tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN January 23, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EST
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? is. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: could we have order. the presiding officer: there will be order in the senate. mr. mcconnell: for the information of all senators, the next vote -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: for the information of all senators, the next vote will be monday at 5:30 p.m. the democratic leader and i have agreed to announce no more votes tonight.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed
to consideration of s. res. 38 submitted i i earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 38 relative to the death of wendell h. ford, former united states senator for the commonwealth of kentucky. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 4:30 p.m. monday, january 26, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day.
and the senate resume consideration of s.1. i further ask that notwithstanding the adjournment of the senate, the filing deadline for first-degree amendments be at 3:00 p.m. on monday with second-degrees at 5:00 p.m. the next vote will occur at 5:30 p.m. on monday. if chairman murkowski and senator cantwell can reach an agreement for additional votes on amendments, those can be scheduled for monday night as well. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order as under the provisions of s. res. 38. the presiding officer: under the previous order and pursuant to s. res. 38, the senate stands adjourned until 4:30 p.m. on monday january 26, and does so sasse a mark of further respect -- and does so as a mark of further respect to the late-senator wendell ford.
c-span2. >> coming up tonight, former national security visors assess the role of the u.s. in the world. then the minority leader harry reid discusses his recovery from injuries sustained while exercising. that is followed by a tribute to wendell ford who died thursday at at the age of 90. then senators discuss the state of the unit on what they hope to achieve this year. >> wednesdawednesda y an assessment on the u.s. national security and u.s. involvement in international affairs. they appear before the senate armed services committee in its first hearing chaired by senator john mccain. this is 2.5 hours.
[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the committee hearing will come to order and to start with i would like to obviously welcome our new members senator tom cotton senator tom tillis, senator dan sullivan and senator joni ernst. this committee has a long committee of working in a bipartisan fashion of which we are very proud, i have had the opportunity working with senator reid for many years despite his lack of education, he has done
an outstanding job your and that includes the service academies and i welcome the opportunity of working as closely as i have for many years as i have with the senator from rhode island. we begin a senate hearing on global challenges to the u.s. security strategy and i'm pleased to have as our first witnesses to of america's most prestigious thinkers in public service. they each served as national security advisers to the president of the united states and this includes iran,
negotiating treaties with moscow, making tough choices on the middle east that have clear sailing for this country today. we are grateful for allowing us to drop on the wisdom. four decades ago the secretary of state dean acheson titled his memoir on the construction of the post-world war ii order president of the creation. taking a look at that order today, it's fair to say to ask if we are now present at the unraveling. for seven decades, republican and democratic leaders alike have created america's leadership and strength and the defending liberal world order maintaining free markets and free trade provides peaceful means for the settlement of disputes and relegates this to their rightful place in the bloody past. it is essential to the identity
a nuclear weapon which has a global nonproliferation regime. that includes the ideology that continues to metastasize across the middle east and north africa and now in its latest and potentially most violent form, the islamic state has the manpower and resources to dissolve international borders and that includes this brand of counterterrorism. we are seeing people continue to facilitated as we saw in the barbaric attacks in paris. these rebels have pushed the country to the brink of
dangerous and unacceptable and represents a lack of our most basic responsibility. we must have a strategy strategy driven budget and not a budget driven strategy we must have a strategy based on a clear right assessment of the threats we face and a budget that provides the resources necessary to confront them. them. by crafting a reality -based national security strategy it is simply impossible
under the mindless mechanism of sequestration and there would be no clear signal that protects them in its immediate repeal. i would hasten to add while a larger defense budget is essential, essential, it we will be meaningless without the continued pursuit of defense reform rethinking how we build posture and operate our forces in order to maintain our technological edge and prevail and long-term competition with determined adversaries who seek to undermine the economic and security architecture we have long championed series of how we no the 19th of build the national security strategy that can sustain the american power and influence required to defend
the international order that is produced and extended security, prosperity, and liberty across the globe. i am pleased to have such a distinguished panel of american american-statesman to help us begin that conversation. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. the me join you in welcoming our new members and colleagues that return. let me congratulate and contingent. working with you and also to underscore your comment about the nature of this committee we we will continue. chairman dr., welcome. both of you in leading american partition of diplomacy and strategic thinkers for several decades, and we thank you for your service to your country and for your agreeing to be here today. let me again, commend the chairman for calling this hearing as a series of
hearings so articulate. and how we may respond to those challenges. this hearing on those that follow we will provide us an opportunity to here from leading experts to return military commanders, and key leaders in our country about the national security issues we face and i welcome a chance. the number and breadth of these challenges seems unprecedented. that nonstate actors like al qaeda and iso. threaten the integrity of states throughout the region the continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. a growing assertiveness regionally and globally.
