Transcripts For CSPAN2 Defense Secretary Esper Joint Chiefs Of Staff Gen. Milley Testify On... 20240713

Thanking our witnesses, secretary esper and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff milley for appearing before us to testify. The purpose of this hearing is to discussour policy in syria , particularly in light of the tevents that happened just a couple months ago in turkey when they invaded and drove the kurds out of portions of that but its our first hearing since congressman brendici has joined the committee. We have a lot of new faces but theyre not new faces anymore but its good to have another freshman added to the committee. I appreciate him serving, welcome. As i said the purpose of this hearing is to look into the events around syria and as a bunch of questions and the other big issue for us is just the ability of members of this committee toask questions directly of the key policymakers in an area that is of enormous importance and give them an opportunity to learn more about policy and also express their views and that is a huge part of our oversight role in congress and i think its enormously important. Nd there are three sort of broad areas that im interested in around this. First of all, where do we go from here . What is now the mission on containing isis and ultimately defeating isis in the region because without question no matter how we got to the point of what we got , the turkish incursion into syria change that equation. We had built an alliance with the Syrian Democratic forces and with the kurds as a big part of that in the region and the history is important here. We were trying for years and quite a long time after the rise of isis to find the coalition as the caliphate across syria and across iraq and threatened our interests and the interests of the se region. That was an unchecked expansion or a substantial period of time. In 2015 Obama Administration was able to cobble together a coalition primarily of kurds and the wife e. G. In syria but also of Syrian Democratic forces and theyve been working with iraqis as well to have a counter isis movement. And whatever else one can say about it, itworked. The caliphate has been broken up because of that plan. Started by the Obama Administration and carried out by the Trump Administration. As we all know it did not defeat isis. Isis is still a arobust transnational terrorist threat in that region and beyond but the breaking up of the caliphate was a huge punishment. With the incursion from the north of turkey, it undermines that. Whats the new plan . What happens youre Going Forward because the biggest risk of this plan from the start was the concern that the turks would have about our alliance with the kurds and the wife e. G. In particular and the Obama Administrations spent a lot of time trying tomake sure that turkey didnt do what they ultimately wound up doing. And we need a new plan so understanding what that plan is is important but the other pieces that i think is important for members is to understand how policy gets made. In the pentagon and white house and how we can be involved in it. Because theres certainly a lot of concerns about how this came out and id be curious to have you tell us what actually happened. But essentially, the president sent out a week i think it was a year ago now in december saying and i dont have a directly in front of me but basicallywe are pulling out of syria. By the way, pulling out of afghanistan as well. The same time. And in all the meetings that i had, its the first weve heard of that. There had been no discussion about it the impression that its given is it wasnt like he sat down with the nsc and he said whats the plan, didnt sit down with you guys and say this is a policy objective we need to get to. He woke up one morning and decided we were going to doit. Of thinking and we backfill y the policy afterwards area we need Greater Transparency and i think the process is important. I trust the job that you guys do. Because a lot of people at the pentagon, a lot of people in the nsc. What is important in developing a policy. Not just throwing it out there and seeing what happens area so we would like to learnmore about how that works and there are other issues. There was recently a discussion of aid that we had approved for lebanon, that aid was held for some time. We attempted to find out why and it was kind of hard basically. There was eventually released but we never really heard what was the point . Those sorts of things matter and i think they matter to the executive branch and they matter a lot for us to because on this committee are bright talented people who have served in the military, people who serve in the cia, people who are just policymakers want to be part of that discussion as a coequal branch of government work for the good policy area we want to improve upon where were at. Lastly, certainly isis is a huge concern in the region but there are other concerns and we want to know how the policies we are dealing with in syria with Bashar Alassad having heldon the power and simply will for some time , how does that impact the broader region . I personally just got back from a trip with miss plotkin as well as a couple other members of the middle east and while there are certainly challenges, there are also opportunities there. There are protests in iraq and lebanon. Against the irani and involvement. We had never seen before. People in the region are beginning to understand that irans influence is malignand undermining their interest. There is an opportunity here because in addition to containing isis that are other largest goal is to stop Iran Destabilizing influence from syria to lebanon to iraq to yemen, across. How can we contain them to mark and we build on that and get an opportunity. Also the concern about iran has given us a historic opportunity to try to deal with these h israelipalestinian crisis area its an enormous crisis in the middle east. Theres now a much more connection between the arab states and israel because of their concernabout iran. This , is there a way to build on, to create a more stable middle east. So those are the three broad policy areas that im interested in but a huge part of this is members giving them an opportunity to understand what the policy is really we are not on wood going to pass a defense bill. That is our effort and more informed we are the better that is going to be. And with that im pleased to yield to the Ranking Member mister thornberry. Thankyou mister chairman and i want to welcome both of our witnesses. I believe this is the first time thatyou all are. In your current capacities. And we appreciate you taking the time to be here with us. As we about syria, i think all of us have to, there are those who develop a syria policy on paper Journal Articles and so forth and it seems relatively simple and straightforward. What you all have to deal with is the real world including the historical , cultural, the religious. The ethnic background and complications. In this part of the world, and that is the world as you found it and as you have a deal with it. Its not quite as simple as putting down points one, two and three on a piece of paper and assuming everything will flow easily from that area that you also have to deal with the mistakes made by Previous Administrations g. I remember the Obama Administration made a big deal about getting to asia and implying that we were getting away from the middle east. It turns out the middle east doesnt really let you get away from it. With terrorism and as the chairmanpoints out , the necessity of containing iran. I remember the Previous Administration drawing a red line in syria and then failing to follow up with many people believe has emboldened not only a side but others to take greater risk that the us would not follow through on threats or statements that it made. All that is part of the quagmire that is syria today, that you all have to deal with. But i agree completely, our challenges are how do we reduce the terrorist threat, especially to the homeland from that region. And how do we contain an aggressive, seemingly increasingly desperate ran. A revolutionary regime that seems on expansion and disruption of teenagers . Of course you all cant fix the whole problem. What you can do is tell us what your objectives are and whats the military role is in this and we look forward to hearing on both of those things today. Thank you for being here. That i as i understand it you have one joint statements . We submitted one joint statements and we both have separate statements that i will yield to miss justin. Thank you mister mechairman. Chairman smith, Ranking Member thornberry, thank you emfor the opportunity to testify today on the security situation insyria and broader middle east. Before we begin that the Committee Report on the nda and i encourage congress to move swiftly on its passage along with the defense appropriations bill. This is critical to providing our servicemembers the resources they need to implement the Defense Strategy and i want to offer my deepest condolences to the victims of theshootings that took place at pearl harbor and pensacola this week. We are reviewing our vetting procedures for all foreign nationals as well as assessing our insulation security procedures to ensure the safety of ourmilitary communities. The department of defense prioritizes china and then russia as our Nations National security challenges. As we transition our focus towards Great Power Competition, we must also remain vigilant in countering threats from rogue states like iran and violent extremist organizations such as isis. The United States strategy is to ensure the region is not a s safe haven for terrorists, not dominated by any power hostile to the United States and contributes to a Stable Energy market. The department of defense translates to the following six objectives, first, utilize a dynamic us military presence with strategic depth to deter and if necessary respond to aggression area second, a defense capabilities of regional partners. Third, advance partnerships and burden sharing with allies address shared security feconcerns, protect you of navigation d. Denies safe haven to terrorists from the homeland and mitigate wmd threats area although there are a multitude of Security Issues to discuss in the middle east it will focus on two of the most equalizing players in the region. Isis and he ran. Getting with isis, the United States had key success alongside our courses and iraq to destroy the physical caliphate and deliberate 7. 7 Million People living under his brutal rule. This includes the successful operations that resulted in the death of isis founder and leader as well as one of his top deputies. The department of defense remains committed to working with our partners to ensure isis is unable to mount a resurgence. Today us forces remain fostered in syria operating in close coordination with the Syrian Democratic forces. Although the recent turkish incursion located this file space the department of defense remains confident we can continue the mission the president has given us which is to ensure theenduring fee of isis. We maintain our leadership role to defeat isis which brings together 76 nations and organizations to provide capabilities and support. In iraq we continue tito work by, with and through the Security Forces to enableus on an independent state. I was recently to visit our and meet with our partners. Despite the turmoil, are trained advisors and assist efforts with the military remains strong and continues to show progress. Moving to rn, over the past 18 months the department of defense supports the United States diplomatic maximum Pressure Campaign. These efforts seek to bring the regime back to the negotiating table for a new and better deal that addresses the full range of threats emanating from iran. Charons efforts to destabilize the region have increased in recent months and the attack targets in saudi arabia, disrupting shipping, shot down the us Unmanned Aircraft and provided support for numerous proxy groups. To address the threats we are taking a deliberate approach to strengthen our defenses and enable our partners to better defend themselves and refine our options. Since may nearly 14,000 us military personnel have been deployed to serve as a tangible demonstration of our commitment to allies and partners. These Additional Forces are not intended to signal deterrence. We also focus on International Response to irans aggression by encouraging increased burden sharing and cooperation with allies and partners from around the world. The interNational Security construct protects freedom of navigation in the persian gulf and the more nascent integrated air and Missile Defense efforts led by saudi arabia are two such examples. Those in these activities we are sending a clear message to iran that the International Community will not tolerate its malign activities. Along with our allies and partners we remain united in our commitment to regional stability and upholding International Rules and norms. Iran should not mistake the United States restraint or unwillingness to respond with decisive military forceshould our interests the attack. In conclusion, as the department of defense continues to implement the national Defense Strategy the ability of the middle east remains important to our nations security and we will continue to calibrate all our actions to deter conflict to avoid unintended escalation and enable our partners to defend themselves against regional aggressors and in doing so we will preserve the e gains of the past and ensure our vital interests. Chairman milley. Ranking member thornberry, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the National Security challenges we face in the middle east and before i begin id like to echo secretary espers condolences to the victims of the families of the shootings in pearl harbor and pensacola. On behalf of the leaders both uniformed andcivilian in the military , our thoughts and prayers are with the fallen and we are thankful for the heroism and skill of the First Responders who put themselves in harms way. On the topic in the middle east i just returned a few days ago from an eight country visit to israel, jordan, saudi arabia, bahrain, kuwait, afghanistan and oman. The middle east remains a challenge to us National Security interests. Isis, al qaeda and other terrorist groups thrive in instability in the region as they tried to export violent extremism around the world. We are not finished with that fight. Iran exploits volatility in the middle east and assert itself through malign influence to achieve regional dominance. Our National Security strategy as secretary esper outlined has clear goals. These stable and secure the middle east, a middle east that is not a safe haven and a breeding ground for abviolent extremists area a middle east that is not dominated by a nation hostile to the United States and a middle east that contributes