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 for iraq forces in

iraq, more capacitiy. moderate rebels in syria and american air power, no boots on the ground, but over the last few days there are doubts as to whether that will be achieved. top commander advised the president we need moderate contingent to advise and assist the iraqi army units. saying if local forces don't work he would recommend u.s. ground troops potentially to the president. so my question is, if it becomes clear that the only way to achieve the defeat of isil is for the engagement of american ground troops will that be something the president will consider at that time. >> the president will not put american ground troops in iraq and he made it again clear today in a statement at sent come nld,

quoting the president, we can make a decisive difference but i want to be clear the troops deployed to iraq do not land not have a combat mission. we believe there are any number of options as to how one can guarantee the affect on isil long before you were to dpet get to the hypothetical conversation about americans. i understand the chairman and joint chiefs of staff who's job it is to look at it from his perspective in terms of his military and his judgment but the president has made a judgment as commander in chief that that's not in the cards. that's where we are. >> so as the only way -- >> -- i'm not going to deal with hypothetical. >> quite frankly we're relying on a military strategy who are built by rebels by local

military forces, up to half incapable of fighting at this stage and kurds that are great fighters but only willing to protect their efrterritory. there may become a point, where there may become a point where -- >> i'm not going to get into hypothetical but you're presuming iran and syria don't have capacity to take on isil. who knows. i don't know what will happen. let's start down the road. >> you're say tlg is opportunity that the u.s. would be coordinating. >> i never said anything about coordinating. if wree're fail whoing who know choice they will make.

you prepositioned this on failure. >> i will go back to the report. including secretary gates has expressed it's not possible, a number of highly qualified military personnel believe -- you said in your opening statement -- >> there's lots of possibilities between here and there. the president has said he is not going to put american boots on the ground. >> you mentioned iran, iran yesterday said it was not on the side lines of these negligences, claiming the u.s. ambassador in iraq reached out to the iranian ambassador in iraq and you said you were open to some sort of dialogue to the iranian. he said he sees no point in coordinating with a country whose hands are dirty, he said that about us, he said you're lying we did not exclude them

they excluded themselves in talks for coalition, they refused to participate and he went on to say the u.s. goal ask to turn iraq into a play ground where we can bomb at will. i would just say any hopes of coordinating with iran who i consider to be just as evil as isis is something i would discourage for a number of different reasons. but i want to ask one more question, it has to do with rebels in syria. later ambassador ford will testify the bashar al assad regime has stepped up its targeting of non-isis rebel forces in the hopes of wiping them out so that the assad reng e regime will be the only ones left. --

>> isil first is our policy. >> but, ambassador ford will testify that the biggest enemy is the assad regime bombing there and there are credible reports today that assad has stepped up his campaign. they may not be there for us to arm. >> that's not our judgment but we recognize there are serious challenges with the assad regime and our policy has not changed in helping the moderate opposition. and in classified forum, i think we will have a better opportunity to discuss what we're doing additionally in order to do that. >> next. >> thank you mr. secretary for being here and all of your tireless efforts to address the isis threat. that is a threat that i believe was really brought home to the

american people by the basharian and hanous murders of james sully and steven sotloff, they both have ties to my state. i think people in new hampshire and across the country really felt very personally those murders. i appreciate and i said this yesterday at the armed services hearing with general dempsey and secretary hagel that i appreciate the efforts of the men and women in the military to make a rescue attempt to free those americans being held hostage. but i have been very troubled by the comments from the family that's have been reported about their concern that they did not,

were not communicated with, and did not have support from our government as they were trying to deal with the hostage situation for their son. and i wonder if you could, well, let me rephrase this, i hope that post-the murders, that this administration and future administrations will seriously reassess what can better be done to support families who are dealing with this kind of a crisis. some of the reports have pointed out that there are other countries who have different ways of dealing with the families and i certainly hope that you will help in this effort as we look at how we can better support those families. >> well, excuse me. senator first of all, let me

begin by saying, i know how personally, deeply involved you were in jim's case and in working with us to try to keep the focus on it. i know how close were to the family and i know how much effort went into the prior effort when jim was in libya, i worked on that personally and in this subsequent effort. we went to country after country to try to get proof of life or a way to find out where he is, is there a way to negotiate the release. and most recently, even in the last two months before he was bash airiously killed, i was talking with people in one of the middle eastern countries who

travelled the to syria on our behalf in order to try to find out whether there was a way to secure the release of these hostages. i know you made an incredible effort to reach out to country after country. you were very active in engaging that. when we got him out of libya which we worked hard to do, i was in touch with people on global posts who i know very closely, they are friends of mine who are part of that effort. so they were always in touch with me and talking personally about it. now i've read these accounts of things that have happened, their judgment, i talked to diane and john foley after jim was killed.