generals broke off the interesting hearing of your perspectives on each of these challenges and the principles that you believe should guide us in addressing them. they include and this is not an exhaustive list but it is lengthy list call with regard to the middle east 1st how you define the near and long-term united states interest in the region. second, what do you believe would be required to defeat the threats and violent extremist groups both in terms of us policy and international collaboration. what role if any do you believe nations outside the middle east should play in addressing centuries-old divisions in that region including the sunni shia divide ethnic rivalries and political and ideological divisions. with regard to iran there are a variety of ongoing developments, developments, another round of negotiations that just wrapped up over the weekend july deadline looms.
and the senate banking committee is working on legislation that it hopes to mark up as early as next week that would impose additional sanctions. so the committee would be interested in your assessment of the likelihood that these negotiations will succeed or fail in the value of giving this process the opportunity to play out in your assessment of iran's regional ambitions and how iran will will with or without a nuclear weapon change the dynamics in that region. in regard to europe the united states and its allies continue with an aggressive russia while reassuring our allies to draw near to our community of nations in europe. with regard to china help to cut the service. and
finally with regard to our cyber problem, our society appears to be very vulnerable to cyber attacks. the implications of this moment ability not just from here but many other sources. let sources. let me, again commend the chairman and joining with and finally in underscoring echoing, and reinforcing his very very very timely and critical comments about sequestration and the need to couple sequestration with reform. with that i can think of no more thoughtful just to come forward. >> in other words, if you both would take seats and proceed however you choose to speak 1st.
>> well who is oldest? who went to a real college? [laughter] >> mr. chairman, ranking member members of members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to present some of my views on issues that the chairman and ranking member have laid out which is difficult for all of us. my opening my opening comment i hope can contribute to your deliberations over some very vexing issues and choices
that we have. the world that we live in is full of problems, and problems, and some of them seem to result from knew or novel portions of influence that i intend to focus on. let let me begin my comments with just a few words about the cold war. the cold war was a dangerous time in our history of problems abound a mistake could have resulted in an nuclear war, but the cold war had one advantage, we did with the strategy was. we argued mightily over tactics, but we were always able to come back to what is it we're trying to do command it was contain the soviet union until such time
as it changed, and that helps enormously in getting us through the cold war. at the end of the cold war that cohesion largely disappeared but shortly thereafter we were subjected to globalization the blending of many worldwide trends of technology, technology, trade, the kinds of things, and with it and undermining of the filling structure of most of the world's nationstate systems. the westville your system was creatively in the 17th century after the 30 years war and the devastation that it caused. it made the nationstate the element of political sovereignty totally
independent totally on its own each month all equal technically. it was a tough system and from many have claimed it was responsible for world war i and world war ii, but it is basically the structure of our nationstate system today as modified because the united states has spent much of its national interest focused softening focused, softening the harsh independence of the west filling system like the united nations like laws that apply to everybody like bringing us together rather than having these unique cubicles who
are in themselves but don't relate outside. and now we have something new to confuse the international system, and it is called globalization. and to aspects of it are particularly difficult to manage in this west -- less salient world because globalization says that modern technology, modern science is pushing the world together. we we are all unique, separate caps off. two of their globalization efforts are particularly intrusive if that is the
right word. one is communications and another in a different way, climate change. communications is connecting the world and connecting people to the world like never before in history. for most of history most of the people of the world did not participate in the politics of her there system did not participate in anything except their daily lives, and they were just like their parents, they expected their children to be just like them on and on and on. well, now they are surrounded by information
and they are responding reacting to it. it is not that kind of lower-level. i am not just chattel of the boston on the street. i am a human human being with dignity, and this is sweeping throughout the world and altering our system in ways that it is difficult for us to cope with. and one of the ways of course, is course, is the impact of cyber on our society. which could be enormous enormous, as deadly as nuclear war, not deadly to the person the deadly to the society and those are the kinds of things that we face now. and focus most importantly
on the middle east. and i think one of the things that we see that if you want to object like in egypt, for example, you go out and parade in the square, well that is difficult thing to do ordinarily. you have to find people who we will go out find people who we will go out with you, avoid the police, so on and so forth. now globalization has made it easy. all you have to do is pick up your cell phone and say they we will be a rally tomorrow into square at 10:00 o'clock and you can get 10 million people. this is a very very different world. it used to keep out information. and that is basically what we are facing.
