general dempsey left off. this is not a west versus east issue. this is not a u.s./european coalition against muslim countries. or a muslim region. it's important that the world see, especially people in the middle east see, that the threat that is confronting them first and all of us needs to be addressed by the people of their region as well as all nations and all people in the world. to have arab muslim nations be present and public about their efforts in this coalition helps that and it's critically important to the ultimate success of winning against all extremist factors and factions in the middle east specifically isil. >> and that same approach of having the people of these countries basically purge the strand of islam that is so poisonous that is trying to take over in their countries leads, i gather, to one argument for using indigenous national forces on the ground rather than outside and particularly western forces. >> yes. i said in my statement, mr. chairman, that the most significant, powerful f

general dempsey. general dempsey -- thank you, chairman and ranking member inhofe. members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. secretary hagel described in detail the elements of our strategy against isil. the role the united states military is taking is in my judgment, appropriate. this is an iraq first strategy but not an iraq only one. job one is empowering the iraqi ground forces to go on the offensive, which they're already beginning to demonstrate. this requires a partnership with a credible iraqi government, which is also showing positive signs of becoming inclusive of all of the population. within the partnership, our advisers are intended to help the iraqis develop a mind set for the offensive and to take actions consistent with offensive. our military advisers will help the iraqis conduct campaign planning, arrange for enabler, and logistic support, and coordinate our coalition activities. if we reach the point where i believe our advisers should accompany iraq troops on attack against specific isil targets, i'

general dempsey left off.his is not a, west versus east issue. this is not a u.s., european coalition against muslim countries. or a muslim region. it's important that the world see, especially the people in the middle east see, that the threat that is confronting them first and all of us, needs to be addressed by the people of their region as well as all nations and all people in the world. to have arab muslim nations be present and public, about their efforts, in this coalition, helps that and it is critically important to the ultimate success of winning against all extremist factors, and factions in the middle east, specifically isil. >> and that same approach, of having the force, the people of these countries basically purge the strand of islam that is so poisonous, that is trying to take over in their countries, leads, i gather, to one argument for using indigenous national forces on the ground rather than outside and particularly western forces? >> yes. i said in my statement, mr. chairman, that the mos

we just heard general dempsey tell us he does. >> no, we heard general dempsey say he made recommendations and the president took advice from all sorts of people, the military, diplomats. >> he said the president doesn't listen to his generals. he said well known that all the generals thought that we should leave the troops behind and the president didn't do it. >> that's been known for years. general dempsey says there's no military solution to fighting isis. >> but don't tell me the president doesn't listen to generals because he doesn't. that's according to the chairman of the joint chiefs. >> he doesn't take their recommendations. but that doesn't=mh mean he doet listen to them. >> my 4-year-old says i'm listening, i just don't think you're ideas are very good. my son's father, my husband, is going to be on the program in a bit. >>> and we're also getting new details tonight on the claim that allies of hillary clinton tried to scrub some damaging documents on benghazi. that's next. >>> plus exclusive inside look at what happens when the world's most powerful terrorist group comes to to

both hagel and dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee. did the joint chiefs chairman open the possibility to ground forces in this fight against isis. listen to what general dempsey had to say -- >> our military advisers will help the iraqis conduct campaign planning arranged for enabler and logistic support and coordinate our coalition activities. if we reach the point where i believe our advisers should accompany iraq troops on attacks against specific isil targets, i'll recommend that to the president. >> certainly sounded like he was opening that door. let's bring in jim sciutto. is there a contradiction emerging now, be it slight, between what the pentagon is saying about combat forces on the ground as opposed to the president? >> maybe in semantic serterms. but if this was doubt whether it's general dempsey or the pentagon freelancing the president doesn't want -- general dempsey went on to say in questioning that the president left open this possibility. have a listen to this sound. >> at this point, his stated policy is that we wi

general dempsey. general dempsey. >> chathank you chairman.members of the committee, i do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. secretary hagel has described in detail the elements of our strategy against isil, the role the united states military is taking is in my judgment approach. job one is empowering the iraqi ground forces to go on the offensive, which they're already beginning on demonstrate. this requires a partnership with a credible iraqi government which is also showing positive signs of becoming inclusive of all of its population. within this partnership, our advisers are intended to help iraqis develop a mind set for the offensive and take actions consistent with offensive. our military advisers will help the iraqis conduct cam been planning, argue for logistics support and coordinate coalition activities.been planning, argue for logistics support and coordinate coalition activities. if wi reach the point where i believe our advisers should accompany iraq troops, i'll recommend that to the president. as lon

