if president said assad needs to go, assad needs to go. e're saying assad needs to go but -- >> you know. >> there is red line, there is a red line. >> quickly on refugees, arab countries should do a lot more. saudi arabia isn't taking one. we just handed them $150 million to fight isis in yemen. they should be taking far more refugees and we should be taking zero. >> vice president joe biden taking another step toward entering the presidential race. the big meeting we're told happened this week. what could it mean for biden and other democrats who want to be president? you know who they are. hillary clinton reportedly ramping up her strategy are to the upcoming democratic debate. what she is planning and whether it will help or hurt her. ♪ equals pretending to know wine. pinot noir, which means peanut of the night. ♪ >> new clues vice president joe biden may be closer to entering the presidential race. a source telling fox news some of his representatives held a meeting this week with democratic national committee staffers. they briefed bi

the challenges between russia and the west have been bashar al-assad must go. russia can't effect bashar al-assad going, russia is not in power to make him leave. with a direct military intervention, russia is in a better position to determine the fate of syria, and it changes things a bit. russia is not all personally attached. that's clear. russia believes that the syrian army and the syrian - whoever leaves it, is the way forward. that is the core of their position. but in the long term, yes, russia is now in a place where it could affect regime changes. it could agree to a transition away from bashar al-assad, and force them to do it. before, frankly, it couldn't. >> various syrian rebel groups are forming an alliance after six days of strikes. various groups labelled russian actions in syria as an act of occupation. they are calling on regional states to support a united front against russian and iranian forces fighting on behalf of the bashar al-assad regime >>> the syrian opposition is concerned that russia's military intervention, the objective is not j

go? will they do everything they can to defeat all enemies of assad? philip: they are going pretty far already. this is a significant military deployment. they are undertaking a serious military operation. they are doing that because they really are committed, they feel they have strategic reasons for backing this regime. again, i think it's something we have failed to fully appreciate. even those earlier on calling for more escalation on our part, i think they failed to understand that more escalation on our part would lead to more escalation on their part. why is that? vladimir putin has made it clear for years that he hates the concept of regime change anywhere. he especially hates it when it is backed by the west. that's what he sees happening in syria. he hated it in ukraine, georgia, central asia, in libya, where has he would argue it led to nato intervening and having civil war and chaos. he does not want any hint of that in russia. he is absolutely committed to preventing this pattern whereby people rise up against a dictator, we come in, there

it's a bonus for assad who is going to survive. i think the problem we're running into is this is another example of president obama seems to think a great strategy for that region issout sourcing to tyrants. heout sourced the fight against isis in iraq and now he's going to turn it over to putin in syria and i don't think the aftermath of either one of those is going to be good for the people who are going to be crushed under the military might of those two organizations. >> we had already outsourced running baghdad to the iranians so not too much of a stretch to outsource going after isil in iraq at least on the iraqi side of the border. this -- to imply that obama necessarily fits the facts. >> we left a vacuum that isis failed. drew a red line and then pulled it back and putin filled that voir dire qume. that's a natural facet of the big game of power, vacuums don't last. somebody will move into them and in this case the people who moved in are not good guys by any stretch of the imagination. >> stay with us, gentlemen. are the

questions about what the united states was prepared to do, given our insistence that president assad had to go. and he was making the point he was not putting boots on the ground to take down the assad regime. in that is precisely the mistake the previous administration made putting u.s. forces in a large-scale long-term combat mission to take down saddam hussein. and we're still paying for that mistake. the quote you pulled there is a very different situation. >> reporter: but we have heard him reiterate that theme multiple times, that he wouldn't put boots on the ground in syria. >> you have read one quote, and that's out of context. the situation the president has described is a description of the kind of mission our men and women in uniform will have in our isil campaign -- >> reporter: [ inaudible ] but he has consistently said he would not put boots on the ground. you can't deny that. >> the only quote you read to me was a quote from 2013. that was a direct question related to what we were prepared to do to ensure that our concerns about the assad regime, and the need for regime change w

