To do that . Congressman, again, i dont know what the thought process was six or eight months ago. I do know we have a much better appreciation for the resources of isil. In august i went around to all the regions, i was in transition, to get a better sense of isil. At that time there wasnt a clear understanding of how isis i will was generating revenue. Even in the weeks subsequent to august, we started to have a much better appreciation for the source of isil revenue. We started to go after the Oil Infrastructure and the tankers because we then appreciated how much of an impact that would have. I guess in the same vein, it looked like the french targets, the first targets they hit, seemed to be targets we should have hit right off the bat. Is that all changed now, are we in a new paradigm . I got the monday morning quarterbacking analogy, but are we in a position to hit everything that makes sense from a military standpoint . I can assure you, congressman, that the answer to that question is yes. Okay. The russians are introducing significant air defense capability. What impact will that have on our operations and the ability to do what we want to do . Weve watched that development very carefully. Thats a very capable air Defense System thats been brought in. We have a memorandum of understanding to ensure safety with the russians. I spoke to my counterpart on Russian Ministry of defense on that. I assess today we have the capability to prosecute the campaign against isil, the campaign that we envision, with rush russias presence. Do our pilots have the right rules of engagement if engaged . They do, congressman. Okay. I yield back. Thank you. Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. General dunford, i know youre no stranger to the committee, but welcome in your new capacity as chairman of the joint chiefs. I just want to point out my support for my colleagues earlier discussion on the need for congress to do our job to actually take some action on a new aumf. I understand the president did submit a draft amf earlier this year, we in fact had hearings on it, secretary carter, you mentioned that also. But i think it is vital that we get this right. And the amf is part of that. I think the men and women who deploy in harms way, some of whom may not come back, as was the case with Master Sergeant wheeler, need to know they have not only the moral support but the Legal Backing of our nation. I hope we here in congress would devote equal effort to having this debate and talking about the true costs with regard the sacrifices required. As we get into the deeper discussion of one strategy over another. So chairman, what im concerned with in my line of questions is really going to focus on the global strategy against isil. I think that we have not really discussed in this committee so far other regions why isil is established outside of the middle east, that i believe pose just as big a threat, perhaps even more. Im thinking in particular of libya. Patrick pryor, the dias top counterterrorism official, was recently quoted as saying that about isil that libya is the affiliate that we are most worried about and its the hub from which they project across all north africa. While we have a clear and present danger in sear i donyri iraq, mr. Secretary, please explain how were leveraging the different elements of american power, not just of military, and specifically as much as you can in an unclassified setting, about our efforts to combat isil and libya. Well, it is, as it must be, a global strategy. It has to be in all media, to go back to the earlier question about messaging and cyber. And while i believe we play a central and essential role, its not purely a military campaign. It involves all the other instruments. But we are absolutely necessary. Were not by ourselves sufficient. With respect to libya, we have taken action there in recognition of the fact that because of the continuing political discord in libya, which has not been resolved, obviously were in favor of a political resolution in libya which would lead to decent governance there and therefore not a Fertile Ground for the growth of isil, that has not occurred and therefore it is fertile fground for the spread f isil. Therefore we have to make military action, and i gave you an example already, striking the leader there. It is a focus of ours. Where else other than libya do you see a real threat from isil and their forces . Im concerned that i see the general nodding. Im concerned there is areas where there are failed states that isil is using as a staging base. Some of the areas that immediately come to mind, obviously egypt is one of the areas were concerned. Thats where the russian aircraft was taken down. The Boko Haram Group has sworn allegiance and been accepted as part of the isil movement in nigeria. Weve seen isil in the afghanistan pakistan isil in y. Weve seen elements in jordan. Its absolutely a global dynamic. Thank you. I would like to return to the discussion earlier about the hold force, mr. Secretary, in iraq. You know, looking at our vision for the future of iraq and syria, what political outcomes in iraq do you envision, and whats your assessment of Prime Minister abadi and whether hes making the necessary reforms, and whether those are going to be enough for this whole force . Youre saying its hard to find these folks. Even if theyre not buying into what they need politically, theyre going to abandon that role. What do we need to gain more folks to become hold forces . The political future that were supporting in iraq and that Prime Minister abadi says he supports, ive spoken to him and i believe that he supports, but its difficult to accomplish, is a multisectarian but decentralized iraqi state in which kurds, shia, and sunni can live together under one state, have a reasonable amount of Self Governance, not by isil in sunni territory, but by people who can do a civilized job of governance in sunni territory, and kurds and shia all living together