U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–841 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 114–687 

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES AND 

ONGOING MILITARY OPERATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

THOM TILLIS, North Carolina 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

CHRISTIAN D. BROSE, Staff Director 

ELIZABETH L. KING, Minority Staff Director 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

Page 

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES AND ONGOING MILITARY OPERATIONS ... 1 

Carter, Honorable Ashton B., Secretary of Defense ............................................. 5 

Dunford, General Joseph F., Jr., USMC, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff ....................................................................................................................... 17

(III)

(1) 

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES AND 

ONGOING MILITARY OPERATIONS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in Room 

SD–G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John McCain 

(chairman) presiding. 

Committee members present: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Sessions, 

Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, 

Lee, Graham, Cruz, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill, Manchin, Shaheen, 

Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, King, and Heinrich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, CHAIRMAN 

Chairman MCCAIN. Good morning. 

Since a quorum is now present, I ask the committee to consider 

a list of 40 pending military nominations. Including in this list is 

the nomination of General John E. Hyten, U.S. Air Force, for Reappointment to the grade of General and to be Commander, United 

States Strategic Command. All of these nominations have been before the committee the required length of time. 

Is there a motion to favorably report these 40 million—40 military nominations to the Senate? 

Senator REED. So move. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Is there a second? 

Senator SESSIONS. Second. 

Chairman MCCAIN. All in favor, say aye. 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Chairman MCCAIN. The motion carries. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee meets this morning to receive testimony on U.S. national security challenges and ongoing 

military operations. 

I’d like to welcome our witnesses, Secretary Carter and Secretary 

Dunford. Thank you for your service, and thank you to the men 

and women you lead and their families for their service and sacrifice during these challenging times. 

This committee has conducted regular hearings on U.S. national 

security strategy and ongoing military operations, and we have devoted special attention to the chaos engulfing the Middle East and 

the United States military campaign against ISIL [Islamic State of 

Iraq and the Levant]. It will be up to future historians to render 

a final judgment on this administration’s stewardship of United 

States interests in the broader Middle East. But, in the opinion of 

2 

this one Senator, it’s been an unmitigated disaster. President 

Obama sought to pivot away from one of the most strategically 

vital regions of the world out of a misplaced hope that, ‘‘the tide 

of war’’ was receding and that we should focus on, ‘‘nation-building 

at home.’’ That withdrawal of United States power created a vacuum that was filled by all of the worst actors in the region: Sunni 

terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and ISIL, the Iranian regime and 

its proxies, and now Putin’s Russia. 

Just consider, over the past eight years, this administration has 

overseen the collapse of regional order in the Middle East into a 

state of chaos where every country is either a battlefield for regional conflict, a party to that conflict, or both. The rise of ISIL and 

the threat it poses has made al Qaeda appear modest by comparison. But, both terrorist networks have expanded their influence 

from West Africa to South Asia and everything in between. 

The administration may have postponed Iran’s nuclear programs, 

but this has come at the cost of unshackling Iranian power and 

ambition, both of which will grow in the coming years as billions 

of dollars in sanctions relief is transformed into advanced military 

capability and support for terrorism. Then there is Putin’s Russia, 

which has reclaimed a position of influence in Middle East it has 

not enjoyed in four decades. 

The best that can be said about this devastating legacy is, over 

the past year, in part thanks to our witnesses today, President 

Obama has at least begun to unleash America’s fighting men and 

women against ISIL. They are fighting with skill and encourage, 

despite enormous risks, as reports of ISIL’s use of mustard agent 

against United States and Iraqi troops remind us. As a result, we 

are gradually eroding ISIL’s territorial control in removing key personnel from the battlefield. This military campaign has too often 

been slow, reactive, and excessively micromanaged by the White 

House. Indeed, we read this morning of plans for yet another incremental increase of 500 troops in Iraq, one more step down the road 

of gradual escalation. But, thanks to the tremendous talent and 

dedication of our men and women in uniform, we are making 

progress. 

I have no doubt that ISIL will eventually be expelled from its 

strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa. The day of liberation will come 

later than it should have, but it will come. This will be a tactical 

success, but it is unlikely to lead to strategic gains, because the administration has failed to address, and at times exacerbated, the 

underlying conflict. The struggles for power and sectarian identity 

now raging across the Middle East, ISIL is merely a symptom of 

this deeper problem. 

In Iraq, Mosul may be retaken eventually, but that will only likely reignite the battle for the future of Iraq, a battle in which we 

have an important stake. The biggest problems still lie ahead: combating the malign influence of Iran and its militias, addressing the 

future of the Kurds and their place in Iraq, and attenuating the 

disenfranchisement of the Sunni Iraqis that gave rise to ISIL in 

the first place. 

Libya, we’ve had success in degrading ISIL’s stronghold in Sirte, 

but what remains is a divided nation littered with independent militias, flooded with arms, and searching in vain for legitimate govVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
3 

ernance and political unity, conditions that will remain fertile 

grounds for extremism and anti-Western terrorism. 

We’ve also begun targeting ISIL in Afghanistan, but a resurgent 

Taliban, backed by Afghanistan’s neighbors, continue to destabilize 

and terrorize the country while Afghan National Army casualties 

remain unsustainably high. It was in this environment that President Obama chose to withdraw another 1,400 troops. 

Nowhere, however, is America’s strategic drift clearer than in 

Syria. After more than 400,000 dead and half the population driven 

from their homes, after the worst refugee crisis in a century which 

now threatens the project of European unity, the administration 

still has no plausible vision of an end state for Syria. Instead, while 

Russian and Syrian regime aircraft bombed hospitals, markets, and 

aid warehouses, and other civilian targets, President Obama sent 

his intrepid, but delusional, Secretary of State to tilt yet again at 

the windmill of cooperating with Vladimir Putin, even committing 

to share intelligence with Russia for coordinated military operations. This agreement would be deeply problematic even if it were 

implemented. It would mean that the United States Military would 

effectively own future Russian airstrikes in the eyes of the world. 

It would also strengthen Assad’s military position in the country, 

thereby undermining our own strategic objective of a political transition. 

It appears that none of this will ultimately matter, because, once 

again, Assad and Putin are not holding up their end of the deal, 

as nearly everyone predicted. Assad has declared an end to the 

cease-fire. Barrel bombs are falling again on civilians in Aleppo. An 

airstrike reportedly carried out by Russia has killed 12 members 

of a U.N. [United Nations] humanitarian convoy. Nonetheless, administration officials are desperately trying to salvage this agreement, likely because they realize that, without this diplomatic fig 

leaf, the abject failure of their Syria policy will be evident, and because they know, as does everyone else, that there is no Plan B. 

This should be yet another lesson, as if we needed it, that diplomacy in the absence of leverage is a recipe for failure. Our adversaries will not do what we ask of them out of the goodness of their 

hearts or of—out of concern for our interests or the suffering of others. They must be compelled, and that requires power. Until the 

United States is willing to take steps to change the conditions on 

the ground in Syria, the war, the terror, the refugees, and the instability will continue. 

Such will be the unfortunate inheritance of our next President, 

a Middle East aflame, where American influence has been squandered. America’s adversaries neither respect nor fear us. America’s 

friends are increasingly hedging their bets. America’s policy options 

have been significantly narrowed and worsens. What’s worse, 

America’s military will confront these daunting challenges with 

constrained budgets, aging equipment, depleted readiness, and a 

growing set of operational requirements driven by other escalating 

challenges in Europe and Asia. We are simultaneously asking our 

military to wage a generational fight against Islamist terrorism 

while rebuilding a ready and modernized force to deter and, if necessary, defeat great-power or rogue-state competitors in full-spectrum combat. 

4 

I would be the first to admit that Congress is failing in—to 

match resources to requirements, but the failure of the President 

is worse. After all, it is the duty of the Commander in Chief to be 

the strongest advocate for the needs of our military. But, President 

Obama has been more interested in using the defense budget as a 

hostage to extract political concessions for greater nondefense 

spending. 

Secretary Carter, this may be one of your last appearances before 

this committee. I hope you will use the opportunity to offer some 

clear answers to these troubling questions. 

Senator Reed. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED 

Senator REED. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to join you in welcoming Secretary Carter and General Dunford. 

Giving the security challenges that face the United States, your 

appearances before the committee are always deeply appreciated 

and very timely, particularly this moment. 

While significant work remains to defeat ISIL, the United States 

and coalition military operations have resulted in important gains 

in both Iraq and Syria. Most notably, ISIL has been driven out of 

a significant amount of the territory the group once held. In just 

the last few weeks alone, ISIL lost its hold on the city of Manbij, 

a number of key border crossings in Syria in several key towns in 

advance of the Mosul offensive in Iraq. 

The cumulative effect of these operations has been to cut off key 

lines of communication for ISIL, thereby restricting their ability to 

bring in additional fighters and move equipment and personnel 

across the battlefield. As a result, it appears that ISIL is under 

more pressure now than at any other time in the campaign. 

Unfortunately, in Syria it appears that the cessation of hostilities 

is not going to hold. We look forward to your assessment of the 

progress and the military aspects of this campaign and whether 

there is a possibility of a renewed cessation of hostilities in the future. 

Our military commanders are also rightly focused on ensuring 

our military operations support the efforts of our diplomats and 

other policymakers to address the continuing political challenges in 

Iraq and Syria. Even after the coalition retakes Mosul and Raqqa, 

the work of our diplomats, military, and intelligence community 

will not be over. Ensuring ISIL is dealt a lasting defeat will require 

not only continued military support, but also assistance in achieving the political reforms necessary to address the underlying causes 

of ISIL’s rise. This will require that the civilian agencies of our 

Government are provided the critical resources necessary to perform this work. 

With regard to Afghanistan, I support the President’s position to 

maintain approximately 8400 troops in the country into next year. 

This decision sent an important message to the Afghans, our allies, 

the Taliban, and others in the region, that the United States remains committed to ensuring a stable Afghanistan. We look forward to your assessment of this year’s fighting season and what 

5 

more we can do to support the development of the Afghan national 

defense and security forces. 

Despite a challenging security and political environment, the Afghan National Unity Government continues to be a reliable partner 

for the United States and our allies. However, I remain concerned 

about continuing reports of corruption in Afghanistan and the slow 

political progress on the broader reform agenda. Both these issues 

present a strategic threat to continued international support of Afghanistan. In light of these challenges, I hope you will also discuss 

the efforts of the United States and our allies to build institutional 

capacity and enable necessary reforms in Afghanistan. 

In Eastern Europe, Russia continues its pattern of confrontation 

and antagonistic behavior. They persist in the use of hybrid tactics 

to foment discord and political gridlock throughout the region. 

Their aviators have harassed U.S. ships and aircraft deployed to 

the region. They continue to provide support and training to Separatists in Eastern Ukraine, in violation of the Minsk cease-fire 

agreements. EUCOM [European Command] and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] have undertaken robust efforts to deter 

such behavior. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the 

progress of, and future plans for, such efforts. 

North Korea remains one of the most dangerous and difficult national security challenges that this country faces. Earlier this 

month, North Korea conducted its fifth nuclear test, demonstrating 

that the North Korean regime has little interest in resuming SixParty Talks. While we have made significant efforts to put strong 

and effective sanctions in place to curb North Korea’s nuclear development, China’s unwillingness to enforce those sanctions to the 

full extent of its ability has undermined United States and international efforts to bring North Korea in line. 

Finally, our long-term military strategy depends on a budget that 

focuses at least five years into the future. Last year, Congress 

passed a 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act, which provided the Department with budget stability in the near term. However, there is no 

budget agreement for fiscal year 2018 and beyond. Without another 

bipartisan agreement that provides relief from sequestration, the 

Department will be forced to submit a fiscal year 2018 budget that 

adheres to the sequestration-level budget caps and could, and indeed would, undermine our defense strategy, including the investments made to rebuild readiness and modernize platforms and 

equipment. We must not let that happen. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. This is the last time 

for this year. We appreciate your—you and General Dunford’s appearances before the Armed Services Committee. We look forward 

to your and General Dunford’s testimony. Thank you for—both of 

you, for your service to our Nation. 

Secretary Carter. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ASHTON B. CARTER, SECRETARY 

OF DEFENSE 

Secretary CARTER. Thank you very much. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Reed, all the members of this committee, thank you for 

having us here. 

6 

Chairman and Senator Reed, thanks for taking the time to talk 

with me before this hearing—I much appreciate it, as always—and 

for hosting General Dunford by my side, where he is all the time. 

I’m very pleased, and our country is very fortunate to have him. 

Similarly, I want to thank you for hosting the Service Chiefs last 

week. I appreciated your comments to them about the inefficiencies 

and the dangers of continued budget instability and gridlock, as 

well as the risk of sequestration’s looming return. I look forward 

to addressing those topics more today with you. 

I also appreciate your support for our men and women serving 

around the world, military and civilian alike. You always provide 

it. They are the finest fighting force the world has ever known. 

They’re the—no one else in the world is stronger, no one is more 

capable, more innovative, more experienced, and has better friends 

and allies than they. That’s a fact, and a fact that Americans ought 

to be proud of. 

As you know, DOD [Department of Defense] is currently addressing each of the five challenges that Chairman Dunford and I described to you in our budget testimony this spring and that the 

Chairman and Senator Reed have already touched on, namely Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and terrorism. On the last, in the 

wake of this week’s attacks in New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota, we remain as determined as ever to continue countering 

terrorists around the world who seek to do harm to our country 

and our personnel. More on that shortly. 

As Chairman Dunford and I testified this spring, we’ve been 

planning for our activities to be paid for by the 2017 budget that 

we have submitted and that we developed. That budget adhered to 

last fall’s bipartisan budget deal in overall size. While in shape, it 

marked a strategic turning point for DOD, making breakthrough 

investments in new operational concepts, in pioneering technological frontiers, in reforming the DOD enterprise, and in building 

the force of the future. It also put a high premium on continuing 

to rebuild the readiness of our forces, requiring not only stable resources, but also time. Nothing is more important than readiness 

to me or to the Service Chiefs. 

Yet today, just eight days away from the end of this fiscal year, 

that budget has yet to be funded by Congress. I want to discuss 

that with you today. But, because this hearing is partly about ongoing military operations, let me begin with an operational update 

on our campaign to deliver ISIL a lasting defeat. 

Now, each time Chairman Dunford and I have appeared before 

this committee since back last October, I’ve described to you our coalition military campaign plan, which is focused on three objectives. The first is to destroy ISIL’s—the ISIL cancer’s parent tumor 

in Iraq and Syria, because the sooner we end ISIL’s occupation of 

territory in those countries, that is the sooner we destroy both the 

fact and the idea of an Islamic State based on ISIL’s barbaric ideology, the safer all of the world will be. That’s necessary, absolutely 

necessary. It’s not sufficient. Our second objective is to combat 

ISIL’s metastises everywhere they emerge around the world—in 

Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere. Our third objective is to help 

protect the Homeland. This is mainly the responsibility of our partners in the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], the Justice DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
7 

partment, Homeland Security, the intelligence community, and 

State and local law enforcement, but DOD strongly supports them. 

I’ll address how, momentarily. 

Since last fall, we’ve taken many steps to continually accelerate 

this campaign, all consistent with our strategic approach of enabling capable, motivated local forces, for that’s the only way to ensure ISIL’s lasting defeat. While we have much more work to do, 

the results of our effort are showing. 

In Iraq, we’ve been enabling Iraqi Security Forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga. After retaking Ramadi and establishing a staging 

base at Makhmour, the ISF went on to retake Hit, Rutbah, 

Fallujah, and the important airfield and town of Qayyarah, setting 

the stage to complete the envelopment of Mosul and the collapse 

of ISIL’s control over it. In the last few days, the ISF became— 

began operations to retake Sharqat and other towns surrounding 

Mosul. The final assault on Mosul will commence, as with previous 

operations, when Prime Minister Abadi gives the order. 

In Syria, our coalition has also enabled considerable results by 

our local partners. They retook Shaddadi, severing a key link between Raqqa and Mosul, and then Manbij city, clearing a key transit point for ISIL’s external operations and plotters, and providing 

key intelligence insights. Additionally, our ally Turkey is helping 

local Syrian partners clear their border region with ISIL. We’re 

working shoulder-to-shoulder with the Turks, supporting these efforts from the air, on the ground, and with intelligence. As we do 

so, we’re managing regional tensions, tensions that we’ve foreseen, 

and keeping everyone focused on our common enemy: ISIL. 

Meanwhile, we’re systematically eliminating ISIL’s leadership, 

with the coalition having taken out seven members of the ISIL senior Shura, including its chief of external operations, Al-Adnani. He 

was one of more than 20 ISIL external operators and plotters we 

removed from the battlefield. 

We’re also continuing to go after ISIL’s attempts to develop 

chemical weapons as we continue to ensure that United States, coalition, and Iraqi troops are vigilantly protected from that threat. 

Just last week, in one of the single largest airstrikes of our campaign, we destroyed a pharmaceutical facility near Mosul that ISIL 

tried to use as a chemical weapons plant. 

We also continue to aggressively attack ISIL’s economic infrastructure—oil wells, tanker trucks, cash storage, and more—and 

we continue to take the fight to ISIL across every domain, including cyber. 

With all this, we’re putting ISIL on the path to a lasting defeat 

in Iraq and Syria, particularly as we embark on a decisive phase 

of our campaign, to collapse ISIL’s control of Mosul and Raqqa. 

With respect to the Syrian civil war, I want to commend Secretary Kerry for working so tirelessly to seek an arrangement 

which, if implemented, would ease the suffering of the Syrian people and get Russia pushing at last for a political transition, which 

is the only way to end the Syrian civil war. There remains a way 

to go to see if the terms of that arrangement can be implemented. 

Unfortunately, the behavior we’ve seen from Russia and Syria over 

the last few days has been deeply problematic. 

8 

Let me turn to our second objective, combating ISIL’s metastases. 

In Libya, thanks to United States precision airstrikes undertaken at the request of the Government of National Accord, ISIL’s 

territory in Sirte has now been reduced to a single square kilometer, and I’m confident ISIL will be ejected from there. 

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, we worked with our Afghan partners 

to conduct a large operation against ISIL over the last two months, 

dealing the organization severe blows, killing its top leader, and degrading its infrastructure, logistics base, and recruiting. There’ll be 

more coming. 

Next, to help protect our Homeland and our people, DOD continues to provide strong support to our law enforcement, Homeland 

security, and intelligence partners. This is the number-one mission 

of our Northern Command. The U.S. military is supporting our 

partners in three critical ways. First, we’re ensuring the protection 

of our personnel and the DOD facilities where they work and reside. Second, we’re disrupting ISIL’s external operations. More on 

that shortly. Third, we’re also disrupting the flow of foreign fighters both to and from Iraq and Syria. This is part of a broader effort 

within our coalition to not only stem the flow of foreign fighters, 

but also counter ISIL’s online messaging, recruitment, and spread 

of its loathsome ideology. 

Going forward, the collapse of ISIL’s control over Raqqa and 

Mosul, which we’re confident our coalition will achieve, will indeed 

put ISIL on an irreversible path to lasting defeat. But, after that, 

to take up a point that both the Chairman and Ranking Member 

Reed made, there will still be much more to do. Political challenges 

will remain. For that reason, the international coalition’s stabilization efforts cannot be allowed to lag behind our military progress. 

That’s critical to making sure that ISIL, once defeated, stays defeated. Truly delivering ISIL a lasting defeat requires both strategic patience and persistence. We can’t predict what will come 

after our coalition defeats ISIL, so we must be ready for anything, 

including any attempts by ISIL to remain relevant even if only in 

the darkest corners of the Internet. 

Let me now address issues DOD faces in institution, and how 

you can help. We have three grave concerns related to processes 

here in Congress. One, budget gridlock and instability. Two, micromanagement and over-regulation. Three, denial of needed reforms. 

As you’ve heard consistently from me and DOD senior leaders, all 

three are serious concerns. But, here today, because of how close 

we are to the end of the fiscal year, I want to focus just on the first. 

We need Congress to come together around providing normal, 

stable, responsible budgets, because the lack of stability represents 

one of the single biggest strategic risks to our enterprise at DOD. 

That’s why I’ve been talking about the major risk posed by budget 

instability for over a year and a half. You heard the same from the 

Service Chiefs last week. Such budget instability undercuts stable 

planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars, often in ways taxpayers can’t even see. It baffles our friends, emboldens our foes. It’s 

managerially and strategically unsound. It’s unfairly dispiriting to 

our troops, to their families and our workforce. It’s inefficient for 

our defense industry partners, too. 

9 

We’re now 8 days away from the end of the fiscal year. But, instead of stability, we’re going into fiscal year 2017 with yet another 

Continuing Resolution [CR]. This, for the eighth fiscal year in a 

row. That’s a deplorable state of affairs. Chairman McCain, I appreciate your comments to our Service Chiefs about the damage the 

CR can do to our institution. 

As you know, the longer a Continuing Resolution lasts, the more 

damaging it is. It’s not just a matter of money, but where the dollars are. For example, a CR that goes past December would undermine our plan to quadruple our European Reassurance Initiative at 

a time, as the Chairman already noted, when we need to be standing with our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies, 

and standing up to deter Russian aggression. I know you will return here in November to pass defense appropriations and a National Defense Authorization Act. I look forward to working with 

you then. 

However, I cannot support any approach to the defense budget 

that moves us towards sequestration or away from bipartisanship 

and not at the expense of stability that comes with it, not if it 

shortchanges the needs of our warfighters, not if it means funding 

lower priorities instead of higher priorities, not if it undermines 

confidence in the ability to pass bipartisan budget deals which 

could lead to the imposition of sequestration’s $100 billion in looming automatic cuts to us, and not if it adds extra force structure 

that we can’t afford to keep ready in the long term, which would 

only lead to a hollow force. I’m confident and hopeful that we can 

come back together again. 

Today, America is fortunate to have the world’s greatest military. 

