Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140121

I think its very important that youre holding this hearing, and let me briefly explain why. In the aftermath of the attacks of september 11, 2001, the overwhelming focus of our government and of the American People was on the threat of terrorism. 12 years later this is no longer the case. Our loss of focus is in part a consequence of the success we have achieved, namely, that we have not had another catastrophic attack on our homeland since that terrible Tuesday Morning in september of 2001. But pride in this achievement must be tempered by an awareness of some harsh realities. First, al qaeda and its affiliates remain a ruthless, determined, and adaptive adversary. Second, the underlying ideology that inspires and drives al qaeda to attack us and our allies, namely, the ideology of violent islamist extremism is neither defeated nor exhausted. It manifest itself not just in a resurgent al qaeda, but in terrorist organizations that are either unfairly with al qaeda or loosely affiliated with it, but have exactly the same goals and capabilities to use violence against innocents. For that reason our safety as a nation is ultimately inseparable from our ability to meet the fullness of the threat. Our security as a nation also requires, as you said, that we stay engaged in the world beyond our borders. That is the best way to prevent another terrorist attack against america like the one that occurred on 9 11. Yet, increasingly we hear voices on both sides of the political spectrum who say that the threat of terrorism is receding. At the end of the conflict is here or near. And, therefore, we can withdraw from much of the rest of the world. That narrative is the title of this hearing suggests is false and really does endanger our homeland. Theres no question that the United States under president bush and president obama has inflicted Severe Damage to core al qaeda, Senior Leadership that reconstituted itself in the mid2000s in the tribal areas of northwestern pakistan after they were driven by the courageous American Military from neighboring afghanistan after nine 9 11. But to borrow a phrase from general petraeus him while the progress weve achieved against the core al qaeda is real and significant, it is also fragile and reversible. For example, and this is a very timely example, core al qaeda in the tribal areas of pakistan has been degraded by the persistent targeted application of military force against those individuals and networks. The precondition for those operations and the intelligence that enables them has been americas presence in afghanistan. If the United States withdraws all our military forces from afghanistan at the end of this year, the socalled zero option, which somehow advocate, you can be sure that al qaeda will regenerate on both sides of the afghanpakistan border. And if you doubt that i urge you to look at whats now happening in western iraq, where just a few years ago during the u. S. Led surge, al qaeda was dealt an even more crippling blow than core al qaeda has suffered in pakistan. Yet, now it is al qaeda that is surging back in iraq, hoisting its black flag over cities like falluja and ramadi, and murdering hundreds of innocent iraqis just in the last year. To need this leads to an important conclusion which is that while space for core al qaeda and tribal pakistan has been shrunk, thanks to persistent u. S. Action and leadership, New Territory where al qaeda affiliates can find sanctuary has grown significantly during thi the sae period, particularly in the middle east and north africa and subsaharan africa. Al qaeda and other violent islamist extremist groups have long exploited muslim majority countries that have been weakened or fragmented by conflict, and neglected by the international community, including the u. S. They take advantage of these places to recruit, radicalized and train the next generation of extremists foot soldiers. They use these places to plot and plan attacks, including against our homeland. Thats why al qaeda and its affiliates first went to afghanistan in the 1990s. Thats why they later turned to yemen and somalia in the 2000s, and that is why today they are fighting to build sanctuaries in syria, iraq, and libya. There is now a clear, present, and increasing threat to america and our allies from those three countries. But administration policymakers have signified that any involvement, and i stress any of all that by the u. S. Military there, is for all intents and purposes off the table. That means that the u. S. Will not be able to assist our local allies in combating the rise of al qaeda in these countries. It also means that we are failing to help deal with the underlying conditions that are making al qaedas resurgence possible. To put it as bluntly as i can, i do not today see a credible or coherent american strategy for these countries, syria, iraq and libya, that most threaten to emerge as al qaedas newest and most dangerous footholds, places from which terrorist attacks against our homeland can and will originate here. Some in washington look at what is happening area, iraq, libya and down pretty significant for our security and with it or need to get involved. Yes, Al Qaeda Affiliated groups or they are the skeptics say, but they are mostly focused on fighting other. The situation is confusing and chaotic and that draw the sunni shia conflict has gone on forever and will go on forever. It is someone elses double wars it familiar refrain we are here enough then again. That varies often dangerous narratives. Keep in mind 20 years ago during the 1990s, most people in washington dismissed what was happening and asking and as someone elses civil war. And thats, began the road to 9 11. I very much that 20 years from now our last, someone else is going to be sitting here testifying before this committee, saying much the same about pulling back from area, libya interact today. In brief, what do i think the u. S. Should be doing to protect our people against future 9 11 attacks . First, i dont advocate sending tens of thousands of troops to these countries. I dont believe it is within our power responsibility to solve every problem these countries face. These are the standard strawman arguments against what we can and should do and theres a lot we can and should do. In theory we can and should much more aggressively provide militarily relevant support to nonextremist forces. In iraq, we can and should make clear to the government we are willing to support iraqis against al qaeda with u. S. Air power as well as putting a small number of embedded advisers on the ground while using that increased assistance as leverage to encourage the maliki government to politically reconcile, particularly with enemies. In libya, we can put in place and should a large scale well restores led efforts to build a new libyan army and Security Forces as quickly as possible and afghanistan we can choose not to squander the gains of the past decade and dishonor the brave americans who risked and lost their lives there. Instead, we can keep a sufficient one military prisons to sustain increasingly capable Afghan National Security Forces and our shared fight against al qaeda and the taliban. That will safeguard the games made in human rights and are broadly particularly among afghan women all of which will be erased if the taliban returns. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, possible reactions represent quick solutions. There are no easy solutions. They will put them in a better position to deal with the evolving threats here at home and make us safer as a country. Mr. Chairman, i ask that the rest of my statement he entered into the record. Without objection ordered. Thank you, center for analysis at the chair recognizes congresswoman jane harman for her testimony. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning to so many good friends. This feels like a homecoming. As you pointed out, i spent eight years when there is a select committee and for when we finally eked out a little bit of jurisdiction to form a real committee. I work with most of you, certainly on the top row and as you pointed out, chairman sets to come you and i were on the subcommittee of intelligence, mr. Thomas nature of the committee and when he was the Ranking Member travel the world looking at garden spots for terror cells are going. I feel that the history of bipartisanship of this committee has set an example for this house and i hope it will continue to set an example for this house and by the way, that other body somewhere in the capital because my little phrase ive been repeating for years as the terrorists wont check our Party Registrations be where they blow us up. We need to focus on this. Sorting ourselves out by party is not helpful. Now i am at the wilson center, a garden of nonpartisanship. I have to say that feels very good, but i continue to focus on these issues. As he pointed out, im on the policy board, state Department Foreign policy board, dni board recently joined the homeland Charity Board where i will be hopefully if i jay johnson and his new role. I carrington lay about the policies here and getting them right. So at your bipartisan fashion, let me start with an anonymous testimony, but an endorsement of some of the things hes had, chairman mccaul and Ranking Member thompson in your defense because they are altered as are many of the things my good friend, Joe Lieberman, joe said. Chairman mccaul, you said at the Terror Threat is growing and some are not paying adequate attention to that, the Terror Threat has changed from the 9 11 days. Corelle qaeda as you said and i know senator lieberman said has been substantially destroyed by the efforts of two administrations. One a republican and white democrat. Most people would agree that president obama not only continued the efforts of president bush, but he increased those against al qaeda and most highvalue targets have been removed so its less of a force. The Terror Threat is now a loosely affiliated horizontal threat. Many groups are al qaeda. They are opportunistic and they come together like cancer cells. The new organization, the islamist state in iraq and syria is called al qaeda. It isnt technically al qaeda. It is the old zarqawi organization that Osama Bin Laden dislikes. Zardari was taken down, but his successors on the organization and has taken advantage in iraq because unfortunately president maliki makes an adequate effort some of the sunny parts of this country, but also in syria for obvious reasons. So the Terror Threat has changed. The Ranking Member thompson is also correct that to defeat this threat, we need more than kinetic force. Playing whack a mole, which we have done pretty well and we should continue to do in some parts of the world using drones and other activities will eliminate individuals, but it wont defeat the threat. We really in the end have to win the argument and that is why the whole of government approach is so important. That approach is embraced by our Defense Department