Transcripts For CSPAN2 Fragmented Libya Complicates International Response Experts Warn 20170425

Libya was among the two Foreign Relations that testified before the senate Foreign Relations committee adhering on the ongoing civil conflict in libya and what role the us and its allies could take. Senator ben cardin, the senator drinking cardmember, who criticized President Trump for his assessment last week that there was no role for the us to play in the ongoing libyan conflict. Todays hearing will examine the crisis in libya. Id like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the committee on this important issue. Unfortunately, six years after the nato intervention libya remains on the brink of civil war. Like many of its neighbors libya failed to transition into a stable Representative Democracy hoped for by citizens. Sadly, if libyan people who paid the price. Fighting between the malicious has undermined internal security , weekend government institutions and damaged the economy. It also posing potential. [inaudible] to the us and allies. Infighting has created a permissive environment to terrorist groups like isis. The organization gangs in libya have led to support of military operations. Weve had some successes there but the conditions allowing extremists to surprise and transcribe remain. Many of us agree that the libyan political agreement needs to be altered as the current government lacks the power to actually govern the entire country but thats only the beginning. Until the array of militants has come under central political control, no government will be able to provide essential services across the country. Even then, libya will still face enormous challenges to next week government institutions and turnaround the struggling economy. I look forward to our discussion today and hearing from our two witnesses on the views of the crisis and what needs to be done to bring about its peaceful resolution. Were particularly interested in your views on what the us should do to help achieve these goals. With that and what we should expect devices or other radical groups regain ground in libya. We thank you both for being here ambassador, i didnt want you to have to hear all of my Opening Statement so i began. With that, ill put it over to senator cardin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thought your Opening Statement was important to be heard by all i want to to know and i think you for convening this hearing on libya. Yesterday, i had the opportunity to represent committee with senator graham is reprimanding the representations committee and we met with the ambassador to the United Nations Security Council. We had a two hour discussion and i thought it was helpful. We talked about a full range of issues from north korea to reform within the United Nations , Ambassador Haley is doing an incredible job of representing our issues. Her leadership is now the president of the Security Council will be important. Shes focusing on issues of reform, issues of north korea and other areas that the United States as National Security interests. One of the issues that came up during that discussion by our friends in europe and our friends in africa and the middle east is what will be americas engagement. Willing america to be a power for the values that we stand for in dealing with global challenges . That was raised by both friends in europe and in the middle east and africa. I say that because i start with the fact the United States must be engaged. Its in our National Security interests to have Representative Governments in countries like libya that represent all of the population because when we dont have Representative Governments, what happens is it creates a void. That void is filled by isis, as weve seen in northern africa, is filled by russia and we see russia now engagement in libya which is not been helpful. We recognize that its in Americas National best security interest to get engaged. So, as you know, we have a private panel of witnesses that the trumpet ministration has yet to be able to fill its critical positions and we are still not exactly sure what his policies are in regard to libya. I was disappointed, mr. Chairman , in meeting with the Prime Minister of italy the President Trump and ill paraphrase but we dont have a role in libya. I think we do have a role in libya. This hearing is an important indication by the congress that we do expect a role to be played i want to test underscore the importance of representative inclusive government and theres no military solution. Weve seen this all too frequently in 20 countries in that region. Theres no military solution to libya. We need an inclusive government, a government that represents all of the different factions. We saw as the chairman pointed out, under the leadership of gna , we were able to make progress. [inaudible] but we also see it was moscows involvement with vladimir and general hector in the eastern part of lidia thats causing all types of problem with civilian control in the country and participating in activities that , in my mind, raised concern about the human rights violation in war crimes. There is a role for us to play, if its done right, we can have not only a Representative Government but to benefit the people of lidia and to give them a growing economy and a growing standard of living. That is our goal and i think this hearing will play in fourpart in the Senate Oversight of that responsibility i look forward to hearing from our two witnesses. Thank you for those comments. Will turn to our witnesses. The first witness is doctor fred lavery, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for national peace. Thank you for being here, sir. Our second witnesses honorable deborah dorn, Us Ambassador for 2014 in 2015. Thank you for bringing your knowledge and experience. If you could summarize in about five minutes, wed appreciate. Without objection your written testimony will be entered into the record. You been here many times so please proceed. Chairman corker, Committee Members im grateful for the opportunity to speak with you about political and the way forward for your faulty. I was honored to be joined by was coping. For those of us who followed libya since the revolution unraveling has been harrowing to watch. Today the un back presidency is failing and bracing governing. Unable to establish itself amidst feuding malicious and internal process. More poorly, the council fronts and next essential challenge from eastern faction led by general, backed by egypt and that United Arab Emirates and increasing the rest. Hes refused to endorse the Presidency Council with its key objection being the issue of control over it libyas military meanwhile, the country slide toward economic ruin the surge of migrants across libyas deserts and chores remain unchecked and jihadist militancy whether in the form of Islamic State, al qaeda or some new mutation still take root. The looming dangers demand immediate engagement from the United States. At the most basic level, the United States faces two imperatives. First, preventing a resurgent of terrorist activity and second, supporting the formation of an inclusive representative stable government. On the counterterrorism front, the Libya Campaign left him or and fault deprived Islamic State of any real territory. The remaining Islamic State militants estimated in the low hundreds are currently pulling in the center west and south and they may try to mount a high visibility attack to show their continued viability. What struck me the most during my visit last year to libyan areas afflicted by jihadist present weather ben ghazi or the west, any traction they got was often highly transactional. It was the result of poor government. At this points to the broadbased approach in denying the jihadist thanks for your nonmilitary strategies are essential. Promoting Economic Development and municipal government, education and Civil Society form of vital adjunct to Counter Terrorism tools. In an effort to identify and assist local libyan partners to defeat terrorism, the United States must proceed carefully. Given the absence of a truly National Cohesive military, american aid to particular armed group could upset the balance of power and cause greater factional conflict. Moving forward, the United States should only back the forces controlled by the internationally recognized government. Even the support should be limited in scope and geared toward specific parts. The second area where american diplomatic engagement is crucial is the formation of a new government. A starting point for doing this is a new libyan led backed by the United States with European Partners and regional states. The goal of the talks should be the amendment of the libyan political agreement of 15, specifically, the composition of the Presidency Council. The new talk should also focus on two tracks absent in the first agreement. First, they should include the leaders of libyas armed group must agree on a roadmap of building a National Military structure. Here in american. [inaudible] the elected civilian control over the military. Proposals for military role or military counsel are hardly a recipe for enduring stability. For most libyans, they run counter to the values for which they fought in the 2011 revolution. Second, the talks must also set a mechanism for the transparent distribution of oil revenues, especially when you municipal authorities. One such agreement is in place United States and its allies stand ready to assist whatever government emerges and not just on counterterrorism. With his formal institutions gutted by years of editorial role, libyas citizens remain its greatest resource. This is why its so important that the United States preserve its capacity to engage directly with the libyan people. Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, my travels have underscored the desperation of its flight. Yes, the Islamic State was dealt a significant blow think the large measure of brave libyans. But libya is now more polarized than ever and the growing vacuum could breed future radicalism. Now is the time for American Leadership to avert an impending collapse, safeguard american interests and to help the country realize the early promise of its revolution. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today chairman corker, Ranking Member senator carter, first my apologies as a retiree ive never dealt with the parking downtown. Coming in from mclean on a tuesday morning. It is my distinct honor to appear before you today on this important and vexing matter and im pleased to serve with a colleague who is an honest authority on libya today that i hear. Libya obviously has confounded and frustrated exhausted policymakers and politics with a stubborn resistance to the obvious political map of one point to billion arrows barrels of oil. Many assume that libya like athena from the head of zeus would turn to defy in the mentor train in and that we can all go away in hindsight. Libya was not in the landscape. Libya has a history like any other place and that history is one of fragmentation. What ive often said to people is that gadhafi was not the creator of libyas fragmentation but he exploited it using the oil wealth that he had at his disposal and its important to remember that he deposed the king without firing a shot. When he he used that oil well much like a cartel word word would to bring into power. Libya has always existed as Julius Caesar like golf, three separate entities, triple a tiniest. [inaudible] with different historical background which explained was often the different influences that play to this day in each of those regions from International Partners. When gadhafi died, in effect, libya was a mafia without a don. That is the challenge that we have now. Gadhafi is gone but his legacy remains. Understanding this backdrop is very important comprehending the deep divide and political antagonism to follow the revolution which i concluded not long after my arrival in tripoli. This was for all intents and purposes finished. There have been highly touted parliamentary vote in 2012 and in july 2012 but thats the equivalent of finding, purchasing a nib for a fountain pen that doesnt exist. There was no government behind it and there still remains no effective government behind them i dont want to repeat a lot of what is said here, i submitted a lengthy background notes which i hope people will read because it contains a bit of a different narrative but many people have described the lines that splits and libya are secular nationalist verse islamic and others, myself included, suspect that doctor weary would agree that the situation viewed more in status quo elements. Somewhere pro gadhafi, somewhere democratic revolution and some islamists with marginal ideological extremists on both sides. That when we were dealing with areas that did not affect the National Patrimony or the appearance of giving advantage to either military side, we were able to accomplish things. On the other hand, efforts to train elite special forces and then to respond to thenPrime Ministers april 2013 appeal to g7 leaders to help him build a general Purpose Force were frustrated due to that fractiousness and the lack of any identified command and control system. Interestingly, throughout the gadhafi era, technocrats who were entrusted with the central bank, with the National Oil Company and with the Libyan Investment Authority were left largely alone to do their business indicating to me that libyans, in fact, did not want the disturb their National Wealth. And, in fact, we found we worked pretty closely behind the scenes with them to insure that that remained the case. Now, unfortunately in the latter years and following the negotiations as the competition has become more fierce, there have been efforts by some to create competing authorities to the dismay, i would say, of the average libyan whose primary concern is that he or she have enough to eat, to communicate and, ideally, to travel. I would only say that and against this background of tripolis political disarray, which was significanting, benghazi continued to suffer a spate of brazen assassinations and lawlessness. The government had, for all intents and purposes, removed itself from benghazi with the International Community. And this is when [inaudible] first appeared at the time in february 2014 at the time of the dissolution and went on a television what we always called an electron coup, calling on libyans to rise up and join him against the illegal gnc and corrupt. He did not stir much response in that effect. He went back underground only reappearing in benghazi when he declared in may his spring landty war against individuals vigilante war against individuals he condemned as p responsible for benghazis bloodsoaked anarchy. Together with this we had again, you know the story, the narrative of the National Elections that were held in 2014. I hope you will read carefully my paragraph on that, because my narrative, my understanding and i was on the ground was a bit different. In response of counterthreats and threats of moving into libya or into tripoli and the declaration by this time that the dialogue was no longer necessary, the militias acted preemptively and, of course, encircled to drive the zintan militias out of tripoli which meant taking them out of areas that they had conquered during the revolution. This was a lot, again and again and again, about revolutionary booty, People Holding on to assets whether it be the airport, the tripoli tower that held the Libyan Investment Authority, the Islamic Call Center that was an important center under gadhafi and later on in terms of territory. This was why, this fighting over this zintanoccupied territory that others felt they had no right to is what led to our withdrawal and led to eventual withdrawal of all diplomatic members or diplomatic institutions or missions in libya at the time. I wont get into the boycott. I will offer a couple of things against this chaotic background, despite the political disarray, the United States during my tenure as chief of mission did conduct a number of missions successfully to include the captures of benghazi suspects while engaging credibly with all sides in the political reconciliation talks and with the support of successive libyan governments. In other words, this is not a matter that requires us to pick and choose. Libyans were the first to assert the presence of isil and daesh and to seek u. S. Assistance in removing them. They were the first to draw our anticipation to the growing isil presence in syria, historical enemies who had earlier affiliated for opportunistic reasons with another terrorist group. We can talk about isil later, but i think youve covered the road map there. Met me just said in conclusion let me just say in conclusion and we can get into questions later that libya is not engaged in a traditional civil war based on intractable ideological differences. This is aimed at controlling, not destroying, Critical Infrastructure in the absence of a National Administrator of historical wealth. Physical hurt have proven the prime motivator, but as long as different factions who thus far have been fairly evenly matched in terms of holding their turf continue to believe they can count on external support to tip the scaleses and avoid reaching the limits of that imabove richment, hurt or exhaustion, intermittent warfare will continue contributing to human suffering, refugee flows and penetration of libyas vast territory. This is good neither for libya, nor for us, nor for our European Partners. But any libyan solution will require buyin at the lowest levels, at the municipal levels for a governing regime that insures the equitable distribution of National Wealth in this case oil revenues a certain degree of autonomy and the reintegration of militias and the rehabilitation of their members. It must be inclusive and allow for the return and rehabilitation of all libyans, no matter who they supported in these, in the revolution. It must begin with a ceasefire monitored by the International Community with libyan acquiescence and support as well as the gathering of heavy weapons throughout the country and continued cooperation in the war against isil and others wishing to exploit libyan territory. Libyans must agree to all of this. And i would note here that if we could come to conclusion here. Okay. I will conclude. Otherwise, let me just say libyas civil conflict, its not easy, but its a worthwhile project. Theres no alternative. Legitimacy cannot be imposed, it must be earned. We have, libyans have not asked us to fight their battles for them. The least we can do is support their dreams which were inspired, frankly, by our example. Thank you. Thank you so much. Senator cardin. Well, let me thank both of our witnesses. Theres clearly great differences between syria and