I know it. You know it. Our friends and allies know it. Critical— 

critically, our potential adversaries know it, too. Only with your 

help can we ensure that my successors can say the same and that 

what is today the finest fighting force the world has ever known 

remains that way for years to come. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Carter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ASH CARTER

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for hosting me and Chairman Dunford today, and also for hosting the 

Chiefs of the military services last week. I particularly appreciated your comments 

to them about the inefficiencies and dangers of continued budget instability and 

gridlock, as well as the risk of sequestration’s looming return. I look forward to addressing those topics and more during today’s hearing. 

I also appreciate your support for our men and women serving around the world, 

civilian and military alike, who are the finest fighting force the world has ever 

known. There’s no other military that’s stronger, or more capable, or more innovative, or more experienced, or with better friends and allies. That’s a fact—one that 

every American ought to be proud of. 

As you know, the Department of Defense is currently addressing each of the five 

major, immediate, evolving challenges we face, which Chairman Dunford and I discussed with you during our budget testimony this past spring—challenges from Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and terrorism. On that note, in the wake of this 

week’s attacks in New York, New Jersey, and Minnesota, we remain absolutely determined, as ever, to continue countering terrorists around the world who would 

seek to do harm to our country and our people. 

We don’t have the luxury of choosing between these challenges, which is why 

American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are working with partners from our 

worldwide coalition in more ways and with more power every day to accelerate the 

10 

lasting defeat of ISIL, which we will surely do and want to do soon. They’re also 

training and operating with our NATO allies in Europe to deter Russian aggression. 

They’re sailing the waters of the Asia-Pacific as part of a principled and inclusive 

network of nations—ensuring that the most consequential region for America’s future remains stable, secure, and prosperous for all nations. They’re standing guard 

24/7 on the Korean Peninsula, helping strengthen our deterrent and defenses in the 

face of North Korea’s nuclear and missile provocations. They’re countering Iran’s destabilizing influence against our friends and allies in the Middle East. All the while, 

they’re helping protect our people here at home and helping to make a better world 

for our children. They’re preparing to contend with an uncertain future—ensuring 

we continue to stay the best and stay ahead in a changing and competitive world. 

As Chairman Dunford and I testified not only to this committee, but to all four 

of our defense oversight committees in the spring, we’ve been planning for these operations to be paid for by the fiscal year (FY) 2017 defense budget we developed. 

This budget not only adhered to last fall’s bipartisan budget deal in overall size; in 

shape, it marked a strategic turning point for DOD—making and sharpening breakthrough investments in supporting new operational concepts, in pioneering and 

dominating technological frontiers, in reforming the DOD enterprise, and in building 

the force of the future. That budget also put an extremely high premium on continued funding to rebuild the readiness of our forces—requiring not only stable resources, but also time—the importance of which you heard about from the Chiefs 

last week. Nothing is more important than readiness to me or them. Yet today, just 

eight days away from the end of this fiscal year and the beginning of the next, that 

budget has yet to be funded by Congress—another topic, and a challenge, that I’ll 

address in greater detail shortly. 

Because this hearing is focused in part on ongoing military operations, let me 

begin with an operational update focusing specifically on our campaign to deliver 

ISIL a lasting defeat. 

COUNTER-ISIL OPERATIONAL UPDATE

In each of the four times that Chairman Dunford and I have appeared before this 

committee since last October, I walked you through how we were continually accelerating this campaign—starting with outlining our coalition military campaign plan, 

which is focused on three objectives that I’ve stressed consistently. 

The first objective is to destroy the ISIL cancer’s parent tumor in Iraq and Syria. 

ISIL’s occupation of territory in those countries threatens not only the lives of the 

Iraqi and Syrian peoples and the stability of that vitally important region, but also 

the security of our own citizens and those of our friends and allies. That means the 

sooner we defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria—the sooner we destroy both the fact and 

the idea of an Islamic state based on ISIL’s barbaric ideology—the safer all of us 

will be. That’s why we’re applying simultaneous pressure on ISIL from multiple directions and across domains—on the ground, from the air, and in cyberspace. We’re 

doing all this consistent with our strategic approach, which is to enable capable, motivated, local forces—for that is the only way to defeat ISIL and keep them defeated, 

ensuring a lasting defeat. 

Now, while defeating ISIL in Iraq and Syria is necessary, it’s not sufficient. 

Indeed, we know this cancer can metastasize, and in some cases it already has. 

This brings me to the second objective of our coalition military campaign plan, 

which is to combat ISIL’s metastases around world. That’s why U.S. and coalition 

forces are engaged in supporting capable, motivated local forces in operations 

against ISIL in Afghanistan, in Libya, and elsewhere, and in countering ISIL across 

the intangible geography and terrain of the Internet. 

Our third objective is to help protect the homeland. Here, recent events continue 

to emphasize the importance of this mission. This is mainly the responsibility of our 

partners in the FBI, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, 

the Intelligence Community, and state and local law enforcement. But DOD strongly 

supports them in a number of important ways that I’ll describe in more detail later 

in this testimony. 

Now, as I noted, Chairman Dunford and I have seen you several times since last 

October, when we first described to you our plan to accelerate the campaign against 

ISIL. Since then, we’ve taken a great many steps to do just that. As we take advantage of new opportunities generated by new intelligence, newly trained partners, 

and strikes against ISIL leaders, infrastructure, and finances, we’re generating 

more new opportunities, and then seizing those opportunities to repeat this cycle— 

reinforcing success. I should note that every time Chairman Dunford and I have recommended additional accelerating actions to President Obama, he has approved 

them. 

11 

Let me briefly remind you of the initial steps we took beginning last fall to start 

accelerating the campaign. First, we deployed additional strike aircraft to Incirlik 

to support an expanded air campaign against new targets and new categories of targets illuminated by refined intelligence. We deployed an initial contingent of special 

operations forces to Syria. We expanded efforts to equip Syrian Arab Coalition forces 

engaged in the fight against ISIL. We began enabling capable, motivated local forces 

in southern Syria as well, and enhancing Jordan’s own border control and defenses. 

We leveraged air power and advisors to help the Peshmerga take Sinjar, cutting the 

Iraqi side of the main line of communication between ISIL’s power centers in Raqqa 

and Mosul. We introduced an expeditionary targeting force to go after ISIL leaders 

wherever they may be attempting to hide. We worked to improve our ability to target ISIL’s leadership and presence beyond Iraq and Syria. We started to expand the 

military campaign against ISIL to every domain, including cyber. We stepped up our 

homeland defense and force protection measures to counter any additional threats 

to our facilities and our personnel at home and abroad. We began precision strikes 

against ISIL senior leaders and training camps in Libya—removing ISIL’s leader 

there, Abu Nabil, for instance. We went after ISIL in Afghanistan. 

These were followed this past spring and summer with even more accelerants. In 

Iraq, in close coordination with the Iraqi government, I announced we would be adding additional personnel there to enable the Iraqis to make faster progress in Anbar 

and Ninewa Provinces. I also announced that we would be placing advisors with the 

Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) down to the brigade and battalion level; leveraging 

Apache attack helicopters to support the ISF’s efforts to envelop and then retake 

Mosul; sending additional High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) batteries to support the Iraqi ground offensive there; and, providing financial assistance to the Peshmerga, up to $415 million, to bolster one of the most effective fighting forces against ISIL. Meanwhile, in Syria, we announced a six-fold increase of 

U.S. forces there, from 50 to 300, to help expand ongoing efforts to identify, train, 

and equip capable, motivated local anti-ISIL forces inside Syria, especially among 

the Sunni Arab community. In addition to initiating training inside Syria, we’ve also 

continued to refine our train-and-equip efforts of other vetted Syrian forces outside 

of Syria, using the important authorities and funding provided to us by Congress 

under the Section 1209 program—and here, as I’ve described to you before, we’re 

keeping our focus on battle-hardened, proven anti-ISIL leaders whom we could 

make more capable as enablers and amplifiers of our effects. 

At the same time, in addition to accelerating the campaign with more U.S. capabilities, we renewed our outreach to coalition members, including in Europe, in the 

Middle East, and in Asia. Over the last nine months, I’ve convened my counterparts 

several times—in Paris, Brussels, Riyadh, Stuttgart, and here in Washington this 

past July—not only to rally them behind the campaign plan and the next steps in 

its execution, but above all to urge them to contribute more, and in more meaningful ways. As we’ve done more, so have our partners. That collaboration will continue. 

In sum, we steadily executed the campaign plan and first set of plays we devised 

and I described to this committee many months ago. Now we’re on to the next plays 

in our campaign, which you’ll recall Chairman Dunford and I previewed for you in 

April, and are now underway—more on that in a moment. 

Because the acceleration of our campaign has continued since then, I’d like to now 

update you on the latest results of the coalition’s military campaign, as well as what 

we will need to do going forward. 

Destroying ISIL’s Parent Tumor 

Let me begin with our first objective, destroying ISIL’s parent tumor in Iraq and 

Syria. Here, since last fall—town after town, from every direction, and in every domain—our campaign and operations have accelerated, pressuring and squeezing 

ISIL, and rolling it back towards Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. While we have 

much more work to do—including to collapse ISIL’s control over Mosul and Raqqa— 

the results of our efforts are showing. 

In Iraq, we’ve been enabling the Iraqi Security Forces led by Prime Minister 

Abadi and the Kurdish Peshmerga commanded by Iraqi Kurdistan Regional President Barzani. After retaking Ramadi and establishing a staging base at Makhmour, 

the ISF went on to retake Hit, Rutbah, Fallujah, and the important airfield and 

town of Qayyarah—setting the stage to complete the envelopment and isolation of 

Mosul and collapse ISIL’s control over it. In the last few days, the ISF began operations to retake Sharqat and other towns surrounding Mosul. The final assault on 

Mosul will commence—as with previous operations—when Prime Minister Abadi 

gives the order. In the meantime, the coalition has been actively laying the groundwork with the generation of necessary Iraqi Security Forces and Kurdish 

12 

Peshmerga, preparation of staging areas, and positioning of our strike assets to 

cover the assaulting Iraqi and Kurdish forces. In close coordination with the Iraqi 

government, these efforts are being bolstered by the addition of 560 U.S. troops I 

announced in July. We stand ready to contribute even more, in consultation with 

our Iraqi partners. 

In Syria, our coalition has also enabled considerable results by our local partners. 

There, local forces retook Shaddadi—severing a key link between Raqqa and Mosul, 

and thereby ISIL in Iraq and ISIL in Syria—and then Manbij City—clearing a key 

transit point for ISIL’s external operators and plotters, and letting us gain intelligence insights that have helped us map ISIL’s network of foreign fighters. Additionally, our ally Turkey is helping local Syrian partners clear the Turkish-Syrian 

border region of ISIL. We’re working shoulder-to-shoulder with the Turks, supporting those efforts from the air, on the ground, and with intelligence, and we will 

continue to coordinate with them as we have with all of our partners so far. In that 

regard, I welcome the Turkish government’s comments about the importance of 

working with local partners. 

As we do all this, we are managing challenges that we’ve foreseen, including friction between some of our partners and also political instability. That’s why our 

forces and commanders on the ground and in the region remain laser-focused on 

overcoming these challenges, so we can continue to accelerate our campaign. 

Indeed, even with the considerable results achieved so far, we are not letting up. 

Across both Iraq and Syria, our coalition continues to pressure ISIL in several key 

ways. 

We’re systematically eliminating ISIL’s leadership: the coalition has taken out 

seven members of the ISIL Senior Shura—including ISIL’s Minister of War, Omar 

al Shishani; ISIL’s Finance Minister, Hajji Iman; ISIL’s Minister of Information, Dr. 

Wa’il; and ISIL’s Chief of External Operations, Abu Muhamad al Adnani, who was 

one of ISIL’s most lethal leaders and was actively plotting to kill civilians abroad. 

We also removed key ISIL leaders in both Libya and Afghanistan. Wherever our 

local partners have advanced, we’ve taken out ISIL field commanders. We’ve removed from the battlefield more than 20 of ISIL’s external operators and plotters, 

including Jihadi John and Junaid Hussein, among others. 

Beyond key ISIL personnel, we’re continuing to go after key ISIL capabilities, including its attempts to develop chemical weapons. As you know, we previously captured one of the principals of ISIL’s chemical warfare enterprise, and just last week, 

in one of the single largest airstrikes of our campaign, we destroyed a former pharmaceutical facility near Mosul that ISIL tried to use as a chemical weapons plant. 

Meanwhile, we’re also continuing to aggressively attack the economic infrastructure 

that ISIL uses to fund its operations—from oil wells and tanker trucks to cash storage sites and key financial centers. We continue to take the fight to ISIL across 

every domain, including cyber. 

All of this together underscores how we are putting ISIL on the path to a lasting 

defeat in Iraq and Syria. We are now launching a decisive phase of our campaign, 

as the plays we’re currently executing culminate in the isolation and collapse of 

ISIL’s control over Raqqa and Mosul. 

Now, we aren’t yet releasing the full operational details of these plays in public. 

That’s because—as I told troops from the XVIII Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg in 

July before they deployed to lead our operations in Iraq and Syria under the command of Lieutenant General Steve Townsend—we don’t want the enemy to know 

too much about what we’re doing, what we’re thinking, and where we’re going and 

when. But I do want to broadly describe the basic elements to you, as I did with 

our troops in July. 

In Syria, operations are focused on shutting down the last remaining paths for 

ISIL fighters to move into and out of that country—particularly when it comes to 

their external operators—and then on generating forces and preparing them for the 

envelopment of Raqqa. We’re seeking to expand on recent gains of our local, capable 

partners in Manbij City, along the Mar’a Line, and elsewhere in Northern Syria to 

help them ensure ISIL cannot control that key terrain. In addition, we will aggressively pursue opportunities to build pressure on ISIL in Syria from the south, complementing our existing robust efforts from northeastern Syria. 

In Iraq, our actions in the western part of the country are focused on enabling 

the ISF to pursue mopping-up operations along the Euphrates River Valley—in 

order to clear the remaining pockets of ISIL presence, push the ISIL threat farther 

away from Baghdad, and help the government of Iraq reassert not only full control 

over its borders, but also control over some of its main lines of communications. In 

the north, we’re continuing to help the ISF clear the remaining pockets of ISIL control along the Tigris River Valley leading up to Mosul. We’ve been helping the ISF 

and Kurdish Peshmerga to refit and generate the forces and logistical footprint necVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
13 

essary for their joint efforts to isolate and pressure Mosul, approaching from both 

the north and the south. 

Meanwhile, as this isolation and pressure on Raqqa and Mosul continues to build 

from the outside in, our partners will continue to reach deep inside those cities to 

pressure ISIL from the inside out. 

It’s already becoming clear that with the simultaneity of operations and pressure 

coalition forces are applying across Iraq and Syria, ISIL will simply no longer be 

able to resist. While ISIL is still a dangerous adversary and its lasting defeat will 

take time, we will continue to gather momentum until ISIL is defeated. 

Finally, with respect to the Syrian civil war, I commend Secretary Kerry for working so tirelessly to seek an arrangement which, if implemented, would ease the suffering of the Syrian people and get Russia pushing for a political transition, which 

is the only way to end the Syrian civil war. There remains a ways to go to see if 

the terms of that arrangement will be implemented—unfortunately the behavior 

we’ve seen from Russia and Syria over the last few days is deeply problematic. 

Combatting ISIL’s Metastases 

This brings me to the results in our campaign’s second objective, combatting 

ISIL’s metastases everywhere they appear around the world—particularly in Libya 

and Afghanistan. I will address these in turn. 

A few months ago, Chairman Dunford and I expressed concern that if left 

untended, Libya could be the next ISIL headquarters, as ISIL’s control over the city 

of Sirte was seen as their contingency plan for where they would go when they lost 

Raqqa and Mosul. But because the President authorized us to act, ISIL is now 

under tremendous pressure there, with its territory in Sirte reduced to a single 

square kilometer. Indeed, after some 50 days of supporting capable, motivated local 

forces fighting ISIL in its safe haven of Sirte, coalition operations—including with 

airstrikes at the request of Libyan Government of National Accord Prime Minister 

Sarraj—have shrunk ISIL’s territory to a single neighborhood. I’m confident ISIL 

will be ejected from Sirte, and that we will keep looking for opportunities to combat 

ISIL in Libya; however, it is important to note that these are the military results. 

As we’ve known from the beginning, political progress will have to follow, including 

reconciliation, to deliver ISIL a lasting defeat in Libya. 

Let me now turn to Afghanistan, where we continue to counter terrorists—both 

ISIL and al Qaeda—as well as help support and strengthen the Afghan National 

Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), which has the lead in fighting the Taliban 

and other terrorists within Afghanistan’s borders. 

Working with our Afghan partners, we conducted a large operation against ISIL 

in Afghanistan over the last two months—dealing it severe blows, including killing 

its top leader, Hafiz Sayed Khan, and 11 other ISIL leaders, as well as degrading 

the organization’s infrastructure, logistics base, and recruiting. There will be more 

to come in short order. 

Meanwhile, more broadly, the U.S. military continues to execute its two missions 

in Afghanistan—countering terrorism, and helping train, advise, and assist the 

ANDSF as part of NATO’s Resolute Support Mission. As you know, President 

Obama approved our requests earlier this year to retain a more substantial U.S. 

force presence into 2017, to enhance the authorities of our ground commanders, and 

to maintain our financial commitment to the ANDSF through 2020. This will lead 

to positive effects. Indeed, while challenges remain—including political challenges— 

we’re increasingly seeing the ANDSF undertake unilateral missions against ISIL 

and other targets on their own accord, with U.S.-provided equipment. 

Helping Protect our Homeland and our People 

Meanwhile, DOD continues to provide strong support to our partners in the FBI, 

the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence 

Community, and state and local law enforcement to help protect our homeland and 

our people. This is the number-one mission of our Northern Command. Here the 

U.S. military is supporting our partners in three critical ways. 

First, we’re ensuring the force protection for our troops and the DOD facilities 

where they work and reside—both on base, and the thousands of off-base installations we operate. Last summer’s tragedy in Chattanooga underscored how ISIL 

seeks to target U.S. troops and DOD civilians, which is why we’re putting in place 

stronger physical security systems, including stronger entry controls, better alarm 

systems, reinforced doors, additional ways to safely exit our facilities, and more. We 

continue to look for more ways to improve and strengthen our force protection. 

Second, we’re disrupting ISIL’s external operations and its ability to conduct such 

operations. As I discussed earlier, our operations to destroy ISIL’s parent tumor directly support this effort, where we’ve removed dozens of ISIL external operators 

14 

from the battlefield—including, as I mentioned earlier in this testimony, ISIL’s 

Chief of External Operations, Abu Muhamad Al-Adnani. We have entrusted this aspect of our campaign to one of DOD’s most lethal, capable, and experienced commands, our Joint Special Operations Command, which helped deliver justice not 

only to Osama Bin Laden, but also to the man who founded the organization that 

became ISIL, Abu-Musab al Zarqawi. 

Third, we’re also disrupting the flow of foreign fighters both to and from Iraq and 

Syria. Here, as I discussed earlier, we’ve not only been supporting capable, motivated local forces in Syria that have retaken cities that were key transit hubs for 

foreign fighters in northern Syria, but we’ve also been supporting Turkish military 

operations intended to seal the border with Syria and prevent foreign fighters from 

exploiting that border to conduct attacks against our European allies and our homeland. In recent months especially, our support of these operations has allowed us 

to gain new intelligence insights into ISIL’s networks of foreign fighters—networks 

we are determined to destroy. In addition, we’ve worked with our coalition partners 

in a standing task force located in the region that looks at publically-available information and crosschecks it against our government’s various databases to identify 

potential ISIL cells and foreign fighter facilitation networks. This is part of a broader effort within our coalition to not only stem the flow of foreign fighters, but also 

to counter ISIL’s online messaging, recruitment, and the spread of its loathsome ideology. 

Going Forward in the Counter-ISIL Campaign 

Looking to the future, the collapse of ISIL’s control over Raqqa and Mosul—which 

we’re confident our coalition will achieve—will put ISIL on an irreversible path to 

a lasting defeat. But, even when the coalition wins this fight—and let there be no 

doubt that we will—there will still be much more to do. There will be towns to rebuild, services to reestablish, and communities to restore. Political challenges will 

remain. So when that time comes, the international community must ensure that 

the Iraqi and Syrian people have what they need to hold, stabilize, and govern their 

own territory. For that reason, the international coalition’s humanitarian, stabilization, and governance efforts cannot be allowed to lag behind our military progress. 

Additionally, we must ensure that ISIL isn’t able to take root in other parts of 

Iraq, and that the ISF and the Peshmerga are able to sustain the gains we’ve made 

with them. Such progress is critical to making our partners’ gains enduring, and ensuring that ISIL, once defeated, stays defeated. 

Truly delivering ISIL a lasting defeat requires both strategic patience and strategic persistence. Even when ISIL is defeated militarily, our coalition will still have 

work to do. We can’t predict what will come afterward, so we must be ready for anything—including for any attempts by ISIL to remain relevant, even if only on the 

darkest corners of the Internet. We will continue to support our law enforcement, 

homeland security, and intelligence partners in helping protect our homeland and 

our people. 

HOW CONGRESS CAN HELP—AVOIDING THE BIGGEST STRATEGIC DANGERS TO DEFENSE

Let me now turn to some issues that we in DOD face as an institution—not only 

in addressing the challenge posed by ISIL, but in addressing all of the five challenges I mentioned earlier, and ensuring our military’s continued unrivaled breadth 

and strength into the future—and how you can help. 

These issues are grave concerns to us that we see manifested in processes here 

in Congress, and they are threefold: the first is budget gridlock and instability; the 

second, micromanagement and over-regulation; and the third concern is the continued denial of needed reforms. Instead of these, we need budget stability achieved 

through bipartisanship. We need relief from over-regulation and micromanagement. 

We need more regard and respect for the considered judgment of DOD’s most senior 

military and civilian leaders. 

As you’ve heard from me and DOD senior leaders in meetings, messages, and conversations, these are serious concerns. I could spend a lot of time focusing on each 

one, and I look forward to doing so when you return in November to work on passing an NDAA—hopefully one the President can sign. But here, at this hearing, I 

want to focus on the first concern, since the fiscal year ends in eight days. 

