And that triggers the defense like the state defense, iad and others, but the resources they have, it would be is it necessary, in your view, that these agencies be robustly funded in addition, because without them you could have a military victory and, essentially, just wait around because theyll come back because you havent put the politics and capacity. It is necessary. I had the defense ministers of the Key Coalition contributors here to handle a sort of while ago. We went through as we always do the campaign, their role, including the moves to envelope, which weve now taken. Their biggest concern with campaign, at this point, in iraq is exactly the one you knew, namely, is the political and the economic lagging so far behind the military that theres going to be an issue once moezle once isil is ejected from muzzle. If i may take a Political Part in the stabilization reconstruction part. On the Political Part, this is a question that recurs actually everywhere we go. Everywhere we enable forces to defeat isil, the people who live there say thats whats going to happen afterwards, thats something we dealt with falluja, all complicated all different. Theyre going to be different, too. My understanding and thats just not mine with the chairmans and the commanders there and also the president who are contributing forces, and the isf from the south, for the envel e envelopment and control. Our understanding with them which they both adhering to is that neither of the forces that will participate in taking them, should be a hold in government force, they should be local police its mixed Ethnicity Center and governor of the province is the one theyre working with and were working with. Thats a daily exercise through general towns end and for us to keep everybody aligned and focus on the job at end, which is defeating isil. With respect to stabilization reconstruction, we dont know what the collapse of isils control of remote will look like. Weve had a different experience in different cities. And obviously no one wants to seek the street to street fighting, but you dont know. There could be a larger number of refugees and were preparing for that, not usaid, you mentioned u. S. Government funding, thats essentially. I should say, by the way, thats one of the things i ask our coalition partners. If you dont want to make a military contribution or its problematic for some historic or political reason for you to make a contribution, a check is good. Essentially you can conduct operation that the real long term effort is Political Economic relief, refugees support, et cetera, those are funds outside of the policy defense. Comprehensive approach to all of requires relief not just for Public Defense spending but other federal agency, right . It is. Northern command is critical to defense another United States but without a robust of homeland security, without adequate then you can be performing peak efficiency, but the job would not get done; is that right . That is true. We count on their support, we support them as well. Its the whole of government element, defeat of isil. Do you concur from your perspective. I do, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman. Let me start off by saying we have rules in this committee, were to get the written statement, 48 hours in advance. We didnt get both of yours until 8 30 this morning. Now, we did a lot better with the chiefs last week, in fact general was in 72 hours in advance. I just think its a good idea to pass on to others before they come in that we really do need to have that to conduct a hearing thats meaningful. When general was here to describe whats needed, he talked about sufficient stable predictable funding in your statement, secretary carter, you let the word sufficient out and im concerned about this, back during the Clinton Administration when they were actually trying to cut 400 out of the budget, we in this committee and sitting in this dice here were able to put 100 back then. General milly said last week, and i think he said it best, he said the only thing that more expensive than deterrence is actually fighting a war. The only thing more expensive than fighting a war is losing a war i guess the question is for short answer, is are defense funding levels kept pace with the reality of our environment out there . Senator, i dont believe they have and thats why weve arctic rated an increased increase requirement and well continue to reinforce those areas that we identified for 17 for 18. Well turn it over. I appreciate it that. Do you agree . I want to say i agree with general dunford and what the chief said as well, insufficiency belong with instabilities, im sorry we left that word out. The point they were making that i would strongly echo is the effects of eight straight years of ending a fiscal year. That is has had a serious effect. Weve tried to manage through it. Weve done our best. Thats just not weve been in support of Nuclear Triad and had stated the Nuclear Mission is deadlock of security. Today were spending about 3 to 4 of our budget, however, the longterm plan shows were going to move up within the decade or some time in the decade to 6 to 7 . The question i would ask is, you know, general dunford actually modernizing their nuclear weapon, we know whats happening in north korea, you think we should accelerate this that we can reach this 6 to 7 much earlier like now. As you know, many of the programs is not just a function of accelerating its how much time it takes for development. Im confident that having looked at this very closely, the path were on and timing of introduction of new programs is about right. It balancing both the budget but more importantly operations for those systems to be introduced. I think what youre saying, even if you had more now you could not spend it wisely, you would need it. The course that were on is adequate, in your opinion. Senator, thats exactly my assumption. All right. Thats fine. I was in ukraine after their particle men tri elections, ive never seen they were at that time, how proud they were for the