tv Hearing on U.S. Strategy Against ISIS CSPAN January 13, 2016 3:01am-5:40am EST
previous administrations and a variety of agencies and i am certainly very grateful they are willing to come today to share their insights on this threat that we face on what we can and should do about it and the direction this ideology, this threat we have dealt with since then 11 should be. we now there is some success to reclaim town since iraq but at the same time it seems to spread in deepen is told in sections of libya all the way through afghanistan so they're broader direction is something we need to understand and get our arms around and extends to a set
homas we have seen in recent days and weeks. we are not exempt from the reach. we need the expertise that that we can provide to carry out our responsibilities in the year glad to have them today. to the gentlelady from california? >> i will read a few of these comments only because mr. smith wanted to make sure that we provide them at this point. thanks for being before us today and i welcome you and i hope that you can shed light on the very complicated situation. no longer whether we send in ground troops to counter
isil or not the is permeating into so many different countries through the internet and the dark spaces that we can understand we see the violence of europe and the middle east and in my home state 20 miles from where i live in san birder dino. but we have to get our heads around that. and we also see other extremist groups that are beginning to space or coordinate with isil from north africa so in general that the international community the democrats and republicans are trying to grapple fifth tally defined
or handle what is the best way to defeat this evolving situation of isil? although we have seen progress to grow even more complex and i am worried it may get more difficult with the situation between saudi arabia and iran. i am concerned that we need a clear strategy and no free want to make that public but we as the representatives need to understand what the strategy is. if we can understand how then we can agree to put the
resources required to get the job done. as a broad commitment to take many years but we cannot allow ourselves to be polled into the same types of mistakes we saw it with the iraq war. to expose the dark and helpless nature with the morally bankrupt agenda to delegitimatize isil twisted and a florida appeal. it is beyond my comprehension how in today's
world we can have such of massive humanitarian crisis occurring is syria to have 40,000 civilians starving to death as a result of isil and the conflicts or the confluence of what is happening there. i am interested in your views today to find some answers of what is a real strategy because it will take more than just to the u.s. to resolve this issue. i yield back and look forward to your testimony. >> the committee is pleased to welcome today the former
acting director of the caa caa, former undersecretary of defense from intelligence and former ambassador to syria. they have their complete background information that was only the last job. thanks for being here without objection your complete statement will be made part of the record and we will hear any oral comments you would like to make at this time. >> chairman and congresswoman and members of the committee, good morning thank you for the invitation to be here today to talk about an extremely important national security challenge facing the nation. it is an honor to be here and i am humble you have asked me here to hear my thoughts it is good to see so many old friends both on
the committee and at the table. i plan on keeping my remarks short over the years they understand questions and answers are much more effective to understand then hearing somebody read the testimony. but i will start with the bottom line. i believe isis poses a significant strategic and a lethal threat to the united states of america. a very strong statement i will walk you thrive -- through why i believe that. the nature and the significance flows from the fact that the same time a terrorist group a quasi states and a political movement we have not seen the likes of this before. as a terrorist group isis
poses a threat to the homeland. in 2015 that threat was largely in direct with its ability to radicalizes young american men and women to conduct global attacks that threat remains today there are thousands of isis the site -- sympathizers the fbi has over 900 open investigations of a homegrown extremist in that vast majority radicalize by isis a large number that relates to individuals ploting attacks and such a tax already occurred in the united states including stanford dino last month that the fatalities was the largest terrorist attack in the united states since the 11.
there were others that were arrested before they could act. in addition to that in direct threat we have a direct threat from isis. the capability to plan largely from syria. just like the group in paris in november the terrorist attack was the largest in western europe since the madrid trade bombings in 2004 and the first devices threatened in the west ever. what is the difference between the direct and indirect threat? the al long wolf attack will produce limited casualty's with the boston marathon bombing three were killed or
the shootings that for a good 12 were killed. a direct attack carries the potential to be more complex and more sophisticated multiple simultaneous attacks therefore more deadly just like paris with 130 killed or london with 56 killed or 9/11 itself. the attack was the first manifestation that isis has made in europe and effort they began less than one year before. more attacks in in europe are likely the head of the domestic security agency has warned that isis is planning mass attacks in britain and has said it was to conduct similar attacks in the united states one of the things i learned sometimes
is is really important to listen to what your adversary tells you available to you exactly what they will do they have told us they will attack a year. now they have that ability in europe there almost certain working to do the same thing here and unless they are degraded, and they will succeed i have no doubt about that. switching from terrorist groups to the quasi state it poses a threat to regional stability is a state in every respect of the word that it does not have for recognition or relations with other states but in every other respect it has an executive, army, police force, set of laws, a judiciary, social services coming takes care of the pork and raises taxes. why does it matter isis is a quasi states?
because they can utilize all the resources human and otherwise in the area that it controls in the pursuit of its objectives. the best example is the tens of millions of dollars per month in revenue from taxing people they earn more in taxes and oil sales. and number two it will make it more difficult to dislodge them they have become deeply rooted in the areas they control. the isis threats to the territorial integrity to inflame the entire region all of this in a part of the world is still provides almost one-third of the world's oil supply is closest to the only ally of
israel in the arab states are pushing against hegemony in the region. third progress a revolutionary political movement is gaining affiliate's among extremist groups around the world. they are signing up for what it desires a as a global caliphate -- caliphate and in the mind for the united states of america itself when they doing isis the evolves from local issues and local grievances to establishing an extension to the caliphate's himself and the targets of all from local to international this is the story of the bombing of the russian airliner only
the third brought down by a bomb in the last 25 years. isis has been affiliate's faster than al qaeda ever did from nothing when you're go now groups in nearly 20 countries that have sworn allegiance to isis and conducted attacks have killed americans and carry the potential to grab a large amounts of territory. libby is a place that this could happen in the near term as a contingent -- has territory and is expanding territory in foreign fighters are beginning to fight with the isis group there would not be surprised if we wake up one morning isis in libya grab a large part of territory with the same type of blitzkrieg from iraq. defeating isis will require
moving -- removing the leadership from the battlefield the shrinking and the elimination of the safe haven of the quasi states that is currently the size of great britain. the safe haven is a key part of the narrative as long as they have that it is critical to them into radicalizing homegrown extremist year and to creating a fillets -- affiliate's. to provide security for the plot to and to use trade there are two things that our necessary and a desire to do so and the capability to do it allows the building of that capability.