Avoiding Budget Instability and Gridlock 

We need Congress to come together around providing normal, stable, responsible 

budgets—that is, appropriations—because lack of stability represents one of the single biggest strategic risks to our DOD enterprise. I’ve been talking to you for over 

a year and a half about the major risks posed by budget instability. That was why 

I supported last fall’s bipartisan budget deal, and why DOD’s budget for fiscal year 

15 

2017 reflected that deal. Now the time has come to begin that fiscal year, and I can 

only tell you the same thing: that budget instability is the greatest risk we face. 

You heard the same from our Service Chiefs last week. 

Such instability is exactly the kind of dysfunction that undercuts stable planning 

and efficient use of taxpayer dollars—often in ways taxpayers can’t even see. It 

makes planning for the fight extremely difficult for our warfighters and commanders, including in our campaign to deliver ISIL a lasting defeat. It baffles our 

friends, and emboldens foes. It’s managerially and strategically unsound, not to 

mention unfairly dispiriting to our troops and their families, and our workforce— 

all of whom deserve better, and deserve more predictability, to say the least. Not 

only our people; our defense industry partners, too, need stability and longer-term 

plans to be as efficient and cutting-edge as we need them to be. Even with the modicum of stability we got in last fall’s budget deal, we still face the greatest risk of 

all to DOD in the eyes of all of us in the leadership—a return to sequestration funding levels, with $100 billion in looming, automatic cuts beginning next year if this 

isn’t fixed. Those cuts, as you heard last week, are a major concern for our Service 

Chiefs, and for me as well. I am concerned that the gimmickry we are seeing around 

defense funding this year will invite the return of sequestration rather than make 

it less likely—because it signals that bipartisan compromises are not respected. 

We’re now eight days away from the end of the fiscal year, but instead of stability, 

we’re going into fiscal year 2017 with yet another continuing resolution (CR). This 

will be the eighth fiscal year in a row that’s started with a continuing resolution. 

That’s a deplorable state of affairs in itself, as this committee has made clear—and 

Chairman McCain, I appreciate your comments to our Service Chiefs about the 

damage a CR does to our institution, as I appreciate that this committee has been 

among the leaders in advocating for both the resources needed for defense and the 

timely appropriations we need to execute our mission. 

As you know and as you heard from the Chiefs last week, the longer a continuing 

resolution lasts, the more damaging it is—it makes the obvious mistake of having 

us do this year exactly what we did last year, despite the fact that we’re trying to 

evolve and innovate to stay ahead in a changing world. It’s not just a matter of 

money, but where the dollars are. For example, even a short-term CR slows our 

shipbuilding program, which is line appropriated, thereby preventing the Navy from 

moving forward on key programs and capabilities. It gets worse after three 

months—for example, the fiscal year 2017 defense budget quadrupled funding for 

our European Reassurance Initiative in order to help deter Russian aggression, but 

a continuing resolution extending past December would undermine our ability to 

build up prepositioned stocks of equipment and warfighting gear in the countries 

of our NATO allies. That would have great strategic consequences. 

If that weren’t enough, the risk of instability is only half my concern for DOD’s 

budget—the other is that our budget stability is also being subjected to risk through 

diversions of funds. 

As you know, last fall’s bipartisan budget deal set the size of our budget for fiscal 

year 2017. While there was a difference between what we got in the budget deal 

and what we had proposed in the year prior, we determined we could mitigate that 

difference and still meet our needs, so we accordingly submitted our defense budget 

to reflect the bipartisan budget deal. Within a matter of months, however, some in 

Congress reintroduced instability by departing from the bipartisan budget deal and 

trying to come up with ways to go around it. I cannot support these approaches, 

and I’d like to tell you why. 

In the first approach, the House is diverting $18 billion from our overseas operations funds at a time when we have troops deployed in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and using the money for things DOD didn’t ask for and in many cases cannot 

afford to maintain and keep ready over time. To do this—diverting warfighting 

funds at a time of war—is highly objectionable. It harms the readiness of our troops 

in order to buy more force structure that we can’t afford to keep ready in the first 

place. It could overtax DOD by up to $30 billion over the next five years, at the 

same time that we may be facing $100 billion in sequestration cuts. It risks exacerbating our readiness challenges and creating hollow force structure. It threatens to 

unravel last fall’s bipartisan budget deal, again raising the specter of sequestration. 

If this is allowed to happen, there is no way I can tell a soldier, sailor, airman, 

or Marine who’s accelerating ISIL’s lasting defeat or deterring Russian aggression 

that we’re doing all we can for them here in Washington. Not when Congress can’t 

pass timely appropriations. Certainly not when Congress diverts defense dollars 

from what should be inviolable: American troops deployed in harm’s way. Those 

troops need to know that they’re getting every resource they need to accomplish 

their mission. To take away from them goes too far—especially when emerging operVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
16 

ational demands may soon require more resources than DOD initially budgeted for, 

not less. 

The backers of the House approach say they’re doing it to help our readiness, but 

it would actually have the opposite effect on readiness. As you heard from the Service Chiefs last week and as you heard from me earlier in this testimony, nothing 

is more important to us than readiness, which is why it was the highest priority 

we had in preparing the 2017 defense budget—partly to rebuild full-spectrum readiness after 15 years of counterinsurgency operations, and partly to restore damage 

done to readiness over the last several years that was caused by the effects of sequestration cuts. As the Chiefs made clear to you, the problems we’re fixing are different in each service—the Army needs time to put soldiers through full-spectrum 

brigade-level training rotations at its Combat Training Centers; for the Marine 

Corps, the issue is principally restoring readiness in aviation; for the Navy, it’s ship 

depot maintenance; and for the Air Force, it’s about maintaining readiness while remaining at a high operational tempo. Each of these shows how restoring readiness 

is not just about money; it also requires time, which the Chiefs told you as well. 

All of this underscores why what the House seeks to do would actually hurt readiness: because it risks the stability provided by last fall’s bipartisan budget deal, and 

it would actually give us higher end-strength for one year—that is, more people— 

whom we cannot afford to keep ready in the long-term. 

Others in Congress took a different approach, but I cannot support theirs either. 

In this case, one of the defense appropriations committees cut high-priority investments that we should be making in high-end capabilities, and then spent more 

money on lower-priority things we didn’t ask for and already have enough of. 

While these cuts are less than $18 billion and do not take away from our 

warfighting funds, they still add up in ways that could seriously imperil our future 

strength. For example, this committee chose to gut funding for undersea drones— 

crippling our efforts to leverage unmanned technology to ensure our forces’ global 

freedom of action and delivery of new payloads despite other nations’ attempts to 

deny access to certain operating areas. They cut proven programs like the submarine-hunting P–8, a maritime patrol aircraft that prevents adversaries from 

using modern undersea technologies against us. They made significant cuts to some 

of our highest-priority electronic warfare systems, the Next-Generation Jammer and 

the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program—handicapping our planes’ 

future airborne electronic attack capabilities, and leaving our surface ships more 

vulnerable to advanced missile threats. They cut the critical core out of advanced 

munitions programs needed to increase our Navy’s lethality—both the maritimestrike version of the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the new, highly-lethal anti-ship 

mode for one of our most modern and capable munitions, the SM–6 missile. On top 

of that, committees in both the House and Senate made cuts to critical defense innovation spearheads that we need to maintain our military’s technological edge and 

counter some of the most vexing threats we face—taking away funding from our 

Strategic Capabilities Office, our partnership with In-Q–Tel, and our tech startup, 

the Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental (DIUx). 

Now, I don’t believe there was ill-will here, but these were cuts to investments 

highly prioritized by DOD’s senior military and civilian leaders, substituting lowerpriority spending we didn’t ask for. We oppose each of them, because they undermine our preparations to counter and stay ahead of our competitors’ technological 

advances. I’ve seen the constant temptation over the years to starve new and futureoriented defense investments in favor of more established and therefore well-entrenched programs. In a rapidly changing and competitive world, we must resist 

this temptation. 

Rather than funding these investments in lethality and innovation that were 

among our highest priorities for sharpening our military edge and staying ahead of 

our adversaries, Congress wants instead to buy things like an extra Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS), which we didn’t request. These ships have important uses, but we already bought 26, with 14 more on the way, and we do not need more. We have much 

greater needs: we need the undersea drones, advanced munitions, electronic warfare 

capabilities, P–8s, and innovation initiatives these measures would cut. 

Of course, there are other proposals which again do not comport with last fall’s 

bipartisan budget deal. Having rejected the two approaches I just discussed, I also 

have to say—as you’ve heard me emphasize for the last year and a half—that I cannot support any third approach that moves us toward sequestration, or that moves 

us away from bipartisanship. Not at the expense of budget stability. Not if it shortchanges the needs of our warfighters. Not if it means funding lower priorities instead of higher priorities. Not if it undermines confidence in the ability to pass bipartisan budget deals, which could lead to the imposition of sequestration’s $100 bilVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
17 

lion in looming, automatic cuts. Not if it adds extra force structure that we cannot 

afford to keep ready in the long-term and that would only lead to a hollow force. 

CONCLUSION—THE NEED FOR BIPARTISAN BUDGET STABILITY

I appreciate that this committee didn’t follow either of those two approaches, but 

as conference negotiations continue, I must emphasize that what we need most is 

stability—it’s critical in order for DOD and our people to address all the national 

security challenges we face. 

I am confident, and hopeful, that we can come back together again. Today, America is fortunate to have the world’s strongest, most capable, most innovative military. I know it, you know it, our friends and allies know it, and critically, our potential adversaries know it too. Only with your help can we ensure that my successors 

can say the same, and that what is today the finest fighting force the world has 

ever known remains that way for years and generations to come. 

Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. General Dunford. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, JR., USMC, 

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF 

General DUNFORD. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, 

members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join 

Secretary Carter this morning. 

Before offering a brief assessment of ongoing operations, I’d like 

to associate myself with the comments made by the Service Chiefs 

who testified before this committee last week. As you’d expect, they 

offered their candid assessment about the readiness and the modernization challenges that affect each of the services. I fully concur 

with their assessment of the operational tempo and the budget 

challenges faced by each of the services and across the Department. 

But, due in large part to this committee’s support, the joint force 

remains the most capable and professional military in the world. 

We can defend the Nation, we can meet our alliance responsibilities, and today we have a competitive advantage over any adversary. I think that’s an important point that should not be lost on 

our allies, it should not be lost on our enemies, and it should not 

be lost on the men and women of the joint force, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen. 

I say all that, mindful that we remain confronted with challenges 

from traditional state actors and violent extremism. Russia, China, 

Iran, and North Korea continue to invest in military capabilities 

that reduce that competitive advantage. They are also advancing 

their interests through adversarial competition that has a military 

dimension that falls short of armed conflict. Examples include Russian actions in the Ukraine, North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling, 

Chinese activities in the South China Sea, and Iran’s malign activities across the Middle East. In different ways, each of these nations 

leverage economic coercion, information operations, cyber capabilities, unconventional warfare and force posture deliberately seeking 

to avoid a U.S. military response. 

Meanwhile, nonstate actors, such as ISIL and al Qaeda, remain 

a threat to our Homeland, the American people, our partners, and 

our allies. As evidenced by this past weekend’s attacks, such extremist groups seek to inspire and radicalize others, and, in doing 

so, they’re attempting to fundamentally change our way of life. 

18 

The joint force is engaged in responding to each of these strategic 

challenges. We’re focused on deterring potential adversaries, and 

we’re prepared to respond, should deterrence fail. 

We also remain firmly committed to defeating ISIL and its affiliates wherever they may emerge. Since my last appearance before 

the committee, I’ve made additional trips to the Middle East, and 

I’m encouraged by the coalition’s progress in Iraq and Syria. We’ve 

also degraded the Islamic State’s capabilities in Libya, West Africa, 

and Afghanistan. Coalition operations supporting indigenous 

ground forces—and the Chairman mentioned this, Ranking Member Reed mentioned, the Secretary did—have disrupted core ISIL’s 

ability to mount external attacks, reduce its territory of control, 

limit its freedom of movement, eliminate many of their leaders, and 

reduce the resources that they have available. Most importantly, 

the coalition has begun to discredit ISIL’s narrative and its aura 

of invincibility. While more work remains to be done, and we’re by 

no means—by no means are we complacent—it’s clear we have the 

momentum in the military campaign. 

As the joint force addresses each of our strategic challenges, we 

also recognize the need to invest in the future. As the Secretary 

said, we don’t have the luxury of choosing between the challenges 

that we face today or the challenges that we most assuredly will 

face tomorrow. 

To meet tomorrow’s requirements, we must take action today. 

Our nuclear deterrent remains effective, but it is aging and requires modernization. At the same time, we must develop and enhance the capabilities that—in the increasingly contested domains 

of space and cyber. We must also do all that while we preserve the 

edge in our conventional capabilities. In the end, we must maintain 

a balanced inventory of joint capabilities and capacities to meet the 

full range of challenges that we will confront. 

In closing, I am concerned about readiness today, but I’m more 

concerned about maintaining a competitive advantage in the future. If we fail to modernize the joint force, we will be at a disadvantage in the future. I know the committee shares my belief 

that we should never send our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, 

or coastguardsmen into a fair fight. 

Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee. 

[The prepared statement of General Dunford follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY GENERAL DUNFORD

Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join Secretary Carter in appearing before 

you. 

Our thoughts are with those affected by this weekend’s terrorist incidents in New 

York, New Jersey and Minnesota. We also remember the sacrifice of Lt. Col. Steven 

Eadie, who was killed in a U–2 mishap on Tuesday. our prayers are with the Eadie 

family and we wish his fellow airman a speedy recovery. 

Before offering a brief assessment of on-going operations, I would like to associate 

myself with the comments made by the Service Chiefs who testified before you last 

week. As you would expect, they offered their candid assessments about the readiness and modernization challenges confronting each Service. I continue to appreciate the operational tempo and budgetary challenges faced by each Service and 

across the Department. 

Due in large part to this committee’s support, the Joint Force remains the most 

capable and professional military in the world. We can defend the nation, we can 

meet our alliance responsibilities, and today we have a competitive advantage over 

19 

any potential adversary. That’s an important point that should be understood by our 

allies, our enemies and by those most responsible for our competitive advantage, our 

soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen. 

I say all of that mindful that we remain confronted with challenges from traditional state actors and violent extremist organizations. Russia, China, Iran and 

North Korea continue to invest in military capabilities that reduce our competitive 

advantage. They are also advancing their interests through competition with a military dimension that falls short of traditional armed conflict and the threshold for 

traditional military response. Examples include Russian actions in Ukraine, North 

Korea’s nuclear saber rattling, Chinese activities in the South China Sea and Iran’s 

malign activities across the Middle East. 

In different ways, each of these nations leverage economic coercion, information 

operations, cyber capabilities, unconventional operations and force posture while deliberately seeking to avoid a direct U.S. Military response. 

Meanwhile, non-state actors such as ISIL and al Qaeda remain a threat to the 

Homeland, the American people, our partners and our allies. As evidenced by this 

past weekend’s attacks, such extremist groups seek to inspire and radicalize others, 

and in doing so, they are attempting to fundamentally change our way of life. 

The Joint Force is engaged in responding to each of these strategic challenges. We 

are focused on deterring potential adversaries and are prepared to respond should 

deterrence fail. We also remain firmly committed to defeating ISIL and its affiliates 

wherever they may emerge. Since my last appearance before this committee, I have 

made additional trips to the Middle East. I am encouraged by the coalition’s 

progress in Iraq and Syria. We have also degraded the Islamic State’s capabilities 

in Libya, West Africa and Afghanistan. 

Coalition operations supporting indigenous ground forces have disrupted core 

ISIL’s ability to mount external attacks, reduced its territorial control, limited its 

freedom of movement, eliminated many of its key leaders, and reduced its sources 

of revenue. Most importantly, the coalition has begun to discredit ISIL’s narrative 

and its aurora of invincibility. While more work remains to be done, and we are by 

no means complacent, it is clear that we have the momentum. 

As the Joint Force addresses each of the strategic challenges I just described, we 

also recognize the need to invest for the future. As the Secretary said, we do not 

have the luxury of choosing between the challenges we face today or the challenges 

we will face in the future. To meet tomorrow’s requirements, we must take action 

today. Our nuclear deterrent remains effective, but it is aging and requires modernization. At the same time, we must develop and enhance our capabilities in the 

increasingly contested domains of cyber and space . . . and we must do so while preserving our edge in conventional capabilities. 

In the end, we must maintain a balanced inventory of joint capabilities and capacities to meet the full array of challenges that we will confront in the future. In closing, while I am concerned about readiness today, we have a competitive advantage 

over any adversary. However, if we fail to modernize the Joint Force, we will be 

at a disadvantage in the future. I know that the committee shares my belief that 

we should never send our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen 

into a fair fight. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Thank you very much, General. 

Thank you for your comments about the testimony of the Service 

Chiefs. We appreciated it, too. We were shocked to—or at least surprised to learn that none of the Service Chiefs have had a conversation with the President of the United States. That’s the first 

time I’ve ever heard of it in my years of service and membership 

of this committee. 

General Dunford, in your professional military opinion, is Russia 

in a quagmire in Syria? 

General DUNFORD. It’s not clear to me that Russia is in a quagmire in Syria at this time, Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. In your professional military opinion, is the 

cessation-of-hostilities agreement being effectively implemented on 

the ground in Syria? 

20 

General DUNFORD. That would not appear to be the case over the 

last 48 hours, Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. This is not the first time we’ve had one of 

these agreements. In fact, it’s beginning to fit the definition of insanity, of doing the same thing over and over again. Suppose this 

fails again, General Dunford. What do we do then? Try another 

cease-fire? What do we do then? We just saw, as you know, evidence that a chemical weapon—and we knew that a chemical 

weapons factory was functioning in Raqqa. What’s Plan B? Is there 

a Plan B, here, or do we just keep going back to the five-star hotels 

in Geneva and have meetings with our—with Mr. Lavrov, and 

come out with various declarations? What do we do if this one 

fails? 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, we have a wide range of military 

options—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. Give us one. 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, if I could finish. We have a wide 

range of military options that we would provide to the President, 

should our policy change in the wake of this recent cessation—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. Is the present policy working? 

General DUNFORD. Against ISIL, the present policy is working. 

Chairman MCCAIN. In Syria, with 400,000 people killed, 6 million refugees, is our strategy in Syria working—succeeding? 

General DUNFORD. With regard to political transition in Syria, at 

this time, I would—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. In regards to the whole situation in Syria, is 

our policy working? 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, I’d let others address the policy. 

Our focus, from a military perspective, is—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. I’m asking—— 

General DUNFORD.—our counter-ISIL campaign. 

Chairman MCCAIN.—Is the military strategy succeeding in 

Syria? 

General DUNFORD. Our military strategy is focused on a counterISIL campaign. In my judgment, we are succeeding in that campaign. 

Chairman MCCAIN. As far as you’re concerned, we ignore the 

400,000 dead and the 6 million refugees. That’s caused by Bashar 

Assad. Do you believe that, right now, it’s very likely that Bashar 

Assad will leave power? 

General DUNFORD. I can’t really judge that right now. It doesn’t 

appear that he will in the near term, Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. You can’t judge that. 

General DUNFORD. I can’t judge the long-term prospects for 

Assad, was my point, Chairman. I’m—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. In the—— 

General DUNFORD.—sure he’s not—— 

Chairman MCCAIN.—short term? 

General DUNFORD.—leaving in the short term. 

Chairman MCCAIN. In your professional military opinion, is it a 

good idea to set up an intelligence-sharing operation with the Russians? 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, we don’t have any intention of 

having an intelligence-sharing arrangement with the Russians. 

21 

Chairman MCCAIN. That is part of Secretary Kerry’s proposal, 

that we set up an intelligence-sharing operation in Syria with the 

Russians. 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, the United States military role 

will not include intelligence-sharing with the Russians. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Do you support such an idea, that they 

should share intelligence—military intelligence information with 

Russia and Syria? 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, what the President has directed us 

to do is establish a joint implementation—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. I asked for your professional military opinion, not what the President has told you to do. I’m asking, as in 

your confirmation hearings, if you would give your professional 

military opinion to this committee in response to questions. I expect you to hold to that. 

Is it your professional military opinion that it would be a good 

idea to have an intelligence-sharing operation with Russia in 

Syria? 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, I do not believe it would be a good 

idea to share intelligence with the Russians. 

Chairman MCCAIN. I thank you, General. 

On the issue of sequestration, could—I just mentioned—I hope it 

got the attention of all of my colleagues—that every one of the 

Service Chiefs said that, presently, sequestration puts our men and 

women who are serving in military in greater risk. At the same 

time, the President of the United States is demanding—is putting 

the risk to American servicemen and women on the same level as 

funding for the EPA. It is just remarkable to a lot of us that we 

don’t take care of the compelling argument of caring—of reducing 

the risk to the men and women who are serving in the military, 

demanding that there be nondefense increases in spending at the 

same time. 

All I can say is, I thank you, Secretary Carter and General 

Dunford, but this latest information concerning a chemical shell obviously shows that, in Raqqa, they’re doing a lot of things, including a chemical weapons factory, which adds a new dimension to the 

threat to the lives of the men and women who are serving in the 

military. 

I still look forward to hearing from Secretary Carter and General 

Dunford, What is the strategy if the present strategy continues to 

utterly fail? Frankly, I haven’t heard that. 

Senator Reed. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary and General Dunford, one of the factors that appears to be—influence the timing of the Mosul operation is to—how 

do you govern Mosul after you militarily succeed—Iraq Security 

Forces succeed, with American and coalition assistance? That triggers the issue of, not only the role of agencies outside Defense, like 

the State Department, USAID [United States Agency for International Development], and others, but the resources they have. It 

would be—is it necessary, in your view, that these agencies be 

robustly funded, in addition, because without them, you can have 

a military victory and essentially just wait around, because they’ll 

22 

come back because you haven’t put the politics and the capacity together? 

