other people need to stop to think about how you stop them and deal with that. so, i -- i will -- >> more invagus will not protect the homeless. >> let me -- >> more invagus will not protect the homeless. >> so, it's important for people to understand -- important for people to understand, there's no invasion. the invasion was isil into iraq. the invasion is foreign fighters into syria. that's the invasion. and it is destructive to every possibility of building a state in that region. so, even in a region that is virtually defined by division, and every member of this committee understands the degree to which these divisions are deep in that region. leaders who have viewed the last 11 years very differently, have

all come together for this cause. they may agree on very little but they are more unified on this subject than anything i've seen them unified on in my career. so as president obama described last week when he spoke directly to the american people, we do have a clearer strategy to degrade, defeat and destroy isil. and it's not in its infancy. it has been well thought through and carefully articulated. and now is be being built in these coalition efforts that began with a meeting in jeda and moved to paris and will move to the united nations this week when i chair the u.n. security council meeting on friday. the united states will not go it alone.

that has been a fundamental principle on which president obama has sought to organize this effort. and that is why we're building the coalition, a global coalition. there are more than 50 countries that already have agreed or are now doing something. not every country will decide that their role is to have some kind of military engagement. but every country can do something. and we'll show exactly what that means. as i traveled around europe and the region in the last days, the question foreign leaders were asking me is not whether they should join the coalition, but how they can help. we're also -- and i emphasize this. we're not starting from scratch. this is an effort we have been building over time, both on our own and with the help of our international partners.

even before president obama delivered his speech last week, nearly 40 countries had joined in contributing to the effort to strengthen the capacity of iraq to be able to strengthen its military, train, provide humanitarian assistance. we've been focused on isil since its inception as successor to al qaeda of iraq in 2013. and back in january realizing that, we ramped up our assistance to the iraqi security forces, increase our intelligence surveillance reconnaissance, or isr. the flights that get a better picture of the battlefield. we expedited weapons like the hell fire weapons for the iraqis in order to bring their capacity to bear in this fight. early this summer the isil threat accelerated when it

effectively erased the iraq/syria border and the mosul dam fell. the president acted immediately, deliberately and decisively. we further surged the isr missions immediately. we set up joint operation centers in baghdad and erbil immediately. and our special forces conducted a very detailed in-depth assessment of iraqi security forces and kurdish forces. we did that purposefully, without jumping, as some people wanted us to, because we wanted to understand what is the capacity of the iraqi army to fight? how many brigades having seen what happened in mosul are still prepared to engage? are we getting into something that, in fact, we don't have the answers to with respect to who can do what? and to date we have launched -- we have supported those iraqi security forces that, by the

way, helped in the liberating of them early. helped in the freeing of sinjar mountain. helped in taking back the mosul dam. and now we have launched more than 150 air strikes. and it is because of the platforms that we put in place last january and even before, that those strikes had been among the most precise strikes that we have ever taken. the percentage, i won't go into it here, but i will tell you, you'd be astonished if the -- you heard openly now the accuracy of those efforts. those were put in place back in june. and those strikes have been extremely effective in breaking the sieges that i described and beginning to move confidence back into the iraqi military. the judgment and assessments of our military that went over there to look at the iraqi military came back with a

judgment of a sufficient number of brigades capable of and ready to fight. and with the reconstitution of the military in a way that can bring the country together and not be divided along sectarian lines or viewed to be the army of one individual, it is entirely likely there will be much greater and rapid progress. so that has given us time to put in place the two pillars of a comprehensive strategy against isil. an inclusive iraqi government, which was essential. there would be no capacity for success here if we had not been able to see the iraqi government come together. and, secondly, the broad international coalition so the u.s. is not alone. we redoubled our efforts, quite frankly, to help move the iraqi process forward. we were very clear-eyed about

the fact that the strategy of isil would only succeed if we had a strong, inclusive government, and, frankly, that required transitory mags in the government which the iraqis themselves effected. with our support and several weeks of very complex negotiations, president nominated haidar al ber al abad prime minister. and al abadi with our support and others was able to form his cabinet. last week that was approved. i have to tell you, it was confide astonishing to be in jeddah the other day with the saudis and maraudis, bahraines, turks, lebanese and iraqis. iraqis and saudi arabia, and everybody here in this committee knows what that relationship has been like for the last years.