i mean, i think everybody here would just shutter at what they have to go through. so, this is something we feel very deeply. so much so, that i remember the hours we sat in the situation room in the white house working with our brilliant military, who did a remarkable job of designing a rescue mission and the president made the difficult decision to put american service at risk, going to another country, they have air defense, you don't know what will happen, and you know you're going in where there's isil and i sat in the white house in the situation room and watched that entire mission unfold and -- and it was -- i was amazed by the capacity of our military people

to do what they did. a high-risk mission, performedflawleperformed flawlessly. they did everything correctly. it just was empty. they movedhim and we don't know exactly when or soon ahead of time. and you have no idea the feeling when the message came from our people on the ground saying nobody's there. so we felt that. and feel it to this day. but, you know, if they feel unhappy somehow that it wasn't work properly, whatever agency it was, we have to make sure in the future that we're going to make sure that that's just not a feeling, i mean, first of all, we hope no other family has to suffer that and go through it, but to whatever degree, that is a possibility we got to make

sure people feel better about the process and i can assure you the president on down, everybody feels that sensitivity. >> well, thank you. i appreciate that. and for the hostages who are still being held, i hope there will be an effort to look at how those families are being supported. mr. if chairman i know my time is up, but i wanted to make one more comment. i know mr. secretary that you have repeated the president's argument that this military campaign doesn't require a separate authorization for the use of military force but i certainly believe that if we're going to commit to a long term effort to address isis that having specific congressional action that is bipartisan to support that effort is very important and i believe we should under take that. i know the chairman said he

intends to do that regardless of whether the white house and administration comes to congress or not. i certainly support that and i hope the administration will work with us as we do that. >> well we are coming to congress. we're mehere and we welcome it d we look forward to working with you on it. >> senator has 1k3rexpressed to on more than one occasion the desire to work with the chairman and others and we look forward to working you with and other colleagues as well. next. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary these are obviously complex issues. i don't envy you. you're in my prayers. i ask all americans to include you in their prayers. if you succeed that means americans remain safe i have been listening carefully and

words have real meaning. i appreciate the fact you have testified that isil must be defeated. period. end of story. the president in his speech to the nation said the goal was to degrade and ultimately destroy isis. here's my problem, final two paragraphs of his speech to the nation, president obama said our own safety, our own security depends on our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation. but mr. secretary by taking options off the table isn't president obama saying to do what it takes up to a point. and secretary of state, as are you dealing with potential coalition partners who are also listening, if we say a goal and the world doesn't believe we're 100% to it, will it be difficult to you to get commitment out of our potential partners to do what they need to do to actually achieve that ultimate goal.

>> that's a very fair and really good question. by the way, thank you for -- for -- for your comments and your prayers. the answer is that, the president and the military folks currently believe we have the capacity we have the plan, we have the coalition, to be able to do the job. now, you know, there are a lot of countries in the region who have capacity going forward who in our judgment, someone necessary to be on the ground ought to be lining up first. so there are a lot of options here before we start getting to the talk [ overlapping speakers ] >> so we covered that ground. let me ask you in your discussions with for example south dakot saudi arabia, do they understand

how fragile american public will be if they don't fully commit. think back to the first gulf war america had to pay for 50% of that, other portion paid for by germany and japan. do they understand why it is so important for them to step up and visibly support the severef >> yes in fact told me personally they are committed fully to this effort and then have been. now, there are bigger complications then just sitting here and talking about having the king of saudi arabia put his troops on the ground in syria, next door to iran, with all of the account of the extraordinary complication s of the region regarding shiite sunni and other