Secretary CARTER. It is necessary. I had the Defense Ministers 

of the key coalition contributors here to Andrews a little while ago, 

and we went through, as we always do, the campaign, their role, 

including the moves to envelope Mosul, which we’ve now taken. 

Their biggest concern with the campaign, at this point, in Iraq is 

exactly the one you note. Namely, is the political and the economic 

lagging so far behind the military that there’s going to be an issue, 

once Mosul is—once ISIL is ejected from Mosul? 

I’m just very specifically—if I may, Senator, I’ll take the political 

part and then the stabilization/reconstruction part. 

On the political part, this is a question that recurs, actually, everywhere we go. Everywhere we enable forces to defeat ISIL, the 

people who live there say, ‘‘Well, what’s going to happen afterwards?’’ That’s something we have dealt with in Hit, Fallujah, 

Rutbah, and some of—they’re all complicated, all different. Mosul’s 

going to be different, too. 

My understanding—and that’s just not mine, but the Chairman’s 

and the—our commanders there, and also the President’s—with 

Prime Minister Abadi, President Barzani, who are contributing 

forces—the Peshmerga from the north, a couple of brigades, and 

the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] from the south, for the envelopment 

and collapse of control on—of ISIL’s control on Mosul. Our understanding with them, which they are both adhering to, is that neither of the forces that will participate in taking Mosul should be 

the hold-and-govern force there. They should be local police— 

Sunni, in many cases, but it’s actually a mixed-ethnicity city. The 

governor of Ninawah Province is the one that they are working 

with and we’re working with. That’s a daily exercise for General 

Townsend, General Votel, and for us, is to keep everybody aligned 

and focused on the job at hand, which is defeating ISIL. 

With respect to stabilization and reconstruction, we don’t know 

what the collapse of ISIL’s control over Mosul will look like. We’ve 

had a different experience in different cities. Obviously, no one 

wants to see street-to-street fighting in Mosul, but you don’t know. 

There could be a large number of refugees, and we’re preparing for 

that. Not USAID. You mentioned U.S. Government funding. That’s 

essential. But, also the U.N.—— 

Senator REED. Right. 

Secretary CARTER.—and other international aid agencies. 

I should say, by the way, that’s one of the things I ask our coalition partners. I say, ‘‘If you don’t want to make a military contribution, or you don’t have a strong military contribution to make, or 

it’s problematic, for some historical or political reason, for you to 

make a contribution, a check is good to’’—— 

Senator REED. But—— 

Secretary CARTER.—′′the local people to help them reconstruct.’’ 

Senator REED. But, essentially, you cannot—you can conduct kinetic operations, but the real, long-term effort is political/economic 

relief, refugee support, et cetera. Those are funds outside Department of Defense. A comprehensive approach to all these problems 

requires relief, not just from Department of Defense spending, but 

for other Federal agencies. 

23 

Secretary CARTER. It—— 

Senator REED. Is that correct? 

Secretary CARTER. It is. The whole counter-ISIL thing is wholeof-government and—— 

Senator REED. Okay. Let me—going back also to your question 

about Northern Command. Northern Command is critical to defense of the United States, but, without a robust Department of 

Homeland Security, without adequate resources—the FBI and for 

other domestic agencies—then you could be performing at peak efficiency, but the job would not get done. Is—— 

Secretary CARTER. We—— 

Senator REED.—that correct? 

Secretary CARTER. It—that is true. We count on their support. 

We support them, as well. It’s a whole-of-government effort, defeat 

of ISIL and—— 

Senator REED. General Dunford, do you concur, from your perspective? 

General DUNFORD. I do, Senator. 

Senator REED. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start off by saying that we have rules in this committee 

that, when we have witnesses coming in, we’re to get their written 

statement 48 hours in advance. We didn’t get both of yours until 

8:30 this morning. Now, we did a lot better with the chiefs last 

week. In fact, General Hayden was in, 72 hours in advance. I just 

think it’s a good idea to pass on to others, before they come in, that 

we really do need to have that to conduct the—a hearing that’s 

meaningful. 

When General Goldfein was here, he described what’s needed for 

defense funding, and he talked about sufficient, stable, predictable 

funding. In your statement, Secretary Carter, you left the word 

‘‘sufficient’’ out. I am concerned about this. 

Back during the Clinton administration, when they were actually 

trying to cut 400 out of the budget, we, in this committee, sitting 

in this—in these—in this dais here—were able to put 100 back in. 

You remember the famous bathtub chart that we used at that time. 

General Milley said, last week—and I think that he said it best— 

he said, ‘‘The only thing more expensive than deterrence is actually 

fighting a war. The only thing more expensive than fighting a war 

is losing a war. We’re expensive. We recognize that. But, the bottom line is, it’s an investment that’s worth every nickel.’’ 

I guess the question, just for a short answer of each one of you, 

is, Have our defense funding levels kept pace with the realities of 

the—our environment out there? 

General Dunford? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I don’t believe they have. That’s why 

we’ve articulated an increased requirement in fiscal year 2017, and 

we’ll continue to reinforce those areas that we identified in 2017 for 

2018. Of course, those—well, turn it over to Secretary—— 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that. 

Do you agree? 

Secretary CARTER. Yeah. I wanted to say—— 

24 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

Secretary CARTER.—that I agree with General Dunford, and 

what the Chief said, as well, and I’m—insufficiency belongs with 

instability. I’m sorry if we left that word out. Nothing intended 

there. The point that they were making, and that I would strongly 

echo, is, the effects of eight straight years of ending a fiscal year 

without an appropriation—— 

Senator INHOFE. Yeah. You—— 

Secretary CARTER.—for the next—that is—has had a serious effect. We’ve tried to manage through it. 

Senator INHOFE. Right. 

Secretary CARTER. We’ve done our best. But, it—that’s just 

not—— 

Senator INHOFE. I understand, Secretary. 

Secretary CARTER.—the way to run an—— 

Senator INHOFE. Now, you’ve been—let me compliment you— 

you’ve been a real stalwart on your—in support of each leg of the 

nuclear triad. Had stated that the nuclear mission is the bedrock 

of our security. Today, we’re spending about 3 to 4 percent of our 

budget. However, the long-term plan shows that we’re going to 

move up, within the decade, or sometime in the decade, to 6 to 7 

percent. The question I would ask is—you know, General Dunford, 

with Russia and China actively modernizing their nuclear weapons 

and delivery system, we know what’s happening in North Korea— 

do you think we should accelerate this so that we would reach the 

6 to 7 percent much earlier, like now? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I think, as you know, many of those 

programs, it’s not just the function of accelerating the funding, it’s 

how much time it takes for development. I’m confident, having 

looked at this very closely, that the path that we’re on and the timing for the introduction of our new programs is about right. It balances both the budget, but it, more importantly, balances the operational readiness of those systems to be introduced at the—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I think what you’re saying is, even if you 

had more now, you could not spend it wisely. You need the—the 

course that we’re on is adequate, in your opinion. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, that’s exactly my—— 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

General DUNFORD.—assessment. 

Senator INHOFE. That’s fine. 

The—I was in Ukraine right after their parliamentary elections, 

and I was—I’ve never seen Poroshenko or any of them as happy 

as they were at that time, how proud they were, for the time in 

96 years, not having one Communist on the—in Parliament. As 

soon as that happened, Putin started killing the Ukraines and 

the—I would ask you this, Secretary Carter. If—is deterrence of 

Russia in Europe a policy priority? 

Secretary CARTER. It absolutely is. That’s why we quadrupled the 

European Reassurance Initiative. 

Senator INHOFE. But, what would that—I would ask the question, then, Why are we not providing defensive lethal assistance to 

the Ukraine? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, that is still on the table. It’s been on the 

table for quite some time. And—— 

25 

Senator INHOFE. Well, it’s more than on the table—— 

Secretary CARTER.—I want to emphasize, we do—— 

Senator INHOFE.—with us, because it’s in our—— 

Secretary CARTER. Well, it’s going to depend upon what the Russians do with respect to Minsk. I just met with my Ukrainian counterpart a couple of weeks ago. A great guy, by the way. He’s been 

doing this for a long time and is very dedicated, a good guy to work 

with. We talked about everything that are doing with them. We 

have training now. We’ve moved from their national—— 

Senator INHOFE. Okay. And—— 

Secretary CARTER.—guard to their regular—— 

Senator INHOFE. I don’t want to be rude, Mr. Secretary, but my 

time is just about expired. 

Secretary CARTER. Okay. 

Senator INHOFE. I just want to know if this—well, let me ask 

you, General Dunford. If we were to change our policy, what type 

of weaponry would be the—appropriate right now? You know, we 

have the Javelin anti-armor weapons. What would be the right 

weapon? You’re both fully aware that, in our defense authorization 

bill, we address this issue, because we support lethal defense weapons. General Dunford? 

General DUNFORD. The critical capability areas the Ukrainians 

have identified include fire support, their artillery capability, as 

well as their anti-armor capability. 

Senator INHOFE. Yeah, and do you agree with that? 

General DUNFORD. That’s a capability gap, I agree with that. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to join in thanking both of you for your extraordinary 

service and for your very forthright answers to our questions here. 

General Dunford, is there any question in your mind, any doubt, 

that Russian planes were responsible for attacking the United 

States—the U.N. convoy that was trying to deliver aid to Aleppo? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I don’t have the facts. What we know 

are, two Russian aircraft were in that area at that time. My judgment would be that they did. There were also some other aircraft 

in the area, that belonged to the regime, at or about the same time; 

so, I can’t conclusively say that it was the Russians, but it was either the Russians or the regime. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, it sounds to me like you’re saying 

that their responsibility was demonstrated beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, there’s no doubt in my mind that the 

Russians are responsible. I just don’t know whose aircraft actually 

dropped the bomb. I would certainly associate myself with the comment that you made earlier, that, yes, it is the Russians that were 

responsible. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Which is a war crime. I’m not asking for 

your legal judgment, knowing that you would probably disclaim 

your expertise as a lawyer, but you would agree with me, as a layman, as a military person, that that act constituted a war crime. 

General DUNFORD. It was an unacceptable atrocity, Senator. 

26 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you agree with Secretary Kerry in 

contending that what ought to be done is a grounding of all aircraft 

in certain areas of Syria, including that one? 

General DUNFORD. I would not agree that coalition aircraft ought 

to be grounded. I do agree that Syrian regime aircraft and Russian 

aircraft should be grounded. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Would you agree with—apparently, the 

growing strain of thought in the administration, that the Syrian 

Kurds should be armed? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, we’re in deliberation about exactly 

what to do with the Syrian Democratic Forces right now. We 

have—providing them support. They are our more—most effective 

partner on the ground. It’s very difficult, as you know, managing 

the relationship between our support for the Syrian Democratic 

Forces and our Turkish allies. We’re working very closely with our 

Turkish allies to come up with the right approach to make sure 

that we can conduct effective and decisive operations in Raqqa with 

the Syrian Democratic Forces and still allay the Kurdish—the 

Turkish concerns about the Kurds’ long-term political prospects. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If those concerns can be allayed, and even 

if they can’t be allayed, would you agree that arming the Syrian 

Kurds presents an opportunity for us, as a military option, to be 

more effective in that area? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I would agree with that. If we would 

reinforce the Syrian Democratic Forces’ current capabilities, that 

will increase the prospects of our success in Raqqa. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In terms of the Russian responsibility for 

what you have absolutely correctly termed ‘‘an atrocity,’’ a war 

crime in that area, what can the United States do? What are some 

of those military options that the Chairman asked about? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I’d prefer to talk to you in private 

about military options that might be being discussed as future options the President may have. I think right now managing the Russian problem is largely a political/diplomatic problem, and that’s 

what Secretary Kerry and the President are dealing with. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Let me turn—Mr. Secretary, you mentioned that there are three areas—the fiscal, the over-regulation or 

micromanaging, and much needed reforms, as you characterized 

them. Could you give us your priorities as to what those reforms 

would be? 

Secretary CARTER. I have spelled—I have a number of concerns, 

which I spelled out at great length in a letter to the committee. I 

really look forward to working with you to resolve them. There are 

a number of them. They’re serious concerns that I have for provisions in the bill. I’d like to work all of these—I think where we 

have common intentions, work them to a place where I can support 

an NDAA that the President would sign. That’s where I’d like to 

get with you all by the time you return, in November. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would welcome that opportunity. I’m just 

about out of time. This topic is immensely important, because it involves effective use of resources. We talk a lot about what the levels of resource should be, but managing them effectively is very important. 

27 

As to the Syrian conflict, to both of you, I don’t need to emphasize how desperately serious the humanitarian catastrophe is in 

Syria. The Chairman has rightly referred to the numbers killed 

and displaced. It is, as Secretary Kerry right termed it, probably 

the biggest humanitarianism catastrophe since World War II, and 

the United States bears a responsibility to use its military forces 

to stop the bloodshed and the needless and senseless killing of innocent civilians there. 

Thank you very much for your testimony today. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would share that thought. The situation in Syria is a colossal 

disaster. I do not believe it had to happen. I believe a wise statesman could have foreseen some of the difficulties we’re facing today. 

We should have been more cautious and careful in our declarations 

of how we expect Syria to develop over the years. It hasn’t developed like President Obama projected. Disaster has been the situation. 

With regard to the sequestration issue, Mr. Secretary, I’m trying 

to contain spending on all our accounts. I’ve come to believe that 

we have to have more defense spending. We’ve exceeded sequestration, I guess, for the last two years. But, I guess my question to 

you is—Senator McCain has proposed an increase in defense 

spending. All the items that he proposed are things the Defense 

Department have said they need. Is it your position that the—and 

is it the President’s position—that we will not spend that additional money for the Defense Department unless at least an equal 

amount of money is spent on the Commerce Department, the EPA, 

and other Government agencies? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, what—I’ll speak for myself—what I 

can’t support, and won’t support, is anything that moves towards 

instability. That means towards sequestration. That means away 

from bipartisanship. We submitted a budget that was consonant 

with the bipartisan budget agreement. That’s what we did. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well—— 

Secretary CARTER. Eight months—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Okay. I understand. 

Secretary CARTER. We did that—— 

Senator SESSIONS. It—— 

Secretary CARTER.—a few months into the bipartisan budget—— 

Senator SESSIONS. All right. 

Secretary CARTER.—agreement. I—the—I can’t—I don’t control 

this. I simply approve it. 

Senator SESSIONS. It’s the President’s decision, ultimately. I understand that. What he’s saying, in leading the Democrats, and 

they’re saying, not only do we have to bust the budget for the Defense Department, we have to bust it an equal amount for nondefense spending. That’s the problem we have today. That’s why 

we don’t have a bipartisan agreement. 

If we can go on to the next subject—— 

Secretary CARTER. Well, there is a bipartisan—if I may say so, 

there is a bipartisan budget agreement, and that is what we—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well—— 

28 

Secretary CARTER.—submitted our budget in accordance with, 

whatever, eight months ago. Now—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well—— 

Secretary CARTER.—the fiscal year ends, and there’s no—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we’ll have to—— 

Secretary CARTER.—there’s no budget on that basis. 

Senator SESSIONS.—to avoid a Government shutdown. The leadership of the President and his determination to compromise has 

bitterly been reached. I wish we could have supported Defense 

without going further. 

Mr. Secretary, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Gates, and you 

have criticized our allies in Europe about their unwillingness to 

even meet their minimum commitments to defense. I suppose you 

still believe they should meet those minimum standards, do you 

not? 

Secretary CARTER. Yeah. Yeah, I absolutely do. They said 

that—— 

Senator SESSIONS. You’ve said that before. But, this European 

Reassurance Initiative—a European official told me, ‘‘Why did not 

the United States demand that Europe increase their defense 

spending at the same amount we’re increasing our defense spending for Europe in the European Reassurance Initiative?′′ 

Secretary CARTER. Well, all I can tell you is, yes, I am, in a long 

tradition—and it actually goes back before—— 

Senator SESSIONS. My question is, Why did you not tell the Europeans—— 

Secretary CARTER. I did. 

Senator SESSIONS.—and—— 

Secretary CARTER. I did. We’ve been talking—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we don’t have a commitment from them 

to match that amount of money, do we? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, it’s complicated, because some—each of 

them has made a contribution to European Reassurance, but 

you’re—in terms of aggregate spending, they have a commitment, 

which not many of them have met, Senator, but a few have—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Four out of—— 

Secretary CARTER.—which is to meet—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—twenty-eight countries are at the minimum. 

Secretary CARTER.—which is to spend two percent of their GDP. 

Important major countries in Europe aren’t even doing that. That’s 

unacceptable. 

Senator SESSIONS. With—— 

Secretary CARTER. It means that Europe—too many European 

militaries have made themselves incapable of independent—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well—— 

Secretary CARTER.—military activity—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—I’ll just say this. For the last 8 to 12 years, 

they’ve continued—— 

Secretary CARTER. Okay. 

Senator SESSIONS.—on this, and we’ve said it, and nothing’s happened. It’s time for something to happen from Europe. 

Let me ask you, really, about the Syrian situation. It’s such a 

disaster. I mean, we’ve got hundreds of thousands dead, six million 

refugees, and I don’t see an end in sight. General Dunford just said 

29 

that Assad is not leaving anytime soon. Five years ago, the President said, ‘‘Assad has to go, and is going.’’ He did not go. This is 

all a result of that. Now we’re making some progress, I understand, 

against ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria]. What kind of agreement—what kind of end do you see, Mr. Secretary, for this disastrous conflict? How can we see an end to it? What do you foresee, 

and what’s our goal? 

Secretary CARTER. We are making progress in the counter-ISIL 

campaign in Iraq and Syria. In western Syria, where the civil war 

rages—— 

Senator SESSIONS. No, no, no. I’m asking, What is the goal of the 

United States—— 

Secretary CARTER. The goal of—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—of America—— 

Secretary CARTER. The goal—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—for Syria? 

Secretary CARTER. The goal of United States policy in Syria is to 

end the Syrian war—civil war. It has been that for a long time. 

That means a end to the violence there. That’s—and also a political 

transition from Assad to a government that includes the moderate 

opposition and that can run the country. Our approach has been 

a political one—— 

Senator SESSIONS. The problem is—let me ask you this. It seems 

to me that the problem is that, with our support, ISIS is being 

damaged, but they’re not utterly destroyed. If some sort of peace 

agreement is reached, some sort of cease-fire, and the United 

States and others reduce their presence there, can you assure us 

that ISIS, the toughest, meanest group in Syria, won’t be able to 

destabilize any government that might be put together? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, let me be clear about something, which 

is, our counter-ISIL campaign is not on the table or part of the discussions of Secretary Kerry with the Russians. That is about the 

Russian activity, Syrian activity in western Syria. Our counterISIL campaign, we are conducting, and will conduct. You’re right, 

we are making progress in it. That’s—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well—— 

Secretary CARTER.—going to go on. 

Senator SESSIONS. I don’t see—— 

Secretary CARTER. But, what Secretary Kerry’s trying to do—and 

again, as we sit here today, it’s very problematic—but, what he’s 

trying to do is exactly what you’re calling attention to, namely to 

end the humanitarian disaster occasioned by the civil war in Syria, 

and to promote a political transition. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well—— 

Secretary CARTER. He’s trying to work with those—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—let me wrap up and—— 

Secretary CARTER.—who have influence—— 

Senator SESSIONS. My time’s over—— 

Secretary CARTER.—there, and they’re not—— 

Senator SESSIONS.—Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary CARTER.—and they’re not exercising that influence. 

Senator SESSIONS. I believe we could have done a better job with 

safe zones. I’m worried about the area in Iraq. I’ve talked to you 

previously and personally about it. We need a active American polVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
30 

icy, a leadership in the world. But, we cannot establish all these 

governments, and run them, and assure how they’ll come out in the 

end. We can’t occupy these countries for decades to try to assure 

that. That’s just not realistic. 

A wise statesman would have seen the danger in Syria. A wise 

statesman would have seen the danger in Libya. A wise statesman 

should have seen what could have happened in Egypt. Except for 

30 million Egyptians going to the public square and driving out the 

Muslim Brotherhood, we could have a disaster there. 

We’ve got to be more realistic in our foreign policy. We’ve got to 

know what we can do to affect, positively, the world and what we 

cannot do. We’re not able to ensure democratic governments 

throughout this region of the world. We’re now facing colossal humanitarian disaster, and it’s been bubbling for a number of years. 

There’s no easy solution to get out of it. I wish it were, but there’s 

not. 

Thank you. 

Senator REED [presiding]. On behalf of Chairman McCain, let me 

recognize Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

An observation about the budget. A year and a half ago, we had 

a bipartisan agreement on the budget number. Then allocations 

were made to the Appropriations Committee, and they went 

through their process. I thought, ‘‘Finally, some stability. We can 

have appropriations.’’ But, I’m reminded of an old saying in Maine, 

‘‘He’s so dumb, he could screw up a two-car funeral.’’ We had the 

numbers, we had the allocations, we had the agreement, and yet, 

here we are at a Continuing Resolution. 

I think we ought to be clear about what it is that’s gotten us 

here. There is a dispute, as Senator Sessions pointed out, on the 

numbers. But, that’s the kind of thing that can be negotiated. If 

there’s an $18 billion been added to Defense, and there are people 

that feel that, on the domestic side, there also needs to be increases 

in areas like the FBI, for example, that’s a legitimate area that 

reasonable people in an afternoon should be able to figure out. 

What’s really holding things up, as I understand it, are riders 

that have nothing to do with the budget, that have to do with policy preferences of various individuals. A perfect example is the National Defense Authorization Act, which, my understanding is, is 

now being held up by the sage grouse. The sage grouse is what is 

stopping the finalization of the National Defense Authorization Act. 

A very important issue to a lot of people, I’m not denigrating it. I 

know it’s very important in the West. But, it should not be the 

thing that holds up the National Defense Authorization Act and 

the support of our men and women all over the world. 

I think we ought to be clear about what the problem is, here, 

that trying to load on a lot of political baggage to both the appropriations bills and the national defense bill is what has gotten us 

to this place. The numbers have been agreed on by a year—for a 

year and a half. If we want to increase them, let’s discuss that and 

work out an agreement. That should be easy. But, to be holding up 

this— and the—similar to the sage grouse, other kinds of those 

issues are why, my understanding is, is holding up the appropriations process. 

