Transcripts For CSPAN3 Defense Secretary Esper Joint Chiefs Of Staff Gen. Milley Testify On... 20240713

I want to start by thanking our witnesses secretary esper and chairmans a joint chief of staff for appearing before us to testify. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss our policy in syria, particularly in light of the events that happened win turkey invaded and drove the kurds out of portions. Our first hearing since the congressman from new york joined the committee. I want to thank him. We have a lot of new faces in this committee that are a year into it. They are not new faces anymore but good to have another freshman added to the committee. I appreciate him serving. The purpose of this hearing is to look at events around syria. A whole bunch of questions and the other big issue is the ability of memories of this committee to ask questions of the key policymake is in an area of importance to the committee and to give them an opportunity to learn more about the policy and express their views and that is a huge part of our oversight role in congress and it is enormously important. There are three broad areas im interested in around this. First of all is where do we go from here . What is the mission on containing isis and defeating isis in the region. No matter how we got to the point we got the turkish incursion in syria is to change that equation. We built an alliance with the Syrian Democratic forces and the kurds as part of that. The history is important. We tried for years after the rise of isis to find a coalition as they build a caliphate across syria and iraq and threatened our interest in the interests of the region. That was an unchecked expansion for a substantial period of time. In 2015 the Obama Administration was able to cobble together a coalition primarily of kurds and why pd in syria but also Syrian Democratic forces and working for the iraqis to have a counter isis movement. Whatever else one can say about it, it worked. The caliphate has been broken up. Because of that plan, started by the Obama Administration and carried out by the Trump Administration. It did not defeat isis. Isis is a robust transnational terrorist threat but the breaking up of the caliphate was a huge accomplishment. With the incursion of turkey from the north it undermines that. What is the new plan . What happens Going Forward . The biggest risk of this plan from the start was the concern the turks would have about our alliance with the kurds and the why pd in particular and the Obama Administration tried to make sure turkey did not do what they wound outdoing. Understanding the plan is important but the other piece that is important is to understand how policy gets made, between the pentagon and the white house and how to get involved so there are concerned how this came out and i would be curious to have you tell us what happened. The president sent out a sweet the year ago in december saying, it is not in front of me, but saying that were pulling out of syria. In all the meetings i had, that was the first we have that. There was no discussion about, it so the impression was given that it was not like he sat down with the nsc instead of what is going, on what is the plan, he did not sit down with you guys and say, this is a policy objective, he woke up one morning and decided he was going to do it. That is problematic and by way of thinking, and then we back filled the policy afterwards. We need greater transparency. I think the process is important. I trust the jobs that you guys do, and i trust a lot of people at the pentagon. They are important, not just throwing it out there, so i would like to learn more about how that works. There was recently a discussion of aid being approved for lebanon. That ate was held up for some period of time, when we attempted to find out why it was hard, basically. It was eventually released, but we never really heard what was the point. Those sorts of things really matter. I think they matter for the executive branch but there are a lot of, people who are just policymakers wanting to be part of the discussion to help, as a coequal branch of government or towards a good policy. Lastly, certainly isis is a huge concern in the region but there are other concerns. We want to know how the policies is dealing with syria. With bosher assad having held on to power and seemingly will for quite some time. How does that impact the broader region . I personally just got back from a trip to the middle east, and while there are certainly challenges, there are opportunities there. There are protests against the iranian involvement, that weve never seen before. People are beginning to understand that irans influence is malign and undermining their interests, there is an opportunity there. In addition to containing isis, that is our largest goal in the reason, to stop iran the destabilizing influence from syria, to lebanon, all interpreter across. How can we contain it . How can we build on that . Also, the concern about iran has given us a historic opportunity to try to deal with the Israeli Palestinian crisis. An enormous crisis in the middle east, with now much more of a connection between key arab states in israel because of their concern about iran. Is there a way to build on that, to create a more stable middle east . Those were the three brought areas i was interested in. A huge part was to give members a better understanding of what the policies are, that is our effort. With that, im pleased to yield to the Ranking Member. Thank you. I want to welcome both of our witnesses. We appreciate the time do you getting to know us. As we talk about syria, i think all of us there are those who develop a syria policy on paper, and Journal Articles and so forth. It seems relatively simple and straightforward. What do you have to deal with is the real world, including the historic cultural, religious, ethnic background and the complications in this part of the world, and that is the world as you found it and as you have to deal with it. It is not as simple as putting down points one two and three on a piece of paper and assuming that everyone, everything will flow easily from that. You also asked to deal with mistakes made by other administrations. The Obama Administration and made a big deal about pivoting to asia, and inclined that we were pivoting. But the middle east is not what you get away from it, and the necessity of containing iran. I remember the Previous Administration drawing a red line in syria, and then failing to follow up, which many people believe has emboldened not only assad but others to take greater risks. That the u. S. Would not follow through on threats or statements that it had made. All of that is part of the quagmire that is syria today that we all have to deal with. Our challenges are how do we reduce the terrorist threat, from that region and how do we contain and aggressive desperate iran. A revolutionary iran that seems bent on disruption of key. Neighbors especially, you cant fix the whole problem. What you can do is tell us what are your objectives, and what the militarys role is in this. We look forward to hearing on both of those things today. Thank you. If one joint statement . Is that correct . We both have separate statements. I will yield to mr. Esper. Thank you. Chairman smith, Ranking Member thornberry, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the security situation in syria and the broader middle east. I would like to thank the committee on its work on the nda, this legislation is crucial to implementing the defense strategy. Also want to offer my condolences to the victims of tragedies that took place in pensacola this week. In light of these events we are reviewing our bidding procedures for all military training, as well as our procedures to ensure our military communities. As reflected, the department of defense prioritize of china as a top military challenges. As we transition our focus towards a great party, and violent extremist organizations such as isis. The United States strategy seeks that its not a safe haven to terrorists, and not dominated by any power hostile to the United States, and contribute to a stable market. For the department of defense, this translate to the following six objectives, first, utilize it an amarok military presence with strategic death to deter and respond to aggression. Second, strengthen a defensive capabilities, and third advance allies to address shared concerns. Fourth, protective freedom of navigation, fit, deny safe haven to terrorists that threaten homelands. And sixth, medicaid the threats. Although there are a multitude of issues to discuss, we will focus on the most destabilizing players, isis and iran. Beginning with isis, iran has achieved our Partner Forces to destroy the physical caliphate, and liberate 7. 7 Million People living under its role. This includes the operations that resulted in the death of isis founder and leader, albaghdadi, as well as one of his top deputies. The department of defense remains committed to working with our partners to ensure isis is not able to mount and resurgence. He was forces remain in syria, operating in close formation with the Syrian Democratic forces. Although the recent turkish incursion as complicated as battles space, the department of defense has become confident that we can continue the mission in syria, to ensure the differing defeat of isis. We obtain it leadership role, which brings together 76 nations and five International Organization to provide funding, military capabilities, and support. We continue to work by, with, and through the iraqis case Security Forces to ensure a strong state. Despite the turmoil, our assisted efforts with the Iraqi Military remain strong and continues to show progress. Moving to iran, over the past 18 months, the department of defense has supported the United States economic and diplomatic maximum Pressure Campaign. These efforts seek to bring the Iranian Regime back to the negotiating table for a new and better deal that addresses the full range of threats emanating from iran. Tehrans efforts to destabilize have increased as the attacker targets in saudi arabia, disrupting the strait of hormuz, shooting down the Unmanned Aircraft and providing support to numerous groups. To address these, threats were taking a deliver approach to strengthen our defenses, to enable our partners and refine our response options. Since may of this, year 14,000 military personnel have deployed to the region to serve as a tangible demonstration of our commitment to our allies and partners. These Additional Forces are not intended to signal an escalation, but rather to reassure our friends and buttress our efforts at deterrents. We are also encouraging increased burden share with allies and partners from around the world. The International Military constitutes protects freedom of movement in the gulf of amazon, is an example. Though these activities through these activities, we are sending a message to iran that the International Committee will not tolerate its malign activities. Along with our allies and partners, we remain united to our commitment to regional stability and uphold longstanding rules and norms. Iran should not mistake it the nine states restraint for unwillingness to respond with decisive force, should our forces or interests be attacked. In conclusion, as the department of defense continues to implement the National Defense strategy, this ability of the middle east remains important to our nations security. As such, we will continue to calibrate all of our actions to avoid unintended escalation and enable our partners to defend themselves against regional aggressors. In doing so, we will preserve the winds of the past and ensure the security of the United States and our interests. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on National Security challenges we face in the middle east. Before i began, id like to echo secretary sports condolences and sympathy to the victims of the shootings at both pearl harbor and pensacola. On behalf of all leaders both uniformed and civilian, in the military, our thoughts and prayers with the fallen and were thankful for the heroism and skill of the forest responders themselves in harms way to save congressmans life. On the topic of the middle east, i just returned a few days ago from an eight country visit to israel, jordan, saudi arabia, bahrain, kuwait, iraq, afghanistan, and oman. The middle east remains a challenge to u. S. National security interests. Isis, allocated and other groups thrive in instability in the region. We try to export violent extremism around the world. We are not finished with that fight. Iran explores the volatility in the middle east and asserts itself to malign influences, to achieve regional dominance. Our National Security strategy as secretary as for outlined as clear goals, a stable and secure middle east, a middle east that is not a safe haven and a breeding ground for violent extremists, in middle east that its not dominated by nation hostile to the United States, and a middle east that contributes to Stable Global Energy markets. As secretary stated, the National Defense strategy provides military objectives to deter and destabilizing activities and violent extremist organizations, and he outlined those six objectives. The National Military strategy describes how the joint force achieved those six objectives through our five focus areas of responding to threats, deterring strategic attack that includes the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to, deter conventional attack, ensure our allies and partners compete below the level of our conflict. Specifically, in syria we continue to find organization to complete the enduring defeat of isis to prevent their reemergence. Iraq has been a central partner in defeating iraq in the, region and we continue to work through Iraqi Security force in order to achieve a secure and stable iraq, enabled to defend itself against threats of terrorism. Our military strategy in afghanistan is to continue to deny afghanistan as a safe haven for terrorist attacks in the homeland, and that has been our objective since october 7th, 2001. We also