and to hear the foreign minister chair the meeting say they were prepared to open an immediate embassy in baghdad. that's transformative. the result is something also for iraq that has never seen before in its history. an election deemed credible by the united nations, followed by a peaceful transition of power without any u.s. troops on the ground. i must say i was sort of struck yesterday. "the wall street journal" had an article talking about arab divide. but above the arab divide language, is the shia foreign minister of iraq, the kurd president of iraq and the sunni foreign minister of saudi arabia. all in communication and jointly working as never before. so, i think people need to focus on what has been accomplished

here. as you know, i went to iraq last week. i traveled. i met with the leaders of iraq. throughout the entire process we've been in touch with regional leaders to ensure the new and inclusive government is going to receive support from the region. with this inclusive government in place, it's time for a defensive strategy that we and our international partners have pursued to get things together, get the inclusive government, know exactly where we're going to now transition to an offensive strategy. one that harnesses the capabilities of the entire world to eliminate the isil threat once and for all. president obama outlined the strategy in detail. i'm not going to go through it in that detail, but i'll quickly say -- i'll be quick in walking through it. at its core our strategy is centered on a global coalition that will collaborate closely

along a number of specific areas. including direct and indirect military support. military assistance can come in a range of forms, from training and equipping to logistics and air lift and countries from inside and outside of our region are already right now providing that support in these venues. i've also no doubt, whatsoever, that we will have the capabilities and the resources we need to succeed militarily and president obama made clear we will be expanding the military campaign to take on isil in iraq, in syria, wherever it is found. but this is the not gulf war in 1991. it is not the iraq war in 2003. and that's true for a number of reasons. number one, u.s. ground troops will not be sent into combat in this conflict.

from the last decade we know a sustainable strategy is not u.s. ground forces. it is enabling local forces to do what they have to do for themselves and for their country. i want to be clear. the u.s. troops that have been deployed to iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. instead they will support iraq forces on the ground as they fight for their country against these terrorists. and in syria, the on the ground combat will be done by the moderate opposition, which serves as the current best counterweight in syria to extremists like isil. we know that isil, as it gets weaker, the moderate opposition will get stronger. and that will be critical in our efforts to bring about the political solution necessary to address the crisis in syria once and for all.

that is one of the reasons it's so critical that congress authorize the opposition, train and equip mission when it comes to the floor. but it's also critical that the opposition makes the most of the additional support. the kind of support they've been requesting now for years. and they need to take this opportunity to prove to the world that they can become a viable alternative to the current regime. number two, this is more than just a military coalition. and i want to emphasize that. in some ways, some of the most important aspects of what we will be doing are not military. this mission isn't just about taking out an enemy on the battlefield. it's about taking out a network. decimating and discrediting a militant cult massacre masquerading as a religious

movement. the bottom line is we will not be successful with a military campaign alone. we know it. nor are we asking every country to play a military role. we don't need every country to engage in that kind of military action. frankly, we're not asking them and we don't want every country to do that. only holistic campaign will accomplish our objectives. in addition to the military campaign, it will be equally important for the global coalition to dry up isil's illicit funding. by the way, bahrain at the meeting has offered to host a meeting because they've already been engaged in this that focuses on precisely the steps we can all do. that can have an impact not just on isil but on other flows of terrorism support. we have to stop the foreign fighters who carry passports from countries around the world, including the united states.

to continue to deliver. we obviously need to deliver urgently needed humanitarian assistance. finally, and this is really -- i can't overstate this. we must continue to repudiate the gross distortion of islam that isil is spreading. put an end to the sermons by extremists that brainwash these young men to join these movements and commit mass atrocities in the name of god. i was very encouraged to hear that saudi arabia's top clerics came out and declared terrorism a heinous crime under shariah law and the perpetrators should be made an example of. and i think -- i might just

mention -- i'll wait until we get to q&a but an important statement was made by the top clerices in the region. i want to come back to that because i think it's critical. let me emphasize, when we say global coalition, we mean it. and this is not australia, far east, other countries in europe, have all taken on already initial responsibilities. so, my colleagues, we are committed to working with countries in every corner of the globe to match the campaign with the capabilities that we need to fight it. and i can tell you every single person i spoke to in wales, at the wales summit n jeddah, in paris where we had more than 30 countries and entities, they all

