Transcripts For CSPAN3 Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee On U.S. Policy In Syria 20240714

Yes, all right. It was on, but didnt get picked up. This hearing on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the near east, south asia and central asia will come to order. Today were Holding Hearings on the bipartisan Syria Study Group. It was established by congress for the purpose of examining and making recommendations with respect to the conflict in syria. I want to recognize my colleagues particularly senator shaheen and my friend, the late senator john mccain for their efforts to establish this working group. We also wish to honor the american men and women who have died as part of Operation Inherent resolve, the campaign against isis in syria and iraq. Finally, i want to thank our witnesses here today for their willingness to take on the task for examining an accomplished problem with no easy solutions. Optimal outcomes were left behind long ago, end of quote. Its never easy to devote time and resources to a task whose main goal is often to prevent worse things from happening. I happen to believe that this report comes at a very timely point in our nations history. According to press reports, isis is regrouping and that there are some 15,000 isis fighting individuals on the ground and there are some 70,000 in refugee camps that are isis supporters. Mr. Assad has repeated Chemical Attacks despite the fact that we once threw a red line and that red line seems to be more of a green light. Turkey is hostile to the intent towards the kurd individuals and the kurdled Syrian Defense forces and presents a real threat to them and idlib is apparently a province thats been held by terrorist groups including al qaeda. Iran has 2500 troops which are located on the ground there, russian mercenaries and they did launch a surprise attack on u. S. Troops there so theres a great deal of swirling around this part of the world, and the administration has announce its withdrawal and one of the questions is whether this is a political interest thats being pursued or a National Interest thats being pursued and particularly the recommendations that will come forward from this group are of most interest to me and im sure other members of the committee and the administration. Your report does include conclusive thoughtful recommendations to address these challenges and how best to adjust our strategy toward syria to minimize the threats in the future and i look forward to hearing your thoughts today and with that ill turn to senator mur murphy for his comments and questions. Thank you for joining us here today. The civil war in syria has now raged on for more than eight years and huge swaths of the country are decimated and millions have been displaced though the crisis may have faded from the headlines, it is in parts due to the fact that the International Community has just accepted these tragic events as the new normal. Syria is now where International Law and the rules of war have gone to die. War crimes once considered unthinkable and outrageous, the bombing of hospitals and Chemical Attacks are now common place. The administration has declared three goals of the u. S. Policy there, and the defeat of isis and the political settlement and the withdrawal of iranian command and forces, but at the same time that we supposedly want to accomplish these big goal, the administration has cut aid to syria and pulled out officials and largely been, in ia negotiations and syria and rather than lead. And i think its an incredibly important time for us to consider this very, very welltimed report. I also think its time for us to admit that our policy in syria over the course of two administrations has been a failure and we need to do postmortem about the overall Lessons Learned. Its clear that our policy has failed and despite the obama administrations significant Covert Military support for forces opposing assad, the war has continued to rage for eight years and our decisions to keep going and not enough to defeat assad served to drag this war out and killed thousands more innocent people than had we limited our involvement at the outset. A mistake was not intervening sooner which would have kept russia and iran out of the syrian theater and allowed for assad to step down and allowed the process to move forward. Unfortunately, mr. Chairman, history provides scant examies of where the u. S. Directly intervenes in a foreign civil war and achieved its policy goals. These types of interventions often sound good on paper and often bog us down in a quagmire as they confront the messy realities of unreliable intelligence and unintended consequences and sometimes military military restraint is sometimes the best policy if our action will ultimately create new problems than it solves, and i hope were able to talk about these broader realities as well as the path forward inside syria and we have a lot to discuss today and i look forward to hearing from our witness peps. Thank you, senator murphy. We have one panel with two witnesses here today. Michael singh, cochair of the Syria Study Group is the senior fellow and managing director for the washington instud. Hes a former senior director for middle east affairs at the National Security council. Previously, he served on the task force on extremism in fragile states. We also have dana stroll, cochair of the Syria Study Group and a senior fellow at the washington institutes beth and david j. Dald program on arab politics. She previously served for five years as a senior professional staff member for this committee and spent five years working in the office of the secretary of defense. We will now turn to our first witness, mr. Singh. Thank you for your willingness to testify here today. Your full statement will be included in the record without objection. If you can please keep your remarks remarks to no more than give minutes we would action appreciate it so we can engage for questions. Thank you, chairman romney and Ranking Member murphy. I appreciate this opportunity to present the final report of the congressionally mandated Syria Study Group. I was honored to cochair this Bipartisan Group of experts along with my colleague dana stroll. I want to begin by talking about why policymakers and the American Public should care. Its not something that our group took for granted especially in a day and age when all of us face mounting questions and maybe for good reason, frankly, about the u. S. Role in the world. Then im going to defer to miss stroll to discuss the study groups assessments and recommendations. To understand u. S. Policy towards syria, i think its important to reach back to the beginning of the conflict in 2011. It began as a peaceful uprising against an autocratic dictator, one that made up the socalled arab spring as everyone here will remember, and if it seemed eight years ago that this uprising might usher in some positive change, those hopes have been dashed, to say the least. Syria has turned into a crucible for a