the pkk lid off inside turkey. you are correct, turkey is an old friend, it is a treasured nato ally and the pkk went to work inside turkey once again on the turks responded. we supported supported the turks, pkk is a designated organization and the turks did in fact take steps to defend themselves. we worked with the turks in a very delicate process. for us to maintain the relationship with the p1 idea of the wing, south of the border so long as there is no aggression across the border one way or another. we we work very hard to try to manage that. there have been some reporting recently that there may have been some come we are not sure that is accurate. as of the implement occasions and the potential problems with the turks over this real

opportunity to take advantage of the capacity of opposition elements and syria that can in fact liberate large segments of the population in the region from dsh. we watch it closely, it requires we acknowledge the very delicate diplomatic relation that we have with turkey over this issue. turkey, of course is attempting to defend itself from the pkk, at the same time manage the border and our relationship with the y pg. i think we worked well them. >> just one last point, i would like to underline the point of the importance of u.s. action against iran. i have a slightly different diagnosis that my colleagues but almost i'd debacle prescription. i think the missile to test was less about threatening the united states as it was about the internal battle with iranian politics. a big trend of the iranian love this deal and a big chunk hate the steel. one of the chief negotiators of the deal was threatened on the floor of the iranian parliament by a member that says we will kill you for what you have done.

that tension between the hardliners who hit the deal and the reformers who want to achieve the deal, i think that explains the missile test. i think we need to take action immediately to show that will not be pushed around and it will be the test of our willingness to implement the deal and we need to do it in a way that empowers the reformers who want the deal, and further marginalize the hardliners who oppose it. this is especially important from a timely standpoint because of iran elections in 2016. i agree we need to take strong action. >> if i could because you brought this up, one of the concerns many had with the iran deal is that it is not a country that controls its infrastructure the same way we do. but the point is, probably you are right but the fact is there

is an incongruence there within the country and that means some factions would want to cheat and do some things as they did, i agree the prescription is the same. we need to push back. i think the administration could be frozen like they have been was syria with decision and no action. i fear that is what is happening with this particular action. i hope collectively we can push so that does not become reality. >> i like to point out there is unanimity on this committee to the point of making sure that iran is held to the strictest compliance of all of its international agreements. it really does not involve whether we support or oppose the iranian agreement, we want want to make sure their strict compliance, the violation of the un resolution, the violation of the un resolution requires u.s. rack should action with our willing allies to make it clear that we will not tolerate that type of

infringement. regardless of the reasons why they did it. >> i would say regardless of where people were on the actual vote or the agreement, it is in agreement that is now in place. i think all of us want to ensure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. >> i want to associate myself with it iranian ranking deal. we have to be steadfast, if we don't we will not be any good diplomacy. i want to follow up with senator kane said in his timeline about 2014 and isil. i want to take it back one additional year to 2013. it was october 2013 when the administration declared it was going to make a limited strike to make a limited strike against a side because he crossed a red line that was in the sand and syria. the congress, not this committee, the congress backed up on that and did not give him the support and the administration although they could have under the war powers

act made a limited strike they decide not to. we became a paper tiger at that particular point in time. that's in 2013. in 2014 isil knew we in 2014 isil knew we were getting ready to leave iraq open and tombs of troops being there, we created a vacuum which isil immediately builds. we are taking some of it back now with our coalition partners but the fact is we took a terrible setback because we withdrew entirely from iraq. i think we have made a mistake. we republicans and democrats, administration and administration and congress by backing away from doing a definitive met military blessing and syria in 2013 when we have the opportunity. there is a clear line that had been drawn in the sand. i understand the need to do diplomacy and i prefer diplomacy over war. i lose everywhere i lose with my wife. i think it is important to have a diplomatic solution. it only works only works when there's a threat of force otherwise. yesterday in the armed services

committee general done fourth and secretary carter said the door was open for more indirect action for isil. that's the eyes of the beholder type statement. it sends a signal they may be looking at other options in terms of isil. isil is the focal point upon which a military action and expansion of military action is not only appropriate but instructive in helping with diplomacy everywhere else. the war and isil has one in terms of the refugee issue. people are flowing through greece trying to get through europe, we we see a crisis of immense proportion through the country of sweden. it will get worse next year then it is this year simply because of things that are taken place right now. my question, i make in the speech and i apologize for that. my question is, if we don't consider forcefully and

practically the use of force against isil to wipe them out militarily, or to send a clear signal to them that they will be wiped out they back away, that cancer will continue to grow. you can't negotiate someone with you that will cut off your head, burn someone in the town square, destroy the antiquities of history of a country, you just can't do it. i think we have a great air force, i think airstrikes are fine but you don't one with airstrikes. we cannot light that cancer continue to grow, if we do know diplomatic solution in middle east will help. i would like i would like for you to comment for just a second. on what was said was yesterday and if you believe a possibility to have a more robust military action against isil would be a positive result question work. >> senator, i agree with what you said. i've been around a little while and i see nothing like this organization before.

the depths of its deprivation and its depravity. this is an organization that we honestly have to deal with. the testimony yesterday from general dunford and secretary carter pointed to recommendations and thoughts that they're going to provide to the president of the united states on the potential means to deal with or enhance the means by which we want to accomplish the end. and direct action as i was describing earlier, the idea of pressuring dsh simultaneously and we're setting ourselves up to do that. one of the values is going to the nervous system inside. this is where no one on the planet does it better than we do. the targeted, direct actions

strike force raid. i won't go into the operational details associated with it, but i think that is frankly a positive development in the thinking, conceivably of how to deal with them. i i'll just make one key point. when our special operators enter the compound last year, killed him and the other two that were in the meeting with him and wiped out his personal security, then the rest of his wife who is responsible for the slave trade and liberated the slave and took seven tb of information on the compound, it wasn't because we just did that rate spontaneously. you can imagine as we did and we thought of it each night, it was a well-developed mission, which had very high likelihood of success when properly supported. and not only accomplished a military objective it accomplished an extraordinary intelligence objective as well. i thought other isil leaders

have met there and because of this. i believe this is what the secretary and joint use were describing yesterday. if they're thinking in those terms making a recommendation to the president of the united states, certainly supported. >> i would appreciate your answer. i'm up for reelection in 2016 and there is a lot going to happen between now and next november. this is one person is going to be a voice be a voice and a vote for more aggressive stance against isil. i know once terrorism and that jeannie got out of the bottle you'll never get it back in, but we should not tolerate it we should give every effort the united states can to destroy. i think, it helps with diplomacy and syria. if you separate that action away from the syria people and focus on the serious enemy. >> that is exactly correct. >> i know my time is up.

i want to thank mr. patterson first statement you made. you talked in the chairman asked to the goals of the administration and the middle east, and you said, counterterrorism, economic goal and all of which we are pursuing but we'll be limited because of isil. i thought thousand very honest answer because you take any frontpage in any newspaper in america and go from day today, it is another crisis in the middle east different from the crisis we had the day before. counterterrorism and things like that are impossible to have strategies against one you're reacting on a daily basis other forces at work. i hope as a country will use our military strength as an example of what we want diplomacy is a far better way to reach solution in the military is. if we have to we are compared to do whatever it takes to see that the you people are respectful.

