tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 29, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
they thinking about delaying it for a while because you don't want to impact the discussions that could trigger a government shutdown? >> i don't have an update in terms of timing. you saw the president cost commitment -- president's commitment to address the problems in the broken immigration system. that would have addressed so many problems in a way that would have had benefits. we have seen republicans in the house engage in a strategy to lock that legislation from coming up for a vote. the president is disappointed that house republicans have pursued that strategy, and that is why the president has resolved to use as much authority within the law to solve this problem on his own.
he does that hoping that house republicans will come to their senses and pass a piece of legislation that will be more impactful in terms of solving those problems and will supersede any action he might take. the president is as determined as ever to take that action on its own because house republicans have locked -- congresshe ability of to come up with a solution. >> we know the president was talking about a strategy for isis in syria. having said that, would he like to have that back? >> the president was talking about military options for countering isis in syria. there are a number of things we have already done as it relates to the broader situation in syria to confront some of the challenges there. the united states is the largest
single donor of humanitarian aid to syria in terms of dealing with the terrible situation that has been caused by the violence in syria. we have seen millions of people who have been displaced by the violence there. the united states has been engaged in an effort to support e syrianrat opposition. there has been diplomatic support provided to them. there is already work underway in syria to try to address the challenges there. the president was candid about the fact that the pentagon is still reviewing options that may be available to them, military options, to counter isil militarily in syria. you are a president, words matter. getting back to the first question, to you wish he had articulated that sentiment differently? >> he was asked a very specific
question, and was asked a question about -- >> [indiscernible] >> let me finish. he was asked an important -- a specific question whether the president would seek a congressional authorization before ordering military action in syria. the point the president made is that is putting the cart before the horse. the president has not laid out as specific plan for military action in syria. the reason is simply the pentagon is spill developing a plan. he is still reviewing that. it would be putting the cart before the horse to talk about what sort of congressional authorization would be required for a plan that has not been put in place yet. out sofact that you came quickly and tried to explain what the president had to say said wasthat what he not what he intended to say. or are you saying the rest of us to the warong way? >> i know what you mean.
the reaction that we had at the white house yesterday was not in response to the president's comments, but in response to the way it was reported. i do not mean that to sound as a criticism of you doing your job. we believe it is important for to understand what message the president was trying to communicate and what strategy he has already laid out for confronting isil and what decisions remain to be made as a relates to military options available to him in syria. that is not a critique of that idea, thus an observation that we did not listen to that conference and formulate a strategy for spotting. we listened -- for responding. we listened to that news conference, watched your porting, and recognized if we wanted people to have a clear understanding of what the president was trying to communitcate that we needed to do that. >> prime mr. cameron said this
was not a foreign conflict thousands of miles from home. he seemed to take a tougher tone with respect to isis than that president did yesterday, and people observed that the comments yesterday were not really in line or in sync with the urgency expressed by secretary hagel, joint chiefs chairman dempsey, that described it was beyond anything we had ever seen, talking about isis in take and we cannot take care of the problem without dealing with syria. is the president on the same page as his cabinet when it comes to dealing with -- >> the more important observation is the cabinet is on the same page as the commander in chief. i'm fully confident that is the case. >> no debate when it comes to striking isis immediately in syria? >> i do not think debate is the way i would describe it. i will not provide a detailed readout of the private meeting
between the president and his national security council. you have had the opportunity to observe the president's leadership style and recognize that he is interested in hearing the unvarnished assessment of a senior adviser. that is true when he is talking to the chairman of the joint chiefs and the secretary of defense about a military strategy, also when he talks to his press sectarian about a communications strategy. he is interested in you eliciting the unvarnished opinion of everyone, and it is not helpful if everyone had the same opinion or the same perspective on this challenge. >> [indiscernible] >> i am in a position to convey to you that the president is determined to get the unvarnished assessment of the professionals who surround the table make with him as he makes important decisions. i have no doubt, and if you do, you should go after each one of them, about whether or not they
are on the same page as the commander in chief. i'm confident they are. >> i want to go back to your answer on -- he said there was no update on the timing. i wanted to read back to you the fact that earlier this month you the that you expect -- at end of summer and that you anticipate that the president would act on the recommendation shortly after -- the president also said he adopted -- he played to adopt resolutions, which would going tothat you are get these renditions before the end of summer. my question to you is, is that still what we should be operating under? >> the president got asked a specific question about immigration yesterday -- >> what about timing? he did answer, if you'll allow my own view, he answered the most important part of that question, which is, is
the president still committed to taking action where house republicans won't? and the president is as determined as ever to make sure that he is going to use all the elements of his authority within the law to try to address the problems that have been created by program immigration system. there is an easy solution on capitol hill that has strong bipartisan support. house republicans are blocking it right now. the president is disappointed publicans have chosen to choose that strategy that may in the minds of some are public and political strategists be in the best partisan political interests, but not in the best interests of the country, and that is why the president is determined to take the steps that are available to him to try to address this challenge. a secondary the to the question is, what is the timeframe for that? i do not have any information to share with you what the timeframe is. reported today, quoting an administration official, that he is considering
-- that he would implement things that are more palatable to republicans and democrats running in the fall, to roll out before midterm elections, and then push off the broader sweeping things that we have heard discussed. so i am wondering if you could talk about whether that is something you are considering, or whether you expect when the president comes out and talks about immigration that we are going to hear him fully layout out everything he plans to do? phrase, that is putting the cart before the horse. the president has not received the final recommendations from the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security for what options are available to him for acting unilaterally to address the problems of the broken system. those who are speculating about how those recognitions might be of limited -- might be
implemented our head of themselves. >> [indiscernible] the choice about when or if or how to implement the immigration -- is aat we have seen conclusion that has been reached by house republicans that is in their political interest to do something not in the nation's interest, and that is to pass comprehensive him a commonsense, bipartisan immigration reform legislation. that is unfortunate. if house -- house republicans partisang to make decision that. the president wants to have a currented debate of the condition of the immigration system. there are problems. that may be the one thing that is why the agreed upon among democrats and republicans, that the immigration system is broken. there is only one site that seems determined to fix it, and
the president in the context of using his authority to try to fix the problem wants to have a debate about the status of our immigration system with the consequences for allowing that andconsistent to persist, what republicans have done or in in this case not done to try to confront a problem. that broader debate is an important part of the context in which the president wants to act. yeah, if i could belabor this. if the president is only insert about the image to -- about the issue and we have reports that he would delay implementing some of his recommendations that would come to his desk emma stone does seem contradictory in some way? wouldn't the president wanted immediately implement everything -- >> there may be people who
speculate that the president is making a political position related immigration. awould put forward noncontroversial suggestion that those are the people who are regular critics of the president. i take that declaration with a grain of salt. what the president wants to do is solve problems. he wants to do that in the context of a debate that is well understood by the public. the context of that debate is an of theshed assessment current state of our immigration system. he wants to make sure the public understands what the consequences are for our broken immigration system to persist without solving it. and the president wants to make sure the context of that debate is aderstood in that there reasonable, commonsense proposal that has already been passed through the senate and would
pass the house if house republicans were not blocking it. ok? could senatore kerry convey to the gulf countries that he is not conveyed before, and what makes the president confident that the sunni neighbors of iraq answer it would behave differently knowing that they cringe riveted to the creation of extremists like isis and others through funneling money and arms dysuria for a long time -- arms to syria for a long time? >> the president talked about this yesterday. it is very clearly in the syria'ss of iraq's in neighbors, even those sunni countries, to not have a violent extremist organization wreaking havoc in their neighborhood. it is destabilizing. it poses a pretty direct threat to those countries. so it is in their interest as
never before for them to work in partnership with other countries in the region and even other interested countries around the world to counter that threat and mitigate the destabilizing impact of the violent activities we have seen bert portray did i isil. thatded by willbe the topic of discussion that the secretary will carry with him when he goes to the region. i am sure they will one way or another, state department officials, will read out those meetings, so i do not want to get ahead of what the discussions will look like, but it is clear the backdrop for those conversations is that the clear interests of these government has in the last several weeks then crystallized. >> the president agreed with the when henister cameron said the established of an islamist state in iraq constitutes a direct national
threat to the united states? >> i do not see all of cameron's remarks. the aspects of the remarks that i did see was the explanation before by his government why they decided to change the terror threat level, and that was related to the threat that is posed by individuals with western passports that have been fighting alongside isil, that could, using a passports, travel back to the west and carry out acts of violence in the west. there are a number of security changes in their nation's security posture that they have put in place. the united states is regularly monitoring our posture. we're working closely with allies, on the law enforcement level and national security level, to mitigate this threat. this is something we have been engaged in in quite some time. those efforts continued today, to this hour. >> the question on ukraine.
