Here. And todays hearing will examine the crisis in libya. I would like to thank our witnesses for again appearing before the committee on this issue. Unfortunately, six years ago, after the nato intervention, libya remains on the brink of civil war. Like many of its neighbors, libya failed to transition into a stable, Representative Democracy hoped for by citizens following the arab spring. And sadly, the libyan people have paid the price. Fighting between militias has undermined internal security, weakened government institutions, and damaged the economy. It is also posing substantial risk to the u. S. And to our allies. Infighting has created a permissive environment for terrorist groups like isis. The organizations gains in libya have led to u. S. Supported military operations last year in places like sert. Weve had some successes there but conditions allowing extremists remain. Many of us agree the libyan political agreement needs to be altered as the current government lacks the power to actually govern the entire country. Little gi but thats only the beginning. No government will be able to provide essential services across the country. Even though libya will still face enormous challenges to fix weak government institutions and turn around the struggling economy. I look forward to our discussion today and hearing from our two witnesses on the views of the crisis and what needs to be done to bring about its peaceful resolution. We will be particularly interested to hear your views on what the u. S. Would do to help achieve these goals. And with that, and what we should expect if isis or other radical groups regain ground in libya. Again, we thank you both for being here. Ambassador, i didnt want you to have to hear all of my Opening Statement, so i went ahead and began. With that, ill turn it over to our distinguished ranking member, senator cardcardin. I thought your Opening Statement was very important to be heard by all, i think want you to know that. Thank you very much for convening this hearing on libya. Yesterday, i had the opportunity to represent this committee along with senator graham, who was representing the appropriations committee. And we met with the ambassadors to the United NationsSecurity Council. We had about a twohour discussion. I thought it was a very helpful discussion. We talked about a whole range of issues, from north korea to reform within the United Nations. Ambassador haley is doing an incredible job of representing our interests. I think her leadership as now the president of the Security Council for this month will be important. Shes focusing on the issues of reform. Shes focusing on the issues of north korea and other areas that the United States has National Security interests. But one of the issues that came up during that discussion by our friends in europe and our friends in africa and the middle east is what will be americas engagement. Will america be a power for the values that we stand for in dealing with global challenges. And that was raised by both friends in europe and the middle east and africa. And i say that because i start with the fact that the United States must be engaged. Its in our National Security interests to have representative governments in countries like libya that represent all of the population, because when we dont have representative governments, what happens is it creates a void. And that void is filled by isis, as weve seen in northern africa. Its filled by russia, and we see now russias engagement in libya, which has not been helpful. And we recognize that its in americas National Security interests engaged. Theyve been able to fill the critical positions and were still not exactly clear what his policies are in regards to libya. I was disappointed in the meeting with Prime Minister of italy that President Trump said i will pa are. Aphrase. We dont have a role in libya. I think we have a role in lib yachlt i think this hearing is an important indication by the congress that we do expect a role to be played. I want to just underscore the importance of representative inclusive government. There is no military solution. Weve seen this too frequently and so many countries in that region. There is no military solution to libya. Wee need an inclusive government. It includes all the different factions. We saw as the chairman pointed out that under the leadership of the gna we were able to make progress. That was important. But we also see with moscows involvement mr. Putins involvement that general hefter in the eastern part of libya is causing all types of problems for civilian control of the country. And is also participating in activities that in my mind raise concerns about Human Rights Violations and war crimes. So there is a role for us to play. If its done right, we not only can have a representative government, the management of the Oil Resources in the north can benefit the people of libya and give them a growing economy and a growing standard of living. That is our goal. I think this hearing can play an important part in the senates oversight of that responsibility. I look forward to hearing from her r our two witnesses. Thank you very much for those comments. Well now turn to our witnesses. First witness is dr. Fred wayrie from the kacarnegie endowment f peace. The next is the ambassador to libya from 2013 to 2015. Thank you for bringing your expertise and knowledge. Bring your opening comments in the order introduced you and summarize in five minutes, we would appreciate it. Without objection, your written testimony will be entered into the record. Youve been here in times. Please proceed. Thank you. Chairman corker, committee members, im grateful for this opportunity to speak with you today about libyas political crisis and the way forward for u. S. Policy. Im honored to be joined by my distinguished copanelist. For those of white house have followed libya since the revolution, its unraveling has been harrowing to watch. Today the u. N. Backed Presidency Council is failing in basic governance, unable to establish itself in feuding militias and inpersonal pals. More important lishgs the council confronts a challenge from an eastern faction led by the general backed by egypt United Arab Emirates and increasingly russia. The allied parliament in the east has refuse to end dors the Presidency Council with the key option being the issue of control over libyas military. Meanwhile, the country slides toward economic ruin. The surge of migrants across the shores remains unchecked and jihadist mill tansy, whether flt form of the Islamic State, al qaeda, or some new mutation could take root. The looming dangers demand immediate engagement from the United States. At the most basic level the United States faces two imperatives. First, preventing resurge enlt of terrorist activity and inclusive representative stable government. On the counterterrorism front, the libyan led Campaign Last summer deprived the Islamic State of any real territory. The remaining Islamic State militants estimated in the low hundreds are currently pooling in the center west and south and they may try to mount a high visibility attack to show their continues viability. What struck me most during my visits last year to libyan areas afflicted by a jihadist presence, whether sert, benghazi or the west is that any traction the Islamic State got was often highly transactional. It was the result of poor governance. And this points to the importance of a broad based approach in denying the jihadist sanctuary. Here nonmilitary strategies are essential. Promoting economic develop ment and municipal governance, education and Civil Society form a vital adjunct to Counter Terrorism tools. In an effort to identify and assist local libyan partners, the United States must proceed carefully, given the absence af truly National Cohesive military, american aid to a particular armed group could upset the balance of power and cause greater factional conflict, moving forward the United States should only back those forces controlled by the internationally recognized government. And even this support should be limited in scope and geared towards specific threats. The second area where american diplomatic engage ment is crucial is the formation of a new government. A starting point for doing this is a new libyan led dialogue backed by the United States with European Partners and regional states. The goal of the talk should the amendment of the libyan agreement of 2015, the composition of the Presidency Council. The new talks should also focus on two tracks abscent in the first agreement. First, they should have include the leaders of the armed groups. They must agree on a road map for building a National Level military structure. Here an american red line must continue to be elected civilian control over the military. Proposals for military rule or military council are hardly a recipe for enduring stability. For most libyans, they run counter to the values for which they fought in 2011 revolution. Second, the talks must also set up a mechanism for the transparent distribution of oil revenues, especiallily to municipal authorities. One such an agreement is in place, the United States and its allies must stand ready to assist whatever government emerges and not just on counterterrorism. With its formal institutions gutted by years of dictatorial rule, the citizens remain the greatest resource. This is why its so important that United States preserve the capacity to engage directly with the libyan people. Mr. Chairman, committee members, my travels across libya underscored the desperation of its plight. Yes, the Islamic State was dealt a significant blow thanks in large measure to the sacrifices of brave libyans. But libya is now more polarized than ever and the growing vacuum could breed future radicalism. Now is the time for American Leadership to avert an impending collapse, safeguard american interests and to help the country realize that early promise of its revolution. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you here today. Chairman corker, ranking members, distinguished members of the committee. First my apologies as a retiree, i never dealt with the parking downtown coming in from mcclean before on a tuesday morning. But it is my honor to appear before you today on this important vexing matter. Im pleased to appear with a colleague that i consider a Real Authority and one of the most honest authorities or the most honest voices on libya today that i hear. Libya obviously has confounded and frustrated and exhausted policymakers and practitioners alike with the stubborn resistance to the obvious political math of 1. 2 billion barrels of oil today and citizens caught up in the endorphins of revolution. Many assume that libya, like the head of zeus would turn into dubai on the mediterranean and could all go away. It was wishful thinking. Lib yaz not the landscape was not popular. They have a history like any other place. That is of fragmentation. What ive often said to people is that kadavy was not the creator of the fragmentation, the oil well and they had at his disposal. I think its important to remember that post firing a shot, when he came in, he used that oil wealth to bring in power. Like caesar said, like gal, its three separate entities with different historical and political backgrounds and which explain us to often the different influences that play to this day in each of the regions from International Partners. When kadavy died, libya was a mafia without a dawn. And that is the challenge that we have now. Understanding this backdrop is important to understanding the deep divides that followed the revolution which i concluded not long after my arrival in tripoli in 2013 was for all intents and purposes unfinished. There had been highly touted parliamentary vote but essentially thats the equivalent of finding or, you know, buying purchasing a nib for a found an pen that doesnt exist. There was no government behind it. There still remains no infective government behind that. I dont wnlt to repeat a lot what was said here. I read a lengthy background notes which i hope people will read because it contains a different narrative. Many people have described the lines, the splits in libya as somehow secular nationalists versus islamist. Others myself included and i suspect that the doctor would agree, i viewed the situation more in terms of status quo and antielements, some who were pro kadavy versus revolutionary elements with marginal and ideological extremists on both sides. The revolution revealed together with true patriots a significant number of whom were educated in the United States and elsewhere in the west. Some and some unabashed idealogues, as he said, open opportunistic bed fellows whose gain blurred extinctions. I wont go into the narrative of the talks and the long talks there, but i would agree with fred and as we looked over it that over time as we were there observing on the ground and working to advance our mutual interests that it soon became very clear to us that when we were dealing with areas that did not affect the National Patrimony or the appearance of giving advantage to either military side, we were able to accomplish things. On the other hand, efforts to train elite special forces and then to respond to then Prime Ministers april 2013 appeal to g7 leaders to help him build a special purpose for us were frustrated due to that competition, that fractionness in the system. Interestingly throughout the era tech know democrats entrusted with the central bank with the National Oil Company and with the Libyan Investment Authority were left largely alone to do their business indicating to me that libyans, in fact did not want to disturb their wealth, their National Wealth. In fact, we found we worked pretty closely behind the scenes with them to ensure that remained the case. Now unfortunately in the latter years and following the negotiations as the competition has become more fierce, there have been efforts by some to create competing authorities to the dismay, i would say, of the average libyan wloes primary concern is he or she have enough to eat, communicate and ideally to travel. I would only say that and against this background of tripolis political disarray which was significant, benghazi continued to suffer a spate of brazen assassinations and lawlessness at the government had for all intents and purposes removed itself from benghazi with the inInternational Community. And this is when they first appeared in february. And they were at the timest resolution or the agreed dez lugs of the dnc or that it would be. And went on a television what we always called an electroncoup. Did he not stir much response in that effect. Went back underground only reappearing in may and been in benghazi when he declared his basically vij lanlty war against whom individuals he constituted responsible for or he condemned as responsible for benghazis anarchy. Together with this, we had again you know the story the narrative of the National Election thats were held in 2014. I hope you read carefully my paragraph on. That my understanding on that was a bit different. In response to counter threats and threats of heftar moving into libya or tripoli and the declaration by this time of the people on the side that the dialogue was no longer necessary, the militias acted preemptively and, of course, encircled to drive the militias out of tripoli which meant taking them out of areas that they had conquered during the revolution. This was a lot again and again and again about udi about, revolutionary People Holding on to assets whether it is the airport, the tripoli tower that held the Libyan Investment Authority, the Islamic Call Center that was important and later on in terms of territory. There was fighting over this occupied territory that others felt they had no right to is what led to our withdraw and led to eventual withdraw of all diplomatic members or diplomatic institutions or missions in libya at the time. I wont get into the boycott. I will offer a couple of things against this chaotic background, despite the political disarray. The United States during my tenure as chief admission did conduct a number of missions successfully to include the capture of benghazi suspect while engaging credibly with all sides in the political reconciliation talks and with the support of successive libyan governments. In other words, this is not a matter of requires us to pick and choose. Libyans were the first to assert the presence of isil and to seek u. S. Assistance in removing them. They were the first to draw our attention to the growing isil presence in sert. They were historic allen miz of the people who affiliated for similarly open opportunistic reasons. We can talk about isil later. I think you covered the road map there. Let me just say in conclusion, and we can get into questions later, libya is not engaged in a traditional civil war based on intractable ideological difference. This is a war of attrition aimed at destroying infrastructure in the administrator of National Wealth. Exhaustion, impoverishment or physical hurt have proven the prime motivateors for arriving at negotiated solutions. As long as different factions who thus far have been fairly evenly matched in terms of holding their turf continue to believe they can count on external support to tip the scales and avoid reaching the limits of that impoverishment, hurt or exhaustion, intermitt enlt low intensity warfare will continue, contributing to human suffering, refugee flows and penetration of the vast territory by foreign fighters. This is good neither for libya nor for us nor for our European Partners. Any libyan solution will require the buy in at the lowest levels for a governing regime that ensures the equitable distribution of equitable wealth and on security members at local and regional levels and the reintegration of militias and it must be inclusive and allow for the return and rehabilitation of all libyans no matter who they supported in the revolution. It must begin with a ceasefire. Monitored by the International Community with libyan acquiescence and support and the gathering of heavy weapons throughout the country and continued cooperation in the war against isil wishing to exploit libyan territory. Libyans must agree to all. This i would note here that if we could come to a conclusion here. Okay. Ill conclude. Otherwise, libya let me just say civil conflict, libya is not easy but its a worth while project. There is no alternative. Legitimacy cannot be imposed. It must be earned. Libyans have not asked us to fight their battles for them. The least we can do is support their dreams which were inspired by our example. Thank