thank you very much. >> last month i had the opportunity to visit the men and women who have been running our train and equip program in the region. i oppose this program from the start, thought it was destined to fail. frankly they were doing a miraculous job, incredibly capable people with a mission that was very difficult. one of the reasons it was difficult and they testified to this, was that we are recruiting individuals to fight only one of their two sworn enemies that we're asking people to sign up to fight isis and essentially they're fighting aside with our help. thus it is difficult to recruit and difficult to control the forces which we had trained in the battle space.

so there is this open reporting now, senator kane referred to it about increasing our support for the so-called moderate syrian opposition. whether it be with increased weaponry, embedded special forces or airstrike ability, my question for you, general allen, has anything changed? can we successfully support the moderate syrian opposition so long as our support comes with a significant drink attached to it that will only support them if they're only fighting isis, or the only way for us to be effective and increased level of support for opposition to admit that we need to help them fight isis and we need to help them fight aside at the same time? >> the president has been clear that it is not his intention

support the modern's syrians and go to war against assad we wanted to support for them to defend themselves. we sought so they could carve out an area within syria in which they were relatively secure. and to support the modern syrians to fight and ultimately assist us in defeating isil. either the reality or the perception that they can only fight isil has been an impediment. it has been difficult obviously. about the recruiting and in the development of the commitment necessary from syrian elements to be committed to the program, that was one of the difficulties of the tna program. the groups are supporting today beyond the add up to the tna

program is that it will evolve over time, we have evolved over the last several months to support the other elements within syria that we found have the capacity both the fight and the will to fight, it has been by virtue of their location, and syria primarily focus, our focus is on dosh. in the development of relationship this has worked out. >> secretary patterson does the administration have the authority to open up a front against assad should that be the recommendation to effectively recruit into the or correlate with them, is it is it believe that there is legal authority right now to make a decision to

empower the searing opposition to fight both isil and assad. is this a a legal question or simply a strategic question? >> it is a legal question and one that i am not qualified to answer, really. there are important legal elements and that we can certainly get someone up here to answer that question for you. >> the state department has not made a determination that it does not have the legal authority. there is an open question within the state department, is that what you're suggesting. >> i would rather not speculate on that because it is a very complex legal issue and one that i have at least been on the periphery of the discussion. i would like to get someone up here who is qualified to respond to you. >> general allen, i thought you did as good a job as anybody in explaining the roots of the

problem in the region. of course there is a military component but in the end you cannot solve the problem unless you solve the underlying political reason which drive people to these extremist groups. secretary patterson you talked about what is happening in baghdad today, i think i think you had some level of optimism, during that same trip i had the chance to go to baghdad. i'm not sure i walked away with the same level of optimism about a body's willingness to reform, the forms suggested are paperthin, we have been hearing for a long time about sunni national guard, they connected their act together to begin the military skill, effectively 95% she had. there is no understanding now how if we are able to take back romani there be an effective multi secretary and or sunni led

military force that could hold it. question for either of you, it doesn't seem like we actually have the leverage with the body right now to get him to take those tough steps to fully integrate the military and to give the sunnis some participation in force out ultimately hold these areas once we take back. tell me what we need to do in order to get a body to take the next several steps. it's not enough to just replace a handful of deputy prime ministers, they have to make a commitment a commitment to reform the military. that's not happening yet. >> let me make some broad commas. i had the opportunity to meet with prime minister, the national security advisor, i do believe that prime minister has been and continues to be a partner we can work with, given his predecessor in the reality that we face today he is an

individual that we should be publicly and openly support what. i don't propose that your question did otherwise. he is someone that deserves our support. he he has been very clear and open and his intense to institute these reforms and frankly, he is countering a lot of headwind. he is attempting to undertake these reforms because many of the very individuals that would be most affected by these reforms are uniting politically to oppose those reforms. it has created not just opposition for the reform themselves, it has created an environment in which the status is more tenuous. the important dimension that we should be aware of is the support has been very important for him. his eminence of the mouth area have been very supportive of him.

many of the folks that a been affected the most by the reforms are either individually or collectively making it difficult for him to institute those reforms. he remains committed to them. they are not going forward as fast as we would like. they're not having the penetration we would like but he remains committed to those reforms. let me talk briefly about romani. i think it is important. romani and the campaign benefits from -- you are back to correct that much of the four columns that are converging on romani right now are populated by troops that are shiite. we had hope that greater sunni recruitment into the armed forces would come about, the conditions just are not there right now for the shiite population to either connect in large or recruited in large quantities to the security

forces. the governor and lumbar is sunni , he has a provincial chief of police or who has done a great deal to recover the sunni police, they are being trained equipped, prepared along with tribal fighters to be the force that ultimately enters romani once it is cleared. to be the whole force that provide security to the population that prevents the reemergence of dsh in that population. just by virtue of the dent in the demographic makeup of the iraqi population we will see preponderance of shia in the ground clearing the city. we are already posturing the police and the tribal elements to come in right behind that to ultimately hold the ground and secure the population. is something we have learned and seek to apply and follow along the aspects. it is difficult but it is an

area we are gaining ground. >> you all have an impossible job at it sounds like it is a record we have heard before. lack of political progress inside baghdad, lack of ability to integrate military. i. i hope we're thinking of new means of leverage to try to change the dynamics inside baghdad. i am worried it will be back here a year from now time the same same story about the political headwinds. i thank you for doing it. >> thank you mr. chairman. general allen, as the special envoy to counter isil, the, you made was direct, clear explanation is possible as to why this is important. infighting the most appraised

group that exists on the planet today and will go down in history as that, in modern times. i appreciate that and i think we all need to be more articulate on why this is important to america and to americans. i appreciate that. the second point you made and i think most americans don't fully appreciate that as you described the military the united states, i could not agree with you more, most americans do not understand just how powerful this country is when it comes to military might. how far we exceed every other nation on the face of this planet. that is, it is not by a little bit, it is by a tremendous amount. no one can stand to us if it comes to that. we don't want it to come to that, we are not that kind of

people. we want people to mind their own business and go about their lives, to do, to do good things and be humanitarian about it. but, we occasionally get in a position position where we wind up having to do something. i think certainly isil is something that is demanding more of our attention in that regard, it is unfortunate but it is part of life. the problem with the extension of what you have just said this, because we have this military might, it begs the question of, so what? if everyone else has in the world is convinced that we will not pull the trigger, what difference does it make? i cannot tell you how much i have the feeling that the russians are convinced of that. after watching what they did, so brazenly this late summer, july and august in syria, coming in and doing what they have done, they have got to be convinced that we will not pull the trigger.