they are not responsive to general dempsey or captain dempsey but responsive to syrians because, again, the effort here is to allow them to take ownership for this in a way that they have not had the opportunity to do so. >> thank you. news reports suggest that there could be many westerners, even americans, that might be fighting with isis. needless to say, that is a serious concern since it has the potential to create more of a direct threat to the u.s. and our western european allies. can you -- do you see the z%a westerners fighting with isis and the threat to the u.s.? if so is there a part of our strategy that seeks to disrupt their ability to recruit new members from the west, general dempsey? >> of course, i see it as a threat. the radicalization -- the thing that sets isil apart is its radical ideology. there is another question about whether they are an affiliate of al qaeda. they were al qaeda in iraq. they became so radical that al qaeda rejected them. i consider them to be part of the al qaeda ideology but with a much more apocalyptic, if you will, world view. it's not all

general dempsey and have approved the plan.econd lmtd of telement of strategy is to increase support for those fighting isil on the ground. the iraqi and kurdish forces and the moderate syrian operation. to support iraqi and kurdish forces, the president announced last week he would deploy an additional 475 american troops to iraq. part of that number includes approximately 150 advisors and support personnel to supplement forces already in iraq, conducting assessments of the iraqi security forces. this assessment mission is now transitioning to an advise and assist mission with more than 15 teams embedding with iraqi security forces at the headquarters level to provide strategic and operational advice and assistance. the rest of the additional 475 troops include 125 personnel to support intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions out of erbil and 200 personnel to increase headquarters elements in both baghdad and erbil, helping us better coordinate military activities across iraq. by the time all these forces arrive

chairman dempsey has spoken about that in the fast.ring if the united states will now consider supporting act ily to protect o no-fly zone or buffer zone, to enforce one, and also can you please give me explicit examples of how the united states is protecting against civilian casualties in syria? >> thank you. on the first question, buffer zone issue, as i mentioned and you know, the president and the vice president spoke to the prime minister this week. we continue to talk to turkish leadership about their different ways to contribute to the coalition. the issue of a buffer zone is not a new issue. as you all know. we discuss all the possibilities and continue to talk about what the turks believe they require. they know clearly that isil and what's happening in sere wyria iraq is a clear and present threat, danger to them. they are now hosting about 1.3 million refugees, plus all of the other dimensions of the isil threat to their country and their people. as for collateral, our military, every mission that it plans always factors in

general dempsey. general dempsey. >> chathank you chairman.members of the committee, i do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. secretary hagel has described in detail the elements of our strategy against isil, the role the united states military is taking is in my judgment approach. job one is empowering the iraqi ground forces to go on the offensive, which they're already beginning on demonstrate. this requires a partnership with a credible iraqi government which is also showing positive signs of becoming inclusive of all of its population. within this partnership, our advisers are intended to help iraqis develop a mind set for the offensive and take actions consistent with offensive. our military advisers will help the iraqis conduct cam been planning, argue for logistics support and coordinate coalition activities.been planning, argue for logistics support and coordinate coalition activities. if wi reach the point where i believe our advisers should accompany iraq troops, i'll recommend that to the president. as lon

we heard dempsey mentioning the caveat to have boots on the ground. so to destroy as the administration is saying. to destroy isis, do they need to have boots on the ground? >> we don't know that yet. a lot of things have to go right. the free syrian army has to execute its job well, and don't forget iraq. i mean, iraq is really the first part of this, richard. as you know. the iraqi army and the kurdish peshmerga have to be effect i have anti-isis forces as well. what -- the point i was making and what i wrote about. i think it's an unfortunate construction to talk about destroying them, crushing them, eliminating them. that's probably kind of impossible. it's really hard to eliminate and wipe them off the face of the earth. we've seen it with al qaeda. we haven't wiped al qaeda off the face of the earth. we have incapacitated al qaeda. we have, you know -- the word i use is contained. contained al qaeda we can contain isis. >> give me an idea here. based on what you've heard about the forces deployed. if congress does pass what was put in front of t