complex series of intercepting conflicts and as i would argue well beyond the middle east and to europe and the United States and elsewhere. For years as senator murphy alluded to, the United States decided to shelter ourselves from the fallout of the syrian conflict. Many of you remember the notion that was once popular that syria could be cauterized, quote, up quote, that its effects could be confined and the rest of the region in the war could be spared from the fallout of the conflict. Could the wars effects be easily contained. Isis moved from iraq into sir wra and established his capital in raqqa. Resources killed hundreds in the summer of damascus. American journalists were brutally executed by isis. That persists until today. Along the way, nearly 7 million syrians are drive tone neighboring countries or the shores of europe as refugees. Today syria poses a spectrum of threats to american interests, i would argue. It provides safe haven to some of the worlds most dangerous terrorist groups. Idlib is home to the greatest concentration of foreign fighters since afghanistan in the 1980s. Isis has been driven from the territories it once controlled, but its returning now as an insurgency, as you said, senator romney. Iran is entrenching itself in the economic and social fabric and would have turned syria into a forward base for the missiles if not for israeli strikes and those strikes have come to a cost with the increased risk of war and weve seen the conflict between the two spread elsewhere in the region. Russia, too, has exploded this con fleck, on its as a major player for the first time in decades. They taking the judge. The assad regime and its parters in have smashed . Deploying chemical weapons in barrel bounds and using starvation and mass murder as weapons of role. They have europe and strengthened economies throughout the le vant and beyond. At any point at which we hope to shelter ourselves, it has only become more deleterious to our interests and it could yet grow worse. We could see a massacre and exodus of refugees in idlib where we have 3 Million People hold up on every side. You can see turk they brings it into conflict and you can see a broader war or a renewed civil war in the areas where the regime has retain control and that control is tenuous, frankly. The conflict in syria matters. To america, whatever one preferred strategic framework. This is a country where our two strategic concerns and great rival, im sorry, great conflict on the other come together. Its not a conflict we can simply contain and ignore. Our group is unanimous in that judgment, but we were also unanimous in our view that there isnt much we can do to shape the United States to help shape the countrys outcome and protect our interests which ms. Stroll will go into more detail. I want to say thank you to first senator shaheen for creating this work and for the honor of being named cochair of the group. Thank you to the congressional leadership for naming such thoughtful by an expert colleagues by a study group and i want to echo, senator romney, your thanks to all those americans, civilian and military who have fought and especially those who have died in the course of what i think is an important conflict. To me, the real value of this report, just to conclude is that it represents a bipartisan consensus and to me in wash wish today. Thats no small thing. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Singh. Miss stroll. Chairman romney, rashginking member murphy and thank you for inviting us for the Syria Study Group. Last year they formed a military status of the syrian war and provide recommendations for the way ahead. Today we are delivering a document that represents the consensus of all 12 members and echoing mr. Sins that is no small feat. This is a bipartisan plan for action. Here are our toplean conclusions. Number one, assad has not won the war. Areas under his control are riddled with crime and poverty. Civilians are subject to forced disappearances and execution, conditions are set for the next phase of conflict. Two, the political process has stalled. Yesterdays announcement on the formation of a Constitutional Committee may hold promise, but it is too soon to tell. To date assad has not demonstrated willingness to make meaningful com from myselfes. His offensive in idlib makes it painfully difficult to build momentum toward a negotiated settlement. Three. Isis is not defeated. The u. S. Led military effort successfully pushed isis out of the territory it held, but the group has transitioned to an insurgency. Meanwhile, al qaeda is still active in syria. Four, the isis detainee population is a few day away from the next caliphate are resource, trained and securing in pop lalgz. Iranian boots are not leaving syria despite u. S. Inkie stinks and the economic and social fabric for longterm influence. Six, russia has exploited its intervention on behalf of a sacked to contest to u. S. Leadership. Serve. U. S. Turkey ties are immensely strained and the forces is a leading factor and a Turkish Military incursion into Northern Syria will provide isis the opportunity to reconstitute. Join u. S. Turkey military patrols in a mutually agreed upon area and prevent the 16a ario for the time being. Eight, the scale and scope of human suffering over the course of this conflict have set a depraved new standard for the 21st century. The parties responsible, assad, iran and russia have faced no meaningful consequences for the use of chemical weapons and barrel bombs. Sport you are, starvation and the targeting of the infrastructure. Our group considered the American Public for millaitary d financial investment, therefore we propose a strategy that has key elements of important approach calls for reinvigorated u. S. Leadership and prioritizes resolving the yirnd lying syrian conflict. The tools for this strategy are already on the table. A u. S. Led coalition against ices and limited u. S. Forces on the ground, capable, local partner forces, sanctions, assistance and diplomacy and effective and resourcing of these tools are needed to give them teeth. To start, we recommend the following steps. Reverse the u. S. Military withdrawal from northeastern syria. Strengthen u. S. Sanctions on assad and his backers and maybe them about on u. S. Stable stiegz funds and continue to reconstruction aides under the u. S. Condition trol. While refugee mosting partners and Host Communities on syrias borders. Our group acknowledges that this strategy will not lead overnight to the elimination of isis, the remo removal of iran from syria or a political settlement that ends the war, but this mix of tools combined with consistent highlevel and credible American Leadership will provide leverage to shape an outcome of core National Security interests when conditions are conducive for a negotiated settlement. This is the end state for syria envisioned by our group. A Syrian Government viewed as legitimate by its population capable of ending dependence on Foreign Forces and able to eliminate the threat