here, we have have a group that we have chosen to support as you have described, not support to do certain things but certainly to defend themselves. the russians have come in, as they have always done, they have used deception and denial, they have attacked the very group the united states of america has put under, at least this umbrella that and patterson has just described, of defense. they have come in and attacked them, brazenly. what have they said when their challenge? oh we are really after isil. well you know, and i know, because you have seen the same material i have, their minimal attacks on isil are windowdressing when it comes to what they're doing. they are beating the heck out of the sides opposition. that is what they have done. people will look at this and they will say, well yes the united states has all this might, but what are they doing in response to an attack on

their friends that they have chosen to help. they have their warplanes stay 20 miles away. i suspect if you are in charge there, you would not let that happen. that is where we are with the situation, something has got to change. you guys are in charge of this, i charge of this, i don't know how you're going to do it, but something has to change. one of the proms we have, i think is the fact that there is probably, and i have to be careful how to say this because there has been at least some acknowledgment in some areas that the white house feels that their legal ground may be tenuous. i know, secretary patterson you said this is you can answer this question, i'm sure that's true, senator kane has been a real leader on this issue.

that is, before we can make these kind of decisions we have to know what kind of legal ground we are standing on. there are there are two legal issues here involved. number one, making war on assad who we said we want to see removed. well by what international standard or law are we saying we do that? here you have a country that is set up. first of all there is not anyone who disagreed that her side is a bad guy needs to go. but you still have to have authority to do that. i have yet to hear a clear, legal description how we can justify doing that. i think that issue has to be resolved. if we are going to continue to be a nation of laws, secondly and importantly is the legal question of it by what authority is the second branch of the government doing this? senator kane has been eloquent in his description on a lot of his part that this resolution

from way back being used to now use military force in syria. this is a long way from what was authorized to be used against al qaeda, way back when. i think that has to be resolve. i think what's close to those two are resolved, i think there's going to be a much clear path forward to getting a tactic and away of accomplishing the goals that you have said. i think the ministration have been clear. they want peace peace in syria. we are not getting there. i think these two legal questions have got to be resolve. my time is almost up. let me conclude with this. sec. patterson, with all due respect

and i mean that sincerely, i have heard you of the last few days talk about how overstated the influence of russia is in the region and more importantly, how overstated it is as to how quickly their abilities and their respective is growing in the region. you deny this by saying it is your opinion that is overstated, with all due respect, everything around you, all the media, all the people we meet within the region, very much counted as an eight quarter to you that directly counters what you said. i think this is a dangerous position for the united states to be in. if they're taking the position of all this will go away and it's not a problem. my time is up. >> thank you, the one question i hope we'll get to it some point, comments you made at the first partier statement i agree with strongly, but europe which is

being decimated by the refugees. >> .. >> the administration's decision to just remove, not just the general's in the army, but

officers that had anything to do with insuring that there would be some continuity. it was taken so far that it polarized the sunni community. and so we know that the hand-picked leader, the shiite leader back in 2006 unfortunately harvard those same sentiments be expense of acceleration that the sunnis have in that country and so let's are they allowed to assume government rules and can you give us an outline of what those might eat if that is happening.

>> that is an important question because it goes to the issue of reconciliation and it's the social human aspect of what we are seeking to do which is to restore the territoriterritori al integrity of iraq and we have to restore that as well. my wife was the chief of the romance and the national institute of health and one choice is reenactment and the other is reconciliation. countries are like individuals. they have the same have all of these, it almost invariably occurs. >> i don't have those

statistics, but that is an example of where we would love to see the entire conflict. first of all there is one who is in the process both in the recovery and we, the coalition, work with the iraqi interagency led by the germans with the americans deeply involved in the process of helping to move funding with the iraqi government into the repopulation and about 75% has gone home, well over those that were displaced and so the process of clearing the city was largely done in this way and there is a

popular mobilization fund. and it is part of the forces that were called to the front of ayatollah last year. so the iraqi forces cleared the creed, which is likely a clearing force. immediately behind that came in elements of the sunni police and tribal elements to secure the city, which then this resulted in the return of the population and the iraqi central government lineup's interagency to provide the restoration of central services in conjunction with the work of the coalition, and what we see today is pierpoint, senator, where there are difficulties with reconciliation

and of national level and the reestablishment of part of this. >> i need to get you this. >> and essentially if this was the united states of america they would have elected a sunni mayor at this point. let's just talk about the functional and political leadership insight of that city effectively picking up the garbage, the police. >> by and large it is. css is to do exactly the same thing. >> i think that that is an important message to get out. >> user written explanations of

where we are because i think you both for this, you are both great public servants. and so let's move over to yemen, if we could in political reconciliation over there, how you view the likelihood that they could move toward some form of political reconciliation so that we can be escalated this military confrontation that promises the same kind of results in yemen, so talk to us about the attitudes, what we are doing to put them into more negotiated revolution.

>> first, let me say that i think that there are some hopeful signs that the yemenis among themselves have come together in this kind of process. but we talked to the saudi arabians all the time about this and this was of course an issue on the agenda and we have urged them to improve humanitarian access to yemen and that is a huge priority and there are issues that go to the heart of the saudi arabian security, which are the attacks on the border and of course we have been assisting them in resisting that in providing certain facilitation. we are very concerned about the

situation there and the likelihood of an incipient famine seen. so i think many saudis understand that this cannot go on much longer because it's going to turn the yemeni population against them and because they are going to be responsible for rebuilding the country and it's going to be very costly in terms of influence and resources. >> i think you both and if i could say again, if you could just tell them how much they would like to believe. but you can report back to us in terms of the number of official is and leadership that unquestioned and that would help us a lot.

>> the same thing is true with the saudi arabians. but the network is actually moving in a way that we kept evident in that it's not just a repetition where we are having this play out in that they have diplomatic opportunities as well. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today and for your service. i just returned from germany and greece and we got a chance to see what is happening with the refugees in that area and their perspective in the middle east and i think that it's fair to say that they have been contributing in the middle east to fight isis. i'm wondering if one of you can

detail what the european partners are doing to support this. >> we are organized within the coalition. there are a long number of those who have contributed ground forces to the training mission and the advising mission and a number of them have contributed aviation assets in iraq and are considering this in syria along with us. and they have also provided leadership and the british are leading that effort. and they are working on accounting of the narrative and the germans are leading to

stabilization effort and they are championing immediate stabilization which goes immediately behind that and the germans have been very important in partnership with them within the stabilization working group, the italians have been very forthcoming in volunteering some of the finest police on the planet and they are leading the training for them to be the follow-up force that has been extraordinarily important and that includes countering the foreign fighter effort along with many other efforts of the coalition is the italians are

leading the effort on countering finances. within each one of those there are multiple coalition members, many european members who are prominent in that process and so the european partners are deeply embedded in deeply committed inside the coalition to our effort to defeat that. >> thank you. assistant secretary patterson. several people have raised the issue of refugees and i certainly believe that the number and flow of refugees poses a real threat to the european union. so we can figure out what to do to support the efforts with the humanitarian needs and the relocation needs of the refugees. can you detail what the ball harder is arguing to help with