general dempsey in that spirit, let me direct a question to you. in order to defeat this enemy, we will need to be tough and smart. and you noted last month defeating isil will require all application of all tools of national power diplomatic, eeknomeck, information and military. could you describe how these tools would be used as part of a well planned international effort to confront this threat? >> first, let me align myself with your assertion that an inclusive government of iraq that rec siles -- that reconciles the three major groups, sunnis shiites, kurds is absolutely a precondition to defeat isil inside of iraq. and so to your point, there has to be a integration of diplomatic economic in the sense of support for the government of iraq, as well as counter financing efforts so that the money that a senator previously described that isil is garnering every day can be tracked and disrupted. those are kind of strategic regional issues really because isil knows no boundaries or borders. it's not a matter of convenience that we form a coalition,

i list and to dempsey's testimony and dempsey said if -- if, if -- if -- he was asked hypothetical after hypothetical. let's say a u.s. fighter is shot down, as i recall, you know, the question is are you gonna go in and get that airman? well, of course you are. of course you are. but the question of using u.s. combat troops on an ongoing basis is one that when put as a hypothetical, i think the answer should be we -- our responsibility is to figure out a strategy that will work in which we do not do that. because that's the last thing that we should want to see happen. what we should be driving for is a strategy that makes the saudis pay for it and the kuwaitis, becauser in on the line here. and it brings divisions or at least brig grades out of the gulf states in order to do fighting on the ground that trains the kurds that were here yesterday, their foreign minister met with me and members of my committee. he said we have got a force larger than the isil forces, all we want are the anti-tank weapons, the artillery to match them on the battlefield. we are turning them back now expedite

they are not responsive to general dempsey or captain dempsey but responsive to syrians because, again, the effort here is to allow them to take ownership for this in a way that they have not had the opportunity to do so. >> thank you. news reports suggest that there could be many westerners, even americans, that might be fighting with isis. needless to say, that is a serious concern since it has the potential to create more of a direct threat to the u.s. and our western european allies. can you -- do you see the z%a westerners fighting with isis and the threat to the u.s.? if so is there a part of our strategy that seeks to disrupt their ability to recruit new members from the west, general dempsey? >> of course, i see it as a threat. the radicalization -- the thing that sets isil apart is its radical ideology. there is another question about whether they are an affiliate of al qaeda. they were al qaeda in iraq. they became so radical that al qaeda rejected them. i consider them to be part of the al qaeda ideology but with a much more apocalyptic, if you will, world view. it's not all

so, i am limited. >> i will ask general dempsey. was president right in 2012 when he overruled his secretary of defense, secretary of state, and director of cia refuseing to train and equip moderate opposition forces in syria according to your prim testimony we're doing today. >> you know i wreck mened we train -- recommended that we trained them, for policy reasons the decision was taken another decision. lou: secretary hagel struggled to answer why the president changed his opinion in arms the forces. >> risk of inper tretteing what the president meant, when he said that, i recognize that always risky as i said. but, let me address your question, this way. what changed now is the urgency of what has occurred in the middle east. lou: general dempsey told committee that fight to defeat and destroy the islamic state will take years even calling fight, a generational problem. >> this will require a sustained effort over an etined period of time -- ex teupbgded period of extended period of time, this is a jenering aal problem. -- jener

dempsey said we need troops, not ours, not us.he fact remains, they will not be defeated from the air and no one's coming on the ground. >> well, i think that someone is coming, and i think that the initial posture is one in which you try to send in muslims to fight muslims, not americans and we clearly have the example of what happened in the last ten years and it's not great for the united states. so we're trying a different model here, but i think the clear fact is that if an american pilot gets knocked out of the air, it's not that we're going to go in, we're going to go in with great force to get that person out. and if assad proves to be effective in fighting against rebels that we're backing, we're going in, so it's pretty clear what the initial strategy is, but the initial posture is we're doing this in stages, i think george has pointed out on this show previously. it's about 30,000 according to u.s. estimates of isil. >>> the american military in yet another battle, this time against ebola. ce. everybody knows that parke

he relies on it and he said he relies on it. >> and second question to general dempsey. what are the resource implications of the long sustained campaign? can you do it in your current budgeting plan. you have a 58 billion and in the budget, can you accommodate the sustained campaign with those levels of spending? >> we are generally spending roughly since this started 7 or 10 million a day. that is fronted out of the overseas con tingency operations and we are going to require, additional funding from congress as we go forward. you know the continuing resolution is due in december 11th, and we are working now with appropriate committees on how to go forward with authorizations and funding. >> i work closely with the service chiefs when we submitted the budget and it went through the white house for approval and it was sent to congress. we could accomplish the nation's security needs with that budget. with certain assumptions. the number of commitments would be down. and we would get flexibility to change health care and retired weapon's system and infrainstruct you have