debate in the british comments over whether parliament should authorize british airstrikes against syria, hillary ben gave a remarkable speech. some of its colleagues call that one of the greatest speeches in the history of the british comments. then breaking with his own party leader and supported british airstrikes strikes he said we are here faced by fascists, not just their calculated brutality but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight and all of the people we represent. they hold us in content, they hold our values in contempt. they hold our belief that intolerance and decency and content. they hold holder very democracy in contempt. ben went on, and i quote, what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. it is why this entire house
stood up against hitler and mussolini. we must now confront this evil. mr. chairman, i chairman, i associate my self with hillary ben's remark. the pitcher as i see it as a former intelligence officer who spent years watching al qaeda and other terrorist group, i look for to your question. >> thank you, doctor vickers. >> chairman thornberry, congresswoman, distinguished members of the committee, good morning, it is a privilege and pleasure to provide outside view on u.s. strategy for iraq, syria, syria, and the global jihadist threat. my former colleague and your friend michael who described the threat that isis poses, phthisis threat is nested in several other conflicts that are raging across the middle east. civil war in secretary and conflict, the global jihad and
the proxy row between saudi arabia and its allies in iran. my opening statement i would like to put a few thoughts on how you a strategy needs to be intensified and accelerated to deal with these challenges. >> the aims of this regimen middle east should be threefold. want to prevent a major attack on the u.s. homeland and defeat the jihadist threat, too to reassure allies and partners can taint iran, and three to restore a favorable of power across the middle east. i will discuss in turn what i believe are needed adjustments to our strategy in syria and iraq against the global jihadist and iraq. beginning with syria, seriousness center of gravity for the middle eastern conflict. it is where the battle of the middle east is being waged. the coalition the coalition victory in syria would fall back iranian power and deal a significant blow to the jihadist limit. i believe we need to adjust our strategy in syria in two principal ways. first, u.s. strategy has treated syria as it secondary theater of
war in the iraq, syria war. in my opinion we need to ship to a syria first strategy. second, we need significantly intensifier operations. strike authorities need to be significantly increased, as does coalition support both quantitative and qualitative for the moderate syrian opposition. it is not too late to decisively support the opposition. we did not develop a award-winning strategy until the sixth year of the soviet activation in afghanistan or president reagan second term. lemon i briefly turned to iraq and make four points. the first is the retaking of her mate shows more intense application of air power and more aggressive use of combat advisors is a good strategy in iraq. second, the key to a sunni tribal uprising against isis' decisive u.s.
engagement. the key to assisting in that uprising is the devolution of political power cross secretary lines. third, we are in competition with iran for influence in iraq. how secretary and identity, politics and settlement will shape the future in iraq and serial remains to be determined but our competition for influence is one we should seek to. fourth, or broadly to iraq and syria, by special operation forces will contribute a line of upper tour strategy but to be effective the temple of operation needs to be dramatically increased. for this to happen the iraqi government must approve an increase in the number of u.s. personnel on its territory. turning to the global jihad, global jihad has metastasize in time is not on our side as michael mentioned. global jihadist cannot be contained, they must be defeated and continually disrupted while they are in the process of being
disruptive. sanctuaries must be denied. first, disrupting and defeat in the global jihadist and syria and iraq will require roughly the same way of precision airstrikes led by u.s. advisors and sufficient means. the global jihadist will not be defeated until the ungoverned space in which the app rated is, their ideology is discredited and stability is returned. this will require significant long-term investment and capacity building of indigenous forces. irregular as well as well as regular sustained u.s. engagement. second, the predator has been a most effective weapon in our campaign against global jihadist. the size of the predator fleet will remain a critical factor in the conduct of our campaign. third, intelligence is our first line of defense, accordingly investments accordingly investments in this area should have top priority. i like to conclude by say a few words about u.s. strategy for iran and the need to reassure
allies. iran remains on the offensive in its quest for longevity and our allies are increasingly under siege as they can brought the war was sunni radicals and iran and are increasingly strange from us. further strange men would pose a serious challenge to our campaign against the global jihadist and will result in our allies become a more to iranian and radical islamic aggression. we reassuring argyle file eyes, strengthening our turkish coalition and containing iranian expansion are critical to the broader effort to the middle east. thank you to the opportunity to appear before you today, i look for to your questions. >> thank you. investor four. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much for the invitation to address you in the honorable members of the committee today. i gave the excuse to come down from the cold winter in northern
new england. in my remarks i would like to speak above all about the politics that is underway in iraq and syria. i will avoid the strict military discussion because to me the islamic state is more than the sum of its fighters, it as a mike morella it is a quasi- state but it builds, it recruits , it replaces fighters were killed, it even trains little children. so confronting something like that we need to think about what is sustainable solution over the long-term. therefore i'm going to talk about resources and the politics of national reconciliation. first iraq. i visited iraq a few months ago, it was my first time there on the ground in five years. i worked in iraq and for five
years in the american embassy and before that with the coalition for provisional authority. my sense is that in iraq, on on the military side there is progress. but there are two big challenges , two big challenges. first, on the resource side, but the iraqi government in baghdad and the kurdish regional government are both heavily dependent on oil and oil sales. low oil prices are really crunching their ability to mobilize resources in the fight against the islamic state. it was very noticeable to me that the kurdish leadership whom i have known since 2004 were generally concerned about their budget abilities to sustain the fight against the islamic state. some of of their fighters had not been paid for three months. even in baghdad, the authorities
were concerned about the resources. the second issue on iraq, the politics of national reconciliation. mike just mentioned the importance of dissolution and decentralization, i certainly agree with that and i am hopeful on that because the sunni arab leaders, again whom i have known since 2004, have come around 180 degrees. they used to be and 80 degrees. they used to be in favor of a tight, strong central government , now they are arguing for devolution of power. that is what what the shia and the kurds always wanted ten years ago. for the first time i have seen the sunnis, the shia and the kurds in iraq all talking about sort of the same system of government. that is new, that is hopeful, but at the same time as events
in diyala, northeast of baghdad showed, there is serious secretary intention. the islamic state yesterday exploded several car bombs in the city of baku by and there is immediately concerned among the population that shia militia would attack sunni arab mosque. in order to mobilize sunni arabs to contain the islamic state there must be efforts that national reconciliation. this is important because we do not want the islamic state to be put down militarily and then revived as happened between 2011 and 2013. i really thousand 13. i really don't want to see an islamic state version two-point oh. it is important for the americans therefore to maintain pressure on the shia militia problem in iraq, they are our
iraqis, such as prime minister botta, ayatollah, superb religious leader in the shia community, the speaker who are all working for reconciliation. so in iraq iraq we need to help mobilize resources for both the central authorities in iraq, baghdad, the kurdish region and we have to be engaged in the national reconciliation working with the gentleman i pointed out. on the syrian side i am much less upbeat. much less optimistic. there has been has been progress on the ground in northeastern syria but that has been led by syrian kurds who have a separate political agenda. their their political agenda is the first autonomy and second fight the islamic state. make sure we we all understand that. first autonomy, second fight the islamic state.