. >> among the headlines today is bashir al assad going to moscow to thank mr. putin for saving his regime. 22 afghan policemen were murdered by the taliban. an f-18 apparently crashed in england. meanwhile, there are thousands of men and women strapping on body armor, preparing to go on patrol, fly their aircraft to protect the united states. it would be absolutely wrong for us to play political games with them and with the support that they depend upon. as has been mentioned, included in this bill is a reform for military retirement. today 83% of the people who serve in the military walk away with no retirement. this bill changes that. there are over reforms that make sure when someone is on a drug when in the military to treat post traumatic stress or pain management they can stay on the same drug when they move to the va system. that's not happening today. there are a number of reforms that are beginning to improve the way that the pentagon buys goods and services. all of that goes away with a veto of this bill. it would be unprecedented. it is time for the

all the parties concerned, but we are at going to cooperate with russian campaign that simply tried to destroy anyone who is disgusted and fed up with mr. assad's behavior. the moderate opposition in syria is one that if we are going to have a political transition, we need. and the russian policy is driving those folks underground or creating a situation in which they are the capacity did -- citated and strengthening isil and that is not good for anybody. in terms of our support of opposition groups inside syria, i made very clear early on that the united states could not impose a military solution on syria either. but that it was in our interest to make sure that we were oppositionh moderate inside of syria because eventually, syria will fall. will fall.e we have to have someone we are working with that we can help take up the pieces and stitch back together a cohesive, coherent country. and so we will continue to support them. the training and equip program was a specific initiative are the defense department to see if we could get some of that moderate operation -- opposition to focus on iso-in the eastern portion of the country and i am the

first, and bashar al-assad -- coordinate with bashar al-assad, get rid of i.s.i.l., and go after bashar al-assad later. >> there are many things, but it can't include bashar al-assad. >> senator mccain said the administration has been outmoored again by russia. are they setting the agenda. >> i don't think at all that's the case. they are responding to their conexperience about the fragility of the bashar al-assad regime. they moved forces in there, and are using the forces purportedly now to allow bashar al-assad to remain in power and brutalize his people. it's not what we want to see, we want an instructive role against i.s.i.l., but it's not the case. >> they are going after the army of conquest, extremist groups, does that, in fact, help i.s.i.l., because they oppose i.s.i.l. >> potentially it could. it remains to be seen what targets they are going after after a period of time. what we want to see is i.s.i.l. degraded and tweeted inside iraq and syria. there is a big, successful coalition to go after the threat. >> the russian deputy for instance said that they are open to helping

assad. >> if it walks like a terrorist, then it is a terrorist, right? we are always going to fight isil and other terrorists. this is the position the u.s. is taking. charlie: russia and the united states are said to hold talks to avoid conflicts between their forces. joining me is mike morel, deputy director from 2010-2013. he is a colleague on cbs. i'm pleased to have him back. let me begin with basics. president putin telegraphed what he was going to do, that he was going to increase his military presence with equipment and advisers and he began building up to that point. and then he launched airstrikes against moderate forces, and in some stories, that they may have been against some people that the cia was engaged with. tell me what he is trying to do, and would he deliberately -- why would not he hit isis to prove his presence, even though he said most recently to me, i am there to prop up assad because i think they need a central government with isis? mike: charlie, there are a number of reasons he is doing what he is doing. the most important reason is that he beli

so we say to russian we agree with you on the assad question and you're going to agree not push him out immediately. can we not talk about steps toward deescalation that might include regional safe zones that the russian would agree with assad and he have jees could go back, cease fires that we've seen in minor cases but you could build on that, beginnings of dilog and political reform that would enable some change in the governmental structures moving toward ultimately what we want to see which is a political transition that gets rid of assad but steps that would deescalate the conflict and have meaningful, positive steps for the syrian people in the meantime rather than just insisting on a goal that, frankly, we are just not in a position to achieve now and won't be for some time to come, if ever. >> rose: how far do you think the russians are prepared to go and will they do everything they can to defeat all enemies of assad? >> i think it's pretty clear, look, they're going pretty far, already. this is a very significat military deployment of significant means, naval and air assets a

assad. that is going to. mean some tough negotiation with russians overtime the closest thing to this is probably the balkans back in the 1990's. way totely, we found our a solution, but it is going to take some tough negotiation and some real combat hit >> it has been more than year since the coalition began strikes in syria and iraq. what is the next step then? >> i think first and foremost, we need to put more capability, military capability in the hands of the kurds in the northeastern part of syria. dish state area itself. that provides pressure coming down from the north. the bombing campaign is working in the west. we need to redouble our efforts with the iraqi security forces to put pressure from the south. if we put islamic state under three axis pressure we will see they are not 10 feet tall. >> thanks very much for joining us. >> it is a pleasure. information, more is coming tonight about the gun man who shot dead nine people at a community college on thursday. mercer hadd chris six guns on him at