gio strategic challenges. so we need to be working at this very carefully with all of the nations part of the coalition recognizing we have to win. and we're just getting started at that. so, i can tell you, we're not going into this in order to fail. and nor are any of these any people who are signing up. >> let me offer, i'll be up in new york next week representing the united states of u.n. with senator car and i'd like to offer whatever i can do to help convince those arab state that's need to be fully committed to this battle. let me ask this question, here's noerng concern of mine. if this is going to take years, if you identify a hornet's nest in your backyard and realize you got to take care of it, but if you are just poking the hornet's nest with a stick, isn't that a concern right now, if we're not

fully committed to wipe out isis quickly. you mentioned brent provided powerful testimony to this committee back in the end of july about the threat that isis does represent, being able to funnel 30 to 50 suicide bombers into iraq per month. we have seen them coming from australia, germany, and america, with passports, and his comment was they could easily funnel them into america. that's my concern about allowing them, not being fully committed, not getting in there and cleaning up the hornet's nest as quickly as possible. don't we just increase the time where we are really under threat and danger. ifs. >> well we hope not, senator, obviously that's not our strategy. i mean, look, why do we have to focus first on isil and focus on

it the way we are? because they are seizing and holding thousands of square miles of territory, because they are claiming to be a state. they are not a state in so many ways, we can go through that, they are confronting and defeating thus far conventional army with conventional tactics, they are a vowed genocidists who have already practiced genocide against christians and others. and they have a very large amount of money. they have sold oil and others things in the process. even al qaeda didn't exhibt these characteristics and didn't

have those capacities and that is why we believe, and we think moeflt most of the region has come to understand this including the moderate opposition who are already fighting isil. so we believe we have the makings to be able to have a very, i have significant impact and already, by the way, france and the united kingdom are flying with us over iraq and several other countries are now starting to be willing to join that. so we think we have the building of the ability to be able to turn that around. i guarantee you the president's goal is to defeat them. ands you and we see this unfold and make judgments about how women we' well we're doing, we can have further discussions about what else, it may or may not take to get the job done, but at the moment these are the judgments being made. >> thank you.

you made a strong case defeating isis, the sooner the better. thank you. >> thank you mr. secretary. as i look at this challenge from isil, i think there are two distinctly different parts to it relating to iraq and syria. i don't believe there's any future for iraq unless iraq is committed to that future. the new leadership there has given us some hope. but ultimately, we have to trust that we can either train or provide the skills and support necessary to the iraq army. that in fact had he withey will over run with corruption that they cannot be an effective fighting force. that is a big task but we are hopeful. it is within our grasp. i look at syria seeand see a

totally different circumstance. it is a dog's breakfast of violence, terrorism, deceit and carnage that has gone on for three years. here we are talking about arming a moderate force within syria. i've read the language that is being considered in the house, unless it has been changed in the last day or so, never mentioned the word assad once when it talks about what we're trying to achieve in syria. it comes down to this basic question. it looks to me as if there's three identifying forces in syria, assad, isil and what we hope are moderate opposition forces we can work with. but i'm also told there's up to 1500 different militia in that country, some neighborhood

militia. how can we turn a course that defeats isil in syria and does not in the end strength assad's hand. how can we find this so-called moderate opposition in syria and believe that something will emerge there that results in syrians deciding their own fate and future is their responsibility. >> it's a very good question. and the calculation is that even with the difficulties that they have faced over the last year and half, particularly, i remember when i first came in, february of last year, the opposition in syria was actually in a slightly better position with respect to assad and the

other groups and there wasn't as many other groups at this time. and then they started to squabble, politically as well as which military group would do what. so they lost momentum with that. number one. number two they didn't get enough supplies at that point in time. number three, the country began to be flooded with these external fighters from outside and some countries in the region who wanted to get rid of assad started funding people who seemed to be tougher fighters who morphed into -- isil. and they began to fight. the concentration on our site dispated. during that time, some of the support that was coming from countries in the region was frankly also very badly directed

and managed. all of that has changed now. we have upped our support, and our engagement, our training, things we're doing, other countryies have upped it. they worked out many of the leadership issues that existed. there seems, despite the difficulties, they have been able to fight isil and move isil out of certain areas and keep fighting assad, you see this continuing. our believe therefore is, that as the principal antagonist to their presidency more so than assad starts to gain strength, the success will bring to them, we think, larger structure, as well as greater no-how and ability. sand if is and if isil is defeated, they