because their first priority is autonomy, in that heterogeneous area of northern syria the syrian kurds have already stir substantial resentment among local arabs. i would note that human rights watch an amnesty international have both issued reports accusing the syrian kurdish militia, the ones we are helping, they have accuse them of ethnic cleansing and war crime against the local arab community. that does not help national reconciliation. that does not help build local sunni indigenous forces to contain the islamic state. we don't need to help the islamic state recruit. as michael vickers just noted, the only way to really generate more indigenous forces is to help the syrian opposition and to see the removal of bosch are
at some point in the creation of a new national unity government. the sooner that can be done in syria, the better. only a new national unity and syria is going to be able to mobilize enough syrians to fight and destroyed the islamic state. in both countries, and both countries, iraq and syria, as territory is cleared of the islamic state, local authorities who are trying to keep the electricity going, hospitals operating, water going, are going to need help. the islamic state operated these things as mike morel just said, to access estate. when it is access estate. when it is gone, services must be contained. that will be a job for the u.s. state department if people in turkey and a georgian, jordan and they will need resources to do that. they're going to have to be able to move around despite the security risk.
finally, if i may, one less word about north africa. i served in algeria as ambassador, is also in algeria in the mid- 90s during the horrible civil war there where the algerian government had to confront a very nasty sort of pre-al qaeda insurgency. i'm watching what is happening in libya with concern. even if the islamic state which is capturing oil facilities, even if it cannot sell oil the way iraq and syria has done, they may be able to use the oil assets they have locally to generate revenues. they are an administration. they have increasing ability to project military power out of their base and they have a safe haven space to organize, plan, and recruit. just as the plan of attack in paris was organized they have space to do the same thing. it will will be important to help a new libyan government and to
help it control territory. we will need to be ready to do that. thank you very much again for the invitation to address the committee. i. i look for to your questions. >> thank you all. much to think about and much to follow up on. all committee members received notice that mre purpose of this hearing that after the chairman and ranking members question that members will be recognized in reverse order of seniority, if you're here at the time of the gavel. then we'll proceed according to when you entered the room as we normally do. to get that that started, i'm going to yield my five minutes to the gentleman from new jersey,. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. marelli, i think all three of you for being here it was very helpful listening to. mr. marelli, you painted a bleak and i think compelling picture of why isis poses a real threat,
strategic threat, and lethal threat to the united states. if i heard you correctly you mentioned three things, one, they are capable of directing, indirect and direct attacks against us and our interest, if we we don't stop them they will 60s. three they are estate in every sense of the matter, and i would add on that that might service better if we recognize that. we call them was a state but they really are an oppressive or illegitimate state, but they are state. thirdly, they have a growing network that will speed, spread their influence. it seems at the bottom of all that is their control of land and people and resources. so i wanted to ask you if you believe we are doing everything necessary to get them out of that territory? if not, briefly what would you suggest that we
add to what we're doing? >> i agree with both of my colleagues here that we need to do more. i also believe very much what robert said that we really can't have military success, there is a lot we need to do in the military sigh, we really can have military success without political solutions at both places. that has to come first. we have airpower alone -- we need to do more airpower, my can talk about that. there's more we can do it airpower but airpower is not going to win this thing alone. we need a ground force. there is. there is a strategy in iraq to get that ground force. ramada showed that strategy has potential. there is no ground force on the syrian side that carries the
same kind of potential that the iraqi military carries. we can do more i think with a moderate opposition, but at the end of the day, i think assad has got to go and we have to take syrian military security resources, integrated as they have become, and turn them into a force that that the international community supports and taking on isis. i think we need to more aggressive on the military side to put more precious on isis and assad in the short term while we get very aggressive on the political side, on the diplomatic side to force political situation in both places. >> let me segue that, because doctor victor's made it clear that we see a syria first strategy where assad's departure is at the center of it. now you have said the same, what do you see -- maybe i will set
start with you ambassador, what follows assad? while i agree that he is a bad actor that ideally would not be there, sometimes the w no is better than the devil you don't know. what potentially follows assad in that region? >> very briefly, we don't know exactly who would follow assad. it it has to be a negotiation. i think if we asked the question who would follow saddam hussein, we would not have known the answer to that in 2003 obviously. so it will also be the subject of a negotiation among syrians. i suspect, suspect, frankly that it will be a very wobbly initial national government if the syrians can ever have a serious negotiation. that is a big if, congressman.
therefore a wobbly government like that, just like all like oh wobbly government in iraq earlier needed help, that will be the case also in syria. i do not believe that a façade goes, only the islamic state takes over. i think that is wrong on multiple levels and is indicative of a sense that there is no hope, whereas there is quite a bit of hope. as big as the islamic state is in syria, it is actually not the biggest force fighting assad right now. the other elements of the opposition are actually bigger than the islamic state. >> i think you. mr. chairman i yield back. >> inc. you. thank you mr. chairman. isil has expanded its influence and has received allegiance from afghanistan, pakistan, yemen, nigeria, egypt, tunisia, france,
belgium, the, belgium, the u.s., and so many others, i recently read an article where a supposedly expert said that the goal of isis is to establishment of sharia through muslim lands but they have established a caliphate and are trying to establish a government. with the khalifa and i have taxation, garbage services, et cetera, government if you will. so my first question is, where or what is isis center of gravity? where should we be focusing our time and resources? that is my first question. the second one is, if you can talk a little about the worries are what we need to do about the saudi, i ran government issue going on? thank you.
>> so first, the center of gravity is really there capital in iraq go, they draw a lot of power from iraq central city in mosul where they seized a lot of assets. generally, the sunni areas of western and northern iraq in northeastern syria is where they are comprised but rocca is really the center of gravity. the iranian, saudi composition competition has ebbed and flowed very dramatically and it intensified in 1979.
from the gulf air point of view and particularly the saudi's, the iranians have allies all around them with lebanese, syria with their influence in the government of baghdad and in yemen. they see a threat to the kingdom as well. they see themselves fighting a multi- front war this area and also goes to me islamic radicals. >> i think michael is exactly right. rocca in syria, the capital a muzzle are the two centers of gravity, physically and geographically. the islamic state fighters have a saying which is, i'll i'll translated from arabic it is, we are surviving and we are expanding. if they lose rocca and mosul,
they will still be there. their predecessor organization, the mother organization if you will, basically operated almost underground for a long time. for several years in iraq before it popped out back in syria and iraq. they have experienced doing that and they will do that again. that is why i was saying saying it is important to have indigenous forces who are staying and will keep it under control and grind it out of its holes, little by little. i think grinding it out of its hole will take much longer then retaking ramada your rock, or mosul. i worry frankly that we do not yet have enough indigenous fighters to do that. i think right now the numbers
demonstration is talking about is 30,000 iraqis. i'm not sure 30,000 is going to be enough to secure the syrian border and control the town. >> ma'am, i think you hit on something important the beginning of your question when you talked about what are these guys after? what do they want? i think as an intelligence officer i think it's important to understand your enemy. what these guys are all about, as they believe allah has chosen them personally to prepare the world for the coming -- that preparation involves giving people the choice between the cut becoming a muslim, a good muslim in their definition or being killed.
