u.s. military involvement in the region. have you made a contingency plan with syrians reaction to us? have you made contingency plans for us being in an escalated military operation in the region? in the spirit of your compliment of my conciseness, yes. do you see escalation a possibility? u.s. military escalation in the region as a possibility? i can never drive the risk of escalation to zero. i think that the limited purpose and partnerships we have in the region, the contributions that we ll seek from others, i think begins to limit that risk. one last question since i m nearly out of time. general dempsey, you mentioned earlier that you re concerned
that s why the president said no boots on the ground. this is not about getting into syria s civil war. this is about enforcing the principle that people shouldn t be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity and if we don t vote to do this, assad will interpret from you that he s free to go and do this any day he wants to. that s what this is about. not getting involved in syria s civil war. so let s draw the proper distinction here, congressman. we don t deserve to drag this into yet another benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until assad, hitler and saddam hussein. if we give license to someone to continue that, shame on us. we go to rhode island. thank you, mr. chairman and the ranking member by convening
american people. it was also a stated policy of regime change so i would like to ask you, what is the president planning that could lead not just to punishment for this use of chemical weapons but also an ultimate victory in syria which is a change in the nature of the regime so they will not use chemical weapons and so that a pro-western moderate native syrian government can take its place. congressman, thank you for a very clear and compelling statement and thank you for the support for the president s initiative for the interest of the country. with respect to the longer term, you re absolutely correct. i want to separate here. this is very important in terms of what the president is asking the congress for. yes, the president s policy is
have been exposed to gas and you know that no one benefits from that taboo more than do american troops. i m also deeply worried that our inaction is destabilizing the middle east in particular our allies in israel and jordan as well as turkey. and emboldening iran as they send thousands of troops to fight in syria along with hezbollah, its terrorist proxy from lebanon. so that is why miracle miracles, i am in support of the president s call for action in syria. i am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this action as well. however, the president s stated policy was not just a red line against chemical weapons which as mr. sherman said occurred without any objection from members of congress and occurred before he was re-elected by the
they are american friendly after we have an outlay of american money, resources and maybe american blood and even lives if they retaliate. absolutely no guarantee. would you say that s a fair statement? i just would remind you the answer to the letter i sent to representative rangel was in response to the question i received. what would it take to tip the balance in favor of the opposition and lead to the overthrow of the assad regime. okay. so i want to make sure we re separate from what we re doing here today. i got that. i appreciate that. i ll direct that to mr. hagel. would you say that s a fair statement? no guarantee of an outcome on the other end? no guarantee of the outcome of a stable of peace in syria, peace in the region and whoever comes out on the other side will be our friends.