and we have barely begun to deal with the. and i had climate change to it because it demonstrates what we cannot do in a nationstate alone. no nationstate can deal with climate change. we have to cooperate to make it work. it is just that way. so these are new and tax on our system and they make governments more difficult. and more so for the united states because we have been
at the forefront and liberalizing the west filling system and making a more just world for all. to help us in this difficult task, task, we should look to our alliances especially nato. i think nato in many ways is as valuable as it was during the cold war. in a world world where the relationship of the individual to the state is frequently under attack and outlines of states to whom that personal relationship to the state is sacred is valuable and nato has many areas where it can deal with these new forces in a cooperative way which
negates the independent sovereignty and atomize the world. the impact of globalization on communications seems most dramatic in the middle east where the impact of the arab spring was very heavy and still very much is being felt. it has brought sunni shia differences to acrimony and even combat. the iso issue in syria and iraq is an excellent example of the devastation that communication can create in the nationstate system. it is attempting to transform of political state systems into a caliphate or
religious order and i don't think the nationstate system is under gross attack, but this is a new and very different development which could be dangerous for painful for all of us. also in the middle east however, east, however, besides chaos are some situations where it is conceivable that real progress toward peace and stability might be made. one of these areas is wrong. the iranian nuclear issue is excruciatingly complicated. the resolution i don't think, is out of the question and a resolution of this difficult issue could open the way to discussions of other issues
in the middle east region, which we used to have when it was a very different state. and it might serve to change some of the issues in the region to benefit all of us. another enduring issue in the middle east region has been the palestinian peace process. many many would say that expecting progress is grasping at straws but a determined effort from the top might bring surprising results. just a word about the nuclear arsenal. as more and more nuclear
that and a 1st strike he would destroy his opponent systems and escape unscathed if we look at that it gives us guidance and numbers and characteristics of the system's which we need. one other nuclear comment in order to avoid a world demand for nuclear reactor fuel creating other iran like states i think the us should consider establishing a nuclear fuel bank where states can check out fuel for reactors, return it after it has been used, and thus avoid what could be
almost endless moves toward nuclear power. mr. chairman i focused remarks on aspects of moral development, i thought most vexing and unique. i would be happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. >> mr. chairman, members of this distinguished committee thank you for the invitation to address you. i genuinely agree. my hope is that your
deliberations will shape the bipartisan national security strategy. the bipartisanship is badly needed command i think we all no that. given the given the complexity and severity of the challenges that are faced in europe, the middle east command potentially in the far east. together they pose an ominous threat to global security. in europe is playing with fire financing and arming a local rebellion and occasionally even intervening directly by force in order to destabilize ukraine economically and politically and thereby destroy its european aspirations.