once all of that work has been done, that's the establishment of the caliphate, than the mahdi comes in the end of the world happens. god then sorts out the good from the bad. that is what they believe. they believe that based on, not very good readings of the cron, not very good interpretations of what they're looking at it is exactly what the al qaeda leadership leave. exactly the same. about what their ultimate goals are and what their ultimate objectives are. we need to understand that. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think we really have to get what it is they want before we come up with a strategy of how -- we can no longer contain them if what they say is true as they go down in a hole in weight, something that someone had said was not that they have established, they have -- this is really the linchpin for them
to be able to do this and everything that comes with it or maybe. i think it's members we need to begin to understand what moves before we can understand that not just bombs will get rid of this. thank you. >> can i add a point. i think this is important because you want to talk about what they want. the establishment of the -- was very controversial in jihad he circles. because many g hottie clerics, including al qaeda said you can't declare a caliphate if you can't hold territory and apply sharia law. you cannot declare caliphate. that's still the position of al qaeda today with islamic state. holding territory, taking it
back, matters. it will put a big dent in their recruitment because they will lose a great deal of the legitimacy that they have enjoyed within jihad he circles. they will still go underground, they will still have to be rooted out, but it, but it will be easier if they cannot recruit as well. >> thank you for that alignment. i really have been trying to understand what the root of this. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and gentlemen for your service and testimony. my time in the military come out one of things i was most concerning is the combination of the terrorist organization with a weapons of mass destruction. i sermon homeland security, on the chairwoman of the subcommittee, we've done some hearings on the threat of chemical and biological terrorism. if you look at what isis has said, they have stated an open
source that they want to use these type of weapon centex board there terror on us. this could potentially be a game changer. for not just small-scale physical attacks but actually using chemical, biological, or nuclear capabilities. what we have seen with isis as you know is that they're not just trying to require them in their reports that they will use them on battlefield, but they try to recruit individuals with the expertise so they can create those things by themselves by importing people with that experience. i like your comment on the threat with isis and your concerns with that what to do about that. >> i share your concerns. they have made two things very clear. publicly, and document set of come out, one is that if they acquired these weapons that they would use them and they would not care that the vast majority of those killed were civilians.
they have also provided a religious justification very similar to al qaeda, i think it's identical to hide us. i have no doubt they are pursuing such weapons, i do not know how far along they are, i don't have access to intelligence anymore. the safe haven here is so important for many reasons. one of the reasons is exactly this, when you have safe haven it gives the opportunity to work on weapons like this. al qaeda made significant advances in anthrax research because they had a safe haven. so i am concerned that is lisa have a safe haven they will have the space and because they are quasi- state, they can use the human resources within that state as they pursue these things. i do not know where it stands at the moment, but i am i am concerned about it.
>> thank you. i've been extremely critical about the military campaigning and places the caliphate was declare. 19 months ago this so-called air campaign has been going on, i've good friends at the pentagon that are involved in it, they sarcastically call it operation shade which means they literally have fighter stacked up on top of each other and are providing mostly shade to those on the ground a poster bringing airpower to the fight. it has been very two-dimensional, very sequential, very reactive, as opposed to using airpower for all brings to the fight by identifying the centers of gravity which you mention and taking out and unleashing airpower in order to destroy capabilities. it has been been a gradual approach as you noted in your testimony. we had the secretary of defense and the chairman here they said they just are talking to the state department, single digit months ago to look at a conference of strategy. they just just started looking at the
oil up a structure figuring out how to hit it when we know it has been 1,000,000 dollars a day. what is going is going on here? we know from our intelligence, it's not that difficult to figure out where their resources are coming from and go after them using airpower. and really anywhere comments on what needs to change from a military strategy because we do need to destroy their capabilities. there's a political solution obviously but we have to destroy their capability. >> set up with some numbers on it, if you compare -- i think the best air campaign analogy from what we face in iraq and syria nf denniston 2001 and 2002, the number of strikes that we did per day in afghanistan in 2001 as a factor of about eight above what we have done in iraq and syria. furthermore, two thirds of coalition efforts have been against iraq, not against syria
where the more dangerous threat exists. i think those are two fundamental problems with the air campaign and it has essentially been a fraction of what it should be. as we have shown since 1990, but certainly when we start putting weapons on bombers -- as michael has said airpower loan is not enough. we have to have indigenous ground forced to explain the effects and certainly if you're going to deny sanctuary sooner rather than later, just like in 2001 having some ground force that can exploit the effects makes a big difference. >> thank you for my time has expired, if you have anything to elaborate one another question comes up. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you very much for your long years of service, i regret
that you still have so many opportunities for your service continuing now. i feel somewhat the same way, i had a much shorter period of service of the marines. when i was part of the surge in iraq, i very much felt like i was a part of finishing the job. we have. we have messed it up for years, we got it right, and then i went home, now i am back here watching us have to return to iraq just five years after we left. so while we can debate and there's much to discuss about the military strategy to defeat isis in the short-term, the focus of my question today is about how we ensure we do not find yourself continually going back and having to apply military power again. we have heard many people testify before this committee about the importance of long-term political strategy. general patrice joined us last week and emphasized and talked
about the importance of state department coronation and how how it has not been happening for a long time. so to be good, i just want to see if we are on the same page with a few high-level points. is there anyone of you who disagrees with, for the iraq perspective that you need to empower the iraqi central government that that is the best strategy we have on the table right now for a long-term political solution in iraq? >> i think the iraq central government prime minister someone who believes in national reconciliation. i think he has a political vision, but i worry about empower congressman, i think so much of the sustainable solution will not come just from baghdad but will come from local sunni communities who feel that they have a stake. >> fair enough. were not talking
talking about the body of the state at this point. >> i hope not. >> do we all agree that assad needs to go in syria? is is there any disagreement with that question marks but okay. i was struck investor ford by your point of the kurds that a three tempting for americans to get on board with the kurds because they're great allies, strong fighters and share values, but that is not enough, we have to empower the sunnis as well. is there any disagreement with that? okay. taken us altogether, what type of time commitment are we talking about? so the american people understand what this will take, diplomatically and politically after we leave and perhaps with residual military presence. so we do not bind yourselves in the situation where we we militarily defeat isis we have to send young troops back to fight them or their successor he again in the next five-ten years. are we talking about a germany and japan type commitment?
what will this take? >> i think it is a long-term commitment. i cannot give you a number of years, but i think it is a long-term commitment. i think the departure of u.s. forces from iraq in 2011 is a big part of the story why we are where we are. i am not casting blame in any direction here i think it's just a big part of why we're sitting here today. >> he beat me that point as well that if we stayed integrated in iraq and politics as well we would not have this problem that has allowed isis to take over. >> i would point out that we needed to be in south korea for a very, very long time to maintain stability. i think you're looking at ten-15-20 years in this region.
