the first is to destroy isil's -- the isil cancer's parent tumor in iraq and syria.we end isil's occupation of territory in those countries, the sooner we destroy both the fact and the idea of islamic state based on isil's barbaric ideology. the safer all of us in the world will be. and that's necessary, absolutely necessary, it's not sufficient. so our second objective is to combat isil's metastases everybody they emerge in afghanistan, libya and elsewhere. and our third objective is to help protect the homeland. this is mainly the responsibility of our partners in the fbi and justice department, homeland security, the intelligence community, and state and local law enforcement. but dod strongly supports them and i'll address how momentarily. since last fall we have taken many steps to continually accelerate this campaign, all consistent with our strategic approach of enabling capable, motivated local forces for that's the only way to ensure isil's lasting defeat. and while we have much more work to do, the results of our effort are showing. in iraq, we have been en

the first is to destroy isil, the isil cancer's parent tumor in iraq and syria. the sooner we end isil's territ in those countries, the sooner we destroy both the fact and the idea of an islamic state based on sisal's bear i can ideology. the safer the world will be. now, that's necessary, absolutely necessary. it's not sufficient. so our second objective is to combat isil's metata sees everywhere emerge around the world in afghanistan, libya and elsewhere and our third objective is to help protect the homeland. this is mainly the responsibility of our partners at the fbi, justice department, hope land security, the intelligence community and state and local law enforcement but dod strongly supports them and i'll address house momentarily. since last fall, we've taken many steps to continually accelerate this campaign, all consistent with our strategic approach of enabling capable, motivated local forces. that's the only way to ensure isil's lasting defeat. and while we have much more work to do, the results of our effort are showing. in iraq, we've been enabling

military campaign against isil. it would be up to the pu tour to render a jult on this administration stewardship of u.s. interests in the broader middle east but in the opinion of this one senator it's been an unmitigated disaster. president obama sought to pivot away from one of the most strategically vital regions of the world out of a misplaced hope that quote, the tide of war was receding and that we should focus on, quote, nation building at home. that would draw u.s. power created a vaccum filled by the worst actors in the region. suni terrorist groups and the iranian regime and proxy and now putin's russia. just consider, over the past 8 years, this administration has overseen the collapse of region mall order in the middle east into a state of chaos where every country is either a battlefield for regional conflict, a party to that conflict or both. and makes al qaeda appear modest by comparison but both terrorist networks expanded theirs from west africa to south asia and everything in between. and this is

raqqa, the capital of isil's caliphate is in syria. they planned the attacks in paris and europe out of raqqa. they communicate with sleeper cells throughout the world. thousands of westerners have gone to syria for training under isil's control. so the bottom line is it is in our interest to destroy this caliphate because the next 9/11-type attack is being planned in syria. and if you take the land away from isil, then you're doing a lot of damage to them. they become a terrorist organization rather than a terrorist army. so the plan to destroy isil is beyond ill-conceived. i had dinner last night with a turkish ambassador. what is the ground force that we're relying upon to go take raqqa away from isil? you're clearly not going to win the war from the air. we've done a lot of damage, but the air campaign will not destroy the caliphate. somebody has to go in on the ground and actually liberate raqqa, take mosul back and all the other stuff. inside of syria, the main fighting force is a kurdish force called the y.p.g. the kurdish force

this has to do with isil. you said we need to keep the pressure on isil. i know i was being answered in the context of syria and probably iraq, but do you feel like we have adequately addressed putting -- keeping pressure on isil globally when you talk about libya, egypt, and other areas where they seem to be. senator ernst talked about the philippines. do you feel we have an adequate global strategy for keeping pressure on isil? >> we have a military strategy to deal with isil globally and we look carefully at isil wherever they are. we don't have an opportunity often to talk about it, but we have ongoing operations in west africa. we have ongoing operations in libya. we have ongoing operations in east africa. of course syria and iraq, we've spoken about that today. we have ongoing operations in afghanistan and we're involved in a wide range of capacity building exercises and initiatives. in southeast asia. we're also working and i just spent this weekend with a large group of my counterparts to look at isil. i'll have 50 chiefs of defense here in october