given that the current sanctions should certainly be maintained until russia's verbal commitments to respect ukraine's sovereignty are actually implemented. in the meantime, nato and especially the us should make some defensive weaponry available to ukraine something that i have been urging since the onset of the crisis. not to provide the simply increases russia's temptation to escalate the intervention. at the same time i have also advocated and do so again today that we indicate to the, that the us
realizes that a non- nato status for a europe oriented ukraine could be part of a constructive east-west accommodation. the preservation of peace in your also requires enhanced security for the very vulnerable baltic states. in recent years -- and we should take note of this, russia has conducted menacing military maneuvers near the borders of the states and also in its isolated region one of these exercises quite recently involved even a simulated nuclear attack on a
neighboring european capitol. that surely speaks for itself. accordingly,. accordingly, the only credible peaceful way to reinforce regional stability is to deploy now in the baltic states some tripwire nato contingents including also from the us. such departments would not be threatening to russia because of their limited scale but they would reduce its temptation to recklessly replay the scenario that transpired recently in crimea. prompt repositioning of us nato military equipment and nearby poland would also significantly can 2000 significantly contribute to enhancing regional deterrence. turning to the middle east again we should try to
avoid universalizing the current conflict in europe into a worldwide collision with russia. that is an important. it it is both in the americas and in russia's interest that the escalating violence in the middle east does not get out of hand. containing it is also in china's long-range interest. otherwise regional violence is likely to spread northward into russia. don't forget that that some 20 million muslims living in russia. "eastward into central asia eventually even to send john to the direct detriment both of russia and china. america, russia and china
should therefore jointly consult about how they can best support the more moderate middle east states and pursuing either a political or military solution and different ways america russia and china should encourage turkish engagement irani corporation which is much needed and can be quite valuable, saudi restraint somewhat overdue, egyptian participation in seeking, if possible, some form of compromise in syria and the elimination of the original extremists. and the three major powers should bear in mind that their will be no peace in the middle east if boots on the ground come mainly from the outside and especially
from the us. the era of colonial supremacy in the region is over. finally, with the presidents soon embarking on a trip to india, let me simply expressed the hope that the us will not unintentionally intensify concerns in beijing that the us is inclined to help armed india part of a de facto anti- chinese asian coalition. that will simply encourage the chinese. that will simply discourage the chinese from becoming more helpful in coping with the volatile dangers that
confront us in europe and in the middle east. to sum to sum up in my preliminary statement, global stability is discriminating determined but not to be nearing american engagement. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you both. some very strong words and gives us a lot of food for thought. would you both agree that sequestration is badly given the events that we see in the world today is something that we need to repeal? >> absolutely, i would. it is a terrible way to determine for structure strategy, anything like it. it is undermining our ability to do what we need to do to retain a lead for
the contingencies in the world. so much opposed to sequestration. >> i agree. >> it seems to me that if we are going to develop a national security strategy given the marriott and complexities of the challenges that we face as both of you have pointed out it seems to me that we have to have -- cyber attack. [laughter] we need to set some priorities. would you give us your view both of you, what are priority should be?
>> and foreign policy, i presume. >> in order to develop a national security strategy. >> i believe we need 1st of all to pay attention to our nuclear structure and nuclear relations with russia because we do not want, above all nuclear war to you about. i think we also need to look carefully at how the world is changing and what we can do to assist that change to
produce a better, not a worse world. one. one of the big challenges in this world is cyber. and i am not intellectually capable of dealing with the cyber issue but it is a worldwide issue and, as i say could be as dangerous as nuclear weapons. and there is no control anywhere about it. i think i agree that the united states has areas where it can work with both the chinese and the russians. russians. sometimes both of them. i think we should not neglect those. the chinese especially did
not participate in the world i was talking about. their system is very different. there different. there is china and then there is everybody else. we need to learn the chinese how to communicate so that we have the desired effect. i think pressure is a very difficult case right now but i think the cold war is not returning and we should not aid and abet its return. >> on the issue of russia their are some that believe that because the price of oil and its effect on the russian economy will lead to be more conducive to
listening some of his aggressive and confrontational behavior, such as you describe only in i only ukraine but with the baltics and although for there are others who say that because of this table make it more confrontational in order to maintain his standing only with the russian people but in the world. i wonder what your assessment is -- and i know it is a difficult question. >> yes, but cannot comment very briefly. first of all, about the nuclear confrontation. obviously we confront each other and have had some crisis in the past. i think we have learned a great deal from them, and i hope the russians as well. but what is somewhat alarming is the fact that in recent times during this current crisis which is a limited ground-based crisis
has invoked the threat of nuclear weapons. people not pay much attention to it. we have the capability and so forth and he has been matched that with highly provocative era overflights over scandinavia, parts of western europe even all the way to portugal. so i have little concern to five when i say little, i am underestimating my concern. there may be a dangerous character that could push us to some possibly very dangerous confrontations. in that respect your must be a little bit of christian. they all recall respectively. and this this is why it is so terribly important that he has no misunderstandings as to the
nature of our commitment and determination, and this is why during something on the ground that the person from trying to leapfrog in the ground the military solution is needed. insofar as china is concerned that they probably the chinese have some genuine interest from the standpoint of the enhancement of the international power the acquisition of cyber capabilities of the confrontational type i don't want to over exaggerate this.
