United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs/113th Congress/Hearings/September 4, 2013

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing entitled “Syria: Weighing the Obama Administration’s Response” at 12 noon in room 2172 in the House Rayburn Office Building in Washington, DC. The hearing was to discuss the Obama Administration’s response to the on the crisis in Syria, including the President’s request for an Authorization for Use of Military Force. Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey were panel members testifying before the committee.

Chairman, Ed Royce
This meeting will come to order I'm going to ask all the members if you could take please take your seats at this time. Welcome Secretary Kerry. Today we meet to weigh the Obama Administration’s proposed military response to the Syrian regime’s odious use of chemical weapons. I want to thank Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, for appearing before us today. And I want to express my appreciation to Committee Members, Democrats and Republicans, for attending this hearing on short notice. The President’s decision this past weekend to seek an authorization of military force from Congress was not anticipated, but it was welcomed.

This Committee has no greater responsibility than overseeing the deployment and use of the United States Armed Forces. Since the Administration of President John Adams, Congress has acted several times to authorize the use of military force by the President. One thing different here is that the Administration’s proposal supports a U.S. military response against a country in civil war. Needless to say, this complicates the consideration.

I think we are all troubled by the unfortunate lack of international support. Although the proposed action aims to uphold an international norm, there is no United Nations resolution of support. Nor NATO backing.

As we’ll hear today, the President views striking the Syrian regime as a way to strengthen deterrence against the future use of chemical weapons, by Assad, and by others. That is an important consideration. There are too many bad actors out there. Countries like Iran are watching. And yes, a credible threat is key to putting the brakes on Iran’s nuclear program.

There are concerns. The President promises a military operation in Syria of limited scope and duration. But the Assad regime would have a say in what happens next. That’d be particularly true as President Obama isn’t aiming to change the situation on the ground. What are the chances of escalation? Are different scenarios accounted for? If our credibility is on the line now, as is argued, what about if Assad retaliates? Americans are skeptical of getting near a conflict that, as one witness has noted, is fueled by “historic ethnic, religious and tribal issues.”

The Administration’s Syria policy doesn’t build confidence. For over two years, U.S. policy has been adrift. Initially, the Obama Administration saw Assad as “a reformer.” Once the revolt started, it backed U.N. diplomacy, and then it bet on a Moscow policy and the thought that Russia would play a constructive role. Predictably, that has not worked. Over a year ago, President Obama drew a “red-line” – yet only last week did the Administration begin to consult with Congress on what that means.

Today, the House begins formal consideration of the President’s request to use military force in Syria. It is a cliché, but true: there are no easy answers. Syria and much of the Middle East are a mess. So we look forward to a through and deliberate discussion today, one reflecting the gravity of this issue.

And I’ll now turn to Ranking Member Engel, who has been ringing the alarm bell on Syria for a long, long time. Ranking member Engel from New York.

Ranking Member
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today. Secretary Kerry welcome, I look forward to this hearing, which addresses the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, a serious threat to the national security interests of the United States and our allies.

Many of you know I have been following the Middle East for many years, but in particular, I've spent an enormous amount of time on Syria. The Syria Accountability Act of 2003, which I authored, is the landmark statement of American policy toward Syria, and imposed sanctions on Damascus in large part due to its chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. In March of this year, I introduced a bipartisan bill that would authorize the President to arm fully vetted members of the moderate Syrian opposition. So, when I talk about Syria, I'm speaking from years of experience, hours of hearings, and scores of meetings with US and foreign officials.

Mr. Chairman, we have all seen the images of the lifeless bodies of Syrian men, women, and children—at least 400 children—neatly lined up in rows, wrapped in white sheets. Their bodies appeared to have no outward physical injuries. Entire families killed in their homes in the blink of an eye.

Our intelligence agencies have assessed with high confidence that these innocent civilians were killed by sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the UN Security Council, and outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. They have also concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the Assad regime is responsible for the use of these horrific weapons.

I strongly agree with President Obama that the United States must respond to this flagrant violation of international law with a limited military strike to deter the further use of chemical weapons and degrade the Assad regime’s ability use them again.

But the issue we confront today is much bigger than the use of chemical weapons in Syria. We are talking about the credibility of America as a global power. We are talking about sending a clear message to the dictators in Tehran and Pyongyang that there will be serious consequences for flouting the will of the international community, and that the US backs its words with action.

Iran, in particular, is watching very carefully to see if the United States is willing to stand up for its vital interests in the region, and the interests of our allies. They are a central player in the Syrian civil war, providing weapons, money, advice, and manpower to the Assad regime, and supporting the intervention of their terrorist proxy, Hezbollah. And according to the IAEA, they are moving full speed ahead with efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

I believe that Congress must authorize the Commander-in-Chief to use limited military force against the Assad regime, and I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting such an authorization. But we should not give the President a blank check. The authorization measure we take up must clarify that any strike should be of a limited nature, and that there should absolutely be no American boots on the ground in Syria.

While it is critically important for the U.S. to hold the Assad regime accountable for the use of chemical weapons, we must also focus on developing a larger strategy to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis, support our regional partners, and ultimately find a path forward that brings a lasting peace for the Syrian people.

As I mentioned earlier, in March I introduced the bipartisan Free Syria Act, legislation that would increase humanitarian aid and authorize the President to provide lethal and non-lethal assistance to Syria’s moderate opposition. I continue to believe that the moderate opposition is key to Syria’s future, and that we must redouble our efforts to support them as soon as possible. I know many members on both sides of the aisle are struggling with this issue of using force in Syria. We are all trying to do the right thing for our constituents, for our country, and for our national security. Questions of war and peace are always difficult, and I’m proud that we are treating them with the utmost seriousness in this Committee.

But in the days before we take any vote, I encourage my colleagues to ask themselves these questions: If we do not pass the authorization measure, what message will Assad get? What message will Iran receive? Hezbollah? Our allies? We have to live up to our commitments. Mr. Chairman, I’d like thank you for calling this important hearing, and I look forward to Secretary Kerry and the testimony of our distinguished witnesses.

Ed Royce
Thank you Mr. Engel. This afternoon we are pleased to be joined by our Secretary of State, John Kerry, and shortly we will be joined by the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Prior to his appointment, John Kerry served as United States Senator from the State of Massachusetts for 28 years, and chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the last four years. And without objection the witnesses statements, Senator Kerry, and those of Secretary Hagel and General Dempsey, will be made part of the record. Members here have five days to submit statements, questions, extraneous material fro the record. And I'd like to note members, that we have a near full committee with us here today, and therefore we need to work within the time constraints that we have. And we are going to ask that members be mindful of that timer as you ask questions.

So we will begin now with Secretary Kerry's testimony. Mr. Secretary.

Secretary of State, John Kerry
Sec. Kerry  — Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel – an early Congressional leader on Syria – and members of the Committee: As we convene for this debate, the world is watching not just to see what we decide. It is watching to see how we make this decision – whether in this dangerous world we can still make our government speak with one voice. They want to know if America will rise to this moment and make a difference.

The question of whether to authorize our nation to take military action is simply one of the most important responsibilities of this committee and the Congress. I appreciate that the Committee has returned quickly to address it. You are appropriately focusing with great care and great precision – the only way to approach the potential use of military power.

I think it's—I don't think, I know—it is no exaggeration to say that the world is not just watching this to see what we decide here. But the world is really watching to see how we decide.

Frankly whether or not we can still make, or achieve a single voice—speaking for the United States of America. The Congress and the President of the United States. And they want to know whether or not America is going to rise to this moment. Whether or not we will express our position with the unity that this moment demands.

The question of whether or not to authorize force, the Chairman referenced my 28 years here, I had a number of occasions to make those votes, and a number of occasions to make judgements about presidents who acted without coming to Congress. And I found that we were, and are, always stronger when we can act together.

First and foremost, I think it is important to explain to the American people why we are here. And I don't think it can bear enough repetition, as people grapple with this, the end of summer, post-Labor Day, kids going back to school, and a lot of other concerns on their mind.

We are here because against the multiple warnings from the President of the United States. Warnings from Congress, from many of you. Warnings from friends and allies. And even warnings from Russia and Iran that chemical weapons are out-of-bounds. Against all of that, the Assad regime, and only undeniably the Assad regime, unleashed an outrageous chemical attack against its own citizens.

So we are here because a dictator and his family's enterprise—which is what it is—were willing to infect the air of Damascus with a poison that killed innocent mothers and fathers and children. Their lives snuffed out by gas during the early morning hours of August 21.

Now some people in a few places amazingly, against all the evidence, have questioned whether or not this assault on the conscience if this actually took place. And I repeat here again today, unequivocally, only the most willful desire to avoid reality, only the most devious political purpose could assert that this did not occur as described, or that the regime did not do it.

It did happen. And the Bashar al-Assad regime did it.

Now I remember Iraq. Secretary Hagel who will soon be here, General Dempsey obviously will remember it very well. Secretary Hagel and I had both voted in the United States Senate. And so both of us are especially sensitive to never again ask any member of Congress to vote on faulty intelligence. And that is why our intelligence community took time. That's why the President took time. To make certain of the facts, to make certain of this case and to declassify unprecedented amounts of information in order to scrub, and rescrub the evidence and present the facts to the American people, and especially to the Congress—and through you—to the American people.

We have declassified unprecedented amounts of information. Some of it I might add not because initially the might have been the instinct, in the sense to protect sources and methods, but some of them were leaked and after its leaking we thought it was important to verify whether it was true or not.

So by now you have heard a great deal from me and others in the administration about the comprehensive evidence that we have collected in the days following the attack of August 21. So I'm not going to go through all of it again right now. I'm happy to discuss it further if any of you have any questions, but I can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt. And I used to prosecute cases. I ran one of the largest district attorneys offices in America. And I can tell you beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence proves that the Assad regime prepared this attack. And that they attacked exclusively opposition controlled or contested territory.

Now at some point, in the appropriate setting, you learn additional evidence which came to use even today, which further documents the acknowledgment of various friends of the Assad regime that they know that this happened.

Our evidence proves that they used sarin gas that morning, and it proves that they used some of the world's most heinous weapons to kill more than 1,400 innocent people including at least 426 children.

Now I'm sure that many of you have seen the images yourselves. Of men and women the elderly and children, sprawled on a hospital floor. No wounds. No blood. In chaos and desperation around them. None of which could possibly been contrived. All of that was real.

We have the evidence, we know what happened. And there is no question that this would meet the standard by which we send people to jail for the rest of their lives.

II. DEFENDING AN INTERNATIONAL NORM
So we are here because of what happened. But we are also here not just because of what happened two weeks ago. We are because of what happened nearly a century ago, when in the darkest moments of World War I and after the horror of gas warfare, when the vast majority of the world came together to declare, in no uncertain terms, that chemical weapons crossed a line of conscience and that they must be banned. Over the years that followed, more than 180 countries—I think it is 184 to be precise—including Iran, Iraq, and Russia all agreed and joined the Chemical Weapons Convention. Even countries with whom we agree on very little else, agreed on this.

Some have tried to suggest the debate we are having today is about this President's red line. That this is about President Obama’s red line. Let me make this as clear as I can to all of you. That is just not true. This is about the world’s red line—about humanity’s red line—a line that anyone with a conscience should draw, and a line that was drawn nearly 100 years ago in 1925 when the Chemical Weapons Convention was agreed on.

This debate I might also add to you is about Congress’s own red line. You agreed to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Not all of you were here for it, but the Congress agreed to that. The Congress passed the Syria Accountability Act, which Congressman Engel referred to and authored, and that act says clearly and I quote “Syria's chemical weapons threaten the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States.” I think repeatedly Congress has spoken out about grave consequences if Assad in particular were to use chemical weapons. And both Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi have stated in recent days that the actions of the Assad regime are unacceptable, and that the United States has a responsibility to respond.

So as we debate, the world is watching, and the world is wondering—not whether Assad’s regime actually did this—I think that fact is now beyond question. The world is wondering whether the United States of America is going consent, through silence, to stand aside while this kind of brutality is allowed to happen without consequence.

In the nearly 100 years since this global commitment against chemical weapons was made, only two tyrants dared to cross the world’s brightest line. Bashar al-Assad has now become the third. And history I think everyone here knows, holds nothing but infamy for those criminals—and history also reserves very little sympathy for their enablers.

And that is the gravity of this moment. That is what is really at stake in the decision Congress faces.

III. BROADER STRATEGIC INTEREST
Syria, bottom line, is important to America and our security for many reasons.

First, you can't overlook the danger these weapons—as you said int eh Syria Accountability Act—chemical weapons pose to the middle east, pose to our allies, to our friends. You can't overlook the threat they face, even to the United States ultimately if they fall into the wrong hands or if they are used with impunity. Since President Obama’s policy is that Assad must go, it is not insignificant that to deprive or degrade Assad’s chemical weapons deprives him of a lethal weapon in this ongoing civil war.