libya. Syria has ethnic clashes that are very deep and historic, whereas libya does not have that burden. But we saw where russia intervened in syria, and the damage it caused by mr. Putins engagement in syria making it extremely difficult to get all sides together in a Peace Process which is the ultimate answer in syria as it is the ultimate answer in libya. Is now we see very Disturbing Trends about russias engagement in libya. We see where they are actively engaged in supporting this general who has been extremely difficult in recognizing a civilian government. And according to human rights watch, has committed war crimes. So my question, first, would be what is russias intentions in libya . Why have they been able to get the cooperation of egypt, one of our partners, in allowing the use of their, egypts facilities and the military operations in libya . And what is the u. S. Interest in dealing with russias engagement in libya . So do you have some suggestions here . Try to help me understand sure. The road map here. Thank you. Well, again, i think its one of libyas saving graces that it is not syria. So the level of regional interference, international interspecious, i think, pales compared to syria. That regional interference is not simply russia. And i would point to the gulf states as the most harmful actors in a lot of this stemming back to the 2011 revolution where you had two gulf states playing out their regional rivalry on libyan soil. The egyptian role, i think, came before russia. The egyptians have had longstanding economic and security interests in libya. They were among the first backers of the generals Operation Dignity when it started in 2014 and, indeed, when general sisi took power in egypt, that really was felt in libya. So, again, the egyptian policy toward libya really shifted after sisi. So, again isnt it your testimony that the respect for civilian controls is critical to the stability of that country . Correct. The general has certainly not been helpful in that regard. Correct. So russia seems to be siding up with the general. Exactly. So enter russia. And so, again, i think russias interests in libya stems back to the gadhafi era. They had enormous arms contracts, infrastructure projects, they explored a naval base, but the general is a useful ally to them. They sensed a vacuum. Its very useful for their narrative. Nato broke the country, here comes russia to clean it up, so to speak. They are backing him reportedly with spare parts, with training, with medical care. They printed currency for the eastern government, and this is one of the alarming things about libya. The parallel institutions. So this eastern unrecognized faction has its own central bank. Russia was printing libyan currency to help prop it up. So, again, i think their role has been unhelpful, its been theatrical at times. This visit of general heftar to the Aircraft Carrier was highly theatrical. But the question is can they really pull a syria in libya, and do they want basing, or do they want to present themselves as an indispensable broker. They want to be the ones that forge a new government that is favorable to their strategic and economic interests. So if the United States were to withdraw interest in libya, would that give a greater opening for russia. I think so, senator, yes. And, again, my conversations with libya, with the United Nations chief last week is everyone is on edge waiting for the u. S. To give a signal. And so the absence of a signal creates a freeze, it creates a vacuum, and thats an invitation for other powers and ive heard that also. What type of signal are they waiting for . Well, i think, you know, high visibility signal about our diplomatic engagement, about our support for the government. I mean, the role of special envoys from the state department of supporting the europeans, i think just a more visible and vocal signal. And certainly not a signal that were washing our hands of this country. Thank you, mr. Chair. If i could, before i turn to senator johnson, i would save time for interjections, but, i mean, a signal. Im sorry, i, i heard your two points on the front end, and our taffe was in yesterday talking about that staff was in yesterday talking about that, and i realize we certainly were helpful with what happened with isis, but im not understanding what that really means relative to our leadership there and why, i mean, im truly seeking an answer. I know that italy, france and other countries are very involved. But tell me what it is specifically that the United States should do to move towards a political agreement here. Again, i think just a more visible, you know, support to these regional initiatives. Statements i think convening some new negotiating track in tandem with the United Nations, with these regional partners. And signaling also, i think, to libyan people and political actors that were prepared to engage along a Broad Spectrum of initiatives to really help Libyan Society, to help the libyan government. I think one bright spot, one example of what im talking about was when the libyan factions moved their fighting to the south, when they started clashing south of the oil crescent, the p5 issues a statement together, all five of the p5, saying this was bad for libya. And thats the sort of consensus where the u. S. Needs to play a leading role, not just a, you know, background role. Senator johnson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Want to thank the witnesses. Just in my notes im seeing political disarray. I see libyan technocrats. Do they still exist . Is there any hope of reassembling the leading technocrats to provide kind of that governing authority . Ill ask the ambassador. I think when it comes to the National Oil Company, to the bank and to others there are technocrats. However, the Political Leadership is in disarray and needs guidance and needs support. And we were able to do that as long as we were gauged with that. Engaged with that. And i think thats important to remember. We havent had physical be presence of a dip lo cattic nature diplomatic in nature since july of 2014. That sends a huge message to the libyans. And our, unfortunately obviously, for political sensibilities and the rest the u. S. Was very hesitant to reinsert following the second withdrawal of personnel into libya worried about the paralysis that might cause at home. But, in fact, we brought the russians and the chinese into the dialogue process. We were very actively engaged in that. And having the u. S. Onboard showing, signaling that it supports a political as well as a military solution is extremely important. On a purely practical note, heftars has never at least in my time there, and i dont think yet, fred will know this controlled more than 12 of the country at any given time. Its hooping. You are never going its huge. You are never going to defeat isis or any group unless you have cooperation across the board. If you go into supporting the general wholeheartedly, you will have a civil war. It will turn into something existential for libyans, im afraid. How many significant groups are there competing . [inaudible conversations] yeah. I would say theres thousands. I mean, this is one of sad, the tragedies of libya, is that power is so fragmented. So its neighborhood by neighborhood, its town even within the town of misrata, there are a hundred. But within tripoli there are probably four or five. Are there major ones . You know, we heard the same thing in syria, 1200. But are there ten major groups, or is it really that it really is that fragmented. I mean, theres talks now about with this track of Security Dialogue of bringing in, you know, who would be the maybe, you probably could get 115 leader 1215 leaders of the armed groups, and that would get you this. But, again, its the chance for spoilers to play a role that level of fragmentation, what role is diplomacy . You really do have to start with military control, correct . I mean, somebodys going to have to control the ground militarily. Somebodys going to be to bring these factions together. You know, in certain, i mean, in certain areas and towns a lot of these militias are tied to towns, and they have arrangements with Municipal Councils even in the east. So there is a measure of control. Its negotiated control between businessmen, between Municipal Councils. So the notion that you would have one actor unify the country through conquest is fanciful. I think what we need to look at is sort of growing it from the ground up. Whos going to be the countervailing force to right now heftar and egypt and uae and russia . Who would be the most trusted foreign power to try ask exert some level of try and exert some level of stability and control . Foreign power . For example, wasnt italy their primary trading partner italys playing a huge role right now in terms of brokering a dialogue. Theyre playing a role in tripoli and misrata, theyve offered help to the east what kind of military presence does italy have in libya right now . I believe do they have troops . Sorry . Does any foreign power have troops there . Its a contingent of italian soldiers at a hospital in misrata, reportedly troops in tripoli doing lowlevel training but very limited numbers, correct . Nothing to exert control, just kind of help and advise. Correct. Do they need more . Should we be encouraging european allies to step up to the plate . Somebodys going to have to insert some type of military power to gain control, respect they . I dont think so. This is not something i mean, at the inliation of libyans invitation of libyans, this is something that needs to be ea agreed upon and worked out with libyans. I think, you know, any foreign presence, you know, could be an antibody, it could play into the jihadist narrative. You know, i think what needs to happen first the libyans need to agree upon a road map for their military. There needs to be a plan but its in political disarray. And theres thousands of militias. Again, im trying to come up with, you know, whats going to well, thats why its going to require some kind of International Coalition invited in by the libyans the try and stabilize the situation first, correct . I dont think so, no. No. I think whats happening is there are talks underway including a security track to try to get these armed group actors onboard for organization, for the structure, for leadership, for who gets to stay in the military, for which militias have the live, for demobilizing these young men. There needs to be a libyanled strategy for doing this. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And the libyans are asking for that . They are, yes. I mean, those tracks including heftar . No, heftars not asking for that. Okay. He is talking to the u. N. About a military structure. The problem, though, is that he wants to be part of this Presidency Council, he wants to be supreme commander. Well, that its kind of reality, not a problem, isnt it . You know, i its a problem. Its a problem. We agree its a problem. The reality is that the dispersal of heavy weapons and the opposition is so deep, and the misrattans do have the capability, as we saw this july and august of 2014, they do have the command and control, and they do have the sense of protecting their own turf that will drive them to combat this. If heftar is in the lead. They have said before when we were engaged with them in dialogue that they were prepared to work with others in a command and control system. But heftars restated opposition to dealing, to living with to be subordinate to civilian command creates a lot of discomfort with people. Particularly given some of his ties and the supporters outside of libya where people dont know what his, what the point is. I mean, i think all countries in the Security Council were in agreement that we wanted a stable libya, but there are other factors here. We do have friends, we do have partners including egypt and others who are adamantly opposed to the notion that any be Islamist Group or Muslim Brother Group have any access to libyans wealth which they believe will lead eventually to some kind of islamist takeover and competition for their own principalities or their own governments. And so, therefore, their objective has been to do something that stabilizes, that keeps it away, and heftars been a bit of a tool for them in that regard. Everyone recognizes he has been unable to consolidate his gains outside of the benghazi area. Essentially. And this has been going on now for three years. So i think unless you have i agree with fred completely on this, unless you have an agreement, again, on distribution, on an organization that is going to insure transparent distribution of National Wealth under a more localized government, theyre not going to accept anything else. And they do not want foreign troops on the ground. This is a country that was devastated during world war ii i got it. Thank you so much. Senator booker. Yeah, doctor, you write in your testimony, and i want to just read a portion here, that the promotion of Economic Development and entrepreneurship, multilevel governance p education in Civil Society is a vital adjunct to traditional counterterrorism tools like intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, border control, train and equip and direct action. And you seem to describe an environment where isis is thriving in areas where theres no government, no Civil Society, and thats what theyre taking advantage of that vacuum. I just want to put that in the contest of what it seems to be Administration Policy right now in reducing state Department Resources to build Civil Society. I mean, its very shocking to me the sort of budget that theyve outlined in light of what you seem to be indicating as a prescription to ultimately bring stability back to libya. Could you comment on that . Well, i agree, senator. And, you know, where isis, you know, set up camp in libya, it was these marginalized areas that had fallen off the map of postrevolutionary libya. So you look at a city that was brutalized and neglected after the revolution, gadhafis hometown, that was lacking governance, lacking representation, there were tribes there that welcomed the Islamic State is simply as protection, simply for what they provideed. So its very expedient. Same thing in the west. You had smugglers sort of doing deals with the Islamic State because there was no local economy. Down in the south therell absolutely no governance. S which this is where aqim t. Again, how do you deny the sanctuary, how do you fortify the resilience of Libyan Society to jihadist pen nation thats where Civil Society, municipal governance coming comes in, and its so essential. Whatever the strategy is once this administration presents one, part of that is essential that it is us doing that kind of Civil Society investments and building that the state department is critically able to do. I think so, senator. And, you know, us along with local partners, along with the undp. I went down to southern libya to a town that is in a very remote area that was wracked by tribal fighting. Its really just fallen off the map. Theres nothing there. But people, the young people there talked about a usaid Computer Center that was set up that basically connected them to the globe, that gave them critical, you know, computer skills. And they were pointing to this. Unfortunately, the center was destroyed in fighting, but they look at that as a visible indication of u. S. Commitment. And another thing that sort of disturbs me is we seem to be operating under an aumf from 2001, and im just curious if you is our intervention both military, and i hope to see more sort of Civil Society work, do you think the administrations going to, wants to continue to use the aumf in 2001 as a reason for, as a justification for their intervention militarily . And id open that to either one. [inaudible conversations] i cant say because im not involved anymore. Your microphone. Oh, sorry. Pardon me. Because im no longer in the government. But i am hearing from contacts on the special forces side and others that they are hearing signals that, in fact, were essentially going to go to a hit and run policy in libya as opposed to trying to knit together the kind of enduring solution that youre right. But the agenda so let me, if i could, so what youre saying is its going to be an isisspecific whackamole issue, its not going to be an enduring presence which would mean the 01 aumf is operative, is that what youre i mean, you dont hear any plans of any longterm ground and yall are just saying its unnecessary anyway. No, i hear nothing to that end. Right. Im hearing what i call tactical impatience. People want to act against what they see there really not considering the overall libyan context which is that libyans, unlike syrians or iraq, dont have indigenous isis, by and large. Its opportunistic as the doctor has said, and they dont want to share their wealth billion will not allow. Wealth and will not allow. They have called isil out in their own country. Okay. I mean, thats problematic to me on a number of levels, but i just want to jump real quick in my remaining few seconds, Human Trafficking is a serious concern in this country. Its, the iom reported last month that migrants are being held hostage through slave markets. In libya, niger, furthermore trafficking and smuggling from militias in libya which are driving the conflict there. And i just want to know if you have any input for us, either one, about what we should do to address this larger humanitarian crisis . Obviously, i imagine, quelling the conflict thats allowing this to proliferate, but if this was a critical objective for the United States, what should we be doing . Well, first, im sorry to say that Human Trafficking, piracy and slavery has been art and parcel of libyas history even he you had a strong authoritarian government in gadhafi is such as it was, because its not something that they have really paid the kind of attention that the International Community would like for them to pay. So, again, this is one of the areas that when you have a political dialogue and you have a government that engages across the country and makes the distribution of wealth part and parcel of working against those kinds of things, replacing those activities smuggling, which has long been the bread and butter for many libyans particularly in the south, but also for those on the borders who have, well, you know, brought in Subsaharan Africans especially and trading them and others this is precisely the kind of thing that is, that you can only address with ill society and with governance. Just to add to that, i mean, its a symptom of libyas economic collapse that the circle of come misty in this lucrative smuggling trade has really widened. So, again, down in the south its how people, you know, make their living. Same thing in the north. Promoting programs for alternative livelihoods down in the south, i mean, fixing libyas economic crisis. But then again, being careful who we partner with. I mean, the notion of training a libyan coast guard, who are we talking about this there . There . Many of the coast guards are militiarun, complicit with the smuggling trade, returning these migrants to these hour remember douse horrendous centers, and its simply inhumane and immoral. Thank you. Thank you, senator. Doctor, thank you so much for your testimony here today. I just want to highlight the importance of the United States working on multiple fronts to defeat isis in libya. You both agree that defeating isis in libya, or anyone else will require the establishment of inclusive and effective governance, not just ct strikes. I do agree. 