under one state, reasonable decentralization and Self Governance as appropriate, but under one state in that piece. Thats what were seeking. The alternative to that is a sectarian disintegration of iraq. We know what that looks like. Were hoping that Prime Minister abadi can pursue that road, that he has enough support to do it. Were trying to help him do that. But baghdad politics, no question about it, are complicated. And his predecessor was not on that road. Im out of time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here and answering questions. I guess the first thing im not going to ask is, how can you reassure this body that the same administration that left in 2010, no one had the forethought to see isis coming, nobody thought it was important to stay on the iraqi Syrian Border. When general dunford was writing and executing op orders on the Syrian Border in 2003, whats changed yes, maam why should we think that you guys, that the administration is on the right path now . Theyve had a come to jesus moment, theyve changed, and they now understand the significance of the region, and they did not before. You said you lacked the capability, humint and otherwise, since 2010, which youre now regaining, but it wouldnt have been lost in the first place if this administration didnt squander the infrastructure that we had set up in 2010. Why should we trust you, i guess thats the question. Congressman, one of the reasons that i changed the structure of our command in iraq over the last year is because i wanted precisely because i wanted us to have the strength and the insight and the presence of a single senior American Military officer in baghdad. That is Lieutenant General sean mcfarland. And he is now connected each and every day to the front, literally to the front in ramadi, to our various areas where were training Iraqi Security forces. He can talk directly to Prime Minister abadi. He can talk directly to everybody else in baghdad and has complete command over all of our forces in the fight, by the way, in iraq and syria. Ive got a bunch of questions. Im going to out of time. Whats changed . The answer is you, you have changed, and that was the dynamic thats changed this . I think the ability to have people on the ground in iraq is essential to effectiveness there and to have unity the command. We now have that again. And i think thats a good thing. And it does hearken back to another era when we once again had it, as general dunford had it in afghanistan. Its really critical. We now have that. Okay. Second question, if you were to declare not declare war, but we had an authorization of use of military force, would it be against an autonomous state, or would it be against terror worldwide, isis flavor . I kind of like the language in the aumf that president obama submitted, and ill tell you why, because as i told you, my first question, when i was asked to review that was, does it gives you what we need to defeat let me ask it in a different way. Militarily, tactically, are you fighting a state . Im not talking about a philosophy class. General dunford, are you attacking a state or are you fighting a war against terrorism . We are fighting people who are using their goals to justify terrorism. The fact that they hold territory and that there are battle lines in this war, in syria and iraq, there is a behind the enemy lines area, there are lines of departure that you would cross if you were to go fight them . Thats different than al qaeda, would you say . It is. What i was referring to was the nature and the movement. In other words, isil and al qaeda. In terms of where isil is right now, they do in fact hold ground, they have declared a caliphate. That is an aspirational goal of al qaeda. Its something that isil has done today. That does make it a bit different. The fact that they are currently Holding Ground and declared a caliphate. In terms of them actually having and Holding Ground, does that make it harder or easier in that area in iraq and syria, where they actually hold ground, does that make it easier or harder to fight them compared to an al qaeda type enemy . I think in this particular case, isil is particularly difficult because theyre actually using humans as shields in places like raqqah, mosul, and ramadi. Which is no different than al qaeda in previous wars, and iraq in afghanistan . Correct, but isils location, we know where isil is. In the case of al qaeda, they blended into the country in a much different way than isil is. Gotcha. In my last six seconds, still trying to get the jordanians drones, unable to do so because were using chinese reapers instead of ours. I think we ought to fix that if we can. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Ashford. Thank you, and thank you mr. Secretary, and thank you, general dunford. I have asked this before, and i was in the middle east in february, and we were briefed on these various topics, the intelligence mission, the generals efforts to form up a sunni force, and some of the internet issues, the forming up of an internet combative force there in baghdad, i believe, at that time. And, you know, im the home of the 55th air wing is in omaha, and has a significant role in this effort. And i too support the aumf issue, i think youre absolutely right, i think youve mentioned that before, its clear that Congress Needs to act as quickly as possible on this effort. Heres my question, because i was there and was able to talk to king abdul, and he talked about putting the flag in the ground and getting isis out of the cities and all that sort of thing. And we talked about the intelligence collaborative efforts that were ongoing. It was impressive to hear those efforts. Would you say that now, nine months later, h to summarize it, but is there a significant change today from where we were nine months ago in our readiness to achieve these goals that were enunciated nine months ago . Would that phrase be creataccur mr. Secretary . Were constantly looking for opportunities