In addition, we have important strategic national security interests—not just in preventing the proliferation of chemical weapons—but to avoid the creation of a safe haven or base of operations for extremists, al Nusra, others, to use these chemical weapons either against us or our against our friends.

Forcing Assad to change his calculation about his ability to act with impunity can contribute to his realization that he cannot gas or shoot his way out of his predicament.

Syria is also important because quite simply—and I can't say this strongly enough to all of you—many of you are parents and you know how lessons are learned by children, many of you at school confronted at one point or time a bully on the block or in the building, I think human common experience and reality tell us that the risk of not acting is greater than the risk of acting. If we don’t take a stand here today, I guarantee you we are more likely to face far greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict that demands our action in the future.

Why? Because we, as confidently as we know what happened in Damascus on August 21, we know that Assad will read our silence—our unwillingness to act—as a signal that he can use his weapons with impunity.

After all has been said and done if we don't now—knowing he has already done this at least eleven times that our intelligence community can prove—and here in this larger grotesque event, larger than anything that has happened before. If we back down—if the world backs down—we have sent an unmistakable message of permissiveness.

Iran I guarantee you is hoping we look the other way – and surely they will interpret America's unwillingness to act against weapons of mass destruction as an unwillingness to act against weapons of mass destruction. And we will fight for the credibility to make a deterrent against a nuclear weapon as meaningful as it should be without that fight.

North Korea is hoping for ambivalence from the Congress. They are all listening for our silence. So the authorization that President Obama seeks is distinctly and clearly in our national interest. In our national security interest.

We need to send to Syria and to the world, to dictators, to terrorists, to allies and civilians alike the unmistakable message that when we say ‘never again’, we actually don't mean sometimes. We don't mean somewhere. We mean, ‘never again’.

So this is a vote for accountability, the norms, and the laws of the civilized world. That's what this vote is for. And if we don't answer Assad today, we will erode the standard that has protected our troops for a century. Our troops. Our troops in war have been protected by the existence of this prohibition. Through World War II, through Korea, through Vietnam, through both Iraq wars, the fact is we have not seen chemical weapons in the battlefield but for the two occasions I mentioned previously. Our troops are protected. This is a standard we need to enforce to stand up for America's interests.

And I will say to you unequivocally that our allies and our partners are counting on us. The people of Israel, Jordan and Turkey each look next door and they see chemical weapons being used. They are one stiff breeze from the potential of those weapons harming them. They anxiously await our assurance that our word is true. And they await the assurance that if the children lined up in those unbloodied burial shrouds in Damascus were their own children—as they might be if this got out-of-hand—they want to know that we would keep the world’s promise.

As Justice Jackson said in the opening argument at Nuremberg the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars which are inventible in a system of international lawlessness is to make statesmen responsible to the law.

If the world's worst despots see that they can flout with impunity prohibitions against the world's worst weapons then those prohibitions are rendered just pieces of paper.

That is what we mean by accountability. And that is—I say to you all respectively—that is why we cannot be silent.

Now let me be very, very clear:

When I walked into this room a person of conscience stood up behind me, as is the ability of people in our country, and that person said ‘please don't take us to war, don't take us into another war.’ I think the three of us sitting here understand that plea better than any person in this country.

Let me be clear. We are not asking America to go to war.

And I say that sitting next to two individuals, who well know what war is. And there are others here today who know what war is. They know the difference between going to war and what the President is requesting now.

We all agree there will be no American boots on the ground. The President has made crystal clear: we have no intention of assuming responsibility for Assad’s civil war. That is not in the cards. That is not what is here.

The President is asking only for the power to make certain that the United States of America means what we say. He is asking for authorization, targeted and limited to deter and degrade Bashar al-Assad’s capacity to use chemical weapons.

Now I will make it clear for those who feel that more ought to be done, or that in keeping with the policy that Assad must go. Clearly the degradation of the capacity he has to use those weapons has an impact on the lethality of the weapons available to him. And it will have an impact on the battlefield.

Just today before coming in here I read an email to me about a General, the Minister of Defense—former Minister, or Assistant Minister—I forget which—who has just defected and is now in Turkey. And there are other defections that we are hearing the potential of, because of the potential that we might take action. So there will be downstream impacts though that is not the principle purpose of what the President is asking you for.

Now some will, undoubtedly and understandably, ask about the unintended consequences of action. Will this drag you in, inadvertently? And they fear that a retaliation could lead to a larger conflict. Let me say again unequivocally and bluntly: If Assad is arrogant enough and foolish enough to retaliate to the consequences of his own criminal activity, the United States and our allies have ample ways to make him regret that decision without going to war. Even Assad’s supporters, Russia and Iran, say publicly that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. And guess what? Even Iran and Syria itself acknowledge that these weapons were used, they just pretend the other guys who don't even have the capacity to do it, somehow did it.

Some will question the extent of our responsibility to act here. To them I say, when someone kills hundreds of children with a weapon the world has banned, we are all responsible. That is true because of treaties like the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention—but it is also true because we share a common humanity and a common sense of decency.

This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter. This is not the time to give permission to a dictator who has already used these weapons the unfettered ability to use them in the future because we stepped back. Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence or inaction.

So we have spoken up, the President of the United States has made his decision. The President has decided that we need to do this. But in keeping with our Constitution and the flu measure of the hopes and the articulate aspirations of our founding fathers, the President is coming to the Congress of the United States a decision the American people agree with and asking the Congress to stand with him and this Administration, to stand up for our security, to protect our values, to lead the world with conviction that is clear. And that is why we are here and we look forward to having a vigorous discussion with you in furtherance of that mission.

Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel
Sec. Hagel  — Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, thank you for convening this hearing.

In the coming days, Congress will debate how to respond to the most recent chemical weapons attack in Syria – a large-scale, and heinous, sarin gas assault perpetrated by the Syrian government against its own people.

I welcome this debate and I strongly support President Obama’s decision to seek congressional authorization for the use of force in Syria. As each of us knows, committing the country to using military force is the most difficult decision America’s leaders can make. All of those who are privileged to serve our nation have a responsibility to ask tough questions before that commitment is made. The American people must be assured that their leaders are acting according to U.S. national interests, with well- defined military objectives, and with an understanding of the risks and consequences involved.

The President, along with his entire national security team, asked those tough questions before we concluded that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. I want to address how we reached this decision by clarifying the U.S. interests at stake, our military objectives, and the risks of not acting at this critical juncture.

1. U.S. National Interests
As President Obama said, the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not only an assault on humanity – it is a serious threat to America’s national security interests and those of our closest allies.

The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons poses grave risks to our friends and partners along Syria’s borders – including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq. If Assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which has forces in Syria supporting the Assad regime, could acquire them. This risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends and partners, and to U.S. personnel in the region. We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.

The Syrian regime’s actions risk eroding the nearly century-old international norm against the use of chemical weapons – a norm that has helped protect the United States homeland and American forces operating across the globe from these terrible weapons. Weakening this norm could embolden other regimes to acquire or use chemical weapons. For example, North Korea maintains a massive stockpile of chemical weapons that threatens our treaty ally, the Republic of Korea, and the 28,000 U.S. troops stationed there. I have just returned from Asia, where I had a very serious and long conversation with South Korea’s Defense Minister about the threat that North Korea’s stockpile of chemical weapons presents to them. Our allies throughout the world must be assured that the United States will fulfill its security commitments.

2. U.S. Military Objectives
Given these threats to our national security, the United States must demonstrate through our actions that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.

The President has made clear that our military objectives in Syria would be to hold the Assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks, and deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons.

The Department of Defense has developed military options to achieve these objectives, and we have positioned U.S. assets throughout the region to successfully execute this mission. We believe we can achieve them with a military action that would be limited in duration and scope.

General Dempsey and I have assured the President that U.S. forces will be ready to act whenever the President gives the order. We are also working with our allies and partners in this effort. Key partners, including France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other friends in the region, have assured us of their strong support for U.S. action.

In defining our military objectives, we have made clear that we are not seeking to resolve the underlying conflict in Syria through direct military force. Instead we are contemplating actions that are tailored to respond to the use of chemical weapons. A political solution created by the Syrian people is the only way to ultimately end the violence in Syria, and Secretary Kerry is leading international efforts to help the parties in Syria move towards a negotiated transition. We are also committed to doing more to assist the Syrian opposition. But Assad must be held accountable for using these weapons in defiance of the international community.

3. Risks of Inaction
Having defined America’s interests and our military objectives, we also must examine the risks and consequences of action, as well as the consequences of inaction.

There are always risks in taking action, but there are also risks with inaction. The Assad regime, under increasing pressure by the Syrian opposition, could feel empowered to carry out even more devastating chemical weapons attacks. Chemical weapons make no distinction between combatants and innocent civilians, and inflict the worst kind of indiscriminate suffering, as we have recently seen.

A refusal to act would undermine the credibility of America’s other security commitments – including the President’s commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The word of the United States must mean something. It is vital currency in foreign relations and international and allied commitments.

Every witness here today – Secretary Kerry, General Dempsey, and myself – has served in uniform, fought in war, and seen its ugly realities up close. We understand that a country faces few decisions as grave as using military force. We are not unaware of the costs and ravages of war. But we also understand that America must protect its people and its national interests. That is our highest responsibility.

All of us who have the privilege and responsibility of serving this great nation owe the American people, and especially those wearing the uniform of our country, a vigorous debate on how America should respond to the horrific chemical weapons attack in Syria. I know everyone on this committee agrees, and takes their responsibility of office just as seriously as the President and everyone at this table.

￼￼Thank you.

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And the details on the offer and proposal on the table, what are the figures that we are talking about?

Sec. Kerry  — Well, we don't know what action we're engaged in right now but they have been quite significant, I mean, very significant. In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we've done it previously in other places, they'll carry that cost. That's how dedicated they are to this. Obviously, that's not in the cards and nobody's talking about it. But they're talking in serious ways about getting this job done.

And in terms of other countries being in the -- in the fight with us with these limited strikes, what other -- what -- time is over? Thank you.

Sec. Kerry — Time is up and we better go to Mr. Meeks of New York in order to get through the full panel.

Oh, Mr. Sherman is next? Mr. Sherman of California then.

Brad Sherman
The president drew a red line. Presidents often draw red lines in order to deter action. Usually they deter that action to our benefit and at no cost. When America -- when the president drew that red line, I'm not aware of anyone in this room who criticized it or disassociated themselves from that red line. Now, Assad has crossed that red line. It is America's red line.

If we do not act, Assad will use chemical weapons many times in the future. They may will successful for him and dictators with decade -- for decades to come will learn from Assad's lesson that chemical weapons on civilians used on a mass scale can be effective and that the 1925 protocol against their use is a dead letter.

In picking targets, gentlemen, you're going to be torn between the germane and the effective. Germane would be directly related to chemical weapons. But the fact is we want Assad to control, store and keep control of his chemical weapons. And so, you'll be seeking out targets somehow related to the creation, storage, control or delivery of chemical weapons.

And I think that instead you should focus on punishing and deterring Assad by hitting valuable assets that will demonstrate to him that it was a military mistake to hit Guta (ph) with chemical weapons. Even air or navel assets unrelated to the delivery of chemical weapons will make that lesson clear to him.

We have all learned a searing lesson from over 4,000 casualties in Iraq, but we should be aware that there are 150 occasions, and Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to put into the record a CRS listing and analysis of 150 occasions in the last 40 years when America has deployed its forces into dangerous or hostile situations. And in most of those we had limited purpose, limited deployment and the cost was so limited that we've forgotten the incident involved. And I hope very much that what you're planning is something much more along those lines than Iraq.

The resolution that was sent to us - was sent to us on October - on August 31 is obviously flawed. I sent Secretary Kerry amendments the next day, on September 1st. Our colleagues, Mr. Van Hollen (ph) and Mr. Connolly (ph), have proposed a substitute, as has Senator Menendez. I'd like to explore with you what elements a good resolution would have. Know that this resolution adds to the authority you already have under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Is it acceptable for this resolution to confirm what you've already said, and that is that the resolution itself does not add in any way to the powers of the president to put boots on the ground in Syria. Is that an acceptable position? Secretary Kerry?

Sec. Kerry  — Absolutely.

Would a time limit of 60 days, indicating that you might have other authorities to act beyond those 60 days, you might come back to Congress, but what we're authorizing now is limited to 60 days, would that be acceptable?

Sec. Kerry — We would prefer that you have some kind of trigger in there with respect to his -- if he were to come back and use chemical weapons again that there would be a capacity to respond to that. If you just have a fixed time --

Well, you could always come back to Congress or you could have a provision every time he uses chemical weapons you get another 60 days.

Sec. Kerry — That would be acceptable.

The second, the first or --

Sec. Kerry — The second.

And, finally, would you accept a provision that said that you may want to pursue regime change from other -- with other authorities that you have, including arming the rebels under other authority that you have, but that this resolution is limited to actions designed to punish and deter the use of chemical weapons and not to change the outcome of the civil war?

