Transcripts For CSPAN3 House Foreign Affairs Hearing On Syria Study Group Report 20240713

Dealing marijuana three times on a street corner. I was not a supporter of it. The kmie is meeting today. The testimony on the findings and recommendations in the Syria Study Groups final report given the timing of this hearing, well have is the discuss the ramifications of policy changes in syria and have the study Group Recommendations instill address our challenges there. I thank our witnesses for appearing today and without objection i move to move the full report into the record. I now recognize myself. Thank you r very much for testify iing today and for your work on the final report of the Syria Study Group. Your report is a thoughtful, informed overview of the conflict and provides pragmatic recommendations for how american policymakers can protect interests and stabilize syria. Its well known that President Trump does not like to read, but i wish he has skim med the executive summary of your report before his recent phone call with president erdogan. Your assessment notes the liberation of territory does not eliminate the threat to the United States. It also notes the population is a longterm challenge that is not being adequately addressed. That iran continues to entrench itself in syria and show few signs of divergence. The United States underestimated russias ability to use syria as regional influence. The turkish in northEastern Syria would represent a major setback to u. S. Aims in syria at a new crisis for the u. S. turkish relationship. And maintains to protect core u. S. National security interests. In the ten days to withdraw forces in syria and the invasion of the region, your assessment has, in fact, sadly born out. Rare ly has a Foreign Policy decision by the United States president yielded this many disastrous consequences this quickly. Most importantly, President Trumps irresponsible choice makes the American People less safe. The chaos in syria has allowed hundreds and like usually thousands of fighters and supporters to break out of prison. Turkish forces are deliberately releasing detainees held and isis has already tran suggestioned to insurgency and will utilize the sanctuary for organizing and inspiring external attacks. Tragically like other aspects of the assessment, in the coming weeks and months. The president forced forces to reach an agreement with Bashar Al Assad allowing soldiers and troops to expand their presence in northEastern Syria. Yesterday are russia media circulated video showing them taking over recently abandoned u. S. Bases in the region. This outcome will also benefit iran. By reenforcing to be an ally. Its unclear how allowing ter ran to fortify a bridge to the mediterranean enabling it to threaten our ally israel is consistent with the maximum pressure policy on iran. Its unclear how seed iing the field sports the administrations Great Power Competition strategy. The president s rash decision also put soldiers in danger. They fired artillery at the base. They cut the main highway in syria effectively isolating soldiers. Both incidents placed american troops directly in harms way or were a direct result of President Trumps choice. The president justified his decision by claiming hes reducing our presence and terminate iing the b endless wa. But the administration sent 1800 troops to saudi arabia. Secretary of defense note d on friday that 14,000 american personnel have been deployed suns may. These deployments include early warning, maritime, patriot air and missile defense, b52 bombers, and i support the objective of this increased troop presence to deter iran. But the president s claim hes reducing the role in the the middle east is simplely a lie. And the American People see right through it. Situation in syria is tragic because it could have been avoided with real diplomacy. The american presence in syria was not an bdless war, but a limited deployment, one of notable successes of policy in the middle east. But President Trump threw it all away, yielding u. S. Leverage, putting american troops in danger. Undermining credibility, removing pressure on isis, and portraying partners. To counter isis with american support. One that most republicans share, the biggest blunder of his presidency and we are witnessing ethnic cleansing by turkey, the destruction of a reliable ally in the kurds and reemergence of isis. Cheney said the choice was impossible to understand. Rubio claimed the damage tour reputation in National Interests will be extraordinary and long lasting. And President Trumps former ambassador to the u. N. Argued the kurds were instrumental in our fight against isis and syria. Leaving them to die is a big mistake. I could go on. That one decision could unite democrats and republicans on syria policy and yield this result says a lot about President Trumps capabilities as commanderinchief. The current unrest epitomized the confused and morally bankrupt approach to the world. I finally would urge my republican colleagues to remember that seyria is snot th only example of the president abandoning a partner in the the face of an aggressor. President trump withheld 391 million in congressionally appropriate Security Assistance it ukraine, a state at war with russia in a conflict thats killed 1,000 people as part of an effort to compel the government to dig up dirt on his political opponent. That behavior should unite us all in rejecting a Foreign Policy that put personal ambition over National Interests and subtlied our nations honor and credibility. I look forward to witnesss testimony. And a conflict that led to the deaths of 600,000 people and helped the people build a better future, one that is not dictated by Bashar Al Assad, by russia and by iran. I yield to mr. Wilson. Thank you, chairman, for calling this important and timely hearing. Tragically, the United States syria policy has been a failure from the start. Its been example of failure at every point. It was never enforced to the kurds in the recent days. I believe that our failure in syria is far greater than a strategic misstep. The syria policy over the last eight years represents a deep moral challenge to all of us. How could we standby while a brutal regime massacres people. We sit here over eight years after Bashar Al Assad butchered the people using poison gas still trying to figure out what our policy should be. But its not just us. Its the entire International Community that is complicit in the privations of the assad regime and backers in iran and russia. The international system, as we know it, was founded in the aftermath of the humanitarian horror in the holt cost. Its falled as well to prevent the very tragedy that it was supposed to act as a bull work against. Instead of promoting liberty, they are exploited to cement oppression. Developments over the past week have only underscored the importance of the work that our esteemed witnesses here today have spent so much time. I was deeply disus apointed by the administrations decision to withdraw u. S. Troops from northEastern Syria and effectively green light a turkish incursion, putting our kurdish allies in great peril. The study group warned against such a withdraw and outlined the potential decisinegative conseq that we are witnessing today. Like the chairman, im concerned about the resurgence of isis on the heels of the withdrawal. The withdrawal creates dangerous breathing room for isis elements in the region, which can ultimately endanger American Families back home from terrorist safe havens overseas. In order to prevent them from coming here, we must fight them over there. Our force of 1,000 american soldiers in syria was a minuscule percentage of all American Military forces in uniform today. But the role of this small contingent was outsized. They helped protect the world from the dangers of isis establishing safe havens to threaten American Families. This was extremely Cost Effective investment. It seems to me the only real winners of our withdrawal are russia, iran, turkey and the assad regime in addition to the isis terrorists. But the bigger problem is the withdrawal could have consequences in virtually every other arena of u. S. Foreign policy in a single stroke, we have sadly undermined u. S. Krid blt everywhere. The move solidifies a concern and fear that america is receding from the world stage, enable iing the forces of tyran everywhere, which has not been the president s policy of peace through strength. The reseem backed by russia and iran continues its barbaric assault on syria as we speak. Reports have over the past few days indicate that russia has intentionally bombed over a dozen hospitals in the province. Russia clearly is not a partner in syria, but an adversary. How many must be killed until we take action to stop this killing machine . Theres no solution for syria with assad in power. And as the chairman has indicated, id like to conclude by saying that we know america has been the moral actor on the world stage. We have always aimed to do the right thing. And the people of the world know that. They know the values have stood for. Theres no substitute for American Leadership to reserve peace through strength. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, mr. Wilson. I now will recognize members of the subcommittee for a oneminute Opening Statement, should they choose to make one. Thank you, mr. Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member. I dont object to withdrawing u. S. Troops in syria. I object in how that was done. Because of Donald Trumps impulsive decision with no planning and no coordination, we now have isis terrorists that have been set free in syria. We have Turkish Forces slaughtering allies and then we have Russian Military forces gleefully taking over u. S. Military facilities. If you look at Donald Trumps Foreign Policy, many of his actions have benefitted russia from attacking nato to blocking military aid to ukraine, to now his decision in syria. I think its appropriate for the American People to ask the question of when it comes to vladimir putin, why does it always seem like donald trump bends the knee. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As a former chairman of this subcommittee, let me just say that the situation in syria has been truly a tragedy to watch unfold. Over the past now eight years, we have witnessed just how brutal Bashar Al Assad truly is and the barbaric lengths hes willing to go to hold on to power. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed and millions forced to flee. Creating one of the worst crises today. The civil war also created a vacuum for groups like isis and al qaeda to flourish, while opening a doorway for iran to advance its goal of regional further enabling it to threaten b key ally in the region, israel. Defeating isis and iran as well as supporting israel remain Critical National Security Priorities that i believe most americans support. So i look forward to discussing the report, especially in light of the changes in our syria policy since it was released and how we can move forward to accomplish our objectives. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Sherman, youre recognized. Its not surprise iing the bipartisan majority has rejected this action by the president a vote to just half an hour on the floor. This is an unforced r error. We saw northeast syria stable, our casualties contained. Now the kurds are subject to slaughter and isis may very well be liberated. This is a mistake of such magnitude its hard to imagine its a mistake made in good faith. One possibility is an intentional bift to putin. The other possibility is that turkey threatened to wage war against the United States and rather than level with the American People they decided to pretend it was a voluntary withdrawal. It undercuts the alliances in the world. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And the Ranking Member for holding this timely hearing. Ten days ago President Trump sealed the fates of our kurdish partners in syria when he gave president rd wan the green light to ini vad. Setting off a humanitarian disaster and reigniting chaos in syria. I believe this callous and reckless decision will go down in history not only the strategic malpractice of placing american troops in harms way. Allowing thousands of isis prisoners to go free and seeding influence to russia and the assad regime. I am mystified by the decision to allow this invasion to go forward in their attempts to clean up the mess they have made. No matter what they do, the administration cant bring back murdered children, reclaim our American Military positions and equipment seized by president russians and they cant bring back credibility, which has been squandered as we betray the trust of our kurdish allies. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I lock forward to your views on what efforts we can make as a congress and what actions youd recommend to the administration to try to salvage this horrific situation. With that, i yield back. Thank you. Any other members wish to make an Opening Statement . Seeing none, all members may have five days to submit questions and materials for the record. Subject to the length, limitation and the rules and its now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses. Dana is a senior fellow for Policies Program on arab politics and previously served for five years as a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where she covered the middle east, north africa and t turkey. Before capitol hill, she worked on middle east policy in the office of the secretary of defense at the embassy in cairo, and at the Democratic Institute on gulf affairs. Michael sing is also cochairover the study group. Hes the macing director of the Washington Institute for policy and priestly served for northern African Affairs at the white house from 2007 to 2008. Director for several middle Eastern Countries including iran and syria. He also served as assistant to secretaries of state colin powell and condoleeza rice and staff aid to the ambassador to israel. Thank you both for being here. Let me remind the witnesses to limit testimony to five minutes. Without objection, youre prepared statements will be made part of the hearing record. I thank you both sincerely for being here on this timely moment in particular. Ranking member, chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to present the final report of the congressionally mandated Syria Study Group. It was an honor to cochair this group of experts along with my colleague mike sing. When the Syria Study Group released their final report, we intentionally started by articulating why syria still matters. Making this case is not something that our group took for granted. Especially at a time of heightened public debate about the u. S. Role in the world and what we should invest to achieve u. S. Objectives. The group was unanimous in its conclusion that what happens in syria does not stay in syria. The United States contained leverage to influence an outcome that protects u. S. Interests. They have enormous implications for the conflict in syria and for u. S. Interests. We will discuss the study gro groups specific assessments and recommendations, but needless to say, syria still matters. The fundamental drivers of c conflict and i violence in syria are unchanged today. Notably, theres bipartisan acknowledgment of these points here in congress. The conflict in syria was regulated to the margins of public attention before last week. Now it is front and center of International Headlines and has captured domestic attention. As the executive and legislative branches of the u. S. Government work to arctiticulate what poli can achieve when the majority of u. S. Forces in syria are withdrawn our report proposes a series of nonmilitary recommendations. Its important to remind ourselves. Syria poses five strategic challenges. International terrorism, iran, ru russia, refugees and International Norms. The current conflict began as peaceful protests against an aud democratic dictator, one of the many uprisings of the arab spring in 2011. Those hopes were dashed as we devolved boo conflicts. It survived in power by operating at the intersection of criminality and terrorism. They designated syria in 1979. We know the nature of this regime. Assad facilitate d the movement of operatives to attack u. S. Forces and he will seek to leverage al qaeda and isis fighters in seyria again when i suits his needs. Syria provides safe haven to the world east most dangerous terrorist groups. Isis no longer holds territory, but was already reconstituting as an insurgent force. It will replenish ranks with fighters breaking out of did tension facilities today ask will prey on vulnerable communities as the humanitarian situation deteriorates. Iran seeks to turn syria into a forward ways base and has exploited the conflict to entrench itself in serious economic and social fabric. Strikes and sanctions prevented iran from consolidating the gains, but come at the risk of war between israel. The risk has increased toe today. Russia exploited the conflict. For the first time in decades. U. S. Partners across the region have expanded and look to moscow, not washington. And also played a role in the agreement reached between the Democratic Forces and assad. The crisis and discourse follows Syrian Refugees who fled a deliberate campaign of violence against civilians by assad, russia and isis. Refugees have strained the economies of syrias neighbors and politics in europe, yet conditions in syria are not suitable for safe or dignified retu return. Finally, the assad regime and partners have smashed every norm of conflict by targeting hospitals and schools, deploy ing chemical weapons and using mass murder as weapons of r war. To date, there have been no meaningful consequences for these actions. We should expect that future authoritarians when faced with peaceful protests may look to the syrian case and assume that mass homicide will not be challenged in any credible way setting new precedence for conduct in r war. I only have a few seconds left. Syria is a conflict where the two concerns, International Terrorism and great power rivals come together. It is not a conflict that can be cob tainted or ignored. The Rapid Development shaping both the battlefield and political realign thes in syria will not end this conflict. They will only set conditions for the next phase of war. The study groups final report remains relative today whichly colleague will now detail, thank you. Thank you. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. And thank you to congress for the opportunity to serve as c f cochair of the Syria Study Group. It was an honor to serve alongside my cochair. Syria does matter and has resisted all our efforts over the years to i guegnore it, to contain the conflict, to cod rise the conflict as some used to say. And it still matters. The report that we put out just a couple weeks ago offers what i think is a sobering assessment of the conflict. I wouldnt want to give the impression that everything was hunky dor ri. It wasnt. Things have gotten much worse. The report at its core is a strategy of consolidating our gains in northEastern Syria of working towards a political settlement to the conflict, which is ultimately whats necessary to address all of those problems that we have been talking about. And taking steps to protect american interests if such a settlement couldnt be reach ed. If it proved illusive. At the time we put out our report, they had such a strategy. But essentially, that strategy was undermined by a couple of big things. One was inadequate resourcing. A good example of this was the administrations decision not to spend the stabilization funding in syria that the congress had appropriated. Then it was also undermined by the perception around the world that the high level leadership wasnt committed. When our officials were going around the world trying to recruit other countries to contribute mull towerly to the the conflict, the question they had was is the United States really going to be committed. Fast forwarding to today, now the United States, i think, lacks a strategy. Officials are going to need to scramble to reverse engineer a strategy. My fear is those gains in northEastern Syria are going to be reversed. A political settlement is now less likely. This is not just the result of a poor decision being made by the white house. I think this is also the result of frankly poor planning. Because as i think the congressman said n many ways, this was a long time incoming. And yet we have no evidence that this decision by the turks was met with any kind of contingency planning. Instead we have u. S. Forces retreating under fire. Withdrawing under fire for maybe the First Time Since somalia. The fire is coming from a nato ally. I think if we all stop for a moment and let that sink in, its extraordinary. The consequence of the withdrawal, i worry what were going to see is a cascade effect. Its all relatively new and b e based upon what we learned in the course of our briefings. And this creates a vacuum in most of Eastern Syria. And isis will use that vacuum to regroup and potentially to not just break out of prison, but to conduct attacks in syrian cities to reconsolidate territory. The s drdf has been noted ask fd with the choice between assad and the turks as choezen to make a teal. We have seen Regime Forces move into Eastern Syria. With Regime Forces come iranians and russians. That raises the prospect of iran linking its syrian proxies in a way that will also perhaps prompt an expansion of airstrikes and an increase in outright conflict between the two. Well also see security conditions deteriorate as a population is brutalized in Eastern Syria as it has been elsewhere in yirs the regime has taken. We may also see a breakout of lunged groups. Theres still problems elsewhere that arent linked to whats happening in the northeast. In syrian society, the stalled political process and the the shattering of International Norms with no real justice or accountability as they were pointing to. What does the United States need to do . Ill take a few seconds more. In the northeast, its vital they halt and or limit the turkish incursion and press for humanitarian access to sever links to terrorist groups and not to reset is the refugees in kurdish areas. Its important we try to keep pressure on isis. I think that probably means trying to keep troops in syria it thats viable. And if certainly keeping up the air campaign against both isis and Al Qaedalinked groups, also means ensuring we hold on to the u. S. Presence in iraq which is also come under pressure in recent months, both politically and perhaps here in washington. I think its important we keep pressure on iran by supporting israeli airstrikes and maintaining that. As thigh they try to complete the withdrawal. Well need to see a diplomatic push. Together. Maintaining this policy of withholding reinstruction funds. Imposing sanctions and diplomatically isolating the assad regime. Many be inclined to peel off of that coalition. Our report warned that this was not a conflict that was over. It remained dynamic and dangerous. And i think that unfortunately recent events have born that out. Its important now that we stop relinquishing leverage and start using that leverage. My fear is that we are not going to see an end to the wars as a result of recent decisions. Were going to find that forces were sort of helping to keep the peace and stanlt there. What will really contribute is that deterioration of credibility throughout the region. Thank you. Well now begin the questioning. Were going to do that subject to the fiveminute rule. I will begin following by mr. Wilson. I want to start with are are you left off talking about american leverage. And you laid out the five areas. I just want to ask you this question. If our actions over the past couple weeks in syria mean that were at a greater risk of terrorism, expanded number of refugees, russia is stronger, iran is stronger, that when you talk about International Norms, which i think is too often left out of this. Mass civilian homicide as a policy, chemical weapons, r starvation, hasnt one of the International Norms for decades been American Leadership. And if all five of these areas we are weaker not to mention the fact that we have left our partner, the kurds, to be slaughtered, then isnt that fundamental form of American Leadership and american influence challenged and weakened dramatically . What leverage do we have, is my question, after we take action like this . I think we do have leverage. We remain a very capable and powerful actor on the world stage. We have, obviously, this coalition that we put together to conduct airstrikes against isis. We have sanctions. We have withholding of the economic reconstruction funding or diplomatic recognition of any settlement of the assad regime itself. But i do think congressman, that you make an important point about the role of American Leadership. I think that without the United States to sorlt of assemble a coalition torks put together the tool, not just our tools, but contributions from others, they wont do it themselves. They will say the writing is on the wall. Assad has won. Russia is call iing the shots here. We have generally exercised that leadership, i think, for a couple reasons. One because we have always found it to be in our interest to do so. To be the ones setting out the initiatives and having others hopefully sign up to those initiatives. And second because we have worried about the vacuum thats create d in the absence of that leadership and who might step in. I think those who step in are weaker states like russia, like iran, who lack the ability to challenge us directly, except when we back off. Then nonstate actors who in certain areas there frankly is no government, no authority, step in and provide some of that themselves in ways that are destructive. I agree. And on the issue of weaker states with more power, how does providing a freer hand undermine the administrations maximum pressure policy that had been our policy and apparently continues to be knnotwithstandi where we stand. The Syria Study Group talked about sanctions to some extent being successful in denying iran the opportunity to consolidate syria. But on its own, a sanctions only policy combined with target was not sufficient to remove iran or eliminate iranian influence from syria. I want to return to just what mr. Sing was discussing in your first question as well. The reason the study group talked about needing to retain a u. S. Military prengs in that onethird of syria was not only about completing the antiisis fight. It was about the broader leverage, which is the resource rich part of syria that provided us leverage to influence of political outcome in syria. While anything in terms of leadership is going to be much more difficult Going Forward, there are three categories of leverage that still if properly resourced and the state department and our diplomats are empower ed to lead a coalition, potentially provide some leverage to us. The first is reconstruction. Russia and iran simply do not have the finance to reconstruct syria. Even if assad regains control, he does not have the resources