you. Thank you so much. Let me thank both of our witnesses. Theres clearly a great differences between syria and libya. Syria has ethnic clashes that are very deep and historic whereas libya does not have that burden. But we saw where russia interveeninte intervened in syria and the damage it caused by mr. Putins engagement in syria making it extremely difficult to get all sides together in a Peace Process which is the ultimate answer in syria as it is the ultimate answer in libya. We see where they are actively engaged in supporting this general. Who has been extremely difficult in recognizing a civilian government. And according to Human Rights Watch has kmilted war crimes. So my question first would be what is russias intentions in libya . Why have they been able to get the cooperation of egypt, one of our part nersz in allowing the use of egypts facilities and the military operations in libya . And what is the u. S. Interest in deal with russias engagement in will you bea . Do you have some suggestions here . Help he had understand the road map here . Thank you. Well, again, i think its one of libyas saving graces that it is not syria. The level of international interfeerns pales compared to syria. That regional interference is not simply russia. And i would point to the gulf states as the most harmful actors in this stemming back to the 2011 revolution. The egyptian role, i think, came before russia. The egyptians have had long standing economic and security interests in libya. They were among the first backers. And indeed when general cici took power in egypt that, really was felt in libya. So again, the egyptian policy toward libya really shifted after cici. You said in your testimony that respect for civilian controls is critical to the stability of that country. Correct. The general has not been helpful in that regard. Correct. So russia seems to be siding up with general heftar. Exactly. Enter russia. I think russias interests in libya stems back to the kadavy era. They had infrastructure projects. But general heftav a useful ally to them. It is very useful for the narrative. Nato broke the country. Here comes russia to clean it up so to speak. They are backing him reportedly with spare parts, with training, with medical care. They printed currency for the eastern government. This is one of the alarming things about libya. So this eastern unrecognized faction has its own central bank. Russia was printing libyan occur stoin help prop it up. So i think there their role sun helpful. Its been theatrical at times. This visit of general heftar to the Aircraft Carrier was highly theatrical. But the question is can they really pull a syria in libya . Do they want basing or do they want to present themselves as an indispensable broker . Do they want to be the ones that forge a new government that is favorable to their tra strategic and economic interests . So if the United States were to withdraw interest in lib yashgs would that give a greater opening for russia . I think, so senat so, senato. Everyone is on edge waiting for the u. S. To give a signal. So the absence of a signal creates a freeze. It creates a vacuum. And thats an invitation for other powers. I heard that also. What signal are they waiting for . High visibility signal about our diplomatic engagement about, our support for the government. I mean the role of special envoys from the state department of supporting the europeans, i think just more visible and vocal signal. And certainly not a signal that were washing our hands of this country. If i could before i turn to senator johnson and save time for interjections. I mean a signal, im sorry. I heard your two points on the front end. Our staff was in talking about. That i realize we were helpful with what happened with isis. Im not understanding what that really means. Im truly seeking an answer. I know italy and france and other countries are involved. Tell me what it is specifically that United States should do to move towards a political agreement here . I think negotiating a new tract with the partners and, you know, being and signalling i think also to the libyan people to libyan political actors that were prepared to engage along a Broad Spectrum of initiatives, to really help Libyan Society, to help the libyan government. I think one bright spot, one example of what im talking about was when the libyan factions moved their fighting to the south, whether they started clashing south of the oil cress enlt, the p5 issued a statement altogether, all five of the p5. Saying that this was bad for libya. And that is the sore t of consensus where they have to play a leading role. Not just a background role. Senator johnson . In my notes im seeing political disarray. Im seeing tech know democrats. Do they still ahappen . Is there any help of assuming them to provide that governing authority . Ill as the ambassador. I think when it comes to the National Oil Company to the bank and to others, there are tech knowcrats. The Political Leadership is in disarray and needs guidance. They need support. And we were able to do that as long as we were engaged with that. And i think thats important to remember. We havent had physical presence of a diplomatic nature in libya since we withdrew in july of 2014. That senlds a huge message to te libyans and unfortunately for political sensitivities and the rest, the u. S. Was very hesitant to reinsert, following the second withdrawal personnel into libya worried about the paralysis that might cause at home. But we brought the russians and the chinese into the dialogue process. We were very actively engaged in that. And having the u. S. Onboard signalling that it supports a political as well as a military solution is extremely important. On a purely practical note, heftar has never, at least in my time there and i dont think yet, fred will know this, controlled more than 12 of the country at any given time. Its huge. Youre never going to defight is defeat isis or any other group unless you have cooperation across the board f you support him wholeheartedly, youll have a civil war. It will turn into something for libya im afraid. How many sigma lishas are there . How many are competing . Yeah. I would say there are thousands. I mean this is one of the tragedies of libya is that power is so fragmented. So its neighborhood by neighborhood. Its town, even within the town theres are hundreds. But within tripoli, there are probably four or five. Are there major ones . We hear the same things here. 1200. But are there ten major groups . Or is it really that it really that fragmented. There are talks now about with this track of Security Dialogue of bringing in, you know, who would the maybe you probably could get 12 to 15 leaders of the armed groups. And that would get you there. But again, the chance for spoilers to play a role is really high. With that level of fragmentation, what role is diplomacy you . Really do have to start with military control, correct . I mean somebody thooz control the ground militarily. We have to brit factions together. You know, in certain areas in towns, a the love the militias are tied to towns. They have arrange mentes with municipal council. So there is a measure of control. Its negotiated control between businessmen, municipal council. So the notion you would have one actor unified a country through conquest is fanciful. I think what we need to look at is sort of growing it from the ground up. Who is going to be the countervailing force . Who is the most trusted foreign power to try and exert some level of stability and control . Foreign power . Wasnt it lit primary trading partner . Italy is playing a huge role right now in terms of brokering a dialogue. Theyre playing a role in tripoli and they offered help to the east. What kind of military presence does italy have . I believe sorry . Does any foreign power have troops there . There is a contingent of italian soldiers at a hospital. There are reportedly troops in tripoli doing some very low level training. But very limited numbers, correct . Nothing to exert control. Just help and advice . Correct. Do they need more . Should we be encouraging european allies to step up to the plate . Somebody has to try to gain control, right . I dont think, so no. At the ini have tafgs libyans, this is something that needs to be agreed upon, a Stabilization Force under the man dast the u. N. Or eu. But that needs to be worked out with libyans. I think, you know, any foreign presence, you know, could be an antibody. It could play into the jihadist narrative. You know, i think what needs to happen first is the libyans need to agree upon a road map for their military. There needs to be a plan for security. Its in complete disarray. And there are thousands of militias. Again, im trying to come up with its going to require some kind of International Coalition visit invit invited about it libyans, correct . I dont think, so no. There are talks under way including a security track to try to get these armed group actors onboard for organization, for structure, for leadership, for who gets to stay in the military for which militias have to leave, demobilizing the young men. A lot of them want to go back to jobs and schooling. There needs to be a libyan led strategy for doing this. Okay, thank you. And the libyans are asking for that . They are, yes. Including haftar . Sorry . Including haftar . No, he is not asking for. That. He is talking to the u. N. About a military structure. The problem though is that he wants to be part of this Presidency Council. He wants to be supreme commander. Kind rev alt notof reality, problem, isnt it . Its a problem. Its a problem. Because the reality is that the dispersal of heavy weapons and also the opposition to heftar is so in deep and the people do have the capability as we saw in july and august this he have the command and control and they do have the sense of protecting their own turf that will drive them to combat this. If heftar is in the lead. They have said before when we were engaged with them in dialogue that they were prepared to work with others in a command and control system. But heftar has restated opposition to dealing to living with to be suborder nant to civilian command creates ats a lot of discomfort with people, particularly given some of the ties and supporters outside of libya and where people dont know what his what the point is. I mean i think all countries in the Security Council were in agreement that we wanted a stable libya. There are other factors here. We have friends that are add manltly opposed to the notion that any Islamist Group or Muslim Brother Group have any access to libyans wealth which will lead to islamist take over for their own governments. And so therefore, their objective has been to do something that stabilizes and keeps ate way. Heftar has been a tool for them in that regard. Everyone recognizes he has been unable to consolidate his gains outside of the benghazi area. This has been going on now for three years. So i think unless you have, i agree with fred completely on. This unless you have an libyan agreement again on distribution, on an organization that is going to ensure transparent distribution of National Wealth under a more localized government, theyre not going to accept anything else. And they do not want foreign troops on the ground. This is a country that was deaf statd during world war ii. I got it. Thank you so much. Senator booker . Yeah. Doctor, you write in your testimony, i want to just read a portion here. The promotion of economic develop ment and entrepreneurship and education, Civil Society is a vital adjunct to other tools like intelligence and reconnaissance, border control, train and equip and direct action. You seem to describe an environment where isis is thriving in areas where there is no government, no Civil Society and thats theyre taking advantage of the vacuum. I want to put that in the context of what seems to be the Administration Policy right now in reducing state Department Resources to build Civil Society. It is very shocking to me the sort of budget that theyve outlined in light of what you seem to be indicating as a prescription to ultimately bring stability back to libya. Can you comment on that . Well, i agree, senator. And, you know, where isis, you know, set up cam notary public liby camp in libya, it was the areas that fell off the map. You look at a city like sert, it was brutalized and nekted aftgl after the revolution. It was lacking representation. There were tribes there that welcomed Islamic State simply for protection. So its very xpeed yenlt. Same thing in the west. You had smugglers sort of doing deals with the Islamic State because there was no local economy. Down in the south, there is absolutely no governance. This is where aqim thrives. Same thing in benghazi. How do you deny the sanctuary . How do you fortify the resilience of Libyan Society . Jihadist penetration. Thats where municipal governance comes in. So that has to be whatever the strategy is once its this administration presents one, the part of that is essential that it is us doing that kind of Civil Society investments and building the state department is critically able to do . I think so, senator. Us along with local partners and undp. I went to a southern town that is a very remote town that was racked by tribal fighting. Its really just fallen off the map. There is nothing there. But people, the young people there talked about a usaid computer senter that was set up that basically connected them to the globe that, gave them critical computing skills. The secenter was destroyed in fighting. They look at that as a visible u. S. Commitment. Zbh another thing that disturbs me is that were seem to be operating under a rule from 2001. And im just curious if you is our intervention both military and i hope to see more sort of Civil Society work, do you think the administration is going to wants to continue to use the au maps from 2001 as a reason for as a justification for the intervention militarily . And i open that to either one. I dont know. Yeah. I cant say. Your microphone. Pardon me. Because im no longer in the government, but i am hearing from contacts and the special forces side and others that they are hearing signals that in fact were essentially going to go to a hitandrun policy in libya as opposed to trying to knit together the kind of enduring solution that youre talking about. But at agendaa clearly if i co. What youre saying is its going ton r to be an isis specific whack a mole issue. Its not an enduring presence which would mean the o 1 amf is operative. You dont hear any plans of any long term ground and youre saying its unnecessary anyway. I hear nothing to that end. Right. Im hearing what i call tactical impatience. People want to act against what they see there. Really not considering the overall libyan context which is that libyans unlike syrians or iraq dont have indigenous isis by and large. Its open opportunistic as dr. Wary said. And they dont want to share their wealth. And will not allow. They have been the ones to call isil out in their own country. Okay. Thats problematic for me on a number of levels. I want to jump requick in the remaining few seconds. Human trafficking is a serious concern in this country. The iom reported that theyre being held hostage through slave markets. Furthermore, trafficking and smug fr smuggling from many lishas are driving the conflict. There i want to know if you have any input for us, either one about, what we should do to address this lather humanitarian crisis. Obvious lishgs i imagine quelling the conflict that allowing this to proliferate. If this was a political objective in the United States, what should we be doing . First, im sorry to say that Human Trafficking has been part and parcel of libyas history even when you had a strong authoritarian government in kadavy such as it was. It wasnt something that they really paid the kind after tension that the International Atal community would like them to pay. So again there is one of the areas that when you have a political dialogue and you have a government that engages across the country and makes the distribution of wealth part and parcel of working against those kinds of things, replacing those activities, smuggling which has long been the bread and butter for many libyans particularly in the south but also for those on the borders who have brought in sub subsaharan africans. This something can you only address with Civil Society and with governance. Just to add to that, i mean its a symptom of libyas economic collapse that the circle of complicity in this lucrative smuggling trade is really widened. So down in the south, its how people make their living. Same thing in the north. Promoting programs for alternative livelihoods down in the south. I mean fixing libyas economic crisis. But then again, being careful who we partner with. I mean the notion of training a libyan coast guard wloshgs are we talking about . Many of the coast guards are militia run. Theyre in fact complicit with the smuggling trade. Returning these migrants to these horrendous Detention Centers and ive seen several of them is just simply inhumane and immoral. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Senator young . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ambassador, doctor, thank you so much for your testimony here today. I just want to highlight the importance of United States working on multiple fronts to defeat isis in lib yachlt you spoke some to. This but on april 20th, President Trump as you know held a joint press conference with the Italian Foreign minister and at that press conference he said he doesnt see a role for the United States in libya apart from defeating i had lambic state militants. That was actually a press conference with the Prime Minister. Do you both degree that defeating isis in libya or anywhere else in that matter is going to require the establishment of inclusive a Effective Governance not just ct strikes . I do agree, senator. Absolutely. 