will be taking that experience in the same direction that they originally set out to which is to deal with assad. >> i would like to ask one more question, we know and you said it in this testimony that russia is supplying assad, we have known in the past when there have been sources of money, equipment, and other support for our enemies, as we look at isil today, you told us in testimony that russia, you mentioned russia, and china and we know by its nature, iran is a shiite nation, oppose isil, who are the countries, which countries are aiding and abetting the isil columnist, either by providing arms or allowing their trade to create resources and wealth so they can continue to fight. >> we don't believe at this

point it is state-supported. what we believe is that because of their success in particularly in getting the bank in mosul and other success along the way, as well as selling oil. >> let me stop you there. who are they selling it to? which countries -- >> i was just about to get to that. we have raised the question how they could possibly be getting oil out of the country. it's being smuggled out. >> which countries do you believe it is being smuggled. >> out of syria obviously km means turkey or lebanon in the south. >> are they joining us to stop the smuggling. >> they are but turkey has 49 hostages being held and they have talked about that publicly and turkey is, you know, we've had some conversations with them and those conversations will continue. >> the sooner we can dut them

off from their sources of fund the. >> that's exactly the objective. and there is other money that comes through social media, internet, appeals, through individual fundraising, we have been able to trace a one-time lump sum $140,000 that came through one country from an individual in the region and -- excuse me -- that's why we're going to have this immediate focus on the movement of money and -- and begin to really get tough in shutting down that flow of funds. >> next. >> thank you mr. secretary for explaining the strategy. i think you know where this committee is and where i am, in terms of wanting to give the president and the administration the authority and the where with all. to move ahead. and succeed in this mission. and all foreign policy missions.

but i'm a little confused at the position that's been taken by the administration now. that's ao met is desired but not required now. i look back at one of the hearings you appeared in with regard to syria and chemical weapons, the president had drawn a red line and said he would act if they went beyond it. they went beyond it. and then the president came to congress and said what do you want me to do. i questioned whether or not that was a wise move and you said to me, these are your words, it's some what surprising that a member of congress will question the president fulfilling the vision of the founding father when she wrote the constitution, to have the president come over here and honor the original intent of the founding fathers in ways that do not do anything

to disfractutract from the miss itself. i would argue that that did distract from the mission it is efl. in fact it torp he'd bordeedoed. coming in what was described as a ten day mission to degrade the ability to use chemical weapons but then in this case, in what you yourself today describe as what will be a multi-year effort, say that you don't need, you desire but don't need congressional buy-in. it's best when we speak with one voice. our allies know that and in order to build the kind of coalition that will be required to beat isil and to sustain that defeat over time, our coalition partners and adversaries have to believe our flthreats and our

promises. i would submit that it helps for us to be together. so i question the unwillingness to come and ask for a renewed aumf. can you enlighten me as to what the change of heart from the last hearing? >> actually there's no change of heart, senator. honestly. there's -- there's a -- there's a big difference between the authorities that are available. we did not have authority. in any form. sufficient without congress passing it, except for article 2, excuse me, we had article 2 authority which is always there for the president of the united states. nobody has every gotten to the question whether or not he would have exercised it had congress not passed it. but the fact is the president did make a decision to strike.

he made a decision and publicly announced it. he said i have made a decision to strike. then as you know there was a lot of requests in our briefings in congress to come to congress and since we didn't have authority beyond article 2, and that's the dis tinction went then and now. then it didn't cover chemical weapons with assad, it covered terrorism and al qaeda. and so if it weren't isil that was this direct component of al qaeda and we were talking about for instant one of the other entities there, we might not have the same capacity here. but we're looking at an entity that was al qaeda from 2004 or 5 all the way through 2013 and

tried to disassociate itself by name. what also happened, president putin and president obama had a conversation in st. petersburg regarding the removal of weapons. prime minister netanyahu called me and we talked about the possibility of chemical weapons. >> i just have a few seconds here. i hope we have a better explanation when we go to the allies and say we are going to be it in the long hall and we're united in this miss. >> that's why we want congress to pass this, we welcome the

effort to work with you to define the amf going forward and yes questiwe will be stronger we passage of it and with congress be involved in it. but we won't put ourselves in the position to do what we believe we need to do with legitimacy at this timeout. >> -- at this time. >> with respect, we did that before, we put ourselves in a position where we put a red line and put ourselves in a position we couldn't enforce that red line. that will effect our ability to move forward and build the coalitions we need. that's why i say there's an inconsistency. i hope the administration will ask for a uamf and i hope congress yields it. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.