the british government, who i guess -- is pressing european alies to block russia from swift bank network, which is a an important bank network. that would be a significant escalation of financial sanctions against russia over ukraine. does the u.s. government share view once government's this, or are you trying to do something like this to block them from this swift network? >> i have not seen those reports. i refer you to the treasury department who could talk about what sort of tools are available to the united states and allies as we consider efforts to impose additional costs on russia for their actions in ukraine. >> are you looking to step up these financial sanctions at the moment, and taken to another level when the concerns financial sanctions? >> as a general matter, based on russia's continued hundred and ukraine, we have seen
the continued movement of equipment and material across the order into ukraine. we have seen definitive reports that russian troops have moved across the border aren't now firing on ukrainian military positions. inhave seen russia interfere ukraine in ways that the international community is completely unwilling to tolerate. as a result, it does put russia at risk of facing additional economic costs that can be imposed by the united states in concert with our allies. expect to see further steps from the united states to isolate russia in the financial sector? >> the president is traveling to europe next week. he will have the opportunity to meet with a number of nato allies, and the situation in
ukraine is an item on the agenda. i'm confident there will be a serious discussion about imposing additional economic costs on russia, ok? major? an invasione, is it ended russia commit an act of war? >> what we have seen is consistent with behavior we have seen with them for many months now. there is ample intelligence, social media reporting, to indicate that they are-- >> the secretary-general now calling russian regulars in ukraine with military equipment. is that an invasion? >> the evidence is compelling and indicates russia is continuing to do the kinds of things using their military might to further destabilize the situation in ukraine. what we have asked -- called on the russians to do is try to de-escalate this is rent -- the
escalate the situation there. >> is it something more reluctant to use those words describe what appears to be happening in ukraine? >> we have been clear about describing what happened there. the president ddi when he asked his question yesterday, as the russian military has allowed materiel to be transferred across the border, as the russian military has even put boots on the ground in ukraine. we have regularly marshal isdence what exactly happening. despite the protestations of the russian government that for some reason would have us believe otherwise. those denials are completely without credibility, and we have been candid about that, i think. >> you mentioned earlier that the government is monitoring the
of americans have gone into serious to fight on behalf of isis. -- does theion decision mean that there was a high degree of confidence to monitor these people in a way that the british do not currently share? i i do not want to be in the position of assessing confidence or success of an ongoing intelligence -- >> [indiscernible] -- trying to get a question on two separate things. of monitors have visibility -- do we feel confident to monitor our ability to track [indiscernible] that is an assessment of our intelligence capabilities i do not want to venture from here. let me say this -- united states on our own right
now is dedicating significant resources and time and attention to mitigating this threat. we are also working very closely with other interested parties including the british to try to counter this threat, to monitor these individuals and mitigate the threat of violence that they may pose to western interests. that is something that continues. we are working closely with the british on this. one thing that has been observed that oakley and i would observe publicly from here, i think, is that part of the british concern is that there is according to published reports a relatively large number of individuals with reddish passports who of gone -- with british passports will go on the region to fight along side isil. the number of americans published is somewhat lower. >> the president in addition to saying -- said we can rout
isil militarily. how does he know that, and is that the goal ultimately? we do not have a strategy to get them in syria, which is their base of operations. it might be there aspirational capital. how does he know we can route the military? >> i will say couple things. one of the things that the president said in the now famous statement is we are getting to the end. the department of defense is hard work on developing military options for the president and serial. whether the president chooses -- in syria. whether the president decides to take advantage and order one of those options are immensely seen. these are plants that are developed. the president has confidence in the military apparatus to the bob solid plans for him. any strike or action he orders a component of a broader
strategy for defeating isil and mitigating the threat they pose to the united states and western interests. that will all be done with our the iraqiboth in government and the governments of the region and with countries around the world. as will be a joint effort. let me say one thing about what you said because it is important. the question in the mind of the president is more complicated and in some ways even bigger than does the united states in conjunction with our allies have the capability to rout isil. the real question is, how do we sustainably secure the situation isiraq so that even if isil routed, that they cannot sprout
back up and make significant gains in iraq or anywhere else, for that matter? and that is why the strategy the president has put forward has at ,he top of that list a unified successful, sophisticated, integrated directly government that can unite a country to face the threat that is posed by isil and to ensure that the iraqi people can take responsibility themselves for the security situation of their country. that ultimately is how we will be in a position to deny isil to create a safe haven where they can threaten other countries in the region or eventually even other countries around the world. >> i understand that and appreciate you for saying that. is there any risk for the president to see complexity and it become an excuse for paralysis? people look at this region and say, if you solve this militarily, then a lot of these other issues can be addressed. but you cannot address these other issues if isis resents an
ongoing, expanding terrorist and military threat to ever-larger pockets of space in iraq and syria. just this week they took four runs at an airbase. each and every one was more type oakley sophisticated than the previous one. gained believed are important to their overall territorial objectives. there would be those who would say, yes, there are all these complex issues, but the military issue before you now. and you better deal with or else you cannot correct the things. >> that is why the president is clear about the idea that these things need to move together, right? that is why the president as the iraqis have made progress in informing the -- in forming the government we are called on them to adopt for any number of months now, has moved side-by-side with the
president's plant authorizing legit action in iraq. i mentioned earlier there are a number of things that have been congress by the security forces with the support of the u.s. military. >> yesterday those bombing raids would be limited and pose little risk of exposure to u.s. forces. it is still a minor league effort. >> i would not describe it that way. they have been successful as they retook the mosul dam. they have been successful in blunting the offensive underway gaagainst erbil. the president is determined and the president said not yesterday, but in his previous appearance in the briefing room, that he is the commander in chief of the u.s. military and he will use that in support of iraq security forces to a compost these goals, but he will not become the commander in chief of the iraqi air force. we need to have a situation where the iraqi people and
government and security forces can take responsibility for the own security. the united states and this president is willing to the vote signet -- devote significant resources to this ever. >> a complex array of other issues -- >> i do not know what you mean. >> if it takes the iraqis to do this, if we are not going to be the iraqi air force, and the other partners in the region did not come in a way they are not coming in, does isis gettys they? get to stay? >> the overriding dynamic is making sure that the national security interests of the united states of america are protected. that is always at the top of the agenda. consistent or not?