the refugee crisis? >> i can certainly say that they have provided considerable funding to address this crisis and certainly with the hundreds of millions of dollars i think that the issue of getting that is the resettlement of some of the syrian refugees in these countries and this is an issue that we have discussed within any number of times and they argue that they have had tens of thousands of these refugees and i think that the answer to that is that they are people that are legally they are and not under refugee status and that is truly the distinction. so we continue to have this discussion with him and of course if i might say so we have put over $4 billion into this ever primarily in jordan and lebanon which are the most seriously affected countries and

we continue to fund raise with all of our allies consistently. >> i certainly agree that jordan and lebanon and turkey have taken on their share of refugees and some of the other countries as well, not only have they not taken in refugees but they have contributed, as i understand it, only intermittently to the financial need to address humanitarian efforts. so while they may have committed funding that funding has and always and forthcoming and i would hope that we would do everything possible to try to urge them to join europe and the rest of the international community and doing everything we can to support the refugees. so you started talking about tunisia which is one of the few

bright spots in the middle east can you talk more about that? >> you can see empty hotels come empty museums. so we have to step up our efforts there. we are stepping off the efforts in terms of economic consistency is. and we are trying to help with economic reforms and this is very important because this is an area in which we specialize to build up security forces and counterterrorism capacity to

identify this. it's going to be hard because they are next-door delivery a and our focus, at least in the short run is building up the security forces and the counterterrorism capacity. we have over a million libyans in tunisia at this time and they are also taking the brunt of these spaces. but we are doing everything that we can. >> that is our assessment. >> and the terrorist attacks, they will emanate from tunisia which has the highest per capita number of extremist in the world

population. so there are also issues in tunisia with reintegration and better education and job creation and that obviously needs urgent attention. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> once again we appreciate your service and your patience here today to answer questions. general allen, i want to deal with the impact that the syrian conflict is having on one of our key strategic partners in the region. we have talked about the refugee issues and the impact that it's having on the humanitarian international crisis and also on the impact on surrounding countries. jordan has taken in an extreme number of syrian refugees.

with russia's military presence now in syria, the question becomes whether there will be additional stabilizing activities that could increase the number of refugees. this is of particular concern in southern syria which is not seeing a lot of activity as of late but with this eerie and concern now being emboldened by russia's military presence, there is a fear that there could be activity against the civilian population and so with do we have a strategy? to make sure that one of our key strategic partners has our help.

>> the security of jordan is extremely important to the united states and the region. we are very attentive to the demographically down of the population in southwest syria which is directly adjacent to the heartland. yesterday i just spoke with the head of their intelligence service and also the chief of defense. they are very focused on and we are also with them very focused on this issue. i won't get into the operational details but i will show you that that is a major point of focus and interest for the department of defense and department of date. >> i would encourage you to do that. >> as you say, they have been a

part of this and i would say that the refugee flow is a serious concern and also potential incursions. over the past eight years we have been trying to accelerate weapons deliveries and we have an extremely large military assistance and we have stepped up border security and they need a lot of help on the border. and so there are other plans in the pipeline to show up jordanian security. because as you have said it is essentially a u.s. ally which is critical to the regional stability. >> i have just pointed out. with the bashar al-assad regime a plea history on the innocent

civilians population, the fact that that is a threat could be used as a justification for increased regime activities in that region against the population. causing not only the direct thing that is very destabilizing. i appreciate that we have that under control. i want to ask one additional question in regards to these positive steps by palestinian leaders in regards to dealing with the terrorist activities in israel. and there have been some

positive steps and i don't know what you are referring to but the gentleman has been very reticent to condemn the individual attacks in a regular way. where do you see positive steps by the palestinian leaders? >> i think that the secretary is in constant contact with the president and i would agree with you,. [inaudible] we are constantly with them on this issue and urging them to take a positive role. i think that there was progress over the weekend between jordan and israel to reduce this on the

temple mount and those will play out over the next few weeks and i can assure you the secretary is deeply involved with all three players in this ever right now with jordan and israel and the palestinians to move this process forward. and so when we say that there is a debate within the state department about the legal authorities you are not talking about the domestic legal authorities, it is international law that they are focused on. is that correct? >> i have been on the periphery of these conversations and there has been a great deal of discussions about this issue.

and what i would call in some of balding areas. >> so domestically it needed some authorities as well. >> i am sure that that is true, senator. >> i just don't want to leave the impression that somehow that you are relying upon this 2001 authorization to go against isis but somehow lack of actions here are keeping you from carrying out what you want to carry out. >> i certainly didn't mean to imply that. you are quite correct. it is the ambien of international law that we were talking about. >> you are talking about presence versus domestic law. if you felt like it allows you to go against this for some reason, then you would assume this to go against the sherman

act because it doesn't authorize you to do that. >> and so today i just want to be clear about this. congress is inhabiting the ability with what it seeks to carry out in syria or iraq today. >> it is my understanding, senator. >> i just don't want this conversation to go on a direction but there is a memorandum of understanding that has been developed between us and israel. we have not seen a copy of it yet and i wonder if you might describe what that memorandum of understanding, what the content of it is. >> there has not been one developed, senator. are you talking about the memorandum of understanding? it doesn't expire until 2018.

>> i understand that some memorandum had recently been developed between the administration and israel. >> i think that what you saw is that there have been some. [inaudible] the current one is in effect which provides $3.1 billion per year. >> just on that note another i know that there are a lot of discussions about is ramping up, if you will, efforts towards weaponizing other countries in the middle east. we have about a 6 billion-dollar budget, 3.1 of it goes to israel. 1.1 and a half goes to egypt and just out of curiosity if i do my math correctly, how are we

allocating those funds in a way to do the things that we talked about at camp david. >> most of the allies pay cash. and they often go through the system. but they also to the extent that they can have direct commercial sales. but otherwise i would say that our budget is limited i would love to have more with jordan and lebanon being high priorities to the tune of slightly over $300 million per year. and most of the security enhancements are basically

directed through the system and then they purchase them directly. >> on that point we do have a memorandum of understanding with jordan. >> yes, we do, sir. >> how would that work with the allocation. >> well, basically the congress raises their top line. there will be pressures this year between some recipients in the middle east region about allocating these funds and i think that we will work that out with members of the committee and other members as well. and yet there is tension between recipients such as jordan and tunisia who both need stepped-up military assistance and i don't want to forget lebanon in this as well. they have also been victimized and they have security forces that have done a good job and are very worthy of our continued

support. >> i would just point out that we do not know how this budget agreement and allocations are going to be allocated. but i would hope that we would be transparent with this committee as with the requests that are being made through the appropriation process so that we can have a unified front in allocating the resources in the most effective way to achieve u.s. objectives. >> i certainly think that we have been transparent and that we can schedule a briefing anytime with some of the trade-offs. but we will have to make some choices for the allies in the region and it's very concerning. >> thank you. i referenced here earlier and

europe is the whole context of this change because of the refugee crisis. and i know secretary kerry yesterday alluded to the fact that our interests and europe's interests and many of the countries, all of these are going to put pressure on russia per secretary kerry to align with that relative to what is happening in syria. i must be missing something and we are all horrified by the maximum amount of refugees that exist, the biggest humanitarian crisis since world war ii. and i obviously know that europe directly is affected by that but i don't see the same after relative to syria. i know you mentioned some things but i don't see europe near as