to do more and doing more. We are doing more than nine months ago. I hope nine months from now were doing yet more, because were looking for opportunities. You mentioned jordan. We were with King Abdullah and his people, working once again to identify, and we have found some people in southern syria who want to recapture their territory from isil, and were supporting and enabling them. So were looking to do more. And were looking for proposals. I look to general dunford for them, the president looks to me and general dunford for proposals for how we can do more. And we found them. And ive given you a number of indications of ways that we have accelerated the campaign over the last few months, and well continue to do that. Thank you. I dont believe, at least nine months ago, i dont know if the questions was asked on our group, but i dont believe anybody was talking about being at war in a sense, we are in a war footing, i dont think those words were used then. They are now being used. I mean, at least to me, and maybe to my constituents back in nebraska, that being on a war footing is more significant effort than not. I guess that would be my would you agree with that . I use the word in the simple sense as a reflection of the necessity and the seriousness of this business. Thanks. I would again just say, i think most everyone has said it here today, but the aumf does seem to be the right way to go. So thank you very much. Mr. Kaufman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you gentlemen for your service to our country. I think one question i had, maybe were slow to initiate it, but im very glad right now that were focused on the infrastructure of the country, whether the oil industry, i think the cement industry was mentioned, those sources of revenue that support the regime. But one of the things that was talked about was that we dont want to do this sort of catastrophic destruction of, say, the oil industry, because it would be difficult to reconstitute in the future when isis is gone. However, if i as a gulf war veteran, i sport remember what Saddam Hussein did to the oil industry in kuwait, yet they were able to reconstitute that after the war. And so could you address to me why we simply dont do that sort of catastrophic destruction of the oil industry, to completely cut off their revenue, that revenue source, mr. Secretary . Sure, ill start, and the chairman can pitch in. Theres a balance to be struck there. But the critical thing is intelligence. And there we have had gained the insight that allows us to distinguish to a very large extent that part of the Energy Infrastructure which is being directly exploited by isil from that part that is benefiting the population at large. Thats a distinction that is based upon intelligence and underlies our striking. You may remember an early period, and this does precede the time when chairman dunford took over, but we were striking parts of the Energy Infrastructure which were largely small scale. We thought isil operated refining facilities. That proved not to be very effective. But in the course of continuing to study this infrastructure, weve learned which parts directly affect them, and were striking them, and we think thats going to have an effect on their revenue stream. Let me ask chairman dunford. Congressman, i think we can have it both ways. With the right intelligence and precision munitions, we could construction destruction that will deny isil the use of this infrastructure and yet leave it in a condition that at some point in the future it can be regenerated. Okay. I want to suggest to you that part of the strength of isis is their ability to govern these territories. And part of that is their ability to sustain the economy. And so a collapse of the economy i think hurts their ability to govern and further degrades them. Let me ask a question about the syrian refugee issue. Last july, turkey and the United States agreed in general terms on a plan that would provide a safe zone along a 60mile strip i of northern sealong the turki and possibly syrian Insurgent Forces would Work Together in terms of ground security. Where are we at with this . Because it would seem to me that a lot of the Syrian Refugees would like to stay in syria. And if we could create safe zones for them, that would obviously give them the ability to do that. Mr. Secretary . Thank you, congressman. The idea of humanitarian zones, safe zones, by the way no fly zones, zones of various kinds, are concepts that we have studied over time. And ill start with some of the considerations that have gone into that and why we have judged the costs of doing so greater than the benefits. But let me start with the benefits of a safe zone. The benefit for a safe zone would be a place where people who wished to move there could move there and be protected. Now, one has to be careful but who might wish to move there, because people might want to live where they live, and also we wouldnt want to create a situation in which people were expelled from countries to which they had moved into a safe zone by countries that didnt want them. Thats an undesirable outcome. From a Military Point of view, and ill let general dunford elaborate on this, one would need to anticipate that such a zone in syria would be contested. It would certainly be contested by isil, who would want to prove that it wasnt safe. Possibly elements of the regime who would want to prove its not safe if its on syrian territory. So it ends up being a substantial military operation. The turks, we have discussed things like that with the turks. They have not offered a force of the size that would do that. So let me stop there and ask general dunford to elaborate on that. We have definitely considered those possibilities. General, if you have a brief additional comment. No. Mr. Chairman, i would like that for the record, please. Its a complex subject that would definitely take more time. Mr. Molton. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, i want to thank you for your service, your patriotism, your wisdom, and i appreciate all that you do for us, for national defense. I feel confident to have a leader of the marines at the helm with the new chairman. As a recent iraq veteran, i am concerned about the fact that five years after we left, we now have to go back. And in my new role on this committee, i want to make sure that we get it right this time. And after we do militarily defeat isis, we dont find ourselves putting troops back into iraq again for a third or fourth time. Mr. Secretary, can you just tell us, what is the Mission Statement right now for the operation in iraq . Well, congressman, youre getting to the heart of our strategy. And this is not only the part that is essential, but also the part that makes it difficult to achieve. And that is that we want a victory over isil that sticks. And that means forces that participate in the recapture of territory, and thereafter govern it in a decent manner, so that we dont have a new wave of isil or isil coming back. Thats necessary in both iraq and syria. Those are two different cases. Thats why we pursue multisectarian governance, decentralized multisectarian governance in the state of iraq, and why were trying to find a solution to the civil war. While its important to defeat isil, its important to defeat them in a lasting way. And that is a critical part of the strategy and the reason why we are so intent upon identifying and enabling capable and motivated local forces. Chairman dunford, can you just answer that question, what is general mcfarlands Mission Statement . To degrade and defeat isil. My concern is we havent seen enough integration of the political side here, that we dont have a political plan that underlies what our Political Mission is. Weve heard the need for that from general mccrystal, people who have testified before this committee and written about this problem in the press. Can you speak to that coordination and planning and your confidence that general mcfarland and others on the ground can see a political end statement that will stick and make all their military efforts worthwhile . Congressman, its a great question. Frankly what you said a minute ago about not wanting to go back in five years is something we all feel strongly about, which is why right now i support the objective of a stable, secure iraq that would not be a sanctuary for violent extremism in the future. As difficult as that is, i think thats a fair objective. Clearly there are many difficulties in pursuing that, not the least of which is the iranian influence. Weve been working to enable the abadi government to stand up on its own, to provide the kind of support it needs to be independent of influence from outside actors, particularly the malign influence from iran. The overall objective to me is clear, but the path to getting there is difficult at best. But again, i dont personally have a better idea than to enable the current government of iraq to be successful, to provide the kind of stability and security within which we wont see organizations like isil. It at any point in the future, congressman, i believe that that assumption that we can get there no longer obtains, then i would recommend a completely Different Campaign strategy or Campaign Plan to get out of isil inside of iraq. Are you receiving the support and involvement of the state department necessary to achieve those political ends . I believe we are. Since ive been on the job now, weve had two separate meetings with the department of defense leadership and secretary kerry. And we meet about every three or four weeks on specific issues in the campaign. I think its fair to say that there was recognition, secretary carter and secretary clinton recognized they werent as integrated across the government as we should be. About two months ago we began to meet on a periodic bases to attack specific issues. So far, the oil issue is actually an outcome of the first meeting that we had. And the most recent meeting was on foreign fighters, because that clearly requires the whole government. But again, i will tell you, am i satisfied with the level of integration . No. Were working on that. Am i satisfied that its going to be easy to get after the desired political end state in iraq . No, i dont think so. I think its going to be a hard slog. But the cardinal direction to me is clear. Gentlemen, i have just a couple of seconds left. If we had retained that level of integration after 2009, would we be in the mess we are today in iraq . Its fair to say conditions would be much different. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Gibson . Thanks, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the witnesses being here today. Thanks for your leadership. Im going to be moving in a direction actually similar to mr. Molton. Let me just state up front, strategy, ends, ways, and means, the administration has been under fire in the media to some degree because theres the claim that the strategy is the same. Well, ends may be similar. Im hoping i get clarification that ways and means are changing. Because if were just doing the same thing, i dont see how the end results going to be very different. Vantage point, i had multiple tours in iraq myself, including the culminating one as the g3 Multinational Division north. Im keenly aware of the challenges in many regards, including the military challenges in iraq. Let me say this, i associate myself, i think many of the opening remarks that you made, mr. Secretary, i can attest to. You talked about how there needs to be more sunni inclusion in this state. I was very frustrated that in the period when iraq was unraveling, mr. Malachi, certainly leading in a very corrupt and sectarian way, i didnt feel we were using the leverage, the ways and means, i didnt think we were using our leverage that i thought was fairly significant, given the fact that iraq gets a vote. But we still had leverage i didnt think we had used in the political