from terrorist groups. Syrian citizens will therefore need to not fear the assad regime, russia, iran or isis and such an end state in our view which was a political or social com mrakt inner issia. To condition cute, the it would not have been possible without congress and in particular senator shah een. Look, they, my personal thanks for, and for making me the dechl democratic cochair. The usip team facilitating our group has been nothing but direction o and he has been my friend as i balanced and welcomed my second child after our set of meetings and the child was extremely timely and i thank him for that as well. Thank you so much for both of your comments today. Im going to ask a few questions and then well turn to the Ranking Member and then senator shaheen. You mentioned briefly what the end view might look like. If you dont know where youre going any road might get you there and im not sure we have a sense of where we ared he headed what success would look like and perhaps theres nearterm success or longer term success, but what do you think is a realistic objective for our involvement in syria. Because mr. Singh described the kinds of things that would happen and some calamitous outcomes what is the positive outcome and a realistic positive outcome that our involvement in syria should be aimed to achieve . And either one of you can take and both can comment on that if youd like. Thank you for that question, senator. So first, we should highlight what we are not saying is a realist being outcome at this point in time. What we are not saying is the removal of assad and his regime and damascus is a realistic objective for u. S. Policy at this point in time. So when we are doing is calling not for removal of assad, but for meaningful changes in regime behavior as a way to address the underlying causes of conflict. History of Bashar Al Assad in syria is collaboration and cooperation with al qaeda. We know that he has used extremists including ice toys release them from prisons when it suited his purposes and in the past deployed them against u. S. Forces in iraq. That is number one and number two, what we are talking about in term was defeating isis is enabling the postisis communities of northeastern syria the time and space to demonstrate an alternative governance to the assad regime. Some of the clear changes that the assad regime that would suggest that he is open to meaningful concessions and revising propersy law so that all syrians would have access to real estate and to rebuild their lives and lively hoods in syria and obviously to end torture, release political detainees and to engage in a meaningful way in the u. N. S facilitated politica process. I would add to that, senator, the only party in this conflict that has a clear vision for how they see it ending is Bashar Al Assad. He believes that he can reconquer all of syria. I dont think that an independent analyst would say that he has the ability to do that even with russia and irans help especially not while u. S. Forces and our partners are there on the ground. So the question is how do you persuade him and those backing him that that is not a realistic option for them and that they have to accept compromise because right now it doesnt seem that he would retake syria and reestablishing his absolute rule. And so the u. S. Strategy is trying to get him to accept that reform is needed. My own view, i think the view of the group is that that is the right strategy, but it will take more concerted efforts and leadership by the United States and as long as theres a question, for example, as to whether were really committed to doing this. Whether were really committed to maintaining our military presence even though its quite small in syria, i think that could give him the belief that he can wait us out. Is your view that there will that the realistic object itch is that there would be a unified syria of various group and minority with a coalition of sorts or is it your view that there need to be two parts of syria and one part held by one group of people and one part held by the other . I would say ultimately, senator what we would hope is that choice would be left to the Syrian People themselves rather than something imposed by us or the International Community. I think that what we need to do and this is the broad strategy that the report lays out is to have a strategy in place which aims at bringing syria back together with the reformed government and maybe a decentralized system of government. So, for example, our kurds in the northeast would have a better say in how theyre governed, but that we also need to be postured in a way that allows them to protect our interests and keep and consolidate our games that is highway the strategy needs to be pitched when it comes to this question. Thank you. Let me turn to senator murphy for his questions. Thank you both for all of your work on this. Thank to senator shaheen for instigating it. So it seems as if over the course of the u. S. Policy with respect to syria weve had two overarching wars and one is to end the fighting and this is a war thats decimated the nation and the families that live there and second delegitimize assad. At one point our stated goal was his removal. Today i think you reflect a consens consensus with the administration that that may be unrealistic and legitimizing him and the abhorrent behavior he engages in. Those two to me seem mutually exclusive and the innovate asians are an if you ak sthaept assad is hanging around, then im not sure why a limbed, u. S. Military presence and the diplomatic engagement is going to correct for his behavior, given that his patrons who would tech with him and this and that, and it doesnt appear that well change russia and irans mind and ive heard on this panel that over and over again, that putin doesnt care about assad and hell get him to do the right thing and that has never proved to be the case. Address mi worry that your report is a slight variation on u. S. Policy, that theres no real pressure points in your proposals that will change assads behavior and in the end we are faced with a decision. We either apply enough pressure to overtake the assad regime or we accept that assad will control this policy and we pursue this policy to make the inevitable happen sooner rather than later, to preserve the lives of thousands of people who will lose them if this just drags on and on. Thank you, senator for that question. We asked ourselves the same question about the policy. For continuing the presence in northeastern syria, we see this as a decisive form of leverage, if not right this minute, down the line because northeastern syria which we hold through the sdf is resource rich both for hydrocarbons and agriculture and number two, another factor to consider here is what are russias objectives . Russias objectives, as we understand them in our very wide consultations is not the status quo, but actually to legitimize assad and rehabilitate and reintegrate him into the International Community and to demonstrate