assad go. from their perspective they're all terrorists. that's a recipe for disaster. and it's one that i reject. we're not going to make syria into a proxy war between the united states and russia. that would be bad strategy on our part. this is a battle between russia, iran, and assad defense the overwhelming majority of the syrian people. well, earlier they said that airstrikes against isil are useless unless coordinated with his government's forces. only russia is having an impact against isil because it was invited to intervene. the u.s. and it's allies are bombing the armed group but without president assad's permission. >> terrorism cannot be fought only from the air, and it has only led to its present outbreaks. airstrikes are useless. the only force in syria that is combating terrorism. >> we have more from the united nations president assad does not come to the gathering of world leaders. instead, he said that he fully supports the airstrikes and it's supported by the military. a military that he says remains strong. >> syria will continue to fight terrorism,

go after the moderate opposition? because they are the closest in two assad and his forces.sis is further to the east and al nusra is further to the south. isis is further to the east. they will eventually deal with isis and al nusra, but they will face the moderates first. that explains the timing. and that explains the strikes. charlie: did they know exactly what they were doing? did they have sufficient intelligence to know exactly who they were striking? mike: i think that they had enough intelligence probably given to them by the syrians. this is not their own intelligence. they had enough intelligence to tell them that they were shooting at opponents to assad, people fighting syrian military. i don't believe they had enough intelligence to tell them that they were fighting u.s.-backed rebels, right? i don't think they had that. i don't think that is what attracted russian fire. i think the fact the group was fighting assad attracted the fire and nothing else. charlie: the cia is well known for having profiles on foreign leaders. the question is -- what is the u.s. asse

>> french is clear that assad must go and have criminal charges against assad pending and like turkey long time focused their efforts on removing assad. the russians by contrast are focused on maintaining the stability of the assad regime and the unity of syria, so it should be a clash between the views and how best to make sure that syria after assad does not look like another somalia on the mediterranean. >> more and more on the opposition feel the u.s. is abandoning them, what is correspondent dana was telling us a short while ago and we have the u.s. having to make a choice of whether to continue with their air strikes in syria and iraq against i.s.i.l. and with confrontation with the russians in syria or accept the idea that assad is not going anywhere any time soon, which do you think is the better choice for the americans right now? >> well, at this point i think there is really a third choice and that is to accept the presence of russians and russian activities and work very closely with the russians to ensure that even though we may have somewhat divergent goals that at least

assad go. from their perspective, they are all terrorists and that's a recipe for disaster and it's one that i reject. so where we are now is that we are having technical conversations about deconfliction so we are not seeing u.s. and american fire fights in the air, but beyond that, we're very clear in sticking to our belief and our policy that the problem here is assad and the brutality that he's inflicted on the syrian people and that it has to stop. and in order for it to stop, we're prepared to work with all the parties concerned, but we are not going to cooperate with a russian campaign so simply try to destroy anybody who is disgusted and fed up with mr. assad's behavior. keep in mind also from a practical perspective, the moderate opposition in syria is one that if we're ever going to have to have a political transition, we need, and the russian policy is driving those folks under ground or creating a situation in which they are decapacitated and it's only strengthening isil and that's

going on. we don't know what hornets nest is around the corner for us. if assad asks putin to come which he did, we should step back. right now we want to be there because russia is there or because we're going to benefit. >> you think that we should be careful about regime change. we don't get regime change right in most cases but the world sees bashar assad, that he gases his own people. >> absolutely. throughout history unless you're in the united states of america human rights really don't exist. we need to stop playing that game like as if they do. president obama the perception is that he's a peace lover, a diplomat. it may not be true by his actions but that's the perception. what has happened with putin is putin riding an rinoscerous down in the river has shown himself as a leader, someone who's going to take a position and act on it and that's what the world needs. >> but he can do that in a country with no blowback. there's no political if you oppose him politically you're dead. so you can be a leader -- >> the president often talks about the 60-country