100 . You know, just, as i outlined in my testimony, i mean, who joins isis . Its the losers and the political order. Its people that are shut out of the political process. So, you know, any government that excludes people on the basis of ideology or believe, those people are going to get radicalized. Its going to increase the pool of terrorism. And that in turn has some ramifications for our needs to invest in usaid, state department and the Civil Society that it can help facilitate, bring to bear on the challenges in the region and the Municipal Administration that you spoke to that are necessary to bring stability s that correct . Absolutely, senator. I think one of the bright spots in libya is the fact that municipal authorities enjoy elected legitimacy. When you go around to towns, there are certain cases where theyve had success. So i think one of the strategies that im seeing from the United Nations and others is going straight to those municipal authorities. Including the budget. Helping them finance themselves. What is so worrisome about the heftar control east is that hes replaced lekted municipal officials with uniform military governors. Ambassador . No. I would only i would only say again that in sert, for example, what we saw was support that was open opportunistic from groups that were political opposed to them and had nothing ideologically to do it with. It was all about competition for resources. So until you have a government that does what governments are supposed to do which is to ensure equitable access to National Resources through security regulatory framework, rule of law, youre going to have this kind of problem. Lets think about the Lessons Learned and whether there are broader applications to the middle east n your prepared remarks, you know that many thought a dubai on the mediterranean would emerge following the overthrow of kadavy. There are eight questions before taking military action. Number six of those was whether the consequences of a action have been fully considered. Its really applies to both of you but first ambassador, in 2011, do you believe there was a failure to as the question what comes next . And more broadly, what broader lessons for the policy in the middle east based on the experiences in libya might we draw . Senator, i do think, and i was not part of this. I wasnt partyst Decision Making process. I believe it was a very different situation. I think people forget that it was in fact the arab league that came to us and asked us to take action to provide a no fly zone because gadhafi unlike leaders in tune eesha and yemen where similar uprisings were taking place, socalled arab spring uprisings, the leaders were not attacking their own populations gachlt daf where gadhafi threaten dod so. To kill those rats. When you have a situation on the hills of rwanda or other things, politically it would be very difficult to stand by and do nothing and watch a dictator who we dealt with as a dictator who had been responsible for a number of terrorist actions throughout the world stand by and say we prefer the stability to supporting those who are trying to overthrow him. And again, remember, we were speaking to people on the revolutionary side like dr. Jabril who present aid very articulate vision wlaf they could do. There was a the love overpromising. So, yes, we did not understand the situation well. I will accept that. But, however, i dont know that we would have changed or that we could have known it differently. We were not involved in libya for a long period of time as the United States. So it sound as thoet political imperative to intervene was strong based on a number of reasons. But the planning took place in an atmosphere where we have limited information, not just lack of critical thinking. It sound as though thats what you have . I think also that people were surprised. Its not that we didnt allocate resources or go in with our International Partners and European Partners to try to assist libya. Its important to remember that liby libyans did not want Foreign Military on the ground. They didnt want a lot of foreign presence, period. What they asked for was the u. N. Mission, special mission in libya. And thats what they got with tariq who did begin by writing a white paper on organize something security structure. I think its later that people in the western side realized the depthst fragmentation and the revolution was in fact unfinished because successive transitional governments in libya proved entirely incapable of dearming mat lishas, you know, rehabilitating, taking away their areas of control and it was clear that they were not all that interested in having any western groups who would have been frankly injured in the pro i mean killed in the process, come in and do so. Thank you. I will say retrospective, you know, one thing that has occurred as the leader of north korea has learned that if you give up your weapons of mass destruction, then you likely will be taken out. And were having to deal with that dynamic right now. Senator menendez . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for your testimony. They have failed to achieve broad support of the country. Does that still represent the best way forward . For libya as you talk about trying to put all the factions together . Does that really a avenue still . Senator, i think the libyan political agreement, you know, really remains the touch stone. And most libyans would agree upon that according to a the love polls that have been done. They still see that agreement that was signed in december 2015 as the foundation. Now the question is what kind of political structure . So the government of National Court but youre talking about the composition of the Presidency Council. Youre talking about the other bodies, the state council. Thats whats being worked out. There was a five person Presidency Council that was tremendously unwieldy and full of divisions. There were other sort of structural problems. So how do you revise that. The key question is elected civilian control over the military. Is this a way for him to come none a new council where he would be de facto ruler of the country . Then it seems to me if thats a fundamental question, what it is dont we have leverage . I mean we give egypt an enormous amount of money. Are we leveraging our relationship with those two countries visavis the support theyre giving heftar and the circumstances in libya and the way that we should be . Youre both smiling. I dont know what that means. This is one of those thank you for that question, senator. You know you hear that at confirmation hearings. Yes. As you know, no relationship is purely bilateral. We have many engagementes in different areas in the region and the nature of our relationships with egypt with, the United Arab Emirates with, turkey with, cut ar and others are deep and multilayered. And i think that when it comes to priorities or how much leverage you actually have in some areas, its quite limited, you find. Because what is important for others is not necessarily seen as such by us and vice versa. And so i think that some of our friends have made a decision that they believe they live in the neighborhood and they dont believe to have islamists and government that has access to a lot of money. And a location. And so there are ways around this, i think, building in safeguards, building in transparent systems. I mean that we would say as americans you have institutional ways around this. And the settings where institutions are not always the predominant feature. I mean they see things differently. Youre saying that their interests are going to trump any influence that we may have over this because we have a multilayered interest with them. Therefore, this is not of the top of their poll. It seems what were resigned to, if we dont use leverage with countries that can influence the situation in libya and continue to exacerbate the circumstances as they exist, is that what we are destined to is a continuing, you know, internal conflict and us on occasion striking isis targets as we see it necessary. Thats a long term proposition for failure. Im not sure failure. That is the nature of u. S. International relations and its a matter of priorities and trying to influence when your priorities dont always jive on these things. Are you the same way . Im sorry. I think the egyptians, for instance, are in fact coming around. They pushed for negotiations between general heftar and the west. So they have an interest on their border. They dont want the division of libya. I dont think they want military conquest of the country. So again, they have certain security interests. I do think that u. S. Especially this new administration has more leverage since were sending the signals to certain gulf states that we have your back. Perhaps there are even more than yemen. Yet were not getting involved in lib yachlt so i think, you know, in the case of the uae and ill call them out, i mean their interference is almost purely ideological driven by this phobia of the muslim brotherhood. And that is not a recipe for a country that is going to be immune too terrorism. Again, i think we need have stronger leverage with the states. Thank you. Thank you. And i would point out, i mean, egypt has certainly been in line with israel. So our interest in the region are complex. I do agree that there is leverage right now that we havent had in the past that hopefully will be useful as we move ahead in libya. Senator rubio . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here. Let me begin with a specific question and then a broader one. Libya is often pointed to as an example of a Foreign Policy mistake or what you have. Wanlt to revisit that for a moment. Youre both keen observers of it, obviously ambassador was there in the aftermath. I want to talk about the Benghazi Defense brigade. Libya is a terrorist safe haven and group of organizations are fighting for control of the country. What are your views regarding cooperation between the Benghazi Defense brigade and elements like al qaeda or aqim and i know that theyve amendment itted to deny links to terrorism. But is it not the fact that theyre a well known coalition of islamic extremists . How you would characterize the bdb and in particular whether we believe that Libyan National army has the capability to defeat them . The bdb at its core was formed by islamist figured who were ejected from benghazi. Many of them were leaders in benghazi. They came out and got support from the city. From other sources, from tripoli and from qatar as well. It is massive displacement from benghazi. The fact that theyre fighting to return families to benghazi. Many of them have families. The al qaeda element, look, there is a small country of six million. If you go to any islamist leader, chances are hes going to be hes going to know someone in al qaeda. Hes going to be affiliated with al qaeda. There is six degrees of separation. Are there people that had al qaeda in the bdb in probably. But is it an affiliate or organization . No. Is it involvement enaescalation unhelpful . Yes. I dont think the Libyan National army has the ability to fully defeat a force that, you know, could challenge it in the oil crisis. The key thing is that oil cress en crescent is going to be a site of contention for years. I would only add that there were many who argued that when heftar engaged in benghazi that in fact he undid the work that had been done of parsing off the extremists from the core of some of these militias. In fact, they drove them all back together because the sole objective game to defeat became to defeat him instead of what they had been doing before is pairing off and coming back into the national grouping after the revolution and marginalizing the extremists. But again, as dr. Wary says, every libyan just about every libyan family its like rebels and yankees. Theyve got somebody in it that theyd rather not see at the table. But they admit to and then they feel sorry when that person passes away, too. I mean i watched libyans that are pro heftar weep over the benghazi revolutionaries because their cousins or someone else. I would say the hard corps Al Qaeda Group is in darna. And it historically has been a refuge for people because its cave, filled with caves. Its isolated and easily cut off. So even when gadhafi was, there people were there. The christian saints used to hang out there in the fourth and fifth century. That is a problem. Benghazi is a mix. But i think its hard to say that whole group of the revolutionaries is part of this problem. They drove out isil, by the way, from darna and from benghazi as well. On the broader question about libya, this is what i hear from a lot of people. Im simplifying it. Gadhafi was a really bad person but he kept the country stable. He was overthrown and now all the islamists are there and its a play ground. My counter to that argument has been, number one, the jihadists are not the people that overthrew gadhafi, it was the libyan people. He was gone one way or the other. The choice before us at the time was not whether or not gadhafi stayed but whether or not a vacuum would follow. Is my assessment of what happened back in the beginning of the revolution accurate . And the reason why thats relevant is it is now being extrapolated to syria and to other parts of the world. The fact of the matter is that the uprising that led to the ousting of gadhafi was not led by the radical elements as much it was under the libyan people that didnt want to live under this lunatic criminal. I think youre absolutely right, senator. But what happened was that immediately following the revolution it gets back to what we were saying before. The in fighting over control of the nations assets have led to these divides that are not fundamentally ideological. This is a country again, 95 are sunnis. Thats not the issue. Who owned the goods versus the democracy that felt it was time to share the wealth and have a Democratic Group flouchlt a. Now i think there are naem are still democrats. Small d democrats. There are those who are in fact i h idealogues and extremists. Theyve always been around and theyre dabbling now, fishing in very trouble the waters. But at the end of the day, i still believe in my heart of hearts that this needs a political that a political reconciliation that provides for equitable distribution of National Wealth and in a transparent way will bring people together against those narrow group of extremists. I believe that. Naively perhaps but i believe it. Thank you, sir. Senator marky . Thank you. So lets go to the diplomatic breakthrough that the italians have made bringing together the gna and to brook factions in in some kind of preliminary negotiations to reach a negotiation. With trump taking i dont want to have any part of getting United States in the middle of. This but at the end of the day, a diplomatic resolution is the only way that were going to be able to resolve these difficulties including splitting up the oil revenues or whatever. So can you talk about this Italian Initiative and what hopes you may have for it to be a Building Block to actually have a resolution reached that is diplomatic and not military . Sure. Senator, i think the italians deserve credit for brokering this. I think its a start. I wouldnt hail it as a breakthrough. The head of the state council ahead of the hor agreeing to talk, meeting for the first time. You know, the question is whats next snt devil is in the details. And so what new body emerges from this . But then again, i have to underscore this question about who controls military force . And military force, and this was what led to the fighting back in 2014. The monopoly on the use of force and the question will be what is general heftar oos role in this process. Do you think he is willing to be willing to participate . I dont know, senator. Weve seen these things happen before, these initiatives and theres always room for spoilers in libya. I dont know what his stance on this are. I necessity the algerians and the tunisians have their own initiative going. I think its good hes starting to communicate with high level officials. He wants a seat at the table that could be the head of the table. Ms. Jones . I was going to say and talks in a good way, processes in the opposite way of conflict, so thats a good thing. However, the political balance of these kinds of negotiations is really thrown off when you have external elements making promises to people or giving them added weight in the equation that that could then lead to them staying out of the process and i think thats the case with hafta right now and other groups unfortunately. So sarage is coming to the United States to meet with President Trump and reports also are throughout that sarage is going to talk to haftar before he comes to washington to meet with trump. So does that give you some reason to believe that the United States, President Trump should play a handson role and not a handsoff role in trying to resolve this view . Of course. I think that the president can play a helpful role in that if he underscores the importance of a political solution and of civilian authorities over the military, hes the you know, if anyone can make a deal, i think he believes he can. This is not for President Trump to make a deal, youre saying he should have if it is the case that sarage has met with haftar, yes, i thank you. Doctor . I would agree with that and its not simply the deal, but its what comes next. Its the guarantees, the government to make the deal stick. So thats where this sort of whole of government approach is, so we should be ready to reach beyond this hand shake. You have kind of a number of evens that are kind of converging, heading towards this meeting in the house with President Trump. I dont want to sound pessimistic but im guardedly p opt mystics, maybe, but its something weve seen this is where the regional states are so important, the role of the emirates, egypt, the fact in that they in principle agreed to the agreement. They said yes, but meanwhile they hedged. The role of regional spoilers and especially spoilers on the ground, so can sarage eliminate the opponents in his camp. Thanks to you better bog here today. Theres a report from the guardian that stated russia appeared to have employed near the border. It explained that u. S. And diplomatic Officials Say any such involvement might be a support to support haftar. Im going to yield because i have no information on that. I have no information beyond what ive read. Sorry. If russia were to do in a, open source talks about the special forces involved in libya, what role should they be playing . Theres been russian offers of training in russia, theres been offers of medical help. Im not sure what value added those get him right now. His i know, his principle theater of combat is almost over in benghazi, save a few neighborhoods. He hasnt shown a willingness to go a the terrorists in derna. Another arrow in the quiver of russia to signal their involvement. Following up on that, is it then in the National Security interest of the United States that concern over National Security interest that there are Russian Special interests if they are in libya, kin deed. I think we have to be cautious. Weve had special forces in libya, british have had special forces there. I