Sec. Kerry — The preference of the president is to have this, a narrow authorization, so that nobody gets confused here and people aren't asked to vote for two different things. One thing the president wants is the capacity to enforce the international norm with respect to chemical weapons and to make our word with respect to that meaningful to the region.

Well, I know your staff will be working with Congress to draft a resolution and the more carefully tailored it is, the more narrow it is, the more likely you are to actually succeed in the House. I hope very much, Mr. Chairman, that we're marking up a resolution in this committee and considering (ph) in regular order.

And, finally, for the record, if you could explain what --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well - yes, that -- afterwards we can introduce the questions for the record. But we need to go now to Mr. Smith, chairman of the Africa subcommittee.

Chris Smith
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A New York Times editorial yesterday, Secretary Kerry, said that it was “alarming” that President Obama did not “long ago put into place, with our allies and partners, a plan for international action.” Their word—alarming—that we have failed over the course over the last several years to do what ought to have been done. That’s a New York Times editorial—hardly a conservative newspaper.

I have three specific questions, and I would ask that you—to the best of your ability—answer all three.

Yesterday, Secretary Kerry, you testified that the Obama Administration wanted to make him—that is Assad I presume—regret the decision to use chemical weapons as he has done on August 21st and, as we all know, on previous occasions as well.

First question—do we have clear proof that Assad himself ordered it?

Second question—in an interview with Chris Wallace on Sunday, you said that “[a]ctually Chris, at the very instant the planes were in the air on Kosovo there was a vote in the House of Representatives and the vote did not carry.” That is true. The House of Representatives voted against force against Slobodan Milošević. Your term “very instant,” however, is certainly an elastic term. The vote was a full month later. Clinton and NATO’s bombing of Serbia began on March 24th and the House voted against it on April 28th.

During that time there were significant assurances from the Clinton Administration that the entire operation would be of short duration—very limited—and I know many had people had thought, including in Brussels at NATO headquarters that it would last just a few days. It lasted 78 days. Between 488-527 civilian deaths from the bombing occurred in Serbia, and significantly, Milošević’s retaliation was the invasion of Kosovo, and that invasion killed about 10,000 people and put most Kosovar Albanians to flight. And I—like perhaps you and others—visited them as refugees in Macedonia.

How do you define “limited” and “short duration,” and what might Assad do in retaliation? And what contingency plans do we have if and when he attacks in other areas that we may not have anticipated?

And finally, I plan on introducing a resolution when Congress reconvenes to authorize the President to establish a specialized Court—the Syrian War Crimes Tribunal—to help hold accountable, all those on either side, including Assad, who had slaughtered and raped in Syria. I am wondering what you might think of that as well? Whether or not the Administration would support such a court?

We have learned lessons from the Special Court in Sierra Leone, we have learned lessons from the Rwandan Court, and certainly learned lessons from the Court in Yugoslavia. Establishment of such a court has to be immediate, and I think it could be a rallying point. You yourself said, Mr. Secretary, you would send them to jail. Well let’s send them to jail. But killing people—and not targeting Assad himself—may be accountability. But I think there are other more humane and efficacious alternatives.

I yield.

Sec. Kerry  — Well Congressman, I actually didn’t have time yesterday, because of our testimony, to read the New York Times editorial, but I’d like to read it.

There is a plan in place, the London Eleven, so called, have been working over some period of time—working internationally—last year Secretary Clinton joined in convening with the Russians and others a meeting in Geneva that resulted in the Geneva Communique which set up a process for transition in Syria and that is what we are currently pursuing now together with our allies and friends in this endeavor, and that includes France, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, the Emirates, Saudis and others. So there is an international effort, it’s not working as well as we would have liked, it has had its impact yet fully. In addition to that, we have seen the President take steps in response to the initial attacks of chemical weapons to increase lethal aid to the opposition, that is now known.

I’m almost out of time—with all due respect—limited; short duration; special tribunal on war crimes for Syria?

Sec. Kerry — I understand there have been conversations with Syrians and other countries about a special court. Perhaps we can have more luck with that, I would certainly welcome an effort to hold people accountable for those kinds of abuses, but as you know the international courts have not fared well with both parties.


 * Special Note: Secretary Kerry did not answer the question on whether the United States had proof that Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons August 21st, nor did he answer Smith’s question on what constitutes “limited” and “short duration.”

Chris Smith
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

A "New York Times" editorial yesterday, Mr. Secretary or Secretaries, said that it was, quote, "alarming" that President Obama did not, quote, "long ago put into place with our allies and partners a plan for international action." Their word "alarming" that we have failed over the course of the last several years to do what ought to have been done. That's "The New York Times" editorial. Hardly a conservative newspaper.

I have three specific questions. And I would ask that you, to the best of your ability, answer all three. Yesterday, Secretary Kerry, you testified that the Obama administration wanted to make him, that is Assad I presume, regret the decision to use chemical weapons as he has done on August 21st and, as we all know, on previous occasions as well. First question, do we have clear proof that Assad himself ordered it?

Second question, in an interview with Chris Wallace on Sunday, you said that, quote, "actually, Chris, at the very instant the planes were in the air on Kosovo, there was a vote in the House of Representatives and the vote did not carry." That is true. The House of Representatives voted against force against Slobodan Milosevic. Your word very instant, however, is certainly an elastic term. The vote was a full month later. Clinton and NATO's bombing of Serbia began on March 24th and the House voted against it on April 28th.

During that time, there were significant assurances that the entire operation would be of short duration, very limited, and I know many people had thought, including in Brussels at NATO headquarters, that it would last just a few days. It lasted 78 days. Four hundred and eighty-eight to 527 civilian deaths from the bombing occurred in Serbia. And, significantly, Milosevic's retaliation was the invasion of Kosovo and that invasion killed about 10,000 people and put most Kosovo Arbanians (ph) to flight (ph). And I, like perhaps you and others, visited them as refugees. How do you define limited and short duration and what might Assad do in retaliation and what contingency plans do we have when he attacks in other areas that we may not have anticipated?

And finally, I plan on introducing a resolution, when we reconvene, to authorize the president to establish a specialized court, the Syrian War Crimes Tribunal, to help hold accountable all those on either side, including Assad, who have slaughtered and raped in Syria. I wonder how you might think about that as well, whether or not the administration would support such a court. We have learned lessons from the special court in Sierra Leone, we have learned lessons from the Rwandan court and certainly learned lessons from the court in Yugoslavia. It has to be immediate and I think it could be a rallying point. You yourself said, Mr. Secretary, we should send -- you would send them to jail. Well, let's send them to jail. But killing people and not targeting Assad himself may be accountability, but I think there are other alternatives.

I yield.

Sec. Kerry  — Well, congressman, I actually didn't have time yesterday, because of our testimony, to read "The New York Times" editorial. So I'd like to read it. But I'm -- there is a plan in place. The London 11, so-called, have been working over some period of time, working internationally. Last year, Secretary Clinton joined in, in convening, with the Russians and others, a meeting in Geneva that resulted in the Geneva Communique, which set up a process for transition in Syria. And that is what we are currently pursuing now, together with our allies and friends in this endeavor. And that includes France, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, the Emirates, Saudis and others. So there is an international effort. It may not be - it's not working as well as we would like. It hasn't had its impact yet, fully. But in addition to that, we have seen the president take steps in response to the initial attacks of chemical weapons to increase lethal aid to the opposition that is now known. So as a matter --

Real quick, I'm almost out of time, with all due respect.

Sec. Kerry — OK.

But limited, short duration, a special tribunal on war crimes for Syria.

Sec. Kerry — I understand there have been conversations already with Syrians and other countries about a special court. Perhaps we can have more luck with that. I would certainly welcome an effort to hold people accountable for those kinds of abuses. But as you know we, you know, the international courts have not fared well with both parties in the Congress.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Meeks of New York.

Gregory Meeks
The President’s decision to come to Congress for authorization for the use of U.S. military force to address the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces is the appropriate decision constitutionally and morally. As a member of Congress there is no more grave consideration than whether or not to act militarily. Too often in our nation’s modern history we have had incidences where president’s have acted without proper consultation with Congress – even when time permitted, and without proper consideration of the enduring consequences on America’s global standing and strength. This has been to our detriment.

In making my determination on the use of force, I see the short and long term interest and security of America as my paramount focus. To that end, I believe that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is indeed a flagrant violation of international norms against the use of such weapons, and this and other repugnant acts by Syrian forces are indeed against U.S. interests and against the interests of the international community. Therefore, it is both in the U.S. interest and the international communities interest to ensure that the regime’s violations are addressed. Acting in any way short of a multilaterally supported military effort is not the best course of action for America.

Regional countries, our NATO and non-NATO allies, the 189 signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and all nations that respect international norms are equally obligated to address the Assad regime’s transgressions collectively as an international community. Given that there has been broad global condemnation of the attacks in Syria, it concerns me greatly that what we are currently considering is more or less unilateral action rather than multilaterally supported military intervention.

Sec. Kerry  — Secretary Kerry on August 30, 2013 you stated: “It matters today that we are working as an international community to rid the world of the worst weapons…It matters to our security and the security of our allies…and it matters deeply to the credibility and future interests of the United States of America and our allies...and it is directly related to our credibility and whether countries still believe the United States when it says something.” Mr. Secretary it does matter to our credibility, but it also a matter of the credibility of the international community. The use of chemical weapons is a barbaric act that affects us all. Therefore, the United States must act multilaterally, if we act at all. Where is the international community? Where is the broad willingness to join us in rejecting the contemptible act of the Assad regime by supporting limited military reaction?

During the Senate hearing yesterday you indicated that while Russia has obstructed efforts to react to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons there are other ways that Russia may yet prove helpful. Please elaborate on what if any role Russia has or can play in bringing about a political solution in Syria. How is Russia being engaged given the Obama administrations correct assertion that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria? Gen. Dempsey  — I have serious concerns about any action that isn’t broadly supported internationally. One of my concerns is the possibility of unintended consequences including the prospects of prolonged military engagement. In mid August (letter dated August 19, 2013 to Rep. Engel) you expressed that there are certainly actions that the U.S. could take short of tipping the balance of the Syrian conflict that could impose a cost on them for abhorrent behavior. You also indicated that at least some of those options would, “escalate and potentially further commit the United States to the conflict…it would not be militarily decisive, but it would commit us decisively to the conflict.”

Can you elaborate on what you meant when you stated that we could be decisively committed to the conflict? If the U.S. commits to a limited military strike in Syria, how do we minimize the possibility of a prolonged commitment? If the international support remains as limited as it is now, then aren’t the risks of a longer engagement more pronounced?

Steven Chabot
Sec. Kerry  —   -- use of chemical weapons. And all those people you arm will wind up being the victims of a chemical weapons attack. So with all due respect to Tom Freedman, who is most often correct, I think on this occasion it's absolutely vital that we send the message and deteriorate his capacity.

(CROSSTALK)

We have a short period.

Sec. Kerry — And we would have given him impunity with respect to any future use.

Thank you.

Last Friday, all indications were that the president had made the decision to take military action, then things changed and he decided to consult with Congress. What made the president change his mind?

Sec. Kerry — Well, you have to ask the president. I don't know completely. I think he --

I assume you discuss this with him.

Sec. Kerry — We did discuss it, and what the president said was he felt very strongly it was important for us to be in our strongest posture, that the United States needed to speak with one voice. He knew that you, in the consultations -- I mean, you all asked for consultations. The president began a process of consultation. We heard from you. And many of you said we think it's really important to come to Congress. I know Mike Rogers, in particular, in one conversation talked about the need to not have the display of your -- you've got a group of people here opposed to it and you're sort of fighting the Congress and fighting with your allies and fighting with U.N., try to unify it to the greatest degree you can. I think that was great common sense from Chairman Rogers. And the president decided accordingly to try to put America in the strongest position possible.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

We need to go to Mr. from New Jersey.

Albio Sires
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here this afternoon.

Mr. Secretary, one of things that I read today which disturbed me a great deal was, by the end of the year, we're going to have about three million refugees from the Syria conflict. And I'm concerned that the impact that striking Syria will have on increasing the number of refugees. And I'm concerned about how it is going to stabilize our friends in the region. Jordan is already overburdened. Turkey is already experiencing a burden. Are we anticipating, are we making policies to alleviate what is coming, this avalanche of refugees? Because by the end of the year, they expect three million refugees and that could be a bigger destabilizing factor in that region.

Sec. Kerry  — This is -- this brings you squarely into a confrontation with this question that is fundamental to the choice you're going to make. There are risks of acting. But believe me, it's our judgment collectively and the presidents that the greater risks are not acting. You have 1.6 million to two million refugees today without our acting, and every prediction is that's going to get worse. I guarantee you that if we don't act and Assad is able to rain gas down on his people, you watch the numbers of refugees.