support the efforts to reach a political settlement in the Afghan Government, and afghan to afghan that into the war in a responsible way and meets u. S. National security objectives. In iran, it remains the leading state sponsor of terrorism and as you know we have increased our response to irans recent attacks against saudi arabia and the continued acts of oppression and malign influence throughout the region. We will maintain should he take depth of the joint force in the region, in order to deter iran, ensure our partners and if necessary respond if deterrence fails. In broad terms, our military strategy as part of an inter Agency Effort to sustain the approach to, one, defeat violent extremism, including the enduring defeat of isis, to, to prevent regional dominance by iran, and three, to prayer ensure our allies and partners. Thank you to your support to our men and women in uniform, i look forward to an india later in the afternoon, and i look forward to your questions. Thank you. We move to questions. Our two witnesses have a hard to stop at noon, which means i will be even more aggressive about enforcing the five minute clock, to make sure we get to as many members as possible. Ive had my opportunities before, so i will not ask questions. I will yield to mrs. Davies for the first set of questions. Five minutes. Thanks. Thank you mister chairman, and thank you to both of you, doctor esper and general milan for joining us, i look at your statements, and i wonder if you can just in more refined english, why is our military presence essential in syria, and what can we not achieve through other means to fulfill arabs our objectives, take us into three years with that military posture, and to take briefly on the Diplomatic Mission as well. Thank you. Thank you congresswoman, ill take the force that and let in general millay flush out the operational aspects of. It in short, the mission ensures the enduring defeat of isis, we we do this through the partnership on the, ground the sdf has been a great partner in providing capable Ground Forces, but we provide for them, the enablers, principally the air support and intelligence, things like that that help us defeat isis, as we see ice is popping up. I dont know if you want to provide more operational details. Yes. Why is it necessary . Isis still exists. Isis as an entity is an organization, more than just an organization, but also an ideology, and inspirational group, so on and so forth. They have been defeated, the caliphate, the fiscal entity called the caliphate, that was destroyed. But the organization itself still exists there, are still members in their and generally, more or, less in the lower Euphrates River valley. In order to provide for the enduring defeat, working by, with and through allies and partners and the sdf in syria, that enables us to continue to maintain intelligence collection and strike capabilities and to continue to rip apart the remnants of what is isis. If we fail to do that, isis will reemerge. The conditions will come back and will reemerge as a capable threat. What are the conditions that would allow us to withdrawal . Does that mean that isis would be defeated and we obviously know that the situation in afghanistan is very critical in that way as well. We are fighting isis right now all the way from africa into afghanistan. We have operations conducting against isis and its derivatives. We have set out in terms of when we consider the redeployment, when we feel confident that local security and Police Forces are capable of handling any type of resurgence of isis, i think the defeat, if you will, will be hard because its an ideology. I dont think we ever its hard to foresee us stretching it out. When we get to the point where local police and Security Forces will handle the actual threat of isis activities, then, that would be a metric. Looking to turkey and syria what can we see in the next three years in terms of their handling those objectives that you have outlined . I think turkey and syria had different objectives. This is our party with regard to syria. Turkeys objective, i hesitate but and my discussions, there number one concern was our kurdish terrorists coming into turkey and conducting attacks on the turkish people. Close behind that its the positions of two to three our focus is different on that front. Can you speak to the government approach, because obviously this is the Armed Services committee. We also know that if we did not have a full picture of where the state department is in that, and their capacity at this time to be dealing with, it that is a real problem for us. Im not asking to be the secretary of state, but please. Secretary of defense is challenging enough. In the context of, syria theyre working through the geneva process bringing the key players together to discuss, and it has had its up and down, but i can i give you an update as to where things stand. Our progress has not been sufficient enough for our stance. Comment on this as well. I would not characterize as optimistic or pessimistic. I think the u. S. Military have a requirement, not just here but throughout the world to support diplomatic efforts in the words of a previous secretary of defense, its much better than Foreign Countries dealing with a department of state and department of defense. We want to act and support all the time, and diplomatic efforts. With respect to syria or iran for that matter, there are a variety of diplomatic efforts are ongoing, and we are directly in support of. This thank you. Mister chairman, i yield to mr. Wilson. Thank you, and i think both of you for being here today. America is fortunate to have such leadership, and in a military families appreciate, your service, it is so meaningful. And i was really appreciative of the opportunity to welcome you to for, jackson i lawyer empathy in relationship with the military. It was so positive, and fully supported the promotion that we received to be secretary of defense. Its just three assuring to our allies, the American People, to military families. Thank you. With that, i am grateful to be the Ranking Member of the middle east north African International Foreign Affairs committee. If we understand in a strategy in syria should be both diplomatic and political. So, what is the relationship of the department of defense and state department to try to promote stability in the region . Thanks for the comment. We collaborate constantly with state department to include myself, speaking often with secretary pompeo. We are brought in the nfc process where we have committee deputies, Principal Committee meetings to discuss the issues, so on each of them we were hand and glove, as the chairman mentioned, as ive stated before, part of our job is to enable our diplomats. I want to do that as much as possible. Some of it may be providing security for the distribution of humanitarian, aid but also that we can get our military presence to ensure and reinforce allies and partners, which is what we are doing in saudi arabia. So they are other players in that room as well, all the key players. They play such a vital role and because of the withdraw from iran which follows the unfulfilled red line. This decision led to the reengagement to have to defeat isis. With the president s recent comments, pulling out troops of syria and keeping, quote, a peacekeeping force, how will this force accomplish any of the six objectives that you and general milley have indicated in your statement . It is not a Peace Keeping force, a force focus on the firing if he devices, there working closely, day in and day out with the sdf to perform a number of tasks underneath that overarching goal and strategy. That is their mission, that is what they are poised to do and conducting those operations day by day. Thank you. Thank you for your service, it is so reassuring to military families. Youve already cautioned that a reemergence of isis is possible, can you cite for either the assessment of isis capabilities absent of u. S. Presence . A telling a candidates capability that allows us to collect and see and act with a strike capability on isis in syria then the conditions for reemergence of isis will happen. It will take some time, it will probably take six to 12 months, that isis would reemerge if they went to zero. Having said that, there are other forces in the area that also have interests in attacking isis. If left unattended, i think they would reemerge, absolutely. In syria we are also an allied forces, what we have sources there, supporting the sdf. To, me this provides, sadly a safe haven for terrorists to attack American Families around the world. Thank you for what youre doing. General, the plan for the isis detainees held by the Syrian Democratic forces, what is the status of maintaining the detainees where they are or encouraging their return . The current status is that there are 24 Detention Centers that are manned by the sdf throughout different parts of syria, still under adequate control based on the reporting i have. So, there is no risk at this point that i can see, some massive escape or that sort of thing. The sdf has it under control. In the turkish incursion zones, that is the responsibility of the turkish government. That 30 kilometer incursion zone in the northern portion of syria, that is the responsibility of the turkish government. In the rest of the area, the sdf has control. Thank you, we have faith in both of you. I would add, that this is where the 81 members of the icy campaign helps, because they provide funding. I try to keep it a five minutes, ill give you a chance to wrap up, but we see the clock go off, just wrap off. Thank you. Thank you for your service, thank you for your testimony. To follow up on that question, one of the main things that i want to get you in terms of the status of this 11,000 isis prisoners. Obviously, the thing that most worries me is the threat to the homeland, and their escape. Would be very troubling for our security as well as that of the allies. I appreciate the answer you gave, but is there any intention to transfer any of these persons to another entity and if so how would the u. S. Ensure transfer of custody . Ill take the first stab at that. If you look at 10,000 we went into the close session, most of them are not a closed threat that we think they are. I hope that you understand this is a spectrum of fighters, some are more violent, if you will, than others. That said, at the 10,000 viral members, if i remember my statistics, 2200 are foreign fighters. We are trying to work with our allies and partners to have them repatriated and brought to justice, and had a number of discussions with our european allies on this fact, discussing with our iraqi partners and other so we continue to engage on that front. Beyond that, there is no plan to transfer them anywhere other than to repatriate them back to their nations of origin. Their home nations. And, secretary esper, what is no changes . What is your plan for the next six months, and are there changes to this region . Right now, there is no disposition plans that i am tracking, of course, that could change. If the threat changes or the commander it needs to make changes on the ground, but i would defer to general milley, if he has anything to add. Thats correct. The current decision its what we anticipate for the next six months it, depending on some changing conditions. But right now, we did not anticipate that. Mister secretary, and a general milley, what do you anticipate will happen to the Syrian Democratic forces given the president s decision to withdraw all forces . There are strong allies, partners with us, and im concerned about what its going to happen to them now. My Current Assessment is that the situation up there is generally stabilized, there is, the cease fire is perfect, if you will. I think a wildcard is always the circus surrogate forces that are out, there but generally my, sense is that things have roughly stabilized. He may have heard something different. I havent heard anything different. I think it has settled down, but i would also caution, its a little bit early to tell. These things take a while to unfold. The 30 kilometer, or, so buffer zone that was established by turkey in the center and then by syria and russia on the other science that is an area of dynamic, the sdf has already made adjustments in that area. We are still working with them in the eastern portion of northeastern syria, and then they are working with the russian and syrian regime. They are continuing their cause and their fight against various entities inside of syria. I would like to add one more thing. I think the other thing that we have to watch out for is as turkey begins to resettle the internally displaced persons within turkey, as i said, to do for, more like 3 million syrians, what is that going to cause in terms of disruptions for the current as they move back into kurdish areas, and whatnot. So the recent turmoil i expect as that happens, is beginning to happen now. I think we will watch that very carefully. Lastly, do we expect any escalation in irans activity in terms of intelligence reports that we are receiving . What are we expecting within the next six months, or are we tracking anything that we need to be ready for . Obviously. I cannot discuss intelligence measures, but we see a lot of regime under stress right now, through the maximum Pressure Campaign. We see a lot of turmoil in the streets of iran and suppression through various means that is happening, so you hope for the best what we are planning for the worst. As we see things happen or optics, we certainly will address our forces, address our posture according. Lee thank you. Mr. Turner . Mister secretary, you have a tough top, syria it will be difficult and contested environment. Washington is both a difficult and contested environment, the house passed a resolution disagreeing with the president s decision to withdraw troops from syria on the same day the house would have been unable to pass a resolution authorizing keeping troops in syria. You did not have an authorization for use of force to counter russian influence in syria, to hold back irans influence in syria, to support