focused on the crisis as we are. .. think one of the principal differences, first let me back up, similar to the bilateral and we can seek to do this in fact, the bilateral europe assistance

can find that it's not insignificant. that is not just in supporting un and its appeals for humanitarian assistance but also specific assistance to elements of the syrian population. they of course have less money that they can contribute per capita but it's not insignificant and we find in southern turkey, there are other european partners there who are in fact, directly supporting the syrian population. >> if i could, for second, its rare it's very real that i would interrupt you. actually as a a whole, they are as significant as we are. i hear you on the humanitarian piece, but the root of the crisis is what's happening in syria relative to its own people

and i guess what i'm missing here is we are outraged by that and the committee is out rage. the american people are outraged. i don't understand the disconnect between the tremendous empire in europe and the lack of effort, effort, if you will, on their part to do something kinetically or in other ways directly to isis. i don't get it. so certainly, i agree with your comments relative to isis and who they are, and certainly we all collectively understand the threat they are to the world. i can't understand why europe, itself, doesn't see that when they are so directly impacted. >> chairman, i don't know that europe doesn't see that. i know quite a few european leaders and the horror that they express, not just at the distress of a huge segment of the population that has taken to

host because of the conditions in the region but now the stress that their own society is having to bear as a direct result of refugees and economic difficulties in large unemployment numbers. europe is under a lot of pressure. >> i understand that, but why are they not more involved for root issue. >> for many aspects for the same reason we are not. we did not have action in syria to take action in the way that we now can in the way that we now will until just a few months ago. europe has been deeply involved with us from the beginning with regard to iraq. we had platforms in iraq but not insignificant to cost in treasury but with the expectation that there could be

casualties here. we've not been complacent at all with their security, with many european partners have invested, not insignificant numbers of men and women and their aviators are flying in the sky over iraq and syria every sigel day. i suspect as time goes on and we built our military options we will find that we have other european partners join us in the process. we are in an active conversation with many of our european partners for the potential of them to relocate and join us on the ground. that's a base that has become available to us and while we haven't got answers back, we just started asking, we would love to see european partners and our australian colleagues who are with us in all of these

fights to join us because when the time comes for us to bear down in syria and close the border with turkey, it's much easier for us to fly 15 minutes to get to the border then four 1/2 hours coming out of the golf. >> right. >> that conversation is open and they are considering our request. whether they do or not, it's a complex answer. it's not just as simple as go to turkey, they have bilateral relationships in the gulf that are old and have been cultivated in order for them to deploy. i want to be very clear that my sense of the european commitment both to the coalition at large in the sense of expressing the outrage in the nations is loud but the tangible, physical, human and monetary commitment to the coalition has not been insignificant. the opportunity to do things in syria has not been nearly as

available to our european partners as has been the opportunity for them to participate in a very credible, real, open and visible way in iraq. i suspect as time goes on, and as more opportunities come available to us, we may see our european partners become more involved in syria. >> i know you have referenced a couple times to create the conditions where turkey would be willing to let us use that, but over the last 60 day you said conditions have changed. that's one of the changes. what are some of the other conditions that have change that will make it much more easy, if you will, for them to be much more kinetically involved with what's happening in syria question. >> beyond the potential contributions for aviation, we may well see that if we do more, in terms of supporting some of the groups in syria, we may see

some european counterparts willing to join us in that process. whether it is provide additional equipment or training and support, and i want to be very careful about some of the operational details in this forum that i would discuss with respect to that, i am happy to go off-line with you on both of those. we may well see that we have european partners willing to do it. it's not just about turkey. it's about the south as well. what we are seeking to do is create pressure and there may be opportunities in the south and north where coalition partners, our european partners could play an important role and i'm thinking's special operations but i i won't be more specific and then that. >> you get the sense, we've seen, you've seen in other people of talked about what rusher has done on the ground relative to our friends. do you see a situation developing where russia would concentrate its efforts solely on isis and not on the more moderate groups that are, quote,

our friends? >> no i i don't think so. >> so if you will, 180° contradicts what secretary kerry said yesterday. 180 degrees. he does see us having the focus together on isis. that's why asked my opening comment or maybe i made the comment about the fact that russia is killing our friends. you don't see them moving away from killing our friends to focusing like we are on isis. you don't see that happening. >> i want to be very clear that the way you phrase the question which is that russia would focus exclusively on isis, i don't see that they are going to do that because russia, in the end is there to stabilize aside.

the wolf closest to the door to ashad are the ones that are the threat. those are the ones where russians are providing support to both the regimes ground forces at hezbollah and iranian support elements. they are providing that support to stabilize the situation and ultimately to recover the heartland. at this juncture, we haven't seen and we won't see a large scale russian investment in going after isis. they want to do what they came to do and that is to prevent the collapse of the asad regime. that doesn't mean that eventually they won't join us in a larger investment of their resources but for now, very

clearly, while we had an expectation that we would partner with them, they would play a role in the reduction of violence in the reduction of the conflict and then play a role constructively with us in creating a political transition. we haven't seen any of that. for now, the coalition will continue to remain focused on and bear down while the secretary is taking the steps necessary to try to create that conversation where the russians could conceivably join that conversation to set the conditions for transition. for now they have to do what they came to do and that is stabilize ashad. that is somewhere down the pike for them. i think they are going to start feeling some serious pain on this. the regime forces are doing that well under russian air support. they are underperforming and i think the russians are dismayed by the performance of the regime

forces under both russian artillery support and aviation support. there are other elements within the group within syria that are beginning to master capabilities. as secretary carter said yesterday, they are catalyzing the unity between groups that we might otherwise wanted to have. they are doing it for survival purposes to fight the russians and defend themselves against a ground offensive by the regime. and also, we are seeing probably somewhere between a 50 and 80000 refugees that are beginning to emerge. we can see an entire new wave of refugees coming from the russian insurgent here. this is in a great strategic move on their part. this is a move to cough up one of their oversea ally, perhaps their only overseas ally taking cuba off the table.

they're going to find it difficult. already the sport they're giving is not providing the outcome they had wanted. they are probably going to find in the new creature that because they can't resolve this militarily that they want to start think about a political resolution. that's why it's important for them to seriously consider getting involved in this conversation with the secretary is trying to set up. he sees this as an opportunity. >> i am in no way at your last public hearing trying to draw you in to conflict with the secretary. i will say it's my strong impression, i will use those words so it can be challenged, my strong and prescient is that the secretary believes that a fundamental first step is for russia to stop killing those that are our friends. that's why i've said in the past and i said yesterday that those on the ground, today that you are alluding to, need one to believe that on friday there's going to be a lot of progress

because there is such a difference in what their goals are, which i think was said many times here today but maybe wasn't focused on is clearly as we are right now in this conversation. >> chairman i don't disagree with the secretary's point. i think his point is very important. russia is going to suffer from this in ways they can even begin to imagine. we thought we had a good handle on what the foreign terrorist access was going to be coming out of turkey and into syria. everywhere i have gone in the golf, and everywhere i have have talked to our arab partners, every one of them is saying the potential for a re- sparking of the global jihad is enormous as a result of this. when secretary kerry says in order this to move forward they have to stop killing our people, what he is saying is they have to stop killing the moderate syrians that are the hope for the future in syria. they have to deal with al qaeda

eventually. that's a big organization. when they stop killing the opposition then perhaps we can get to where we need to be but they will have to feel some pain on this and i think they're going to relatively soon. >> thank you for both clarifications. we appreciate your service to our country and for being here today in an open setting. we do look forward to following conversations even after your retirement to help us think through these issues. i appreciate you being here. you are a tremendous asset to me in this position. we thank you for your continued professional service. think you for being here today in the way you are. with that the record, without objection will remain open through friday if you all would answer any questions that come forward at that time. without objection that's the way

it will be in this meeting is adjourned.