think it depends on what their intend is. What is their purpose there and i think a lot of it, maybe russia putting in our face that theyre there. I think we have to be careful in how we respond to it. So far weve seen no increase in or concern of migration refugee flows out of libya that could destabilize italygreece stability . Concern im sorry . Is there a concern tifs into spur a refugee crisis or migration again into russia excuse me into greece or italy . I dont think so, senator. Most mieg grant flows from coming up from the zertd from the west. According to the 2017 u. S. Statement, u. S. And libra, north africa could be the most Severe Threat to the u. S. Could you talk that, perhaps what your concerned with are . Senator, i think the notion of libya, the problems in libya spilling over is really pro found. Were talking about a number of u. S. Interests in the region. We know terrorists have plotted attacks on libyan oil, in tunisia, the security of u. S. Ally, egypt. Theres huge concern about the spill over of arms and jihadist into a salhal in the south. Could i add senator, though, i think its important to remember, though, too, that particularly tripoli and misratah have a fairly normal daytoday life on the scale of things. A lot of the refugees are coming from other places and flowing through libya because its not governed properly. Thats internal displacement in libya but the wealthy libyans have other places to live. Its the planning that goes on there, its the smuggling of weapons, its the flow of these other groups that are problematic. Libyans will point out to you that the they were not libyans. But libya provides a Playing Field particularly in the south. On the other side of the coin, they dont provide in the south kind of urban areas they exploit to extort from people, to steal oil or things like that. Weve seen libyans in the city states are prepared to fight, particularly in misratah and tripoli do not have those kind of inroads there. I may have to step out. I want to thank you both for being here and your testimony. Its been very, very helpful. We look forward to following up against with questions afterwards. With that, senator markly. Thank you, mr. Chair. I want to start by returning back to the conversation about the u. S. Intervention initially being asked by the arab league to provide a nofly zone. It seems like it went beyond that to really becoming the air force opposition. In that transition, did we adequately in terms of our National Security analysis evaluate the consequences of that b and thoroughly understand the challenge that would be faced in filling the vacuum . I cant address that. However, i do believe that we did not believe that there was a vacuum in the sense that we were speaking to people, lib ran leader, socalled leaders, some of them quite a tick las supporters of the revolution, who i think assured people that they were prepared to come in and take over and provide the kind of institutional replacement for gadhafi that would allow them to organize the country. I dont think the libyans themselves were aware of what a mess this would become, to be hans. I would agree with that. I think there was this overly optimistic assessment that libya would get bag on its feet. The infrastructure wasnt destroyed. I think there was this sense of, ok, weve handed this off to the europeans, the United Nations. Now theres syria happening. The libyan role is essential here in the sense that they told us, we got this as well. We didnt want a large presence on the ground. I think there was an can excessive nouks on elections as a success marker that we got to get these elections right. Meanwhile, the security miss of it is not addressed. Theres a lot of Lessons Learned here in terms of how we do this. Regional states had their own security program, they had their own proxies and allies. They were doing things on the ground that were unhelpful for unity later on. We have articulate spokespersons in iraq who assured us there would be a fallen Saddam Hussein. When theres a longdetermine dictato dictator, if its tito, gadhafi, Saddam Hussein, the transition can be difficult afterwards. I just feel like we should give that full analysis. Im going to turn to the nonproliferation side. Following pan am 103, libya tries to rectify that. Other complications address their Nuclear Program. Bush had said that ka catchy could regaining a respected place among nations and toutded this example as i hope other leaders will find an example in libyas action. There were ten Nuclear Sites that were addressed. I asked the administration what moej this sent to iran and north korea. They were extremely dismissive that there was any, any, any ways the world would perceive gadhafi after dismannedling his Nuclear Program. I think that was a tremendous diminishment of a potential message being sent to other countries we were working on. Just want to get your alls sense on that particular point. Senator, again, these are probably questions better directed to people like bill burns who were engaged in those negotiations back in the day with gadhafi. But i would also say that i would think that there was a sense at the time and this again im out of my lane on this, but stlfs a lot of discussion about Saddam Hussein husseins. Libya was actually talking and doing looking at reforms and looking at Economic Reforms and opening up in certain ways. I suspect that there was an element of hope. First it was the concern that its never a good thing for the United States to not talk to large centrally placed countries that can have a dangerous impact on the rest of the region, but, too, that libya was at a point where we might be seeing the openings of some sort of transition to a more open system, something that we would find ways to influence later on. Obviously, the libyan people didnt feel the same way when it came the 2011. In 2 context of the role we and other nations played in dismantslingst ga dafy is that im talk ug about. I could probably speak more to the thinking of the irans. Obviously, theyre weighing their success in that. But different situations but im not qualified to address that here. I would echo that, senator. I think its very different context. North korea and iran, totally different contexts, traditions. I dont know what lessons they took from that. Ok. I just find it a bit of a dodge when were trying to dissuade other countries to dismantle their Nuclear Programs to not recognize that the person who did not give up the Nuclear Program would be seriously that the other countries pay serious attention to that, and so i i think youre being very tactful and pligholite. The u. S. Dismantling a country. What happens was there was a failing government libya that was unable to meet the leads of its people. There were serious problems. You had an uprising that was i didnt refer to disp mantling the neglects. P im referring to them dismantdling their Nuclear Program. But he didnt have the ability to deter, thats the lesson that he im really talking about the message it sent to have worked with a nation, to have them forgo their Nuclear Program, Nuclear Weapon program, and then be vulnerable to outside intervention. That is kind of the core issue that drives a lot of nations to want to secure a Nuclear Weapon is to say that it gives them a bit of a guarantee, our actions against with regard to north korea would be different if they didnt have Nuclear Weapons in existence. I think a similaring situation would be only if the north korea people were rising up and being slautderred. I wouldnt describe it as a similar situation. So i think youre changing the context. Right, but thats what makes it difficult to say. The United States and the International Communitys choice was yes, maybe theyre taking a message from this, would ga dafy used weapons on his own people . Im not sure. And participating in the final precursor for chemical weapons, im glad we went in there and cleaned up a lot of that stuff. The last thing you want is to have it in the hands of mish ma libya mish yas. Thank you to our panelist. Im sorry i was at a hearing on north korea. Im sorry to be late. That certainly is another threat facing the United States. How long would we expect that to continue if the current chaos extends for a long period of time. I was in libra last year. You sense it in the capital. Theres tremendous frustration. Theyre not able to meet peoples basic needs. Lodge lines in front of the banks, rolling electricity blackouts. They havent been able to get your budget under control. They dont control security in the capital. These mish flairups happen. I think the accord sticks. You better not jump into the darkness unless youve got something to replace this. And so are you optimistic that there might be progress as a result of the discussions in rome and the potential what appears to be maybe theyre getting close to a compromise zblaemt is that something thats promising that may offer some hope for people . After a long time, it took a long time. In the process libyans learned a lot about political dialogue. It was a politically il literal country. Having been part of that process i saw this firsthand. So i think again, they want to modify, they want to extend. They would like to see my sense is and what i hear from libyans, they would like to see a final integration between the