31 

We’re doing a Continuing Resolution even though we’ve had a 

number agreed on for two years—for a year and a half. It’s just— 

you know, this institution, as Senator Lindsey Graham pointed out 

last week, is one of the greatest threats to American security. He 

went through a litany of how we’ve taken more troops off the battlefield, more airplanes out of the air, more ships out of the ocean 

than any enemy has done by our inability to work out what ordinary people on the street would think people ought to be able to 

figure out in a relatively short period of time. 

If you can find a question in there, you’re welcome to it. 

Secretary CARTER. I would like to say one thing, which is just to 

repeat that it is on the basis of that bipartisan budget agreement, 

and the stability it promised, that we submitted our budget. 

Senator KING. Right. 

Secretary CARTER. Now—and that—we figured that was the best 

the country could do on a bipartisan basis. That’s the only way 

we’ve had stability in the past. 

Now, I’m asked about this proposal and that proposal that would 

depart from that, and my answer is, in all seriousness, with responsibility for trying to shepherd this institution, is—I have to 

look at what I think can be delivered—— 

Senator KING. Sure. 

Secretary CARTER.—on a stable basis. That was what the bipartisan budget agreement is, and that is the—that has been the foundation, and remains the foundation, for our budget submission. We 

did a very good job, in my judgment—and this is the senior leadership of the Department—to manage responsibly within that budget. 

We’ve done that. That’s the budget we submitted, months ago—— 

Senator KING. Mr. Secretary, I—— 

Secretary CARTER.—for this fiscal year. Now the fiscal year ends, 

and—so, we’ve played it very straight. 

Senator KING. My point is, we had a budget agreement, we had 

a number, and we still can’t get it done. 

Let me ask an entirely different question. 

Next week, we are probably going to be dealing with a veto of 

the bill that would allow people to sue Saudi Arabia, the so-called 

Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. General Dunford, do 

you have—or both of you—do you have concerns about what the effect on our troops, our liability around the world, would be if that 

bill becomes law? 

Secretary CARTER. Let me—if I may, I’ll say something first—— 

Senator KING. Sure. 

Secretary CARTER.—and then General Dunford, if he wishes to. 

The—first of all, I completely associate myself with the intention 

of this, which is to honor the families of the 9/11 perished. That 

is the origin of this. That’s—is a worthy one. 

I—it is a law enforcement matter, and, I have to say, we’re— 

we—we’re not the ones who are dealing with it, nor are—am I, at 

least, an expert on it. But, you did raise one thing that I am aware 

of, which is a complication from—that would be a complication, 

from our point of view, namely that were another country to behave reciprocally towards the United States, that could be a problem for some of our servicemembers. That is, I’m told, a—someVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
32 

thing that we, in the Department of Defense, should be concerned 

about. You’re referring to that. That’s my understanding, as well. 

Let me ask the Chairman if he wants to add anything. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, the potential second-order effect the 

Secretary has raised is one that was—been brought to my attention. That’s my concern, as well. 

Senator KING. I think it would be helpful if you could give us 

more detail on that issue, because we’re going to be having to make 

a decision, probably next week. I, for one, want to be sure I understand the full implications of that decision, not only on the victims’ 

families, but also on other United States interests around the 

world. I’d appreciate it if that could be made available in the next 

few days. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

33 


16-71_ThornberryLtr_1.eps
34 

Senator REED. On behalf of the Chairman, Senator Ayotte, 

please. 

Senator AYOTTE. Thank you, Chairman. 

I want to thank you both for your service and leadership for the 

country. 

You know, just to briefly weigh on this funding issue, what’s 

been most disappointing to me, as someone who supported the bipartisan budget agreement, is that the defense appropriations bill 

passed within that cap set by the bipartisan budget agreement 

unanimously out of the Appropriations Committee. Both parties 

agreed with the funding on defense. Then it came to the Senate 


16-71_ThornberryLtr_2.eps
35 

floor, and it’s been blocked multiple times because it’s being held 

hostage to other issues. 

Just to be clear, what you’re asking for, it’s there. It’s just disappointing to people like me and others here, because the priority 

of defending this Nation and having the funding for our troops and 

what you need to do should be our priority, no matter what. 

You know, as I hear this kabuki dance, it’s obvious. We passed 

an appropriations bill. It was completely bipartisan, within the 

budget caps. Why is it being blocked? I was proud to vote for it. 

I’d vote for it again tomorrow. I just wish we’d get it done for you 

and our men and women in uniform. 

I wanted to shift gears here and ask about Iran. General 

Dunford, does Iran continue to be one of the lead sponsors of terrorism around the world? 

General DUNFORD. They are, Senator. I describe their major export as malign influence. 

Senator AYOTTE. Are they continuing to test ballistic missiles 

that is quite troubling to both us and our allies and, I think, in violation of U.N. resolutions? 

General DUNFORD. They are, Senator, as well as provocative behavior in the Gulf. 

Senator AYOTTE. Exactly, that our military has encountered in 

the Gulf just recently. 

General DUNFORD. That’s right, Senator. 

Senator AYOTTE. One of the things that I wanted to ask about is—recently, we learned that the $1.7 billion in cash relief has actually gone—that the administration has provided Iran—has actually gone directly to the Revolutionary Guard Corps. I don’t know 

if you were aware of that. In fact, the Iranian parliament, or their 

equivalent of our—their legislative body passed a law that essentially said if there was a settlement, a legal settlement from a foreign country, which is how this $1.7 billion has been characterized, 

it would go directly to the military. Does that trouble you, that 

they’re taking the proceeds that we’re giving them and funding 

their military? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I wasn’t aware of it. It doesn’t surprise me that the Republican Guard would have a high priority for 

funding inside of Iran. But, it certainly is troubling. The more 

funds that they have available, obviously, the more effective they’ll 

be in spreading malign influence. 

Senator AYOTTE. One of the things, as I look at this—this is 

our—you know, this relief that we’re giving them, they’re testing 

ballistic missiles, they—the money that they’re getting—this isn’t 

going to the Iranian people, it’s going to their Revolutionary Guard 

Corps, that we know promotes terrorism and undermines stability 

around the world. As I see this situation, I don’t see us taking any 

steps that we should, in terms of being aggressive in coming back, 

especially on the ballistic missile program and their terrorism 

issues. What should we be doing, General? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, there’s two things that I’d draw your 

attention to. First is our posture in the Central Command, which 

is, in fact, their—both to deter Iran, but also to respond to Iran, 

should a response be required. Also, in the fiscal year 2017 budget—and I expect you’ll see similar requests in the fiscal year 2018 

36 

budget—much of what we are focused on is dealing with what we 

describe as anti-access area denial. That’s Iran’s desire to keep us 

from moving into that area, and then operating freely within that 

area. Many of the programs, from a cyber perspective, from ballistic missile defense capability, strike capability, are all designed 

to deal with the threat of Iran in the region. 

Senator AYOTTE. Let me just ask you. They’re still testing ballistic missiles. Would you agree that’s a grave threat and something that needs to be addressed, in terms of our security? This is 

all post-agreement, that they’re doing this, agreed? 

General DUNFORD. Absolutely, Senator, and that’s why we’ve 

identified them as one of the four state challenges that we benchmark our joint capabilities against. 

Senator AYOTTE. One of the things I wanted to ask your thoughts 

on, General, is that we’ve learned about this $400 million in cash 

that Iran got, that would be included in the $1.7 billion that I referenced, for release of the American hostages. Did you think that 

was a good idea? Were you consulted about that? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, that would, in the normal course of 

events, not be something that would be in my lane, so I was not 

consulted. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, do you think it’s a good idea that we 

should exchange cash to a country like Iran, that you’ve already 

confirmed is one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism, in exchange for hostages? Because, as I look at this situation, they’ve 

now taken at least three more American hostages. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I just don’t know the details of the 

agreement that was made with Iran and what the nature of that 

money was. I—you know, on principle, I would prefer that we not 

provide additional resources to Iran. 

Senator AYOTTE. On principle, you’d rather them not have more 

money. I mean, doesn’t it worry you that, as we think about exchanging cash with a country like Iran—obviously, it was funneled 

through the European countries—and that, in fact, we’re going to 

encourage more bad behavior from Iran, and we’ve seen some of it? 

Isn’t that something we should be concerned about? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, before whatever arrangement was 

made, and after whatever arrangement was made, I’m under no illusion of what Iran is intending to do, nor are we not—nor are 

we—we are mindful of the capabilities that they’re developing, as 

well. 

Senator AYOTTE. Well, I hope—you know, I’ve introduced sanctions legislation on—to address their ballistic missile program. I 

think this ransom payment issue is just deeply troubling, and it’s 

just causing further bad behavior from Iran. We know they’ve 

taken further hostages. I just hope that this administration will 

step up and finally address Iran’s bad behavior. 

Senator REED. On behalf of Chairman McCain, Senator Ernst, 

please. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today and joining in the 

discussion. 

I’d like to start with just a few quick yes-or-no questions; very 

brief, please, gentlemen. 

37 

For Secretary Carter, did you know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Ramzi Yousef, who 

masterminded and planned the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, 

utilized the Philippines as a safe haven for their planning and 

training? Yes or no? 

Secretary CARTER. Senator, it’s—I’ll just say it to be—I’ll try your 

questions yes or no. It depends on whether they lend themselves 

to that. In this case, no, I was not aware. 

Senator ERNST. Okay. Yes, he did use it as a safe haven during 

that planning and training. 

General Dunford, did you know that Operation Enduring Freedom covered the Philippines in order to train and assist those local 

forces in the Philippines against al Qaeda-linked terrorist organizations? 

General DUNFORD. Yes, I did, Senator. 

Senator ERNST. Okay, thank you, General. 

For both of you, are you both aware that ISIS released a video 

this year encouraging fighters that can’t get into Syria to head to 

the Philippines? 

Secretary CARTER. I am, yes. 

General DUNFORD. I am, as well. I was in Manila last week, Senator. 

Senator ERNST. Wonderful. Thank you, General. 

Just like we’re witnessing in the Middle East, and we have heard 

much of the discussion today focus on the Middle East. General, I 

appreciate you’ve spent time in Africa, as well, dealing with Islamic 

extremist groups. They are also in Southeast Asia. We are not 

spending much time talking about that. Groups like Abu Sayyaf, 

they’re bonding together beneath the flag of ISIS. Yet, we really, 

like I said, don’t seem to be focusing on this. The Philippine forces 

lost 44 of their special police in a single battle to these terrorist 

groups last year. Fifteen soldiers were killed in a single battle just 

last month. It’s clear that this is a very real threat. 

President Obama admitted that we have underestimated the rise 

of ISIS in the Middle East. What I fear right now is that we are 

completely underestimating the rise of ISIS in Southeast Asia. 

Before the President went to Asia last month, I did send a letter 

to him and encouraged him to visit about how we can counter terrorism and counter ISIS in that region. I did urge him to bring up 

this issue with the President. Shortly after that, ISIS claimed another attack, killing 14 civilians. 

Secretary Carter, are you concerned with what we see as the rise 

of ISIS in Southeast Asia? 

Secretary CARTER. I am. I’ll say something, and then I’ll ask the 

Chairman also if he’d chime in. 

When I talked about the metastasis of the cancer of ISIL, you’re 

absolutely right that South Asia clearly is a place they aspire to 

spreading. I talk to our counterparts there who are concerned 

about it. We work with them. Just next week, I’m—I’ll be convening them in Honolulu on a number of issues of Pacific security, 

but one of them is going to be counterterrorism and countering 

ISIL. I’d say Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore—you mentioned the 

Philippines, and other places, but those four come to mind. I’ve spoken to the Defense Ministers in each of those four countries. They 

38 

have concerns, particularly about the possibility that ISIS could establish a foothold there. In some places, it’s already troubled, in 

some way. There are places in all those countries. It could grab 

hold there. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. 

Secretary CARTER. It is very much on our agenda. 

Chairman, please. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I agree with your assessment and 

concerns. Last week, I met with 29 Chiefs of Defense in the Pacific, 

in Manilla, hosted by the Chief of Defense of the Philippine Armed 

Forces, and we discussed, broadly, the threat of extremism in Asia 

and what we need to do to deal with it. 

To your point, there’s 1,000 foreign fighters, alone, we estimate 

have come from Indonesia into Syria and Iraq. There are hundreds 

that came from the Philippines. Other countries, as well, are dealing with that issue. 

I think, although it’s not very visible, there’s a significant 

amount of activity going on to build the capacity of our partners 

in the Pacific. We’re trying to work with them to develop a framework within which they can share information, share intelligence. 

We have a significant maritime domain awareness initiative, which 

will help them understand the movement into the sea. We see, for 

example, significant cooperation between the Philippines, Malaysia, 

and Indonesia in the Sulu Sea associated with the movement of 

people and so forth, you know, in—as part of this violent extremist 

problem. 

It is a different fight. I call it a requirement for a regional approach in Southeast Asia, as opposed to a coalition, which is required in Syria and Iraq. But, we are absolutely putting pressure 

on ISIL in South Asia. We are absolutely working very closely with 

our partners. Frankly, the limit of the support we provide is often 

what they are willing to accept politically. We’re very keen, and we 

will bring to the President any requests for support. I think, as you 

know, Senator, we are providing some support now to the Philippines—intelligence support and—— 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. 

General DUNFORD.—other support, to help them to deal with the 

extremist problem that they have in the south. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, General. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

I just really want us to ensure that we are not taking our eyes 

off of that region. We seem to focus very heavily, as we should, on 

the Middle East and Africa, but we do have other footholds for 

ISIS. We do have five new bases going into the Philippines, and I 

think it’s important that we really focus on these counter-ISIS opportunities. 

Thank you, gentlemen, very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Senator REED. On behalf of the Chairman, let me recognize Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Secretary Carter and General Dunford, for being 

here today and for your service to the country. 

39 

General Dunford, at one point before this committee, you indicated that you believe Russia poses the greatest threat to the 

United States. Do you still feel that way? If so, can you identify 

where you think those threats are most concerning? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I can. Thank you. I raised that 

issue—I was asked before the committee, what did I think the most 

significant challenge to the United States was. Of course, we talk 

about all four state challenges and one violent extremist. But, 

when I look at Russia’s nuclear capability, when I look at their 

cyber capability, when I look at their developments in undersea 

warfare, when I look at their patterns of operation—how often 

they’ve operating, the locations they’re operating—it’s a pattern of 

operations that we haven’t seen in over 20 years. When I look at 

Mr. Putin’s activities in the Ukraine, in Crimea, in Georgia, that 

causes me to say that a combination of their behavior as well as 

their military capability, again, in some high-end areas, would 

cause me to believe that they pose the most significant challenge, 

potentially the most significant threat to our national interests. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Well, thank you. 

I very much appreciate, Secretary Carter, your raising the European Reassurance Initiative as one of the programs that’s threatened if we can’t get agreement in Congress on funding, and share 

that concern, especially because of the potential threat that Russia 

poses on—in Eastern Europe. 

One of the things that Secretary Kerry said yesterday was that 

we should consider grounding all military aircraft in key areas of 

Syria in response to what appears to be a blatant Russian bombing 

of the humanitarian aid that was scheduled to go into Syria. They 

have denied, of course, but, I think, as we’ve seen in the past, we 

can’t really believe what they say. 

I would ask you, Secretary Carter, do you agree that that is one 

avenue that we could take? What would be the followup position 

if they continue to fly aircraft? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, I can’t speak for Secretary Kerry. He is 

trying to get on the—for the Syrian and Russian air force, exactly 

that, a cessation of hostilities and a—which means a grounding of 

their aircraft, and not continuing to use them, particularly in a 

clumsy way—it’s a nice word—in the Syrian civil war. 

There’s no question—can be no question of grounding U.S. aircraft that are conducting strikes against ISIL. We do that. We do 

that with exceptional precision and care and concern for civilian 

casualties that no other country can match. That’s true of our 

whole coalition in all the strikes we conduct. 

They’re not in the same category at all. We need to continue with 

our air campaign to defeat ISIL. 

Let me ask the Chairman if he wants—anything to add. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, the most significant concern I would 

have—and I don’t know what the proposal is—but, I would not— 

first of all, there’s no reason to ground our aircraft. We’re not barrel bombing civilians, we’re not causing collateral damage. We have 

momentum, as we’ve all discussed here earlier today, against ISIL 

right now. I think what the Secretary is saying, I fully associate 

myself with. We need to keep the pressure on ISIL. The numberone priority that we have is disrupting their ability to plan and 

40 

conduct external operations from Syria. The cost of taking pressure 

off of ISIL right now exposes us to risk that I think is not acceptable. 

Senator SHAHEEN. In the absence of some other action that we 

take, along with our allies in that area, do you see anything changing the dynamic of the civil war in Syria? I mean, I—I believe it’s 

going to take some other outside—some other intervention in order 

to change the direction of this war. Right now, there’s nothing happening that would do that. 

Either one of you. 

Secretary CARTER. Well, I’ll start. 

The direction in which Secretary Kerry is trying to get the Russians to move, which I understand fully, is the direction they always should have been in Syria, which is towards putting an end 

to the civil war, not pouring gasoline on it, and not emboldening 

Assad to be intransigent—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. But—— 

Secretary CARTER.—let alone conducting an air campaign, which 

is—doesn’t adhere to the standards that ours does. 

Senator SHAHEEN. But—I’m sorry to interrupt, Mr. Secretary, 

but I guess—I appreciate what you’re saying, and that that should 

have been Russia’s position all along, but clearly—— 

Secretary CARTER. That’s what Secretary Kerry’s trying to get 

them to. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Right. But, we have had no success, after five 

years of civil war. What I’m asking is, What other options do we 

have that might change the trajectory of what’s happening in 

Syria? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, I’m—again, I’m not going to try to get 

in the middle of these negotiations, but I think that Secretary 

Kerry is trying to find a way to achieve those objectives. They’re— 

those are the right objectives to have. As we sit here today, the 

Russians do not, and the Syrians do not, seem to be moving in that 

direction, as he said yesterday. 

Chairman, you want to add anything? 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN [presiding]. Senator Cotton. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, I share your regret about the Department starting 

the fiscal year with another Continuing Resolution. I also regret 

that the Democrats have filibustered the Defense appropriations 

bills three times. Do you share my regret over that fact? 

Secretary CARTER. I can’t speak to the internal deliberations of 

the Congress. The only thing I’d say—— 

Senator COTTON. Well, that’s a public vote. That’s not an internal—— 

Secretary CARTER. Well, let me just say, we know that the only 

way to get budget stability is with everybody coming together. I see 

proposals from this side and that side, and this committee and that 

committee, and they’re all different. We submitted a budget, in accordance with the bipartisan budget agreements just months after 

a two-year bipartisan budget agreement was agreed. That’s what 

41 

we did. That is, in my judgment, the only way we can get true stability. 

I’m—I am continuing to support the position of the bipartisan 

budget agreement. Anything that comes out of the Congress that 

is supported, an appropriation, at last, for fiscal year 2017 would 

be good for the Department of Defense. I hope we get such a 

thing—— 

Senator COTTON. Do you—— 

Secretary CARTER.—in November. 

Senator COTTON. Do you—— 

Secretary CARTER. But, the reality is that these things have to 

be supported by both parties, both houses, and signed by the President. I’m the Secretary of Defense. I can’t make all that happen. 

But, I know that’s what has to happen in order for us to get an 

appropriation. Eight years in a row, straight, that hasn’t—— 

Senator COTTON. Okay. 

Secretary CARTER.—happened. 

Senator COTTON. I understand. My time is limited here. 

Do you believe, if a bill is passed out of the House of Representatives that has a larger increase for defense spending than it does 

for nondefense discretionary spending, that the President should 

sign that legislation? 

Secretary CARTER. I can’t speak for the—— 

Senator COTTON. Mr. Secretary, you are the—— 

Secretary CARTER. I’m going to give you—— 

Senator COTTON.—Secretary of Defense. 

Secretary CARTER. You asked the question—— 

Senator COTTON. You are not the Director of the National Endowment of the Arts. You’re not the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development. You are the—— 

Secretary CARTER. That’s where I was—— 

Senator COTTON.—Secretary of Defense. 

Secretary CARTER.—headed. That’s exactly where I was headed. 

I’m not. Therefore, I can’t speak for the needs of those departments. I do know that some of the national-security-related departments, which are outside of the defense appropriation—— 

Senator COTTON. You stated that—— 

Secretary CARTER.—with which I am—— 

Senator COTTON.—stated that testimony up to here—— 

Secretary CARTER.—need their funding—— 

Senator COTTON.—and others—— 

Secretary CARTER.—as well. It’s not a matter of indifference to 

me whether the government as a whole is funded. It’s certainly not 

a matter of indifference to me whether an appropriation that can 

be supported by everyone up here so that it passes, and passed by 

the President, is done, or not. That’s what I have to be for. Because 

I’m for getting a budget and for budget stability. I just observe— 

I’m not a participant, I’m an observer—that the only way that happens is not with this proposal and that proposal, it’s with a bipartisan budget agreement. That’s the line we tried to hew to. We’re 

just playing it as straight—— 

Senator COTTON. I—— 

Secretary CARTER.—as we can. 

42 

Senator COTTON. I understand. You were the Deputy Secretary 

of Defense for Secretary Panetta. Is that correct? 

Secretary CARTER. Yes. 

Senator COTTON. On page 374 of his memoirs, he states, ‘‘In fact, 

as my efforts to fight the sequester began to get some attention, 

a few congressional Democrats urged me to emphasize the danger 

of cuts to domestic programs, not just defense. To my amazement, 

the rest of the Cabinet, including members responsible for those 

parts of the budget, largely stayed out of the debate. That left me 

to argue for all of us, which I tried to do, even when I found myself 

frustratingly alone.’’ 