>> tomorrow the senate relations committee considers the state department highest-ranking diplomat. we will have live coverage on ten 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three and c-span.org.

being ladylike does not require science. why should my husband's job or yours prevent us from being ourselves? i do not believe that being first lady should prevent me from expressing my ideas. >> betty ford spoke her mind, was pro-choice in a supporter of the equal rights amendment. the openly discussed her battle with breast cancer. for much of her life she struggled with drug and alcohol dependency. betty ford, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series first ladies. influence an image. examining the public and private lives of women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency.

sunday at eight pm eastern on american history tv on c-span three. >> c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016. you will find the candidates, the speeches, the debates and most importantly your questions. this year we are taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest given students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow the contest and rode to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, the radio and online at cspan.org. >> defense secretary carter and chair of the joint chiefs of staff discuss u.s. military strategy in the middle east.

a hearing of the senate armed hearing services. they covered u.s. operations in u.s. and syria, the fight against isis and russia's involvement in the syrian civil war. john mccain chairs this three-hour hearing. >> defense secretary carter and chair of the joint chiefs ofmidd staff discuss u.s. military strategies in the middle east at a hearing at the armed services committee. they talked about u.s. operations in iraq and syria, the fight against isa and the fight. senator john mccain host this three-hour hearing.

[inaudible] [inaudible]

good morning. the committee meets today to receive testimony on u.s. strategy in the middle east. i want to thank our distinguished witnesses for appearing this morning and for their service to our nation. before i proceed, i would likeri to remind our witnesses of the rules that require written testimony be submitted 24 hours in advance of a hearing and i would like to try to adhere to that. the tragic loss last week of master sergeant walker reminds us of the high stakes of our eas mission in the middle east andwr how grateful we are to those americans serving there. we need a strategy worthy of those who carry it out and unfortunately we don't have that

what's worse it appears the administration is not even defined theppa policy policy of isis first fails to understand the ices for all the threat and imposes is actually just a a symptom of a deeper problem, the struggle for power and sectarian identity raging across the middle east. the epicenter of which is a rock in syria. that why isis exists today with the strength that it does and this will only get worse the longer this conflict rages on.e we hear it said all the time there is no military solution to this problem which is a truism, but that too is misleading. the real problem is that it can be no diplomatic solution without leverage and there is a clear military dimension to this program pop on. secretary kerry can take all the

trips he wants to geneva but unless the military has power changes on the ground, diplomacy , as it's been amply proven will achieve nothing. changing those conditions is what the administration is consistently failed to do. instead it is assumed that ouras nation could withdraw from middle east and avoid the conflict at its heart, moreover on those occasions when the administration has felt compelled to respond after the use of chemical weapons, for example or with the rise of iso isis. they have merely addressed the symptoms of the underlying problemrather than the itself and are too often they've made that problem worse. there is no clear example of this than the syrian trained and equipped program. from the start the administration said the fighters in this program could only fight isis, not asad's forces which have slaughtered and displaced

exponentially more syrians than isis has. in addition the administration made no commitment, until only recently, to provide these forces with any meaningful military support once they return to syria. after millions of dollars ine months of efforts, the program failed to come close to theigin department's original expectations. the president has expressedtabl surprise about this failure. it was not a surprise. it was completely predictable and many of us here did predict it.uld only someone who does nott an understand the real problem which is the underlying conflict in syria and iraq or does not care to could think that we could effectively recruit and train large numbers of sunni syrians to fight only against isis.ssis with no promise of coalition assistance if they came under fire from asad's forces.

rather than fixing the problem, the president suspended it. this is tantamount to killing the program because it's destroying what little trust our syrian partners have in us. it says nothing of allies like turkey and jordan which invested their own money and prestige ins this program. the president now says,,pr incredibly the failure of thisog program, his program the p president's program proves heo was right for not wanting to do it in the first place. harry truman must be spinning in his grave. if there is an opposite for commander-in-chief, this is it. the training effort in iraq has its own challenges. indeed it is déjà vu all over again. we don't have enough u.s. forces to train and advise iraqi units at the right level. were still not providing sufficient support to sunni tribes which are the center of gravity in this fight against isis. were looking the other way and

the shia militia has gone on the offensive. we hear complaints that iraqis have no will to fight but were prohibiting u.s. forces fromdvis bolstering their will to fight by advising them in combat and calling in airstrikes. we've learned all of these lessons in a rack just a few years ago. apparently we have to relive these failures now. for nearly seven years, the administration has tried to extract america from the middlen east. the state we have created a m massive power vacuum that has been filled by isis, al qaeda and its affiliates. on the one hand, a rant and its proxies in the other. now into this vacuum has stepped that amir put in. his intervention in syria began in ukraine. the administration's failure tot impose great offense in russia allowed him to give it to syrias it also confirmed his belief

that the administration is weak and to putin weakness is provocative. the administration's response thus far to russia's intervention in syria has only made this problem worse. first it urge russia not torati build up its forces in syria.a he ignored these warnings. the administration then tried to deny rush of the airspace to move into syria and failed. he responded by bombing moderate syrian forces many of whom are allied with the united states and what has been the result? number of u.s. airstrikes in syria has dropped. the train and equip program was halted just as it was starting to show some results. the administration scrambled fop a decompression agreement with the russians that spells out more of what we will not do in syria. indeed this agreement means the united states is now moving out of the way and watching as has

russian aircraft, together with iranian and has below ground forces attack and killki brave syrians, many of whom our nation has supported and encouraged. this is not only harmful to our interest, it is immoral. what we must do to hasten the end of the conflict in iraq, we must stop asad's use of airpower and bombs which are the major killer of the syrians. we must establish regions where civilians can be states and do what is necessary to protect these areas in the air and on the ground. we must recognize that putin is not interested in a negotiated solution in syria that favors u.s. interest. we should instead impose real cost on russia not just in syria but everywhere we have leveraged to do so.st d finally as david petronius recently said, we must devise a strategy to confront iranian

power rather than acquiescing to them. some will object as they have for years that we cannot bear the cost of these actions but consider the cost of our current inaction in half measures. mass atrocities in syria will continue. our allies and partners in the middle east will be put at greater risk europe will continue to be stabilized and be consumed by the internaler v channels of managing the refugea problem. africa and asia posing posing a greater threat to our national security, iran will be involved in its pursuit of its regional ambitions. pollutant will establish russia as a dominant power in the middle east for the first time 4 in four decades and all the while america's credibility and influence will continue to erodh make no mistake, mistake, this. is the course we are now on.ence

this will be the consequences of our current policy. no one believes there are easya. answers to the underlying problems in the middle east. this much should be clear, it cannot go on pretending that we can somehow avoid these problems or that the current approach ofs trying to treat the symptoms of the disease, rather than the cause will work if only we give it more time. it will not. policies of gradual escalation never do. senator reid, you have the floor. >> go-ahead. thank you very much mr. chairman. let me join the chairman and welcoming back the secretary of defense. thank you for your service. today's hearing comes in the midst of a series of events offering the situation in the middle east.tu mas this includes them massive wage wave of refugees.