The greater capacity to prevent the numbers of refugees in this catastrophe that's building in the region is frankly to degrade his chemical capacity, help the opposition, and get to a point where you have a state of Syria that's still intact enough to actually have a negotiation for the Geneva One implementation of a transition government. That's the strategy. That's the goal. And we have no chance of getting that if we back off and give him a message of impunity. We will have said to him, nobody cares, gas your people, you do what you need to to stay in office, and we're backing off. That would -- I honestly find that -- I mean, that would be one of those moments in history that will live in infamy, and there are some of those moments. Munich, a ship off the coast of Florida that was sent back filled with Jews who then lost their lives to gas because we didn't receive them. There are moments where you have to make a decision. And I think this is one of those moments.

Are we making any new policies? I know that we're already contributing more money than anybody else to assist the refugees.

Sec. Kerry — The world needs to step up on this refugee issue. The United States proudly is providing more than anybody else. But this is unsustainable. There are other discussions taking place now as to how we might respond to this ongoing crisis in non-military terms. But I think that there are options available to us but I don't want to get ahead of ourselves.

General, this military action that we're taking, I assume we're coordinating with our friends in the region?

Gen. Dempsey  — We are, Congress, yes.

And do you anticipate them going along in any -- if it increases the need for them to participate?

Gen. Dempsey — Well, we're reaching out to them. Some will support us directly and some indirectly with basing and overflight.

Thank you, Chairman.

REP. ED ROYCE, (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Thank you. We're going to go to Mr. Joe Wilson of South Carolina.

Joe Wilson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your and (INAUDIBLE) long-time leadership to avoid the crisis that we face today.

And General Dempsey, Secretary Hagel, Secretary Kerry, thank you for being here today.

We're here to learn more about a very serious issue, a United States strike on Syria. As a member of this committee, as chairman of the House Armed Services, Military Personnel Subcommittee, as a 31-year veteran myself of the South Carolina National Guard and Army Reserve, but most particularly as the grateful father of four sons currently serving in the United States military, I'm concerned about what we're hearing today. I have many questions concerning the president's proposed strike and the risk to our military, American families and our allies, particularly, neighboring Israel, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq.

Secretary Hagel, some have characterized the plans for this strike as leaked to the press as, quote, "a pinprick that will not prevent President Assad from resuming his use of chemical weapons." How severely do you intend to degrade his capabilities? What will you do if he resumes chemical weapons? Where did these chemical weapons come from?

Sec. Hagel  — Congressman, thank you. Thank you for your service and for your sons' service.

I can assure you on the first point you made, I can speak for General Dempsey and all of our military leaders that there's no higher purpose that we all have or no more significant responsibility than the protection of our men and women who serve in uniform. They are our highest priority.

As to your other questions, the president has said, he stated it again yesterday in a meeting in the cabinet room with the leaders of Congress -- and I think Congressman Engel was there, as was Chairman Royce -- this would not be a pinprick. Those were his words. This would be a significant strike that would degrade his capability.

I think the three of us noted, you have all noted and are much aware that any action carries with it risk. Any action carries with it consequence but also does inaction, as Secretary Kerry has noted. I can assure you, as Department of Defense, our leaders have spent days and days going over every option, every contingency, everything you talked about and more -- security of our forces, security of our embassies, consulates, working with the State Department -- everything that we needed to factor in, if we took action. The president insisted on that. He wanted to see those plans, collateral damage, innocent people being hurt. We think that the options that we have given him first would be effective, would, in fact, carry out the intent of what we --

(CROSSTALK)

Mr. Secretary, I don't mean to be rude but time is flying. Where did the chemical weapons come from?

Sec. Hagel — Well, there's no secret that the Assad regime has had chemical weapons, significant stockpiles of chemical weapons.

From a particular country?

Sec. Hagel — Well, the Russians supply them, others are supplying with those chemical weapons. They make some themselves.

And, Secretary Kerry, on April 25th, the White House Legislative Director Miguel Rodriguez wrote, quote, "Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons," end of quote. With the president's red line, why was there no call for military response in April? Was it delayed to divert attention today from the Benghazi, IRS, NSA scandals, the failure of Obamacare enforcement, the tragedy of the White House-drafted sequestration or the upcoming debt-limit vote? Again, why was there no call for a military response four months ago when the president's red line was crossed?

Sec. Kerry  — Well, the reason is very simple. The president made a decision to change his policy but he didn't believe that the evidence was so overwhelming. It was significant. It was clear that it happened but a scale that he felt merited the increase of assistance and the announcements that he made with respect to the type of aid that he would provide the opposition. So he did respond. This is so egregious and now builds on the conclusions of our intel community as to the numbers of times, but such a clear case, so compelling and urgent with respect to the flagrancy of the abuse that the president thinks that it's a matter of conscience, it's a matter of policy, the best route to proceed is through military action.

But in April, it was very clear. Chemical weapons are chemical weapons.

(CROSSTALK)

Syria was identified. Mr. Secretary, action should have been taken then.

Sec. Kerry — But the president didn't believe it was compelling enough case to win the support of the American people as well as the world. This is. The president did respond. He upgraded what we were doing very significantly. He came to Congress. As a matter of fact, many of you know, we have to struggle to get a Congress to agree to let him do the things that he wanted to do to upgrade that effort.

(CROSSTALK)

But chemically, we need -- excuse me.

ROYCE: Your time is expired.

We need to go to Mr. Gerry Connolly of Virginia.

Gerry Connolly
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Engel, for holding this very important hearing.

And I thank our secretaries of State and Defense and General Dempsey for being here.

Mr. Chairman, late last night, we delivered to all members of Congress, and I physically delivered a copy today, of an alternative resolution very narrowly drawn that actually codifies what the president has said he wishes to accomplish and codifies no boots on the ground to try to make sure that we stay focused on the issue and a response to that issue and possibly provide the White House with a path to authorization here in the Congress. I commend it to both secretaries and urge you to look at it.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we will be able to mark it up.

When I looked at this issue, I used a filter with five aspects to it and commended to my colleagues if they find it helpful. The first was, is the evidence strongly compelling and convincing, if not incontrovertible? Secondly, if so, what action is thereby warranted? Thirdly, what is if efficacy of the proposed action and what are the risks? Fourth, what is the efficacy and what are the risks of doing nothing. And finally, if the latter outweighs the former, how can Congress provide an authorization that narrowly is drawn to ensure no wider involvement but that does two things: it enforces international law with respect to the ban on chemical weapons and it deters future use of such weapons.

All of this is a matter of judgment. Everything I've heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle this week has been sincere and heartfelt. And I pray that we proceed on a nonpartisan basis to try to tackle this issue with respecting everybody's ultimate judgment because it is a difficult issue and does not lend itself to basal answers.

I've come to the conclusion myself that the evidence is convincing and compelling. I also believe that the overhang of Iraq has many of us chained. Iraq was based on faulty and shoddy intelligence that was also misused to justify a priori commitment to invade another country. That's not the case here. We're not dealing with a president who is hungering to invade another country or put boots on the ground. In fact, quite obviously, his reluctance to do that is why we're here. We're also not dealing with prospective surmise about whether such weapons exist and whether or not he might use them. There's no doubt the weapons exist, the stockpiles are there, and there's no doubt he used them. The question for us is, what do we do about it.

Mr. Secretary, let me ask one question. If we do nothing -- and Mr. -- Secretary Hagel, I'll you to answer as well. Keeping in mind we have a limited amount of time.

What if -- if we do something, what is the likelihood in your judgment that Bashar al Assad would use weapons as a routine weapon to turn the tide of this civil war?

Sec. Hagel  — I think the likelihood is very high he would use them again.

Mr. Secretary?

Sec. Kerry  — I agree completely. I might even put it at 100 percent. And I -- well, you should go check the intel on it. I think you'll be convinced. But I'd say probably 100 percent.

And, Mr. Secretary, if you're right, it's 100 percent we will see these weapons now used routinely in this civil war to turn the tide if we do nothing, what is the probability that such weapons will also then get into the hands of Hezbollah and other elements supporting the Assad regime and, thus, perhaps proliferate the region against friend and foe alike?

Sec. Kerry — I can't give you that probability. I just don't know what it is. I do know this. That there are three principle supporters of Assad and the rest of the world is in horror of what is happening. The three principle supporters are Iran, Hezbollah and Russia. And if Iran and Hezbollah are allowed to both see him stay in power as well as do so with the use of chemical weapons, that is extraordinarily dangerous for Jordan, Israel, Lebanon and our interests.

ROYCE: We need to go to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Michael McCaul from Texas.

Michael McCaul
Next week we commemorate the twelfth anniversary of 9/11. It was al Qaeda that hit the World Trade Center. It was al Qaeda that hit the Pentagon down the street from here. Al Qaeda is the enemy, and before 9/11 al Qaeda was the enemy. As Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I want to make sure that never happens again, and I know you share that as well. I think what gives Congress great pause, and the American people great pause, is there's no good outcome here. They don't see a good side versus a bad side. They see Assad as a bad actor who's used chemical weapons. There's no question about that. But then who is the other side? Who are the rebel forces? Every time I get briefed on this it gets worse and worse because the majority now of these rebel forces, and I say majority now, are radical Islamists pouring in from all over the world to come to Syria for the fight, and my concern is any strike against this regime, as bad as it is, will empower these radical Islamists, these extremists. And we've seen this movie before. We've seen Afghanistan, we've seen what happened in Egypt, we saw what happened in Libya. We saw what the Arab spring brought us and it's not good. They've filled the vacuum. So my greatest concern when we look at Syria is who's going to fill the vacuum when the Assad regime falls, which we know that it will. Who is going to fill that vacuum? Are the rebel forces, the extremists, going to take over not only the government but these weapons? Because they are the ones most likely to use these weapons against Americans in the United States. Those images of children in Damascus are horrific. I do not want to see those images in the United States. I have these concerns and I want to hear from both secretaries and the general as to whether you share these concerns and what you are doing to stop that outcome, because that is the absolute worst scenario that can happen.

Sec. Hagel  — This is an imperfect situation. There are no good options here. This is complicated. There's no clarity. Every point you've made - the complications of the various terrorist groups - which we have noted, are there, they're in play, this is a specifically difficult part of us trying to sort out who we would support, how we would support them. So, I don't question that.

Michael McCaul
I thank the chairman.

I thank the secretaries for being here.

And, General Dempsey, thank you for being here as well.

Next week, we commemorate the 12th anniversary of 9/11. It was al Qaeda that hit the World Trade Center. It was al Qaeda hit the Pentagon down the street from here. Al Qaeda is the enemy. And before 9/11, al Qaeda was the enemy.

As chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I want to make sure that never happens again. And I know you share that as well.

I think what gives Congress great pause and the American people great pause is there's no good outcome here. They don't see a good side versus a bad side. They see Assad as a bad actor, who's used chemical weapons. There's no question about that. But then who's the other side? Who are the rebel forces? Who are they? I ask that in my briefing all the time. And every time I get briefed on this, it gets worse and worse because the majority now of these rebel forces -- and I say majority now -- are radical Islamists, pouring in from all over the world to come to Syria for the fight. And my concern is any strike against this regime, as bad as it is, will empower these radical Islamists and these extremists. And we've seen this movie before. We've seen Afghanistan and we've seen what happened in Egypt. We saw what happened in Libya. We saw what the Arab Springs brought us. It's not good. They fill the vacuum. They have filled a vacuum. So my greatest concern when we look at Syria is who is going to fill the vacuum when the Assad regime falls, which we know that it will. Who is going to fill that vacuum? Are the rebel forces, the extremists, going to take over not only the government but these weapons because they are the ones most likely to use these weapons against Americans and the United States? While those images of children in Damascus are horrific, I do not want to see those images in the United States. That is my grave concern. And this is a very dangerous step that we are taking. And I believe that we have to be very careful in how we proceed.

And so with that and with all due respect, I think this is well intentioned, But I have these concerns and I want to hear from both secretaries and the general as to whether you share these concerns and what you are doing to stop that outcome because that is the absolute worst scenario, worst outcome if it happened.

Sec. Kerry  — Congressman, I was just trying to make sure -- I apologize for interrupting. I think it would be helpful to you as you were asking the question because I'm very concerned about the foundation of your question, the premise of it. A woman by the name of Elizabeth Bagly, B-A-G-L-Y, just wrote an article -- she works with the Institute of War. She's fluent in Arabic and spent an enormous amount of time studying the opposition and studying Syria. She just published this the other day. Very interesting article, which I commend to you.

The fact is, sitting behind me incidentally is Ambassador Robert Ford. He is our ambassador to Syria. He has spent an enormous amount of time with the opposition working with them and helping us to understand this dynamic.

I just don't agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That's not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists. About somewhere between 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are -- who we would deem to be bad guys. There are many different groups, al Nusra, al Shamra (ph), different entities, and sometimes they are fighting each other, even now.

