When we look at this, what are the kind of things that general allen can do in effect to start to get the tribes to look at this differently, to say, look, our interests are more aligned with this coalition thats being put together than with this group isis. Well, at the National Level i think he will, along with our diplomats, encourage the new Iraqi Government to answer some grievances that both the sunnis and kurds have had for years, actually, since 2004. I think theres some indication that theres reason to believe that could occur. The sunni tribes in anabr. The maliki government was actually, as you might expect them to be, very much against the idea of a National Guard in a al anbar. I think this government may be more open to it. I think that will be one of the lines of effort. Is this something this is for either of you that we can get done in iraq if we dont get buyin from the sunnis . As i said in an earlier question, senator, every campaign makes assumptions. If those supgss are valid, you stay on path. If the assumption is rendered invalid, you deviate. One of the important assumptions of this campaign is that we can, in fact, separate the moderate sunni tribes from the isil ideology. If that proves untrue, weve got to go back to the drawing board. Okay. And you know, we talked about taking back mosul and the effort to do that. And it would involve isf and that were working with the best parts of isf, or trying to. And i guess this touches back again on that same subject, which is getting the sunnis to accept those parts of isf. Is that part of what general allen is going to do ask what general austin is working on . Absolutely, yes, sir. This is again, for either of you, reports you mentioned financially about isis, you know, getting income of 3 to 5 million pir day, sa what weve heard. Theyre the best financed terrorist group. Some of them have tried to put shoe laces and chewing gum together. Thats not the case here. What is the plan or what are we working on to try to cut off their financing . Because the oil theyre selling has to be going somewhere and someone has to be paying them. So, how are we going to do that . Senator, i mentioned this in two previous answers. I apologize. I wasnt here. But an important question. I also noted it in my testimony. That the administration has put together a focus working with our Treasury Department as key interagency department. With all other allies and partners around the world, you mentioned oil. The black marketing of oil. Has been recently a very Significant Resource for them. They have taken small oil fields in syria and iraq. Thats something that we can address through what were looking at on some of our Strategic Focus outside of the Treasury Department. The ransom, the terrorism, all of the ways they finance themselves we have a Task Force Working through Treasury Department to focus on this. That has to be and is a major part of our overall strategy, to cut off that funding and flow of resources. The last thing ill ask is about coordination with our european allies in regards to the people with european passports who can get visa waivers and other things. The efforts that are going into that. Is is that being done with all of our european allies over being that, too, is a major part of the coordination. Combat in iraq. You served as you were in charge of training the iraqi troops. How many years ago was that . 05 to 07, sir. Thats several years weve been training the iraqi troops. Will they fight . Yes, they will fight. If they are well led and believe their government is looking out for not only their best interest but their families. Well, is it will they be encouraged if they felt they had United States air support . Absolutely. I believe you said earlier our First Priority should be isil. Is that correct . I did, senator. I agree with that. No doubt about that in my mind. Dont we have a commitment to encourage the shia, sunnis that we work with for ten years in war and help them establish at least for a time a government that functioned in iraq . Dont we have as a nation some sort of relationship by bond between our two nations, even though weve had difficulties in recent years . I can tell you those that serve certainly field that bond. Ive heard that from people that work there. We owe those who have served and suffered to be successful if we can be successful. And i think we can be successful. Now weve had a lot of questions about syria and there are many complications in syria. But if were going to make isil the First Priority, shouldnt we make that shouldnt we emphasize our relationship with our friends, the kurds and baghdad and the iraqis and begin to work with them to turn the tide . In terms of strategy where you begin, wouldnt the first place to be to push to put isil on the defensive in our ally, iraq . Yes. Well, im a little embedding troops i want your military opinion. But if we embedded a number of special forces with the Iraqi Military and they knew that they are access to intelligence from the United States and air support from the United States, wouldnt that encourage them to be more effective militarily . As i mentioned in my opening statement, there may be times when i believe that would be necessary in order to make the mission successful. I dont think so on a daytoday basis. Well, let me just ask you directly. If theres a military unit in iraq today, they had United States military embedded with them and they were asked to undertaken an offensive operation, wouldnt they be more emboldened and encouraged to know they had americans there with them . Well, in those cases where i would assess the mission to be complex enough where it would absolutely require our expertise forward, ill make a recommendation to do it. We also dont want them to become a