>> that strategy requires the iraqi government to do the things that will unite the country to face this threat. the good news is they are making those steps. prime minister maliki was a prime minister a few weeks ago. he is not prime minister anymore. beq's leaders seem to pursuing an agenda we would like for them to pursue. they got to form a cabinet, but that work is underway. we saw iraq's security forces and the kurdish security forces were being overrun by isil forces. thet to the intervention of united states military and the service of american servicemen and women they have been able to ofn the tide in support iraqi security forces. never poubefore hasn't been any interest of governments to combat this or that is wreaking
havoc in their neighborhood. we're optimistic about the success we may have in rallying them to discuss as well. we have made important progress on this issue over the last few weeks, but make no mistake, the president does not believe that just pursuing a military strategy is a substitute for the more conference of strategy that will be required to arrive at an enduring solution to this problem. >> in light of the british raising of the terror threat there, and labor day weekend, we are monitoring these americans with pastors. is there evidence from tsa, from the fbi, cia, nsa, that any of those people with the western passports have been on planes or are on their way back to the united states or are already in the united states? >> the most detailed assessment i can offer from here is that there is no evidence or indication right now that isil
is actively plotting to attack the united states homeland. that is true right now. thatsaid, it is important we take the steps necessary as a part of the president's strategy to deny them a safe haven that would given the comfort he would need to consider funding this kind of tax. we also need to be vigilant about the threat that is posed by foreign fighters that individuals with western passports, that have been fighting along isil, that maybe considering returning to the west. we are vigilant about those things, and that is work that often takes place behind the scenes, that as recalibrate our security posture and have the kinds of discussions about intelligence and national security matters that are important to the safety of the united states of america, those things are not often evident to the merrick and people, but people are going to have some
confidence that the administration and our national security professionals and law enforcement professionals are very vigilant about the threat that we face in this regard. knowe we confident that we all of the americans that have gone to. to fight, and we are we confident we know they're still there and not here? >> i cannot offer an assessment about the depth of our relates toe as it this specific question. i can tell you this is a challenge that our national security apparatus and intelligence apparatus is focused on, and it is why we are working closely with our part ners around the world to mitigate this threat. >> in june there were 350 for unaccompanied minors coming across the border in the united states, from central america. the latest figures that are for
august, the count has come down to 104 a day. is the crisis of unaccompanied minors over on the border right now? w, but we have seen these numbers to be very follicle, and are important steps this administration is taking to try to prevent knows numbers from going back up. unfortunately we have not gotten the kind of support in the form of resources that are necessary from the congress. the president put forward a detailed postal for the kinds of resources that he would like to see that could be used to try to rent those numbers from increasing again. this is a problem that while the numbers have improved and we are pleased about that, this is a problem that we still remain very focused on, because we have -- this has been a very volatile situation. those numbers have without a lot of morning on some occasions spiked.
so we will continue our diplomatic efforts to work with where we aretries, seeing this population moved to the sophists border to make them understand they should not make this journey. we will try to shift resources sure weorder to make can continue efforts to secure the border. the president is still using his executive authority to devote additional resources to the immigration courts so we can make sure they both respect the due process to which these individuals are entitled, while at the same time we are making the wheels of justice turn efficiently. >> on those measures you are talking about, that you have said are successful -- >> the other factor here is the weather. traditionally we have seen a numbers when the weather gets hotter. it is not only because of what the administration has done that
these embers have gone down. there is no doubt that the administration has made a substantial contribution to the reduction of those numbers. >> as far as the measures -- >> i apologize. >> recently last week the uatamalansllins -- g continue to allow minors to go across the border, uninhibited. why are they not stopping them? i just talked to an immigration judge, who says the money has not yet shown up, and they still in the courtays systems. if that is not happening, those two things are not happening, what is working? what have you done that is actually stopping or at least reducing -- toi think the first place
start is the numbers speak for themselves. we see the numbers dramatically lower for a number of reasons. the steps that the administration has put in place has had an effect. as it relates to the government of guatemala, there is more work that needs to be done to ensure that they are playing as constructive a role as possible in stemming the flow of children or adults traveling with children to the southwest border. what i would say is we have seen some important announcements from the mexican government and that they have been playing an inortant role in preventing, tightening their borders, in a way that is clearly in the interests of the mexican government and the mexican people and their own national a benefitbut it has for the united states, and that is why we coordinate with them on these issues. as relates to resources for the immigration court systems,
there's no doubt we would like to see additional resources deployed reduce that backlog. that is what the president asked for money from congress to ensure our courts could have the resources they need to administer justice. and wese republicans have engaged in -- house republicans have engaged in an effort to prevent those resources from being provided. there certainly is more that can be done and more that would be done if congress and republicans in congress were not blocking it, ok? peter? >> what was the speculation of the present that's what was that calculation of the president's comments on russia? stopat some and try to ukraine from coming in direct u.s.-russia confrontation, or is there something the investor can
say that the president can come without elevating direct tensions? president's answer made clear a couple of things. the first is the president draw ew a decision between the united states relationship with our nato allies and article five commitments we have to those allies, and how that is different than the commitments the united states has to nation like ukraine that, while as a friend of the united states, is not a nato ally of the united states. because the united states does have an important relationship with ukraine, the united states will come as the president said, stands shoulder to shoulder with ukrainian people and government as they counter these destabilizing activities from the russians. but the president thought it was important as a matter of policy and as a matter of giving the ght into people insid
his thinking that we are not trending toward a military conflict between united states and russia in this region over this issue. there's a lot we can do to support the ukrainian government, the ukrainian people. there's a lot we can do in acting in concert with our allies to impose costs on russia for the tactics that they are employing right now. but people should also have a clear understanding where the president's head is what we hundredng to layout -- was trying to lay out last night. >> intentions for the nato i lie like someone baltics -- [indiscernible] anyou're talking about administration that when presented with photographic evidence that russian goods were on the ground in ukraine stood there and denied that russia had
military in ukraine. i saw according to one report the foreign minister suggested that maybe these were videogame crack fix -- graphics that have been trumped up different directions. that is an irrational estimation and makes it hard to tell exactly what they're thinking. ed? >> as you were speaking, we heard -- so that the president can raise money in your. what is your thinking about the president does not have a strategy to deal with isis in serious military, and then next day goes out and raises campaign money? convened a meeting with the national security council yesterday after leaving the podium to talk to with his advisers including top officials from the pentagon about our more broad strategy against isil.