>> if i could just go to you, based on your experience with pass complex, what kind of additional political support can we be providing in iraq and syria? when you say there needs to be more political the emetic support, there, there needs to be that strategy, what kind of resources has the u.s. used to pass complex that we are not using today to ensure longer-term success? >> this is honestly an area we are troubled since 9/11. the korea, germany, japan models are all good ones but all very different strategic context. as michael mentioned, shifting to a security systems model, an embassy base presence where we lost our political influence a but also frankly, the iraqis work in progress and work on power-sharing has got us to where we are.
i think we require a long-term political security commitment but not necessarily in large numbers just enablers and advisers. even if you get a national unity government and syria it is going to take time to make that government strong. >> thank you. i am out of time. if you would be willing to follow up details of what that more robust political strategy might look like, i think it might be helpful if you could do that in written testimony. >> thank you mr. chairman and think you gentlemen for your thoughtful testimony. early on early on in this congress last march we had a hearing and i asked a question related to what is the administration policy toward syria. it was quite clear in the testimony that there was no coherent strategy toward syria and i think that is clearly still the case today.
i agree with your assessment that we must have a syria first approach to much of the regional stability in the middle east. one significant player that has not been brought up today is the role of russia. i would love to get your feedback on the fact that the vacuum that the united states has left has left russia to fill that vacuum with the assad regime and how that will plan to the geopolitics of phasing aside out? >> so i will start. i think that glad amir putin main objective but his main objective is to prop up assad. putin believed that he needs to
prop him up because he is concerned that if he goes there will be in syria and more running room for isis. like robert, i don't necessarily believe that. it depends on what comes next. so what what we need is a transition from assad from a government that all syrians can agree with, that is the transition we need. if that happens then is that going is not a bad thing. what putin has done is now made that potential transition much more difficult. assad was on the verge of falling essentially and allowing us to get to that new government and now russia has made that so much more difficult. when he assures me russia player at the
table. suresh is not going to get to determine how that negotiation goes because of what he did. i will let others comment as well. >> i agree with all of that. i don't think our interests are very well aligned with russia, there is some commonality but i do not think it is that much. i don't think we should be deterred from our objectives and syria from the relatively modest russian intervention, if you look at the few thousand troops in 36 aircraft, it's not the world biggest combat power there. there's a lot of syria they cannot control. our policy will drive, having experience with russians in afghanistan with a bigger force, this is small by comparison. >> ambassador for? >> we need to get to peace talks. getting to peace talks by itself is not the answer, that is just a venue. what really is needed's deep
concessions, deep compromises on the two sides of the conflict, the assad government and its opposition. i think the russian intervention has made infinitely harder to get the concessions needed from the outside of the table which will impede getting to a new national unity government. so therefore i don't see what the russians have done us positive. i thought the russians were going to use their new and improved leverage against assad and the peace talks, then i would feel better. the fact that they are using bombs, targeting civil areas, targeting aid convoys regularly, this does not look like a russian policy designed to extract concessions out of
bashar to advance the peace process. >> in my last 39 seconds, i want to shift gears. one of the proposals that has been introduced by some of the leaders, military leaders, do you think additional four-star commanders is necessary for effective command and control of operation and inherent resolve? >> we have a unified -- who is very capable officer who is a kernel led the operation and remind me. we do not go to war anymore with our combatant commands, we form a task force underneath them. whether that is three-star four-star is really a function of your credit politics and the weight of the building. i guess i'm more plastic cap picking the right three or four star that will get us to victory. >> any other feedback?
i yelled back. >> thank you chairman, i think you for being here, i would like to go a little bit on where mr. mullen was going on the strategy. i think the timeline i have the opportunity to be damascus in 2000i come i know it best report early on challenged the assad regime at great personal risk. i thank you for that. you are articulating this clearly. the 2013 when president obama made his redline statement, i held periodic town halls and hundreds of people showed up and i never seen anything like this, the involvement of giving into syria because he what he was doing was acceptable. 100% of the people who showed up were poster intervention. trust me, i've had them on healthcare, doesn't quite work
that way. it was an amazing thing that the american public, at that point, weary of or, wary of this, not commit to the strategy, didn't know what to say. i bring this up because i think what you're getting at is that you're talking decades, i think you're absolutely right. i agree with i agree with that. what i think we need to understand here's that is multiple administrations. some you you'll like him some you'll dislike. our commitment of that overarching strategy of smart power, what are the things we can put in place that can start to ensure that transition is more coherent and stable. i worry about that because you wait around here long enough you'll blame someone else for where this happened. my concern is that we get the strategy in place and if it is 25 years, that needs to be clearly articulated to the american public with a strategy they can get behind. if hundreds of people show up in a small grocery store in minnesota and all say no, it's very difficult to make this work. i would just be interested to hear your thoughts on implementation, broader thinking
, how do the chinese factor in to this? some of the things we should be thinking about. >> will start. it's a great question. i'm going to broaden out from just isis in iraq and syria to the extremist problem in general. since 911 the united states of america has done a remarkable job of protecting the homeland from another attack. we have done a remarkable job up to now with isis, disrupting, degrading terrorist organization so they cannot conduct an attack here. when you find, we put intelligent resources on it, military resources in a substantial way, if you're plotting an attack against the
united states, we are going to find you do something about it. what we have done a horrible job at, and absolutely horrible job is dealing with the fundamental root of the problem. for every thousand hours that i sat in the room talking about what to do about terrorists who already exist, i spent may be in our about how we prevent the creation of terrace in the first place. maybe i'm just making up these numbers but for every million dollars we spend on dealing with existing terrorist, we spent we spend maybe 1 dollar on prevention. it is not something the united states can do on its own. we need we need the leadership of muslim countries, we need clerics in muslim countries, teachers, parents, there needs to be a big strategy to get our arms around this. it's economic, political, social, religious, we need a strategy to deal with the
radicalization problem or as quickly as we deal with one group another group will pop up somewhere and we will have a problem somewhere else. i say that the next administration needs to take a hard look at how we deal with radicalization and the first placed. >> i would just enlarge the problem a bit more and say that we are at a turning point in our nations history. if. if you look at the post- 911 era and the cold war in a sense that we have three challenges and three critical regions, china, russia, and the middle east and chaos that are not here for short-term solutions. europe went to, like the cold war be at these things for decades. you have to come up with not only a strategy that allows you to contain the problem, but
eventually resolve it, but that it sustainable among administrations. like the current. we are heading in now is like 1947 with new actors. >> i take to heart about why say about the renaissance of the american public i remember that vividly. now, however we however we are flying daily combat missions in syria and iraq so it's funny how things work out. a couple of thoughts on the long term. the long-term, specially in syria is going to take decades. syria is now completely failed state, basically was left of the government is propped up made only of iraq. rebuilding all of of that is going to take years and years.
it should not be in it cannot be something that only americans do. i think part of the political strategy is to get an agreement among all of the regional states as well as russia and china to stop promoting individual clients that in turn degrades the ability of the central state to operate. we have seen that historically in iraq, lebanon, certainly in syria, we see it in libya were different regional countries are taken different sides. that is one part. the second part is reconstruction should not be an american responsibility solely, but i don't think any country can lead an international effort to rebuild in places like syria or libya better than the united states. we have the diplomatic. that means bring in a lot of states to the table, organizations organizations like world bank to the table as well.