house of representatives with an authority thats not overly whoev ov ov overwheflg. A lot of people would like to see him in some kind of role outside promoted up and out, as it were. Libyans want stability and predictability and they want their economy to go again. What about the discussions in rome . Are they really making progress . Im not privy to a lot of the details about that. I think the discussion is better than the opposite what weve seen a lot of discussions in the past. Libyans are good at talking and throwing chaff and going out and fragmenting even more so its a whole new ballgame. I think its at least a step. The italians know libya very, very well. The labors booibyans ive talke to think its the correct approach. And what does that mean as we look as you talked about the economy of libra ya and how people want to see economy going again. Were looking at another nations coming in, russia, i assume china to come in and proin assistance with those oil reserves. What does that mean for the United States in the future . Ill say that if the perception spreads that the only time the United States was interested in libya was when we could make a lot of money and when it became difficult we pulled out and focused on military, which was what we believed the four freedoms, the principles of those, we have a problem. You would both like to see the United States take more of a leadership role there . Thats a sque. You want to take it . I think we need to be present and we need to make clear what our vision is. I think we have very successfully libya was one of these situations where it was a bilateral assignment as ambassador, but it was a multilateral process throughout, where we were supporting u. N. Positions but also having to work and coordinate very closely with Security Council permanent representative allies and deal with regional paergts and powers as well. Libyas multi its got many, many parties in it. The u. S. Needs to play a signature role and a reimportant symbolic role there certainly and it needs to be met. Presence matters. Our presence matters. Our absence sends a message. Do you agree with that . Completely. That was a great characterization. Its not us leading the charge on this but playing a coordinating function. Were soft the glue that keeps it together with these many different players, relationships with the jurns, just being present at the table is so essential. Again, just to echo from my conversations on the ground with libyans across the country, whether the south, benghazi, the notion that were there simply for counterterrorism or were there for the oil, these narratives are out there so these visible initiatives that signal that we do care about the libyan people are so important. Just i know im over my time, mr. Chairman, but in terms of as we look at the future of africa, north africa and the middle east, i mean, dont we have to include libya as part of whatever strategy we come up with almost to this region . Thats a simple one. Yes. Because libya of many of the states has the potential to be a resource and a really important boundary for a lot of africa. It should be a major tourist area for europe, with five World Heritage sites, its beautiful, great fish a and all these things. It should be a Great Medical Center for subsaharan africa. It has a history, a presence, a place and its really close. As i tell people, its closer to rome than mecca. Its closer to libya is closer to some pashts of italy than it is its neighbors. It cannot be dismissed because its not just libya. Thank you, thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for your questions. Let me just ask one or two other questions, if i might. The commander of the u. S. Africa demand general wal highser, before the Armed Services, senator Armed Services committee warned that libya, we must carolly choose where and with whom we work. So what lessons have we learned from the sirt Campaign Last year that should guide us in any of our operations in libya wa we support today . Ill say very briefly freds been there for recently it was our policy in 2015 that the only way that we could defeat isil in the region because of the land mass of libya and the currenting frommentation right now. We cant choose one partner. And i think at the time the chairman agreed that anyone who shared our views on isis and dash could be a partner with us in this fight to deny them any toehold. To do so, you have to work with people who shares your thoughts on dash and isil. That has been i think its been successful in that regard. I would add to that, senator, and i was sert and drove out the Islamic State were tied to the government of national accord. Very loosely. I think the partnership was a limited and target specific partnership where we assisted them on a specific geographic threat. Were not talking about train meeshs, giving them aid. That could really upset the balance. If we side with one faction against terrorism, that could cause the other faction to go against us, to turn to another regional patron. Theres all soorlts of second and Third Order Effects of this. Weve seen this in the east where certain countries were giving support to the lna which was an unrecognized force and that had a political effect on negotiations. Are. If the head of the president s council comes to b washington, i want to follow up on chairman corkers follow ip to my question. What should the United States expect in deliverables of the president s council should he come to the United States ass a rec sit for a visit here to america. Mr. Chairman, i was going to turn that around and say my advice to mr. Sar average would be that he needs to come prepared to firmly articulate what he needs, one, but also what he can do right now. What the situation is, but what hes prepared to do in terms of political deal making or compromise or what have you to bring things to closure. So often, when the libyans come, due to this political immaturity in a way, they are kind of looking for someone else to tell them what to do and then they want to bicker and quibble with it. He needs to come with a clear articulate vision of where he sees the process going. He should be preparing to lay out what the italian dialogue is proufrg and he should be put out their deminimus red line, their minimum standards are for any sort of compromise for expanding and revising the agreement, i think. St the u. S. Shouldnt be in the position of demanding something larger. He should come with a specific game plan. Is there something more we could expect from that type of a high visible opportunity . Unfortunate. Unfortunately, i think hes not in a position of strength to really deliver. So again it has to be ok this visit happens within the context of a graduator consensus that includes other countries. Its not simply the visit alone. He may ask for a million things. Weve seen these visits before. But they go back and cant execute the plan, cant write the check for them. Weve seen this movie before. We need to demand when he comes, whos on board, whats the consensus, whats the roadmap . Thank you. Listen, this has been very informative ajt we appreciate your insights and hope the upcoming visits do create opportunities for us, but we thank you both for sharing your deep knowledge of the situation. We will keep the record open until the close of evidence on thursday. We appreciate you responding promptly. We look forward to seeing you back here in the future. Thank you very much for your testimony. The meetings adjourned. Washington journal live every day. Coming up wednesday morning, tom suozzi discusses the upcoming budget decline and tax reform. Pennsylvania republican congressman tim murphy, cochair of the Mental Health caucus talks about Mental Health and Substance Abuse college. And Health Care Options for members of kong. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal. Join the discussion. Whek our our cspan class room reason website. The improved layout includes short Current Events video. Constitution clips that bring the constitution to life. Social studies lesson plans as well as on this day in history resources. Our search functions allow teachers to search and filter by date, person, keyword, topic and grade level. Our bell ringers video clips are short videos paired with vocabulary questions that make government and politics more accessible to your students. I love the bell ringers. I use them in conjunction with an activity were doing that day as more of like a wrapup. The new website is fabulous. My students use it regularly and its so easy, in fact, that they are working on clipping videos and making questions that they can design and turn into their own bem ringers. Probably my favorite part is the deliberations page. Its a perfectly set hch up ready to go class deliberation and discussion on a variety of topics current and rel vantd today. Join thousands of your fellow teachers around the nation of a member of cspan classroom. Its free and easy to register. If you register now request our free classroom size timeline poster. A graphic display to have biographies of all 45 president s. The Alzheimers Foundation of america estimates that over five million americans live with that disease. The snetd special committee on ageing held a hearing. Witnesses included nbc journalists and womens alzheimerss movement maria shriver