secretary kerry thank you for your tireless committed approach to these international issue that's have so pressing today. i think you're probably one of the most travelled secretaries we've ever had. and i think all of us wish you the very best in your endeavors. chairman menendez, i would like to thank you for this hearing. i think it's very important that we carefully weigh the president's request. we must address the very real threat presented by isis. a little over a year ago we were in this same room talking about air strikes on the assad regime and arming rebels to fight it and due to assad's use of chemical weapons. today's his weapons are gone. thank you secretary kerry for your diplomatic efforts there. we are debating now air strikes

on isis and arming rebels, that is really in a way, quite a turn around. the american people deserve a full debate, an explanation about this new plan that you've presented and we've heard today a number of senators, isis is -- talk about this -- isis is a brutal terrorist organizations, it must be stopped. that's a subject i think we all can agree on. i would associate myself with all of the previous comments about their brutality and murderous ways, i don't think there's a doubt about that. we have a continuous responsibility to work with local groups and alleys in the region for as long as it takes. we must use strategic force to stop isis and end its murderous path. let me be clear here. i don't want us to lose site of

the forest from the frtrees. there's calls for more in the middle east putting us back on a risky course. isis thrives on america's unintended policy many in iraq for the last 13 years. military power is one among many tool that's will be needed. isis emerged from dysfunction and alianation and the divide between sunni and shiite followers of islam. those will remain without a comprehensive strategy of diploma diplomacy, commitment to long term accountability. we can't put our self in

situation of filling a void in an iran controlled regime. we should support iraq and other forces. however i remain skeptical about the so-called moderate forces. secretary customy kerry you hea are there moderate forces, i think one of the key issues for us is the effectiveness of the moderate forces there on the ground now. my question to you, this is all pb lick informati public information, but everyone is well aware there's a covert operation in the region to train moderate forces to go into syria and to be out there. we've been doing this the last two years and probably the most true measure of the effective of

moderate forces would be what has been the effective ness of the last two years of this covert operation training two or three thousand of these moderates, are they a growing force, have they gained ground, how effect are they, what can you tell us about this effort that has gone on and has it been a port of the success that you see that you're presenting this new plan on? >> senator i hate to do this, but i know it's been written about in the public domain that there is, quote, a covert operation. i can't confirm or deny whatever has been written about and can't really go into any kind of possible proglam. >> okay. well. i want to say that chairman menendez, to me, keithe key hern

effectiveness is what has happened these past two years so i think we should have a briefing by our committee specifically on what has gone on in that area from our intelligence people. just one final question. isis is already in possession of u.s. weapons paid for by u.s. tax payers that sees from iraq forces and syrian rebels. how will you guarantee or assure that the weapons you're requesting now will not end up in the hands of radical sunni n insurgen insurgence. >> we have been following it very, very closely and folk who's have been following this at all levels -- this ought to be classified for various reasons -- but what we have been doing is providing various kinds of support to the non-lethal, as i think you know and we're

vetting people very, very carefully. our folks who do this -- this is something we really watch very carefully. the president is very concerned about is this question of downstream and impact. with the exception, there are a couple of instances of an over run in a warehouse in the north and couple other things, but by in large we found the vetting to be pretty effective. our guys have been doing it for 20 years now and they have gotten pretty good at it. >> thank you. i would also agree with and i appreciate your offer to work with us on an authorization of force. i think we have to have one with what you're describing and i hope we can get to that as soon as possible. i yield back. >> senator let me take your request and say first of all, we will have as robust intelligence briefings as we can. however to the core question that you raise, this is a

problem that both the administration as well as the senate leadership must be willing to deal with. because when it comes to questions of being briefed on covert operations this committee doesn't have access to that information yet it is charged with the responsibility of determining whether or not the people of the united states should through their representatives, support an organization for the use of military force. it is unfathomable to me to understand how this committee is going to get to those conclusions without understanding all of the elements of military engagement both overtly and covertly. so i'm with you. this is a hurdle that we will have to over come if we want the information to make an informed

judgment and get members on boa board. >> i want to recognize our kurdish friends who have been such good allies so long. september 17th, former secretary of defense gates said the reality is we're not going to be successful against isis strictly from the air for strictly depending on the iraq forces or the sunni tribes acting on their own.