dependent on us. And theres a fine line to be drawn there. Well, theyve become a bit dependent on u. S. Air, i acknowledge. I do believe youre correct that they will fight, but they do need i dont think theyll have the kind of morale boost we would like them to have if they dont have confidence that they have air support and that is enhanced with embedded soldiers. Surely thats true, is it not . Im actually eager i would love to find an occasion where we might have Jordanian Special forces embedded and we all have horses. We take a ride. We dont have that. And thats all were talking about down the road. So, you said several times, we need to blunt the momentum. We need to change the momentum on the battle field. Dont we need to start taking back a territory in iraq, those of us who share that view . Yeah, absolutely, senator. But your premise is that we have to have u. S. Embedded advisers forward. I dont share that premise at this point. Did we use em pedestrianbedd when they took the haditha dam back . We did not. How did we assist them . We have advisers in headquarters can use overhead imagery, fullmotion imagery, and direct strikes. Well, would it be in our advantage to sooner rather than later encourage the iraqis to get on the move . Absolutely. But we to want make sure theyre ready as well. How long is it well, you started training them in 2007. And its been a number of months now. I just think were in a position to start taking some advances. I think its necessary and to blunt the momentum. Secretary hagel, briefly, i notice that the house put in their cr 91 billion for the oko funding and the president had asked for 58. Is that money going to be used to in addition to the 550 million for training and equipping the Syrian Free Syrian Army . Is that going to be used for carrying out military operations in the region . Well, i havent seen what the house did. And i think our comptroller may be here. If i might take a second to ask mike mccourt, who you all know, mr. Chairman have to make it real quick because we got four more okay. Because i havent seen i havent seen what the house did. And i dont want to say respond to that until i know can you respond in writing . We can do it for the record. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ill provide it for the record. If we could get that this afternoon, because obviously its important what the administrations position is. We will. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank both of you for your service. You and the president have made a voe strong case that isil, if left unchecked, will be a threat to europe and the United States. And they are attracting recruits from all oefrt world, including the United States. General dempsey, you noted that as we were looking at that map, what looks like territorial gains by isil is really a tribal by tribal overcoming. So, my question to you, general dempsey, is how important is it, even as we are asked to provide the authorization to arm and equip the Free Syrian Army, how important is it that we work with the sunni tribal leaders to enable them to fight off isil in both syria and iraq. Its an integral part of the campaign plan. What exactly are we doing working with the sunni tribal leaders to enable them to fend off isil . The this is this probably requires the inte grait gra integration of many things. I mentioned already that the government has to show they care about the sunni tribes and not just fence them off in al anbar province. Thats one effort. The other line of effort is john allen as he goes forward, using some of his previous relationships to meet with the tribal leaders and begin the formation of a National Guard for al anbar province. And then i think it will be a matter of regional partners who have sunni governments providing some of the maybe maybe most, actually, of the funding and Material Support to that organization. Do you see evidence that this kind of effort is working . That these tribal leaders that have been marginalized or excluded are now going to trust what were doing . I cant make that report yet, senator. What i can tell you is that while isil was making these broad sweeping movements across iraq, many of the sunni tribes completely got discouraged and wanted to be for what was going to happen. They didnt feel they had any reason or capability to stand up to isil. Now that isils been the momentum has been slowed. It hasnt been stopped and it hasnt been reversed, but its been slowed. We did see today, actually, an is unit moving near baghdad, for the fishgs movement south of baghdad. Now all of a sudden were getting tribal leaders reaching out saying, okay, if youre going to be serious about that, well talk to you. So, i think it was a necessary first step that we showed we were really serious. There were some earlier questions, concerns being made about the Free Syrian Army that has been fighting assad and what makes us believe that when we train and equip them that they will turn their attention to fighting isil . Do we have some kind of agreement with the 5,000 of forces, Syrian Army Forces that we are going to vet and train . Do we have some kind of an agreement that says, you will fight isil and youre not going to be fighting assad . No, we do not have any agreements at all because we havent begun the recruiting effort. We dont have the authority to begin. We havent done anything but come up with a concept. Lets say do you get the authority. Then what kind of what kind of terms would you would you put forth to enable us as much as possible . We realize there are risks here to have us conclude that the people we are recruiting are actually going to fight isil and not assad . Well, the important part of an overt program is well actually well link it to a political structure over which we