to the Stable Global Energy market. As the secretary stated the national Defense Strategy applies military objectives to deter and destabilize the activities of iran and violent extremist s organizations and he outlined the six objectives. The National Military strategy describes how the those force achieves six objectives through our five focus areas of responding to threats, preparing 50 attacks to include the proliferation of weapons of mass effect and, deter conventional attacks, secure our allies and partners compete below the level of Armed Conflict. Specifically in syria, we rt continue combined operations with the Syrian Democratic forces in order to complete the enduring the of isis and prevent their reemergence. Iraq has been essential are in defeating isis in the region and we continue to work by, with and through iraqi Security Forces in order to achieve a secure, stable iraq ready to defend itself against internal er security threats. Our military strategy in afghanistan is to continue to deny afghanistan at a safe haven for terrorist attacks sin the homeland and that has been our objectivesince october 7 2001. And we also support the effort to reach a political settlement between the top and an african government and afghans afghan negotiated settlements that ends this war in a responsible way and meets us National Security objectives. And around remains the world leading state sponsor of terrorism warand has increased instability in the region through state proxy actions. As you know, we have increased regionally our force posture in response to irans recent attacks with saudi arabia and the continued aggression and malign influence throughout the region area that we will maintain a strategic depth of the joint force in the region in order to deter iran and ensure our partners and if necessary, respond to deterrence. In broad terms our military strategy in the middle east as part of an Interagency International effort to sustain the conditionsbased approachdesigned to violent extremism , including the enduring fee of isis, to prevent regional dominance on iran and three, to ensure our allies and partners area thank you for your continued support to our men and women in uniform, i look forward to an nda later this afternoon and appreciate theopportunity to appear here today for your questions. We now move into the questions, our two witnesses have a hard stop at noon. Which means im going to be even more aggressive about enforcing the fiveminute clock. Lets make sure we can get to eas many members as possible area ive had the opportunity for so im not going to ask questions and i would yield to mrs. Davis for the first set of questions, five minutes. Thank you mister chairman and thank you to both of you doctor s for for joining us. I appreciate your statement and i wanted wonder if you will just perhaps and more refined fashion, why is our military presence essential in syria . And what can we not achieve actually through other means to fulfill our strategic objectives and i wonder if you could and that answer, take us into three years with that military posture and touch briefly on the Diplomatic Mission as well. Thank you. Thank you congresswoman and ill take the first stab and let general milley flesh out operational aspects. The Mission Remains the devices we do this with a partnership on the ground, fcs has been in the sense of providing capable Ground Forces what we provide for them will be enablers, the air support and intelligence, things like that that help us defeat isis as we see isis pops up and i dont know if you wantto provide more operational details. Yes. Why is it necessary . Its because isis still exists. Isis as an entity, as an organization is more than just an organization, its an ideology. Its an Inspirational Group and so on. They have been defeated. The caliphate, the physical entity, that was destroyed. The Organization Still exists, there are members generally more or less, not 100 percent but in the lower Euphrates River valley. In order to provide for the enduring defeat and working by, with and through allies and partners and iraqi Security Forces and the sts in syria that enables us to continue to maintain intelligence collection and strike capabilities, to continue to rip apart the remnants ofwhat is isis. If we fail to do that isis will reemerge. The conditions will come back and they will reemerge as a capable threat to the region and our interests. So what are the conditions then that wouldallow us to withdraw . Does that mean isis would absolutely have to be defeated and are we including those ththat the situation in afghanistan is very critical in that way as well. Ill answer your question directly, we are fighting isis all the way from africa into afghanistan and we have operations conducting their against afghan isis and its derivatives. The metric we have set out as to when we consider redeploying would be when we feel confident local security is capable of handling any type of resurgence of isis. I think a defeat if you will be hard because its an ideology. I dont think, its hard to foresee anytime soon that we would stand out when we get to the point where local police can handle the actual threat of isis activities, that would be a metric. Looking to turkey and syria, what can we see in the next three years in terms of their handling those objectives that you outlined . I think turkey and syria have different objectives here. This is our priority with tregard to syria. Turkeys objectives, i hesitate to speak for them but in my discussions with the turks, their number one concern is our kurdish terrorists, the pkk coming into turkey and conducting attacks on the turkish people. Close behind that is the presence of 2 to 3 to 4 million refugees in turkey and their ability to sustain that though their focus is a little bit different than what ours is on that front. Could he the whole government approach that as well because obviously this is Armed Services committee but we know if we dont have a full picture of where the state department is in this and there cassidy this time, to be dealing with it, thats areal problem for us. Im not asking you to be secretary of state but please. The secretary of defense is challenging enough. The state department in the context of syria, the state department is working for the un process called the geneva process running the key players together in geneva to discuss a resolution to the war in syria, the civil war in syria. That process has had its ups and downs over the years and im sorry but i cant give you a currentupdate as to where things stand. Progress has not been sufficient enough for our likes if you will. And general, could you comment as well on your optimism or pessimism in terms of the support of the Diplomatic Mission there . I wouldnt characterize it as optimistic or pessimistic. I just think we the us military have a requirement not just in the middle east but throughout the world to support diplomatic efforts ssin the words of a previous secretary of defense is much better than Foreign Countries deal with the department of state and the department of defense so we want to act in support all the time of diplomatic efforts. Withrespect to syria or iran for that matter , there are a variety of ordiplomatic efforts ongoing and we are directly in support of those. Thank you. Mister thornberry. Using mister wilson. And i think both of you for being here today. America is fortunate to have such kleadership and i know military families appreciate mister secretary in general your service, its so meaningful and mister secretary i appreciated earlier this year, i have the opportunity to welcome you to fort jackson and i saw your mp and relationship with the military troops. It was so positive and i fully support the promotion that you receive the secretary of defense and its just reassuring again to our allies, the American People to military families so thank you. And with that, im grateful to be the Ranking Member of the middle East North Africa International Terrorist subcommittee. We understand any strategy in syria hshould be both diplomatic and political and so what is the relationship with the department of defense and the state department to try to promote stability in theregion . Thank you for your comments mister wilson. We collaborate constantly with state department at all levels to include myself, speaking often with secretary pompeo. We are brought together in the nsc process , where we have committee deputies, Principal Committee meetings to discuss these issues and so on each of them where and in love as the chairman mentioned, as i stated before part of our job is to enable our diplomats. I want to as much as possible and in some cases may be providing security orthe distribution of humanitarian aid. In other cases its making sure we are using our military presence to reassure and reinforce partners and allies. So those are just two examples of the close coordination between us and other players in that realm as well whether its treasury , usaid, all the key players and the whole of government approach. They play such a vital role and finally that isis materialized mister secretary because of the precipitous withdrawal from the Previous Administration followed the unfulfilled red line. This premature decision based on a timeline rather than conditions led to the reengagement to have to defeat isis. With the president s recent comments about pulling troops out of syria andkeeping a peacekeeping force , how will this force published any of itsobjectives that you and general milley have highlighted in your statement . The residual force in syria is not a peacekeeping force. Its a forced focus on the defeat of isis. They are working closely they in, day out with the stf to perform a number of tasks underneath that overarching goal and strategy so thats their mission , their conducting those operations day by day. Thank you and general milley thank you for your service. E. Its so reassuring to military families. Youve cautioned that a reemergence of isis as possible. Can you cite further assessment of isis capabilities potentialfor resurgence absent a us r presence . My assessment at this point is we cannot retain any capability, intelligence capability that allows us to collect and see and then act with a strike capability on isis in syria, then the conditions for reemergence of isis will happen and it will take some time. It will probably take six to 12 months but isis would reemerge if the United States went to zero. Having said that there are other forces in the area that also have interest in suppressing isis. But left unattended whatsoever, i think it would reemerge. I would add in syria we are also there with allied forces which gewe cant discuss in the session but we have partners there as well working with usand supporting the stf and thats important to our efforts as well. To me this provides suddenly a safe even for terrorists to attack American Families and back home so thank you for what youre doing and general, a plan for the isis detainees held by the Syrian Democratic forces, what is the status of maintaining the detainees as where theyare or encouraging their return . The current status is that there are 24 Detention Centers r, prisons are manned by the stf throughout n different parts of syria they are still underadequate control. Based on the reporting that i have read so that there is no , theres no risk, at this point that i can see some mass estate or that sort of thing, the stf has them under control. And in the turkish incursion zones, its theresponsibility of the turkish government and that 30 kilometer incursion zone in the portion of syria , thats the turkish government but in the rest of syria the fdf has controlled. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your service and testimony here today. To follow up on the question as one of the main things i wanted to get to in terms of the status of the isis prisoners, obviously the thing most that worries me is the homeland receive their escape would be very troubling for our security, as well as that of our allies. I appreciate the answer you gave but there is there any intention to transfers any of these prisoners to another entity . If so, how would the u. S. Ensure an orderly transfer of custody . I will take first stab at that. If you look at the 10000 if we went into closed session and were able to i tell you most of them are not the threats we might think they are in terms of fighters. There is a hardcore group that i think we watch closely so i want to make sure you understand this is a spectrum of fighters and some are more violent, if you will, than others. That said of the 10000, if i remember my statistics right, v2,200 or so are foreign fighters and they are trying to work with our allies and partners to have them repatriated and brought to justice but ive had numerous discussions with our european allies on this fact and discuss it with our iraq he partners and others and so we continue to engage on that front but beyond that theres a plan to no other plans to transfer them anywhere other than to repatriate them back to their nations of origin, home nations. Secretary, what additional changes to the disposition of u. S. Forces in syria plan for the next six months and there are changes to disposition plans for the region . Right now there is no disposition plan that i am tracking. Of course, that could change if the threat changes or the commander needs to make changes on the ground but i will defer to the general iff he has anything to add. That is correct. The current disposition is what we anticipate for the next six months depending on if there is some cigna again to change in but right now we dont anticipate that. Secretary, general milley, what you anticipate will happen to the Syrian Democratic forces given the president s decision to withdraw u. S. Forces from the Turkish Border . They were strong allies, partners with us and im concerned about what will happen to them now. My Current Assessment is that the situation up there is generally stabilized and there is you know, the no ceasefire is perfect and i think the wildcard is these Turkish Forces out there but i generally my sense is that things have roughly stabilized in northeast syria but again the chairman was just in the region and may have heard something different. I have not heard anything particularly different but i think its settled down a little bit but i would also caution theres its early to tell but these things take a while to unfold and that 30kilometer or so offer zone that was established by turkey in the ernter and then by syria and the russians on either side of that that is still an area of a Dynamic Movement back andr forth between those forces and we are watching it closely but with respect to what will happen the sdf, they are already made adjustments in that particular area and we are still working with them in the eastern portion of northeast syria and they are working with russian and syrian regimes and other parts of syria so they are continuing their and their cause in their fight and against various entities inside syria. I would like to add one thing and follow up on your question. The other thing we have to watch for in the coming months as turkey begins to resettlead the internally displaced persons within turkey and twofour, more like 3 million assyrians and what that will cause in terms of destruction with the kurds as they move them back into kurdish areas and what not to . There will be turmoil, i expect, as that happens and it is beginning to happen now and i think we will watch that very carefully. Thank you. Lastly, do we expect anyg escalation in irans activity until it intelligence reports we are receiving whether respect to the next six months how we tracked anything in particular we need to be ready for . I cant discuss Intelligence Matters in this open session but we see a lot of regime under stress, both to the maximum Pressure Campaign and we see a lot of turmoil in the streets of many cities of iran, suppression through various means that are happening so you know, you hope for the vespa planning for the worst and as we seen things happen or sync optics and activity we certainly will adjust our forces and adjust our posture accordingly. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Mr. Turner. Mr. Secretary, you have a tough job in syria is bothte difficult and contested environment and washington is both a difficult and consistent environment. [laughter] the house recently passed a resolution disagreeing with the president s decision to withdraw troops from syria on the same day the house would have been unable to pass a resolution authorizing keeping troops in syria. You do not have an authorization for use of force to counter russian influence in syria to hold back irans influence in syria to support the kurds to support the Syrian Democrat forces and their civil war against syria to protect civilians and their how they are being attacked by the Syrian Government itself. Or to counter the assad regime but yet those are criticisms that you receive every day they were not accomplishing your goals of syria. How difficult is it for you to operate informally formulate policy when you dont have an updated authorization of use of force in the middle east . We think we have sufficient authorities under the [inaudible] to the conduct what we need to do in syria. Those are holding up fairly well and we think we can do what we need to do at this point in ti time. Would echo that. It allows us to conduct strike operations against the terrorists, al qaeda and et cetera. Isis we all should remember is a direct derivative of al qaeda and it is al qaeda in iraq rebranded as isis. [inaudible] was its leader at one point. They grants us the authorities to conduct operations and continue operations for the enduring defeat of isis. What has been a significant debate and house and in the senate as to whether or not the scope of what you currently have, i agree with you, the scope allows you to pursue isis and i appreciate you doing out but do believe there are a number of goals and objectives are being placed upon you that do not cover, are those goals d objectives of the original use of force and i dont think that the policy objectives are currently within their assignment. With that, i yield the rest of her time. Thank you, mr. Turner. Thank you gentlemen for being here but one is enough enough when it comes to iran . When is a restraint interpreted as weakness . When we look back to 79 with the ticket of art hostages or deponents over the year the beirut bombing, towers, where i lost a friend, u. S. Coal bombing and recent pentagon of 608 americans were killed in iraq by shiite militias or eye proxies and we could go on and on so at what point do they interpret this as weakness, our lack of restraint . I love to hear your thoughts. Thank you. Its a great question but it is one thing and something we wrestle with in the interagency and the chairman and i discussed it a lot because your assessment of that determines how much worse you put on the grounds or activities you do to deter further aggression and if deterrence falls how do you respond . Obviously we have a great Intelligence Community that helps us with that and we talk a lot about her friends and allies in the chairman came back from the region and i was in the region four, five weeks ago and listening to them and also sending messages through them and sending messages publicly and i will repeat it again the iranians should not mistake our restraints for weakness. We are prepared to act if our forces or interests are attacked. The question you ask is a key one and we think about it everyday. We all think about beirut and the towers and lots of other things and i commanded to the iranian supported surrogates with munitions that were provided by the iranians and there is no allusion on any part about the mayan line influence of iran but when is enough enough . I firmly believe the use of military force should be a last resort on a first resort and that double medic efforts should be exhausted and in all nonmilitary methods to resolve a given problem should be used first. Secondly, i thank you have to have clear, on a big u. S. Objectives and thirdly you have to have a reasonable prospect of of success if you will use military force. We have to be careful, delivered and thoughtful and i think that restraint in this particular situation is inappropriate response up until this point. The ball is in the Iranian Court and it depends on what they do, how big, size and scope in the future, that will determine what we do. We are in a, as the other congressman said, were in a period of heightened risks with respect to iran and i know this is a public hearing and we will not talk intel but i would caution iran publicly to be very, very cautious as to how they perceive it. Thank you, gentlemen. I want to follow up to mr. Turners point and i noticed to some degree he hates when i do this but i agree with him on the issue but want to put more flavor on it. I dont think its spirit could be put that in the record twice. Do you agree with me . [laughter] spirit but there is a little bit of disagreement which we can get to ine a sack but i dont think its a good idea for us to rely on the 2001, 2008, umf in 2019. We can talk about whats in the 2001 and how it applies to now and i think that has been stretched beyond allwh recognition. But the 2002 i umf is ridiculous that we are still saying this is an authority. I was here i voted for that but idthe 2002 was to remove Saddam Hussein for power and stop the threat that he posed. The idea that now today the pentagons using that as the authority for military action to say that was legislatively approved most people here dont evenmi know what the hell i am latalking about. They did not i think its really important that we update that and that is where i am with mr. Turner and chairman muller, you made a good point when we spoke on the floor that public support for what you are doing matters enormously. We are representative of the public for good and for ill. If we are not saying anything about it gets further and further away from that public and i think we really need to update whatm we are doing here. As difficult as it may be, not simply rely on authorities that are being twisted. I want to work with mr. Turner and others to figure out how we can do that in a more sensible way but with that, i yield to [inaudible] for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In 2018 the administration issued the national Defense Strategy and in that strategy they talked about big power competition, china and russia and specifically raised the issue of russias influence. Russia seeks Veto Authority over nations on its periphery in terms of governmental economy and double medic decisions to shatter the nato and change europe and middle eastern security and economic structures in its favor and the withdrawal of American Forces and the northern portion of syria led to russia occupying american basis as we withdrew after we had bombed our own bases. It is now clear that russia and syria are now very tight allies and russia is improving its airbases and naval bases in syria and apparently has a nice cozy relationship with iran, so much so, they are now providing very advanced missile air Defense Systems to turkey. Im wondering if in fact the deferment of defense was abandoned for the national Defense Strategy as laid out in the 2018 national Defense Strategye. Mr. Esper, could you please tell us if, in fact, we are engaged in countering russia in the middle east . Spirit sure. I think mr. Smith, chairman smith, set it in his opening remarks that History Matters on the relationship between russia and the syria goes back to the cold war when it was the ussr and they fed a vase at years and that relationship in the postsoviet russia was reinvigorated excuse me, this History Lesson would take several months. But im going i promise i will get there in 20 seconds. The relationship was reinvigorated in 2013 or 2014 russia moved in under thought and began working closely with syrian forces. Look, back to your question about thehe national Defense Strategy is what way i see us countering russia consistent with the nds is through our Nato Alliance. We seen success there and i was at the meeting last week and the nato allies are spending 140 billion more annually than they have been before we are afocused on the Nato Readiness Initiative which is critical. Excuse me, could you please focus on syria and turkey spirit sure, my biggest concern with syria and turkey is actually turkey russia. The concern is that turkey is moving out on the nato orbit, as i said publicly, i think our challenge is figure out how we can get them act into closer into the Nato Alliance because they are critical and longstanding 70 year partner of ours. The withdrawal of american troops from the Northern Syria and how the dad help carry out the goal you just stated . When you look at the situation in time we have faced one or two scenarios and one would have been to allow our troops to stand there in the face of im sorry, turkish onslaught which will chairman and i agreed was not worth losing our soldiers lives. Option two would have been an uncritical option which is the exciting along stating nato ally. I thank you missed one step that preceded that. That is the president s decision to withdraw. How did that address the big power competition . Do not allow russia to exert its influence in the area including its troops the decision [inaudible conversations] spirit the decision to withdraw was precipitated by months leading up to that the culminated in the president speaking to our president and sang clearly he will go into turkey. He will go into syria. Im sorry, but i think we may be talking about the decision not the decision to withdraw the last couple of vision but the decision agents earlier to enthrall. That is thet signal that was sent. Actually, the decision you just described proceeded an ultimate decision that did lead to the withdrawal of american troops and a replacement of american troops by the russians and the turks and the syrians and my question really goes to the heart of the national Defense Strategy which presumably is big power competition in which case we have seriously lost a major element of our position in the region. I know over time but if i could i think the bottom line as i said privately and publicly is im looking at everywhere we are in the world to include the middle east to withdrawal forces and with drawdown forces responsibly so we could reallocate them toward great power conflict in europe and principally in asia, and opaque,. Im sorry, we are over time but thats an excellent point that the great power condition is not just europe and asia. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your service and sacrifice for our country. Secretary esper, in your Opening Statement you said the ability of the middle east remains vital to our National Interests and you listed it as a priority to for that Mission Priority was to deny safe haven to those who would do us harm. There are some in the congress and on this committee who believe its time to meet any pull out all their troops from afghanistan. What would be the consequence to those priorities if we did, in fact, remove all troops . In the context of afghanistan and i dont want to upset negotiations that may be happening presently with the tele ban and others but i would say this much that we have an important Counterterrorism Mission in afghanistan and that means weve got to make sure that afghanistan never becomes a safe haven for terrorism to strike the United States. Our commanders ive spoken with them, general milley house so that we could reduce our force presence there and still be able to conduct that mission. Im interested in reducing our force presents for the same reason i just outlined and i want to reallocate forces so i think i think we need to make sure we can do that and the best way forward in afghanistan is through a political agreement that allows us a longterm sustainable path that ensures that the government in charge enes not allow that safe haven to exist. Thank you. General milley, and a work in the Homeland Security weve been tracking a group that goes by hts which stands for [inaudible]. This group seems to be a primary compose of front fighters andto publicly broken without kind effort can you tell us much about this group and their capabilities . There is an unclassified session of al qaeda that is operating in the region and they are quite dangerous and violent and quite ideologically committed to the cause and willing to die for their cause. They are probably in irreconcilable group and some groups like the taliban can be negotiated with and we will see where that negotiation goes but other groups like al qaeda, isis, hcs and so on are deeply committed to the cause and there is only one way to kill them or capture them and that falls into thato category. Thank you. I yield the balance of my time to mr. Banks from indiana. Thank the gentleman for yielding. While we are focused today on syria and situation of the middle east i want to fight about talk about the future. As you both know ive cochaired the future of Defense Task Force with mr. Moulton on the other side of thef aisle and secretay esper, could you talk for a moment about the new capabilities that we will have and be able to use when [inaudible] goes live and right that is so important and why delays would be costly in our fight against terrorism specifically . Spirit sure. First of all, weve migrated many things from any clouds so far. The key piece about the next element the [inaudible] piece is that you get war fighting capabilities if you are into the cloud and what you are able to do that you have that cloud base and we have two things but first of all, better security but secondly you can then put on top of that ai and allow you to think and act more quickly when you are in a war fight through multiple domains. Its critical that we move to the cloud as quickly as possible. I underwent an education process,s, if you will, when entered the job in july and took a couple of months and have had a chance to talk with many of you about [inaudible] and its vitally important we move to the cloud particularly anda again thats underway and we continue to move that. Could you elaborate on what other delays will cause us . First of all, we will lose ground to the likes of the chinese in terms of their ability to act, think and fight quicker than we are able to fight them. Secondly, if we dont move this piece quickly into the cloud what we may force the services to do is go in their separate directions with separate clouds or uncoordinatedfo it plans so that is why its very important we move as quickly as we can onto the jedi spirit can you talk about the current contest by amazon. Were still moving forward in the contracting process so we donte afford further delays . My understanding is we are still moving forward but i dont want to comment further because another lawsuit has been raised and probably would be imprudent for me to say. Bottom line is you said any further delays not just in our strategic competition with china and russia but in the fight against terrorism. Yes, sir but there is bipartisan agreement that we need to move quickly in terms of into the cloud and into the next domain of worker. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you both for being here. Secretary esper, how many troops did we have in syria before the president conversation with president erdogan . I cannot recall the specific numbers but over 1000. And then the president had the phone call and then turkey began its operation piece sprinn and we then the president said we were removing all the troops on october 14 and then it was said that we were only going to stay in syria to guard the oil and so how many troops would be there to guard the oil . First of all, the initial plan was to retaine some troops at the garrison down the south so that was never off the table, if you will. We could talk in closed session about that number butas the current number in Northern Syria is somewhere between 50600 at this point. I think thats are we there to guard the oil are our wheat they are to repel isis . We are there to ensure the defeat of isis brita subtask of that is weve directed to her commander on the ground is to deny isis access to that oil because whoever controls that oil controls the resource that allows them to buy i understand. And provide for their communities et cetera. Ambassador jeffrey and Amnesty International have indicated that there are isolated war crimes going on in syria by turkish troops. Can you speak to the ethnic cleansing that i think all of us have been concerned about going on there by the Turkish Forces . Are not aware of those in particular but i think the first week the turks moved and i spoke out publicly that if there were reports on the battlefield coming through the media that were crimes may have been committed and i said very clearly we both should be investigated and persons should be held accountable spirit persons being the turkish first of all, whoever committed them on the ground and whoevers sanction them or directed them in the chain of command. Your not been in contact with the master jeffrey about the incident that they have reported . No, i have not. N chairman milley, you referenced in your comments that you wanted to seeey afghan to afghan talks taking place this is in terms of a ceasefire so my question is why arent the afghans negotiated with the talibans . It comes from the other way around. Its my understanding is that caliban is refusing to formally negotiate for the government of getting sand because they dont recognize the legitimacy of the government put the taliban will not negotiate because youre the three weight negotiation with the United States being the third partner. There are other players involved as well for the direct negotiation, formal direct negotiation between the government of afghanistan and the taliban and to my understanding that happen not because the government does want to do it because the taliban dont want to do it and i dont want to presuppose but we are closer rather than further away on that particular task happening from afghan to afghan negotiation bid that would be a good thing because the war must come to an end and its only responsible way to do that is to afghans talking to afghans. You will make sure there are female afghan at the table than . Im not running the negotiations and as part of the department of state and its the ambassadors job to do that and we are supporting military operations on the ground but we are not part of those negotiations between dont have a response ability to do that. Alright. I think theres been a lot of concern about discipline and the respect for the law of war as a reason to keep our troops safe and maintain command authority needed to fight effectively. Yet, last month the president pardoned three war criminals. Chairman, milley, how does that maintain our ability to maintain discipline in the ranks . All three cases are different. Only one of them, lieutenant lawrence was convicted of war crimes and served seven years in crison for those crimes. Second case, gallagher was convicted of a war crime taking photograph of a dead body but not convicted of murder but that was an allegation rate was not convicted in a court of law in the third case, goldstein, never went to trial so we dont know if hes convicted or not because it never went to trial. In this country youre innocent until Proven Guilty and he was never Proven Guilty. Each is different and i dont want to group them and say they are, in fact, war criminals because you have to be proven that in a court of law. 1, point to for all of us to remember when i mention this to all of us in uniform is the president of the United States is part of the process. He is the commander in chief. He has the full authority i apologize but we are out of time but thats not what shes asking. Shes asking how did this affecy you phrased it . A i was getting there. He is part of the process and good order and discipline is maintained in different ways but one of them is to maintain appearance to the process and the president of the United States is part of the process. We are maintaining good order and discipline within our military. Of the process and we are maintaining good and discipline within our military. Im sorry, have to move on. Its an important topic. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before asked the question i want to commend you and the Ranking Member for an agreement on the ndaa. Weve countless hours and we appreciate that. No one ever gets everything they want but i think we have a product that we canve all be prd of some want to thank you for that. And also want to thank representative wilson for his work on the widows tax in particular. My question is about iran. Conventional wisdom has it that iran, the persians if you will, control four arab capitals in the region. And theres a lot of angst about what theyre doing in syria. What are they doing militarily in syria and what are we doing about it for both of you, please . . Thank you for that question. Clearly up and has a lot of influence in many capitals, in many parts and not just the middle east but also africa, in afghanistan as well. Its hard to discuss it in the session. We had to go to close session but its everything from monitor support, payment of fighters, arms, arms trafficking. Its Political Support as well. That just the way tops of what that looks like. But i will say the maximum Pressure Campaign, and again we cant get into this in the session, but as the revenues have dried up, its also affected their ability to pay do some of those things. Thats a good thing. General milley . As the secretary mitch and, not a lot we can actually say specifically here in the session, but iran is very reactive with their variousus special forces and other capabilities, not only in syria but also in iraq. Im going to yield the bounce of my time to my friends and colleagues who has the honor of representing pensacola, matt gaetz. Thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Sica, i want to thank you and thank the president for instituting a review of the saudi program. I also wish that more time to reflect on the heroism of the sailors who ran towards gunfire and your also informed on the location of ther shooter during this terrorist attack. During this review that you are conducting, is the program paused . Are we going to taking in new saudi students . My condolences to your, our constituents and right there was a lot of heroism on the ground that day. Very tragic day for everybody. So yes, we have directed a standdown that would limit saudi participation in our foreign, and our u. S. Based training the classroom training only until wl can do expedited by vetting of all saudi students here in the United States. I spoke to the Deputy Defense minister yesterday, by the way, a graduate of Pensacola Naval air trading. He agreed and fully supports this. They will do parallel vetting to make sure we understand during that time to incoming not . Nts are i cant answer that affirmatively but have to get back to on that. Time, new incoming students or not . I cant answer that affirmatively but i would have to get back to you on that. This is a issue of great importance to my constituents. Its a very fair question but i would hope for a certain with individual be able to make a public save as to whether or not were taking in new students while youre undergoing that vetting process. I think i know the answer but it dont want to do something want to be affirmative in what i tell you. I think its a very reasonable thing to do. Thank you. There are a number of saudis that are currently with us on your base in pensacola who court has a access to those people doing investigation . Of the dublin also that were immediate friends, acquaintances, et cetera of the alleged killer, the fbi, department of justice has control of them on the base. So who has access to those people . I specifically want to know, are embassy personnel, others speaking with, talking to perhaps providing communication with these people who we are holding for question . I dont know exactly. I want to say a navy Muslim Chaplain may have access to them. Certain the fbi, dhl doj district i think the saudi commander has access. How about embassy personal . I dont know. Thats also really important because to me this is i can assure you somebody knows. I just dont know right here. Ill get back to you. I appreciate your prompt attention because again, thats something i that think deeply informs on what we can do as policymakers to try to improve this relationship with the kingdom because at some point theres only so much of this were going to go to take where the king condenses or some quirky part of the royal family thats off doing some different thing. These saudi students, theyre connected folks when they end up in pensacola and appreciate your great efforts and i look for to those answers and i think the chairperson for his indulgence and i think the gentleman for yielding. Thank you. I want to go those concerns. Certainly the tragic event in pensacola deserves our attention and sympathy and admiration for those who responded, but the broader issue that mr. Gates gets at, the vulnerabilities we might face from saudis present the u. S. Is something we need to address now and be as transparent as possible so i appreciate your answers on that and look forward to follow as well. I need to expand come aquatech with what were saying but to expand we will look not just at we are looking for all foreign nationals coming to the United States to make sure we have the the best, strongest vetting procedures we have so we are confident regardless of where folks come from we know whos coming to our country. Its a very important program. We just have to get it right. We have to do it better. Thank you. Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Secretary esper, id like to start with you. Regarding iran, my understand is the administrations three objectives for iran are to limit Nuclear Capability, to deter regional regional aggression, and get back to negotiating table to get a strobe deal, is that correct . Im going to cast it differently. Our overall goal is to get iran to be a normal country that behaves normally. The key aspects actually four think of Nuclear Weapons, they cant have access to Nuclear Weapons and the means to produce them. Number two missiles. Number three, the behavior throughout the region and beyond, and number force hostagetaking. So hostagetaking has never been stated before the lets focus on the first three that we can all agree on. Since President Trump pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal against the best advice of secretary mattis, the secretary of defense, to chairman dunford, the chairman the joint chiefs of staff, literally hundreds, hundreds of military and National Security professionals, even many who were opposed to signing the deal initially but ragged as the nationals could he risk of pulling out and breaking our work as a country, breaking a work truck closest allies in the world, since doing that have you seen any evidence of success for the administrations strategy . Yes, i have in the context the maximum Pressure Campaign has denied them resources because of its dramatic effect its had on the economy. Weve seen the europeans make movements in our direction. You saw europeans expressing concerns about how iran has been violent im sorry, but europeans were not listed. As part of the goals of the strategy. The goal is to limit their Nuclear Weapons capability and iran is now advancing their Nuclear Weapons capability. They are much closer to having a nuclear bomb than a were under the deal. International and american inspectors verified that they were followed the deal. Since pulling out iran has advanced their Nuclear Weapons capability the second point was deterring aggression. Now, iran was attacking us before. Iran has attacked americans in iraq. I have friends who were grievously wounded and killed by iranian weapons in iraq. Iran has never rejoin those attacks and weve got to all the ways in which irans regional aggression has picked up. But its pretty quiet under the do. Theres a question those attacks have picked up as we pulled out. What we saw after the deal was consummated and money was returned to them and we saw an uptick in activities and in terms of the missile program. You would say theres less activity now than when we had the deal . They were not attacking saudi oil fields. Thats just an absurd conclusion and thats obviously not true. On the third, getting iran to the negotiating