gates said, there will be boots on the ground if there is hope for success in the strat eng . strategy. i think by continuing to repeat that, that the u.s. won't put boots on the ground, the president traps himself. now i've talked to so many people with military experience who have been on both sides on this issue. they all agree with secretary gates assessment. and that's just the reality. and there are some of us that place a great deal of confidence in the opinion of people like secretary gates, general keen, the architects of the surge, so many others. now is it your view that the syrian opposition is -- viable. hello. >> hello senator. i'm taking you so seriously. >> i am looking for your view on

if the syrian opposition is viable. >> the syrian opposition has been viable enough to be able to survive under difficult circumstances -- >> good, are you -- >> -- but they still have some distance to go and we need to help them go that distance. >> right. they obviously need our assistantance and training. are you surprised at times that members of congress will swallow hole, like there's been a cease-fire agreement put out by isis does it surprise you sometimes. >> senator. sometimes. >> the hero of this piece so far in my view is a guy who will testify after you, ambassador ford, he did a magnificent job at the risk of his own life riding around dam as cuss and his support of a free army.

here's what he will say, the moderate armed opposition biggest enemy is not the islamic state, it is the assad regime, they won't stop fighting the assad regime even as they advance against the islamic state. but you're saying isil force. so we will train and equ equip free syrian army. so we're telling young syria today i wangt ywant you to join the free syria army, you go the to fight isil first, and by the way, the attacks that are dropping on you that have massacred so many syrians, we're not going to do anything about that. i think at least we owe the free syrian army negate the air attacks that they will be subjected to when they finish

their training and equipping and go into the fight. so why is it that we won't at least neutralize bashar al assad's air activity which has slau slaughtered 192,000 dead, 3 million refugees and we're not going to do anything about assad's air capabilities. and finally, isil first, that's what you're telling these young men who really views assad as the ones who viewed their family members, not isil as bad as isil is. so how do you square that circle mr. secretary. >> well you square it this way, senator and first of all, let me just say a word. i think everybody knows, i had the pleasure of working with

ambassador ford very closely together and i share huge admiration for him. he and i worked many long hours in the syrian opposition and i respect his opinion, et cetera. he is connerrect that they won' stop fighting the asansad regim >> not only will they not stop fighting it is their primary goal. >> i understand that. and they are also fighting isil right now in other places. they are engaged in fighting isil. and our belief is, i think, i bet you, i hope robert ford believe, that they will actually get stronger as a result of isil being removed from the field. >> are you not going to protect

them from air strikes? >> i think what we need -- yes -- and i think what we need -- that's a legitimate concern and it's a concern i would need to address with you in a classified session for reasons i think you well-understand and i think robert ford would well understand. >> i think the free syrian army would like to well understand too. >> if we have a good classified session here, who knows. the important thing is for us to recognize for isil to continue what it is doing, i think you know this, without being stopped, if we didn't stand up when we did stand up and help them retake muscle damn, they were threatening baghdad and more. >> we're talking about syria. >> no but i'm sorry about to come back. >> thank you. i'm running out of time. >> because that pertains to their capacity then to focus on

assad and it might be not the free syrian army by isil that you see in damascus and bringing others to them because of their level of success. clearly many people have told us in the region, success breeds success. and many of the people who have come to isil have come because it seems as if they weren't being opposed. ifs we believe that transition works to the benefit of the moderate opposition and to all of our benefit by removing isil from the field. >> you cannot ask people to go and fight and die unless you promise them you will defeat their enemy and defeat them right away. you can't say wait until we defeat isil. people will not volunteer for such things. >> i don't believe it will be a wait and see because i don't believe that the people supporting the opposition in