that included a discussion about the mills or options available to the president for dealing in syria. that is the responsibility of the pentagon. there are dedicated professionals there. >> and he can go out and raise campaign money, so i asked last week after james foley's beheading, within minutes he was on the golf course with does he feel like the critics are coming after him, it does not matter anymore? why does he still raise campaign money when he acknowledges this is something he has to deal with? tothe job of the resin is handle responsibilities at the same time. that is why the president has a national security team and he has a lot of confidence in them. it is also why he works closely with his advisers on a range of issues to make sure that he is leading them in the right direction, setting a vision for the future of the country. that is what h allows him to handle responsibilities at the
same time. one of his responsibilities is support democratic candidates on the ballot and that is why he's spending a little bit of time supporting the efforts. there is no doubt that anybody understands that he is devoting more time manager to the morin spot -- more time and energy to the more important responsibilities he has. and the president yesterday i tried to make a broader argument that media pundits suggested that we were inching closer to airstrikes against syria. i wonder if the president cannot help said that expectation on august 20 when he commented on the the heading, -- beheading. when people harm americans anywhere, we see that justice is done and we act against isis, standing alongside others. was that justin and the threat? >> no. as we discussed some of the
president ordered military action in iraq in pursuit of -- >> before that statement, before the beheading -- >> [indiscernible] my question is, is there a way to get justice as he told the american people he was going to do without military action in syria? >> the president will get justice. the president promised he would do that -- >> how does he do that? is it working with partners -- that talked about the fact the president has already ordered military action in syria -- >> in iraq. elementsq to go after that are threatening americans. we talked about how substantial and important those public your actions have been in support of protecting american citizens in iraq. awayresident has not shied at on page he has demonstrated he will not china away at all from using the elements of
mightan power, military or diplomatic insolence, to represent interests and protect the lives americans in that region. >> to get beyond the language what he said, a civil question question -- why does he not have a strategy at? >> the pentagon is still developing military options for the president, for the commander in chief, to use against isil in syria. there are some who probably would make the case that it is ok to not have a formulated comprehensive strategy, but just as one pundit i know recently suggested that we could just go drop some bombs and see what happens. that is not what the president leaves is a smart approach. the president believes it is pursue a for us to comprehensive strategy where military action is one component of that strategy. >> you are saying it is the pentagon's issue? is that commander in chief sayinnot saying he wants this on
his desk tomorrow? >> he wants the pentagon to be deliberate as they develop the options that may or may not be available to him, and the president will consider them an evil act in a timely fashion as he assesses the best interests of the united states of america. august 2, the president had a news conference, a question was asked whether president still believes al qaeda has still been decimated. he said court al qaeda has been -- core al qaeda has been decimated, but we are seeing these groups to test this i think that canceled the dangers. he went on to say that groups like isis, that requires them to make sure that we have a strategy that is strengthening those partners so they have the capacity to deal with them manageable regional threats.
august 2013, he is talk about how we need to be putting together a strategy. one year later, how can he not have that strategy? has been verynt explicit about what comprehensive strategy is. that operative strategy is-- >> he said i do not have that strategy specifically for syria. >> if you will let me answer the question, the point of that statement, and this is a sentiment of a strategy that the reiterated, he reiterated this at west point when he spoke there on may 28 pit he said i believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy, trying on our screens in our and afghanistan to put more partner -- more effectively partner with countries. corelked about how the component of our strategy needs to be building a regional partners. the united states is not
responsible for in this situation providing security for the people of iraq. we need to build our partners and make sure we have a cooperative government so the iraqi people can provide for different security. that is the way we'll find and in during way to try to deal with the threat. if we rely only on military might, there's a question that because of the bravery and skill of them american servicemen and women that they can have an impact on the battlefield, that they could rout isil. if we want to make sure isil does not come back, we need to make sure we have the effect of partners that can provide for the start of the country and prevent isil for making a return. there is a role for the united states plate to support those efforts. we are not going to able to solve the problem for them. i recognize some of the critics did not abate. some of the critics believe the united states should act in the territory, -- military, but that won't work or a substantial commitment of military forces
and occupation of another country, and that is of a strategy the president believes succeeds. it did not succeed in iraq the last time around. the president does not believe it is a recipe for success this time either. >> you said the president has a couple of possible options. to be clear, has the president then presented options from the pentagon at this point? >> i will not get into a play-by-play. i will play as a general matter that the president has been discussing with his national security team and with his team at the pentagon the range of options that are or may be available to him for countering isilhotel or a -- military. the president has discussed with his national security team some of the options they are
developing. i am not going to get into a play by way about whether they have finalized their plans, whether he's reviewed them, gone back to them about their finalized plans. i will not provide that much insight into this understandably private process. i will tell you the president has had a number of discussions with his national security team about military options that may or may not be available for the and. -- to him. >> going back to the description between that discrepancy between comets yesterday ms weekly, -- between comets yesterday and last week, they seem to be laying the groundwork for the strong possibility that would be some type of military intervention. confident that the chairman of the joint chiefs, secretary of defense, and all senior going back to the descrin between that discrepancy between comets yesterday ms members of l security team are on the same page as the commander-in-chief. if you have doubt about them, you should ask them. >> why the public discrepancy?
why do you have hagel saying this is a threat beyond -- >> it is important to differentiate between a discrepancy about the policy and strategy the president is pursuing in different words that secretary hagel has chosen to describe the situation. he is offering up his own assessment of what he perceives based on his knowledge of what is happening on the ground. i do not think it is particularly -- the words that he used he used were different than what the president has said about this. but the policy implications of that for securing the united states of america and our interests are completely consistent. >> are they on the same page? does the president share that same assessment? >> there were a couple questions about his
assessment. i would refer you to his comments. >> he has dispatched secretary kerry to try to create an international coalition. does he have a timeline, anything that he is going to have a strategy in a matter of days, weeks? >> he has laid out a comprehensive strategy for dealing with isil. it starts with the formation of effective iraqi government, more effective relationship, more effective iraqi security forces, greater engagement from regional governments who have a clear stake in this outcome. it involves the participation of countries around the world who are concerned about the threat includesisil, and it the military actions that the president has already ordered take place in iraq in support of all those goals. there are a range of components in the strategy. he has laid that out clearly.
strategyhe we will pursue. it is the only way we will get a solution to this problem. >> could you respond to something that "the new york times does quote editorial board wrote about yesterday -- this is alarming, giving billions back since september 11, 2011, protecting an assessor ing terrorist threats? thehat an assessment that administration does not have a complete assessment of isil? >> for our assessment of isil's capabilities, i refer you to the intelligence committee. every effort of the team is focused on making sure that we are putting in place the kind of strategy and implementing and executing on the strategy the president has laid out for protecting the national
interests of the united states. >> when the ukrainian people hear you saying we are not trending toward military action in ukraine, and the comment that the president made rolling that out, and when they see constant threat of increased notching up of sanctions which again we are hearing about that have only robustssia take more actions in their incursions, why do they not think there countries being written off? >> the president also said the united states stands shoulder to shoulder with the people of ukraine. that is a pretty strong signal of support run the united states, the one indispensable nation of the world, in support of their cause. it also seen united states acting in concert with allies to impose significant costs on russia for their strategy in ukraine. this economic costs have taking a toll on the russian economy. we have seen significant capital
flight from russia. there is a clear indication that the global investing public does not think that russia is a good place to park their money right now. >> with their units rolling through ukraine? sanctions have had an effect. they have taken a toll on her economy. thetal flight, we have seen russian currency weakened so much that the central bank has expended significant amount of money to prop up accuracy we have seen productions related to economic growth significantly curtailed. russia's credit rating has been downgraded. there has been a toll that has been taken on the russian economy, and ultimately it will be up to president putin to determine the exactly how he wants to respond. the fact is that for all of russia's continued agitation in ukraine, russia is becoming a more isolated and more weakened.