but part of the military strategic history is the notion that you don't prepare to find your opponent at that given stage of weaponry. you leapfrog and then engage in some offensive activity. i am concerned that the chinese may feel that they cannot surpasses the nuclear area and no they are significant nuclear restraint in terms of the clinic appointment many times over nuclear weapon storage. but the cyber issue may pose at least at this stage the possibility of paralyzing without killing anybody. that can be a very tempting solution for a nation which is increasingly significantly economic and
military disparity. that suggests that we have to be far more inclined to raises issues with the chinese which we have done to some extent. the capability to respond effectively what prevents an attempt. the.you just raised about prudent and help to contain him. >> basically his reaction to this economic crisis that he is confronting. >> he is conducting a very serious economic crisis, which is trying to deny. but it is quite interesting how many of his former immediate associates the political allies express growing concern.
now here's the real question is not only how severe is the crisis in russia but the real question international is will the russian economy implode in some significant geopolitical a significant fraction 1st overall ukraine implode in some significant geopolitical fashion 1st? a great deal of what he is doing is not part of the comprehensive military invasion of ukraine other than the specific seizure of crimea but to discord this organization organization economic tensions and cost and demoralization as a consequence. a regime which is expressing the we will of the ukrainian people for closer association with the west of the regime that came to power after 20 years a very
significant mismanagement of the ukrainian economy and the kind of needle sticking in which we are engaging producing not only blood and some modern fashion which can produce much more serious economic crisis. this is why we have to innocence more credibly convince put in that it his interest not to engage in this is picking because it would make it unpleasant for him for example by arming the ukrainians who are at the same time reassuring him that we are not trying to engage in ukrainians. being an arrangement arrangement that we were together with others 45 and 46 has worked pretty well. >> thank you.
>> thank you very much. not only for your testimony with your stored in our services to the country. suggesting it was time to support these negotiations and specifically additional sanctions now against the rent and negotiation for shutting down the negotiations. is that still your position? undermine negotiations and mess in this opportunity not only in the the around? >> yes it is. i think that the system, the
regime is different. we don't no how different do what the results will be but this is the behaviors, quite different from when ahmadinejad had the government. and it seems to me that we ought to try to take advantage of that. served in the un and nato. he is familiar with the west the president they are talking different.
not near as a the surfers as they were as before. it seems to me it is worth testing and and i think two things are likely to happen if we increase the sanctions. they will break the talks and a lot of the people who have now joined us in the sanctions will be in danger of leaving most of the people who joined us in sanctions did not do it to destroy iran they did it to help get a nuclear solution. >> a similar perspective. the breaking off of the negotiations for the
collapse of the negotiations would rest and reverse the painful and difficult process of increasing moderation within the iranian political life. we are dealing with an old generation of revolutionaries, extremists, and so forth. but there is an iranian society significant change. a more moderate lifestyle and more tempting inclination to emulate western standards including even held in tehran women are dressed. beginning to evolve into this tradition. the diminishing the negative consequences. and the reduction in iranian
willingness in some fashion to prevent the extremists and the fanatics of the world from prevailing. >> turning very quickly. my time is expired. last september you asked to comment about the situation syria. you indicated that an american role essentially has to be very carefully limited. is that your view today? >> that is to my view. i never understood why we have to help or at least endorse the overthrow the sun.