express strong support for our mission and a willingness to help in some way. we had excellent meetings, our meetings in baghdad and cairo, ankora, also advanced the process. at the conference in paris, we took another step toward the under meetings. the under meetings, unlike what we've had thus far, which have been held behind closed doors. the under meetings, these countries will be speaking out publicly at the united nations security council and the world will begin to see what each of these countries are prepared to do. so, we have a plan. we know the players. our focus is in determining what each country's hole will be and how to coordinate those activities for success. later this week we'll have more to say about our partners and the contributions and we still fully expect this coalition to

grow. one of the things that i'm most pleased about is we asked one of our most respected and experienced military leaders, general john allen, to come to the state department and oversee this effort. came within 24 hours of being asked, was at his desk at 7:00 in the morning and is already laying out the campaign from a diplomatic point of view for how becoordinate what will be needed for all these other aspects beyond the military piece. and had a long meeting with him yesterday, again today, and i'm confident that together with ambassador mcguirk, who will serve as his deputy and assistant secretary ann patterson, who was so much a part of our effort against al qaeda when she was ambassador to pakistan, we have a very experienced group of people engaged in this effort. if we do this right, then this effort could actually become a model for what we can do with

respect to the individual terrorist groups in other places that continue to wreak havoc on the efforts of governments to build their states and provide for their people. and i'm confident with our strategy in place, our international partners by our side, we will have all that we need, and with the help of the congress, we will be able to succeed in degrading and ultimately destroying this monstrous organization wherever it exists. i know that was a little longer mr. chairman, but i wanted to lay it out. i appreciate your patience. >> well, thank you, mr. secretary. let me start off with, yeah, i think one of the most critical lessons we have learned from past u.s. military interventions abroad, is that we must have a clear vision for the end state we're seeking and a coherent strategy that is focused about how not only do we enter and succeed, but how do we exit a

theater of war. so i would like to get as suck six succinctly as you can. i heard you talk about taking out a network. i get that. beyond that, what is the political end state conditions we're seeking so that we will know that it's time to end military action. >> well, the military action ends when we have ended the capacity of isil to engage in broad-based terrorist activity, threatens the state of iraq, the united states, threatens the region. that's our goal. and that means ending their ability to live in ungoverned spaces, have a safe haven and be able to control territory and move at will, to try to attack the united states or other places.

the threat is more immediate to the middle east and europe, but we have americans over there fighting with passports. >> so, obviously that doesn't mean we're going to look to eliminate every person associated with isil. >> we haven't been able to eliminate every person associated with al qaeda. >> absolutely. so, then the -- >> we've been able to reduce their capacity to mount a major attack under, you know the circumstances that we're able to, obviously guard against and engage -- >> so, in iraq we want a sovereign iraq whose territorial integrity has been restored without the presence of isil. >> and independent, inclusive government that is functioning. >> and in syria? >> in syria likewise. we believe there's no solution to syria without a political settlement. that goal hasn't changed. but assad has had little incentive to negotiate.

the incentive that existed when i first went to moscow last year and president putin and russia agreed to support the geneva process regetably got sidetracked by a number of things. one was the in-fighting that began to take place in the opposition itself. two, the unexpected degree to which assad became an extraordinary magnet for terrorists. that's when you began to have this amazing flow of foreign fighters who came to get rid of assad. and as assad gashed people, barrel bombed people, tortured, it became more clear to those global fighters, particularly to countries in the region, they were focused on whatever group could get rid of assad. unfortunately, tragically, isil is somewhat an outgrowth of that phenomenon. therefore, we are today, you

know, i think all the countries in the region have recognized that there was a mistake of judgment with respect to that process. and i think people are bending over backwards to try to rectify it. >> i think members of this committee who joined together to first vote for the authorization or use of military force, as president obama was headed to the g-20 summit at the time in russia, to deter assad from using chemical weapons and who subsequently voted in a bipartisan effort to arm the vetted syrian rebels over a year ago fully appreciate that. it is my hope that when we refine the definition of the end state as it relates to the campaign against isil, we understand it. if i'm a moderate vetted rebel and i'm being asked to fight

against isil now, i also won't need to fight against assad because that is my ultimate mission. so as we move forward, i would like to hear how that is coincided. let me ask you two other questions. i heard you very clearly when you said, we are not asking all of our partners to engage in military -- directed military actions but i hope there will be. i would like to hear from you. can we expect part of the sunni arab coalition members to, in fact, be part of military actions in this regard? because this cannot be simply a campaign by the west against the east. >> you're absolutely correct, mr. chairman. first of all, let me thank you. and i thank the committee for the vote thaw took. the only entity in the congress that did and it was an affirmative vote. we're grateful for that and respect it.