>> you see the united states having any effect on its military actions in ukraine? >> we've seen the russians continued efforts to transfer and personnel across the border from russia and ukraine. those sorts of decisions are made by president putin, but there are significant costs associated with those decisions. we have seen the impact it has taken on the russian economy. we have seen russia become more isolated. to make aputin needs decision about whether or not he is willing to weaken his country just to destabilize a country that is on their border. >> what do you think putin is up to today, with comments the money a young audience of russia's nuclear capability? >> when they are denying photographic evidence of russia's military action in ukraine, it is hard to tell exactly what they are thinking of their. this is going to be the last
one. thatat is your assessment the threat level is lower than that -- and why the threat level has not been elevated? >> i would not draw the clearer of a line. i would say the president has been said about the threat that isil does pose in the form of foreign fighters to the united states and our interests. it is something we are from tucson and working to mitigate. not at this point however see a reason to change the threat level in this country. official assessment, i refer you to the department of homeland security. you said you do not anticipate a change in the level. what would change that assessment and what is the trigger that the president would look for? >> it would be the
responsibility of the secretary of homeland security to make that determination. i would refer you to them. let me do a quick week ahead. the president will depart here tomorrow evening with his family to go to new york to participate in a private event in new york. on monday the president is looking forward to celebrating labor day in milwaukee. he will deliver remarks. on tuesday the president will depart the white house for his trip to europe. he will travel to estonia, spend the night in estonia. do a range of meetings with the leaders of the baltic nations in estonia before leaving on wednesday night to travel to wales for the nato summit in the nato summit will take place thursday and friday, and the president will return on friday evening to the white house spirit of the course of that trip i is that you will have a couple of opportunities to hear directly from the president and you can ask him a question or two. all right?
thanks, everybody. >> [indiscernible] >> that is the current plan, yes. have a good labor day weekend, everybody. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you may have or josh earnest mention about the president's fundraiser. he was initially expected to spend a night out of town, but we received word his plans have changed and he will back here in bc tonight. no word on the reason for the change of plan. the associate press is reporting the british government has raised the terror threat level from substantial to severe. there's no specific threat. that threat level means a terrorist attack is considered highly likely. the home secretary insisted today there is no information to suggest an attack is imminent. she says the higher threat level is related to development and in iraq and syria.
focus on native americans, looking at the battle of little the court. -- bighorn. here's a preview. ur americans west, they want to turn indians into farmers. -- to tryll will not to make a living. crazy horse will not surrender his pony and hook it up to a plow. they arehunters, and warriors. and that is their vision. it in 73,-1870's, there is an economic crisis. the stock market crashes. the banking system rolls over. the panic of 1873.
there's 20% unemployment. does any of that ring a bell? is tough times in america. u.s. grant as the president. he is going to have to wrap up the economy or he is not going to get reelected he needs an economic stimulus package. george custer is going to provide it, gold in the black hills. the summer of 1874, custer leads an expedition in the black hills. rumors of gold that persisted for years, but now it is a reality. there is gold in the black hills. newspaper reports say all you got to do is walk through the grass and pick up nuggets off the tops of your shoes. [laughter] pour intoospectors, the hills. overnight, 3000, 4000 people, real quick. everyone is an illegal alien because the black hills along to x, guaranteed by the
treaty of 1868. know why people allow. while bill hickok shot in the back of the head, playing cards. he is an illegal alien. so this is friend calamity jane, call the hillsux sacred ground. president grant sees an opportunity there and he wants to get that gold to rip up the economy and create jobs and put money into treasury. so, he is going to try to buy the black hills. $7 million -- and a lot of money. blameg bull, crazy horse the white man. no, not for sale. you don't sell the ground that your ancestors walked on. and now their bones lie beneath. not for sale. c-span's american history
tour focused on native americans will also include a look at a mexican pueblo and some 9000-year-old night of american -- native american pictographs. book tvs in-depth interview with former congressman ron paul. american history tv with more from our carnival theme series, real america. series, real america. tomorrow on washington journal, tim lynch will talk about the militarization of the nation's police forces. later, martin sullivan will be on the program to discuss corporate tax inversions. after that, a roundtable discussion on the state of the american worker. washington journal is live tomorrow and every day starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on our companion networks. this weekend, congressional budget office director douglas almond or is our guest --
douglas elmendorf is our guest. newsmakers airs sunday at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. today, defense department briefings with the pentagon press secretary wrapped up a few minutes ago. this is about 45 minutes. i want to start with a quick preview of secretary hegel's schedule next week. in keeping with the conference hospital can, i spoke to the in keeping with the
conference hospital this, i 's focus, i spoke to the secretary. this will be an opportunity to talk in greater detail about the need for innovation and how we develop and procure new capability. visit --tary will also and wales, the secretary will join president obama and secretary kerry and their counterparts from nato for this very important summit. the focus of the summit will be afghanistan, the crisis in ukraine and the middle east and how to strengthen the alliance. the secretary has participated in some for nato cereals leading up to this point. four nato serials up to this point. the secretary will next travel to georgia.
first visit tos georgia as secretary. he has met with his bridge and counterpart before. georgian counterpart before. the georgian military has been a valued partner of the united states. obviously, georgia shares are concerned about russia's actions in ukraine and i will of course be the topic of the agenda during that visit. from georgia, secretary hegel will travel to turkey for his first visit there as secretary of defense. turkey is a key nato ally. they share our deep concerns with the threat posed i isil -- by isil. with that, i will take questions. -- inukraine, could you
terms of what the latest movement of the russian forces and ukraine, what numbers the degree to which represent that relation over there. the involvement and whether you consider this an invasion. i am not going to try to detail what the russian armed forces are doing. if for their defense ministry to speak to. it is their military. we don't have a perfect view of everything they're doing. that said, as i have said many times, we have continued to see the build up their capabilities along that border. we have continued to see them , somee weapons systems very sophisticated, into eastern ukraine in support of the separatists. , we have longeek believed that russian forces,
military forces have been part of that movement. facilitated the movement and helped the separatists. we have seen this continue to build and build and build and now you see nato come up without an interview recently that has how in the last couple of weeks, that effort has intensified. as the ukrainian armed forces have gotten more capable and been able to retake territory in eastern ukraine, we believe that has helped foster moscow's intention to intensify these efforts. it is an intensification of the same behavior that we have seen russia do for th months.
we continue to look for ways to support ukrainian armed forces. we continue to look for ways to reinsure our nato allies and partners and we continue to call for russia to pull its forces back and stop escalating the tension there. >> looking for ways to support ukrainian forces, are you preparing any new initiatives? are you considering training inside ukraine or anything of that nature? >> i'm not aware of anything specifically inside ukraine. we have had a 20 year plus relationship with the military in ukraine and that will continue. we helped with their own professionalism. simply the association with us in the training opportunity we've had. continuing -- there were reports of another exercise we are doing. when we talked about the fact that we were going to make the
training regime more aggressive and more , werehensive in europe continue to do that. i don't have anything particular to announce today. a cost of the iraq operation that you could share with us? obama saidhe options yesterday he had asked secretary hegel to develop, can you oserify for us how th options are different than the ones that were developed before? me get the cost one and then i will do the best i can with the second one. what i can tell you about the cost of ongoing activities in iraq is it has married since june. it has cost $7.5 million per day
. that is based on a snapshot of the operations that have occurred. , it did not imagine start out at $7.5 million per day. intensified, so ourhas cost -- as activities have intensified, so too has our cost. we are well within our limits in that regard. as the secretary said to you last week, we think we have it covered in terms of funding. since the operations began or sent our activities in iraq have begun in mid-june. that was the war powers resolution signing. since the beginning. when we first added some security personnel, it wasn't
costing us seven point $5 million. but the average since the very beginning. a daily figure every day. 16, $7.5 million per day, i didn't bring my calculator appear. -- up here. if you are looking for total, to thumbnailod way it. june 16, $7.5 million per day. it's been $7.5 million every day. it did not start out that much. on average, that is about the cost. it is being supported through our overseas contingency funding . you had a second question. this is a planning organization. a discussion of plans as an interim process.