isil's oshl media outreach in the way they talked about. it's a time line where effects are simply going to be delayed or lag behind physical progress on the battlefield. it's not surprising. it puts us in a period of sustained vulnerability that i don't think any of us are comfortable with but i think it's a reality. >> don't you agree for a year, they still control territory, still have raqqah, we'll probably be making the same statement that we have not reduced their global reach terrorist capability because they spread, set up whether it's libya or some of these other affiliates? they have to be destroyed. we can't just nibble around the edges here. >> if we are sitting here a year from today, i hope we're in a position to say we have put considerably more pressure on that component that focuses on external operation deploying overseas. we have dawn great deal more work a year from now to rip apart that network and render it less capable. will we be at the end of that effort? i don't know if i can predict that. >> to talk a little about

what we seem to be aware of is the fact that there is a battle that isil wants to wage.the narrative that they represent islam and they are representing islam in a war against the west. that is false, it is not true. there are millions of patriotic muslims in the u.s. right now that are serving in our military that are serving in law-enforcement. they are also our teachers and lawyers and doctors and nurses. these are individuals who are making an important contribution to our great country and to deny that fact or to obscure that fact to win political points is shameless. it is inconsistent with our values and undermines our effectiveness to degrade and ultimately destroy isil. mark: the rare exception are those who come here and become naturalized citizens and commit acts of terror in the u.s. donald trump and other public say that the system needs to be changed dramatically to keep that from happening. is that a fair charge or other things that need to change for vetting of people that come to this country to try to keep those instances my rare as they are, from happe

it's not just about isil. we have a big op tempo to defeat isil. it takes a lot to do that. readiness consumed doing that we are standing strong in the gulf, that means defending our friends and allies defending our interests, and countering iranian malign influence, it is an enduring commitment of ours. >> i think from a military perspective, there's three things we need to do. we need to make sure that the inventory of the joint force can deal with iranian challenges that range from ballistic missile offense to the influence you spoke of earlier. we need to make sure that we're going to sail, fly and operate wherever international law allows us to. number three, as the secretary said, we need to have a robust presence in the region that makes it clear that we have the capability to deter and respond to iranian aggression, those would be the three elements we need to have from a military perspecti perspective. to give the president whatever options he may need to have. >> in your judgment, was flying $1.7 billion in unmarked cash to give to the iranian government incentiviz

islam and -- in a war against the west. >> you commented about how the battle between the west and isilbout narratives and the donald trump campaign said you were out to lunch and out of touch by framing the battle in those terms. how do you respond? >> no denying we have different views about the way to take on the fight but the rhetoric we hear from republicans does often undermine the case that we are making against isil. our first and foremost priority is protecting the mark and people and that includes using our military power, our intelligence, our law enforcement to keep them safe. the president has demonstrated a willingness and a success in making those orders and designing a strategy and implementing it. the fact there is a battle that isil wants to win over narrative, they want to drive the narrative, that they represent islam and are represented islam and the war against the west. that is false, not true. there are millions of patriotic muslims in the united states now that are serving in our military, serving in our law enforcement, that are also our teachers and lawyers an

already people in syria who have been occupied by isil will talk about -- will talk about the isil combatants and some of them have complained that, well, these are not syrians, these are people coming from elsewhere. these are foreigners in our midst. so the future of -- the future face of jihadism i argue was truly global and we have to start thinking in terms, not just of associating jihadism with a region or a people, but thinking of it in more global terms. thank you very much. >> very good, thank you. >>> thank you, professor, for this invitation. i'm trying to speak about the territories and generational challenge. i think it is a very good title. because also islamist terrorism is faced with what we call the gap after generation. there is a generation gap within the jihadist neighborhood. veteran of afghanistan against european firefighters. baghdadi is real successor of zawahiri czar car which because his priority is to fight shia and not to prepare spectacular attacks against the west like the 11th of september. baghdadi want to create a mass movement and not a milliactivity network