first time in 996 years not having one communist in parliament, and yet, as soon as that happened, people started killing the ukraines and the and i would ask you this, secretary carter, is deterrence of russia in europe a policy priority. It absolutely is, thats why we quadrupled the insurance initiative. I would answer the question, why are we not providing the system. That is still on the table. Its been on the table for quite some time. More than i just met with my ukrainian counterpart a couple of weeks ago, great guy, by the way, who has been doing this for a long time and is weve got to work with. We have training have training now. Weve moved from their national guard. I dont want to be rude, mr. Secretary, my time is just about expired. I want to know let me ask you, general, durnford, if we were to change the policy, what type of weapon would be right now . Youre both fully aware in our Defense Authorization bill we address this issue, we support lethal defense weapons . Critical capability ukrainians have identified, include support. Do you agree with that . Thats the capability, yeah, i agree with that. Thank you. I want to join for your very forthright answer it is to our questions here. General dunford, is there any question in your mind, any doubt that russian planes were responsible for attacking the United States the u. N. Convoy that was trying to deliver aid to aleppo . Sir, my i dont have the facts. What we know are two russian aircraft were in that area at that time, my judgment would be that they did. There were also some other aircraft in the area that belonged to the regime at or about the same time, so i cant conclusive say that it was the russians, but it was either the russians or the regime. Well, it sounds to me like youre saying that their responsibility was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. Senator, theres no doubt in my mind that the russians were responsible. I dont know whose aircraft actually dropped the bomb. I would associate myself with the comment you made earlier, yes it was the russians thats responsible. Which is a war crime. Im not asking for your legal judgment knowing that you would probably disclaim your expertise as a lawyer, but you would agree with me as a layman, as a military person that that act constituted a war crime. It was an unacceptable atrocity, senator. Would you agree with secretary kerry in intending that what ought to be done, is a grounding of all aircraft in certain areas of syria, including that one. I would not agree that Coalition Aircraft ought to be grounded. I do agree that Syrian Regime aircraft and russian aircraft should be grounded. Would you agree with, apparently, the growing strain of thought administration that the syrian kurd should be . Were in deliberation about that. We have provided them support. They are our more most effective partner on the ground. Its very difficult, as you know, managing a remgts between our support for the Syrian Democratic forces and our turkish allies were working very closely to come up with the right approach to make sure that we can conduct defective and decisive operations and still allay the turkish concerns about the kurds long term political prospects. If those concerns could be allayed and even if they cant be allayed, would you agree that arming the syrian kurds presents an opportunity for us as a military option to be more effective in that area. Sir, i would agree with that. If we would reinforce the, that would increase the success. In terms of the russian responsibility for what you have absolutely correctly termed an atrocity war crime in that era what can kwlieUnited States do . What are some of the military options that the chairman asked you about . I would prefer to talk to you about military options that might be being discussed as future options the president may have. I think right now managing the russian problem is largely a political diplomatic problem and thats what secretary kerry and the president are dealing with. Let me turn mr. Secretary, you mentioned that there were three areas, the fiscal, the over regulation or micromanaging and much needed reforms, as you characterized them. Could you give us your priorities as to what those reforms would be . I have spell i have a number of concerns, which i spelled out in great length in letter to the committee and i really look forward to working with you to resolve that. There are a number of them. Theyre serious concerns that i have for provisions in the bill and id like to work all of these, i think, where we have common intentions, work them to a place where i can support an mdaa that the president would sign. Thats what i would like to get with you all by the time you return november. Im just about out of time, this topic is immensely important because it involves effective use of resource. We talk a lot about what the levels of resource should be, managing them effectively is very important. As to the syrian conflict to both of you, i dont need to emphasize how desperately serious, the humanitarian catastrophe is in syrian, the chairman has rightly referred to the numbers killed and displaced is as secretary rightly termed it, probably the biggest humanitarian catastrophe since world war ii and the United States bears the responsibility to use its military forces to stop the bloodshed and the needless and senseless killing of innocent civilians there. So thank you very much for your testimony today. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i would share that thought, the situation in syria is a colossle disaster. Do not believe it had to happen. I believe a wide statesman could have forseen some of the difficulties were facing today and we should have been more cautious and careful in our declarations of how we expect syria to develop over the years. It hadnt developed like president obama projected and disaster has been the situation. With regard to this sequestration issue. Mr. Secretary, ive tried to contain spending on all our accounts. Ive come to believe that we have to have more defense spending and weve exceeded sequestration, i guess, for the last two years. But i guess my question to you is senator mccain has proposed an increase in defense spending, all the items that he proposed are things the Defense Department have said they need. Is it your position and is it the president s position that we will not spend that additional money for the Defense Department, unless, at least, an equal amount of money is spent on the commerce department, the epa and other government agencies. Well, speak for myself. What i cant support and wont support is anything that moves towards instability and that means towards sequestration and that means a way from bipartisan ship. We submitted a budget that was consonant with the bipartisan budget agreement. Eight months i understand. Few months into the bipartisan budget agreement. And and i dont control this. I simply i understand that. So what hes saying in leading the democrats and theyre saying not only do we have to bust the budget for the Defense Department. We have to bust an equal amount for nondefense spending, thats the problem we have today. Thats why we dont have a bipartisan agreement. We go on to the next subject. There is if i may say so, there is a bipartisan budget agreement. Thats what we submitted our budget in accordance with eight months ago. Another avoid Government Shutdown and the leadership of the president and determination compromises have been reached. I wish we could have supported the defense without going further. Mr. Secretary, secretary rums field, secretary gates and you have criticized our allies in europe about their unwillingness to even meet their minimum commitments to defense. I suppose you still believe they should meet those minimum standards, do you not. Yeah, absolutely do. And you said that before, but this european reassurance initiative, are european official told me, why did not the United States demand that europe increase their defense spending at the same amount were increasing our defense spending for europe in the european reassurance initiative. Well, all i can tell you is, yes, i am in the long tradition, it goes back before why didnt you not tell the europeans . I did. We dont have a commitment from them to match that amount of money, do we is this. Well, its complicated. Because each of them has made a contribution to european reassurance. But in terms of aggregate spending, they have a commitment, which not many of them have met, senator, but a few have. 28 countries are at the minimum. 2 of their gdp. Important major countries in europe arent even doing that. And thats unacceptable. It means that youre too many european militaries have made it themselves incapable of independence. Ill just say this military activity. For the last 8 to 12 years theyve continued on this and weve said it and nothing has happened. Its time for something to happen from europe. Let me ask you, really, about the syrian situation. Its such a disaster. Weve got hundreds of thousands of dead, 6 million refugees and i dont see an end in sight on general dunford just said assad is not leaving any time soon. Five years ago president said assad has to go and is going. He did not go. And this is all a result of that. So now were making some progress, i understand, against isis. What kind of agreement, what kind of end do you see, mr. Secretary, for this disastrous conflict. What do you foresee and whats our goal. Were making progress in the campaign in iraq and syria. No im asking what is the goal of the United States of america for syria . The goal of United States policy in syria is to end the syrian war, its been that for a long time. And that means an end to the violence there, and also a political transition from assad to a government that includes moderate opposition and that can run the country. Our approach has been political the problem is, let me ask you this, it seems to me that the problem is that with our support isis is being damaged, but theyre not utterly destroyed. Its some sort of Peace Agreement is reached, some sort of cease fire and the United States and others reduced their presence there, can you assure us that i isis, the toughest meanest group in syria wont be able to destabilize any government that might be put together. Our campaign is no not on the table, that is about the russian activity, syrian activity in our counter campaign, we are conducting a campaign and we are conducting the right were making progress in it and and i dont think secretary kerry is trying to do. Again, as we sit here today, its very problematic about what hes trying to do is exactly what youre calling attention to, namely, to end the humanitarian disaster occasioned by the civil war in syria and to promote a political transition. Let me wrap up. My time is almost up. And theyre not exercising. I believe we could have done a better job with safe zones. Im worried about the area in iraq. I talked to you previously, personally about it. We need an active american policy, a leadership in the world, but we cannot establish all these governments and run them in assure how theyll come out in the end. We cant occupy these countries for decades to try to assure that. Thats just not realistic. A wide statesman would have seen the danger in syria. A wide statesman would have seen the danger in libya. A wise statements should have been what could have happened and except for 30 million egyptians going to the Public Square and driving out the muslim brotherhood, we could have a disaster there. Weve got to be more realistic in our Foreign Policy. Weve got to know what we can do to effect positively the world and what we cannot do. And were not able to ensure democratic governments throughout this region of the world and were now facing coloss colossal, humanitarian disaster and its been bubbling for a number of years and its no easy solution to get out of it. I wish it were, but it was not. An observation about the budget, a year and a half ago we had a bipartisan agreement on the budget number. And then allocations were made to the Appropriations Com