finally, as we mentioned before there has to be an effort to get local services running. this is always a big problem in iraq, shirt congressman will remember. getting things like electricity, water, it's not that usaid needs to come in and do all of that, but there may be areas we can help local people. syria has a lot of engineers, a, a lot of planners, but they may be able to use help in some of the planning. that is the third thing. >> thank thank you mr. chairman for the time. >> thank you mr. chairman, i do agree with your assessment of isis. i also don't think al qaeda is out of the game. my fear is that being number two al qaeda will strike in a larger way because they are in a battle for influence. i like to turn the attention to iran. since congress failed to stop the iranian deal, we watched
them put a missile strike in camp liberty, we watch them embolden and to a degree influence the shia militia. to your point about reconciliation between the sunnis and the shia as iranian influence begins to be embolden, i don't see how a sunni reconciliation can occur without checking area. i believe the reports are valued that the shia militia went through anti- sunni rallying cries and battle cries in my fear in ramada, although i think we were wise to put the iraqi military in charge of operation rather than the shia militia as that territory is gain the shia militia and greater influence on the providence i think is
perilous. how concerned are you about iranian influence in iraq and syria? >> i will go first year. i'm deeply concerned about iran. the nuclear issues not the only problem that we have with the iranians. we have a long list with the everyman's. number one, one, they want to be the hegemonic power in the region. they want to call the shots, they want the influence. it is not incorrect to say that they want to reestablish the persian empire. such as this government or supreme leader, goes, goes way back to iranian history, the shot wanted to do it, that is number one. that is not interested in our view. two, think it's fair to say, michael correct me if i'm wrong, i think it's fair to say that iran is the only country on the
planet that still, itself, conducts terrorism as a craft. against its neighbors, around the world. they conduct terrorist acts, not a good thing. three. iran supports terrorist group. hezbollah cannot exist without the support it gets from iran and just a reminder prior to 911 hezbollah killed more americans than any other terrorist group. for, it is iranian state policy and for the state of israel to be wiped off the face of the planet. if you don't believe me just listen to the supreme leader, he says it all the time. he has a nine or ten-point plan to destroy israel, you can google it. sip cream leader, nine-point plan. he claims it's not violent.
i don't know how you remove the country from the plant without violence. you put the nuclear program on top of all of that. this is, i believe a strategic threat to the region and to the united states of america. >> to see any indication that iran has changed her tune? >> no, not at all. i think the proper response is that we push back on the behavior in the region by iran. we have to show them that we are going to stand up to them. that will send them a very powerful message and i will send our allies a very powerful message. >> ..
ground forces but they will not do that with help the blessing or the support of the united states. the mission of the force would have to be defined to be part of a longer list of things to be done, in terms of your question for number one the administration needs to show people in the gulf and the titular saudia arabia and to countries like to wait and united arab emirates that we may disagree with the influence but where we have the deep disagreement fundamentally and and we stand for their security.
and the tit-for-tat i have not heard the administration say we may disagree with the execution but the stability and security is a vital american national interest. second on an operational level i would like the on ways to take that message out to the gulf to see some people from washington and not just those in uniform as important as they are but high-level on voice from the department to state or the white house deliver the message so if you have a frank conversation about what we're all trying to do in the region. >> thanks for your testimony there was a suicide bomber
who attack debt than 15:00 a.m. tuesday morning in turkey. because of that '01 to ask a few questions how effectively into the elevator of their country? >> that was more or less an open border in 2012 and 2013 the turks have taken a lot of measures to tighten the border it is very different from what it was four years ago. that said it still isn't completely shut there are many trails that date back hundreds of years it is a manpower intensive operation
to a sign enough manpower. >> second recently they decided to seal the border and create a buffer zone and allow all aircraft use the bombing missions in iraq and syria. aias is because of the instability in the region over the downed jet you mention the major contributions of the turkish policy and that is an area of disagreement two things
that the turks can do. to put more manpower down on that border on that trail in the smugglers' trails. second, it increased assistance with the syrian rubbles there is quite a dogfight with going on right now on the inside. the americans could help the turks in that effort to help direct some airstrikes in coordination with the syrian robles -- rebels that they are trying to help. >> there has been question now we stop isis from recruiting folks whether in the region or europe or the united states that it has
become a franchise so you mentioned for those that have been recruited towards terrorism by isis had you seen a difference in what europe is doing to address that problem and what united states is doing or the difference between any region in the world with respect to the internet specifically? >>. >> ted arnold the answer. if the europeans are doing something that we are not. and it is a radicalization problem is much work at muslims in america are much
printer integrated one the residents of the message. it was a very powerful message and we need you to fight for us to fight for your religion. if we don't have a lot of credibility, we or the western european governments to push back because we don't have credibility because we are not muslim. so others as the vehicle for it and the fact that they have a safe haven gives them great credibility to spread their message and it makes
them the center of the jihad movement still again i did do tell meetings two years ago and people in my district at best would have been ambivalent or pretty negative of any idea of intervention with syria but a lot has happened if you watch the course they have become closer to home like bill long wolf attack and san barnardino they have their attention but i am from alabama up.
we believe the winning. we know you cannot win unless you have the right coach. roll tide. [laughter] i'm not asking you to comment on the coach but they have to have the plant to wind it you have to train the team to win on the plan. the constituents come to my town hall meeting to say where is the plan? this president has not articulated a plan at all so once again if he were rising that president how we win this war'' were the elements of that plan?
>> as an alabama a grad i will say will tied back to you. -- roll tide. so i have with respect to syria and the broader competition between research and powers to deny the century end to the legal lending strategy to let you in the war. one you have to think in terms of a serious campaign against the glow will jihad with libya and elsewhere but
near that and if that press report is what general petraeus sent last week is accurate i subscribe fully to the sorts of things he was talking about to put pressure that in order to get to a serious negotiation so far this negotiation -- administration has declined to do that. >> if we rebuild that country we have to rebuild the syrian people mean as it brings people back to superior to see these
efforts to welcome them to places. >> he want to be careful wide daily syria? the opinion polls have read themselves somewhere between 70 and 80 percent that they left because of the aerial bombings of their neighborhoods, the barrel bombs. some fled the islamic state although the numbers that lee the aerial bombing is much higher than of the islamic state as brutal as it is. see you have to deal with that ruth cop -- the root causes to help the country rebuild with respect there is the big debate.
