come together if some substantial progress can happen in that part of the world. thank you for being with me this morning. i appreciate your time. i want to get to some breaking news this morning. a reminder of that other war, the war in afghanistan. nbc news has just learned that two americans w s one a civilia member and another a service-member were killed in

the embassy. expanding the ebola fight. the president on route to the d cdc today. the u.s. military will get involved in that war. we'll get a live report after the break. [ kinda ] we are the saunders. and we're new to the pacific northwest. the rain, the mud -- babam! it's there. the outside comes in. it's kinda nasty so you start the towel-mop shuffle. where are you sun?! [ doorbell rings ] oh, wow, it's a swiffer wetjet. this puts my towel mopping to shame. whoa! ewww. sunshine is overrated, now we can get messy. [ laughs ] now we can get messy. jim's hair is perfect. so's his serve. but like up to 90% of us, jim falls short in getting important nutrients from food alone. jim, here's $2 off one a day multivitamins to get key nutrients you may need. go to oneaday.com for savings. research suggests cell health plays a key role throughout our lives. one a day men's 50+ is a complete multivitamin

designed for men's health concerns as we age. with 7 antioxidants to support cell health. one a day men's 50 plus. we've always been on the forefront of innovation. when the world called for speed... ♪ ...when the world called for stealth... ♪ ...intelligence... endurance... affordability... adaptability... and when the world asked for the future. staying ahead in a constantly evolving world. that's the value of performance. northrop grumman.

another huge and important story in just a few hours president obama will arrive at the cdc in atlanta for a briefing on the widening ebola crisis gabe goouier residence joins me now. >> hi, jose. the president at the cdc is expected to announce a plan to send up to 3,000 military personnel to west africa to combat the ebola crisis. what will they be doing? building 17 health care facilities with up to 100 beds each that will set up a joint command center in monrovia, liberia and train up to 100 health care workers a week.

officials say it will take several weeks for the u.s. forces to get on the ground. so far the u.s. has already spent $175 million combatting ebola and the president plans to ask congress for another $88 million. >> gabe gutierrez, thank you very much. we'll have more on the president's visit on msnbc. that wraps up this hour. top military officials testify about the isis threat on capitol hill, plus new fall out for the nfl over the abuse scandals.

machines will be sprayed to be made. and making something stronger... will mean making it lighter. one day, factories will work with the cloud. one day... is today.

ugh. heartburn. did someone say burn? try alka seltzer reliefchews. they work just as fast and taste better than tums smoothies assorted fruit. mmm. amazing. yeah, i get that a lot. alka seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief. to fill your viagra prescription online? go to viagra.com to find out about viagra home delivery. millions of men have some degree of erectile dysfunction. talk to your doctor, if viagra is right for you, you can fill your prescription at your pharmacy, or check out viagra home delivery and get started at viagra.com ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain, it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. viagra home delivery. a convenient way to have prescription viagra

shipped straight to you. go to viagra.com to get started. when salesman alan ames books his room at laquinta.com, he gets a ready for you alert the second his room is ready. so he knows exactly when he can check in and power up before his big meeting. and when alan gets all powered up, ya know what happens? i think the numbers speak for themselves. i'm sold! he's a selling machine! put it there. and there, and there, and there. la quinta inns & suites is ready for you, so you'll be ready for business. the ready for you alert, only a laquinta.com! la quinta! and good morning, everyone. i'm rich are lard lui. defending the battle plan against isis, also called isil.

they've been testifying before some skeptical senators and general dempsey raised the possibility of american boots on the ground. that being said president obama meeting in the past couple of hours with general john allen, he's formulating and operational plan for the battle against isis in iraq and syria. i want to play a little bit right now with what was just said between senator john mccain those two answers the tough questions. >> coalition is the appropriate way forward. i believe that will prove true. but if it fails to be true, and if there are threats to the united states, then i, obvious of course, would go back to the president that may include the u.s. of military ground forces. >> the u.s. just expanded conducting air strikes near baghdad for the first time last night. the number over 160. ice sis fighters reportedly shooting down a syrian war plane