officials note this is a new phase in the effort to battle isis as for what general dempsey said about the possibility of troops in combat situations, listen to what he said. >> my view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. that i believe will prove true. but if that fails to be true i'll make a recommendation of the u.s. of u.s. military ground forces. >> jim sciutto joins us now. good morning to you: american boots on the ground. that cannot be words americans want to hear right now. how likely is that? >> well, we heard that pledged pretty thinly. dempsey went on to greater detail to describe the circumstances under which he would order -- recommend to the president that the u.s. military advisors of which there are 1700 military personnel in iraq right now into what he called close combat advisory role. he said for instance if iraqi forces were retaking the mosul dam, a key piece of infrastructure that he might need those forces not back in the command centers where they've been so far in erbil, the capital of northern iraq and kurdistan and in baghda

dempsey over the question of what exactly would define victory for the united states? there seemed to be earlier comments from the u.s. defense secretary. it does sound like their are preparing for the concept of a much longer military engagement. >> they have been very explicit about that, sammy. chairman dempsey who is the top ranking military officer in the united states military, said that this is a generation's long challenge. this is not something that is going to be dealt with in a matter of months or even several years. they are looking at a very lo - lock -- long-term fight. and we just heard that the funding requests are going to be

general dempsey said earlier today. the very same, precise case that he made before the senate armed services committee for those who listened closely. he made a very narrow case that, in some instances, he might go back to president obama and recommend some use of ground troops inside iraq. >> will you please leave the room now? we're asking you nicely. >> reporter: anti-war protesters in full force at the senate hearing on the military plan to attack isis. >> please remove this gentleman. >> reporter: a plan that is entering a new phase. >> i believe we can destroy isil in iraq, and disrupt isil in syria. >> reporter: u.s. drones flying over syria are gathering detailed intelligence on the location of isis weapons, troops and supplies. also the location of isis commanders, targets if the u.s. can find them. air strikes now conducted southwest of baghdad. u.s. warplanes bombing isis positions for the first time, acting to protect iraqi ground troops under attack. the chairman of the joint chiefs says he might recommend

we know martin dempsey and president obama are close.his didn't seem to be a comment that came out of the blue and president obama has been absolutely adamant there were going to be no u.s. forces, no u.s. ground troops at all. but there is that kind of concern there will be mission creep? and president obama's speech today just a few minutes will have some interesting clues, i think. mark murray, thank you so much for your time. we appreciate it, mark. >>> and right now police in pennsylvania are looking for a man they call armed and extremely dangerous in the killing of one of their own. a full report is next. also, ahead. [ chanting ] yes, anger over the death of michael brown boils over again at a meeting. the st. louis county commissioner's meeting. top leaders there. it's one of the stories we're following around the "newsnation." yeah! vo: don't just dream of being the hero. make it happen. i can't believe we're missing the game for this. we're not. i've got xlte. vo: it doubles our 4g lte bandwidth in cities nationwide, so be tha

general dempsey was answering a question and i think being blunt about this. there is always the option of ground forces if the so-called rebel forces and moderate rebels in syria or the army don't prove battle ready. >> his preference and the preferred option is to use our advantage in the air. with ground forces of the localings. the iraqis or syrians. that was what we did with the recaption of that. i asked for an example and he pointed out how we were successful integrating with the air ground forces. that's the preferred mode. he was confident that would prevail. >> that was the referred mote, but they are far better. did he make a mistake in acknowledging that ground troops could be involved in. >> he was being honest and candid and he has to give us professional advice. the effort and the direction of the president is to get these iraqi security forces back in the fight on the offensive as there seem to be doing today aided by air power. we will have to use it to our advantage and their protection. we have a large force of iraqi national security forces