and his backers do not have the resources to construct and provide economic stability or security for those areas. That comes through the United States, europe and access to International Financial institutions. Right now that remains relevant. Sanctions, many other governments are at this point con tempt plaiting whether or not to go baa to damascus. But what it means to materially support the assad regime and his backers remains a possible form of leverage if we apply it smartly now. And finally, political recognition. We still have leadership with the urine bs and with International Organizations to deny political recognition and International Legitimacy to assad. That still remains relevant today. Before i turn it over, i will suggest and see how the discussion goes. I acknowledge what youre saying. It feels though you wrote it only weeks ago. It feels like its from another time when you talk about properly resourced decisions of reinstruction and sanctions and plolitical recognition. When you talk about america being a powerful actor on the world stage, that is true. We are a less powerful actor when we leave our partners open to slaughter. The partners that we have relied upon to help us in a very difficult battle against isis. Thats why this feels so prob m problematic. But im sure well get into this more. Thank you very much. It is a bipartisan concern about everything were discussing today. In a bipartisan manner, we are all concerned. We appreciate so much both of you leading the effort for the study and providing the study and for each of you, the events of the past weekend have been completely up ended our counter isis strategy. What should we do to have a strategy to address whats occurred in the last week . The u. S. Forces presence on the ground in syria was not we were not fightingists directly. We were working through a pa partner, but we were collecting intelligence and we had a large air campaign as well. We dont have to abandon the air campaign. Our Coalition Partners in the defeat Isis Coalition have not collapsed yet. The antiIsis Coalition has many elements, not just military force on the ground. There was also a Counter Terror financing element. Theres humanitarian aid. Theres working on countering isis propaganda and global ideological appeal. These are still things that we can work on. At the end of the day, turkey is still our nato ally. And they have said they are dpoing to accept responsibility for the rest of the campaign. Theres a lot of reasons why thats very problematic. But at this point, they are still our partner in the Nato Alliance. While we need to right now think about what tools we can compel to shape turkish actions and prevent destructive actions that can cause the next cycle of conflict, there may be areas we can work with them if we can get to a ceasefire onGoing Forward with the campaign. So i agree with that. To the extent we can, we have to use the tools we have. Whether its airstrikes, keeping some forces in syria, which is not something we should take off the table. We theed to xs3x whether thats viable in current circumstances. We need to keep that pressure on. Who will probably benefit from this situation as well. Now theres this corridor created along the border, which might allow them to escape where they are currently holed up and spread into other areas. Syria and they are committed to external plotting. Theres also this risk and President Trump has talked about it. Of isis members now exfiltrating syria to places like europe and so theres an intelligence and a ct task that comes along with that as well. Its important that we work very closely to the extent we can given the state of the relationship with the turks, with other countries along the borders, with europe on making sure were tracking that, finding those folks, arresting them if possible and countering them as well. All this is more difficult. As dana was saying, part of the reason we had those forces there was to enable other activities to promote stability in good governance. Those wont be possible in the current environment. Thats going to sort of reduce our ct effectively. I was concerned we were in a hopeless situation. Its been a valued ally. The relationship has been so strong. Its just shocking to see what addition divisions occurring now. Theres different associations with the assad dictatorship. From each of you, whats your view about the relationship of the assad regime with the u. N. Organization. The United Nations and the various organizations that have been providing assistance in syria received much criticism for acquiesce iing to the manne in which the assad regime would like that assistance to be delivered to communities inside syria. Our report highlights a very important Security Council resolution coming up for renewal at the end of the year. The cross border resolution, which provides the international underpinning for the United Nations to enter into syria without the assad regime acquiescing to it. Without the cross border resolution, all humanitarian aid delivered by the United Nations inside syria would be subject to assad regime approval, which means that delivery of that assistance would be weaponized and politicized to suit assads purposes. Thank you very much. I will recognize myself for now for five minutes. I just want to thank you both for your work. For the future, President Trump has acted on a whim and in doing so has thrown al lice under the bus. How bipartisan that rejection has been. Im most concerned about if the rep talgs damage thats been done. You might have seen the same comments i have seen from the sdf saying this is a stab in the back. Why would anyone alie with us Going Forward . And your comments about what the leverage we may still maintain seems to me the fact that anyone would believe our word at all, which i find to be quite suspect right now. What will the broader credibility damage be to the United States. And we have already seen other allies who are not necessarily heavily engaged with this issue. I would say that we want other states to step up and play greater roles. Burden sharing is something we can all agree on. I dont think we wanted it to be this way. Not because they cant rely on the the United States or view the United States as unpredictable. My worry is that wont produce strong allied coalitions that are pursuing strategies. It will produce hedging behavior. Whether thats the russians in this particular theater, china in other theaters, because they sort of view that as something they need to do with the National Security. Even if we decide, we are going to intervene less. We are going to try to push others to share burdens. Still you want to be doing whatever were doing around the world in a multilateral way in a coalition rather than retreating to fortress america and saying to other countries youre on your own. Before you address the same question, you want you to specifically note the people in this region and how a message like this will be delivered and heard in this region. Were talking about great powers. But how having done this work now for months, how will this affect the kurds, the the people on the ground who we may hope to work with. Thank you for that question. One of the things the seyria study group did over the course of our work was travel throughout the region. We could not go inside syria. But we went to turkey and jordan and israel and lebanon. And what was striking, i led a delegation to turkey and lebanon. Much of the damage to u. S. Credibility and leadership had already been done to 2018 when there was the first attempt to withdraw u. S. Forces without much of a plan guiding it or much con zulation with the local partners or neighbors in the coalition. So in general, most of the discussions we had, whether with outside experts in this these countries with government counterpart, humanitarian activists in the region, generally already doubted whether the United States had the commitment and staying power to follow through on what we said we were going to do. When it comes to the kurds very much the same thing. A lot of the damage had already been done. We were very clear if you look at u. S. Official talking points that a relationship was temporary and transxal and even though no one expected the relationship to change the way it did over such a short period of time, they understand what it meant which is why they were talking to everybody else any way. So over the course of our relationship with the sdf, they maintained communications. They always talked to the russians. They will talk to whoever can do anything to ensure their survival. Thank you. I will yield. Thank you for being here. Im sad. The report is frustrate ing ing. Its a bad report. Its a good report because of how quickly everything has changed. But i dont want you to think your work is useless. Some day it will be a very studied report. You will look at how history went and how it could have gone and recommendations to prevent it as we wtf this whole thing. A couple things i want to address before i get to the meat of my questions. I was looking at being