Region Ground Troops. We dont know what the best faco outcome for syria is. It is very, very complicated. We need to help our friends. Lp we need to encourage others to be more helpful. Ok the turks, for example, have a heavy interest in the kurds. T okjft not necessarily the kind of ok interest the kurds want them to have. We need to be careful all the ucw3ni way through but help those who xd want to do what we think would improve the situation without it belonging to us. Ce1t p,. R thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to join in thanking you for holding this hearing to provide some intellectual and conceptual context of the very challenging work that were coco going to have ahead of us in these next two years and i want to thank both of our witnesses not only for being here today but for your Longstanding Service to our nation and uniform. As National Security adviser each of you have contributed q enormously to the readiness and preparedness and performance of our armed forces in prmecting our National Security. Lp i want to focus on an area i ni think you mentioned in your openinup. Qqqj era ju ajip r t hahp hc cyber, a new emerging form of r warfare, perhaps difficult to r imagine in the fays each of you ni served as National Security fafa adviser illustrating how the r nature of warfare really is changing and perhaps each of youfar how you think we need to be better prepared not only in the v and cyber warfare but also in the education of our country as to the importance of this very jf complex area, which is also e1 probably going to be increasing fa importance. I think cyber is of xdw3d increasing importance. Oknr i believe were just touching a surface and that we could profitjf by some innovative thinking lplpok about how we can approach that problem and how we can get othercoco; countries like the chinese, for example, involved in ways thatfbxd and we may have to try several r different things. But the potential danger of cyber not just to us but to those who are practicing it now should enable us to have some i] serious discussions with othesxd countries. I]c discussion within the united far states, too, because the government and some of our industries are not cooperating t jf the way, at least my ni understanding are not cooperating the way which could xd really s uq he ball forward. This is a ball sbt looks different to different people. Do you think that onxrr t hahp hc response, for example, to the robust and vigorous some let me vjl pose that question to both of konr you. Well, i think you need to ok know more about it before you answer the question. E1 it depends who really pushed the attack and what can best what kind of reaction is best to move the ball forward and to give us a better grip on how we can deal with this difficult situation. Mr. Brzezinski, do you have any observation . Xdcfae1 i dont have an answer. T xd i have a comment. W3 this is a hyper sensitive issue boj r terms of what it r involves and the need for secrecy and dealing with it. Basically we have to seek two objectives. Qniq one is toli,eujaaa c predictable immunity against some preemptive actiund that possib ip r tf o that will require major, major probably move us into a field which we havent yet fully sufficiently explored. Rt and the second is to have a sgan preemptive capability. . ;jfr a preemptive capability or abw preempt some action of that sort1 ,goke1t or match some action against us tit for tat instantly. I dont want to be too specific mq about who the enemy might be. 5a. Qu iahp hc i nb7iajjz we need to create public hysteria on the subject. But it certainly stands to reason that there are some countries in the world that u. Y might think that cyber warfare against the United States is the best way to preempt the whole issue, to change the balance of power. Xd i think we are still on the very, very early phases of responding to that. Xd Something Like the United States nxd was in 1943, 44 when we startedjf getting really serious about acquisition of nuclear weapons. I want to thank you. My time has expired, and we barelyx bu 1bup one 4jsj i would justr observation that our private sector probably is 4e;m uu aqc than it should be, and our military at least our t z xdnifar civilian leadership has the opportunity to provide more ok incentives and maybe more ok compulsory measures to assure that we are better prepared in the private sector against thesezaa 9 zerduup ah ecause certainfat kinds of attacks are as much a threat to National Security, fanbs7 whether they are to our xdnini financial system, our utilities, even a Corporation Like sony. I shouldnt say even a corporations like sony who nrw3t oklpdy mua a5 rpahp impact on ourninrt n6e1cr society. Thank you for your responses. coxdnio5 cococr thank you, mr. Chairman. Ikt some observations and conclusions that youve made xdw3 seemed a bit dont reconcile,cjf but well talk about that in a moment. P, you agree with me that whatever chance there is to get a deal s. ] q ar anian Nuclear Ambitions we should take it . Whatever opportunity we have to xl get a peaceful resolution of our satu sue that diplomatically. Q just say yes. I think if i understand the m[ question. nrnico but one thing we shorba get a nuclear weapon. Do you both agree with that . Yes. Yes. That would open up a Nuclear Arms Race in the middle east, kav9 tahua u ja p r t hahp hc whatever problem we have today how do we find a peaceful resolution to iranian Nuclear Ambitions is the primary goal i share with you and everybody else in the world. Do you agree iranians in the past have been trying to develop a bomb not build a Peaceful Nuclear power program. Their past behavi . would sughkau heycg avrg to get nuclear capability. Yes, i tw4 k q e was a phase. Do you agree with 55that congress may actually make xdxdxdxd c pctions but we should have a say about the final outcome Nuclear Review process through Atomic Energy act. nico does that make sense . Let negotiations go forw faw3xd without sanctions. But