and what has happened however in the last two years or so a demonstration of the fact that where the reluctant not assign does have some significant support in syrian society and probably more than anyone of the civil groups that are opposing. so that has to be taken into account. i don't think that those who oppose and perhaps with the exception of the relatively small and weakest group among the resistors in favor us he has a a bigger, better standing than anyone of them. some sort of division in the country but he still is there. i think we want to in some fashion promote the end of the horrible bloodletting
and the destruction of that country, not the portion of democracy, we have to take that reality into account. >> i pretty much agree. i wouldn't rule out that at some.we can get some support for resolving the most difficult situation from the russians. they have a big stake in syria and it seems to me that somewhere there is the possibility that we could have a cease-fire and a solid maybe step aside and we would agree that russia
will play an important role with us. and i think among terrible choices it is one that we have to examine. the russians have made a few comments in the last few days that they might be interested. >> more. >> more. i think the existing borders in the middle east have run out. never authentically historic. created largely by west colonial powers and in part of the competition we face particularly particularly in view of the sentence violence not only just in syria, the problem of stabilizing the region which does different so to speak different preconditions for different wars or arrangements than the ones
that were imposed right after world war i by the west. >> thank you mr. chairman for this hearing and the like forward to serving with you on the committee. no one in the senate almost no one in america has traveled and have the depth of experience as sen. mccain. it is an honor to serve with him and hear his ideas on so many of the important issues of today's. reading dr. kissinger's doctor kissinger's book, he talks about the system it does appear to my image of china part of that history at least with the people of the middle east they were also not part of any kind of understanding of what went on. do we have a miscommunication in the
sense of our understanding of the nationstate and the reality of the nationstate in that area? and a better understanding might make us more effective in responding to the challenges that we face their quex@think that. >> i think that is possible but i think the middle east is a unique place. for centuries for centuries it belonged to the ottoman empire which loosely governed. then with the collapse of the ottoman empire after world war i the middle east was redrawn any agreement quite arbitrarily to pursue the interests of the british
and the french. those -- that being said those borders are in danger tenuous, do not represent much of anything and it is a very difficult region now. unique in it's not participating basically in the european or western system, the russian system or the chinese. >> indicated that we may be moving toward redrawing some of those boundaries of boundaries being altered in the next decade? if i want of you would like to comment on that. >> i don't think that we ought to engage in that. one
of the things i think we should do is to start mending our relationships with egypt. egypt is a big player in the region. because of his to misty problems that has fallen off. off. they played a small role in the recent uprising but i think we need help. hopefully we hopefully we can get more from turkey but i think the chances of our making it worse rather than better a worrisome. >> i i thank both of you for your insight which is very valuable with regard to strategy it was mentioned earlier that we had a cold war strategy for everyone but into it in a bipartisan way. the reality is, i think it is much harder for us to
have a strategy in this more complex world. maybe not but it seems to me that it is. i would share your concern as concern, as i have been here now 18 years we need to be a bit more humble and what we can accomplish. the world is complex cop were not able to move from one century to the next overnight command we need to be more responsible and thoughtful about how we access american power and. in developing a strategy you see some things that we might could all agree on in the next decade or so that
we will be positive for the united states? >> i can certainly think of a lot of things that we should agree on. i'm not so sure they we will agree but in order to agree they have to talk to each other. i'm not quite sure that in recent years property can only in face of the novelty of the challenges that we face that there has been enough of a bipartisan dialogue about these critical issues at the highest level including obviously members of this distinguished committee for irrespective of who actually controls the executive office i think we have to ask ourselves, how is the world different today? am a little more skeptical about the system as so to speak being in any way relevant because it emerged in europe when they were already in different countries with territorial definition. this is not the case in many parts of the world when china was unique in having a real address state earlier in europe. but the rest of the world is now coming into being and that contributes politically into being too much of the
instability and stood uncertainty. what are the real borders? a lot of the country speak the same language. why should they be here are there? determined for a nationstate. it would take a long time before it settles itself. and i think we should not be directly involved in imposing a solution. >> thank you both. with regard to members of congress, particularly members of the senate i believe we talk together more collegiately and we do about most any other subject. so i think we have not the kind of intensity of this agreement some pretty big intensity going back to the iraq war and so forth, but i
think we are getting past that and hopefully can be more effective in working as a united country because that is essential. thank you. >> thank you, chairman. welcome. i read last year a piece by thomas friedman's that i found very interesting where he described the islamic state and the situation in the middle east today by saying that their are really three civil civil wars raging in the arab world today. one, the civil war between sunni islam within sunni islam between the radical jihadists in the moderate mainstream sunni muslims regimes to the civil war across the region between sunni from the by saudi arabia and she i and iran
and the civil war between sunni she had a son all other minorities in the region. he wrote that when you have in a region beset by that many civil war is a wants it means that there is no center, only sides, and when you intervene in the middle of a region a region where there is no center you very quickly become a side. i am curious if either of you would agree with that assessment and if you would also return to what you spoke about a little bit earlier regarding how important it is that the fighting on the frontlines against the islamic state be conducted by iraqis and other regional air partners and members of the coalition as opposed to western or us troops. >> well, i agree basically with it and think that their are fortunately several states in the middle east that do show this do show signs of a capacity for
conducting a responsible role. we have to rely on them i doubt that they are going to prevail quickly, these are the countries that were mentioned. i don't think we have any other choice. getting getting involved in the internal dynamics religious conflict sectarian animosities of the region is a prescription for a protracted engagement of the kind that can be very destructive to our national interest. ..