military sphere. I recognize you are only a part of the process but you are a major player in that process. So i would like to know about three different areas. Iraq first. Whats different in terms of our leverage so that we can bring it to bear, especially given this period where we have a new leader in iraq where i think we can shape this relationship so that we will see some of the things you laid out in your initial testimony that would actually come to fruition . On syria, i completely concur that the political transition is necessary. Im interested to know, we had geneva 1, geneva 2. What fevehicles could we use to get some compelance on that score . I agree the long term issue is cutting off the ability to recruit and fund raise for this enemy who really is fraudulent. They say the advance the cause of muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one kills more muslims than the islamic state. Again, in terms of ways and means, whats different in terms of this strategy that we think that were going to make progress . Ill start, congressman, then maybe the chairman wants to. First of all, thank you for your own service, we appreciate that. To your next point about reconstituting our leverage in iraq, that is precisely the point i was making earlier. And i think general mcfarland is doing that. Thats important both to have insight and to wield our politicomilitary leverage in baghdad. To also agree with you, Prime Minister abadi, as opposed to Prime Minister malachi, gives us more opportunities to do that. Thats very important. We do try to leverage that both in our military ways and in our political, our assistance, our marshaling of international assistance. Mr. Secretary, if i could, i appreciate the comment. What im looking at is, are we using metrics . So that we are sitting side by side with them and being very clear in our communication that the funding theyre getting by the goodwill of the american taxpayer is at risk and they will lose it if they dont show progress on these metrics . Thats the kind of leverage im talking about. Thats the kind of leverage im talking about too. The answer is yes. Lets start with iraq. Chairman . Congressman, you asked about ways. Some of the ways that are different. In metrics, ill answer the metrics one quickly. One example is the specific number of sunni that we think need to be integrated and trained is a metric. Were working that with the Iraqi Government. Thats a recognized objective. And they know our support is contingent upon them meeting certain conditions. In terms of ways, just to recapture some of the things we spoke about today, special Operations Forces in syria is a different way. The Expeditionary Targeting force that will be deployed to iraq is a different way. The foreign fighter initiative that has taken place over the last a couple of weeks between the state department, the department of defense, the cia, the fbi, Homeland Security and so forth, is a different way to approach the foreign fighter challenge. And thats something that over the last three or four weeks, ive seen a much more concerted effort and a will to work that issue, recognizing how important it is. Probably the last one is the more comprehensive proposapproa go after the Revenue Sources is another way that is different from the past. Ixy÷ mr. Gallegos. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary carter, to piece together what it means to have an Expeditionary Targeting force, without obviously going into too much detail and violating op sec, what does this mean . Is this a constituted group of iraqi soldiers . Are we talking special forces . What exactly is this . Tac teams . Is this kind of just thrown on us today, so i think we would like to know a little more, what are you envisioning here . I want to avoid some detail. But this is a force that is either american only, or more likely a mixed force. And to give you two examples, so this doesnt tell you anything about our plans going forward, but the two examples i gave were the rescue of the individuals who are about to be hostages or prisoners, really, who are about to be executed by isil, that was accomplished with kurdish forces, a mix toture of u. S. An kurdish, it achieved its objectives, although it required the sacrifice of one heroic american to do that. Another example of the killing of abu sayeff and the capture of his wife. S so are two examples of exactly that kind of capability. Now, imagine that on a standing bases, being able, when occasions arise, and that really means intelligencefed, to conduct raids like that anywhere in the territory of syria and iraq. Thats what were talking about. And that is, as the chairman says, a new way of achieving our objective there, one of several. And there will be more. Okay. And a followup question, what is the status on ramadi and mosul . Weve been hearing about the iraqis and kurds surrounding and for months working on surrounding and getting closer and closer to ramadi. Still, were waiting for them to move. I worked with iraqi soldiers, theyre just as good as their leadership is. To see them dilly daliing to take these two major cities is very frustrating for many of us, including the public. I would love to have the status of whats going on besides the usual theyre working at it. Congressman, i think i share your frustration, as do the commanders on the ground. They would tell you that over the past several weeks, Real Progress, in terms of on the ground Real Progress and kind of tightening the noose around ramadi has taken place. But its certainly not at the pace that we would like it to move. We would like to reinforce the success that forces have had in ramadi. The progress that has been made over the last several weeks is real but not necessarily significant. Right now the focus is on ramadi. Once ramadi is taken, recently, as the secretary has outlined, if you start thinking north of baghdad, the peshmerga have been successful in the sinjar area. Youre starting to close the noose. Were starting to cut the lines of communication. Mosul is a future operation. I wouldnt fix a date to it about probably sometime months from now as opposed to weeks from now, we would start to see operations in mosul. Thank you. Mr. Scott. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here, and thank you for your service to our country. Certainly i respect you and trust you, if you tell me something, i believe its true. And i know there were some frustrations expressed earlier. I guess as a just kind of a simple thing an a couple of weeks ago this committee was in classified briefings. The next day, the Obama Administration came out and announced what they considered a strategy of sending 60 troops, 60 special operators into syria. But they did not have the opportunity to discuss that with congress because congress was on vacation. That was an absolute lie from the administration. We were in meetings the day before and they withheld that from us. When it comes to those types of issues, it would be helpful if other people in the administration would be honest with this committee. We take this job very seriously, just as i know you two do as well. With regard to isis, isil, daesh, whatever we want to call them, secretary carter, you made it very clear, were at war. Secretary hegel said we were at war. The president disagreed with that assessment at that time. I do think he has come around to that now. But it seems that our Military Lines are conflicting with the goals of the secretary of state who wants a political solution. Political solutions can take decades. I want respect if i submit that the longer we allow isis to grow while were waiting ton that political solution, the harder its going to be to defeat them militari militarily. Secretary kerry testified before this committee that they had been working for years to undermine assad and move him out. Has secretary kerry indicated to you who he would like to replace assad, since they have been working to move him out . I dont want to speak for secretary kerry. But i do know that in those negotiations, dating back now years, the United States and secretary kerry, among others, has discussed with the other parties that have a stake and a voice, how syria would be gov n governed postassad. That involves the naming of names, and i cant repeat them for you. But most importantly, that the structures of the state of syria that have not been associated with the impression of the people, but that can be part of responsible governance in syria going forward, are preserved under new leadership. Thats the key to the political transition. And to your point about the difficulty of that, you bet its difficult, because thats why civil war has been raging there for several years. But in order to have an end to isil on the territory of syria that sticks if i could interrupt, im sorry. So there is no plan for who would replace assad, but it would be just as complex, would you not agree, as finding leadership in iraq that would be accepting of religious minorities . Again, i dont want to speak for secretary kerry, but these are exactly the kind of talks that he is having with the resolutio russians, the iranians, and others, so that there can be something that replaces assad that provides decent governance for the state of syria, which lord knows really deserves it. Do you want to add to that . I think it would certainly be wise for us to engage in honest dialogue with the russians. If there is going to be an effort to remove assad, that dialogue should be occurring at the highest levels among our countries. It is. I want to switch gears for just a second and talk about the recapitalization of our program. Obviously were involved in a tremendous number of countries, a tremendous need for intel, the recapitalizations, and the importance of the jstars. I just want to mention that, if we wait much longer on that, mr. Secretary, were going to end up with a gap in the capability because of the major depot maintenance. I know the Combatant Commanders need the jstars. Its important and were looking at that in our budget, absolutely. Thank you very much. I would ask you use your credibility with the administration and encourage them to be more open and honest with us. Mr. Orourke. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, to go back to some comments and questions that you answered earlier. If we are in fact at war, how will we know when we have won . The destruction of isil entails their expulsion from any territory they claim to occupy, and their destruction elsewhere around the world, including their various branches and so forth. Thats whats needed. So as long as isil is in iraq or syria or libya or afghanistan or anywhere else in the world, we will still be at war . I believe that in todays world, these threats areg dvz difficult to confine to one place. And that is the reason why we have to go there and why we have to go to syria and iraq and strike at it and strike at other places where it is. Its in the nation of todays world, mobility among peoples. You see that underlying this. And above all, mobility of information, which can radicalize people who have never gone anywhere except on their keyboard. I think its important, if we are at war, to define in the clearest, most precise terms what victory looks like with 14 years of afghanistan in mind, with the fact that weve been in iraq off and on since 2003, or you can take it all the way back to 1991, to keep us out of perpetual war. I think its really important that we explicitly define the objectives and the outcomes for which were fighting. I think we owe that to our service members. I think we owe that to ourselves. I would hope we can come up with a better definition of victory and success. I appreciate that you acknowledge the importance of political and diplomatic components of a solution in iraq or in syria. But im interested in your response to a question asked by mr. Gibson in terms of conditionality. Theres so much in those