currently there are countries outside of europe and outside of the region committed to engage in military action. there are countries in europe committed to take military action. there are countries in the region, arab, committed to take military action. we will have sufficient levels of commitment to take military action. it will be up to centcom and general allen and others to decide who will do what. >> it's fair to say, this is going to be a multiyear effort. >> well, certain -- the president has been very clear about that. certain parts of it will be, absolutely. i can't tell you -- i can tell you this, when we took them on at mosul dam and iraqis were on the ground, we took back mosul dam. when we took them on at sinjar mountain, we freed the people at sinjar mountain and we have currently enabled people to hold

them off at haditha dam. it's clear from the intelligence we pick up that what we're doing now, which is fundamentally been more defensive than offensive, has already had an impact on them. i'm convinced that with proper effort, question have an impact. >> i don't dispute that you've had in the short term an impact to stem their advances. at least within the region they're in. my question, though, no one can reasonably come from the administration and suggest that the ult mad goal, which is taking out this network, is not going to be a multiyear effort? >> it's a multiyear effort. the president -- >> with that as a reality, then let me turn to the aumf. how is it that the administration believes that -- and i support its efforts, but how is it that the administration believes that the 9/11 aumf or the iraq aumf

provide the authorization to move forward, whether the congress decides to or not? you know, it was not too long ago that members of the administration appeared before the committee. and when i asked them, i was headed toward repealing the iraq aumf. and there was administration witnesses who believed it should be repealed on behalf of the administration. how is it that the administration now thinks it can rely upon that for legal authority? >> mr. chairman, how is it? it is because good lawyers within the white house, within the state department who have examined this extremely closely, have come to the conclusion across the board that that the 2001 aumf which says all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons against

9/11, those who harbored such organization to future acts of terrorist against the united states. it included al qaeda. it's always been interpreted including al qaeda. >> throughout -- >> al qaeda and associated forces. that is the language. al qaeda and associated forces. now, al qaeda -- isil began as al qaeda. in 2005 in iraq, 2004, isil was al qaeda in iraq. and it only became this thing called isil a year ago. and it only became that out of convenience to separate themselves in an internal fight, but not because their thinking chained. not because their targets changed. not because their actions changed. they are the same people doing the same people that we were prepared to and were attacking

for all of those years. and a mirror publicity stunt to separate yourself and call yourself something else does not get you out from under the force of the united states law -- >> i appreciate your ability as a former prosecutor and a gifted attorney to try to make the case. i will tell you that at least from the chair's perspective, you're going to need a new aumf and it will have to be more tailored because i don't want to be part of 13 years later and a multitude of countries that have been used in this regard, for that to be the authority. and i think our goals are the same. i think we need to get you a different set of authority. i look forward to working with my colleague -- >> not only are our goals the same, mr. chairman, but we know you are thinking about retooling the aumf. and we welcome -- we would like congress, please, do this.

we want that to happen. we're not going to make our actions dependent on it happening, but we will work with you as closely as we can, and should, to tailor an aumf going forward and we look forward to that opportunity. >> senator corker. >> i want to say as i said personally, we have three senators, president, vice president, secretary of state, that are exercising terrible judgment right now. and to say that you're going to do this regardless of what we say, you're not going to ask for buy-in by the united states senate or house of representatives on behalf of the american people in a conflict thaw say is going to be multiyear. some people say a decade. taking us into another country with a different enemy, is exercising the worst judgment possible. and so, i've said this to you as strongly as i can personally. that's in essence what you're saying to the chairman right

now. saying if congress wants to play a constructive role, we would welcome that, to me, is a political game and i'm disappointed that you as secretary of state, being chairman of this committee, espousing the views you have espoused, out of convenience and parsing words, who make the statement you just made. let me move on and say -- you say as much as been accomplished. that's a nice photograph on the front of the wall street journal. tell me what's been accomplished. what arab nation is going to have a ground force in syria? what arab sunni country is going to be flying in, bopping and doing missile raids with an arab insignificant the insignia on the side of the plane? tell me that. >> senator, you will hear that at the appropriate time, within the next days as john allen and the teamwork with all of these