Have congressional Democrats urged you to advocate for increased domestic spending in addition to defense spending? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, first of all, I should say, you know, few 

had the experience with bipartisan budget management than Secretary Panetta. I don’t remember that passage of his memoirs, but 

that sounds—it sounds like his—— 

Senator COTTON. Do you remember—— 

Secretary CARTER.—his voice. But—— 

Senator COTTON. Do you remember—— 

Secretary CARTER.—I’ve not found myself in the same circumstance, except I am in the same circumstance he was, namely—and I guess that was 2013—facing the prospect of sequester. 

He didn’t like it. I didn’t like it. I don’t think any Secretary of Defense liked it. I think it’s awfully unfair to our troops to do this 

again and again and again and again. That’s what we’ve been 

warning about. That’s where I have been. That’s what our chiefs 

did last week. I’m just hoping that, when everybody comes back in 

November, Congress reconvenes, that we get an appropriation that 

everybody can stand behind and that moves the country forward. 

Senator COTTON. General Dunford, are we in great-power competition with China? 

General DUNFORD. We are, Senator. 

Senator COTTON. Secretary Carter, are we in great-power competition with China? 

Secretary CARTER. We are, absolutely right. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. 

One final question. Are you engaged in any planning, deliberations, internal consultations of any kind to transfer control of the 

detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the Department of Justice? 

Secretary CARTER. No. I’m not. 

Senator COTTON. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator McCaskill. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I’m going to take a deep breath. I’m always 

proud to serve on this committee, because it’s an oasis of bipartisanship in the Senate. I hope we keep our eye firmly on our ability 

to lead in a bipartisan way to get the funding for our military that 

we really need, including being honest about budgeting, not putting 

base budget items in OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] so 

that we can pretend that we’re not spending money because OCO 

is off the budget books. I think that the Chairman has done a remarkable job to try to keep us in an honest place as it relates to 

budgeting. I respect him for his effort in that regard. I know I 

43 

speak for many on our side of the aisle, including, I hope—I know, 

the Ranking Member, that we’re going to continue to try to work 

as hard as we can in a bipartisan way to get your budget done and 

make sure we’re not trying to come back in six months and fund 

the war effort because we’ve played budget games at the eleventh 

hour with OCO. 

My question today—we’ve got $1.3 in the fiscal year 2017 budget 

for train-and-equip for local opposition forces and for the Iraqi Security Forces. I’d like some kind of brief update, if I could, on the 

screening process. How are we determining who—I mean, one of 

our challenges has always been in Syria. Who do we help? Are they 

really the good guys? Obviously, we had one massive failed attempt 

to try to put together a force on the ground through train-andequip. Now I know we’ve gone back. I was in Jordan and visited 

with our leaders over there about the effort that’s ongoing, working 

with smaller groups and testing them first and making sure they’re 

doing the right thing. But, if you could briefly talk about how we 

are doing the screening process for those resources, I’d appreciate 

it. 

Secretary CARTER. Sure, Senator. I’ll start. Thank you. Basically, 

it is as you say. Namely, we have the same vetting process going 

on—and I’ll as the Chairman to describe that—but, the train-andequip program that was a disappointment when it started is now— 

we have a—changed completely our approach to it. It is as you describe; namely, not trying to create de novo forces that will go in 

and oppose ISIL, but identifying forces that are, and then enabling 

them. That has been successful. We’re going to continue to do that. 

It does involve vetting to our standards, which is required of us. 

But, the program has changed. It needed to change. It did change, 

and is now on a much successful footing. 

I should also thank the committee, in the spirit of what you said 

earlier, about—for their budgetary support in a timely way to our 

requests for that. Much appreciate that, as well. 

If—I’d ask the Chairman, also. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, just some of the mechanics. First, individuals who we are working with are vouched for by their tribal 

leadership. We do biometrics. We do a detailed interview process. 

We watch closely their behaviors. I would say our leaders over the 

last several years have been very, very good at literally separating 

wheat from the chaff as we go through the process of growing Syrian opposition—Syrian or, as the case may be, forces in Iraq—tribal 

forces in Iraq. 

The vetting process, I think, is fairly sophisticated. Again, it’s 

built on 15 years of lessons learned right now. A combination of the 

technology that we have available with biometrics, but also some 

intangibles that include, again, tribal leadership, behavior identification, those kinds of things. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I also wanted to—to both of you, I appreciate your continued commitment in the area of sexual assault. I 

know we have put a lot on the military. I think we have counted 

up—literally, there are hundreds of changes we have made over 

the last few years to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I did 

want to hone in on one area, because, as we looked at all of the 

reports in the last year, lots of good news—incidents down, reportVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
44 

ing up—but that retaliation thing is an issue. You issued a report 

in April which highlighted standardizing the definition of ‘‘retaliation,’’ which is tough, because, you know, sometimes it’s in the eye 

of the person who’s being retaliated upon. Getting a standard definition, I think, is really important. We put, in this year’s NDAA 

[National Defense Authorization Act], a provision to make retaliation its own offense. I wanted to find out, What kind of progress 

are you making on trying to come up with a standardized definition 

of ‘‘retaliation’’ in this context? 

Secretary CARTER. Thanks very much, Senator. Let me just begin 

by saying—by thanking you and all the members of this committee 

for bearing down on this problem. You know, I’m really proud of 

the way our forces conduct themselves, but there always—there are 

people who don’t conduct themselves up to that standard. We can’t 

have it. It’s objectionable anywhere in society, but, in the profession of arms, it’s particularly objectionable. I very much appreciate 

your efforts. 

You’re right, retaliation is something that we have begun to realize is a dimension of this problem that was under-attended. We 

had done good work, I think, at the law enforcement part, attending to victims, and at prevention. Retaliation—the reason why, 

definitionally, it’s complicated, but we’ll get there, is that there are 

a number of different ways that retaliation takes place, some of 

them quite subtle, but serious. One is, you know, a superior who 

holds it against somebody that they reported a sexual—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Right. 

Secretary CARTER.—assault, which is—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Failure to promote. 

Secretary CARTER.—completely unfair. A little more indirect is 

people who are getting taunted—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Social—— 

Secretary CARTER.—via social—— 

Senator MCCASKILL.—retaliation. 

Secretary CARTER.—media and so forth. We need to define these 

in such a way that they’re legally appropriate, which you would understand, but that also cover the full gamut of things that a commonsense definition of ‘‘retaliation’’ would include. We are working 

towards that. It is complicated, but we’ll get there. I very much—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. How soon—— 

Secretary CARTER.—appreciate—— 

Senator MCCASKILL.—do you think you’ll get there? 

Secretary CARTER.—your effort. I believe that the update on that 

is due by the end of the year—of this year. I did—the report that 

I submitted to you was earlier in this year. We should be able to 

get that done. Of course, we’ll communicate that to the committee 

and get your views. But, I appreciate your sticking with us on this 

issue. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you both. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Secretary, I’d just like to point out that, if it 

were not for the work of the women on this committee in a bipartisan basis, we would not have achieved the results that we have. 

I am deeply appreciative for the bipartisan effort that’s gone on, 

and continues to go on, in this committee to address an issue that 

45 

you know is still with us. It may be to a lesser degree, but is still 

with us. 

Senator Tillis. 

Senator TILLIS. Good morning, gentlemen. 

Secretary Carter, I want to go back to the comments that Senator Ayotte made about—I was someone else who supported the bipartisan budget agreement. Very disappointed that, on three different occasions, the defense appropriations bill has been filibustered. What—not talking about any other discussions about appropriations. You’re familiar with our defense appropriations bill, 

right? The one that’s been filibustered on three different occasions. 

Do each of you think that passing that bill would be helpful with 

respect to completing your mission within your lanes? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, I’m going to go back to where I started, 

which is, there’s no particular bill. I—I’m aware of three or four 

different versions—— 

Senator TILLIS. Are you familiar with the measure that we’ve 

tried to get on—— 

Secretary CARTER. Well, let me—— 

Senator TILLIS.—in the chamber on three different occasions—— 

Secretary CARTER. I’m aware of—— 

Senator TILLIS.—that were filibustered? 

Secretary CARTER.—several different measures, both in the Senate and the House. 

Senator TILLIS. No. Secretary Carter, this is a specific thing that 

we’re trying to get on in the chamber of the Senate. Are you familiar with a bill that passed out of appropriations—the defense appropriations bill—that we’ve tried to get on in the chamber? 

Secretary CARTER. I am. I’ve—am aware of the one that came before, yes. 

Senator TILLIS. Are you—is anyone on your staff familiar with an 

appropriations bill that we’re trying to get on in the Senate chamber? 

Secretary CARTER. I’m sure they are. 

Senator TILLIS. Okay. What would they generally say about the 

passage of that bill with respect to you being able to complete your 

mission? In your lane. I’m not talking about any of the other appropriations bills. 

Secretary CARTER. Well, I think what they’d say is that if the 

Senate and the House pass an appropriations bill that comports— 

that the President can sign, we will get an appropriations bill. I 

fully—— 

Senator TILLIS. Let me—— 

Secretary CARTER.—hope we can get exactly that—— 

Senator TILLIS. Let me go to General Dunford. 

General Dunford, are you—— 

Secretary CARTER.—after the election. 

Senator TILLIS.—familiar—— 

Secretary CARTER.—in November when people—— 

Senator TILLIS.—with the defense—— 

Secretary CARTER.—return here and—— 

Senator TILLIS.—appropriations bill that’s been filibustered on 

three different occasions? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I’m not familiar with the details. 

46 

Senator TILLIS. Do you know, generally, from your Service Chiefs 

or anyone else, that they think it would be helpful to pass that bill? 

Have you received any feedback on—this is a specific measure. 

This isn’t a concept, this is something that’s gone through the appropriations process, it’s something that we want to pass that gives 

you certainty, that’s within the constraints of the bipartisan budget 

agreement. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator, we do not ask the uniformed military for their opinion on issues that are political in nature. 

Senator TILLIS. Fair enough. 

Let me go to something else. 

Well, it just seems odd to me that we can’t get a straight answer 

on something—at least on the political side, Mr. Chair, I understand that—from the Secretary on something that’s specific to helping provide the certainty that we want to provide the Department. 

I want to ask a—go a completely different direction. General 

Dunford, maybe I’ll ask you. 

Back in January, we had Iranians fire missiles within about 

1500 yards of the Harry S. Truman. Later in the same month, we 

had patrol boats captured. I’m sure you’re familiar with Article 2 

of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed Forces. Do you 

think the commander who surrendered met the dictates of the 

Code of Conduct under Article 2, or where there other mitigating 

factors that prevented him from doing that? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I believe that’s being adjudicated 

right now in accordance with the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military 

Trustee], so it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment publicly. 

But, the fact that it’s going through the UCMJ, obviously, I think, 

answers your question. 

Senator TILLIS. Another subject. This has to do with ISIL. You 

said that we need to keep the pressure on ISIL. I know that that 

was being answered in the context of Syria, and probably Iraq. But, 

do you feel like we have adequately addressed putting—keeping 

pressure on ISIL globally when you talk about Libya, you talk 

about Egypt and other areas where they seem to be—and Senator 

Ernst talked about the Philippines—do you feel like that we have 

an adequate global strategy for keeping pressure on ISIL? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I want to assure you that we have 

a military strategy to deal with ISIL globally. We look very carefully at ISIL, wherever they are. We have ongoing—and we don’t 

have an opportunity often to talk about it—but, we have ongoing 

operations in West Africa. We have ongoing operations in Libya. 

We have ongoing operations in East Africa. Of course, Syria and 

Iraq, we’ve spoken much about that today. We have ongoing operations in Afghanistan. We’re involved in a wide range of capacitybuilding exercises and initiatives in Southeast Asia. We’re also 

working—and I’ve just spent this weekend with a large group of 

my counterparts to look at counter-ISIL. I’ll have almost 50 Chiefs 

of Defense here in October to discuss this. This is, in fact, what 

you’re suggesting, a transregional problem that will require a global response. One of the key drivers of our success will be a broader 

intelligence and information framework within which we can harness all of these other nations who have information that would be 

helpful to us. 

47 

But, am I satisfied or complacent with where we are? No. Do I 

believe we have a strategic framework within which to deal with 

ISIL transregionally? Yes. 

Senator TILLIS. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Nelson. 

Senator NELSON. Gentlemen, thank you for your public service. 

Would either one of you like to characterize the resurgence of the 

Taliban in Afghanistan? 

Secretary CARTER. I’ll start. 

It is the fighting season in Afghanistan. The Afghan Security 

Forces have done well this season. The Taliban has been strong. 

But, the Afghan Security Forces are much stronger this year than 

they were last year. They continue to gather strength. General 

Nicholson’s doing a great job of helping them with that. We made 

some decisions—the President made some decisions which gave 

General Nicholson some wider scope to advise, assist, and so forth, 

the Afghan Security Forces. The President made a decision to adjust upward our presence there next year. We’re continuing to go 

forward with the aviation and other enablers for the Afghan Security Forces. 

The process, which has been under some—underway some—for 

some years to try to build the Afghan Security Forces to the—to 

a point where they can maintain the security of their country and 

Afghanistan doesn’t become again a place from which terrorism 

arises in the United States, that is our program. That is what 

we’ve been trying to accomplish. 

I should turn to—because we—that progress, we owe, in very important measure, to General Dunford, when he was the commander 

there. He knows that very well, so let me ask him to join in. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, there is no doubt that the Afghan 

National Security Forces have had some challenges over the past 

18 months, when they’ve been in the lead and we have gone to a 

train-and-advise-assist mission. Our assessment is that they continue to control about 70 percent of the country. They’ve taken far 

more casualties than we’re comfortable with, and they still have capability gaps in their Special Operations capability, their aviation 

enterprise, their intelligence, logistics, and, of course, broadly at 

the Minister of Defense, Minister Interior level. That’s our focus 

right now, is to further develop those capabilities so we can mitigate the casualties that they’re suffering, which is of great concern, 

as well as some of the tactical setbacks that they’ve had. 

But, on balance, I would call what’s going on right now between 

the Afghan National Defense Security Forces and the Taliban as 

roughly a stalemate. The Taliban have not been successful in 

achieving the goals that were outlined in their campaign plan, 

which they typically make public in the spring of each year. On 

balance, the Afghan forces are holding. 

In my judgment, if we commit to continue to support the Afghan 

forces, and continue to grow their capability, they will be able to 

provide security in Afghanistan. As Secretary Carter said, as importantly, we’ll be able to maintain an effective counterterrorism 

presence and platform in South Asia in conjunction with our Afghan partners. 

Senator NELSON. Thank you, gentlemen. 

48 

Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Lee. 

Senator LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks, to both of you, for all you do to keep us safe and to keep 

our country free. Your service and sacrifice are deeply appreciated. 

Late last week, there was a video that surfaced, a video that appeared to show the Free Syrian Army—personnel from the Free 

Syrian Army—threatening and insulting American servicemembers 

and forcing them to leave the town of al Rai, where they had been 

providing assistance to the FSA. Analysts who have studied the 

video believe the incident occurred because the United States is 

also supporting Kurdish forces in Syria. 

Secretary Carter, first, have you seen this video, and can you 

confirm reports that it appears to have taken place in al Rai? 

Secretary CARTER. I’ve not seen the video. I’ve read reports about 

it. Let me ask Chairman Dunford, who has followed that closely, 

to answer you. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, it took place in northern Syria. I’m 

familiar with it. I didn’t watch the video. I have spoken to our commanders about it. 

What I can assure you is that that—the group that was taking 

some action against our forces, at least verbally, was a very small 

minority of the forces we’re supporting. That incident was policed 

up by our other partners. We view that to be an isolated incident 

and not reflective of the relationship that our forces have with the 

vetted Syrian opposition forces. In fact, I think the progress along 

the northern border between Syria and Turkey is indicative of the 

relationship we have, which is very effective. 

Senator LEE. Okay. I think that goes a certain distance toward 

answering what was my next question, which was, you know, 

What’s the level of tension that you’re seeing between some of the 

Sunni Arab rebel groups that we’re assisting, on the one hand, and, 

on the other hand, the Kurdish groups that we’re also supporting 

in Syria? Is that—is there tension there? Could that tension and 

the resentment that it engenders possibly threaten the security of 

our U.S. personnel? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, it is incredible tension in that region. 

I would offer to you, I think it’s a testimony to the professionalism 

of our forces that are there, because they have actually been managing this tension for months and months. The fact that we’ve been 

able to continue to support the Syrian Democratic Forces and have 

them make the significant progress they made, and continue to 

support the vetted Syrian opposition forces while we politically 

manage the relationship between Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces and the United States, is all—it’s—it is all part of a 

pretty complicated situation on the ground over there that we are 

managing on a day-to-day basis. 

I’m not dismissive of the challenges. But, frankly, to date, we 

have been able to mitigate them. 

Senator LEE. Okay. Thank you. 

Yesterday, as I’m sure you’re both aware, the Senate debated a 

resolution of disapproval related to the sale of United States weapons to Saudi Arabia. There was some discussion of our broader support of Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen. This is a headline 

49 

from November 2014, ‘‘Houthis Gain Ground Against Yemen’s al 

Qaeda, Say They Will Continue Their Fight Until al Qaeda Is Defeated in Their Strongholds.’’ 

Secretary Carter, you stated, on April 8th, 2015, regarding new 

gains being made by al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula [AQAP], 

‘‘AQAP is a group that we’re very concerned with as the United 

States, because, in addition to having other regional ambitions and 

ambitions within Yemen, we all know that AQAP has the ambition 

to strike Western targets, including the United States,’’. 

Now, your quote was made, I believe, roughly one month after 

the U.S. supported intervention against other Houthi rebels, who, 

4 months before, had been pushing back against AQAP, before that 

began in earnest. 

Now, I understand the complexity of the conflict in Yemen. I 

completely appreciate the fact that there are no easy answers when 

it comes to that conflict in Yemen. But, Mr. Secretary, do you—do 

AQAP and other Sunni extremist groups operating in Yemen still 

pose the greater threat to U.S. security? 

Secretary CARTER. I absolutely stand by what I said. We continue to watch very closely AQAP and to take action where we 

need to, to protect ourselves. No question about it. 

Senator LEE. Okay. Does our support of the fight against the 

Houthis, who are also AQAP’s enemy, does that threaten, potentially, however inadvertently, to strengthen or take the focus off of 

AQAP or ISIS? 

Secretary CARTER. We’ve not taken our focus off of AQAP, no. 

Senator LEE. General Dunford, you look like you wanted to add 

something. 

General DUNFORD. No, I just—I fully agree with the Secretary on 

that. We are singularly focused on AQAP. We have the resources 

dedicated to AQAP that we think are appropriate. 

Senator LEE. Okay. 

I see my time’s expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Mr. Secretary, are the Houthis sponsored by 

the Iranians? 

Secretary CARTER. They are certainly assisted in some respects 

by the Iranians, Chairman, yes. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Donnelly. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, would you like me to proceed? 

Chairman MCCAIN. Please proceed. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, General, I want to get your input on something 

I asked each of the Service Chiefs about last week. In the Fiscal 

Year 2015 NDAA, we passed a requirement from the Jacob Sexton 

Act for every servicemember to receive a robust mental health assessment every year. Can you give me an update on where the Department is with implementation of the Sexton Act requirement on 

mental health assessments? 

Mr. Secretary? General? 

Secretary CARTER. I’ll need to get back to you specifically on 

the—that assessment. 

Secretary CARTER. I would like to say something more generally 

about mental health and the priority—— 

50 

Senator DONNELLY. That’s fine. 

Secretary CARTER.—if I may, Senator. I appreciate your interest 

in it. 

As it happens, it is Suicide Prevention Month this month. I only 

mention that because we do have suicide in our services, and we 

do believe that suicide is preventable. That’s what the doctors tell 

us. All the specialists tell us this is something that is preventable. 

Therefore, it belongs in the family of things that we do to take care 

of our troops and ensure their welfare. 

We’re spending more—and I can get you the numbers on that, 

but I—— 

Secretary CARTER. We have, over the last few years, increased 

severalfold our spending on mental health treatment specifically 

aimed at suicide, and trying to remove the stigma associated with 

seeking mental health care, and also emphasizing the need for 

other servicemembers to watch out for one another. Because one of 

the things we know is, there’s usually somebody who spotted the 

behavior that’s—looks—that can lead to suicide. 

Senator DONNELLY. Right. 

Secretary CARTER. Self-isolation, depression, odd things on social 

media, and so forth. We’re trying to tell everybody to watch out for 

their fellow servicemembers. 

Chairman? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I know each of the services has the 

tools. I don’t know, in application, what the percentage is of the 

force that has received the evaluation yet, but we can certainly get 

that. 

General DUNFORD. That’s largely a service-chief responsibility, 

not something I pay attention to on a day-to-day basis, although, 

as you know, I’ve been—have been very involved in the mental 

health issues over the last several years. 

Senator DONNELLY. I do. This was signed into law in December 

2014. It’s about two years now. Do you expect, General Dunford, 

to see this fully implemented in the next year? 

General DUNFORD. I do, Senator. I guess what I was alluding to 

is the percentage of the force that actually has it right now, because—— 

Senator DONNELLY. No, I understand that. Yeah. 

General DUNFORD. Right. You know, my—and I’ll get back—— 

Senator DONNELLY. I know it takes time to ramp up. I was just 

wondering if you think 2017 is the year that this can get fully implemented. 

General DUNFORD. I think that’s—based on my previous experience as a Service Chief, I think that’s a realistic timeline. 

Senator DONNELLY. Okay. 

Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary CARTER. I absolutely concur. We’ll meet that timeline. 

Senator DONNELLY. To both of you, I wanted to talk a little bit 

about broader counterterrorism strategy. In four months, we’re 

going to have a new Commander in Chief, and preventing the next 

attack on our Homeland and addressing the persistent conflict and 

instability in the Middle East is going to be one of the most pressing and complex challenges. How would you advise this concern 

about our counterterrorism strategy? How would you inform that 

51 

next Commander in Chief as to how to move forward at this time? 

Obviously, there’s a number of areas, but, looking forward, how 

would you talk to them about our counterterrorism strategy as we 

head into a new administration? 

Secretary CARTER. I’ll start and then turn it over to the Chairman. 