it's not just about isil.we have a big up-tempo to defeat isil and we will do that, it takes a lot of force structure but also readiness consumed doing that and that's a good thing because were defeating isil but were also's denning strong in the golf, were defending our allies and their defending our interest and countering iranian influence. it is an enduring commitment of hours. let me ask the chairman to join in. >> from the military's perspective, i think there are three things we need to do. number one is we need make sure the inventory of the joint force can deal with iranian challenges that do range from ballistic missile to the influence they spoke about earlier. number two we do sure in our day-to-day operations we make it clear that we are going to fly and operate wherever international law allows us to do a we will continue to do that. we need to have a robust presence in the region that makes it very clear that we have the capability to deter and respond to a rainy and aggression. those the three

and isil would rat -- that is an inconvenient fact for the isil narrative and we can't paint with a broad't suggest and, and, and hold under suspicion individuals as possible terrorists just because of the of the way that they worship god. that is, that is contrary to what we believe as americans. it also undermines our fight against isil. >> that gets into the a doing of this election. many as you know in the intelligence community believe that our cultural assimilation of muslims and really everybody who comes to america is a big reason we haven't seen more home-grown threats as we're seeing in europe now there are other factors as well of course but it gets us into the dialogue of this election and there does seem to be this tension between do we come together or do we exacerbate what is apart? president obama weighed in in an interesting way. he was speaking to african-american voters. and he said, basically, i would see it as an insult to my legacy if black voters don't come out for hillary clinton. that is unusually strong language for him and it's an unusual message. it would be an

there's even a distinction between isil and al qaeda. they were concerned about the large number of muslims being killed by the terrorist attack and he was trying to redirect al qaeda to be much more surgical. >> he thought they were actually going overboard. >> that's right. exactly. >> he was seeing the detrimental effects of that agenda. isil makes no distinction and they slaughter innocents, they have a very strong anti- shiism and their philosophy is even if the innocent is killed, god will sort them out. >> i just want to cover, iran, iraq, the south china sea, iran-iraq and the south china sea. i have seven minutes. [laughter] let me start with syria which is the epicenter. i want to read you something that hillary clinton told me in an interview two years ago about syria. the failure to help build a credible fighting force with the originators of the protest, islamic's, secular's, the failure to do that is a big vacuum that the jihadists have filled. that was interpreted correctly as a critique of the early years of obama policym

but the rhetoric does undermine the case we're making against isil.f all, our first and foremost priority is protecting the american people, and that includes using our military power, our intelligence, our law enforcement, to keep the american people safe. and the president has demonstrated a willingness and a success in making those orders, designing that strategy, and implementing it. but what we also need to be aware of is the fact that there is a battle that isil wants to wage of narratives. they want to drive the narrative, that they represent islam, and that they are representing islam in a war against the west. that is false! it is not true. the fact is, there are millions of patriotic muslims in the united states right now that are serving in our military, that are serving in our law enforcement, that are, you know, that are also our teachers and lawyers and doctors and nurses. these are individuals who are making an important contribution to our great country. and to deny that fact or obscure that fact to win political points is shameless, i

john: you made a comment about how the battle between the west and isil, the term campaign jumped alland said that you were out to lunch and out of touch by even framing the battle in those terms. how do you respond? mr. ernest: we have different views about the most effective way to take on this fight. the rhetoric that we hear from the pelicans does often undermine the case that we are making against isil. first of all, our first and foremost priority is protecting the american people and that includes using our military enforcement to keep the emergent people safe. the resident has demonstrated a willingness and success in making those orders and designing that strategy and incrementing it. what we seem to be aware of is the fact that there is a battle that issa wants to wage. they want to drive the narrative that they represent islam and they are representing islam in a war against the west. that is false, it is not true. there are millions of each radical muslims in the u.s. right now that are serving in our military that are serving in law-enforcement. they are our teachers and