countries for permission, the basing, for all the things that will take place. i've told -- >> let me -- are you convinced that will happen? >> i've already said that. >> so, we will have arab sunni countries participating in the ground effort in syria? >> no, i didn't say the ground effort. and, you know, right now the plan is to work through -- and our judgment is that we can be effective working in the way that we are. let me say a koim of things. first of all, with respect -- >> you can say the answer to my questions, okay? i'm not going to be -- >> no, i'm going to answer your question. i'm sure the chair will be, you know be happy to have the dialogue i talked about earlier. >> i've got 2:34 and four more questions. >> well, senator, you haven't let me answer any of them yet. >> the question is, what arab sunni country is going to be putting boots on the ground in

syria against this now-claimed army -- >> at this moment, no country has been asked to put boots on the ground or no country is talking of it. we don't think it's a good idea right now. there's no discussion of it at this moment. now, with respect to the judgment about asking congress to do it. i'm asking. do it. pass it. we would love to have you do it. but we're not going to get stuck in the situation, when we have the authority, of not exercising our authority to do what we believe we need to do to protect the country. so, we're asking you to do it. pass it tomorrow. >> you're asking us to do it, but you're not giving any details because you don't have them. >> that's not true, senator. >> then share them. >> i'm not going to share them today -- >> you're in a classified setting. >> i'm confident is there will be so many classified briefings that you'll be tired of them. but at the moment, we're not going to lay this out until john allen has had a chance to come

to the u.n. on friday, until we have had a chance to work closely with all of these countries in order to make this as effective as possible. >>. >> do you realize how unserious the things that you have laid out and the things that were laid out yesterday sound when you're discussing training 5,000, doctors, dentists and others, in saudi arabia over a year. i don't know if they're being trained for offensive or defensive. i would like you to clarify that, activities. my understanding is they will be given higher tech equipment after they prove themselves on the battlefield. do you understand how unrealistic and how that effort on the ground where they are based, where isil is based, doesn't match the rhetoric that the administration has laid out.

therefore, you're asking us to approve something we know the way you've laid it out makes no sense. we have a strong sense that our army -- our military leaders have urged you to put special forces on the ground, but, no, we're not going to do that. so, this doesn't even seem serious. it seems like a -- it seems like a political answer to the united states as they cry out about this uncivilized activity, but it doesn't seem real to me. and if you're willing to get in a classified setting and lay out all these details and tell us which of these countries are going to be flying their flag into syria, they're going to be putting people on the ground, because we know, we know the free syrian army cannot take on isil. you know that. you talk about a multi-year process. we're talking decades, if that's going to be our salvation. so, i just close with this.

i'm disappointed. i was disappointed in the briefing we had last week. i do want us to deal with this in an effective way. you've not laid it out in a way that meets that test. i hope when we come back and before you've put people in harm's way unnecessarily, you have a plan that achieves the end that you just laid out. but we know right now that's not where you are. again, i hope you'll seek it. i hope you'll say that you're not going to do it without it. and i hope you'll lay out a plan that will convince us that you're serious about doing the things you said you're going to do to the american people and to us about isil, because you haven't done it now. and i hope you'll lay out a way to pay for it, to pay for it, because we know this is going to take many, many years and it has to do with the safety of our citizens. >> mr. chairman, can i, i hope, answer a little bit here?

senator, you know, i must say to you, i really find it somewhat surprising for you to suggest that as the president of the united states talks to the nation to commit to strikes against isil as we have come back from a week of very serious meetings with nations around the world, all of whom are committed to this, that you sit there and suggest that it's not serious. now, with all due respect to you, senator, let me just tell you something point blank. the moderate opposition in syria has, in fact, been fighting isil for the last two years. and since last january, the free syrian army has been engaged with isil in aleppo, damascus side, al azir, they expelled

them from idlib province which includes turkey, the border crossing over the last two months. moderate brigades have been stopped in aleppo, through which a large quantity of humanitarian assistance is now being sent. but they require our support. senator mccain knows that. he's been screaming about it for some time. >> we've all been screaming about it and you have all done nothing, or at least not much to talk about. >> senator, let's just understand that the fact is that what has propelled isis to some degree is a word called success. and as isis has had success, they've used social media and they've appealed to greater numbers, greater fighters as