what chairman dempsey was talking about.e was talking about the american troops who were already in iraq and who were already there in a capacity to offer advice and assistance to iraqi security forces and what he said is that he can imagine a scenario where he would ask and recommend to the president that some of those advisers forward deploy with iraqi security forces to offer advice and assistance from those forward deployed locations and that's different from a combat role and it's significantly different from the kind of combat role that was carried out during the previous conflict in iraq. so i'm glad you gave me the opportunity to clarify this because it's important for people to understand what the mission is and it's important for people to understand what what dempsey was trying to explain that it was consistent with what the president was putting forth for the american people. >> i know we're out of time, but one quick follow-up. was the president onboard? did he know that that would be in general dempsey's openin

general dempsey. general dempsey. >> chathank you chairman.members of the committee, i do appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning. secretary hagel has described in detail the elements of our strategy against isil, the role the united states military is taking is in my judgment approach. job one is empowering the iraqi ground forces to go on the offensive, which they're already beginning on demonstrate. this requires a partnership with a credible iraqi government which is also showing positive signs of becoming inclusive of all of its population. within this partnership, our advisers are intended to help iraqis develop a mind set for the offensive and take actions consistent with offensive. our military advisers will help the iraqis conduct cam been planning, argue for logistics support and coordinate coalition activities.been planning, argue for logistics support and coordinate coalition activities. if wi reach the point where i believe our advisers should accompany iraq troops, i'll recommend that to the president. as lon

. >> reporter: in his testimony, joint chiefs chairman general martin dempsey said he thinks it will be necessary to send american advisers to the front lines of the battle against isis forces in iraq, which he called by the initials i-s-i-l. >> if we reached a point where i believe our advisers should accompany iraq troops on attacks against special isil targets, i'll recommend that to the president. >> reporter: dempsey add despite at the same times ruling out sending troops into ground combat, the president has not closed his mind to the idea. >> he has told me as well to come back to him on a caseby case basis. >> reporter: dempsey revealed general lloyd austin head of u.s. central command recommended sending u.s.ed for air controllers out with iraqi and kurdish troops to call in air strikes against isis forces in the fight around mosul dam. that didn't happen but dempsey identified an uncoming battle in an attempt to retake the city of mosul where it might. >> it could be part of that particular mission to provide close combat advising. >> reporter: he outlined a strategy in whi

general dempsey detailed how the u.s. will help the iraqi military. >> my view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. i believe that will prove true. but if it fails to be true and if there are threats to the united states, then i of course would go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of u.s. military ground forces. >> so big key to that discussion, i'm joined live now by pentagon correspondent barbara starr and chief national security correspondent jim sciutto. barbara, i've heard of mission creep within a year or so of a campaign and not within a week. that sounds like mission creep? >> i think what you're looking at here is a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who very much wants to keep his options open, very much putting out there in public on the table that this thing can take a complete turn. and if he feels that there's a threat to the united states and that the appropriate military way to deal with it is to put combat boots on the ground, boots

>> i do. >> to you, general dempsey? >> i do, senator. >> one thing i was glad to see if the american people, there is then a wake-up call. last week there was a cnn poll. 70% of the people in america believe it is a threat to our homeland. yesterday another one came out. this is a "wall street journal" poll, 50. 70% of the people. i think i wake-up call has taken. now, when president obama in this gets back to the statements you made in your opening remarks. he said her objective is clear we would degrade and destroy isil three comprehensive abstain counter strategy. this is an army and i outlined in my opening statement the six basic differences between al qaeda and what we are facing right now. do you generally agree with? >> what i generally agree with, senator is they have been using conventional type takes until such time as we applied airpower. >> they are beginning to adapt now. >> you don't agree the strategy we would impose against these terrorists, some group is appropriate today with looking in terms of the g

general dempsey, nothing significant has changed.you warned on february 12th of last year, not this year. that our military is on a path where the force may buck, quote, so degraded and ready that it would be immoral to use force, unquote. with six years of massive budget cuts and another round on the horizon, we're still on the path. despite this, the administration is still calling on the military to support its pivot to asia, bolster european allies against a growing threat and auk seszfully transition our missions in afghanistan, support the response to the' ebola and another 3,000 troops will be going over there. and now to launch military operations against isis in iraq and syria. you can't have it both ways. you can't slash our defense budget on one hand and expect our military to do it on the other. if we want our men and women in the military to go in harm's way and defend the country we need to give them the training and tools they need to succeed. without that, the president's strategy will remain what has become the trade

dempsey over the question of what exactly would define victory for the united states? there seemed to be earlier comments from the u.s. defense secretary. it does sound like their are preparing for the concept of a much longer military engagement. >> they have been very explicit about that, sammy. chairman dempsey who is the top ranking military officer in the united states military, said that this is a generation's long challenge. this is not something that is going to be dealt with in a matter of months or even several years. they are looking at a very lo - lock -- long-term fight. and we just heard that the funding requests are going to be coming in right now, there is a current $500 million request on the table for this operation, as well as more requests coming in larger overall budget requests starting later this year. this is a very complicated, expensive program, already the military is spending about $7.5 million a day on all current operations just inside iraq and that is for a country that is not at war in iraq per se, but in fact is now at war against isil.