various parts of the region will ever stop until the assad problem is resolves and number two i don't believe the moderate opposition will stop in their efforts. therefore there will be these two prongs. there's no way to avoid that. >> i hope there's two prongs and not isil first, that that message is not given to those brave young people. >> if we don't stop isil first there may not be much left of the other prong. >> that sounds like we can't take on two adversaries at once. it sounds bogus and false. >> i know you two colleagues would like to go at it for the rest of the session. >> no, no. we have a great tradition, i believe the addage that a fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed. we always have a great time. >> next. >> thank you secretary kerry for

appearing and discussing the strategy to degrade and destroy isil. i too want to thank ambassador ford for his commitment to the people in syria. i have a long opening statement which i will simply suppose mbm the record. i share the grave concerns about isil and the massacring of the christians. we are proud that we have stood up to them and i'm eager to hear more about the strat enginegy a it will play out. first mr. secretary the prime minister promised to have a guard style of national sunnis to proclaim the area. i think recognition of sunni former government and in the on the ground conditions, iraq is absolutely essential to having a prospect of success, can you explain how long it will take to

establish this national guard style sunni force on the ground in iraq, how this model will work, and if there will be any role for our national guard in training or equipping or supporting this iraqi national guard. >> that's a really good question. i don't have all those answers at this point in time. i mean, there are military decisions with respect who will be training them, et cetera, i'm confident the military folks would not dream of advising and assisting without using their experience within our military how it has worked here and been effective, with that said, let me say very quickly, the theory is to try to localize capacitiy in a way, as i think you know that deals with this secretariarian divide. one of the reasons the, quote,

iraq army, as it had been called, folded was frankly how some of the officers abandoned some of the men that were left behind and there was a real sense of sec tearian divide there. they left because they were perceived by many people, and this was a problem with that iraq at that time, that there was a sunni, shiite divide within the construct of the military itself and people to some degree felt even that it went so far to be the prime minister personalentity. so it was the absence of the commitment that motivated people to take off. and this has to be done away with. there has to be a unity. whatever this national guard is, it's going to have to still be unified and connected to the state and to a sense of national en enterprise but made up of people who have a greater stake in her

region which was absence previously. >> i strongly agree. if we have a shiite only government that's not sustainable and leads to a vacuum. let me move on. as the campaign against isil affected our ongoing negotiations to end iran's nuclear program. and how has an expanded campaign against isil made it more difficult to find a deal between iran and the p 5 plus 1 deadline coming in november or have the mutual interests in iraq and some of those members provide a point of interest. >> we hope very much it will be the latter part of your question. that it hasn't affected it, that it can continue. our p5 plus 1 folks left for new

york this afternoon. we will be engaging in that activity over the course of the next days and we'll get a better sense of it. my belief is that the nuclear issue is so huge in its consequences, not just to iran but to the region, to the world, to all of us, the interest in getting rid of the sanctions, which is the end goal here, with respect to iran and our end goal is being able to reach an agreement s significant enough that they won't let things, and to the credit to the people in the p5 plus 1. thus far there's been compartmentalization, russia and china still active and involved in the negotiations and constructive within them and our hope is that that will prevail going forward. the answer is not yet defined fully.

>> let me make sure you're not misunderstanding me. the end goal is not to end the sanctions. >> the end goal is to end the nuclear possibility. what i said is their end goal. >> that is helpful clarification. >> i thought i said, their desire is to obviously get sanction, you can't lift the sanctions without absolutely guaranteeing that the four pathways to a nuclear weapon have been closed off. that's what we're working at. >> last question. i'm very concerned about the security and safety of jordan, which has born so much of the burden of the recei. >> referee: burden of the refuge gees -- what can we do to strength king

abad. >> we are working very closely with our friends in jordan. ifs i was in jordan and i met with king a few days ago last week with re committed to help each other. we are committing additional funds and equipment and capacity. everybody shares concerns with all the neighbors 2in the regions. that's one of the reasons this is so critical. i can assure you that an already extremely robust mill to mill, intel to intel and, you know,

supp supply assistance and economic program will be even more robust going forward. up all have the budget and know what we're strtrying to do. >> thank you secretary kerry for coming. yesterday headlines says in open to talking to iran. i agree the issues are so huge. good evening americans, you are w5uatching a briefing take place on capitol hill. watching john kerry on the united states strategy to fight isis. a short time ago, the senator had this exchange. >> i don't believe the people supporting the op sposition in ou