by the way, which is than some of us Prior State Department by publicprivate partnerships, ngos and both finished studying around the world. We need in addition to plan strategies, to project to american narratives than all of us agree on that. That explains what we are doing, why we are doing it and persuade some kid in the boonies of john meant not to strap on a suicide fast, but rather to hopefully join a productive economy in this country. Go to school but doesnt teach extremism in the guise of having people memorize the quran, but teaches reasonable subjects in a truly dispassionate way. We have to help build the schools by the way and make sure that girls get to go to them. I have a long statement here, but i want to now turn my focus because i remember the fiveminute rule and im about to exceed it, as did my buddy here, on two things that is the more immediate threat to the homeland and they relate to terror obviously. I dont want to lose sight as we are thinking about foreign terror organizations. One of them is homegrown terror, something this committee has focused on extensively. Since 9 11, thereve been almost 400 homegrown terrorism on terror data charges are killed before they could be indicted in this country. Wolves are a big part of this problem. This committee has studied, i know this because i was involved in it. How people who have radical beliefs which are protected under our constitution then transition to wanting to be encouraged in violent acts, which are not protected. We pass legislation a couple times but which unfortunately died in the senate. Its a huge issue and we have to look at it in our country and then we have to look at these disaffected americans being recruited for attacks abroad by alshabaab, groups and syria, et cetera, all of which is recently in the press. The other issue that is a huge eminem problem in you and i were talking about this, mr. Chairman, a cyberterror. It is absolutely imperative that congress pulled together to pass legislation that gives our government the tools to work with private industry, which is a huge partner in this on solving this problem. Congress is the last part is then. Theres been all kinds of problems by bills have passed. I know senator lieberman and my dear friend, senator collins can have a bill in the senate that they couldnt move. You just told me that there may be some chance of moving the bill here. I hope so. Godspeed. Because we are way behind in adapting to and preventing cyberintrusion, especially in the private sector. Sadly, the leaks by Edward Snowden have given her toolkit to bad guys and this is pernicious. In conclusion, the threats today are different. They are in a smaller scale, but they are very serious and we have to keep focused on it. We need a whole of government approach is not jazz or more than we need economic approach in my view. And less partisanship is a huge obstacle and i urge this committee and true Homeland Security committee fashion to pull together and do the right things about homegrown terror and help the mass make the wise decisions about a u. S. International role. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, jane harman. Its great to see you again. Today congressman pat meehan and Yvette Clarke will be marking up our cybersecurity bill. Ive enjoyed a good relationship. In the spirit of bipartisanship in this committee, it will be passed hopefully unanimously just as the Border Security bill was passed unanimously out of this committee. They dont check our party affiliation. We should Work Together when it comes to National Security. Thank you for that comment. Next the chair recognizes general keane for his testimony. Good morning distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today on an important subject. Im honored to share this with three distinguished colleagues, to friends. Senator Joe Lieberman, congresswoman jane harman to say that theyre both Great American future and i want to thank them publicly for many years of Selfless Service in this country. We have asked us to consider the president each at the National Defense university as a basis for commentary in the united people. It is true bin laden is dead. There have been no major attacks on the homeland and fewer troops in harms way. It is not chewer alliances are stronger. Indeed, they are weaker because allies are fundamentally questioning the will of the United States. Many allies believe the united dates will not be there for them any time of peril and some recent polling are indicating the United States standing in the world at its slowest prior to world war ii. How could this happen . Is this because of the wars in iraq and dan . Is that the u. S. Backing of israel and our inability to resolve the israelipalestinian dispute . Absolutely not in my judgment. It is because of American Leadership. When American Leadership is strong in the world a safer place. When inconsistent, indecisive and we are willing to let others lead who do not have the capacity or when we are paralyzed by the fear of adverse consequence that American Leadership is weak in the world is a more dangerous place. As such, adversaries are emboldened. They become more aggressive, take more risks. Results are more deaths, more casualties in the security of the American People are threatened. Tragically, this is where we are today. Despite sanctuary in the al qaeda from afghanistan and pakistan. Defeating al qaeda in iraq and killing Osama Bin Laden, the harsh reality and al qaeda and its affiliates represent an ambitious movement with the committed ideology. It is on the rise in the evidence is overwhelming. The al qaeda are taking control of western iraq where they seize control of northern syria. The border is nonexistent and today there was a bona fide dictionary for much operations can be conducted against allies in the region, specifically jordan. The radical islamists were not the catalyst for the revolutionary change that swept over the middle east three plus years ago, but they see geopolitical change as opportunity to gain influence and as such, controlled territory and people. This is happening in syria, libya, yemen, tunisia and mali. While exerting pressure in somalia and kenya. Because of the failure in my view of American Leadership to islamic extremism is not mentioned in u. S. Policy, which is quite astounding. 12 years we still have no comprehensive strategy to defeat radical islam or al qaeda. We do not even have a military strategy. We use drugs to kill Al Qaeda Leadership, pakistan and yemen as we shared, but that is not a military strategy that is a type take an instrument. It has limitations also because leaders are replaced quickly in an Ideological Movement and the mission goes on. Contrast this current reality with strategy and policies in the 20th century. When the United States was involved in another struggle, another ideological struggle, communism. We fashion a strategy, organized alliances in europe and Southeast Asia in nato to contain it by agreeing on a common political goal as well as sharing intelligence, training, doc during equipment intact experience we encourage some of our best universities to study the subject, whole departments around the subject is a matter of fact at the tanks that my colleagues, rand and others by communism. After all, ideas and ideological struggle truly matter. To understand the ideas, their history of development, their weaknesses and strengths and to challenge your ideas against them is fundamental to defining and understanding our enemy. Today, there is no such strategy. We have no formal alliances to partner politically, intellectually and militarily against them. This is not about troops against radicals worldwide, but assisting allies so their troops can do it when its necessary. I agree with congresswoman harman. This is a whole of government approach and is largely nonkinetic. The radical islamists understand us better than we do then. As such, they fear our ideas, democracy and capitalism. The advancement of these ideas in a region as a major threat to radical islamists because it makes it all the more difficult to drive the peoples will and force surrender. This is why the arab spring is such a threat to them. No one was demonstrating in the streets for islamic jihads to achieve a better life. The people in the streets were looking up at the United States and the west have to help change their lives to political and social justice and economic opportunity. That is democracy and capitalism. Therefore, radicals are relevant to influence the outcome that is so uncertain and unpredictable. On the contrary, ask any of our friends in the region about u. S. Policy in the middle east and the two most frequent descriptions of disengagement and retreat. No one can say with certainty, depending on open source is that any one of these al qaeda hotspots that weve mentioned is the direct threat against the people of the United States. But this much we can say. When we permit sanctuary and uninterrupted recruiting, training, planning and equipping as al qaeda was able to do for 10 years prior to 9 11, the risks to u. S. Interest and security of the American People is exponentially higher. After all, what makes this movement and asserting that ever faced is there stated in unequivocal desire to to use wmd against the people of the United States. Unchecked radical islam an ambitious Political Movement is an ideological struggle with the United States and its allies that will dominate most of the 21st century. We lasted 3000 americans on our land and now almost 7000 troops in foreign lands as we attempted to defeat it and protect our people and our way of life. We desperately need strong American Leadership to define radical islam for what it is, to fashion a comprehensive strategy and to partner effectively with our allies to defeat it. We have a long way to go. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. Thank you, general. I certainly agree it is a war of ideology. Joint strikes up an effective, but i dont think they can kill an ideology movement and that is a great challenge we have today. The chair now recognizes dr. Jones for his testimony. Thank you, chairman mccaul, Ranking Member thompson, members of the committee. Theres obviously a range of his hot al qaeda and the threat to the United States from islamic extremists. My own view noted both in my written testimony and oral testimony are informed by ongoing my own work on the subject including a forthcoming report on this, work that i am overseen and my past service u. S. Special operations and particularly visits recently, including to those same unit overseas, especially afghanistan, which i will come back to you. The argument that i will make here in my oral remarks will be severalfold. One is while al qaeda and the Broader Movement has become decentralized, the data is important. What weve seen in driving the numbers is an increase, a notable increase in the number of what i call she hottest groups over the past several years, particularly since 2010 and especially in north africa and lebanon and the cyanide there. Second, there is an increase in the number of attacks perpetrated by these organizations invest part of that, an increase in the casualties and fatalities that have come out of that. While this trend is troubling in one sense, it is worth noting not all of these groups are plotting attacks against the u. S. Homeland and its interests overseas. As ill come back to in a moment, it is worth highlighting which of these groups presents the most serious threat. I do want to note on the verge of this so she olympics that we have the north caucasus and central asia they do present a threat to american citizens traveling to this area, to our athletes traveling to sochi. This threat obviously impacts is not just in our infrastructure, our homeland, but also major events like the a lot to ask. I wont rehash the structure of the organization as my colleagues here of noted that. I want to highlight the fact that the biggest increase in what some of called the Al Qaeda Movement has been in the organizations that are sworn affiliates. That is they dont pledge allegiance to either now that we carry but they have a silly if she hottest theory in areas they control and in particular we see the increasing groups operating in north africa and the lavon. Ill come back to the threat posed to those groups in a moment. The message to afghanistan where he visited not that long ago and have noted very serious concerns among u. S. Military and Intelligence Units in most areas that we have worked for a long time against groups operating in those areas. There is still a notable presence of groups among a very porous border, both afghanistan and pakistan. We have tried for the last several years to kill or capture in northeastern afghanistan with limited success that has not been captured or killed. As we pull out our forces, close down our bases and potentially exit, will it be easier or harder to continue to target individuals . I dont mean resources, but collecting information, intelligence on these individuals operating in this area. The answer is straightforward, it will be much more difficult. I would say we have a number of groups that are plotted attacks against the u. S. Homeland to include al qaeda, to repeat taliban in pakistan, times square bombers coming u. S. Forces and Government Relations in the region and u. S. Citizens to include other groups like lashkaretaiba, the mumbai attacks in haqqani networks. I may come back briefly to what they threat to the homeland. In my view come and looking at this problem that, the one that posed the most significant threat to the homeland in yemen come al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the inspired Networks Like kazaa and i have brothers that perpetrated the boston bombings. This is not just a homegrown plot. Both of the brothers listened to Al Qaeda Leaders including specifically as al qaeda propaganda including the inspired magazine. It happens to be on the internet to what we consider core al qaeda. Weve got threats to u. S. Embassies overseas from groups like alshabaab targeting plots, for from sharia tunisia, which is land attacks against u. S. Diplomats. Weve got americans, a growing number that is syria coming europeans that have gone to syria. I would highlight that there is a very serious threat to u. S. Infrastructure, citizens overseas. This is not just about homeland. This is definitely not just about the core al qaeda. Let me just say in closing that we need a new policy. In my view, we have been reactive. We have not returned. Advisers and trainers to somalia were like to to do that in iraq. They been useful in multiple levels. We did a phenomenal job during the cold war of combating ideology. Weve been slow to develop a policy along those lines. Let me add by saying that the nsa debates we cannot lose our ability to monitor individuals that have linked up with website better radicalizing americans like the boston bombers. Whatever happens at this nsa discussion, we cannot lose our ability to monitor those. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, dr. Jones. I agree that if al qaeda does spread in a different form, youre absolutely right. As it spreads, ms. Peter bergen said in the arab world man in history, so too does the threat to the homeland. That is my concern as chairman of Homeland Security. I would also suggest he did travel to dagestan. He got through some of our flags unfortunately. Well be releasing a report later this month on the boston bombings, which i think will document them of these influences he had while he was over there. General keane, and like to ask you my secretary gates wrote anand or president obama, the National Security staff was in his arts, told primarily by former hill staffers, academics and political operatives. With little experience in managing Large Organizations and the National Security staff became operational, resulting in micromanagement of military matters, a combination proven as in the past. Weve seen that history. His political heavy handedness in the present day myths about al qaeda being on the run are concerning to me. Do you believe the administration is downplaying the threat of al qaeda to further their Political Goals claiming that area in the middle east . Well, in my view, theres no doubt that certainly championing the successive killing bonded and many of its leaders, but the fact of the matter is as we have all testified here, its clearly on the rise. And it is clearly a threat to u. S. Here in the homeland into her interests in the region. Listen, this business of al qaeda be more decentralized as part of the plan. The al qaeda has always intended to take territory and gain control of people into use affiliate groups in those countries as the starting place and then they bring foreign fighters to that theme. So what is being played out in front of us as part of their overall strategy. Now we have severed the commandandcontrol of that strategy to a large degree that they do not maintain operational control because of the pressure we put on them. Thats a good thing. Does that answer your question, mr. Chairman . Okay. I think so. But al qaeda is on the run or the war on terror is over. Ive personally experienced with the state department and other agencies, traveling overseas and attention not even used these words, to change the vernacular. And look, i am about as bipartisan as they come. It concerns me that this language is taken out of the vernacular. Listen, ive had problems with the Bush Administration for not educating the American People to what this movement is in keeping us posted on what our progress is against it. I challenge them for not having a comprehensive strategy to deal with this. It has taken sanctuary in afghanistan initially and then going after wmd in iraq. Thats not a comprehensive strategy to defeat al qaeda, believe me. This administration doesnt have it either. Its even worse because hes cut his head in the sand about it. It will not describe what it is and is downplaying the success the movement is having as it takes advantage of the revolutionary change sweeping through the middle east. Echoes to the point you cant defeat an enemy you cannot define. The analogy is correct. Frankly they just want to say its over and lets move on to something else. I dont know. I do applaud the president with respect to bin laden. I was a courageous effort to go in with military force is it not just bomb the place. It proves to the world bin laden was killed. I dont think ive solved the problem. Its not case closed anymore. The threat is growing throughout Northern Africa and the middle east. The House Armed Services committee declassified testimony after months of hearing and general carter ham, commander during the attack testified. He said to me it started to become pretty clear quickly this is certainly a terrorist attack and not just something sporadic. I believe leon panetta was a part of this as well. Do you believe again the response was not that this is an al qaeda attack, but some video, a protest of a video. What do you make of that . Well, a couple of things. The first is that it is obviously a terrorist attack by any generally held definition of terrorism, which was the use of violence to achieve a political and or convey a a political message. These are people attacking the u. S. Consulate in benghazi. They obviously werent there to have a good time or because they didnt like the consulate was there. They were there to make a statement against america. It was classic terrorism. Why there is hesitancy to do that at the beginning, frankly even if it was some way affected by the video, which i ended up concluding that there was there was only the terrorists on this is a moment of opportunity to strike. Still, it was terrorism. It not as if you are affected by an awful, grotesque antimuslim video in your response to that is to attack the u. S. Consulate in benghazi and earn it down until the u. S. Ambassador. Thats not terrorism. The other thing i want to say based on unfortunately quick decision as the session was then being in the last few months of 2012, one of the things we concluded in the terrorists are either inspired or loosely connected to al qaeda. But a lot of were indigenous and separate. Part of the problem when you limit the enemy to al qaeda affiliates and not to the broader category of islamist extremist terrorist is that youll miss part of the enemy. Part of our conclusion, senator collins in mind was we dont have adequate intelligence. At least we did at that point on nonal qaeda, clearly violent islamic extremists. Clearly, in the last month, on our all sharia benghazi was put on the list, bringing about many teens including increased intelligence oversight of those groups. I agree with you. The distinction between core al qaeda, al qaeda affiliate, jihad is, they are aljihad it. It is a movement it is a Common Thread in the distinction without difference. We need to be focused on the movement itself and not distinguish between all these different groups. They all stand for the same philosophy. I remiss if i didnt you may not agree with me on everything. Thank you. I appreciate that. I do think there is a terror attack in benghazi at that point and i do think we were under prepared in iraq, immediately afterwards, then secretary Hillary Clinton asked for a report, the 25 or 26 recommendations and implemented all of them. Hopefully we will all learn the lessons of benghazi. So that is point number one. Number two, i sat on these various boards and administration in nearby bipartisan boards and i participate in these because im passionate interest in this as you all know. I dont think we are being reactive. I think theres a lot of brain cells ominous, both of these boards and in the administration of various departments. I just came from 10 hours of the defense policy board and ural department, jack, is all over this subject. Sure, maybe could be doing even better, but theres a discussion of south asia is pretty bone chilling on a lot of people wanting to do a most