and what does isil minus its caliphate?if it's shorn of its state, as what form does it take and how dangerous does it remain, for how long? >> i think it will remain a presence in iraq for quite a while to come, even with the battlefield reverses it has suffered, and i agree that we are going to continue to see this momentum and most of the territory will be taken away from isil. but we still have al qaeda in iraq, which is where isil came from. was able to be reduced significantly down to several hundreds and they were able on the re-eemerging. so i do think this phenomenon of isil, whether we're talking about in syria and iraq or the other countries where the franchises have cropped up are going continue to be a problem for the local governments because they're going to go into a number of areas where the government doesn't have control or is able to project force. but you also have foreign fighters that have come into the theater that will either stay and fight and die trying, or they will try to return to their home co

the point is he keeps citing isil, but term islamic state is in that term. the other issue is the ahmad rahami may have gone to afghanistan to be radicalized. no mention of that here. what, did you pick that up? that is what is so frustrating to people out there. you hear it all the time. >> i have to tell you, liz, it just breaks my heart. talk about reluctant warriors, let alone reluck tant commanders in chief. he said a disturbed individual. we are at war. the president needs to in this time reassure america not only are we going to destroy the enemy, the militant enemy because we'll begin to treat the causes and it is more than, this is not lone wolves. this is not radicalism. it is theocratic idea that hates america, trying to set foot wherever it can, number one. number two his definition what happening in iraq belies reality. as mr. trump said before. we handed over iraq to iran. he is meeting with establishment. we're not hearing from the sunni forces that put their hands up to iraq and, why should we fight isis. we'll let them take it so shia in bag

we continue to apply pressure on isil leadership. we make grounds on isil on the ground. air terrorist organization on the march across and syria. this is organization in retreat because of the effective leadership that president obama has shown in assembling a coalition of 67 members to prosecute the fight against isil to destroy that terrorist organization. martha: so you can recognize perhaps some of those victories and people that have been taken out but would you say that you think the administration believes we are winning against isil? >> no doubt we're making important progress against them. it is hard to reduce this to day by day, play-by-play kind of narrative but what we can do we can certainly look at the broader metrics. when you see we've taken back more than half the territory they previously controlled in iraq. when you see we've taken back more than 20% of the territory they previously controlled in syria. when we take a look at isil leadership. martha: i understand all those things you would put in the good column in terms of white house action. getting

we are not just taking the fight to isil on the ground.ing to destroy this organization, but we will do it with something close to our strategy that does not make the case that they represent true islam in a war against the west. john: josh, you made a comment about how the battle between the west and isil was about a battle of narratives. the donald trump campaign said you were out to lunch and out of touch by framing the battle in those terms. how do you respond to that charge? josh: there is no denying we have starkly different views about the way to take on the fight. but the rhetoric we hear from republicans does often undermine the case that we are making against isil. first of all, our first and foremost priority is protecting the american people, and that includes using our military power, our intelligence, our law enforcement to keep the american people safe. the president has demonstrated a willingness and a success in making those orders, designing that strategy, and then implementing it. the fact there is a battle that isil wan

faced with loss of territory, isil will not quit. leaders of isil fought clandestinely for years and will go underground to complete the struggle. syria and iraq will remain fragile states. sources of continued violence, regional instability. the current partitions are likely to persist. the big problem is going to be the sunni areas in both countries could become a persistent battling. the world will be dealing with these for years to come. thousands of foreign fighters who joined isil cannot survive in an underground campaign. indeed, the construction of the his slammic state could bring about a spike of terrorist activity by its scattering veterans. refugees pose a long-term challenge. those going to europe right now include a large proportion of single young men coming from violent environments with little education. they already are the targets of radicalization. the primary threat to the united states will come from the ability of al qaeda or isil to inspire attacks by individuals here. the united states is now equipped to comb