the kurds, to support the Syrian Democratic forces in their civil war against syria, or protective civilians in their rather being attacked by the Syrian Government itself. Or to counter at the assad regime. Yet, those are criticisms that you receive every day that you are not accomplishing in syria. How difficult is it for you to operate and formulate policy we need not have an updated authorization use of force for the changing environment that you have. We think we have sufficient authorities to conduct what we need to do in syria. Were holding up fairly well, so we think we can do what we need to do at this point in time. I would echo that, they allow us to conduct the offensive strike operations against terrorists, alqaeda, etc. Isis, as we remember as a direct derivative of al canada. It is alqaeda in iraq, we branded, as isis. So we are granted the authorities to conduct operations, for the enduring defeat of isis. It has been a significant debate in the house and senate as to whether or not the scope of what you currently have, i agree it allows you to vigorously pursue isis, and i appreciate you doing. That they believe theyre a number of goals and objectives being placed upon you that did not cover those goals and objectives of the original use of force . I dont think theyre policy judges are in your assignment. With that, i yield my time. My question to you, when is enough enough with iran. When as our restraint being interpreted as weakness, and we look back in 1979 with the taking of our hostages, the beirut response, the u. S. And there was a recent analysis and 608 americans were killed by shia militias and proxies by iran. We could go on and on, at one point did they interpret this as weakness or lack of restraint. I want to hear your thoughts. Thank you, its a great question, and something that we wrestle with. We discussed it a lot because you are assessment of that determines how much force she put on the ground, or the activities you do in order to deter further aggression. And if it fails, how do you respond . Obviously, we have a great Intelligence Community that helps us with that. We talk a lot with our friends and allies, the chairman just came from the region, i was in the region for a five moments ago listening to them but also sending momentous through them, publicly and i will repeat it again. They should not mistake our restraint for weakness. We are prepared to act if our forces are attacked. So the question that you ask is a key one that we think about every day. We all think about beirut, and lots of other things, and i commanded to iranian soldiers with various munitions provided, so there is no illusion on any of our part about the influence of iran. But when its enough enough . I believe that the use of military forces should be a last resort and that diplomatic efforts should be exhausted. In all nonmilitary methods to resolve a different problem should be resolved first. I think you have to have a clear objectives, and a reasonable prospect of success if youre going to use military force. So, we have to be careful, deliberate, thoughtful, and i think restraint in this particular situation is an appropriate response, up until this point. The ball is in the iranian court, depending on what they do, how big, size scope in the future, and that will determine what we do. We are, as the other congressman has said, we are in a period of heightened risk, and i know this is a public hearing, i would caution iran publicly to be very cautious as how they proceed. I do want to follow up on mr. Turners point. I know he hates when i do this, but i agree with him on the issue. I just want to put more flavor on it. I dont think it is acceptable to put that in the record . Twice you agree with me. Theres a little bit of disagreement, but i dont think it is a good idea for us to be relying on the 2001, thousand eight in 2019 we can talk about whats in it and how it applies to now, i think that has been stretched between both recognition, but its just ridiculous said we are still saying that this is authority. I was here and i voted for that, it was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and stop the threat he posed. The idea that now, today, the pentagon is using that as the authority for military action, to say that was legislatively approved, mostly people dont even know what im talking about. , it didnt apply to, it so i think its very important that we update that. And that is the part where im with mr. Turner. Youve had a good point when we spoken before that public support for what you are doing matters enormously. We are representative of the public, for good and for ill, and if were not saying anything about it it gets further and further away from that public. I think we really need to update what we are doing here, its difficult, but we cannot rely on authorities that i think are being twisted. I would want to work on mr. Turner and others to find out how we could do that in a more sensible way. With that, i will yield. Thank you, in 2018 the administration issued the National Defense strategy, and in that strategy they talk about big power counts petition, and specifically raised the issue of russias influence, russia seeks eco authority over nations on this prefer in terms of their autonomy and diplomatic decisions to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change europe and middle east security in its favor. The withdrawal of American Forces in the northern portion of syria led to russia occupying american bases as we withdraw and it is now clear that russia and syria are very tight allies. Russia is improving it air bases and its naval bases in syria, and apparently has a nice cozy relationship with iran so much show that they are now providing very advanced missile air Defense Systems to turkey. Im wondering if the department of defense has enabled the National Defense strategy as laid out in the 2018 National Defense strategy. So, mr. Esper, could you please tell us if, in fact, we are engaged in countering russia in the middle east . I think chairman smith said it, in his opening remarks that History Matters so the relationship between russia and syria goes back to the cold war, with the ussr, that relationship in the post soviet russia was reinvigorated excuse me. The History Lesson will take several months. I promise you get there in 20 seconds. It was reinvigorated with russia moves in under assad and began working closely with the syrian forces, so back to the question about the National Defense strategy, the principal way that i see as countering russia is through our Nato Alliance to our partners. Weve seen a lot of good success there, i was in london meeting last week, the nato allies are spending hundred 40 billion dollars more annually than they had before. Can you please focus on syria and turkey . My biggest concern with the syria and turkey is actually turkey and russia, the concern is that turkey is moving out of the nato or pit, as i said publicly, i think our town to see figure out how we can get them back closer into the Nato Alliance because i think theyre critical and longstanding partner of ours. The withdrawal of american troops from the Northern Syria, how did that help carry out the goal . I think we faced maybe one or two scenarios. One would have been to allow our troops to stand there in the face of a turkish onslaught which both chairman and milley thought, option two would have been an incredible option which would be to fight the longstanding ally. I think he missed one step that preceded that and that is the president s decision to withdraw. How did that address the big power competition . Do not allow russia to exert its influence, including its troops . This isnt a with china was precipitated by months of events leading up to that, their common lead in present erdogan speaking with the president saying very clearly that he is going into turkey, he is going into syria. I think we may be talking about the decision, not the decision to withdraw the next couple, but the decision, it months earlier to withdraw period and the signal that sent. The decision you just described preceded ultimate decision that did lead to the withdrawal of american troops and the replacement of american troops by the russians and the turks, and the syrians. My question really goes to the heart of the National Defense strategy, which presumably in which case we have seriously lost a major element of our position in the region. I know for over time, but i am looking at everywhere we are in the world, to include the middle east, to withdraw forces, responsibly so that we could reallocate them towards a great power concept. Im sorry, were overtime, but thats a great point that. Think you for being here and for your service and sacrifice for our country. Secretary esper, in your Opening Statement you said that the ability of the middle east remains viable to our interest, and also listed as a priority to deny safe even to those who would do us harm. There are some in the congress and this committee couldnt believe it is time to pull out all of our troops in afghanistan. What would be the consequences to those two priorities if we did move all troops . In the context of afghanistan, and i dont want to upset negotiations that may be happening presently with the taliban and others, i would say this much. We have an Important Mission in afghanistan, that means that we have to make sure that afghanistan never becomes a safe haven for terrorists to strike the United States. Our commanders feel that we could reduce our force presence there and be able to conduct the mission. Im interested in reducing our present for the same reason, i would like to reallocate forces so i think we need to make sure that we can do that. The best way forward in afghanistan is through a political agreement allows us the long term that ensures that the government in charge does not allow that safe haven to exist. In our work we have been tracking a group, this group seems to be a primary composure, and this publicly broken, can you tell us about this group and their capabilities . They are a small Splinter Group of alqaeda that is operating in the region, quite dangerous and violent but quite committed to their cause. Theyre probably an in reconciling will group, some can be negotiated with and we will see where that goes, other groups like alqaeda, isis and so on are very deeply committed to their cause that is really only one way to deal with them to kill or capture them. Theres only one way to deal with them. I give my time. Thank you. Well we are focused on syria, in the fight against isis today, i want to talk about the future for a moment. As both of you know, i am coach hearing the future of the fence task force on the other side of the aisle, could you talk for a moment about the new capabilities that we will have and be able to use when jedi goes live, and why that is so important . And why delays would be costly in our fight against terrorism specifically . First of all we migrated many things to many clouds so far, the key piece about the next element is that you can get a lot of war fighting capabilities into the cloud, and once youre able to do that we get that cloud base two things, you have better security but you can then put on top of that intelligence and allow you to act more closely when youre in a war fight, and their multiple domains, so its critical that we move as quickly as possible, i underwent an education process when i heard this in july, and ive had a chance to talk to many of you about jedi but its important that we move quickly. Thats underway and we will continue. What further delays will cost us. First of all with his ground in terms of their ability to act, think, and fight as the way we will fight them. Secondly, when we move this piece quickly into the cloud, what we may force the services to do is to go and their separate, in their plans and its important we move as quickly as possible. Can we talk about this current content . Are still moving forward in the contracting processes that we dont afford . My understanding is that we are still moving forward, i want to comment any further because another loss would be imprudent for me to say, any further delays are costly, and just in our strategic competition with china and russia but in the fight against terrorism . Absolutely. There is bipartisan agreement that we need to move quickly and to the cloud and into this next domain of warfare. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you both for being here, secretary esper, how many troops did we have in syria before the president conversation with president erdogan . I cant recall the specific numbers, but oh 4000. And then the president had the phone call and then turkey began its operation peace spring, then the president said we were removing all of our troops on october 14th, and then it was said they were only going to stay in syria to guard the oil. How many troops are going to be there to guard the oil . First of all, what the initial plan was to regain some troops down south, so that was never off the table, if you will. We could talk in session about that number, but the current number in syria is somewhere between 500 and 600 at this point. Are there to guard the oil or there to repeal isis . We are there to ensure the inch jarring defeat of isis, so as we directed to how command on the grounds to deny isis to access, because water controls that control resources that allows i understand that. Ambassador jeffrey and Amnesty International have indicated that there are isolated war going on in syria by turkish troops. Can you speak to the ethnic cleansingl of us have bed about going on there by the Turkish Forces . The first week that the turks moved in, i speak out pretty personally that there were reports on the battlefield going to the media there was quite made been committed, and i said clearly that those should be investigated and they should be held accountable. Firsll for sanction them in the chain of command. You havent been in contact with ambassador jeffrey about these incidents that they have purported . No. Okay. He referenced earlier in the comments that you want to see afghan to afghan talks taking place in terms of a ceasefire. So my question is, why are the afghans at the table . It really comes from the other way around, its my understanding that the taliban is refusing to formally negotiate the government of afghanistan, because you dont recognize the legitimacy of the government sea have three way negotiation happening. And this other players involved as well, so the direct negotiation, can the government of afghanistan and the taliban, to my understanding, not because the government doesnt want to do it but because the taliban doesnt want to do it but i think i dont agree suppose, but i think we are closer rather than further away on a particular task happening. That would be a good thing because the warmest come to an end, the only responsible way to do it is afghans talking to afghans. So we will make sure that there are female afghan hes at the table then . Im not running the in negotiations thats part of the state and we are supporting military operations on the ground, but not part of those negotiations, so we dont have that responsibility . I think theres been a lot of concern about discipline and the respect for the law of war as they maintained companion authority needed to fight effectively. Yet, last month, the president pardon three war criminals. How did that impact our ability to maintain discipline in the ranks . Three cases are different, only one of them was convicted of war crimes and search seven years in prison for those who are crimes, the second case they were convicted of a war crime, convicted of taking a photo of a dead body. We dont know if hes been convicted or not, because in this country you are innocent until Proven Guilty. He was not Proven Guilty. Each one is different, and i dont want to group them and say they are, in fact, war criminals, because they have to be proven to that in a court of law. That is what, point do, i think for all of us to remember, and i have mentioned this to all of those in uniform is that the president of the United States is part of the process. He is the command in chief. So he has the full authority i apologize. You are over time. I had to take a stab at that. Shes asking how does it effect i was getting different in that hes part of the process and good order and discipline is maintaining a lot of giveaways but one of them is to maintain adherence to the process. The present United States is part of the process and we are maintaining good and discipline within our military. Im sorry, have to move on. Its an important topic. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before asked the question i want to commend you and the Ranking Member for an agreement on the ndaa. Weve all worked hard but the two of you have put in countless hours and we appreciate that. No one ever gets everything they want but i think we have a product we can all be proud of. So want to thank you for that. I also want to thank mr. Wilson for his work on the windows tax in particular. My question is about iran. Conventional wisdom has it that iran, the persians if you will, control four arab capitals in the region. And theres a lot of angst about what theyre doing in syria. What are they doing militarily in syria and what are we doing about it, for both of you, please. Thank you for the question. Currently iran has a lot of influence in many capitals, in many parts and not just the middle east but also africa, in afghanistan as well. Its hard to discuss that in the session. We would have to go to closed session but its everything from monetary support, payment of fighters, arms, arms trafficking. Its Political Support as well. So thats just to kind of give you the wave tops of what that looks like. But i will say the maximum Pressure Campaign and again we cant get to it in the session but as the revenues have dried up in the country, its also affected their ability to pay and do some of those things. Thats a good thing. General milley . As the secretary mentioned, not a lot you can say specifically in this but iran is very, very active with their various special forces and of the capabilities, not only in syria but also in iraq. Im going to yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague with the honor of representing pensacola, representative matt gaetz. Thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Secretary, on what to thank you and thanked the president for instituting a review of the saudi program. I also wish id more time to reflect on the heroism of the sailors who ran toward gunfire and you also informed on the location of the shooter during this terrorist attack. During this review that you are conducting, is the program paused . Are we going to be taking in new saudi students . First of all my condolences to your our constituents and youre right there was a lot of heroism on the ground that day. Very tragic day for everybody. So yes, we have directed, if you will, a standdown that would limit saudi participation in our u. S. Based training to classroom training only until we can do expedited vetting of all saudi students here in the United States. I spoke to their Deputy Defense minister yesterday. By the way, a graduate of Pensacola Naval air treading. He agreed. He fully supports this. They are going to do parallel vetting to make sure we understand during that time, new incoming students or not . I cant answer that affirmatively but i would have to get back to you on that. This is a issue of great importance to my constituents. Its a very fair question but i would hope for a certain with individual be able to make a public save as to whether or not were taking in new students while youre undergoing that vetting process. I think i know the answer but it dont want to do something want to be affirmative in what i tell you. I think its a very reasonable thing to do. Thank you. There are a number of saudis that are currently with us on your base in pensacola who court has a access to those people doing investigation . Of the dublin also that were immediate friends, acquaintances, et cetera of the alleged killer, the fbi, department of justice has control of them on the base. So who has access to those people . I specifically want to know, are embassy personnel, others speaking with, talking to perhaps providing communication with these people who we are holding for question . I dont know exactly. I want to say a navy Muslim Chaplain may have access to them. Certain the fbi, dhl doj district i think the saudi commander has access. How about embassy personal . I dont know. Thats also really important because to me this is i can assure you somebody knows. I just dont know right here. Ill get back to you. I appreciate your prompt attention because again, thats something i that think deeply informs on what we can do as policymakers to try to improve this relationship with the kingdom because at some point theres only so much of this were going to go to take where the king condenses or some quirky part of the royal family thats off doing some different thing. These saudi students, theyre connected folks when they end up in pensacola and appreciate your great efforts and i look for to those answers and i think the chairperson for his indulgence and i think the gentleman for yielding. Thank you. I want to go those concerns. Certainly the tragic event in pensacola deserves our attention and sympathy and admiration for those who responded, but the broader issue that mr. Gates gets at, the vulnerabilities we might face from saudis present the u. S. Is something we need to address now and be as transparent as possible so i appreciate your answers on that and look forward to follow as well. I need to expand come aquatech with what were saying but to expand we will look not just at we are looking for all foreign nationals coming to the United States to make sure we have the the best, strongest vetting procedures we have so we are confident regardless of where folks come from we know whos coming to our country. Its a very important program. We just have to get it right. We have to do it better. Thank you. Mr. Moulton. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Secretary esper, id like to start with you. Regarding iran, my understand is the administrations three objectives for iran are to limit Nuclear Capability, to deter regional regional aggression, and get back to negotiating table to get a strobe deal, is that correct . Im going to cast it differently. Our overall goal is to get iran to be a normal country that behaves normally. The key aspects actually four think of Nuclear Weapons, they cant have access to Nuclear Weapons and the means to produce them. Number two missiles. Number three, the behavior throughout the region and beyond, and number force hostagetaking. So hostagetaking has never been stated before the lets focus on the first three that we can all agree on. Since President Trump pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal against the best advice of secretary mattis, the secretary of defense, to chairman dunford, the chairman the joint chiefs of staff, literally hundreds, hundreds of military and National Security professionals, even many who were opposed to signing the deal initially but ragged as the nationals could he risk of pulling out and breaking our work as a country, breaking a work truck closest allies in the world, since doing that have you seen any evidence of success for the administrations strategy . Yes, i have in the context the maximum Pressure Campaign has denied them resources because of its dramatic effect its had on the economy. Weve seen the europeans make movements in our direction. You saw europeans expressing concerns about how iran has been violent im sorry, but europeans were not listed. As part of the goals of the strategy. The goal is to limit their Nuclear Weapons capability and iran is now advancing their Nuclear Weapons capability. They are much closer to having a nuclear bomb than a were under the deal. International and american inspectors verified that they were followed the deal. Since pulling out iran has advanced their Nuclear Weapons capability the second point was deterring aggression. Now, iran was attacking us before. Iran has attacked americans in iraq. I have friends who were grievously wounded and killed by iranian weapons in iraq. Iran has never rejoin those attacks and weve got to all the ways in which irans regional aggression has picked up. But its pretty quiet under the do. Theres a question those attacks have picked up as we pulled out. What we saw after the deal was consummated and money was returned to them and we saw an uptick in activities and in terms of the missile program. You would say theres less activity now than when we had the deal . They were not attacking saudi oil fields. Thats just an absurd conclusion and thats obviously not true. On the third, getting iran to the negotiating table, we were with them at the negotiating table. We had lines of communication with them under the jcpoa. We do not have those lines of communication now. Have you seen any evidence that they are coming back to the negotiating table to negotiate these stronger deals to further limit their Nuclear Capability . No, but that is the thank you, mr. Secretary. Theres more of an answer to this question. I understand the administratyion wants to talk about the national Pressure Campaign and all the way it turned their economy but Im Just Holding you to your strata strategy. Your stated strategy, and on all three points did Administration Strategy is saving. The administration is worse off, we are worse off, we are less safe than we were under the jcpoa. I have only a minute left so i want i think strategies take time to play out and i think if you look at everybody you might be right in the future but were talking about today. Theres no evidence this is working. Lets have one person talking at a time. General milley, thank you for your clarification about the three servicemen. Because to your point, innocent until Proven Guilty only two of them have been convicted of war crimes. We have to back out of three who are war criminals. I received a text from a Sergeant Major in the marines after this happened and he said trump involving himself and all the cases of these classic dickens of inappropriate in a combat zone like Eddie Gallagher is appalling. Basically setting up president of the rule of law and a combat zone doesnt apply and encourages folks to start burning villages and pillaging like genghis khan. And if you dont like your ruling, just tell trump personally and he will overturn it. The man is greatly marginalize the positions of the service leaders. Is this Sergeant Major of the marines wrong . I think the uniform code of military justice and the means by which we maintain good order and discipline are a critical element in order to maintain that capability and some level of humanity in combat zones and i think its critical. Theres much of what i understand what Sergeant Majors coming from, and i know that much of the advice that was given, which im not going to share here, and, but the president of the United States is part of the process, and he has the legal authorities to do what he did and he weighed the conditions and the situation as he saw fit. He is part of the process. We do maintain and we will maintain good order and discipline. We will not turn into a gang of raping burning, raping, and pillaging thugs as Sergeant Major implied. I appreciate that. This is a Sergeant Major of the marines, hes got a purple heart and baby cross. We are defending the actions of a draft dodger. Im not defending anyone mr. Moulton, this could go on for very long time. I respect i will just say yes, the president is part of the process. What were concerned that is the way he is being part of the process right now is unhelpful as mr. Moulton describes. Mr. Scott. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, when we have these meetings i bring my computer so that i can pull up the map of the middle east, and every time i pull that map of, it reminds me of the need to have partners over there with common values and common interests, and we seem to have very few that have both of those. We obviously have jordan. We have israel. But when i look at the others i will tell you i think the vote of disapproval or whatever the term is with regard to the withdrawal of the troops, i trust your judgment on that, even though i voted for that resolution. I think that was that my vote as many votes was indicative of the fact that the kurds have been a good partner and we believe that as of today turkey as a partner of necessity but not a good partner, and i think we recognize that we need turkey to be a good partner, and we hope that happens sooner rather than later. Ive been to the refugee camps in turkey. Ive been to the ones in jordan, and its a tough scenario. Especially in the middle east as a kaleidoscope. Every time one thing changes, a whole bunch of other things change. I do have a bit of an issue with the statement on the aumf. I think that the aumf does absolutely give us give you the authority on behalf of the United States to strike terrorists and terror cells where you see them. I do not believe that the aumf of01 and02 gives us the authority to base in countries uninvited and i think thats a further discussion that Congress Needs to have in whether or not were allowed to base uninvited in countries almost 20 years after an authorization for use of military force that did not include those countries was passed. With that said, if i can focus more narrowly on one thing, general mattis who i have a tremendous amount of respect for, wanted to move to preparing for china and russia. One of the victims of that was the ehc. They are no longer flying in centcom. They have just been removed. My question is are the Ground Forces responsibility for receiving the proper intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance coverage, they need to detect and counter the ground threats and what additional things do you need from this committee to make sure that the forces have the adequate coverage . The commander general mckinsey, he is not requested additional. In fact, centcom for the last many, many years has the preponderance of isr of the u. S. Military. Pacom gets a lot, centcom gets a lot. So i dont think they are at a lack of adequate isr, that which we have. Theres not a commander out there who doesnt want more isr. Everybody wants more all the time. That general mckinsey has to come up and said hey, i need this, that, or the other thing immunity sort of thing it if you get we would give it to him. Mr. Secretary, understand that the ehc, the recap, was not a system that we would necessarily use against russia and china or near peer competitors, but i do believe it was a mistake to not go forward with the recap of that program. Its a lowcost program that we couldve used, and certainly anywhere in the western hemisphere it wouldve helped us in africa, we couldve used it. We we could use it in a majority of the areas where were currently operating, and while i recognize the decision was made under the previous secretary, i just want to express my belief that it was a mistake not to go ahead and recap. I think it will be seen as a mistake is canceling the f22 before the replacement system. I respect both of you. You know, i do think that the committee needs to look at whether the aumf from01 and02 gives us the authority to base in a country uninvited. With that ideal the remainder of my time. Mr. Brown. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to return to syria and so the express my concerns. I thought it was a grave mistake that the president decision to relocate our forces to the northeast region of syria and essentially abandon our partners, the kurdish Syrian Democratic forces, i think it runs counter to your work, your effort, your responsibility, our responsibility in the counterterrorism fight but it also think it runs counter to our objectives are state and nationals could is tragic of National Defense strategy which is to prepare for Great Power Competition and in this case, competition presented by russia. Just this sunday the commanderinchief of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Forces wrote, we know we would have to make painful compromise is with moscow and Bashar Alassad difficult than the road of working with them, certainly expressing his lack of confidence in support to him and his forces. He goes on to say but if we have to choose between compromises and the genocide our people, we will choose life for our people. We are seeing russian flags that are flying outside of the turkeyrussia patrol area. We know that russia now has taken possession military bases built by u. S. Taxpayers, and russia is essentially supporting the Syrian Government in regaining control over the entire country and establishing itself a sphere of influence for russia. Can you please tell us what concerns you have about russias increasing presence in syria . Well, as i look at the global situation, someone mentioned before we compete with russia all around the globe, principally in europe but other places, whether its the middle east and even africa. My principal concern with regard to the kurds was and the sdf specifically was that the nation was the enduring let me finetune it. Its russia. Are you concerned about russias growing influence in syria, and what impact that will have and their ability to even an expanding influence in the entirety of the middle east . Are you concerned about russia . Im concerned about russia in and other parts of the middle east. Are you concerned about russia in syria . Not as much because theyve had a pretty solid footprint there for five years since i first moved in. Do you see that footprint expanding . It has in the last month or half. Does that concern you . Some but im more concerned about russias expansion into egypt, saudi arabia and other places. Theres only so much come so many resources and time you can focus on. The bigger issue with russia was the nexus of russia in turkey. Thats what really concerns me is the russia turkey nexus. I dont have much time here. I have two minutes left, so let turn to afghanistan. Both of you mentioned afghanistan into opening comments and the president s advice in afghanistan. I travel to niger, where we have about 800, 900 troops there. In syria, our number was about 900, and using the various authorities, 127 echo, triple three, we seem to be effectively supporting local partners in the counter veo effort. So what is we have 14,000 troops in afghanistan. Have you developed have you considered an option where we have a minimal footprint purely for the purposes of counter operations, regardless of the ability and the viability of the Afghan Government and their forces . Ill take the first stab, again the chairman hasnt come back, more in his lane. But i will say short answer is yes. The command on the grant will tell you that in some ways you cant diss aggregate because afghans are playing an increasingly Important Role and, of course, went to protect our intelligence people out there. Thats probably as far as i can go on that matter right now right here, but chairman. Short answer is yes. We havemultiple options. Thats one of them. And in the classified setting would you be able to brief us on what that minimal footprint is like . I can do that. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Wittman. And we talked about a lot of different issues. One of the areas we talked about was the relationship between turkey, pkk, ypg or really, lack thereof and what that was doing to the u. S. Turkey relationship and how she saw what was happening there. I want your perspective how do you think we reconcile what appears to be an inconsistent approach in training syrian ypg forces that potentially, as things r things ramp down or spread out from syria could actually go back and join the fight with pkk forces within turkey, which is really inflammatory towards the turks and how they see that, so, is there a way that we can tailor that policy to best suppress isis forces in syria without subsequent negative consequences for turkey . Because they look at it and just say how can you support, you know, these folks are that are perpetrating terrorism in turkey . And of course, what were saying is listen, let us help defeat isis in syria and then well make sure we turn back around. But i want to get your perspective on that. I think the fundamental difference, mr. Wittman, and thanks for the question. We have fundamentally different views, we being the United States and our allies, whether the ypg is a foreign terrorist organization. We dont think they are and neither do many of our nato our allies, but the turks do and thats holding up to the detriment of that and we have designate the foreign organizations. Fair to say that theres fluidity on the ground between people in these groups and its hard to pin that down, but we make our best assessment as to who we think really is a terrorist organization and who is not and turkey wasnt happy with the fdf either because it included, you know, members of ypg, but other groups as well. The fact that wng were members of part of the coalition, didnt like the sdf along the border, et cetera, et cetera. I think their concern was, listen, we have clear evidence that wng forces are infiltrating into pkk and we believe theyre part of perpetrating those attacks and we said the same thing that you said, that is that were trying to distinguish forces that are sympathetic to u. S. Causes versus those that may perpetrate harm against turkey. And we try to take those considerations and address them. Thats why we worked hard up until the point of the incursion to establish the safe zone, if you will, and it was unsatisfactory to the turks with regard to what we were doing. They wantedthey had clear ambitions how far they wanted to go, the depth and extent of their operation and what they wanted to do afterward. Thank you, im going to yield the balance of my time. Thank you. Gentlemen, are you familiar with the case of Staff Sergeant robert bails, convicted of the kandahar massacre, 2012 . Yes. That was a sergeant who literally lost his mind, walked into an afghan village and machinegunned 16 afghans. Hes now convicted of that crime, of that war crime, is in life in prison. Do you have any indication that the president is considering releasing, pardoning Staff Sergeant bails for his war crimes . Not that i that you know of . No. I would submit to my colleagues thats a war criminal. We need to be careful about, throwing around that team. In the case of navy seal chief gallagher, reminding my colleagues acquitted of murder. He was convicted for taking a photo with a dead body. He is now retiring. He is no longer commanding seals, hes not going to be promoted. Is it within the president s authority, given the balance of his service, his multiple valor awards, his numerous combat tours to say retiring no longer commanding seals, not being promoted, but also not being demoted. Is that within his authority . Just to clarify, he was promoted, but hes now retired and all that was within his was within the president s authority. Do you believe that he deserves to be called a war criminal . Id have to review the crime that was he was charged with, which was appearing with a corpse, id have to read it and understand it and come back to you with that. But he was acquitted of the murder charge and in fact another seal admitted on the seal dramatically he was the one that killed, in a mercy killing knowing that that isis fighter would right, he was acquitted of the murder charge, but convicted of holding up the corpse, that would be a violation of the law of Armed Conflict as i understood it during my time as a military officer. Gentlemans time expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Secretary and general for your service. I want to follow up on the exchange you had with representative spear and i understand your position is that the 2001 aumf gives us the authority to fight isis and that were there to protect the oil because we dont want isis to get it. I disagree with that theory, but i want to bracket that and see if you at least acknowledge we dont have the authority to do what the president is calling for. President trump on october 27th stated clearly, we are leaving soldiers to secure the oil. Now, we may have to fight for the oil. Thats okay. Maybe somebody else wants the oil in which says they have a hell of a fight. It can help us because we should be able to take some, also, and what i intend to do perhaps, and make a deal with exxonmobil, one of our great companies. Would you acknowledge that this congress has not authorized in any way the United States to go in and steal syrian oil and make money off of it . Im not aware of the congress granting any authority along those lines. Im also unaware of what inherent authorities the president does or does not have in this regard. Im focused on the military task of denying isis access to the oil. Can you assure us at this point that there are no plans for us to try to take the oil and sell the oil. All i can tell you is im not aware of any plans right now. The second question i have regarding the bombshell Washington Post report on the afghan afghan papers. I imagine you read that. The bottom line is, the top military officials and civilian officials have known that the afghan war has been unwinnable and have been misleading the American Public for 20 years. Your predecessor, secretary rumsfeld, is quoted there as saying, i have no visibility into who the bad guys are. Are you embarrassed by secretary rumsfelds comments and the other people quoted and do you believe they owe the American Public an explanation and an apology . Congressman, i havent read all the stories, frankly, and so before i comment on what secretary rumsfeld purportedly said or didnt say, id want to read all that and actually talk to him. I do know the story spanned multiple administrations and uniformed officials and its good to look back. At this point im looking forward and forward tells me the political win is an agreement between the parties on the ground. But dont you think we have to have some accountability so we dont make the mistake again . Would you support this committee Holding Hearings on the afghan papers and calling