effective job. But it does come back to something that general keane said, which is whole of government is a better approach to this and kinetics only. I would suggest with respect, mr. Chairman, the calling these different groups, al qaeda is something we dont want to do if we can separate them and have strategies that take saddam out, which we do. I support the limited use of drones, but i also support other strategies. We look out further. Finally, the world is extremely dangerous, but viewing this set of threats is the only threat i dont think is going to help us get to a place where the u. S. Can project our power, all of our power comes more power in the way we need to. Lacuna failing states and our support and is a highpriority. Helping a transition to democratic with a small d. Regimes is another highpriority and building modern world structures. Some of the structures we deal with are pretty antiquated. I can project the whole of the road against, for example, the possibility of a Nuclear Action between india and dan. Those are government decisions probably although possibly could be germane. It seems to me are also priorities. I want to put this in context. Let me close by saying theres been a bit of a failure of leadership globally. I think our enemies u. S. As weaker and they test us as a result of that more because they do view it that way on traditional allies, quite frankly, theres a lot of confusion. Where do we stand . Are we standing with them or not . Are they going to be the next United States that we create more instability than weve seen in the middle east, particularly after the socalled air of spring. With that, i recognize the Ranking Member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I dont think anyone on this committee individually or all of us what to do anything other than keep americas days. I think how we are approached keeping us safe is why we hold hearings like this. And we all have different approaches to keeping us safe. I think it is safe to assume that the collective of what ive heard today is really. Difference of importance. The security that we are all looking for. A lot of us when we go to our district were an afterthought has gone on long time. People are becoming weary. Not defeated, but weary. They said why dont you do some thing to bring this to me . If we had a magic wand, we could do this. So listening to some of our constituents talk about the 6000 who died and the enormous cost so far, i will go because ive heard it. What would you suggest as a risk on todays constituents Going Forward as to what members of congress or the house and the senate should do to bring that to an end . Poster with you, senator. Thanks, congressman thompson. Its a really important question. Im glad you asked it because thats the reality. I know she faced in members of both parties face and they go home. So heres the point at which one reaction, every time i went to the funeral of a soldier from connecticut who was killed in iraq or afghanistan is moved by the familys pain please make sure that our son, daughter, husband, whatever didnt i name. So there is that element. I mean, we learn some lessons from iraq and afghan stand. If we just walk away, we do various saying to those families, whose family members gave their lives because we ordered them to go there in our defense that they did die in vain. I dont think we ever want that to happen. Second thing, i want to go back to in some sense and make this personal about president obama. Put it in this context. President obama ran for office in 2008 and again in 2012 with one of the basic theme in addition to all the change was domestic problems was that he was going to get us out of the war and cannot get us to additional wars around the world. You know, fair enough. Sometimes the world doesnt cooperate with a president ial narratives. I think that is where we are in the countries that ive talked about. Iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya, which if we dont do something more than we are doing now, they are going to tip over. I am not here to criticize what the Obama Administration has done. The president is going to be our president for three more years and a lot that can be good or bad for security could happen. With the Lessons Learned consistent with the message that the president , were not going to send tens of thousands of troops on the ground to any of these countries. Their son being in between that and just going out. We ought demonstrate both militarily and in other ways. This is what i say to the constituents. If we dont maintain a presence, we dont help the Freedom Fighters syria, the nonextremist and maintain order against the militias to make the agreement and support the government, we are going to get attacked again. Same from afghanistan. Then we will go back and have even more risk. So i think bottom line we learn from iraq and afghanistan. Its not going to be hundreds of thousands of troops. But if we just turn away, we are going to suffer and therefore we need your support to help us do that. I can think i can think of five things, some of which i verity mentioned, but ill take them off. One, honor the service of those who followed orders and went to iraq and afghanistan. 6000 died. They leave behind families. Many came home with tens of thousands wounded. Many came home in decent shape, honor their service. Make sure we have in place a welcome my settings at all of the benefits they are entitled to, but hopefully at first to build good jobs for them. The Unemployment Rate among returning vets is disproportionate to the employment rate of others. Second, gauge metal government approach to solve this problem. It discussed at length. I wont go into it again. Third, continue Counterterrorism Mission it matches the greater middle east, but around the world. The u. S. Has interests in other places around the country, but we surely dont want training rounds to develop again and we know that some arent we need to be at their using all the tools we have. Fourth, continue our Surveillance System although i think some reforms are an order, the president was weak on friday. That was quite impressed with the report that was presented to him. Its not clear exactly what hell adopt, but we need to have an effect of system that can spot bad guys and prevent and disrupt plots against us. Finally, an act of legislation so we are it against what is a growing threat and could nbn v. , many predict, and much more Severe Threat to nonanother form of threat against the homeland. Just come out first to say them than ever before in the history of the country have so few sacrificed so much for so many for so long. The fact of the matter is the reason why it has been so long is because of the mistakes we made and be honest about it, the fact of the matter is our strategy in afghanistan and military strategy and talking about here and military strategy after we liberated iraq was flawed. That led to wars. We should have the honest discussion with the American People and also with your constituents. The matter is if you know americas voluntary, and i can do this with the knowledge, we know we got off on the wrong foot. We have got most of history with the murder reflections. We are intellectually flexible and operationally adopt the rule. We get to the end faster than other people what men were at a much larger war than what we are dealing with here. We did figure it out, eventually in iraq and we have figured it out in afghanistan as well. The sacrifices definitely worth it to protect the American People. When you talk to the troops that we deployed in the 90s that we were all over the world doing things amalia, he beat, busted mania, you name the place, there are problems that we were there. Nonetheless, deploying and. From 9 11 on, we have the 9 11 generation the military. The 9 11 generation of Central Intelligence agent d. When you talk of the troops, its all about the American People appear before was helping others. This is protecting the American People. Thats why they go back in newport, five, six tours. We have generals that have been away from their families for eight in 10 years. Its quite extraordinary to sacrifice. Tell that story. Is extraordinary because they are protect the American People in our way of life and theyre willing to do some inmost American People cannot do and that is die for that. That is really quite extraordinary. Id say be honest with them. In terms of this troublesome area, i know intellectually relate to talk about pivoting to the east because of the emergence of china. Is anybody in this room believe we are going to go to war with china . Not that we should be vigilant about them. We can be serious. The fact of the matter is we have huge problems in the middle east that threaten the United States and we have to stay engaged, mr. Congressman. That is a word we need to use. We partner with allies in that region and we support people who want to overthrow tottori aubergines waken libya, tunisia, syria. In libya and syria, they just want us to help them. They dont want our troops. In iraq, when we could help them, we walked away and look at the best we have as a result. I should inform us how dangerous the situation is and how important american commitment in to stay engaged and we have to do that before going to protect the American People. Dr. Jones. I would say three things that are worth reminding constituents and all americans that we talk to. One is as much as we would like this board and the struggle to and, there are organizations committed to fighting americans and connect in attacks overseas that will not end. They dont have a desire to end this in the struggle on their part will continue. Therefore the struggle continues as much as we want to admit, the terrorists today are committed to continuing the struggle. Second, i would say is everybody here is noted that the days of large numbers of American Forces targeting terrorists overseas, particularly conventional forces are over. As we have seen over the past several years, they have tended to radicalize populations rather than facilitate. So what that does leave us as i would say third point that there is a more modest approach. I think we have learned we are talking about the smaller number of forces. As well as civilians we talk about a smaller amount of american dollars being spent. There is a need for direct action at dignity. We have stopped plots targeting u. S. Homeland from overseas to some of this action. We also have an interest in building some local Partnership Capacity so we dont have to do all of this, so we dont have to do all the fighting and dying and locals can do it. This is the direction weve moved on several fronts. There has been a learning process. Let me conclude i reminding constituents in american from the al qaeda come and see how this do, work continues and then not as we cannot retreat. Thank you. The chair now recognizes chairman emeritus, mr. King from new york. From all sides, really. For instance, congresswoman harmon, you mentioned the domestic