dempsey saying iraq is capable of battling against islamic rebels. the president has ruled out putting boots on the ground. but dempsey testified yesterday, opening a surprise amount of daylight between he and his boss. >> it's a generational problem. and we should expect that our enemies will adapt their tactics as we adjust our approach. my view at this point is that this coalition is the appropriate way forward. i believe that will prove true. but if it fails to be true and if there are threats to the united states, then i, of course, will go back to the president and make a recommendation that may include the use of u.s. ground forces. >> if, if and then may, those are caveats there. the white house has renewed the decision not to put boots on the ground calling dempsey's response hypothetical. >> with moderate syrian rebels fighting the assad regime. republicans calling it snad quit and many warning that arms could eventually end up being used against the united states. even show, the authorization is expected to pass the house before heading to

seattle sounders' clint dempsey steps into the high-tech world of sports. find out why this superstar could not believe his eyes, face to face with some of the coolest technology on earth. plus, astro catcher jason castro takes the mask off and is on a mission of his own. ♪ music kevin: hello, everyone. ♪ music kevin: hello, everyone. i'm kevin frazier. welcome to ea sports game changers. you know, one of the most interesting players in the nfl is houston texans defensive end jj watt. in just three years, this two-time pro bowler has really proven himself as a leader both on and off the field. it's a character trait that he displayed early on in his life. kevin: there are more than two million people living in houston, texas; and on nfl sundays, most of those two million folks have their eyes on this man. justin james watt is one of the most impressive defensive players in football, dominating green gridirons all around the league. in his first three seasons, jj racked up 36.5 sacks, two pro bowl appearances, and the 2012 ap defensive player of the year awa

and look at dempsey's position. military figure in the united states is to think about the military requirements of the task he's been given. and he is not gonna rule out circumstances where he has to recommend that we send ground troops and you can imagine circumstances of an isis offensive genuinely threatening to overrun some place and the only solution being a specific landing of american forces capable of defeating him. so, dempsey is trying to tell the truth within the framework of being loyal to the commander in chief. the commander in chief i believe is following a policy that verges on utterly irrational and was -- >> why? >> well, illustrated by secretarier can right other day who got on in this very convoluted conversation about whether or not we are at war and we are not at war because we are doing this. look, either isis is so terrible because they behead people, because they represent a threat of terrorism that we have to defeat them, or what are we doing there? now this idea, look, only gonna engage t

however, yesterday the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin dempsey says he has not ruled out recommending u.s. ground forces to the president. in a little bit of back-and-forth there. i'm curious what you're looking to hear from the president today. >> well, certainly you have contradictory messages coming out of the administration. general dempsey making it very clear his assessment could include a recommendation of ground troops. this significant question on capitol hill is the president's preposal to arm syrian rebels goes forward both in terms of whether or not we can ascertain correctly who these people are, what risks there will be of arming them. but also the issue that general kean testified about before the arms services committee which is how long this will take. that's the calculus that goes to ground troops and the president's plan of doing limited air strikes and then working to arm syrian rebel troops isn't going to be available tomorrow as this threat has emerged and the president's been slow to respond, the threat may evolve very quickly and require, as genera

even general martin dempsey. and vice president joe biden is on the list, suggesting u.s. troops on the ground is a possibility. i wanted to play for you his exact words. >> mr. vice president, do you agree with general dempsey's assessment about using ground troops if necessary and the mission fails? >> [ inaudible ]. >> i determine that based on how the effort goes. >> determine that on how the effort goes. that wasn't a categorical decision to not use ground troops. >> i think the president spoke to this yesterday and made very clear that is not on the table. but i want to be clear, what general dempsey said yesterday was that he hasn't made that recommendation to the president. of course any advisor to the president has the prerogative to give advice when they see fit. but he hasn't given that advice. we haven't needed that at this point in time and that is not our focus. so it is not something on the table. >> yesterday john kerry, your boss, was asked how many american hostages were right now in iraq and syria and here is what he said. >> do you know how many america