the suspected isis attack that killed over 100 people and injured hundreds more during a peace rally and the new commander of operation and secretary carrie's meeting. in addition the hearing comes week before the summit with turkey and these issues thate need national response will be at the forefront. i understand he has used this time to evaluate the situation on the ground and may makeriva recommendation for changes.

there is they focused attention on the coalition's effort to train and equip the coalition forces. they have not shown the will to make necessary advances. p the political views in baghdad has not made progress. the recent operation by kurdish forces in iraq, despite the loss of one of our finest soldiers, they can have success.an a

these kinds of operation can result in risks. the time may come to evaluate these counter operations and whether our troops can play a a more active role in enabling the isf, especially when direct contact with the enemy is not expected. according to the report, they have shown success. the recent decision by the administration they come together to form a coalition to fight alongside. if successful, this would be a positive development toward the objectives of the board of the campaign. i am concerned that the decision to suspend the train and equipped program may not allow

us to accomplish our goals. while it clearly failed to live up to expectations, it could have a direct impact in theut a fight against isis. they cannot succeed without forces onrc the ground. building this force requires time and patience and critically it will require the building of trust through training and engagement and persistent engagement between the coalition and our partners on the round. they have a potential to set off another wave of refugees across europe. they have the potential to draw

the attention of moderate syrian opposition forces away from counter isis operations. the coming months i hope will be provided with the flexibility necessary to modify the campaign against isis. i would be interested in your recommendations on how he can receive the flexibility and support he needs to be successful going forward. thank you and i welcome your testimony. >> thank you mr. chairman. thanks for inviting us to come here today to discuss the counter isis campaign in iraq in syria. also to address the concerns that you raised and share with you, the plan and initiatives

that the chairman and i are formulating for our campaign in both iraq and syria. this is the first time for me, appearing before this committee along with chairman dunford who was in the region last week. i grateful to joe for answering my call and the president's call to step down from what every marine knows is a higher position, coming down from the marine corps to be joint chief of staff. thank you to this committee for confirming joe. i'm glad to have you with me today. before i turn to the subject of today's hearing, i want to reiterate as i've said consistently since march, and continue to believe, washington needs to come together behind a multi- year budget deal that supports our defense strategy,

the troops and their families and all elements of american's national security. i understand significant progress was made on this overnight and i'm looking forward to revealing the details. i welcome this major positive development and applaud the members of this committee for what you are doing to help us get there. the middle east presents a kaleidoscope of challenges. they are, as everywhere our actions and strong military posture are guided by what's in america's interest. that's our north star. amid this region's complexity and uncertainty, those interests are to deter aggression, bolster the security of our friends and allies, especially israel to ensure freedom of navigation in the gulf, to check iran's influence even as we monitor the implementation of a joint plan of action, and to degrade and ultimately defeat isis. this last one, isis, poses a threat to our people in the

friendly countries, not only in the middle east but around the world. today i will first outline the changes in the execution and our strategy that we considered and are now pursuing militarily. to gather battlefield momentum in the fight against isis. then i will address what rush is doing in syria and why we won't let it interfere with our campaign against isil. when i last spoke to this committee about our campaign and its nine lines of essential military and nonmilitary effort, i made 33 things clear about the military aspects. first, that we will deliver isis a lasting defeat. second, that truly lasting success would require enabling capable, motivated local forces on the ground, recognizing this will take time and do diplomatic energy. third, that our strategies execution can and must and will

be strengthened. all of that is still true. howard determination is unchanged as we continue to execute our campaign more effectively. today would like to elaborate on our third point and how we are trying to do more and reinforce what we know works. the changes we are pursuing can be described by what i call the three rs. rocca, ramani and the ready. before i explain what they mean, i assign the entire effort to a single officer. senator mcfarlane. in the early phase of the campaign last year, several layers were added in iraq.

the first are, rocca. isis stronghold and administrative capital. we been clear for some time that we need to keep up pressure and to that end we will keep working. we plan to strengthen through our new equipping approach and i will talk more on that in the moment. we will work overtime with other syrian and forces that push toward rocca. to this south we hope to strengthen our partner jordan and from the skies above we intensify our air campaign including additional u.s. coalition aircraft that target isis with a higher and heavy rate of strikes. this will include more strikes against isis high-value targets as our intelligence improves. also its oil in a prize which is

a critical killer of their financial infrastructure. as i've said last friday, we've already begun to ramp up these deliberate strikes. part of this pressure includes our new approach to the train and equip program. i, like president obama and members of this committee was disappointed with that program result. we examine the program this summer and have since changed it. i use the word change not and, change the program. while the old approach was to train and equip completely new forces outside of syria before sending them into the fight, the new approach is to work with that as it leaders of groups that are already fighting isis. provide equipment and some training to them and support their operations with airpower. this approach builds on successes that local forces have

made along syria's northern border to retake and hold ground from isis with the help of u.s. airstrikes and equipment re- supplies. if done in concert, as we intend, all these actions on the ground and from the air should help shrink isis territory into a smaller and smaller area and create new opportunity for targeting isis. ultimately, denying this evil movement any safe haven in the heartland. the second are is ramani. it serves as a critical part to work with local sunni communities to retake and hold ground from isis. intern to build momentum. we would eventually go northward to muzzle. they will use f-16s to support missions. as we see more progress, we are

willing to continue to provide more enabling capabilities and fire support to help them succeed. however, the iraqi government and security forces will have to take certain steps militarily to make sure our progress sticks. we need to see more in the direction of multi-sectarian government and leadership. for example, we've given the iraqi government to battalions worth. : it is just to be did effectively. -- effectively. ensure it is distributed effectively. the third and final r is raids. we will not hold back from

supporting capable partners and opportunistic attacks against iso-were conducting such activities directly. last week's rescue operation was led by iraqi kurdish forces. heroicallye advisers acted to ensure the overall success of the mission. the death of any service member is a tragedy. his family and teammates this week and we offer our condolences to master sergeant wheelers loved ones. we want to support our partners and we will. andhe same time the raid

most recently i'll lost or them know that no target is beyond our reach. as we have looked at how to gather momentum in a debt to the changing battlefield some have discussed putting the buffer zone or no-fly zone in syria. there isnalyzed options in the political and military requirements of each. it has raised some challenges which i am prepared to to discuss. let me turn to russia's involvement. to be clear we are not cooperating with russia and we're not letting rush impact the pace or scope of our campaign against russia in syria.