terrorism. Home grown terrorism. It was no more effective force against that, i believe, than the n. Y. P. D. You have a personal interest since you have family members living in new york. If you read the New York Times editorial after editorial denouncing them accusing them of profiling and going after innocent people. They did more to protect a major urban area than any other element in the country. Drp jones, you mentioned the nsa and congresswoman about the importance of it. We can have an intelligent debate about what should be done and not done. I dont see that. Politics with regard with spying, snooping, you look at the lettering during the tv show nsa scandal. No one has come up with abuse in all the years. Rather than having an intelligent conversation we go off on histrionic. We talk about them being an imperial power. We want to be in war. Anybody who has been in the military knows thats the last thing you want to do. Theres virtually no talking about al qaeda. Some of the people who spend equal time railing against al qaeda. Sometimes you forget who the enemy is if you listen to the media. Thank you for coming here today, and really, i think, injecting a level of common sense theres a real threat in many ways its worst than before. More dangerous. We have to deal with it in an intelligent way. And probably no one has done as much or essential not more than Joe Lieberman during the time he was in the senate. Congresswoman you did the committee, general keane, your service and dr. Jones, im a great consumer of the activity materials you put out. Thank you for the help you have given us. Let me talk on one particular area. Thats syria. There have reports about dozen of americans are going to syria to take part the in the fighting against syria. They are siding with the al qaedaleaning elements in syria, and the certainly threat of them coming back here, you know, to this country, but even apart from that, when you talk about western iraq and syria becoming a sanction ware for al qaeda. I ask each of the four of you, really. Do you think its too late for us to be providing aid to moderate elements in the syrian resistance . Or a risk of that enabling Al Qaeda Al Qaeda affiliates, you know, to use it against us. I ask that will be my last question. Ask each of the four of you. If you can respond what we should be doing in syria, is it too late, and how effective can we be. Thank you for your Opening Statement. May i say personally for comairm e chairman you are looking very good. Not as good as you, though. [laughter] so what was the question . [laughter] syria. I got so embraced in how good you look i forgot. [laughter] okay. Look, this has been a sort of a story that has gotten more tragic as its gone on. From the beginning, it seemed to me i went over there early on with senator mccain we met with the opposition figures there. As much as anybody can tell visiting these were not extremists. They were genuine syria patriots. Nationalists. They were sick and tired of a assad dictatorship and frank lip, democracy capitalism, they felt that the assad gang was stealing the nations wealth. They didnt have an equal opportunity to build a live for their family. We should have supported them from the beginning. It spun out of control. Theyre not giving up. Theyre still there. Theyre the moderate, nonextremist syrian patriots. Since then, as you have said syria has become probably the frontline of the al qaeda violent extremist war today. Theyre all pouring in. And theyre linked with what is happening in iraq. The answer to your question, in my opinion, chairman wing, its not too late. If we sit back, frankly, it can only get worse. There are two bad results. One is assad win. Which is a win for iran incidentally. And the other is that the al qaeda groups win. So we still have still call believe it or not, a proamerican element there. A group we can work with this theyre angry at us and disappointed with us. They still need our help. If it wasnt for the saw i saudis pouring money in, they would have the moderate group would have been out already. Not too late. We have a lot on the line. If we dont act, syria will become a base for future acts against the american homeland. Congressman king, i have lots of positive things to say about the n. Y. P. D. In addition to the fact they keep my kids and grand kids safe. I think ray kellys service was impressive. As you know, now, the new chief is bill br at t on who came from new york where he went to los angeles where his skills improved. Now we sent him back. The sleeker, better version of b on syria its a humanitarian catastrophe. It could be worse than rue rwanda. Certainly of the 21st century as john kerry said. I think we should have acted years ago. Joe lieberman and i agree. We didnt do it. I think there is still room to act. But we have to be quite careful about what we give home. Wouldnt it be terrible if it surfaced and were used against israelis by hezbollah or something of that nature, and because, again, of the way that these terror groups morphine and unmorph theres that risk. And the Intelligence Committee is here on the senate looked at this. And were pretty cool to giving them military weapons. That said; however, i think the fact that assad has surrendered the chemical weapons should not be a permission slip for him to continue against head of the country. I think we need i think we are doing this through john kerry to focus on agree knee have a 2, to getting the opposition there. Including some of the more scary elements. And i think the goal has to be to provide humanitarian assistance maybe in some way find a way to build humanitarian corridor so they that assistance can get to people who have been without food for or any kind of us is tense for a long time. To shore up the opposition so it can be the transition to a stable government without assad in it. Yes, we missed a huge opportunity to be able to assist them. The fact of the matter, there service even in the Central Intelligence agency when i was having discussion with the general they were pushing back early on the rebels were fragmented, unreliable, and just too much risk associated with harming them. But then by the summer of 2012, actually, the institute of study of war had impact on Central Intelligence agency, and because we had some real evidence that groups could be vetted properly. And the cia did that, and as a result of that, the Central Agency agency lead by general petraeus gave briefings in washington, obviously classified at the time. That the rebels could be armed and could vet them. And secretary clinton agreed with nap. And that briefing went white house in the summer of twelve 2012, and the president said no. That, i think, was strategic on our part as a result of that the Rebel Organization Syrian Free Army while still receiving weapons from saudi arabia the fact of the matter, they know as a result of the last initiative dealing with chemical disarmament theyre probably not getting help from the United States. The group is less homogeneous than it was. A lot of modern islamists were that associated with the Syrian Free Army have broken free of them. They dont think theyre going to get the weapons. The fact of the matter is, there is still opportunity there. And its over stated about weapons falling in to the al qaedas hands. The sue i dids were giving the weapons for two plus year. Some antiaircraft weapon fops the best of my knowledge, and we stay pretty close on top of it. None of the weapons have found their way to the al qaeda. And the vetting that the cia have done and the leaders they vetted are still there. So i do think there is opportunity but we certainly missed a huge opportunity a couple of years ago to truly make a difference. This is a fundamental question. You have been in multiple hearings, congressman king, been on top of this issue. Thank you for continuing to bring it up. In my view, its not too late. We should acted earlier. Its not too late. I would argue if we wait, if we continue waiting on this one, the trends are going continue to get worse. So i think there is an incentive to do a couple of moderate things. Ly note, i was in europe in brussels both to visit our partners european partner agencies, intelligence agencies in december on the syrian threat, and i have never seen the amount of concern among the europeans that have gone to syria to fight. Well over a thousand if they dont get on watch lists will have visa waiver access to the United States. And numbers around 100 or so americans that have gone either fight or otherwise participate in syria. The control territory that groups have had have grown and i think the more we wait, the bigger problem we have. What i would argue is there are two, i think, useful trends. One is the amount of support for jihadist ideology in syria is very small. As we have seen recently with the pushback the al qaeda affiliate of the west there have been active fighting against them because they have been involved in brutal killings. They have been involved in harsh reprimands against local population. I think theres an opportunity. At the very least, to provide nonlethal communications equipment, information, they can be useful for the organizations in the military and civilian strategies blankets, i mean, there are a whole range of things including to the refugee, i think, again, that the longer we wait to act the bigger the problem will continue to get. We thank you. I ask the chairman, i have ten seconds inspect answer to the every american is absolutely tragic and profound. Keep in mind in 9 11 we lost less than 2,000 people. We want to factor in again, why the sacrifices are made. And what are the consequences we let our guard down. 3,000. I yield back. One quick comment, that is with respect to syria, i im concerned its culmination of the conflict and becoming one of the largest terrorist training grounds now globally. Every day jihadists are pouring in to syria. I believe we squandered an opportunity two years ago when the forces were moderate. Im concerned about the growing infull traition of the rebel forces by more extreme groups. And the blowback that can present to the homeland. With that, i want to say given the time, and the number of members left, the chair is going to stick very strictly now, i think, to the five minute rule. Chair now recognizes gentlelady from texas, ms. Sheila jackson. Let me thank the witnesses for their presentation today at the hearing i hope in the conclusion will emphasize there is no partnership in the issue of domestic and National Security. I want to thank the witnesses for their thoughtful presentation and in particular, thank senator lieberman, congressman hair man and general keane for their service to the nation. I think it is important to note that i hope in the course of the discussions about the issue of national and domestic security we will quickly have before us the newly sworn in secretary of Homeland Security which is a crucial issue. And we will like my Ranking Member indicated, pursue the question of how you balance privacy