pretty nostalgic about reagan lately. Lets set the record straight. Theres no argument over the choice between peace and war but one guarantee to have peace and have it in the next second, surrender. I saw a tweet from the president about creating peace. Ill tell you. If you surrender and leave, you can create temporary peace for yourself. But i dont think thats the mission of our country. You look at the post world war ii order. When we realized that isolationism didnt work. But in that history, when we won the second world war, we inherited the industrial capacity and this massive revolution. Which we all look back on today and talk about in the economy, bringing manufacturing back. That was a result of america being involved in the world. I think the consequences are are really difficult to see in the shortterm. But an immediate result of that in the decision made the other day. I want to compare that quote. Our soldiers are out will have there. They are totally safe. Syria may have some help with russians and thats fine. Its a lot of sand. They have a lot of sand over there, so theres a lot of sand they could play with. Its a relaal difference in leadership styles. To put it politely. This idea of war fatigue that i hear people talk about really ticks me off too. Youre tired of seeing it on television. Were probably tired of talking about it. Its been happening for a long time. If anybody had a right to be war fatigued, its my grandparents after world war ii. What happened as america ned of leaving europe and saying, its a lot of destroyed property. America saud were going to stay. Three generations of americans staying there. Finally the Third Generation behind the iran curtain tore it down because they were decembspe for a taste of what we had. Theres a whole world thats free right now because of that. 50 soldiers were preventing an invasion by tur key. Anybody that believes that 50 soldiers that turkey would have attack ed if the president said we will defend our soldiers with the might of the u. S. Military, you are fooling yourself. Because turkey never would have been that stupid. It would have been a short fight. Nobody wants to fight a new york nato ally. But i want a president thats going to stand up for american positions and this is weak nene. And i think theres no other way to put it. Instead of turning away from the world now, were spending a lot of time in congress fighting each other. Because were drama queens. We have to be addicted to drama. So we just argue here and cant get anything done. We forget theres a real enemy that want s s to destroy us. So let me ask you a question. When it comes to turkey, i introduced today at the relations review acts its a bipartisan bill to require to review u. S. Turkish relations and report to congress the feasibility of relocating american personnel and assess. This is going to be a big problem. It was to defeat isis. Thats new. It was defeat isis. He said hes going to stay in syria as long as iran is doing nefarious activity. Has iran withdrawn support of the assad regime . B if not what kind of support do they send damascus . Thank you, congressman. Iran has absolutely not withdrawn report for the ast saturdays regime. We see the iranians sending not only their own forces, you you have revolutionary guard core officers in syria. But we see them cultivating and sometimes sending over proxies. Hezbollah, Afghanistan Forces have been there. Its entrenching itself in the social fabric in syria. Which tells you they are there to stay. Iran would be turning syria into Forward Operating base for missiles and other power projex tools if it werent for a airstrikes. They havent deterred iran to continue to focus on power projection base. I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, guys, i want to completely associate myself with the remarks. I wish you were here under circumstances that were different, but here we are. I dont think theres an administration anymore. We have a president who is acting on husband impulses. And the policy of the United States right now is that syria is not our problem. Thats what he said. Theres just a bunch of sand. They can all play in their sand. It is now the official policy of the the United States that russia hates isis as much as the u. S. Does. And that the pkk is a bigger threat than isis. Those are all things that the president said today. Anyone who wants to assist syria in protecting the kurds is good with me. Russia, china, this is our policy we know the order consequences can be catastrophic. Im less worried now about turkey massacring the kurds, because we know what happened. The kurtsds hads have struck th align license with the russians and provide some protection. Im more worried about the assad regime moving into eastern and northern syria. Which is populated not just by kurds. Im worried about the inevitability of turkey now deciding that in order to deal with security problems, it no longer has any interest in deal ing with us because its not our problem. They are going to be dealing with the russians and with iran. We saw putin was in the uae and saudi arabia telling them im sure we know what he was saying. You cant trust ts yietshe unit states. But i have some things i will offer to you. You know i will act in defense of our interests. And i think worth of all, hes a step closer to getting the world he wants. A world with no values or rules. A world where powerful countries and lead keers can do what they want. Russia can can do its thing. And that makes me incredibly sad. And i wonder what can we do about it. And im struggling with certain things. One question is do we as a Congress Push for maintaining some troops in syria. I have a bipartisan bill that was relevant a few days ago. I dont know if its still relevant. It says you cant go below 1,000 in syria unless you can report back to the congress. The answer to obvious questions. The questions we have been talking about here is that a relevant approach . And id also luk to ask about the relationship with turkey. Theres a lot of sentiment we need to punish turkey hard. It was despicable. But i also worry a little bit that we are obsessing right now over punishment of turkey because we want to ab solve ourselves of a decision that President Trump made and frankly to be nonpartisan here, to ab solve mistakes in the Obama Administration as well. Its convenient to say its all now the fault of one country that did a terrible thick rather than looking at ourselves. And so i wonder what your advice would be on those two questions. On troops, is there something the congress can and should do . And on turkey, is it wise to sanction turkey for doing something that the president told them they could do. If we are seed iing the middle east to russia s it in our interest really to pull out now and potentially seed a nato ally to russia as well . What should we do . I think they are both very relevant questions right now. I would say had we negotiated a security mechanism or safe zone with turkey, which the ambassador was in the process of doing before the decision to end that and to withdraw. Presumably, we would have taken our troops and perhaps moved them south and continued activity south of that buffer zone or security zone. So in theory, there isnt a reason we cant do that now. My question would be because security for American Forces was largely being provide d by the sdf, we had a small number of troops working with the sdf. If the they have left the areas and the regime has moved in, is there really an environment in which we can work. Question. That is a question that congress thooz ask dod. On the question of turkey, look, i think that we need to recognize as many of you already have that the seeds of this crisis were sewn when we made this decision to work with the ypg Kurdish Militia knowing that it was considered the Great Security threat by turkey. We apparently as you said, congressman, gave turkey the green light. To do this. So the administration said we didnt. But it doesnt seem like there was opposition to the idea. I think we have to take these things into account in our response to turkey. My own view is we should be now trying to shape turkish actions, using sanctions, threat of sanctions not to punish turkey but to try to lay down some conditions or red lines for turkey whether its humanitarian access, whether its limiting their incursion, whether it is again severing the links with the extremist proxies that they seem to be using. We can consider the actions. Especially because of turkeys targeting of u. S. Troops. Thats not behavior which is sort of compatible with this Nato Alliance that we have. And so i think there will be a long term cost for sure to the u. S. Turkish relationship. In the sort of near term question of sanctions, i would say use them to shape, not punish. The study group spent a long time thinking about the u. S. Turkey relationship. And i would just like to highlight and underscore what we did say. We did not call for severing the relationship with turkey. We acknowledged the links between the pkk, a u. S. Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization in turkey and the ypg element of the syrian Democratic Forces in syria. And we acknowledged that u. S. Support for the sdf was a major irritant in the u. S. Turkey regulationshi relationship. We did not call to sever the relationship with the sdf and we also did not say that turkey offered a viable alternative military force to continue the antiisis fight if not the u. S. Relationship with the sdf. There were very clear things we said. At this point could the threat of sanctions shape some turkish behavior that would otherwise be very destabilizing . For example, the forcible relocation of certain refugees into areas that are not their homes in syria. Theres reports of atrocities and war crimes being committed by proxies, turkish supported proxies. These are things that, well, i dont know the content of the president s phone call with the president of turkey. But clearly these are things that sanctions may be able to shape. Thank you. Youre recognized. The country has the most security challenge thats our nation faces. Its essential that United States maintain a strong footprint abroad. All right. Im not sure whats going on with my mike. It is essential that the United States maintain a strong footprint abroad. The history has shown with the United States turns its back, chaos erupts and enemies fill that power vacuum. Its refreshing to hart colleagues around the aisle have concern over syria and present a position of having a strong u. S. Presence abroad. And president obama allowed assad to ignore a red line. I hope the new found vigor and the new positions transfer when speaking about venezuela, deavering hong kongers and others seeking freedom from across the world. But i applaud the new positions. They had to hold the Syrian Regime in check after targeting the targets on civilians and from imposing sanctions on officials and assads authoritarian government. I also commend the president s swift actions in turkey whose irrational actions have endangered a key u. S. Ally and powered iran and assad and set us back in a global fight against isis. There are no these are not the actions of the nato ally t and im proud to cosponsor a sweeping sanction bill introduced by republican conference chairwoman liz cheney. With that said, i have two questions for the witnesses. First, on august 25th, the Israeli Air Force acted in syria to prevent an rhinian drone attack on israel. What does the report recommend related to the u. S. Support for allies confronting threats from syria in particular israel . Thanks, congressman. The Israeli Campaign against iran, i think if you step back, is really extraordinary in many ways. The they have managed to deter maybe not deter, they managed to limit the activities through the air strikes and iran has not had an Effective Response against israel. They managed to do this in coordination with russia which is in this alliance with iran. And so i think that the Israeli Campaign really sort of deserves accommodation. We should support it however we can. Whether that is intelligence sharing, whether thats diplomatic cover if they need it. And we should also, frankly, use our own tools to counter what iran is doing. Sanctions tools and whatever other tools are available to us. I associate myself with his comments. All right. Youre making it easy. One more question. How do we ensure the situation on the border between northeast syria and turkey is not abused by iran to expand the presence in the country and solidify what im seeing as a land bridge between tehran and beirut . So this is where mr. Sing talked earlier about the u. S. Forces that remain at the area that is not in the area of northEastern Syria that turkey is currently focused on. So in the view of the serious study group, maintaining those u. S. Forces at that garrison is critical for preventing iran from consolidating those lines of communication through syria. And given the movement or redeployment of other u. S. Forces, its highly likely that assad, russia, the iranians or iran proxies challenge our position there. Theyve done it before. And that was under former secretary of defense mattis who responded with overwhelming force and sent a clear signal. So this would in terms of maintaining that u. S. Force presence, our adversaries need to believe that there is a credible threat of military force on the table and thats something that hopefully the executive branch will be contemplating of making clear. I thank you again. I commend you on your work. I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you. Mr. Vargas, youre recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman and again thank the witness heres today. I remember first time i had the opportunity to meet the kurds as a group, it was former Congress Members darrell isa and we traveled to baghdad and then we were briefed by our embassy and also military personnel. We went to irbill and we met with the milton the peshmerga. It was interesting. Our military and our special forces in particular told us how we were allied with the kurds there and how, in fact, they were doing very heavy fighting alongside of us and we could trust them. Two very different areas but similar is the situation. So anyway, i came away thinking that we were allies. We could be trusted. And they would be trufrted by us. Terrible disaster and to listen to some of the military personnel, our military to say how theyre ashamed of what weve done is particularly devastating when you think of how our military each and every day put their lives on the line or out there fighting with those that expect to have their backs and we have their backs. With that being said, i am very nervous about the kurds now in syria. To know that theyre trying to cut deals now with assad and its like trying to cut a deal with the snake. You know, what assures them that they wont be wiped out . I say this for two years we had a family that live with us because of ethnic cleansing in kosovo. Im very familiar with that. I want to know what can we do . What can be done so these kurds arent wiped out as we saw the atrocities already happening . What can we do . Thank you, congressman. Its a valid concern. You know, we could be concerned about this frankly boenl sides of the sort of turkish line of advance. We have not had insight into what is happening in the other turkish occupied enclaves. The offering and the shield pockets. And so one thing we want from the turks, you know, if were going to go there and try to talk to them and if were threatening this with sanctions is we want transparency and humanitarian access into any zone they occupy to ensure that these things are not happening. They brutalized the areas they reoccupied and so to have russian and iranian backed forces. I think they will view the sdf fighters and officers as a threat to the assad regimes reconsolidation of that rule. So i think its going to take things like not just sanctions but one of the things we fwauk in the report is we should be willing to threaten the assad regime with the use of force if it is deliberately targeting groups for, you know, war crimes and atrocities. I think the assad regime, iran, they need to understand that were watching and theyre going to suffer consequences for war crimes, for atrocities, for ethnic cleansing. They never put their eggs in the american basket. For them this is about survival. Whether that survival is no autonomy and no integration of the structure they created into assads army which is one of the requests or desire for kurdish cultural rights and language in schools, but if assad with russia can guarantee their sur vuf survival or provide a security guarantee that the United States will not and face between Turkish Operations which could result in ethnic glecleansing o demographic reengineering like weve seen in the Euphrates Shield area versus subjugate damascus, theyre going choose damascus. What does our policy look like if our former partner is working with damascus and russia . My time is up. I do want to say that i think its very important and to have this transparency and humanitarian access. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The main point of the report is that russia and iran share many interests. When it comes to involvement with syria. Both are looking for increased regional influence and have a willing partner in assad. Withdrawal of the u. S. Counterterrorism efforts directly enables russia and iran to be more meshed and exert greater influence. What concrete steps would the u. S. Need to take given the recent he vens to recent events . It is even feasible . We spent a lot of time debating in the Syria Study Group whether or not what United States russia and iran and backing assad could doctor were there areas of tension or fracture that we could exploit to break that alliance apart and provide us some opportunities, via a political process, our own leverage or military operations to then move forward. They both have the goal of keeping the United States out. Recent developments only solidify for them that their alliance and backing of assad is working. So you found no divisions of interest at all . There is certainly tensions about Security Force activities, where certain Security Forces operate, whether or not behavior of the assad regime can be modified. Russia say member of the u. N. Security council and would probably like to enable some sort of political process that could fold assad back into the International Community. Iran is a pariah state not in the International Community in that sense. So probably doesnt share that same objective. Our conclusion at the tend of the day is there is more unifying russia and iran in the opposition to the United States and minimizing u. S. Leadership in the region. Okay. So what is the Syria Study Group recommend recommending irans presence in syria assuming you believe iran should not maintain a military presence in syria, what recommendations do you have to achieve that goal . A lot of what iran is doing is not an overt military nature. A lot of that is very much in the news because you see the israeli air strikes, for example, against iranian missiles and things like that. But there is this economic and sort of social element to it as well. I think that 5 activity doesnt get exposed sufficiently. I think we should have a greater effort to sort of put it into the sunlight as it were. We have a significant presence across the middle east. But theres a lot of people questioning our commitment to that presence. That is a dangerous position to be in. Weve seen the iranians escalate regionally and attacks on tankers. Reportedly this attack in saudi arabia. I think this adds even more importance to the idea that we need to respond to those types of iranian escalations. They look at this decision and say, where else can we press on the United States to sort of get them out of other places in the region we dont want them . Right . I think its important that we look at this from a regional perspective and not a serious specific perspective. So its an easy mark . I mean, you know, if we had the Carter Doctrine in 1980 and then the reagan corollary, right . It said we had a sort of we have a vital interest in the gulf and we were willing to defend that militarily. We didnt at the time have a heavy presence in the region. Now again, we have the opposite. We have basically said that were not sure we see a vital interest for the United States. President trump said hes not sure he sees vital interest for the United States whether its with tanker traffic in the golf or here in syria and yet the presence is much, much larger than it was at the time of say the Carter Doctrine. This will embolden adversaries to take shots at us. They have indicated an entered northeast syria with our withdraw. Whast is russias object tlifiv there in the region and how will it respond to turkeys inzmurgs. Russias objective in syria is take back all syrian territory under assad to deliver a win for assad not just militarily on the ground but politically. So what the russians want is not just full consolidation of territorial control, but reconstruction, return of refugees, and International Legitimacy for the assad regime. And ill just say congressman, what they also want us to do is defeat the United States. And, you know, im one who would like to say we dont need to have a zero sum approach to russia. Not everything russia does is inherently threatening to the United States. I think moscow doesnt see it that way. I think moscow sort of wants to show the rest of the region that the United States is not reliable. They want to thwart what they see as a regime change effort by the United States. They want to paint the policy in the terms. Theyre not interested in sort of Winwin Solutions and so forth. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And finally, mrs. Jacksonlee has joined us here today. And without objection, happy to recognize her for five minutes of questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me acknowledge the chairman and the Ranking Member for their courtesies. This is a committee that i used to be on and i have a great affection and respect for all of the leadership of the committee. I happen to serve on the Home Land Security Committee and a subcommittee of crime and terrorism. So it intermingles with what i think is crucial as diplomacy and the work that youve done, let me applaud you for the work. I went to syria many years before 2011, went to damascus and then spoke to the new and fresh assad which some thought there might be a difference. To my dismay, there was zero difference from his father. But in another era. I want to pose these questions and as i do so, let me just read this statement from an army officer who formally served. I cant look at the atrocities in army officer served in syria said of videos posted online of Turkish Backed fighters executing kurdish siecivilians. The isis mission is going to stop. Isis is going have a resurgence and well have to go back in five years and do it all over again. I want you to comment on. That but youre obviously doing your study, but what is your assessment or maybe people who you met or calling you about the sheer violence and loss of life, particularly among because remember when the conflict first started, and the Doctors Without Borders and United States was in. We were seeing just a sheer miserable violence that the Syrian People were going through. Certainly the kurds have taken their share. But help us understand how deep the violence is, how children are impacted maybe from your discussion thats you had or people calling you. Thank you. Thank you to both of you as cochairs. Thank you so much for that question. We consulted broadly with humanitarian and human rights activists and organizations as well as the syrianamerican community and those organizations that are collecting evidence documenting evidence of atrocities, abuses and war crimes. What we heard consistently from all of these communities and individuals was a plea for the United States to prioritize issues of civilian protection. And a perception that that has not been a front and Center Policy priority of the United States. Many asked us to recommend that the United States make very clear its willingness to use military force in response to civilian casualties and the sheer mass homicide tactics of assad regime thats it not just can chemical weapons, starvation, forced disappearances, torture, et cetera. And that these issues are not front and center and not talked about enough in u. S. Led situations and that gives the perception that we dont care about those issues. And you would think it is now xer baited in light of where we are today violence, decapitation, et cetera . The perception that President Trump green lit Turkish Operation in which weve seen Turkish Backed forces firing on civilians, isis detainees escaping from prisons and the discussion that there will be involuntary resettlement of Syrian Refugees into areas that are not historically where they come from all send the signal that issues of civilian protection are not a priority of the United States. You mentioned at the time the conflict was not winding down. How dangerous is it now in light of the actions of the president that allowed turkey to come in without restraint and killing without restraint . I think congresswoman, it is in fact quite dangerous now, more dangerous now than it was before. In large part because you will now have potentially isis breaking out of prisons. Youll have reduction in the counterterrorism pressure on isis as well as the other jihadist groups. You may have an expansion of iran into Eastern Syria. As i said, sort of a linking of the syrian and iraqi proxies of iran and perhaps an expansion of the war has taken place between israel and iran over the issues. And to the sort of very first part of your question, congresswoman, about the u. S. Military operation, you know, i think that this lumping of syria into the endless wars category has been incorrect, frankly. I think that if you were opposed to the u. S. Intervention in iraq in 2003 or skeptical about our military presence in it afghanistan, in a way you should be pleased by the way the intervention in syria has been conducted. Because youve had a very small American Military footprint rallying a 60,000 Strong Partner force and that Partner Force out front really doing the bulk of the work and the fighting and u. S. Forces really playing advisory roles. St and i think the u. S. Military has considered that to be a very significant success and perhaps even a model for future interventions. It is a shame that sort of we have now relinquished a lot of the gains which that model was able to deliver. And, you know, i think that, again, to put it together in this endless war category is a big mistake. I know my time expired. You if i could squeeze in this National Security question if i might. In the report it says liberation of isis held territory does not eliminate the groups threat to the United States which this was in your report. We now have a circumstance of a free for all turkish fighter jets. We have bombing, fleeing, and you already indicated