when a deal is reached, if congress under one, two, ok three session of Atomic Energy act could review it to see if theres a deal. W3 would that be a good outcome . Xd i dont know i dont know that im cnrni equipped4pa. We have in the past approved 24 agreements regar,i g civilian aclear programs between the United States and foreign oomnrlplp powers. All im suggesting is let the xd administration pursue a deal with the p5 plus 1 if they reach i an ao uq9nfaco bring it to congress for our review and approval. C would that be a good check and lpco i think that depe urjr the other partners to the t negotiations. Lp w[gtq ot the only ones n negotiate. Arent going to left france xdw3fajf tell us what to do. W3 and the administration, we dontoknixdxd want to disrupt the last best chance to get a good deal but we dont want to be dealt out either. Ok wed like to have a say. Under at aea ection w3faok fa one, two, three, in the past congress has reviewed deals between United States and c foreign powers regarding e1 civilian programs. X÷ r t hahp hc would that be a provocative kod thing for congress to do, look w33÷9onixdr at the deal after the fact. Well, let me take a stab at ok this. Okr i think youll do it anyway, r dont you . T fa well, the question is should ok i think that depends a little bit on the nature of the relationship with the other coco powers and how much you are informed. E1 i think you will make the judgment yourself if youu . Uznicot fani do it. Fair enough. R lets get back to syria. R this whole conflict started when people went to the streets in syria petitions assad to have a better life within syria. Xrnt do you agree with that . Thats how this all started . B. Anyway. You just made an observation that m kut to say i have dignity. Im not going to let the guy down the street tell me how to we can read and see how life jjp e going fa could be. Thats a good thing. Do you both agree the individual in the world being empowered and knowing the difference between a good life and a bad life is overall a constructive thing. It certainly is for xw assads syria . Can you understand why millions p]tjav ians believe that assads syria is not what they want to pass onto their children . Can you understand why people throughout the world no longer want to live in totalitarian dictatorships for our convenience . Theres a complication here i get. But the big theme sweeping the world to me is that young peopler have had enough living a life that none of us would adopt for our convenience. Id like to help those young people in the process. Do you agree with the president 4 that the goal should be to defeat and destroy isil, degrade and destroy. Destroy what . co defeat, degrade and destroy isil. W3ni that should be the United States goal . Ill speak for myself. I think its importans i agree with that. R if isil kills our people, we lpr certainly should act. I] do you agree with the goal the president has stated, that ni it is in our National Interest ln to degrade aa, destroy isil. Xd i support that. It depends on how we do it. co i dont want us to become the lpq only protagonist and others sit back. Do you agree with that, general . Xd yes. Do you think the strategy in e1 place today is achieving that goal . No. I agree with you, general. Would you like to comment where its working . I dont know if its working. I think its going to take a long time. nrxd were in a situation where the [jrahp ix of motivations in r the region. Cn absolutely two good answers. I jecu got back from the middle co east. Nobody believes this is working. nilp the best solution from my point of view would get an i coalition together, doesnt haveok to be all there, an Islamic Coalition to go on the ground in syria and take isil down in the name of islam saying you do not xd represent this great religion. Cxd were here to take you on and destroy what you stand for. Does that make sense, a good e1 outcome, have . Coalition of the willing within c the religion to go in and take isil down. I]ni if its spontaneously formulated in the region and notwm okxd created by us, yes. It, it wouldnt work. Finally, should we support such an efforugiving capacity to that will where we have r unique capability . Im not advocating 100,000 lpxl american troops go on the groundxd in syria, but i am advocating e zwn the longer this problem goes, t i]co the more likely were going to get hit here. I am advocating americx q1n sit on the sideline and let 300,000 syrians get slaughtered r because its complicated. Im advocating we defeat tui enemy to mankind, not just to islam, and that we get islamic world eoeaged but we provide capacity when they have will,u ÷nr that we would provide air power, special forces, intelligence fa capability. co gentlemen, what i will not accept is the status quo that itfa is okay to not go after these t guys because it is not atb level in the world it is not okay. So my only plea is that you weuld have an open mind to a ground component where as lay a role, not the leading role,i]ok thank you both for your great w3ni service to this country. C would you like to make a response to that tirade. Xdxd tirade. I thought it was very sincere and impassioned. B. W3 i dont think deal sufficiently ok with the complications of the region. E1okfajf they are Different Countries in the region. E1lpxd there are some regimes we can cfa work with, some playing a double game. Xdr last but not least there is i] than we would have wished or probably anticipated. Q otherwise, why is he still there and has not been overthrown. General, would you like to nixdfa make a comment on the exchange that just took place . Xd well, i think becau ]hr hink its important. co syria is a most difficult ok its next to lebanon, its probably the most mixed 9nni terms of physical mixup of c d q uapy area of okjf the middle east. Xd ph i think i understand the e ko i am reluctant sitting here to nrco get into executive legislative struggles, but i think we oumhan to do what we can without