and general dempsey will probably say, hey, that's an option. and if it's such a good option that general dempsey does take it to the president, then the president makes the calls to commander in whether he wants to take that risk or attempt to mitigate it more. >> thank you. thank you, both, very, very much here. and as we stayed on this, you know, it's a frightening development in the fight against isis. it's just where that fight is taking place. when you look at the geography very close. we're talking very close now to the capital of baghdad. when you look at a map, you see the red areas here on the periphery. these are places isis fighters tightly controlled and will quickly defend. then you see that chunk of yellow kind of in the middle of the screen, the highlighted area. that's what experts are calling isis support zones. and that's where those fighters are relatively safe to travel around without facing a fight. to the u.s. air strikes yesterday, they targeted isis positions southwest of iraq's capital. and they're the closest that amer

both of these are complex at best, but you got two great generals, dempsey and austin.n i was on the joint staff as a two-star, dempsey worked for my boss, and austin worked inside of my division. so both of them have been there before, and there was a little lady over at the white house named susan rice at the time. she had the desk at the state department. so you got a team of people who have been there and done this before and they will work with the president and get the effect they need to get. >> general, back to you in a moment. the president has said again and again, american troops will not play a ground combat role. no boots on the ground, he keeps saying. he repeated that promise again last night. let's listen to the president on how he's limiting this type of campaign. >> the american forces that have been deployed to iraq do not and will not have a combat mission. their mission is to advise and assist our partners on the ground. so i told our troops yesterday, we can join with allies and partners to destroy isil, without american troops fighting another gro

general dempsey was frank under the testimony. and said he oh, posed the president and that general dempsey. and he and other members of the national security team. that is resonated on the hill today. they are moving forward to give the president the authority to arm and train the syrian rebels and hope they have the ground forces. and those rebels up to the task and you are right, the other big headline. general dempsey and like the president saying over and over. the door is closed. kelly a yot said if things chaefrj on the ground you come back to me with a proposal. you have not ruled it out. >> i have not. has the president ruled it out. he stated positives that we will not have u.s. ground forces. he hoold me to come back to him on a case poi case basis. >> reporter: the door is closed and slightly a jar if things change on the ground you heard the administration say there is progress with the new iraqi government formed. they rejected the new picks that the prime minister came up with within that cabinet and so the question

of course, general dempsey said they would. if there was a change in the dynamics on the ground, would he go back and authorize or suggest, recommend to the president, ground forces? he said that, yes, he would. at the same time, saying that right now, general dempsey believes this strategy is the best way forward, acknowledging is there are questions and it's imperfect. but this is one of those meaty hearings where things were happening just as they're trying to get measured and as they're trying to get international partners to take part. >> yeah. and i think when a lot of people hear that idea of a group like that getting weapons of mass destruction and using them, it sounds eerie familiar, kelly. isis may be awful but they don't have icbns. kelly o'donnell, appreciate it. >>> officials have confirmed two americans were involved in a suicide bomb at embassy attack. three people were killed, five others injured when a suicide bomber targeted a nato convoy as it passed yards away from the american compound. the taliban has cla

general dempsey about. told us that syria had five times more air defenses some of which are high-end systems, that is to say higher altitude longer-range. could you give us your concern defending about the impact of the systems could have on some of our airstrikes and capabilities? >> congressman thank you. on the isil to financing, you stated it correctly. we must cut off the funding of those sources. it is as high a priority in this effort as anyone priority. as i mentioned in my testimony just generally the treasury department through a couple of their offices set up to deal with foreign financing and these general kinds of threats have set up a special office on this particular issue. working with their international partners. you had some of the main ones, the black market avenue that they use to sell oil. i know you are aware i so has taken control of certain small oilfields and syria and we have some estimates of 100,000 barrels of oil that those people are producing. they get them out in different