We need to continue to press on all fronts. We can’t let up, 

whether it’s in the counter-ISIL campaign, in Syria and Iraq, elsewhere, or here at home. AQAP was mentioned a moment ago. 

That’s a serious one. Our capabilities—our military capabilities, 

our law enforcement capabilities, our Homeland security capabilities, all of this, which we’ve honed now in the years since 2001, 

this is not going to go away, this phenomenon. We’ll defeat ISIL, 

but there will be terrorism in our country’s future. 

Senator DONNELLY. If I could ask you another question and—— 

Secretary CARTER.—it’ll be part of the national security landscape—— 

Senator DONNELLY.—I apologize, I’m running out of time here. 

You may have answered this earlier. I had to come in and go out. 

But, Raqqa. When do you—or—and not, obviously, a single date, 

but how is this moving forward? Are we cutting off—I know closing 

Manbij has cut off a significant amount of the flow. Where do 

things stand in Raqqa? Are we moving forward on that? Do you see 

progress every day? What are you looking at as a time when 

Raqqa’s liberated? 

Secretary CARTER. I do see progress. We’re working in that part 

of Syria with the Syrian Democratic Forces. They’re the group with 

which we worked in—as you indicated, successfully in Manbij. 

They and others associated with them will be the force that envelopes and collapses ISIL’s control over Raqqa. 

At the same time, I emphasized—and the Chairman already 

stressed this—we’re working with the Turks also, the Turkish military, our good ally, very strongly, also in northwest—in the northwestern part—portion there. Obviously, the have difficulties with 

one another, but, in each case, we support them against our common objective—— 

Senator DONNELLY. Mr.—— 

Secretary CARTER.—which is counter-ISIL. 

Senator DONNELLY.—Mr. Chairman, if you’d give me just 15 seconds. 

On behalf of everyone in Indiana, the family and others, too, 

when we go to Raqqa—we lost some young men and women there 

who were killed by ISIL. We want to have them come home. We 

don’t want to leave anyone behind. We would ask for your cooperation and assistance. My young man, Peter Kassig, Kayla Mueller, 

so many others, not to leave any names out, but all the parents 

and all the folks back home, we want them all to come home. We’d 

sure appreciate your assistance in making that happen. 

Secretary CARTER. Noted, Senator. 

Senator DONNELLY. Thank you. 

Secretary CARTER. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Thank you, Senator, for bringing that issue 

up. They should come home. 

Senator Graham. 

52 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, thank you. 

Thank you both for your service to the country. 

I’m going to try to get through as much as possible here. 

Do you support the arms sale to Saudi Arabia that’s being proposed? 

Secretary CARTER. I do, yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you, General? 

General DUNFORD. I do, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. JASTA [Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act]. Are you concerned that we could be creating an environment where something like this bill could be used against our 

troops down the road? 

Secretary CARTER. That is—the law—it is a law enforcement 

matter, but we are watching it closely, for the very reason—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you support the President’s veto of—— 

Secretary CARTER. Well, I’m very—I’m concerned about the—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Secretary CARTER. I’m concerned—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Fair enough. 

Secretary CARTER.—about exactly what you’re talking about. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Fair enough. We’ll talk. I’ll write you a 

letter and go into it more in detail. But, I understand your concerns. 

Do you support arming the Syrian Kurds? 

Secretary CARTER. I do support working—continuing to work 

with them, yes. 

Senator GRAHAM. I mean, no, I didn’t say ‘‘work with them.’’ Providing them arms. 

Secretary CARTER. Yeah. Well, we are—we have provided them 

with some equipment already, and providing them arms, yes. They 

are part of the—they are—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I gotcha. 

Secretary CARTER.—part of the Syrian Democratic Forces. 

Senator GRAHAM. Right. 

Secretary CARTER. Now, we haven’t taken any specific—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I gotcha. Well—— 

Secretary CARTER.—decisions about—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I gotcha. 

Secretary CARTER. And—but—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Right 

Secretary CARTER.—they are—— 

Senator GRAHAM. The answer is yes, you support arming the 

Kurds more—— 

Secretary CARTER. I support—— 

Senator GRAHAM.—in Syria. 

Secretary CARTER.—whatever is required to—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

Secretary CARTER.—help them move in the direction of 

Raqqa—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Which could be providing them more arms. 

Secretary CARTER. Yeah. 

Senator GRAHAM. What about you, General Dunford? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, it’s important—I can’t answer this 

yes or no. It’s important that I—— 

53 

Senator GRAHAM. I gotcha. 

General DUNFORD.—say a couple of things about this. 

Number one, they’re the most effective force that we have right 

now, and a force that we need to go in Raqqa. We do have sufficient forces—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Can I ask this? 

General DUNFORD.—to be able to secure and—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I—— 

General DUNFORD.—seize Raqqa. 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, sir. I appreciate that. 

We—they—do they support removal of Assad? 

General DUNFORD. Today, that is not their stated political objective. 

Senator GRAHAM. Wait a minute. 

General DUNFORD. They’re focused—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Slow down. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. 

We have two objectives—to destroy ISIL, right?—and to remove 

Assad. Is that correct? Both of you. 

General DUNFORD. We have a military objective to destroy ISIL. 

I do not have a military objective to—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you—— 

General DUNFORD.—remove Assad. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, the President has an objective of—— 

General DUNFORD. He has a political objective—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

General DUNFORD.—to remove Assad. 

Senator GRAHAM. All right. Do you agree with me, Assad is winning right now? 

General DUNFORD. I think Assad is clearly in a much stronger 

place than he was a—— 

Senator GRAHAM. All right. 

General DUNFORD.—year ago. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, thank you. You’ve always have been very 

honest with this committee. 

Do you agree that Obama will leave office and Assad will still be 

in power, January 2017? 

General DUNFORD. I don’t see a path right now where Assad 

would—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

General DUNFORD.—not be in office in—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Let’s talk about how you change the political 

equation. Do you agree with me that the only way Assad’s ever 

going to leave, if there’s some military pressure on him that makes 

the threat, militarily, more real to him? 

General DUNFORD. I think that’s a fair statement, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. If the main fighting force inside of Syria 

is not signed up to take Assad out, where does that force come 

from? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I can’t identify that force, but I do 

want to distinguish between what you’re suggesting with Assad 

and Raqqa. The reason why I support the SDF [Syrian Democratic 

Forces] is, my number-one priority is to—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Yeah, I—— 

54 

General DUNFORD.—stop the planning and conducting of external 

operations. 

Senator GRAHAM. Totally—— 

General DUNFORD. Moving forward—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Totally—— 

General DUNFORD.—against Raqqa with the SDF—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Yes, sir. 

General DUNFORD.—is the way to do that. 

Senator GRAHAM. Let’s look at it this way. ISIL’s Germany and 

Assad’s Japan, we’re focusing on Germany. Will this force, which 

is mainly Kurd, but not all—can they liberate Raqqa, and hold it? 

General DUNFORD. This force is not intended to hold Raqqa, no. 

Senator GRAHAM. What is the plan to hold Raqqa? 

General DUNFORD. We currently have 14,000 Arabs that have 

been identified. When we—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Is that the holding force? 

General DUNFORD. That may consist of part of the holding force. 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, do we have a plan to hold Raqqa? 

General DUNFORD. We have a plan. It is not resourced—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. 

General DUNFORD.—Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. All right. I just want everybody to know where 

we’re at in Syria. We’re making gains against ISIL. The main force 

that we’re using are Kurds, who can’t hold Raqqa. The Arabs have 

to. You’re absolutely right about that. The Kurdish force, which is 

the main center of gravity inside of Syria, at this moment is not 

interested in putting military pressure on Assad. Other than that, 

we’re in a good spot. 

Now, I’m not blaming y’all. You didn’t create this problem. Years 

ago, most of you recommended we help the Free Syrian Army when 

it would have mattered. We are where we are. I just want to make 

sure that the country knows what’s going on in Syria is going to 

be inherited by the next President. If there’s not a change in strategy to create a ground component that not only can hold Raqqa 

and put military pressure on Assad, this war never ends. 

Russia. Did they bomb this convoy—U.N. convoy? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, we—that hasn’t been concluded, but 

my judgment would be that they did. They’re certainly responsible. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you agree with me, Secretary Carter—and 

we’ve been friends for years, and I’m sorry it’s so contentious— 

I—— 

Secretary CARTER. That’s all right. 

Senator GRAHAM. You’re a good man. What should we do about 

Russia, who was given notice about this convoy, if they, in fact, 

bombed a U.N. convoy delivering humanitarian aid? What should 

we do about that? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, I—if—let me put it even a little more 

harshly. The Chairman said this earlier. The Russians are responsible for this strike, whether they conducted it or not, because—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I totally agree. 

Secretary CARTER.—they have taken responsibility for the conduct of the Syrians by associating themselves with the Syrian regime. What they’re supposed to do, and what Secretary Kerry has 

been indefatigably pursuing diplomatically, is to get a true cesVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
55 

sation of hostilities and get Assad to move aside in a political transition. 

Senator GRAHAM. They’re not doing their part. 

Secretary CARTER. I’m—that is what Secretary Kerry is trying to 

achieve. Is that difficult? Absolutely. Does it look, in the last few 

days, like that’s the direction it’s headed? No. He’s said as much. 

But, that’s what he’s trying to accomplish. 

Senator GRAHAM. Do you think the Russians are being helpful? 

My time is up. Have they been more—do you think the Russians 

bombed this convoy? Most likely? 

General DUNFORD. I do, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. Last question. Is there a Plan B, in terms of— 

if diplomacy fails, a Plan B for Syria that has a military component? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, we have—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Regarding Assad. 

General DUNFORD.—we have done, and will continue to do, a 

wide range of planning. Should the President change the policy objectives, we’ll be prepared to support those. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. It is appreciated by all 

of us. 

Secretary Carter, you stated that the United States will not ignore attempts to interfere with our democratic processes, which I 

believe is in reference to the recent cyberattacks on political parties, candidates, and election systems. By that, do you mean that 

costs will be imposed on those responsible for these attacks? 

Secretary CARTER. It’s—sadly, the reference is a very broad one. 

I made it in Europe, and was speaking to that audience, very 

broadly, to include the issue you stated, but which is a concern 

they all have, and we have, at NATO. The broader category is 

called hybrid warfare. It ranges from little green men to people 

interfering in democratic process. That’s a concern that I was discussing with allies when I was over there. 

Senator FISCHER. But, when—— 

Secretary CARTER. It’s part of the way NATO’s going to have to 

adapt to the world as it really is. Yes, we’re going to have to defend 

ourselves against—— 

Senator FISCHER. So costs—— 

Secretary CARTER.—that kind of thing. 

Senator FISCHER.—would be imposed for cyberattack. 

Secretary CARTER. That is—like any other attack. 

Senator FISCHER. Do you think that—with regards to cyber, that 

this should be done in a public way so that the penalties are clearly 

visible and—to other potential attackers in the future? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, I certainly think that we need to defend 

ourselves and then take action against perpetrators when we identify them, and that in—is in appropriate ways. I simply mean that 

because the perpetrators are—of cyberattacks range from—and 

cyberintrusions—range from nation-states to cutouts to hackers to 

criminal gangs. 

Senator FISCHER. Correct. 

56 

Secretary CARTER. It’s quite a variety. It’s why our highest priority in cyber, and including in our Cyber Command, is defense of 

our own networks. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. 

Secretary CARTER. It’s something—— 

Senator FISCHER. It has been widely reported that Russian hackers are responsible for the penetration that we’ve seen at the 

Democratic National Committee [DNC], those computer systems, 

when we look at leaks of the DNC emails and documents. I guess 

the questions continue to persist regarding the strength of that 

connection between the hackers and Russian officials. It is generally accepted that the affiliation exists. 

If this is true, that there is this connection out there, what is 

clear is that it’s a—to me, another very public instance, this time 

using cyber, where Russia continues their aggression towards this 

country and towards our interests. When we have an adversary 

who so brazenly strikes at the heart of our democratic process, I 

think that indicates how low they believe the cost of that behavior 

is going to be. In other words, I think we’ve possibly lost the deterrence factor when it comes to cyberattacks. 

Would you agree with that? 

Secretary CARTER. We can’t lose deterrence effect, ever. With respect to Russia, it is—one of the reason—one of the emphases, 

stresses we made in our budget—and, by the way, this is one of 

the reasons why we would appreciate having our budget passed, as 

is, to get back to an earlier question—is because it prioritize something we haven’t had to do, Senator, as you’re stressing, for a quarter—— 

Senator FISCHER. But, do you—— 

Secretary CARTER.—of a century, which is—we—it used to be— 

we haven’t had, as a major component of our defense strategy, 

countering the possibility of Russian aggression. 

Senator FISCHER. But, now we do. 

Secretary CARTER. That’s why we’re making—— 

Senator FISCHER. And—— 

Secretary CARTER.—investments. It ranges from cyber to the European Reassurance Initiative, which is one of the things that we 

hope doesn’t get affected in—— 

Senator FISCHER. Am I—— 

Secretary CARTER.—budget—— 

Senator FISCHER. I apologize for interrupting you. The Chairman’s strict on time. 

But, dealing with—dealing with cyber, when we look at cyber, do 

you have plans that you have given to this administration or are 

plans available to provide the administration with flexibility in 

dealing with cyber? Specifically, how do we address such attacks, 

whether they are from a nation-state, whether they are from organized crime, or whether they are from individuals? Are there plans 

out there on how these attacks are going to be addressed, whether 

through deterrence or actual actions? Are those plans updated as 

we continue to see the expansion of cyberattacks on this country? 

Secretary CARTER. That’s a very good question. We’re just discussing here, because there are many aspects to the answer to this, 

57 

but, yes, we have a lot of cyber capabilities that we are building, 

developing in all the services and at Cyber Command. 

More generally, for the Russians, let me ask the Chairman to 

add something. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, for exactly the reason you’re raising, 

we’re in the process of rewriting, at the Secretary’s direction, a 

more broad framework for dealing with Russia in contingencies associated with Russia. It’s also the reason why our national military 

strategy now will be a classified document, because what we are 

trying to do is provide a strategic framework to deal with the full 

range of behavior that we may see from a state like Russia, China, 

North Korea, and Iran. In some cases, a cyberattack may not beget 

a cyber response. We want to make sure our national command authority has a full range of options to deal with something that has 

been determined, in fact, a violation of our sovereignty and an attack in cyberspace. 

There’s really two things. One, the strategic framework working 

on, and we’re also working on a full range of tools—cyber tools— 

so that we have both the ability to protect our own network and 

to take the fight to the enemy in cyberspace, as required, our offensive cyber capability. 

I would tell you that the issue that you’re outlining really is 

being addressed in both a strategic framework as well as physical 

tools that we’re developing. But, again, it’s not just focused on 

cyber, it’s focused on providing the Secretary and the President a 

full range of options with which to respond in the event of an attack—again, whether it be cyber or anything else. 

Senator FISCHER. I thank you for that. I think the deterrence aspect of cyber response is very, very important, that we keep that, 

and also that public responses make an impression, as well. Thank 

you, sir. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, last week, as you know, we had the Service Chiefs 

testify. I began my comments commending you, Mr. Secretary, and 

the President for the selection of such men and women of high caliber, high integrity, leading our military, including the current 

Chairman. One of the reasons is that they typically give this committee and the American people honest testimony. 

An example of that was last week. I asked what the risk level 

was our Nation faced in being able to conduct a full spectrum of 

operations, including one conventional conflict. Each Service Chief 

said that this would entail, ‘‘high military risk’’ for their service. 

Each Service Chief. Which I found remarkable. Distressing. 

General Dunford, do you know if that’s ever happened before, 

where all four Service Chiefs have stated that we currently exist 

at a state of high military risk for our forces? General Milley described what that meant, which is a lot of death for our military 

if they have to go into this kind of spectrum of ops. Is this unprecedented? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I don’t know if it’s unprecedented, 

but, over the last several years, I think all the chiefs, to include 

me when I was the Commandant, and the chiefs before I assumed 

that responsibility, have been articulating the risk associated with 

58 

the readiness challenges that we’ve had, really, now that date back 

as far as 2005. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Do you—you agree then, I assume, with the 

assessment of each Service Chief, that we face high military risk, 

in terms of a—— 

General DUNFORD. Senator—— 

Senator SULLIVAN.—spectrum of ops that includes—— 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I don’t agree that we have—I agree 

that each of the services has high risk, and they’ve articulated it. 

The one thing I think I want to—I would like to say and then 

answer your question is, we, today, can defend the Homeland. We, 

today, can meet our alliance responsibilities. We, today, have a 

competitive advantage over any of those four-plus-one we spoke 

about. But, I fully associate myself with the chiefs when they talk 

about the time and the casualties that we would take as a result 

of readiness shortfalls that we have today. 

Senator SULLIVAN. You think high military risk is acceptable? 

General DUNFORD. I did not say that, Senator, for one minute. 

Senator SULLIVAN. So—— 

General DUNFORD. What I want to do is, I want to communicate, 

to those who are listening, both in the force and our potential adversaries, to make it clear that my judgment is that the U.S. military, today, can, in fact, dominate any enemy in a conflict. I—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Secretary, the four Service Chiefs talked 

about high military risk. Again, I thought that was remarkable. I 

don’t know if that’s ever happened, Mr. Chairman, before this committee before. But, it begs the question that we’ve been talking 

about in this hearing today, is how—if that’s what they’re saying, 

how can we not—how can the President not support increased military spending? Right now, there’s a new Gallup poll out, saying, 

‘‘First time since 2002, the American people support more military 

spending.’’ If the Service Chiefs are each saying we face high military risk, how can we not be supportive of additional military 

spending? I just don’t—I just don’t understand that at all. 

Secretary CARTER. Well, first of all, let me thank you and associate myself with your commendation of the senior leadership of 

our Department. We’re blessed as a country to have such people 

serving us. They told it to you straight. I, too, associate myself with 

what they said. 

There is risk in the force. The risk—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. It’s actually high risk. 

Secretary CARTER. Let me just tell—let me unpack that, because 

they each did that for you. There are—it’s different in each of the 

services, but there are a few common denominators. 

One has been budget instability, which is why I am and will continue to hew to the idea that we need budget stability. That means 

everybody coming together. Not this idea and that idea and that 

idea, but one that everybody can agree to. We haven’t seen that 

yet, and it’s the end of the fiscal year. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Secretary, just to—just real—— 

Secretary CARTER. Eight—let me finish—eight—— 

Senator SULLIVAN.—a quick point on that—— 

Secretary CARTER.—eight times in a—— 

Senator SULLIVAN.—just a quick point on that—— 

59 

Secretary CARTER.—eight times in a row. That’s going to have an 

effect—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. You’ve had the minority leader—— 

Secretary CARTER.—on risk. 

Senator SULLIVAN.—of the United States Senate filibuster the 

defense appropriations bills, not three times, as my colleagues have 

said—six times in the last year and a half year. So—— 

Secretary CARTER. Let me—— 

Senator SULLIVAN.—we’re trying to make that happen. 

Secretary CARTER. Thank you. Let—— 

Senator SULLIVAN. We’re all trying to make that happen. 

Secretary CARTER. Thanks. Let me go on. There’s another thing 

that’s so substantive of importance, other than the budget instability the last few years. That is the services—and, I think General—I think you mentioned General Milley—he, in particular— 

and I want to associate myself with this—is trying to move to full 

spectrum, exactly the words you used, from an Army that we dedicated almost wholly, in terms of force structure, to the COIN 

[counter insurgency] fights that we had to conduct in Iraq and 

Syria. The Army’s been resourcing them heavily. Now he is trying 

to get his forces trained for full-spectrum combat. 

As—I think, as he said to you, that’s a matter of budget stability, 

yes, but it’s also going to—it also is a matter of time. He’s working 

on it. That’s his highest priority. I agree with him, for the U.S. 

Army. He’s trying to get all his Brigade Combat Teams to go 

through the Nellis, the CTC at Nellis. That’s going to take some 

time. 

If we go to the Marine Corps—and I know General Neller spoke 

to you about that—their highest readiness priority, which I also 

want to foot-stomp, as I’m sure he did, is in their aviation. There 

are a lot of different dimensions to that. One is the recap of their 

aviation, both rotary wing and with the F–35 joint strike fighter 

coming down the line. 

With the Navy, it’s mostly a matter of ship maintenance, depot 

maintenance. Admiral Richardson’s working on that. 

In the Air Force, for General Goldfein, the Air Force continues 

to have readiness challenges which are associated partly with 

budget instability, but mostly with the high OPTEMPO of the Air 

Force. We’re working the United States Air Force really hard in 

that air campaign over in Iraq and Syria. It’s essential. It’s important. But, it means that air wings are constantly rotated in and 

out, and, when they come back, they have to go back in for readiness training. 

In the budget we submitted for fiscal year 2017—and we said 

this—readiness and resourcing are—the readiness plans of each of 

the services was our highest priority. There’s no question about it, 

there’s risk there. It has accumulated over the years. We need stability and we need priority in order to work through it. We need 

stability from you. We’ll give it priority. I totally support the chiefs 

in what they told you last week. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Cruz in just a second. 

Mr. Secretary, the impression that was given by the Service 

Chiefs was: it comes down to readiness, training, spare parts, all 

the things that go when you have budget cutbacks. We’ve seen the 

60 

movie before. As you pointed out, each individual service has some 

specific needs, it all comes back to funding for operational readiness and training, which is always the first to go. That’s—obviously, when we have United States pilots flying less hours per 

month than Chinese or Russian pilots, there’s something fundamentally wrong. I know you agree with that. 

Senator Cruz. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Carter, General Dunford, thank you for being here 

today. Thank you for your testimony on the critical national security threats facing our country. 

The last seven years, we’ve had an administration that has, in 

many ways, neutered itself and ignored one transgression after another from our enemies. As a result, our adversaries are continuing 

to increase their belligerence. 

Iran has received no meaningful repercussions for illegally seizing American sailors and endeavoring to humiliate them, and has 

since increased their aggressive tactics and harassment of United 

States Navy vessels operating in the Arabian Gulf. 