to say we have not been thinking about for quite some time. tell you and remind you that the situation on the ground there continues to change. it is very fluid. as it continues to change, so too do the kind of plans that we are working on. there have been and will continue to be discussions both here in the pentagon and across the river with the state department and the white house about what options look like. what they could look like. when we get a point where we are ready to have a more open discussion about that, the pentagon will be ready to have that discussion. trying to combat isolate iraq and syria, is that right -- combat isil in iraq and syria, is that right? >> options for potential
mid-reaction in syria. that's what the president was referring to yesterday. -- potential military action in syria. important to remember, we've been operating inside iraq from a humanitarian perspective and from the perspective of conducting airstrikes. nothing has changed about those missions. almost 110 airstrikes total .ince the beginning an you guys say you always have options on the table. this was a new request from the president. >> the president was referring to planning options inside syria. i would be less than truthful about said to you that we had not been thinking about that
before yesterday. weare not at the point where are prepared to have a more forceful discussion about what to do with isil. this is not a small point. the commander-in-chief that secretary hegel have all said, whatever the options are for serial, it's not going to just military. there will be a military solution here to the threat isil poses. you have to factor in other elements. certainly had to work on what those options could look like, there are other parts of our government that are working as well on options they might pursue. >> how contingent are your on flights over syria for gathering intelligence? >> any military option requires
knowledge of the situation on the ground as best as you can get it. we always want to have as much information and as accurate information as you can possibly have. without getting into specific hypotheticals, whatever options we prepare and are prepared to conduct will be andant upon getting obtaining and analyzing the best information you can on the ground. in june, chairman dempsey was pretty clear in saying that we don't have a complete picture yet. is it fair to say that the gathering of a complete crowd picture of isil in it may take several weeks before your comfortable enough to have this discussion? guest: i don't think i would be
prepared to put a specific timeline on it in terms of weeks or days. it wouldn't be prudent for me to do it. anytime you're going to conceive of or prepare for military options, anywhere in the world for any number of missions, you are going to want to get as much information as you can. the taxpayers would expect us to want to do this thing with -- if we get asked to anything -- to as anything, to do it with u much information as possible. can't this be done from the iraq border or the southern turkish border? potentiallking about future operations or speculating -- what i'm about to say is not validating the premise of the question that we will definitely
conduct strikes in syria or will conduct surveillance one way or the other. there are many ways in which we gain situational awareness. some of that requires the use of air assets and some doesn't and i will leave it at that. inaccurate information about isil capabilities, could you confirm if isis militants have now shown capabilities -- we have seen reports issued this morning -- >> if isil has drones of their own? i have seen a press report here, but i'm not going to back that up at all. >> can you elaborate on that? states are now some
facing isil on one hand and others are financing them? >> i'm not going to elaborate on that at all. >> the president says there is no strategy at four isil. the pentagon's role here in developing a strategy -- it is believed the secretary will talk about this in turkey. talk a little bit about the way ahead. what are the plans you are looking at? what do you hope to achieve? there is talk about having the pentagon playing a role in that effort. a train and assist mission in iraq. if i try to answer that question in every aspect, i would have to lay it all out here at a press conference. i'm sure you guys would greatly appreciate that.
are jobs a lotou easier and mine pretty much nonexistent. the way i would think about this is -- the president said this he will yesterday. -- rudy well yesterday. it's about the grading isil's cap abilities -- pretty well yesterday. it's about the grading isil's capabilities. there are many ways to do that. not all of them are military. of the military ways you can do that is the way we are doing it inside iraq right now. through the use of airstrikes. you can certainly hit them and we have been. we are hitting what we are aiming at inside iraq. we know that we are having an effect on their ability to
operate. we are being disruptive to their own operations. to their command and control and their ability to move around. you can have an effect in that way and the pentagon calls the kinetics. it means you have a very target of -- targeted, precise effect. there are other ways you can, from a military perspective, try to disrupt and degrade their ability to operate through humanitarian assistance. one of the things is trying to move forward on a train and equip program for military opposition. opposition. hurdles thatt of remain to be leapt in terms of getting us there. you have to have a moderate opposition you can rely on.
a vettingo have process and one willing partner in the region to help sponsor some of the sites we are .raining them in inside the military component element of national power, there are lots of things that don't all include airstrikes. if we have learned nothing -- you have been covering this longer than i have -- if we've learned nothing over 13 years of war, you can completely eliminate extremism anywhere through simply kinetics. while we must be ready for that option and we will be at the appropriate time to discuss those actions, that alone is not to be the answer. you've been assessing them for quite some time now.
>> it's entirely possible that the assessment teams could move to more of an advisory mission. that has not happened yet. that certainly is a possibility going forward. we just haven't reached that level yet. that decision has not been made yet. two joinhave those operations. one in baghdad, one in erbil. there isn't some advising going on through the joint operations. -- isn't some advising going on through the joint operations. some advising going on through the joint operations. things aree certainly military options available and all of those
things are certainly considered. i would not get ahead of what -- >> you mentioned disrupt and degrade isil. not destroy? >> those were my words. i would not -- i don't make policy here. the president said yesterday that -- he used the word "degrade." i'm not going to elaborate on the president's comment. the pentagon is not ready to go back to the president with options yet. he said yesterday he has not heard back and he was waiting. hagelast week, secretary said isis was a threat like nothing we've ever seen. we have to be ready for it. he has talked about it being imminent. claire up the confusion for the american people. is it urgent or isn't it? -- clear up the confusion for
the american people. you are always ready -- if you were to strike today, are you ready? why are you not ready to go to the president? why is he saying that he is still waiting for you? >> i will try to answer that third the question presumes that i'm not doing anything. that there is no sense of urgency at the pentagon and you and i both know that's not true. we have intensified military presence in the persian gulf. 110ave conducted nearly airstrikes inside iraq. believe me, this building and united states military share the same sense of urgency over the situation in iraq and the threat that isil poses. there is no doubt or debate about that. when the secretary talked about them being like nothing we've ever seen, some people have taken that to mean in terms of scale of a homeland
attack. what he was referring to is that this is a group that doesn't behave like any other terrorist group would have to deal with before. they are not simply killing, murdering and maiming. they are trying to develop revenue. we all share the same sense of urgency. when the president spoke about exploring further planning options, he was referring to the potential for military options inside syria. which we haven't done. we are working on those kinds of options for him. why are you not yet ready with military options for syria? why is the president still waiting?
why are you not ready given everything secretary hagel -- >> planning is an iterative process. the question assumes it some sort of binary thing where we get orders to do it and here is the binder and boom, there you go and it's on your -- we have it turned into you on your due date. the situation on the ground constantly changes. you do the military planning in real-time. especially with the situation in iraq. isil changes over time. the thread changes over time. it's not like we haven't worked on this. we have worked on this. we continue to work on it. planners in tampa and here at the pentagon continually refine and change and update planning options for potential military activity. it's an ongoing effort. ready tos a government
have that discussion, we will have that discussion. ready -- itust not doesn't take anything away from everything that's been said in washington. >> asked the ones getting hit from the sky about how seriously we are taken the threat. anybody who has any knowledge of the united states military knows that we are ready. we are ready all the time. that doesn't necessarily mean that the planning process is complete or that decisions to do anything have not been made. the fact that we are ready should not be doubted by anybody . >> is the pentagon on the same page as the white house? >> yes. if the pentagon has been
constantly planning for this, if the president or the white house says they wanted plans presented today or last night, the pentagon would have had something ready to go. then you said, once you are ,eady for this long discussion once the administration is ready is thereiscussion -- somebody in the administration not quite ready for this discussion to happen yet? you guys havef plans already that are changing every single day, but you're not ready to have the discussion. -- you'res to be asking me impossible questions to answer. we continue to plan and prepare. here is acomponent relatively new one. the thought process of
syriaially going into, is a relatively new one. we have been watching isil four months. certainly have done a few plans and execution inside iraq. -- we have been watching isil for months. are does not mean that you ready to sit down at a high level. to peg not begin to try down into an individual here. gets toander-in-chief make the decisions. he is the one who sets the policy. he's the one who determines how a military option is going to be pursued. our job is to be ready to provide him options. that's what we do. we give him options and choices because those are his decisions to make.