what's this, general dempsey? >> there is no -- may be a tough pill to swallow but there's no military solution. it has to be part of a broader regional campaign. >> there is no military solution. part of a broader whole of government regional campaign. the government of syria, whiff its leader, bashar al-assad, or the government of iraq, the new government there, the government which has shown no signs the kind of inclusiveness that our leaders insist is required to make this work. the problem with the old government was primarily nouri al-maliki. he was the problem. he excluded these people so now they fight with isis against his government. nouri al-maliki had to go. in the new iraq government, is nouri al-maliki, vice-president. in the new war, our fighters ore the moderate ones in syria, and the army that folded in walk, unless we need troops, which the military admit out today it may. recapping recent history. in 2003, we went into iraq to liberate. our troops decimated its army in days. now in iraq there's

i think what general dempsey laid out was, situations change. indeed itons change, is his legal obligation to provide his military advice to the secretary of defense and the president. that was all he was doing. not forecasting, not predicting. just saying if situations change, he might make that recommendation. >> what circumstances are we talking about? situations with these close combat advisors become combat troops? >> what has been agreed upon, in order to first degrade and then destroy isil as the president has mentioned, there will be a ground force required. it will not include u.s. forces. what general dempsey is saying, at some point if the non-u.s. ground force is insufficient, perhaps he might recommend u.s. advisory role, but leave the headquarters in a company troops in combat missions. >> you have been on the ground in iraq. is it possible to defeat something like the islamic state without combat troops? >> no. eventually there will be a ground force required. in the best circumstance, that is iraqi. i think the point of general a

general dempsey is meeting with his defense counter parts in europe. given the many crises in the world right now and the immense demands placed on our military, general dempsey is exactly where he should be. i received a call from secretary hagel i think it was about a week ago, he said i'm in i think -- whatever, georgia. and i said is that near atlanta. and he said, no, a different georgia. and he was there and then he was going to turkey and then he was coming back here and then he just -- it's really great to have you here, mr. secretary. and i understand how busy you you are and how much you're traveling. really appreciate your time. what you, general dempsey, what all the men and women in uniform are doing to keep us safe and from harm. just yesterday, the house on a bipartisan basis and in large numbers passed by amendment to the continuing resolution at the president's request which authorizes the secretary of defense to train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the syrian opposition. we strengthened the proposal through congressional o

can say dempsey was talking hypotheticals.odierno said 1600, the amount of troops we have there, is a good start. gates saying, he's trampi intra himself, no boots on the ground. are you worried about this split? >> no. i'm surprised there's so much made of this. we often see splits between the president and their military advisers but the founding fathers, beginning with george washington said, we have civilian control of the military. if you ask the american people, there's no debate here. the american people support the president's position. i'm talking about 64% of republicans, 62% of democrats, according to pew -- >> what percentage of them say they don't think this is going to work? >> a large -- >> that's skeptical. let me say, that's not true. what is true is a large percentage say they have confidence and then they have some confidence and a large percentage who say they don't have confidence. so, have you to get into the numbers. the key point -- well, it's not as overwhelming as you suggest. >> more people say they

military ground forces. >> jerome martin dempsey -- general martin dempsey.resident obama is expected to visit headquarters today to discuss strategy in iraq and syria. meanwhile, congress is voting this week on a request from obama authorization arm and train syrian rebels. the house is expected to vote on the issue today. we go to washington, d.c. where we're joined by congress member jim mcdermott. in 1991, he voted against the persian gulf war and in 2002 he voted against a bill to authorize president george w. bush to use force against iraq. he traveled to iraq in both 1991 and 2002. welcome back to democracy now! how will you vote on arming syrian rebels? >> let's put this in perspective. george bush ripped the top off pandora's box of problems in the middle east. the president has been trying his best to stuff the problems back into the box and get them solved. he has tried it in iraq and afghanistan. this situation, which has evolved from that original decision by bush way back in 2001, is one that is very complicated. it is not black and white. it is

we talked about general martin dempsey, saying he will ask for ground troops. how important is it that president obama - likely this will be a long war. congress. >> it's a real war. it will take many years, will not be soexed immediately. >> when we have allowed the president to engage in warfare, it's not turned out well. it's so much better if we have congress and the president agreeing, and... >> what about the president who says he thinks the authorisation issued before the 9/11 attacks is sufficient for what he is doing now. that was specific to those connected to the worse terror attack in history. >> i don't think legislation of that kind conditions. i suspect after the congressional elections everyone will be more comfortable. it's the best way, the way the constitution sets it out, that congress has the right to declare war. congress hasn't declared war since pearl harbor. >> a point you make is that traditional rules. american and international law to deal with conventional law firrar anna caristic. that we are constrained by laws. what should we do.