to the International Community that syria is normalized by return xs economic recovery and none of that can happen with the current u. S. Tools on the table. Most governments are not returning embassies to damascus given the status quo. Most that would engage in reconstruction contracts in syria are not going to do that for threat of u. N. Sanctions. Russia knows that they need reconstruction assistance and aid that comes not just from the United States bilaterally and from european governments and Financial Institutions all of which at this point in time are following the u. S. Lead and holding the line on these issues. Over the time horizon at this point in time unlikely to change assads calculous and does russia tire of him and his regime and current behavior at some point when putin wants to be done with the current state of play in syria . Perhaps. We also consider the alternative which is if we that the withdrawal of u. S. Forces or just allowing acknowledging that hes going to stay and not insisting through our nonmilitary tools on regime behavior change will that actually save lives and our conclusion is no, it will not. If u. S. Forces leave northeastern syria, we think assad will go in with his Security Forces and wed have another idlibtype situation and the local partners have fought, pled and died in the counter isis fight with us and number two, all of the syrians living under his control right now also are not looking to him as a legitimate form of government and ill give the rest of the time to mike. I would just say, senator, i would agree with one of your premises, but challenge another. I think youre right that the Syria Study Group did not look at the administrations strategy and say this was a fundamentally flawed strategy. We need a new one. Weve looked at the alternative, which is throw our hands up and leave and accept assad and reengage with him and accept that hes there to stay and we found him worse than the strategy that were pursuing. Number one, its hampered by our own seeming kind of hesitation about it. You know, these sharp reversals and twists and turns where today were withdrawing and now were back and so forth, that has led other countries which also support the strategy. What we heard from europeans and the allies in the region, they just wonder if were committed to it. The second . We have from returning stirria. Where i would challenged center is i dont think our goal is it delegitimize assad. He lost it to his own citizens in many cases or it was lost because he couldnt govern it legit in thely. When we are saying to assad and rausch and so forth, they want us to recognize his legitimacy and were saying here are the conditions. We, not just the United States and the United States and our allies under which we would be willing to do that. That maybe is not put well. I think our purpose is not to be seen as endorsing the illegitimate options hes taken. I agree that both of the alternatives, withdrawal or engagement are unsavory. I just worry that we will be back here with another study group report recommending another policy after thousands more have died and to miss strolls point about russia, ive heard this before that russia wants to engage, wants to legitimize, wants to allow for syria to reenter the global community. I think their actions in venezuela, and ukraine and syria speak more likely to their goal of constant chaos than the reintegration of their partners into the World Community and i worry that this may be a misread of their intentions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator shaheen . Well, thank you both very much and thank you for your great work as part of the Study Committee and for the leadership that youve provided after. It took a very long time to get the report under way so it is satisfying to see the actual product and to hear you all talk about the recommendations and the report. One of those recommendations, i am pleased to see, we are hopefully in the process of actually accomplishing. Theres language in the Defense Authorization bill for an isis detainee coordinator which is something thats recommended in the report and hopefully that will get through without any trouble and i think it is sorely needed. Last year when senator graham and i visited, we syria, we went to several isis detention facilities and asaka, anissa and manbidge and actually it was kabani and at that time it was estimated between 500 and 1,000 foreign fighters in the camps and today the number has jumped to over 2,000 and that doesnt include all of those folks who are in detainee camp, the largest one close to the iraqi board. I was in iraq in april and they are very concerned about what happens in that camp with not just any fighters who may be in the camp, but with all of the women and children who are being radicalized. So what happens with those detainees is a huge concern and what weve heard from the Syrian Democratic forces is that they dont have the will or the resources to continue to take ownership of the detainee facilities. So can you speak to what happens if the International Community continues to refuse, to repatriate the foreign fighters that have come from the west and what the potential consequences of that are . Either one of you or both . Thank you so much for that question. One the issue of isis detainees was exceptionally alarming across the board to all members of the group and we explicitly dedicate a significant part of the report to raise the alarm on this issue. You asked a question, senator about the 2,000 foreign fighters and if theyre not repatriated there are two options. They either stay to fight another day in syria or they go to another theater of war to fight another day there. Those are the two options. The Syrian Democratic forces not only lack the will, but they lack the capability. Theyve never dealt with the challenge like this before and we are providing some Technical Assistance so the bottom line is this is a threat is only going to get worse. There is no possibility that they stay indefinitely in super maxlike facilities especially given the uncertainty about the u. S. Military commitment Going Forward and whether or not the sdf will Stay Together and committed to protecting these facilities and i would just like to add since you raised this, the whole idp camp is isis detainees and that still doesnt count the tens of thousands of iraqi and isis fighters in other popup facilities under sdf control and they dont have proper facilities and often they repurpose schools and other civilian structures and populations are being mixed. The situation when some of these fighters are repatriated to iraq is not positive. Human rights watch has done incredible work on what happens when they go back to iraq and in syria also it is just regenerating this issue for another day if we dont have a consolidated and internationalized strategy now. Let me just, before you continue, mr. Singh, let me just point out that at least when we were in iraq earlier this year the iraqis were not anxious