100 . As i outlined in my testimony, who joins isis, its the losers and the political order. Its people who are shut out of the political process. Any government that excludes people on the written basis of ideology or belief, those people will be radicalized and increase the pool of terrorism. And that in turn has some ramifications for our needs to invest in usaid, state department and the Civil Society that can help facilitate the challenges in the region. In the Municipal Administration you spoke to is a correct . Absolutely. One of the bright spots is the fact that miscible authorities enjoy elected legitimacy. When you go around to towns or certain cases where they have had success, i think one of the strategies that im seeing from the United Nations is going straight to those miscible authorities. Under that control he has replaced selected miscible with military governors. Investor . Out only say that for example what we saw was from groups that were politically opposed had nothing ideologically, it was all about competition for resources. Until you have a government that does what governments are supposed to do which is ensure equitable access to resources through security, Regulatory Framework you will have this problem in libya. My previous line of questioning was prospective. Been retrospective now, lets think about Lessons Learned and whether there are broader applications to the middle east. In your prepared remarks is in many thought dubai on the matters training in with the overthrow of qaddafi. You said in hindsight was wishful thinking. The doctrine poses a questions we should consider before taking military action. Number six of those was whether the consequences of our action have been fully considered. This really applies to both of you, in 2011 to believe there is a failure to ask the question, what comes next . More broadly, what broader lessons for u. S. Policy in the middle east based on the experiences in libya might we draw . I do think, and i was not part of the decisionmaking process them, but i believe it was a very different situation. I think people forget it was the arab league that came to us and asked us to take action to provide a nofly zone because qaddafi, unlike leaders in egypt, yemen and others, were similar uprisings were taken place, the arab spring uprising, the leaders were not attacking their populations, but whereas qaddafi has threatened to do so. When you have a situation like that like on the hills of rwanda, politically wouldve been difficult to stand by and do nothing and watch a dictator who we had dealt with who have been responsible for a number of terrorist acts throughout the world, to stand by and say we prefer this the stability to those who are trying to overthrow him. Remember we are speaking to people on the revolutionary side who presented a very articulate vision of what they could do. There is a lot of overpromising. So we did not understand the situation well, i will accept that. However, i do not know we could have known it differently because we were not involved in libya for a long period of time. Is unlike the political imperative to intervene was strong based on a number of reasons. But the planning took place in an atmosphere where we had limited information, not just lack of critical thinking, it sounds as though i think people were surprised, its not that we did not allocate resources are going with our International Partners to try to assist libya. Its important that libya in a did not one Foreign Military on the ground. They did not want a lot of foreign presence, with asfoor is the un mission in libya and that is what they got. They did begin by writing a white paper on organizing the security structure the military. It was only later that people in the western side realized the depth of the fragmentation. And that the revolution was, in fact finish. They proved incapable of d arming the militias, taking away their areas of control and it was clear there are not that interested in having western groups who wouldve been injured in the process. Thank you. I will say retrospect, one of the things that has occurred as the young leader of north korea has learned that if you give up your weapons of mass destructi destruction, then you likely will be taken out. We are having to deal with that dynamic now. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you both for your testimony. The government of National Accord, the proposed u. S. Facilitated agreement facilitated by some factions have failed to achieve broad support in the country. Does that represent the best way forward . As you talk about trying to put all of the factions together. Is that really an avenue still . Senator, i think the libyan political agreement remains the touchstone. Most libyans would agree upon that. According to a lot of polls mean that they see that agreement signed on december 2015 is the foundation. The question is what kind of political structure. Its a governor of National Accord but youre talking about the composition of the Presidency Council. The other bodies, the state council, that is been worked out. Theres a five person Presidency Council those unwieldy and rife with division. There were structural problems. The talks in our, how do you revise that . The key question is civilian control over the military. The question is, are these new negotiations the covert way for the general to, to a new council where he would be defective ruler of the country . It seems to me thats a fundamental question. Dont have leverage . We give egypt an enormous amount of money. The saudis are our allies. I weird leveraging relationships with those two countries, visavis the support theyre giving in the circumstances with libya . Youre both smiling, dont know what that means. Thank you for the question senator. As you know, no relationship is clearly bilateral. We have many engagements in different areas in the region and the nature of our relationships with egypt, with the United Arab Emirates, turkey, catarrh and others, their deep and multilayered. When it comes to priorities or how much leverage you have in areas is limited. What is existential for businesses not seen as seen such bios. I think some of our friends have made a decision that they believe they live in the neighborhood and they cannot tolerate what they believe we naively think is the ability to have islamist in a government who has access to a lot of money and a location. There are ways around this, building and safeguards and transparent systems. That we would say as americans you have institutional ways roundness in the settings where institutions are not always the predominant feature. They see things differently. The bottom line is that their interests are going to trump any influence we may have over this because we have a multilayered interest with them, therefore this is not at the top. It seems to me what we are resigned to come if we dont use leverage with countries that can influence a situation in libya and continue to exacerbate the circumstances as they exist is that what we are destined to is a continuing internal conflict, and us on occasion striking isis targets as we see it necessary. But that is a longterm proposition for failure at the end of the day. Im not sure failure, i think that is just the nature of u. S. International relations and diplomacy. Its priorities and trying to influence others when your priorities dont jive on. I think the egyptians are in fact coming around. They have actually pushed for negotiations between the general and the west. So they have an interest on their border, they do not want the division of libya. I dont think they want military conquest of the country. They have certain security interest. I think this new administration has more leverage since were sending me signals to certain goal states that we have your back on iran, i think that can translate into more leverage in libya. The spillover from libya affects multiple u. S. Allies. Perhaps even more than yemen. Yet were not getting involved in libya. In the case of the uae, i will call them out, their interference has been purely ideological driven by the phobia of the muslim brotherhood. Thats not a recipe for country that will be immune to terrorism. We need to have stronger leverage with the states. I would point out that egypt has certainly, from security interest and put that in line with israel recently. So i do agree there is some leverage right now that we have not had in the past that hopefully will be useful as we move ahead. Thank you both for being here. The mask a specific question and then a broader one because libby is all spin an example of Foreign Policy or fake. I want to revisit that in a