The general belief, there is a real moderate opposition that exists. General Edres (ph) is running the military arm of that. And our allies in this effort, our friends from the Saudis to Emirates to the Qatars and others are now in a disciplined way funneling assistance through the General Edres (ph) and the moderate opposition and who are getting stronger as a result of that.

I've got 40 seconds. There are moderates there. But the briefings I've received, unless I have different ones or inaccurate briefings, it's 50 percent and rising.

Sec. Kerry — Well --

The freedom -- these fighters coming globally are not coming in as moderates. They are coming in as jihadists. And that's my concern. And --

(CROSSTALK)

Sec. Kerry — There are jihadists.

Secretary, I want to hear from the secretary and the general as well.

Sec. Hagel  — Well, I agree with Secretary Kerry's analysis.

But let me just remind us all -- and you know this very well, Congressman, especially with your responsibilities as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. This is an imperfect situation. There are no good options here. This is complicated. There's no clarity. Every point you made, the complications of various terrorists groups, which we've noted are there. They are in play. This is a specifically difficult part of us trying to sort out who we would support and how we would support them. So I don't question that.

But I do think that Secretary Kerry's points are correct that we are seeing some movement on the inside in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman --

(CROSSTALK)

ROYCE: Mr. Ted Deutch of Florida.

Theodore “Ted” Deutch
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rangel, thank you for calling this very important hearing.

And Secretary Kerry, Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, thanks for being here.

I believe we stand at a pivotal moment where Congress is either going to uphold the duty to protect our national security or we're going to retreat from our moral and strategic obligations. I believe our vote on what will have to be ultimately a very narrowly drawn resolution will determine whether Congress stands up for human rights or puts us on a dangerous path to isolation, whether Congress will increase American influence in the Middle East or allow our power to dramatically shrink.

I stand behind the president's request for limited and targeted strikes without U.S. troops on the ground against a regime that's guilty of heinous chemical weapons attacks on its own people. And I know this is a difficult division. I know that some of my colleagues wish that we had done a lot more before now. And I know that my colleagues, other colleagues wish to do nothing now. And I acknowledge the difficulty of being unable to predict Assad's next move.

Secretary Hagel, you spoke to that.

This is a hard choice. I don't think any of us relish making it. No use of force can ever be taken lightly but inaction here, I believe, will dramatically harm our national security by emboldening a vile Syrian regime, its terrorist proxies and its Iranian patron. I think it's essential that the United States, in an unequivocal message to Assad and other brutal regimes around the world, especially Iran, that when the United States Congress, when the president and when every civilized nation on earth says that you cannot gas innocent children to death, you can't use chemical weapons of mass destruction -- and weapons of mass destruction, then we mean it. I believe America's credibility is on the line in Syria. We all saw the gut-wrenching images of children, of women, of families lying dead cruelly murdered by Assad.

This strike, if it is to occur, is about preventing such atrocities now and in the future, preventing the continued use of chemical weapons in Syria, and preventing those weapons from being used by terrorists groups, like Hezbollah, that threaten our allies and our citizens.

But American credibility is also on the line in Iran. Much like the red line set in Syria, the president has and this committee has in strongly bipartisan fashion set a clear red line that we will not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons capability.

If Congress votes down a limited authorization, and to Iran's leaders, our red line against their development of nuclear weapons is meaningless. The sanctions that we passed unanimously out of this committee and 400 members supported on the House floor will be rendered largely worthless because they're not backed up by a credible threat of force.

Secretary Kerry, I believe if we want to do everything in our power to solve the Iranian nuclear issue without military action, then we must support this authorization. By authorizing the use of force against Syria, America will make abundantly clear to the world, including Iran, that using chemical weapons or defying international law in pursuit of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated by this nation.

Make no mistake. This resolution is about Syria and holding Assad accountable. But it's also Iran and whether this Congress will make is more likely or less likely that that nation obtain nuclear weapons.

I haven't come to this decision lightly. I don't want to be in this position. None of us do. But we didn't put ourselves in this position. The president didn't put us in this position. Bashar al Assad put us in this position when he chose to gas his own people.

Now, Secretary Kerry, a lot of people have come up to me and said that they're disgusted by what they see. But the question they ask is, why does America always need to be the world's policemen. So I ask you, why should the U.S. lead this effort? And will we learn which are the 34 nations and organizations who have said they will support our action and how they are prepared to support it?

Sec. Kerry  — Well, the United States of America is not being the world's policemen. The United States of America is joining with other countries in upholding an international standard that 184 nations have joined into. Obviously we have a greater capacity. We are blessed with an extraordinarily capable military that, through the years, the American people have invested in, in order to protect our security interests.

Our security interests are directly involved in what is happening in the Middle East. Our security interests are directly threatened with respect to Assad's use of these chemical weapons. So we are building a support with international - with other countries. Among them, the Arab League, that announced its condemnation of this. Specific countries that have talked in terms of acting, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, the Qataris, the Turks, and the French. Obviously the British government sought to, felt it should. They had a different vote. But that doesn't - in fact that -- I think raises the stakes in terms of our holding ourselves accountable to a multilateral effort, to a multilateral standard in which the United States is the most technologically advanced partner.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We go now to Mr. Ted Poe, chairman of the Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee.

Ted Poe
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've heard a lot today about credibility of the United States. It seems to me that we have a credibility problem because our foreign policy in the Middle East is inconsistent. Our enemies really don't know what our foreign policy is. Our friends don't know what it is. And I'm not so sure Americans know what our foreign policy is in the Middle East. And we've seen it play out with different reasons, going into different countries, removing people from leadership and putting somebody else in or being approved of it - (INAUDIBLE) approved of it.

I, like my friend Mr. McCaul (ph) from Austin, are concerned about the players on both sides. There is no pure side in this civil war. You got Hezbollah, a bunch of bad guys, on one side, and you have the other terrorist groups on the other side, including al Nusra and al Shabaab (ph). I do believe that these are powerful groups on both sides. History will find out who ends up winning this civil war. And then you factor in the religious connotation in this civil war and you really do have a real problem. We do have a real problem on our hands.

My concern is now specifically, we want to do something to punish Mr. "Bad Guy" Assad. No question about it, he's a bad guy. He's wasting good air breathing. We're not going to shoot him. We're just going to shoot or shell over the bow. We're not going to take him out because we don't want to distable -- destabilize the civil war going on between two different sides, if I understand what that policy is.

So let's do that. Let's assume we do that. I'm going to ask General Dempsey this question first. Assume we do that, whatever it is, to destabilize the weapons of mass destruction. Get rid of them. I assume that's what we're trying to do, eliminate the weapons of mass destruction, even though as Secretary Hagel said, they're getting those things from Syria - from Russia, which they're going to give them more weapons? I don't know.

Assume we do that. Assad fights back. He doesn't just take it. He retaliates against us or lets Iran retaliate against Israel, all because we have come into this civil war. So, they shoot back. Then what do we do once Americans are engaged now in escalated specific strike, not by our choosing but by their choosing? Do we escalate or do we not fight back? And I know, General Dempsey, you've got a tough situation on your hands. What do we do if they literally shoot back at Americans, our friends the Israelis?

Gen. Dempsey  — First, just to clarify, this isn't about eliminating chemical weapons. That's not possible given the number and the distribution of them. It's about convincing the Assad regime that it's unacceptable for them to use them. And that's the limit of this military operation.

We're postured for the possibility of retaliation. And I can assure you that our regional partners are as well.

Let me just ask that question a little bit - a little more clarification from you if you can, general. I know you're in the military and you're to the point, and that's great. We're glad you're in charge. Can you see that escalating, though, with U.S. military involvement in the region? Have you made a contingency plan for that happening? Whatever their reaction is, the Syrians' reaction to us specifically, have you made contingency plans for us being in an escalated military operation in the region?

Gen. Dempsey — In the spirit of your compliment of my conciseness, yes.

And you see - do you see escalation a possibility? U.S. military escalation in the region as a possibility?

Gen. Dempsey — Well, I can never drive the risk of escalation to zero, but I think - I think that the limited purpose, the partnerships we have in the region, the contributions that we'll seek from others, I think begins to limit that risk.

One last question since I'm nearly out of time here. General Dempsey, you mentioned earlier that you're concerned about removing Assad from power. Do you want to -- will you elaborate on that? And if so, what's your elaboration?

Gen. Dempsey — Well, I - I still, again, separate from this conversation, which is about the limited purpose of deterring and degrading, I still am cautious about whether we should use U.S. military force in support of the opposition for the opposition, for the purpose of tipping the balance. I think there's other ways we can contribute to that through the development of a moderate opposition. But I - I remain cautious about taking the opposition's role here in the civil war.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Brian Higgins.

Brian Higgins
Military strike so long as we don't have to do anything. The Arab League's response to this crisis is pathetically weak. And given their strategic interest, a joke.

So here we are left with trying to topple the last minority regime in the Middle East. And for the third time in a decade, entering a national civil war in that part of the world essentially alone again.

Secretary Kerry, you spoke of the history of the world's response to the use of chemical weapons. Given that history, one would think that more countries would join the U.S. in participating, not supporting, in participating in a military strike against Syria. What gives?

Sec. Kerry  — Well, congressman, let me just begin very -- I'll try to be very, very quick here. First of all, I regret to say, I don't want to make this debate about what's happening in terms of regime change and the larger issues, but I just want to clarify, a fruit vendor who was tired of corruption and of being slapped around started the Arab Spring in Tunisia and they threw out a dictator that had been there for a long period of time, president. In Tahrir Square, there was a bunch of young people with their modern technology Googling each other and FaceBooking, and so forth, who organized a revolution. It wasn't the Muslim Brotherhood. It had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with a generational revolution of people looking for their freedom, their opportunity and their aspirations to be met. Same thing happened in Syria. And in Syria, that opposition was met with violence by Assad. And so that is what has happened here.

Now, the moderate opposition is, in fact, committed to democracy. It's committed to protection of all minority rights to an inclusivity. They want an election in the future of Syria. So I don't want to have a debate about that because this is not about regime change. This is about the enforcement of the standard with respect to chemical weapons. That's what this is about.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to go to Matt Salmon.

Sec. Kerry — The president is asking for a limited authority to enforce that standard, not to deal with all those other issues.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Matt Salmon of Arizona, chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee.

Matt Salmon
Thank you.

Secretary Kerry, let me first congratulate the president on bringing this matter to the Congress, as I believe he is constitutionally required to do. I, for one, am very happy that he's chosen to do this.

He said just this morning that he didn't draw a red line, the world did, with ratification of the chemical weapons convention treaty, yet where is the rest of the world in the response? Why are we looking at a near go it alone military mission? You said in your testimony that there are 34 countries who are with us. What degree are they with us and who are they specifically?

Sec. Kerry  — I don't have the full list of them here, but the - I've listed a bunch of them. And the Arab League countries have condemned this. A number of them have asked to be part of a military operation. Our -- the Turks, a NATO country, have condemned it, pinned it on Assad, asked to be part of an operation. The French have volunteered to be part of an operation. There are others who have volunteered. But, frankly, and I'll let General, you know, Dempsey speak to this. We got more volunteers than we can use for this kind of an operation.

Now, in the next days, those names, as they choose to, as this evidence comes out, will be made more public. But as I said to you, we have 53 countries have already condemned the use publicly. Thirty- seven have said so publicly. And there are - I think it's a total of 34 countries or organizations have indicated that they're prepared to take action. Now, that is growing. There are more countries reviewing the evidence that we have shown. And as I said, over this time, the president has purposefully taken to come to Congress. He has asked me and the State Department to reach out to more countries and to build the kind of international support that this merits. And we will do so.

Thank you.

I would really appreciate it if we could get a list of the countries and what assets they're willing to commit.

Sec. Kerry — (INAUDIBLE) we have it all broken down. I don't --

And -- not now. We can get that later. I do have a question for General Dempsey.

General Dempsey, what are our goals in a military strike? The president said that the military attack would be limited in duration and scope and degrade the Assad regime's capacity to carry out future attacks on its own people. Do you believe that the use of surgical strikes will achieve the president's stated goal and can you guarantee the American people that the Assad regime will be unable to launch any further chemical warfare attacks both at home or against their neighbors after the U.S. mission is complete? And in addition, do you believe that the region will be more stable after a U.S. attack or less stable?

Gen. Dempsey — The mission given to me was to prepare options to attack, to deter and degrade, and that would mean targets directly linked to the control of chemical weapons, but without exposing those chemical weapons to a loss of security. Secondly, the means of delivery. And third, those things that the regime uses, for example, air defense, long range missiles and rockets in order to protect those chemical weapons or, in some cases, deliver them. So that target package is still being refined as I sit here with you.

As far as whether it will be effective. Given the limited objectives I've received, the answer is, yes, I believe we can make the military strike effective. In terms of what it will do to the region, that clearly will depend on the reaction of the Assad regime. But as I mentioned earlier, the -- our partners and the United States military is postured to deter his retaliation.