assad is the one. no. it is not possible. they want to go to daesh. we want to beat daesh.ed americans, russians, arabs, everybody to beat daesh. russia, it is a contradiction. charlie: i don't understand what your policy is on the ground, militarily. f.m. fabius: we don't go on the ground. it is very similar. charlie: in terms of strike. are you saying the french government is prepared, if you think this bad of assad, and everyone in the world seems to have that view, and the iranians have that view, and there has been terrible damage done to the state of syria. my point is, how do you say we want to get rid of assad and we want to get rid of daesh. how do you do it at the same time? f.m. fabius: you have to have a military action for daesh. it is the reason that the proposal of russia is against daesh. it is a good one. charlie: everyone would join up. f.m. fabius: as far as the future of the regime is concerned, that is diplomacy. charlie: take british airstrikes and american airstrikes and soviet airstrikes against daesh, and over here is the assad government. f.m. fabi

we have, over time, watched this closely, we realized that in toward to get bashar al-assad to go permanently, there has to be a transition. >> does it make sense to coordinate with bashar al-assad -- coordinate with bashar al-assad, get rid of i.s.i.l., and go after bashar al-assad later. . >> the coalition just can't include bashar al-assad. >> senator mccain said the administration has been outmanoeuvred by russia. are they setting the agenda? >> i don't think at all that that is the case. what you are seeing russia do inside syria is largery reactive, responding to their concerns about the fragility of the bashar al-assad regime. they are moving forces in there and are us them, purportedly to alu bashar al-assad to remain in bour and potentially to brutalize their own people. it's not what we want to see. we want them to have a constructive role. >> they are going after al-qaeda linked nusra and other groups. doesn't that help i.s.i.l., because they oppose i.s.i.l. >> it could. >> it remains to be seen what targets they are going after. we want to see i.s.i.l. degraded and tweeted inside

key to that is assad going. what is equally important however is that the state structures that we foolishly dissolved in 2003 in iraq remain in place. those are bureaucrats, those are generals, those are army officers, those are people who will follow orders by some kind uf compromise solution. we need a compromise solution. but again if assad hezbollah the iranians think they can defeat the bulk of the population militarily, and that seems the way they are going, there will be no compromise. >> james jeffrey, deputy national security virus. coming up. iraq's government, many iraqis say what really matters is the under of government corruption, poor public services and human rights abuses. that story is next. >> we're in the "prairie state" yet we have such little of it left. >> now old-school methods meet cutting-edge science... >> we've returned this iconic mammal to illinois. >> with a much bigger long-term benefit. >> grasslands have a critical role in climate change. >> it's exciting. >> techknow's team of

in a worse situation, but if we were to have a transition from assad to another government everybody can agree on, then we're actually going to have more stability in syria, and i think the president probably argued that, as long as assad is around, he is a magnet for fighters to join i.s.i.s., to you know al-nusra to fight assad, and that you can't ultimately defeat i.s.i.s. and al-nusra without getting rid of president assad in the process, simply not possible, and they probably talked right past each other, charlie. >> rose: there is a question as to how strong the moderate forces are. there is the historical question of whether they should have been given more support or not. but how strong are they and why did the russians attack them today if they were not part of a significant opposition to assad? >> yeah, good question. so the moderate opposition is not particularly strong. the strongest fighting groups opposing the assad regime are i.s.i.s., al-nusra and the moderate opposition in that order, so they're not particularly strong. so two questions, right. the first is why did the russians do this now, right, and the

assad go. from their perspective they're all terrorists. that's a recipe for disaster. >> more on this developing story. let's speak with tom ackerman. it would appear that program, tell us more on what he had to say about the nature of russia's involvement in syria. >> well, he was--he went out of his way not to be apologetical apologetically, he went on to say that mr. putin's actions have been successful only in so far that it has boosted his poll ratings inside russia. he restated the joint statement by the u.s. u.k. turkey, saudi arabia and other allies in the coalition, who said that in fact, putin contradicting the contentions of the russian defense ministry, that they had only attacked one isil installation and otherwise were bombing groups more moderate groups that were more in the camp of the coalition. he also was in a sense in a defensive posture, however, against domestic concerns about where the american policy is going. republican senators have criticized him and asked him that he should clarify the u.s. strategy. they're cal