moment. Want to talk about the Benghazi Defense brigade. Libya has become a terrorist safe haven and organizations are fighting for control of the country. What are your views regarding cooperation between the Benghazi Defense brigade and elements like al qaeda . I know they have attempted to deny links to terrorism, is it not the fact that they are a wellknown coalition of islamic militias and extremists . How would you characterize the bbb and in particular whether we believe the Libyan National army has the capability to defeat them . At its core the bbb was formed by islamicist figures ejected from benghazi. Many were leaders in benghazi, they came out and got support from the city, and from others sources, from tripoli and qatar as well. Added its core is a symptom of the massive displacement from benghazi. The fact that their fighting to return families to benghazi, many of them have families, the al qaeda element, this is a small country of 6 million. If you go to any islam as leader chances are they will know someone in al qaeda and be affiliated. Are there people that had al qaeda in the past edb . Probably, but is in itself an al qaeda fit affiliation . No. Is it involved in escalation on helpful, yes. I dont think the Libyan National army has the ability to fully defeat a force that could challenge it. The key thing is the oil crescent will be a side of contention for years. It has been ever since 2015 at least. I would only add that there are many who argued that when have to are engaged in benghazi, that he hunted the work that had been done of putting off the extremists from the core of the militias that in fact drove them back together because their sole objective came to defeat him instead of what they had been doing before which was tearing off and coming back into the national grouping after the revolution and marginalizing the extremists. As a dr. Says, every libyan family its like rebels and yankees, they have somebody they would rather not see at the table. Then they feel sorry when that person passes away. Ive seen people weep over benghazi revolutionaries because their cousins or someone else. The Al Qaeda Group is a lot our affiliates and they have been a refuge for people because it is filled with caves in isolated and easily cut off. Even when qaddafi was there people were there. Christian saints used to hang out there in the fourth and fifth century because it was isolated. Benghazi is a mix, but i think it is hard to say that the whole group of the revolutionaries is part of this problem. They drove isil by the way. On the broader question, this is what i hear from a lot of people. Qaddafi was a bad person but at least he kept the country stable. He was overthrown and now all the islamists are there and its been a playground. My counter to that argument has been, the jihadists are not the people who overthrew qaddafi, it was the libyan people who wanted to get rid of him. He was gone one way of the other. The choice before us was not whether not qaddafi state but whether not a vacuum would follow. Is my assessment of what happened in the beginning of this revolution inaccurate and is now being strapped related to syria and other parts of the world. The uprising that led to the outside of qaddafi was not led by the radical elements as much as it was by the libyan people who did not want to live under this lunatic criminal. But what happened was the infighting over control of the nations assets have led to these divine that are not fundamentally ideological in nature. This is a country where 90 are sunnis. Thats not the issue. The issue is who controls the wealth. Thats where i see it of who owns the good versus distributive democracy of people who thought it was time to share the wealth and also have a democratic group. I think there are some who are still democrats. There are those who are ideologues and who are extremists. And they have always been there and they are dabbling now fishing in troubled waters. At the end of the day i still believe that this needs political reconciliation that provides for equitable distribution of National Wealth it a transparent way will bring people together against that narrow group of extremists. Naively perhaps, but i believe it. Thank you sir. Lets go to this diplomatic breakthrough that the italians have made bringing together all the gna and the factions in some kind of preliminary negotiation to reach a negotiation with donald trump saying i do not want to have any part of getting the United States in the middle of this, but at the end of the day a diplomatic resolution is the only way we are going to be able to resolve these difficulties, including splitting up the oil revenues. It will all be on the table. Can you talk about the site tell you an initiative and what hopes you may have for it to be a building to have a resolution reached that is diplomatic and not military . I think the italians deserve enormous credit for brokering this. Im not sure i would hail it as a breakthrough. The head of the state council and the head of the ho are agreeing to talk for the first time, the question is what is next. The devil is in the details. What new body emerges from this but i have to underscore who controls military force. This led to the fighting in 2014. The question will be what is the generals willingness to engage in this process. Do you think this indicates he is willing to participate in the process given the fact that both factions will be talking. I honestly dont know. We have seen these things happen before and then theres always room for spoilers. I just dont know at the moment what his stance on this is. I know the algerians and tunisians have their own initiative. I think its encouraging his starting to meet with a number of highlevel officials as well. As i understand it in his communications, he wants a seat at the table that could be the head of the table. I was just going to say that talks to process the opposite of conflict so thats a good thing, however the political balance of these negotiations is thrown off when you have external elements making promises to people are giving them added weight in the equation that leads to them staying out of the process. I think that is the case right now. The point is that is coming to the United States to meet with President Trump. And reports also are out there that surrounds is going to talk to have to are. As i can be some reason to believe that the United States, President Trump should play a handson role and not a handsoff role in terms of trying to resolve this view . Of course i think the president can play a helpful role in the if he underscores the importance of a political solution and of civilian authorities over the military. If he, if anybody can make a deal im believe he probably thinks he can. So you say this isnt about President Trump trying to make a deal but he should play a handson role in trying. If it is indeed the case that he has met and is coming to see the president e think the president should offer something more than say this is an italian problem in working to help you militarily and thats it. Thank you. I would agree with that and is not simply the deal, but its what comes next. As the guarantees, the involvement to make the deal stick. Thats where this government approach is so important. We should be ready to engage be on this handshake. To see this is a big moment . You have a number of events that are converging heading towards this meeting in the white house with President Trump. I dont want to sound pessimistic, but im guardedly optimistic that something we have seen and this is where the regional states are so important. The role of the emirates and of egypt, the fact that in principle they agree to the 2015 agreement. We thought that was a breakthrough. The role of regional spoilers and spoilers on the ground so can they deliver the rejection in his camp . Will there be people in the camp who feel left out. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you for being here today. I apologize if i ask a repetitive question. With rising tension between libyas house of representatives and the government of house accord there is a report from the guardian on march 14 that stated russia has appeared to deploy special forces to an airbase in western egypt. It goes on to explain that u. S. And diplomatic officials have said any such russian involvement might be part of an attempt to support the Libyan Military commander. Could you provide insight on involvement of russias special forces in libya and what you have seen and heard . Im going to yield because i have no information on that. I have no information beyond what i have read. If russia were to do that open source reports talk about special forces deployed in libya, what role do you think these special forces be playing . Again, i think we know fornes special forces have played a role in the past in his campaign in benghazi, there is been russian offers of training in russia, theres been offers a medical help, not sure what value add those get him right now, his principal theater of combat is almost over in benghazi except for a few neighborhoods. I think the question is is this a symbolic gesture, yet another heroin the quiver of russia using to signal their involvement. Then in the National Security interest of the United States, concern that Russian Special forces if they are in libya indeed. I think this is one of where we have to be very cautious. Weve had