Finally -

William Keating
American public, as well as the world. And I think clearly that anyone looking at this evenly, that has been a success in terms of making clear the case there were chemical weapons used and the Assad government indeed used them. And I want to congratulate you and the president on those efforts. Now, so General Dempsey doesn't run out of time and has a few seconds to answer, we were going down a road that I just wanted to pursue, if I could.

General, you raise concerns in the past about engaging militarily in the Syrian conflict. And, obviously, you're here today to support a limited military action. But, you know, you did say - start to say in your remarks, there are military outcomes in supporting the opposition. But you qualified it saying, that's not what we're doing here. But I'm concerned that regardless of our stated intent in this area, others won't share that same, you know, view, that's not our intent. So if you could, and I'm giving you plenty of time I hope, can you just expand upon what your concerns were and maybe are that you had in the past that you stated, so we have a better understanding of what they are and giving you enough time too to see how - what your views might be on how we can mitigate that or navigate around those concerns in the situation we are in right now.

Gen. Dempsey  — Yes, I want to separate support for the opposition from acting in a limited focus way to degrade the Assad regime from use of chemical weapons because the former, the support for the opposition does come with some risk of slippery slope of not entirely understanding when that support ends and how much it has to grow over time, which is why I'm mostly supportive of helping the opposition by their development, by their training and equip and not by becoming their military arm.

Separate that from what we're here for today. In my view militarily, the fact that the Assad regime has increased its use of chemicals over time to the point where it was a weapon intended to terrorize a small portion of a particular neighborhood and to send a message to the opposition, to where now in the most recent case it was used to literally attempt to clear a neighborhood. They've reached the point now where Assad is using chemical weapons as just another military tool in his arsenal.

That runs great risk for Syria. It runs risk in the region. It runs risk in the globe. I'm able to with some integrity, with a lot of integrity, come here before you today and make that distinction that we should do something in our national interests based on the use of chemical weapons without committing to supporting the opposition to overthrow the regime.

Was part of that slippery slope, General, was that partly a concern about how other countries or how other factions could be taking our actions? Because even limited sense, we are helping the opposition because we're attacking the Assad government. So in that respect, was that any concern you had prior to that and how do you mitigate that now?

Gen. Dempsey — We always considered not only what effect our actions would have on our partners in the region, the Turks, the Jordanians, the Israelis, and even the Iraqis for that matter, with what impact it would have potentially on our potential adversaries. Of course, that's always been a concern, but -- a concern and a consideration. But when something reaches the level where I think it has direct impact on our national security then the overriding consideration is not what others think but what we think.

Thank you, General. Very quickly, ranking member in emerging threats there, NATO, there was a president in 1999 where NATO did move without U.N. Security Council approval. Do you think there's hope for them moving not just individually as countries? Have you exhausted everything in terms of trying to get NATO support as an organization? I'll ask either secretary that question.

Sec. Kerry  — I apologize. I was just reading a note from them. Can you repeat that?

It was about NATO, the 1999 president where they moved forward without that Security Council approval. Is there any hope in doing that organizationally going forward?

Sec. Kerry — I doubt it, but I can't tell you until I have the meeting that we're slated to have this weekend. I'll get a better sense of that. I would say to Congressman Moreno with respect to body bags that he drew, we had I think it was about a 28-day campaign, maybe 30-day campaign in Kosovo and Bosnia. There are over 30,000 sorties of our aircraft and so forth, none of that is contemplated here, none of which, and there was zero casualties, zero.

REPRESENTATIVE ED ROYCE, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: We should go to Jeff Duncan of South Carolina at this time. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Jeff Duncan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't discuss the possibility of U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war without also talking about Benghazi. The administration has a serious credibility issue with American people due to unanswered questions surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi almost a year ago. When you factor in the IRS targeting of conservative groups, the AP and James Rosen issues, fast and furious, and then NSA spying programs, bottom line is that there's a need for accountability and trust building from the administration.

To paraphrase Frederick Nitche, he said I'm not upset over you not telling me the truth. I'm upset because from now on I can't believe you. The administration has a credibility issue. In my opinion Secretaries Kerry and Hagel, Benghazi is germane to the discussions in Syria because, as you stated Mr. Secretary, the world was and is watching for our response, but after almost a year of not bringing anyone to justice in Benghazi, they are watching our response.

Mr. Kerry, your predecessor asked what difference does it make now? Well, this is the difference, Mr. Secretary. These issues call into question the accountability of this administration, its commitment to the personnel on the ground and the judgment that it uses when making these determinations. The American people deserve answers before we move forward talking about military involvement in Syria.

Section 4 of your testimony today said this is about accountability. Sure it is. The American people deserve answers about Benghazi before we move forward with military involvement in Syria's civil war. This is a picture. You may not see it from there. This is a picture of Tyron Woods given to me by his father, Charles Woods, a Navy SEAL. The Woods' family deserves answers. He was killed in Benghazi.

America deserves answers before we send another man or woman, the caliber of Ty Woods into harm's way especially on another country's civil war, especially when there's no clear indication that there's an imminent threat to the United States. I don't question that chemical weapons were used in Syria. I've looked at the classified briefings. I do ask that if so where are the other signatory countries of the chemical weapons convention as U.S. beats the drums of war against this regime in Syria.

I have spoken to hundreds of constituents. This represents about 300 e-mails that my office has gotten and not a one, not a one member in my district in South Carolina or the e-mails of people that have contacted my office say go to Syria and fight this regime. To a letter they say no. Do not go into Syria. Don't get involved in their civil war. I spoke to eighth graders about 150 eighth graders yesterday, they get it. We shouldn't be drug into someone else's civil war when there are no good guys to get behind here.

I can only envision an escalation of this current conflict. Same administration quick to involve the U.S. and Syria now was reluctant to use the same resources at its disposal to attempt to rescue the four brave Americans that fought for their lives in Benghazi. Mr. Kerry, you have never been one that's evacuated for anything other than caution when involving U.S. forces in past conflicts. The same is true for the president and the vice president.

Is the power of the executive branch so intoxicating that you abandoned past caution in favor for pulling the trigger on a military response so quickly. The reason I say that Benghazi is germane to our discussions on Syria is this, Secretary Kerry, have there been efforts on the part of the United States directly or indirectly to provide weapons to the Syrian rebels and that would also include facilitating transfer of weapons from Libyan rebels to Syrian rebels.

Sec. Kerry  — Have there been efforts to --

To put weapons in the hands of Syrian rebels and also transfer weapons from Libya to Syria.

Sec. Kerry — Let me begin, Congressman, by challenging your proposition that I've never done anything except advocate caution because I volunteered to fight for my country and that wasn't a cautious thing to do when I did it. Secondly --

Mr. Secretary --

Sec. Kerry — I'm going to finish, congressman. I am going to finish. When I was in the United States Senate, I supported military action in any number of occasions including Grenada, Panama. I can run a list of them. I'm not going to sit here and be told by you that I don't have a sense of what judgment is with respect to this. We're talking about people being killed by gas and you want to go talk about Benghazi and "Fast and Furious."

Absolutely, I want to talk about Benghazi, four Americans lost their lives. I have sympathy for the people in Syria. I do think there should be a worldwide response. We should act cautiously.

Sec. Kerry — We are acting cautiously. We are acting so cautiously that the president of the United States was accused of not acting because he wanted to have sufficient evidence and he wanted to build a case properly.

It's been 15 days.

Sec. Kerry — Congressman -- Mr. Chairman, point of privilege here. This is important. I think this is important. I think it is important whether or not we're going into Syria in a way that the congressman describes, which I think most people in America don't want to do. We don't want to do that. That's why the president said no boots on the ground. This is not about getting into Syria's civil war. This is about enforcing the principle that people shouldn't be allowed to gas their citizens with impunity.

And if we don't vote to do this, Assad will interpret from you that he's free to go and do this any day he wants to. That's what this is about. Not getting involved in Syria's civil war. So let's draw the proper distinction here, Congressman. We don't deserve to drag this into yet another Benghazi discussion when the real issue here is whether or not the Congress is going to stand up for international norms with respect to dictators that have only been broken twice until Assad, Hitler and Saddam Hussein. If we give license to someone to continue that, shame on us.

ROYCE: We go now to Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island.

David Cicilline
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member by convening this meeting. I want to thank our three witnesses --

Sec. Kerry  —   -- and that's the U.N. and the U.N. Security Council, as recently as a few weeks ago when this event took place, our representatives at the U.N. attempted along with other allies to put a resolution in front of the Security Council that would have simply condemned the event. Not assigning any blame at all. Just condemned the use of action and the Russians said no. They blocked it. That is what set us into this path of believing that we have to act in a way that has an effect of deterring Assad from the use of these weapons.

Now even if the U.N. did pass something, even you had some sanction, if it isn't meaningful in a way that will deter action and no one has yet contrived that some, you know, piece of paper to change this man's calculation with respect to what his fighting for. So I think the judgment has been made that the only way to have an impact, the only way you're going to hold him accountable now is to make it clear to him that this will in fact detract from his ability to abuse his people and to use his force to stay in power.

Sec. Hagel  — Well, I think what the secretary said is exactly right. I would add two things. There are a number of tracks that we're on right now to accomplish what you're talking. Secretary Kerry's diplomatic track, which has been ongoing and intense, our reaching out to our allies all over the world, I was in Asia last week with 15 defense ministers from all over Asia Pacific discussing this, meeting with leaders of countries in those areas, our NATO allies.

All three of us have been talking to our counterparts from countries all over the world. What the White House is doing and what the president is doing so working through institutions. We're still involved with the United Nations. Those tracks are being run in addition to what we're talking about here, one exact point on the purpose of this hearing.

General Dempsey said this morning at the Senate Armed Services Committee when asked about the violation of the chemical weapons norm, a hundred year old norm. Is it that important? Is it that big a deal? One of the points that General Dempsey made, which is exactly right and we start here, this is a threat to our interest and our forces and to our country allowing a tyrant to continue to get away with the use of chemical weapons. That's a real threat against us.

ROYCE: Adam Kinzinger of Illinois.

Adam Kinzinger
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you. I know you've had a couple of very long weeks. I am about to support this, but I do want to say at the very beginning my disapproval of the president's policies in the Middle East. I believe part of the reason we're having difficulty rallying an international coalition is because they don't see the United States having led on this until recently.

But that said, as a veteran of the military, as a current serving military pilot in the International Guard, I am war weary as many Americans are war weary. I want to remind Americans what one of my favorite presidents, Ronald Reagan said. If we want to avoid war he said war begins when governments believe that the price of aggression is cheap. I think that's a situation we find ourselves in Syria now.

In fact in listening to some of my colleagues, it's been amazing to me that we seem to paralyze ourselves into inaction running through every potential scenario that can occur in this. It makes me wonder, God help us if we become a country that can't do the right thing because we paralyze ourselves into inaction. This is a picture of Syrian children many of which the secretary said earlier about 400 died in just this one chemical gas attack and if we don't do anything about this, you can ensure that maybe the kids in this picture or definitely other kids will die from the same attack. I want to very quickly read to you the effects of sarin gas and look at these children and understand that children have gone through this. Mild effects of sarin exposure is running nose, watery eyes, blurred vision, drooling and excessive sweating, chest tightness, rapid breathing, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, increased urination, confusion, weakness, headache, slow or fast heart rate, low or high blood pressure.

Exposure to large doses of sarin like we saw in Syria, loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis, respiratory failure which is a polite way of saying you suffocate to death while you're aware that you're suffocating to death. What we're talking about is a discussion of what the international community and the United States of America and the goodness of our heart determined is the right thing and area that we can affect. Can we ban all artillery shells? We can't.

Can we ban all war? We can't. But if we can stand up and say that chemical weapons have no place in this world and we can do something about it God help us if we don't. I would remind folks and I will ask you all to comment on this eventually, from 1991 to 2002 or 2003, we maintained two no-fly zones over Iraq because of our disdain for chemical weapons. Most people would have agreed what we did over in Northern and Southern Iraq was the right thing to do because Saddam Hussein gassed his own residents.

This is not the first time America has put down a red line on chemical weapons. I heard people say it's the president's redline. It's not the red line of the United States of America. You have to look at history and know that it is. I'm reminded of what President Clinton said when he was asked about his one regret for his time in presidency. He said my one regret was inaction in Rwanda.

What if we do nothing about gassing of thousands of people in Syria? I have heard some people say that if we go in and we strike Assad and make him pay for the use of chemical weapons more than any benefit he gains, that we are acting as, quote, "al Qaeda's air force." I believe that is a cheap line by some people to garner headlines and not a serious discussion of what's going on in Syria.

Mr. Secretary Kerry, if you'll start. What's your thought on the comment of the cheap line of al Qaeda's air force in dealing with the opposition and in punishing an evil man for using evil weapons?