they've suddenly been put on their heels. as united states and other countries do seriously commit to this endeavor. believe me, what we're doing is serious. then if success begins to turn and moves toward the free syrian army and the moderate opposition, i believe you'll see greater numbers of recruits. that's why the president is asking for that open training under title x, in order to try to build that up as fast as possible. our estimates are there are now currently tens of thousands still of fighting members of the opposition. and if you can get more people better trained. and, by the way, every month that i have been secretary of state, we have been adding to the effort of what we are doing with respect to the syrian opposition. and most of that needs to be covered in a classified setting, as you know. but our assessment is that we can, and given the urgency of the situation, begin to move this program to a greater

degree. so, will it take a period of time? we've all said that. yes. but we're confident we have the ability to change the situation on the ground. >> senator -- >> by the way, i do have a list here. i'm not going to go into all of it now, but there are albania has sent in the last -- we have had at least 18 flights we've taken in to erbil. we've been providing additional weapons to the peshmerga. other countries have been doing this. australia is committed a number of different items to this. bulgaria is providing aid, canada, sending various kinds of assistance, croatia, czech republic, estonia, france, hungary, saudi arabia, germany. look, there are a lot of countries here. by the way, they're all serious, too. or they wouldn't be on this list. >> secretary kerry, thank you

for your tireless work. i think it is shocking and a sat stayed of affairs that we heard just now such angry comments aimed at you, mr. secretary, and through you, at our president instead of at isis. a savage group who decapitated two americans and have warned, and i quote, that their thirst for more american blood is right out there. i think it's shocking. i'm actually shaking and trembling. this is not the time to show anger at the people who are working night and day, whether you agree with them or not, to protect our people. i want to talk about the au uca.

i voted against the one in '02. i voted for the one in '01. and i've reread it about six times. mr. secretary, the lawyers i've consulted with believe that you have the authority to go after isil. it's very clear. you read the parts. if people listen to you, you read the parts that are correct. now, that is not to say that i wouldn't welcome working on a new one. but i want to say right now, the way things get filibustered around this place and the way politics gets played around this place, i am proud that you say you're going to do your work to protect the american people. this is just a sad opening of a hearing. i've never seen it. and i've gone through some tough ones. now, i want to say this, the

iraq war enflamed the long sectarian divisions in the country. i know you don't want to get into the past. that's fine. for my view, that's a war i voted against. i am for going after isil. there are two strains of thought as people speak out against the policy of the administration. one is, they say you're not doing enough. go back with ground troops. more war, more boots on the ground, american boots, the only boots that work. you've proven just with a few examples that it's just not true. and i certainly reject that. and the other, the second school of thought, represented in some folks out there who i like and talk to all the time, they think we shouldn't take the fight to isil. forget it. it's too complicated. it's fraught with uncertainty. we should sit on the sidelines. i oppose that. you cannot sit on the sidelines,

at least i cannot when you have a group that is selling 17-year-olds, as my former colleague said, 14-year-olds as slaves, giving them as gifts to their fighters. murdering ethnic my motors, including yazidis, shiite, turkmen, warning their knife will be the next to strike americans. they have a very simple goal. they say if you don't take our twisted version of islam, you either flee, you convert or you die. so, no, i'm not going to sit idly by. mr. secretary, i have a question for you. i was being interviewed and i was expressing these views that i just expressed, that there are certain areas where it's gray, and there are certain areas where it's clear. to me, i mean, everyone takes their own lens to the question. and i was asked this question.

how can we make sure the syrian moderates we help are the right one. this particular reporter said, we heard reports that the syrian moderates signed a nonaggression pact with isil. my answer to that was, there are all kinds of syrian moderate groups and we're certainly not working with those who don't see it our way. can you expand on that answer or -- >> i'd be delighted to. let me just say, that's disinformation fundamentally put out by isil. fighting extremism generally and including isil, and a recent statement that they had reached a truce is simply baseless. not accurate. and they have not. and they will not. >> thank you. and just -- i mean, i don't have enough time to ask everything. i'll ask one last question. what roles do iran and russia

play in this conflict? and how do the interests of these two countries factor into the president's counter-isil strategy? i know it's very delicate, but how would you respond to that? >> well, russia is a principle line of support to assad. and assad, as we all know, has neither proven the willingness nor the capacity to go after isil. and russia was at the meeting in paris. china was at the meeting in paris. both spoke out powerfully about the need to stands up to isil. and iran, as you know, there was the subject of whether or not they might have been invited. there were certain problems in trying to make that happen because of country objections with respect to their presence, et cetera. and it wasn't -- it didn't