r getting ownership again. We have not only the syrians to worry about, we have to worry jf about the turks, too. The kurds are very heavily engaged there. Xz, they have different notions about their own future. Yr t hahp hc do you support a nofly zone ax 55ajj aut u yrian army and population from further destruction and nofly zone to nikoq give people a chance to regroup . I think we i would co÷3wni consider that but i would not nrr use air power to do it. T xdm ok theres some 20 air fields in of them with missiles and keep nblp bombing them. niq in effect ground their air force. I would have no problem doing that. Doctor . Yeah, i probably would have no problem but i dont think that solves the problem, the larger pzo i thank you. I think its been a very impor4wqa5a t senator king. Thank you. Gentlemen, i apologize for xdb. Jfjf coming in and out. C3w i had a meeting with mr. Carter, n who is, as you know, been c nominated by the president to becot secretary. Lp mr. Brzezinski, you mentioned ok something very interesting which suggest ÷aq q uq hreat of terrorism to russia as well as other par3c the world, does this create an opportunity a5 for an alliance with russia to deal with an issue like isis that might be an openin . q ip r t hahp hc more general settlement in syrialpok that we have a common interest in dealing with this terrorist coxdfa threat . Ccnicodb yes. But i wouldnt use the word xdok alliance because that goes too far. ni3wq i think regional accommodation, Regional Cooperation might be in to jeu nd our interest, potentially expose themselves faoeem and it would make it more difficult for russians to sit onniq the sidelines and watch us getting bogged down alone. T r they own part of the responsibility for the problems co in the middle east in t s of previous policies. Much the same applies to china. and i would think that the russians would see this in their own National Interest. One would have to assume thats the case because they have a National Interest. A second question, partially a statement, partly a question. I was delighted to w7 ahva r t hahp hc general scowcroft talk about the threat of cyber. I sort of feel like were kmbn scfland before world war ii ignoring a threat thats right in front of us. We had the sony what if sony company had been New York Stock Exchange or gas pipeline. I have never seen an issue where weve had more warnings and were doing less. I hope you would concur with meed this should be one of pi qqp wie his cyber threat and okt g develop cyber strategies. T yes, i do agree with that. ni were still at step one. I think we need serious analysis on what the charac v aq r t hahp hc problem is, what our i] alternatives to take a3omre q positive role can be and which okq one we should select. n i thought one of your lp interesting suggestions was a kcow3 kind of reprice of mutually rsnc assured destruction strategy of okxd the 50s in the cyber area to create a deterrent not only n to not only a defensive s5a mquiuet could you elaborate on that . Well, i dont i used that n only to show how serious a threat i think cyber is. It is on the par with nuclear ni weapons. It doesnt kill people itself, but it can destroy the sinews oft tpthe country, the banking system. General, i just hope what youfa said today and that analogy is a headline tomorrow, because weve1fa got to weve got to deal with this issue. Ym one other area of concern. Doctor brzezinski, im very Co Interested in developing a strategy beyond ad hoc military intervention to deal with isis xd and the whole issue of jihadists and extremism. ni7d g ncould you talk about what you would think would be the m0u elements of an antiextremists strategy beyond just military t response . Xdok some form of the more moderate and more established states in the regioncok3w in creating viable outcomes that consolida4nu their political evolution and soi] forth. The list has been mentioned. nir its turkey. It could be iran under some arc circumstances. It could be saudi arabia, which r otherwise might face serious cozur t hahp Hc International problems. It certainly is egypt. On a more limited basis, it includes lebanon and jordan, with the latter being close to xd an explosive situation given the number of refugees that flowed into the country. There is potential commonality of interest here, but it should not be focused primarily on American Military action as nr such, though we have the right r of selfdefense and we have the right to deal with threats that become sort of extensive enough r top possibility of destabilizinglpni the region. I] last but not least, if i may say so, we should be very careful not to proclaim our actions are nr somehow or other antijihadist. You used the term. C part of ter] i1 a ur anycot t way are engaged in a religious ok war against them. Jihad means holy war. And so we dont antiextremists might berb . Vconr better term. nijf yes, exactly, something alongni those lines. Qo. N fanatics, in some cases sadists, like those beheadings. Avoid saying were engaged in a okokok struggle with jihadists. That frankly attacks some peopleaa 9 a u ey say is holy war. Thats a very good point. I appreciate thantfa i think the other side of that is we have to be very, very careful in this country to not lump in the muslim world with cot these extremists. Ok i think that also is a do that. T m the west and islam. Thats right. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your service to our country. Xdt xdz3ow3 i apologize for no, sir being here foreq ntire discussion Different Committee meetings going on as usual, it appears. I did have one question i would w3niq like to focus on, perhaps in a little differemut p ive heard in the last 15, 20 that has to do with the National Security strategy that was last presented in 2010. Normally that would be updated r or expected to be updated in 3w 2014. The qdr was presented and kor strategy that was in place. I dont understand, but i was hoping you might give us your nit thoughts a little