in front of Congress Every official who misled the American Public whether this war was winnable or not, with 2400 american soldiers dead, 75,000 americans deployed . Dont you think people owe the American People an explanation . Sure, many of those dead are my friends, but i dont think you want the executive branch making that call. Mr. Chairman, i would request that this committee hold a hearing on the afghan papers and call before congress with subpoena every person who has misled this country and just like the pentagon papers, the highest priority what came out in this bombshell report. Well pause your time. I think its appropriate to have hearings, ill tell you upfront to set expectations correctly, im not going to call every single witness who has something to do with this, i do not believe its a productive use of the committees time. I do think its something to look at and get explanations, but i dont want to set Unrealistic Expectations about how the committee should approach that. I respect that. At least having prominent people come and explain not American Public. My final question concerns yemen and i appreciate that the administration has voluntarily suspended the refueling of the planes, but weve had a situation of course now our own bases and representatives gates district, we have saudi nationals who are being trained and are attacking americans and i guess the question the American Public is asking, why in the world would we be providing the Saudi Air Force with any possible logistical help to conduct bombing in yemen when 10 million civilians possibly face famine . Mr. Congressman, were not providing the saudis logistical help with regard to their activities in yemen. We are providing saudi and 152 other countries training in the United States. Why . Because we have a distinct advantage over russia and china who dont have allies and partners, and i think its important that we continue the programs so that we have can you commit that we wont help the Saudi Air Force logistically or in maintenance to do anything in terms of their bombing in yemen . You can define help pretty broadly, right . We probably trained saudi personnel to do maintenance here in the United States, i dont know, but can we stop doing any maintenance of the saudi aircraft in saudi arabia and not have any of our men and women assist the saudis in their mission into yemen . Id just have to come back with you and let now what we are and are not doing with regard to the saudis and what the impact would be on not just the saudis, because keep in mind the same saudi aircraft might be the same saudi aircraft we call on to help blunt an iranian assault or help us respond to an iranian attack so youve got to be thoughtful in how we think through what actions we take and dont take. The time has expired. The Foreign Policy got sucked in a black hole and we face a similar challenge to say if we do not identify high impact light footprint approach in centcom it will suck up the time and resources and we wont implementwith that in mind id like to ask about china, not syria, but the two things are linked in my mind as i know they are on yours. The first is that on september 11th, we joing in sending you, mr. Secretary, a letter 1237 of the fy 99 and of the Chinese Military operate nth United States. Were waiting on a response. Its 20 years late. We would really appreciate you delivering a response to this letter as soon as possible. Im sorry im not tracking that. Its a good question, and somebody who studied china now for a quarter of a century we need to be careful about all of their activities in the United States and youve touched on one of them. I think given your background on the china commission, youre very wellsituated to talk about the issues and did talk at the Reagan Defense forum this weekend and i salute you for that. The following determination of the russias breach under the obligation on the agreement and withdraw august 2nd. Since then only one inf range test coming up shortly, both of which stem from great work being done by sco. What are you doing, mr. Secretary to ensure the two range capabilities under development are incorporated by the service into their fy 21 budget . We are supporting them with all the right people. Having the capability is essential, im not countering what the russians deployed in europe, but maybe more importantly visavis china. China has thousands of intermediate range missiles along their periphery, along their eastern coast. We will rely on missiles of our own. To follow up, there was a fy 20 prohibition on range procurement and deployment could be mitigated because the current schedule for inf range ccapabilities, but in other words, youre not actually going to deploy those missiles in the next year or so. But if it similar provision were adopted by fy 21. What would be the impact on the departments ability to implement the nds . Depending on the Current Development and deployment time lines and again, im assuming the commanders need the weapons and if they do i want to provide those. It would take a tool out of our hands. I dont see any possibility that were going backward. The nato analysis, getting out of inf and address it with our own system and defend against russian systems. And then, back to where i started. Centcoms needs are obvious and apparent every day, open up the newspaper and also in ucom weve established the european deterrence initiative. We have an authorized account for indo pay com, but we havent funded as we did for edi. And given china, would a similar funded mechanism for indo pacom be useful Going Forward . Depends where youre taking money from. Part of our efforts in europe in indo pacom is our footprint on the ground in that point, yes. Were trying, with regards to the partners, help them help us as we expand that footprint. In a resourceconstrained environment, we will have to make choices and if i believe the logic of nds as i do. That would be the priority. We have to presume risk. If i had to pour concrete in some locations and build bases, i should be prioritizes indo pacom. One final question, about syria, i dont have an opportunity to talk to both of you. And exercising with the taiwan navy, not as the result of any decision we made in the70s and80s, the policy the last decade, is it still the policy to prohibit bilateral exercises between United States navy and the republic of china navy. Beyond a yes or no, thats for the record unless you can get it done with a yes or no. Ill get back to you. Thank you, mr. Keating. Thank you, dr. Esper and general milley for being here. General milley, your service is not only extraordinary, but lengthy. And i look back on your bio, princeton and the rotc, is that correct. Right around 1980 . Thats correct, congressman, almost 40 years now. Thank you, it is extraordinary in length and i have a question for you, quickly, in that regard. During that almost four decades, or four decades of service and several president s, having served our country during that period of time, could you share with us other instances where president s had pardoned war criminals, in your experience since youve been in the military during that time . President s have pardoned individuals many, many times. As you know, for example, president nixon, a very famous case pardoned lieutenant kelly, who murdered 130some odd women during your time, during your four decades. In my 40 years, long time. Someone who has alleged to admitted war crimes . Someone who convicted of war crimes, do not think of one. I cant think of one either, general. Hasnt been done historically. But 40 years, several president s, a long time. So thank you for that. Right. In your joint statement, both of you said youre focused on internationalizing the response to irans provocative activities by encouraging increased burden sharing and cooperation allies with partners. Thats a very important issue and i also serve in the Foreign Affairs committee and recently we had special representative for syria, mr. Jeffrey testifying. During that testimony he did say, and i agree with him, 100 , that it was a mistake when he was referencing to pull out of syria without informing our allies. A critical point, becuase we have something for our country, probably the greatest threat, china. We have something that they dont have. We have something that russia doesnt have. Were this extraordinary coalition. I think its one of the biggest difference makers that we have. And special representative jeffrey, myself, a lot of other people, were concerned. Those allies werent even informed about what our action would be, even though they had troops on the ground there. And im concerned about not having that kind of notification. What can we do Going Forward to really make sure we have greater communication . I know that wasnt a decision you made or the military made. No, you about i wouldif i may, i know that i personally called our allies and i believe, i wont speak for the secretary, i believe he did as well and i believe some people in the department of state, perhaps secretary pompeo, i dont know about the rest of them. I personally called our allies in syria as soon as decisions were made. How long was that . It was quick. Like what . It was quick. Whats quick . Fast. Whats fast . Id have to go back and check the phone records. Well. It was very, very days . No, thats pretty fast. Much faster than that. A day . Yeah, it was inside of that. Inside of a day. Thats not what i call havingnot that your fault, great cooperation and communication. I think its so important Going Forward to have this. Now, youre referencing in joint statement, some of other countries that are dealing with maritime and navigation issues and im looking at the list, there is u. K. , australia, albania, bahrain. And so many countries that are allies in activities. Can you share where we reached out and communicateed with other allies and they havent done what they quite often do and join us in these . Im just concerned. I can speak to that, congressman. On both the International Maritime security construct and the integreated air and Missile Defense effort, i personally made calls to many allies in both asia and europe, and asked for assets and was told and was told either not possible or well think about it and you can see how many are there right now. I can see how many who arent there, too, that are usually there. Thats a concern i have. My time is running out. I want to highlight your point of allies and foreigners is critical. We in the United States of america depend upon for access basing and other things and military operations allies and we want to keep allies close and and were getting were done so. And thank you. Mr. Gates. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and i want to make sure that your call and mr. Connors call for hearings on the afghan paper is a bipartisan one. I believe that those are issues that we ought to look into and i trust, given your thoroughness that we will address that. We have been trading the same villages back and forth in afghanistan for 20 years and i think the American People deserve answers. Mr. Chairman, i also want to thank you and the Ranking Member for your work on the ndaa and im deeply disappointed it doesnt include the amendment that mr. Connor and i worked on to constrain any authorization for restraint of use of military force in a regime change war with iran. And just for the record, i share your disappointment, but we have to work with the senate and the president. I know that you worked hard on it its crazy to me in washington, mr. Chairman, that something that passes the house with a robust majority, every democrat, dozens of republicans, its up in the senate, more people vote for it than against it, but i guess given the ways of washington it can still not be in the bill. Well, if the gentleman a little swampy to me. And i think you have a better relationship with that person that is responsible than i do and i would work with that relationship and i wills would suggest that a practical restrained and realistic view of Foreign Policy is entirely consistent with the trump doctrine and it may be a minority view on the congress and this committee, but i fully support the administrations decisions in the syria and turkey theater. It is my belief that we ended up in this mess in syria as a consequence of the prior administration, being all over the place on regime change wars in syria that created second and Third Order Effects that the Trump Administration is now having to deal with, as i see things in a very challenging and complicated environment where theres been a great deal of war for a great deal of time, you have done all you can to balance regional interests, reduce u. S. Risk and the u. S. Footprint and then secure the resources that will function as the leverage for the kurds to have the greatest opportunity to have a say in their own future. And this notion, repeatedly reflected in this committee on both sides of the aisle, that because we are an ally with a group of people in one instance because our interests align in that case, that that somehow morally binds us to every conflict they have, past present or future is crazy to me. If we accept that doctrine, itle not enhance the utility of our future alliances, it will diminish them because we will not be able to engage in those alliances given the complicated world in which we live today. I do want to go back to pensacola for a moment because its very central to the thinking of many of my constituents. I understand with the saudi government we have a status of forces agreement, that set this program up. That status of forces agreement has within it, you know, various accommodations for access, to me when the uniformed military of another country attacks and kills my constituents wearing the uniform of our country, maybe we dont have to be as faithful to a contract regarding access, but we should be more concerned about ensuring that we contain the terrorism and hold those responsibile. So perhaps you can inform me on what role the status of forces agreement is playing in the ongoing diplomatic standoff or negotiation that were currently having with the kingdom regarding those people currently in custody. Its a fair question. Excuse me, sorry, its a good question. I honestly am not up to speed with what sof says in regard to this and ill have to get back to you on that. Its my sincere hope that thats not limiting the work of the fbi or creating unique challenges by having the kingdom make the demands to have their embassy personal interact with people that were currently holding and this is a question i get a lot from my constituents, maybe you can elaborate on it. When the people who are activity duty military attack our military in country, why is that viewed as a Law Enforcement event rather than an event like more akin to an act of war where we would hold these people as prisoners of war, people in conflict, rather than like giving them the full complement of the rights articulated in the status of forces agreement . Ill just say upfront i think we need the investigation to play itself out. In this case, id say were obviously, saudi arabia is a partner. Were not in war with them, we dont actually actually have hostility with them whatsoever so in this case i look upon it as the act of an individual at this point. We need to find out whether theres more behind it or not, but certainly, it was not a statesponsored action as best as i can tell. Im not saying that it is. But i dont think that the statement that this is the work of an individual is going to age well. Im saying at this time thats all im saying, one, we need to let the investigation tell us what else is out there. Thats another argument well have to leave at that point, but i think thats something worth investigating. Mr. Crowe. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate both of your testimony today and your accessibility, i found both of you under your tenure to be very accessible to the committee and do i appreciate that. Notwithstanding some of my colleague on this committees attempts here today to exercise some revisionist history in blaming the prior administration. The bottom line is, this administration has no overarching policy in the middle east with respect to syria. It appears to be a series of fairly ad hoc decisions stumbling from one decision to the next, and theres no greater illustration to the fact that the first week of october, i led a congressional delegation to the region where we met with and discussed Security Issues and we discussed numerous military and diplomatic individuals, none of whom, by the way, had any idea that we were about to exercise precipitous withdrawal from Northern Syria and brings me to my first question, general milley. Several of those officials expressed a grave concern about the security of isis prisoners in the prisons in Northern Syria and i just wanted to clarify what i heard you say today, that you dont have any concern currently, even though the situation seems to be less secure now than it was in early october, given our much lower footprint in that area . But dont have any concern about the security of those prisoners, is that accurate . South of the 30kilometer buffer zone, the reports i have indicate that the sdf is still securing the 24 prisons for which they are responsible for. Inside the 30kilometer buffer zone, we dont have that level of visibility. So i cant say one way or the other. I think there were seven, if im not mistaken, from seven facilities inside. And general, did we have that visibility before our withdrawal . Did we have that visibility on those prisons that you just indicated before our withdrawal and now we do not . Of course, i mean, they were colocated in some respects and the sdf had those detention facilities. Since the government of turkey went into those into that incursion zone, internationally legal from the first week of october, were in a less were in a worse position with respect to oversight of those prisons than we were or are currently now than we were two months ago . I would say we have less visibility because the turkish government the visibility and we dont have the visibility on those detention facilities. Next question, there have been several public media reports about iranian drones called, suicide drones conducting oversight operations over our Forward Operating bases in syria, iraq and potentially jordan. Standing here today, if theres an iranian drone attack on one of our Forward Operating bases in those three countries, do those Forward Operating bases and do the soldiers have the necessary material equipment and intelligence to defend against those attacks . I would say that, first of all, its a very serious threat. We are a weararearwearaware of it and in some cases we can mitigate the threat, but to say that we could eliminate the threat, that would be a false statement. No, we dont have everything that we would absolutely want that technology can provide. I would add that this, our ability to respond is not unique to iranian drones. Its a challenge that we face writ large and thats why i recently reassigned the responsibility for counter uas systems to the army as the executive agent because we need to get ahead of this because the offensive technology is changing more quickly than our defensive means to deal with it. Thank you, secretary esper. Last question, general milley. Youre a special forces officers and work with local forces a lot throughout your career. Theres bipartisan concern on the hill about our lack of standing by our kurdish and syrian allies who fought with us in Northern Syria. As a result of that, several of us have led a bipartisan bill called the syrian partner protection act that would create an siv program for those fighters and their families and allow them to come to the u. S. If theyre in danger. Could you speak briefly as to the impact, the positive impact that siv programs have, not only in syria, but in afghanistan and iraq on our ability to demonstrate that well stand by our partners and continue to recruit partners like that throughout the world . I think for the United States, as we go forward, regardless of where it is in the world, maintaining allies and partners, both nation states but also indigenous partners like the sdf are important to fulfill our National Security objectives and everything that we can do to assure them and maintain good faith with them is a positive. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Walls. Im proud to join my colleague representative crowe in that expansion of the siv program which i think is critical to our local allies and to our ability to move forward. Mr. Chairman, i have unanimous consent request to submit to the letter from the commander in chief of the Syrian Democratic forces to this committee. No objection, so ordered. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to return quickly to the issue of pardons and war crimes and a third case and First Lieutenant lorance. I would just kind of conclude that that line of thinking and the previous conversation, that lieutenant lorance did serve six years. I would submit to my colleagues we need to be very careful in equating mistakes, perhaps bad judgment calls, calls that may even get you relieved of command, with a war crime, and i, too, have received many texts and a lot of outreach since these pardons and most of them said, that could have been me and these splitsecond decisions in the heat of combat, again, making a mistake does not necessarily equality a war crime and we have to be careful with the signal that we send. Chilling signal if that you make a bad call that you could go to jail for 20 years. And id just ask you to consider these as we deal with these Going Forward. General milley, im glad and clarify that were fighting isis from africa to afghanistan. This is in my view a global insurgency by extremists against American Leadership of a world order based on western values and that that includes iran in that support of extremism. Would you agree with that characterization . Yes. Yes. And that we are dealing with a multigenerational war against extremism, against an ideology much like the war that we fought against the ideology of communism and that we need a whole of Government Strategy to undermine the ideology, everything from girls education, womens, empowerment, Economic Opportunity in addition to the military aspects of that . Do you agree that we need that and frankly, that its been lacking in the last 20 years of that whole of government approach . Absolutely. I do. You have to get the root causes and delegitimize the ideology, absolutely. I think we need it. Im not sure to what degree. Look back and understanding when its lacking, but the third piece of that is you have to have a culture of people willing to accept those ideas as well and you have to have it has to be organic that some part of that population has to be receptive to those ideas. Thats critical. So were talking about individual battles here from syria to iraq to afghanistan in that, i think, that broader conflict, where we do need that whole of government approach, do you believe, general milley in your military opinion, do you believe that isis and al qaeda can and will resurge, will regain capability and has the intent to attack the homeland if we allow it . Second one first, do they have the intent to attack the homeland . Yes, they absolutely do. We know that with certainty. Do i believe the research . If we withdraw all of our capabilities to the indigenous governments by, with and through them, the conditions will be you do not believe then, approaching it another way. That the Syrian Democratic forces whether thats in syria. The national Security Forces in afghanistan, the iraqi Security Forces, currently have the independent capability without u. S. Support i dont believe they have the independent capability right this minute. So in the near term, a full withdrawal would endanger the homeland . Its my belief thats correct. Syria in particular, i just wanna focus on that for a moment. It seems to me that we have discordant objectives. On the one hand, defeat of isis, enduring defeat of isis yet, would you agree that the assad regime backed by iran, backed by russia with the war crimes they have committed in bombing hospitals, is recruiting to isis. On the one hand allowing assad continuing its streak of murderous attacks across syria, were furthering isis. My question is what is our policy. You can submit that for the record, whats our policy towards russia, the assad regime and iran. I still have 20 seconds. I would say broadbased, the overarching goal is to come up with a u. N. Sponsored political settlement that ends the civil war and hits the three topics ive mentioned before objectives. Not a safe haven for terrorists, not dominated by any power, in this case, iran, hostile to the United States and Global Strategic Energy market. Miss slotkin. Hi gentlemen, thanks for being here. You know, i want to go back to this decision, president s decision to allow the turks to go into Northern Syria and i would offer, mr. Secretary, the only reason youre sitting here today is because general mattis resigned almost exactly a year ago today on the basis of the president threatening this very decision. So, i think it makes perfect sense that were talking about it. Can i just ask, you know, i think in issue really resonated with voters back home in our districts, not because they understand every in and out of where syria is and who the kurds are and all the players. They understood that the american handshake has to mean something and that when we shook hands with the kurds, we gave them the commitment at three and four star level that we would work with them and when they died with us on the battlefield, that that meant something to us and we wouldnt create a situation where theyre running for their lives and their families are an internally displaced people. So let me ask you a question. Is our plan in syria and in fighting terrorism from africa to afghanistan still working by, with, and through partners . Yes, congresswoman, it is. Let me go back no, mr. Secretary, no. Youve said that youre working by, with and through and what i want to understand is in the future of our terrorist fights in west africa, in all of these places, the decision the demonstration of going to the kurds and telling them that we are leaving them, does that make it easier or harder to find partners to work by, with and through for the next terrorist threat. Just harder . Be honest, be straight. Im being honest. And secretary mattis was as straight as they come. Be honest. Miss slotkin, im sorry, if you have a statement to make, you may make a statement, i will give you more time in a second. Does it make it easier or harder. Yield for just a moment. If you have a statement to make, you may make the statement. I dont want witnesses badgered up here. You asked him a question, you have to give him a chance to answer. If you want to make a statement, perfectly within your right, but dont badger him when hes trying to answer the question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The handshake with the kurds, with the sdf in particular, was a handshake that we would defeat isis, its not a handshake that said, yes, we would help you establish an autonomous kurdish state or fight turkey for you. Thats the difference there im trying to make, the point were trying to make. So whenever we make these hand shakes, by with and through, which is our strategy, i think we need to be clearer Going Forward as to what the extent of that relationship actually is. Will that be harder or easier if youre in mali or burkina faso or other places . Do you think these partner groups would feel like they could trust us . If were clear and explicit with what the relationship is upfront, yes. Youre the secretary of defense and i know folks have talked about the authorization of military force and i agree with most of my colleagues here that it desperately needs revision and that is actually congresss responsibility which they have shirked. Can i ask right now, do you as secretary of defense believe that you have authorization based on any aumf on the books to go to medium or longterm war with iran . We always have the right of selfdefense, but to attack iran, no, thats not as a state on state attack, no. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you. Miss i know were little over time if youll indulge me for a minute here. Miss sheryl. Thank you for being here today. I myself served in pensacola so i look forward to hearing more about your investigations into the foreign nationals on that base. General milley, you stated that our objective is a secure middle east, given that weve defeated the physical caliphate, but knowing how important it is to protect those gains because as secretary esper stated, we havent defeated isis and given our relationship with our kurdish allies who have certainly done a great deal of fighting for our shared objectives, excuse me, and now given that we are still conducting combined operations presumably with the roughly, i think you said 500 troops that we have remaining to fight in the region, i guess i fail to see how the president s tweet to remove troops without coordination with the pentagon or our own kurdish allies aids our objective of a secure middle east. So, have you found that tweet . Did you find that tweet to be helpful . Im not sure which tweet were talking about. To say that the president made a decision without coordination with the secretary and i is not true. So he tweeted out that we were going to remove troops from syria and the pentagon didnt know, but you were both aware that he was going to make that tweet. I wasnt aware of the specific tweet. The sequencing, im not exactly clear which tweet youre talking about. The most recent tweet he was going to remove the troops from syria, not months ago when he said we would do that and secretary mattis resigned. Im talking about the one after that. Youre talking in october when we pulled troops out. When we pulled troops out. Yeah, i think that tweet, i believe that that tweet happened after we talked. But im not sure, id have to go back and check. I guess my point is this, there was coordination and there was discussion between senior advisors and the president prior to him making a decision. So the senior advisors knew, but none of our allies across the world mr. Crow was talking about his discussion with allies right before that tweet had no idea that was coming. Ill tell you many people in the pentagon had no idea that was coming, but you had discussed it internally and decided to do it without our pentagon or our allies. And members of the National Security counsel of the president of the United States. Did you recommend that we pull out of syria. I personally recommended that we pulled out 28 special forces soldiers in the face of 15,000 turks that were going to invade im sorry, if the gentleman would yield for one quick second bus because this is a question enormously important to me. In december, were you in different jobs at the time. December a year ago, or youre talking about october . This past october . Im going a different place, simple yes or no question, just bear with me. In december when you were the secretary of the army and you were the army chief of staff, to your knowledge, did anyone in the pentagon before the president sent out his tweets saying that we were going to pull completely out of syria in afghanistan, did anyone in the pentagon know that that announcement was coming when the president tweeted it, to your knowledge . I dont know, i dont think chairman, i cant speak to that. You can speak to that. To your knowledge, as the secretary of the army and the chair, to your knowledge, did anyone at the pentagon know that that announcement was coming . I dont know. And im not trying to dodge because its not a yes or no its to your knowledge, yes or no. I cant tell you, as a service secretary. You do ent know what you know . As a service secretary, no. The Service Secretaries do not have an operational role. I just asked a very narrow question. I dont know. I dont know. You talk to people in the pentagon. Youre telling me youre the secretary of the army and army chief of staff hanging out in the pentagon a year ago a year ago, i didnt know a year ago, i dont know if anyone was told. October i guarantee. I know about, but the early decision is the important one. Im sorry to interrupt, go ahead. Im also confused because now, so its my understanding that you were deliberating with some number of people and you suggested that the president pull out 28 troops . Let me review the bidding here. There were a variety of intelligence reports going back as far as early august of a considerable buildup of Turkish Forces and capabilities with the intent to invade Northern Syria and establish a buffer zone. President erdogan went to the United Nations and held up a map and did declaratory policy and said he was going to do that. When i became the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, one the very first calls i made was to turkey to say what are you doing . And he said were going to do this and we cannot guarantee the safety of the American Forces that are in the way. Those reports went to the secretary of defense so our nato ally said we are going to do this and run through americas troops and we did not talk to our allies and we did . We did talk to our allies. They seemed remarkably unaware that they were going to do this. I dont know which allies youre talking about. Im talking jordan and allies through the region, im talking about israel. Talking our allies in the region called about the discussions and the situation and all fully aware of the possibilities and the discussions and the situation. The key people. Im not going to speak for every member of the government. And then well, speak for netanyahu and i know who but my point being is that there were deliberations and there were 15,000 turkish soldiers and we had all the intelligence indicators written and complete they were going to attack and there were 28 special forces green berets and im not going to allow 28 american soldiers to be killed and slaughtered to call someones bluff someones bluff. I dont understand the 28 the initial advance of the invasion, we had 28 soldiers. I apologize andonce the president made the announcement six months before we were pulling out of syria and this is actual what happened when that tweet was made, everyone went oh, my god, what did he do and weve got to figure this out. Its my opinion, sir, will you just said what erdogan did after the president without consulting the pentagon or National Security council said were pulling out fof syria. Someone can disavow me of this notion, and erdogan said, yes, i can do this and yes, over the course of the next six, seven, eight months planned to the series of events which you have told us and described and i think its accurate. The other thing was, we had over 3,000 troops in syria when the president made that announcement. By the time we got to all that you just described, that number was way down. And it was way down, im sorry to say this bluntly, it was way down not because it was in the National Security interest of the United States for it to be way down, it was way down because the president was trying to fulfill a Campaign Promise and did he not consult the pentagon before he made that announcement and started us down this path. Now im very sympathetic. Once he started down this path you had to find a way to work at it. And i know secretary dunford did as well. He was trying to find partners for usand its partners for us and its frustrating for me, there were only 25 troops there, we couldnt possibly defend them. I agree, completely agree. And i do have to give mr. Thornberry a chance to respond and i do want to get to ms. Escobar, because i said i would. Im not trying to make a political point, but if we dont understand that, want someone to go over to the white house and say wed really prefer you know the to do this again, we have a process that tweets have far more power than people realize on our policy. Lets try to calm that down. Thats what im trying to calm that down. Mr. Thornberry. Mr. Chairman, its a far more complicated story than that. Its true in december now a year ago the president issued his text. There was immediate there were immediate conversations, i know personally, between members of the house and the senate with the president and others at the white house related to that tweet, and as without going into all of the ins and outs over weeks, it is also true that there were other partners who did step up to assist in the work in syria and again, i have person knowledge of a number of those conversations with partners. So the bottom line is, the president made a tweet. There was a lot of work and conversation. We did not withdraw from syria. And we had partners working with us. I do not believe it was in inevitable that what happened in october was going to come. Now, i understand your point that once he said that, it was going to happen one way or another. I can just say its a, i believe its a more complicated story with a number of people who have been emphasizing to the white house and to partners that we all need to be there together because we had a lot at stake. And there was some success with that and obviously, president erdogan saw an opening and just to emphasize, i think the decision made by the secretary and the chairman to safeguard american lives when they made it was absolutely the right decision. I have qualms with the original tweet, as you know. I dont think that was right and thats part of the reason i was involved in some of those conversations to ensure that we can continue to safeguard american interests in that region. Thank you. Ms. Escobar, i apologize, i felt that was important. I know were over time, but a couple of quick minutes. Thank you gentlemen for being here and your testimony. Im going to pick up with are my colleague ms. Sherell left off. I want to be clear in understanding that. So chairman you gave the recommendation because you had gotten notice from turkey that american troops their safety and security could not be guaranteed by our nato ally and that they were about to invade and if something happens to american troops, well, something happens to american troops. Is thatam i understanding that correctly . Thats about right. Thats correct. So i would add that i made the recommendation as well. Its my assessment i had in discussion was my counterpart in the weeks leading up to the events of that date. Was there an effort to negotiate with turkey to ask them to be to stand down and not do it. Yes, yes. And how long did that effort go on before the recommendation was made . Weeks. We had been working on this for actually months with the turks to restrain them by going through a number of diplomatic actions, military actions on the ground, trying to set up a safe zone. All of these things we were trying to do while the buildup was happening that the chairman described to pull them back from syria. Was the president involved . Did he pick up the phone, did he call our ally, did he make the case himself for turkey not Going Forward with its plan . I dont know. I cant, i dont know all the calls the president does or does not make. Even if i knew i wouldnt convey that to you because its you know, those conversations are private between me and the commanderinchief. Id be interested in a classified setting to learn that information. I still wouldnt share it with you, congresswoman, its just as i wouldnt share a conversation between me and you publicly or with anybody. I think this is an important point to me. Not even as a member of congress, but as an american to know that we have troops that have been working side by side with allies and youre right, there was a handshake deal not a specific commitment, however, there is something to be said for a handshake deal for a mutually beneficial relationship that has benefitted American Safety and security tremendously, that it has allowed us to push back on terrorism and on isis and so youll have to forgive me, but this idea that while youre correct that, you know, it wasnt in the fine print that we were going to really be a good, strong ally, that is distressing to me as an american. Weve both been there. Not only was it not in the fine print, it wasnt in the bold print. Ive spoken to our commanders, some of them were clear were not going to defend you against turkey. And mr. Secretary, i understand that. I think what is equally distressing to me is that hear that a nato ally was about to run rough shod over american troops and i wonder if the president got involved. So thats a question, obviously, that youre saying not even in a classified setting youd be willing to answer. Do you all i dont know the answer to begin with, even if i did i thats distressing as well. If were negotiating to protect american troops and to prevent an ally from creating what is now a deeply unsettling situation. I mean, 200,000 civilians have been displaced. Weve seen genocide occurring. I am now concerned and id like your opinion, that, you know, part of what drives people into the arms of isis and what promotes terrorism is that instability, this feeling that you dont have a future. If theres anything ive learned while serving on this committee is that that kind of hopelessness is a breeding ground. Is there a breeding ground right now in syria for isis . I dont, i cant comment on that, i dont know. Let me tell you this, what the turks would say and im not defending the turkish access. This is going on for a couple of hundred years between kurds and turks. Mr. Secretary, with all due respect. We had a situation that was far more undercontrol before than it is today. Yes and no, congresswoman. If you recall from the earliest days when fds was set up under the Obama Administration, there was unhappiness, vocal public concern by the turks and made two previous incursions into syria they thought was a terrorist problem. And i know youve been your time, i know youve got to go so i dont want to cut you off, but at the same time i want to respect your time. I thank you very much for being here. We are adjourned. Keep going with worst catastrophe in the world today supporting the saudis. Why do you say the saudis are our partners . Look what they just did in pensacola. What about activist[inaudible