in takinguccess senior isil figures off the battlefield. earlier this week, the department of defense confirmed they had succeeded in carrying out a strike against a senior who was a senior figure in that terrorist organization as we continue to apply pressure to their leadership and continue to make progress on the ground against isil. we are making important progress even as we try to deal with terribly thorny situation inside syria. >> so you are not at the point of calling off this deal? euro willing to let the clock to keep ticking -- you are willing to let the clock keep ticking? russians have been publicly asking for this for more than a year. exceeded in has reducing violence inside syria since this arrangement was announced and went into affect. we have not gotten everything russia committed to provide which is sufficient leverage on the assad regime to provide for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. that is a critical part of this arrangement and military cooperation will not go forward until that element of the arrangement h

our goal is to provide air support and we have flown 100,000 sorties, 15,000 strikes, to decimate isilaining and assistance, logistical support. we do have some special forces. if we're targeting a high value target, or we're going after key intelligence that will help us dismantle isil, they'll be more forward leaning. so now we have a little over 5,000 u.s. troops in iraq. around 300 or so in syria. but it is the nature of the role that has changed, rather than how i assess it. i am always mindful that any time our men and women in uniform are in war theater, there is risk. and although when i came into office, we had well over 100,000 u.s. troops, and now we have about 15,000, between iraq and afghanistan. each one of those individuals are still carrying out a critical mission. they are engaging in a fight that is dangerous and we are grateful for the sacrifice. and i never forget it. so each and every time we make a decision, i want to make sure the pentagon is describing how it is that those folks are going to add to our ability to dismantle isil in a smart and sustainable way. >>

and isil was the fourth one. i wanted to look to each of these levels of the aspiration because they wanted a new extreme in order to recruit more people and then they used the new digital technology and cyberspace and other countries and this is because of different reasons. sometimes because this was a complicated crisis. when you go to other countries beyond what is attractive to go with these in join with these terrorist groups. they have the ability to bring people from one side to another side of the world and that was spreading. one of these things coming into the narrative, what are the goals of the extremist group that at the end of the day they will achieve? they are coming back and thinking about this phenomenon to tackle this problem in i think that is a requirement of the political world, how we should deal with this. because sometimes our policy has contribution because we talk about [indiscernible] -- using them as an instrument of national security so i think that the first and foremost thing in o

and they allowed isil to grow, grow, and grow.ing markets, refugee markets, displaced camps, using chemical weapons that isil took root and prospered right beside the regime. the best way to fight them, as russia says they want, is to stop bombing civilians and groups. and deliver the assad regime to implement what has been agreed. their tactics and strategy have been a gift to terrorists in syria and well beyond. and these are terrorists who threaten us all. on that we agree. there is a better way forward, but russia really needs to stop the cheap point scoring and the grandstanding, and the stunts, and focus on what matters, which is implementation of something that we have shown it can reduce violence and save lives, and it needs to be implicated. >>> is there -- there is no u.s u.s./cooperation. >> i want to welcome my viewers in the u.s. and around the world, we have full team coverage, then correspondent matthew chance and cnn u.n. correspondent richard roth. a remarkable evening that has taken place here. let me set the sce

isil did in fact exploit the oil enterprise. it did so largely in syria, very little in iraq, if at all. so the two are separate and unrelated. >> major giuliani also talked about what hla about ground troops. let's listen. >> we're not putting ground troops into iraq ever again. and we're not putting ground troops into syria. we're going to defeat isis without committing american ground troops. >> as you know, we do have troops on the ground in iraq and in syria right now. setting that aside, is it wise for a potential commander in chief to make blanket statements like that? >> i think, george, we need to be clear on what she's implying. but as i read it, she's implying she's not intending to have the united states be committed into another large ground war in that part of the world. you're exactly correct. there are a large number, over several thousand american and coalition partners on the ground today. and knowing her, as the potential and hopefully commander in chief, i know that she'll consult with her leadership and the