instead of singularly attacking isil as they said they were going to do they are primarily attacking the syrian opposition as the chairman as noted which fuels the tragic civil war there. their actions suggest a doubling down on their long-standing elationship with the sod -- assad, in attacking moderates who oppose the regime and are essential to serious political transition. they use [inaudible] which increases the possibility of civilian casualties. the united states will continue to strengthen our 65 nation global coalition. reached anhave

understanding on coalition pilots in syria it will keep prosecuting our campaign unabated. we will keep the door open for russia to contribute to efforts of political solutions which in the final answer, analysis is the only answer of the syrian conflict. i have discussed the military strategy and campaign but before in, defeating iso-requires efforts across all of the nine lines of effort. enhancing intelligence collection, disrupting isil's financing, stopping the flow of foreign fighters, providing

humanitarian support, and protecting our homeland where other departments and agencies of our government have two lead. thank you. general dunford: thank you for the opportunity to discuss our challenge to the middle east and the military dimension of our campaign against isil. i have been in my position for four weeks and have reviewed our counter isil campaign. i followed up on a commitment i made to visit the region early in my 10 to get a personal perspective. i visited israel, jordan, and iraq. i was impressed on the ouritment of our focus soldiers. the coalitions campaign

must reduce iso-'s territorial control, destroy its war fighting capability and undermine its are of aura of invincibility. interdict their lines of communication and denied them sources of revenue. we must support partners on the ground, to season secure isil held terrain. before i became the chairman of leadership across the board recognized the need to increase pressure on isil. as with any campaign we are continuing to examine ways to enhance the operations. heisel is a trans regional requiring more.

groundditions on the create challenges and opportunities. without a partner on the ground syria has presented the most difficult challenge. we must continue to work with our turkish partners to support the border of syria. must be more aggressive on strikes that will deny access to have revenue. the secretary has addressed the adjustments to the syrian train and equip program. in our support, but it will be meeting specific standards. we will look for opportunities to support groups in the northern along the border

with jordan. i would like to thank them for their hard work. due to their effort we have a much better understanding of the operating environment and the opportunities. we will be able to leverage their lessons learned. we began to move the campaign by striking a source of revenue for isil. accelerate broader iso-'sefforts against economic means. they have continued to work with turkey to secure the border area . we still have some work to do. in iraq we have been frustrated with the pace of operations. there has been recent progress and movement around ramadi and the peshmerga have made progress in the north area after talking

to the commanders on the ground we will have an opportunity to reinforce iraqi for us in the days ahead. to be successful in syria and iraq and the issues i have mentioned, we also need to continue to improve how we leverage our capabilities. we will also look for ways to increase the effectiveness of the campaign. themexpect me to bring to all of the options that may contribute to our winning the il.ht against iso in closing as i complete my initial assessment of the campaign we have identified and started to implement the initiatives to move the campaign forward. we are not satisfied or complacent about where we are and we will not be satisfied

until iso-is -- isil is defeated. thank you very much freight secretary carter, the president's spokesman after it was clear that the arm, train, and equip had failed the president spokesman said the president felt vindicated this program had failed because he never supported it to start with. this was a program that we invested $43 million at least of $500 million program. i'm not sure how many young people were killed in trying to implement this failed program. did you feel vindicated when this program failed? secretary carter: i thought that the effort, i want to repeat the the chairman said, general given this program, which was conceived last summer

-- secretary carter: i asked if you felt vindicated are not. secretary carter: i was disappointed in it. i wish it had turned out differently. lessons fromng are that and therefore our new approach differs. i can describe the difference between the old and the new, but we think that we have learning lessons from that. mr. mccain: you don't feel vindicated the program failed? secretary carter: i was disappointed the program failed. mr. mccain: the president felt vindicated according to his spokesperson. in this change, we're seeing the changes, does that mean that we, these young people that we trained and equipped and sent into a fight that we are going to protect them from being barrel bombed and attacked by russian aircraft? we havey carter: conveyed the same obligation

last summer i was before you. rightcain: after bombing now as we speak russian aircraft are bombing moderate syrian forces in syria while we have the conflicted. do you believe we should be protecting those young people? secretary carter: our title x forces have an obligation to protect. we have stated that. mr. mccain: are we protecting them? secretary carter: they are operating -- they have not come under attack. mr. mccain: russia's air has not been attacking? i'm asking about the moderate syrian forces that are there. i'm asking the question about equip,hat will train and that are now being bombed by russia. mr. mccain: with wrist -- secretary carter: with forces to the title x the department of defense trains, they have not come under attack. mr. mccain: none of the moderate

forces have come under attack? secretary carter: nine our title x program, no. ssad dosians and a attack moderate forces supported by the international coalition and one of the reasons why the russian approaches so -- mr. mccain: are we going to train these young people, rewind us and them into syria to fight, are we going to protect them from being barrel bombed and protected -- anyone we send in an train we're going to protect? secretary carter: we have an obligation to do that we have made that clear from the beginning. mr. mccain: we haven't done it. i promise you they have. you will have to correct the record. general petraeus and former --and secretary

clinton have all stated that they think we should stop the barrel bombing and that we should train and equip, and we should have no-fly zone or aircraft exclusionary zones. i might point out as complicated as it is we were able to do northern watch and southern watch rather successfully in iraq although it is not the same. are you recommending that we ?hould stop the barrel bombing to stop the barrel bombing to provide an aircraft exclusionary zone? the innocentrotect civilians that are being driven to refugee status, and the greatest refugee situation since the end of world war ii. general dunford: we have as i the zonecated analyze

various times in the humanitarian buffer zones, no-fly zones. i can give you considerations. mr. mccain: and stop the barrel bombing. general dunford: that would be one of the contents of the no-fly zone. i can tell you considerations. mr. mccain: i would like to know whether you supported or not. general dunford: we have not made that recommendation to the president. he has not taken off the table. i can explain some of the reasons for our recommendations. mr. mccain: it is not an issue that has not been examined. it has been recommended for years by some of us. have to examine all over again? secretary carter: we have looked at a quite closely. i'm prepared to describe it. mr. mccain: it's an issue that has been on the table for three or four years that i know of. we have received information

when general dempsey said it would cost $1 billion a day or something. it is not a new issue. secretary carter: it is not a new issue. it is a substantial issue mr. mccain:. mr. mccain:you should have a position on it. secretary carter: we have not recommended that. we have presented the alternative. mr. mccain: you do not agree with general petraeus, secretary gates, secretary clinton. secretary carter: we do not have a -- mr. mccain: after all these years we do have a concert of operations? secretary carter: that we are prepared to recommend. senator reed: you have spoken exclusively about forces trained by the department of defense. you can't title x but there are a lot of titles in the u.s. code. there are other forces on the ground that our coalition partners have