Sec. Kerry  — Congressman, your comments have been very eloquent and I think very, very important to this discussion. I am confident I join the general and Secretary Hagel in thinking you for your service willing to serve in the guard as well as a pilot but also here. The intent of the president could not be more clear and the impact if we effect -- if Congress will pass this and we can carry out this action, the impact will be not to help al Qaeda.

In fact, it won't help al Qaeda. It will further expose al Qaeda, but it will hold a dictator accountable to this critical standard. You just reiterated it and I said it in my opening testimony, this is not just about folks in Syria, my friends. American troops benefit from this standard being upheld. And through all of our wars since 1925, we've managed to see it upheld against when we've been involved.

The fact is that the absence of our willingness to uphold this standard will do several things that are directly against our interests. Number one, completely undermine America's validity and America's word in the region and elsewhere. It will embolden North Korea and Iran with respect to activities that will directly threaten the United States and our allies.

It will importantly increase the number of terrorists that we are already concerned about because it will force people who want to take on Assad to go to the least common denominator of efficiency and expediency and that is to arm the worst people who will try to get the job done. I ask everyone to listen carefully to Congressman Kinzinger and evaluate this just on the fundamental basis of common sense and human behavior. In the absence of doing this, there will be a grant of impunity to Bashar Al Assad for the use of these weapons.

ROYCE: Alan Grayson from Florida.

Alan Grayson
Thank you. General Dempsey, do Syria and Hezbollah have a means to launch a counterattack against the U.S. vessels in the Mediterranean, the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and Israel?

Gen. Dempsey  — Our maritime assets are positioned such that there are no capabilities that can threaten them. Embassies of course are a fixed resource and are always subject to terrorist attack. That remains true today as it has for the last ten years and we've taken steps to mitigate that risk.

And Israel?

Gen. Dempsey — Israel, you may be aware is actually anticipating some action and gone to a state of high alert and called reserves up and taken a lot of measures and by the way, we partner with Israel very closely on the defense of Israel.

Would you say that a counterattack is more likely than not?

Gen. Dempsey — No, I don't think I can say that. Without signalling the Syrian regime in some way, I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't come to that conclusion.

Secretary Kerry, have members of the Syrian opposition called for such an attack and if so, whom?

Sec. Kerry  — Not specifically that I know of, have they? They support it apparently, but they have not advocated to me. I've had conversations with president of the opposition and there was no pleading or urging to do this.

In fact, haven't members of the Syrian opposition said they don't want an attack? Isn't that true?

Sec. Kerry — No, I have not heard that.

You haven't seen public reports to that effect?

Sec. Kerry — No.

All right, Secretary Kerry, there are 189 signers of the chemical weapons convention. Syria does not happen to be one of them. How many of those signatories have pledged to participate in the military intervention in Syria and what exactly has each one pledged to do?

Sec. Kerry — There are at least ten countries that have pledged to participate. We have not sought more for participation. We have sought people for support. There are many more obviously that support. I think I should let the general speak to the question. You know, I said earlier there really is a limit for this kind of an operation as to how many you want to participate. You want support, but just physically the management of it, the technical capacity and other issues are critical and General, perhaps you want to say something.

Gen. Dempsey — Congressman, I was writing down --

Tom Cotton
Thank you Mr. Chairmen, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Hagel, General Dempsey, thank you for your time and your service, most importantly in uniform; Mr. Kerry and Mr. Hagel as young men and General Dempsey as a young man and now a more seasoned man, as well. I have grown weary for several months. Not weary of war, because I know as each of you know, that war is sometimes the price that a free society must pay to defend our freedom and protect our interests abroad. I have grown weary of the President’s war weariness. I have called for months for action in Syria. I feel that action should have been taken years ago. I am deeply worried that our core national security interests are at stake in Syria. Mr. Kerry, you said that the President does not bluff. I fear that both our enemies and our allies do not believe that statement. For some time now, we have let Iran violate numerous United Nations resolutions. In Syria, we have not acted previously on uses of chemical weapons and I do believe the world is watching. The day the United States does not act is not just a day that Bashar al-Assad knows it’s open season for chemical weapons, but also the day Kim Jong-un knows that and most ominously, the day that Iran Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei spins his centrifuges into overdrive, which starts the clock ticking to the less than two year moment when the warheads on intercontinental missiles could hit our constituents here in the United States.

I agree with what my colleague Adam Kinzinger said, that we have a vital interest in maintaining the international taboo against chemical weapons. All of you like me, have been in training, I suspect, where you’ve been exposed to gas and you know that no one benefits from that taboo more than do American troops. I’m also deeply worried that our inaction is destabilizing the Middle East, in particular our allies in Israel and Jordan as well as Turkey. And emboldening Iran, one of our most implacable enemies, as they send thousands of troops to fight in Syria, along with Hezbollah, its terrorist proxy from Lebanon. So that is why, miracle of miracles, I am in support of the President’s call for action in Syria. I am urging my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, to support this action as well. However, the President’s stated policy was not just a redline against chemical weapons, which as Mr. Sherman said, occurred without any objections from members of Congress and occurred before he was re-elected by the American people, it was also a stated policy of regime change. So I would like to ask you, what is the President planning that could lead not just to punishment for this use of chemical weapons, but also, an ultimate victory in Syria? Which is a change in the nature of the regime, so they will not use chemical weapons again, and so that a pro-western moderate native Syrian government can takes its place?

Tom Cotton
We have not acted previously on uses of chemical weapons. And I do believe the world is watching.

And the day the United States does not act is not just the day that Bashar al-Assad knows it is open season for chemical weapons, but also the day Kim Jong-un knows that, and most ominously the day that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, spins his centrifuges into overdrive, which starts the clock ticking to the less-than-two-year moment when those nuclear warheads on intercontinental missiles could hit our constituents here in the United States.

I agree with what my colleague Adam Kinzinger said, that we have a vital interest in maintaining the international taboo against chemical weapons. All of you, like me, have been in training I suspect where you have been exposed to gas and you know that no one benefits from that taboo more than do American troops.

I'm also deeply worried that our inaction is destabilizing the Middle East, in particular our allies in Israel and Jordan as well as Turkey, and emboldening Iran, one of our most implacable enemies, as they send thousands of troops to fight in Syria along with Hezbollah, its terrorist proxy from Lebanon.

So that is why, miracle of miracles, I am in support of the president's call for action in Syria. I am urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this action as well. However, the president's stated policy was not just a red line against chemical weapons which as Mr. Sherman said occurred without any objection from members of Congress and occurred before he was reelected by the American people. It was also a stated policy of regime change, so I would like to ask you, what is the president planning that could lead not just to punishment for this use of chemical weapons, but also an ultimate victory in Syria, which is a change in the nature of the regime, so they will not use chemical weapons, and so that a pro-western moderate native Syrian government can take its place?

Sec. Kerry  — Well, Congressman, thank you for a very clear and compelling statement and thank you for the support for the president's initiative for the interest of the country.

With respect to the longer term, you're absolutely correct. But I want to separate here. This is very important in terms of what the president is asking the Congress for. Yes, the president's policy is that Assad must go and there should be a regime change. And the president is committed to additional efforts in support of the opposition together with friends and allies in the region in a coordinated way in order to achieve that with the understanding that the ultimate transition will come and can come through a negotiated settlement, a political resolution, not a military -- he doesn't believe -- we don't believe there's a military solution.

But this action -- because nobody should be confused, Americans should not be confused, and I said earlier, you know, this is not an effort to take over Syria's civil war. It is an effort to uphold this standard and the action the president is asking the Congress to approve is not -- is a singular military action to uphold that standard with respect to chemical weapons.

On a separate track is the political track, which the president is seeking support for through appropriate channels here in Congress, which is in effect now to help the opposition in order to ultimately see Assad leave.

But don't -- we don't want to confuse the two in the context. Is there a downstream collateral benefit to what will happen in terms of the enforcement of the chemical weapons effort? The answer is yes. It will degrade his military capacity.

It will for sure have downstream impact but that is not the primary calculation of what brings us here, and nobody should confuse the two in this effort.

(CROSSTALK)

Sec. Kerry — What I would like to do, Congressman, is really in classified session, we should have the discussion about the other things the president would like to see us do to support the opposition.

Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Juan Vargas of California.

Juan Carlos Vargas
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretaries, for being here, and General. First of all, I would like to say before I ask an embarrassing question, I have the greatest respect for all of you. I think -- Secretary of State Kerry, I think I first heard of you from Dan Berrigan back in 1985 when I was in the Jesuits, at a Jesuit house, and he had great respect for you because of your activities after Vietnam.

And I know that, Secretary Hagel, that you were so reluctant going to war that you almost weren't approved by the Senate. In fact, I think you were the only secretary ever to be filibustered, so I know you're not anxiously running into war, and the president of course ran on not getting us into war.

I'm certainly someone who is very reluctant to get into any kind of war like this. On Saturday, however, I had the opportunity to speak to a small group of veterans in my district in San Diego before I flew here for the classified briefing on Sunday. And they asked a question I think I -- and I told them I would ask. I first told them I wouldn't. But then they convinced me it was a good question.

That is that one of them has a son in the military today. And he believes that last time that we went running off to war that the facts that were given were lies or misleading. And what he wanted is just one thing. And I told him that all I had read and certainly now all that I have read does lead me to believe that chemical weapons were used and that children were gassed and because of that we do have to act.

But he wanted you to promise that the facts that you have given us are true, to the best of your ability, that you're not lying, that you're not holding anything back, that what we have seen and what I have read -- and I read everything that they have given to us. I have been back twice now to make sure that I have read everything. I want to make sure that you promise us that you're telling the truth.

Sec. Kerry  — Congressman, I am proud and perfectly willing to tell you that everything that I have said is the truth and based on the information as it's been presented to me, and as I have based on my own experience in war, which I resolved to do if I ever was in a position to make any choices in the future, fully vetted, and I'm comfortable with it.

And I wouldn't -- wouldn't possibly make this recommendation if I weren't comfortable with it. I believe we have vetted this. We have double-checked it. We asked the intel people to re-scrub. We have even had a separate team created that had -- independent from the original to totally vet, check all of the analysis, find out if it could have been an opposition or anything else.

And in every case, I would say for myself and everybody that we have sat around a table with, there is a comfort level with this that is rare in this kind of situation. I wouldn't have said you could prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt if I didn't believe it.

Thank you.

Secretary Hagel, again, I apologize for the insulting question, but I think it has to be asked.

Sec. Hagel  — No, I think it's a very important question. And we ought to ask more questions like that.

I don't know how I would improve on my former Senate colleague's question and answer back to you. I feel exactly the same way. I know that the three of us wouldn't be sitting here today saying the things we're saying if we didn't absolutely believe it. We have all three been through too much and our experiences guide us. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I still have a lot of time left, but that was my only question.

George Holding
Gen. Dempsey  —  ... this resolution starts a process that you or the president lose control of.

Militarily speaking, is Russia still a superpower?

Gen. Dempsey — I think the answer to that question is when you look at instruments of power, look at ourselves. So, it's a combination of military, diplomatic and economic power that defines us as a -- quote, unquote -- "superpower."

I think that Russia possesses elements that would qualify them to join the club of superpowers. They still have an incredible strategic arsenal. But, conventionally, I wouldn't put them in that class. And so I think there's parts of their apparatus that rise to that level.

Well, obviously, we all know that Syria and Russia are close allies. Syria is Russia's last ally in the Middle East. Syria has the only Russian military base outside of Russia.

If Russia decided to strike at us in that theater, what are the top three options that they would have to strike us in retaliation for us striking their closest ally?

Gen. Dempsey — You know, Congressman, I'm going to suggest that it wouldn't be helpful in this setting to have a discussion about that kind of hypothetical. But I do have some views about it that I could share in a classified environment.

Well, we can certainly say that Russia would have options to strike us in that theater in retaliation for us striking...

(CROSSTALK)

Gen. Dempsey — Russia has capabilities that range from the asymmetric, including cyber, all the way up through strategic nuclear weapons. And again it wouldn't be helpful in this setting to speculate about that.

Yes, sir. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Brad Schneider of Illinois.

Brad Schneider
Thank you.

And I want to thank you all again first, of course, for the service to our country, but also for the time spent with us today, as well as, Ambassador Ford, for the time you spent with us earlier in the year. This is without a doubt the biggest decision, one of the biggest decisions we can possibly make and one I think we all take very seriously.

It's why I came Sunday for the classified briefing. I have read the classified report. I have listened in on the teleconference we had on Monday. And I'm grateful to have the time with you here. I also recognize the angst of my constituents, of the country, as there is a worry and a legitimate concern.

But, Secretary Kerry, you—I don't want to put words in your mouth. But you said, if we do nothing, the likelihood of Assad using chemical weapons again is I will say approaching 100 percent. Is that fair?

Sec. Kerry  — Fair.

And with that, I want to turn—I'm sorry—to General Dempsey, because you said in escalation, you can't get the risk of escalation down to zero. But I wonder if there is a risk of escalation if we do nothing.