to take back those iraqis that were being held in the camps because of all of the problems that they bring with them. So, senator, i think thats a very important point and gets to what i think is a larger issue. I served in the george w. Bush administration and i dont think anyone wants to see a repeat of the guantanamo experience. We all had a very difficult time with that issue, but the fact is i feel as though we do keep running up against this type of issue where we have these detainee populations. We know that we are sort of the dangerous people are under detention, but our options for prosecuting them and repatriating them are limited and were approaching it in an ad hoc way and this issue requires a broader look, not just by the United States, but by the United States and our allies and since we dealt with it since nech we don9 11 we dond solutions. We also have this question radicalization and we have children who have grown up in the worst possible conditions and the fact is that we dont really know how to conduct this process of deradicalization and this is something that behooves us again, on top of. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator kaine. Thank you, mr. Chair, and thank you for this report and very important topic. I want to ask you a question about a recommendation contained on page 47. One of the recommendations deals with trying to reduce iranian influence in syria and eventually expel in phases iranian influence in syria and you have a recommendation, more specifically the United States should continue to support israeli strikes on iranian assets inside syria. Talk to explain that phrase. Talk to me about what you guys know about u. S. Participation and israeli strikes in syria and what you mean by the recommendation that we continue to support those. Those. Thank you, senator. So the israelis believe, and i think that we agree, having sort of gotten some briefings from them, the strikes have been pretty important in limiting irans activities inside syria. And describe the strikes, because weve not had any testimony in this committee or the Armed Services committee about u. S. Participation in israeli strikes in syria. This is not a classified report, im just curious as to describing what you know about those strikes. All i can tell you what i know about open sources, because we werent privy to any classified information. I will say that from the outset. But its been clear that the israelis have focused on striking systems, trying to prevent the iranians from creating a sort of missile Network Inside syria that would allow them to create what the israelis would call a second or third mistletoe missile, surface to surface front, against them, from iran. When it comes to support, we want more diplomatic support, political support, i dont know of any actual technical or military support we may have or may have not provided, but i think the idea that we are not asking the israelis, for example, to back off their coordination with russia, we are not asking them to back off these strikes, because we see these as, frankly, probably the only way so far that iran has been successfully deterred in syria. I think sanctions can play a role, i think political pressure can play a role, but it seems to me that iran is pretty determined to intrench itself as deeply as it can be, and syria, not just syria, of course, but throughout the region, in lebanon and iraq and elsewhere. Other than public source information, you have not been briefed on u. S. Support, military support, for the strikes that you referenced. We have not, senator. Let me ask you about the humanitarian situation, the horrible humanitarian situation in idlib. We have, from this committee, a bill that is pending on the senate floor, the act that i hope, its bipartisan, and its strongly supported by the committee, i hope we might move to act on it within the senate, and what additionally might we do in congress to deal with the humanitarian crisis in idlib and try to ease civilian suffering . Thank you for that question, senator. So first of all, just a note on the bill, this bill is incredibly important to the syrian and Syrian American communities who are invested in on the issue of syria, and what the seizure bill does thats different from the existing laid down architecture of imposing secondary sanctions on the backers of the backers of the regime, so those who knowingly assist iran, russia, russia mercenaries like wagner, iranian militias, etc, those who may be considering investing in syrian telecommunications, reconstruction, if that bill passes, it sends a signal to all of that secondary and tertiary community to not engage in it again, it holds the line against normalizing rehabilitating or legitimizeing assad and his regime and his backers, and in terms of humanitarian situations in idlib, number, one a report calls for stepped up diplomatic pressure and leadership, clearly through the process, or through russian turkish negotiations, there has been no pressure on assad compelling enough for him to stop his offensive. There are a dogs breakfast of terrorist groups in idlib, the consequences of continued offensive, or the decision to take the province would be a new humanitarian catastrophe. Our report also talks about the reliable and credible threat of military force not you laterally, but in partnership with if the assault on infrastructure continues. I would just add to that, senator, that it seems to me that we faced a situation should, the regime and the russians pressed their attack on idlib, you could have a new exodus of refugees. Im not sure that those ngos and aid organizations that are there across the border in turkey or in idlib are sufficiently funded or positioned to handle that, but i think that thats going to require more funding from the national community, the International Community, but its going to put pressure on the church to not just let them through the Turkish Border but the turkish controlled region of syria next to the idlib province. Thats something where congress can play a role. And finally, as we pressure countries like turkey, which have taken a huge burden of refugees, i think we have to do our part as well here in the United States. Im pretty concerned at reports that next years refugee admissions might be even lower than this years refugee admissions, i think thats something thats just interNational Interest to reverse. Thank you mister chair. Thank you. We have time i think for another round of questions. The chairman of the entire former Relations Committee has arrived but wants to listen and before he asks any questions. I want to make sure they dont totally mess up. Theyll begin with another round here. First of all, you speak about isis regrouping and about the 70,000 or so that are in camps and have been radicalized. I sometimes wonder, why they are successful radicalizing and not successful normalizing. And why we dont have the capacity apparently to take a group of young people and parents and so forth and help them decide to