countries, well just use iraq as an example, that we do not control and cannot control and will not be able to predict when it comes to the political outcomes. And so when we say that were going to set conditions on our aid, when we say were going to set conditions on our military presence, do we really mean that . Is that a viable threat, will we really walk away from iraq if the government there doesnt meet those conditions . I think its an important question, because if in fact we will not, then i wonder what the motivation is for the Iraqi Government to take the very important and very difficult steps to integrate these other minorities, whether they be kurds or whether they be sunnis, into a functioning government, decentralized or otherwise. First of all, with respect to the first part of your question, your point exactly gets back to the military and political going together, because in addition to the only end state that involves the lasting defeat of isil is one in which there are local where there is local governance that cannot be once again supplanted by isil. Thats why the military and the political go together. Thats at the heart of the strategy. Thats why enabling, capable, and motivated forces who can make victory stick is the other part of the definition of victory, critical to the strategy. With respect to the leverage, ill start there in baghdad, but the leverage involves offering to do more for those who are pursuing the same objectives, and withholding our support from those who are taking a different path or not going down the path theyre supposed to. So we found alternatives. We found people who will act if the people that were dealing with are not capable of that, because we have to act. And we will find such forces that are capable. Very quickly for general dunford, what does isis want us to do and how does that factor into our strategy in confronting them . Isis wants us to be i am pet uwith us impetuous right now. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Nugent. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for being here today. You obviously have a tremendous task, from everything you said, the diversity of what youre trying to accomplish. I think what you heard from members here is that we have some concern about whether or not we have the right strategy in total. But needless to say, russia just added a different dimension by putting forward their advanced surface to air missiles. How does that change, if were talking about nofly zone along turkey, how would that change that dimension for us . Do they gain a Higher Ground on us at this point . Congressman, in view of the fact that the chairman just spoke yesterday to his counterpart in russia, let me ask him to answer that. Congressman, under the current conditions, you know, we have a memorandum of understanding with the russians that ensures our safety in flight. Again, were not complacent. We dont take it for granted. Its been in place for over a month and the russians have complied with it. I spoke to my counterpart as recently as yesterday to ensure that the russians reaffirm their commitment to the memorandum of understanding. But youre asking a hypothetical scenario, for example where we to have a nofly zone, and by then having a nofly zone, we declared war against syria, because thats what we would be doing if we declare a nofly zone, particularly with accompanying Ground Forces to protect refugees, as has been suggested, then we can expect that would complicate then the situation inside of syria. Thats a hypothetical. Today im confident that we can prosecute the campaign against isil. If we were at war against syria and russia was supporting syria, the presence of the sa21 clearly complicates the situation. It doesnt mean we cant deal with it, but it complicates it. I appreciate that. Going back to november 7th, the former undersecretary of defense policy argued that putting cards in our hand in that syria so the outcome of any political negotiations u. S. Interests. Condoleezza rice and robert gates argued in the wall street journal that we must create a better military balance of power on the ground if we are to seek a political solution acceptable to us and our allies and general, you testified on october of 2015 and you said i think the balance of forces right now are in assads advantage. So my question is does that still hold true and if thats so what steps should we take to change that advantage into our advantage . When i testified in october, congressman, we didnt have any capable Ground Forces to prosecute the campaign inside of syria. Since that time weve we have developed a relationship with the Syrian Arab Coalition. When i say we didnt have any effective Ground Forces, the ypg was there, we provided by some limited support to them, we had other small numbers of forces that went through our original train and equip but we didnt have a credible force that could conduct offensive operations. Since that time we have now a force that has conducted successful offensive operations most recently in a location with a Syrian Arab Coalition but part of a broader relationship with the ypg that probably runs north of 15 or 20,000 forces so we have sufficient forces to conduct offensive operations in syria. Does that change the balance . It changes the balance. It changes the balance but i would not say today that we have the the correlation of forces is in anything other than assads favor in terms of protecting what he holds dear which is the west part of his country and hi regime. He has the capability to do that with the support provide by russia and iran. As we move forward, are we going to be in the same position . I think youve heard this echoed before. If we pull out of iraq again, are we going to be in the same position are we find ourselves today or are we going to keep a residual force in iraq to assist with the train and equip mission of the iraqi forces. Do we see us doing that . Congressman, all i can talk about is the recommendations that i would make at the time and i think we have enduring interest in the region. We have an enduring interest in the stability and security of iraq and any recommendations i make subsequent to the defeat of isil would reflect those interests. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. I think we have five more member members. I think we have five more minutes. Are yall okay with that, mr. Secretary . Let. Let me just check, im traveling somewhere and have a how am i doing . Im sorry, mr. Chairman, theres another thing i need do. Thats why im asking. But lets keep going. If i need to leave chairman dunford just indicate head would be willing to stay longer. Thats taking one for the team. Ms. Gab board . Thank you, mr. Chairman, since our policy to overthrow the Syrian Government of assad has brought us really into a potential direct headtoHead Military conflict with russia i have some important questions along this line. Approximately how many Nuclear Warheads does russia have aimed at the u. S. And the u. S. Have aimed at russia . Congresswoman, i will give you those precise numbers as best we know them. Im confident we have a strong, safe, secure and reliable deyou are the rent but its true that russia, like the soviet union that precedes it has a Massive Nuclear arsenal. And it would be accurate to say both of our countries have the capacity to launch these Nuclear Weapons within minutes . We do. Ive seen pictures, films and images from nagasaki and hiroshima, i know you have as well and i presume you would agree with me that nuclear war would be devastating to the American People. The amount of suffering that it would cause and the devastation to our families, children, community, planet, future generations is difficult to imagine. So im wondering if theres been an assessment on how many lives would be lost and the damage that would be done if this nuclear war between our two countries were to occur. Congresswoman, ive been doing this for a long time, including during the cold war and working on Nuclear Weapons since the beginning of my career. And to answer your question, there have been estimates made right along when there was the soviet union, then in russia and the its a very simple story. It is as you say, nuclear war would be an absolutely unprecedented and catastrophic result in catastrophic destruction. That is why deterrence is so important. Thats why prudence in the field of Nuclear Matters by leaders all over the world is so essential. So the fact that we have our f15s patrolling the turkey syria border with that primary airtoair combat operation, theres no airtoair combat against isis, they dont have air assets so i can only presume that the purpose of these planes would be to target russian planes. Is that accurate . Congresswoman, let me answer the point you began with. We have a different view, a very different view from russia about what would be constructive for them to do in syria. We have that disagreement. We cant align ourselves with what theyre doing but were opposing and want them to change what theyre doing in syria. Thats not the same as the United States and russia clashing. I think the chairman and his counterpart in russia just talked yesterday about making sure we didnt by accident have any incident involving u. S. And Russian Forces so we have a sharp disagreement there but thats not the same as blundering into an armed situation with one another. But that sharp disagreement sorry, i only have a minute here. That sharp disagreement with two diametrically opposed objectives, one the u. S. Seeking to overthrow the Syrian Government of assad, russia seeking to uphold the Syrian Government of assad creates that potential, that strong potential and strong likelihood for that headtohead combat or that head to Head Military conflict and russias installation of their antiaircraft missile Defense System increases that possibility of whether its intentional or even an accidental event where one side may shoot down the other sides plane and thats really where the potential is for this Devastating Nuclear War far something that could blow up into something much larger. I have to correct something, congresswoman, that you said, which is that i would characterizes russias perspective differently. And by the way, what they say and what they do are two different things. What they said they were going to do is fight isil and pursue a political transition. And not support assad endlessly but instead try to pursue a political solution. What theyve done militarily what theyve done is support assad. Thats our source of disagreement. Were having that disagreement and trying to get them to come around. That is what secretary kerry is doing to a more reasonable and constructive position but at the same time as the chairmans efforts indicate we are and the russians agree with this intent upon avoiding a accidental situation in the air oversyria. I thank you, gentlemen, for the sacrifices you make to help defend this country and its appreciated. Mr. Secretary, you said we will win, we will defeat isis. You said that here today and i want to ask general dunford in that strategy, what is our center of gravity really here . . This fight . The center of gravity for isil . Yes, sir. In my assessment its the existence of a caliphate. Critical capabilities include their narrative so those are the three primary sources of strength full but to define defeat what i would say what we want to ensure is that isil doesnt have the capability to conduct external operations that present a risk to the American People we are going after their critical capabilities that is the existence of the caliphate. And when i talked about foreign fighters, thats a piece of this manpower issue meaning were keeping them from having the manpower necessary to fight. I understand. We talked about the coalition and 60 some nations, france has been part of the coalition but theyve stepped up 60 nations of them, some of them may be contributing