this attack allowed isil dig in control of the site. the syrian government holds the united states fully responsible for this aggression. the facts show it was an intentional attack and not an error, even if the united states claims otherwise. this cowardly aggression clearly proves that the u.s. and its allies are complicit with isil and other terrorist organizations. we also reiterate our condemnation of turkish incursion into syrian territories, under the pretext of countering terrorism. this is a flagrant aggression and must be stopped immediately. terrorism cannot be fought by replacing one terrorist organization with another. one cannot but wonder, how can a state that has been the main point of entry for terrorists and weapons into syria claim to be fighting terrorism? how can there be genuine and effective international counterterrorism cooperation when a relevant security council dead letter?main mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, since the onset of the crisis in 2011, the syrian government has declared that any solution must

but in the 15th year, i was the president's special envoy to the global coalition to counter isil. three different conflicts. 15 years. three different enemies. and it's been a long time, george. >> you just heard mayor giuliani there say isil -- he said isis would not exist had we followed donald trump's advice and simply taken the oil which he said would have been legal. your response? >> the two are completely separate. the issue of oil and the existence of isil, or as the arabs call them daesh, there is only the remotest relationship between the two. so let me just tell you that what we face in the context of the global terrorist movement is a long-term problem with social, economic, and political issues across that region in the world, which has created such a widespread radicalization that one group after another has sprung up over the years. it's not about the oil in iraq and it's not about the oil in syria. with respect to taking the oil, i seem to remember that the term to the victor goes the spoils in the justification. you know, we as a community of civilized nations sto

they cannot destroy isil. they cannot hold the territory until you get regional forces involved, this will never work and you'll never have any diplomatic solution until there's military pressure put on assad. currently if you are joining the american effort to destroy isil, you're prohibited from going after assad. the people in syria and the region want two things, the destruction of isil, the removal of assad who has been the butcher of damascus. we're not providing the second. the russians and iranians are all in behind assad. we have abandoned the people who have joined our cause years ago, four years ago assad was on the ropes. obama blinked. the rest is history. but going forward, if we don't have a different ground component in syria, we'll never destroy isil and hold the territory. we'll never end the war without putting military pressure on assad. that's going to require regional commitment with an american component. if you don't do that, another 9/11 is coming here because they have the ability to

>> number one priority is combatting isil.st 18 months taking back the core territory they have not won a battle on the battlefield in well over a year. we have a great deal of momentum in iraq moving toward mosul. we had a good meeting last night to discuss the coordination. when it comes to syria it is more complex. we are not working with the government. we'll never work with the regime of bashar al assad. we are working on the ground to take care of territory. when we started this two years ago, isil controlled the entire border almost with turkey. now they don't control any of it. i was in syria two weeks ago. it's a complex situation but we haven a understanding. we are revolutionizing how we do this. we have to keep in mind when we started the campaign we work with local actors who know the local territory so there is a sustainable lasting defeat of isil, different from u.s. forces going in to take cities. since we started the campaign we lost three of three americans. that's three too many. if you consider what we have

sir, i served twice in iraq in areas recently later occupied by isil. my question is what do we need to do to ensure the gains made in afghanistan don't meet similar fate as they did in iraq? particularly related to isil occupation. >> the situation in afghanistan is a little bit different from iraq, obviously, because the domina dominant fighting force is the taliban who are not only not affiliated with isil right now, but in some cases fighting isil for control of territory. the key thing that we're doing in afghanistan is twofold. one is continuing to train, assist, support, build up capacity for the afghan security forces and they are fighting. they are still fighting the taliban. and they're not where they need to be as a fighting force yet, but they're getting better because of the support we provide them. this is why i have maintained a certain troop level there until i feel confident they can walk and ultimately run. but they're not quite there yet. and it's important for us to maintain that support and continue to get other countries working wi