and security with the question of the gathering of the megadata under the business section 2315 it was not the internet of congress. I believe there should be a balance. And my questions will be along those lines of balancing i thank you for your presentation. Let me also say that i know commissioner kelly as well, and certainly commissioner bratton. He served in the department of Homeland Security. And i respect his work. You can have security in new york. We know the challenges it faces. Houston faces challenges. We are the epicenter of energy. We can balance challenges with not having racial profiling. I want to make sure i put that on the record. Tbhaws is that is very important to us. Its important, also, to note that president bush had a series of Homeland Security strategies he offered in 2000s when president obama came in. He integrated National Security and domestic security. Frank willly, i think that was a smart approach. Because National Security interwoven meaning the security beyond the borders making sure the country defends itself from the foreign enemy is the same as having domestic security. And that kind of structure is what i think we should be looking at. I have never conceded the point that al qaeda was dead. And i use the term rather than decentralizing as franchising. Franchising was the shoe bomber. Franchising was the Christmas Day bomber. Certainly in meetings we know that alshabaab they have a pointed issue. They are also reckless as it relates to americans adds well. What goes on outside our border impacts inside of or border. Frankly, this committee has worked hard in particular under hr1417 a Border Security bill that allowed us to Work Together. Let me ask this question to everyone. In the chairmans comments, he comment from peter bergen about the idea of an immediate threat at home. Peter States Al Qaeda controls much of the arab world; therefore, what is impact here in my question is, understanding that adjusting our approach to fighting terrorism with Broad Perspective can anyone identify areas of immediate need where the u. S. Homeland is most vulnerable . Let me start with general and have senator lieberman and my other question is, is there any evidence that suggests a scaling back u. S. Involvement and presence in countries such as afghanistan and iraq reverse the last decade to eliminate terrorist groups. Might i also say, your answers might also say we wanted to pursue and stay in iraq, but they had to protect our soldiers and refused to it. General . Yes. Certainly the engagement we have currently with senior Al Qaeda Leadership and pakistan is critical to american security. To be successful two things have to happen. We have to continue our involvement with the Pakistan Military and assisting them to conduct counterinsurgency. In other words unconventional operations against that force as well as the thing that they are most interested in is the taliban that is threatening their regime. Our remembers in afghanistan as stated by my colleague is important to us to be able to continue to have the intelligence we need and also the meaning to be able to execute operations against them. That is crucial. Secondly, in my view, the developing situation in syria and iraq will become the largest al qaeda sanctuary. It will threaten the region to be sure. And we have to start now dealing with the harsh reality of that. The sooner we get on top of it in term of intelligence, the better were going to be with dealing with the reality. This is what al qaeda wants. They will seize territory, gain control of people, so they can become predator in nature in that area, and also they have never given up on their desire to cause more harm to the United States. Thing is a major area. I disagree with you, congresswoman, on iraq. The fact of the matter is the immunity issue was not a serious issue. It was a false issue presented by mall lack i can as face saving. After the military recommended 24,000 soldiers to stay in iraq, the president s envoy put 10,000 on the table. He knew he was not a serious proposal that eventually got down to nothing. The immunity issue got brought up at the end. It was more face saving more him inside of iraq than anything else. The fact of the matter is, that is a significant strategic blunder not leaving forces there as much as we did post world world war ii not for security reasons but influence. We lost this influence over him. And even further than that, it is more than the troops. We disengaged geopolitically with iraq. They forced it on us. We want to have a discussion about troops and they said no. He said were not doing that until we agree to have a Strategic Partnership that will last for 20 years. That was their idea we walked away from that as well and now we have this debacle on our hands. Thats the second most critical area, i think, we have to Pay Attention to and without getting to the details of it, what is taking place in northern and northeastern africa, also, is potentially threatening to us. In principle, in my judgment, what you deal with you cannot let sanction wares take hold. We should be partnering with other countries to with the sanctuary. Im not tabling bringing u. S. Troops to bear but helping people with Training System so they know how to deal with the problem and may help with equipment and intelligence to be sure. We cannot let the sanctuary take hold and fester. Because they will be predator in nature on their natures and eventually potentially dangerous to the American People. Ill just briefly answer, congresswoman. Is there any evidence that our pulling out countries creates a threat to our homeland. Im paraphrasing. I think thats what you asked. I looked back first at afghanistan during the 90s when, as i said earlier, the general feeling in this country it was someone elses civil war. When the taliban took over and al qaeda nest there had, and of course, that lead right to the 9 11 astacks against us. Iraq, today, is another example of that. We have pulled out all the,s that have given here. And now al qaedas back in. They will use that as a base against us. I will amaze this way. My reading of the last 15 years tells me that the reason the reason we have so diminished and degraded core al qaeda in the mountains between pakistan or afghanistan is not because of a whole of government approach. We use the u. S. Military. Nibble a whole of government approach but that has to, in these cases, include the u. S. Military because al qaedas not a social organization. It has an ideological motivation to it. But it is a brutal military organization. Were only going stop it by helping the heroes in each of these countries who dont want al qaeda or the taliban to control their lives. And want to fight for something better. They need our help. They want our help. And if we give it to them, it will protect our homeland. Let me just say that i respect the testimony of the very fine witnesses. Many of us would disagree or agree that we have issues in both of those places iraq and afghanistan we need to collaboratively come together and i know the American People wanted out of the iraq war. They want out of afghanistan, but they also want those countries to remain strong, to collaborate with them, use resources, and as well, they want us to have a strong National Security policy that protects the homeland as well. I think this is a very important hearing. With that, mr. Chairman, i thank you and yeeltd back. Thank you. Recognize the chairman of the cybersecurity subcommittee from pennsylvania. I thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank, again, this distinguished panel not for your presence today but across the panel. You your tremendous work on these issues on behalf our nation and so many different capacities and congresswoman, its indeed a pleasure to, once again, have the capacity to share a moment in this room with you. Youll be pleased to know that and i thank you for raising the issue of cybersecurity because it remains a remarkable focus. In the after math of the incident which just occurred with target, and thats one kind of a cyber incident. Its separate from the statesponsored ieber activity may take place. And so i want you to know we have made great progress and will be marking up this afternoon a cyber bill im worried as well about the concerns we may have in this nation as we deal with a narrative in this moment that appropriately reflects in the after math of nsa revelations and other things. We have a better understanding. Theres a narrative that may be taking place, which is privacy versailles security. Its easy for us to move quickly away from attention to the security im going ask if you would give me your sense of where we are in the form of the cyber preparation to deal with this issue of paying attention to protection of privacy but not vund surrendering in a kneejerk effort our responsibility to protect americans in so many different capacities. Well, thank you, congressman. Its good to see you too. As i think about privacy and security, i often say they are not a zerosome game. You dont get more of one and less of the other. They are reinforcing values, and things we have worked on together in Congress Like the intelligence reform law of 2004, senator lieberman, senator colins, congressman and i were the socalled big four on that one. Not only find ways to reorganize our Intelligence Community so we leverage the all the agencies but also set up a privacy and civil liberty board which was supposed to be stood up then and unfortunately hasnt just finally stood up last year. Any rate, the point of that was to have at the front end of policy making a group of people who worried about the privacy of americans. We can do both. Needs to be a positive game. It applies, oivelt, obviously to cybersecurity. People are worried now they see that there was a theft of i guess 70 million pieces of crucial information on individuals. And thats a large number. But they also need to be worried, it seems to me, about the purchase of exploits by bad guys which are incommencive. They are back doored in our grid and infrastructure in this country. And its so its not just personal information. It is, you know, pick one. Something very serious. It could generate a life and death problem for our communities. So how to think about this. I think this committee has an opportunity i know your doing it to talk to the private sector which controls most of the cyber capacity and persuade them to come on in in a cyber bill, as senator lieberman knows this better than i do. It has to grant immunity to those who come to play and has to with respect the fact that a personal information about companies is being shared and so on and so forth. Make sure, again, its a winwin. I think this is the climate to do it in. I just on surveillance, tbhaws has come up, too. The same issue. Theres not a diser aresome game here. There should be tweaks, in my view, to the laws we have. I think the public debate is healthy and the tbeek tweaks should assure the privacy is protected. We should never comprise on the