happen. but iran, obviously s deeply opposed to isil. now, we're not coordinating military or doing anything, but we have had brief conversations on the side of our negotiations that are taking place, the p-5 plus 1 iran nuclear negotiations and we're prepared to see whether or not iran can contribute in a constructive way. but that would require, also, changing what's happening in syria. where their irgc is on the ground and supporting assad and has been ij gauged in activities, hezbollah, whom they support. so, there are a lot of areas of twisted conflict in the relationships here. and we are looking -- you know, it would be negligent not to be open to listening to some change in the dynamic or some possibility of constructive

activity, but we're not relying on it, waiting for it, organizing around it or, in fact, coordinating with it at this point in time. >> thank you. >> before i turn to senator rich, let me say to the secretary on this subject. i heard what you said, but to me iran is a regional instigator. it is a patron of the murderous assad regime, a sponsor of sectarian divisions inside of iraq. it uses iraq's air space to send troops and men into syria. and some of us are really concerned that, first of all, their end purposes are not our end purposes. and, secondly, that some of us are concerned that negotiations with iran, you know, are affected by -- if to the extent they express any desire to be helpful, they want to do it at the cost of concessions at the negotiating table. i know you're shaking your head. >> not going to happen.

>> i have to be honest with you, when we hear these back channel efforts and then they get outed by the ayatollah, it creates uncertainty in that process. i don't to want take more time from my colleagues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. john, i share some of the anger of senator boxer when it comes to what's been going on with beheading of americans. i mean, this is -- this is a tough time for america, for americans to be watching their fellow citizens being beheaded by these savage people. something has to be done about it. and i fully empathize with the problem you've got. it's such a complex situation with complex cultures and what have you. you've got to do something about it. i want to throw in with the chairman, he mentioned three points, i think, in his opening, that he was hoping he'd here, and i haven't heard yet. he talked about hearing the plan

thaw have and he wanted to hear what success looks like and he wanted to hear some metrics as to how we measure progress. and i -- john, i'm just not there yet. i'm not convinced. and this is particularly true where i think everyone's in agreement. the president's in agreement, congress is in agreement, the american people are in agreement, nobody wants american boots on the ground. i mean, that is just not going to happen. nobody going to go there with that. in fact, had the president come here and said that, look, i want authorization for air strikes, you and i both know how effective the drone program has been and good it has been as far as accomplishing the goals we have in yemen, in pakistan and other places. if he would have come here for that, you would have had no problem with me. as far as the boots on the ground, who do you get to do it? well, we know the iraqis can't do it. they dropped their guns and uniforms and went home at the slightest bit of threat.

with all due respect, i know everybody talks about the moderates, opposition and the rebels. we've been through this for over a year. and i'm just not convinced that there is such a group there. so, is such a group there. you said, let's talk about this, and let's see if we can't come up with a way to do this. the best group toornd do tharou do this is the kurds. they have been incredibly successful. they have been reliable to us. they are great fighters. if anyone is going to succeed on the ground it is the kurds. have you guys given thought to partner up with them. what are you missing here. >> you're not senator. they have been extraordinary. that was our first line of effort, obviously, which is why we put the joint operation center in the bill right away. we really had to hold that line.

it was critical. that's why the president was prepared to use some strikes, st actually, to help guarantee that that happened. and there's a huge flow of weaponry, as a said, 18 flight that's i know of have gone in now, flights coming in from other countries, too, italians, others, lots of countries have been supporting the kurds in this effort. i think this is the work that john allen needs a chance to sort of develop a little bit to see how it's going to go. the bottom line is, commitment to destroy isil. and that means what i described earlier today and for the moment, growing the moderate opposition is one way of coming at it. and we'll see what else may be possible as we go forward. >> i appreciate that. it's encouraging to hear that you have encagaged the kurds.