table, we were with them at the negotiating table. We had lines of communication with them under the jcpoa. We do not have those lines of communication now. Have you seen any evidence that they are coming back to the negotiating table to negotiate these stronger deals to further limit their Nuclear Capability . No, but that is the thank you, mr. Secretary. Theres more of an answer to this question. I understand the administratyion wants to talk about the national Pressure Campaign and all the way it turned their economy but Im Just Holding you to your strata strategy. Your stated strategy, and on all three points did Administration Strategy is saving. The administration is worse off, we are worse off, we are less safe than we were under the jcpoa. I have only a minute left so i want i think strategies take time to play out and i think if you look at everybody you might be right in the future but were talking about today. Theres no evidence this is working. Lets have one person talking at a time. General milley, thank you for your clarification about the three servicemen. Because to your point, innocent until Proven Guilty only two of them have been convicted of war crimes. We have to back out of three who are war criminals. I received a text from a Sergeant Major in the marines after this happened and he said trump involving himself and all the cases of these classic dickens of inappropriate in a combat zone like Eddie Gallagher is appalling. Basically setting up president of the rule of law and a combat zone doesnt apply and encourages folks to start burning villages and pillaging like genghis khan. And if you dont like your ruling, just tell trump personally and he will overturn it. The man is greatly marginalize the positions of the service leaders. Is this Sergeant Major of the marines wrong . I think the uniform code of military justice and the means by which we maintain good order and discipline are a critical element in order to maintain that capability and some level of humanity in combat zones and i think its critical. Theres much of what i understand what Sergeant Majors coming from, and i know that much of the advice that was given, which im not going to share here, and, but the president of the United States is part of the process, and he has the legal authorities to do what he did and he weighed the conditions and the situation as he saw fit. He is part of the process. We do maintain and we will maintain good order and discipline. We will not turn into a gang of raping burning, raping, and pillaging thugs as Sergeant Major implied. I appreciate that. This is a Sergeant Major of the marines, hes got a purple heart and baby cross. We are defending the actions of a draft dodger. Im not defending anyone mr. Moulton, this could go on for very long time. I respect i will just say yes, the president is part of the process. What were concerned that is the way he is being part of the process right now is unhelpful as mr. Moulton describes. Mr. Scott. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, when we have these meetings i bring my computer so that i can pull up the map of the middle east, and every time i pull that map of, it reminds me of the need to have partners over there with common values and common interests, and we seem to have very few that have both of those. We obviously have jordan. We have israel. But when i look at the others i will tell you i think the vote of disapproval or whatever the term is with regard to the withdrawal of the troops, i trust your judgment on that, even though i voted for that resolution. I think that was that my vote as many votes was indicative of the fact that the kurds have been a good partner and we believe that as of today turkey as a partner of necessity but not a good partner, and i think we recognize that we need turkey to be a good partner, and we hope that happens sooner rather than later. Ive been to the refugee camps in turkey. Ive been to the ones in jordan, and its a tough scenario. Especially in the middle east as a kaleidoscope. Every time one thing changes, a whole bunch of other things change. I do have a bit of an issue with the statement on the aumf. I think that the aumf does absolutely give us give you the authority on behalf of the United States to strike terrorists and terror cells where you see them. I do not believe that the aumf of01 and02 gives us the authority to base in countries uninvited and i think thats a further discussion that Congress Needs to have in whether or not were allowed to base uninvited in countries almost 20 years after an authorization for use of military force that did not include those countries was passed. With that said, if i can focus more narrowly on one thing, general mattis who i have a tremendous amount of respect for, wanted to move to preparing for china and russia. One of the victims of that was the ehc. They are no longer flying in centcom. They have just been removed. My question is are the Ground Forces responsibility for receiving the proper intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance coverage, they need to detect and counter the ground threats and what additional things do you need from this committee to make sure that the forces have the adequate coverage . The commander general mckinsey, he is not requested additional. In fact, centcom for the last many, many years has the preponderance of isr of the u. S. Military. Pacom gets a lot, centcom gets a lot. So i dont think they are at a lack of adequate isr, that which we have. Theres not a commander out there who doesnt want more isr. Everybody wants more all the time. That general mckinsey has to come up and said hey, i need this, that, or the other thing immunity sort of thing it if you get we would give it to him. Mr. Secretary, understand that the ehc, the recap, was not a system that we would necessarily use against russia and china or near peer competitors, but i do believe it was a mistake to not go forward with the recap of that program. Its a lowcost program that we couldve used, and certainly anywhere in the western hemisphere it wouldve helped us in africa, we couldve used it. We we could use it in a majority of the areas where were currently operating, and while i recognize the decision was made under the previous secretary, i just want to express my belief that it was a mistake not to go ahead and recap. I think it will be seen as a mistake is canceling the f22 before the replacement system. I respect both of you. You know, i do think that the committee needs to look at whether the aumf from01 and02 gives us the authority to base in a country uninvited. With that ideal the remainder of my time. Mr. Brown. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to return to syria and so the express my concerns. I thought it was a grave mistake that the president decision to relocate our forces to the northeast region of syria and essentially abandon our partners, the kurdish Syrian Democratic forces, i think it runs counter to your work, your effort, your responsibility, our responsibility in the counterterrorism fight but it also think it runs counter to our objectives are state and nationals could is tragic of national Defense Strategy which is to prepare for Great Power Competition and in this case, competition presented by russia. Just this sunday the commanderinchief of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Forces wrote, we know we would have to make painful compromise is with moscow and Bashar Alassad difficult than the road of working with them, certainly expressing his lack of confidence in support to him and his forces. He goes on to say but if we have to choose between compromises and the genocide our people, we will choose life for our people. We are seeing russian flags that are flying outside of the turkeyrussia patrol area. We know that russia now has taken possession military bases built by u. S. Taxpayers, and russia is essentially supporting the Syrian Government in regaining control over the entire country and establishing itself a sphere of influence for russia. Can you please tell us what concerns you have about russias increasing presence in syria . Well, as i look at the global situation, someone mentioned before we compete with russia all around the globe, principally in europe but other places, whether its the middle east and even africa. My principal concern with regard to the kurds was and the sdf specifically was that the nation was the enduring let me finetune it. Its russia. Are you concerned about russias growing influence in syria, and what impact that will have and their ability to even an expanding influence in the entirety of the middle east . Are you concerned about russia . Im concerned about russia in and other parts of the middle east. Are you concerned about russia in syria . Not as much because theyve had a pretty solid footprint there for five years since i first moved in. Do you see that footprint expanding . It has in the last month or half. Does that concern you . Some but im more concerned about russias expansion into egypt, saudi arabia and other places. Theres only so much come so many resources and time you can focus on. The bigger issue with russia was the nexus of russia in turkey. Thats what really concerns me is the russia turkey nexus. I dont have much time here. I have two minutes left, so let turn to afghanistan. Both of you mentioned afghanistan into opening comments and the president s advice in afghanistan. I travel to niger, where we have about 800, 900 troops there. In syria, our number was about 900, and using the various authorities, 127 echo, triple three, we seem to be effectively supporting local partners in the counter veo effort. So what is we have 14,000 troops in afghanistan. Have you developed have you considered an option where we have a minimal footprint purely for the purposes of counter operations, regardless of the ability and the viability of the Afghan Government and their forces . Ill take the first stab, again the chairman hasnt come back, more in his lane. But i will say short answer is yes. The command on the grant will tell you that in some ways you cant diss aggregate because afghans are playing an increasingly Important Role and, of course, went to protect our intelligence people out there. Thats probably as far as i can go on that matter right now right here, but chairman. Short answer is yes. We havemultiple options. Thats one of them. And in the classified setting would you be able to brief us on what that minimal footprint is like . I can do that. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Wittman. And we talked about a lot of different issues. One of the areas we talked about was the relationship between turkey, pkk, ypg or really, lack thereof and what that was doing to the u. S. Turkey relationship and how she saw what was happening there. I want your perspective how do you think we reconcile what appears to be an inconsistent approach in training syrian ypg forces that potentially, as things r things ramp down or spread out from syria could actually go back and join the fight with pkk forces within turkey, which is really inflammatory towards the turks and how they see that, so, is there a way that we can tailor that policy to best suppress isis forces in syria without subsequent negative consequences for turkey . Because they look at it and just say how can you support, you know, these folks are that are perpetrating terrorism in turkey . And of course, what were saying is listen, let us help defeat isis in syria and then well make sure we turn back around. But i want to get your perspective on that. I think the fundamental difference, mr. Wittman, and thanks for the question. We have fundamentally different views, we being the United States and our allies, whether the ypg is a foreign terrorist organization. We dont think they are and neither do many of our nato our allies, but the turks do and thats holding up to the detriment of that and we have designate the foreign organizations. Fair to say that theres fluidity on the ground between people in these groups and its hard to pin that down, but we make our best assessment as to who we think really is a terrorist organization and who is not and turkey wasnt happy with the fdf either because it included, you know, members of ypg, but other groups as well. The fact that wng were members of part of the coalition, didnt like the sdf along the border, et cetera, et cetera. I think their concern was, listen, we have clear evidence that wng forces are infiltrating into pkk and we believe theyre part of perpetrating those attacks and we said the same thing that you said, that is that were trying to distinguish forces that are sympathetic to u. S. Causes versus those that may perpetrate harm against turkey. And we try to take those considerations and address them. Thats why we worked hard up until the point of the incursion to establish the safe zone, if you will, and it was unsatisfactory to the turks with regard to what we were doing. They wantedthey had clear ambitions how far they wanted to go, the depth and extent of their operation and what they wanted to do afterward. Thank you, im going to yield the balance of my time. Thank you. Gentlemen, are you familiar with the case of Staff Sergeant robert bails, convicted of the kandahar massacre, 2012 . Yes. That was a sergeant who literally lost his mind, walked into an afghan village and machinegunned 16 afghans. Hes now convicted of that crime, of that war crime, is in life in prison. Do you have any indication that the president is considering releasing, pardoning Staff Sergeant bails for his war crimes . Not that i that you know of . No. I would submit to my colleagues thats a war criminal. We need to be careful about, throwing around that team. In the case of navy seal chief gallagher, reminding my colleagues acquitted of murder. He was convicted for taking a photo with a dead body. He is now retiring. He is no longer commanding seals, hes not going to be promoted. Is it within the president s authority, given the balance of his service, his multiple valor awards, his numerous combat tours to say retiring no longer commanding seals, not being promoted, but also not being demoted. Is that within his authority . Just to clarify, he was promoted, but hes now retired and all that was within his was within the president s authority. Do you believe that he deserves to be called a war criminal . Id have to review the crime that was he was charged with, which was appearing with a corpse, id have to read it and understand it and come back to you with that. But he was acquitted of the murder charge and in fact another seal admitted on the seal dramatically he was the one that killed, in a mercy killing knowing that that isis fighter would right, he was acquitted of the murder charge, but convicted of holding up the corpse, that would be a violation of the law of Armed Conflict as i understood it during my time as a military officer. Gentlemans time expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Secretary and general for your service. I want to follow up on the exchange you had with representative spear and i understand your position is that the 2001 aumf gives us the authority to fight isis and that were there to protect the oil because we dont want isis to get it. I disagree with that theory, but i want to bracket that and see if you at least acknowledge we dont have the authority to do what the president is calling for. President trump on october 27th stated clearly, we are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. Now, we may have to fight for the oil. Thats okay. Maybe somebody else wants the oil in which says they have a hell of a fight. It can help us because we should be able to take some, also, and what i intend to do perhaps, and make a deal with exxonmobil, one of our great companies. Would you acknowledge that this congress has not authorized in any way the United States to go in and steal syrian oil and make money off of it . Im not aware of the congress granting any authority along those lines. Im also unaware of what inherent authorities the president does or does not have in this regard. Im focused on the military task of denying isis access to the oil. Can you assure us at this point that there are no plans for us to try to take the oil and sell the oil. All i can tell you is im not aware of any plans right now. The second question i have regarding the bombshell Washington Post report on the afghan afghan papers. I imagine you read that. The bottom line is, the top military officials and civilian officials have known that the afghan war has been unwinnable and have been misleading the American Public for 20 years. Your predecessor, secretary rumsfeld, is quoted there as saying, i have no visibility into who the bad guys are. Are you embarrassed by secretary rumsfelds comments and the other people quoted and do you believe they owe the American Public an explanation and an apology . Congressman, i havent read all the stories, frankly, and so before i comment on what secretary rumsfeld purportedly said or didnt say, id want to read all that and actually talk to him. I do know the story spanned multiple administrations and uniformed officials and its good to look back. At this point im looking forward and forward tells me the political win is an agreement between the parties on the ground. But dont you think we have to have some accountability so we dont make the mistake again . Would you support this committee Holding Hearings on the afghan papers and calling in front of Congress Every official who misled the American Public whether this war was winnable or not, with 2400 american soldiers dead, 75,000 americans deployed . Dont you think people owe the American People an explanation . Sure, many of those dead are my friends, but i dont think you want the executive branch making that call. Mr. Chairman, i would request that this committee hold a hearing on the afghan papers and call before congress with subpoena every person who has misled this country and just like the pentagon papers, the highest priority what came out in this bombshell report. Well pause your time. I think its appropriate to have hearings, ill tell you upfront to set expectations correctly, im not going to call every single witness who has something to do with this, i do not believe its a productive use of the committees time. I do think its something to look at and get explanations, but i dont want to set Unrealistic Expectations about how the committee should approach that. I respect that. At least having prominent people come and explain not American Public. My final question concerns yemen and i appreciate that the administration has voluntarily suspended the refueling of the planes, but weve had a situation of course now our own bases and representatives gates district, we have saudi nationals who are being trained and are attacking americans and i guess the question the American Public is asking, why in the world would we be providing the Saudi Air Force with any possible logistical help to conduct bombing in yemen when 10 million civilians possibly face famine . Mr. Congressman, were not providing the saudis logistical help with regard to their activities in yemen. We are providing saudi and 152 other countries training in the United States. Why . Because we have a distinct advantage over russia and china who dont have allies and partners, and i think its important that we continue the programs so that we have can you commit that we wont help the Saudi Air Force logistically or in maintenance to do anything in terms of their bombing in yemen . You can define help pretty broadly, right . We probably trained saudi personnel to do maintenance here in the United States, i dont know, but can we stop doing any maintenance of the saudi aircraft in saudi arabia and not have any of our men and women assist the saudis in their mission into yemen . Id just have to come back with you and let now what we are and are not doing with regard to the saudis and what the impact would be on not just the saudis, because keep in mind the same saudi aircraft might be the same saudi aircraft we call on to help blunt an iranian assault or help us respond to an iranian attack so youve got to be thoughtful in how we think through what actions we take and dont take. The time has expired. The Foreign Policy got sucked in a black hole and we face a similar challenge to say if we do not identify high impact light footprint approach in centcom it will suck up the time and resources and we wont implementwith that in mind id like to ask about china, not syria, but the two things are linked in my mind as i know they are on yours. The first is that on september 11th, we joing in sending you, mr. Secretary, a letter 1237 of the fy 99 and of the Chinese Military operate nth United States. Were waiting on a response. Its 20 years late. We would really appreciate you delivering a response to this letter as soon as possible. Im sorry im not tracking that. Its a good question, and somebody who studied china now for a quarter of a century we need to be careful about all of their activities in the United States and youve touched on one of them. I think given your background on the china commission, youre very wellsituated to talk about the issues and did talk at the Reagan Defense forum this weekend and i salute you for that. The following determination of the russias breach under the obligation on the agreement and withdraw august 2nd. Since then only one inf range test coming up shortly, both of which stem from great work being done by sco. What are you doing, mr. Secretary to ensure the two range capabilities under development are incorporated by the service into their fy 21 budget . We are supporting them with all the right people. Having the capability is essential, im not countering what the russians deployed in europe, but maybe more importantly visavis china. China has thousands of intermediate range missiles along their periphery, along their eastern coast. We will rely on missiles of our own. To follow up, there was a fy 20 prohibition on range procurement and deployment could be mitigated because the current schedule for inf range ccapabilities, but in other words, youre not actually going to deploy those missiles in the next year or so. But if it similar provision were adopted by fy 21. What would be the impact on the departments ability to implement the nds . Depending on the Current Development and deployment time lines and again, im assuming the commanders need the weapons and if they do i want to provide those. It would take a tool out of our hands. I dont see any possibility that were going backward. The nato analysis, getting out of inf and address it with our own system and defend against russian systems. And then, back to where i started. Centcoms needs are obvious and apparent every day, open up the newspaper and also in ucom weve established the european deterrence initiative. We have an authorized account for indo pay com, but we havent funded as we did for edi. And given china, would a similar funded mechanism for indo pacom be useful Going Forward . Depends where youre taking money from. Part of our efforts in europe in indo pacom is our footprint on the ground in that point, yes. Were trying, with regards to the partners, help them help us as we expand that footprint. In a resourceconstrained environment, we will have to make choices and if i believe the logic of nds as i do. That would be the priority. We have to presume risk. If i had to pour concrete in some locations and build bases, i should be prioritizes indo pacom. One final question, about syria, i dont have an opportunity to talk to both of you. And exercising with the taiwan navy, not as the result of any decision we made in the70s and80s, the policy the last decade, is it still the policy to prohibit bilateral exercises between United States navy and the republic of china navy. Beyond a yes or no, thats for the record unless you can get it done with a yes or no. Ill get back to you. Thank you, mr. Keating. Thank you, dr. Esper and general milley for being here. General milley, your service is not only extraordinary, but lengthy. And i look back on your bio, princeton and the rotc, is that correct. Right around 1980 . Thats correct, congressman, almost 40 years now. Thank you, it is extraordinary in length and i have a question for you, quickly, in that regard. During that almost four decades, or four decades of service and several president s, having served our country during that period of time, could you share with us other instances where president s had pardoned war criminals, in your experience since youve been in the military during that time . President s have pardoned individuals many, many times. As you know, for example, president nixon, a very famous case pardoned lieutenant kelly, who murdered 130some odd women during your time, during your four decades. In my 40 years, long time. Someone who has alleged to admitted war crimes . Someone who convicted of war crimes, do not think of one. I cant think of one either, general. Hasnt been done historically. But 40 years, several president s, a long time. So thank you for that. Right. In your joint statement, both of you said youre focused on internationalizing the response to irans provocative activities by encouraging increased burden sharing and cooperation allies with partners. Thats a very important issue and i also serve in the Foreign Affairs committee and recently we had special representative for syria, mr. Jeffrey testifying. During that testimony he did say, and i agree with him, 100 , that it was a mistake when he was referencing to pull out of syria without informing our allies. A critical point, becuase we have something for our country, probably the greatest threat, china. We have something that they dont have. We have something that russia doesnt have. Were this extraordinary coalition. I think its one of the biggest difference makers that we have. And special representative jeffrey, myself, a lot of other people, were concerned. Those allies werent even informed about what our action would be, even though they had troops on the ground there. And im concerned about not having that kind of notification. What can we do Going Forward to really make sure we have greater communication . I know that wasnt a decision you made or the military made. No, you about i wouldif i may, i know that i personally called our allies and i believe, i wont speak for the secretary, i believe he did as well and i believe some people in the department of state, perhaps secretary pompeo, i dont know about the rest of them. I personally called our allies in syria as soon as decisions were made. How long was that . It was quick. Like what . It was quick. Whats quick . Fast. Whats fast . Id have to go back and check the phone records. Well. It was very, very days . No, thats pretty fast. Much faster than that. A day . Yeah, it was inside of that. Inside of a day. Thats not what i call havingnot that your fault, great cooperation and communication. I think its so important Going Forward to have this. Now, youre referencing in joint statement, some of other countries that are dealing with maritime and navigation issues and im looking at the list, there is u. K. , australia, albania, bahrain. And so many countries that are allies in activities. Can you share where we reached out and communicateed with other allies and they havent done what they quite often do and join us in these . Im just concerned. I can speak to that, congressman. On both the International Maritime security construct and the integreated air and Missile Defense effort, i personally made calls to many allies in both asia and europe, and asked for assets and was told and was told either not possible or well think about it and you can see how many are there right now. I can see how many who arent there, too, that are usually there. Thats a concern i have. My time is running out. I want to highlight your point of allies and foreigners is critical. We in the United States of america depend upon for access basing and other things and military operations allies and we want to keep allies close and and were getting were done so. And thank you. Mr. Gates. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i want to make sure that your call and mr. Connors call for hearings on the afghan paper is a bipartisan one. I believe that those are issues that we ought to look into and i trust, given your thoroughness that we will address that. We have been trading the same villages back and forth in afghanistan for 20 years and i think the American People deserve answers. Mr. Chairman, i also want to thank you and the Ranking Member for your work on the ndaa and im deeply disappointed it doesnt include the amendment that mr. Connor and i worked on to constrain any authorization for restraint of use of military force in a regime change war with iran. And just for the record, i share your disappointment, but we have to work with the senate and the president. I know that you worked hard on it its crazy to me in washington, mr. Chairman, that something that passes the house with a robust majority, every democrat, dozens of republicans, its up in the senate, more people vote for it than against it, but i guess given the ways of washington it can still not be in the bill. Well, if the gentleman a little swampy to me. And i think you have a better relationship with that person that is responsible than i do and i would work with that relationship and i wills would suggest that a practical restrained and realistic view of Foreign Policy is entirely consistent with the trump doctrine and it may be a minority view on the congress and this committee, but i fully support the administrations decisions in the syria and turkey theater. It is my belief that we ended up in this mess in syria as a consequence of the prior administration, being all over the place on regime change wars in syria that created second and Third Order Effects that the Trump Administration is now having to deal with, as i see things in a very challenging and complicated environment where theres been a great deal of war for a great deal of time, you have done all you can to balance regional interests, reduce u. S. Risk and the u. S. Footprint and then secure the resources that will function as the leverage for the kurds to have the greatest opportunity to have a say in their own future. And this notion, repeatedly reflected in this committee on both sides of the aisle, that because we are an ally with a group of people in one instance because our interests align in that case, that that somehow morally binds us to every conflict they have, past present or future is crazy to me. If we accept that doctrine, itle not enhance the utility of our future alliances, it will diminish them because we will not be able to engage in those alliances given the complicated world in which we live today. I do want to go back to pensacola for a moment because its very central to the thinking of many of my constituents. I understand with the saudi government we have a status of forces agreement, that set this program up. That status of forces agreement has within it, you know, various accommodations for access, to me when the uniformed military of another country attacks and kills my constituents wearing the uniform of our country, maybe we dont have to be as faithful to a contract regarding access, but we should be more concerned about ensuring that we contain the terrorism and hold those responsibile. So perhaps you can inform me on what role the status of forces agreement is playing in the ongoing diplomatic standoff or negotiation that were currently having with the kingdom regarding those people currently in custody. Its a fair question. Excuse me, sorry, its a good question. I honestly am not up to speed with what sof says in regard to this and ill have to get back to you on that. Its my sincere hope that thats not limiting the work of the fbi or creating unique challenges by having the kingdom make the demands to have their embassy personal interact with people that were currently holding and this is a question i get a lot from my constituents, maybe you can elaborate on it. When the people who are activity duty military attack our military in country, why is that viewed as a Law Enforcement event rather than an event like more akin to an act of war where we would hold these people as prisoners of war, people in conflict, rather than like giving them the full complement of the rights articulated in the status of forces agreement . Ill just say upfront i think we need the investigation to play itself out. In this case, id say were obviously, saudi arabia is a partner. Were not in war with them, we dont actually actually have hostility with them whatsoever so in this case i look upon it as the act of an individual at this point. We need to find out whether theres more behind it or not, but certainly, it was not a statesponsored action as best as i can tell. Im not saying that it is. But i dont think that the statement that this is the work of an individual is going to age well. Im saying at this time thats all im saying, one, we need to let the investigation tell us what else is out there. Thats another argument well have to leave at that point, but i think thats something worth investigating. Mr. Crowe. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate both of your testimony today and your accessibility, i found both of you under your tenure to be very accessible to the committee and do i appreciate that. Notwithstanding some of my colleague on this committees attempts here today to exercise some revisionist history in blaming the prior administration. The bottom line is, this administration has no overarching policy in the middle east with respect to syria. It appears to be a series of fairly ad hoc decisions stumbling from one decision to the next, and theres no greater illustration to the fact that the first week of october, i led a congressional delegation to the region where we met with and discussed Security Issues and we discussed numerous military and diplomatic individuals, none of whom, by the way, had any idea that we were about to exercise precipitous withdrawal from Northern Syria and brings me to my first question, general milley. Several of those officials expressed a grave concern about the security of isis prisoners in the prisons in Northern Syria and i just wanted to clarify what i heard you say today, that you dont have any concern currently, even though the situation seems to be less secure now than it was in early october, given our much lower footprint in that area . But dont have any concern about the security of those prisoners, is that accurate . South of the 30kilometer buffer zone, the reports i have indicate that the sdf is still securing the 24 prisons for which they are responsible for. Inside the 30kilometer buffer zone, we dont have that level of visibility. So i cant say one way or the other. I think there were seven, if im not mistaken, from seven facilities inside. And general, did we have that visibility before our withdrawal . Did we have that visibility on those prisons that you just indicated before our withdrawal and now we do not . Of course, i mean, they were colocated in some respects and the sdf had those detention facilities. Since the government of turkey went into those into that incursion zone, internationally legal from the first week of october, were in a less were in a worse position with respect to oversight of those prisons than we were or are currently now than we were two months ago . I would say we have less visibility because the turkish government the visibility and we dont have the visibility on those detention facilities. Next question, there have been several public media reports about iranian drones called, suicide drones conducting oversight operations over our Forward Operating bases in syria, iraq and potentially jordan. Standing here today, if theres an iranian drone attack on one of our Forward Operating bases in those three countries, do those Forward Operating bases and do the soldiers have the necessary material equipment and intelligence to defend against those attacks . I would say that, first of all, its a very serious threat. We are a weararearwearaware of it and in some cases we can mitigate the threat, but to say that we could eliminate the threat, that would be a false statement. No, we dont have everything that we would absolutely want that technology can provide. I would add that this, our ability to respond is not unique to iranian drones. Its a challenge that we face writ large and thats why i recently reassigned the responsibility for counter uas systems to the army as the executive agent because we need to get ahead of this because the offensive technology is changing more quickly than our defensive means to deal with it. Thank you, secretary esper. Last question, general milley. Youre a special forces officers and work with local forces a lot throughout your career. Theres bipartisan concern on the hill about our lack of standing by our kurdish and syrian allies who fought with us in Northern Syria. As a result of that, several of us have led a bipartisan bill called the syrian partner protection act that would create an siv program for those fighters and their families and allow them to come to the u. S. If theyre in danger. Could you speak briefly as to the impact, the positive impact that siv programs have, not only in syria, but in afghanistan and iraq on our ability to demonstrate that well stand by our partners and continue to recruit partners like that throughout the world . I think for the United States, as we go forward, regardless of where it is in the world, maintaining allies and partners, both nation states but also indigenous partners like the sdf are important to fulfill our National Security objectives and everything that we can do to assure them and maintain good faith with them is a positive. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Walls. Im proud to join my colleague representative crowe in that expansion of the siv program which i think is critical to our local allies and to our ability to move forward. Mr. Chairman, i have unanimous consent request to submit to the letter from the commander in chief of the Syrian Democratic forces to this committee. No objection, so ordered. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to return quickly to the issue of pardons and war crimes and a third case and First Lieutenant lorance. I would just kind of conclude that that line of thinking and the previous conversation, that lieutenant lorance did serve six years. I would submit to my colleagues we need to be very careful in equating mistakes, perhaps bad judgment calls, calls that may even get you relieved of command, with a war crime, and i, too, have received many texts and a lot of outreach since these pardons and most of them said, that could have been me and these splitsecond decisions in the heat of for 20 years and i would just ask both of you to consider that as we deal with these Going Forward. Chairman milley, im glad that you mentioned that we are, and clarified that we are fighting isis from africa to afghanistan. This this is a global insurgency extremists against American Leadership of a world order based on western values, and that includes iran in that support of extremism. Would you both agree with that characterization . Yes. Yes. And that we are getting with a multi generational war against extremism, against an ideology much like thehe woman one we ft against the ideology of communism and that we need a whole of Government Strategy to undermine the ideology, everything from girls education, Economic Opportunities in addition to the military aspects of that . Would you agree we need that and, frankly, that its been lacking in the last 20 years of that whole of government approached . Absolutely i do. You have to get the root causes deal with the ideology, absolutely. I think we need. Im not sure toat what degree, look back and understand whether its been lacking or not, but the third pieceth of that is is not difficult to people willing to accept those ideas as well and you have to have, it has to be organic but some part of the population has to be receptive to ideas of critical. We are talking individual battles from syria to iraq to afghanistan in that broader conflict where we do need that whole of government approach. Do you believe, chairman milley, in your military opinion, do you believe that isis and alqaeda cant and willyo research, will regainl capability and have the intent to attack the homeland if we allow it . The second one first. Do you have the intent to attack the homeland . Yes, the absolute absolutely d. We know that with certainty. But do i believe they will research if we withdraw all of our capabilities to the indigenous government and we dont operate by, with, and through them, then i believe the conditions will be you doil not believe that the Syrian Democratic forces, whether in syria, the afghan National Security forces in afghanistan, the iraqis he couldnt forces currently have independent capability without your support i dont believe that the independent capability right thisu minute. So in the near term a full withdrawal would endanger thehe homeland . It is my belief, thats correct. Series in particular, want to focus on that for for a moment. It seems to me we have discord and objective here you cant win at our objective is ensuring the defeat of isis, and the enduring to few devices. Yet when you agree the assad regime backed by iran, backed by russia with the war crimes they have committed in bombing Public Hospitals and refugee camps are essentially driving sunni recruitsra to isis . On the one hand, by allowing assad to continue its streak of murders attacks across syria, we are furthering isis. My question is what is our policy, and you can submit that for the record. What is our policy towards russia and the assad regime . I will say broadbased, our overarching goal with regard to syria is to come up with a unsponsored political settlementsa between the parties that is the civil war and hits those three topics would talk before, not a safe haven, not payment by any power, and contributes to the Global Security of the Strategic Energy market. Thank you. I yield back. Thanks for being here. I want to go back to this decision, the president s decision to love the turks to go into Northern Syria and i would offer that the only reason youre sitting here today is because general mattis reside almost exactly a year ago today. On the basis of the president threatening this very decision. I think it makes perfect sense where talking about it. Cant i i just ask, this issue resonated with voters back home our districts not because they are sent every in and out of work syria is and who the kurds are and all the players. They understood that the american handshake has to mean something and that when we shook hands with the kurds, we gave them the commitment at the three and four store level that we would work with them. And when they died with us on the battlefield, that meant us and we would not create a situation where they are ready for the and families are internally displaced people. This is important. You an inaccurate statement. Will will understand his inner future in the terrace pipe in aust africa and all these place is, the demonstration of going to the kurds and telling them that we are leaving them does make it easier or harder to find partners for the next terrorist threat. Just harder, treat be honest. If you have a statement statement i will give you more time in a second. Youll for just a moment. If you have a statement to make, make your statement. I wont be badgered appear. If you want to make a statement, quickly and is within your rights but dont badger him. Go ahead. Thank you mr. Chairman. It was a handshake that we would ensure it wouldbe defeat isis. It would also help you establish an economist kurdish state. When one fight turkey for you. Thats the difference or im trying to make. When we makee these and shakes which is our strategy, then we need to be clear as to what the extent of that relationship actually is. With a view harder or easier if you and molly orkin hit bonifacio are the right places, do you think that these partner groups, we feel like they could trust us statement if we are clear then yes. Sooner i know folks have talked about military of course and agree with most of my colleagues here that it desperately needs revision and its actually congresses responsibility. Can i ask the u. S. Secretary of defense, and believe that you have authorization based on any think on the books to go to medium or long term war with iran. To attack iran, no. As a student techno. Sue mckay yield back. I know we are a little over time. Thank you and general millie for being herel