one having refugees in camps indefinitely or near syria also breeds resentment to help the islamic state recruits as well. and to take refugees to bear in mind to play into the islamic state as a make that decision of refugees. >> thank you to the witnesses and eight years on the intelligence committee
and to appreciate your testimony and on the military and political front. with some concrete steps with that military french and on the political front given the fact there are countless examples through the chiron that's isil uses to justify their actions. what are effective ways to delegitimized isil? given the headwinds that we're up against that they are using the acheronto
path to victory as from congress will ms. sanchez is a caliphate that i've seen is the most promising opportunity it won't end the war or destroy their ideology but put a dent into web much as you saw after 9/11 when al qaeda was expelled from afghanistan. the al qaeda us stocks went down to see it as a loser rather than no winner. i couldn't believe that the legitimization of the religious justification and whether isis or al qaeda at zero or anyone else to come from the muslim leadership. a remarkable speech was
given one year ago this month where he said there needs to be a revolution inside of his long. -- islam did has not been any follow-up to that as i am aware and it is absolutely right there are plenty of horses in the of bible to justify violence but not a lot there is not a significant number of christians to act on that. is end we shall have credibility to make those arguments and how old they need to take them on themselves and in new the
social media of video that i have heard to delegitimize the islamic state cave lot of the free syrian army a got a lot of play and social media in 15 seconds, it shows the victorious free syrian army soldiers marching orange islamic state prisoners that says we will not execute them because they are infidels which is what the islamic state has been doing to the free syrian army soldiers. at the last moment to the screen comes on and quotes several verses from the quran that says don't kill people they have intrinsic value. sold the knife is pulled back the genes are set free and they say joining us that
has been viewed tens of thousands of times in the middle east. my point is in the a understand better than i ever would even though i spent three years in the region where we could most do is help people like that get messages out but it cannot be put on a government website the coz the young arabs will not get guidance or advice from a government web site by a matter of time if you can insert that i would be grateful. thank you.
>> thank you for being your today. i believe the united states needs to the but we cannot do it alone. with the european allies in the middle east to see what happens ended paris said france was to become more involved. we're not doing enough to establish the diplomatic ties with our allies in possibly could do more to disrupt them economically of course, there is a component what we will do militarily. that is one of my concerns all along is what are we
doing? i have seen some of their videos are redoing anything to counteract that to get people to go on-line and pay attention for another point of view? i hoped that we would to counter in that regard but i would ask each of you what should be we doing and even more moderate -- nonmilitary and that is pretty incredible. and most revenue coming from oil and how should we develop our coalition? a good versus evil event at this time.
>> i'll answer that intelligence question i don't know if it puts more emphasis on but an area we need to improve upon significantly. we need to types of intelligence out of isis. for their plans and intentions and the plots they are planning in the region in europe and the united states if we are to disrupt those. in to give more targets in the ground. to talk about our success against al qaeda and taliban post final levin because we have very specific intelligence on what the target should be. but to have a much better
intelligence of those two areas. we have partnerships with different people in to get those targets on the ground in it needs to be the most important thing the intelligence community is doing. >> i agree if you look at the counter terrorism campaign with success that approach of building up assets over time. and then in the reserves to pay off in in yemen as well. it to be more intense going after the estate you have to
take that down from political reasons. >> what do you see that looking like? >> in this situation having served in iraq i know what to be occupiers or be there by yourself but holding that ground. >> our role should be limited to a pfizer's. that reconciliation in the rebuilding task. and then to subject ourselves through unnecessary pain. >> to shift slightly into
other things on that diplomatic side if there is said need for a much more afraid gore high-level discussion with turkey and wish they would talk all the time because turkey is the most important assad from iran and a kid be a spoiler. with those to a closed-door discussion i certainly hope he does but needs to be behind closed doors.
in turkey a end cotter are backing a different side and there are other countries that have an interest and algeria has the in multiple terrorism attacks in the european union. their disaster be a greater sustained effort on the diplomacy size secretary kerry was with the united nations it wasn't the one time type of meeting. >> thank you, mr. chairman and bringing your expertise
to us today. and with that conversation we have had we have been acknowledged in understand one of the things that we need here is patience. very difficult and rigo the timeline. that we may be operational by 2020 everybody looked at him and laughed. come back another day. and to something you have all mentioned to reassure our allies. that conditions of conditionality and where
have we fallen short in more conditionality how can that be done with all government approach in terms of the state department and at the same time whether it is funding or whatever that may be don't engage at the level that you should. >> on two levels online national geostrategic level turkey and saudi arabia could and iran the secretary of state is now having some frank conversations of
course, it doesn't control iranian policy another reason in the iranian government from the revolutionary guard corps controls that so it is awkward. if you talk about conditionality to tell the turks and the saudis that we're not interested to help extremist to reject a political solution insist on only military victory. any syrian opposition group should be on their acceptance of the eventual political deal to military victory. second level for conditionality engagement has to be a more local level i mentioned there are areas liberated you need to keep this service is going.
but my colleagues that are still in government and its narrow chris stevens would hope that what happens in benghazi does not prevent colleagues from doing their job going forward to engage locally to help national reconciliation of local governments. >> do you want to comment on that area of conditionality? and trying to look at the afghan strikes initially. and roy have been after is a problem that are you suggesting we really do need
to have far more strikes than what we are having and issues of collateral damage and the radicalization of the area? are these the considerations that come into this equation? how's that play into the issues of a no-fly zone as well. i am arguing for a more intensive air campaign that just eliminate the al qaeda as an actuary and then the taliban lived to fight another day. >> but we went to iraq. >> that collateral damage is a critical concern.
it does not go up with the intensity of strike with a more relaxed rules of engagement with the liberal policy verses others you occasionally make mistakes so you have that one person no matter how hard you try, you are not perfect but there isn't a correlation of a factor of 10. were is those are different from areas outside of hostilities but generally we are precision right now. so you can intensify because if you do have collateral damage you will defeat the purpose and turn more against do that is just
driven into our operations at one of the colleagues want to address that. >> we have talked a lot about syria in other parts of the world outside the u.s. produce said the fbi has over 800 investigations? to rebuild what percentage of investigations are not? >> cry of the vast majority are u.s. citizens. >> of those who are not committed to rigo how they got to the united states? a or what gaps to they come across a legally? >> i just don't know that data.
>> no. in some of them do. isis has sent emissaries to interact with these guys. >> she would agree that they claim territory that is different with the claim of territory in a blatant? >> how importuned safe haven in territory is. so that safe-haven in saudi arabia? >> they have terrorist cells spirit which one of the lowe's territories with the
operation be the smallest? >> steve mcfadyen of chile yet. said beebe 50 europe hundred fighters. >> you hit on the point i'm trying to get to so why we try to figure out how to carry out these extremely complex military operation is in countries like syria why shouldn't we destroy them starting to get small victories against them? why should we just wiped them now?