>> >> but certainly i don't think anybody anticipated it would be 10 years and maybe another 10 years or the middle east it would be far far-flung her. so i see we have to face the fact the region will be in serious turmoil for a long time too, isn't our best hope for those countries which like the european countries have already acquired some cohesion to in their states that i
mentioned the not do the heavy lifting our souls. we get the russians or the chinese to be more cooperative. and then they would be tempted to sit on the sidelines the americans would be maurer engaged and that would improve our interest and i don't think that is that smart solution the long run for them but it takes the would like us to indicate you like to collaborate in the middle east in different ways because they have different aspirations and civic mr. scowcroft? >> i largely agree on that. if the queen have to be a participant to the middle east but we should not want to be the older.
we ought to help the state's which we the gore trying to produce a modern system. that is why i mention egypt. is a serious power and they are of the region a and they do have great capabilities. we don't have much of a discussion going on with them now as a new government but i think that is one we should look to turkey is of allied now a different -- difficult position with syria so we should be careful to use force or
accomplishes a specific intent to. for example, to go when to end the syrian war, i don't think we want to own syria. it is a very very complicated country and i agree that we have to be in the middle east but not of the middle east. >> they give both -- they q. both. >> i want to follow up by your comments on putin in you are concerned about some of the statements that have been overlooked that reference in nuclear weapons
including what russia has undertaken and scandinavia and other areas. with that imf treaty it may seek you wrote in an op-ed that there should be a real concern to nato because they have embarked on the forces if russia develops the cruise missile in violation of the imf treaty but in light of where we are with the statements putin made.
i appreciated your comments we have to show a determinant -- determination summative be exculpatory. i would like to get both of your thoughts on this violation what it means for the nuclear programs. >> i don't think they will go all the way. but him to misinterpret but to anticipate putin woodland -- woodland that year she would be labeled as a
warmonger. he did it in and got away with it. he draws lessons from that. one day i am literally made one day he seizes estonia. no way they could exist. to say how shocking or outrageous we're not going to assemble a fleet in the baltic and then stormed ashore like normandy. but then that will plunge us into a nuclear war. but that past have been and
teeth in it and to have no choice but to anticipate what type of resistance this is why i recommend what type sugh the repositioning is not provocative they and the american company end estonia and putin will though that but he does know the evil in counter american forces and seven germans and some french. and if we do that kind of stuff and the same goes for the ongoing conflict in russia. with the plans to invade to craig as ahold would be too dangerous.
but this can involve the escalation? at least is the hundreds fighting within the ukraine that it is some data that cannot be ignored. they may create a society to deprive putin and this extends as a superpower. but to indicate to this are being of the ukrainians to be involved in some fashion to make that military engagement more costly and at the same time send a signal and then respond aid
will i be in something much bigger? >> thank you see. >> faq mr. chairman. i am so sorry people are writing back-and-forth we have veterans committee meetings so i hope the don't ask the same question. since i made concern is learning about syria, iran, sanctions as we are in a tug of war right now. the president has said in a static otherwise we will the subsidy al and all the time has gone by so tellus where we are. having taken in the center of you shall?
should this be something the president could use this is the sense of the senate to follow-throughs with his best to work with me? these are things i have not made up my mind but also syria i believe it seems i a our direct leadership and also our air strikes cannot be as effective as they should be. i am understand that i just don't believe we should have massive forces on the ground as three have in the past. strategically we can do certain things. because they could never be cured.