For months, Russia has been ramping up the pressure on our 

military, previously flying within 30 feet of a United States Navy 

warship, and most recently flying within 10 feet of a U.S. Navy 

surveillance aircraft. Instead of treating these as escalatory acts 

from an adversary, Secretary Kerry rewarded Russia by agreeing 

to share intelligence in Syria. 

These examples don’t even touch on Iranian and North Korean 

efforts to develop their ICBM programs, nor the expansion of ISIS 

beyond the Middle East. 

Sadly, this week’s terror attacks in New York, Minnesota, and 

New Jersey once again demonstrated that radical Islamic terrorism 

continues to threaten our safety. By any reasonable estimate, we 

can conclude that our national security interests are at serious 

risk. I want to thank both of you for your service during such a pivotal and dangerous time in our Nation’s history, and for your leadership of our men and women in uniform. 

I want to ask you, starting with Iran, What is and what should 

be our response to escalating Iranian belligerence and threats? 

Secretary CARTER. Well, first of all, thank you very much, Senator, for that. You hit them all, the five parts of our military strategy that are reflected in what we’re trying to get in our budget, 

namely counter-ISIL, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. All of 

those are—present very different, but serious, challenges that have 

a serious military dimension to them. 

With respect to Iran, notwithstanding the nuclear deal, which 

was good, in the sense that it removed—if implemented faithfully, 

which it is being, so far—removed nuclear weapons from our concerns about Iran. It did nothing to alleviate other concerns we 

have—their malign influence, their support for terrorism, malign 

influence in the region. This is why, to give you one answer to your 

question—and I’ll ask the Chairman to pitch in—why we have a 

strong, ready presence in the Gulf. Gets back to our readiness discussion. It’s not just about ISIL. We have a big OPTEMPO to defeat ISIL. We’re going to do that. Takes a lot of force structure, but 

also readiness consumed doing that, consumed in a good thing beVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:41 Sep 22, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\USERS\WR47328\DESKTOP\26841.TXT WILDA
61 

cause we’re defeating ISIL. But, we are also standing strong in the 

Gulf. That means defending our friends and allies there, defending 

our interests, and countering Iranian malign influence. It is an enduring commitment of ours. 

Let me ask the Chairman to join in. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I think there’s—from a military perspective, there’s three things that we need to do. Number one is, 

we need to make sure that the inventory of the joint force can deal 

with Iranian challenges that do range from ballistic missile defense 

to the malign influence that you spoke about earlier. Number two, 

we need to make sure, in our day-to-day operations, we make it 

clear that we’re going to sail, fly, and operate wherever international law allows us to, and we’ll continue to do that. Number 

three, as the Secretary said, we need to have a robust presence in 

the region that makes it very clear that we have the capability to 

deter and respond to Iranian aggression. Those would be the three 

elements that we need to have for—from a military perspective, to 

give our President whatever options he may need to have. 

Senator CRUZ. General, in your judgment, was flying $1.7 billion 

in unmarked cash to give to the Iranian Government incentivizing 

positive behavior from Iran? 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I’m not trying to be evasive, but I 

don’t know the details of that arrangement. It really was a political 

decision that was made to provide that money. I don’t think it’s appropriate that I comment on that. 

Senator CRUZ. Well, let me ask it this way. I spoke, yesterday, 

to Pastor Saeed Abedini, who was one of the American hostages 

held in Iran. Pastor Saeed described how, when he was preparing 

to fly out, that his captors told him they were going to wait until 

the planeload of cash landed. If the planeload of cash didn’t land, 

he wasn’t flying out. When $400 million touched down in cash, they 

allowed him to fly out. 

Now, under any ordinary use of language, that would seem to be 

payment of a ransom. Does it concern you if the United States is 

now in the business of paying ransom to terrorist governments for 

releasing Americans, the incentive that we face for future terrorists 

and future terrorist governments to attempt to kidnap and hold for 

ransom Americans? 

Secretary CARTER. It—Senator, let me just jump in here for the 

Chairman. 

We weren’t involved in this. This was the settlement of a legal 

case. It’s longstanding. I don’t know all the details of it. The Chairman and I were not involved in that. It is a decision that was 

taken by the law enforcement and the diplomatic—— 

Senator CRUZ. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate—— 

Secretary CARTER.—community. I think we have to refer you—— 

Senator CRUZ.—that, but—— 

Secretary CARTER.—refer you there. 

Senator CRUZ.—I would like an answer from General Dunford to 

the military question, whether, in his professional military judgment, it concerns him, the precedent of paying ransom for Americans, to terrorist governments. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, without commenting on whether or 

not that was ransom, again, because I don’t know the details, our 

62 

policy in the past is that we don’t pay ransom for hostages. I think 

that’s hold us—held us in good stead in the past. But, again, I don’t 

know the arrangements that were made in this particular case, and 

I can’t make a judgment as to whether or not that’s what we did. 

All I’ve done is read the open-source reporting on that. 

Senator CRUZ. Thank you. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Wicker, if you would give Senator 

Sullivan a chance to ask one more question. 

Senator WICKER. Indeed. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Gentlemen, I just wanted to turn to the issue of the South China 

Sea. The international ruling in the Hague put China on the defensive. Mr. Secretary, as you know, a number of us at the ShangriLa Dialogue have been supportive of your efforts. I certainly want 

to give the administration credit for sending two carrier battle 

groups to the region together recently. But, I think a number of us 

remain concerned about the likelihood of reclamation at the Scarborough Shoal and the ongoing—and it’s definitely ongoing, from 

all reports—militarization at Fiery Cross, Subi, and Mischief Reef, 

which was also declared as not, you know, being within China’s 

territorial realm. What’s the strategy to deter future Chinese reclamation activities in the South China Sea, especially at Scarborough Shoal? Equally, if not more important, what’s the plan to 

respond to ongoing militarization of the land that they’ve already 

claimed? 

Secretary CARTER. Thanks, Senator. I’ll start and then—Chairman can join in. 

I’m actually glad you raised the issue. We haven’t talked much 

about the Asia-Pacific, but you know a great deal about it, and I 

appreciate that Chairman McCain always leads a delegation out 

there to Shangri-La, because it shows the persistence of the American presence in that region and the centrality of our continued 

presence there. 

Now, the—what we have stood for there now for many, many 

years, and continue to stand for, and the reason why so many countries there associate their—themselves with us, and increasingly 

so, is, we stand for principle. One of those principles is the rule of 

law. The decision did come down, and our—we didn’t take the position the disputes themselves—we do support the decision of the 

court. 

China’s rejection of that is having the effect—you asked, sort of, 

What’s the reaction to all this?—the effect of causing countries 

there to express their concern by wanting to do more with us. We 

like building the security network there. We’re not trying to do that 

against China, but, if China chooses to exclude itself in this way, 

this is the development that occurs. We’re working more with each 

and every country there. We find them increasingly coming to us. 

We are continuing to operate there, as we always have and always 

will. 

Last, I guess I should say, in terms of investments, in addition 

to putting a lot of our force structure there, which you’re very familiar with, and I’m grateful that your State hosts some of that, 

including some of our most modern stuff, we’re making a number 

of qualitative investments in—and that’s one of the things that’s 

63 

reflected in our budget, and one reason why we hope that, in addition to funding our budget, we—nobody shuffles around in our 

budget stuff that we—new stuff that is oriented toward the high 

end for old force structure. We’ve seen a tendency towards that. 

We’re reacting in a number of ways, in terms of our own activities and investments. But, the most important thing that’s going on 

is in the region, itself. 

Let me ask the Chairman to add. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, I think a response to the challenge 

you identified clearly is going to require diplomatic action, economic action, and military action. I’ll talk to the military piece of 

this, which, right now, is actually, I don’t think, the most prominent piece in dealing with the challenge of China. But, I think, 

from my perspective, we need to do a couple of things: 

Number one, militarily, we need to recognize the implications of 

the militarization of the South China Sea, and our plans need to 

be adjusted accordingly. 

Number two, we need to continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, and make it very clear that we’re 

doing that on a routine basis 

Number three, we need to make sure that our posture in the Pacific assures our allies and deters any potential aggression by 

China, and makes it absolutely clear that we have the wherewithal, both within the alliance as well as United States capabilities, to do what must be done, vis-a-vis China. 

I think if we provide the President with clear options, I think we 

will have done our job. But, primarily, right now, I think the President is—has some diplomatic and economic areas where—also will 

contribute to moderating China’s behavior. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say that I hold both of these witnesses in high regard. 

I appreciate their distinguished career of service. 

I do have a statement for Secretary Carter, followed by a question. 

Mr. Secretary, in his farewell speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, President Obama stated, ‘‘There is no ultimate 

military victory to be won in Syria.’’ As a member of this committee 

for many years, I find this assertion to be astounding. Our Chairman and I, along with other members of this committee, have 

made repeated admonitions over the years that decisive action 

needs to be taken against President Assad. 

In August 2012, the President delivered his now infamous redline statement in which he said, ‘‘We have been very clear to the 

Assad regime that a red line for us is, we start seeing a whole 

bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That 

would change my calculus. That would change my equation.’’ 

Now, Mr. Secretary, a year later, disregarding the counsel of 

your predecessor, Secretary Hagel, the President canceled airstrikes against Assad, who had unleashed sarin gas on his own 

people outside of Damascus and continued his gruesome use of barrel bombs on civilians. This dramatic demonstration of weakness by 

64 

the President left a vacuum in the region that was quickly seized 

by President Putin. We are now faced with an enduring quagmire. 

Sadly, President Obama’s stunning remark that there is no ultimate military victory belies the reality of the Obama foreign policy 

that has ignored and belittled the advice of our leaders in the Department of Defense. 

To add insult to injury, the President issued a memo yesterday 

ordering you and General Dunford to consider climate change during our military planning process. Last weekend, we dealt with a 

multiple—with multiple terrorist attacks on our shores. Last night, 

we heard that ISIL may have launched a chemical attack on our 

troops. It boggles the mind that the President would issue such an 

order during this critical time in our history. Four-hundred thousand civilian deaths in Syria. I wonder what the carbon footprint 

of these barrel bombs would have been that we could have prevented, had we acted decisively. 

Mr. Secretary, I have the highest regard for you as an individual, 

as I’ve already stated, and I thank you for your service. I just wish 

you had been given the appropriate authority by the President to 

turn this administration’s misguided policy around. 

Now, I was here when this hearing began, at 9:30 a.m. You’ve 

all been very patient with your answers. I know you’ve discussed 

this already, Mr. Secretary, but it—at this point, toward the end 

of this hearing, is there anything else you’d like to add in response 

to what I’ve said? 

It seems the President is now—is more resolved now than ever 

to forget his 2012 promises. What’s your recommendation as to the 

future of the Assad regime? What about the President’s—what 

about your statement during confirmation that, as the President 

has said, Assad has lost his legitimacy and cannot be a part of the 

long-term future of Syria? Is that statement still operative? 

Secretary CARTER. I think it is. I—and I’ll just give a general answer to your general question. You’re right, it was discussed earlier. Even though we are going to be, I’m confident, militarily successful against ISIL, insofar as the Syrian civil war is concerned, 

the violence can’t end there until there’s a political transition from 

Assad to a government that is decent and that can govern the Syrian people and put that tragically broken country back together. 

That doesn’t look in sight now. It was we talked earlier about Secretary Kerry’s trying to make arrangements to promote, but it is— 

that’s necessary for the resolution of what is, as you say, a very 

tragic situation. 

Let me see if the Chairman wants to add anything. 

Senator WICKER. Well, let me just ask this, if you don’t mind, 

Secretary Carter. It would help if the barrel bombing ended. I 

spoke to a Democratic colleague of mine today. I’ve been calling for 

a no-fly zone to stop the barrel bombing, and I asked this colleague 

of mine on the other side of the aisle if he would support that. He 

said, ‘‘Yes.’’ He said, ‘‘I want to call it something else, rather than 

a no-fly zone,’’ but that this particular Senator—it is a fact that 

this particular Senator has now changed his position and would 

like us to take action to present—to prevent the barrel bombing. 

What is your position about that? Wouldn’t it help if we took decisive action and ended this carnage? 

65 

Secretary CARTER. I don’t know the specific proposal which you’re 

discussing with your colleague. I’ll make one comment and see if 

the Chairman wants to add anything. 

Senator WICKER. I think he was talking about a no-fly zone—— 

Secretary CARTER. Well, okay. 

Senator WICKER.—but described in more palatable terms. 

Secretary CARTER. There are—a number of different proposals 

have been made, but I—the one that I think it—the focus on right 

now is the one Secretary Kerry’s trying to promote, namely a nofly zone for the Russians and the Syrians who are attacking the 

Syrian people. If they’re talking about a no-fly zone for American 

aircraft fighting ISIL, needless to say, that—that’s not going to get 

any enthusiasm, get strong opposition from me. 

Senator WICKER. I’m speaking about a—— 

Secretary CARTER. But, I think that’s what a—but—it’s not 

called that, but Secretary Kerry is trying to get a standdown of the 

Syrian and Russian air force. If he’s successful, that would be a 

good thing. 

Let me ask the Chairman if he has anything to add. 

General DUNFORD. Senator, the only thing I’d say is, you know, 

as the situation on the ground changes, I think I have a responsibility—we, the joint force, has a responsibility—to make sure the 

President has a full range of options. We have discussed that issue 

in the past under certain conditions. The conditions on the ground 

will change, and we’ll continue to look at those options and make 

sure they’re available to the President. 

Senator WICKER. What about the option of controlling the airspace so that barrel bombs cannot be dropped? 

General DUNFORD. All options—— 

Senator WICKER. What do you think of that option, sir? 

General DUNFORD. Right now, Senator, for us to control all of the 

airspace in Syria, it would require us to go to war against Syria 

and Russia. That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m 

not going to make. 

Chairman MCCAIN. To impose a no-fly zone—— 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, could I, for a second, say—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. No. No. 

General DUNFORD. That’s not what I said, Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Go ahead. 

Senator WICKER. Well, yeah, I do think that’s—— 

General DUNFORD. What Senator—what the Senator asked me 

was ‘‘to control all of the airspace’’—— 

Chairman MCCAIN. No, what he asked was, Should we have a 

no-fly zone so we can protect these people from being slaughtered? 

What’s what he’s talking about. 

General DUNFORD. I answered that first. 

Chairman MCCAIN. That’s what we’re all talking about. 

Senator WICKER. That would not require going to war, full-scale, 

would it? 

General DUNFORD. Not necessarily, Senator. I—I’m sorry, but I 

tried to answer the first question first, and then I was responding 

to the second part of your question. 

66 

But, that—I did not mean to say that imposing a no-fly zone 

would require us to go to war. That’s not the question I was answering. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you both for testifying today. 

I want to continue some of the issues that Senator Fischer 

brought up about cyber. In the past year, we’ve learned, obviously, 

about a number of cyberattacks, whether it was against the DNC 

or against NSA [National Security Agency] or the Office of Personnel Management. These attacks have demonstrated the integrated nature of our networks and how our—how targeting one 

system can have a broader effect. Whether it’s critical infrastructure, private companies, or political party networks, we need to 

have a much more integrated response to these attacks. 

How can we create an integrated framework for response to 

hacks and cyberattacks? What is DOD’s role? Are the processes and 

authorities now in place for DOD to respond in a systemic way 

rather than ad hoc to each attack? 

Secretary CARTER. I’ll start. 

You’re—you used the phrase, Senator—and thank you—that I 

would use, as well, which is ‘‘an integrated approach,’’ because you 

don’t necessarily know, at the beginning, who the perpetrator is. 

There’s this whole spectrum of possible and actual perpetrators, 

ranging from criminals and kids right up to nation-states. You’re 

right, it’s—it is—the Defense Department shares this responsibility 

with law enforcement and Homeland Security and intelligence. 

But, we aim to play a big role—a big supporting role. 

Our first job is the defense of our own networks. That’s our highest priority within the DOD cyber system, because we depend so 

abjectly upon those systems for the performance of our military, 

overall. All our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, ships, 

planes, and tanks, and so forth are networked together. In order 

to function as excellently as they do, those networks need to be secure. That’s our first job. 

We also do develop cyber offense. We’ve acknowledged that in the 

last year. And—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Yeah, and I really appreciate the work 

you’re doing on innovation. I think the Defense Innovation Unit 

Experimental that you started in Silicon Valley and now have expanded to both Boston and Austin is really exciting. I actually 

would invite you to look at New York for your next site, because 

we have so many venture-capital high-tech developing there. It’s 

becoming sort of this new Silicon Alley. 

Secretary CARTER. I appreciate that. I appreciate the committee’s 

support for DIUX. It’s one of many things we’re trying to do to continue to connect our Defense Department to the most innovative 

parts of American society, get good people to want to join us or our 

defense companies—good scientists and engineers—and let them 

feel the meaning of contributing to national defense. We’ve got to 

work extra hard at that, simply because, generationally, a lot of 

young people haven’t served—they may be cyber experts, they 

67 

haven’t served, they’ve never worked with or for our Department 

before. We’re really working hard to draw them in. 

I just opened up the DIUX branch in Austin, and there’ll be 

more. I appreciate—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I’d be grateful—— 

Secretary CARTER.—what you said about New York. 

Senator GILLIBRAND.—if there’s any further authorities or resources you need to continue to develop the strongest cyberforce we 

possibly can, if you could give that to me so I can put it in the 

NDAA. Because I think this effort you’re doing needs thoughtful 

and continual investment of thinking and resources. So—— 

Secretary CARTER. Thank you. We’ll give—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND.—things that you need further, you—— 

Secretary CARTER.—we’ll give you more. I should say, it’s strongly represented in our fiscal year 2017 budget, because—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Yeah. 

Secretary CARTER.—because we gave it a lot of priority. The reason why it was possible to give it priority is not just because of its 

importance, but because—it’s not just a matter of money, it’s—as 

you indicated, it’s a matter of good people. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Right. 

Secretary CARTER. They’re the hard thing to find in cyber. 

And—— 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Lastly, I just want to continue on Senator 

McCaskill’s line of questioning. We’ve been really looking at this 

issue of retaliation very hard. We’ve made it a crime for several 

years. But, the 62 percent of retaliation being reported over and 

over again is very challenging. Those being reported, their view is 

that it’s from above them in the chain of command, more often 

than not. That’s just what we’re working with. It’s a perception, not 

necessarily a defined, enumerated crime. I fully understand that. 

But, have you done any prosecutions of retaliation this year? Have 

you actually taken any cases to court-martial yet? 

Secretary CARTER. I can’t answer that question. I believe the answer to that is yes. I’ll get back to you on that, Senator. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Yeah. 

Secretary CARTER. But, can I just thank you for—I think you, 

among others on this committee, were the ones who really tuned 

us in to retaliation as another dimension of the sexual assault 

problem we needed to combat. We are trying to—you’re right, 

sometimes it’s higher up, but sometimes it is laterally, also. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Yeah. All of those reasons, whether it’s lateral or higher up, is one of the reasons why survivors don’t report. 

It’s one of their enumerated reasons. They feel it will end their career. We still only have two out of ten survivors reporting. We’re 

not where we need to be. It’s not good enough. And—— 

Secretary CARTER. Right. 

Senator GILLIBRAND.—I’m grateful for your continued efforts. 

Secretary CARTER. Thank you. Likewise. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman MCCAIN. I can assure the Senator from New York, as 

long as I’m Chairman of this committee, we will not take away the 

68 

responsibility of the commanding officer, the chain of command, as 

hard as she may try to remove that. 

Senator King, did you have anything else? 

Senator KING. Just one quick question, to follow up on this line 

of questioning about cyber. 

Gentlemen, do you believe that we should separate—or, I’m 

sorry—that Cyber Command should be elevated to a independent 

combatant command? 

Secretary CARTER. Senator, that’s not a decision we’ve taken yet, 

but I think that’s going to be a natural evolution for us and is 

going to be part of the natural evolution of our cyberforce in giving 

this new priority. We are looking at the various managerial aspects 

of cyber. Chairman and I discuss that frequently. We discuss it 

with our colleagues around Washington and the intelligence community with which we share a lot of it—of responsibility. 

I mean, ultimately, something that involves combatant commanders would be a presidential decision. But, this committee will 

have a big role in that, as well. We look forward to working with 

you as we make that evolution. But—— 

Senator KING. I—— 

Secretary CARTER.—we’re thinking about it, absolutely. 

Senator KING. I just hope the evolution takes a little less time 

than the evolution of human beings. 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary CARTER. I think it will. 

Chairman MCCAIN. Mr. Secretary, it’s been a long morning for 

you and General Dunford, but I would just like to ask one additional question. 

This news of this chemical—what appears to be a chemical weapon yesterday, can you tell us what you know about that and what— 

any conclusions you may have reached on that? 

Secretary CARTER. Absolutely, we can. 

Go ahead, Chairman. 

General DUNFORD. Chairman, it’s a—we assess it to be a sulfur 

mustard blister agent. We don’t assess that ISIL has the—has a 

very rudimentary capability to deliver that. It went on one of our 

bases. We have effective detection equipment there. We have effective protection equipment. We can also decontaminate. But—and 

we also are tracking a number of targets. One, we struck last week, 

which was a pharmaceutical plant, which is part of the chemical 

warfare network that ISIL has. We have been tracking this. We’ve 

had a number of strikes—I think 30 over the past year—against 

emerging chemical capability. In this latest strike, again, we assess 

was sulfur mustard. None of our folks were injured by this particular incident. It wasn’t particularly effective, but it was a concerning development. 

Chairman MCCAIN. It is concerning, because we have known that 

they had some kind of chemical weapons facility there in Raqqa. 

As you say, we have struck it, but it is concerning, particularly on 

those people who don’t have the protective equipment, as well. 

I thank the witnesses. I know it’s been a long morning. I appreciate their being here. We will look forward to, perhaps in the 

lameduck session, trying to get them the authorization that they 

require in order to carry out their responsibilities. I am not proud 

69 

of the fact that the Congress of the United States has not carried 

out ours. 

I thank the witnesses. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