>> very much so. >> with the little time i have left, i want to make absolutely certain of your testimony of you originally said your meeting with these other countries, they said, and i'm quoting you, what can we do to help. but you've also said that nobody has agreed to put boots on the ground. and then i think you said you haven't asked them to put boots on the ground. so let me be clear about air strikes. has anybody committed they would fly their flag in and do air strikes in syria? >> yes. >> and then are committed to do that. >> yes. >> okay. sth that's good. in a classified setting we will be able to get who those people are. >> yes. >> that's much more encouraging. with that my time is up. thank you. >> senator. >> secretary kerry thank you for your incredible service. what you have stated expresses

my view on international action against isil. it requires an international response. i think president obama has been effective, particularly in reactions in iraq. mielt military strikes have been effective in pulling back isil's advancement. i think the president deserves credit in doing that and certainly has my support. we've been effective in bringing about coalition, that is extremely important in missions like is that that must include international presence. and you have been very clear that we will not have combat ground troops as part of this campaign. i support each of those statements. so i want to get back to the point that the chairman mentioned and that i guess every one of us have mentioned in

regards to the authorization of force, because i'm not clear what we will do in syria and i'm not comfortable yet as to what we will do and i'm looking forward to information being made available to us. but my concern, i'd like to get your thoughts on this, is that, the authorization that's were passed in 2001 and 2002 were clearly aimed as a different circumstance. and your lawyer's interpretations are correct, they are open-ended indefinitely. well beyond the obama administration and could be used to -- for long-term commitments including ground force commitments in the future. and that certainly was not congressional intent. i did not support the 2002 resolution, the chairman said, it was based on misinformation.

and in 2001 was not intended to deal with current circumstances in syria. i would hope we would all agree to that. so i think it's absolutely essential that we come together and readvivisit the authorizati issues. i think it is imperative that we attempt to clarify the authorizations on the use of force to meet the current needs. in syria, i don't think that's going to be difficult. i think you've been invited in by another country. i think we can -- iraq, excuse me, i don't think it is difficult in iraq. we have been invited in by the host country. it is clear we're not going to put combat troops on the ground there. syria will be more difficult because there are many of us not prepared to authorize the use of force in syria with the information we currently have.

that's something we need to work with. you have article 2 power, president has article 2power. he always has the right to defend this nation as he sees fit so i don't see the urgency for this action but think it is vital for the appropriate roll and moving forward beyond just the obama administration because as you pointed out these circumstances are not going to end in the next two years. i just welcome your thoughts as to how you think we should proceed in trying to deal with the type of authorization that can pass congress give you the comfort levels that you need and protect us against any particularly combat involvements in these countries in the future that should be done by their own military.

>> senator thank you for your comments. look, i wouldn't sit here comfortably and suggest to you, nor would president obama by that token, i know, stouuggest t it should go on indefinitely with no effort to define it. of course there should be. if the american in people want it, deserve it, it's an appropriate role for both branches to articulate going forward. the president has made it clear. we look forward to working with you to define it. that's how we go about it is to work effectively to do it. now, in the immediate moment, do we have the comments from the press conference the other day? [ speaking indistinctly ].

in my meeting with prime minister aed abobaddy said at a opening comment. not even prompted. or part of a question. he said isil is a terrorist nation. is mobilizing it's international network to recruit people from all over the world. they have funds from all across the region. we are fighting these people. these people are -- and something inaudible about our communities attacking or something -- minorities, children, inaudible about women, killing, raping, they are a challenge to the whole regregio to the international community. they are coming to iraq from across the border through

neighboring syria. the international community is to protect iraq and the whole region whax is happening in syria is coming across to iraq. we can't cross that border but he says it's an international border but there's a role for the international community, for the u.n. to do that roll and the united states to act immediately to stop the spread of this cancer. this cancer is spreading in the whole region and we have the resolution to fight the cancer in iraq. we iraqi's will have both an inclusive government now and we can do this job properly, everybody as a whole and he goes on to talk about how they will do it. but he specifically asks for the united states of america to help in this role. now our lawyers also are clear that iraq has a right of self-defense and iraq is exercising its right of self-defense and asking the

united states to help it. and we already have, a military agreement with respect to that. and so iraq is asking us to help them and as a matter of right if they are being attacked from outside the country, you have a right of hot pursuit to attack the people who are at thattinging y-- that are attacking you, as a matter of self-defense. so we believe there is full justification. that will be laid out later. but is it better to have congress defining this going forward? we agree. but we need to move. and to move rapidly because of the urgency of this danger. >> thank you secretary kerry. i was strucken by your language, isil must be defeated, end of story and collectively we will -- have to carry out this mission. that calls f