special forces in libya, others have, this is all a matter of Common Knowledge now. I think it all depends on what the intent is. What is their purpose there and i think some of it may be russia putting interface that they are there. I think we need to be careful in how we respond. But so far we have seen no increase or concern of migration refugee flows out of libya that could jeopardize italy, greece stability. Is there a concern that russia activities could spur refugee crisis into greece or italy . I dont think so. Most of those migrant flows are coming up through the central area to my dont think that would have any consequence for the flow of migrants. According to the 2017 statement of instability in north africa may be the most significant threat to the u. S. , can you talk about that statement and perhaps what your concerns are in terms of agreeing with that statement. I think the notion of libya and the problems olivia spilling over is profound. Were talking about a number of u. S. Interest in the region whether its the success and instability of tunisia and we know terrorists have plotted attacks on libyas oil and tunisia, the security of ally egypt. Theres a concern over the spillover of arms and jihadists to the south. Libya is really this epicenter that affects the surrounding region. I would add that its important to add that particularly tripoli have a for fairly normal daytoday life on the scale of things. A lot of the refugees are coming from other places of flowing through libya because it is not governed properly. His internal displacement in libya but the wealthy and libyans have other places to live. The planning and smuggling of weapons, the flow of these other groups that is problematic. Libyans will point out that the terrorist inside of were not libyans. But that is the problems that libya provides a Playing Field particularly in the south but on the other side of that coin they dont provide an urban center that i solartypically exploits to extort from people to have oil and things like that. Have seen that those in the city states are prepared to fight and not part parents to allow those in runs there. Thank you. I may need to step out for a moment i want to thank you both for being here and for your testimony which has been very helpful. We look forward to following up with questions afterwards. I want to start by returning back to the conversation about the u. S. Intervention initially been requested by their bleak to provide a nofly zone. Seems like at some point it went beyond provided a nofly zone and we became the air force of the opposition. In that transition did we adequately, in terms of our National Security analysis evaluate the consequences of that and thoroughly understand the challenge we would face in filling the vacuum following the demise of qaddafis regime . Again, i was not part of the planning and the military would need to address that however, i do believe that we did not believe there was a vacuum in the sense that we were speaking to people, libyan leaders, some quite articulate supporters of the revolution who assured people they were prepared to commit a takeover and provide the institutional replacement of qaddafi. I just dont think we knew what a mess this was going to become. The infrastructure was a destroyed, then you handed it off to the europeans in United Nations and serious happening. And again, the libyan role is essential then they told us we got this as well. They did not want a large presence on the ground. There was a nevus on elections that we had to get the elections right. Theres a lot of Lessons Learned in terms of how we do this. And also the regional states had their own security plans and on proxy were doing things on the ground that were unhelpful for unity later on. I think its something to keep in mind as situations arrive. We have articulate spokespersons in iraq who is say that there would not be any challenge in terms of the transition. Those individuals will always exist. When theres a longterm dictator, the transition can be very difficult afterwards. I just feel like we should give that full analysis. Following pan am one oh three, years of negotiation with libya libya decides to rectify that, how do those negotiations come . The address the Nuclear Program, bush had said that qaddafi if he followed through on his plans to dismantle the Nuclear Program could regain the respective place among nations and then touted this example as i hope other leaders will find an example, there are ten Nuclear Related sites addressed. At the time where considering libya i asked the administration what message was sent to iran and north korea. They were dismissive as to if there any reverberations in terms of how World Leaders would perceive qaddafis vulnerability following the agreement to dismantle his Nuclear Program. I think that was a tremendous diminishment of a of other countries we are working on. I want to get your sentiment point. So those who were with back in the day and there is a sense at the time and there is a lot of discussion and very and ahead of the first Transitional National cancel that led the government afterwards. Libya was actually talking and doing Economic Reforms and opening up in certain ways i suspect there was an element of hope. First it was a concern that is never a good thing for the United States to not talk to large strategically placed countries that have a devastating and two, libya was at a point where we might be seen the openings of some sort of transition to a more open system more economically vibrant to find ways to influence later on. Obviously the libyan people did not feel the same way when it came to 2011. Im asking in the context of our role that we another nations played in dismantling the qaddafi regime and the message that sent to north korea and iran. I cannot speak to leaders of north korea, i could probably speak to more of the thinking of the iranians because it strikes me that have a far more rational system of governance the koreans. They are weighing their own survival success in. Theyre different circumstances that im not qualified to address that. I would call that. I think it is a different context, north korea and iran are totally different strategic context, history and traditions. I dont know what lessons they took from the. Okay, i find it a bit of a dodge at a time where were trying to persuade other countries to dismantle their Nuclear Programs, to not recognize that dismantling the nation that gave up their Nuclear Program would be seriously, other countries would pay very serious attention to that. So i dont accept that youre not qualified to address the question, i think youre being very tactful employee. Can add the notion of dismantling a country, i dont think what happened is there is a failing government in libya unable to meet the needs of its people. The reform project was to bite 2010. You and uprising. I didnt refer to dismantling the nation, i refer to libya dismantling its Nuclear Program. But youre talking about the the result of that is he did not have the ability to deter the intervention, this led to his downfall,. Im really talking about the message to work with the nation to have them forgo their Nuclear Weapon program and then be vulnerable to outside intervention. That is the core issue that drives nations like north korea and iran to want to secure a Nuclear Weapon, is to say it gives them a guarantee. Actions regarding north korea would be very different if they did not already have Nuclear Weapons in existence. With all respect, and i am really not trying to dodge, but i think a similar situation would only be if the north Korean People themselves were rising up against their leader. I discovered is a similar situation so i think thats changing the context. I think thats what makes it difficult to say. The United States international committees choice was yes maybe there taken a message from this would off he have used Nuclear Weapons on his own people . And not so sure. Having participated in the final destruction of the precursor for chemical weapons, i am glad that we went in there were able to clean up a lot of that stuff. The last thing you want is to have that in the hands of the militias or other groups now. So, i dont know. On that point we do agree. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman, the guitar panelists, im sorry i was at a hearing on north korea. Im sorry to be late mr. Testimony which certainly is another threat facing the United States. Im wondering if it either of you can speak to and again i apologize of some of these questions have been answered. Could you speak to the current status of the government of National Accord, my understanding is while they have not been able to govern very well, they do seem to still have support from a lot of libya. Is that the case . How long would we expect that to continue the current chaos extends for long period of time . I think again the support for libyans for this agreement, there i was in la libya last year nuisance in the capital. There is frustration with the government in tripoli, theyre not able to meet peoples basic need. Long lines in front of the banks, rolling electricity blackouts, they havent been able to get their budget under control. Theres a dispute with the central bank. They dont control security in the capital. Militia flareups happen and they are diving for cover. Theres is a sense that something needs to be renegotiated. The foundational cord still sticks in libyans recognize that. You better not jump into the darkness unless you have something to replace this. Are you optimistic there might be progress of the result of the discussions and room and the potential, of what it appears to be may be there getting close to compromise agreement . Is that something promising that may offer hope to people . I would agree senator with the dr. That people do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. The fact that the International Community and the United Nations endorse this agreement and supported it it took a long time. In the process libyans learned a lot about political dialogue. It was a politically illiterate country in many ways and having been part of that process for those years i saw this firsthand. So think they want to modify and extend. They would like to see, my sense is what i hear from libyans they like to see a final integration between the house of representatives with an authority that is not overly overwhelming. They do not want a strong central authority. They would like to see a unified authority in general have to under the civilian authority. Or even marginalized. They like to see him an honorary role on the outside but libyans want stability and predictability, they want their economy to go again. And so what about the discussions in rome. Are they really making progress . Im not privy to the details of that right now. I think the discussion is always better than the opposite. We have seen a lot of discussions in the past. Libyans are good at talking and throwing chaffin and going back and frank maintained even more. At least its a step of the italians know libya very well. Libyans ive spoken to believe the italians are taking the correct approach. How concerned are you that the United States seems to be missing from the discussions and from a leadership role right now and what is going on . Very. What does that mean as we look and as you talked about the economy of libya and how people want to see the economy going again. As they are beginning to get their oil reserves producing again and were looking at other nations committed, russia, icing china to commit or provide assistance with the oil reserves. What is that mean for the United States in the future . I will say only that if the perception becomes and spreads that the only time the United States was interested in postrevolutionary libya was when we thought we can make deals to make a lot of money and the minute it became difficult we pulled out and focused on military instead of what we believe as americans, or claim to believe as the four freedoms and principles of those, then we have a problem. So you would both like to see the United States take a leadership role there . I think we need to be present. We need to make clear what our vision is. I think we need libya was in one of the situations where it was a bilateral assignment as ambassador, but a multilateral process throughout. We were supporting un positions but havent work and coordinate closely with Security Council permanent representative allies and other allies across the board. I do with regional powers and parties as well. The beas has many parties in it. The u. S. Needs to play signature role metabolic role. Needs to be met with presence matters. Our absence sends the message. To do that . Completely. Great characterization. Its not us leading the charge on this the plane accord native function. In medicines where the glue that keeps it together with many different players with relationships with europeans, sabean present at the table is essential. Attack on my conversations with libya and across the country whether the south in benghazi, the notion that we are there simply for counterterrorism or we are there for the oil, the narratives are out there. These visible initiatives that signal that we do care about the libyan people about progress are very important. I know im over my time, in terms of as we look at the future of africa, north africa, the middle east, dont we have to include libya as part of whatever strategy we come up with, with respect to this region . Is a simple one, yes. Because libya has potential to be a resource and an important boundary for a lot of africa. It should be a major tourist area for europe with five World Heritage knights, with the great fish all these things. It should be a Major Medical center for Subsaharan Africa and other places. It should be a place of universities. It has a history and a place and its really close, its closer to rome than mecca. Libby is closer to some parts of italy than other neighbors, so it is important. It cannot be dismissed, it is not just libya. What lessons have we learned from the Campaign Last year that should guide us in any of our operations that we support in libya today . Ill say very briefly freds been there more recently, it was our policy prescription back in march of 2014 20 a 15 that the 2015 that the only way we could defeat daesh or isil in libya was to partner across the board. Because of the land mass of libya and the current fragmentation, we cant choose one partner. And i think at the time the chairman agreed anyone who shared our views on isil and daesh to deny them any toe hold in that country. To do that, you have to partner with likeminded or people who share your views. And we found those partners across the board. We worked and we found them, so so that, i think, has been successful in that regard. I would just add to that, senator, and i was there last summer. The very loose constellation of mill a shahs that attacked militias that attacked and drove out the Islamic State were, in fact, tied to the general and the government of national corps, but only very loosely. Very loosely. And some of them were opposed to it, and theyve now turned on that government. So, again, we did form a partnership, but i think it was a very limited and targetspecific partnership where we assisted them on a specific, you know, geographic threat. Now, were not talking about, you know, training militias, you know, opening up, writing them a blank check, giving them aid because that could really upset the factional balance, and that was what was mentioned in the testimony. If we side with one faction against terrorism, that could cause the other faction, you know, to go against us, to turn to another regional patron. So theres always sorts of second and thirdorder effects of this. And weve seen this also in the east where certain countries were giving support to the lna which was an unrecognized force, and that had a political effect on our negotiations. If the head of the president s council actually comes to washington, if that were to take place as there are some rumors, i want to follow up on chairman corkers followup to my question. What should the United States expect in deliverables from the leader of the president s council if he were to come to the United States as a prerequisite for a visit here in america . Mr. Chairman, i was going to turn that around and say my advice to mr. City range would be that he needs siraj is that he needs to come prepared to firmly articulate what he needs, one, but also what he can do right now, what the situation is but what hes prepared to do as well in terms of compromise or political deal making or what have you to bring things to closure. But so often we find that when the libyans come again, i due to this what i call a political immaturity in a way they are kind of looking for someone else to tell them what to do, and then they want to bicker with it, you know . Then they want to quibble with it. They cant to this, they cant do that. So he needs to come with a clear, articulate vision of where he sees the process going. He should be prepared to lay out with the italian dialogue is producing, and he should be prepared to put out their de minimis to their red line, you know, what their minimum standards are for any kind of compromise or for expanding and also revising the agreement, i think. The u. S. Shouldnt be put in a position of having to offer something larger, but he should be able to articulate what it is they need to do. So he should come with a specific game plan. Is there something more we could expect from that type of a highvisible opportunity . Unfortunately, i think hes not in a position of strength, you know, to really deliver, you know . So again, it has to be, okay, this visit happens within the context of a broader consensus that includes other players, that includes the hor, the state council. So its not simply the visit alone. He may ask for a million things. Weve seen these visits before, but then they go back, they cant execute the programs, they cant write the check for them. Weve seen this movie before. So, again, we need to demand when he comes that, you know, whos onboard with this project, whats the consensus, whats the road map. Thank you. Listen, this has been very informative, and we appreciate your insight and hope the upcoming visits do create some opportunities for us, but we thank you both for sharing your deep knowledge of the situation. We will keep the record open until the close of business on thursday, and i know both of you have busy lives, but if you could respond to questions fairly promptly, wed appreciate it. We look forward to seeing you back here in the near future and, again, thank you very much for your testimony. The meetings adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]