the issue of oil and the existence of isil, or as the between the two. so let me just tell you that what we face in the context of the global terrorist movement is a long-term problem with social, economic, and political issues across that region in the world, which has created such a widespread radicalization that one group after another has sprung up over the years. it's not about the oil in iraq and it's not about the oil in syria. with respect to taking the oil, i seem to remember tha to the victor goes the spoils in the justification. you know, we as a community of civilized nations stopped saying that and stopped doing that years ago. we may have been able to help iran in the process of recovering -- excuse me, iraq in recovering its oil enterprise. and, in fact, we're doing that today in helping them with the beiji oil refinery and others, has had very little to do with the emergence of isil. now, isil, did, in fact, exploit the oil enterprise, but it did so largely in syria and very little in iraq, if at all. so the two largely are separate and u

they weren't developed by isil, but they've been very effective. so we're in a race, not just against another nation state, we're in a race against technological innovation that is widespread and is relatively inexpensive, in terms of the commitment you have to make to develop a product. is that a fair assessment, admiral rogers? >> yes, sir. i often use the phrase cyber is the great equalizer. it doesn't take tens of thousands of dollars in investment. and it uses a set of things available dwloebly to actors. >> so it's incumbent upon us to approach it not as we've done in the past, a nation state and countering their technology, but with much more, you know, innovative approach, so let me ask both you and the secretary, what is this new innovative approach to counter this new decentralized, disaggregated, relatively inexpensive ability to upset our very expensive and elaborate systems, both platforms and intelligence systems. >> senator, just make a couple of broad points on this. the most important thing we need to do in the department of defens

the former terrorist explained isil's view on terrorist recruitment in the u.s. as follows: for america it is easy to get them over the social network because the americans are dumb. they have open gun policies. we can radicalize them easily and if they have no prior record, they can buy guns. we don't need a contact man to provide guns for them. mr. chairman, we've seen the scenario the former isil member mentioned unfold with assault weapons here in this country. we saw it in san bernardino where perpetrators inspired by isil walked into a soft target and killed 14 people and injured another 22 with an assault style weapon. tragically we saw it again this june in orlando when a perpetrator walked into a nightclub and killed 49 people with an assault weapon. our witness, the sheriff of orange county, immediately recognized the impact that assault weapons was having on our homeland security. as sheriff demings said in the aftermath of the shooting we have to look at some of our gun laws and make a determination of what we stand for and just how prevalent some of

military defeats are very bad for isil's image.eople who are liberated from isil control and are celebrating in the streets and talk about persecution and torture and mistreatment, that goes against isil's projected image of protectors of muslims around the world so they're being damaged severely through this process. but they still have a core following of very determined fanatical fighters and they also have resources. it doesn't take a lot as we've seen to take a truck and mow down 80 plus civilians in a city street. so those capabilities are still there. >> and lorenzo, i want to bring you in in a second because i see you nodding. quickly, the pipeline of recruits. do we see any slowing? >> it's logistically getting harder for recruits to get to syria and iraq and even hardener the last couple of weeks because turkey has become involved in the ground for what a new way so those corridors are being cut off and also we see isil preparing for this new stage by telling its followers around the world don't bother coming here, get re

then you have isil and you have al qaeda in the form of nusra on the ground as well. a range of other players from the turks and the gulf states to the kurds trying to corral all of those different forces into a coherent structure for negotiations is difficult. but our conversations with the russians are key because if it were not for the russians, then assad and the regime would not be able to sustain its offens e offensive. and these are difficult negotiations. we have grave differences with the russians in terms of both the parties we support, but also the process that's required to bring about peace in syria. but if we do not get some buy-in from the russians on reducing the violence and easing the humanitarian crisis, then it's difficult to see how we get to the next phase. so john kerry and his counterpart, sergei lavrov, have been working around the clock, as well as a number of other negotiators to see what would a real cessation of hostilities would look like that could provide that humanitarian access and provide people in places like aleppo relief? we're no