basic part of the system that lead us to find bad guys before they attack us. I thank you for that answer. Youll be pleased to see i think we have made remarkable progress in the form of bringing together not just the private sector but our governmental entities and the kind of a frame work that would be effective but the one place we havent been able to touch. You put your finger on it. The kind of thing that will incentivize that sharing between the private and public sector, which gives some kind of security, really, in the form of Liability Protection to those entities which are touched first. No better example than a target who finds out weeks ahead of time they are being impacted. We need to encourage that sharing in real time. I thank you for your focus on very, very important issue. I look forward to working with the entire panel as we move through these issues in the future. I yield back. Thank you. Let me say i commend the gentleman for your leadership on your issue, your dedication to get not only the private Sector Support of your legislation but also the privacy groups. Its not an easy task. And its an uphill battle. You are able to accomplish that. I just want to thank you for that. We certainly did not support the regime or the justification to use military force albeit not troops on the ground that he had murdered through chemical weapons 100,000 people in syria. Now, the rebel fighters were be heading people, and in that part of the world in that conflict i think the concern is not that you are supporting the assad but you are afraid that all of the nonsunnis will be murdered. They just released a book called the second arab awakening and identifies the middle east as being a pluralistic region at sunni she shia tribes and also says that 500,000 american troops in iraq with a trillion dollars couldnt implant a lasting pluralism or peace in iraq and therefore no outsider can. Whats going on in the middle east today determined there was a culmination of the sunni shia conflict and whats going on her is they are continuing to litigate the conflict that goes back to the rightful profit mohammed and this is not about peace or democracy, this is about control. And so long as you dont have the inner stuffings of his book of the inner freedom and the constitution and to protect minority rights, youre always going to have these conflicts. In Northern Ireland, George Mitchell was sent over there for five years the last iteration was 22 months. He didnt think that peace was possible in Northern Ireland and he says in his book making peace that the great intangible of solving the conflict is exhaustion not only at the negotiating table but also on the battlefield. They have to realize that their commitment to the fight and kill the cultural violence has not produced any kind of lasting peace and therefore the need to move in a different direction so what do the two sides in Northern Ireland what were they required to do to the extremists . They were to denounce violence and actively participate in the destruction of their arms. So that the culture of the physical forces to achieve political ends is over. When George Mitchell was finished in the middle east because the conflict is very similar i just think that the american president certainly can do more to keep, the leaders in those countries. Our american married military has an extraordinary we can only provide a context breathing space within which the in factions can do that. There is no good allies of the United States in that part of the world, not nouri maliki in iraq, not karzai. We have to promote a lasting peace in afghanistan. We dont have good allies. What we can do is what we have already done and we are limited. Sorry i went on a little too long but i am interested in your thoughts on that. Congressman, i dont know if i should be first, but i would offer i think we do have allies in the region 1 of which is israel that is a pluralistic democracy under threat. I strongly favor the Peace Process. But thats one. I also think that there is another good news story and that is to tunisia where they now have a peace deal with other parties to surround a collision and just maybe that can show some success. I think a lot of what you said is very true, but i think that there are ways in our vigilance and focus that would be necessary that can be made. Briefly, thanks for your statement. In my opinion, we do have friends in the country throughout the middle east who essentially share our goals and we wont have any friends if we just pull back. As the general said for the u. S. Army military to be on the ground they are asking for our help and whats happening now after the socalled spurring is a remarkable Historical Development in the world which is an uprising against dictators, autocrats they want freedom and a better opportunity for the money for their families theyve been led by the under employed children of the middle class who are welleducated and understood how much Better Things could be. Whats happening now in some of these countries and the conflicts that the revolutions have unleashed is not dissimilar to what happened before when the autocrats and regimes are under throne. They have unleashed this and it could happen in eastern and Central Europe and in some sense this could happen in the arena. But, if we stand back is only going to get where its at. I know the conflict has been going on for a millennium plus. But i also know that there is a lot of mixing between the sunnis and that she shias. Its not a zero sum game. Tunisia is the example where everybody can feel there is a way for them to win and frankly as you said earlier over and over it is in our interest to see that happen not only because it reflects on our best National Values but also reflects on what is best for our security. If i could briefly followup on two points. Money is, i would just on your Northern Ireland example i think one of the lessons that the u. S. Is now and is the shift to the mind set to target one that was much lighter and focus that allows a Peace Process to even be possible because it was so weakened by that point. The other thing to reiterate, we dont have common interests across the board with all of them. We do have allies that hate extremism and if you look at the progress that has been made in somalia from mogadishu, talking out extremists from other areas, we do have allies and local populations that hate extremism and i think in that sense we have to gravitate towards those kind of organizations. There is a thoughtful question and one that has been asked before. I think it is a little too simplistic to categorize the entire middle east as a conflict between sunnis and shia. Im not minimizing the fact that exists. But we have to understand that it does exist because what is happening there is there are authoritarian regimes except for israel, and the drivers for instability as a result of these regimes are the lack of political and social justice and lack of economic opportunity. They use that and leverage that to gain support for what they are attempting to do. So we have to look at the reason and see what is taking place in that region in this very ambitious Political Movement that is trying to drive us out of the region so they can have their way and that is what 9 11 was about is driving us out of the region. Its one of the major strategic objectives. And, for us, to make certain that that region doesnt explode with the radical islamic movement, which would not only threaten the region, the world at large, they are a World Domination objective organization. Its hard for us to get our head around that intellectually but nonetheless, that is their idea, not ours. So the only answer here is to work this i think comprehensively what are you trying to achieve is what i would love the administration to articulate. And then individually, to work with partners in the region to deal with the realities that they have and some of these are dealing with our allies, mr. Congressman, who are authoritarian regimes who are aggressive in dealing with a lack of social justice that exists in these regions and yet we have harmonious relationships with them that are financially rewarding and the fact of the matter is we should be leveraging these regimes to move in a different direction. What is our strategy . Im not suggesting that democracy on everybody but i am suggesting that if you focus on people you can start to make some progress in the region and certainly stay engaged is the answer as opposed to just the sense of utility and hopelessness and of the culture is dramatically different from the United States and the geography is hard. Everything about it is hard, and its easy to say lets just walk away from it and that would be a tragedy and would result in harm to the American People. Estimate the chair recognizes the Oversight Committee mr. Duncan. Thanks for having this insightful hearing today. And first, i want to add my voice and thanks to senator lieberman for your service to the country and general, for your service in the 101st airborne first brigade, the chairman and i were able to visit with a third brigade combat tiemann afghanistan, and november of 2011. And memories that i had of men and women that were serving in harms way go a long way and i want to thank everyone that is serving to fight the elements that we are talking about today around the globe in afghanistan or where it may be. Thank you for your comments in the Opening Statement when you said let me underscore the enemy is violent, islamist extremism on the political ideology that is justified totalitarian governments by turning to religion and we can never stress enough it is not islam itself, is the islamist extremist that use religion for its own use and the game. I want to shift gears on some of the topics we talked about today because talking about a false narrative that endangers the homeland and as i sit here and listen to some of the testimony, i thought up the stereo scenario of the operational control and that we have a secure southern border. So, i want to ask each of your opinions out as the voters and to become specifically the southern border in this instance, but we cant let it to the southern border, we have a long northern border with the ports of entry we have the ocean and sea ports and airports that are all playing into the Border Security element. So, how does the national Border Security play into your thoughts with regard to the National Security countering al qaeda elements and countering any other threats but also the false narrative of an operational control element . I will start with senator lieberman. Thanks, congressman, for your kind words. Let me begin the discussion. Ive been out for about a year, so i dont know the latest. But part of the challenge post 9 11 was not just the Security Privacy tension, but how do we maintain security in a country that has historically been as open as ours and that includes the geographical state of america that has always protected us and we are surrounded by the two oceans and