Gen. Dempsey  — There is absolutely a risk of escalation in the use of chemical weapons if we do nothing.

And if that approaches 100 percent, if we do stand down now, is there a likelihood that we're back at this same question again a month or six months from now at a higher level with a greater risk?

Gen. Dempsey  — I believe so.

Sec. Hagel  — I think so. SCHNEIDER: So I guess as I evaluate the decision we have to make, the first thing I wanted to see was the evidence. And I think without a doubt, as you have said, beyond any reasonable doubt the Assad regime has planned, perpetrated and even tried to cover up this massive use of chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction.

One of my questions was a question of national interest. And, General Dempsey, you have said without a doubt for our soldiers who are here at home and our interests around the world, this is a threat to our national interests. Is that fair as we go through the decision process?

Gen. Dempsey  — It is, because of essentially establishing kind of—it's an overused phrase—but a new norm. And I haven't lived in a world where militarily chemical weapons were routinely used. And I don't want to live in that world.

From an international standpoint, I guess I come to—if we have the interest in our national interest, the authority—clearly, I reviewed the Chemical Weapons Convention. The United Nations is the authority here, but, Secretary Kerry, you said the United Nations is not available to us.

If it was, would we be on a different strategy? Or is this all that is left to us?

Sec. Kerry — If Russians were to join in and be willing to pass this with the Chinese, I guarantee you the president would want to see it passed.

All right, thanks. Thank you.

Sec. Kerry — Can I just also -- Congressman Holding left a question on the table that I want to make sure it's not hanging out there.

Please.

Sec. Kerry — Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia has made it clear—quote—I pretty much— paraphrase—Russia does not intend to fight a war over Syria.

And I have had personal conversations with President Putin and with the foreign minister that have indicated that Syria doesn't rise to that level of potential conflict. And so I just—don't their ships are kind of staying out of the way. They're not threatening that. And I don't think that would be what would happen here.

Randy Weber
In other words, it's not a very good option.

Number four, you said establish buffer zones. You estimated that at $1 billion a month. Number five, you said control chemical weapons, risk boots on the ground, American women and men, $1 billion a month, which I understand the secretaries of state and defense are not advocating that. But I have a simple question for you.

Everything I read from your summary indicated to me that there was absolutely no guarantee of a lasting peace in Syria or in the region and nor that they are American-friendly after we have a gargantuan outlay of American money, resources and maybe American blood and even lives if they retaliate, absolutely no guarantee. Would you say that's a fair statement?

Gen. Dempsey  — I just would remind you the answer to the letter that I sent to Representative Engel was related to the question that I received, which is, what would it take to tip the balance in favor of the opposition and lead to the overthrow of the Assad regime?

OK.

Gen. Dempsey — So I want to make sure we're separate from what we're doing here today.

No, I got that. I appreciate that. I will direct that to Mr. Hagel.

Would you say that's a fair statement? No guarantee of an outcome on the other end?

Sec. Hagel  — No guarantee of the outcome...

(CROSSTALK)

Of a stable—of peace in Syria, peace in the region and whoever comes out on the other side will be our friends. No guarantee?

Sec. Hagel — Well, but that's not the stated objective of what we're talking about.

Well, that wasn't my question, sir. My question was, would you guarantee that after trying to establish the objective that you're seeking to establish, we still do not have a guarantee on the other end of a stable Syria, a stable region and whoever comes out on the other side would be our friends.

Sec. Hagel — Well, I wouldn't guarantee anything. This is—as I believe the last three hours have been very clear about, this is unpredictable. It's complicated. It's dangerous. There are many interests that they are surging through the Middle East, in particular Syria.

OK.

Sec. Hagel — What we're thinking through diplomatically, militarily, international coalition, all the other factors that we have talked about today are...

Forgive me. But I'm running out of time.

Sec. Hagel — ... to get to one thing. And that's a diplomatic settlement.

OK.

Secretary Kerry, your response, please?

Sec. Kerry  — I can't give you a guarantee about the outcome in Syria as a whole, but I can give you a guarantee that the United States of America can make it clear to Assad that it's going to cost him to use chemical weapons and we can have an impact on deterring and degrading his capacity. That guarantee is what I can give you and that's what the president is seeking to do.

But at what price, I would add. In my last 15 seconds...

(CROSSTALK)

Sec. Kerry — Well, not at the price that you described, absolutely not at the price that you described.

Well, let me just say, if American credibility is at stake here, let there be no mistake. If anybody were to attack us, we would—this Congress in my view would respond, would authorize the full force and fury of our very capable military.

Sec. Kerry — But, Congressman—Mr. Chairman, this is important.

But, Congressman, not everything comes down in terms of threat or potential future threat to our country to somebody attacking us. Lots of things we do, we do in preparation and as a matter of deterrence, and we also do it in context on occasion, as we did in Bosnia, to make peace, to have a settlement, to save lives.

That's what we achieved. And so we have achieved that previously and I believe in the long run it's vital to the United States to assert this principle and to begin to move this troubled part of the world in a different direction.

Tulsi Gabbard
Sec. Kerry  — With respect to the limited strike not achieving the objective, I think the general has spoken to that earlier that he has confidence that we have the ability to achieve our objective if not in the first volley certainly we have the ability to achieve that objective.

And, secondly, you said would it inadvertently or would it not, in fact, help the opposition? And I have said many times as a collateral component of this, any degradation of Assad's military will, of course, be of benefit to the opposition, but that's not the fundamental purpose of the initiative the president is asking you to engage in.

REPRESENTATIVE EDWARD ROYCE (R), CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Ron DeSantis from Florida?

Ron DeSantis
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks to all the witnesses, and thank you all for your service, particularly military service.

Secretary Kerry, you spoke about how use of this gas breached the norms of civilized behavior, international norms, and that we need to enforce this norm kind of like you would enforce lessons learned by children and bullies, I think, that you'd said.

And I know you got irritated about the Benghazi issue. It was not on your watch and you're not responsible, but as I look at this, that same line of reasoning should have applied to Benghazi.

The assassination of a diplomat breaches norms that were recognized probably far longer than norms against use of Sarin gas and yet the U.S. has not acted to avenge the deaths of the four Americans, including our ambassador who were massacred in Benghazi.

And that lack of response, I think, using the same line of reasoning could embolden terrorists groups and Islamic malcontents that they can do this and that we may not respond forcefully.

Now that's not -- you're not responsible for that. but there is a frustration among some of my constituents about how we've handled that, not on your watch, but I just wanted to clear up how some of us view that.

Sec. Kerry  — Congressman, let me speak to it because I appreciate completely. I think it's a little different from the earlier question so to speak.

I appreciate and respect completely the need for justice to be done and, believe me, we have this discussion in the State Department and in the White House about the steps that are being taken.

And there are steps being taken. That is not a back burner issue. And in an appropriate setting I would be delighted to share with you exactly what is going on, but that accountability is a priority for the president, it's a priority for us --

We appreciate that, and we are waiting for that.

Secretary Kerry, do you think that striking Syria for Assad using poison gas will have an effect on whether Iran decides to continue with its nuclear program or abandon it?

Sec. Kerry — I think whether or not the United States stands up at this moment, as I have described earlier, to enforce this almost-century- old prohibition on the use of weapons will in fact affect not only Iran, but loads of people's thinking about whether the United States is good for its word.

So you think that it is possible that Iran, seeing a limited strike against Assad, that they will actually decide to abandon their nuclear weapons?

Sec. Kerry — No, I didn't say that. I said it would affect their thinking about how serious the United States is.

I can't predict what they're going to decide to do or whether they'll abandon it or not, but I tell you this, it will enter into their calculation about what we might or might not be prepared to do.

And if we don't do anything, I absolutely guarantee you that too will enter into their calculation.

I guess my fear is that they've already made their determination and they're going to continue with it, but I guess we will find out.

In terms of these opposition groups, and I think it's true that when you degrade Assad, you are benefiting the opposition groups, and I think that the bulk of that energy right now is with Sunni supremacists and al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists, but I just -- it is difficult to kind of figure out where everybody is on all this.

And there was a quote that you had given about when we were evaluating Libyan opposition. You said we didn't know who people were in eastern Europe either.

We don't always know who they all are, if you asked Lafayette the question if he knew everyone over here when he helped us during the American Revolution, what he'd say. I think that you have to kind of have a sense of the course of history and what they're fighting for.

Is that pretty much -- do you stand by that quote and kind of the difficulty in evaluating?

And I ask that because we've seen with the Arab Spring, we've seen the reaction to us going into Afghanistan and Iraq and kind of what is the animating impulse in these Muslim countries?

And there was a comment about we would like to see a pro-Western government take the place of Assad.

And I have not seen any evidence to suggest that that's what would be the primary impulse motivating the people in a post-Assad Syria.

Indeed, I fear that what would motivate them would be the Muslim Brotherhood, Sunni Islamism, of course, al Qaeda-type terror groups, and so that's the sense of history that a lot of us see.

And that's why when we're looking at a potential strike, how that could affect the civil war, we don't want to do something that's going to lead to an outcome that's as bad as having Assad or potentially even worse.

Sec. Kerry — Congressman, a very good question, and the answer is there are some really bad actors in some of these groups in Syria. Al Nusra is not the worst, but they're really bad.

And there are a couple of other groups that some people characterize as worse, but one of the things that is concentrating the president's thinking about Syria and the reason for supporting the moderate opposition is to have a buttress against those folks who, if Syria continues to move in the direction it's going, if there's an implosion, they will be strengthened. There will be more of them.

This is, in fact, something that does bring Russia and the United States together. When I was in Russia and met with Putin, he discussed specifically their concerns about the extremists.

But Syria, traditionally, historically, in the recent years, has been a secular country, and the vast majority of opposition, 75 percent, 70 percent of it, is hopeful to have a very different Syria, a free Syria, a Syria that has minority rights protected, that is inclusive, and that's what the opposition has in written form committed themselves to and is talking about wherever they go in the world.

So I hope you will recognize that the best way to isolate that extremist opposition, the extremist components of the Syrian fabric, is to more rapidly build up the opposition and diminish Assad's capacity to prolong this.

ROYCE: Joaquin Castro of Texas?

Joaquin Castro
Sec. Kerry  — I caution you, politely and humbly, I believe very, very deeply it will invite other contests of conflict that will put us to the test and potentially with much graver consequences.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

We go to Mr. Doug Collins of Georgia.

Doug Collins
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and I thank you for being here.

I thank you for your service, and I associate myself with the representative from Hawaii in serving in Iraq and knowing the issues going on.

One of the benefits of sitting down here on the bottom row is you get to listen. You hear a lot of things. You can get a lot of questions asked. I'm not going to steal the thunder of orders that may come, but there is some -- what I have heard today still concerns me greatly.

I walked into this hearing concerned and very deeply concerned about the actions we're taking. I'm still there.

Many of those have to do with military questions, and the questions that come from the statements such as Secretary Hagel, you made, that there's no clarity on the ground, that there's no good options in Syria.

These kind of things that lead me to an understanding of what happens is, you know, the limited involvement nature, which has been talked about over and over here, and the high confidence that that limited nature would be affected, but if it would not, your statement just a moment ago, well, after the first volley, leaves an open-ending. There's another volley and another volley that would come if it did not achieve the end.

I want to just, though, for a few questions on this issue. According to the unclassified assessment that was given, there were information that suggested that a possible chemical attack was imminent on October -- on August 21st.

In fact what was said was from August 18th, Sunday, through Wednesday the 21st there were Syrian chemical weapons personnel operating in the area.

The report goes on to say that three days prior to the attack there were strains of human signal and geospatial intelligence gathered showing Assad regime preparing for a chemical attack.

With over 48 hours' notice and the recent history of chemical weapons being used in Syria, did the U.S. military not take action or quickly enough to convene the United States -- U.N. Security Council?

Why did they we not act, knowing the history, and I'm going to come back to this part later, as quickly as possible? Why was there nothing done at that point?

Sec. Kerry  — Because that information isn't real-time in terms of the way it comes in. It goes through a process, so there wasn't time.

And I appreciate that answer, but you've really concerned me even more that our intelligence operation, without getting into it in this setting, a discussion of this, that if it was not real-time, we're finding out after the fact. Then some of my concern General Dempsey would be that the limited engagement to, as you said, take out the operation or the engagement of the chemical weapons and not destroy all the weapons, how come -- what is the confidence level, although you have stated high, why should I or anybody else on this committee say that there's a concern that our intelligence is not real-time enough to answer your question?

Gen. Dempsey  — Different kinds of intelligence, sir.

The -- as you probably know, and thanks for your service, too, by the way, so there's signals intelligence, which is what you're referring to. There's full-motion video. There's national technical means that allow us to establish pattern of life.

It's different kinds of intelligence.

But with the movements, there is a concern that the initial assessment could be wrong and there would be -