become more accepting of others and more willing to provide freedoms to their fellow individuals. But my question is, whether your perspective on how we can if you will help prevent isis from regrouping as you suggested and reestablishing itself, not necessarily based upon territory but reestablishing itself among a weapon against the United States and against our citizens and against our friends around the world. What could we do . What should be doing differently that we are not doing to combat the reemergence of isis. Senator, theres a couple of things we can do and i should say that there is any rock part of this answer which will decide when we are the serious group. I think that for isis purposes they are considering iraq and syria part of the operations and with the Iraqi Government and that is something that something they need to Pay Attention to and i would point to three things that we need to perhaps do better or keep doing and make sure that is just keeping up the counterterrorism pressure on isis and using u. S. Forces so that requires maintaining a military presence and enabling the presence for their campaign and if that pressure eases, every military briefed or a person who spoke to us would say that would give you life and that would give the military presence. Stability in northeastern syria with construction its very much in our interest because that would help keep isis from returning. One reason that we are not keeping these accusations and are smashed to bits. Where we have reconstruction and take people back with the integration and the process whom people who really need to do it and third. I think that we need to put pressure on our allies and the sdf who are great fighting partners and now transition to be great for government partners are not for us but for the local communities there. There are reports of tension that we receive and i think there are some things that we need the sdf to do to release ever in disavow its lengths for example to be inclusive in the way so that you dont have discontent among local populations directly can capitalize on. Ill just add a few additional things to what mike said. So, one consistency across the previous ministration in this administration is that the International Coalition to defeat isis would not just about u. S. Military pressure and activities by the sdf. But all these other lines as well as counterterror financing or foreign fighters and sharing up information sharing and intelligence and Law Enforcement channels across europe and at the borders were isis come across and these issues are combatting isis ideology and the use of the internet. And just looking at the file that were talking about ensuring that isis is not able to reconstitute the pressure through the coalition that already exists through all of these lines of effort and finally it goes without saying, one of the reasons that isis was able to move so crass of cross the area was that its a weak, ungoverned area in a legitimate government. This goes back to the underlying causes of the conflict in syria which is not at some point addressed or resolved they would always have brief roots in syria. I would note that whether there is a tragedy which occurs indifferent theater altogether in regards to the gaza strip or perhaps there is a an attack that leads to a civilian death or deaths that makes world news and visual images of this and assad is continuing to use chemical weapons to attack its own people in large numbers and this goes on and on according to your report is not seized and perhaps even greater than it has been in the past. What do we need to do to stop the Chemical Attacks, the weapons of mass destruction which are being applied to the people of that country . Thank you, senator. In a way, yes, the Chemical Attacks are alarming in part because of the people technical problem break the international taboo, which has not been thoroughly trodden on in syria, against the use of chemical weapons and warfare. But i think we have to acknowledge that its not just the chemical weapons, its the barrel bombing, the delivered targeting of civilian hospitals, schools, and so forth. And its important that the regime, russia, which is complicit in this, pay a price for what its doing, the United States, i think the president has undertaken a couple of strikes in response to chemical weapons. I think thats good, frankly. I think that practicing deterrence is necessary. But its not enough at the end of the day. I think exposing, especially the complicity of other actors like russia in these war crimes this important, and we havent done enough of that. And ensuring that we have sanctions and other measures in place that can exact a price on these parties for what theyve done is important as well. And as we look to the future, there will need to be some process of accountability for what has happened. I will say, i think its important to keep that deterrent in place. There has to be that concern, in the back of the minds of the assad regime forces, that we might be willing with our International Partners to strike again should they target civilians en masse. My time is up. Senator murphy. Thank you. The ms. Stroul, maybe you would want to comment on something that mr. Singh talked about, which was the effort to change it was striking to me that for large periods of this conflict, while we had thousands of american soldiers on the ground, oftentimes we had one single state Department Official on the ground, and we have had officials from start forward there and they were withdrawn we simply and theres no plans to send them back. If weve learned anything over the course of the last ten years, we have learned that our military, however capable fighters they are, not particularly good at achieving political reconciliation in the middle east. And so, how do we resource our personnel in syria to make sure that we are effectuate in the political cooperation that we need. I think we have to come to the conclusion that 20 year old soldiers are not likely going to be the ones to be able to figure these difficult questions out. Weve got to get some experienced diplomats on the ground. Thank you, senator. You will be pleased to know that the group agrees with you. Theres an entire section on this exact issue. We attempt to shed light very much on the need for more and increased civilian engagement in the areas where our military is working with the sdf, we highlight specific issues with governance, the sdf needs to do better at allowing ngos to operate freely, to allow independent media to conduct whatever oversight and reporting and journalism it wants to do. There are a lot of issues here. And one issue that i thought was great that we discovered in our consultations and briefings is that the u. S. Military actually wants increased civilian engagement in northeastern syria. So they would be happy to have more diplomats and more Development Practitioners and civilian experts working with them. Some elements of start forward have already returned, for sure