they're going to keep assad in power. they're going to occupy land, that iranians have sent over 100,000 troops, the russians are flying aircraft sortees and obama is in effect saying not my problem. i have got my team. i have got my coalition. russia if you would like to join my coalition, fine, but i'm not going to do anything further. and the great arc of history is on my side. russia you're going to get stuck in a quagmire, so too bad. we're not the only audience. people in moscow are watching this this press conference and people in the middle east are watching this press conference. if you're in moscow what message are you going to take? keep going. united states is not going to stop us. >> donald trump had said as you know, kt that this is something that the russians ought to fight. don't let him do that i talked to ben carson a short time ago and got his thoughts. >> i do not want to allow vladimir putin to expand his influence. that's been his goal for quite sometime now. he was very disappointed with the dissolut

assad go. from their perspective they're all terrorists. that's a recipe for disaster. >> while the war rages on a political solution is a long way off. still syria says it is ready to participate in fresh talks led by the u.n. a so-called geneva three that might hammer out a freedom work for peace. >> the last round of piece talks broke down because the syrian delegation, which was led then by wasn't prepared to talk about transition of power even slowly for presiden bashar al-assad. >> the u.s. coast guard is searching for a cargo shiv ships that was on its way to puerto rico when it radioed it had taken on water and was listing 15 degrees. it lost propulsion and has not been heard from since yesterday. the now category 3 storm is now expected to affect the weather. a mandatory evacuation order was issued for. north carolina. and kevin corriveau joins us now. even if doesn't make landfall, it will have a significant impact. >> meteorologist: we'll see the circulation, it will bring moisture towards the east coast, and you can see some of

assad. >> mr. putin had to go into syria, not out of strength, but out of weakness. . assad, was crumbling, and it was insufficient for him, simply, to send them arms and money. iran and assad make up mr. putin's coalition at the moment. the rest of the world makes up ours. so i don't think people are fooled by the current strategy. >> so, russia doubled down on that strategy today, with russian news agencies reporting that the military plans to increase the number of and intensity of its air strikes. obama predicted that it will leave it mired this a quagmire in syria and said he's not going to turn syria into a proxy war between the united states and russia. that, he argued, would be bad strategy. and obama painted the war as between assad, russia, and iran on the one side and the majority of syrians who want assad removed from power on the other. the united states, obama said, is only concerned with fighting isis and ending the civil war in syria. and for that to happen, suzanne, the president said assad has got to go. >> all right. chris, thank you very much. appr

kasich: asa -- assad has to go. i did not want us to be directly involved in this. i think we should have supported the rebels long time ago to remove assad. we are going to have to deal with isis. there is no two ways about it. they are spreading their either pay me more later or pay me now. i' m in favor of action now. sanctuary for pelen syria and to be able to say that we are back, we are strong. in terms of saddam hussein, if they had not -- if we had not weapons of mass destructio i nevewode vod in i don' s, - wars, and i have a record of this. when the marines were deployed in beirut, i was opposed to that. i thought getting people in that civil war was a mistake. interest. we should bring coalition -- people into coalition with u accomplish our goals, and come home. his idea that we' re going to convert everybody to be like we are -- this idea that we are like we are, come on, josh, that doesn' t work. isis is a threat to europe right now, and they have to be dealt with. this is a practical look at what we should be dngt e en. josh m let' s talk about the cam

and you are quite right -- they and we believe assad should go. e: but they believe it as a condition of our involvement. factare not happy with the that there is not a huge focus on getting assad removed. is that true or not? lisa: i would take a little bit of issue with that. charlie: you don't take issue with assad being a higher priority with them than with us. lisa: it depends on what we are talking about. saudi arabia, i would argue right now, their focus is human -- yemen, it is iran, and certainly it is isil. last year, as i was traveling through the region to gain support, along with secretary kerry, to gain the support of our gulf allies to join the coalition and undertake strikes , dropping bombs in syria. charlie: including the jordanian pilot that was captured. lisa: correct. saudi assistance. that was all garnered because the one thing i found in my discussions with the gulf countries was there unity -- .heir unity against isil they believe it is a perversion of islam. they will not call them isil. they will call them dash. to refer t