in your report preceding this how dangerous and let me just for the record put on my dismay, mr. Chairman, of 2,000 troops in saudi arabia and troops that wanted to stay and were being effective in syria are now being, i want to use the term, imploded. Theyve been scattered, i mean u. S. Troops. And i think, mr. Chairman, you mentioned that we might have had a success that we could have modelled after. A few number of soldiers. They were a powerful statement. Your assessment now of the levellevel of the National Security threat in light of turkish actions and where we are . So even though isis has been pushed out of the territory that it holds, its command and control, the Leadership Structure is still in place. It still has at built to raise funds. Now those 2,000 foreign fighters that were in detention facilities under sdf control not to mention the thousands of syrian and iraqi fighters that were in detention are likely not going to remain in detention for much longer which means the ranks of isis will be replenished. Access to finances, global brand appeal, plus leadership. We still have baghdady, leader of isis giving speeches that end upp up on the internet. I think the National Security threat is very high. I didnt hear you. It very high. Isis still retains the means and the desire to use territory and n. Syria to plan external attacks. President trump criticized our European Partners for not repatriating their own citizens among the isis fighters. There were a couple thousand foreign fighters. He was right to do so, frankly. I think the irony is that the way things have now developed over the last few days, this process of repatriation which requires visits to the camps and work is now essentially impossible to do. So even if folks are remaining contained in this area, getting to them to bring them out and put them into a judicial process of some kind or a National Security pro pro ses is going to be impossible. Another question would be to what extent were we able to have completed the process of cataloging the fighters who were in these camps . Do we know who was there . And who now may sort of be on the loose . My understanding, and we talk about this in the report, that was on going. I dont know if it was finished before this decision was taken or not. That might be a question to ask the government. One military person as i close called this a real mess. I think he was being more than delicate or polite. I am appalled at where we are today. And i think you have done us a good service. And we created this mess. And i Hope Congress can Work Together to try to bring some aid, comfort and redesign of where we are today. Mr. Chairman, your committee very important in this, i thank you for allowing me to be here. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your contribution to our committee today. Appreciate it. And finally, mr. Sherman. You are recognized for five minutes and i would note to other members that may be on their way that we have a hard stop at 4 30. Mr. Chairman, you have time and youre recognized. The turks are relying to a certain extent on the arab tribal militias. So to what extent is turkey relying on them and to what extent are they i had logically s in line with isis . Thank you, congressman. So im not sure theyre tribal militias. I think theyve been zlibd way. If you look at who they are, theyre composed of some people who were refugees, displaced persons from other parts of syria. Some of them may be former isis or other sort of members of other al qaeda . Or other sort of rebel groups. So some of them have made their way into the groups who are now fighting turkeys behest. I cant tell you to what extent sort of turkeys relying on them versus their own forces. Clearly, if you look at what we see in the open sources, does it seem as though there say very heavy component of these sort of arab proxies being used by the turks. And to how to what extent are these groups that have similar ideology to either al qaeda or isis . Over the course of eight years of conflict in syria, there are no longer groups that we would describe as moderate. We tried to support moderate forces. We called them the free syrian army. That support no longer happened. A lot of it is because many of those fighters that we wish to work with would not meet u. S. Vetting standards in terms of what their affiliations were. I would also note that i point out the kurds qualify as moderates. Congress put in place very serious vetting standards before the u. S. Could provide assistance and equipping so i assume that before u. S. Forces provided that support to the sdf, the fighters and units met u. S. Vetting standards. I would also add that a lot of forces and militia thats the turks are working with, theres been some good work done by other individuals trying to study what the motivations are. A lot of it is criminality. There is not much left for your average syrian to do there. There is no economy. There is no economic opportunity. So some of this is ideological or unsavory types that certainly the United States would identify as violent extremist organizations and affiliations. And on the other hand, theyre tl a criminals and thugs working on behalf of the turks. How far do you expect turkey to go into the region . Are they going to limit hemselvhe themselves to 70 kilometers south of the border or is the goal to take over all the territory . I realize they may not achieve their goal because of the russians, iranians and the assad forces. Is the goal 70 kilometers or Something Else . Congressman, the real answer is i dont know. Im not sure anyone in the administration really knows. The turks had talked about creating a 30 kilometer deep buffer zone and then 300 miles across which would have been both security zone for the turks as well as maybe in an area in which to resettle the arab refugees, syrian arab refugees that were in turkey. The turks have gone further. So i assume theyll be guide bid whatever military objectives they have as well as by this now move by the regime plus iranian plus Russian Forces and in a sense to interpose themselves between the turks and areas further south. So maybe a little bit of a competition as well between the turks and Regime Forces. Over last year or two when the Kurdish Forces in syria had control of territory, so what extent was that territory used as an identifiable source of terrorist action in inside turkey . We asked that question to multiple different briefers in the u. S. Government and when we traveled throughout the region and while it is clear to us that there are ideological affiliations between the pkk and the ypg and our report calls for specific actions for the ypg to differentiate itself from the pkk, we did not find examples where u. S. Provided arms to the ypg and syria made itself across the bored near turkey. Ill add, congressman. Youll find plenty of examples from early parts of the war support from isis coming from the other direction. That is one thing that we have not been able to successfully address with the turks. So the turks did a terrible job of preventing isis from going into syria. And the syrian kurds have done a excellent job of making sure that actors do not go from the territory they controlled up into turkey and yet turkey begins this terrible conflict. I yield back. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses and all members for being here today. I thank you both for your testimony. Thank you for your very thoughtful leadership of this importanta study group. Members my va atigsal questions for you. We ask them to please submit those within the next five days. We ask that you respond in writing. I just want to thank you again for over the past nine years weve had many, many hearings on syria both here and in the full committee. We sit here at this moment with assad having slaughtered over 600,000 people and almost six million refugees and six Million People displaced inside the country. And the Worlds Largest state sponsor of terror stronger there now than before. The country most dedicated to sewing discord and democratic fighting democratic norms stronger there than they were before. And what youve offered us here, i think, is a really important and useful tool for discussion and i hope i urge my colleagues all to take this seriously and to read it and it informs the work that we do Going Forward. Sincere thanks again for being here. And with that, were adjourned. The house will be in order. For 40 years, cspan is providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. , and around the country. So you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979. Cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Following last nights debate, joe biden will campaign in davenport, iowa, this afternoon. Thats live at 5 00 eastern here on cspan3. You can also follow our coverage online at cspan. Org and listen with the free cspan radio app. Cspans 2020 coverage continues. Live thursday at 8 00 p. M. On cspan, President Trump holds a keep America Great rally in the American Airlines center in dallas. On friday at 6 00 p. M. , live on s