today and i myself have served in pensacola. I do look forward to hearing more about your investigation into the foreign national. In general bill, you stated that our objective is to care the middle east given that we have knowing how important it is to protect those gains, because as secretary as her stated we have it defeated isis. Given our relationship with the kurdish allies, certainly been a great deal of fighting for our shared objective. Now that we are conducting combined operations presumably with roughly you said 500 troops. We have remaining to fight in the region. I guess i fail to see how the president street to remove troops, that went out ordination with the pentagon, or our own kurdish allies aids are objective of a secure middle east. So have you found that tweet, to be helpful. Sooner i muster the will talking about what tweet. He tweeted out that we are going to remove troops from syria. In the pentagon didnt know if you are both aware that he was going to make that tweet. I wasnt aware of a specific tweet. Im not exactly clear which tweet you are talking about. Not that months ago tweet when he said we willm going to o that. The recent one. On one after that. You talking but the one in october. When we pull troops out. When wewe pulled troops out. Yes, i think that tweet i believe, it happened after we talked. But im not sure. Thi know we do have to go back d check. I guess what my. Is this. There was coordination and there was discussion between senior advisors and the president hired to him making the decision. So the senior advisors note that none of our allies, as mr. Quote discussed with his tweet and he had no idea that was coming. I will tell you many people in the pentagon and no i did that was coming. But you internally decided to do it that went out our allies. Our deliberations will done by the members of the National Security council the president of the unitedta states. Did you recommend it. I personally recommend that we pulled out 28 special forces soldiers. In face of 15000 turks that will going to invade. Tenement yield. Just one quick second. This is the question thats very important. Tin december, you are jobs at e time. You are both jobs a year ago. Lastus year. Im going to different place. This is the simply yes or no question bear with me. In december when you are a secretariat of the arm and you are the army chief of staff, to your knowledge, did anyone in the pentagon before the president said out his tweet that said we would pull complete lamb syria and afghanistan, did anyone in the pentagon no that announcement was coming when the president tweeted it to your knowledge. I dont know. I cant speak that. To your knowledge, as the secretary of the army and to your knowledge, did anyone in the pentagon no that announcement was coming. Im not trying to dodge it. Has brought a yes or no question. To your knowledge. As a secretary i cant tell you. No, the Service Secretary did not have an operational role. I just asked a very in a row question. I dontviry know. You are telling me. You are the secretary of the army, you hang out the pentag. [inaudible conversation] a year ago i dont know. October i guarantee. I know about that. The earlier decision is related the important one here in my opinion. Im sorry to interrupt please go ahead. It. Im also confused. So is my understanding that you will deliberating with some number of people and you suggested then that the president pull out 28 troops. Limit review the bidding here. There will a variety of intelligence reports going back as far as early august. Of a considerable buildup of Turkish Forces and capabilities with the intent to invade more than syria and establish a buffer zone. President one went to the United Nations and held up a map and a bclaratory policy and said he was going to do that. When i became the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, one very very first consummate was to job of turkey to see what are you doing. And he said we are going to n do this. We cannot guarantee the safety of the American Forces that are in the way. Those reports went to the secretary of defense. Our nato ally said going to run right through america thats right. And we did talk to our allies are not. Its they seem remarkably unaware. Its is it too much i dont know which allies you talk about. Im talking about jordan, allies throughout the region, israel, im talking about our allies in the region. Who did not understand that we will going to pull troops out. Which allies will you talking to i guess. Britain, france, and israel. And they were personally called. About the discussions in the situation. And they were all fully aware of the possibilities and the discussions and situation. The key people. Im not going to speak for member in of the number and then, [inaudible conversation] my. Being, is we are deliberations. And there will 15000 turkish soldiers. Met all of the intelligence to clearly indicate the orders will written and said and rehearsal templin and they were going to attack. There will 28 United States special forces being graded. And i am not going to allow, 20 american soldiers to be killed and slaughtered just to callnd somebodys bluff. Theres been a lot of criticism. It. I dont understand with the 28 troops you are referring to. When a thousand troops. Along this axis of advance, the initial axis. Their invasion, we had 28 soldiers. I apologize. Again, i really, once the president made the announcement six month before that we are pulling out of syria, and this is absolutely what happened. When that tweet was made, everybody went oh my god what to do. And you all went, weve got to hafigure this out. It is my opinion, everything you just said, sir, is what aired hunted, after, the president unilaterally that went out consulting the pentagon to my knowledge that went out even consulting the National Security council said we are pulling out of syria. It is my opinion, that was the moment when erica hahn said, okay, i can do this. In this, but of course the next six to seven to eight months, he blended out which then led to the series of events which you have to listen to spy, and i think it is accurate. Because the think is that we have, with 3000 troops in syria. When the president made the announcement. And by thea time we got to all that you just described on the number one way down. It was way down. Im sorry,um ill see this bluntly, it was way down, not because it was in the National Security interest of the United States, it was weight down because the president was trying to fulfill the campaign profits. And he did not insult anyone if i made that announcement and started us down this path. Now, im very sympathetic. Once we started down the path, you guys had to figure out how to make it work. And you really work hard at it. And no secretary never did as well. He desperately try to find partners who can fill in for us. He did. He was just an able to do it. But that is the discussion of what happened im sorry its frustrating. Theyre only 25 troops there. We can possibly defend that. I agree, i completely agree. That was started before. I do have to give mr. Thornberry a chance to respond to this. And then i do want to get to missus escobar if i could pretty sentiment. I apologize. I know you guys are pushing on time. This is the really important top. Im really not trying to make a political. But if weob dont understand that, awesomely go to the white house and safe lets not do this again. We have a process, and the tweets have far more power than peoples realize. But try to calm that down. That is what im trying to accomplish. R mr. Chairman is the far more collocated story than that. It is true in december now, a year ago, the president issued his text. Theremp was immediate, conversations that i know personally between members of the house and the senate with the president and others at the white house. Related to that tweet. And that went out going into all of the ins and outs over weeks, it is also true that there will other partners who did step up to assist. In the work in syria and again i knowledge of the numbers of those conversations with partners so the bottom live is it the president made each week, there was a lot of work and conversation. We do not withdraw from syria. We partners working with us. I do not believe it was notable that would happen in october was going to come. Understand your. That once he said that, its going to happen r one way or another. I just see i believe, it is more complicated story the number of people who have been emphasized, to the white house and to partners. We all need to be there together because we had a lot at stake. Theres some success with that. Obviously president or doing saw an opening and just to emphasize i think the decision, made by the secretary and the chairman, to safeguard american lives, when they made it was absolutely the right decision. I have qualms with the original lease as you know. I dont think it was right. And that is part of the reason i was involved in some of those conversations to ensure that we can continue continue to safeguard american interest. In the i region. I apologize, thought that was important. No overtime here. Just makeable quick minutes here pretty soon my thank you thanks so much for being here. And every just money i went to pick up where my colleague cheryl, left off. And i want to be clear and understanding this, so germany given the recommendation because you have got a notice from turkey that american troops, their safety and security cannot be guaranteed by our nato ally. And that they were about to invade and if something happens to american troops, well, something happens to american troops. My understanding that correctly. Is about right. I would add that i mayday recommendation as well. My assessment and discussions i had my counterpart, leading up to in the weeks leading up to the mens of the dave. Was there an effort to negotiate with turkey to ask be or to stay on down and not yes. And how long did that effort go on before the decision to be for the recommendation was made. Make weeks. We had been working on this actually months with its hard to restrain them. By going for a number of diplomatic actions, military actions on the ground and trying to set up a safe zone but all of these things will trying to do, diplomatically, terryry etc. While the bill that was happening that the chairman described earlier, pulled them back from crossing into Northern Syria. Was a president and bowl. Did he pick up the phone, did he call out allies, did he make the case himself. For turkey not Going Forward with his plan. I dont know all of the calls that the president does or does not make. But even if i knew, only convey that to you because those conversations, are president between me and the commanderinchief. Its meant i wouldbe interested in a classified setting to learn the information. I still wouldnt share with you congresswoman, and just as i wouldnt care share a conversation between you may publicly with anybody. I think this is an important. To me. Not right after Meeting Congress know thatamerican to we have troops, have been rtworking sidebyside of allies and right, handshake deal not a specific commitment, however, there is something to be said or handshake deal for a mutually beneficial relationship that has benefited American Safety and security tremendously but it has allowed us to push back on terrorism and on isis. And so, youll have to forgive me but this idea that while you are correct, wasnt in the fine print. Were going to really be a good strong ally. That is distressing to me as american news. Weve both been there and i appreciate that not only was not in the fight for it was never in the bold print either. I ive spoken my commanders about this. Some of them will very clear that we are not here, not going to defend you against turkey. Mr. Secretary understand that. I think what is equally distressing to me is to hear that a nato ally was about to. Run round shot over american troops. I wonder if the president got involved. So that is a question obviously piercing not even a classified setting it you wouldbe wheeling to answered. I dont know the answered to begin with. Even if i did. Im stressing that as well because of work negotiating to protect american troops and to prevent an ally, from creating what is now a deeply unsettling situation. 200,000 civilians have been displaced. Weve seen a genocide occurring. I am now concerned and i would like your opinion that part of what drives people into the arms of isis and what promotes terrorism is that instability. This feeling the you dont have a future. If theres anything that i learned while surfing on thisu committee is that kind of hopelessness is the breeding ground. Is there a breeding ground rigt now in syria crisis. I could, in that. De soto. Let me see this with the tricksters and, and im not staying that this has brought for them for decades if not a couple of hundred years. Guards andct between with all due respect, we had a situation that was far more on control before than it is today. Yes and no call was a woman, if you recall from the earlier rstatements with their first set up on the Obama Administration, there was unhappiness. Public concern by the turks about the relationship. And then make two previous incursions into syria to address what they thought was a terrorist problem. And none of these will addressed. I think it was a good. I know you gotta go. I dont want to cut you off but i also want to respect your time. And thank you very much for being here. We are adjourned. [inaudible conversation] [background sounds] [background sounds] weeknights this week we are featuring book tv programs on cspan2. Tonight, the theme is the Supreme Court, associated justice neil porches, reflect on his 30 year career and offers his thoughts on the judiciary and the u. S. Constitution. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recounts her time on the high court. Speaking at the 19th annual National Festival also the federals molly hemingway, and Judicial Crisis Networks carrie severino, examine the confirmation of Supreme Court justice kavanaugh. In the future of the quote. Question i, beginning any eastern on cspan2. In the chart book tv this week every week and on cspan2. The house will be in order. For 40 years cspan has been providing american unfiltered coverage of congress, and the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events from washington dc and around the country. You can make up your mind. Granted by cable in 1979. Cspan is brought to you bag of local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. A Top Administration official testified on capitol hill about the security situation in iraq. We hear from the Principal Deputy assistant to secretary of state in charge of near eastern affairs. About the bidding process for training military personnel from other countries. The hearing was held by house Foreign Affairs subcommittee. Heariil