this platform needs to be expanded. The more civilians we can get in there, the better. Two things that can happen right now, one is those civilians working on governance issues in northeastern syria are under a stabilization set of activities, not the humanitarian activities. We need to turn our Stabilization Assistance back on. Both for our resource reasons, and also from a leadership perspective. And number two, there is a security issue here, so we need to look at flexible ways in ways that are deferments and Development Experts can work security with our military on the ground. I appreciate the focus of the report on that question. Mr. Singh, to iran focused questions for you, one, what or the outcome measurements we should be looking at as we foresee the role that iran would play in a politically settled syria. Obviously, we know we cant expel their influence, so what do we look to as to decide whether they have too much impact and input versus rights impact and input . And number two, ive heard some concerns that we are. Perhaps two hyper focused on when thinking about preventing this land branch through syria, the expectation that by controlling this one outpost we are going to be able to stop the iranians from moving people and goods through the country. It does seem to be a bit farfetched. And so, speak to that concern as well. D point, on the second point senator, all i can tell you is that i think u. S. Officials and other officials around the region, consider the u. S. To be of strategic importance. Not just for blocking the language although it plays that role to some extent. But also from maintaining a presence in that swathe of syria which might otherwise be one where our adversaries will do more than theyre doing now. I would encourage the committee to have a full briefing on that from u. S. Officials and go into more detail on it. On the question of what is the questions for iran, they have had influence outside syria for a very long time. If they are going to maintain that influence i think it is right though to think that we certainly dont want to see syria dominated by the Iranian Forces or the proxy forces. Youve seen a real uptick as far as i can tell from reports ive seen in all the presence there and the new iranian backed militias in syria so to insist that as part of the settlement technical problem may one of the reasons we focus on the israeli action is that they dont want to see iran be able to turn syria into a military operating base. They will turn the syrian, Israeli Border and to the kind of militarized border that the israeli, lebanese border is for example. To a forward place missiles or missile factories in syria. That is a more modest goal. But thats why we argue thats got to be stopping from getting much worse and part of the political settlement try to ensure those forces are forced to leave. Thank you mr. Singh. Senator jeanne shaheen. I wanna go back to your comment where you said that some of the start folks are beginning to go back into northeastern syria. So, does the study group have an accurate what you believe is inaccurate understanding of the current status of our forces in the International Forces in northeast syria . And the stabilization funds in that area. And if so, can you describe what that is . We will do our best. As we understand it, there have been some security arrangements between the department of defense and department of state. To allow some elements of the star for a team to go back to syria for specific periods of time and to civilian engagement. The issue Going Forward and expanding that platform very much relies on security and also availability and funding to do the projects that would make sense to do if we are going to have a civilian element an engagement. When you say the funding, thats a stabilization funds that you pro created . They have appropriate as you very well know the administration has not spent . Correct. They put a hold on . Correct. 200 Million Dollars. When that 200 Million Dollars was put on hold, there was an aggressive and dramatic effort to encourage other governments to provide funding for issues and stabilization activities and to our three governments at that were the government of saudi arabia and the government of emirates and a lot of that money will run out very soon. So, one of the things that im struck by in the report is it says and im quoting here throughout the study groups no one argued of withdrawing u. S. Troops would make isis less likely or iran less likely to intrench. Thats a quote. So, i just want to put myself on record again by saying that im one of those people who believes that we need to leave the footprint that we have of the United States troops in northeast syria and we need to provide destabilization that is an important step for us to reassure all those people that are with us in this fight and that we are committed. As the study group points out, are leaving doesnt help with arises regrouping or irans presence there are russias presence there. It makes it more likely that we are going to totally seed influence in syria to those actors who we have committed to try and get out of the area. So thats a convoluted way of saying, i dont understand the Current Administration policy at all, and so i very much appreciate what the recommendations that you have in the report. And one of those, on page 48, is about turkey, and suggesting that one of the things that we could do, because turkey is putting pressure on northeast syria, on that border, as you all pointed out, that one of the things that we could do is to help encourage turkey, who has legitimate issues with the pkk in turkey that have been historic. They have been working on those issues, and to encourage them to continue the peace efforts to try and provide for some reconciliation there. And ive actually had some conversations with turkish leaders that have suggested they might be open to that. Can you tell me if we have tried to do any of that, and where who might take the lead in trying to facilitate some of those peace talks, or reopening those talks . So i can speak to that, senator shaheen. I want to say one thing about your point about the stabilization funding and the military presence before i do. I sympathize with the administrations desire to promote burden sharing, and i think many people do. Im sure many people on this committee do. I think the question is, how do you successfully do that . The way you successfully do that, i think, is by providing some basic assurance to allies about some minimal level of u. S. Commitment to being there. Right. And i think there being there militarily. Our allies make the case that we do should contribute to this. Thats a harder case for them to make when they cant be sure if we are going to be there tomorrow. Thats just a fact. I think you have to pare leadership with the request for burden sharing. On the turkey pkk talks, i think a lot of it boils down to the politics inside turkey, and where, for example, the president sees his best advantage