instead of cleaning land in 10 countries to defeat the small ones first bin you don't play welcome all -- wack the molding to take the big ones. they have been despising these groups sincerely ladies it is quite sensitive of the forces on their soil. it is seen -- easier to deploy politically in a place like tiny shad or yemen. >> but those 15 seconds i have left that is what creates the challenge with
so many countries that are sovereign states and as says the country operating militarily without their permission is a tremendous challenge. and i am not of time but certainly in the london to carry out their operations. talk about multiple countries that makes it extremely complex. congratulations on your championship. >> there is always next year. it was a great game. >> faq. good morning. you spoke about the president in egypt and the need for leaders to combat a
and counter the ideology that drives groups like isis and al qaeda to draw that line between connecting groups and how that ideology is the same. and spent close to two hours talking with him and with the religious muslim leaders with that lack of action on that part to identify and understand your enemy and then to have that same ideology with that islam is
some -- islamism with the caliphate so why is it is only targeting isis and not to my that adhere to and are motivated with that islamic ideology. >> we are in particular the group that is associated with the extra little operations arm. >> that most recent attack? >> i know there was a flurry of attacks a couple years ago but the focus but my
sense is we are targeting other groups in syria just to go back that is very important it is very important to segregate here are the things that you don't like to support e 1100 percent it is important to separate your policy better leader might be doing >> working on our side to recognize there is more that needs to be done to form that partnership that is mutually beneficial for both of us.
i have been asking that question in multiple times that we are targeting and one of the reasons with the opposition forces that the united states is ignoring the fact the most effective fighting force within the opposition the tried to overthrow assad is al qaeda that has been reported to take over territory to enacting to force women to wear the bird guide to implement this religious law and the society in the same way we have seen isis in the territory they have regained go-ahead dr.
>> i generally agree but you need to draw the distinction between with the al qaeda veterans for those attacks that began september 14 has continued as those targets develop. there were a series of them over the past year. but some 6,009,000 troops are spread across the country i would agree a lot of the foot soldiers have tactical alliances that have not been targeted in the same way in the big focus is on those external plotters.
>> the problem is very clear there are two contradictory u.s. wars but is also the objective and the other is without a clear strategy against al qaeda. >> it is all very interesting and informative. have all through the -- three of you worked with the obama administration? >> i listened intently to you in particular as july delicately is an apocalyptic
sorry to of view coming out of their religious studies led if you are en infidel to be put to death that there is a messianic figure to come to rule over the world. had had these conversations with our president? >> there isn't much that i could say here today that my former organization hasn't shared with the united states. >> the reason why i ask that question but just listening to the media agree with what we have to see their president seems to think it
is merely a coincidence that there of the islamic faith in that limits how we deal with the core issues behind all of this. i heard you articulate, and non islamist leader now that credibility to say these beliefs are not consistent with the quran and it is a consistent in how we should live together in this world. you need to turn away from this philosophy and rely on the muslim world but it seems to me that most people seem to feel even though there are many muslims around the our world who may not be in the fight the still agree with the philosophy.
that is the reason why there is a resistance that we need to stop killing people because they are not believers of islam. there is the guy is -- the guys who are acting and another group who share the belief in acting on them. and it was not insignificant numbers. and are comfortable with all that. and it just reinforces what i talked about earlier the importance of getting your arms around the creation of terrorists in the first place.
scholars and those a camel with the strong denunciation with the caliphate it was three months after it was announced there were gruesome be heading this. -- be heading said it was always good to remember that vast majority of other victims they did suffer a unquestionably but the vast majority are muslims so they're the most effective to talk back are not americans are not muslim misheard but our other muslims. >> is seems absolutely necessary that we energizing and stimulate the muslim world will only make life
difficult for everyone until they get involved to counter these terrible philosophies that keep us away from peace around the world. >>. >> guy like you to come -- comment on their recently new development on the u.n. security council al line for a peace process in syria in the context of everyone's agreed goal two-seat assad replaced. with any threats to the united states and the allies. we want to minimize the loss of human life and suffering in the community was like to see justice served of horrific crimes in that
area. that has not worked so far. but prior to saying at the end of the day we have to get rid of assad we don't have a ground force in syria. so from the prospects of this process how aggressively we should commit if you agree it is the path to take? economically or otherwise to get the goals through a more peaceful process. >> give brief i didn't take that a month ago before this that erupted. those documents that came in on the vienna nor was there
anything in the security council resolution. said that is something they are negotiating it should be on the table. there is a lot of goofing around. with that syrian opposition. to put their friends on the opposition in delegation in frankly this syrians are not in control. especially with this a this -- the armed opposition and excluded from the negotiation there has been a
lot of talk with a cease-fire. the pitcher of the starving people they had a cease-fire. you can see what that looks like. if you were in one of those areas they you criticize the regime don't appear on tv probably which is what happened. then suddenly in all of this we should not pursue do that political process but it only works if there is pressure on all sides. i do mean pressure. >> in terms of pressure you are suggesting? >> nothing that the united states should be bombing died never advocated for that but there are people who except the eddied for a solution if they need more support than they are getting.
>> accused the additional support will get us there for the pressure? we back with the russians intervene suddenly anti-tank missiles appear. that is what i am talking about. not that there is much left but to inflict enough paid audie government. >> so serious is missing pay and? >> there has not been enough pressure on the assad machine two except major compromises. >> to sever betty on the panel agree assad should go but also that should be a decision of the syrian people.
do you think the united states would be willing for a short period of time to achieve other goals? there is no perfect solution they give have less suffering more peace and stability to serve our interests in the region? i about of time so i will take their response off the record -- written for the record. >> i served iraq in the in anbar province as a civil affairs officer. those that were the ruling you meet that were no laundering and see a path me
credibly treated. in then maliki push the now creating an opening for isis. so to look at a post isis iraq that there are needs to be a that they had a provision within the constitution and whereby they could form that semi dash autonomous region in day had done so. wouldn't that make sense that there be some sort of a push in that direction to show there is the path of political accommodation grey could coexist with the baghdad government? can you answer that question?
>> exactly web was talking about last october. there was a time there would have expected it to with the decrease. it would have to be negotiated and there are provisions the same ones of the united states to help them draft but there were provisions to do that. given it is constitutionally possible in their starting to all i knew i could see that of course, this is a real scare through the -- to the iraqi shia that if your arm them they will just come back. bid is now entirely unreasonable. the people let the state
department keeping an open mind in a prepared to ring gauge to build enough arab support to have more in in iraq going after is the islamic state. >> vertically integrated with that regional autonomy that all decisions are made whether public education or local police i think there is new teeth in municipal power eniwetok them pushed out of the government that current structure exacerbates that. in the targeting is fairly limited.
the greatest source is the ability to the territories said they control. like the tracks them move feel real those industries controlled by a isis we should have a broader target not simply to hit the direct asset to the regime but also to understand that quite frankly that it is based upon the sustainment of that economy.
can you comment on that? in all of the aspects in state power that increasingly there hasn't been an indication for laura darr field army so they're not making themselves are invisible. >> hi peg read the you need to be careful about collateral damage. you need to be very careful that we don't create a bigger problem than we solve. and we agree should be broadbent to minimize collateral damage. >> for the record laissez
but also with that economic activity within their territories to sustain their economies so right now we only have those of the desert are directly related to isis but i would argue that if you say if it moves we will hit its it and put it tuesday damaged the economy to is denied them a permit to. >> you have used the term global is the hottest movement