will have a certain amount of influence because of their dependence upon us for supplies, ammunition and so forth. As well as the fact that the regional partners, in particular, i think, as long as theyre if the regional partners believe were just going to ignore assad and just leave him there in perpetuity, then were going to have a problem with building a coalition. But we can, it seems to me, coalesce around the idea that isil is the immediate threat and, therefore, should be addressed first. There is the question of what is assad going to be doing while the Free Syrian Army is busy attacking isil . There are a lot of complexities and things there are. Secretary hagel, we know isil is attracting recruits from all over the world, including from the United States. I note in your testimony that you said that the department of justice, department of Homeland Security, have launched an initiative to partner with local communities to counter extremist recruiting. Can you talk a little more about what this constitutes, about what this initiative is all about . First, thank you for pointing that out because, as i noted in one of my earlier answers, its a very important component of the overall strategy here to deal with isil. Since im not involved in that part of the strategy and the operations, i cant go too deep into how theyre doing it exactly. But the point being is to enlist local communities, Law Enforcement awareness, whos in their communities, whos coming in and out of their communities. Just be more alert of things that are out there that will help our Homeland Security people, our Law Enforcement individuals, be more aware of things that are may be occurring, shouldnt occur, and then also working with our International Partners as we trade information on individuals who are flowing in and out of these countries. We know, as you have mentioned, and marty mentioned and i have mentioned, that there are thousands of europeans that we know are in syria and the middle east. And these people all have passpor passports, which allow them access to our country, to Different Countries in the world. So, its a combination of using those sources and coordinating that effort. Thank you, senator. Thank you. Senator cain. Thank you, senator. Thank you to the testimony today. I believe the president s plan is generally reasonable. But i have one significant point of disagreement that i want to spend some time on. Thats the question of whether the president has the authority, without additional congressional authorization, to carry out the mission as described. Secretary hagel, you have used the phrase war against isil and others have used that phrase and general dempsey you have talked about a multiyear effort and others in the administration have expressed the same concern. I believe very strongly i dont think its just a theoretical or law professor argument that the president does need the authority of congress that he described. The president s power is composed of twopaikco kinds of. The constitutional power is do that, i cant go on offense without congress. Senator obama made the same point clearly in 2007, the president does not have power under the constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual ongoing or imminent threat against the nation within the last two weeks the head of the director of National Director of National Counterterrorism center said, at this point theres no credible information that isil is planning to attack the United States. I understood the president s comments last week and other comments to suggest that isil was a significant threat, a serious threat, a growing threat. In terms of an imminent threat to attack the United States that would trigger the article 2 defense powers, it does not seem to exist at this point. Then there are statutory powers. The white house decided both the 2001 and 2002. In 2001, its important to remember not only what congress authorized but what congress refused to authorize. The Bush Administration approached congress and said, we would like the power to undertake military action against terrorist groups to prevent attacks on the United States. If congress had granted that, it clearly would have covered this threat. But Congress Overwhelmingly rejected that, did not believe in a preempty war doctrine, did not want to have him determine who to go after. Congress narrowed it to have it be with respect to the perpetrators of the attacks of 9 11. Isil was formed after 9 11. There has been an administrative gloss to go beyond the perpetrators of 9 11 to talk about associated forces with al qaeda. Has there been a time when isil has been associated with al qae qaeda . There was but they are are not. They have disclaimed each other. They are battling in some theaters. Could a lawyer make a broad argument, really creative argument that it covered isil . I suppose. Im a lawyer. Ive made creative arguments. But this president spoke at the National Defense university in may of 2013 and he argued against broadening the openended aomf and said what we should do as a nation and what he was committed to was not broadening it but trying to refine it, narrow it and repeal it. I dont know why we would take it and try to broaden it further. Finally, there was the aomf with respect to the iraq. It was designed to topple a government long gone. There have been many governments since the hussein government was toppled. And the administration testified in a Foreign Relation Committee hearing here in may that the 2002 aomf was obsolete and should be repealed. To try to take these two statutory elements and stretch them so broadly i think is a significant problem and it will create a precedent that if we go along with it in congress we will live to regret and possibly regret very soon. That said, i think