>> bed trying to are the syrians that the $5 million is what we set aside for that could be due something different? and the kurds seem to believe was the one to fight in that part of the world and how to read get the turks to participate? with the two things that are very helpful. >> i don't take anybody knows if the negotiations will work that we are in the course of negotiations now
and we should see them out and not take steps. >> with all due respect we were told the first time if we would sign a letter showing that we intended for the sanctions to take place if that would weaken the presidency and. we signed it anyway but we don't know where we stand with the negotiations. that is a hard thing and have a problem with. >> it is hard. the al myers are complicated but clear to change our strategy but i would not do that at this stage.
to see if the administration is successful. >>. >> with the group's half style to a side are much stronger than those that seemed to rely on us over what has happened to the last couple years there are not too many syrians who want us to wage a war because they don't know what that would be. to either be more sectarian were identified as such with
is a simple question to ask. and if we made enough progress i don't know but whether negotiations are perfectly conducted by don't know. but there has been a mistake with the key countries in the world that we should not abandon just because we are pressured to do so. >> i am sure you noted the excitement of the agreement between the military cooperation deal in international affairs. >> my question is more broad in nature with the stages of
foreign policy strategy. and then with that strategy formulation what they mishnah's do you suggest? did did your view of things that are working or need improvement? in the middle east. [laughter] >> what we have started doing that those states in the middle east and have historical identity and capability to act rather than wait for us and those that we have all been shed by varied degrees have
attempted to have something done that leaves us a very difficult position because of weight undertake to do what is necessary we buy the whole conflict. if we sit back to find some formula to fly aid a viable compromise but perhaps it's very painful process it will continue for some time to come. but the better part of wisdom in my judgment which
they selected the engagement with the sectarian is wrong with big. we can do that though we have to do much more than that. >> can you give examples of what selected engagement would look like? >>. >> probably some special forces a and intelligence and by digital assistants and a willingness to change our position on some issues with a clear motive but i don't quite understand to get him out of office is see that much worse? what is it?
is the conspiring against us? there are reasons why the war started with countries said the region. id we sort of got involved. >> you've made a comedy to be in the middle east but not the of the middle east. >> yes. it means we should guide, the help assist, but not be a player it ourselves with the ground troops. with what we do in syria.
it's okay, it is an emergency. so in the region or of the region the ground troops. widowed know what the best outcome for syria is. we need to help our friends and encourage others to be more helpful. but the turks for eight simple to add the heavy interest in the kurds not necessarily the interest the kurds want them to have. so they need to be careful all the way through so what would improve the situation in.
>> you we could profit of highly we could approach the problem to get other countries like the tidies for example involved in ways that our helpful and we may have to try different days. but to those that are practicing. said to enable us to have serious discussions we also need a serious discussion within the united states.
so those that are not cooperating in that way. >> do you think the response to this 30 attack should be more robust and vigorous? civic duty to know more about it before you answer the question because that depends on who pushed the attack on what kind of reaction is best to move the ball forward to give us a better grip on how we can deal with this difficult situation. >> and i have day, did is say hyper says tissue and
and then to create public his area but it stands to reason there are some countries in the world with this cyberwarfare the way to preempt the issue for the balance of power. we're still of the very early phases. >> i want to thank you. >> but i've could offer the observation with the private sector is probably less prepared to they ended should be and at least our civilian leadership has the opportunity to provide more
incentives with a more compulsory measures that we are better prepared in the private sector because certain kinds of attacks are not as much of a threat to national security whether the fed vigil system even a corporation is like sony. that has such an important impact on society. fate q. mr. chairman -- thank-you. >> some observation is stated conclusions they don't reconciled with me but
to the arabian situation, do you agree with me whatever chance with the nuclear ambitions we should take it? >> whatever opportunity we have. >> yes. >> i am not trying to trick you. >> but that would open up a new arms race with of weapons of their own. it would get exported to the worst battering get a peaceful resolution? >> day you agree that the iranians in the past have been trying to de