in terms of the Political Forces within turkey. And exactly where that would stand right now, i dont have a good answer but we do have people like our ambassador, and our syrian our envoy, or the folks at you come that are focusing on this issue and have the relationships and the expertise to follow up on it, and they have confidence in that they agree with this and will be pushing this as well. Thank you. Senator kaine, you will be the last question in today, and following your questions, we will dismiss so that we can go vote. Great, thank you mister chairman. I was going to ask questions about turkey, and i appreciate senator shaheen asking questions. I will ask about one topic, you used the phrase dogs breakfast, a group of groups in idlib, and i wanted to come to that. We have worked primarily with the sdf, which the u. S. Estimates between kurds and arabs and a syrians, are split, and theyve been good partners for us. There is also antiassad elements that are not partners. And theyre anti assad, but we have been battling them because of their terrorist connections. What is your level of concern about the funding of those groups by gulf state allies of ours. Is foreign funding of a terrorist group in syria still a problem, and there is not recommendations about how we deal with foreign thunders of terrorism in syria. But should we be concerned about that . Or is that no longer a concern . Thank you for that question. We should always be concerned about foreign funding for terrorist actors. As you know, the sdf and those partners are in northeastern syria, they are not present in idlib province. And it is clear that both both present in idlib process. What is more focused on galvanizing anti assad support, the other one sees the lack of a legitimate government in idlib as a viable or Fertile Ground for external plotting. External attacks against the United States and our allies and partners. We believe that threat is such a concern to the u. S. Government that Central Command has announced for the past several months, to separate strikes on alqaeda and syria leadership. We know that they are still there and they are as active enough for countries to take military strikes against them when its possible. They are still receiving foreign funding and as i understand it it is a constant area of engagement between u. S. Officials and all partners in the region and its not necessarily for government funding and a lot of this is about foreign governments taking up their own in domestic laws and learning the Technical Expertise to look at those monetary transfers and put technical barriers. If funding isnt coming from the government but individuals or groups within northern nations. What is the nations that would have most concerned about. Up. My impression is that a lot of these groups and information on that and my impression though is that both isis and these groups because they have managed to take the whole territory and effectively controlled by each ds and to a lesser extent and not put a lot of resources and your consultation with your counter to the interest of the United States. We did more for isis in those groups and to which they are currently referring funding i just cant speak to that in great detail. Our impression is that they are not there at all on finding basically by taking all that territory and extorting citizen and they built up a financial cash that they still to some extent have access to today. And is this a concern to have those people inside prisons or elsewhere that could serve as the new color of isis but they have money as well. Thanks mister chair. Thanks to our witnesses and testimony its a study group that you provide and the effort made of extended period of time and for the work that has been performed and its a Great Service to this committee and the other members of the senate and to the administration and the information of members will remain open until business on thursday including four members to submit questions for the record. And with thanks to the committee and the hearing is now adjourned. Thank you so much. As they have are battle seats to across the country all with the battleground state of michigan and detroit reporter will join us on the bus to talk about michigans role as the battleground state. And now the 2020 campaigns are playing out in the sea bar. Watch washington journal live at 7 am eastern thursday morning and join the discussion. This week under the merrick in history tv, saturday at 2 pm eastern, historians talk about the Lessons Learned from a reconstruction period. The concept before the civil war was a barrier of exclusion by the state that said only white men can boat and lightness was used to exclude others. But in the civil rights act, why it becomes a baseline if white people enjoy certain legal rights and everyone else has to enjoy those rights also. At eight, on lectures of history, the deindustrialization of the United States in the 19 seventies and eighties and at 2 pm eastern, the psychological impact of flying by world war one pilots. And at seven, women in the Apollo Program and the challenges they face. There were cameras all over the place. They were supposed to be on the hall and this was how no idea it had been and i didnt say anything about it and we didnt even know the term Sexual Harassment or hostile workforce. Theres two different ways to think about that. One, is that its a little on the part of the dudes but it is also harassing and uncomfortable. The other way to think of it is, let them look and let them all know and let everyone who is not in this new room know that there is ways to get used to it. applause explorer nations put up past on American History tv every, weekend on seaspan three. The experience is really valuable to me. It had a huge effect on our life and help us grow as people going into our college years. Past winners of seaspan documentary competition the, experience sparked her interest. I currently attend Straight University in thats in des moines iowa. Its going to be right in the middle of the caucus season and two different candidates because of seaspan and the experience and the equipment and knowledge to people will actually film some of them. Raskin middle school and High School Students to grade a short video documentary answering the question of what is you do most want president ial candidates to address in the campaign. Include seaspan video and reflect points of view. Were rewarding 100,000 dollars in total cash prizes. Including a 5000dollar grand prize. Be passionate about youre discussing and express your view no matter how large or small you think the audience will proceed to be and know that in the greatest country in history of the earth it does matter. For more information go to our website, student cam. Org. Soon for. Next, a hearing on wealth gaps in the u. S. Called by race and gender and the House Financial Services will hear from experts on corporate and financial diversity and inclusion. Justified on barriers base by women and people of color