all the parties concerned, but we are not going to cooperate with a russian campaign to simply try to destroy anybody who is disgusted and fed up with mr. assad's behavior. keep in mind also from a practical perspective the moderate opposition in syria is one that if we're ever going to have to have a political transition, we need. and the russian policy is driving those folks underground or creating a situation in which they are deka pas at a timed and it's only strengthening isil. and that's not good for anybody. in terms of our support of opposition groups inside of syria, i made very clear early on that the united states couldn't impose a military solution on syria either. but that it was in our interests to make sure that we were engaged with moderate opposition inside of syria because eventually syria will fall. the assad regime will fall. and had to have somebody we were working with that can help pick up the pieces and stitch together a cohesive coherent country. so we will continue to support them. the training and equip program was a specific initiative by the defense department to see if we could get some of that moderate opposition

who want to take assad down? are we going provide them military help? >> our train and equip program -- >> the answer is no. the answer is no. let me just end this. if i'm assad, this is a good day for me. because the american government has just said, without saying it, that they're not going to fight to replace me. the russians and the iranians and hezbollah, this is a really good day for them, because their guy lass has no military credib threat. so now you tell me what kind of deal we're going to get, folks. i'm sure we'll get a really good deal with this construct. what you've done, gentlemen, along with the president, is you have turned syria over to russia and iran. you have told the people in syria who died by the hundreds of thousands, we're more worried about a political settlement than we are about what follows. all i can say, this is a sad day for america and the region will pay hell for this, because the arabs are not going to accept this, the people in syria are not going to accept this. this is a half-assed str

assad go. from their perspective, they're all terrorists and that's a recipe for disaster and it's one that i reject. so, where we are now is that we are having technical conversations about decon flikz, so that we're not seeing u.s. and american fire fights in the air. but, beyond that, we're very clear in sticking to our belief and our policy that the problem here is assad and the brutality that he's inflationicted on the syrian people and that it has to stop and in order for it to stop, we're prepared to work with all of the parties concerned, but we are not going to cooperate with a russian campaign to simply try to destroy anybody who is disgusted and fed up with mr. assad's behavior. keep in mind, also, from a practical perspective, the moderate opposition in syria is one that, if we're ever going to have to have a political transition, we need. and the russian policy is driving those folks underground, they are decapacitated and it's only strengthening isil. and that's not good for anybo

us that assad should go.ittle to make that happen. i spent the whole week last week at the u.n. listening to u.n. diplomats, arab diplomats, regional players, and all i could hear over and over again was the reality is, the russians are there, they're going to prop up assad, they're not only challenging u.s. policy with words, they're challenging u.s. policy with military hardware. and the arab diplomats and the regional players are going to immediately start deferring to the russians as the leader in the region. that is the reality. they have to deal with the reality on the ground. >> the reality on the ground is that the russians are the ones who are willing to use the most force. my experience would tell me they're the ones who everyone defers to. listen to what ambassador ryan crocker had to say about that issue. >> it is a big deal for vladimir putin and for us. what we're seeing is the nature abhorring the vacuum. in the case of iraq and syria, the vacuum we left when we disengaged is being filled by pe

assad go. from their perspective, they are all terrorists. that's a recipe for disaster, and when i reject. is that we arew having technical conversations so that wenfliction are not seeing u.s. and american firefights. beyond that, we are very clear in sticking to our beliefs and our policies that the problem here is assad and the brutalities inflicted on the syrian people. it has to stop. workt to stop, we have to with all parties concerned, but we are not going to cooperate campaign toan anybodyry to destroy who is disgusted and fed up with mr. assad's behavior. keep in mind from a practical perspective that the moderate opposition in syria is one that, if we are ever going to have a political transition, we need. drivingian policy is underground, or creating a situation in which they are deacon pass attended and it is only strengthening isil. that is not good for anybody. ofterms of our support opposition groups inside of syria, i made very clear early states couldnited not impose a military solution on syria either. it was in our interes

but this is, it is going to be -- it has to happen, wolf, if the we want to get assad out, it is going to take iran and in particular russia to decide he is no longer viable, and keeping him there is only going to keep isis going. and eisis is a direct threat to russia. they have to make that calculus. >> and this is a significant shift in the obama administration's strategy as the future of syria is concerned ashs tpd u.s. was willing to e negotiate directly with iran on the to make leer deal, but they said that they were not talking to iran about what is going on in iraq, and not coordinating with iran with the war against isis, as far as the war in syria is concerned, but now under enormous pressure from the russians, the u.s. is ready to bring iran into this, and you believe it is long overdue, is that what i am hearing? >> well, i don't know if it is long overdue, but it is the path to get out. the goal is to move assad aside, and iran and russia have been propping him up for year, and without their support, he would have been gone two years ago. so they have to be at the table, a