we have historically friendly allies we are never going to maintain full security unless you do your best at the borders. Weve come a long way since 9 11 and wed are better at the airport and Airline Security than we are in other places and we have improved i think the ability of the points of entry on the north and south borders to stop people who want to do harm from coming in because of the enormous flow of people that cross the border including obviously the illegal immigrants. So, the bottom line is if youre talking about the security in the post9 11 age protect your borders we have done a lot better but this is one of those that doesnt have an end point. We are going to have to keep doing better and better. Before i go to the congresswoman, let me just remind everyone that hezbollah has exploded the southern border thank you. I think it is an important question and this committee should take a victory lap for its author ship of the safe act about five years ago. It was a bipartisan law that passed the house and the senate and was signed by president bush to read what we did is push our borders out and we thought about how important it is to inspect the cargo at the point on the ships and then to walk down the ships and of course to have security at the actual parts of entry but we call that leered security and that is not the approach we take at the airport as well in a variety of ways. So, there should be an appreciation of that. On the physical land borders, canada and the southern border i just point out that so far as i know, and again i need be a little stale, more terrorists have tried to enter the country through the Canadian Border than for the southern border. That doesnt mean the southern border doesnt matter. Of course it does. But one of the early bad guy is that the customs official was able to sponsor was trying to cause a Canadian Border in Washington State with a rental car full of explosives and his intended target was l. A. X. So of course i would remember that and think it was a heroic act. But yes, looking at all of the borders as you have described, it should remain a high traer ready. But lets not forget that homegrown terrorists who are already here, many of them legally are getting radicalize on the internet, but also by people in their neighborhoods. And we have to keep a focus on that. Can you give a military perspective on that . From our perspective, i think what the intelligence agencies have done is notable since 9 11 and the cooperation of these agencies have. No amount of fencing in and of itself is going to to stop terrorist from getting into this country. What we have to do is stay focused on them. We have to be into their own conversations. We have to be into their internet. We have to know what theyre thinking is, and we have to stop this kind of activities before they start. So, our intelligence services, yes the National Security agency, the extraordinary work that day has been able to do is really critical to stop this. Do we need a secure border in the southern part of the United States given all of the problems associated . Certainly, we do. But the focus, and as the congresswoman mentioned, the focus that we have taken in the layered approach where it begins overseas is critical for us and we have had a lot of success as a result so the resources for that kind of work is something that you are all doing. Islamic one of the more interesting discussions on this came from the documents from the compound where the leaders noted two things i would highlight on the subject. Lummis frustration at the closed borders and the progress of the United States and making it more difficult for them to get inside and actually hearing it from the Senior Leaders themselves, but also the commitment to finding exploited ways to get inside of the homeland, whether it was individuals as bin laden trying to get with a mexican visa we have people leave the United States and go to train. We have people that have come back and get involved in plots. They were all back in the United States when they were involved in plots. The issue with the Border Security has got to be Border Security is good up until the point that it has useful intelligence. One of the aspects and the this is where syria comes back into the picture are only good as the people whose names we have access to and we can pass on to the folks in the Border Security. One concern that i have had talking to the folks that we have working in syria is we dont know all the people over there. We know many of them but if the names dont get on the list they dont get back to the security and they can come in and out without being stopped. So i would use those issues of Border Security and intelligence as being crucial and potentially vulnerable if we dont have access to the information. I want to point the committee to an article in the Weekly Standard by thomas know your enemy and the grand strategy and i would like to enter this into the record. The chair recognizes mike kelly from texas. Thank you mr. Chairman. I am certainly no apologist for the administrations National Security strategy. I have some significant concerns with that, but a lack of focus for the prosecution of the war on terror and if you look at the unprecedented level at both domestic and International Surveillance that come to light recently, the drone strikes against the terrorist targets who present a direct threat to the country, and also targets who are the enemies of the allies and do not present a direct threat to the country. The surge of the forces in afghanistan and the first term of the administration and as it has been mentioned before, the killing of bin laden. Its hard to see how one could reach the solution that there is a lack of focus or interest or intent to successfully prosecute the war on terror in this administration. And to the generals point come to use the fray that the mess in iraq is as a result of again his work at the bundling of the administration negotiators in iraq. Ive reached a different conclusion. I think that to use that word the mess we are in as a result of that country in the first place, the lack of the critical questions and the assumption that we made prior to that. I hear a lot of military solutions to the very complex terrorism problems and threats that the country faces in the middle east. I would love to hear the general, the senator and congresswoman harman, dr. Jones, i would like to hear you reflect on some of the unintended consequences of the military presence and the drone strikes and with those activities to to perhaps increase the threat or complicate the threat that we have over there and again, to use the generals excellent idea of what that might mean to a comprehensive strategy beyond the military presence or for the remainder of the forces in afghanistan and iraq and i would like to start with senator lieberman. Thanks, congressman. So, i would say that the positive aspect of the Obama Administrations record in the counterterrorism that you stated, i agree with. But what i am saying here and i will go back to what i said earlier this in many other ways with the administration is doing isnt working. In other words, if we are not helping the moderates and then on extremists and syria, if we are sitting back now has iraq becomes a sanctuary for al qaeda we are doing the same essentially we are going to let afghanistan basically go where iraq did and not have an agreement to leave them there by the end of this year we are inviting a whirlwind. So what im saying is not to criticize the positive things that youve said that he essentially to say mr. President , three more years in which you are going to be the commanderinchief, a lot of what you are now doing in my opinion is simply not working to protect our security and it is diminishing our credibility in the areas of the world away outside. I talked to people in asia and the world as small. When they see us coming back from countries they think our close allies in the middle east, they think was going to happen if china makes a move on can i make in the United States and they think they can. So, as i said in my Opening Statement appreciating with the Obama Administration has done, particularly here at home and supporting the Homeland Security department and the various elements of the National Security that worked out in post 9 11, but i think that there are large parts of the Foreign Policy approach and the administration that are simply not working. Excuse me, respectfully, but to one of the plans i was attending to make is there another side for the more aggressive that you and the general have been arguing for and does it mean that you dispute the total net value of that presence and also served al qaeda interest in being able to recruit additional people through the strikes and help . Its a more complex picture in the aggression or more robust presence doesnt necessarily mean that there arent complications of course there are. This is the complication in a very dangerous world, but the bottom line is this is going to go on for a large part of the century where we are facing a group of people that represent a distinct minority in the islamic world come and get the our fearless and the are an idiot of logical killing machine mostly muslims, so yes pilat of things we have done well have a counter reaction, but in the end, if we do nothing, the result will be worse. None of us are calling for the hundreds of thousands of troops in iraq and afghanistan. But you get over learn lessons of the last and one would be to just pull out the consequences of that would be disastrous. We have identified. I also applaud your question. I dont think anyone here is saying lets cut and run from the middle east. But we do have there are different nuances to what each of us is saying so heres what im saying. We need to continue a robust counterterrorism presence in the middle east, but that doesnt mean that we have to have the troops everywhere. We can have an over the horizon force in some places which we can stage in two areas if we need to to protect u. S. Interest i am saying we need a robust set of laws that allow us to do what we are all talking about which is to reduce the plans and the attentions of the bad guys and present and disrupt them from attacking asps. That is nothing that we need to do. But, just take iraq. President obama as Everybody Knows ran on the platform that he would engage militarily from iraq support this. There is a democratically elected leader of iraq who was supposed to represent the whole population, not just the shia population and that is an issue. He is right on calling maliki to represent his entire population to provide leadership and similarly in afghanistan, they are not the same country or the same set of problems, but there is an elected leader and there will be reasonably fair election. Im not optimistic because they were so unfair but i think its important that the countries themselves exercise leadership as we try to help them, and my final point is we should never disengaged from that region