we have to think it through and make sure that the pros and cons are all there for him to make a decision heard when a decision is made, we are ready to execute. assessment -- will they ever make it to the white house about iraq? secretary hagel got the money left at the. got them on july 15. >> they were certainly shared with the white house officials. absolutely. >> what was the outcome of that? >> without getting into too much detail about the assessments, they remain classified, they certainly have helped inform the activities we have been conducting inside iraq. there is no question about that. they have helped us make better decisions about the kinds of things we're doing in iraq. tell us what the
current situation of the ?umanitarian situation is have we seen an uptick in operations in iraq over the last 48 hours in case of bombs? >> an uptick in our operations? we continue to monitor the situation there as we do throughout iraq. we have beenssions assigned inside iraq from a military perspective is to contribute to humanitarian support and that the request of the iraqi government, monitor the whole country in that regard. i don't have anything to announce today in terms of any decisions made about that. whatever we do from a humanitarian perspective will be done in partnership with iraqi security forces and kurdish forces as necessary. certain i have
anything for you on the intensification. there has been a consistent level of military activity inside iraq. not just from us, but from our iraqi partners. 120 airstrikes total since they started. watched the pace of those, but i have not seen anything that would indicate it -- has been an uptick in recent days. -- nearlyk at the map 110, the majority of them have been done in and around the osul them. -- mosul dam.
they are still going after the facility so we have to keep the pressure on them. >> was this request for syria options for him the white house something that was given to you in the past couple of days? is it something newly being considered? >> not at all. the exploration of options newde syria is a relatively facet of this. the discussion is not just in the last four hours. -- last 24 hours. >> can you elaborate on the advise and assist operations? >> i don't believe they are operational plans for the iraqi military. this is better posed to central command. they would have a much more higher degree of fidelity about what these guys are doing. the joint operations centers, there is an advise and assist
capacity to that. a component to that that they are providing some advice and assistance to iraqi and kurdish forces. the major general was appointed more than two months ago two and this iraq effort. -- chance he can pre-bus? brief us? >> you're not satisfied with my briefing style? know.t i don't want to share the podium with anybody. it's all about me. [laughter] i'm trying to preserve my own job here. i will take it. i don't know. dam, why are there somebody strikes over there after we were told that the dam was taken? >> they keep trying to take it
back. they keep threatening the facility. as long as they pose a threat to that facility, we are going to continue to help iraq security forces preserve their ownership of it. forces struggling to keep hold of it? >> they are still under attack almost everyday. enough to show you how important it was for us to help them get it back. everybody thinks about the dam itself. it's a huge facility covering a wide area because it's not just about the river itself and the actual dam. to threaten it. as long as they continue to threaten it, we will continue to hit them. >> has there been a request from baghdad for a humanitarian mission? >> i'm not aware of a specific request from the iraqi government for that particular
mission. that said, we are watching it constantly. nobody has taken their eye off of that township and the struggles and the township. if we get to that point, we will certainly share with you. i have a couple questions about kurdish people in iraq and syria as well. if you are expanding your attacks and syria -- you and at least seven of your allies have provided forces. are they military aid? >> military aid and assistance going to kurdish forces? >> do they buy from you or are
they free military aid? ,> right now, the assistance the direct military assistance going to the kurdish forces is coming from the iraqi government. we are helping the iraqi government transport it. it's not coming directly from the united states. earlier, there are other nations that have signed up to provide material assistance to the kurdish forces. i will let those countries and speak for how they are doing that. for the united states, our role is principally in helping transport, logistically get the stuff to the kurdish forces. there has been no decision to fromtly arm the kurds american stockpiles. thatere is a group there as widely regarded as
terrorist group. does that prohibit you from cooperating with that force in northern syria? >> i don't have anything for you on that. isis has held them like james foley. there was a message to the government -- the kurdish government to end this alliance with united states. >> they pose a threat to the region. we are all taking that threat very seriously. further violence is going to somehow or weaken our resolve or the resolve of our partners, they are sadly mistaken. you can see that every single day. >> isis is a threat to the region. you don't think it's a threat to the states? >> we have long talked about the
threat they pose to the region and the potential threat they pose to western governments and to the homeland. right now, they have global aspirations and they certainly have aspirations to strike western targets. we don't believe they have the capacity right now to conduct a major attack on the homeland. the things we're talking about is this threat of foreign fighters. this idea that people go over country andick a there is potential for them to that threat is very real and we take that very seriously. you are seeing that from other governments as well. is the initial strategy on dealing with the threat and isis -- >> this gets to the whole conversation we've had. we continue to plan and prepare
for the potential of military action inside syria, a more fulsome discussion of those plans has not occurred. you are looking at a comprehensive approach strategy to deal with isis in syria. how many nations have pledged support to help the united states conduct airstrikes? >> we are the only nation in addition to the iraqis that are working on an airstrike perspective. i won't talk about the liberations or diplomatic discussions with other countries. said isr thing we've that many nations have come forward to offer to assist and have assisted with humanitarian missions. we are not having discussions with assad regime. >> have other nations pledged their help and support to
conduct airstrikes inside syria? >> i'm not aware of any such pledge. we have not made a decision to conduct airstrikes inside syria. >> you are requesting to get a coalition together. >> we have said as a government coalition -- we want to seek partners in this effort. we have partners in this effort. when you work on a coalition like that, everybody is encouraged to bring what they can and what they're willing to. they all have domestic legislative issues they have to deal with. to decide forhas themselves in accordance with the wishes of their people. it is not about us mandating it or pledging it. it's about us pledging to continue that effort. >> have other countries pledged
their support? >> i think marketing stifled. -- you are getting stifled. the task force has been was listenable. what are they doing? explain what time frame they have. with the hurdles there may be to providing help to kurdish forces. -- the task force has been loosely assembled. things we're the trying to do inside iraq is to assist the iraqi security forces, the iraqi government and the kurdish forces. in combating this threat inside their country. this is ultimately a fight they have to win. we are willing to help them. it's all part of the mission set inside iraq. expand arms and
and extended their military capacity, you want to help boost that. what we have done so far as a country is to help the iraqi government support and supply the kurds. there are other nations that a us-led effort to try to encourage and solicit support from other nations to do the same. insupply kurdish forces particular because that is where the bulk of the fighting is right now. most is happening in the north. we have seven nations that have signed up -- i read this out last week. the most recent being albania. is even more effective anyway because some of those countries possessed the ammunitions and an
material the kurds need. it is mutually beneficial. anticipate the u.s. would begin to provide much more visibly? you don't see it necessarily a lot of what you have provided. once a strategy is decided upon e. you have to wait for the strategy question to be answered? >> regarding the potential for military action inside syria -- that is a separate question from what you are getting at, which is helping the kurdish forces. it's a daily threat they face. we continue to look for willing partners to do that. admiral -- you set a couple
minutes ago that it would be $7.5 million per day for the iraqi aid. >> the average since the beginning is roughly $7.5 million per day. he said he expected the exercise to continue at the tempo they are continuing at because of the threat they pose. aircrafthe military used in these exercises, i'm wondering what the budget concern is from the pentagon given the crisis continuing. last year, it was at the point where you guys were canceling training exercises at. what is the concern and the plan? >> we are always concerned about having enough funds and resources to accomplish the mission around the world. as i said, we are able to fund
and resource the operations in iraq through contingency funds. we are well within our limit their. -- limit there. went you get into 2015, if we are still involved, we have to to have another discussion about what the funding levels might be. make itstion seems to sound like we were worried before and we are not worried now. we are still worried. sequestration remains. we have funding requests up on the hill that meet the bba limits. we've got a stay of execution for funny 14 and 2015. beyond that, sequestration come 2016 will revert. become the law of the land. that is a real concern. -- 42014 and 2015.