and the consequence, i think, is going to be that the conflict is merely prolonged. because as long as assad is in power this civil war is going to churn on. and as my colleague, chairman royce is saying, it's a humanitarian disaster, the likes of which we haven't seen probably since world war ii. anything that's going to prolong it is just an agony. i have deep concerns about it. i'll make one other point, wolf. i think the last time we talked it was about the turks and how they were joining the coalition but bombing the kurds. i think we're seeing the same thing. the turks will say we'll join the coalition against isil but using that as a pretext to go after the kurds. i think the russians are doing the same thing, saying we're joining the coalition against isil but we're really going after the moderate opposition, the only real threat to the regime of assad. >> mr. chairman, let me pick up on that. based on what you know, has the u.s. started directly providing weapons to the kurds, who as you know are fierce fighters and who work with the u.s., but they've been complaining they're not ge

but we are not going to cooperate with a russian campaign to simply try to destroy anybody who is disgusted and fed up with mr. assad's behavior. keep in mind also from a practical perspective, the moderate opposition in syria is one that, if we're ever going to have to have a political transition, we need. and the russian policy is driving those folks underground, or creating a situation in which they are deka passitated and it's only strengthening isil. and that's not good for anybody. in terms of our support of opposition groups inside of syria, i made very clear early on that the united states couldn't impose a military solution on syria either. but that it was in our interest to make sure that we were engaged with moderate opposition inside of syria because eventually syria will fall. the assad regime will fall. and we have to have somebody who we're working with, that we can help pick up the pieces and stitch back together a cohesive, coherent country. and so we will continue to support that. the training and equip program was a specific initiative by the defense department to see if we could get some of that mo

the fear is simply he's going to protect assad and assad needs to go? is that the primary fear? or is it somehow, you know, that this is all about russia wanting to play a bigger, larger role than the united states would like for it to play? >> i think the concern is that if they're going to do something productive against isil, that's one thing. but if they're going to be propping up and supporting assad, that is, runs directly counter to what we're trying to do because-- assad has been a magnet. >> rose: is it necessary for them to say we're not here to prop up assad. we're here only to fight isil, to satisfy new. >> remains to be seen. they need to be a lot clearer about what their intentions are, an as you noted, those discussions are literally ongoing. >> taking place as we-- and what about iran? what is their objective? their opposed to isil? >> yes. >> isil is very much-- how much can we cooperation with them? they've got general-- who is everything. even moscow, even-- even damascus, even baghdad and he is seeing leadership in all those places, which brings me to this, h

the americans and their allies are not fighting the assad regime, but they want assad to go.nd so what we have seen over the course of the last month, the last weeks, with russia carrying out combat sorties, we have seen them working in it concert with the syrian regime, with forces on the ground retaking some of the territory. >> so you have the u.s.-led coalition, and what's the impact? >> great question. 14 months, more than 7,000 combat sorties taking place, and when you look at the map from a year ago, and you look at the map now, and not much has changed. it is known that isil has lost between 10 and 15,000 fighters as a result of those coalition airstrikes, and the battle that they have fought with the kurds and others. but they have been able to replace those fighters through very savvy social media recruiting, so they're not showing any weakness on the battlefield at all. >> so when you consider that, the airstrikes, the talks in vienna, the question of whether assad should stay or go, and what's the way forward here? >> well, it has become pretty clear that as a str

the ground forces of assad going in to hit them. two sides.gerous because as you pointed out, both sides are carrying out air attacks. and that raises this issue of could there be a mid air collision. they had discussions with the pentagon and the ministry of defense. it is a very troubling and hot situation right now. >> hot situation indeed. we know there was a 90-minute phone call with the two militaries this week where they tried to work out protocol with how pilots talk to each other if they encounter each other in the sky. important for them not to have a mishap here, jill. >> reporter: exactly. that is exactly what it is. the language they use, the radio frequen frequencies, et cetera. they have to communicate to know somebody is potentially in your air space. the russians wanted to get into more areas political and otherwise. the united states said no it will be technical, thank you. we have another issue. the syrian special envoy for the united nations is here in town in moscow. he is talking to russian officials. at least the beginni