for 14 and 2015. 2014 and 2015. that you are hitting what you are aiming at in iraq. hitting headquarters and other targets. that appear to be beyond what you said before. this you characterize as a defense mission to protect the americans and the kurds? as it become more of an offense ive nature or does that depend on the new strategy? the don't see any change in types of targets we've been heading. there has been no change in the mission. >> today, it still the limited mission but quick
-- it is still the limited missions -- >> absolutely. the congress. there is something going t to move without them. can you explain the concerns that the president has heard from congress. congress fear is that something is going to move on without them. outust because they are does not mean that we are not talking to them. we are doing that and that will continue. the president was clear yesterday about the need to in any majorss future decisions as was the american people. -- secretary has personally i won't detail every phone:
meeting he has had, but he has personally taken on that challenge. -- i won't detail every phone call and meeting he has had. the real concern we heard earlier in the week -- >> the fears of members of congress? >> hasn't changed? -- has it changed? congress orpeak for their concerns. it depends on each member sometimes. remains committed to keeping them informed and he has kept them informed and he will continue to do that. theertainly understands need to make sure that congress is fully engaged and he takes his responsibility very seriously. things come everybody. have a great labor day. -- thanks, everybody. --tonight
tonight, more from c-span's american history tour as we focus on native americans. a look at the battle of little bighorn and custer's last stand. a tour of a new mexican pueblo and a spanish mission in florida. examining 900 -- 9000-year-old native american pictographs in montana. journal,on washington tim lynch will join us to talk about the militarization of the nation's police forces. a look at corporate tax inversions with martin sullivan. later, a roundtable discussion on the state of the american worker. this weekend, congressional budget office director douglas elmendorf is on newsmakers.
you can see newsmakers sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. the national security policy expert says the recent beheading of james foley is not an isolated incident and that our government is aiding jihadist groups. you will hear remarks from the center for strategic policy's frank gaffney. this is about one hour. >> good afternoon. i won the coin toss. whatever it is. i am frank gaffney with the center for security policy and i am delighted to be here with my friend and colleague peter brookes and with all of you. jennifer, thank you very much for including me and this really important topic in your program.
i am heartened that you made the point that strong national defense is one of the pillars of this institute. i hope that you all are here because it is for you as well. peter and i divided the labors in terms of explaining what the challenges are to our strong, or not so strong, national defense posture at the moment. i am going to talk to you principally about something that i am sure just by virtue of the newsworthiness of it is on your mind as well as mine. that is the phenomenon of rising jihadism around the world. notably but not exclusively in syria and iraq under the banner of this organization that goes by varying names. it has been called the islamic state of iraq and the sham,
isis, or the islamic state in the levant, isil, or just plain islamic state which suggests they are in a lot of places. they also fancy themselves the caliphate. i want to start -- i have a powerpoint that i am trusting will work. entitled with homage to an honorary citizen, winston churchill -- "the gathering storm." that was the title of his first book in his series on world war ii. the lead up to that horrific -- i guess i can power through this myself. another brit, samuel johnson, had this to say. i think it applies equally to this.
this is, of course, not an isolated incident. what happened to james foley has been happening to thousands of people. at the hands of isis, yes, but at the hands of the jihadists. i want to talk to you about what makes isis a particularly dangerous outfit and then talk about their friends. i think you are probably all aware of these elements. they are actually folks who have been in the fight for some time, notably in syria. they have acquired at no small measure because of the iraqi military that they confronted when they came across the border into iraq, a very substantial arsenal, including a lot of our gear. they have a terrority which was approximated to the state of kentucky.
this is perhaps the most important of the pieces. they have very substantial resources. some of which they liberated from banks, some which they are getting from oilfields and the electro sale from dams that they control. not least, as you hear more and more, they are a threat to us because of americans. and others with eu passports operating with them, training with them, getting battle skills of their own and presumably coming then home. not least why these guys are particularly worrying is because, in the words of osama bin laden, they are the strong horse now. that is a very serious problem. i would argue that this is the biggest danger. their ideology or doctrine or
program or agenda. call it what you will. that is what they call it -- sharia. sharia, as we will learn, literally in arabic means the path to the water. there are probably hundreds of millions of muslims around the world, including a great many in this country who do not subscribe to sharia. they don't practice it in their own faith tradition, they don't seek to live under it, they don't want to impose it on the rest of us. i would argue for the moment they are not the problem. the problem is the guys who do. let me tell you more about what it is. by some estimates, roughly 10% of this body of laws and dictates have to do with religious practice. which direction you pray, how
often, what you wash, what you don't, what you eat, what you don't. how you interact with others. that problem is about 90% have to do with that last bit of interacting with others in a very, very aggressive fashion. i think it is fair to say by any objective standard sharia, the authoritative practice of sharia under islam is characterized by these qualities -- it is comprehensive, it is totalitarian. it is a comprehensive, specifically political, military, legal program that is meant to govern the entire world. as well as the entire world of an individual. some of the characteristics of this you are probably familiar to. he is just being flogged rather than being amputated.
you see this a lot. this young lady has had several things removed as part of the misogyny, the brutal mistreatment of women. others can be killed if they happen to be homosexuals or women who are of claim to have been unfaithful. this is the one that i want to focus on. it is a supremacist doctrine. is one that its adherents believe that god has directed them to impose on all the rest of us, preferably through violence because as muhammed's example, him being the perfect muslim, that is the most efficient way to do it. i will come back to the other options. i want to emphasize this point. unfortunately, though we are hearing a lot about the islamic state these days, they are
hardly the only adherence to this doctrine who are on the march at the moment. this is a sample, and needless to say. i wanted to give you a sense of the name of these other outfits that have exactly the same program as isis. are practicing it in exactly the same way as isis. you would hear people say no, al qaeda thinks that isis is too ruthless and therefore has banished them. not true. it is like mafia mob dons having a fight over will control the racketeering. there is no difference of what al qaeda will do or will do if they have a chance.
lest we forget, all of these characters are operating, as you see here, increasingly globally, including the united states. we compound the danger that isis is certainly represents. notwithstanding that, the president in responding to the beheading of an american citizen, james foley, made this statement which i want to just stress to you because it is simply outrageous. he said -- this is an excerpt -- the islamic state speaks for no religion. no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. their ideology is bankrupt. ladies and gentlemen, with all due respect, that is a national security fraud. none of those three statements is true.
the islamic state believes it is the islamic state believes it is speaking for the faith tradition of sharia, islam, and as i have shown you you can go to those other organizations and you can go to the authorities of islam -- the university, for example, in cairo. or in other major recognized institutions, including a number of them in this country, and you'll see exactly the same basic teachings. where in fact the slaughter of infidels is not only permissible in the koran, it is mandatory. not throughout but in the operative passages which are those that came at the end of muhammed's life because it's